HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL POTATO PATCH FILING 2 LOT 3 UNIT B LEGALotr.f,arv cv€uDtErr
Decign Rwiew Board
ACTIO]I FORTI
Department of Communlty DweloFment
75 Souti F ontage Road, Va,l, Colorado 81657
tef: 970.479.2139 fax: 97O,479.2452
web: www.vailgov.com
Protect Nam€: AVERY FOYER/CHASE
ProJ€ct Decrlption:
FINAL APPROVAL FOR A MINOR ALTEMTION FOR A rcYER ADDMON AND MECHANICAL
CHASE
Padldpants:
owNER AVERY, MOITYQUINN&STEPHENI0/29120O7
2116 MANHATTAN BLVD
SPIRIT I.AKE
rA 51360
APPUCANT JOHN G. MARTIN, ARCHmCT LLtOl29l2007
PO BOX /1701
EAGLE
co 81631
License: C0m001843
ARCHmCT IOHN G. MARTTN, ARCHTTECT LLtOlzglzOO7
PO BOX,1701
EAGLE
co 81631
License; C000001843
ProJect Address: 742 SANDY LN VAIL t ocaffon: 742 ,B' SANDY LANE
Legal Descrlption: Lot: 3 Block Subdivlslon: VAIL POTATO PATCH RL #2
Parcel Number: 2101-063-1501-1
Comments: SEE CONDmONS
DRBilunber: DR8070629
Motion By:
Second By:
Vote:
GondlUons:
BOARD/SiIAFF ACIIO'{
AcHon: STAFFAPP
Date of App|ovalz L210612007
Cond; 8
(PLAN): No dranges to these plans may be made wtrhout the written onsent of Town of
Vail staff and/or the approprlate re\riew commit@(s).
Oond:0
(PLAN): DRB approval does not constitute a permtt for buildlng. please consult with
Town of Vall Eulldlng pemonnel prlor to onstrucdon activities.
@nd:201
DRB apprcval shall not become valid for 20 days fullorlng the date of approval,
pu6uant t0 the Vail Town Codg Chapter 12-3-3: APPEAIS.
Minor ErGerior Altentions
Depatment d Commrnity bdofrn€rt
75 Sou$ Fron@e Road, Vd, Cohmdo 81557
E: 9 0.479.2123 fu:, 97O.479..X.52
vwb: www.vailgov.om
Genenl Infcnnton:
Al pmjects rcquidng design revieur must recei\r appro\,al prid to cjbmfifing a bullding pernit apfliotion. Pleae
rder to the slbrnitral requirefiEnts for the particular 4proal thd is reqrJested. An application for D€sign Rariet^,
cannot be accepted until all requircd infonrEtbn is received by the Comrunity Developrnert Departnert. The
projct rfry also need b be rsiewed by the Town Council ed/or the Hanning and Envlronmentd Gnmisdon.
Dedgn review approval bpcc unle a blldng pemrlt lc Lrucd md oon Uucton cornrnncs wltlln
one ycrr oftslc approvrl.
Plryslcal Addrcss:
Parcd l{q:Zlot- 06r- 16ol- |(Coftact Eagle Co. Assesor at 9ft-328-86,O for parel ro.)
zontns: PRtu*tL'(/ :-( "NP gQ
Application for Design Review
Y,(1)
g
o
0'-,b
-o
l{arre(s)orowner(s): *U''' uu, l)OuX At*#tl
llalling Addrc*s:
Owner(s) 9gnatur{s):
Namc d Appllcant;
Maillng Addressl
TYpe of Revieuv and Fee:
tr Signs
O Conceptral Raniary
fl New Casbucffontr Addltion
S-Irlinor lrlbratiorc" (mulU-family/conrnrrchl)
Mlnor Aheration
Cnglefanily/duploO
D Changes b Approred Plans
tr Separation Requ6t
/t c-
$50 PUS $1.00 per squae fmt dffil sign dea.
No Fee
$20
No Fee
For consbucthn d a new building or demo/rcbuild.
For an addition where square foGge b added to any residential or
conmercial building findudes 250 addkions & interior corrcsions),
For minor changes to bulldingF ild CE impro€ments, srh G,
e.rodng pairtitq. window additins, hndscaging, fences and
rcbining walls, eb.
For minr changes to buiHings and db improrcmerts, s.rch 6,
rerloding, paintirg, windol addtions, landscaS*ng, fences and
Etalning walb, eb.
For revbions b phns already appoved by Planning Sbff or the
Dedgn Reviev Board.
$6s0
$300
$2s0
ch"i,*N..,/Lt 7 w.
#
E
It
nE;
*+*+la*f*+*tatlllft*'i**'ia!***t}+**+*aatt+l'}'l*'l**++*tlaa+a*a+aaat*ar**r*t**a*aaaaraa*a*r**+*+*t
TOWNOFVAIL, COIORADO Stat€ment
+**l'****'**'l*'}tl'lt*'ttl*'3'i*'|{t*l'la*l*****+fll*f++l+*{'ttarlt{rl t***l+a*****r****a**'|{rl.*tft***lltfl'+'}
Staternent Nufiber: R070002363 Amount: $20.00 LO/29/2OO704:47 Ptt!
Palment Method: Check Init: dIS
Notation: 1697lJOIIt{ c.
II4ARTIN
PermLt No: DRB0?0629 Tl4re: DRB-MLnor Alt, SFR/DSP
Parcel No: 2101-053-1501-1
Sl.te AddreeE: 742 SANDY I.llMIL'
rocation: 742 tBt sAlrDY rarilB
Total FeeB: S20.00ttrie Payment: $20.00 Total AIfJ Pmta: $20.00Balance: 50.00
**9**{t**+**l*aa*****la**a**t**+********alllta+a++atfaall*a*aa**t*a*allaat'}***aa*a++a*+tlt+tt
ACCOI,JNT ITEM LIST:
Account Code Description Current Pmts
DR OO],OOOO31.I22OO DESIGN REVIEW FEES 20.00
JOINT PROPERTY OUIER
WRITTEN APPROVAL I.ETIER
letter as written approal of the flans dated wtridr have been
submitted to the Town of Vail Community De^/elopment Department fq the proposed improrcments to be
ompleted at the address nded abore, I urdersfiand that the proposed improcments indude:
^ l- e"' f",ft, -[,uu
''a*ii
Addi6omlln please dted< the statenrcnt bdow whidr b moct applicable b you:
A l.r*#wrd t etrrts4tnwir@ti)tE ml h m*, a ilE da:6 6tfir. tte c,u* af tn nvl,ut
trrc o cD{,tE e,vifltE t/rratt fie T4ittt wfrc*k e and rydatlarc,
le
Ofitnl lcre)
n lrq**eEtdndlW t/twtdu$#, td*hanntden tc rbtow{n*,u*
of fu trlf;i'v pw, b hvglt a nV atEriln hu tle arnian fu a6lhn l *nul lafoe
utfuUlgfununvlufufie Tan.
Qnitial lere)
jdrt Fqeit owrtr lclbr redd I0/1E2006 b
F:\cde\ARnl{s\ffiHartftB\DR8\drb]nirnr-alt*l-2S2m7doc Pqe2d13 1V232005
r.rIM,R EXTERIOR ALTERATIO'IS
TO BT'ILDIreS AND SITE I}IPROI'EIIENNS
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMET{TS
Gcneral Informadon:
Tl{s application is rcgdred br propcals invdving minq qterior akeratims and/q slte lrprcvemnts.
Propcals to add landscadng do rpt require DRB approval unless they inrolrre the addtion of paUc,
water features, gnding, or the additisr of rctaining walls.
I. S'EIIITTAL RE(X'IRE{ETTSf,*
{
{
I..JA ov
EI4
N/A P(
E
NActr
Starped Topographk SLn €y*
Site and @adirg Plan*
Landscape Plan*
Ardltectral Elevatlons*
E*erior obr and material samples and specificatbrs. T" W|\Al,lq-G-P
Arditectural Flu Plans*
Ligtrthg Plan* and Cd-$ee(s) tur prcposed fxtwes
nfle report, lrrcluding Sdretluies A & B to wrify cnrvnerstrip and easements'r' 1ru Ftu? - L&1-( Yebg,
Photc of the existing dte and adJacent stnrturcs, where applicable.
Wr[.t€n apporal ftorn a ondorninlum assahtion, landlofd, and Jolnt ourner, lf appli:able
Sitespecific Geological Hazad Repoft, if applicable*
The Admlnbbator and/or DRB may require the zubrnission of addftimal dars, drawings,
specificaUms, samples and drer materials (induding a model) if deemed rEcessary to
detennire wheBrer a projed will comply wlth Deslgn Gddelines a if the intert d the
popcal is rd dearty indicated.
Please submit three (3) copies of the materials rmted wilh an asterish (*).
**fur interior cqtversions with no enErior chames, the submlttal requirements incbde a complete set of
odstirg and pmposed f,oor plars, a title report, and written appoal ftom a cqdomhium association,
landlotd, and jcint o,vrer, if applicable.
I havc read ald undqctard theaborc llsEd submlttC rcqulrcnrants:
Pruf*ttlarre:Av e PY {ZZ+..ras4a.-no g
CartracbrSignahrc
TUWN OF: VAIL
OESIGN REVIEW
STAFF APPROVAL
o*, tzl6[o?
srAFF. iLLC
Pase 3 of 13 -
'l/AI2OoS
F:kde\AFoRMs\PermtsuldrirE\DRB\drb_mintr_an_1-2SZX)7.doc
?otft ?*tzrtt >nP
/"t z, blL>
car.f.tldrt GtEL|3ollEhl
Design Review Board
ACTIOI{ FORM
'1
Depa rtment of Community Development
75 South Frontage Roed, vail, colorado 81657
tef : 970.479.2139 taxt 97O,479-2452
webl www.vailgcv' corn
PrciectName:
ProJect Descdption:
ProiectAddrcss:
l-egal Descrlpdon:
Parel Number:
Comments:
AVERY GAMGE DRBNumber: DR8070119
FINAL APPROVAL FOR A MINOR ALTEMTION FOR A GARAGE ADDMON, NEW TERRACED
PATIO AREA, ANEW ENTRY FOYER AND NEW WINDOW CONFIGUMNONS
Parddpants:
owNER AVERY, MOLLY QUINN &. STEPHEN03/2612@7
2116 MANHATTAN BLVD
SPIRIT I.AKE
lA 51360
APPUCANT JOHN G. MARTIN, ARCHITECT LLO3I26I2N7
PO BOX 4701
EAGLE
co 81631
License: C000001843
ARCHmCT JOHN G. MARTIN, ARCHITECT Ln3l26l2@7
PO BOX 4701
EAGLE
co 81631
License: @00001843
742 SANDY LN VAIL Location: 742 SANDY ROAD'A
Lot 3 Block Subdivlslon: VAIL POTATO PATCH RL #2
2101-063-1501-1
Modon By:
seoond By:
vote:
GondlUons:
BOARD/STAFF ACTION
Acdon: MTHDRWN
Date of APPrcval:
Cond: I
(n qn)r No changes to thee plans may be made without the written consent of Tollrn of
Vail staff and/or the appropriate rwlerrr ommittee(s).
@nd:0
(PIAN): DRB approval does not constltute a permit for building. Please consult with
iown of Vail Building personnel prlor to consffuction activities.
Cond:201
DRB apprwal shall not beome valld for 20 days following the date of approval.
C,ond: 202
Ir
' . Apprwal of thb prcrect shall lapse and become rroil one (1) year follordng Ute date
dfinal applual, unless a hrlHlng pennlt b lssued and onstnrtion b o,mmened
ard is diligenUy pursued burad @rnpl€flon.
Cond: @NfiD8846
Monitored flre alarm q6tem requlred
PIanneT: RACHELFRIEDE DRB Fee Pald: $2O.OO
T0tfru nFvut
75 SouthFrontageRd.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970479-21381479-2139
FA-x970479-2452
April30,2007
John Martin
Sent via email to John.Martin@centurytel.net
Re: DRB07-0119: Lot 3, Potato Patch 2d Filing
Deparhnent of Community Development
Dear John,
Thank you for your design review application for minor exterior alterations at the Avery
ResidenceatT42SandyLane(Lot3,PotatoPatch2-Filing). Perourphoneconversationtoday,
I will withdraw this application on your behalf. All application materials will be at the
Community Development Deparhnent front desk for you to pick up. If you have any questions or
concerns, do not hesitate io contact me.
Rachel Friede
Planner, Town of Vail
(970Y79-24.r';0
Rfriede@vailgov.com
Best,
r---
d6E
c
Minor Exterior Alterations
Application for Design Review
Depaftment of Community Dorclopnent
75 Souffi ftonbge Road, Vail, cohrado 81657
d: 97O.47i.2128 tay.t 9m.479.2452
web: www.vallgot-com
General Inio:nraUon:
All pgojecE requlrhg rtestgn revlerv must r€etve approval prlor b srbrnfifing a bnlHlng pemft appllcaflon. Please
renl6 Ure 5t|ilrnta reqrllerrcnts tr the partlo.dar apponal that b t€quested. An appli:atidl br Delign Revierv
carnot be ac6gFbd und af reqteO lfrrnatbn b F@irred by the Cornnurfty D€ildrynent Oepalunat, Tte
pnoJect may ai neea b be ret iercd by ttE Tolm GUnd ant/or tE frnning and E witooflEnbl Csnrnisslon.
irai1E1 rdr6w.pForrd fpce urfci a buildng pGmlt b hrd lnd orsrnion onnrts wlUin
mywdtiaapprml.
l.ocation of thc Progocal: r-d:-3-gbck Subdivisbn:
ffillddreccl
Pardio:2 | O I b b 1 | , O ll (cqtlact Eagh co. Assessor at 97G32&8640 for parel no.)
Zonhry: fu$a^ax / SF \\- '<
llam{s)of Orner(O:
llallng Addrcoe:
Owng(r) S|gnabnr(s):
ilamedAplbntl
llaBturg Adrece:
ant},
D
\,o
\
\,\.o
tr S[ns
O Coneptual Re\rielv
tr l,lew Consbucuontr Addluon
n Minor Alteration
/(multi-family/cornrnerchl)
ZO\ MlnorAention' '(dngbfamlV/dudex)
Chang6 to Apprwed Plans
Separafrn Request
{.
$50 Plus $1.00 per square fod of total dgn area.
No Fee
$2!
No Fee
r€bining rvalls, eb.
For rsrisbns b plans alrudy apPoved
For constsudiofl of a netv bulldlng or demo/r€build.
For an additbn where square fo6ge is added b any residentlal or
cornmerdal bulldlng (indtrdes 250 addluons & interior contersions).
For mlnor drang€s to buiHhgs and dte improrernents, $dl as,
re rmfing, palnting, windol , additiont landscaplng' fences and
retaining YYalls, €fr.
For mlnor dranges to fuiHlngs and dte impruvernents, sudl as'
reroofing, palntng, window adtltbns, hndscaping, ftnces and
$6s0
$300
$2s0
tr
tr
Staff or the
/;)--\.\'.r' n
rilrt/07. ol
Deign Re\rlew Board.
Design Review Board
ACTION FORM
Departnent of Community Development
75 Sorrth Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657
tel: 970.479.2L39 fax: 970.479.2452
web: www.ci.vail.co.us
Project Name: AVERY ALTEMTION DRB Number: DR8040109
Project Description:
ADD 2 WINDOWS, 1IN SUN ROOM, 1IN MASTERBEDROOM, ADD 10 FTOF GROUND LEVEL
DECK RAIUNG,
ParticiPants:
OWNER AVERY,STEVE & MOLLY 0410212004 Phone: 712-262-1630
2116 MANHATTAN BLVD
SPIRIT I-AKE
IA 51360
License:
APPUCANT BROWN-WOUN CONSTRUCTION 0410212004 Phone: 970-9494186
P.O. BOX 701
VAIL, CO
81658
License:
CONTMCTOR BROWN-WOUN CONSTRUCilON A410212004 Phone:
P.O. BOX 701
VAIL, CO
81658
License: 100-A
Project Address: 742 SANDY LN VAIL Location:
742 SANDY I_ANE, UNIT'8"
,}
Legal Description: Lot: 3 Block Subdivision: VAIL POTATO PATCH RL #2
Parcel Number: 210106315011
Comments: seeconditions
BOARD/STAFF ACTION
Motion By: Rogers Action: APPROVED
Second By: Mathias
Vote: 4-0 DateofApprova!: 05/05/2004
Conditions:
C.ond:8
(pLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of
Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s)'
Cond:0
(pl-AN): DRB approval does not constitute a permit for building. Please consult with
Town of Vail Building personnel prior to construction activities.
Cond: 201
DRB apprwal shall not beome valld for 20 days followlng the date of approral. t o
Cond: 202
Approval of this project shall lapse and become rcid one (1) year follonting the date
of final apprwal, unless a building permit is bsued and aonsbudion ls commened
and is diligently pursued toward completion.
Cond: CON0005430
, That the applkant prorrides tln pmper materlals depkflng ttn Woposed windon
dranges to stafrfur rwieu, prbr to flnal apprornl, upon whldr sbff is $en
authorized to make a final decisinn of approval, or denlal.
EnWt O6lL7t?@4 By: MRG Action: AP
Planner: Matt Gennett DRB Fee Paid: fzo.oo
@, Application for Design Review R E c i- rv r u
ffi ^ffrflffLH:?#fi[tH['fil3i','T0l4/]V }II/AILpP Et sTo'47i'2r3e rax:e70'47e'2452
web: www.ci.vgi\o.ust
General InformaUon: .--'-?' .--
All projects requiring oesiin reuiew must'ieci:iue apfroval prior to submitting a. building permit application' ?lease
refer to the submittat *qiii"r""G for the particul'ai approval that.is requested.. An application for Design Review
cannot be accepted untiiili requirea information is received by the Community Development Department' The
project may also need to oe reviewed by the Town council and/or the Planning and Environmental commission'
Design revaew "pp.or"lGp*" unl*3 " building permit is issued and construction commences within
one year of the aPProval.
tn 54 ftrnvr 7 ,^ nn*t+LJrn*
Description o! the
I
1 *! [4a]a -
A nt"
Location of the ProPosal:slrx:k: 4 Subdivision . V,,( fal'd, f"lJ, F'1,\ *
,l),pk;i ----J-
Physical Address:Ant
parcer No.; 3)ot oL3 l5 crl I t (Contact Eagle Co. Assessor at 970-328-8640 for parcel no')
tt.llZoning: 5f L(".: i'r'P'e* - -
Name(s) of Owner(s;: f o._t /laoll,, 4 tjfY
Mailing Address:
Owner(s) Signature(s):
Name of ApPlicant:c;"+, T
Mailing Address:Uo',G 8/658
E-mail Address:
Lot:
^
Type of Review and Fee:
El Signs
D ConcePtual Review
tr New Constructionfl Addition
tr Minor Alteration
(multi-familY/commercial)
Minor Alteration
(single-family/duPlex)
Changes to Approved Plans
Separation Request
$s0
No Fee
$6s0
$300
$2s0
$20
Plus $1.00 per square foot of total sign area'
For construction of a new building or demo/rebuild'
For an addition where square footage is added to any residential or
.ommerciat building (includes 250 additions & interior conversions)'
Foi tinot cnangesio buildings and site improvements, such as'
iar*nng, pain-ting, window additions, landscaping, fences and
retaining walls, etc.
For min6r changes to buildings and site improvements' such as'
rai*nng, painiing, window additions, landscaping, fences and
tr
tr
retaining walls, etc'
$20 For reGions to plans already approved by Planning Staff or the
Design Rwiew Board'
No Fee
,'^t>
I, (print name
]OINT PROPERTY OWNER
WRITTEN APPROVAL LETTER
description)
It
provide this letter as written approval of the plans dalled < / 27 / 2 tz' 4 which have
been submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the proposed improvements
to be completed at the address noted above. I understand that the proposed improvements include:
I fufther understand that minor modifications may be made to the plans over the course of the review
process to ensure compliance with the Town's applicable codes and regulations.
,z f^t fzoo4-
(Date)
a joint owner of property located at (address/legal
Page 2 of 4/11/06103
i ir;,., '.,,i,.'. .:.
,$,.,1i.':l'..a:i*.iiiil
i't;*l't"w;'
u:'gflin.:i|,
i;!',,diil.u
'''' "''" ": ;"1 "a.l ::,1.'il .:, :,: .,i..]:l'ri.." r..'.r""l'.r... ,: ..::.r.::...1,::.. .r.:'i.'
':ijwfr,
..-:.r.:.?.1,,:i.. .r.: i, j. r., .r ' r. r .'a. .\'t,t. ";..'. ! :r..:.i:..,l:,...r-',,:':;,ffi,,i.,i,!!ir,!: :'rr.s.:'.r1,.;.,, ..i ' ..;::': ,1,.,,i;,,' ...ii.
tr:d esbe6Lb.ot Lba96b6AL6 3ntlsNg3 Nr-]OM Nt'40U8:1,lUUl Al tez Aa/Ae-ll-NVr
I lJq^r Uiolaq ; /rallfv Bdra,-
APf59:iEi-q:{ IHE
DESr''- - ,,-.,.._.., _-...*iif)
o;,. , t/r/f
---#.
frrr"'il
-tu')#'{ "'.*
{.t}at A r t AJtd d t<
44.J-,1lti
.A-
ri\'il=,
f
t/
Q"rlt
It.-
ll
APiloyFJFB.JolJE_-
DES',- -,:VIEW BOARD
,"' Zltl,
9"--. t",r^l *t
- AJr-.l, O llJ
L.R h)pdnt n.yf Agtl"0u* wi*Jnt
3
u)
4
n
5anr-"-
dr nJone
hr*
Ned
Nndow
5t*tream
'lt**a*a*'|*'}'t**f*+*ttrtlr||'|'l'l*'t*l**'la'3*'l**13*t*****rrrrrrrrrrt*t***********r*;rrrt*rrtt*rr*t****
TOWNOFVAIL, COLORADO Statement
gtatcmeBt lturnber: R0{00O5553 Amount: $20.00 O4/O2/2OO4O4:09 PM
Payment uethod: Check Inl-t : iI9
tlotation:
Permit No: DR8040109 Type: DRB-MLnor A1t,SFR/DI'P
Parcel No: 210106315011
Site Address: 742 SANDY LN \IAIIJ
LocatioD: 7{2 SAIIDY L,A}IB, ItNfT 'Bi
TotaL FeeE: $20. OO
fhia Payment,: $20.00 Total, AI,L Prnts: $20.00
Balance: $0. O0
*a***,4*,t*a******:t++tttt+++t++++++tf+***f+*t*******t**l******at*a***t**+*rtt:t*t*t:t****!t *'?'i'rt'tt t
ACCOTJNT ITEM LIST:
Account Code Description Current ffi,s
DR OO1OOOO31122OO DESIGN REVIEI.I FEES 20.00
\.
I
l
I
Prlnted by Joan Nolen o6/ 9e 2:1-6pm
From r Gary coode'l 'l
TO: BLDGDIV GROUP
sr.rbj ect : campi s i /Guffey update
(,.* 3 6LYz'
J . !o+-a Pdw
=-=NoTE-==============t2 / O6 / 99=tO z 5 5am=
cc:
Bob McLaurin, rohn cu] ick, tlike
Mcqee, ui ke Vaughan, Pam
a rindrireye r , nus5ell Forrest, Tom
Moorhead
i';;ii;;'c#;i i;'tffii;i' i;i;'i;'ih;'''
morninq last thursday, December 2, 1999
& reached him at his-Avon number, the
campisis are the other owne rslne i ghbo rsof unit 742-8 1n the duplex at 742
sandy Lane. Thei r unit "e" is
curr-entlv vacant & thev are trvinq tosel] it.- settv Guffev- owns unit 'A" in
the duplex a M3. cuffby has informed us
that she is also attempting to sell her
unit.
l,tr. campisi told me that he had va'l1ey
wide. plirmbing & Heating tape the_joints
on the vent connector to the bol ler lntheir qaraqe, Per Mrs, campisi's LL/8letter-to Guffev. it must hive been
done somet'ime a?'6und the lst of
November. r'm assuming that valley
wide used the foil-type tape that is
commonly used for this purpose.
As you may recall, the possibility that
the- ioints miqht be leakinq was
idenf ifi ed by'chuck Talley-of lerry
Siblev plumbinq earlier this vear.rhis was the oilv itern that chuckidentified that he thought might
contribute to fumes risinq intocuffey's unit. He specifically notedthat the termination location of the
vents for the campisi's boiler & water
heater were, in his opinion, code
complying & should not be caus'ing any
proD I ems .
Note that taoino the ioints is not a
code requireinent, but-we advised the
campisii of the issue & Mr campisi has
said that it was done & that he has an
invoice from va1'ley wide to prove it'
Two recent visits by the fire
department (IL/LL/99 & !L/L3/99) at
Guffey's request did not show any
detectable ievels of carbon monoxide(co) in cuffey's unit either from
detectors left on site for the 2
intervenino davs or on the fire
departmentYs hind held unit.
That's al I for now.
Pada. '1
Printed by Joan Nolen 1,2 / 99 I I CIILL
From : Kevi n Whe'l anTo: FIRE*OFFICERS GROUPslrbject: fwd. 742-A sandy tane
===[rf QJf ===============tl/ 11,/99==3 : 52pm=
The owner,Betty cuffey, stopped bystation r como'lainino of co in her halfof duplex. rt'appeari that this has
been a I ono and drawn out 'l eqa'l and
oersonna'l Satt'l e with her neiqhbors. I
isked her if she thouqht she had co in
her apartnent now and-she said yes,
rncident # 99-001664-000. Found no cowith our handheld. Left our niohthawk
and will check it on 11,/13. sh6 had one
operationa'l co detector that had no
readinq and another that had a 'l owbatteri. These two are workinq now andr will- check these on LL/73 a5 well.
she mentioned a 'lack of action by
the building and government agencieswithin the town aid her opinion wasthat she was not qoinq to qet anyaction from her tixes-ti1'l-she cllled "
her friend Paula woodward". rvr and
r ''l'l 'l et you know hrhat r f i nd on 11,/13 ,
pwd=by : =Mi ke=tf cgee====11 / tL/ 99==4 | 58pn=
Fr^d to: Tom Moorhead
cc:
BLDGDIV GROUP, FIRE-DEPT GROUP,
revi n whe'l an
Tom,
Per our last conversation. we were not
ooino to discuss this with her unless
ihe fras submittino a perrnit or was
represented by CoInsel . Is this sti'l'lcoirect? How shou'ld we proceed?
Fwd=by : =Gary=coodel'l ==11 / L2 /99==9'.L4an=
Fwd to:
BLDGDIV GROUP, FIRE_OFFICERS
GRoUP, Mike McAee., Russel I
Forrest, Tom Moorhead
one more time, a'lthouqh t'm sure thiswon't be the 'last. rhe installation.to the best of my knowledge, meets al'lof the minimum model code- requi rements
adopted by the town. Yes, sibley
oluirbinq feels that the joints in the
vent coinector for the boi]er in
camoisi's oaraoe are leakinq due to it
beiho a foiced-draft svstem-with the
fan in the boiler pushinq the exhaustqases out. f don't know-if Ur. Campisi
had siblev seal the ioints or not, butthe requi iement to d6 that is not foundin either the u c or the rMc. venting
the boiler and water heater through the
side wal] of the oaraoe with forceddraft also meets frinitum code
requi rements. Yes, under the
ci icumstances, with a neighbor above
who is apparent'ly hyper-sEnsitive to
various qases. it would have been
better t5 veni the appliances in a nore
conventiona'l manner, above the roof.
And , i n my opi ni on , trls . cuf fey woul d
have been better off to spend, at most,
a few thousand dollars to re-vent the
campisi's appliances above the roof
instead of 3bendinq what she c'laims to
be $30,000 oh attoFney's fees.
Page: 1
Printed by ,Joan Nolen
From : Ga ry Goode'l 'l
TO:
Bob uclaurin, Pam Brandmeyer,
Russel I Forrest, Tom Moorheadsubject: update on Guffey....
===NOTE 99==3 :26pm==CC: BLDGDIV GROUP
1-2/ 99 4:01pm
r had a messaqe from Betty cuffey whenr returned to-the office Zrfter the 4th.
she felt that she'd applied for abuildino oermit to re-route the ventinqfor the-cimpisi's boi'ler and water
heater in apri] and that we had
"rejected" her application. Actual l y,r'd visited with her when she came into the office on April 19, she'd given
me a partially completed permit
application form, end r'd told her toqet a contractor, have them contact us,ind we'd work with her contractor toget the job done as soon as possible.
so . she ca'l'l ed me back 'l ast rri day to
sav that she was meetinq someone from:eiry sibley Plumb'ing at her unit on
Sandy tane at 2:00 p.m. I agreed to
meet them there.
chuck Tal'ley, a manager with sib'ley,
'l ooked over the situation, one of thefi rst thinos that chuck said was thatthe existiio vent terminations met
minimum coile requi rements and should
not be causing any problems.
once inside the garage, however, chuckfe'lt that the ioints in the vent
(chimney) pipe-for the boiler inside
the Camoisi's qaraqe were leakinq,
should be siliione:caulked, and Eould
be causino exhaust oases to qo into the
oaraoe as-well as iito cuffeV's unit.ihe iwo different types of fln-forced
ventinq on the boi'ler and water heater,
respectively, cause the boiler's ventpipb (positive pressure) to let gases
but when it ]eaks. and the water
heater's vent pipe (negative pressure)to simp1y draw air into the vent pipeif it I eaks.
chuck recommended replacinq the vent
pipes with stainless steel pipe, just
because forced draft venting systeqs
cause moisture problems and corrosion.
rhe pipe used tb vent the campisi
app'l i ahces meets minimum code
r'eLui rements, but, in these kinds of
situations, can corrode over the long
term.
chuck felt that e'liminating the leakingioints in the vent pipe foi the boiler
iou'l d elininate any pioblems, without
re-doing the enti r'e venting system for
both app'liances to have them terminate
above the roof.
r to'ld Betty Guffey that this was her
decision - whether to simply do what
chuck recommended or to go ahead and
re-route the venting systems above the
root .
I al so cal'l ed carri e Wa'l'l ace , the
Page: 1
Printed by ,foan
s attorney, and 'l et hergorng on.
The decision is now up to Betty cuffey.
we stand ready and wi]ling to assistin helpinq euffev's contraator toeither'reiair or re-route the vents forthe boiler and water heater as
expeditiously as possi b1e.
That's all for now.,.
Gary
4: 01pm
ctrnpi si o
nthat was
Page: 2
oo
TOWN OFVAIL
Ofice of the TbwnAnorney
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970 -479 -2 1 07/F ax 970-479-2 I 5 7
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Ifyou have any questions
RTlWaw
Attachment
Ol
MEMORANDUM
Gary Goodell, Chief Building Offrcial y'
Dick Duran. Fire Chief
Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney /QY-
(
February 10,1999
BettyGuft
Gentlemen, attached is a transcript of the presentation of Betty Gufr and Gary Munain to the Vail
Town Council on February 2d. I am unaware of any specif,rc action that has been taken by the
Town of Vail at this time as a result of this presentation. I would be interested to know whether
or not the lawsuit between the Campisi's and Guffy has in fact been settled.
fr*N"l
el free to contact me.
Date Receiveo
FEB r 0 ru99
{p *"n"uo'^""*
oo oo
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 2, 1999 TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING
REGARDING ITEM NO. I, CITIZEN PARTICIPATION BY BETTY GUFFEY AND GARY
MURRAIN, BUILDING CONSULTANT
Mayor Rob Ford: Thank you very much. Anyone else this evening?
I'm ah, Gary Munain, ah, a consultant, representing Betfy Ruffey. Um, does the Council, um,
oh, I'm sorry she...didn't know she was, had arrived. Um, apparently, uh, do you know the
situation of, that's the Council heard some of this stuffI don't need to repeat myself, ok, good.
Uh, I have, ah, been retained yesterday just to look at, ah, possibilities of what she could do with,
uh, the problem that she has had with this system and I have reviewed some of the documents,
not all of it in the short timing that, uh, between yesterday and the meeting tonight that she
wanted to discuss a few ofthe issues. I think at this point all I'm, ah, concerned about is, ah, I
got a report from the building official, ah, Mr. Goodall, and ah (cleared his throat), it appears
everything's in order. I did do some research from what I could get to. I, just looking on the
outside ofit, I could only say a very short section that has been added and modified since, ah,
this report, ah, I see at least three code violations in a section about that far before I even get to
the wall. I think what, what we would like to see is if there would be any support from the
Town, of possibly taking the final inspection done on that permit and, ah, revoking it and
allowing us access or the buil... or the Town access back in theres. So that we can gain entry to
do a private inspection. At this point we're having a hard time, ah, getting entry to look at it, ah,
without being able to see what situation is I cannot complete my,fr, obligation to the client and,
uh, I do believe that there is some, ah, probably not code violations but I think there is some
malfunctioning going on in there, ah, that ah, some possible improper installation. um, from what
I could see on the outside, there are definitely some, ah, non-complying materials used in this
particular boiler and uh, the two materials put together, stainless steel and uh, and the galvanized
use, use ofscrews, ah, versus the high temperature caulking, all these could contributed to the
condensation going back into the heat exchanger, affecting the heat exchanger and ah, releasing
carbon monoxide eventually or periodically. Thank you.
Mayor Rob Ford: Thank you very much, I appreciate you ........tkough this ...... and we will, uh,
make sure that this gets to the appropriate person in our Community Development Department
and see ifthey can follorv through with your request.
Betty Guffey: May I, ah, ask, some,
Mayor Rob Ford: .........Cuffy
Betty Guffey: I'd like, my name is Betty Guffey and I'm the owner of, and I did not get gas
installed to my home. My duplex neighbor's did or my primary/secondary neighbors, them
being the primary side vented that without my knowledge, without my permission while I was
gone. And uh, for two years, there's one page of all the times that I have contacted somebody in
the office of development, the fire department, I've got them that page uh highlights all of my
attempts to get somebody's attention to get, uh, the offensive odors out of my face. When I walk
outside my house I can, there is not a room, uh, three rooms, my living room, my dining room
oo oo
and my kitchen are affected. The windows all around there I cannot open in the summer because
of the noxious fumes. I had, uh, Walsh Environmental and their report is in there, to measure
this last, for a court case, I had them to measure, uh, the carbon monoxide level. We couldn't get
the judge to extend the time so that it could be measured when it was most volatile. So what you
see is something that the development took, they took a copy of it but they really don't know
how to read it. And there is one page on there that I would like to call your attention to. It shows
carbon monoxide coming into my house, uh, was measured and not at a significant level, but he
explails in there in those pages, Mr. Gerro, Gerrow, uh, who is an expert industrial hygienist and
safety manager, uh, safety engineer, that those small results are an average of a five minute
period. So it could have come in at a nine level, of part nine parts per million one minute and
then dropped offto zero and that just shows the average. The significant thing about that chart,
its a page where there two, two lines going across. The bottom line is, is going on for 30 minutes
and registering below, ah, I think it's below one part per million. But the significant thing is that
it's, it's tied to the pattem of that exha..., of that fumace. The fumace comes on for 30 minutes,
shuts off for 10 or 15, comes back on for 30 minutes or an hour. It runs a lot of the time, I would
guess 85 to 95 percent ofthe day. So I'm getting low level carbon monoxide exposure and I
would like your help to see rvhat we could do about it. Mr., uh, Mr. Gerrow also poi:rts out in
there that even though your inspectors believe that it meets code, it violates the code ofType B
piping. Type B piping is a double pipe that would prevent the rvall board from getting too hot
and that's not there. I rvas late getting here because I was trying to copy some pictures of the
exhaust to show you that it's single piping, it's not, does not have joint tape and it's a hazard. I
would like, I hope all of you get by to see it and I've got some pictures of how beautiful it is.
Mayor Rob Ford: Thank you very much. As I said .... we will more than happy to take this in
revierv and see what .....and have the appropriate parfy in the Town to address this issue............
Betry Guffey: You have me, at the town, as a condominium. On all condominiums. your, ah,
building inspectors are supposed to get my permission before any changes are made to the
common elements. That has never been done. One fence that was going up I suggested because
I know the, the contractor but he needed my name on it. So my condominium neighbors have
added five sky lights without my permission or knowledge and it's now been a year so I can't do
anlthing about it because its, it, uh, the statute of limitations has expired. So I've got five sky
lights in my roof that I'm required to pay 35%o of the repair, uh. that I didn't want and wouldn't
have given my permission to, because the town never got my permission and I think. I think you
should be more careful in the future so that other people don't have to suffer what I've suffered.
I bought the house, uh, six years before the owners came in tw'o years ago and put e1'erything that
they wanted into it. They've taken two patios, I have no place except the balcony above this
disastrous vent and exhaust to enjoy. And I've been selling houses for twenty three years and I
thought protective covenants were to protect me. They violated the covenants, ah, uh, of our
own house that were filed with the land, they violated, your, you violated your own ordinances
and Ijust hope somebody, somebody else doesn't have to go through that.
Mayor Rob Ford: Thank you very much.
to oo
Betty Guffey: They've also, you also approved a light undemeath my bedroom that blocks my
view at night, two lights.
Mayor Rob Ford: Thank you very much. Anyone else this evening on citizen participation?
Seeing none Item No. 2 on this evening's agenda is the consent agenda.
PMWhom
/hert fx t, ro***nn
Voice Mail f] Phoo"fl officevtsit IB-vtuit Innro"ocrl
Rf,: BP-_____r-...._ Address Owner
RECORD OF CONVEEATTON, cARy GOODELL
Date
of,
Voice Mail I Phoo"
RE: BP----:- Address
I officevisit IE-ltauit Inn-.ocrn
Owner
to
Y GOO
Date
of
^ f7lXJ Voice Mail l-l Phone
/ RE: BP--__-_ Address
Phme/Pager/FAX
fl ofiice visit fl p-uuit flnrn*.acar
Owner
)
I
Date +
ECORD OF CONVERSATION. GARY GOODELL
@r{-"n^r,nro(3 8) 7 B'- 0 773
-{
D officeVisit n p-vruit f]neffircdcatt
Owncr
,r^" L', l*
Voice Mail n Phoo"
RE: BP-_:Address
vulra\r 5y
(.)
bl)
oo
a
l.
5
OEE!!cioxaa+rcio'.=
=*.CE,ig
Ea;EE
E'
5=oEOa{-g?c9
EE9E
616e
ESB€\t-!za5
t
i
E.
i,I
'''.
i:
i
I
..]
(
!l
I
n
t\tr
f{
I
::
f
_o
a)
I
a
I
o
qo
!)
F
!)
t
()
i)
g
it
iD
ID
!)
.2
o
i/ol
*t€
I
bf
t
T
:t
iE;t;,t;E$gggg$g
o
'Ao
uloooJ
(t
2
-()
lrt-
=colt
=l
oo
H E.9.8 E
*EaeeEiasE
e =E hE
EE TE,E
A6!---
'J
H: E E
EggFE
ie!gE
iE"EiF-
sEEcEA
rlooo
Iz
T(,
lrr-
=EIIA
==I
ro
o
ffiffi
-' toc;lrn;
e|cltC IltoH.Sooeg
sua3Moil3
l'd 'Fapd 'o uFrrv
666t eZ NVI
P-Oa
. ltcpoaB . lrcpr{rott .oqrcuoc'cI$biilEShl:rE rs:Ittd )onlacaH alec
0)
- 7s o glrl
tl,l'(mdreg 84zee4(me)
303 773 4773
n4't{,t}:?'t'.
'sButpl;rrr1 (rotsrtprnr,lo .'rldl|tx rrl p..|llrllrl
Jqf,itr:Anfuoulltnutrrjl|rllslltu:t^!:tAt$.Ilr(I'EUlI;rnqIrrrlslllnnrnl(tf,Jrrrs.krtJ{lrxr.roilflr
'Plnlq
^x,|rFrl:lur$
u u! Iluo ptllrlrsul al lJnqs >nn frols-rliurx (,l dluo p;rn l lrrse *ui 619 }lI1,;
'J:xl|hl lolplr||q nr rltol lEtJut 'rltrll pitu(rF;rl |(, prtruts
-uoo tul:c,ro:l 1p'an prs oldS Pnlt n Ur gilufirl ru. rAt A{B D rtf,n^rt:lq F)llrtsur .rl llrxls t.ruJ||t{
tr!$'lU llat'F V -rlo!ltlulirrrJ flllJr, sutd l.|{xr pt|B t'Joi!1^|r:r llri$ frt rlonr:)rldtln t.rlrr: lrrtrrnltturru .rrt
s.rerrutlt ,ft1 lulr er rrl s:Uu$r$.ll.t nlrp (Di P!sl, )rir ixl llc{s iunJ'i\)r:d$ P[I. |! ttt l|;tlnlol rt 1u.U sni 11q
rdi(l.uqr{l'Jt:s|r lt|J^ snit rqt qll,$ PotlsttunJ 'sl3.ul* dors-arll Pun\.lul\ Jr d$ Jlt:t(l irtllrJ':lXl([
i}i}g.:tlt & pflx.,rorrl :rOttrls ltltl .tl ll$qli lBu;ttntU lue urtl I nlr^ snd mtl ,(l(l.Io r\')trrrturl.) t.'irnu ll$,{ tu.rrnqrt? rrlt rtrr^r qsnll rlri.rl lp$i rrnrrld tuira \u:l rll ll.rrq^r llit|lrullr {JnId
rorrlI fxll: stl!|tl 8o;1o:t 11y 'fttuite rr.J 119 sdfl /fuu$lllnu IU ltf,rltlh.'u )rr l|nll Fj.rirDds- rlots-nlu
IoJld.lole'rirorr ulrt|(, Jo:rruj :rl Ir.tJ pir;Iltsul rr pea |.c1,19 :rrJf.1 n q:;q,n u! i!!d$ pnN nu..z
.p'so lur^ s!3 J(p r{tFr p::q*r[rr1atqd rn:r1r: (q aplrr rq llDqs lrrroqJ u \!r!1. 'p{Fnsur Drrl
-lru llr'$ Psltn^ alll.roJ [riuElr3F 5tlllrl rrprt l ptls's I ,1; ttelFlctrD Jr{ llur \Nr^ sDt afl rd( L ' I
:slrtrrrvrnhl ilot,rrolprl ap qtn lgrtuot.!t lt:tua^:q lPttls rrF,r rrcl 611 ;rtlA.1. t ur
-rlnbr 3a$urnJ lFa p:rlr iqU:nq-rr:i'rrllcql slqt ut paljr:|'di- rlusuult t.v J,iq[rot ltr lrt'ltc ul
snSrSAS 069 3dlD ilvilunJ ]'tvr$ o3lN3A - 208 NoLl,:l3s
',{rr,iJllqndrlilsoYir'||lAu.rd(udGlt]rrt.l{tsutrrIit)t:,r.'[l.t\FrllEtnltt(ul|
lttot) |lej 0t lrllltlrh P:[nrxrl r{U! ,ln-FlJr(u n r^or{|! ( rrl| l'16) l*r.l f u|..llt rir.:rl lr}u l!lr:||r (|r'rl llcq$
sur:tsfl iulpen 'iu1p|1nq ou1 t.t;u1 .rp-(rrrrwJ u ro 'r|qto16 ilqnuJdo t|n 'J.irtr G JAoq[ (r'rnr qlt I
tmj I tsntl p tlr,lr'ruorJ fllrruo?tro{ (u\rr 6lc I )|r]J rJo nuleq(uJru6lzll lre, t|srnl lr! rlrurrutll
1;nqs xrtrlS{* iurllt?^ 'tualltsnrl\Ut r.Jlntrr-lnr]lru Pun(iul$!tJl ll {|l,r:t:Inlu(rrr ul lE\ lrus
-ur are Aalt uctltr pltu:te {yrloltl tu|rl s|: P-ri:rlrrrt(!] aq lltqc *oll:lur iurluel p;15,u, iulruo$rr.)
-ur norl{lFllrrt rqrpJno roj Pttsll rirnn'llddv 'slrrA Flittul q1p Hru*l$rly J|xrPlno ('9ttt
-Icrr )tlq d p drJr. :r !l luefirjd n DrJ
(urur 61;11 lr{ t lloSl l$ l)rn (rrrlrt Nt{lt-l l.\rj 0 | ltlllli\ Frln.1o1 l:r1ttt ,rr*tlrt.r1:ut .trr -ilt,slltl tll:
r oqrr(lxlutl(rtralf, lis{lrJtcur u:tt ll:rlt $tu.lts^r lurtrEl^ 's|Jlul lo.uJ urrltuCtlixi l'y9utt
'ntu! troq! tuul {Ol) r;tqir|! il r*Gr| rc l\]n*l'| -rl
tF+i rT!|rr! rr.rql l$[ rijlulJr ru'^ all lo urrlt{ xrll. ltirrlrJl) oolD'rl|rn qrl trtl^ (u.! r:llt] q.xrl i| !r!.bx
lFrtr (AlI6l t WrU UIt$9luF:|'rr Frrr lrxl {fl$ t t | | luoln ml'119 irlrltr+rro r6tlu qth si<r',cll.llv 'ilut
,-t{|rqx.ctll|al{nt slrlrutt r&rtr|xIr.|.| rl.rqn qttrttqrfiaprdout lr|ir|lt(rru 6aa) 14 l6 r\!i!ttt lFln. .rl
$rFrFl r|(ihl t n, {nrg11l1p51ortrrtrrr {rnr $:u!!ldt ! ut^'lr}r'l|J('rlrululll l.i+t:NOtJJl:fx:t
'Bu1p;1nq r otul ttFrl -|lr &t^rut r Jo ,r.rput,f,
clqrua.ld ut loop t a^oqr (tlnl. $0f) lool I urql srtl ru pltE'uo{ rllnltrozlxtq (tulll (rlil) rrrj
tror*q:4(ururolll)r?rr9ur{lsr)ll'.'uelrulurr:rrlltqssu€ltffiEul|ulA'slsullllJ{lun^ 9'9llt
-trulslll t;
I Ur Clllll
'luc^ StllJ.r (ruur tltO{) l$J 0l tl|rlrr/i Supnnq Jql J.r tt rlUod,(un Urqt u1n-lq (tutu 019)
1r; 7 trrr:r1 rr;rl Eulp ng rquo.riu rrll qlneqt tttl}rl rxa^ rllt tq^r lul.xl ui>qi1q rqt -'r.^rrye 1 6rttl
.olglt|aJu uuqr lttl lt,utln.ltut.r llEql ,itmlsrs fltluur^ l artfa 'tnrr6[5 i1q1u.11 '1d,[ 5-96;
'(luu rnl[) to?, t)l u.qllnr ,lulHtnq F J(, u.!lu l rtrr rt?ru ,)q:ltq (r rt o trrl L\r, ; lsQal !|r
p]|!Ju)l Jql qlnorqt srnl leqruirqrrr ttrod t!$$ll{ rlr?^({n(urtu0l9l lnnl i tltlql xx:tl Iltr llEuttul.tl
lpqt sln,r rn8 g al(,r.ltqxr llv 'lli4l:fr.rlliqttJqrruh lo llrtr\ ItrJ!u.1|| ll tll.lJJ (rrttu Ht }l) l.\'tl N tst!]t ll:
flbrro1Uu,(:rqt |*'rpiiirrl 'V'ff rUtU tllrtr :l:ltlllu0ir'xr ut Frlltrrrtiunt.1q rlt F'rlllttu:rrl ar'; Jluqs rrllutus
ro azl$ ur saqtur;l drF rur^ pol$tl ql!,b cllb^ sc8 Alg xr 8xlf,1, .rtlr:AtE9Atft rtf,d,(; t'91tr
.l.t)ta
uollirrs r|l prpr^(xd * tdlltl'lr'|r:n1 a{t ro llroltq r{r r^oq flltliq In:t!ur^ ul (unu [!9[, INJ
it rsE.l tt lururrjr ttnt|r rJlrury llr,|r prttioa n 8u1,Ucs rurr rli 69 adll 'fJruJnd [|!,ll f, gllu
'st^i:tdr lt tltlq/tr JBltoJ lU5^ l.-a{i\l .ql t oq$ (.r[tt fist ] t*'{ 5' u"rll rrtl lrlu
us UIrt ltnrlt *)ttu t&h FIsrl*J(r Unrl I'-r!3191 rn s1q91q,n rl|:s,(i Sutlura |:ltrttllFI$ !utluJ^-sc8
/t\g cd{.l. i urqt rqtr 'trrre|rAt ittlturr rxl,(F{trrnrS 's!rle{s illrttulA rdfl'I1'rsJt'J f908
u! quoj r:
u.rrlals /
-r:rrt. ( rd(
u3ts(* .ir
-A:el) rad
.{l J.) lu5
-rJorl l?to
i(tlanrE n
Illlt{s slui:
I olul r.) 3
.lEr\|| l[g
rl puu tul
lE r!l!q ||
pJr(ln}-r,
'r(llJ5ulr.1
gMOn
olu ()l tl.l(
p:lltrr,.rrr
lql ql-la :
uErPIOtl
{asr.llqJ
aqt or llu
300c 'rrro-c tu13 a9 3do? llgtrlvH3:tn igoJtNn lfll
oRu irEcHArrilcAlct
3. The connector is 10 inches (254 mm) or less in diameter and is
installed according to one of the methods specified in Table 8-E.
Concealed metal parts of the pass-through system in contact with
flue gases shall be of stainless steel or equivalent material that re-
sists conosion, softening or cracking up to 1,800"F (982'C).
815.10.2 dternate pmtection. In lieu of thimbles or other wall
pass-through systems, combustible material in the wall or parti-
tion shall be cut away from the connector a sufficient distance to
provide the clearance required from the connector. A material
used to close up the openings shall be noncombustible mate al
conforming to part I of the definition for "noncombustible" in
Section 216.
E15.ll I*ngth. A connector shall be as short and straight as pos-
sible. The appliance shall be located as close as practicable to the
chimney. The horizontal run of an uninsulated connector lo a natrr-
ral draft chimney shall not be more than 75 percent of the height of
the vertical portion of the chimney above the connector, unless
part of an engineered system.
815.12 Access. The entire length of a connector shall be accessi-
ble for inspection, cleaning and replacement, unless listed materi-
als are used and approval has been obtained fiom the building
official.
81.5.13 Fireplace Connection. A chimney connector shall not
be contrected to a chimney flue sewing a fireplace unless the fire-
place opening is sealed or the chimney flue which vents the fhe-
place is permanently sealed below the connection.
SECNON 816 _VENT CONNECTORS
8l6.L Materials. Vent connectors used for gas appliances hav-
ing draft hoods, for listed conversion-burner-equipped appliauces
having draft hoods and for other gas appliance(s) listed for use
with T}pe B venting systems may be constructed of T\pe B ITlpe L vent material or of noncombustible
material capable of withstanding the flue gas
duced by the appliance, such as 0.016-inch (0.48 mm)
vanized sheet gage) steel, No. 26 B.&S. gage (0.40 mm)
No. 24 B.&S. gage (0.51 mm) aluminum.
816J Size. Vent connectors shall be sized in accordance
requirements of Section 815.5.1.
81.63 Clearance. Single-wall metal vent connectors, where
permitted to be used by Section 802, shall be provided with clear-
ances from combustible material of not less than that set fo(h in
Thble 3-C.
EXCEPTION: A lesser clearanc.c is acceptable if protection is pro-
vided according to the .equiremeots ofTables 3-A alld 3-B of Chapter
3 of this code.
816.4 Length. -The maximum permissible length of a vent con-
nector shall be in accordance with Section 815.11.
816.5 Pitch. Vent connectors shall be installed without any
downward pitch ftom tho appliance and without any dips or sags.
O 815.10.1
8182
The horizontal run of an insulated connector to a narural draft
chimney serving a single fuel-fired appliance shall not be more
than 100 perconl of the height of the vertical portion of the 817 _ MECHANICAL DRAFT SYSTEMSney above the connector, unless part of an engineercd system.
horizontal length, design and construction of combined T.L Forced- or Induced-Draft Systems. Appliances, except
tors, or connectors to a manifold joining two or more appliances idcinerators, requiring veuting also may be vented by means of
mechanical draft systems of either forced- or induced-draft de-a chimney, shall be determined in accordance with approved engi-
neering methods.sigl.
817.2 Positive-pressure Systems. Forced draft systems and all
portions of induced draff systems under positive static pressure
during operation shall be designed and installed so as to be gas-
tight or as to prevcnt leakage of combustion products into a build-
ing.
t17,3 Interconnected Systems. Vent connecto$ serving gas
appliances vented by natural draft shall not be connected into any
portion of a mechanical draft system operating under positivo
pressure.
817.4 Interlock Controls. When a forced-draft or induced-draft
rs provision shall be made to prevent the flow of
is not performing so
Vent connectors shall be pitched upwards from the appliance at
least 1/4 unit ve ical in 12 units horizontal (27o slope).
816,6 Access. The entire length of vent connectors shall be ac-
cessible for inspection, cleaning and replacement, unless listed
materials are used and approval has been obtained from the build-
ing official.
816.7 Limited Passage through Walls or Partitions. The pas-
sage of vent connectors through walls or partitions shall be limited
to the conditions specified in Section 815.10.
816.8 Tbo or More Appliances Connected to a Single
Vent. Two or mors vent connectors shall not be joined unless the
cornmon connector, the manifold and the vent are sized properly
to s€rye the appliances connected thereto and adequate draft is
available to remove all products of combustion to the outdoors.
Each vent conneclor of a multiple venting system shall have the
greatest possible rise consistent with the headroom available be-
tween the draft hood outlet or the flue collar and the ooint of inter-
connection to a manifold or to a common venl.
for safo
VENNIANNG
HOODS A}ID ilHAUST SYSTEilS
E18.1 Commerrial Applications. Ventilating hoods od ex-
haust systems may be used to vent gas-burning appliances in-
stalled in commercial applications.
8182 Dampers. When automatically operated appliances such
as water heaters are vented thrcugh natural draft ventilating
hoods, dampers shall uot be installed in the ventilating system.
When the ventilating hood or exhaust system is equipped with
power moans of exhaust, the appliance control system shall be in'
terlocked so as to permit appliance operation only when the power
means of exhausl is in operation.
system
gasj).r
817.5 Exit Terminals. The exit terminals of forced-draft and in-
duced-draft systems shall be located not less than 12 inches (305
) from any opening through which combustion products could
enter the building, nor less than 2 feet (610 mm) from an adjoining
and not less than 7 feet (2134 mm) above grade when lo-
cated adjacent to public walkways.
PA@ AT
aa
"ooa
nli ro thc
chirrrnsY
lcof dnft
: with thc
en'ilngcd
rll r(l rhc
uD$tG
itlllCClafi
occqtc.t
tc br.rc !t
lrd d ir
'till uxcrl,
ctx into a
Elt6.j! Grolll!{yF Vcttrirtg Sysltnrs. Gtrrily-tyFc vcntit{ tyliltlnr. rnhcr thrrr e'l'yF.Bw
grs-$nring $y'rd;r.r{ vcnli;g rist.,t, which is.n loieg'"t Friof eli cd r'Oliarre dwtl tcrditEtc
rxrt lc'c tl|an.l frlcl (15?4 rnrn) ttbovc thc ltighcsl vsit collff which il :'trvcs.
tll6,! tVtrll Flrnrtt. Typc llw 8us vcd scrving d vartcrl wnll furnacl *hrll lsrmin c { lcart u
fcri (:l6.slt nrm! ln ve.ticii hqitht !t$vc tht htlarm ('f ll|€ fun'IG.:, crccp er pnwided in Ser:tiut
8(n.
flf,.r| TypcB or ttlV G.g Vtnrr. Ty6B or Br'Y g* vcnrr {,ith li$rcd {c capx 12 inchcs in tlzc*
s txlh.r rhnll lx lrcnri[d to l*.- tcn||irilrttd in {t'corrtrrrrrc tJilh Tilhlt tl-^, lrn virlsrl lhc)r ltlg loclcd
rt krxst $ lirl (:i-lt rrrrr I fn||n $ vcnicirl trull trr sintil0trrhstr'utrirrt. Allothcr'lyp lt ger vcnts lhnll
lefmilrlt€ rtrr lcxx th:rn 1 l'rrcr ( fi l(l ntm) lhwc llE hillr:rt Foint rrlwtt rlrEy nurr thro[8h thc rfi)frtd
!t Ic $t 3 fl'!'l (6l(t rrur') hiFhcr tlu,r trrty lturlirrn at{ :l huiLtitu wilhin t0 ioct (-ltXll rrlnr).
t[65 fipt t, Vrnlhg Sylerrl Typc Lvmtltt8 syrtcmlt lrhlll ttlrnlnut€wn lcal lhnn2 fc.t (610
rtrrrr) ahrivl thc highrrr Frint whcrc th€ ycrr F.t'*cr rrough tltc nrrl rrf thc buildinglrl rl tcant 2 fccr
(6l0nrnl) ltishEr rhm rny poair'nr r{ ftc building withirr l0 fcct (3{l4 rnnr) rtf tha vcnt.
l-nOe.n Yml Ttrnlnrls. rfi;ntin8 rystcrns slutll lctmhrirli,rdrr lcrs lhrn d facl ( | ?lgrnrn)bclovr or4
I fc.ct ( l 1t'l rnmt horiT.onrulty frum. anrl ror lcss thrn I foot (105 rrrtt) abovc I do<r, rn olrnnblc
I window or e gruviry alr Inlet inro l building.
I ntt:*ffroN: l,tnt t?tmi|tlhofrli4rt.tli +Ptirrrt* virt irrlrrtraf !fi'l tnN/h(li.? tw)d l,trihell
I h'f*uu.l ar [:N g rach$ (]19 nrrr] t rr|l rnottnipg fit rrrh thir.l..r|| rr!{idr t tfilua|r cfl||llcltcril huiF-'
I iDg. Aptfi+n*x with irynrl^ u!'.ralirrf s(l,tttl Uhrrr t l.l.? Lwl bul rrl tK'.t!dln! 6ttm Flu/h ( 19lwl dr.ll
I r.(uid l2 .irh (.ltlr rdn) ycttr llrrrifldiro rlc||! ci- Ttrr: h'th||| ol tlE vcnl tcfmlrsl rtrl th3 nir itlli|r! lhdll
L- li' t.F.uLrl :l krll | : rlrlr:r (f{lt rnfl | .bovc I'!.k.
ta06i. | licDlrrtl.rrr Jnrrn Inlcts. r'trrting xyrlr.'ms shr,lltr:nrrin{tc:rt least I fect(914 nrm) rrhotc
illl ott-ti.h!..r mdorlr-nir itrlct lc.irlrtl withiq l(l lrrt 130{lt rrrrrrl rrrtl lt lcmt { fect (l?l9rnnt)
fnrm rr prolErr)' lir$ cr(cepl d tnrblis .rny-
tll6,7 Outdrrrr AlDliarres wlth Inl{?rd Vrlas, Aplrti rrcr:s listcd for outdrxr inrlrlhlitn in-
(oqronrli.rg inlcfrol verrting mrlnr shrll lt corrirkn-d ls bcing pnrprly wmc.J whcn rhry arc in-
stulkrl in l|:r.rrnlarrcc urilh Unlf li:,thrgl rnd lhc nro|tul:rcrn]Er's in$ructionl, Vtrltirg r)Elcmt $hall
lcrmi tc.1t lcn$ 4 f€€t ( I ?l9mm) bdtoh,t,l4 fecr ( tf l9 rtvtt) lxrrizontrlly frotn,:rxl rl lc[st I fuot
(.lt)-t nurr) lhorc e ilr'r. rn opnlble urir&rw or o S,rnviry-eir inh,t imo btrilding- Vcruing syrtcmr
shtll l rnrrirr:rtc nrrl L'$ rl$rn I fr.ct (914 [tnt) Iht|vc foRtd-slf irllct ktr||lcd within IO lctl (]048
rrrn) tllxl al lcrrxt { ftr:t ( l3l I rrlnrf frnnr l pruprliy lirrc, cf,ccll I Puhlic w.ry.
SECTION EO7 - VENTED WALL FURilACE (TYPE BW) SYSIEiIS
lD:rdrliliru torrthc.r R:(lnircnnnti rtrrcifierl in thls chaptcr, girn-hurning vo cd tritll furnmcr rcqulr-
ing a'ly1r: llW gas vent *hrll hc ventcd trr c.rrnply whll rl|c followin8 acquiftlrEntr:
l.1i1x nW gls v€ntn sh.rll ]r irnaclrcrl l(r a $olid htrrdcrllrrtc dodlned forlhc rrcmcd vdl fur-
nirc.c inslrrllcd- 'llrix ltttqchnrrl shnll bc nrede hy l h.uc plate t'urnir*rcd with dr 3as ve"f uricd.
2,'l-hc stud sprr.r irr which rr'llpt. BW! vct|t is inst lhd rtrrll hc fncof ohsrrucriorri. tx,cTt for
fln-rhrp spil**r{ tlt l iur R'rlulred krr nuldllcry fypc 8W grr. vrnld, All cciling ;rhrtcs lnd floor
plttcs lhnrrrph whicb ll|l: gn* vr:nl txrrrdli shall h! rrrt llush with rlw arlj$$cnl wl|ll llu|Lr'
J. Ctsur.rnsr: of 'lylr llW Fo:t vtnl lrom any rttarr:drl shlll ln that rptclc prwklctl lty thc hrtic
Flirtc, $:iliug trlltc lipuatr rtnrlri llln:-rtrry ilr(r{'crs, furnistrt'd with rht gu}t vr'lrl uscd. Whcn'l}ltc
hW g'.rs vrnl ir hrcrtsliu it*l$l !ip;rt'$. caru r[all lr! sxcrcisrd:*it tlurt ('l$ng61cr:s Jxrvhlrel try qrnrlcn
.tri: rr$iltlirirrr'r|:rlL'r uplllic;rri(xt of wrll t:twtrinF,r llrd uthsrn n$ol'llt! r-rt$lnrslioo-A slx8| lrcl.tl
htnlcr sh;rll ht il|]tflll(.d hcrrvterr ;1 BW gar wrrt k^-'l|tcd irr -.r slu(l sprcc end wrll cuvcrinS co[-
srnNl\.dl ot lErfrrruttd lrth. mclll |rth r.|' b|rilding Ol'J|(:r,
.1, Tyfr HW S:rs vcpt lirtcrl only fnr'ringlc-rlory us rhull hc lrtsrellcd trnly in a sin6ln+rtrxy huild.
irll ff .nr thc tqr rlory (rf rrrulli$lory buihling. Tylt ItW gir,i vcnl li:rtHl firr rnuhi ory u* nrry bc
hrc lh'd kt sarrglr ot nruhisror'y lrulldint$.
6L
EilqNEERS
6900 $. Ho||y Ctrcb. suile304
1e15 u 6C -
td-2{r71 ref u lFoFr t Ecit{AtuGAL CO9E
X,LLE T,LL Ec)E
(oo9r?"bsr|s
mts sh:rll
:t Srtlvrly
otal hori-
ent trfthc
pcr cltlf-
rE liytlcm
tplrtrsr
l iicctim
;t forlh in
m cInI
:l nlsln|(;-
lr
ro'd gNItl3sNIEtN3 ls3ll|d drE:?o 66-zz-utc
Far(30g1'70$Osi
Date Receivet PREISTETGNGEM{ENG.
Consd_Uttg.lrodt rfcrl . Eledrlcd .
Aryln D. Prleot, p-E
JAN 2 5 1999'
ro PHlt'E l.|t]. : +1 343 751r- Jan. 19 1999 A1l49Pl'1 PA1"VU
^ -14^ A sanrtl L<'n- !/"1",
c,rt pWtl
1
I^JALL
,)
I
\
IJurltl liR HCA'TEP
6rlprA-=--::
TYPg ,5"
vdt
l:l[ArJ V tur,r/
yttt!12ttt t)
fQAKA?-€ lsookr
(ooF
Ir
lr
ll
l'
tf
ll
fl
I
Ir r/ Pf'/E ?.
FOLER
PtAlYoRl0 '"".,.
l^LDilE!2 tEvcL
I
EL t: V/rl l(rt'J VtEv)
,. "i:t=r t'::; -' t:;rt a'-r_.:.'ti*i::; :?:_a'=:*r
:
.{\
f1
-B<^/ Du^"+r'L)<-'
2I/LR
Tat,
7+Z srttdyQ,rc', E" efrPis)
z/z+/e a 'l z-, t7 p"-{t4.
L ryyt/aztaz @ rflf f"d,*qf fru"K1 Te ( r tu7rnz L=!(i-
7zu - 6;a1,h".i da,bLp,r,a S?jd bta\ =.r72; W r;"-z%to €rt€.o,r A+' U*nZazldf e l'h*.*t'og
btx ,tfra6 "fr1d4 Dra+ft U,,*L ru,;;'ffi, ,,
Vud sftir,fr._{un Uitt"'r- d"t I V".8,poi ler keSfuEX"W /^' eig"-o s(44 -torr K
A c 5n r,{A Ma&,-( R;e- 7i z3o
T!'u(3zr11 he"h- u;lfl^ d/4/4 hod/h, o q, r, N/f,^ rar-,,a/ :,/ 2 '. -t . /, T/ "' r <-..<,un,
-j ern /,'.,rtl /ril.aAo rQn c -' /r,-,t6ut-1lau fv,r'ila4z/
P,fr'at 4twt {or
d,ldef harrt€r'rw!r uwt/W(q
( orttin{qt o(o(LY tnaqrv
vtWI qhj-\fi!r\L
"jh^t 4{ a6v't
WrtaL ['l€6'Zn lvs
l-nerrn: N-Tra (
eK&Izldr7 t'*MLw
20 /U/.4 .
D;,1t4 1 a,v4-hrazr .-A lB,' ryf+tu dvl
6Wd-ub //crYf-arttz1. -<< ' -
Fpt ,4i 2 ,+v1lrafiu d^aufur.(r6orf,oe4r
{ ),, hr lh a-qi fLdp u2-<-
,4u o/|j@
Ic42{tlh/>Vi4f flk IfK2Vtm. SpttcEl3 I./ilnrc:r'+t *rVsP I
' O7/10/Sg 11: 56 G662 601 1522O
Itte performancc requircrncnts break thc
functional statemcnt into morc trngiblc
components to waluate. For instancc flame
spread is addrpsscd in Section 4'2'3.1 and firc
spread through concealed spacca srrh ts walls is
covcrcd in Scction 4.2.3.3. Thc pcrformancc
rcquircnrents also touch upon $otnc mcchrnisms
to contml and mrnagc firc smh rs dctcction,
suppression and smoko control. Additionally,
slructurd stability and gcncrat firc sPread froro
cortrp!iltrent to co|Dprrtmcl|t rrc addrcssod in
Soctiqs 4.2.3.9 nd 4.2.3.2 rc+ccriveh.
In ordcr to dcterminc to what levcl 'acccgtable'
is with regard to thc pctforoatrce provisims a
retationship is made tnck to Scction 2.2 withitr
Secior 4.2.3.10. Thc rcftrcncc to 2-2 will
providc drc dcsbed level of tte
building bnsod on tlrc use oft[e building.
Acceatrble lltetodr
The prcscritrivc mctlrodc vge diruseed Garlicr.
fhe pre*riptive IBC dcals wi$ lhc mrntgernent
of firc impect in many ilfls. Ouoc a spccific
predion *sd€/ ir ctro*A for r builidng wtirt
coositt3 ofdctcction fu ioghroc thorc rrc ao
ortarrilrc arrry of staodads rhtEd to the propcr
dcsiglt h$alldion, rndnicomce ud use of fire
detccrion cysterns and cquipmcnt. Exanples are
cudrds podwcd by Underum'ers hbcetorics"' ud thc N*ianal Firc h,oection Assciation
}lnnficfiltrs ofthc cquipncnt povklc cpdensivc
infonrrrtion fr the p,rcper applicetim of thcir
producr that rlso need to be follow€d. ln many
juridktions minimurn qualificrtions have becn
dotrd for pcoplc who dcsign, install, aud
servicc fire d€togtioo sysems- Thcsc rcsources
arc ovailablc !o otb€r coraponerts such as firc
rcsistive contnrctim aod automatic nrpprcssion
systems.
ICBO-CODES-- IFCI
s.o PE(nsrRrA
CIRCTILATION
hblic dimati'm of thc paerinre twlCqs
har fooccd m be ur rod hct of ucof uoe
Cs.fr!?d b thc f*riptivc codcs. Ttprc is no
;t$irii ft .obno? r tcrm c cmcOt cinply
5.I MEANS OF EGRESS
The intent of this scction is to provlh thc
performance criteda by n'lricb tlrs exit facilitics
for a sfircturr arc dcsigncd and crraluatcd. Thc
cunent prcsc,riptive codcs pmvidc for thic clcroctt
of buildiug;e by dictating a solutior of
sh&ldircd olcrncnts basod ol nanrowlydofimd
mbimums ud manimurns. This mdrodolory
has been olrcc€ssful il prwiding saft buildings,
buthrs bc.n foundtobe a hin&urce in ltredesig[
of somc ncr buildir€ ty?es.
ln writing 6is scctiln all of thc olcmcr$ fond ia
the codo of tto pas rtsr considcrcd- Thc tcrm$
formcrly used for these elernents .re not
neccssarily found in thc terc, Genaric HEI will
make it casict to €xpsnd ihc rcopc as ruy bc
ftc€snry in 6infi.g in a tuo pcrfornam
vocabulary. Thc rhafting of tbis provision rvrs
carefirl to avoid cridiog tcnninology and drcrcby
avoid old preconceived notioos boscd on past
dcfioition.
The gpocral cmccpt ofogcss hes nm clugnd. It
considcn ths numba of poople, lengft of tnvel"
provision of altematc pathg risk Iewl, irf€fy
sysems pwided ud time. Tlrc ercsqiptive
codc, rvhih cosklering all ofttesc ttinp whcn
dcvcbping is inrmrRm, does m clcdy
' aticulaedrcn. fhrcforc, wtcn a building duc
to siee, frrnction or physioal circumstanccr, cur
not conply with 6e insrructioo thcre is not clear
guidamc for rolving thc problem.
An eftdive systEm of ctrces is inurrdcpcndcnt to
acccssibility, fall prcvcntion, numbcrr of
occupilrcy, lwcl of risk and drc building safcty
systems. Each of thc*e isrues addrcssod in the
mde will trve to bc frctorod iato ary accqtablc
solution for cgress. If tberc is o bc a tnrc
pcrformruce code wc must bc very careful to
resist th€ tendency to prescribe by thc usc of
absolurc spocifics.
lA 913/ott
N
(l
g\\'alsla
Environmental Scientists and Ensineers. Inc.
November 16, 1998
Betty Guffey
742 A Sandy Lane
Vail, Colorado
SUBJECT: Results of Indoor Air Nlonitoring at your Residence (742 A Sandy
Lane) and Duplex Neighbor's Heater Exhaust Sample in Vail,
Colorado OVALSH 3907-010)
Dear Betty:
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the results of the indoor air monitoring
performed between October 28 and November 8, 1998 at your residence and the exhaust
grab sample collected from your duplex neighbor's heater exhaust on November 8, 1998.
The indoor air monitoring and exhaust sample collection were performed to characierize
any air impact from your neighbor's heater exhaust system.
I::door Air illonitoiing: The inCoor air inonito:iirg r,vas perforrned with a luletrosonics
50.1 Indoor Air Quality Monitor. Tlte monitor measured the carbon monoxide and carbon
dioxide concentrations inside your residence. Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide are
expected to be elevated if the indoor air was impacted by your neighbor's heater exhaust
system. The direct-reading monitor averaged and recorded the carbon monoxide and
carbon dioxide data every five minutes during its operation. During the first few days of
operation, the record bunon had been inadvertently shut off a few times, causing some
data to be lost. However. all data after November l, 1998 were recorded.
The attached figures (dated chronologically) provide the carbon monoxide and carbon
dioxide results- The carton dioxide data generally ranged between 300-500 parts per
million (ppm). This range would be expected in the indoor air of a residence. The
carbon monoxide data do not appear on 4 ofthe 6 figures because carbon monoxide was
generally not detected in the indoor air (detection limit I ppm). Carbon monoxide was
detected intermittently in the indoor air, yet the average concentrations were less than I
ppm. These data indicate that the indoor air at your residence does not appear to be
impacted by elevated concentrations of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.
Sampling of Neighbor's Heater Exhaust System: The exhaust from the heater exhaust
system was sampled using a direct-reading carbon monoxide meter and a SUMMA
sampling canister (a 6-liter sphere under negative pressure that collects an air sample
when its valve is opened). A Passport air monitor measured the carbon monoxide
concentrations being released from the heater's exhaust system during a S-minute
duration (while heater was ftinctioning) on October 28 and November 8, 1998. The peak
4888 Pearl East Circle . Suire 108 . Boulder, Colorado . 80301-2475 . Phone (303) ut43-3282
c:\my documents\3907ii.doc
FAX (303) 443-0367
I
carbon monoxide concentrations measured during each S-minute evaluation were 15 ppm
and 21 pprq respectively.
The SUMMA canister was sent to Quantena Labortories in City of Industry, California
and analyzed by the Environmental Protection Agency's Toxic organics Method 15.
This method me iures concentrations of 50 volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The
efluent sample was also analyzed for other VOCs (tentatively identified compounds, or
TICs). The TICs analytical proce$ provides an estimate of the concentrations of
different VOC groups (some ofwhich would be expected in the exhaust of a heater). The
attached rezults indicate that significant levels of VOCs were not being emiued from the
exhaust systetn when the grab sample was collected. The VOC concentrations found in
the exhaust are similar to those found iri background indoor and outdoor air in urban
areas (such as Denver). The exhaust may also contain irritating compounds that were not
analyzed in the sample (e.g., nitrogen or sulfur oxides),
Although significant levels of VOCs were not found in the exhaust, carbon monoxide
was detected at 2l ppm. This concentration is higher than the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard of 9 ppm. The exhaust may be impacting the outdoor air near your
residence and could impact the indoor air if a route of entry is provided (e.g., open
window or dogr). The balcony for your residence is directly above the heater system
exhaust.
This indoor air monitoring and exhaust sampling are limited by the duration of the
sampling and the compounds analyzed. Concentrations could vary over time and other
compounds may have been presen! but were not analyzed.
Please contact me with questions.
WrittenBy:
AnthonyE. Bamard CSP
S enior Industrial Hygienist
*Wals]a
Environmental Scientists and Engineers, lnc.
c:\my documents\3 907ii.doc
tr'ilename. ....rl}
Test Location. . . . .VailhPloyee Name. . . ..Betty
toployee Number...
DepartEent... .. .. .
Coument Fleld 1...
coument Fleld 2...
Nuneric Code #1...
Colorado
cuff,ey
*2...#4...*s...
DDT
leee. e
DPI
te. a
39e.9
639. e.
.lCe . e
eoo.9
0.e
ou
>a talza l?:se r9:3ell rETtosoNr cs
-.coa
------.coLC/2||/9a l?:5e: t7: 5I'5ppr
Losser...aq-sol. Qru.:.
#e...
Urtl Golorrrd,o
T.rt Tlr.
e DDr.
e.e
Losser.. ..n-uo,.l?ru.,.
Colorado
Guffey
'Firenaue. ....!t
Test Location. . . . .Vail
Eloployee Nane. .. ..Betty
hployee Nunber...' Department...
Co'nnent Field 1. . .
CoDrnent Field 2. . .
Numeric Code #1 ... #2.*3. .*4...
gee. e
60e. I
zea. s
6:36
*s...
U.l l Co l ot .io
-coz
--.-..-.-. cotet?tlga 5:2,.:0a: a.l6DPi
? 3 5l
T.!3t Ttr.
SnPr
Iaa6
Filenane. ....rn
Test Location. . . . .Vail
Ehployee Name... . .Bettyhployee Nuuber...
Department. . . . . . . .
Cornrnent Field 1...
Conr'rent Field 2. . .
Nuneric Code #1...
Coloradocuffey
#2...
,^
'Logger...aq-501 Bfrser
#t...*a...#5. .
DPI'
teec. 0
ttr
.10.9
agB. e
5ae. e
aee. e
2€A.9
e.e a.e
te/3c
'5124a3:3{T.rt Tlr.
eFDr|
Urll Golor.rdo
>a ra/e9 l'l!5{ l?:rla
ll ilErnotoNl cs
-coa
------. coLa/29/9A tl:5{! a5: a69DDr
.aq-sol $ru.'Test Location. . .. .Vai].hployee Narne. . -. .Betty
Ebployee Number...
Logger..
Colorado
Guffey
Departrent.
colonent Field 1...
Cotnl'lent Field 2. . .
Nuneric Code #1 ...
80c.9
6ee. a
a6€. e
Jz.
L6224
#2...#4...#5. .
ll ""K;";;i*
-coz
------* Gota/aa/g8 8:3{: 2?: {8aDDr
tclgt a32LT.rt Tlrt
Sppr
a ! .la
Url I Golor.rdo
Filename. ....st Losser...aq-sol Qru.lTest Location.....Vail CoLorado
Ehployee Name. . ...Betty Guffey
Ihployee Nuaber...
Departroent. . . .....
Conment Field 1...
Co'nment Field 2. . .
Nr:neric Code #1... #2... #3...
DPI
,'See. e
#4.#5...
tPr
te .0
o(,
(loI
aea. I
696rI
aaa.a
zfila.A
e,e €.c
tLlca l.la 4a1/ Lllret ae :5e LtlQ1 Zitl6
ll I|ETnOSOXICS Trr t
-coe
---..-.- GolL/eL/r9A ae:5e:ae: 3?8rrpn enpr
lL/t6 az 13
TlrC
Urll Color.rdo
E
E
Eii
E
t
a3
rE8;
F€IF
S5
leItl<Itrl.tqr6
E
x
\
E$
$El
BEI8ol
bEtro€8gq
5bsE
$s
,'8
E^
g
-t.Fr
roE
.€Er'8
iF:fl
ciS
FTi
8Sl
0
B t
c
EtE
le
IE
IE
Et
t
s
ni
d
I
-]
t*
IJ
t
*o
at
ot
E
E
()
t
s
E
$
&
5
E
r
I
J$
'13
lq
ls'It
t3
l+
IEto
lE
IE
t:!G!
ir{
B
Iat4
t
R.
u,
H+
s
tr
I
tr
a
Ett
IJ
t*
t-J
e
L
o
It
D
E
I,l,snflN | -f rilq,r,Nvnh rz:il (Noltl 86 ,91- ',li0Nl00l 9S6 qZg:13,1,
.-.J
?00'd
$
E
f$
Eo(l
tutrbs ;s€ E
$t:
,
Cl.ienc Name:
Cl,lene ID I
IAB TD:
Malrix:
Authori z ed :
fnEtruneuE:
Al !(
13 NOV 98
GCltr.s-c
Palalrleter
Dichlorodlf luoromethane
Chloroncthaaevinyl chlorlde
1, 2-Dichloro-L, I, Z, 2-
teErafluoroeEhane
Bromometha.ae
Chloroethane
Tri cbloro f luorornet bane
I , 1-Dichloroethese
Carboa diauLfide
1, l, 2 -Trichloxo-L, 2,.2 -trlfluoroethane
Acetone
Methylene ehloride
trane - 1, 2 -Dichloroethene
1. 1-DichloroethaneVinyl acetate
2-Butanone
cie-1, 2 -Dichloroethene
C}loroform,
r, 1, 1 -Tlichloroetbanre
Carbon tetrachloride
Eenzene
1, 2 -Dichloroetlrane
Trichloroechene
I, 2 -Dichloropropane
aromod{chloromethane
cle-1, 3 -Dichloropropene
4 -Methyl- 2 -penEanoD.e
Toluene
cran6 -1 . 3 -Dichloroprspene
X. 1, 2 - Tricbloroelhane
Tetrachloroethene
2 -llexaione
Dibromochloromethane
1, 2 -Dib:romoeEhane (EDB)
'Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m- e P-xylene (E)
o-xylene
Se)rrcne
Bronoform
I, l, 2, 2 - Tetrachloroethaae
Benzyl cbloride
4 -Ethyltoluene
Yolatlle Organics
Waleh Envi loanent al ScientietEvAfL RESTDE!{CE (,92089, )135132 -o001-sA
by CCIIIS -
& Eagiaeera
08 NOV 98
N/A
1.0
()
EPA IO
Sampled:
Prepared:
Di luti.on :
Received:
Analyzed:
13 Nov
13 NOv
98
98
MDIJ Unita
0 .25 ug,/m:0.12 u9/n3
0 .15 u9lrnl
0.63 u9/rn3o.2? ug/m30.37 u9/m30-3t ug/m3O.24 ugln:
0. {0 ug/rr3
o.46 uglsr3O,47 ug/m3O.24 uglm3O.28 ug/m30.20 ug/m30.14 uSlm30.59 ug/n3O.2o uglrn3O.29 uglrngo.44 uglm3O.2s ug/m30.26 ug/n30.24 ug,/n30.32 ug/r{r30.28 ug/m30.40 u9/n3O.27 u9/urg0.37 uglmt0.34 ugln30.35 uglma9.44 ugln3
0 ,51 uglnre0.82 ug/n30.68 uglm30.46 ug/nl
0 .41 uglnra
0 .30 uE/nr30.8? ug/m30.35 ugln3o.26 ug/ngs.72 ug/n30.55 ug/m30.31 ug/n30.34 uglm3
'7 = Reeulc i8 deeected below rhe repolcing limlt or is an egtimaced concentration,!{D = Not Dec,ected
Result
0.43
ND
'tlD
IID
ND
xo
IID
l[D .
8.6
ND
l.l.
0.27
r.ID
ITD
3. t
lfD
tlD
![D
ND
0.75
l{D
I.iID
tfD
l{D
lfD
IID
6,7
I{D
IID
IqD
l{D.lfD
l{D
0.92
5.{
1.5
1.5
![D
ND
ND
2.4
Qualifler RI,
0 .99
o.82
0 .51
0.78
L.1
2.2
o.79
3.1
1.9
0.69
0.?9
u.ot
?q
a.>
0.79
o .97
1.1
l..'
0.5.1
0 .81
11
o .92
I.J
0 .91
1.5
1.1
0 .91
1.1
1.4
r.o
t.7
t.5
o -92
0.8?
0.87
o,8s2.t
1.4
2-L
2.o
!00'd t00l 996 9i9:13J xIsf|0N I -YxxSINYn0 9Z,tl {N0}'l) 86,91-'i\0N
Q"r..rre orsa,"ice by cc{s - atrs
I3l"h Environrnearal Scientl€tEVArL_RESIDE$CB. l,g2o8s,)135132-0001-sA
Client Narne :Cliant ID:
IAB TD:Hatrix:
Authorl,zed r
fnatr:umeBt:
(cont. )
ATR
13 NOV 98
GclHs-c
Sampled:
Prepared:
Dilution:
& Etrgiaeere
08 NgV 98
N/A
1.0
Received:
lnalyzed:
I'OIr
o.44
0 .39
0.{0
0.36
o.42
o.57
1.3
13 llov
13 NOV
98
98
Paramecer
1. 3, 5 -Trimethylbelrzene
1, 2, {-trimeehylbeEzene
1,3-Dichlorobenz--e
1.4 -Dichlorobcnzene
1, 2 -Dicblorobenzeae
1, 2 , at-Trl,chlorobenzene
Ilexachlorobutadiene
Reeul!
1.4
3.1
.ltD
llD
ND
l[D
tfD
Quallfier IIr
2.o
2.0t-2
L.2
7.2
5.9
4.3
Unite .
uglnr3
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/n3
ug/m3
ug/rn3
u9/m:
\J=
!{D =
ReeulE ie detecced below
No t, DeEected the lepolting linlr or ie an eatlmeged coBcentrati.on.
t00',{C00l 996 929:13,1 )f t,snnN | -YHl,t,NVrl|)07:bl lN0tt|lR6 .ql-',\0N
' TeDtatiwely ldcntified CompoundE (TICE)
Mcthod EPA Io-15
walah Envirsnmencal scienclg!€ e Englneere
VAIIr RESIDENCE (,92OA9')
13s132 -0 0 01-SA
clienc Name:
Client ID:
I.AB TD:
Uatrix:
Authorized:
Ing c::unenE I
Paramecer
c0n'/
AIR
13 NEIV 98
cc,/Ms-c
Sampled: 06 NOv 98
Prepared: N/A
Dilucion;1.0
Result Qualifier
Received: 13 lIov 98
Inalyzed: 13 NOV 98
RL Unigg
Branched "113s6 (c5)
N- rneEhoxy-meEhatramiBc
Aldehyde Eubatitu€ed benzene
Erancbed alkane (C9)
Branched alhane (C1o)
No Match FouBd
No ltlatch Found
Undecane
Branched alkane (cU)
No Match FouEd
Dodecanc
Branched a1kd1s (C13)
J.I
z.o
1.5
5.9
1.9
L.2
4.3
L. t
2.5
2.5
,r
iT
J
.t
it
ppb
PPb
P9b
FPb
pPb
PPb
PPb
PPb
FPbppb
pgrb
FPb
v/t')
v/vl
v/w)
v/v)
!/v)
v/v)
!lvlvlvlvIt).t/vl
w/vl
(v/v)
J = Reeult le detected below the reporcing or 16 an edtimated concentralion '
t00l cq6 qZg:1?.1,
IlmiE
)t,t.snnN | -t'xxc.l NYnn 00:i I lN0hjl 86 .91-',{0N
>. i':.1*,
.*l
\\'- -.- I d
-__=
-7\r\-,.f \ \,{i./.-' .
t\
Itl,,7,
'l
I
I\
II
t
I
(
st.t
ti
\
-
(
l.'
I
I
I
I
ri
ll
.J
{l
I
I
lr
,1
I
I
I
(
THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NoTlcE ls HEREBY GIVEN that thc Town council of thc Town of vail will hold a public
hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.030 of thc Municipal Codc of the Town of Vail on
November 19, 1996, at 7:30 PM in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, locatcd at 75 South
Frontage Road. In consideration of:
An appcal of a variance denial made by the Planning and Environmental commission on
S"pi"iUo 23,1996. The appcllants werc denied a sitc coverage variance to allow an additional
ont-.u, garage to be constructc d at742-B Sandy Lane, Vail, Coloradofunit B' Lot 3, Vail/Potato
Patch, Second Filing.
Appellants: Charlcs P. Campisi and Geri Campisi
The application and information about the proposal is available for public inspcction, during rcgular business
t ou.s. in thc Community Devclopment Dcpartment, locatcd at the Town of Vail Community Dwelopment
Dcpartmcnt, 75 South Frontage Road.
o
q
I,.'
TOWN OFVAIL
75 South Fronnge Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
97U479-2100
FAX 970-479-21s7
lt,".cr\n'rnV)OS
,l4o,nAtg l11S
fu^d /1/-<'hll ftvza
u,t si+e l'74L'+
!-' oI rn^sw)-u '
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
STATEOFCOLORADO I
couNw oF EAGLE i""'
subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of December, 1996, by Holly L.McCutcheon, Town Clerk, Town of Vail.
/ ! 4'/'
NotarfPubiic
Anne E. ll/ligtrt, Notary pubtic
i,'i, Co--'rrrissim E\1rir€s 6I7.1999
7l: S. Fror:3r l]g:d
)
) ss.
)
The undersigned hereby certifies the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of aPlanning and Environmentarcommission Memorandum datedMarch tg, tdds, asmaintained in the office of Community Development.
Dated December 5, 1996
My commission expires:
{p u*r^r",
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMOFANDUM
Planning and Environmental Gommission
Community Development Department
March 13, 1995
A request lor a site coverage variance to allow_for an addition to the Flicci
Residence located at 2576bavos Trail/Lot 5, Block E, Vail Das Schone 1st
Filing.
Tom and Nancy Riici, represenled by Galen Aasland
Andy Knudtsen
Applicants:
Planner:
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST
The applicants, Tom and Nancy Ricci, are proposing to demolish their existing detached one-
car garige and replace it with an attached two-car garage, a second story family room, and
an entrance to their home. A variance is required because the additions exceed the site
coverage allowance in the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district. Since the orevious
hearino with the Planninq and Environmental Commission (PECI on Februarv 27. 1995. the
aoolicant has reduced the size of the oaraoe to 521.5 so. ft. The allowed site coverage is
2,248.4 square feet (or 20%), the existlng sits coverage ls 2,319.4 square teet (or 20.64r,
and the proposed site coverage ls 2,682 square feet (or 8.9n. The addltlonal 433.6
square feet of site coverage requires a variance. They are also requesting to expand their
living room by approximately 66 square feet, as well as raise the roof ridge over the living
room by 8 feet. The living room addition will be located over an existing lower level and does
not count as new site coverage.
Other changes that will be involved with the proposal include removing the T-111/plywood
siding that currently is in place above and below the windows on the residence. The applicant
is proposing to cover the trim and plywood with a stucco linish. Landscaping will be changed,
as four large aspens will be removed as a result of this proposal. The applicant is proposing
to replace these with four 2-inch caliper aspen. The driveway grades do not change as the
proposed two-car garage will be located in approximately the same place as the existing one-
car garage.
II. HISTORY OF LOT 5
On February 26, 1990, the Planning and EnvironmentalGommission (PEC) approved a
variance request for a setback encroachment. In order to construct a new master bedroom on
the lower level, the applicant proposed to encroach 3.5 fest into the 1S-foot rear setback. The
Design Review Board (DRB) approved the proposal on March 21, 1990. ln addition to the
setback variance to allow for the master bedroom expansion, the applicant also proposed
expansions to the kitchen and a second floor deck which did not require variances.
On June 3, 1992, the DRB approved a 250. Though he 250 was granted, the addition was
never constructed. The current proposal includes 64.3 square feet ol the 250. The applicant
has submitted the 250 request and it wlll be scheduled for a DRB rsview if the variance is
granted. Section 18.71.020 requires that variances be approved by PEC prior to the DRB
reviewing the project, when both approvals are needed for one project. 185.7 square feet of
floor area will remain for future expansions, assuming the variance is granted by the PEC and
the 250 is granted by the DRB.
III. BACKGROUND
The staff has researched projects in which similar requests were made, and has summarized
them below:
Dean/Rousch Residence. 2942 Bellflower (Julv 1993):
At the Dean/Rousch residence, the applicants requested a 3.56% site coverage variance (287
square teet), a setback variance (4 leet into a 2Ojoot setback), and a wall height variance.
The request for site coverage and wall height variances were approved by the PEC, but the
setback variance for GRFA was denied. lt should be noted that thE statf recommended denial
of the variance, but the PEC approved it. The interior dimensions of the garage were 22.5 by
22.5 leet, and the area of the garage calculated for site coverage was 576 square feet.
Tavlor Residence.2409 Chamonix Foad (Mav 19931:
At the Taylor residence, the applicant requested and was granted a site coverage variance for
1.3/o (122 square feet) in order to construct a garage and building connection on the property.
It should be noted that the allowed site coverage on this lot is 20% (not 15olo), and the
applicant was also granted a variance to construct lhe garage in the front setback (the slope
on this lot did not exceed 30%). The approved interior dimensions of the two-car garage were
21 feet by 20 feet, for a total interior area ol 420 square feet. The garage contributed 462
square feet toward site coverage.
Donna Mumma Residence. 1886 West Gore Creek Drive (Februarv 1993):
At the Mumma residence, the applicant requested and was granted a 1olo site coverage
variance in order to construct a garage addition on a lot that exceeds 30% slope. The 1%
overage on site coverage amounted to approximately 99 square feet. The lnterior dimensions
of the approved garage measure 20 feet by 20 feet, for a total interior area of 400 square feet.
The garage contributed 442 square feet toward site coverage
' NIU+41€ .'/'ff Sm6il'Relidence. +238 Nuooet Lane (Seotember 1992): ) l5,ooo
At the Smail residence, the applicant requested and was granted side and front setback
variances in order to construct a garage and GRFA addition. The interior dimensions of the
approvedgaragemeasure22teetS-inchesby22teet3-inches(504squarefeet). Please
note that a slte coveragg variance was not necessary as a part of thls request.
pDk 6.?6fow;[ Testwuide Residence.898 Red Sandstone Circle (Auoust 1992):
At the Testwuide residence, the applicant requested and was granted side and lront setback
variances in order to construct a garage addition to the existing residence. The approved
garage had interior dimensions ol 21.5 feet by 24 teel, with a total interior area of 516 square
feet. Please note that a site coveEge variancc.was not necossary as part of this
request.
. "RicciResictence O
For comparison purposes, the proposed variance is lor 3.9% (433.6 square feet)' The garage
contribuies 5S7 iquhre feet towards site coverage. The interior dimensions are 21.75 by 24.0
i*lt*'tn " smal ingte cut out ot one side). The total interior area of the garage is 521.5
square feet.
tv. zoNlNG STATISTICS
Lot Size: 11,242 square feet
Zoning: Primary/Secondary Resid€ntial
Allowed . Proposed
Height: 33 feet 33 feEt
GRFA: 2,810.5 + 425 + 250 = 3,485.5 sq. ft. 3'3299'8 sq' ft'
Setbacks:Front: 20, Fronf 21'
Sides: i5'/15' Sides: N/A
Rear: 15' Rear: 23'5'
Slte Coverage: 2(r€/" oJ 2,2t8.4 8q. ft. 23.9% or 2'6&l rq. ft.
Landscaping: 6@lo min. or 6,745.2 sq. ft. 6,598 sq. ft. ' soft (58.7%)
.|91 sq. ft. - hard
6,789 sq. ft. - Total(60.4%)
Retaining Wall Heights: 6 feet 6 feet
Parking: . 3 spaces required 4 sPaces proposed
V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the
Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based
on the following factors:
A.@:
1. The relatlonship ol the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
Staff believes that the proposed addition will be compatible with the surrounding
development. We believe that the additional mass and bulk associated wlth the
proposal is similar to the mass and h'lk of sunounding homes. Staff would like
to point out that the site has signlflcant evergreen landscap'ing around the
perimeter of the home, and that the addition will be buffered by the existing
landscaping.
2. The degree to whlch reliet trom the strict and literal Interpretation
and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and unifoimity of treatment among sites in the vicinity
ortoattaintheob|ectivesofthist|t|ewithoutgranto'special
Privilege.
\
"'l
I
Staff has traditionally supported site coverage variance requests and. setback
variance requests when it involves constructing garages, and wh.en the.
variances do not negatively impact adjacent properties. Staff believes that it is
beneficial to the community to allow individuals to construct garages, as it
typically improves the appearance of a site. In this case, the applicant will be
demolishing a one-car garage and replacing it with a two-car garage'
In addition to site coverage variance requests for garages, staff h€ supPorted
requests for connectionsbetween the residence and the garagg. This is lrue in
all ihree of the examples provided in the background section of this memo,
which required site coverage variances. In each case, staff has wOrked with
the applicant and the architect to minlmize the amount of variance needed. In
the past, staff believes that each final variance request has been for the
minimum amount of site coverage necessary'
Statf believes that the reduction in the size ol the garage since the previous
PEC hearing, to 521.5 sq. ft. brings the proposalwithin the scope of what has
been approved in the past. Stalf believes it, meets this criteria as the variance
would not be a grant of special privilege, since other variances have been
approved lor similar situations in the past. Furthermore, staff believes that the
location and size of the existing building are physical hardships which make the
expansion impossible without a variance. We think that the size of the two-car
garage which is proposed is reasonable and should be supported.
The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public tacilities and
utllltles, and publlc safety.
Staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts on the above-
referenced criteria il the proposal is constructed.
The Plannino and Environmental Commission shall make the followino findinqs
betore qrantino a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other propefiies classified in
the same district,
3.
B.
4
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, salety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in lhe vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or entorcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this tiile.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not
apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enforcemsnt of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners
ot other properties in the same district.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the variance. We believe it meets the criteria, as discussed
above, as well as the findings. Specilically finding 81 is met, and statf's opinion, as the
variance will not a grant of special privilege as this type of request has been approved several
times in the past. Finding 82 is met, in staff's opinion, as there will be no impacts to the
public health, safety or weltare. Finding B3c is met as a strict enforcement of the site
coverage regulation would deprive this applicant from constructing an addition to his home
that has been granted to other individuals with similar situations. Therefore staff recommends
approval with the following conditions:
1. That the variance approval is contingent upon the Design Review Board (DRB)
making the necessary findings and granting the'250" to this applicant. lf the
DRB does not grant the "250', this variance approval shall be void.
2. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall agree to plant lour 2-
inch caliper aspen adjacent to the entry to mitigate the loss of the four existing
aspen trees,
3. Prior to submittal to the DRB, the applicant shall amend the elevation drawings
of the residence to show the specific exterior treatment that shall be used to
replace the existing T-111 plywood finish.
F:EVERYONETPEC\MEMOS\BICC13I 3
ta.
\
il
e
{E{nllr{l}.'l,rl
'tlrl
l:l
'+
t
! i'!- om rmtn*, .q..l[Affi^,D
-o
o
S
o
T
oI
{
r- - --f
I
I
;
Itt
I
t'l-i \{
i--l!lir-
I "t\\\.\ '\
\
\
\
-\
\
\
_I
I
I
\\{\
\.\\\\\A \.\r
\ \---
a o
llll *^^t'-*-.
-
ge'ff( llr! -- "c. .
to
it-iliI,
frg
:tltE[;m',||o.lir{!litn
,,tiF
.rli5
,lg
i
:
.,
t-,
I.l I
/II/I.l
/I
/I.j
- '.*i
II
!
!
itl
o
,l
C(-er-tn;nuJr,
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-21M
FAX 970-479-2157
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
The undersigned hereby certifies the foregoing is a full, true and corect copy of aPlanning and Environmental commission Memorandum dated February 27, 1g95, asmaintained in the office of Community Development.
STATEOFCOLORADO
)
) ss.couNwoFEAGLE )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of December,
McCutcheon, Town Clerk, Town of Vail.
1996, by Holly L.
)
) ss.
)
TOWN OFVAIL 'e1,.2+. n1s,
Dated December 5. 1996
*t E: ltieftt, r,tobryhlbfi.
Notdli'Public
$EECYCLED PAPER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMOBANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Gommunity Development Department
February 27,1gg1
A request for a site coverage variance to allow for an addition to the RicciResidence located at25z6 Davos Trail/Lot 5, Block E, Vail Das Schone 1stFiling.
Applicants:
Planner:
Tom and Nancy Ricci, represented by Galen Aasland
Andy Knudtsen
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST
The applicants, Tom and Nancy Ricci, are proposing to demolish their existing detached one-car garage and replace it with an attached two-car garage, a second story fa;ily room, andan entrance to their home. A variance is required because the additions exceed the sitecoverage allowance in the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district. The ailowed sltecoverag€ is 2,248.4 square feet (or 20o/o) and the proposed site coverag e is 2,774.9square feet (or 24.7%). The additaonat 526.5 squire ieet ot site coverage requires avariance. They are also requesting to expand their living room by approximately'66 squarefeet as well as raise the roof ridge over the living room by 8 feet.
-The
living room addiiion willbe located over an existing lower level and does not count as new site coverage.
Other changes that will be.involv.ed with the proposal include removing the T-11.l/plywood
siding that currently is in place above and below the windows on the iesidence. Th'e applicantis proposing to cover the trim and plywood with a stucco finish. Landscaping will be cnangeOslightly. -Approximately one to two large aspens will be removed as a result-of this proposil.
The.applicant is proposing to replace these with two 2-inch caliper aspen. The drivewiygrades do not change as the proposed two-car garage will be located in approximately ihesame place as the existing one-car garage.
II. HISTORY OF LOT 5
on February 26, 1990, the planning and Environmentalcommission (pEc) approved avariance request for a setback encroachment. ln order to construct a new master bedroom onthe lower level, the applicant proposed to encroach 3.5 feet into the ls-foot rear setback. TheD99ign Review Board (DRB)approved the proposalon March 21, 1gg0. ln addition to thesetback variance to allow lor the master bedroom expansion, the applicant also proposed
expansions to the kitchen and a second floor deck whicn oio not re'quirs variances.
on June 3, 1992, the DRB approved a 250. Though the zso was granted, the addition wasnever constructed. The current proposal includes 64.3 square teet of the 250. The applicanthas submitted the 250 request and it will be scheduled foi a DRB review if the varianci isgranted. Section 18.71.020 requires that variances be approved by PEC prior to the DRBreviewing the project, when both approvals are needed tbi one proiect. tbs.z square feet offloor area will remain for luture expansions, assuming the variance'is granted by'the pEG andthe 250 is granted by the DRB.
It.BAcKGRouNp c
The staff has researched projects in which similar requests were made, and has summarizedthem below:
At the Dean/Rousch residence, the applicants requested a3,567" site coverage variance (2g7
square feet)' a setback variance (4 feet into a z0-foot setback), and a wall height variance.The request for site coverage and wall height variances were approved by th;pE6, but thesetback variance for GRFA was denied. lt should be noted that the staff lecommended denialof the variance, but the PEC approved it. The inlerior dimensions of the garage were 225 by225 teel, and the area of the garage calculated for site coverage was 576 sqlare feet.
At the Taylor residence,. the applicant requested and was granted a site coverage variance for
1.3% (1-22 square feet) in order to construct a garage and-buitding connection on tne property.
It should be noted that the. allowed site coverage on ttris lot is 207o (not 1s%), and thdapplicant was also granted a variance to constiuct the garage in the front seiUacr (the slopeon this lot did not exceed 307o). The approved interiorlimdnsions of the two-car garage were21 teet by 20 feet, for a totalinterior area of 420 square feet. The garage contribuled +62square feet toward sile coverage.
At the Mumma residence, the applicant requested and was granted a 1% site coveragevariance in order to construct a garage addition on a lot thaiexceeds 30o/o slope. Th; 1"/ooverage on site coverage amounted to approximately 99 square feet. The interior dimensionsof the approved garage me^asure 20 feet by 20 feet, for a tdtat interior area of 400 square feet.The garage contributed 442 square feet toward site coverage
At the Smail residence, the applicant requested and was granted side anct front setbackvariances in order to construct a garage and GRFA addition. The interior dimensions ol theapproved garage measure 22 teet 8-inches by 22 teet 3-inches (504 square feet). please
note that a site coverage varlance was not necessary as a part ot ints requ'est.
At the Testwuide residence, the applicant requested and was granted side and front setbackvariances in order to construct a garage addition to the existin! residence. Tne approvedgarage had interior dimensions of 21 .5 feet by 24 teet, with a iotal interior area of'516 squarefeet. Please note that a site coverage variance was not necessary as part of thlsrequest.
Ricci Residence
For.c_omparison purposes, the proposed variance is lor 4.7o/o (526.5 square feet). The garagecontributes 623 square feet towards site coverage. The interibr dimenlions are'23.25 iy 2{feet (with a smallangle cut out of one side).
ilt. zoNtNG sTATtsTtcs
Lot Size:
'Zoning:
Height:
GRFA:
Setbacks:
Front:
Sides:' Rear:
She Coverage:
Landscaping:
Reaining Wall Heights:
Parking:
1 1,242 square feet
Primary/Secondary Residential
AllowEd
33 feet
2,810.5 + 4ZS + 250 = 3,485.5 sq. ft.
20'
15',t15'
15'
20% or 2,24/,..4.q.ri.
600/" or 6,745.2 sq. tt.
6 feet
3 spaces required
Proposed
33 feet
3,3299.8 sq. ft.
Front: 21'
Sidos: N/A
Rear: 23.5'
24.7,* q 4774.9 sq.lt.
6,s98 sq. ft. - soft (S8.7%)
191 so. ft. - hard
5,789 sq. ft - Totat(60.4%)
6 teet
4 spaces proposed
V. CRITERIA AND FINDTNGS
Upon review of criteria and Findings, section 19.62.060 of the Vail Municipal code, theCommunity Development Department recommends denial of the requested variance based ohthe following faclors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other exisfing orpotential uses and slructures in the vicinity.
Stafl believes that the proposed addition will be compatible with the surroundingdevelopment. We believe that the additional mass and butk associated with theproposal is similar to the mass and bulk of sunounding homes. Staff would liketo point out that the site has significant evergreen landscaping on the perimeter,
and that the addition wilr be buffered by the
-existing
tanoscap'ing.
2- The degree to which reliet from the strlct and titeret interpretalon
and entorc€ment of a spscified rsgulation is necessary to achlevecompatlbllity and unlformlty ot treatment among sltesln the vlcinltyor to attain the oblectivss ot this tifle wtthout grant of speciatprtvilege.
B.
staff has traditionally supported site coverage variance requests and setback
variance requests when it involves constructing garages. staff believes that it
is beneficial to the community to allow individuals to construct garages, as it
typically improves the appearance of a site. ln this case, the appticlnt wiil be
demolishing a one-car garage and replacing it with a two_car giiage.
ln addition to site coverage variance requests for garages, staff has supported
requests for connections between the residence and the garage. This is true in
all three of the examples provided in the background sect]on 6t firis memo,
which required site coverage variances. ln each case, staff has worked withthe applicant and the architect to minimize the amount of variance needed. lnthe past, staff believes that each final variance request has been for theminimum amount of site coverage necessary.
ln order to accomplish the goal of the minimum amount of slte coverage
needed, staff has requested that the architect bring the requsst down io size,
closer to the figures of the previous decisions. statt oetieves that relief lrom astrict interpretation and enforcement from the site coverage regulation is
reasonable as the Town has consistenfly approved mesJtypel of requests in
the past, but that the amount requested exceeds what the staff cansupport.
3. The effsct of the requested variance on light and air, distribution ofpopulation, transportailon and trafflc facllltles, public facilities andutilities, and public safety.
staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts on the above-relerenced criteria if the proposat is constructed.
That the granting ot the variance will not constitute a grant of specialprivilege inconsistent with the limitations on other proferties classified inthe same district.
Thal the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcemenl of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this tiire.
2.
3.
4
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not
apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
c' The strict interpretation or entorcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners
of other properties in the same district.
VI. STAFF BECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the variance. Though it meets some of the criteria and findings,
staff believes the garage should be reduced in size. lf the PEC determines that the varianieshould be approved, staff recommends the following conditions:
1. That the variance approval is contingent upon the Design Review Board (DRB)
Te[ng the necessary findings and granting the "250" to this applicant. lt the
DRB does not grant the "250", this variance approval shall be vbid.
2. Prior to issuance of buiHing permit, the applicant shall agree to plant two 2-inch
caliper aspen adjacent to the entry to mitigate the loss oi the existing aspen
trees.
3- Prior to submittal to the DRB, the applicant shall amend the elevation drawings
of the residence to show the specific exterior treatment that shall be used to
replace the existing T-111 ptywood finish.
c:\poc\m€mosv'cci.227
5
I
lrti
-rrg?n-'2A
I2:1n7avdwtcw v
'D'FD
:t
Tl1le,
l.rlr
3l 'HE?tr
@
ts\.r7 ,/
{-..J',
I
I
HI>t
Eb
6F
@
lr-
G
il
-,#fu-a.ulrrnrEE=--^I.t
-\\
t\\Y\\\'\
\\
\
I
II_
| -"--'
\,\
t
.l
I
I
.,i: .'
,,l:.
i}
..r,1
.1,!
::ri'
;+l:iil
:I
.il
rl o 4,-*-ffJ -OerE=
I
I
i
Ii-o .-fe-_ o,",,.;=il
cNt..|q\w v l{tID tr-.r rv 5'rir*t
--l
,::;...::-'.-'
III
I\i
'l
74t
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado E1657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157 Apf*n.a /4r 5 {w1fva<,.'d'
Lol t;z-" 6,1et6
)
) ss.
)
L' -.'t 't/.c4ti ..- L ! c'
Notary PuU
. Anne E. WiefiL ilfrrypubtic
f,r,, ^^__:^-r^_ ^--_:__ _ - M, commissign Ex*rcs BtT.lgggMy cornmissicn expires: ' i! s.E
$RECrcLED PAPEN
l.c-,rJ b^g4'rc,i-*- z'
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNW OF EAGLE
STATEOFCOLORADO
I
) ss.couNryoFEAGLE )
subscribed and sworn to before me this sth day of December, 1996, by Holly L.McCutcheon, Town Clerk, Town of Vail.
The undersigned hereby certifies the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of aPfanning and Environmentalcommission Memorandum dated May 24,1ggj, asmaintained in the office of Community Development.
Dated December 5, 1996
o
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
May 24, 1993
A request for a setback and site coverage variance to allow for the construction
ot an add_ition and a garage located at 2409 chamonix Road/Lot 19, Block A,
Vaif das schone Filing No. 1, (ptease note changes are ln botd ttattx.)
Applicant:
Planner:
Anneliese Taylor
Shelly Mello
I. DESCBIPTION OF THE FEOUEST
The applicant is requesting site coverage and setback variances in order to construct a two-cT qagge and building_addition to an existing residence located on a erimarylSeconoary ttwhich is less than 15,000 square feet in size. There is an existing emptoyee restricteddwelling unit on this site located in the lower level of the project.
Currently, the property has a covered carport to meet the requirement for enclosed parking fora primary unit with a restricted employee dwelling unit. Under curent zoning, tre ploperty- -
would require four on-site parking spaces with aileast one space covered. fne siie cunen1yhas three on-site parking spaces and one partially on-site spiJe. ni tne tme tris clrport-wLapproved, the carport was considered enclosed parking, Oui OiO not contribute to sitecoverage using the detinition in place at the time.
Under the curent site coverage definition, the carport is counted as s1e coverage. Theploperty currently allows for 1,784 sq. ft. of site coverage or 2Oyo of the lot size-and with theexisting carport has a total of 1,635 sq. ft. of site coverage. As proposed the project *ouiohave 1,906 sg. ff. of site coverage or 2l.so/o. A varianc6 is require'd tor me t.g% sitecoverage or 122 square teet.
The.proposed garage is approximately 17 feet 6 inches into the 20 foot front setback whichwill leave a 2 foot 6'inches setback fr6m the south property. iner" *iribe a z footencroachment Into the 15 foot side yard setback. A 13 foot setback will remain atong thewest property line. Variances are needed for the 17 loot 6 inch and 2 foot encroachments.
II. BACKGROUND
In 1989, the applicant received a variance to locate a carport in the tront setback. This was lnresponse to the requirement for.enclosed parking when a restricted secondary unit isprovided. Prior to the 1989 application, a varianle from the patiing sianoardi was requestedin order to add secondary unit without providing the required'enctoieo-larfing. This w;;- --
denied and the applicant was directed io constiuct a garage. r
In Aprif and May of this year, the PEC reviewed this application at worksessions. The
applicant was directed by the PEC to minimize the overage on site coverage, but that some
overage would be acceptable because of the addition of enclosed garage ipace. The
applicant has revised the application by decreasing the width of the garage and the stainvay
leading to the house which decreases the amount of site coverage necessary to complete tirisproject. At the time of the review the staff also discussed lhe removal of the closet aiea to
the north of the main entry in order to further come into compliance with the site coverage
regulations. The applicant has selected not to eliminate this area therefore it remains a-part
of lhe request.
At the PEC revlew In May, the appttcant was agaln dlrected to detete the ctoset portlonot the request. The statt suggested that approxlmately 60 feet ol slte coverage'couldbe deleted. The appllcant has responded by deleung-a portton of the ctoset whtchcontrlbuted approxlmately 40 square teet ot stte covTrage.
,\
,
III. ZONING ANALYSIS
Total Size Area:
Zoning:
Allowed Density:
Existing Density:
GRFA:
Allowed:
Existing:
proposed:
Site Coverage:
Allowed:
Existing:
proposed:
Parking Proposed:
Enclosed:
Surface:
0.2048 acres or 8,921 square leet
Primary/Secondary Residential
One Primary with one restricted employee unit
One Primary with one restricted embtolee unit
3,080 square feet
2,814 square feet
3,019 square feet
1,784 square feet (20%)
1,225 (Building) + 410 (Carport)
= 1,635 total square teet
1,225 (Building) + 411 (Garage)
190 (Addition) = 1,906 totat (2t.3Vo)
2 spaces
2 spaces (completely on-site)
'ln order.to allow for a garage in the front setback, the average slope beneath the garage andthe dwelling unit must exceed 30% slope. ln a previous apprltatioi, tne staft determined rhatthis site did not qualify to. allow.the garage to encroach into'the froni setback due to excessivesite grades. While historicalty this site may have quatified for this ailowance, it wasdetermined that because the..existing g1-site parrcng area is uirtuarrvirai, this site would notqualify for the allowance' lf it had qualified, site coverage would have been restricted further
to 15% and lhe existing project would be non-conforming to site coverage requirements.
tv.CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of criteria an_d Findings, section 19.62.060 of the Vail Municipalcode, the
Community Development Department recommends approval ot the requested variance based
on the tollowing lactors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relatlonshlp of the requested varlance to other etlsgng orpolenllal uses and structures In the vlclnlty.
The proposed garage encroaches a maximum of 17 feet 6 inches into the 20toot tront yard setback leaving a 2 foot 6 inch setback from the front property
line. There will be 2 toot encroachment into the 15 foot side yard seiOaif '
leaving a 13 foot setback from the western property line. Thd roof is pitched,
however there is no proposed floor area within the-lofted area of the iarage.Materials are proposed to match the existing residence.
The applicant has minimized the size ot the proposed garage in order tomaintain the maximum setback possible from the south property tine.
The applicant has also minimized the amount of site coverage overage for theproposed garage. However, the staff feels that it is possible to furth; decrease
the site coverage generated by the addition and garage. The staff feels thatthe connection between the garage and the building is important because itfurthers the. compliance of this project with the Design Review Guidelines,
which specifies that the buibings should be connected, but feel that the
connection could be minimized. The appltcant has reduced the proposed
slte coverage by 40 squarc teet froi'21.g"/o to 2l.so/o by decreaslng theslze or the entry and closet area per the statt and pEC requests.-
ln addition, the staff would like to see additional landscaping added to theproject to minimize the impacts of the garage, especia[y oritne soutn 6Olacentto retaining walls) and west (adjacent to the garage) etevations. fne appii-aniis proposing to remove a portion of the existing siaiis leading rrom me iliiingarea to the building. ln order to meet the wall height standa-rds, the applicant-hes stepped the new portions of wall which exceel the standards. Ttie staffasks that landscaped steps also be added to the existing portions ot exposed
timber walls which exceed 3 feet in height in the front sJt6acn and 6 fe6t hheight on the remaining portions of the property.
2. The degree to whlch rellef from the strtct and llteral Interpretatlon
and enf.orcement-ot a speclfled regulatlon ls necessary ti achtevecompatlblllty and unlformlty-ot treatment among sttesin the vlctnltyor to- attatn the oblecilves of thls ilile wtthout giant of speclalprtvilege.
The staff of the building does constitute a
Because of the as the
B.
topography of the site, it.is difficult to improve the property without obtainingvariances. The staff feels that the addition of the enclosed parking is beneficial
and that the proposed location will have !0lniqrfll lmpaer on ihe adj-acen!properties. The staff feets that the granting of the requesteoGtuiffiriances
l67lh1}!-arage wifl not be a grant oispeciit privitege.'
The staff also supports the overage on site coverage in order to add the garage
as welf as the building connection. we feelthat fte bulldlng connecttohisin
important efement of the application whlch has bff'n clecreased tn srfe asyugh ag posstbte and that it furthers the comptiance ot this project wtth theDesign Review Guidelines. we do not feel thai a granting ot a site coveragevariance would be a grant of special privilege lf it were mi-nimized, as discussedabove.
3' The effect of the requested varlance on llght and alr, dlstrlbuuon ofpopulatlon, transportauon and trafflc facliiiles, publlc tacllltles andutllltles, and publlc satety.
The addition of the encrosgd oara_g-e wiil improve the existing parking probrems
for this property. The appricant wifl be abre to obtain four p;difig "i"!",gnjiletV on the property and meet the parking requirement. Curr6ntiv, there are3-1/2 spaces tocated on the property. 'The
staff feets that aaoitionJ l,i ini" typ"on non-conforming properties are important because lhey decrease the needfor on-street parking.
This proposal does not impact any of the other criteria risted above.
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of specialprivilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified Inthe same district.
That the g-ranting of the variance wilr not be detrimentar to the pubric
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties oiimprovements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specifiedregulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
-
physicar hardship inconsistent with the objeaives of this tiire.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstiances orconditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not
2.
3.
apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners
o, other properties in the same district.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
]he gtaff supports lhe garage portion of the request as well as the building connection,
including the necessary setback variances with the following conditions:
1. Additional landscaping be added to the south and west elevations to screen thegarage and building addition;and
2. Additional landscaping steps be added to the existing retaining walls.
We^ find that this request, will not be a grant of special privilege and meets the criteria set outin Section lV B, 1, 2, 3, a, and c of this memo.
The staff feels that this application is a positive improvement. we feel that the garage
addition has been minimized to decrease site coverage. Due to the location ot Ine jxisting
unit, as well as the topography of the site, we recognize that some additional site coverag6 isneeded to provide for the garage and the connection between the units and the garag". -ite
stafl finds that it would not be possible to incorporate any portion of the garage into meexisting building. We believe the proposed building connection to be a pisitive improvement
because it brings the structure more into conformance with the Design Guidelines.
The applicant has worked with the staff to obtain a proposed plan for this garage and additionthat the staff can support. In the past, the statf has supported site coverage anO setbackvariances when they are attributed to the provision of additional enclosed 6ar-age $;*.:
@ru
#ffii1u.=
F
0.zI
l{Erl:-t '- .-
,t- iz
l_-.r.
,
I
\/
I't
It
I
S:-&.---\ -.--
I:.- tl
--* )' ll\') Lr llb. f-. lf
il
t,
I
I
I
I
I
I
t-4
ljlr_ldr
F.c{
z
o
,t.
'I Ul
Iq,.iE
i(,.,2 o,ioioI r^,iold,'o
,i 3
i c,,
z664Fl-d<-)9LuiJ:UJ
oF
Jl-:htri{i6:
9c
F
6H.F
TUJ
UJ
Fafi
|rtc,
G
(,
!oulg,ocoEA
-lr
ilI
Bachrach VtP LTD
PO Box 2236
Avon, CO 81620
303/949-9408 FAX 949-0629
Planning and Environment Commission
Town of Vail, Colorado
FROft/: Erwin Bachrach on behalf of
Anneliese Taylor
Subject: A request for a set back and site coverageallow for the construction of an addition and a garage
2409 Chamonix Road Lot .19, Block A, Vail das ScnonL
May 14,1993
TO:
variance to
located at
Filing No. 1.
Dear Commission and Staff Members:
considering the discussions before the planning and Environmentcommission work session on Aprir 12, 19g3, the communityDevelopment Departmsnt memorandum dated May 10, lggg and thetabled discussion before the planning and Enviionment commission,also-on May 10 we are herewith submitting a revised appricationhaving addressed concerns as follows:
l. Subsequent to the work session we have:
Reduced the garage dimensions by 2,-4"
Lowered the garage roof pitch from 12110 to 12lgBy the combination of items 1&2 we have lowered thegarage roof ridge by approximately 3'-0"
Made the stairs & stair enclosure narrower by 6"Added terracing with landscaping along the ietainingwalls to the north of the proposed garage.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
ll.subsequent to the hearing (now tabled) before the planning and
Environment Commission on May 10 we have:
Added a North elevation to the concept drawing for
clearer presentation of the building connection.
Added more terracing
Added more landscaping materials; 5 Aspen, 1 Blue
Spruce
Deleted the entire bench area and exit aisle,
reducing the site coverage by an additional 50
square feet. We are however retaining a 2'_0" deep
closet, adjoining (as close as possible) the existing
entry door. The closet is an essential feature forthe owner and the key to the entire remodel effort.
Retaining the closst will have no impact on the
visual appearance of the building connection,
interfere with no one,s views, has no bearing onlight, air, distribution of population, transportationand traffic facilities, utilities and public safety.Will be entirely within the set-bact< lines and in an
area presenfly occupied by the existing deck.
It is very unfortunate that previous government agencies alloweddevelopers to subdivide into now non-conforming lots, especially on
dif f icult terrain.
we are not asking for any speciar privirege; we are asking for acloset. lt will not be to the detriment of the neighborhoid, of theTown of Vail, or anyone.
It is unfair that present day homeowners must depend on granting ofvariances for permission to modify their homes to bring them toreasonable standards and even comply to Design guidelines.
Fortunately it is within the province of this commission to right awrong by granting this variance applied for here. The site coverageincrease is only trom 20oh lo 21.2o/o.
Respectf ully,
Erwin Bachrach
2.
3.
1.
4.
TOWN OF VAIL
lF0?,,,lll ': I'
\.:",lii')u;
l'.'.d
DiPI
tg96
r)F'/]0i|
00I 02
.c0tvrf'/l,
REQUIR.ED FOR FILING AN APPEAL OF A STAFF, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ORPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION
ACTION/DECISION BEINC AppEALED: Deoial of request for a site coverage variance to
allow for a one-car garage located at 742 Sandy Lane/ LoE 3, Vai1, PoLato Pat
filing. The specific regulation a variance was requested of is Section I8.13.
Town of Vail Building Code regarding site coverage which provides rhar a res ldeiiElllo t to
exceed twen rcent (202) of a tot€l site area. The. requesEed site coverage varlance
wa9 f 9126Q.8 sq. ft. for construction of the garage.
B.DATE OF ACTION/DECISION: September 23, 1996.
NAME OF BOARD OR PERSON RENDERING THE DECISION/TAKING ACTION:
Planning and Environmental Connnission
D.NAME OF APPELLANT(S):Charles P. C isi and Geri Campisi
MAILING ADDRESS:1146 Sandstone Drive, Vai1, CO 81657
pTTysIcALADDRESS [..IyAIL?42-B sandv Lane, Vail , co
PHONE:
47 6-s586
LECAL DESCzupTION OFAppELLANT,S pROpERTy IN VAIL: Unit B, Lor 3, Vail/potaro parch,
Second Filing, Condoniniums according to che Condominium Man recorded March 4. 1980 in Book
299 at Page 597 and as deflned in theCondominium Declaration recorded March 4. 1980 inBook 299 at Page 59 f Colorado,
SIGNATURE(S):
Kerry H. Walla tornet/aid ?ep-resenEa f ive o
P:8:ffi"aYe*l"es: Ertzo
(e70)949-4200
Page I of2
rles an
E Docs this appeal involve a spccific parcel of landt Yes lf ves. please provide thc following information:
arc you an adlacent propcrty owncr? Ycs _ no y
lfno, give a dctailed explanation ofhow you arc an "aggricvcd or advcrscly atTcctcd pcrson." ..Aggrieved or
advcrsely affected person" means any person who will suffcr an adverse effect to an interest protected or
furthcred by this titlc. The alleged adverse intcrest may bc shared in conunon with other members of the
community at large, but shall exceed in degrce the general interest in community good shared by all persons.
The appellants are aggrieved or adversely affected persons as they are the o\47ners
of the property in question and che persons requestlng the site coverage variance
of fied regulatlon in this
esult in a ractical difficultv or unnecessa hysical hardship to the
ts as at the resent time there is available oRlv one 300 sq. ft. single
car garage space tor the appellantsr 3,366.6 sq. ft. residence.There ls insuff-
icient parking space for the appellantst or^m vehicles without taking into
nef d Par is not. avallable u the
street or surround areas There is also insuffi.cient storage area particularly
as the single cae garage is fu11y ut ilized for parking purposes. There also exists
G.
drainage problem in that area i.n which the new garage would be located
tbe
SEE ATTACHED SHEET
Provide the names and addresses (both person's mailing address and property's physical address in Vail) ofall
owners of property which are the subject ofthe appeal and all adjacent property owners (including properties
separated by a right-of-way, stream. or other rntef,vening barriers). AIso provide addressed and tt"-pia envelopes for
each property owner on the lisl
On separate sheets of paper, specify the precise nature of the appeat. Please circ specific code sections having
relevance to the action being appealed.
FEE: $0.00
H.
Page 2 of 2
o
Continuation of Section F of Anmal of Denial of Site Coverage Yariance for
Charles and Geri Camoisi
building. The drainage problem will be expensive to fix and the proposed garage will correct
the drainage problem while at the same time significantly improving the property. In addition,
the owner of 742-A Sandy Lane, Vail, CO currently experiences a serious securlty problem in
that the general public has access to her emergency egress which leads to her master bedroom
and bathroom. The proposed garage will correct this problem for the owner of 742-A Sandy
Iane who is Bettv Guffev.
ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION NOR APPEAL OF PI,AI\IIIING AND
EhIVIROT{MENITAL COMMISSION ACTION REGARDING
SITE COVERAGE VARIAI{CE F{)R CSARLES AI\D GERI CAMPISI
FOR 7.OB SANDY LAI\E, VAIL, COITRADO tl6yt
SECTIONE
NATT]RE OF APPEAL
I. Brckground Infonnatlon
The Appellants, Clrarles and Geri Campisi, filed a request for a site coverage varience
for tbe purposes of constructing a single car garage addition. The ryecifrc regula,tion which the
Appellents are seeking a yarianoe of B section 18.13.090 of the Town of Vail Building Code
rcgarding site coverage. Safol section of the Code provirles that a residence is not to excrrd?,0%
of the total site area. The Campisi's arc requesting a minimal variance of the regulation in order
to allow them to oonstruct a single car garage addition. The site ooyerage variance world be
260.8 square feet for ttrc purposas of constructing a 300 square foo one car gamge upor the
property. TIte allowabb ib covcrage for the site is 3,,f03.8 square feet QO%) and the proposed
variance wonld allow for 3ffi4.6 square f@t QL.s%),
I
The property is a duplex which currently conains two enclosed garage spaces and the
Appellants r€quested variance would add a third garage space. Curre,ntly each side of the duplex
has use of one 3CI square foot garage qpace. As such, the Appellants currently have a 3(X)
square fmt single car gar€e space for t3,366.6 square foot residence.
The Appellants' request for a site coverage variance was presented to the Planning and
Environmental Commission on September 23,1996 and based upon the rccommendations of the
Community Development Department, the request for the variance was denied.
tr. Flnding of the Planning and Environmental Commission
The Planning and Environmental Commission at the September 23,199,6 meeting denied
the Appelhnts' request for a site aoverage variance in order to construct a 300 square foot single
car garage addition based on the following findings:
1. That the granting of the variance will constitule a grant of a special
privilege inconsistent with tle limitations on other propertie.s classifred in the
same district;
2. There are no exceptions, exhaordinary circumstances, or conditions that
are applicable !o this sitc that apply generally to other properties in the
pimary/secondary residential zone. In addition, any hardstrips which have been
presented, have been self-imposed; and
o
3. The stict interpreAtion, or enforcement of the specified regulation does
not de,prive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other property in tlrc
primary/secondary residential district.
m. It b Appellents Position thet Grentlng of the Yerirnce wilt not Constlhrte e
grrrt of e Specirl Privilege rnd tbrt there rre hrcttcd Difficuties rnd/or
ttrrtsUips whfuh the Appellants will Suffer if the Verfunce b nd Grrnted.
Thc ryecific reguletion that the Appellants are seeking a site coverage variance of is
91t.62.O50 of Title 18 of the Town Code of Vail also known as the 'Zodng Title.' f 1t.62.060
ryecifically provides that before acting on a variance application thc Planning Commission dnll
consider thc following facton with rcspect to the reqmsted variance:
Section A.
1. The relationship of the rquestd variance to dher existing or potential
uses and structur€s in the vicinities;
2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of a ryecified regulation is necessary !o achieve compatibility ard
uniformity of treatment of sites in the vicinity, or to obtain the objectives of this
titb without grant of special privilege;
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation, and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and
public safety; and
4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the
proposed variance.
The Planning Commission is also !o make the following findings before granting a
variance:
Section B.
1. Thet the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of a ryecial
privilege inconsistent with the limitatims osr other properties classifid in the
same disEict;
2. That the granting of the variance will not be derimenal b thc public
h€alth, safety, or welfare, or rnaterially injurious to properties or improvemen8
in the vicinity; and
G CATEIsI\AGCOMP.DOC
3. That the variance is warranted for one or mor€ of the following reasons:
a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
rqulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
lurdstrip inconsist€nt with the objectives of this Title;
b. Tlrere are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditkrns
applicablc to thc site of the variance that do mt apply generelly to othcr
propertbc in the same zone;
c. Th€ sbict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
reguletion would de,prive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of
otler properties in the same district.'
Tte Ap,pellants strdl initially address the requirements of Section 'A" of the Zoning Title
!18.62.060:
1. Ihc relrtfumship of the rrquested verfuncc to other exft[ing or potentbl uses
rnd structures frl the vhinity. It is the Appellants position that the proposed si0e
coverage variance requested by the Appellants for the purpose of constructing a single
car garage addition to their property will not have any negative impact upon the ottrcr
structures in the vicinity as such structures arc dl esidential homes with two to th€e car
garages ard/or condominium strrctures in the Poato Patch area. The garage addition
will not block any views and fits in with other duplexes in the area, many of which have
three car garages or a close equivalent. The rccomrnendations of the Planning Staff
specifically stated that the Proposal may not negatively impact neighboring properties and
thet other structures in the area have two to three car garages. In addition, at the
Planning and Environmental Commission hearing on September 23, 1996 an owner of
an adjacent neighboring prorperty, Joe Stauffer, testified stating that the garage would be
a welconre addition to the neighborhood and would not in any way negatively impact any
of the neighboring properties. There is no evidence that the proposed site coverage
variance will negatively impact neighboring properties.
2. The &gree to whhh relief from the $rict gnd literal interprctation rnd
enfortcment of e specilkd rcgulrtion b necessary to echieve compatibillty end
unifonnity of trertuent upon sltes ln the vtcinity or to obtain the objectives of this
title without grrnt of speciel privilege.
The grurt of the minimal site coverage variance r€quest€d by the Appellants is necessary
to achieve compatibility and uniformity of heatment among sites in the vicinity and to attain the
objectives of this tifle ard does not constitute a grant of special privilege. The Zoning Title
!1t.(X.130 ddresses gross resi&ntial floor area ('GF.FA') and addresses tlow GRFA is
G3\CAl[l{\lcC(*|IJXIC -&
o
calculated and ttrc arnount of GRFA that is allowed per site. 018.04.130A(l) specifically
provides, 'Within buildings containing hvo or fewer dwelling units, the following area strall be
excluded from calculation as GRFA:
1. Ettclosed garages from up to 300 square feet per velicle space not exceeding a
maximum of two spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by the zoning code.n
The Zoning Title also has an entire section ddicated to parling requirements in
pcrticular off street parking. The purpose of this title is to dleviate progressively or to p(went
traffic congestion and shortage of on street parking areas, off street parking, and loading
facilities. Chapter 18.52 of the Tnung Ti0e requires a certain amount of off street parking for
dl new facilities. 18.52.100 requires that off stneet parking be delermfuFd in accordance with
the following schedule 'A': if gross rcsidential floor area is two tlrousand (2000') square feet
or nxlr€ per dwelling unit: 2.5 ryac€s per dwelling unit.
The Appellants'property, which is 3,336 square feet, has only a single car 300 squarc
fmt garrge space. Thus, the Appellants only have available one parking space for their dwelling
unit. This is not in compliance with 18.52.100 which requires 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit Orat
are 2,0(X) square feet or more. There currently exists insufficient off streel parking for the
Appellants to park their two vehicles without taking into consideration guests and visiting family
members. If the Appellants were to merely pave the area upon which they are rquesting the
variance to build the single car garage it would not provide for year round parking for the
Appellants. The Town of Vail snouplows during the winter months pile snow from the street
onto the area where the garage would be built thus making that area unusable for parking
Flrposes during the winter months. In addition, a concrete parking slab in the area in which
the single car garage addition is proposed would be unattractive to the property and thus
unattractive to neighboring residences. Though other sites in the area may have been
constructed within the site coverage requirement, the only possibility for the Appellants' property
to have sufficient parking in compliance with the code will be to allow the requested minimal
site coverage variance for construction of the 300 squre foot single car garage addition. The
possibility of on street parking is not available to the Appellants as it is illegal o park upon the
streets in the Potato Patch area particularly during the winter months when the snowplows need
full access to Ote sreets in order to sufficiently clear them of snow build up. The requested site
coverage will help achieve compatibility with the objectives of the Zoning Title.
3. The effect of the rcquested variance of ligbt end elr, distribution of
populrrtlon, tnnsportetion end treflic facilities, public facilities end utilities end
public safety.
It is the Appellants position that the vadarlce will have no effect on light ard air,
distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and
pr$lic safety. In fact the Appellant proposes that the requested variance will ac'tually have a
positive affect upon these factors as it will allow for additional off street parking so that vehicles
G:\CAI,GI\ACC0|8.DOC +
will not be perlced upon the street causing potentially dangerous traffic situations. There was
no widence prerentod to support a different finding on this issue.
For the forcgoing relsons it is the Ap'pellants' position that the variance *nuld be
grallted for the following reasons:
l. The granting of the variance will not constibrte a grant of pociat privilege
fuponsistent with tho limitilions of other properties classified in the same district;
2. That the granting of the variancc will not be detrimental o the public h€alth,
safety, welfare, or mat€rhlly injurious to properties or improvemenh in the vicinities;
ard
3. The variance is warmnted for the following rearnns:
l. The strict or literal interpreation and enforcenrent of the ryecified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unn€cessary physical hardstrip
inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Title;
b. The strict or literal interpretation and enforceme.nt of the qpecifid
regulation wanld deprive the applicant of the privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other propcrties in the same district.
The Appellants will suffer the following practical difficulties and/or unnecessary physical
hardstrips if the site coverage variance is not granted.
a. Thsy will be rqstrict€d to a 300 square foot garage for a 3,366 square foo
residence. The Appellants will have insufficient parking for the parking of their
own vehicles and/or pa*ing for their guests and family members. This is a
practical difficulty and/or an unnecessary physical hardship in particular as there
if no in particular as there is no available on street parking. The Town of Vail
Code specifically requires that sufficient off site street parking be provided for
each rpsidence. In particular 1E.52.100(A) requires that a 2000 square fmt or
larger dwelling unit have 2.5 off street parking spac€s per dwelling unit. The
Appellants have insufficient parking particularly in the winter months and wonld
be subject to tick*ing by the Town of Vail for parking on the stret. In addition
the Town of Vail Code spocifically provides that enclosed garages of up to 3fi)
squarc feef per vefiicle, not to exceed a maximum of two parking spaces for cach
albwable dwellfurg unit, permitted by the Zoning Code are not includod in the
GR.FA for a residencc. It is consistent with ttt€ objectives of the Zoning Title to
providp t3,3$ squre fmt residence to have the c.pability of having at l€.st 500
sqnarc feet of parking ryace, which is Op amount which will be provided to the
Appellants' strould be proposed variance be grutcd.
Gr\CAlIlI\lCC(M.E)C -$
b. The construction of the proposed garage addition will correct a seriotrs
drafunge problem upon the property which will n€€d to be corectod rcgarOtess
of whetber thc variance B grurted. The garage addition will be e poaitive
rpsolution of tbedrainage problem and will b€nefit neighboring properties in the
area because it will increase the value of the property.
c. The garage will provide additional n€ed€d s0orage as there currcntly exists
vcry little storage area within the residenae particulerly for storage ofrecreational
equipment.
d. The variance wold also correct ths serious security problem that exists
for the qrrner of the other half of the duplex, 742-A Sandy l:ne, Vail, Colorado,
who is Bery Guffey. Please see the attached AfEdavit of Betty Guffey.
b. The strtct or literel interprctatlon end enforpement of the specifred reguhtion
would deprive the epplicent of the privileges eqioyed by the ownens of other properties in
thc srme distrfot.
Orvners of other properties in the same distict are typicatly allowed at least 600 square
feet of enclosed garage Sace per dwelling unit. While some of these strrctures have been
cmstructed within the site cover4ge requirements, it doer not alleviale the fact thet the
Appellants' property is adversely affected by the lack of parking space. The Appellants shorld
be able to constnrct an additional 300 square fmt enclosed parking spac€ upon their property
to allow for off street parking.
c:lClMEg\ CC(n|PJIOC &
AFFIDAVIT OF BETTY GLFFEY
CON4ESNoW,theAffiant'BettyGuffey,har,ingpersonalknorr'ledgeofthefollowing
facts and being duly sworn under oath hereby testifies as follows:
l'ThatlamtheorvnerofrealpropertylocatedintheTownofVail.CountyofEagle'
State of Colorado known as 7'11-A Sandy Lane' Vail' Colorado'
2.ThatlanranremberoftheCondonriniumAssociationforl-ot3.Vail,PotatoPatch,
SecondFilingCondominiunr.TorvnofVail'CountyofEagle,-suteofColoradowhichis
comprised of Unit 742-Aand7-12-B Sandy Lane, Vail, colorado ("condominiumAssociation")'
3. That the condominium Association is comprised of my unit. and unit 742-8 Sandy
Lane. Vail, Colorado which is owned by Charles Campisi and Geri Campisi (hereinafter referred
to as the "CamPisi's").
4.Thatwithmyexpresspermissionandinvolr'ementtheCampisi'shar'erequesteda
variance from the Town of Vail for the purpose of constructing a single car garage addition to
their unit. The construction of said single car garage will not in any way.negatively impact upon
other strucrures in rhe vicinitl'as most strucrures ai'e residential homes' including condominium
units q'ith garages.
5.ThatthegarageadditionthattheCampisi'shar,erequestedavarianceforfromthe
Tou'n of Vail is necessar,v for a number of reasons:
A. There is significant drainage problem upon the properry in that the area in
u,hich the new garage tvill be Jocared slopes tou'ard the residence and rvater florvs directly into
a major rvall of the burlding. TIie coustruction of the garage $'ill resolve this drainage problem
ri,hileatthesametimesignificantlyimprovingtheproperty'
B.Thatatthepresenttimewiththecurrentconfigurationoftheresidencewithout
the requested garage addition. there exists a significant securiry problem with regard to my unit'
The general public currentiy has access_to_an emergency egress door which leads directly into
my master bedroom and bath area. unforrunately, due to the current confrguration of the
buildirrg the general public often utilizes .y .,n.,g.n.y egress door as opposed to my main door
becau-seitistheonJl,doorreadilyvisiblefromth.'.'..'.Thisisacauseforconcernforme
because I cannot 5ss rvho is at the emergency egress door until I am right before the door' This
is nor the case rvith my main entrance door as i.an taa the person at the door through windows
prior ro opening rhe door. In addition packages and flo"\'er deliveries are often left mistakenly
ar n1\. emergency esress door and as I do not utilize that door I do not locate the items often for
dar.s. I have rerained a,', ,r.t.,lt..t, lr{r. Bill Pierce of Frizlen Pierce Briner Architects in Vail'
,";io*rr, ^;;;;;;., issues. the issue of the public access to my emergency egress door so
thalicouldbepro\ldedrl'ithsecuritv.ltrr,asulrinratelvdeternrirredbl'\{r.Piercethatthere
\\'as no \\'aY to pror tcle n,e such'securitl' due ttl design constraitrts thus the proposed garage ls
an excellenr solurion to my security problen. As such. I feel thal the granting of the Variance
ro allow rhe construcrion of rhe single car earage is necessary to provide rne $'iih adequate
security at my residence and I rvill suffer a hardship if the Variance is not granted as no other
options are available to me.
C. That in the Winter months rhe Torvn of Vail snow removal pushes snow onto
rhe area where rhe new single car sarage rvill be constructed thus making such area unusable
parricularly for parking purposes. There is insufficient parking in the area and the single car
garage will provide a covered parking area 1'ear round.
6. For the foregoing reasons rhe o\r,ners of the property at 712 Sandy Lane constituted
of myself and rhe Campisi's rvill suffer a hardship if the Variance is not granted allowing for
constnrction of the proposed single car garage.
Further the Affiant saYeth naught.
STATE OF COLORADO
EAGLE COUNTY
)
\ ss
)
'',',Ylz-
Subscribed and srvorn to before nre this Z)J' dat'of September, 1996. bi'
BETTY GUFFEY.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: ?'ryt- ag'2
\o!ar\ Public
AFFIDAVIT OF GERI C.L\fPISI
COMES NOW, the Affiant, being dul,v sworn under oath and having personal knorvledge
of the following facts hereby testifies as follows:
l.ThatlamtheorvnerofrealpropertylocatedintheTownofVail,CounryofFagle,
State of Colorado known as 742-8 Sandy L:ne, V:iil' Colorado'
2.ThatlamamemberoftheCondominiumAssociationforl,ot3,Vail,PotatoPatch'
second Filing, condominium, county of Eagle, State of colorado which is constiruted of unit
742-Aandz+z.esanayl-ane,Vail,Colorado(the''CondoAssociation'').
3. That the Condominium Association is comprised of my unit and 742-A' Sandy [ane'
Vail, Colorado rvhich is ou'ned by Beny Guffey'
4'Thatmyhusband'CharlesCampisiandmyselfhaverequestedaVariancefromthe
Torvn of Vail for tne purpose of consuuciing a single car garage addition to our unit' The
consrruction of such ,in!i. ".r garage rvill not in any rvay negatively impact upon other
strucgres in the vicinity as mosl structures are residential hones, including condominium units'
s'ith garages.
5.Thatthegarageadditionthat$,earerequestin_saVariancefromtheTorr'nofVailfor
is necessary for a number of reasons:
A.Thereisasignificantdrainageproblemuponthepropertyinthatrheareain
rvhich the new garage rvill be lJcated slopes towaid the residence and rvater florvs directly into
a major rvall of the building. TNs drainige problem needs to be corrected in some manner and
could be yery expensiv. io-fr* pursuant tiUiOs tirat have been received. The construction of the
t;;t. rvill iesoive this Jrainage problem u'hile at the same dme significantly improving the
property.
B. That there exists r,ery linle storage area within our residence and the existing
r*,o (2) car garage is tully utilized foi the parking of our two (2) automobiles' '{s such' rte
currently do nor tt.ur rny storage space particui;rly for our recreational equipment such a
bicycles, golf clubs ana sti equip-ment. This creates a significant hardship for us in that there
are no closets in the house ro srore the equipment, no spaie in the existing garage as it is used
for parking our automobiles and it $,ould be inappropriate to store said items outside as they
"ould
b. Jolen and it would detract from the area to store goods in that manner'
C. That $,e are unable to park an automobile on the street or else$'here on the
lot in order to make storage spaie available in *re existing garage asparking is not allos'ed.upon
rhe streer, panicularly iri rtri lt,inter months, and the irea in which the new garage rvill be-
constructed is currently unusabldfor parking purposes during the lvinter months aS the To$'n Of
)g/20/96 FRt 10:03 F'LI
STATE OF COLORADO
EAGLE COUNTY
Subscntrcd and sq'orn
CAI\4PISI.
Funher the Affiant saYeth naugbt'
Vail snow lsrneval plows large aroounls ofsnow upou the.space' In addition' it is prcferable
;;;" our c:r in coverecl ptrring during the wintcr montbs'
D. Tbat we also have frequent guests' including nyggrous $mily nembers' and
areunableoprovideaparkingsPaceforrhe.mwtrenrhcyarevisiting.Tbisposcsadiffieult
probtcm again ia u," *iorci;oit, *h"n the spow plows nccd the srects clear of parkcd
vehicles to adequately plow the strcct3'
6.Thattheproposedsinglccargaragcwilladdressallofttreabovcrefererredhardships
in tbat it will providc foiO"-rJOitional-srorlge, it would provide a covcrcd parlSrg sPacc that
;:rffiilI"'iri i"* t;; ;;;-ii *ill bc a positive usc of currenrlv uorsable space'
T.ThElthcproposedsing|ecargaregcwil|consdnrteanimprovetuenttotheProPclty
that wilt increase ,t" u.luc of ihe residen"" anJ rhus would be a positivc effect upon thc
ncighborhood iu general'
S,Fortbeforcgoingreaso4toleown€rsofthegroperryatl{2Sandyl:newhichis
consdmrcd of mysclf, "i'frTrl.J, Chartes Campisi, aui *tty Cuffcy will suffcr a hardship
if the Variancc is not granred for the 96s5g1cdon of the proposed single car 83ragc'
)) ss.
)
.-, -{1t1
to before mc this /L- day of Septembcr'1996. bY GERI
Wimess mY hand and official seel'
t'{y comraission cxpires: 0 '7r)'
G:\CAMPISI\GERIAFP. OTl{
IttlOxDDSCT 14 ffi
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Greg Moffet
Greg Amsden
Henry Pratt
Galen Aasland
John Scholield
Diane Golden
Public Hearing
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
September 23, 1996
Minutes
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Gene Uselton
STAFF PRESENT:
Mike Mollica
Dirk Mason
Dominic Mauriello' George Ruiher
JudY Rodriguez
2:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a conditional use permit for a Type ll EHU, to be located al 1225
Westhaven Lane/Lot 43, Glen LYon.
Applicant: Sentry Construction, rep. by Pam Hopkins
Planner: George Ruther
George Ruther gave an overview of the request and stated that staff was recommending
approval with the two conditions listed in the staff rnemo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add' The applicant had nothing to add'
Galen Aasland stated that access to the lot was a concern, but he had no concerns with the
conditional use permit request lor the EHU.
Diane Golden was in favor of the employee housing.
Henry pratt shared Galen's concerns with the access and had no problem with the conditional
use permit request.
John Schofield had no comments.
Greg Moffet, since Greg Amsden was not present for this item, stated Greg Amsden's concerns
that-came up at the prelmeeting. He reminded the applicant that it was the PEc's
understandihg, with ihe granting of the conditional use permit, th-at.no-variances would be
requested. Gieg Moffet also stated that the applicant had met all the 1ndings.
Henry Pratt made a motion to approve the request in accordance with the staff memo.
The motion was seconded by John Schofield.
Planning and Environmental Comnission
Minutes
September 23, 1995
,! rt
It passed by a unanimous vote of 5-0. ( Greg Amsden was not present for this item on the
agenda).
Pam Hopkins asked what the concerns were'
Galen Aasland said there was not enough room to turn around vehicles'
Pam Hopkins stated there was enough room to turn around'
Greg Mottet said the turn around concern was in relation to the Fire Code'
2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a miniature golf course in the cc2 and
AG/opEN zon" fiittti"ttliocateo on portions of Tracts B & D, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing'
Applicant: Charlie Alexander
Planner: Dirk Mason
Dirk Mason gave an overview of the request and stated that staff was recommending approval
with the one condition, as siated in the itaff memo. Units #206 and #306 in the Lionshead
C"ntet Condominiums have sent in two letters in favor of denial'
Charlie Alexander stated that the only request he would ask of the PEC was to change the one
y;;;ili;fi"nt to " 1ve year perio6. Cirartie stated that when spending this amount of money'
his Oanier would like to Je'Ji five year period of time before appearing before the Board for
renewal.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none'
Greg Moffet disclosed, lor the record, that Charlie Alexander was a customer of his and Greg
traoff-et didn't see a conflici of interest. lf anyone did see a conflict, Greg would then excuse
nimsett from this item. There was no objeciion voiced to his remaining on the Board for this item-
John schofield asked if this item could be recalled by the Board if the Board chose to grant a
term for more than a one year period of time.
Dirk Mason stated that the application could be called-up if any problems or complaints arose.
John Schofield asked about the Lionshead Master Plan.
Mike Mollica stated that by late spring or early summer ot 1997, the Lionshead Development Plan
should be comPleted.
John Schofield asked if this operation was moving east from its present location?
Charlie Alexander said, Yes'
Greg Moffet asked if this would be the existing, temporary, wood golf course'
Planning and Enviro reDtal Commission
Minutos
September 23, I 996
.?
Charlie Alexander said that this was a permanent structure. Charlie also said that Vail
Associates owned tne ranJ anJ ii tn"y'O"t"rtined that the land could be better used, then that's
;h;i;;"ld nappen. He also mentioned that this condition was in his lease.
Dirk Mason suggested an additional condition be placed on the apploval, which would allow for
the conditionat use permii io be taff eO-up, if the Lionshead Master Plan suggested an alternative
use.
Ga|enAas|andSaiditwasagreatuseandagreedwithDirk'sproposa|.
Diane Golden said it will be made more attractive than it is now. lt was a nice addition to
Lionshead and also gave the youth of our Town something to do'
Henrv Pratt stated that it was a good location. Henry addressed the.complaints from Units #206
1"1'?ebbl"O'i"io in"i O"rfinke'i's Bar and Restaurint poses a much greater threat on their
orivacv than this use. Henry said in fairness to Charlie ind the bank, as long as the PEC can
ball-ud this application, he was in favor of a longer term'
Greg Moffet was in favor of this use. The units that complained had trees to screen them from
tnii"operation. Greg was in favor of a longer term, to give Charlie an incentive to spend more
money on the site to enhance the property.
Henry pratt made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff's memo, with the addition of
a second condition that itthe Lion'sneaO Master Plan required or suggested a different use, the
approval could be subject to a call-up.
Greg Moffet asked Henry to indicate in his motion, the term length of the conditional use permit.
Henry Pratt amended the motion to include a3-year period of time'
Diane Golden asked the applicant if the 3-year period of time would work.
Charlie Alexander said, Yes.
The motion was seconded by John Schofield.
It passed by a vote ot 5-0. (Greg Amsden was not present for this item)'
g. A request for a site coverage variance to allow for the construction of a one-car garage'
bcatbd at 742 Sandy Lane/Lot 3, Vail Potato Patch 2nd Filing.
Applicant: JeriCamPisiPlanner: Dominic Mauriello
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of this request and stated that staff was recommending
denial, because thd request does not meet the code criteria for a variance. Although it may not
negatively impact othei properties in the area, it would be a grant of special privilege'
Greg Motfet asked if the applicant had any comments.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
September 23, 1996
Kerry wallace, the attorney on behalf of Jeri.campisi, stated that the owner of the other half ot
iniid"pi"i, ality cutty, wZJeiJ. k"tty stated tiat the lack of storage and the odd floor plan'
with little or no ctoset space within the r6sidence presented a hardship, in particular. in relation to
in" sioiig" ot recreationat gooqs. The present two-car garaSg is.not enough' She stated that--
ii;; ;;iE;"i nal a piooreri with parkini in the winter, as she had a lot of guests'. KqIv w.el!?n
i| tffi tnat me Cairpisi'i iiave s'ignificintly improved the proPerty since purchasing it and that
il;;;;;;"fe woutb turtnei imp6ve tne ite.'The proposed garage was as small as the
iiif,it"ct"cori"O possibly make it ind the architect asdurdO them that it would not encroach into
;;t;a;;;dricrs. iighinow there existed a drainage problem and ry raising up.the front.of
the new proposed garage, this drainage problem wout-O O'e corrected. There was also an existing
"""rtit' is-Je ror Aitt''C-ufry, "inct lqi door to her un1 went past the bathroom. This security
Giue was a serious c6ncerri. Kerry Wallace went on to state that this property was an eyesore'
Lntif td|tJt"plsis made some chairges. There. are a number of 2 and S-car garages in the area'
so this requeit was not asking anything out of the ordinary'
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments.
Betty Guffy stated that she has owned the other half of the duplex for S.years, which is the upper
third of the house. eetty slateo that the campisis are the perf'ect neighSors and have certainly fit
in" rofO is neighbors tiratine would have chosen to jointly improve tle pJ.opefY: ?9!h-,^-,-_
n"ighUor" agreSO on the stucco improvements. The architect could solve the drainage prouem
ritfi tni. nefr proposed addition. When the Campisis unit was rented short term, there were a
numneior prcjblems. aeny stated that she lived hlone and security was a problem. Betty stated
that 50 sq. ft. over the allowed site coverage is a minor overage'
Greg Molfet asked for any other public comments.
Joe Staufer stated that he lived at 746 Sandy Lane. Joe was in favor of this request and said
mat it woufO not negatively affect any properiy owners. Under the safety, welfare and health
iinO-ing,6e stated lhat m6 ieCurity isiue'wa6 the reason and the righl t9 grant this variance. lt
was iOart< neighborhood, which presented a safety factor. .Joe.stated.that when he was gone'
gettf Gufty wai all alone on the 6lock. He stated that granting this variance would give someone
a Oetter ptice to live. Joe said he saw no conceivable reason not to grant this variance.
Dominic Mauriello stated that he had reviewed recent DRB plans. Dominic stated that the
applicant had just removed the former Storage Space, which was used to store snowmobiles, and
n'ab created living area out ol it, so therefore, the result was a lack of storage.
Betty Gufty stated that her neighbor to the right of her, was in favor of approving this request.
Galen Aasland asked how big the existing 2-car garage was'
Dominic Mauriello said 600 sq. ft. and that it had one garage space for each owner.
Galen Aasland asked if the new garage would be the Campisis? Since the lot is over 15'000 sq.
ti., eaten doesn't think the size oj the-lot was the problem and therefore there was no justification
iol iiii. .ou"rage variance. The deck could be built without a variance to correct the securlty
issue. Galen wal somewhat bothered by the argument that the Campisis didn't have enough
Jtorag., *nen in fact, the remodel that was happening right now, did away with. the storage. He
stated that the owners, with the remodel, have'created some ol their own conditions and
hardships.
Planning and Environmental Cornmission
Minules
September 23, 1996
Betty Guffy said that any staircase would be buried in snow. She stated that both sides of the
house were short on
"f
ot"it.'-g"tty sdted that she uses part of the garage for storage for her
ortiearon crothes. she also stated that the existing entry door was ugly.
Diane Golden asked where the snow will be put?
Dominic Mauriello stated that snow storage was up to the owner and there were a variety of
solutions for the door.
Betty Gutfy said that architect Bill Pierce said that this garage and entrance was the best plan
inOiror t'he front of the house, this looks like the way it was meant to be' lt seems silly to pay
$Z8,OOO.OO to iust correct the drainage and not do the addition'
Henry pratt totd Betry Gutfy that she was extr€rnely lucky to n"^Y"-oy_1?t:^like the campisis who
i"ie briOe in tneir ownership. ttenry felt.that identifying. where the front door was less important
iffi id iecurity issue. He stated that they are enti1ea to a garage, but without the variance'
iNr g"i"gJ nad no impacion the neighbois and so Henry wouldbe in favor of such a variance,
if there was a hardshiP.
John Schofield agreed with Henry. John stated that the door was in a lousy location' John
.
tendeO to agree 'i,itn Heniy, that ihe hardship would be getting a parking ticket, while parked out
in the street.
Greg Amsden said that these were self imposed problems. There was no drainage problem.
when the house was tirri Urift; it happened with the expansion. The lack of storage doesn't hold
an'iig,rment. A small deck would jiritiry tne safety concern. There were no justifiable reasons to
go over site coverages.
Greg Moffet was in agreement with Greg Amsden. Whqt you have here was a unit that was
maxed-out over what wai permitted. Tliere was a lot of square footage in the mass and bulk
that could have been used for storage. The storage problem has been self-created' Greg said
he doesn't see how this was not a grant of special privilege.
Henry Pratt asked what the area of the garage was?
Dominic Mauriello said each garage was 300 sq. ft.
Greg Moffet asked for any more comments from the public. There was none.
Greg Amsden made a motion for denial, per the staff memo and he added that the hardships
were self-imposed.
Galen Aasland seconded the motion.
Galen Aasland said the lot was over 15,000 sq. ft. lf it was under that size, it might be different-
Henry pratt asked il this should be tabled until the applicant came back with a better design.
Dominic Mauriello said that he did not believe tabling would produce alternative designs, since it
would still involve a site coverage issue.
Planning and Environmental Commissiou
Minutes
September 23, 1996
,
Greg Moffet asked staf{ if a carport was proposed, would it then not be GRFA?
Mike Mollica said that could possibly be a statf approval, and it may not be GRFA, depending on
how the carport was designed.
The motion for denial passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0'
4. A request for an exterior addition to a master bedroom and bathroom and adding a 3rd
floor, utilizing the 26b Ordinance, located at 8028 Potato Patch/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Potato
Patch.
Applicants: Padraic Deighan and Birgit Toome
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED U}ITIL OCTOBER 14' 1996
S. A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow for the construction of a walk-in lreezer,
tocatbd at SgO West Lionshead Mall/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing.
Applicant: Mitch GarfinkelPlanner: George Ruther
WlTHDRAWN
lllllllllll
6. Information Update
Mike Mollica had no information update-
7. Approval ol September 9, 1996 minules
Mike Mollica suggested tabling the minutes, as there were more corrections on item #5 in the
minutes.
Galen Aasland had two changes for the minutes of 9/9/96.
Diane Golden made a motion to table item #4 and the 9/9/96 minutes'
The motion was seconded by Galen Aasland.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
Greg Amsden made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Galen Aasland seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
The meeting adjourned at 3:00 P.m.
Planning and Environnental Commission
Minutes
September 23, 1995
STOVALL GOODMAN WALLACE
PRoFFssroNAL CoRpoRATIoN
Attomevs & Counselors at Law
202 BENCIftTARK PI.AZA BI'tr,DING
48 EAsr BEAVER CREEK BoULEVARD
P.O. DRAWER 5860
AvoN, CoLoRADo 81620
TEr-EPHol.rE: (97 0) 949 4200
FAcsn/mJ: (97O) 949-6843
JAMES WM. STOVAI
JoHN D. GooDMAN
KERRY H. WAU-ACE
GIUIAN CooI,EY MORRISON
October 10, 1996
Town of Vail
ATTN: Dominic S. Mauriello, A.I.C.P.
Department of Community Development
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
REFERENCE: Site Coverage Variance Request for 742 Sandy Iane/Lot 3,
Vail Potato Patch, Second Filing, for Charles and Jeri
Campisi
Dear Mr. Mauriello:
The purpose of this letter is to formally request a continuance of the appeals hearing that
was initially scheduled before the Vail Town Council for November 5, 1996 at7i30 p.m. with
regard to Charles and Jeri Campisi's appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commissions'
denial of a site coverage variance for 742 B Sandy Lane. I will be in trial the week of
November 4, 1996 and as such would be unavailable for the hearins before the Vail Town
Counsel on November 5, 1996 at 7:30 p.m.
It is my understanding that the hearing before the Vail Town Council initially scheduled
for November 5, 1996 has been moved pursuant to my request to November 19, 1996 at7:30
p.m. I appreciate your cooperation in regard to this matter and please do not hesitate to contact
me if you require anything further.
Very truly yours,
KHW:tak
cc: Charles and Jeri Campisi
G:\CAMPISIWAIL.LET
LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO
CHARLES AND GERI CAMPISI FOR
TOWN OF VAIL VARIANCE APPLICATION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Betty Guffey
742 Sandy Lane
Vail. CO 81657
Rican Investment Company, Ltd.
c/o Karl H. Fauland
P.O. Box 4261
Vail, CO 81658
740 Sandy Lane
Vail, CO
Mikell Holdings Co., Ltd.
c/o Karl H. Fauland
P.O. Box 4261
Vail. CO 81658
740 Sandy Lane
Vail. CO
Kit C. William - Gail B. Dunning
2925 Booth Creek Drive
Vail. CO 81657
738 Potato Patch Drive
Vail. CO
Rogers Penske Trust
c/o Penske Corp.
187 Highway 36
West Long Branch, N.J. 07764-1304
736 Sandy Lane
Vail, CO
Mary Anne Mills
31434 S. Bermuda Dunes Drive
Evergreen, CO 80439
736 Sandy Lane
Vail. CO
7. Mon Choisi, Inc.
c/o Mr. and Mrs. Benigno Trigo
P.O. Box 2369
748 Potato Fatch Drive
Vail, CO
8. Tamaca Corp.
Calle 3, #11
Garden Hills Estates
Guaynabo, Puerto Rico fi)966
748 Potato Patch Drive
Vail, CO
9. Charles R. and Barbara J. Ragan
744 Sandy l:ne
Vail, CO 81657
10. Josef Staufer
100 E. Meadow Drive
Vail, CO 81657
746 Sandy Lane
Vail. CO
ll. RIS Holding Co.
c/o Richard L. Swig
The Fairmount Hotel
San Francisco, CA 94106
860 Potato Patch Drive
Vail. CO
12. Herman Staufer
P.O. Box 5000
Vail, CO 81658
949 Potato Patch Drive
Vail, CO
13. George & Elisabeth W. Freland
2025 E.4th Avenue
Denver, CO 80206
860 Potato Patch Drive
Vail, CO
14. Vail Condominium Partners
7130 S. kwis
Suite 850
Tulsa, OK 74136
950 Red Sandstone Road
Vail, CO
15. Scott Family Partnership
1555 Silver King Drive
Aspen, CO 816ll
872 Potato Patch Drive
Vail, CO
16. Scott Family Partnership
1555 Silver King Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
950 Red Sandstone Road
Vail, CO
17. James F. and Mary H. Flaherty III
251 21st Place
Santa Monica, CA 90402
960 Potato Patch Drive
Vail, CO
18. T2 Medical. Inc.
ll25 l7th Srreer, Suite 1500
Denver. CO 80202
336 Potato Patch Drive
Vail, CO
19. James A. and J. Anne Beltz
447 Peavey Rd.
way zata, MN 55391
960 Potato Patch Drive
Vail, CO
20. Samuel B. and Nancy Guren
1253 Linden Avenue
Highland Park, IL 60035
950 Red Sandstone Road, #36
Vail, CO
21 . Nancy C. Rowan
P.O. Box 176
Avon, CO 81620
960 Potato Patch Drive. #37
Vail. CO
22. John P. and Beverly J. Holland
14919 Bramblewood
Houston, TX 77079
860 Potato Patch Drive. #1
Vail, CO
23. RLS Holding Co.
c/o Richard L. Swig
The Fairmount Hotel
San Francisco, CA 94106
860 Potato Patch Drive. #2
Vail, CO
24. Kevin I'I. and Linda W. Burke
2142 Mountain Drive
Golden. CO 80401
860 Potato Patch Drive. #3
Vail, CO
25. Ronald Elenbaas
3328 Oakdale
Hickory Corriers, MI 49060
860 Potato Patch Drive. #4
Vail, CO
26. Even P. and Kazuko M. Johansen
27 Dublin Hill Road
Greenwich, CT 06830
860 Potato Patch Drive. #5
Vail. CO
27. Tereco Realty, Inc.
c/o Earl N. Feldman, Esquire
1200 Third Avenue, Suite 1324
San Diego, CO 92101
860 Potato Patch Drive. #6
Vail, CO
28. Hornby, Ltd.
c/o Fred S. Otto
P.O. Box 3149
Vail, CO 81658
860 Potato Patch Drive. #7
Vail, CO
29. IohnZ and Charlotte P. Kimberlin
3300 Oak Lawn Avenue
Suite 703
Dallas, TX 75211
860 Potato Patch Drive, #8
Vail, CO
30. Douglas N. Morton
8 Cherry Hills Drive
Englewood, CO 80110
31. kslie W. and Madeline D. Stern
75 E. End Avenue 6A'
New York, NY 10028
32. Dome Investment Group
3800 E. Long Road
Littleton, Colorado 80121-1914
33. 529 t2 Ltd.
Attn: J.E. Peterson
P. O. Box 745
Houston, Texas 77001
34. David H. and Lois E. Paul
950 Red Sandstone Road #13
Vail, Colorado 81657
35. Patricia A. Rickman
7936 Dublin Court
Wichita, Kansas 67206
)
TIIIS ITEM MAY EFIECT YOTJR PROPERTY
PUBLICNOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GMN that the Town council of the Town of vail will hold a public
n"aring in accordance with Section 18.66.030 of the Municipal code of the Town of vail on
November lg,lgg6,,at 7:30 PM in the Town of vail Municipal Building, located at 75 South
Frontage Road. In consideration of:
An appeal of a variance denial made by the Planning and Environmental Commission on
S.pt"-U." 23,1996. fne appellants were deniedt tit" oovo"g" varianoe to allow an additional
o*-16 gar'uge to be ,oortroot"a afi4}-B sandy Lane, Vail, colorado/lJnit B, Iot 3, VaivPotato
Patch, Second Filing.
Appellants: Charles P. Canpisi andGeri Campisi
The 4plication and inforrration about the proposal is available for public inspection, drning regular business
hours, in ttre Community Development Departnent, looated at the Town of Vail Community Dwelopment
Depufrnont, 75 South Frontage Road-
F;;: OOPY
TOWN OFVUT
75 South Frontage Road
VaiL Colorado 81657
970-479-213V479-2139
FAX 970-479-24s2
September 24, 1996
Ms. Jeri Campisi
I146 Sandstone Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Department of Communiry Development
RE: Site coverage variance request for 742 Saudy Lane/Lot 3, Vail Potato Patch, 2nd
. Filing
Dear Ms. Campisi:
The Planning and Environmental Commission, at tbeir Septembcr 23, 1996 meeting, denied your
request for a site coverage variance in order to construct an additional garage on the above
referenced site, based upon the following findings:
l. That the gfanting of the variance will constitute a gnnt of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties classified in the same distict.
2. There arc no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions that are applicable to
this site that apply generally to other properties in the Prirnary/Secondary Residential
zone. In addition, any hardships which havc becn prcsented, havc been selfimposed.
3. The strict interpretation, or enforcement ofthe specified regulation does not deprive the
applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of otherproperties in the Primary/Secondary
Residential district.
If the applicant wishes to appeal this decision to the Town Council, an appeal must be filed, on
forms provided by the Town, u'ithin ten (10) calendar days of the September 23, 1996 decision.
If you have any additional questious, please fcel free to call me at479-2148.
Sincerelv, ,/^,'nril/ I ct(|[ /t ,t l-Y lI n.n ll O\,r\-I l-\g/-tr'J)<)<o
Dominic F. Mauriellq AICP
Town Planner
DFIvI/jr
cc: Kerry H. Wallace
{7 *rn"trorut*
IIEIIORANDUil
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
The applicant is requesting a site coverage variance of 260.8 sq. ft. in order to construct a 300
sq. ft. one-car garage on ifiJ suOje.t plgpirtyj.. This duptex cunently contains 2 enclosed garage
ipa"ei and thf req-uest wouto abo a'rriio. The allowible site covi:rage for this site is 3,403.8
sb. t. (zOz) and thb proposal is lor 3,664.6 sq. ft. (21.5%)'
This duplex was approved by tle 9FB in-1979_an-d constructed in 1980. The duplex' as ..
orlginalit approuei, containdO C,Zeg sC.1of G.RFA (as calcutated in-1979)' This site is allowed
i;i,ti.9'.q:fi or eirn. On March 3, 1b79, a density variance !o1" 19 sq. ft. addition was
obnieJuy tn" PEC baseJ on a findingrhat no hardstiip existed to justity the requ-e91 ^O1.
SLJtehO'er 21, 1988, a reqre-t tot SO'O sq. ft. of GRFA was approved under the 250 Ordinance.
The structure now contains 4,502.8 sq. ft. of GRFA as calculated today. with two 250's, the site
d per;ined up to +,+st.s iq .tt- ot cirn. Th.erefore the site is 50.9 sq. ft. over on GRFA and is
cohsidered a iegal nonconforming structure with respect to GRFA'
This structure also currently encroaches into both side setbacks. This is a pre-existing
nonconforming condition aird is not atfected by the proposal.
The applicant's justification for the site coverage variance request is that this addition will not
n"gatiubty affeci adjacent properties, as adjacent properties have two and three Gar garages'
See attached letter for greater detail.
FILE COPT
Planning and Enviroynrriial Commission
Gommuni$ DeveloPment DePartment
September 23, 1996
A request for a site coverage varianc.e to at!o1f9r a one-car garage'
iocaiio at 742Sandy LaneTLot 3, Vail Potato Patch 2nd Filing'
Applicant: JeriCamPisiPlanner: Dominic Mauriello
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
Zoning:
Use:
Lot Size:
Standard
Slte Coveraoe:
Landscape area:
GRFA: 3'951.9 sq. ft'
dtwo 25Os: 4'451.9 3q. ft.
Setbacks:Front: 20
Sijes: 15
REar: 15'
Parklng:
Primary/Secondary ReskJential
Duplex residence
17,019 3q. ft. (entire site)
Alknred Existino
3,46.8 3q. ft. (20%) 3,36s-6.q. tt (193%)
10,211.4 sq. ft. (607.) 11,330.4 sq. ft. (66'svc)
4,5(12.8 sq. tt.
4,502.8 sq. ft.
30'
10' & 13.58',
36'
6 (2 enclosed)
Prooosed
3,6d1.6 3q. ft (215%)
nlc
nlc
nlc
nlc
n/c
nlc
6 (3 enclosed)
III. CRITERIAANDFINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code' the
Cbmmunity Development Department recommends denial of the requested site coverage
variance. The recommendation for denial is based on the following factors:
5 r€quired
A. Consideration of Factors;
l.Therelationsh.po'therequestedvariancetootherexist|ngor
potential uses and structures in the vlclnity'
The proposal will increase the building's bulk and mass beyond that
enjoieO Oy other properties in the same zone disgict. Staff believes x1at
wtii6 tne iroposdtm'ay not negatively impact nephboring properties and
while oth6r structures in the area have two and three car garages, there
has been no indication of any physical hardship which would justify
approving the requested variahca. Other structures in area have two and
ttiree car garages and still comply w1h the s1e coverage requirements.
Lisentiaf!, thii owner enjoys d lirger house at the expense of reduced
Frage irba. Statt betievbd the grant of this variance would be a grant of
special Privilege.
2. The degree to whlch rellef lrom the strlct and lltoral Interpretatlon and
enforcehent ol a speclfied rogulatlon ls necessary to achleve
compatlttlity and uniformlty of tt€atmont among 3lt€ in the Ylcinity or
to attain thqoblectlvss of thls litle wlthout grant of speclal prlvllege.
statf believes that the granting of this variance would be a grant of€pecial
tti"iie$ not enloyeO b! other-los in the area or this zone district. Other
. bites ii fre area were ionstructed within the site coverage requirements-
f :\dreryonev€c\|n€moobamPi8i.g23
The effect of the requested varlance on light and alr, distrlbutlon ol
population, ranspoitation and traflc faciiitles, public tacilities and
utllities, and Public safety.
staff believes that requested variance will increase the bulk and mass of
in6lJiri'i.b "Nch
,alv nave a negarive effect on the tight and air of
neighboring Properties.
before granting a variance:
l.Thatthegrantingofthevariancewi|lnotconstituteagranto|specia|.'
priviiegi iticinli"steniwith rhe limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
Z. That fie granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
neiitn, satety oiwettare, or materially injurious to properties or
imProvements in the vicinity'
3. That fte variance is warranted lor one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical {tJticuft.V or. unne@ssary
pt viiiai hardship inconsiitent with the objectives of this title'
b. There are exceptions or exfaordinary circumstiances or conditions
appii"aUte to th'e same site of the variance that do not apply
gbheratly to other properties in the same zone'
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive ihe applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
IV. STAFFRECOIIMENDATION
The Community Development Department staft recommends denial of fie applicant's
variance request subject to the following findings:
1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsist;nt witdtfre timiations on other properties classilied in he same
district.
2. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
appticable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the
Piimary/Secondary Residential zone'
3. The srid interpretation or enforcement of the ipecified regulatlon does not
deorive the apbticant of privileges enioyed by the owners of other
pr6perties in itie Primary/Secondary Residendal disrid'
B.
f :bveryonev€ovnemo6batnpisi.92S
ACCOMPANYING INT'ORMATION F'OR APPLICATION
FOR PLANNING AND ET{VIRONII4ENTAL COMMISSION APPROVAL
VARJANCE FOR CHARLES AND GERI CAMPISI FOR
742-8 SANDY LANE. VAIL. COLORADO 81657
ST]BMITTAL REOT]IREIT4ENTS FOR A VARIANCE
I. PRE-APPLICATION COI\IIERENCE
The pre-application conference has already been held.
II. SI.JBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
A. The $250.00 fee has been submitted.
B. Enclosed are stamped, addressed envelopes and a list of the names and mailing
addresses of all property owners adjacent to the subject property, including properties behind
and across streets. The enclosed addresses are all current pursuant to the Eagle County
Assessor's Office.
C. The specific regulation which the Campisi's are seeking a variance of is Section
18.13.090 of the Town of Vail Building Code regarding site coverage. Said Section provides
that a residence is not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total site area. The Campisi's are
requesting a variance of said regulation in order to allow them to construct a single car garage
addition. The site plans set forth more precisely the extent of the variance.
D. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and
structures in the vicinity: the variance requested by the Campisi's for the purpose of
constructing a single car garage addition to their property will not have any negative impact
upon the other structures in the vicinity as said structures are all residential homes with two (2)
to three (3) car garages and/or condominium structures in the Potato Patch area. The garage
addition will not block any views and fits in with other duplexes in the area, many of which
have three (3) car garages or a close equivalent.
E. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity
of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to obtain the objectives of this title without grant
or special privilege. The site plans show more specifically how much relief the Campisi's are
seeking for the purposes of building the single car garage addition but it is the minimum amount
necessary in order to construct such a garage. The total square footage is approximately 299
square feet and the structure will cover empty paved space upon the property which is currently
unusable. The plans call for a very small single car garcge to be added and said garage is as
limited in size as possible in order to still fit a medium sized vehicle. The Campisi's
intentionally made the garage as small as possible knowing the restraints required by the Town
of Vail regulations. The single car garage will be constructed fully within the setbacks upon the
property and will in fact be completely in compliance with the Town of Vail setback
requirements for residential property. The garage will actually be constructed behind the set
back line in some cases as much as fifteen (15) feet. The single car garage addition will also
be beneficial to the property at742 Sandy Lane in that there currently exists a drainage problem
in that the drainage flows directly into the building at the present time. The construction of the
single car garage will conect this drainage problem and will increase the value of the Campisi's
real property which therefore increases values for the neighborhood and consequently for the
Town of Vail.
F. There should be no effect ofthe variance on light and air, distribution ofpopulation,
transportation, traffic facilities and public safety.
G. It is the Campisi's opinion that the request complies with Vail's comprehensive plan
or essentially will not have any adverse effect on said comprehensive plan.
IU. TITLE POLICY. A copy of the title report, including Schedules A and B are enclosed
which is the Title Policy the Campisi's received upon their purchase of the properry.
IV. CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION APPROVAL.
Though the property at 742 Sandy Lane is a duplex, it is governed by a Condominium
Association which went into effect on or about January 30, 1980. The new single car garage
will be built on common association property but will benefit all condominium owners, i.e. the
owner of 742-A arld 742-B in that the Campisi's will have a single car garage for their
utilization and the owner of 742-4, Betty Guffy, will have use of a large deck on top of said
garage. The Association is constituted of the Campisi's and Betty Guffy and Betty Guffy hereby
submits her written approval of said variance thus providing full Condominium Association
approval. The written approval is attached hereto.
V. COPIES. Four (4) copies of the site plans improvements surveys and evaluations have
alreadv been delivered to the Town of Vail.
If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Geri Campisi at
476-5586,742-8 Sandy lanre, Vail, Colorado 81657 or Kerry H. Vy'allace, Stovall Goodman
Wallace, P.C., P.O. Box 5860, Avon, Colorado 81620,949420/J.
I
RESPECTFIILLY SITBMITTED Tnt ffia^v of August, 1996.
Kerry H. Wallace, nl033
P.O. Drawer 5860
Avon, Colorado 81620
(e70) 9494200
STOVALL GOODMAN WALI.ACE, P.C.
ltrFFllrtrrr&artlil.Oaalrqtt .F(tr|v dlrtva
tu11rd puoos € +4{tted oerod
uoBlppv rslarusc eql
ix.:rril
ifttNi-rrr
ryE
d -]Hror. oixr|fitryv TEE! utDt rp3m
m,*-_IIAI}I
t
luggFo€S gp,Fq*ffi;
uoplPpv IsIdrnBJ eql
&/ez'd LIAI 6VG ALtr,sJ.33ltHf,tilJ t]^tu T.l.tZ 966I-Ttr-d3s
o
Agcnde last roviscd 9/18/96 9rm
PI-ANNING AND ENVIRONiIENTAL COilTIIISSION
Monday, SePtember 23, 1996
AGENDA
Proiect Orientation / Lunch - Communlty Development llspartment 12:30 pm
ouoRUM - (october 14, 1996)
Site Vtslrs l:fit pm
1. Campisi - 742 Sandy Lane
2. Senfy Gonstruction - 1225 Westhaven Lane
3. Charlie Alexander - Lionshead
Driver: George
Publlc llering - Town Gouncil Ghambers 2:fl1 p'm'
1 . A request for a conditional use permit for a Type ll EHU, to be located al 1225 Westhaven
Lane/Lot 43, Glen Lyon.
Applicant: sentry construction, rep. by Pam Hopkins
Planner: George Ruther
2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a miniature golf course in the CC2 and
AG/OPEN Zone Districts, located on portions of Tracts B & D, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing.
Applicant: Charlie AlexanderPlanner: Dirk Mason
3. A request for a site coverage variance to allow lor the construction of a one-car garage, located
at 742 sandy Lane/Lot 3, Vail Potato Patch 2nd Filing.
Applicant: JeriCampisiPlanner: Dominic Mauriello
4. A request for an exterior addition to a master bedroom and bathroom and adding a 3rd floor,
utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 8028 Potato Patch/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch.
Applicants: Padraic Deighan and Birgit Toome
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 14, 1996
o
Aglodr last tsvisod 9/18 16 9@
S. A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow tor the conslruction of a walk-in lreezer,located
at sg'6 west Lionshead MaluLot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead lst Filing.
Applicant Mllch GarfinkelPlanner: George Ruther
WITHDRAWN
lll ll llllll
6. Information Update
7. Approval of September 9, 1996 minutes
The applications and information about the proposals are avaihble in the proiect danner's office during
regulii offlce hours for public inspection, loiatid at the Town of Vail Community Development
Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpetation available Lpon r€quest wilh 24 hour notificatbn. Please csll 47$2114 vc*r or 479-2356 TDD for
inbrmdbn.
Community Devebpment D,ePattm€nt
Publbhed Soptember 20, 19{16 in the Vail Trail.
Fr o rn : JERI CAIIP IS I oa-t3-96 g9:20 P. OO2
Quooticrs? Cotl the Planoing Statr at 479-213t
APPLICATION FOR PLAhINING AND ENVIR,OI\TMENTAL
COMMISSION APPROVAL
GENERALINFORMATTON
This rppticador ii for any proJcct rcquiring approval by rhe Pt{rDirg and Enwlrqrmental gqngrisBion- For qrecifrc
inforrDtion. scc thc autrrnirlal rcquircm€nt8 for the particular approvat that is r€questcc Tbo appication can not bc
acccptcd uotil all fcquired information is subrrnitted. The projcdt may also nced to be rcvlerrod by thc Tmm Corurcil
and/or tho D*ign R.owieu. Board.
-A. TYPIi OIT APPIJCATTON:
B Addihonal GRFA (25O)
E Bcd fnd Brcaldlast
E Csrrlr6oal Usc Pcrinit
tr Majq u EMinorSuMivisidr
tr Rczming
tr17 Sign vriancc. Gl. Vriancc
O ?lniigCrldrefumerrdment
c.
D.
LOCATION OF TNOPOSAL:
oc"'
tr Amcodmcnt to &r Approvod Dwclopmcnt Plan
E Employee Housing Unit (fypc:
O Major c E Minor CCI Exterior Alserdion
(vail Villagc)
tr Major u E Minor CCII Extqior Altcration
(Lionshcad)
tr Special Dcvclopmcnt Diodot
tr Maid or tl Minq Arncndmcnt to an SDD
AooKEsE: 742 S*vret , uUTLDINGNAME: qer'Zta-,-_.-
zoNINc: ,&tr*r*n-, I S**, /--*, /Z+dar*4tq,Z
NAME oF owNER(S1, */t- Jer) oae.f i S ) _-
MAILINGADDRESS:
}IONE:q7b-5srb
F.
G.
owNER(S) SIGNATTIRE(S):
NAME OF REPRESENTATTVE:
MAILINOADDRESS:
PHONE:
FBE - SEE THE SUBMIITAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE APPROPRIATE FEE.
SUBMIT TI{ISAFFLICATTON,ALLSUEMITTAL REQI'IREMENTS AND THg FEE TO THE
DEPAR,TMENT OF COMMI,'IilTY DEVELOPMENT, 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD,
CoLORADO t1657.
F.*parct?ho-oo cw,lb,lb ry@
rrryllcltion Da*t 6 - U3 -q V pEC MocingDate, q- 23 < l-
Rovt$d 6t6
/
08/21/56 FRI 0E:03 FAI 3039{98843 ST1oVALL GOODXAN frA"LI,TCE @ oor
APFROVAI, OX. COI\ilX)MIIYIUM OWNER
I' Betty cuffsy, owacr of 742-A sandy Lene, vall, colorado and a mcober of the
condominium Association for rot 3, vail, Potato Parch. Sccond Filirg Condoniniums, do
bgrcby Purilant rc Pangraph l0 of the Condominium D*laratiou for Lot 3, VaiUPotato patch,
ScsgDd Filing Condomiuiuns beneby expressly give my perrrission for rhe owne6 of 742-8
Sand5r r 'no, Vail, Colorado, Charles Parl Canpisi aD.l Geri D. Campisi to constroct e struchud
addition to tbcir condominirrm unit ad/or rryon the commotr clenreflts of the property to wbrl
cm$ruction of a single cer garagc rpon the costnon arca. This approval is givelr bescd gpon
jtre uslclEr.n ling that I will be capable of utiliziqg thc roof of tbe garage for a deck area aod
that said dcck arce wlll have access throrgh srcps insidc of my residerce.
STATE OF COITORADO )) ss.
EAGLE COUNTY ) ,.H
Subscribed end swom ro befor' me rhis LT
t'u",
of August, 1996, by BETTY
OIJFFEY.
WitnEss my band and offrcial scal.
. .' )' My pommission expires:
. .\ ' ' A ,\'
' \\r\l -' r'f
1,._,: ,. -ft. /: ..
,):.,.. ., ;;\t,""1'',', ..,,i
'^ - t' ',i\!
O
c t rct ^rhubr.
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado E1657
970479-21AO
FAX 970479-2157
STATE OF COLOMDO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
)
) ss.
)
The undersigned hereby certifies the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of aPlanning and Environmental commission Memorandum dated Apil 27,1ggi, asmaintained in the office of Community Development.
Dated December 5. 1996rl-
tMr4 fr uahJoitnlL
Holly L. McCutcheon,,Town Clerk
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.couNryoFEAGLE )
subscribed and sworn to before me this Sth day of December, 1996, by Holly L.
McCutcheon, Town Clerk. Town of Vail.
/// \
/ t'//r"y,'-t- -L-l z<-
Notary Public / .. Alne E wiy'r?. Notary pubfic
t Uonrmis siJit Expires 6!7.1999
My commission expires: /r s'rroitas3 Roid
"b
&pafel ger 9a-.{4 fea,o,*,e-J-{ta'-' .
F;d,q '." h+ l",ouf a4sht,k/ ^ fl''"tr'or./ hot'J 54,r"
V ol +; z.-: tl,Lll f
4.e.2\/ '1 c<nSlicln"-" 7.
CERTIFICATION
s RECrcLED PAPEE
o
TO:
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental C-ommission
Community Dcvclopment Depanment
DATE: Apil27,l992
SUBJECT: A rcquest for front and side setback and sitc coverage variances for the
Wilhclm Rcsidence, 4289 Nugget Lanc, Wcst Unit/Lot 5, Bighom Estatcs,
Resubdivision of Ints 10 and 11, Bighorn Estates.
Applicanu Robert and Karen WilhelmPlanner: Jill Kammerer
L DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCES REOI.'ESTED
The applicant proposes to remodel an existing duplex unit. undcr the rcdevelopment
proposcd, an additional 191 sq. fr of GRFA will be added to the residcncc. Chapter 18.71 -
Additional Gross Residential Floor Area ("250 Ordinance") will be utilizcd in order to allow
the addition to be constructcd. Under this redevelopmcnt proposal, site coveragc will b€
increased by 177 sq. ft. In order to construct thc modifications to the residence as proposed,
the applicant must obtain site coverage, and east sidc, west side and front sctback variance
approvals. In conjunction with the redevelopment of this unit, the applicant will bc installing
3 additional aspens along the western property line adjacent to the street. Further, the
applicant wiu be converting one existing woodburning fueplace to two gas fircplaces.
A. Front Setback Variance
l. Kitchen Exoansion/Ski Storaee (South Elevation)
The applicant proposes to expand the existing kitchen and construct a ski
storage arsa on the first floor. The existing structurc encroaches 3'-5" into the
required 20-foot front setback. The kitchcn expansiory'ski storage addition will
encroach 2'-9" further into the frront rctback Therefor€. a 5'-9" sctback
variance is rcqufued in order to allow this kitchcn exoansion/ski sttraee arca to
be constructed. rcsultins in a 14'-3" front setback. @lease notc this area also
requires an east side setback variance discribcd in IC.)
Dinine Room Bay Window
The applicant prcposes to remove an existing dining room window and repraceit with a bay window. The existing structute encroaches 3'-ll" into the frontsetback in this area. Thc ncw bay window will encroach an additional 9 inchcs
B.
i:.,|",T::iS ?9:ff, front setback rhererore. a +,_s,, seiuacr vJance is
1.
foot side setback.
Stofe 9e tfPa ttr hF ,.rirrcFf^ia,l
--,.1I--
:- - r, ^n ! J
l.Kitchen Expansion/Ski Storaee Area
The existing east side setback is 0. The building is built on the easternproperty line. This new kitchen expansiory'ski storage area will also encroach
ll_t::llg "..t
q.r*d..ttfTt side setback. trererore. a rS-footletllr
gonstr.ucted, The proposed addition *iU "nffidoes the existing sultcttue.
The applicanr prcposes to change existing fust and second floor windows robay windows. The cxisting structurc encroaches 6'-1" into tr,. *qoi*a l5-foot:'9_*,.u-."t. ;n;&eei" "8-'ll'] Side setback. Although thes" intothe side setback to a grcatcr cxtent than docs thc cxisting building, uecause ttreproposed construction would increase the amount of Gnre withi;-thc requiredsctback, a sidc setback variance is required.
2. West Side Storase Arca
The applicant proposes to construct a 5' x l0' exterior storage arca on the westside of the cxisting strucuc. The existing structur' encroaches 5 feet to 3,-6,,into the rcquired lS-foot sidc sctback in this location. This 46 ,q. f,. ;og"area would encroach a maximum of an additional 5'-3', into thc rcquired 15-
c.
2
sctback. (Plcasc notc thc kitchen cxpansiory'ski storage addt6into the front setback
'o
a greater exbnt than wiu thi; proposed bay winaow.y
I{est Side Setback Variance
East Side Setback Variance
2. Rear Exterior Storage Arca
The applicant proposes to construct a new extcrior storage area on thc rear of
the building undcr an existing deck and stair. Please noic the existing easr side
setback is 0. The building is built on the eastcrn property linc. This-ncw
cxterior storage area will also cncroach 15 feet into thc required l5-foot sidc
setback. Thcrcforc a lS-foot setback variancl is ryguircd ig allow this exterior
storase arca to be constructed. The proposcd addition *itt'enctoactr 1glo-. geater cxtcnt than does the existing structue.
3. loft Expansion
The applicanr prcposes to expand an existing roft by 39 sq. ft. of GRFA. This
new sccond floor arca will not cncrcach further into thc t"qoit"d l5-foot sidc
setback than thb 15 feet the existing structure cncroaches. Howcrer, becausc
the proposed construction would increase thc amount of development within
the rcquircd sidc setback, a side sctback variance is rcquircd. (pl"*" not€ all
variances are calculated to the building footprint. fire Lave is not included
which is approximately onc foot in ccrtain arcas.)
D. Site Coverage Variance
Site coverage allowed on this lot is 20% of thc lot size (.106 acres, or 4,617
sq. ft). Therefore, the allowed site coverage is923 sq. ft. The existing'site
coverage is 995 sq. ft. Ql.57o). The addition will increasc the sire coviragc by177 sq. fr., for a total of 1,172 sq. ft. (zsvo) of sitc coverage. A sire coveiee'.---b variance is needed for thc additional u7 souarc fect of GRFAT4r1
1. Kitchen Exoansion/Ski Storaee Arca
This proposcd addition will result in an additional 53 sq. ft. of site coverage.
2. West Side Exterior Storaee Arca
The proposcd 5' x 10' storage area would increase site coveragc by 5l sq. ftfirercfore, a sitc coverage variance is rcquired in ordcr to alloi this exterior
storage arca to be constructed.
3. Rear Exterior Storase
T9 pn1i"*, prcposcs ,o "on.*", an exrcrior storage area under an cxisting
declc/stair. This exterior srorage area will result in an aaaitiona 49 sq. ft oiGRFA gd 65 sq. ft. of site covcragc. Therefore, a sitc coveragc variancc isrequired in order to allow this exterior stomge ana to bc consircteo-
+
Thc zoning fol this Propcny is_.dgryle1 Brghorn Estarcs, Lors l0 and 1l were subdividcd iniotownhomes, which wene latcr dividcd ino imall lots, numbcrcd l-7. This subdivision creatcdlcgal, non-conforming lots of a lot size smallcr than ttrat which wouldt auowcd undcrprcsent zoning.
M. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
II.BACKGROI.'ND
Taning:
Sitc Area:
GRFA:
Allowed:
Existing:
koposed:
Increase*:
250 GRFA Remaining:
Two'Family
0.106 aqcV46l7 sq. ft.
1,579 sq. ft.
2,337 sq. ft.
2,512 sq. ft,
l9l sq. ft.
59 sq. ft.
923 sq. ft.
995 sq. tt. Qr.S%)
1,172 sq. ft. (E%)
177 sq. fr
No Change
* Incr€ase in GRFA is possible undcr 250 Orrdinancc
Site Coverage
Q0% ot Site Area):
Allowcd:
Existing:
Proposed:
Incrcasc:
Hcight:
Setbacksi
Front:
Required:
Exisring:
Proposed:
West Side:
Requircd:
Existing:
Proposed:
20 fect
l6'-9"
14'-3
15 fect
g'-9"
4',-9"
4
East Side:
Rcquired:
Existing:
Proposcd:
Rear:
Required:
Existing:
Proposed:
15 feet
0 feet
0 fect
15 feet
15 feet
15 feet
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Critcria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the
Cornmunity Dcvelopmcnt Depanment recommends approval of the front, east and west side
setback variances in order to allow the construction of-the extcrior storage area under the
!9cf/stairs and the bay windows on the frst and second stories on ttrc nonh elcvation; thekitchery'ski storage expansion, and dining room bay window on the south clevation. S'tafffurthcr recommends approval of the requested site coveragc variance rcquests associated with
these additions. Staff recommends denial of the wcst sida setback variance and site coveragevariance rcqucsts required to allow the consruction of the 5' x 10' exprior storage area
Thesc recommendations are based on the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
l. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing orpotential uses and structures in the vicinity.
a. Setback Variances
In gencral, the setback variances rcqucstcd will have no negativc
impacts on adjacent properties, excluding the west ,toog" i,"u-
Staff believes the west side srorage addition will negativily
impact the propcrty owner to thc west. The resulting side-
setback would be 4'-9'. If the adjaccnt property owner wer€
also to pursue such an addition, the accessway io the rear yard
bcnveen the two duplexes would be very narow. Staff beicves
the addition of the west side storage area reduces, to a great
degrcc, the alr,eady small amount of open space which presently
exists bctwccn this dwelling and the adjaccnt residencc.
b. Site Coverase Variance
Due to the unusual suMivision of thc lot, staff bclieves it isrcasonableto-dll6-owS-omETldi6ilityconccrningsitccovcragc.
This expansion, cxcluding thc wcsi storage ,*-", ,rnill result in
fditiolal site coverage of 125 q. ft. Stitr firthcr believes
these additions will have no negative impacts on existing orpotential uses or sEuctur€s in thc vicinity. The staff does notbclicve the additional site coverage for tie west storage ar€a isappropriate.
The degree to which relief from the strict and literalinterpretation and enforcement ofa specified regulation isnecessary to achieve compatibitity and uniformit] oftreatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain theobjectives of this tifle without grandof special privilege
a. Setback Varianccs
The duplcx lots which werc crcated undcr the rcsubdivision ofLoF 1.0 and ll of Bighorn Estates have lot configurations whichmake it almost impossible to modify the units without variances.As previously stated, the cxisting unit "t e"Ay encroach into thcrequired front and side setbacks. These encroachments are dueto the fact thc lots arc vcry narow and small. Instead of aminimum lot sizc of 15,000 square feet, this lot is 4,617 squarefeet. Staff believes there are extraord.inary circumstances due tothe original lot layout of these duplex lots-.
other duplexes in this resubdivision have reccived similar
sctback variance rcquests. In November, l9gg, Lot 3, obtainedapproval of front, side, and site coverage variances in order toconstruct a trash enclosure and to enlarge a kirchen. Aspreviously stated, the duplex loc associ-ated with thercsuMivision of Ipts 10 and 1l of Bighorn Estates are allsubsrandard in size. For this proposal]staff believes it isreasonable to consider the existing rcsidence,s location in thefront, east and west sidc setbackslo be a practical difficultywaranting setback varianccs fon the addit'rons supported by drestaff. This degr€€ of relief from the strict and literalinterprctation of the codc is appropriate, and has been grantcd toother property ownerr with similar circumstanccs.
I
Staff does not b€lieve, howcver, thcre is a pracdcal difficulty
warranting 0rc construction of the 5' x l0' extcrior storagc arca
on thc west side of thc propcrty. The degree of rclicf from thc
setback for this request is not appropriatc.
b. Sitc Coveraee Variance
Because of the small lots, existing site coverage of all lots in thc
vicinity is over the allowcd- Staff fecls that adding 125 sq. ft. of
site coverage to accommodate the exterior r€ar storagc area, the
bay windows and thc kitchcn expansiory'ski storage additions
does not increase to any great extcnt thc cxisting site coverage.
3- The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traflic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
a- Setback Varianccs and Sirc Covcraee Variance
The staff finds that the requested variance will have no
significant effect upon any of thc abovc considerations. As
previously stated under this rcdcvelopment proposal, the
applicant will bc installing two additional aspen trecs along the
western property line adjacent to thc roadway. In addition to
installing these aspens, the applicant will eliminatc an existing
woodburning fircplace and install two gas fireplaces. Staff
belicves, with the exception of the proposed 5' x l0'proposed
stonge arEa on the wcst side of the building, this proposal will
have no negative impacts on the factors listed above. With
regard to the proposed 5' x l0' extcrior storage area, staff
believes thc construction of such a stomge area will limit access
to the rear of the propcrty from thc east side of the building,
which could negatively impact public safety.
B.Thc.Planlrine and Envircnmental commission shall make the followine
findinss beforc qrantins a variance:
(
t
)
/t
1. That the granting of thc variance will not constitute a grant of spccial
privitege inconsisrent wiitr ttre limitations on other proi"tti"t classificd
in thc samc district.
o
That the granring of the variance will nor bc detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties oi
improvemenrs in thc vicinity.
That the variance is warrantcd for one or mor€ of the foilowing reasons:
a- The strict literar interpretation or enforccment of the specified
rcgulation would result in practical difficulty or onnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this titre.
fircrc are cxccpdons or cxtraordinary circumstanccs or
conditions applicable to the samc site of thc variance that do not
apply generally to other properties in thc same zone.
The seict inrcrpretation or enforccment of thc spccified
rcgulation would deprive the applicant ofpriviliges cnjoyed by
the owners of othcr propenies in the samJdistrict.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of Critcria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, rheCommunity Development Departmcnt rtcommends approval of the front, cast and wcst sidesetback variances in order to allow the constnrction o}-th" exlerior storage arca under thedeclc/stairs and the bay windows on thc first and second storics on thc north elevation; thekirchedski storage expansion, and dining room bay window on the south elevation. Srafffurther recommends approval of the requested site coveragc variance rcquests associated withthese additions. staff recommends denial of rhe west sidJsetback "rr#;;-;;;i* ;;;;variance requests required to allow the construction of thc 5' x 10' exprior storage arca.
Staff believcs the variances which arc recommendcd for approval meet thc crieria andfindings for a variance. Staff does not believe approval oi ttresc variances would be a grantof special privilege' bccause variance applications-have bccn approved for similar rqo"-rtr.Thg ProPgsal is not potentially injurious to the public health, s'ai'ety and welfare. Lastty, ttrestaff finds the location of the lot lines to be an exraordinary circumstance that is not tl,picatty' found in the TwoFamily zone district, and that other property o*n"r, in the samedevelopmcnt have received variances frrom the strict intelprct"tion oi tt " zoning code forsimilar tlpcs of rcquests when there wcre no negativc impaca from the rcques*.
Please note rhar, undcr section 18.62.0g0 of thc Town of vail zaningcode, the approvalshall lapse if construction is not commenced within two years orttre -aate
of issuance anddiligently pursued to complction.
3,
cgccrocnoArilhch"42T
: J i';.5 ;t!
!! [ ;,i!5!B:i;s;i $:!is'I;*;i:
€si'i:i
;:Eg5!
H
\l...\ It t"- /
/'ot\, \R '...-*"'.
it'_,,,=#/DR
96
!*.9
o9
>3:-
rI.E
9t..:
r;d
! to'
u.q B
EF;
E
t.I Ithl!
it: I
llt;
t:!t
fill
)
. 5r€
*"gf*itt
-*.uS$'-"-
\
\
\
\\
I
\
\
\ g-
ir:
\,8
=
\-/
f\\
\\V'''
t
(
"\
.g$
Es
' -l]\' iit
'8\\r
7\
c\'$t
t\
\
*v
€
rt^:
E
E.
E.e;E
3s9b
nt
:.d9,
E.r
;.8
9b6€;!
8.s3g
i3
^u!
r!i:.
bst:!i.r
99lr6't
E r.irE,
Etj
i:,
o:i
;a lL
€E
:;
!N)
a
It
isP
;L}1)
I
I
I
a
.9
ss:-
9t
5
!1
jj
:r
!'
a
f\l|
,
t
I
a
!!o
t-l:+rt*"
'E(,!:i9F-
!os
,9 6;
t
-::
E E.r
:IJ:EE
B!:.
?ig
;:E
Jfln1?
$t
_dliai
I
I
.Et
I
.Et
b
,
E;
;llrE:
E.B
AE
e":
:;EI
E:gt
;6
iiE
'!lr
".t
2z!iNt
iE
e":
6;
iiiiiliii
$li*i
IE
- ' ,11.
\
I
pirb'dp. ttrir -dotl! rory 21,. 1992. crcspt utlllty 'connoc- '
tlon!:'o?a cntirely vlthrn tltc boundoricr of thc porcd. erccpt
os lhorn, thot lhcrc ore no ancaoochmont3 upon ihc dcscrDcd
notcd.
Stcven K
Scnlor Mcc
Johnson.
: ::.-': 1)
prcmiaer by improvemcnts on ony odjoining prcmirar, crccpt or.'
indlcotcd, ond thot. thcrc ir no APPARO,IT ovidenco or dgrl;of .ony;.,.
coscm€ni crosslng'or burdcnhg ony port of soid porccl, iiil*"n"
LOT.{
9 -+rLpd'
a
'.' q1.t
J'o-
\qa
?or€\
\\
\
\
\ASPHALT
\\\
\
..:PARKING
\
\
v)
\! -x'^r,-/,..Y' \./
tr'
,t'
&n"
,*
xODCg A-.rirC t Cdr!& lcr pr ru c. n |c. cry lqd rctlcnD€.-_rrcr rif d.1.4 F !n..Tlf 19!91! ,:!t !t11 t"
-lI
f.$-T
E
{
r | -\l\ I -v- \
b.-t
Ifi19\\\l$f$
)\'\
a)s t1
$$ $i
r)' x!l:[s ."iIE. \
q:*
€ $Fw
,^
I
I
tJI
\T
$d
{'*
-1 l-
4Lr..i{
---44
/
/
IL
$$
*1$
-u$uv
OJo)o,
o-
etL:lrll-!l-,2\g
ll
_\
)
\
t
J
\)J
-\$t\
\-2
r- ) il+$5 il$+N{,,teil),.{ I
E
/t
$l
$h
f$
.J
't\
'i
r
;t(i. ,\)!I
?gs.< 4.€Pat
,vu
If
a-l
2
\Ij
\\\
7
FIRST AMERICAN HERITAGE TITLE COMPANY
INFORMATION
The Title Insurance CommilmEnt ls a legal cont6ct b€trveen you and the company. lt is issued to
show the basis on rvhich lye will issu€ a Title lnsurance Policy to you. The Policy will insure you against
certain risks to th6 land title, subiect to the limitations shown inlho Policy.
The Company will give you a sample ot the./Policy torm. if you ask.
The Commitment is based on the land titldas of the Commitment Date. Any changes in th6 land
title or the transaction may affect tho Commitment and the Policy.
The Commitment is subject to its Requirements. Exc€ptions and Conditions.
THIS INFORMATION IS NOT PART OF THE TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
AGREEMENT TO ISSUE POLICY
SCHEDULEA
1. Commitment Oate
2. Policies to b€ lssued, Amounts and Proposed Insureds
3. Interest in the Land 8nd Owner
4. Oescription of the Land
SCHEDULE B-1 - Fequirements
SCHEDULE B-2 - Exceptions
coNolTloNs
Page
1
2
2
2
2
3
4
1-A
YOU SHOULD READ THE COMMITMENT VERY CAREFULLY.
lf you have any questions about the Commihonl, please contsct th6 isrulng oflice.
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONDITIONS
DEFINITIONS
(a) "Mortgage" means mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument.
(b) "Public Records" means title records that give constructive notice of matters affecting the title
according to the state law where the land is located.
LATER DEFECTS
The Exceptions in Schedule B - Section 2 may be amended to show any defects, liens or
encumbrances that appear for the first tirne in public records or are created or attached
between the Commitment Oate and the date on which all of the Requirements of Schedule B
- Section 1 are met. We shall have no liability to you because of this amendment.
EXISTING DEFECTS
lf any defects, liens or encumbrances existing at Commitment Date are not shown in Schedule B,
we may amend Schedule.B to show them. lf we do amend Schedule B to show these defects, liens
or encumbrances, we shall be liable to you according to Paragraph 4 below unless you knew of this
information and did not tell us about it in writing.
LIMITATION OF OUR LIABILITY
Our only obligation is to issue to you the Policy referred to in this Commitment, when you
have met its Requirements. lf we have any liability to you lor any loss you incur because of an error
in this Commitment, our liability will be limited to your actual loss caused by your relying on
this Commitment when you acted in good faith to:
comply with the Requirements shown in Schedule B - Section 1
or
eliminate with our written consent any Exceptions shown in Schedule B - Section 2.
We shall not be liable lor more than the Policy Alnount shown in Schedule A of this
Commitment and our liability is subject to the terms of the Policy form to be issued to you.
CLAIMS MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT
Any claim, whether or not based on negligence, which you may have against us concerning the
title to the land must be based on this Commitment and is subject to its terms.
5.
200-200.1
Form No. 1343 (CO87)
ALTA Plain Language Commitment
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
ISSUED BY
FIRST AMERICAN HERITAGE TITLE COMPANY
agent for
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
AGREEMENT TO ISSU E POLICY
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, referred to in this Commitment as the
Company, through its agent, First American Heritage Title Company, referred to in this Agreement as the
Agent, agrees to issue a policy to you according to the terms of this CommitmenL When we show the
policy amount and your name as the proposed insured in Schedule d this Commitment becomes effec-
tive as of the Commitment:Date shown in Schedule A.
lf the Requirements shown in this Commltment have not been met within six months after the
Comm itment date, ou r obligation under this Com mitment will ehd. Also our obligation under th is Com mit-
ment will end when the Policy is issued and then our obligation to you will be under the Policy.
Our obligation under this. Commitment is limited by the following:
The Provisions in Schedule A.
The Requirements in Schedule B-1.
The Exceptions in Schedule B-2.
The Conditions on Page 1 -A
This Commitment is not valid without SCHEDULE A and Sections 1 and 2 of SCHEOULE B.
First American Title I nsu ra nce Company
PRESIDENT
BY UU/;. C.jryL/. sEcRETARY
RSIGN EO
1.
2.
FIRST AMERICAN HERITAGE TITLE CO
31 8 Broadway, Eagle, CO 81631, (303) 328-5211
To Be Detenuined
3. lec.SLnple Lntcrent
c@Ltaetrt Daue trlfs
COMIVIITMENT
SCEEDIIITE I
comltD.lt DIo3 Es24434896
Co@ltDeat Datc s April 10, 1996 at, 8:00 A.M.
Policy or Pollci.ot to be Lgsucd:
(a) osners Pollcy - Propos.d Inaureal:
Charles PauI Canpisi and Geraldine Campisi
(b) Loerr Pollcy - ProDorod lDsurads
tbLs conrr-ltDcnt ls orrrcd,,
Filc * ES2il434B95
Pollcy InounE
$ s30,000-00
$ 371, 100 - 00
at theLnla
4. tfhe land ref,erredl to Lu this cmLtn.Dt Lg deccrlbedl as follows:
(for informational purposes only)742-8 Sandy Lane
PRSTIUM:
Sf -Itortgage Po I icY-COM/
Owner's Policy
Tax Certificate
O4lLg/96 !!':24:49 lf PsK
$
$
$
75.00
1,313.00
15.00
deacribed
oA,/rg/9'6 L1:24:51 lf PSK File {t ES24434896
NOTICE TO PROSPEC.IIIVE OIVNERS
(A STATEMEMI MADE AS REQUIRED BY COLORADO
INSURANCE REGUIJAT ION )
CAP PROTESTION
When this Corpany conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing the
Iegal docurnelrts resultlng from the Eransaction, the Company shall be responsible for
all maEters which appear on tshe record prior tso such time of recording or filing.
If the property being purcbased has noE been the subject of construction,
improvements or repair in the last, six months prior to the date of this coruritmenE
the requirernents will be payment. of the appropriate premium and the completion of an
Affidavit and Indernni ty by the seller.
months prior to the date of this commitment the requirements rnay invoLve disclosure
of cercain financial information, palment of preniuurs, and indemnity, among olhers.
llhe general requirements stated above are subject to the revision and approval
of the conipany.
SPECIAIJ TN(ING DISTRICI NOTICE
(A Notice eiven In Conformity Witsb Section !0-L1--!22 C.R.S.)
1|he subjeet. land may be located in a special taxing district; a certifj-cate of taxes
due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained from the county Ereasurer or
the county treasurer's authorized agenti and information regarding special districts
and the boundaries of such district.s may be obtained from the board of county
conuniss ioners, the counEy clerk and recorder, or tbe counEy assessor.
04/19 /95 lI:24:52 1f PsK
Fotm No. 1344-81 (CO-88)
Fil. | 8524434896
.IL!A Plain Langruags Comltritnent
SCHEDITLEB-Sectlonl
order No. Es24434896
RsquLreDent6
fhe f,ollowLng lequlremerrt8 tnu6t be nets:
(a) Pay tshe aqreed amounts for the interest in the land and/or for the mortgage to be
insured .
(b) Pay us the premiums ' fees and charges for the policy.
(c) Obtain a certificatse of taxes due from tbe county treasurer or the county
treasurer's authorized agenE.
(d) fhe {ollowinq document.s saEisfactory to us must be signed, delivered and
recordef
./
1. Wairanty Deed sufficient to convey the fee simple estate or interest in tshe
land described or referred to herein, to the Proposed Insured, Schedule A.
ftem 24.
-t ./'/ 2-- Deed of Trust sufficient to encumber the fee simple estaEe or intserest in the
. land described or referred to herein for lhe benefit of the Proposed Insured,
Schedule A, Iuem 2 b.
3. Evidence that all assessments for common expenses due under ttre Declaratsion
referred to as It.em No. 11, of Schedule B, Section 2 have been paid.
4. Evidence satisfact.ory to the Company of Compliance with an ordj.nance enacting
a real estate transfer tax within the Town of Vail toqether with all
amendments lhereto.
5. Compliance with the provisions of Section 39-L4-702, Colorado Revised statutes,
requiring completion and filinq of a ReaI ProperEy Transfer Declaration.
NOTE: IF THE SALES PRICE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY EXCEEDS $1OO,OOO.OO TI{E SELLER
sHALt BE REQUIRED TO COMPIJY WITH rHE DTSCIJOSURE OR WITHHOLDTNG PROVISIONS OF C.R.S.
39 -22- 604. 5 (NONRESIDENT WITHHOLDING)
04/1-9 /9"5 L!:24:54 lf PSK
Form No. t344-82 (CO-88 )
AIJTA P].al,n Language Cortritment
SCHEDUITEB-Sectsion2
ordl€r No. E,s24434896
ExceptLons
Any polLcy wa LE6ue wLl1 have the followitrgf exceptLonE unleaa they ale taken care of
to our aatlafactlon:
1. Taxes and Assessments not certified tso the Treasurer's office.
2. Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not sho$rn by the public records
but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or by making inquiry
of persons in possessj-on thereof.
3. Easements, or claims of easements, noE shown by public records.
4. Discr-epancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachnents, and
any. facts which a correct survey and inspection of the land would disclose. a.nd
which are noE shown by the public records.
5. Any lien, or righc to a 1ien, for services, labor or rnaterial heretofore or
hereafter furnished, imposed by 1aw and not shown by the public records.
6. Any and all unpaid taxes, assessments and unredeemed tax sales.
7 - ReservaCions and exceptions in patents and in acts authorizing their issuance
as the same nay affect the subjecE property and speeifically, the rj.qht of the .
proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remor4e his ore therefrorn sho11$.
Erre sarne oe round to penetrat.e or intsersec! the prernises as set forth in
United stsates Patent recorded l"lay 24, 1904 in Book 48 at Page 503.
8. Reservations and exceptions in patentss and acts authorizing their issuance as
the same may affects the subject property and specifically, the right to
ditsches and reservoirs used in connection with vested and accrued r,tater rigtrts
Eogelher with the reservatj.on of a right-of-way for ditches and canals
constructed by the authority of the Unit.ed States as set forth in United
states patsenE recorded trlay 24, 1904 in Book 48 aE Page 503 and JuJ,y 13, L939
in Book !23 aE Page 517
9- Restrictive covenants, which do not conlain a forfeiture or reverter clause,
but onitting restrietions, if any. based on race. co1or, relition, or national
origin, as contained in instrurnent recorded March 5, 1974 in Book 233 aE Page
628 and as amended in instrument recorded September 24, 1975 in Book 24! aL
Page 950.
10. Easementss, reservations and restrictions as shown or reserved on the recorded
pJ-at of Vail/Potato PaEch second Filing and amended plat thereof.
11. Covenants, conditions and restricEions contained in Condominium Declaration
recorded March 4, 1980 in Book 299 at Page 596.
- -Cont inued
I File # 8524434895
$\\^44 .
FVzr'^
v4/19/56 7L:24:57 lf PSK
Form No. 1344-82 (CO-88)
ALTA Plaln lJaDgnrage Commi tm€nts
Scb€dule B - Sectlon 2 contlnucd
Orde! No. ES24434B96
L2. EasemenEs, reservaEions and restrictions as shown on the Condominium MaD
recorded March 4, 1980 in Book 299 at Page 597.
File # ES24a34896
o File I ES24434896Order No. 8s24434E96
AFFI DAVIT AIiID INDEMNITY
TO FIRSI AMERTC}IiI TITIJE INSURANCE COMPANT
1. This is writEen evidence to you that t.here are no unpaid bills, and to the extent there
may be unpaid bills that the undersigned undertakes and agrees to cause the same to be paid
such that there shall be no mechanj-cs or maEerialnen's liens affecEinq the properEv formaterials or labor furnished for construction and erection, repairs or - imirov-ements
conEracEed by gr o1 behalf of the undersigned on property located at 742-B Sandy f-rane, Vail,colorado 8L657 and lega11y descrj.bed as:
Unit B. _Lot 3_, Vail/Potato PaEch Second Filing Condominiums according to the Condominium Maprecorded March 4, 1980 in Book 299 aE Page 597 and as defined in tshe Condominium Declaratioirrecorded Marctr 4, 1980 in Book 299 at Page 595.
COUNTY OF EAGLE,
STATE OF COLORADO
2. We furlher represents that to the actual knowledge and belief of the undersigned thereare no public improvements affecting the property prior to the date of closing that wouldgive rise to a special property tax assessment. againsE the propertsy after the date of
c Ios ing .
3. We furlher represenE tshaE to the actual knowledge and belief of the undersigned thereare no pending proceedings or unsatisfied judgments of record, in any Courts, Stsaie orFederal, nor any tax liens filed against us, and thaE if there are judg,rnents, bankruptcies,probate proceedings, state or federal tax liens of record against parties with same orsimilar na.mes, they are not againsE us.
4. We further represent that there are no unrecorded contracts, leases, easements or other
agreements or interests relating to said premises of which roe have knowledge.
5. We further represent tshat to the actual knowledge and belj.ef of the undersigned vre arein sole possession of the real property described herein other than lease hold estates
ref l-ected as recorded itsems under the subiect commitment for title insurance.
5. We further represen! that there are no unpaid c}rarges and assessments that could resul!in a lien j-n fawor of any associat.ion of homeowners wtrich are prowided for in any documentreferred to in schedule B.
The undersigned affiant (s) know the matters herein stated are true and indemnifies FTRST
AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CoMPANY against loss, costss, damages and expenses of every kindincurred by it by reason of its reliance on the statements made herein.
This agreement is executed r"rith and forms a part of the sale and/or financing of the
above desciibed premises, and is given in additi-on to the conveyance and/or f inanc-ing of thepremises in consideration for the conveyance and/or financing, and forms a complete
agreement by itself for any action thereon.
SELTLER:
Richard PlaEtner
Janice Platscner
Filc + ES2a43aB96
STATE OF COLORADO
ss.
CO{JMIY OF
The foregoing insLrumenE $ras acknowledged, subscribed and sworn E.o before me tshisday of by Richard Plattner and Janice PlatEner.
My comrniss ion expires :
, Notary Public
AFFIDAVIT OI' GERI CAMPISI
COMES NOW, the Affiant, being duly sworn under oath and having persornl knowledge
of the following facts hereby testifies as follows:
1. That I am the owner of real property located in the Town of Vail, County of Eagle,
State of Colorado known as 742-B Sandv Lane. Va-il. Colorado.
2. That I am a member of the Condominium Association for Lot 3, Vail, Potato Patch,
Second Filing, Condominium, County of Eagle, State of Colorado which is constituted of unit
742-A and 742-8 Sandy I-ane, Vail, Colorado (the "Condo Association").
3. That the Condominium Association is comprised of my unit and742-A Sandy Lane,
Vail, Colorado which is owned by Betty Guffey.
4. That my husband, Charles Campisi and myself have requested a Variance from the
Town of Vail for the purpose of constructing a single car garage addition to our unit. The
construction of such single car garage will not in any way negatively impact upon other
structures in the vicinity as most structures are residential homes, including condominium units,
with garages.
5. That the garage addition that we are requesting a Variance from the Town of Vail for
is necessary for a number of reasons:_==.--"
A. There is a significant drainage problem upon the property in that the area in
which the new garage will be located slopes toward the residence and water flows directly into
a major wall of the building. This drainage problem needs to be corrected in some manner and
could be very expensive to fix pursuant to bids that have been received. The construction ofthe
garage will resolve this drainage problem while at the same time significantly improving the
propeny.
B. That there exists very little storage area within our residence and the existing
two (2) car garage is fully utilized for the parking of our two (2) automobiles. As such, we
currently do not have any storage space particularly for our recreatiornl equipment such a
bicycles, golf clubs and ski equipment. This creates a significant hardship for us in that there
are no closets in the house to store the equipment, no space in the existing garage as it is used
fbr parking our automobiles and it would be inappropriate to store said items outside as they
could be stolen and it would detract from the area to store goods in that manner.
C. That we are .unable to park an automobile on the street or elsewhere on the
lot in order to make storage space available in the existing garage as parking is not allowed upon
the street, particularly in the Winter months, and the area in which the new garage will be
constructed is currently unusabld for parking purposes during the winter months as the Town of
\
ogt20/9a FRI 10:08 F,l"\
STATE OF COLORADO
EAGLE COUNTY
Subscrihed and sworn to
CAMPISI-
VaiI snow ..y66val plows large amoul'lts of snow upon the rpace. In addition. it is prefcrablc
to have our car in covered parking during the wint€r montbs '
D. That we also have frequent grrsts, including numerous family members' gnd
are unable to provide a parking space for them when thcy are visiting. Tbis poses a difficrrlt
problcm again in the w-intcr -oitns whcn the 3uw plows necd the steets clear of parked
vehicles to adequately plow tbe StreetE.
6. That the proposed single car garags will eddr$s all of *re abovc referenced hardships
in that li will provide for the addilionaisoragc, it would provide a covercd parking space that
il*" usablJafl year round and it will be a positive use of orrrendy uanrsable space.
7. Tblt the proposed single car garegc rvill constitute an improvelnent to the propcrty
that will incrcase th,e value of ihe residence and thus would be a positive effect upon the
neighborhood in gcneral -
8. For the foregOlng rleasorlg the owners of the property at]-42 sandy Lane which is
constinrted of mysctf, riy hisUand, Charles Carnpisi, and Betty G.oI.y will zuffcr a hardship
if dre Variance is not graDted for the Construction of the proposed single car Siurge'
2i
Further dre Afliail saYerh naugbt.(/ /a1.1 /./)0,. @htutz.j-/ <X_t t-,-.
,/' AERI CAMPISI
1
day of Septembet, 1996, bY GERI
)
) ss,
)
before mc this
\ilimess my hand and official soal-
My eouunission explres: 0 t4'
G:\CAMPISI\GERJAFF. OTI{
AFFIDAVIT OF BETTY GUFFEY
COMES NOW, the Affiant, Betty Guffey, having personal knowledge of the following
facts and being duly sworn under oath hereby testifies as follows:
l. That I am the owner of real property located in the Town of Vail, County of Eagle,
State of Colorado known as 742-A Sandv Lane. Vail, Colorado.
2. That I am a member of the Condominium Association for Lot 3, Vail, Potato Patch,
Second Filing Condominium, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado which is
comprised of Unit 742-Aand 742-8 Sandy l-ane, Vail, Colorado ("Condominium Association").
- 3. That the Condominium Association is comprised of my unit and unit 742-B Sandy
Lane. Vail, Colorado which is owned by Charles Campisi and Geri Campisi (hereinafter referred
to as the "Campisi's").
4. That with my express permission and involvement the Campisi's have reqirested a
variance from the Town of Vail for the purpose of constructing a single c,ar garage addition to
their unit. The construction of said single car garage will not in any way negatively impact upon
other structures in the viciniW as most structures are residential homes. includins condominium
units with garages.
5. That the garage addition that the Campisi's have requested a variance for from the
Town of Vail is necessary for a number of reasons:
A. There is significant drairnge problem upon the property in that the area in
which the new garage will be located slopes toward the residence and water flows directly into
a major wall of the building. The construction of the garage will resolve this drainage problem
while at the same time significantly improving the property.
B. That at the present time with the current configuration of the residence without
the requested garage addition, there exists a significant security problem with regard to my unit.
The general public currently has access to an emergency egress door which leads directly into
my master bedroom and bath area. Unfortunately, due to the current configuration of the
building the general public often utilizes my emergency egress door as opposed to my main door
because it is the only door readily visible from the street. This is a cause for concern for me
because I carmot see who is at the emergency egress door until I am right before the door. This
is not the case with my main entrance door as I can see the person at the door through windows
prior to opening the door. In addition packages and flower deliveries are often left mistakenly
at m)' emergency egress door and as I do not utilize that door I do not locate the items often for
days. I have retained an architect, Mr. Bill Pierce of Fritzlen Pierce Briner Architects in Vail,
to address, among other issues, the issue of the public access to my emergency egress door so
that I could be provided with security. It was ultimately determined by Mr. Pierce that there
was no way to provide me such'security due to design constraints thus the proposed garage is
an excellent solution to my security problem. As such, I feel that the granting of the Variance
to allow the construction of the single car garage is necessary to provide me with adequate
security at my residence and I will suffer a hardship if the Variance is not granted as no other
options are available to me.
C. That in the Winter months the Town of Vail snow removal pushes snow onto
the area where the new single car garage will be constructed thus making such area unusable
particularly for parking purposes. There is insufficient parking in the area and the single car
g rage will provide a covered parking area year round.
6. For the foregoing reasons the owners of the property at742 Sandy lane constituted
of myself and the Campisi's will suffer a hardship if the Variance is not granted allowing for
construction of the proposed single car garage.
Further the Affiant sayeth naught.
STATE OF COLORADO
EAGLE COUNTY
)
) SS.
)
^,rrYltt
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4' 'aiy of September, 1996, by
BETTY GUFFEY.
Witness mv hand and official seal.
Notary Public
Sep, 10, 1996i:9:364U
o : AVON OF
O EAGLE'
wrrl^rrrt ouro
No, 4200 P, t/l
FI
T
o
':Y.:"
110 50
tl ' )
t*u,
rrtrl Dtu$ fbr al. tlDh ..'d itun' '19 96 'i --iiJrro
tLlGn r rnd Jrnrer Plltl l
.t-ccuntt ct &rl. dsl{'lf
Fl;;cl;l- r..t c.rrtr rtrd 6tE lcln' c'Trtl
' '- Andol\ g[^ gr">rttuz@
*. f*ttJf fcr.JJ ontU rindl Potot' pav loil' ltl'
C-C.ultll c3 tael. rrl3'r tl ll | ' r'u*
lnt|Elf|r fr atrE, hdtlr $i"o'brJ ltvU Hs DIED fllllll llloutrlD tt|D
F/t0o-..------|lrll.^r3 63t0 ' o0o ' 00 I lb rslF ..l
JIr J--nXt dt'hFl bt"r'd''.tlrl. :tl d'-:* drtur F-r'lD t'* }J'
JG'-i r ri..l ;ni dr:i' Jrrp r'*'' trr-rrtr h - ld bJtr brra;'
a-d'tstrt--l.ftt-lfi|.l' it"r' ff|.irrrru ft l|r councy ot Lgl'
dl|-efqbl|tshl t ftlt'ur
ilrii IriT-nrlrtolrle F :Gb lreol"ll turd condqrlnturt rccotdlnd
Gnlrlnl|r IrP s.Gcrdac ftttrr i' rtrg ln toot z9t^'c trc" Ei7 rnd rr
;Fil"a-fitu.re ltrr:tca iicortrd lrrsh '' :9rc lh Eoot utt 'l
Gcuort .t trtl., s!|!t e I colotrcc . .l::..
r'.
bry
co Eh.
.Lllh.dtri 5rf,
-Lar---Lt ta?-a i'nQr r'ao' v'll' qe !ctid'o. tl'3t' "-
i'1rrrnrrrr^i.trn'Rrrwl':It:i:=]:ffi i$n%T,ff'il[]?.L?;:*-E;ffi ,I,fi il;i'-';*;p'nre"rir'ing+{'ltrrt|trrrh''r'
* *
-t*
r r-Jilt-J -{ -t!3g: :'rrrr {rlii 6{Erx o rI 1tt.'
''allrtquullatt
0.t "l rrulta
Fr.t?iHllill,'ff til:li?-"iiT,'l:j5'r'n
'a
'1
r;'
l!
.l
I
i
!!|or E rl o d lrlr | :rnrrr 'rl {sfLrs' rrr'r' } hh ln|. nt L 'trl.. TFnr'hlt{' d
- Fb d * t-f -l Jr\ m'''l|r' tr Fclt |b*rtt' rd 'I ltt t'r-' t|.ll sllr' lr'{
r5 d ts Fr r r rr-]E i'J.j.r.rl. i. r -t h lb .brr trrrtrlr.l Ftf,lD. rtr 5
?ir|*Bffi. d rdr. r-,. lrild xr-rr.r rrr rr.,rFi-.r.a ,,"r! d'. r.rrr..Lr
Id{rF r r l-. Frri. u.-rr" l p.j nr-adk r rbr.a.. y-\ r.oh !r
;i*EfiF-a51gg=p1f 3'.1ffi i51
'-*--;ra,gf gt7 tf-frritfr t'ln'-rt 'lt rrl 'ir" lh { r rrr 5l !'rr
r||*dtti---Jf-mtni-itf tr |tr "
birha rrh' ['D' hx''| r''{trl'
r_r-frf*-tlitfil"airti rutL'ottrntdrrtr rh hl Flt' rr
.ffi;=lrt='-rb'tr'r.d .ilq'''ttd ti'it r"n '
(9
It
E
$ta,?-,
Uul-
I
I
tr,'ttrt-E* fr.tt,,,.' r? 6t n a t tl' ( t "'
,19 9a .rt
JA}VGS WM. STOVALL
JoEN D. GooprraeN
IGRRY H. WALLACE
Gug,AN4EOISY-MORRISON
September 20,1996
Town of Vail
Community Development
Dominic Moriello
202 BENCHMARK PLAZA BUtr.DING
48 EAST BEAVER CREEK BOI,LEVARD
P.O. DRAWER 5860
AvoN. CoLoRADo 81620
TET.EPHoNE: (97 O) 94942W
FAcsnru: (970) 949-6843
REFERENCE: Variance Application for Charles and Geri Campisi
Dear Mr. Moriello:
Enclosed for your consideration please find the Affidavits of Geri Campisi and Betty Guffey
setting forth the hardship which will be created ifthe variance is not granted for the construction
of the single car garage upon the property. I anticipate that you will find these afFrdavits
compelling. I apologize for not having provided them to you sooner but Mrs. Campisi was
required to return to New York due to an emergency in the family. For that reason she will not
be present at the meeting on September 23, 1996 but I will be present as her representative .
Thank-you for your time and consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
questions.
Very truly yours,
STOVALL GOODMAN WALLACE, P.C.
KHW:kah
FtrE c0Pi
75 South Frontage Road
VaiL Colorado 81657
970-479-213V479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
D e partment of Community D eve lopme nt
Septanber5,1996
Ms. Jeri Campisi
I146 Sandstone Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Proposed site coverage variance for742 Sandy Lane/Lot 3 Vail Potato Patcb,2nd Filing
Dear Ms. Campisi:
I have performed a review ofyour application for a site coverage variance. Staffhas produced
the following comments which rnust be addressed prior to the hearing before the Planning and
Environmental Commission. Please address the following:
l. The title report submitted states that Richard and Janice Plattner are the owners of
the property. If they are not thc current owners of the property, please provide an
up-to-date report that states that you own the property.
2. The scale on the site plan is indicated at ll4" = l', however, I believe this scale to
be inaccurate. The scale is most likely l" = l0'. Please correct the scale and
provide two revised copies. In addition to these copies, also provide one set of
plans which are reduccd to I Yz" x I l " to includc in the Commission packagcs.
The exact asrount of site coverage encroachment was not indicated in your application. Based on
our calculations the existing site coverage is 3,366.63 sq. ft. and the proposed site coverage is
3,664.63 sq. ft. The maximum allowable site coverage for this site is 3,403.8 sq. ft. and therefore
your variance request is for 260.83 sq. ft. of site coverage.
This variance request is currently scheduled for a hearing on September 23,1996 before the
Planning and Environmental Commission.
{P *'n"uo'uo
t .. I
ndstbrdsftdflrre information needed to complete the review of this proPosal by Septeurber 16'
r996.
Ifyouhave ary questioils callne il'479-2148.
Town Planner
,,r/,q "-Qol'htr '* /, Q,L']-lZzo*cHBeK O :
Single FamiLy Residence. Dlplex, Primary/Secondary I
zoNE DISIRICTS
DATE:
ITEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot
-
Block
-
Subdivision
ADDRESS:
OWNER
ZONE DISTRICT
PHONE.
PHONE
BUILDABI,E INtr AREA
Allowed Existino Prooosed TotaL
(30) (33)
ARCHITECT
LOT SIZE
PROPOSED USE
Height
TOEA1 GRFA
Primary GRFA +425=
Secondary GRFA + 425 i
SeLbacks Front
Sides
Rear
Site Coverage
Landscaping
Beqrd Encl
(300) (600) (900) (1200)_
PermiELed Slope t Proposed Slope t
(30) (s0)
Conplies with T.O.v. Lighting Ordinance yes No
20,
15'
15'
Retaining Vfall Heights 3, /6,
Parking
Carage credit
Drive:
VfaLer Course Setback
Do Finish crades Exceed 2:1 (501)
EnvironmenLal,/ttazards: t) Flood plain :\
4 ) Vfet,laads
View Corridor EncroachmenL: yes
YES NO
2l PercenL Slope (< > 3Ot)
3) Geologic Hazardsa) Snow Avalancheb) Rockfallc) Debris FLow
NO
DoeE Lhis reguest involve a 250 irddiLion?
Hovr much of Lhe allowed 250 Addit,ion is used with this request?
Previous condltions of approval (check properLy fite):
10
. E.trL..6, gltTlgl O t/n ^ tlahJh /b-id/^H^L' '
TOnlI OF VAIL I'TILT1ry IlOeA![I(nI VERIFICJATIC'II FONU
JOB I{AI4E
SI'BDTVISION
LOT BIJOCK FTLTNG
ADDRESS
The forn is used to verify gervice availability and tocation. ThisshouLd be used in conjunction with preparing your utility plan andscheduling inatallations. For any @s3L theappricant. must provide a corq)leted utiliEy ffi
The Location and avail.ability of utilities, whether they be maintrunk lines or proposed lines, must be approved and verified by thefollowing utiLities for the acconpanying site plan.
All authorizing sigmatures need to be originals.
Authorized Sianature Dale
U.S. west, Corwnunications
458-6860 or 949-4530
Rrbl-ic Senrice Company
949 - 6135
Gary Ha11/Rich Cooley
Holy Cross Electric Assoc.
949 -5892 Engineering Dept.
Ted Husky/Michael lJaverty
riTCr Cablevision of the Rockies
949 -L224
Mark Graves
**Upper Eagle Val1ey water
& sanitation Distrlct *
47 6 -7 480
Fred. Hasl.ee
rrA site Dlaa is required. Physical location of knora utilitieemust be sboma oD tbe site pJ.an. Utility locatione may or Eay aot,offer ser:viee to tbe property liae. ADy utility exteosion riquiredsball be tbe responsibility of tbe property orner.
NOTE: 1. If a utility conpany has concerns with the proposedconstruction, the uti1ity repreEentative shouLd notdireetJ.y on the utiLity verification forn that thereis a problen which needs t,o be resolved. The issueshould then be spelled out in detail in an attachedletter to the Town of vail. However, pLease keep innind that ir is the responsibitiry of rhe utititt
company to resolve identified problens.
2. If the utility verification form has sj_gmatures fromeach of the utility companies, and no cotmtents are
made directly on the form, the Town will presumethat there are no problens and that the deveJ.opmentcan proceed.
3. These verifications do not relieve the contractor ofhis responsibiliLy to obtain a street cut permitfrom the Town of Vail, Department of public worksand to obtain utiLitv locations before diogino inany public right-of-way or easenent in the Tonrr ofVail. A build.ing pernit is not a street cut nermit.A street cut pernit must be obtained separately.
4. Installation of service lines are at the $q)ense andresponsibility of the property owner.
PIrAlm MATERI;: Botanieat Name
PROPOSED TREES
A}ID SITRT'BS
Ouantitv. Size*
trees ig 6 feet.**Indicate size of proposed shrubs.5 qall-on.Minimr:m size of shrubs is
I\rpe Sorare Footagre
GROtr![D COVERS
soD
SEED
TYPE
OF IRRIGATION
TYPE OR UETITOD OF
EROSION COI{TROIJ
C. IJAIIDSCAPE LIGIITING: ff exterior lighting is ptoposed, please
show the number of fixtures and Locations on a ieparate
|ighting p1an. Identify each fixture from the Lighting plan
l{r the space below and provide the height above giade,-tfee oflight.proposed, lumen output, lurninous area andl i cut shaaE ofthe Light fixture. (Secrion 18.54.050 .t)
*hdicate caliper for deciduoua trees. Minimum ealioer
f or. deeiduous r,rees is 2 inches. rnaicatE EEiltrt f orconiferoua trees. uinimum heioht for coniierous
CImER lAfiOSCapE FEATITRES (retaining wal].s, fences, ewimringpools, etc.) Please specify. Indicate heights ot retaiuingwalls. Ma:rimum height of walls within the front eetback il3' . Maxinum height of waLls elsewhere on the property is 5' .
D.
I{AME oF pRorrrcr, ThL Cap(pis; Add)h6ft-
ITEGATJ DEscRrprroN: r,orA BrJocK
-
snBDrvrsron ft/"h h*"1
STREET ADDRESS I 7.IZ SAA+
The following information is
Review Board before a final
IJISII OF IIIAITIERIALS o
required for submittal to the Design
approval can be given:
A.BUIIJDII{G MAtrBR,IAI,S :
Roof
Siding
\
Other waLl Materials
Fascia
Soffits
Windows
Window Trim
Doors
ooor irim
Hand or Deck RaiLs
iLues
FJ.ashings
Chimneys
Trash EncLosures
Greenbouses
Retaining walLs
Exterior Lighting
Other
ITYPE OF ITAI|ERIAII COITOR
,a/e. €tta";* Prot A pqt t a*ts$V,
^J/A
s/- | I . t.mtCoo +a pL4 Tah-, 4p)S*lu</,
Ar/A 'r
p/A
/6 ph^- e-psh,+ q{r
/
taN/A
Ttv/A
ltN/n
t'
I/v/ A
B. LAIiIDSCAPING:Nane of Desigmer: tl.e
Phone:
c.arr urJ?ry serrrice J.inematerial used, and eize
ag-builtsQ*ron rlpe orand exact Location of lines.
D.
E.
Basis of bearing to tie t,o secEion corner.
AlL property pins are to be either found or set andatated on iurprovenent survey.
All easements.
Garage sla.b elevations and all. roof ridge elevat,ionswith existing and proposed gradea shown under the ridgelines.
G.
H.
VIII. C(trICEPTUII, DESIGII RB\TIEfl
A. Submittal reorirenents: The owner or authorized agentof any projecL requiring design approval as prescribedby this chapter may submit pLans ior conceptual reviewby the oesign Review Board to the Department, ofConnunity Devel.opment. fhe conceptull review ieintended to give the applicant a Lasic understandiug oftbe conpatibility of their proposal witb the TownrsDesigm Guidelines. This procedure is recotrmendedprinarily for applicat,ions more compLex than single-fanily and two-fasril.y residences. However, devei,opersof sileJ.e-fanily and two-fasrily Brojects shatl not beexcl.uded from the opportunity to request a conceptualdesign review. complete applicatioris must ue sulnittea10 rorkiag days prior to a scheduled DRB meeting.
llhe fol-l-owing information shaLl be eubmitted for aconceptual review:
1. A conceptual site and landscape pLan at a minimunEcale of one inch eguals tvrenty feet,
2. Conceptual- eLevations showing exterior naterialsand a description of the character of the proposedstructure or structuresi
3. Sufficient infornation to show the propoEalcomplies with the development Etandardl of thezone district in whieh the project is to beLocated (i.e. onra, site coverage caLculations,nurnber of parking spaces, etc.),
4. Completed DRB appJ.ication form.
B. Procedure: Upon receipt of an application forconceptual design review, the Department of ConmunityDevelopment shall review the submitted materialg forgeneral-comp15.ance with the appropriate requirements ofthe zoning code. If the propogat is in basic
compJ.iance with the zoning code requirenents, theproject shal.l be fonrarded to ttre OnS for coneeptualreview. If the application is not generall.y ln-conrpliance with zoning code reguiresrents, tleappl.ication and submittal mateiials shall be retu:raedto the applicant with a written ocpl.anation as to rrhythe Conmunity Devetopment Oeparturent staff has foundthe project not to be in eonrptianee wi tb. zoning ecdcrequirements. Once a corpLete application has beenr:eceived, Lhe DRB shatl review tle subEdt,ted conceptualreview application and supporting materiaL ia ordei todeter:rrine whether or not the project generally eolplieswith the design guidelines. itre-pns doeg not vote onconceptual revj.ews. The property ormer or hisrepresentative eha1l be present at the DRB beariag.
G.
H.
I.
IrVtascia, trim, railings, chYnurey c€rp, tn€t€rl-ocations, etc. nust be shown graphieally andfulJ.y dimensioned.
Zone check list (attached) must be completed if theproject.is located within the Single-Fanily,
Primary/Secondary or Duplex zone districts.
Photos of the exist,ing site and wbere appLicable, ofadjacent structures.
The Zoning Administrator and/or DR8 nay require thesubmission of additional pJ.ans, drawings,specificationg, sampJ.es and other mat,eriale (includinga model) if deemed necessary to det,ermine whether aproject wil-L comply with Oesign Guidelinee.
v.IIIIIOR AIJTIRATIOIS lFO ITIIE EXTERTOR OF BUIIJDIIIGIS.
Plrotos or sketches which cl.earLy conv_ey the redevelopmentproposal and lhe location (site plan) of the redeveLopmentproposal nay be submitted in Lieu of the more foruralreguirernents set forth above, provided a1l inportantspecifications for the proposal incJ.uding colors and,materials to be used are submit,ted.
VI. ADDITIONS . REITDBWIAI, OR COUIiER.CIAI.|
A. Original floor plans with all specifications showa.
B. Three sets of proposed floor pLans L/g, = 1r or Larger(L/4" - 1, is preferred)
C. Three copies of a site plan showing existing andproposed construction. Ind,icate roof ridge eLevationswith existing and proposed gradee shown underneath..
D. Elevations of proposed addition.
E. Photos of tbe existing structure.
F. Specifications for aL1 mat,eriaLs and, color samples on- rnaterials list (attached).
AC tle request of the Zoniag AdniDistrator !'ou nay also berequired to subuiE:
c. A statement from each utility verifying location ofservice and availabiliEy. See attached utiLitylocation verification form.
H. e site improvement survey, stanped by registered
Colorado Professional L,iceased surveyor.
I. a preliminary title report, to verify ownerehip ofproperty, which lists alL easements.
VTI. FITIAI, SITE PT.AII
once a hrrildina pentit b--s been issucS, a::d cc-st;ueiioa i;underway, and before the Building Departnent lrill schedule aframing inspection, two copieg of an lrq)rovement LocationCertificate sunrey (IL,C) stanped by a registeredprofessional engineer must be sllbnitted. The folLowinginformation must be provided on the IIJC:
A. Building Location(s) with cies to property corners,i.e. distancea and angles.
A. Building d.imensions to the nearest tenth of a foot.
c.
.. l"tonoeed driveway, rrr.routn percenr sr.opeand spot elevations at the property line,garage slab and as neceaaary aLong thecenterline of the drive to accuratel.y refLectdriveway grade.
d. A 4' coDcrete drive pan at the edge ofasphalt for driveways that exit the gtreet inan uphiJ.l direetion.
2. All existing improvenents including structurea,landecaped areag, ge:nrice areag, atorage areas,wal.ks, d,riveways, off -street parking, ioadingareas, retaining wal.ls (with top and bottosr ofwaLl spot elevations), and other existing siteinrprovernents.
3. In order to deternine proposed building heightselevatione of al1 top roof ridges, and-eavei whendeter:mined neceseary by the zoning adrrinistrator,shalL be indicated on the site plan with existingand proposed contour linee shown underneath.
I.andncaoe PlaT (1u = 20, ot larger) - 3 copies required1. At a nuinimum, the follorring infolrration nusc beprovided on the landscape plan:
a. IJocation of existing treeg 4" dianeter orlarger,
b. T!Ee, size and location of all existing andproposed pLant mat,elial ,
c. Location of all trees to be transplanted,
d. A detailed legend of all proposed planttnaterial inctuding cotnmon and lJatin nanes.
2. The location and type of existing and proposedwatering systens to be eurployed in caring forplant material following its installation.
3. Existing and proposed contour Lines. Retainingwalls should be included with the contourinforrration with top of wal.I and bottom of wallelevations listed.
4. Complete the attached landscape naterials list.
$icrn eff frorn each utilitv eo4panv verifying thelocation of utility gsrrice and availabiliLy (seeattached utiLity verification fornr) .
A prel-iminarv title report SeheduLe A and B muataecompany alL submittaLs, to insure property ownershipand identify at-l easenents affecting the subjectproperty.
F. l?chitectu'ral Plans lt/8" = 1r Or Largrer, L/4" lApreferred scale for review) 3 copies are required.
1. Fl.oor plans and all elevations of the proposed
development drawn to scale. ancl fully dine-nsjonF.t.The el-evation drawings nust show both existing andfinished grades.
2, One set of fl.oor plans must be rred-l.inedn to gbow
how the gross residential fl.oor area (GRFA) wascalculated.
3. Exterior material.s and colors shall be specifiedon the attached naterials list. This materialgLigt must be conpleted and subrnitted as a part ofthe appLication. Color chips, siding samplesetc., shaLL be presented at the Design ReviewBoard meetlng. Details including, but not limited
D.
E.
rv.
A. Three copies of a recent topographic 6urvey, starrped bya Colorado ProfeEsional Lriceosed gurn€yor, aL a scaleof 1n = 20t or Larger, on which the foltbwingrinformat,ion is provided:
1.IJot area, and buiLdable area when different thanlot area.
2. IregaL descripeion and physical address.
3. Trro foot contour intervals unless the parcelconsists of 6 acreg or nore, in which case, 5'contour intervals nay be accepted.
4. Existing treeE or groul,B of trees having trunkswith diarreters of 4n or mo!e, ag meagured fron apoint one foot above grade.
5. Rock outcroppings and other significant naturalfeatures (large boulders, intennittent strea.ns,etc. ) .
5. Hazard areas (avalanche, rockfall, etc.),centerline of gtreams or creekg, required creek orstreErm seEback, and 100-year fl.ood pJ.ain, ifapplicable. Slopes of 40t or more itratt Ueclearly deLineated by cross hatching.
7. Ties to existing benchmark, either USGS lan&narkor sewer invert. fhis infornation must be clearlystated on the survey so that all ureasurenents arebased on the sane starting point. Ehie isparticularJ.y important for determining buildingrheigbt and. d,riveway slope. See pol.icy On SurveyIufornation, for more information regarding
Surveys.
8. Locations of the following must be shown:.
a. Size and tlpe of drainage cuLverts, swaLes,etc.
b. Exact Location of existing utij.ity serviceLines from tbeir aource to the atructure,includinq:
cable T\r
Telephone
Selver
$later
Gas
El.ectric
c. All utility meter locations, including anypedestals to be located on site or in theright-of-way adjacent to the site.
d. Property lines - distanceg and bearings and abasis of bearing.
e. Indicate all easenents identified on thesubdivision pJ.at.
9. Provide spot eJ.evations at the edge of aspha1t,alOnc the Ftreet f ron t'arrF (.tf tha n?.r'\6?.r-r' .l
rwenry- f ive f oor inrervils -
i zi;i, -"rr-a-l iiii.*, orone spot eLevation on either side of the lot.
Site Plan
1. Locati.ong of
a. Existing
the following muet be shown:
and finished grades.
B.
b. Proposed surface drainage on and, off site.
rr.
a plg-?pplication neeting with a member of rhe ptanningstaff ie encouraged to deterrrine if any additioiralappl.icatlon infor-nation ie needed. It is the applicantisresponsibility to nake an appointment yrith the ltaff todetscnine if there are addilional subnittal reguireurents.Prease note that a col{prJgTe appJ.ication will sdreanLine thereview process for your project.
IIr. ilp9mlNn rlorren nrcASonrc lr,r, gunnrrgsroNs ,ro ,rm nRBt
A. In addition to neeting submittal requirements, theapplicant rmrst stake and tape the pioject site toindicate property lines, buitding fines andl buildingcorners. All treea to be renoved must be taped. Aifgite tapings.and staking must be compLeted piior to crreDRB gite.visic. The applicatrt must -ensure tlat statingdone during the winter is not buried by saow.
B. The review process for NElf BUTTJDTNGS no::rrarty requirestwo separate meetings of the Design Review Boardi aconceptual review and a final review.
c. Applicants who fair. to appear before the Desigm RevierrBoard on their scheduled meeting date and who-have notaeked in advance that discussion on their iterr bepostponed, will have their iterrs renoved fron the DRBagenda until such time as the item has beenrepublished.
D. The foll.owing iteurs may, at the discretion of thezoning adrrinigtrator, be approved by the comunityDevelopment Department staff (i.e. a formal hearingbefore the DRB nay not be required):
a: windows, skylights and sinilar exterior changeswhich do not aLter the existing plane of thebuilding; and
b. sullding additlons not visibte from any other lotor public Bpace. At the time such a proposal issubmitted, applicants must include Letteis fromadjacent property o$mers and/or fron the agent foror nanager of any adjacent condominiun associationstating the association approves of the addition.
E. If a property is tocated in a napped hazard area (i.e.gnow avalanche, rockfall, flood plain, debris flow,wetland, etc.), a hazard study must be subnitted andthe oyrDer.must siga an affidavit recognizing the hazardrepoTt prior to the igsuance of a building pernit.Applicants are encouraged to cbeck with a Toem pla^llnerprior to DRB application to detemine the relat,ionehipof the property to al.l. napped hazards.
F. For all residential construction:
a. Clearly indicate on the floor plans tbe insideface of the scterior stnrctural wal.lg of thebuitding; and
b. hdicate with a dashed line oa tbe gite plaa afour foot distance from the exterior face of thebuilding walls or supporting colunns.
G. If DRA approves the application with conditions ormodifications, att conaitions of approval. must beaddressed prior to the applicatiou lor a buitdlingpernit.
E et d, alt1 lta
DESIGII Rs\,ltEIv BOARD APPIJTCAIIOI| - Tol|IT Otr VAIL, Ce{b*ffggO
DATE RECEIVED:
DATE OF DRB MEETTNG:
*tt***t*t*
fiTCOEPIJEIEE ,"PPLICATIONS I'AY If/('TI BE SCEl',/trT,,g) FIOR RE]/IBry.tt!t!la*aatl
I.
A.
B.TYPE OF REVTEW:
New Construction ($200. 00)x Addirion ($50.00)Minor Alterarion ($20.00)
-.,tConceptuaL
Revievr ($0)
a meets and bounds
on a separate gheet,
Legal
and att,ach
c.
D.
ADDREss r 7,/?, feA+h-a-hfab Fe,H-,a'
LEGAIJ DESCRTPTTON:BlockSubdivision
If property is described bydescription, pJ.ease provideto this application.
g.
r.
ZONING:
NN,IE OF
Mailing
)Ca is)APPLICANT:
Address:
G.
Phone
APPI,ICAIST I S REPRESEIiITATIVE :
Address:
Phone
fl. NAI.{E OF OWNER(S):
OENER(SI SI(IiIAITT'RE:
Yailing Address:
Phone
APPIJICATIONS WT]J NOT BE PROCESSED WI'fEIO4? ONNER'S Sr@UITUNB
Condominiun Approval if applicable.
DRB FEE: DRB fees, as shown above, are to be paid at theLine of submiLtaL of the DRB applicatj.on. .Lat,er, when
appJ.ying for a building permit, please identify tbe accuratevaLuation of the proposal . The Town of.Vail wiLl adjust thefee according to the table below, to ensure the correct feeis paid.
IiIAME OFuailing
I.
,t.
FEE SCHEDTII,E:
VAIJUATION$ o-$ 1o,ooo$i0,00r'+ 5u,uuu
$50,001 -$ 150,000
$150,001 - $ 500,000
$500,001 - 91,000,000S @er 91,000,000
D8ST6I RETTIEII BOARD APPROVAIJ EXPIRES
APPROVEL I'NIJESS A BUrIJDrlrc PBNUIT ISrS SIIIARTBD.
FEE
$ 20.00
$ s0.00
$100.00
$200.00
s400.00
$s00.00
NE TEAR AF!!ER, FINNJ
ISSIIED AI{D COTSTRUCTIOI
LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO
CHARLES AND GERI CAMPISI FOR
TOWN OF VAIL VARIANCE APPLICATION
1.
)
J.
4.
J.
8.
9.
6.
7.
Betry Guffy
742 Sandy Lane
Vail, CO 81657
Rican lnvesfrnent Company, Ltd.
c/o Karl H. Fauland
P.O. Box 4261
Vail, CO 81658
Mikell Holdings Co., Ltd.
c/o Karl H. Fauland
P.O. Box 4261
Vail, CO 81658
Kit C. William - Gail B. Dunning
2925 Booth Creek Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Rogers Penske Trust
c/o Penske Corp.
187 Highway 36
West long Branch, N.J. 07764-1304
Mary Anne Mills
31434 S. Bermuda Dunes Drive
Evergreen, CO 80439
Mon Choisi, Inc.
c/o Mr. and Mrs. Benigno Trigo
P.O. Box 2369
Tamaca Corp.
Calle 3, #11
Garden Hills Estates
Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00966
Charles R. and Barbara J. Rasan
744 Sandy [:ne
Vail. CO 81657
o
10.
11.
Josef Staufer
100 E. Meadow Drive
Vail, CO 81657
RLS Holding Co.
c/o Richard L. Swig
The Fairrnount Hotel
San Francisco, CA 94106
Herman Staufer
P.O. Box 5000
Vail, CO 81658
George & Elisabeth W. Freland
2025 E, 4th Avenue
Denver, CO 80206
Vail Condominium Partners
7130 S. lrwis
Suite 850
Tulsa, OK 74136
Scott Family Partnership
1555 Silver King Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
Scott Family Partnership
1555 Silver King Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
James F. and Mary H. Flaherty III
251 21st Place
Santa Monica, CA 90402
T2 Medical, Inc.
1125 lTth Street, Suite 1500
Denver, CO 80202
James A. and J. Anne Beltz
447 Peavey Rd.
Way Zata, MN 55391
Samuel B. and Nancy Guren
1253 Linden Avenue
Highland Park, IL 60035
t2.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.Nancy C. Rowan
P.O. Box 176
Avon, CO 81620
John P. and Beverly J. Holland
14919 Bramblewood
Houston, TX 77079
RLS Holding Co.
c/o Richard L. Swig
The Fairmount Hotel
San Francisco, CA 94106
Kevin H. and Linda W. Burke
2t42Mountain Drive
Golden, CO 80401
Ronald Elenbaas
3328 Oakdale
Hickory Corners, MI 49060
Even P. and Kazuko M. Johansen
27 Dublin Hill Road
Greenwich, CT 06830
Tereco Realty, Inc.
c/o Earl N. Feldman, Esquire
1200 Thid Avenue, Suite 1324
San Diego, CO 92101
Homby, Ltd.
c/o Fred S. Otto
P.O. Box 3149
Vail, CO 81658
John Z and Charlotte P. Kimberlin
3300 Oak lawn Avenue
Suite 703
Dallas, TX 752LL
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
THIS ]TEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE ls HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environm,ental-commission of the Town of
Vaitwitl hold a public hearing in accordance^;iti 5";iii|le'6e'O6Oot tne Municipal Code of the
Town of vait on s.'ii"'i6iizb, igbe, it irbii i.r'r. in tne Town of Vail Municipal Building' In
consideration of:
A request for a conditional use permit for a Type ll EHU, to be located al1225 westhaven
LaneiLot 43, Glen LYon
Applicant: Sentry Construction, rep. by Mike Young
Pldnner: George Ruther
r A reouest for a site coverage variance to allow for a one car garage, located at
*ll, Sandv Lane/Lot 3. VailPotato Patch 2nd Filing
4^pp,,aanl: r,err Gampsr ..Pidnner: Dominic Mauriello
A reouest for a conditional use permit to allow for a miniature golf course in the CC2 Zone
oistria, located at Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing
Applicant: Charlie Alexander
Pidnner: Dirk Mason
A reouest for a minor exterior alleration to allow lor the construction of a walk-in lteezer,located
ai sde West Lionshead Malil-ot 5, Block 1 , Vail Lionshead 1st Filing
Applicant: Mitch GarfinkelPianner: George Ruther llllt,,t
The applications and information about the proposals are available in the project planner's otfice
Ouring'iegurar omce nouii foi public inspeciion, located at the Town of VailCommunity
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language int€rprctation availablE upon request with 24 hour notification. Pl€ase call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356
TDD for inlormation.
Community Developmenl Department
Published September 6, 199€ in the Vail Trail.
*Wt,
Memo
To: The Town of Vail
From: JeffteyTenell,AlA RMTArchitects
GrG: Ms. Jeri Campisi
Date: September 11, 1996
Re: Potato Patch Lot 3, Second Filing
In response to your letter to Ms. Jeri Campisi, regarding the Addition stated above, I have included for
your record three copies of Drawing Al with the Scale typographic enor conected.
Also, I have included three 8-1/2"x1 1" copies of the site plan (drawing Al ) for the variance application.
Please feel free to contact me if you require any additional information.
Sincerely,
dtWtu{/////
Jefirey Tenell, AIA
Princioal
arlrrcartLr-CailGit Grv tEtrtvl
tqgl puooe5 € |o1-qcosd qqod
uoBlppv rsrorrrBc eql
iiil
i$iil
zo
E
Fv,zoU
H
t-.bz
ix, :
,k,,,
aror{a8r{
'|tf ortlq|lt G'trv 0Strtva
S{IT'ETIW TMIEL ETII'.
uopTppv Isl
Fml.A
oFlodeql
llil
iftil
.:+.:
B
5
z
Ep
F(A
eU
H
bz
,l
,l
co-rtoity Developrnent pt"r, noo, * r.3UtO
c s teg&
Routed To:Greg Hall, Public Works
Terri Martinez, Public Works
Todd Oppenheimer, Public Works
Mike McGee. Fire
Return To:Dominic F. Mauriello, Community Development
Date Routed:8/30/96
Retum By:9/4/96
Project Name:Campisi - Site coverage variance for 300 sq. ft. garage addition
Project Address:742 Sardy Lane - Potato Patch
Projeot Legal:Lot 3, Potato Patch Second addition
Pdect Description:Requesting a site covaage variance to construct single car garage to existing paved area.
No modifications to the existing driveway.
# Approved Denied (cite detailed reasons) Approved with conditions
v6nqr\@ i sEpc, ccl(\ t€-
rS<irl--.,hCX'\S
WNe'lrc€, & eo.wr tt's&6rqnttfu l-!c(}" nx$ te
v3c}.gz s.\s.).) Lte, clsuclrnS <rc+,r'd q-,g "lcr0l ,&1,o,.)3atl-"."e (\<' \\ e-x1',\5 And O'-' \ \: $:q4
prC;,ted ?
re.rei,<\ cR. o<' qto ce.ter.r.eA <Ja.cA.\ta tqruiwd qrcr !c-:" oq Og'qlo'
f:\everyoreuomkoutrorm
"o*"r|ttty
Development pr"n noofg Form
Greg Hall, Public Works
Teni Martinez, Public Works
Todd Oppenheimer, Public Works
F. Mauriellq Community Development
Campisi - Site coverage variance for 300 sq. ft. garage addition
742 Sandy Lane - Potato Patch
Lot 3. Potato Patch Second addition
Requesting a site coverage variance to construct single car garage to existing paved
No modifications to the existing driveway.
Description:
Approved Denied (cite detailed reasons) Approved with conditions
TOWN OF VAIL
75 S. FRONTAGE ROA.D
vArL, co 8L557
970-479-2L38
DEPARII{ENT OF COMMT'NITY DEVELOPMENT
NOTE:THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON
PLT]MBING PERMIT
.Job Address: 742 SANDY LN
I-,OCAIiON...: 742 A SANDY I,ANE
Parcel No.. : 2101-063-15-010
Project, No.:
iTOBSITE AT AIL TIMES
Permit #: P96-0140
Status. .
AppIied.
Issued. .
E:qlires.
FIIiIAL
09 / 04 /L996
oe/04/L996
03 / 03 /Le97
APPLICAItl:T VAIL VALLEY PLI'MBING & HEATING
P O BOX 2048, AVON CO 8L620
CONTRAqTOR VAIL VALLEY PLUI,IBING & HEATING
Phone:. 303949',1771
Phone: 303949777L
15.O0 .00R€Etsualatrt Plan Ravicw- - >
TOTA! FEES-----
Total calculaeed Fort---> 21.7s
Addltional Fc.E--------->. o0
OWNER
Description: INSTATJIJ GAS LINE FROM METER TO GARva1uation:725.00
*r**'r*trrr**ir!r.rr*t*r*rrt**t* PEB SWMARY
P O BOX 2048, AVON CO 81520
cuFFEY BErrY / 77=o e 7{742 sANDy r.,N, vArr_, co BLG,T <v4 _ 7 A / ( J,n/ /--zU-f Z?e_
Plunbing----->
Plan Chcck- - - >
Invasbigatsion> .oo Total Peroit FcG--_-----> 2l-7s
Will Call----> 3.OO Pa!,bcnE!t------- 2L-75
BAIANCE DUE-- - -
IEEM: O51OO BUILDING DEPARII'IEIiTT DEPE: BUILDING DiViSiON:
O9/04/L996 CHARLIE Act,ion: APPR CHARLIE DAVISitam;'o56oo-Fine-DspARfl,tErl - Dept: FrRE Division:
CONDITION OF APPROVAI,
---L. FIELD INSPECIIONS ARE REO'D TO CHECK FOR CODE COMPLIANCE2. AI,r.L WORK MUST COMPLY WITH TTIE 1994 UPC.
t *tj, ti l| t t t + t* * t t ' * t ti t !}r t
I_- DECI,AR,ATIONS
I h.r6by .cknovl.dga bhrts I hrv€ rcad chis .pplicatsion, fillsd outs in futl lhr infornacion requircd, coDplctsd .n .cculatsc plot
plan, and 6bate thats all the inforrnalion provid€d a6 r€quir€d i6 corrcct. I aErcc to co[p].y nitsh th. infornation and plot plan,
tso comply t'ihh all Tot.n ordinance6 and Ftat6 lans, and to build bhir 6tsructsurc accordinE to tshc Torn'E zoning and Bubdi.vision
cod€6, design rcwie!, approv€al, uniforn Building code and oth6r ordinanccs of lhc Town applicabLe tshelrto.
REQI'ESTS POR BE UADE TIi,ENTY.FOIJR HOIJRS IN ADVANCE BY TE],EPHONB AT 4?9-2138 OR AT OIJR OFFICE FROM A:OO A.M 5:OO PM
SIGT{ATURE OF OIINER OR CONT?ACTOR
'OR
HIUSEIJF AND OTINER
Lof 3
(?.tL 7
O
TOViN OF VAII,
75 S. FRONTAGE ROAD
vArL, co 81657
9?O-479-2138
Ptua$ing---)
Ptan ch.ck--->
InvestigEt ion>
Uitt c!tt-->
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
NOTE: THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED
PLUMBING PERMIT
4\l"rgl
DEVELOPMENT
ON JOBSITE AT
Permit #:
?**.1 < ,7*,/ F' /'r
ALL TIMES
P9 6-014 0
Job Address:
Location...:
Parcel No..:
Project No.:
APPLICANT VAIL VALLEY PLI'MBING & HEATING
P O BOX 2048, AVON CO 81620
CONTRACTOR VAIL VAIJLEY PLUMBING & HEATING
P O BOX 2048, AVON CO 81620
OWNER GUFFEY BETTY
742 SANDY LN, VArL CO 81657
Description: INSTAIL GAS LINE FROM METER TO GARValuation:
15.00 Rcstuarant Plln Rcvicrr-->1.75 TOTAL FEES-----
.00
3.00
.00 Totrl cEtcutat.d Fces-->
21.75 Additionat F.es------>
Total Permit fcc-------->
Pryncnts-------
BALANCE oUE-------->
Status...: ISSUED
App1ied..t 09/04/Lge6
Issued...z 09/04/1996
Expires . . z 03/03/L99'1
Phonez 303949777L
Phone t 30394977'11
725.00
21.75
.m
21 .75
21.75
.00
***t*ffi**f**ffi****f,*** FEE SUl4l'lARY ttl*r*ffi*rr*tr*Jr*#.**ffi
******t ****tffi*r**#***Rt**rrtr**flt**ffi*i*tl*fr**i*******
rtem: 05100 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Dept: BUILDING Division:
09/04/t996 CHARLTE Action: APPR CHARLTE DAVrS
*l*,*i firr#r*****t*****r**ffi
CONDITION OF APPROVAI
1. FIEI,D INSPECTIONS ARE REQ'D TO CHECK FOR CODE COMPI.,IANCE2. ALL WORK l"IitST COMPLY WITH THE 1994 UPC.
DECLARATIONS
I hereby acknoHledga that t have paad this apptication, fitted out in futt the informat ion required, coltPteted an
ptan, .nd statc th.t !!t th. infornation provided as rcquircd is correct. I agrcc to coety ttith the inforration
io conrpl,y lrith stt To},n ordinancos and ctat. Lavs, and to buil,d this structurc according to the Tornrs zoning and
codcs, design revicv approved, UniforF Buitding codc and other ordinancrs of the Toen appl,i cabl,e thrPcto.
REOUESTS FOR INSPECTIOI{S SHALL BE NADE TIIENTY-TOUR HOI'RS IN ADVANCE BY TELEPHONE AT 47F213E.9R AT'UR OfTICE TROII
accuratr plot
md ptot pL!n,
subdivisim
8:00 A|| 5:00 F
742 SANDY LN
2To:.-i163-rs-o 1o
AND O}'NER
TOWN OF VAIL
75 S. FRONTAGE ROAD
vArL, co 8165?
97 0-47 9-2138
Ptumbing----) 15 '00
Pf,an Ch.ck---> 3.75
DEPARTMENT OF COWUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NOTE: THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED
PLUMBING PERMIT
Job Address. 742 SANDY LN
Location. .. | '742 A SANDY LANE
ParceL No.. : 2101-063-15-010
Project No.:
APPL]CANT VAIL VALLEY PLI'MBING & HEATING
P O BOX 2048, AVON CO 81620
CONTRACTOR VAIL VALLEY PLT'MBING & HEATING
P O BOX 2048, AVON CO 81620
OWNER GUFFEY BETTY
?42 SANDY LN, VAIL CO 81657
Description: INSTALL GAS LINE FROM METER TO GARValuation:
ON JOBSITE AT AI.,L TIMES
Permit +: P95-0140
Status...: ISSUED
Applied..t 09/04/t996
lssued...z 09/04/1996
Expires . . z 03/03/L99'1
Phone z 303949'1771
Phone t 30394977'lL
725.00
********ff******ffffitffif*** F EE SUI'lllARY rHrJ**Jiffi(rrffir*'tffi**r#f lt#f iHffi #<
Totat csl,cutatcd Fecs---> 21.75Rcstuarant Ptan Rcvicv-->
TOTAL FEES-----21 .75 .m
?1.7'
?1 .75
.@
Investigation>
ui l,L c!tt---->
.00
3.00
AdditionaI Fces--------->
TotaI Permit Fee-*---->
P!ynents
BALANCE DUE-----
ffi ffi *ffiffi*ffr*****tr***rr*.i'|tJr**
rren: 05100 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Dept: BUILDING Division:
09/04/1996 CHARLIE Action: APPR CHARLIE DAVIS
***ffi ******f******irlrtrt *lrt*Hr**f rf iffif ***Rk*********ffi kffi ffi ti*ffi Jrf i**t*t****ffi
CONDITION OF APPROVAL
1. FIELD INSPECTIONS ARE REQ'D TO CHECK FOR CODE COMPLIANCE2. ALL WORK MUST COMPLY WITH THE 1994 UPC.
DECLARATlONS
t hereby acknowtedga that I have read this apptication, fitl,ed out in futl, the in{ormation requi red, completed an accurate ptot
pLan, aid state thit att thc 'inforration providcd as required is correct. I agree to conpl,y sith the intoroation and Plot Pt.n,
to c6mpty Hith al,L Toyn ordinanccs and statr talrs, and to buil,d this structure acconding to the Tolrn's zoning and subdivision
codcs, dcsign rcviev approvcd, Uniforu Buitding codc and othcr ordinances of thc ToHn app[icabte thlrcto.
REOUESTS FOR INSPECTIONS SHALL BE IADE TI,IEI{TY-FOI'R HOURS IN ADVANCE BY TELEPHONE A1 479-21
e"".""f otfi". OPArCC1./I .- TOT,IN OF VAIL CONSTRUCTTON
PERMTT APPLICATTON FORM
DATF! 4--7-ql-"--'4
/ APPLICATIoN IIUST BE FILLED OUT CoMPIJTELY OR rT MAY NoT BE AccEpTED
If***************************** PER!{fT INfORUATfON **************:t** ******** ****/l .-[ ]-Building 6/zf-prunbing [ ]-Erectricat [ ]-uechanibat [ ]-other
Job Name:Job Addre"=. 7fl
Legal Description:Block_ Filing
Ohtners Name:
Architect:Ph.
General Description:Gffi
Nunber of Dwelling Units; ).Nunber of Acconnodation Units:
^ l$tuber and llpe of Flreplaces: Gas Appliances_ cas Logs_ wood/pellet_v
'r* * * * * ***************************J VALUATTONS *********************************
' I pQ6_ ot4oBUTLDTNG: nr,gcfnrcir,:'f oTHER: S
rtLi,'MBrlic: F- MEcndilfiii r:; ;ffi;;
-----
vrr* ***** * * * * * ********** ****** coNrRAcToR TNFoRI{ATroN ******* **************** ****7 Eeneral Contractor:
Address:Phone Number:
ELectrical Contractor:
Address:Reg. NO.
PERI-IIT Ji
Address:
Address:
Ph.
Plunbing
Addr'ess:
Contractor:
Mechanical Contractor:
Address:
********************************
BUTLDTNG PERMTT FEE:
PLUMBING PERMTT FEE:
MECHANICAL PERMIT FEE3
ELECTRICAL FEE:
OTHER TYPE OF FEE:
DRB FEE:
Town of Vail
Phone Number:
Town of VaiI
Phone Nunber:
Town of Vail
Phone Number:
Reg. NO.
oFFrcE usE *** *** ******* * * ****************
BUTI.,DTNG PI,AN CHECK FEE:
PLI'MBTNC PI,AN CHECK FEE:MECHANICAL PI,AN CHECK FEE3
RECREATION FEE:
CI,EAN-UP DEPOSIT:
TOTAL PERI'fIT FEES:
FOR
EUTLDTNGS
STGNATURE:
ZONING3
STGNATURE:
gLxAN nP DEPOSTT REFUND r0:
75 3outh fronlegr ro.d
vlll, colorldo 81652
(303) 479-21.38 ot 479-2L39 ottlce ol conmunlly dev.lopmcnl
to:
FROM:
DATE:
su&TEg!3
ALL CONTRACTORS CURRENTLYL REGISTERED WITIT TIIETO!{N OF VAIL
TOWN OF VArL PUBLIC WORIG/COMr.|I NITY DEVEI.,oPMENI
MARCH 15, 1988
CONSTRUC?TON PARKING & MATERIAI STORAGE
rn Eu'nrnary, ordinance No. 5 states that it is unrawful for anyperson to ritter, rrack or aepJsii ;t;;irl-rr"i, sand, debrisor naterial , including trasn Eunpsters, portabre toilets andworknen vehicles. upon any streetl sidewalk, alley or publicplace or anv portiin th#e;;:- itre rignt-of-way on a* Town ofvail streets ind_.I?"g" is alproxinately 5 ft. off pavement.This ordinance wilr. be airi;iit"enforced by the To$rn of vair.Publi-c works oeoartment. --p"tllns touna .,rii,riring this ordinancewil-t be siven a-24 hour rrir[;;';"ti""-t"-;;;;;:'="id nareriar.fn the event the person so notified d.oes not cornply with thenotice within an:__r1 f,"ui-tiL.-Jpecified, the pultic worksDepartment will remove said nateiiut -"t the expense of personnotified' The provisions-or-'tiris orainance sharr not beapplicabte to c-onstruction, ,uirri"rrurrce or repair projects ofany street or alley or any "iirii."= rn the right-a_way.
To review ordinance No. 6 in ful1 , please stop by the Tov,rn of::li.::il3*"3"";Hif*:*"::-'oriii" a copv. rirani vou ror your
Rea
Y
d and acknowledged by:
o
s-t l41E y'kl.
frJ..Jocr,a/
Te+ il*tD bJehe 4€E &..4ll +h, F *Fpe^te.
't11 :OZ%
-- I:Tb.i\ d e{
tul
' '|^ !
^
D"k.c' $Tr apprblc< u'O"'--
,^/U 7".gr. A (.o,^^%.
l5f}\ . / ".P, y72**c! /A
,*eL-// ae?4, e{ Z
o 7^.1rrl a-
&tnle ,
Fronr: Dirk Mason1[o: Dodnic l.iauriello, Gcorge Ruthergubject: Camp161 ulrdatc
-==NOTE=====
I Just spoke wiEh RoEer L,a crolx (the
landscaper) about the poseible material
chango of the on grade patios.
H€ has lnformed me that they have
stopped work untll the orners get
thingE ironode out. He saLd the paElod
have not becn installed ae o€ yet.
Page: 1
TOWN OF VAIL
Category Number
ProieclName: z/-,,.-rt,':, - .lnr(,,',,(:.I)' l,', ^'
Building Name:
P@ect Description: r',,- rJ.^ o.(i t .{n.lt', .
oesliheview Action rornl
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architecvoontact, Address and Phone:
L€gal Description: Lot -, atock )J(
Project Street Address:
Subdivision Zone District
Comments:
c c,,r ql 61n^. I n i -^ 61, .
Board / Staff Action
Motion by:Vote:
Seconded by:
D Approval
! Disapproval
dstatnRRroval
Conditions:
DRB Fee Pre-paid
-.).r', \)9"-'
W:AzPM
Town or vAu
@4-eL-7997 * c' s
i I r4e * o o t " " "' "u',,"r,,
1,1-, .,;
" n:;; T,,L rri - r**
.dPPLTCATION FOR DESTGN REVIEW APPROVAI,
' cEt{,t:R4r |NF(}RMAT|ON
Thi6 application is f<rl any projoct raquiring Dcsign Rcvicw npproval. Any proJcct rcquiring desigr rcvlcw ntusl' rs.rrcivo Dcsign Roviarv approvel lr$igr t$ s{tbmitting for a buildiDg pcnrrit. For'spccific inform*irn, ssc thc srrbmittat
rcqrrircntcrlts for lhc partrcrrlar aPpioval thst i$ rcqua.ltcd, Tho application cannot be a<rcoptod until alt tho roquir.od
intbrnration is subnrittcd- Thc projr:ct may also ncc{ to bc rcvicwcd by thc Town Council and/or thc ptqnning on<l
Environtrrcnhll Comnris:ion. Design Rovicw Boerd rpprovel crpiros ono ycrr eftti finrl approvrl unle$ s
building pormlt ls issuctt *nd corrstruction ir $t rtcd.
I
A. DBSCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST:
B.LOCATIONOFPROPOSAL: LoT: 3 B
PI{YSICAL ADDTIESS:
ZONING:
F.
NAMEOF OWNHR(S):
MAILINC ADDRESS:
owNER(S) STGNATURE(S)
NAME OFAPPLICANT:
MAILING ADDRESS:
.fYPE OF REVIEW ANDFEE:E Ncw Construsrion - $200E Addiaion -
Q4tlq
PrfoNE: a-aL- €sgL
PHONE:
Construction ofa ncw building.
Includcs any additior whcrc squarc foohge is added to any rsidantial or
cont'rrcrcial buikling.
Includcs minor ch$ngcs to buildingr and sitc improvclrcnts. zuch ar.
rcvoofiog, painting. window additions, landrcaping, fcnccs and rctaining
walls. ctc.
For arSr application whcrc thc opplicant wishq$ to mc{t with Dcsigrr Rcvicw.
Boad rc dctcnninc tvhcthcr or not tbc projcct gcnsalty complics with tho :
dcsign guiddincs" Thc DRIJ d{rcs not vote on concq)hral rcvicrvs.
G.
dMiooretrcrrtlirn -
$s0
$20
: trl.Corccpturl Rcyicw - $0
DRB fes el'e to bc paid at thc time of subnrittql. Latcr. whcn aSrplying for a building pcnrrit. pt-*c i&ntify
thc ac0urate valuation of thC projcCt Thc Town of Vail will adjust $tfe.e according to tfr" prol&t ,r.traior.r.
Pt,tsAsE suBMlT THls APlLIcATtoN, ALL siJBMrrrAL REeUTREMENTS An D THE FEE To rrrp,DEPARTMENT OF CDMMUNTTY DEVELOPMONT. 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD, i
VAIL,COLORATX) 81657.
Cit{4.rlue - Ft-€ftS€ SrGN + t=A\c BActr d{t_
lSe]uO T-o tsor.rr L6,7 tJ * t t ?a . qAt r^{€t Updatcd lrJT
TOTH- P.A2
qr'? - "?f?1td - zno€
TX/RX N0.113404/2r/97 18:23 P.002
BERLINER ZISSER WALTER 6. GALLEGOS
ATTORNEYS AT LA\,lr'
ONE NOR\^r'EST CENTER
surTE z+700
ITOO LINCOLN STR E ET
oENVER, cOLORAOO eOzO3-4547
t3o3) a3o-r70o
FAX (3O3t A3O-r7O5
EMA| L bzwg@bzwg,co.n Larry D. Gallegos
June 17, 1997
Mr. Charles Campisi
Vital Corp.
1 17 East 24th Street
NewYork, NewYork 10010
Mr. Charles Campisi
742 B Sandy Lane
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Violation of Condominium Declaration Covenants
Our Ref: 71084.002
Dear Mr Campisi:
This Firm represents Ms. Betty Guffey concerning the work you have undertaken at the
duplex in Potato Patch in Vail, Colorado. ln this regard, we have been informed of the
modifications you have made to the exterior of the structure without Ms. Guffey's consent. Ms.
Guffey's prior written consent is clearly required by the "Condominium Declaration for Lot 3,
Vail/Potato Patch Second Filing Condominiums" dated January 30, 1980 (the "Declaration"). The
Declaration was recorded March 4, 1980 in Book 299 at Page 596 in the records of the Eagle
County Clerk and Recorde/s office and its requirements, therefore, "run with the land," which
means the covenants of the Declaration are binding upon you due to your ownership of a
condominium unit.
This letter will formally notify you that you have violated the Declaration in numerous
respects, and that our client intends to commence an action to redress those violations, unless
conective steps satisfactory to our client, as shown by her written consent, are promptly
undertaken.
Violations. Among the violations to which our client objects are the following:
Installation of two fumace exhaust pipes, which emit clouds of noxious odors and
gases and noises beneath her living room windows.
Leaving a dumpster in front of house for at least six months of the last 12 months.
v
BERLINER ZISSER WALTER & GALLEGOS
^ PROIESSIONAL CO"POF|ATION
ATTORNEYS AT LA\^/
Mr. Charles Campisi
June 17, 1997
Farta a
The proposed installation of two exterior patios, to be accessed by two
unapproved installed exterior doors.
Installation of exterior light fixtures beneath her bedroom windows.
lnstalling skylights in the roof.
Leaving construction debris and materials and a dumpster on the property.
Installation of stucco surfacing beyond that for which consent was given.
Our client has not consented to any of these activities, as required by the Declaration,
and insists that they be corrected immediately. Any corrective measures you propose must also
have the prior written consent of our client.
Requirements of the Declaration. Even a brief review of the Declaration reveals that
your modifications, which were not approved by Ms. Guffey, were made in violation of the
Declaration. Specifically, paragraph 10 of the Declaration states (in relevant part):
No damage to, or waste of, the common elements or any part
thereof shall be committed by any owner, or by any member of the
owner's family, by any guest or invitee of an owner, and each
owner shall indemnify and hold the other owner harmless against
all loss resulting from any such damage or waste caused by him,
the members of his family or his guests and invitees.
No structural alterations to any condominium unit or any common
element shall be done by any owner without the prior written
approval of the other owner.
No used or secondhand structure, no building of a temporary
character, no . . . shack, or outbuilding shall be placed or used on
the subject property, either temporarily or permanently; except . .
. during the period of construction of an approved and allowed
improvement....
Except as provided herein, no exterior additions . . ., alterations or
deenrations shall be commenced, erected or maintained without
the prior written approval of the owners . . . .
All landscaping and gardening shall bd accomplished or
undertaken only by or with the written approval of the owners.
BERLINER ZISSER WALTER 6. GALLEGOS
A PiOFESSIONAL COiFOFIA'ION
ATTORNEYS AT LA\^.|
Mr, Charles Campisi
June 17, 1997
Page 3
No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on upon any
condominium unit, nor shall anything be done or placed upon the
subject property which is or may become a nuisance or cause
embanassment, disturbance, or annoyance to others.
No lights shall be emitted from any condominium unit which are
unreasonably bright or cause unreasonable glare; . . . ; and no
odor shall be emitted from any condominium unit which is noxious
or offensive to others.
Remedies for Violation of Declaration. In addition to your duty to indemnify and hold
Ms. Guffey harmless from any liability relating to your alterations, the Declaration imposes other
obligations upon an owner who violates its terms, including (without limitation) payment of
"default assessments", imposition of a lien on your unit, liability for repair and reconstruction, as
well as enforcement by injunction and restraining order. These remedies may be awarded in
either an arbitration or legal proceeding. The Declaration specifically states that no delay in
making a claim for violation of the Declaration shall impede an owner's right to do so thereafter.
Relevant Colorado Law. Many Colorado cases have addressed the enforceability of
recorded covenants, and have held that such covenants should be strictly enforced in the same
manner as any other contract concerning real estate. Several of these cases are discussed
below.
Lookout Mountain v. Viewpoint,867 P.zd 70 (Colo. App. 1993). The Colorado Court
of Appeals held that restrictive covenants "run with the land" so long as they "touch and concem"
the land. As the Declaration has been recorded, its requirements meet this criteria.
Wilson v. Goldman,699 P.2d 420 (Golo. App. 1985). In this case, the Colorado Court
of Appeals states that protective covenants "must be construed as a whole and interpreted in
view of their underlying purposes". The Court held that courts should construe the terms in favor
of enforcement of the covenants.
Norrisv.Phillips,626P.zd717(Golo.App.1981). TheColoradoCourtofAppealsheld
that covenants are a recognized method used to prevent construction of nonconforming
improvements and to assure properg owners, through approval of building and site plans, that
their plans conform to a common scheme.
WestAlamedaHeights HOAv. Boardof County Commissioners,45S P.2d 253 (Golo.
1969). The Colorado Supreme Court held that restrictive covenants will be enforced so that the
original purpose of those covenants can be accomplished, even though the use of the land may
have changed over time and no person would suffer any dgmage by violating those covenants.
Deviation from the covenants may only be allowed where the neighborhood has so changed as
BLRLINER ZISSER WALTER 6. GALLEGOS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mr. Charles Campisi
June 17, 1997
Page 4
to make it "impossible any longer to secure in substantial degree the benefit sought to be
realized through the performance of the building restriction".
Rhue v. Cheyenne Homes, |nc.,449 P.2d 361 (Golo. 1969). The Colorado Supreme
Court stated that it intentionally gives great latitude to the vague and open-ended nature of
restrictive covenants, so long as "the intention of the covenant is clead'. Restrictive covenants
for the benefit of all owners "are valid and not against public policy, and are enforceable in equity
against all purchasers".
Conclusion. Given the duty of Colorado Courts to strictly enforce restrictive covenants,
and the lack of written consent to your alterations to the property, we believe Ms. Guffey will
prevail in an arbitration or legal action. Indeed, your defense of that action may well be seen
as "frivolous and groundless", entitling Ms. Guffey to an award of attorney fees against you.
Accordingly, we ask that you promptly contact me in writing with your suggestions for corrective
measures. Please do not contact Ms. Guffey directly, as she prefers to have you deal only with
me from this time forward.
Very truly yours,
LDGjls
cc: Ms. Betty Guffey
BERLINER ZISSER WALTER
,nll*di."lrti i:
lt"vAILl, COIrnEAqq -.., UU r .j I l,lc.
BOARD APPI,ICATTON .
DATE RECEIVED:
DATE OF DRB MEETTNG:
PROJECT INFORMATION:
DESCRIPTION:
I.
A.
O
TOI{N OF
D
REVIBI{
'e'
..vr..A a/17 /gtl
DESTGN
.I" .
*t*la**ata
B.TYPE OF REVTEW:
New Construction ($200. 00)Addirion (950.00)
ADDRESS:
LEGAL DESCRTPT
Subdivision
X uinor Alr.erarion ($20.00)
Conceptual neview (90)
c.
D.
ff property is described bydescription, please provideto this appLication.
a meets and bounds
on a separate sheet
legal
and at.Lach
E.
F.
I.
.t.
ZONING:
NAME OF
Mailing
APPI.ITCANT:
Address:
G.NAI,TE OF
Mailing
APPLICANT ' S REPRESENTATIVE:
Address:o t-\
H.NAI{E OF O}IINER(S):
u_
't'..^ ' J._q ',l'tl.,rL.[,rMailing Address:
APPLrcATroNs wrrrL Nor aE PRocEssBD ?Irrilow owNER,s srerIATuRE
Condominium Approval if applicable.
DRB FEE: DRB fees, as shown above, are to be paid at thebime of submittal of the DRB application. Liter, whenapplying for a building permit; prease identify the accurat,evaluation of the proposal. The iown of vail will adjusl thefee according to the table below, to ensure the correct feeis paid.
FEE
$ 20.00
$ s0.00
$100. 00
$200.00
$400. 00
$s00. 00
ONE YE,AR AFTER FTNAIJ
ISSUED AI\TD CONSTRUCrION
FEE pArp, 020,60 cHEcK #,2?4-l pArE, tolz- By,L/nlk,671s
FEE SCHEDULE:
VALUATION$ o $ 1o,ooo
$ 10,001 $ 50,000s50,001 -$ 150,000
$150,001 - $ 500,000
s500,001 - $1,000,000g Over 91,000,000
DESIGN RSVIEW BOARD APPROVAIJ EXPTRBS
APPROVAIJ ITNIJESS A BUIIJDING pBRI,trT fSrS STARIED.
!'
,,a"t O" Or'"*rt*r?
NAI.IE OF PRO.IECT:
IJEGAIJ
IDESCRIPTION: I,oT_L BIJocK t^Lft-g*DrvrsroN P.tl- PJ r
STREET ADDRESS:
The following informat,ion ie reguired for submit.tal
Review Board before a final approval can be given:
TYPB OT UATERTAIJ
to the Design
COIJoR
A. BUfIrDrNc UATERIALTS:
Roof
Siding
Other litall Materials
Fascia
Soff i rs
Windows
Window Trim
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck Rails
Flueg
Flashings
Chimneys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
Retaining Walls
Exterior L,ighting
Other
Designer:
Phone:
B.LN.IDSCAPfNG: Name of
t',PrJAnr Qoor,
PROPOSED TREES
A}ID SHRUBS
Botanical Name I|!-"*r ouanrirv Size*
M€ec-
:I:d:::::..:.1lrp:I f or decidu-ous rrees. Minimum catinerL--il;icaE T;E;;*il;coniferous Lrees. Minimun heioht for coniieroustrees is 5 feet-**Indicate size of proposed shrubs.5 oallon.
GROI'ND COVERS
soD
SEED
TYPE
OF TRRICATTON
TYPE OR METHOD OF
EROSION CONTROI,
Minimum size of shrubs is
Square Footade
c.LANDSCA'PE LTGHTTNG: rf exterior f.ighting is proposed, preaseshow the number of fixrures and ioiatioi"-on=i-llparatelighting plan. Ideneify eactr iixture from the light.ing planlT -ttt" space berow and provid" itr" height above grade, tlpe ofl-tSn!.proposed, lumen ouLput, lurninous area and a cut sheet ofthe tighc fixrure. (section iA.it.050 ,r)
oTHER LAI\IDSCAPE FEATURES (reEaining waIls, fenceg, swinningpools, eEc. ) please- specifv. rnai6ate h;ighil-;e 't"e"inirrgwarts. Maximun heishr or wirrs "irni.r, d;?;;r; serback is3" Maximum height-of watrs-eisernere o"-*r"-pioierty is 6,.
D.
lign Review Action nt
TOWN OF VAIL
catesoryNumber o""OC*,4r1b
Project Name:
Building Name:
Project Description:
Owner, Address and
Architecvoontact, Address and Phone:
LegalDescription:Lot3B|ock2-s,ooiui.ioMzoneDistrict
Project Street Address:
Comments:
Motion by:
Seconded by:
! Approval
I Disapproval
p(Staff Approval
Conditions:
.F.-.,
DRB Fee Pre-paio 1R 40'OPA.
/\,tL.6urer'- Wlff, vtVU<-
Town Planner
. ,- Cil^Date'. (z'(,f 4 t t,o
f^T, "?,.1, -qs.lt L i s hts
Steps
Ground Cover
I
Ylgrg "
high degree of tighr
snrerotng ts required, this fixture
rs an exce ent choice for lighting
palnways, border areas or
planters, The small comoact
shape blends nicely with
surrounding plants and ground
cover.
Speclflcauons
Hood: Spun aluminum sup_po(ed on brass rods
Stem: Cast aluminum with l/1,
N.PT at bottom br mountino
Socket: Porcelain medium"bas
with silicone lamp qasket
Wlrlng: No. ,lBAWM rated 1OS"l
Flnlsh: Iextured green baked
enamel
Typicalquadrant
40W. A-tg l.F. Incandescent
Sugg€stod Moun ng Opfi on
Arcnttectural J_Box, Below
Grade Junction Box, or ponab
Spear. See Page C2-25.
Lamps by others.
5',
\\:1"
3',\.o\\\
?
.8
ls-
\
\\\
52\\\
12!
4'5',
Eu.t-gg aowR-rgrn"anoffi
dlgn Review Action |ltl
TOWN OF VAIL
Project Name:
Building Name:
Project Description:
Owner, Address and Phonej
Architecvcontact, Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot 5 Block
Project Stre€t Address:
Comments:
Zone District
-=rc**q"ja"D
Motion by:
Seconded by:
! Approval
D Disapproval
lstaff npprouat
/")on,on.'
DRB Fee Pre-paid
'-t'|f l '!+r, -' '
TOWN OF VAIL
Category Numbe(
x-/ /o*e 7./ t'l / 76
-//
Project Name:
Building Name:
Project Description:
-Q^ ,*8 , .,Q0 . ,:tl nn tJ, .+l- ,4,,,. , V. .- ,.- +1, n,,. Jk ,,! o^J -; !- -
owner,Addressanaenone: lAorl;e (n^ ,.;':; '-J1? C,.^J,-, l^.u-
( \,E Co '7t( 5'-' /1 ,6 - {5N6
ArchitE[conrag$ddressandpnone: D^(.,q 4,.--l C.^s'l*.{','.,. ?/*s Fr. 8". f??57
Legaf Description: Lot I Block ? gu56;v;s;ep (.r ^:-!
-i)
Z/ S -r/yJq ,ras?/
''7one District ?
Project Street Address:7al Z e,47.rr ? L,\a)z-!
taff Action -.-
Motion by:
Seconded by:
(APproval
a Disapproval
! Staff Approval
Conditions:
lt | |Yl . -J. . -l- -v
-T-\l?F- ftlAqo"J
Town Planner .if
o^n a - I 7 -' 76 DRB Fee prc-p^dTTo u
T42SandyLane,B -Wl/2
This Potato Patch home is located at the end of the
cul-du-sac! Spectacular views south of Vail Mountain and
valley views west. Hot tub and deck overlook Vail
Mountain! 3,200 square feet, approx.! Close to skiing and
Birs stop! Can be converted to gas! Great short-term rental
potential! Huge rooms throughoutl T'he master bedroom &
bath are incredible! Woodburning Fireplace! Windorvs
everywherel Don't miss this fabulous I'Iome! $590.000.
'lell wrur friend.t.
aooaoaooooaoooao
oooooooooooooaoooaaoooooooo
Call Me Beverly Koller,
oo
GRT
ThcinfonnationconlrincdhcIcinis|imish.dbythcown€r1otllcbcstoftcikI
t.ipniibility forcdrccnresr. lltc ialeomcri'rgii m6(lc slbicctlo erntrs, on ssnlr3..fansc ofpricc,tnr)r srlc orwithdrrwal irithout notice. ln
acco!danccqithihclr\thi|propcrtyi'o'Tclc.l\ai|hlnt.spccttoh.c'.o|o'.cl.cd'icx'nali.'t^Il'i8nl.t'l
10 West Beaver Creek Boulevard, Suite 221 . Avon
Each office 16 hd€p€rd€r{t owned and op€ral€d.
Exclusive Features of
l42Sandy Lane, B -W ll2
O Potato Patch Area
o Vail Mountain Viewso Furnished
o 2nd Master Bedroom
O River Rock Fireplace
o Great Deck WHot Tub
o Propane Grill & Hot Tub
o Den with Murphy Bed
o Kichen Counter WStools
o Separate Storage Garageo Located On Cul-Du-Saco Huge Master Bath Areao Bidet
o Jacuzzi Tub
o Dressing Area
o Huge Stall Shower
o South & West Views
o Laundry Closet
o Many Storage Closets
o Trash Compactor
O Tile Floor in Kitchen
o Close To Skiing & Buso Oversized Rooms
o Cathederal Ceilings
C,AT r RES ,r PROPERT'II SUUI|ARY ** Actlv€LtloT193 LLIL6
llLsl:001430 Area3
Adz742 sNfDY LN.
05 SubsVAfL POTAIO PABCI|
(lfEsl sIDl) Fll:2 BIk:0
LP:$ 595,OOO
zoningsL,ot:3
ASU:9458
Llvl,ng Area:3,375
FttR : F DR3
Car s ! LRt
lP r tl Kf3
DR 3 Y Dlf3
Fn !l| 81:
LOFfs B.2.
IoFrr lf 83:
IIA : tl 84:
lytolDuP Acrs O.OO Lot
YBsl9aO BDs3 L/Bd:tf tr833 3l4zO
CourtB r N CSA3 N lat Loans 0
llot Eubs lf fnt Rat€ s 0.0OO
Saunr t lf uth Pnt ! 0.oo
Water H:O /cal PITf : O.OO
l€ncer If Landers
Solallumsl{ Assum Fe6:
Buss lg Golf! l{ 2nd Loan: O
No, of L€v€ls 3 2 lerma: Conentionl
Sq/Ft: Lt,O62
L/2zO
RE Tax:3142
Yr: 91
xfr Tx Pald BylB
R Fe€:O lO
Ug Co3
Avg UtLl: O
Ren rksr NEXrDq)R IO PqfAtC, PATCII CLUB, PAIIORA}iTC
VIEI|S OT \TAIL }rrtf. LIVING ROOI{ YTTTH HIGH
VAI'LTED CEILII{CS AI{D HUGB RIVER ROCK FIREPL
READy !O REUODEL, ROOU FOR 2-CAR GARAGE
R€ntal Apt s Bedro@B s o
Sq.ft :0
Loft: Bath6t O
Kitchen:
Leaae Expires s
Fee: O
F€e Expir€s !
RCS:
Flreplace: O
llonthly Rental Ant: O
ASSESS-Not Applic
G8Or.G -tlot in GSA
OCCUPI-Vacant
IRANSF-Buyer PayE
@NsTR-Frame
LAITNDR-Waah€r
PROPSD-@nentlonl
FLR co-F wall Crp
LAUNDR-Dryer
PHCIIO -Take Photo
eARAGE-lcr Garage
LISTG -Exclug Rgt
PossEs-Dellv Deed
*r. Jnformation deened reliable, but not guaranteed. ***
E vt 6 alt1 l9a
DBSIGIN RBT'ITEIV
DESCRTPTION:
BOARD APPLTCAEION - EOIIN OF VAIIT, COITORAITO
DATE RECEIVED:
DATE OF DRA MEETING:
I.
A.
!t*******!t*
ata**taa*!r
PROiIECT IIIFORIIATIOIT :
B.TYPE OF REVIEgI:
New Construction (9200. 00)
-Jeidition
($50.00)_l_Minor Alrerarion ($20.00)
:Conceptual Review ($0)
c.
D.
ADDRESS z 7tL **anbnu
LEGAL DESCRIPTIQ{:. Lot 3Subdivigien ?otrlrzr euTil BLoeX Z
If property is described bydescription, please provideto thiE applicarion.
a meets and bounds
on a separate sheet
legal-
and attach
F
F.
ZONING: ?l+
NAII{E OF
Mailing
APPI.IICAIiIT:
Address:
Phone
G.}.]AME OFr'railing Address:
APPIJICAI.IIT I S REPRESENTATIVE :
H. NAME OF OWNER(S):
ffiNER(SI SIGIITI.INIRE:Mailing Address:
FEE SCHEDI'I.TE:
VALUATION
$ 0 $ 10,000
$10,001 -$ 50,000
$50,001 -g 150,000
9150,001 - $ 500,000
$500, 001 - $1, 000, 000g Over $1,000,000
DBSI(tr{ REIrIEW DOARD APPRO\TEIJ EXPIRBS
APPRO\TAL IINIJESS A BUU,DING PERUIE ISIS STARTBD.
Phone
FEE
$ 20.00
$ 50.00
$100 .00
$200.00
$400.00
$s00.00
O{B BAR AF'ITER FXIITIJ
ISSI'ED eI{D COCSTRUCAION
Phone
I.
.t.
APPTJTcA'rroNs wrrrrr Nor BE PRocEssED wrrilow onNER,s srGfrdAlnnB
Condominium Approval if appj.icable.
DRB FEE: DRE fees, as shown above, are to be paid at thetine of submittal of the DRB application. Llter, whenapplying for a building permit, please ideutify the accuratevaluation of the proposal . The bown of vail wiLl_ adjust thefee according to the table beLow, to ensure the correct feeis paid.
II.
A pre-applicacj.on meeting with a menber of che planningstaff is encouraged to deternine if any additionalappLicat,ion infor:mation is needed. It is the applicant,gresponsibil.ity to make an appointments with the staff todetermine if there are additionaL snbmit,tal requirenents.please note that a COlrtpLETn application will streanline thereview process for your project.
rII. rupoRTAt[T !l(}rrgE REcAnDIT[c ALr, SttBt[IssroNs Io IIIE DRB:
A. In addition to meeting submit,tal requirements, theapplicant must stake and tape the pioject site toindicate property lines, building Lines and buil.dingcorners.' AlL trees to be resroved must be talled. Allsite tapings and staking must be compLeted piior to the
DRB site-visit. The applicant must ensure tbat stakingdone during the winter is not buried by snow.
B. llhe review procesa for NEUI BUfIJDINGS no::rrally requirestwo separate meetings of tbe Desigm Review Boardi aconceptual review and a finaL review.
C. applicants who fail to appear before the Desigm ReviewBoard on their scheduled meeting date and who have notaEked in advance that discusgion on their itenr beposEponed, will have their itens renoved from the DRBagenda until such time ae the item has beenrepublished.
D. The following iterrs tnEry, at the discretion of thezoning adninistrator, be approved by the Comrunl_ty
Development Department 6taff (i.e. a forrral hearingbefore the DRB may not be reguired):
. a. Wir,'dows, skyligbts and similar ext.erior changeswhinh do not al_ter the existing plane of thebuilding; and
b. Building additions not visible from any otber lotor public apace. At the time euch a proposal issuburitted, applicants must include Let,teis fromadjacent property ovrmera and,,/or from the agent, foror mandger of any adjacent condominiun associationstating the associat,ion approves of the addition.
E. If a property is located in a mapped hazard area (i.e.
srrow avalanche, rockfall, flood plain, debris flow,wet1and. etc.), a hazard study must be subnitted andthe owner must sigm an affidavit recogmizing the hazardreport prior to the isguance of a building perrnit.applicantB are encouraged to check with a Tocrn plannerprior to DRB application to deternine the relationshipof the property to al.l napped hazards.
F. For all residential construction:
a. Clearly indicate on the fl_oor plans the insideface of the exterior structuraL walLe of thebuilding; and
b. rndicate with a dashed Line on the site pl.an afour foot distance fror the exterior face of thebuilding walls or supporting colunns.
G. If DRB approves the appl_ication with conditions ornodifications, all conditions of approval qnrst beaddressed prior to tbe application for a buildingpernit.
t.l
07r?6,'$6 l0:1:' Fr.\ 970178t901
roelr.4 ?/J,4 r9.
DESIGN N.EVIEW BOAXI] AFPLI
FRITZLE\ PIERCE
E RECETVED;
DATE IDRB MEETING:t*t,r+
TOWN OF 'i'AIL, COI,ORADO
@ oo1
BE SCHEDALED FOR PSVIEW.*t.,r,Ff***r** :
I.PROI'ECT INFORMATTON:
t1 -
-X vinot Al-terati3n /.\'.\\. D - i , vu /
\'IUJConceptual Rewiew
BIOCK
-Lr property is aescrileo Sdescription, plelase provideto thj.s applrcabion. ;F-.'
a meeLs and bounds
on a seDaraLe shee t
I anr 'l
=r.rl p'I a,^i_,
r. .y.E OF .A-PFLTCANT , G €a?.1 C.11.)4 fl+ t
"'.a:.i i_riq -Acdress
. =*eEpE-,.- **yo= d),,/7V/-tn/-Q- --.--,--..., - p-none 2/-z i-/d_'= J;;-
\FJ,IFJ': iIFPLICANT' 5 R:FRESEI,ITATIVE, #I-'- fiEP-.,''=Mar) ir.; r\ddress, I/-6j) V/_:t_ ___-_+_- Fhone _1_7& t_fu+:-a
_ rl,
/ti
p@"lEl__€rsN4 rltj.E:
APPLICATTONS '{JI,L NOT EE PNOC.SS5SD il-IT}TOUY OhDTE'R'S sJGftEfUft.E
'- - rricmi nr-L:m l\ppr.Oval j_f applicabl-€.
llF,H sEE : DRE I ees , as shown above,\ are to be paid a t rheL::na.f subrnit,Lal of the DRB appli[arion. I.at_er. whenappli.ri1 f cr a iruildrr.g pernir, please iden:-fy Lhe accuratevalualic'n cf ';he orooosal - Thc T ora-n of Va:-I ..:.i_J_ adjusF- Lhetee dccririins Eo ih;=;;i;'nn'io",l :o ensure ,__..e correcL f ee
v
1 .: lr-i r r
l.rFF pr Tn . t
F !'E' qr'llE nrr |.E, .
_-._ CHECR #: _ _ oAlE-*._*_
VALUATION
|? s p .l.t , UUU$ 10.001 $ sq,000$ 50,001 - $ 150,000
91s0,001 - $ s00,000$s00.001 $1,000.000$ Over $1.000,000
DESIGN REVIEW BOAX! APPROVAIJ EXPIRES
APPROV.\L TJNLESS A EUITDING FEFI,IIT I,SIS STARTED.
El'.
s i0.00
$ 50.00
9100.00
$200.00
$400.00
$s00.00
ONE YEAR AFTER FINE.L
ISSUED AND CONSTRT'CTTON
DHscp.rprr oN : -YE#JCF= EEe //"J i *+l
TYFE OF REVIEW:
_._*.I'Iero' Cons truc LiOn
\'i.;tion ($50.00)
U . .',lJL,f(,F-55:z
D.i,E..IAL DESCRI
Surcrirrision
PTION: Lot
: lr:'($200..00)
IJIGAL DESCRIPUON:
BTREET ADDEESS:
The following infofinat,ion is
Review Board before a finat
A. BUrI,DING IIiATERIAJIS :
Roof,
Siclinq
Crhet waLi. Material"s
Fasc i a
Scfl i cs
tdrndows
l'land or Deck Rails
: -UeS
t: I asirr ngs
Ch iru.ey;
Trash Enclosures
Greer:hous es
Recaining walls
Ex t er j.or Li gh Ling
OLher
i,AI,IDSCAPING I Nane
SION
reguired for submiEcal
apglroval can be (7ivea;
TYPE OF MATERI.A!
LOT
I
to the Deslign
I
coLO8,_
I
'\{l
Y
On^aruil"(/)
?ea-rl-A4lr'-
t
.t
',i
l
I
1d
{
.i
.l.t
Il
.1)i:,.i
I
,l
:|
L
,.';
Designer:phone:
I
i
'I r:m
of
o
/*E -r/
(4roS
/" 44e Z/"4/ 4,"RJ //ry ''
ea... {r-c-.+,^,c-.L\ *c Q,i.'tnS 4r'.a. OJ /t
.to/ ao'-/ 4s oZ/U da/4 =tk*-..
<,'\. t*go <pa r.{ t-i,49
6Q€A.
z{a
hlne23,1997
George Lutler
Community Development
Town ofVail
Vail, Colorado E1657
Dear George:
The Landscape Modification Plan dated gllglgland revised l}lltg6is the OIll] hndscaping
plan for 742 Sandy Lane in Potato Patch that I have approved or presented to the Town of Vail.
That plan refers only to the placernent and types of trees, which were planted in 1996.
I strongly oppose any patios or decks added to the space below my bedrooms. Stones appeared
on plans "Preliminary Plan A and Preliminary Plan B. I did not approve these plans or give thent
to you.
Thank you for your conc€r\
Betty Guffey
742 A Sandy Lane
Vail, Colorado 81657
JUI e3 <ft\
T0$c0ifl.m'uErI'
t
-
FltE ccP"
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2 I 3 8/479 -2 I 39
FAX 970-479-2452
Deccrnbcr 18. 1996
Departrnent of Community Deve lopment
Ms. JcriCampisi
| 146 Sandstonc Drivc
Vail. CO 81657
RE: Appcal of Planning and Environmcntal dcnial of sitc coverage variance for742
Sandy Lanc/Lot 3, Vail Potato Patch, 2nd Filing
Dcar Ms. Carnpisi:
Thc Town Council, at its Dcccmbcr 17, 1996 mccting. unanimously uphcld thc Planning and
Environmcntal Commission dcnial of your rcqucst for a sitc covcragc variancc in ordcr to
construct an additional garagc on thc abovc rcfcrcnccd sitc. Thc Town Council madc thc
following findings:
| . That thc standanls ancl conditions imposcd by thc rcquircmcnts of Titlc l 8
(7-oning) havc not bccn rnct.
2. That thc granting of thc variancc will constitutc a grant of spccial privilcgc
inconsistcnt with thc limitations on othcr propcrtics classificd in thc samc district.
3, Thcrc are no cxccptions, cxhaordinary circumstanccs, or conditions that are
applicablc to this sitc that apply gcncrally to othcr propcrtics in thc
.
piimary/Sccondary Rcsidcntial zonc. In addition, any hardships which have becn
prcscntal, havc becn self imposcd'
4. The strict intcrpretation, or cnforcemcnt of thc specificd regulation does not
deprive the applicant ofprivilcgcs enjoyed by owners ofother properties in thc
Primary/Sccondary Rcsidential district.
Pagc I of2
{p *"*tto'utr
a
f f you havc any additional qucstions, plcasc fccl frcc to call mc at479-2148.
Town Planncr
cc: Kerry H. Wallacc
Page 2 of 2
TO;
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Town Council
Community Development Department
December 17, 1996
An appeal of a variance denial made by the Planning and Environmental
Commission on September 23, 1996. The appellants were denied a site coverage
variance to allow an additional one-car garage to be constructed at 742-8 Sandy
Laneiunit B, Lot 3, Vail/Potato Patch, Second Filing.
Appellants: Charles and Geri Campisi, represented by Kerry Wallace
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
I. SUBJECTPROPERTY
Campisi project. Located at742-B Sandy Lane/Unit B, Lot 3, Vail/ Potato Patch, Second Filing.
II. STANDING OF APPELLANT
Statf believes the appellants have standing to file an appeal in this case as they are the owners of
the subject property.
III. BACKGROUND
The Town Council tabled this appeal at the November 19, 1996 Council meeting. The item was
tabled until December 17, 1996 at the request of John Goodman, attorney for the Campisi's.
The appellants requested a site coverage variance ol 260.8 sq. ft. in order to construct a 300 sq. ft.
one-car garage on the subject property. This duplex currently contains 2 enclosed garage spaces
and this iequest would add a third. The allowable site coverage for this site is 3,403.8 sq. ft.
(20%) and the proposal is for 3,664.6 sq. ft. (21.5%) of site coverage. The Planning and
Environmental Commission, at their September 23, 1996 meeting, unanimously denied the site
coverage variance and made the following findings (see attached minutes):
1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent wittr the limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
2. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions that are
applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the
Primary/Secondary Residential zone. In addition, any hardships which have
been presented, have been self imposed [the PEC specifically added this
provision to the lindings recommended by staffl.
3. The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive
the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the
Primary/Secondary Residential district.
This duplex was approved by the DRB in 1979 and constructed in 1980. The duplex, as_originally
approvdd, contained 3,7ffi dq. ft. of GRFA (as calculated in 1979). This site is allowed 3,951.9 sq.
tt dt Cnfn. On March 3, 1979, a density variance for a 40 sq. ft. addition was denied by the PEC
based on a finding that no hardship existed to justily the request. On September 21, 1988, a
request for 500 sq. ft. of GRFA was approved under the 250 Ordinance.
The structure now contains 4,502.8 sq. ft. of GRFA as calculated today. With two 250's, the site is
permitted up lo 4,451.9 sq .ft. of GRFA. Therefore the site is 50.9 sq. ft. over on GRFA and is
considered a legal nonconforming struclure with respect to GRFA.
This structure also currently encroaches into both side setbacks. This is a pre-existing
nonconforming condition and is not affected by the proposal.
IV. NATURE OF THE APPEAL
The appellants are appealing the PEC decision denying the site coverage variance. The
appellants have provided additionaljustification for the variance which is attached. The appellants
have also provided additionaliustification of how they will suffer practical ditficulties and/or
unnecessary physical hardships if the site coverage variance is not granted (provided in attached
materials). Staff has summarized theil statements below:
a. The appellants will have insulficienl parking lor parking their own vehicles and for
guests. The house will be restricted to one 300 sq. ft. garage for a 3,366 sq. ft.
house. The Zoning Code allows up to 600 sq. ft. of garage space per unit' There is
insufficient parking for the house, and snow storage in the winter months precludes
parking in the driveway.
Staff response:
The driveway, as it currently exists, has the capability of storing 7 cars in addition to
the 2 existing garage spaces, for a total of 9 parking spaces. The proposed garage
does not add any additional parking to the site as it will be constructed upon the
existing paved driveway. The appellants have mis-stated the square footage of the
home and the exisling garage space. The entire home (both dwellings) contains
4,502.8 sq. ft. of GRFA and there are 2 existing 300 sq. ft. garages (one per unit)'
This duplex is required 5 total parking spaces. Snow storage is lhe responsibility of
the homeowner and snow can be stored or removed from the site in a variety of
ways in order to maintain parking on-site.
b. The construction of the garage will correct a serious drainage problem on the
property.
Stafl response:
While this proposed garage may correct this drainage problem, there are numerous
solutions to the drainage problem which do not involve constructing a garage.
I
c. The garage will provide additional needed storage as there currently exists very little
storage area within the residence, particularly for storage of recreational equipment.
Staff response:
In July ol 1996, the appellants received approvals to perform a maior remodel to the
exterior and interior of this duplex. No attempt was made in this remodel to provide
additional storage space. On September 12, 1988, a DRB approvalwas given in
conjunction with a 250 request to construct a storage area, labeled "Bike storage"
on the first level of this structure (see attached elevation and floor plan). The
storage area was 250 sq. ft. As part of the '1996 DRB approvals, this storage area
was eliminated and converted to living area. lt appears that the lack of storage area
on this property is a self imposed situation.
d. The variance would correct the serious security problem which exists for the owner
of Unit A.
Staff response:
The owner of Unit A has a staircase and a door on the east elevation of the home.
This door opens to a bathroom in the unit. The door is perceived as the front entry
to the home and according to the owner, people oflen come to this door. The staff
understands the security issue with this doonvay. However, the proposed garage
addition is not the only solution to correct this problem. For example, a deck without
stairs to the ground could be constructed which would prevent persons from
approaching the door; or the stairs could be removed and the door replaced with an
egress window, thus preventing access. There are a number of other solutions
which could correct this problem. The stairs that exist now do not meet the Building
Code requirements. The Building Code requires a landing at the top of the stairs as
well as hand rails.
Staff and the PEC can find no justification for the hardship based on the Zoning Code criteria for
granting a variance.
V. REQUIREDACTION
Uphold/Orerturn/Modify the Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of a 260.8 sq. ft.
site coverage variance.
The Town Council is required to make findings of fact in accordance with Section 18.66.030 (5)
shown below:
5. Findings. The Town Council shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact
based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact
must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the
requirements of this title have or have not been met.
Further, if the Town Council chooses to overturn or modity the PEC denial of this variance, the
Town Council shall consider the tollowing factors and make the following findings related to the
granting ol a variance:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1 . The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses
and structures in the vicinity.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility
and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution ol
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities,
and public safety.
B. The Town Council shall make the following findings before granting a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the
same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site ol the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant ol privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
VI. STAFF RECOIIMENDATION
Statf recommends that the Town Council uphold the Planning and Environmental Commission's
denial of a 260.8 sq. ft. site coverage variance and recommends that the Town Council make the
following findings:
1 . That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 18 (Zoning)
have not been met.
2. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
3. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions that are
applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the
Primary/Secondary Residential zone. In addition, any hardships which have been
presented, have been self imposed.
4. The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive
the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the
Primary/Secondary Residential district.
F:\sveryonetsscvnemobempbi.dl 7
'.b
Sites receiving site coverage variences:
l. 4289 Nugget Lane (Wilhelm) approved April. 1992
Lot size: 4.61 7 sq. ft.
Platted under Eagle County jurisdiction
**(site coverage variance for GRFA not garage)
2. 1886 West Gore Creek Dr.(Donna Mumma) approved February. 1993
Lot size: 10.159 sq. ft.
Platted and built under Eagle County jtrisdiction
3, 2576 Davos Trail (Ricci) approved March 13, 1995
Lot size: I1,242 sq. ft.
Platted and built under Eagle County jurisdiction
4. . 2409 Chamonix Lane (Taylor) approved May, 1993
Lot size: 8,921 sq. ft.
Platted and built under Eagle County jurisdiction
5. 2942 Bellflower @ean/Rousch) approved July, 1993
Lot size: <10,000 sq. ft.
Platted and built under Eagle County jurisdiction
Campisi Site:
742 Sandy Lane, Potato Patch
Lot size: 17,019 sq. ft.
Platted and built under Town of Vail jurisdiction
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL M
December 17, 1996
7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
t
EETING
A.regular meeting of the Vail Town Councilwas held on Tuesday, December 17, 1996, in the CouncilChambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called io order at approximately 7:30 p.M.
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro-tem
Kevin Foley
Rob Ford
PaulJohnston
Ludwig Kuz
MichaelJewett
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TOWN OFFIC|ALS pRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager
Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Local attomey, Mary lsom, appeared before Councilwith her client, Bob Schultz, owner of the Vail and Lionshead popcorn wagons, and Lori Fennese, apotential buyer of the businesses. lsom said she wished to discuis the Toin's lease with Mr. SchulE,which is due to expire in December of 1997,.and _the transferring of that lease to tne potential purchaser.Mayor Armour stated the item was scheduled for Council discusiion in the spring of 1g97. Town AttorneyTom Moorhead stated that the negotiation of leases with the Town was typically h'andled by his office, and,that to his know-ledge, such an issue had never before been brought io a council meeting. Tom furtherinformed Council members that he had talked to Ms. lsom about the issue and said he told her the Townwould honor the lease_and the provision of assignment. He said that he had not heard back from her. Atthat time, Councilman Rob Ford reiterated that the Council would not consider renewing the lease until thespring of 1997.
Item number two on the agenda was the consent agenda which consisted of the following items:
A' ordinance No.-25, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance Making SupplementalAppropriations from the Town of Vail General Fund, Farking structure Fund, poli'ce confiscationFund, Booth Creek Debt Service Fund, Debt Service Fund, aid Housing Fund, of the 1g96 Budgetand the Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and Authorizin-g tne Expenditures of SaidAppropriations as Set Forth Herein; and Setting Forth Details in RegarJ Thereto.
B' Resolution No. _22, series of 1996, a Resolution authorizing the Town Manager to enter into anAnimal Control Services Contract.
Mayor Armour read the Consent Agenda in full and requested Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1gg6 beremoved from the ConsentAgenda. Town of Vail Finance Director, Steve Thompson, tiren updated Councilon a supplemental approp!"lo^n !g the budget in the amount of $i.z miilion, *hi.n i L
"iptained
in detail.Ludwig. moved for approval of ordinance No. 25, series of '1 996, and Rob seconded the motion. A vote wasthen taken and passed unanimously, 7-0.
Sybillthen moved to approve the Consent Agenda, and Rob Ford seconded the motion. A vote was takenand passed, 6-1, Michael Jewett voting in opposition.
Third on the agenda was the appointment of two members to the VailValley Marketing Board. At an earlierwork session Councll members interviewed the following six applicantsi getn 5166r, Lai Tisher, AndreFournier, Robert Batchelor, Katye Aaramson, Howard Leivitt. A letter of interest was also received fromJohn Cogswell but was withdrawn, as he'd previously been appointed to serve on the Marketing Board asa representative forthe VailVillage Merchants Association. Ballots were distributed and Councit membersthen voted for the two four-year terms existing on the Marketing Board. Sybill moved to appoint AndreFoumier and Beth Slifer to fill the terms on the Marketing Board, aid Paut secbnded the motion. A vote wasthen taken and passed unanimously 7-0.
The fourth item on the agenda was Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance
amending Section 18.22.030, Conditional Uses, to allow time-share estate units, fractional fee units and
time-share license units as conditional uses in the Public Accommodation Zone District, and to establish
Section 18.22.035, conditional uses-factors applicable in the Public Accommodation Zone District. Gordon
,_ Cor/i. lvenin! Mr.r n9 Minrd.. _^-- '.1?, 19S6
-f,".]i';1""*?i,",::1l;J"'iJfi ilff ;TJf, H:H*Jnli'i#ff#E#,IfiIBJJ"y#'Jj?lB";:*T:x?
staff to the Planning and EnvironmentalCommission dated November25, tggol 5t"rf-r"Jorrendation wasfor approval Ordinance No. 22, Series of 19g6 on first reading.
Paul Johnston recused himself from the issue, as he felt he may have a conflict of interest. George brieflyreviewed the Ordinance and stated the PEC.had recornmend-ed approval. George tnen explain"d'in O"i"ifthe review criteria used by the PEC in considering a request for a conditional usi,
"no "i"jeo that none ofthe criteria had more iqggrtalge than any other on the project being considereo. oeorge then presented
3 cfrt prepared by staff depicting properties in Vailzoned PublicAccommodation which-could be affectedby the proposed change to the text of the Town Code. Although in favor oi irre nustria Houseredevelopment, Council member Rob Ford felt the ordinance needed'to go into roi"-l"t"il, sefting forthspecific requirements and more specific language. He then recommendid tauiint tfie oroinance.
Gordon Pierce, general partner and architect for the project introduced Jim Graves, Mark Sullivan, CynthiaThomberg, and Randy Fwir.- Randy Burgis from !h.e Deer Vailey crub in Deer v;ilet; utin exptained theunique type of ownership.the Sonnenalp was considering under ihe proposed reoevetopment, and statedthat the fractional feq ynjt $pe of_owneryhin fra{ proven to give the nighest tevet oi occupancy in DeerValley. He said that while hotels in Deer Valley ty. picatty averagld an occupanry rate of approximately 65%,winter eq6trrtanc! at the Deer Valley club was 10oo/o. Because owners buy i deedeo-iilerest in the unit,the properties are better maintained, he said.
Jim Lamont said the Board of Directors from the East Village Homeowners Association, who herepresented, had not yet taken a position on the project, but said that the applicant fralGen respondingto requests by the neighborhood. He asked Council to be cautious and'"on."r"iiu" and said thatamending the Code to accommodate time share clubs should be given serious consiaeration .
Concerns from Council members included: transfer tax, lost sales tax revenue, loss of publicaccommodation units, and that the project have no adverse effects upon the present and future supply oftown seryices or increase the demand on municipal facilities. Council members "gr"- tfre proje'ciwasextremely viable, a good redevelopment and were in support of it. However, they aljo stated they wantedmore time to increase their knowledge on the issue and to think about alternatives to the languagecontained in the ordinance.
Johannes Faessler, an owner of the Sonnenalp, addressed. Ludwig's issue concerning the importance ofnew-faces coming to the area. Mr. Faessler explained that the sonienalp rrao i sirong-rJuming clientele,old faces that are seen year after year, which was very important for their business. -
Tom Moorhead informed Council that the applicant had taken the time to submit a proposed ordinance,but that staff had not yet had the opportunity to examine it in depth.
Rob moved to table ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996, untit the next evening meeting scheduled forJanuary 7, 1997. Ludwig seconded the motion and a vote was taken which pas"sed-u-naiimousty, 6-0-1,Paul Johnston abstaining
Fifth on the agenda was Resolution No. 23, Series of 1996, a Res.olution Directing the Town Manager
!o.exgcute the IntergovernmentalAgreement between the Town of Vaitand Vail t;1;;C;;sotidated WaterDistrict as modified.
ordinance 24, Series 1996, second reading of an ordinance providing for the establishment of SpecialDevelopment District No. 33, Red Sandstone;.ado-ptinq.a ceueropment plan for Special DevelopmentDistrict No.33 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the-VailMunicipalcooe; ano
"":tt-inJiorp,
details inregard thereto; and
ordinance 20, Series 't996, second reading of an ordinance rezoning three tracts from General UseSection 18.36 to Medium Density Multi-Family Residential, Section 1a.i8 generarry rocaleo at g45 RedSandstone Road. Applicants were the Eagle diver Water and Sanitation District, the Town of Vail, and theUnited States Forest Service.
Town of Vail Senior H^ousing Policy Planner, Andy Knudtsen, presented the item, briefly reviewed theproject, and informed council members that th.e pioposed spettat oeueiofment oiliiJi'1,"t the criteriaand was consistent with the existing land use plan.
councif was asked to ap_prove/Deny/Modifl7 Resolution No. 23, series of 1gg6 and ordinances 20 and 24,Series 1996. The staff recommendation was for approval of Resolution G. 23, S"il". or 1996 andOrdinances 20 and 24. Series 1g96.
\
vail Town colndt Evsning l4€etng Minutrs o€clmb€. 17, .t 9€6
H*"rn, flom Jim Lamont oflg e."r, Village Homeowner. o.ro-Q,,un included his feeling that theproposed site had been originally designated for employee housing. He said the project was a conversionof open space, and then suggested other adjacent open space sit6s be used tor neiinUorhood parks. Heasked Council to consider expanding Sandstone Park, as he felt it was over utilized, and suggested thatanother park be constructed. Lamont said he was disappointed with the allocation otthe Wat6r District'sunits and the portion to be sold to the free market. Another suggestion was that a sidewalk be put in alongSandstone Drive to make the area safer.
Red Sandstone resident, Dan Telleen, reiterated the importance of sidewalks due to the dangerous curbsalong Red Sandstone and asked Councilto address the issue.
Rob Ford moved to adopt Resolution No. 23, Series of 1996, and Ludwig seconded the motion. A vote wastaken and passed, 6-1, Pdul voting in opposition because oi the possibility of free market sate units beingincluded in the project.
Next, Rob moved to approve Ordinances 24 and 20, and then withdrew the motion in order to consider theordinances separately.
Rob then moved to approve Ordinance No. 20, series of 1996, and the motion was seconded by Sybill. Avote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0.
A motion was made by B9b to approve Ordinance No. 24, and Kevin Foley seconded the motion. Sybillinquired about the cost of including a sidewalk and Andy addressed the issul, stating that the pEC did notrequire a sidewalk, and opted instead for landscaping. Bill Braun then informed Co-uncil that the site wasvery difficult because of the steep grade changes, anO stated that including a sidewalk would narrow thefeasibility of doing the project.
Mayor Armour expressed his support of the project and its positive aspects such as less GRFA and sitecoverage than allowed, and increased parking and landscaping. PaulJohnston stated he was unable tosupport the project because of its architectural design. A vote-was taken and approved, 6-1, paul votingin opposition.
Sixth on the agenda was an appeal of a variance denial made by the Planning and EnvironmentalCommission on September 23, 1996. The appellants were denied asite coveragjvariance to allow anadditional one-car oaraggjg,Qe cgnstructed at742-B Sandy Lane/Unit B, Lot 3, vaiipotato patch, SecondFi|ing'Appe||ants:-%ili-werereoreSenterJbvKernrWa|lancGori(1arnnieirrraca|c..r
Council members then took a short break.FIL T CEP Y
Filing. Appellants: Iffil*l€d}l0s
present. Town of VailPlanner, Dominic l_tpbhwere represented by Kerry Wallace. Geri Campisiwas also
Mauriello presented the item and gave the following background:
the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 18 (Zoning) have not been
That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with thelimitations on other properties classified in the same district.
The Town Council tabled this appeal at the November 19, 1996, Councit meiting. The item was tabled untilDecember 17, 1996, at the request of John Goodman, attorney for the Campisi's. Dominic explained theappellants reguested a site coverage variance of 260.8 sq. ft. in order to construct a 300 sq. ft. one.carg.arage^on th9 property. The duplex contains two enclosed garage spaces. Site coverage allowed for thesite is 3,403.8 sq. ft. and the proposal was for 3,664.6 sq. tt. ine Fri at a meeting held 6n September 23,1996, unanimously denied the site cover€ge variance. Further, Donrinic stated th-at any hardship createdwas self-imposed, and informed Council members that the property had been granted two - 250's in thepast' both going to one unit. He explained that the allowable GRFA had alread! been exceeded by over50', and that the site encroached on both setbacks.
Local.attorney' [9try Wallace was present with her partner, Jim Stovall, and presented the position of theappellants- Ms. Wallace stated that all neighbors were in favor of the addition and distributbd a packet ofinformation to Council members.
Mrs' Campisithen addressed Council, 9|a]ming that the parkilg on the property was insufficient parking andthat the house was restricted to one 300'gaiage. She said lhat snow storage in winter prohibited usingsome of the outdoor parking, and that a serious drainage problem also existed.
Dominic stated alternatives were available which would alleviate such problems, other than the additionof a garage. He said the zoning_code encouraged garages, but within the site
"ou"og- nriLiionr. The staffrecommendation was that the Town Council uphold the Planning and Environmentil commission's denialof a 260.8 sq. ft. site coverage variance and that the Town Cou-ncil make the toltowlng finJings:
1. That
met.
2.
V.il To*n CouncJ EvcnirE M..ting Uind.! Orc!.nb€r 17, l 9$
3.
i4i';ff fi "?fi ii::l'#ffi :ll#';'fi :T?ffif ,'d"T.iJ:R',ffi -Ti=:H:'",X':::?,,jSurar dPPry 9Elrsrarry r.u el'rlrProperles In Ine F'rlmary/$e0OndafyResidential ZOne. In addition, ahardships which have been presented, have been ielf imposed.
4' The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation_does not deprive the applicantof privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the Piimary/seconoaryiSsioentiar district.
A motion was then made by Rob Ford to uphold the PEC's denial and to adopt the above-referencedfindings- Ludwig seconded. th-e motion. Maybr Armour stateo thJ afthough t#;;;i;;;; requested wasminimal, it would be a grant of a special privilege. A vote was then tat<en ina pa.r"J'rn-"nirously, 7-0.
Agenda item'number seven was a report from tle ToyL Ma11ge1 Bob Mclaurin informed councilmembers of the upcoming meeting of the colorado Association ors-t<i Towns ."r.t"our"J roi.lanuary s ana
PaulJohnston asked about the.new loading and delivery policy in the Village. police chief Greg Morrisonexplained that large trucks on Hanson Ranch,Road yoyto u,i fronioiteo it
"rr
time". Fiul 6en inquired
3.b9ut q community safety officer position to be staffed at tnd vair Viltage ctub construction site. BobMclaurin said the position remained unfilled.
Council Reports: Sybill Navas updated fellow council members of her meetings with the Northwest Coloradocouncil of Governments, the chamber, commission on speciat events anl Activities anJ the Vail ValleyExchange. ' rv'r'r'\'.:' sr'rlr
Kevin Foley passed along a thank you from the Vail Recreation District to the public works Department forits assistance in removing a sign at the golf course elected by an anti-tur groui. H;;il; uilted the groupon his attendance at the.Eagle county Transportation Auth'ority meetinls. x"uin J.J iiliir"o about theapproval status of the ski storage sheds in Lionshead.
MayorArmour thanked the town's Social Commiftee for organizing the organization,s Christmas parg andwished all a very happy holiday.
Condolences were expressed to the family of Cindy Nash.
There being no further business a'motion was made_by^Rob for adjournment. Kevin seconded the motionand the meeting was adjourned at approximately t 1:d0 p.m.
ATTEST:
Flolly Mccutcheon, Town Clerk
ilinutes taken by Hotty llccutcheon(* afi|es of certaln indrviduals }itlo gave pt.6lic lrput may be tnaccurate. )
Respectfully submitted,
W. Armour, Mayor
Holly McCutcheon, Town
Vail Toin Col'|Cit Ev€ning Medi.tg lrinues D,ocemDff .t Z. 1996
-) 3.
Charlie Alexander said that lhis was a permanent structure. Charlie also said that Vail
Asiociates owned the land and il they determined that the land could be better used, then that's
wnit woutO happen. He also mentioned that this condition was in his lease.
Dirk Mason suggested an additional condition be placed on the appjoval, which would allow for
the conditional use permit to be called-up, if the Lionshead Master Plan suggested an alternative
use.
Galen Aasland said it was a great use and agreed with Dirk's proposal'
Diane Golden said it will be made more attractive than it is now. lt was a nice addition to
Lionshead and also gave the youth of our Town something to do.
Henry pratt stated that il was a good location. Henry addressed the.complaints from Units #206
"nO
#gOe and said that Garfinke-i's Bar and Restaurant poses a much greater threat on their
priua"V than this use. Henry said in fairness to Charlie and the bank, as long as the PEC can
call-up this application, he was in favor of a longer term.
Greg Moffet was in lavor of this use. The units that complained had trees to screen them lrom
this"operation. Greg was in lavor of a longer term, to give Charlie an incentive to spend more
money on the site to enhance the property.
Henry Pratt made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff's memo, with the addition of
a ieionO condition that if lhe Lioh'snead Master Plan required or suggested a ditferent use' the
approval could be subject to a call-up.
Greg Moflet asked Henry to indicate in his motion, the term length of the conditional use permit.
Henry Pratt amended the motion to include a 3-year period ol time.
Diane Golden asked the applicant if the 3-year period of time would work.
Charlie Alexander said, Yes.
The motion was seconded by John Schofield.
It passed by a vote ol 5-0. (Greg Amsden was not present tor this item).
A request for a site coverage variance to allow for the construction ol a one-car garage'
located at 742 Sandy Lane/Lot 3, Vail Potato Patch 2nd Filing.
Applicant: JeriCampisiPlanner: Dominic Mauriello
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of this request and stated that staff was recommending
denial, because the request does not meet the code criteria for a variance. Although it may not
negatively impact other properties in the area, it would be a grant of special privilege.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had any comments.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutcs
September 23, 1996
Kerry Wallace, the attorney on behali of Jeri Campisi, stated that the owner ol the other half ol
if'" irpf ur, eetty Cutty, wis here. Kerry stated that the lack of slorage and the odd floor plan'
with little or no closet space within lhe residence presented a hardship, in particular' in relation to
ift"rior"g.of recreational goods. Thepresenttwo-cargaraggis.notenough. Shestatedthat -
in"
"ppf
i"-"nt had a probleri with parking in the winter, as she had a lot of guests. XqlrV w.e.1!9n
io
"idtb
that the Campisi's have signilicintly improved the properly since purchasing it and that
in" n"r gir"ge would lurther impfuve lhe iite. The proposed garag.e was as small as the
ircfritect"couli possibly make it ind the architect asdured them that it would not encroach into
,nV oiinr setbicks. iignt no* there existed a drainage problem and gY raising up. the f ront. of
- -
tnd n"* proposed gara{e, this drainage problem wouli be corrected. There was also an existing
i".rriry i'rr,i" ior B"etty
-Guf fy, since rh-e door to her unit went past the bathroom. This security
issue was a serious concern. Kerry Wallace went on to State that this property was an eyesore'
until the Campisis made some changes. There are a number of 2 and 3'car garages in the area'
so this requesl was not asking anything out of the ordinary.
Greg Molfet asked for any public comments.
Betty Guffy stated that she has owned the other half of the duplex lor 5 years, which is the uppg.l
third of the house. Betty stated that the Campisis are the periect neighbors and have certainly fit
ine motO as neighbors that she would have chosen to jointly improve the property. Both
neighbors agreed on the stucco improvements. The architect could solve the drainage problem
witf, tnis neil proposed addition. When the Campisis unit was rented short term, there were a .
number ot proOtehs. Betty stated that she lived alone and security was a problem. Betty stated
that 50 sq. ft. over the allowed site coverage is a minor overage.
Greg Moffet asked for any other public comments.
Joe Staufer stated that he lived at 746 Sandy Lane. Joe was in favor of this request and said
fhat it would not negatively affect any properiy owners. Under the safety, welfare and health
linding, Joe stated lfrat tn6 securily isiue'wai the reason and the right to grant this variance. _lt
was idark neighborhood, which presented a safety factor. Joe staled that when he was gone'
Betty Gufly wai all alone on the block. He stated that granting lhis variance would give someone
a beiter plice to live. Joe said he saw no conceivable reason not to grant this variance.
Dominic Mauriello stated that he had reviewed recent DRB plans. Dominic stated that the
applicant had just removed the lormer storage space, which was used to slore snowmobiles, and
hab created living area out of it, so therefore, the result was a lack ol slorage.
Betty Guffy stated that her neighbor to the right of her, was in favor of approving this request.
Galen.Aasland asked how big the existing 2-car garage was.
Dominic Mauriello said 600 sq. ft. and that it had one garage space for each owner.
Galen Aasland asked if the new garage would be the Campisis? Since the lot is over 15'000 sq.
ti., Caten doesn't think the size o'i thJlot was the problem and therelore there was no justification
foi a site coverage variance. The deck could be 6uilt without a variance to correct the security
issue. Galen was somewhat bothered by the argument that the Campisis didn't have enough.
.
.1oiage, when in fact, the remodel that was happening right now, did away with. the storage. He
statei that the owners, with the remodel, have created some of their own conditions and
hardships.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
September 23, 1996
Betty Gul'fy said thal any staircase would be buried in snow. She stated lhat both sides of the
norie r"i" short on cfoseti. aetty stateO that she uses parl of lhe garage for slorage for her
off-season clothes. she also stated that the existing entry door was ugly.
Diane Golden asked where the snow will be put?
Dominic Mauriello stated tnat snow slorage was up to the owner and there were a variety of
solutions for the door.
Betty Gutfy said that architect Bill Pierce said that this garage and entrance was lhe best plan
and irom t'he front ot the house, this looks like the way it was meant to be. lt seems silly to pay
$28,000.00 to just correct the drainage and not do the addition'
Henry Pran told Betty Guffy that she was extremely lucky to have owners like the Campisis who
taXe iriOe in their ownersnlp. Henry felt that identiiying where the fro.nl door was less important
ini" in" iecurity issue. He stated that they are entitteO to a garage, but wilhout lhe variance'
inir g"r"g" had no impact on the neighbors and so Henry would be in favor of such a variance'
if there was a hardshiP.
John Schotield agreed with Henry. John stated that the door was in a lousy location' Jol! , - .
tended to agree witn Henry, that the hardship would be getting a parking ticket' while parKed out
in the street.
Greg Amsden said that these were self imposed problems. There was no drainage problem.
*n""n tn. house was first built; it happened with the expansion' The lack of storage doesn't hold
"n
;rgrrent. A small deck would luitiry tne salety concern. There were no justifiable reasons to
go over site coverages.
Greg Moffet was in agreement with Greg Amsden. What you have here was a unit that was
maxed-out over what was permitted. Tliere was a lot of square footage in the mass and bulk
that could have been used for storage. The storage problem has been self-created. Greg said
he doesn't see how this was not a grant of special privilege.
Henry Pratt asked whal lhe area ol the garage was?
Dominic Mauriello said each garage was 300 sq. ft.
Greg Motlet asked for any more comments from the public. There was none.
Greg Amsden made a motion for denial, per the statf memo and he added that the hardships
were self-imposed.
Galen Aasland seconded the motion.
Galen Aasland said the lot was over 15,000 sq. ft. lt it was under that size, it might be ditferent.
Henry pratt asked if this should be tabled until the applicant came back with a better design.
Dominic Mauriello said that he did not believe tabling would produce alternative designs, since it
would still involve a site coverage issue.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
September 23, I 996
Greg Motfet asked staff if a carport was proposed, would it then not be GRFA?
Mike Mollica said that could possibly be a stalf approval, and it may not be GRFA, depending on
how the carport was designed.
The motion for denial passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
4. A request for an exterior addition to a master bedroom and bathroom and adding ? 9rd
floor,'utilizing the 2s0 Ordinance, located at 8028 Potato Patch/Lot 4, Block 1 , Vail Potato
Patch.
Applicants: Padraic Deighan and Birgit Toome
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 14,1996
5. A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow for the construction of a walk-in fieezet'
locatbd at 536 West Lionshead Mall/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing.
Applicant: Mitch GarlinkelPlanner: George Ruther
WITHDRAWN
illllllilil
6. Information Update
Mike Mollica had no information update.
7. Approval of September 9, 1996 minutes
Mike Mollica suggested tabling the minutes, as there were more corrections on item #5 in the
minutes.
Galen Aasland had two changes for the minutes of 9/9i96.
Diane Golden made a motion to table item #4 and the 9/9/96 minutes.
The motion was seconded by Galen Aasland.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote ol6-0.
Greg Amsden made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Galen Aasland seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
The meeting adjourned at 3:00 P.m.
Planning and Environmental Commjssion
Minutes
September 23, 1996
n
)
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNry OF EAGLE
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
coUNTYoFEAGLE )
Subscribed and sworn to before me thisSth day of December,
)
) ss.
)
The undersigned hereby certifies the foregoing is a full, true and conect transcription of
Item No.3 of the Planning and Environmental Commission of September 23, 19it6, as it
appears in the original records of the Town of Vail, Department of community
Development.
Dated December 5, 1996
1996, by Mary A. Caster,
Notary Public
My commission
Mary A./Caster, Deputy Town Clerk
Administrative Services
Deputy Town Cterk, to*'Hrffig;1-,
r) *$;.:5a.;i+#ir
GtYl'ltrac'
{p *"n"uor r"*
TRANSCRIPT OF JERI CAMPISI REQUEST FOR SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE AT
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEETING, MONDAY, SEPTEMBEB 23. 1996:
Greg Moffit: Third item is the Jeri Campisi request, Dominic?
Dominic Mauriello:The applicants have requested a site coverage variance in order to
construct a one-car garage of approximately 300 square feet,
making the request approximately 260.8 square feet. The
allowable site coverage for the site is approximately 3403 square
feet, which is 20.h of the lot area, and they're proposing 3664,
which is approximately 21.5o/o. This duplex, when it was originally
approved in 1980, contained 3763 square feet of GRFA. The way
that is calculated today, they contain, they have 4502.9 square
feet, and that's also due to a, in 1988 they received 500 square
feet of GRFA under the 250 ordinance. So with today's two 250's,
the site is permitted up to 4451 square feet, and therefore the site
is over on GRFA by approximately 50 square feet. The structure
also currently encroaches on the site setbacks on both sides. lt's a
pre-existing non-conforming condition and it's really not
aggravated by this request. Attached you will find some
justification provided by the applicant and I've also passed out to
you today two affidavits from owners of the property stating some
other issues and hardships that they have. Staff believes that the
request will increase the building's bulk and mass beyond that
enjoyed by other properties in the district. Staff believes that while
the proposal may not negatively impact neighboring properties,
and while other structures in the have two and three-car garages,
they have enloyed that within the limitations of the site coverage
limitations, and they also have two and three-car garages built
within those limitations. Staff does believe that this would be a
special privilege, as other structures in the zone district have been
able to construct within these limitations and enjoy the fact that
they have a two-car garage. Staff is recommending denial of the
variance request, subject to the three findings that you find on
page 3, and that's all I have for you today.
Thank you, Dominic. Does the applicant have any comments?
Hi, I'm Kerry Wallace, my daughter gave me her cold, so if lsound
like a swallowed a box of cotton balls, that's why. I'm here on
behalf of the Campisi's, They would have liked to have been here
today, but there was a medical emergency in the family that
gquired them in New York. I'm their attorney, with
Stovall Goodman Wallace. Their offices are in Avon and we
assisted them in preparing the variance application. Obviously, as
Greg Moffit:
Kerry Wallace:
you've seen from the affidavits that are attached, the Campisi's, in
addition, the owner of the other half of the duplex, Betty Guffy, who
is also present, I understand has some comments to make today. I
feel that there a number of issues which does make this a hardship
issue as opposed to, say, a special privilege. A major issue for the
Campisi's is a lack of storage. Obviously, this was a property that
was constructed some time ago and it does have a fairly odd floor
plan in the way it's designed. The Campisi's have informed me
that there is little or no closet space within their residence and so it
makes it very ditficult for them to store items in the house, in
particular, you know, as anyone who lives in Vail, you have a lot of
recreational goods, such as skis and golf clubs, those types of
items. They have no where to put them in the house and so their
having additional garage space would be of assistance. Right now
the two-car garage that they have which is not oversized is used to
park both of their vehicles, so there's not a lot of additional storage
space. There's also a problem with parking, especially in the
winter months. They do have a lot of guests that come out, they
have family members that like to come out and visit and there's a
problem with parking, particularly in the winter when the plows
need to come through and it needs to be a open area. An area
where there is now, even say if you were going to put a parking
pad there, from what I understand the Town of Vail, when they
plow the snow, it piles up on that spot, so it's really not a usable
parking spot in the winter, so they'd like to be able to have an
additional car to allow guests and any other person to be able to
park in an enclosed area during the winter months. The Campisi's,
and I think Ms. Guffey wiil substantiate this, have significanfly
improved the property since purchasing it with, you know, I think
it's been a real benefit to the general area. The garage will
essentially be an improvement to the property, not a detriment, it
will increase the value which is a positive thing for the
neighborhood. lt's my understanding that the space, and I know
that you've had a site visit, is not really usable as is. And that the
garage would be good use of that space. I was informed by the
architect that the post garage, is as small as they can possibly
make it and still park a regular size car in it. lt's not made for, say,
a 4x4 or an over-sized car, so he made it as small as possible,
keeping in mind the variance issue. And it's also my
understanding in talking to the architect, i.e., I don't look at plans
and analyze them, but he did inform me that it was not going to
encroach on any of the setbacks. There's also the issue of a
serious drainage problem right in the area where the garage would
be constructed. lt's my understanding that it slopes and so
drainage from Sandy Lane hooks right into a major wall of the
building. This has to be corrected one way or the other. lt's my
Greg Motfit:
Kerry Wallace:
Greg Moffit:
Betty Gutfey::
Greg Moffit:
Betty Gutfey::
understanding that Betty Gutfey can substantiate this. She's talked
with some contractors. lt will be substantially expensive to fix the
drainage by having to fix the grade or do something of that nature.
The garage, by raising up the front of the grade, will take care of
the drainage problem while at the same time being a benefit to the
property. And I know that a major issue doesn't necessarily affect
my client, but it does affect Ms. Guffey and she can tell you more
about that as a security issue in that it's my understanding that
there's access to a private door. lt's a door she has to have in her
unit for egress purposes, in case of fire or some kind of
emergency. But there's public access to this door. lt leads right
into her bathroom and her bedroom. She says people use it all the
time - knock on the door and, you know, you open the door and
you might be in your bathrobe. She's concerned with regard to
security issues on that. She can see from her main door out the
window and see who's at the door and have a little bit more control
than when someone knocks on this other door. She's got some
pretty serious concerns about that. So, you know, there's a
number of issues that they feel do create, you know, hardship in
this case. And, like I said, it is the minimum amount that they could
possibly do to put in a garage, and I know Ms. Guffey has
landscape plans. They're planning on doing some further
improvements to the property and, you know, beautifying the area.
It is my understanding that the unit was a bit of an eyesore for a
while. You know, until all of the changes that Campisi's have done.
So, for those reasons, I know the Campisi's would really like to you
to consider, you know, approving the variance. I think that in the
area there are a number of places with two and three-car garages,
so this is not something out of the ordinary or out of place. I don't
think any of the adjacent units wilt be negativety impacted. lt's not
going to be a high garage, so it shouldn't impact views or light to
other units or that type of thing and we would like you to take those
things into consideration when making your decision.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other applicant comments?
I'd just like to reiterate what ..
First, you have to tell us who you are.
Oh, I'm Betty Guffey, and
Greg Moffit:
Betty Guffey:
Thank you.
for five years l've owned the upper half of the house, or the upper
third of the house known ot "A",742A, and I've been waiting on
waiting on somebody like the Campisi's for five years, to come
along and help me redo the outside. I refuse to allow the previous
owners to paint it. lt takes both of our approvals to do anything.
And I didn't want it painted blue gray again. I wanted stucco or
some rock or something put on it and the Campisi's also fit the
mold that they didn't want to subdivide it, make a litfle toft here and
a little kitchen here and rent it out part time. They plan to live in it
with their grandchildren visiting them and that was the perfect
person to buy it. The only problem was I didn't sell it to them,
another realtor, but they, we agreed on doing this stucco, which is
a great improvement, over $60,000 for that, and I have to pay my
share of that and when it comes down to repairing the drainage
problem, and doing something with that area, I was very happy that
they agreed to have an architect design a space that's small, that
doesn't exceed the lot lines, will solve my problem about the
emergency egress door, will open onto a deck that looks like the
house to me from the front, looks like it always should have gone
around that corner with the deck. And I have some videos, but I
found out you didn't have, I have a video of when I bought it five
years ago and my son was ready to put me in a nursing home
because that was the ugliest house he had ever seen. So I had
videos of it and I put up with a lot in the five years that I've had, oh,
the propane tank that was there. The Campisi's have removed that
and are going to put a garden in its place. The propane tank was
to heat the hot tub. They brought in gas. The propane tank was
right underneath my bedroom window and some of the renters said
they've had short term downstairs before the Campisi's bought it,
left the propane tank in my driveway for several weeks. I had to
get the Fire Department to come out and move them. And one of
my neighbors, Joe Staufer, is here to tell you too, that we had snow
mobilers coming in at 2:00 in the morning, 3:00, shaking that
garage underneath my bedroom. And if the Campisi's want a
garage there for storage, l'm so happy to try to help them get it. lt
will help me too. lt will have a deck of 300 square feet that they're
willing to put in. And, I've stated that the security is the biggest
concern and the biggest hardship I have. And I live there alone and
I would, I definitely like these plans more than anything else, but it
seems like 50 square feet overage is a really minor problem
compared to the expense and the lack of security for me.
Thank you. ls there any public comment? Come on up!Greg Moffit:
Joe Staufer:
Greg Moffit:
Dominic Mauriello:
Greg Moffit:
Betty Guffey:
Greg Moffit:
Galen Aasland:
My name is Joe Staufer, I live at746 Sandy Lane and maybe I
shouldn't be here because where they want to build, that's where
my dogs go every night at 10:00. I like to address a couple of
things that I start finding, and number one is it's not, the
neighborhood may not negatively impact it and then it says it's a
negative effect on light, air and on the neighboring properties, well,
I can't see how that little addition of that building is negative to
anybody and I live up there so it certainly doesn't affect me and I'm
sure it wouldn't affect anybody else to give them that variance.
The other is that it says safety, welfare and health. Well, I think
security is another area where you have every right if you wish to
do so to grant this variance. We are living in a dark neighborhood.
When I'm out of town, this lady is the only one on the block. And
for her to be able to drive into the garage and from the garage a
secure (inaudible) going to her unit is certainly a safety factor and I
think that, you know, we are here to address those things and I
think that granting a variance that in fact is, if I read it right, one
half of one percent over or under the site coverage, allowable site
coverage, for one and a half percent, I don't know how
bureaucratic we want to become. I feel very strongly that this
variance helps somebody in terms of safety, security and a better
place to live in. And I can't see any conceivable reason that would
hurt somebody else. So, why not grant it? Thank you.
Thank you. ls there any additional public comment? Dominic.
ljust wanted to follow up on something that was said earlier about
the closet and storage space. We have DRB plans that were
approved right now for the additions for the work that they're doing
right now. There used to be a storage space, kind of bel6w that -
area below Ms. Guffey's area, that was converted to living space,
so while their argument, yea, that we need more storage space,
this prior approval actually eliminated that storage and created a
living area out of it. I just wanted to point that out.
Thank you. Come on back up.
The neighbor in the lovely hatf to the right of mine, (inaudible), had
to go to physical therapy at this hour and she let me video tape her
a few minutes before this, but we don't have a video. and she's in
approval of granting this to us also.
Okay, thank you. Let's go to the commission. Galen, comments,
questions?
I do have one question of Dominic or for the applicant. How big is
existing two-car garage?
Dominic Mauriello: The existing two-car garage? | think they're each about 300
square feet, each of those garage spaces, so you're looking at 600
square feet existing now.
Galen Aasland: ls that, do you concur with that?
Dominic Mauriello: lt's at least that.
(Cannot understand comment from audience)
Galen Aasland:Okay. So, under this application, it's like the garage that is being
built, would that go to your unit or would it go to the Campisi's?
(Cannot understand response from audience)
Galen Aasland:
Betty Gutfey:
Galen Aasland:
So they have access from their current garage inside? And it won't
change the access into your house?
No. (Garbled comment).
Okay. On the south side. Okay. Alright. Actuaily, in ways for site
coverage variance, I have some kind of unusual sympathy. I think
in certain cases there's some good grounds for it, especially on
smaller lots. lf this lot was under 15,000 square feet, I would feel
much more strongly about it. I think the lot's under iS,O0O square
feet have a particular problem once they get over that they have
less and less a problem, although this is not that much larger
than.... I do have some concerns about it though, is that the
building seems to be already pushing the envelope of development
under of different grounds already, and this would obviously make
it push things further beyond what the zoning is consistent with the
neighborhood. I think the deck that you're talking about could be
built without a variance, in fact, I know it could off of your unit in
terms of getting rid of the door. And so, well it's nice that that can
be there. That's already an allowed use and it's not that you can't
build a deck and you can't do certain things, it's just that, in this
particular case, happens to make this more convenient. I'm
somewhat bothered by the argument that the Campisi's don't have
storage because they're doing this big remodel on the house right
now and obviously they've gotten rid of storage, so I really don't
think that there's really any argument from that particular
standpoint. I would be interested if there's an opportunity because
there is existing site coverage left whether the existing garage
could be added to within what the allowed zoning to add storage
Greg Moffit:
Diane Golden:
Betty Guffey:
Diane Golden:
Betty Guffey:
Diane Golden:
BG:
Diane Golden:
Diane Golden:
Greg Moffit:
Diane Goldlen:
Dominic Mauriello:
Betty Guffey:
on to that, so ] do have a fair amount of sympathy for the site
coverage, but I also see that there's some problems with it that you
've really done a remodel, that the owners have done a remodel
and they really, they're creating some of their own conditions.
Thank you, Galen. Diane?
lf the garage is not put in, do you have to leave that staircase
coming out of your bathroom? How did that get put in and when
was that put there?
It had a prior staircase (inaudible) and was buried in snow.
So how long has that staircase been there?
Five years that I've lived there. Stormshed and garage door
(inaudible) short term rentat (inaudibte)
And from your garage, so have to step outside and then go to your
front door?
(lnaudible)
But lt's covered? Okay.
Where will the snow be put if the garage is there?
Would you come up to the microphone so we can, we're being
recorded believe it nor not.
Where will the snow be put if the garage is put in?
I mean, thafs the owner's option. The fact that there's snow on
their site, I mean, that's their own snow removal issue. As far as
the door going in upstairs, I mean, l'm sure there's a variety of
architectural solutions for that, not just having the stairs thdre. I'm
sure that either of the architects on the board could tell you there's
probably ten different ways to address that egress.
Well, Bill Pierce worked with me to, we ran up a bill of $1600 to try
to design a garage and an entrance around that. one plan was to
enter my house in front of my fireplace, which I don't think is
acceptable, and another was to put a rock stairway to the north
corner and that exceeded the setback, so we scratched that, so it
didn't make any sense to spend $70,000 and still have an ugly
entry. You know, and to have that door that now goes down with
Diane Golden:
Greg Moffit:
Henry Pratt:
this plan, with Jeri's, or Campisi's garage, then ldon't have to get
access from it and my staimay can go up. Bill Pierce's
architectural plan was to have a staiMay, not from a garage there,
to go up and around and enter where my laundry room is now and
that was terribly expensive and this is just the best plan that I've
seen that, from the front of the house it looks like it was meant to
be that way instead of looking like a double-wide trailer, it will look
like a house with a nice sized deck that usable. I don't have a deck
on the house that's usable. And if, one of your plans was to build a
deck up here, that still leaves the drainage problem, which is very
expensive to repair. The drainage problem has been there for a
long time, creating problems for the other side of the house and it
seems silly to me to spend $28,000 to repair the drainage problem
when, well, it would have been a liftle bit easier if they,d left the
snowmobile garage there. Probably would have been cheaper to
repair that, but I am so happy to have that out of there, and people
running under my bedroom with gasoline and engines, so if they
gave up the storage to build a room there, I guess I should be
willing to sacrifice and pay for the drainage. But it just seems
logical that, I think it does, to we're only exceeding 50 square feet
that for the expense involved and somebody willing to make the
place look better and more functional. About the question about
the snow coming in. lt would just be the front part of our driveway
that would have to be plowed. lt's piled back in there and buries
any car that parks in that space there, that's there now and in the
stairway, ugly as it is, is buried in snow also.
I have no further comment right now.
Thank you, Diane. Henry?
I guess first I'd like to say that I think that you're extremety lucky to
have new neighbors like the Campisi's who are willing to come in
and address allwrongs and spend the money and take some pride
in their ownership. In terms of this application, t,m hearing a lot of
things being put forth as hardships that I don't think reaily are. I
think you're security issue is more an architectural issue of
identifying where the front door is, the drainage issue is something
that should have been corrected when the current remodel was
designed or laid out. On the other hand, I think that, like everyone
else in town, you are entitled to 600 square feet of garage, bui as
the staff memo points out, you should be able to do it without
asking for a site coverage variance because everybody else is held
to those rules. During our pre-meeting and during the site visit,
we've talked about, well if you just took away some GRFA or
moved it somewhere else, then you'd have that site coverage for a
Greg Moffit :
John Scofield:
Greg Moffit:
Greg Amsden:
garage. At this point I think that's impractical, given the way you've
got horizontal condominium type zoning on this thing. So lguess
even though I don't want it be considered as a precedent, this
garage has no impact on any neighbors in terms of light, air, mass
and bulk and guess I'd be in favor of granting the variance in this
case, even though I do not really find adequate grounds for a
hardship, And that's a tough one for me.
Thank you, Henry. John.
lwould have to agree very much with Henry in allaspects. you
are lucky to have a neighbor thafs willing to spend the money to
upgrade and I think we should do everything we can as a town to
encourage that. I agree that the drain is something that really is
not a hardship. lt could be fixed with or without the garage. I've
had similar problems, I understand what you're working with.
Likewise, I think the door, it's a downright lousy location, but it
could also, I think, be fixed in other aspects. I think what we have
to looK at as a board is perhaps balancing the issues of site
coverage and what's really going to sit on that site and no matter
what we do, you're probably going to have a car sitting in that
corner. So I would tend to agree with Henry that perhaps the
hardship of getting parking tickets when you park out in the street
would be something that I would look at and say that I could
support this type of thing because I really don't think it's going to
affect the neighbors at all and I think it would perhaps be an
improvement over having a car sitting out there looking ugly all the
time.
Thanks, John. Greg?
This application, and I'm leaning more to what Galen said, is that a
lot of these are self imposed problems that have occuned here.
The drainage situation at one time that house did not have a
structure underneath your apartment. And there was no drainage
problem whatsoever with that site. I was here when the house was
constructed in the beginning. I know the whole history of the
house. In fact, our real estate company marketed that house when
it was first built. So I don't, I mean, the drainage problem has
occurred when the house was expanded into that area and it still
can be cured by proper treatment of the expansion, in which it has
not been done, so the storage argument just doesn't hold water
because they've removed the storage space and even the garage
that they're suggesting building is only the size of one car. lt would
be filled with a car and there would not be much storage in it
anyway. So, again, they're left with no storage. They've got their
Befty Guffey:
Greg Amsden:
Betty Guffey:
Greg Amsden:
variance in a garage and yet they haven't solved at least trying to
justify this variance with. The safety concern, I believe you can put
either a small or a large deck off that door. I would definitely
remove what's there. I don't know if there's really, and it was
mentioned but I don't even know if that is there for a fire purpose,
does the staff know? | mean, no one knows if that's even an
ingress/egress...
That's an emergency egress. I don't have another way out of the
house, out of the master....
Yea, but we don't know if that's why that stairway's there or even if
it was there in the beginning and no one's even brought that point
up or whether it has to be there or not, so if it doesn't have to be
there, a deck would be a good treatment off that door.
l've tried to find another access, or egress, and I don't have one.
All the windows are on the second floor and they don't open large
enough to get out.
But I mean, in looking at this application, I have a hard time just
because it does set a precedent. When you grant a variance
without substantial hardship or reasons for that, and I don't find
these to be justifiable reasons for granting a variance, I think that
we open up, I mean we have a very hard time for the next guy that
comes in and says, "Hey, I want to go over my site coverage
because of this, this and this." I mean, literally they can associate
their causes with what's mentioned here that I don't think, I think
they're self imposed situations. And it sounds like the Campisi's
want a second garage. My solution would be, it's a design driven
problem. You have to fit that garage within existing structure.
Without increasing that site coverage to go over that site coverage
limit. And they need to take a hard took at that. I believe it's
doable where their family room is. And where they've enclosed
and that house has been expanded. In fact, in the memo by the
staff, the 500 square feet, two 250's that was granted that site were
all put on the large side of that home. Why, I don't know. I do
know that it was under one ownership. The platners at that time.
And that's probably why it occurred. But, that's the case and that's
what is in existence.
Basically in agreement with Greg on this one. What we've got here
is kind of a classic zoning dilemma. You've got a unit, we've got a
unit that is maxed. We've got as much square footage as
permitted, we've got about as much site coverage as permitted,
and now we want to add more despite the fact that there's a lot of
Greg Moffit:
l0
Dominic Mauriello:
Greg Motfit:
Greg Moffit:
Dominic Maureillo:
Greg Motfit:
Dominic Maureillo:
Greg Moffit:
Greg Moffit:
Greg Amsden:
square footage inside the existing bulk and mass that could have
been designed to hold cars or to store kayaks or to put a ski locker,
or whatever. Without going into reiterating all of what Greg said, I
think the storage issue is one of self creation and I am very
concerned about the slippery slope aspect of it. Yes, Joe, in
response t0 your comment that the 50 feet is maybe one and a half
percent, but the next application may be an 8000 foot house.
It's 260 square feet, it's 50 square feet over on GRFA, so what
we're talking about is 260 square feet.
Okay. And if it's an 8000 foot house, that starts to took tike a pretty
big bubble. I don't see how granting this variance isn't a grant of
special privilege - hardship or not. lt just strikes me as a grant of
special privilege. My guess is that we're going to have to split
votes.
what's the area of the garage that's being proposed?
300 square feet.
So, essentially the site coverage is maxed before you add this.
It's 40 square feet - less than 40.
Yea, I just wish I could find something to hang my hat on here.
lf there are no further comments from the applicant, or the public,
then somebody gets to make a motion.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the request for a site coverage variance
to allow for a one-car garage located at742 Sandy Lane, Lot 3,
Vail Potato Patch, Second Filing, being denied, per the staff memo
and that granting the variance will constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties
classified the same district. There are no exceptions or
extraordinary circumstances in conditions applicable to this site
that apply generally to other properties in primary/secondary
residential zone district. And I might add that least, I believe that
the hardships that have been presented by the applicant, many of
them are self imposed by the handling of the expansion of the
livable area in the large side of that duplex and that, finally, the
strict interpretation or enforcement of this specific regulation does
not deprive the applicant of priviteges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the primary/secondary residential district.
ll
Greg Moffit: Motion by Greg. Do we have a second?
Galen Aasland: l'llsecond that.
Greg Moffit: Seconded by Galen. Any further discussion?
Galen Aasland: I would also like to add, if this lot was under 15,000 square feet, I
think my vote would be ditferent on this. But the fact that it's over
15,000 is one of the deciding factors in my vote.
Greg Moffit: Okay, thank you Galen.
_: I guess I have a question for the board and statf. Does anybody
see any opportunity to possibly table this and let them find a way to
get the site coverage down or is the garage ....
_: I don't think that there's any other way to do it. I mean, they've
hired people to look at it themselves and I don't know if they've,
they haven't presented any alternatives to us, but I would guess
that there's ....
_: Yea, let me ask a question. lf the deck, if they put a deck out of
that door, that's not site coverage, correct.
Dominic Maureillo: Gorrect.
_: And they could put a hard deck...
Dominic Maureillo: That's correct.
_: outside that door. Now granted, you haven't got a heated garage,
but what you've got is covered parking - a carport. The rules are
screwy, but unfortunately, we got appointed to enforce them. That
creates an interesting scenario in light of what Henry suggested.
We've got a motion on the table first, Henry.
_: That's stricfly a DRB or staff approval type of issue - it doesn't
involve planning.
Greg Motfit: okay. so we have a motion on the floor. ls there any further
discussion? All those in favor?
Aye.
Greg Moffit: Opposed?
12
No response
Greg Moffit: I am also in favor. Motion passes unanimously. The application is
denied. I'm sorry - the rules are tough on this one.
l3
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmenlal Commission
Community Development Departrnent
September 23, 1996
A request tor a site coverage variance to allow for.a one-car garage'
i;;;iil;i 742 Sandv laneTtot 3, vail Potato Patch znd Filing'
Applicant: Jeri CamPisi
Pidnner: Dominic Mauriello
FILE COPY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
The applicant is requesting a site coverage variance of 260.9 sq. ft. in order to construct a 300
sq. ft. one-car garage on itJtrbi""t piopijtt'-. This duplex currdntly contains 2 enclosed garage
spaces and this request wo-ufiiirO iiniiO. fne arrow[OiJ site cov6rage for this site is 3'403'8
i[. rtlizO"u"l anA tnb proposal is lor 3'664.6 sq. ft' (21'5%)'
This duplex was approved by the DRB in.1979:nd constructed in 1980. The duplex' as
originaly approved, contain'til Clze3;q-n. or Cnrn iiJcalculated in 1979)' This site is allowed
3:bi1.9'd:ft or cirR. o; M#h 3, 1bzg, a density variance for a 40 sq. ft. addit6n was
iLrdi-uvlniFet oaseo on'iiinoin'g tnttho narosriip existed to justify the request' on
September 21, 1988, . tJql,Li'idi'ido iq. tt. or cnrA was approued under the 250 ordinance'
The structure now contains 4,502.8 sq. ft. of GRFA as calculaled today' with two 250's' the site
is oermitred up to 4,451.S iq.ft. oi-cR'FA. Therelorelne site is 50.9 si. ft. over on GRFA and is
;lfiil;;il;i.ga nonconto'rming structure with respect to GRFA'
This structure also currently encroaches into both side setbacks' This is a pre'existing
noniontorming condition and is not atfected by the proposal'
The applicant's justification lor the site coverage.variance request is that this addition will not
n"g"tiulryiffe"i aOjaceni properties, as adjac6nt properties have two and three car garages'
Se-e attached lener for greater detail.
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
Zoning:
Use:
Lot Size:
Standard
Slte Coverage:
Landscape area
GRFA:
w/two 250s:
Setbacks:
Front:
Sijes:
Rear:
Parking:
Primary/Semndary Residential
Duplex residence
17,01 I sq. ft. (entke site)
Allowed Existino
3,403.8 3q. ft. (20%) 3,366'6 sq- fL (19'8%)
10,211.4sq.ft.(6070) 11'330.4sq.tt.(66'57d n/c
3,951.9 sq. ft.
4,451.9 sq. tt.
20'
15'
15'
5 required
4,502.8 sq. tt.
4,502.8 sq. fi.
30'
10'& 13.59'
JO
6 (2 enclosed)
Prooosed
3,664.6 sq. ft (21'5%)
nlc
n/c
nlc
6 (3 enclosed)
n/c
n/c
III. CR]rERNANDFINDINGS
Upon review of section 18.62.060, criteria and Findings, 9f tlg Town 9f V_ail.Municipal code' the
C'ommunlty Development Department recommends denial of the requested site coverage
variance. The recomrnendation for denial is based on the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
l.Therelationshipottherequestedvariancetootherexistingor
potential uses and structures in the vicinity'
The proposal will increase the building's bulk and. rnass beyond fiat ..
enfoieO OV otner properties in the saie zone district. Staff believes that
wni6 tne iroposat m'ay not negatively impact neighboring properties and
while othdr siructures in the a6a na'ie two and three car garages-, there
hasbeennoindicationolanyphysica|hardshipwhichwou|djustify
approving the requested variance. other structures in area have two ano
firie cir-garaged and still comply with the site coverage requirements.
Essentiall!, thil owner enjoys a larger house at the expensg,ol L"o-::::^.
garage ar;a. statf believbs the grant of this variance would be a granl oI
special Privilege.
2. The degree to whlch relief from the strlct and llteral lnterpretatlon and
enforcd'ment ol a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity o.-f treatment among sites in the viclnity or
to atbin the oblectives ol this title without grant of special privilege.
staff believes that the granting of this variance would be a grant of special
pr*iieg" not enjoyed O! omerioS in the area or this zone district Other
. siles in me arei were ionstructed within the site coverage requiremenis'
l:bverl|onoFecvnetnosbampisi.923
B.
The effect ol the requested variancs on light and air' dlstribution oJ
p"p"f.ti.it, r"nspohationlnd raffic faciiities, public facilities and
utilities, and Public safetY.
Statf believes that requested variance will increase the bulk and mass of
inJ'6rii,ring *nicn ma-'i navJ a negative effect on the light and air of
neighboring proPerties.
before granting a variance:
1. That the granting ol the variance will not constitute a grant of special . .
privitege nJonsiiteni*itn tne timitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
2.Thatr|egrantingofthevariancewillnotbedetrimenta|tothepub|ic
nea[h, silety ot"Gtt"t., or materially injurious to properties or
imProvements in the vicinity'
S.Thatthevarianceiswarrantedforoneor.moreo|the|o|lowing'reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement ol the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or. unnece.ssary
pt l"i.ir t aioitrip inconsiitent with rhe objectives of this tide.
b.Thereareexceptionsorextraordinarycircumstancesorconditions
"ppiiiaure
to tn'e same site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properiies in the same zone'
c.Thestrictinterpretationorenforcemento|thespeci|iedregulation-
*orfO-OeptVe ihe applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners ot
other properties in the same district'
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The community Development Department statt recommends denial of the applicant's
variance request subject to the following lindings:
1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent witdtne timitations on other properties classified in the same
district.
2.Therearenoexceptionsorextraordinarycircumslancesorconditions
applicable to this site that apply generalli/ to other properties in the
Primary/Secondary Residential zone'
3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation does not
oeprive tne apbricant ol privileges enioyed. by the ,gYl-e^rs of other
prdperties in ilie Primary/Secondary Residential district'
tv.
l:bveryone$ecVnemosbam Pisi.923
g0tJ0t,{
rrEaora il
G|t| .Ftlrl d| tlva
tumg puocg 6 lo'I-qqsd ot?lod
uoplppv rsrolrrcc eql
iiil
i$|il
t
-O.I-.-
,1
to
09
li,'(}i./i r,./ /) <\7/ r,,,''"/'fYf/ffilll,'y,
.', '''fllfrl,#r/
;\A i t/llllllltl/rl//r E
6
Ez*g*
a
*s //
/
ryi
72/
A./,/* .,/,
tugg pnmg 6 rul-tt*tql orqqd
uopTppv rsrdrrrBc eql
!r,,
6
+.
o
T{ff;
II:E? !166I-ll-clllSSI:I31IHfUU I.I,Idzvza'd Llar 6v€ u6
't
\fl
'\
.\.-, ,r I
\
I
I\1 tI?-
237 q. rt
\l\'i
f ltl B.rr llial' Nditlur-
-
_;_
II
I
,OWN
OF VAIL
REQUIRED FOR FILING AN APPEAL OF A STAFF. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OR
PLANNING AND ENVI RONT{ENTAL COi\{]\{ ISS ION ACTION
ACTION/DECISIONBEINGAppEALED: Denial of requesE for a site coverage variance to
alLow for a one-car garage located at 742 Sandy Lane/ Lot 3, Vail, Potato
filing. The specific regulation a variance was requested of is Sectlon
Town of Vail Building Code regardlng siEe coverage which provides that a resldencffiiot to
exceed twen ercent (202) of a total site area. The. requested site coverage variance
was for 260:8 sq. ft. for constructlon of the garage.
B.
c.
DATE OF ACTION/DECISION:
NAME OF BOARD OR PERSON RENDERING THE DECISION/TAK]NG ACTION:
Planni.ng and Environmencal Conrnission
D.NAME OF APPELLANT(S):
MAILING ADDRESS:1146 Sandsrone Drive, Vai1, C0 81b57
Char les
PHySICALADDRESS6MILI42-B Sandy Lane, Vail, Co PHoNE: 476-5586
LEGALDESCRIPTIONOFAPPELLANT'SpROpERTyINVAIL: Unir B, Lor 3, Vail/Potaro Parch,
Second Filing, Condouiniurns according to the Condominiurn Man recorded ]farch /r, 1980 in Book
299 at Page 597 and as defined in theCondominium Declaration recorded March 4, 1930 in
Book 299 at Page 59 f Colorado.
E.SIGNATURE(S):
Kerry H, Walla
Di8:,
resentaElve oKE
20Io
ndp
8l
ey
t3
EornalLaotrtAv
(e70)949-4200
Page lof2
rles an
Docs this appcal involve a specific parcel ofland? Yes If1cs. plcase provide rhc follos.ing information:
arc you an adjacent propefiy ouner? \'cs _ no y
If no. give a detailed explanation of how you are an "aggrieved or adversely affected person." ".A,ggrievcd or
adversely affected person" means any person l'ho will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or
firthered by tlis title. The alleged adverse interesr may be shared in common with other members of the
community at large. but shall exceed in degree the general interest in community good sbared by all persons.
The appellants are aggrleved or adversely affected persons as they are the owners
of the property in questlon and the persons requesEing the slte coverage variance
wbich was denled, The strlct interpretation of the specified rdgulation in thls
racEicaL difflcultv or unnecessa ical hardshlD to the
lants as at the resent tLBe there is available only one 300 sq. ft. slngle
car garage space for the appel-lants'31366.6 sq. ft. resldence. There is insuff-
lcient parking space for the appellantst orn"n vehicles without taking into
fanilv. Parkine is not avallable
street or surround areas There ls also insufficient storage area partlcularly
\J.
H.
as the single cae garage is fu1ly utillzed for parking purposes. There also exlsts
slopes toward the residence and rater flows dlrectly into a pajor r^7a11 of lbe
SEE ATTACTTED SHEET
hovide tle names and addresses (both person's mailing address and property's physical address in Vail) of all
owners of property wbich are the subject ofthe appeal and all adjacent property owners (including properties
separated by a right-of'way. steam. or other intervening baniers). AJso provide addressed and stampid envelopes for
each ProPerty owner on the list
On separate sheets of paper, specifu the precise nature of the appeal. Please cite specific code sections having
relwance to the a6ion being appealed.
FEE: S0.00
drainage problen in that Ehe area in which the new garage would be located
Page 2 of 2
continuation of section F of Aooeal of Denial of site coverage variance for
Charles and Geri Campisi
building. The drainage problem will be expensive to fx and the proposed garage will co(rect
the drainage problem while at tlre same time significantly improving the property. In addition,
the owner of 742-A"Sandy l:ne, Vail, CO currently experiences a serious 'securityproblem in
that the general public has access to her emergency egress which leads to her,naster bedroom
and batbroom. The proposed garage will correct this problem for the owrrcr of 742-Aisandy
Iane who is Betty Guffey.
ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION FOR APPEAL OF PLANNING AND
EIYVIROI{MENTAL COMMISSION ACTION REGARDING
SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE FI]R CEARLES AND GERI CAMPISI
F1OR 7428 SANDY LANE, VAIL, COINRADO t1657
SECTION H
NATT]RE OF APPEAL
I. Background Information
The Appellants, Charles and Geri Campisi, filed a request for a site eoverage variance
for the purposes of constructing a single car garage addition. The specific regulation which the
Appellants are seeking a variance of B section 18.13.090 of the Town of Vail Building Code
regarding site coverage. Said section of ttre Code provides that a residence is not to excrrd20%
of the total site area. The Campisi's are requesting a minimal variance of the regulation in order
to allow them to construct a single car garage addition. The site coverage variance would be
260.t square feet for the purposes of consfucting a 300 squarc footone car:garage upon the
property. The allowable site coverage for the site is 3,403.8 square feet Q0%)nd the proposed
variance would allow for 3664.6 square feet Ql.s%\.
,l
The property is a duplex which currently contains two enclosed garage qpaces and the
Appellurts requested variance would add a third garage space. Currently each side of the duplex
has use of one 300 square foot garage space. As such, the Appellants currently have a 300
square foot single car garage qpace for a 3,365.6 square foot residence.
The Appellants' request for a site coverage variance was presented to the Planning and
Environmental Commission on September 23, 1996 and based upon the recommendations of the
Community Development Department, the request for the variance was denied.
II. Ftnding of the Planning and Environmental Commission
The Pluning and Environmental Commission at the September 23, 1996 meeting denied
the Appellants' request for a site coverage variance in order to construct a 300 square fmt single
car garage addition based on the following findings:
l. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of a special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the
same district;
2. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions that
are applicable !o this site that apply generally to other properties in the
primary/secondary residential zone. In addition, any hardships which havebeen
presented, have been self-imposed; and
3. The sbict int€rpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation does
not deprive the applicant ofprivileges enjoyed by owners ofother property in the
primary/secondary residential district.
It ls Appellants Positlon that Granting of the Variance will not Constitute a
grant of e Specirl Privilege end that there are hactical Difliculties end/or
Eardships which the Appellants will Suffer if the Variance is not Grsnted.
The qpecific regulation that the Appellants are seeking a site coverage variance of is
$18.62.050 of Title 18 of the Town Code of Vail also known as the 'Zoning Title.' $18.62.060
qpecifica[y provides that before acting on a variuce application the Planning Commission shall
consider the following faclors with respect to the request€d variance:
Section A.
1. The relationship of the requested variurce to,other existing or-potentid
uses and structurcs in the vicinitiss;
2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and
uniformity of Eeatment of sites in 0re vicinity, or to obtain the objoctives of this
title without grant of special privilege;
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation, and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and
public safety; and
4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the
proposed variance.
The Planning Commision is also to make ttre following findings before granting a
variance:
Section B.
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of a special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the
same district;
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental !o the public
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvemants
in the vicinity; and
m.
cdcAMnSnAccoMP.DoG -L
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regula,tion would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hudship inconsistent with the objectives of this Title;
b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable tro ttre site of the variance that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same zone;
c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the qpecified
regulation would deprive the applicant ofprivileges enjoyed by owners of
other properties in the same district.'
The Appellans shdl initially address the requirements of Section 'A' of the Zoning Title
$18.62.060:
1. The relationship of fte requesled variance to other existing or potential uses
and structurcs in the vicinity. It is the Appellants position that the proposed site
coverage variance requested by the Appellants for the purpose of constructing a single
car garage addition to their property will not have any negative impact upon the ofier
structures in the vicinity as such structures are all residential homes with two to throe qu
gar4ges and/or condominium structures in the Potato Palch area. The garage addition
will not block any views and fits in with other duplexes in the area, many of which have
three car garages or a close equivalent. The recommendations of the Planning Saff
specifically stated that the Proposal may not negatively impact neighboring properties and
that o0rer structures in the area have two to three car garages. In addition, at the
Plurning and Environmental Commission hearing on September 23, 1996 an owner of
an adjacent neighboring prcpeftY, Joe Stauffer, testified stating that the garage would be
a welcome addition to the neighborhood and would not in any way negatively impact atty
of the neighboring properties. There is no evidence that the proposed site coverage
variance will negatively impact neighboring properties.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of e specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility end
uniformity of trtahent upon sites in the vicinity or to obtain the objectives of this
title without grant of special privilege.
The grant of the minimal site coverage variance requested by the Appellants is necessary
to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity and to attain the
objectives of this title urd does not constitute a grant of special privilege. The Zoning Title
$1t.04.130 addresses gros residential floor uea ("GRFA') and addresses how GRFA is
GNCAITITITMCCOMP.DOC -3-
o
calculated and the amount of GRFA that is allowed per site. 018.04.130A(1) specifically
provides, 'Within buildings containing two or fewer dwelling units, the following area shall be
excluded from calculation as GRFA:
1. Enclosed garages ftom up to 300 square feet per vehicle space not exceeding a
maximum of two spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by the zoning code.'
The Zoning Title also has an entire section dedicated to parking requiremarts in
particular off street parking. The purpose of this title is !o alleviate progressively or to prevent
faffrc congestion and shortage of on street parking areas, off street parking, urd loading
fasilities. Chapter 18.52 of the Tanng Title requires a certain amount of off sfeet parking for
all new facilitie.s. 18.52.100 requires that off steet parking be determined in accordance with
the following schedule'A': if gross residential floor area is two thousand (2000') square feet
or more per dwelling unit: 2.5 qpaces per dwelling unit.
The Appellants'property, which is 3,336 squarc feet, has only a single car 300 square
foot garage space. Thus, the Appellurts only have available one parking space for their dwelling
unit. This is not in compliance with 18.52.100 which requires 2.5,spaces per dwelling unit that
are 2,000 square feet or more. There currently exists insufficient off steet parking for the
Appellants to park their two vehicles without taking into consideration guests and visiting family
members. If the Appellants were !o merely pave the iuea upon which they are requesting the
variance to build the single car garage it would not provide for year round parking for the
Appellurts. The Town of Vail snowplows during the winter months pile snow from the street
onto the area where the garage would be built thus making that area unusable for parking
purpos€s during the winter months. In addition, a concrete parking slab in the area in which
the single car garage addition is proposed would be unattractive !o the property and thus
unattractive to neighboring residences. Though other sites in the area may have been
constructed within the site coverage requirement, the only possibility for the Appellants' property
to have sufficient parking in compliance with the code will be to allow the requested minimal
site coverage variance for construction of the 300 square foot single car garage addition. The
possibility of on street parking is not available to the Appellants as it is illegal !o park upon the
streets in the Potato Patch area particularly during the winter months when the snowplows need
full access to the sheets in order to sufficiently clear them of snow build up. The requested site
ooverage will help achieve compatibility with the objectives of the Zoning Title.
3. The effect of the requested variance of light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and
public safety.
It is the Appellants position that the variance will have no effect on light and air,
disEibution ofpopulation, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and
public saf*y. In fact 0re Appellant proposes that the requested variance will actually have a
positive affect upon these factors as it will allow for additiond offstreet parking so that vehicles
Gr\CAIIHSI\ACCOMP"DOC +
will not be parked upon the street causing potentially dangerous raffic situations. There was
no evidence presented to support a different finding on this issue.
For the foregoing reasons it is the Appellants' position that the variance should be
granted for the following reasons:
l. The grurting of the variance will not constitute a grant of qpecial privilege
inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same district;
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, welfare, or mat€rially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinities;
and
3. The variance is warranted for the following rsuons:
a. The sbict or literal interpreation and enforcement of the specified
reguladon would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Title;
b. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant ofthe privileges enjoyed by the ownen of
other properties in the same district.
The Appellants will suffer the following practical difficulties and/or unnecessary physical
hardships ifthe site coverage variance is not granted.
a. They will be restricted to a 300 square foot garage for a 3,366 square foot
residence. The Appellants will have insufficient parking for the parking of their
own vehicles and/or parking for their guests and family members. This is a
practical difficulty and/or an unnecessary physical hardship in particular as there
if no in particular as there is no available on street parking. The Town of Vail
Code qpecifically requires that sufficient off site street parking be provided for
each residence. In particular 1E.52.100(A) requires that a 2000 square foot or
larger dwelling unit have 2.5 off street parking spaces per dwelling unit. The
Appellants have insufficient parking particularly in the winter months and would
be subject to ticketing by the Town of Vail for parking on the street. In addition
the Town of Vail Code qpecifically provides that enclosed garages of up !o 300
quare feet per vehicle, not !o exceed a maximum of two parking spaces for each
allowable dwelling unit, permitted by the Zoning Code are not included in the
GRFA for a residence. It is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Title to
provi{e a3,3ffi square foot residence to have the capability of having at least 600
squarc feel of parking space, which is the amount which will be provided to the
Appellants' strould be proposed variance be granted.
G:\GA}|IISI\ACCOMIJIOC -$
b. The construction of the proposed galage addition will conect a serious
drainage problem upon tlre PloPerty which will need !o be corrected rcgardless
of whlther the variance B granted. The garage addition will be a positive
resolution of the drainage problem urd will benefit neighboring properties in the
area because it will increase the value of the property.
c. The garage will provide additionalneeded storage as there cunently exists
very little storage area within the residence particularly for storage ofrecreational
equipment.
d. The variance would also correct the serious security problem that exists
for the owner of fte other half of the duplex, 742-A Sandy l:ne, Vail, Colorado,
who is Betty Guffey. Please see the attached Affidavit of Betty Guffey.
b. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
woutd deprive the applicant of the privileges eqioyed by the orYnets of other properties in
the seme dlstrict.
Owners of other properties in the same district are typically allowed at least 600 squ,are
feet of enclosed garage spac€ per dwelling unit. While some of these structures have been
constnrcted wiftin Oi site coverage requirements, it does not alleviale the fact that the
Appellants' property is adversely affected by the lack of parking space. The Appellants should
be able to construct an additional 300 square foot enclosed parking space upon their property
to allow for off street Parking.
G:\CAIr|I!6I\ACCOMPJOC -6
.\FFIDAVIT OF BETTY GLFFEY
Co\{ESNoW'theAftlant'BettyGuffey,har'ingpersonalknorr'ledgeofthefollolr'ing
facts and being duly srvorn under oath hereby testifies as follou's:
l.Thatlamrheorr'nerofrealpropertylocatedintheTorr'nofVail.CounryofEagle'
State of Colorado kno'*'n as ?-ll-A Sandy Lane' Vail' Colorado'
2.ThatlamanremberoftheCondominiunrAssociarionforl.ot3,Vail.PotatoParch'
Second Filing Condolnlnirnl. Tonn of vait, county of Ea-qle, Sute of colorado rvhich is
comprised of Unit 7a2-Aand 712-B Sandy Lane, Vail,tolorad-o ("Condominium Association")'
. 3. That the Condominium Association is comprised 9f tly- o"i'.1nd unit 742-B Sandy
Lane. Vail, Colorado rvnicn is os,ned by Charles Campisi and Geri bampisi (hereinafter referred
to as tte "CamPisi's").
4. Thar rvirh my express permission and invoh'ement lhe campisi's have reqtested a
t,arialce from the Torvn of \iail for the purpose of consrructing a single car garage addition to
their unit. The consrrucrion of said single car garage $'ill not in any rvay.negatively impact upon
orher srrucrures in rhe vicinirl' as lllosl strucrures aie resideniial homes' including condominium
units u'ith garages.
5.TharthegarageaciditionthattheCampisi'shar.erequestedavarianceforfromthe
Toiln of Yail is necessa4 for a nuntber of reasons:
.{. There is significant drainage problem upon the properry in that the 1e1 in
*,hich the new garage * iil be-iocated slopes ro*'ard the residence and tu^ter florvs directly into
a nrajor rvall of the building. Tbe copstrucrion of the garage u'ill resohe this drainage problem
u,hile at rhe same time si-;ncantly improving the property
B. That at rhe present rime u'irh rhe current configuration of rhe residenct-ll]T:lt
rhe requesred garage addirion. rhere exists a significant securiry problem rvith regard to my urut'
The general public currenrll,has accesslo-an emergen.y.gtisi door rvhich leads directly into
my masrer bedroom and bath area. Unfonunatel-y, Oue io the culrent configuration of the
buildirrgthegeneralpublicoftenutilizesn-''u.'.,g.n.1'egresdoorasopposedtomymaindoor
because ir is rhe t'rnl., door readily visible from ihe tit..r' tttit is a cluse for concern for me
because I cannot 5sg u ho is at the emergenc)' egress door until i anl right before the door' This
is not rhe case s'ith m1'maln entlance d-oor as ican see the person at the door through windou's
prior ro opening rhe door. In addition packages 3n6 11su'ei deliveries are often left misrakenJy
at nt). emergen.y agr.,, door and as I do nor urilize that door I do not locate the items often for
da1.s. I hare rerained an architect, \{r. Bilt Pierce of Fritzlen Pierce Briner Architects in \/ail'
ro address. .mong orhe, issues. the issue of rhe public access to tny enlergenc)' egress. door so
rhar i could be proricled $ith securirl'. lt,,'as ultinratell'deternrinecl b1'\{r' Pierce that there
\\ is nLr $ a\ ro pror.ide i:.lc such'securiti, due lo design constraitrts thus the proposed garage ]s
an excellenr solution to m)' securily problem. As such. t feel rhai the granting of the Variance
ro allow tlre construcrion of r5e single car earage is necessary to prtrvide nre s'iih adequate
security at my residence and I rvill suffer a hardship if the Variance is not granted as no other
options are available to me.
c. That in the winter months the To$,n of Vail snow removal pushes snow oilo
rhe area rvhere rhe new single car garage s,ill be constructed thus making such area unusable
panicularly for parking putpos.t. There is insufficient parking in the area and the single car
garage will provide a covered parking area 1'ear round.
6. For the foregoing reasons the owners of the property at'112 Sandy Lane con$iruted
of myself and rhe Campisi'i rvill suffer a hardship if the Variance is not granted allorving for
construction of the proposed single car garage.
Further the Affiant sa1'eth naught'
STATE OF COLORC,DO
EAGLE COUNTY
)
\cc
)
._..^:Vrt
Subscribed and su,orn to before n:e ihis /t)t 'di1'of September, 1996' b;'
BETTY GUFFEY.
\Virness mv hand and oft-rcial sea!.
My commission expires:
\ob)-. Prbiic
. AFFIDAVIT OF GERI CI\{PISI
col{Es NoW, the Affiant, being duly su,orn under oath and har'ing personal knorvledge
of the follorving facts hereby lesdfies as follorvs:
1. That I am the onner of real propeny located in the Totvn of vail' counry of Eagle'
Sute of Colorado knon'n as 742-8 Sandy Lane, Vail' Colorado'
2.ThatlamamemberoftheCondominiumAssociationforlnt3,Vail'PotatoPatch,
second Filing, condomi*um, county of Eagle, sute of colorado $'hich is consdruted of unit
ilZ-lana ziz-g Sandy I-ane, Vail, Colorado (rhe "Condo Association")'
3'ThattheCondominiumAssociationiscomprisedofmyunitandT42.ASandy[:ne'
Vail, Cotorado u'hich is os'ned by Beny Guffey'
4.Thatmyhusband.CharlesCampisiandml,selfhaverequestedaVariancefromthe
Torvn of \tail for *,e pu.poie of consmuciing a singe car garage addition to our unit' The
consmrcdon of such rin,ir. ..r garage t.ill nor ii any rviy negatively impact upon other
slrucrures in the viciniq' .', n or, ,t-at*"' are residentiaihomls' including condominium units'
s'ith garages.
5. That $e garage addirion lhat $'e are requesring a variance from the To$'n of Vail for
is necessary for a number of ieasons:
A. There is a significanr drainage problenr upon the propeny in that rhe area in
$.hich fie new garage $iil be located slopes to$'ard the residence and \\'ater flolTs directly into
a major $.all of rhe building. This drainage problem needs to be corrected in some manner and
could be very expensive to fr-r pursuant to bi,Js that ha\.e been receil'ed. The consrucdon of the
garage rvill resolve rhis drainage problem trhile at rhe same time significantly improving the
ProPerty.
B. That rhere exists Yery linle storage area $'ithin our residence and the existiitg
1ro (2) car garage is fully utilized foi rhe parking of our rrvo (2) automobiles' '{s such' u'e
cunenrly do nor ha*e ,ry ,ror.g. space ianicui-arly for our recreational equipment such a
bicl'cles, golf clubs ano sii equipimenr' This creates'a significant hardship for us in that there
are no closen in the house lo srore rhe equipment. no rpi.. in rhe exisring garage as-ir is used
for parking our automobiles and it rvoutd be inappropriate to store said items outside as they
aould b, siolen and it tvould detract from the area to store goods in that manner'
c. That tve are unable lo park an automobile on the street or elseNhere on the
lot in order to make storage spaie availabli in the existing garage as parking is not allos'ed.upon
rhe srreer. panicularly iri rne ft,inrer monrhs, and rhe lrla ;n which the new garage s'ill be-
consrructed is currently unusabld for parking purposes during the s'inter months as the Tos'n of
)g/ 20/9E FRt 10:03 F.LI
Funlrcr the Affiast saYcth naugbt'
STATE OF COLORADO
EAGLE COUNTY
Subscnlrcd 31d 5*'orn to befoie rnc
CAMPISI.
Vail snow rctnoval plows large -trool"T of .sno1-lPou
the.space' In eddidon' it is prefcrable
to have ouf cir in covered pirkiog durins tle wintcr montls.
D-Tbat*ealsohavefrequentguess'heludingnumerousfrrnilyEenbcrs'and
are unable o providc t pl'fti'g;;1t;4;-'i"* "-ilJ;;; 'ititing' rbis poscs a dirricult
orobtcm again io o" *ioitt io'irbs *utn tt'" sool;;;;; thi scccts cleu of parkcd
lehiclcs toadequately plow tbc ltrccts'
6.Thattheproposedsinglccargaragcwilladdressalloftheaboverefcrerrrdbardsbips
in that it will provide r"' t"-'iiiii"nat-srorlge' n;;ilP-"ide a covctc-d'parking spacc that
will be usabte all ,"* ,ou'ni;;;it b. ipositive usc of currenrly uorsable space'
7. That tlrc proposed shgle car.garage will constirute' * t-tt:]'-t'T'tnt to $e proP€rty
ttrat will incrcase ,fr" ".filoi-if,. ,.rii.nc-e anO'rtrus would be a positivc cffect upon thc
neighborhood in gcneral -
8, For rhe forcgoing rcasoos-the-o"r:Ders of the troperty at 742 Sandy l:iic *hich is
consdmted of m.vscrf. mr nusu-aoa, cr,artes caroi.ti'l"i:i'"i y a.rr.y will suffcr a hardshiP
if$eVariaoccisnotgran:edforthecoustnrctionoftheproposedsinslecargarsge.
)) ss.
).-fl|
rtts 1/&._day of SePtcmbcr. 1996' bY GERI
G:lCAlvlP t SI\GERI'{FP' OTIf
STOVALL GOODMAN WALLACE
PnoFEsstoNAL CoRpoRATroN
Atlomeys & Counselors at Inw
202 BENCHMARK PLAZA BUILDING
48 EAST BEAVER CREEK BoULEVARD
P.O. DRAWER 5860
AvoN. CoLoMDo 81620
TELEPHoNE : (97 0) 9 49 -4200
FAcsrMrLE: (97 0) 949-6843
JAMES WM. sTovALL
JOHN D. GOODMAN
KERRY H. WALLACE
GILLIAN CooLEY MoRRISoN
October 10, 1996
Town of Vail
ATTN: Dominic S. Mauriello, A.I.C.P.
Department of Community Development
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
REFERENCE: Site Coverage Variance Request for742 Sandy Lane/Lot 3,
Vait Potato Patch, Second Filing, for Charles and Jeri
Campisi
Dear Mr. Mauriello:
The purpose of this letter is to formally request a continuance of the appeals hearing that
was initially scheduled before the Vail Town Council for November 5, 1996 at7:30 p.m. with
regard to Charles and Jeri Campisi's appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commissions'
denial of a site coverage variance for 742 B Sandy Lane. I will be in trial the week of
November 4, 1996 and as such would be unavailable for the hearing before the Vail Town
Counsel on November 5, 1996 at 7:30 p.m.
It is my understanding that the hearing before the Vail Town Council initially scheduled
for November 5, 1996 has beenmoved pursuant to my request to November 19, 1996at7:30
p.m. I appreciate your cooperation in regard to this matter and please do not hesitate to contact
me if you require anything further.
Very truly yours,
KHW:tak
cc: Charles and Jeri Campisi
G:\CAMPISIWAIL.LET
Y H. WALLACE
J'6{
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1996
1:00 P.M. AT TOV COUNCTL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
NorE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to
dEtermine at what time Council will consider an item:
Meet with the Board members of the Eagle River Water and Sanitation
District to discuss the remaining issues pertaining to the Red Sandstone
Locals Housing development. (45 mins.)
FACKGROUND MTIONALE: Ptease see Councit packets.
PEC Review. (15 mins.)
John Gulick 20 Year Anniversary. (S mins.)
Interview Applicants for 2 Marketing Board Positions. (1S mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCTL: Review apptications of Beth Stifer,
Andre J. Foumier, and Robert Charles Batchelor submitted for the two
Marketing Board position. A vote will be taken at the evening nreeting.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: There are two positions with four year
terms that that need to be filled. The terms of Beth Slifer and Dean Liotta
are expiring.
Discussion of Ordinance No. 22, Series of 19g6, an ordinance amending
Section 18.22.030, Conditional Uses, to allow time.share estate units,
fractional fee units and time-share license units as conditional uses in the
Public Accommodation Zone District, and to establish Section 18.22.033,
conditional uses-fastors applicable in the Public Accommodation Zone
District. Gordon Pierce, representing Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. (1 hr.)
In preparation for this evening's meeting, regarding a request to amend
Section 18.22.;030, the staff and the applicant wiil be presenting
background information to the Council.
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCTL: Listen to the presentations on the
proposed amendments to Section '18.;22.030 of the Town of Vail
Municipal Code and ask questions relating to Ordinance No. 22, Series of
1996.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Please see the attached memorandum
from the Community Development Department staff to the planning and
Environmental Commission dated November 25, 1996.
West Vail Interchange Design Update. Review of construction phasing public
process. (45 mins.)
AC'IION REOUESTED OF COUNCTL: Listen to the project update, vatidate,
have clarified or revise project direction to allow the project to proceed to
final design. Review and sign off on corrstruction phasing public process.
B.ACKGROUND MTIONALE: Since the Councilauthorized the design of
the contract to proceed at its meeting in October. The design consultant
and the Town have had various input meetings with the public, DRB, CDOT,
affected property owners, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Division of
1.
Andy Knudtsen
2.
3.
2:00 P.M.
4.
Holly McCutcheon
5.
George Ruther
6.
Greg Hall
MK Centennial
Wnston & Assoc.
7.
8.
L
wildlife. In addition, the consultants have completed the preliminary plans
for the project and are able to have more defined answeni to the design
details which need direction/sign off prior to completing the final designl.
In addition, review public process for construstion phasing and appiove
and/or modiff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Provide direstion on design and public
process.
Information Update. (10 mins.)
Council Reports. (10 mins.)
Other. (10 mins.)
10. Site Visit - An appeal of a variance denial made by the planning and
Dominic Mauriello Environmental Commission on September 23, 1996. The appellants were
denied a site coverage variance to allow an additional one-car garage to be
constructed at742-B Sandy Lane/Unit B, Lot 3, Vail/Potato Patch, Second
Filing. Appellants: Charles and Geri Campisi, represented by Kerry
Wallace. (20 mins.)
The Town Gounciltabled this appeal at the November 19, 1996, Council
meeting. The item was tabled until December 17, 1996, at the request of
John Goodman, attomey for the Campisi's.
ACT]ON REOUESTED OF COUNCIL: Msit site.
BACKGROUND MTIONALE: See the aftached staff memo and other
materials for a comprehensive overview of the appeal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council
uphold the Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of a 260.8 sq.
ft. site coverage variance and recommends that the Town Council make the
following findings:
1. That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of
Title 18 (Zoning) have not been met.
2. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties
classified in the same district.
3. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions
that are applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties
in the Primary/Secondary Residential zone. In addition, any
hardships which have been presented, have been self imposed.
4. The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation
does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of
other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential district.
11. Adjoumment - 4:55 p.m.
NorE u pcorurltr
HF"1il*%rJ#5LJj M ES BELow:
|il|l
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION
wfLL BE oN TUESDAY , 1a17|A6, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. tN Tov coUNctL cHAitBERs.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCTL REGULAR WORK SESSION
wlLL BE oN TUESDAY , 1n87, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. tN Tov coUNctL cHAIuBERs.
THE NEXTVAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING IIEETINGwLL BE oN ruEsDAY, t?i7l96, BEG|NNING AT 7:30 p.it. tN Tov couNctl GHAMBERS.
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
TUESDAY, DECEIIIBER {7, 1996
7:30 P.M. lN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
NoTE: Times df ltems are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to
determine at what time Council will consider an item.
1.CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. (5 mins.)
CONSENTAGENDA:
A. Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1996, second reading of an Ordinance
Making SupplementalAppropriations from the Town of Vail General
Fund, Parking Structure Fund, Police Confiscation Fund, Booth
Creek Debt Service Fund, Debt Service Fund, and Housing Fund, of
the 1996 Budget and the Financial Plan for the Town of Vail,
Colorado; and Authorizing the Expenditures of Said Appropriations
as Set Forth Herein; and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto.B. Resolution No. 22, Series of 1996, a Resolution authorizing the
Town Manager to enter into an Animal Control Services Contrao.
(10 mins.)
Appointment of Marketing Board Members. (5 mins.)
ACTION REOUESTED OF COUNCIL: Appoint two members for terms of
four years each to the Marketing Board.
Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance amending
Section 18.22.O3O, Conditional Uses, to allow time-share estate units,
fractional fee units and time-share license units as conditional uses in the
Public Accommodation Zone District, and to establish Section 18.22.035.
conditional uses-factors applicable in the Public Accommodation Zone
District. Gordon Pierce, representing Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. (1 hr, 30
mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCTL: Approve/modify/deny Ordinance No.
22, Series of 1996 on first reading.
BACKGROUND MTIOMLE: Please see the attached memorandum from
the Community Development Department staff to the Planning and
Environmental Commission dated November 25, 1996.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Approve Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996
on first reading.
Resolution No. 23, Series of 1996, a Resolution Directing the Town
Manager to execute the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town
of Vail and VailValley Consolidated Water District as modified.
Qrdinance 24, Series 1996, second reading of an ordinance providing for
the establishment of Special Development Districl No. 33, Red Sandstone;
adopting a development plan for Special Development District No. 33 in
accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth
details in regard thereto; and
Ordinance 20, Series 1996, second reading of an ordinance rezoning
three tracts from General Use Section 18.36 to Medium Density Multi-Family
Residential, Section 18. 18 generally located at 945 Red Sandstone Road.
Applicants: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Town of Vail,
United States Forest Service. (30 mins.)
?
4.
George Ruther
5.
Tom Moorhead
Andy Knudtsen
o
ACTION REOUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve/Deny/Modifo Resotution No.
23, Series of 1996 and Ordinances 20 and 24, Series 1996.
BACKGROUND MTIONALE: please see Council packets.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Resolution No. 23. Series of
1 996 and Ordinances 20 and 24, Series 1996.
6. An appeal of a variance denial made by the Planning and Environmental
Dominic Mauriello Commission on September 23, 1996. The appellants were denied a site
coverage variance to allow an additional one-car garage to be construc{ed
at 742-8 Sandy Lane/Unit B, Lot 3, Vail/Potato Patch, Second Fiting.
Appellants: charres and Geri campisi, represented by Kerry wailace. fthr.)
The Town Council tabled this appeal at the November 19, 1996, Council
meeting. The item was tabled until December 17, 1g96, at the request of
John Goodman, attomey for the Campisi's.
AcrtoN REQUESTED oF couNcrL: Uphord / modify / overtum the
PEC's denial of the variance request.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: see the attached staff memo and other
materials for a comprehensive overview of the appeal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council
uphold the Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of a 260.8 sq.
ft. site coverage variance and recommends that the Town Council make the
following findings:
1. That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of
Title 18 (Zoning) have not been met.
2- That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of specialprivilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties
classified in the same district.
3. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions
that are applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties
in the Primary/Secondary Residential zone. In addition, any
hardships which have been presenled, have been self imposed.
4- The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation
does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of
other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential district.
Town Manager's Report. (10 mins.)
Adjoumment - 11:00 p.m.
NOTE U PCLOIII NG H,:"1TI*9-fTISJI*R:, BELOW:
ililil1
THE NEXT VAIL TOYViI COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, IflT97, BEGINNING A i'2:OO P,M. IN Tov couNcIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSIONwLL BE oN TUESDAY, 1/14197, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. tN Tov coUNctL GHAMBERS.
THE NEXTVAILTOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING iIEETING
YVILL BE ON TUESDAY,1NP7, BEGINNING AT7:30 P.M.IN TovcoUNcIL GHATBERS.t|iltl
Slgn fanguage interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. please call47g-2332voice or479-2356 TDD for information.
C:\AGENOATC
7.
8.
o ,14
PUBLIC NOTICE
(as of | 2/13/961
lanuary, l99T
In an anempt to respond to scheduled meeting demands, as well as adhere to mandated ordlnance
and chaner requiremenq council meetings ari scheduled at tlre following times:
EVENING MEETINCS
Evening meetings will continue to be held on the first and third Tuesday evenings of each month,shning at 7 30 P.M. These qeelngs will provide iforum for citizen panicipation and public
audience for conducting regular Councit busines.
woRK sEsstoNs
Work sesions, which are primarily scheduled for Council debate and undersanding of isues beforethe Council, wlll now be scheduled to begin at 2:oO P.M. (unles ottrenrvlse notedion everv
Tuesday aftemoon.
Tuesday. Januaru 7, 1997
Work sesion O2:OO P.M. (*rttng tlre dercrmined by tensdr of asenda)Eveningmeeting......... 07:30p.M.
Tuesdav. lanuary 14, l9g7
Work session O2:OO P.M. (senine rime der€rmined by tensth of agenda)
Tuesdav. Ianuaru 21 . l9o7
Work session 2:00 P.M. (sarrins dme delermined by tenrh of agenda)Eveningmeeting......... 07:30p.M.
Tuesdav, lanuary ^4, lgoz
WOfk SeSSlOn O2:OO P.M. (saning dme deermtned by ten$h of agenda)
TOWN OF VAIL
THE IANUARY. 1997. VAtt TOWN COUNCTL MEETTNG SCHEDULE
IS AS FOLLOWS:
A"*'l4truaru,6.t
Pamela A. Brandmeyer
Assisunt Town Manager
sigll-arylage interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. please cail 419-2332 voiceor 479-2356 TDD for information.
o Do,-'-
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1996
2:00 P.M. AT TOV COUNCTL GHAMBERS
AGENDA
NorE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to
determine at what time Gouncil will consider an item.
1.
Dominic Mauriello
Site Visit - An appeal of a variance denial made by the planning and
Environmental Commission on September 23, 1996. The appellants
were denied a site coverage variance to allow an additional one-car
garage to be constructed at 742-8 Sandy Lane/Unit B, Lot 3, Vail/potato
Patch, Second Filing. Appellants: Charles and Geri Campisi,
represented by Kerry Wallace (20 mins)
ACTION REOUESTED OF COUNCTL: Site Visit.
BACKGROUND MTIONALE: See the attached staff memo and other
materials for a comprehensive overview of the appeal.
Site visit and discussion of Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1996, an
ordinance providing for the establishment of special Development Distric{
No. 33, Red Sandstone; adopting a development plan for Special
Development District No. 33 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail
Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto; and
Ordinance No. 20, Series of ig96, an ordinance rezoning three tracts
from General Use Section 18.36 to Medium Density Multi-Family
Residential, Section 18.18 generally located at 945 Red Sandstone Road.
(1 hr., 30 mins.)
ACTION REOUESTED OF COUNCIL: Visit the site and discuss the
proposal.
BACKGROUND RATTONALE: ptease see Council packet.
Information Update. (10 mins.)
Council Reports. (10 mins.)
Other. (10 mins.)
Adjoumment - 4:20 p.m.
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TITIIES BELOW:
(ALL TtrlES ARE AppROXtaATE ANO SUBJECT TO CruNGE)
2.
Andy
3.
4.
5.
Knudtsen
|ilil1
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL SPECTAL WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY' l1126/96, BEGINNING AT 1:30 P.M. lN TOV COUNCIL CHAI|BERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSIONwlLL BE oN TUESDAY' 1213/96, BEGINNING AT2:00 P.M. tN Tov couNctL cHAitBERs.
THE NEXTVAILTOVW{ COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETINGwlLL BE oN TUESDAY, 12lit/96, BEGINN|NG AT7:30 p.il. tN Tov couttctl cHAltBERs.ilil||l
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. please call 429-2332 voice
or 479-2356 TDD for inbrmation.
C:IAGE DAWS
6.
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
EVENING MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEiiBER 19, 1995
7:30 P.M. lN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
NorE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to
determine at what time Gouncil will consider an item.
1.
2.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. (5 mins.)
CONSENTAGENDA: (5 mins.)A. Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance
amending Special District No. 21, the Vail Gateway Building, and
amending the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40
of the Town of Vail MunicipalCode and setting forth details in regard
thereto. Applicant: Vail Apartment, Inc., represented by Steve
Riden. (10 mins.)
B. Ordinance No. 21 , Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance
to designate 14 properties located in the Town of Vail as open spaoe
as provided in Article 1 3, Section 13.1 1 of the Charter of the Town
of Vail, Colorado. (5 mins.)
Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1996, first reading of the budget (10 mins.)
ACTION REOUESTED OF COUNCIL:Approve Ordinance No. 23, Series
of 1996 on first reading.
BACKGROUND MTIONALE: Annual appropriation Ordinance No. 23,
Series of 1996 will adopt the 1997 budget and approve the 1998 budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1996
on first reading.
Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance providing
for the establishment of Special Development District No. 33, Red
Sandstone; adopting a development plan for Speciat Development District
No. 33 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code; and
sefting forth details in regard thereto; and
Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance rezoning
three tracts from General Use Section 18.36 to Medium Density Multi-Family
Residential, Section 18.18 generally located at 945 Red Sandstone Road.
(1hr., 30 mins)
ACTION REOUESTED OF COUNCTL: Approve/deny/modiff Ordinance No
20, Series of 1996 and Ordinance No.24, Series of 1996 .
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Please see Council packet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATTON: Approve Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1996
and Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1996.
An appeal of a variance denial made by the Planning and Environmental
Gommission on September 23, 1996. The appellants were denied a site
covemge variance to allow an additional one-car garage to be constructed
al742-8 Sandy Lane/Unit B, Lot 3, Vail/Potato Patch, Second Filing.
Appellants: Charles and GeriCampisi, represented by KerryWallace (30
mins.)
3.
Steve Thompson
4.
Andy Knudtsen
5.
Dominic Mauriello
AcrtoN REQUESTED oF couNcrl: uphotd / modify / overturn the
PEC's denialof the variance request.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: See the attached staff memo and other
materials for a comprehensive overview of the appeal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council
uphold the Planning and EnvironmentalCommission's denialof a 260.8 sq.
ft. sile coverage variance and recommends that the Town Council make the
following findings:
1. That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of
Title 18 (Zoning) have not been met.
2. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties
classified in the same district.
3. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions
that are applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties
in the Primary/Secondary Residential zone. In addition, any
hardships which have been presented, have been self imposed.
4. The stric{ interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation
does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of
other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential district.
Town Manager's Report. (10 mins.)
Adjoumment - 10:00 p.m.
NOTE U PCIIOIIL NG IT5"TJ[9f,""IS#ffi:l BELOW:
ililil1
THE NEXTVAIL TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION
wlLL BE oN TUESDAY, 11126196, BEGINNING AT 1:30 P.M.lN Tov couNctl GHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1213196, BEGINNING AT 2:OO P.iI. IN Tov coUNcIL CHAI|BERS.
THE NEXTVAILTOYW COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
wlLL BE oN TUESDAY, 123196, BEG|NN|NG AT 7:30 P.M. tN Tov couNctl GHAMBERS.t|iltl
Sign language inbrpretation available upon requesl with 24 hour notification. Please call 47g-2332 voice or
479-2356 TDD br information.
C:IAGENOATC
6.
7.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town council was held on Tuesday, November 1g, 1996, in the council chambers of theVail Municipal Buitding. The meeting was called to order at apiroximately 7:30 p.M.
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
November 19, 1996
7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
Sybill Navas, Mayor pro-tem
Kevin Foley
Rob Ford
Paul Johnston
Ludwig Kurz
Michael Jewett
FILE CC;,
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager
Tom Moorhead, Town Attomey
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
The first ilgT ol the agenda was Citizen Participation. Vail resident, Scotty McGowan expressed his concems regardinguncontrolled, vicious dogs in town.
Next, Sheika Gramshammer of the Gasthof Gramshammer Lodge, addressed the Council about noise problems in the
Y59,"*,:::,::lo_Y::,::P""i"lly concerned with the 7:00 a.m. tiash removat. She said trash removat that earty in themornrng was especially annoying to guests and suggested a later pick up of g:00 a.m.
Jo Stauffer of the Vail Village Inn said he supported Sheika's concerns, and stated that because of the mixed usebuildings in the Village, it was important to be;liveable". on another matter, Mr. Staufer asked Council members toreconsider their decisions pertaining to the Red Sandstone housing project, stating it would be a mistake to put publiclands to private ownership. He also indicated he did not appreciai'e'tnd aicnitecture of the project.
Peter Franke' an employee of Gasthof Gramshammer then addressed Council regarding the early trash removal issue.In addition to an 8:00 a.m. pick up, Franke suggested back up beepers and diesll eng-ines on the tiucrs be cut off tohelp alleviate noise, and asked that cneckpoint charlie be statreo it night.
Roy Parsons of BFI explained the trash. removal proce_ss in the Village, and said he understood the concems expressedby Gramshammer' However, he explained that in addition to comirig uf ;iirr a cost effective collection system, safetywas his company's main issue' Larry Roman, facilities manager foiBFl was also on hand to eiptain operations.
Jim Lamont of the East Mllage Homeowners Association said he supported ail parties who spoke on the trash removalissue' He said he was confident that short and long term solutioni to the loading ano obtivery pioblems could bereached, and that everyone in the community should-participate.
Item number two on the agenda was the consent agenda which consisted of the following items:
A' Ordinance No. 17' Series of 1 996, second reading of an ordinance amending Special District No. 21 , the VailGateway B-uilding, and amending the developmenl plan in accordance with ihabter r A.+O oi tne Town of VailMunicipal Code and setting forth details in regard ihereto. Applicant Vail Apartment, lni., rlfresented by steveRiden.
B' ordinance No' 21 , Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance to designate 14 properties located in theTown of Vail as open space as provided in Articte 1 J, Section r s. r r ot ihe chirt"i .rt ,ii,i";%ii, ;;;;.
Mayor Armour read the Consent Agenda in full. A motion was made by Sybill Navas to approve the Consent Agenda,and Paul Johnston seconded the motion. A vote was taken and p"ss6o uninimousty, aci.
Third on the agenda was ordinance N0.23, Series-of 1996, first reading of the 1g97 budget and financial plan, andconsideration of a 1 998 budget.and financial plan. Mayor Armour read tn-e mte in full. Todn of Vail Finance Director,Steve- Ttrompson presented the item,_ltating that the annual appropriation ordinance No. 23, Series of 1 996 will adoptthe 1997.budget and approve the 1998 budget, and that stati iecbmmendation was for approval of the ordinance onfirst reading' Mayor Armour asked that stiff look at the opportunity to add an additional firefighter position prior to
:e?o$ reading. Paul inquired about the number of community safety officers employed by the town. Town Minager,Bob McLaurin stated that cunently there were four, but thafadditi6nal officers woutO tirity oe neeaea once a newloading and delivery plan was adopted.
Rob Ford moved to approve ordinance No. 23, Series of 1996 on first reading with a second from Sybill. Sybill thenstressed the importance of an additional firefighter. Bob,McLaurin said he would have information available at theNovember 26 work session as to the cost of the position. A vote was then taken and p"a""o un"nimously, 6-0.
Agenda item number four was ordinance No. 24, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance providing for theestablishment of special Development District No. 33, Red sandstone; adoptin! a oevetofmeni Fran for specialDevelopment District No. 33 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail'Municipil Code; an'd i"ttini tortn details in
VailTovrn Councl Evanino Meeting MirlJtes Nov6mD€a 19, t996
t""Tsfffiyb:#,3'^f:t?ff1,xp{ftl6iln"iiFiffi:3:ffil"iti:t*;ruuiJ:i",Et":"g"","J:tx
Road. Senior Housing Planner, Andy Knudtsen presented lhe two ordinances and ieferred to an october 2g, 1996memorandum to the PEC. He explained that the zoning charige was needed to move fonrard *itfr " proporal initiatedby the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District in partnership with the Town of Vail and the U.S. forest Service for a17-unit afiordable housing development. He said the water district was the owner of threequart"o otin" property, wtritethe Forest Service owned one{uarter of the land, and that the town and Forest service "i"r" n"goii"ting a transfer tothe town as part of the Land ownership Adjustment Agr,e9m9..n!. .Andy further statec tnat ttrE-l"no ,r" plan wasconsistent with the proposed use, and that the project was well within the rdnge and consistent wiin wnat cunenly existsin the area. He mentioned that parking and loading areas were well within the requirements. The staff recommendationwas for approval of Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1996 and Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1996-
Tom Braun of Braun & Associates,- Pat Dauphanias of the Eagle River water and sanitation District, and Jim Morterof Morter Architects presented a visual design of the project, ansrrered questions, anO broviAeO-'a-n overview of theproposed site plan.
Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowner's Association questioned whether the units should all be sold, andsuggested keeping a portion of the units in the affordable housing pool. He requested the Water District's use of theirunits be similar be similar to that of the town's, as far as the number availablefor critical and non--crlficat empfo'eei,the rest being drawn for in a lottery. He said housing was needed for all employees, not ;ust itrosJ emptoyed by thegovemment. Additionally, Lamont said he would like to see additional siOewilti put in.
IoU e.o.tO complemented the Water District for its efforts in,presenting an affordable housing project for the community.He said an_excellent job was done meeting the criteri.a..and proposing lhe projgct,
"nd
;ugil"Go boiuncir approve theproject and move forward. He said he was confident the smatler Oetaits cbutO then be *l-rfJ out.'
Rob Ford moved to approve ordinance No. 20, Series of 1996 on first reading with changes as recommendedby Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead. Sybill seconded the motion, and J vote wa-s taken ano passedunanimously, 6-0.
ordinance No. 24, Series of 1996 was then discussed. Rob Ford stated the project met with all the designguidelines as required. Sybill moved to approve Ordinance No. 24, with addition of tanguage pertaining todeed restriction and streamwalk setbacks for the project. Rob Ford seconded the moti6n.
Mayor Armour then complimented the project, pointing out that the setbacks had been met, and that parkingand landscaping was greater than what was required for the project. Paul Johnston stated he couldn,r vote in .favor of the project because of concerns about the architectural design, in particular the flat roofs. A vote was thentaken and passed, 5-1, Paul voting in opposition.
Agenda item number five was An appeal of a variance denial made by the planning and EnvironmentalCommission on September !3' !9!6. The appellants were denied a site cbverage varia-nce to allow jn additional one-car garage to be constructed at 742-8 Sandy LaneAJnit B, Lot 3, VaiUPotato PatJh, Second Fifin!, Appellants: Charlesand Geri Campisi, represented by Kerry wallace. Town Planner Dominic Mauiiello intormei' tni'councitthat theappellants requested the matter be continued to December 17, 1996.
Rob moved to table the item untilthe December 17 evening meeting and Sybill seconded the motion. A votewas then taken and passed unanimously, 6-0.
Sixth on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin stated he had nothing to add.
Kevin Foley announced-the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authorig had authorizeO SzscjlOoo intransportation sales tax funds to help complete the Dowd Junction recreation'al path. He said approvalwasbased on a recommendation by the Trails Committee, which reviews requests ior matching funds.
There being no further business a motion was made by Rob foradjoumment. Kevin seconded the motion andthe meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:S5 p.m.
ATTEST:
R. Yuo(t'rtt)'ut'rt
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
llinutes taken by ltotty ccutcheon(rNams of certaln tndjviduals who gnve public i nput nay be inaccurate.)
Respectfully subm itted,
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
Vail Town Co(lri Ewling MactinC Mi|rtgs No|/rrnD.i 19. t996
e
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado E1657
97G479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
December5, 19go
Gillian Cooley Monison
Stovall Goodman Wallace
Benchmark Plaza Building
48 E. Beaver Creek Blvd., Suite 202
P.O. Drawer 5860
Avon, CO 81620
=========================================================================
INVO IC E
=========================================================================
Copies 24 @$1.25 per page
Transcription of Planning & Environmentar commission Meeting,
Agenda ltem No. 3, dated September23, 1996 _ 5 hours @ $50 per
half day
TotalDue
$ 30.00
100.00
$ 130.00
Please ma(e your check payable to The Town of Vail and forward to:
' The Office of the Town Clerk
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81652
Thank you.
{S*t^o*
C
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 19,1996
SUBJECT: An appeal of a variance denial made by the Planning and Environmental
Commission on September 23, 1996. The appellants were denied a site coverage
variance to allow an additional one-car garage to be constructed al 742-8 Sandy
Lane/Unit B, Lot 3, VailiPotato Patch, Second Filing.
Appellants: Charles and Geri Campisi, represented by Kerry Wallace
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
I. SUBJECTPROPERTY
Campisiproject. Located at742-B Sandy Lane/Unit B, Lot 3, Vaili Potato Patch, Second Filing.
II. STANDINGOFAPPELLANT
Statf believes the appellants have standing to file an appeal in this case as they are the owners of
the subject property.
III. BACKGROUND
The appellants requested a site coverage variance of 260.8 sq. ft. in order to construct a 300 sq. ft.
one-car garage on the subject property. This duplex currently contains 2 enclosed garage spaces
and this request would add a third. The allowable site coverage for this site is 3,403.8 sq. ft.
(20/") and the proposal is for 3,664.6 sq. ft. (21.5%) of site coverage. The Planning and
Environmental Gommission, at their September 23, 1996 meeting, unanimously denied the site
coverage variance and made the following findings (see attached minutes):
1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
2. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions that are
applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the
Primary/Secondary Residential zone. In addition, any hardships which have
been presented, have been self imposed [the PEC specifically added this
provision to the findings recommended by staffl.
3. The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive
the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the
Primary/Secondary Residential district.
-
This duplex was approved by the DRB in 1979 and constructed in 1980. The duplex, as originally
approved, contained 3,763 sq. ft. of GRFA (as calculated in 1979). This site is allowed 3,951.9 sq.
ft of GRFA. On March 3, 1979, a density variance for a 40 sq. ft. addition was denied by the PEC
based on a finding fiat no hardship existed to justily the request. On September 21, 1988, a
request for 500 sq. ft. of GRFA was approved under the 250 Ordinance.
The structure now contains 4,502.8 sq. ft. of GRFA as calculated today. With two 250's, the site is
permitted up to 4,451.9 sq .ft. of GRFA. Therefore the site is 50.9 sq. ft. over on GRFA and is
considered a legal nonconforming structure with respect to GRFA.
This structure also currently encroaches into both side setbac*s. This is a pre-existing
nonconforming condition and is not affected by the proposal.
lV. NATURE OFTHE APPE/AL
The appellants are appealing the PEC decision denying the site coverage variance. The
appellants have provided additionaljustification for the variance which is anached. The appellants
have also provided additionaljustification of how they will suffer practical difficulties and/or
unnecessary physical hardships if the site coverage variance is not granted (provided in attached
materials). Staff has summarized their statements below:
a. The appellants will have insufficient parking for parking their own vehicles and for
guests. The house will be restricted to one 300 sq. ft. garage for a 3,366 sq. ft.
house. The Zoning Code allows up to 600 sq. ft. of garage space per unit. There is
insulficient parking for the house, and snow storage in the winter months precludes
parking in the driveway.
Staff response:
The driveway, as it currenlly exists, has the capability of storing 7 cars in addition to
the 2 existing garage spaces, for a total of 9 parking spaces. The proposed garage
does not add any additional parking to the site as it will be constructed upon the
existing paved driveway. The appellants have mis-stated the square footage ol the
home and the existing garage space. The entire home (both dwellings) contains
4,502.8 sq. ft. of GRFA and there are 2 existing 300 sq. ft. garages (one per unit).
This duplex is required 5 total parking spaces. Snow storage is the responsibility of
the homeowner and snow can be stored or removed from the site in a variety of
ways in order to maintain parking on-site.
b. The construction of the garage will correct a serious drainage problem on the
property.
Staff response:
While this proposed garage may correct this drainage problem, there are numerous
solutions to the drainage problem which do not involve constructing a garage.
o'
c. The garage will provide additional needed storage as there currently exists very little
storage area within the residence, particularly for storage of recreational equipment.
Staff response:
In July of 1996, the appellants received approvals to perform a major remodel to lhe
exterior and interior of this duplex. No attempt was made in this remodel to provide
additional storage space. On September 1 2, 1988, a DRB approval was given in
conjunction with a 250 request to construct a slorage area, labeled "Bike Storage"
on the first level of this structure (see attached elevation and floor plan). The
storage area was 250 sq. ft. As part of the 1996 DRB approvals, this storage area
was eliminated and converted to living area. lt appears that the lack of storage area
on this property is a self imposed situation.
d. The variance would correct he serious security problem which exists for the owner
of Unit A.
Staff response:
The owner of Unit A has a staircase and a door on the east elevation of the home.
This door opens to a bathroom in the unit. The door is perceived as the front entry
to the home and according to the owner, people often come to this door. The statf
understands the security issue with this doonray. However, the proposed garage
addition is not the only solution to correct this problem. For example, a deck without
stairs to the ground could be constructed which would prevent persons from
approaching the door; or the stairs could be removed and the door replaced with an
egress window, thus preventing access. There are a number of other solutions
which could correct this problem. The stairs that exist now do not meet the BuiEing
Code requirements. The Building Code requires a landing at the top of the stairs as
well as hand rails.
Statf and the PEC can find no justification for the hardship based on the Zoning Code criteria lor
granting a variance.
V. REOUIREDACTION
Uphold/Overturn/Modify the Planning and Environmental Commission's denialol a 260.8 sq. ft.
site coverage variance.
The Town Council is required lo make findings of fact in accordance with Section 18.66.030 (5)
shown below:
5. Findings. The Town Council shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact
based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact
must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the
requirements of this title have or have not been met.
Further, if the Town Council chooses to overturn or modify the PEC denial of this variance, the
Town Council shall consider the following factors and make the following findings related to the
granting of a variance:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses
and structures in the vicinity.
o'
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility
and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
3. The effect ol the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities,
and public safety.
B. The Town Council shall make the following findings before granting a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the
same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public heallh,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enlorcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners ol
other properties in the same district.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Statf recommends that the Town Council uphold the Planning and Environmental Commission's
denial of a 260.8 sq. ft, site coverage variance and recommends that the Town Council make the
following findings:
1. That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 18 (Zoning)
have not been met.
2. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
3. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions that are
applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the
PrimaryiSecondary Residentialzone. In addition, any hardships which have been
presented, have been self imposed.
4. The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive
the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the
PrimaryiSecondary Residential district.
F:beryone\p€cvn€mobarnpisi.n l 9
Charlie Alexander said that this was a permanent structure. Charlie also said lhat Vail
Associates owned the land and i1 they betermined that the land could be better used, then that's
whal would happen. He also mentioned that this condition was in his lease.
Dirk Mason suggested an additional condition be placed on the approval, which would allow for
the conditional use permit to be called-up, il the Lionshead Master Plan suggested an alternative
use.
Galen Aasland said it was a great use and agreed with Dirk's proposal.
Diane Golden said it will be made more attractive than it is now. lt was a nice addition to
Lionshead and also gave the youth of our Town something lo do.
Henry Pratt stated that it was a good location. Henry addressed the.complaints from Units #206
anO ligOO and said that Gartinkel's Bar and Restaurant poses a much greater threat on their
privacy than this use. Henry said in lairness to Charlie and the bank, as long as the PEC can
call-up this application, he was in favor of a longer term'
Greg Moffet was in favor of lhis use. The units that complained had trees to screen them from
this-operation. Greg was in favor of a longer term,lo give Charlie an incentive to spend more
money on the site to enhance the property.
Henry pratt made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff's memo, with the addition of
a seiond condition that if the Lionshead Masler Plan required or suggested a different use' the
approval could be subject to a call'up.
Greg Moffet asked Henry to indicate in his motion, the term length of the conditional use permit.
Henry Pratt amended the motion to include a 3-year period of time.
Diane Golden asked the applicant if the 3-year period of lime would work'
Charlie Alexander said, Yes.
The motion was seconded by John Schofield.
It passed by a vote of 5-0. (Greg Amsden was not present for this item).
3. A request for a site coverage variance to allow for the conslruction of a one-car garage,
located at 742 Sandy Lane/Lot 3, Vail Potalo Palch 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Jeri CampisiPlanner: Dominic Mauriello
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of this request and stated that staff was recommending
denial, because the request does not meet the code criteria for a variance. Although it may not
negatively impact other properties in the area, it would be a grant of special privilege.
Greg Moflet asked if the applicant had any comments.
Plannin g and Environmental Commission
Minutcs
Scpternber 23, 1996 J
o'
Kerry Wallace, the atlorney on behall ol Jeri Campisi, stated thal lhe owner of the other half of
inu riupr"*, Aetty Cutfy, wis here. Kerry stated that the lack of storage and lhe odd floor plan,
wilh liille or no ctoset space within the residence presenled a hardship, in parlic_u1ar, in rela.tior lo
inu rtor"g" of recreational goods. The present two-car garage is.not enough' She stated that-
-
the aooliiant had a probleri with parking in the winter, as she had a lot of guests' Kerry went on
i"iil! tnit rhe Carirpisi's have significintly improved the property since purchasing it and that
in. ** giiuge would further improve the sjte. The proposed garage was as small as the
urinit".t""ort"O possibly make it ind the architect assured them that it would not encroach inlo
,.V "iii" i"toi.fr. iignt now there existed a drainage problem and !Y ra'sing_uq,l!1fl{,:i-^
fhe new proposed garage, this drainage problem would be correcled. There was also an exrsllng
."""riry itr* f or B"etty
"Guf
f y, since thi door to her unit went past the bathroom. This security
issue was a serious concern. Kerry Wallace went on to slate lhat this property was an eyesore'
,ntif tn" C"rpisis made some chahges. There are a number of 2 and 3-car garages in the area'
so this request was not asking anything out of the ordinary.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments.
Betty Gutfy stated that she has owned the other hall of the duplex for 5 years, which is the uppqi
ffrirO of fhe house. Betty stated that the Campisis are the periect neighbors and have certainly fit
ifre mold as neighbors that she would have chosen to jointly improve the property. Both
neighbors agreed on the stucco improvemenls. The architect could solve lhe drainage proDlem
witti tfris new proposed addition. When the Campisis unit was rented short term, lhere were a
nrrmber ot probtems. Betty stated lhat she lived alone and security was a problem. Betty stated
that 50 sq. lt. over the allowed site coverage is a minor overage.
Greg Moflet asked for any other public comments.
Joe Staufer stated that he lived at 746 Sandy Lane. Joe was in favor of this request and said
that it would not negatively aflect any property owners. Under the safety, welfare and health
linding, Joe stated inat tn6 security issue was the reason and the right to grant this variance. lt
was a dark neighborhood, which presented a safety lactor. Joe stated that when he was gone,
Beily Gufly wai all alone on the block. He stated that granting this variance would give someone
a better place to live. Joe said he saw no conceivable reason not to grant lhis variance.
Dominic Mauriello stated that he had reviewed recent DRB plans. Dominic stated that the
applicant had lust removed the lormer storage space, which was used to slore snowmobiles, and
had created living area out of it, so therefore, the result was a lack of storage.
Betty Guffy stated that her nelghbor lo the right ol her, was in favor of approving this request.
Galen.Aasland asked how big the existing 2-car garage was.
Dominic Mauriello said 600 sq. ft. and that it had one garage space for each owner.
Galen Aasland asked if the new garage would be the Campisis? Since the lot is over 15,000 sq.
ft., Cafen doesn't think the size of thJlot was the problem and therefore there was no justific.ation
loi a site coverage variance. The deck could be built without a variance to correct the security
issue. Galen wa-s somewhat bothered by the argument that the Campisis didn't have enough. .
rtoijg., when in fact, the remodel that r,rias hapfening right now, did away with the storage. He
state; that the owners, with the remodel, have created some of their own conditiohs and
hardships.
llanning and Environmental Cotllnlission
Minutes
September 23. 1996
o
Betty Gufly said that any staircase would be buried in snow. She stated that both sides of the
frou6e *eie short on ctosets. Betty Stated that she uses part of the garage for storage for her
off-season clothes. she also stated that the existing entry door was ugly.
Diane Golden asked where the snow will be put?
Dominic Mauriello Stated that Snow Storage was up to the owner and there were a variety of
solutions lor the door.
Betty Guffy said that architect Bill Pierce said that this garage and enlrance was the best plan
andirom t'he front ot the house, this looks like the waylt was meant to be. lt seems silly to pay
$28,000.00 to just correct the drainage and not do the addition'
Henry Pratt told Betty Guffy that she was extremely lucky lo have owners like the Campisis who
take brioe in their ownersnip. Henry felt thal identifying where lhe fro.nt door was less important
than ihe security issue. He stated that they are entilled to a garage, bul without lhe variance'
inir d"i"S" nad no impact on the neighbois and so Henry would be in favor of such a variance'
i1 there was a hardshiP.
JohnScholieldagreedwithHenry. Johnstatedthatthedoorwasinalousylocation' Jol!-, ..^
tended to agree with Henry, that the hardship would be getting a parking ticket' while parKeo oul
in the street.
Greg Amsden said that lhese were self imposed problems. There was no drainage qr_o^b]9f'.^,,
whe"n the house was lirst built; it happened with lhe expansion. The lack of storage doesn't nolo
un urg'rrn"nt. A smatl deck would luitity tne salely concern. There were no justiliable reasons lo
go over site coverages.
Greg Moflet was in agreement with Greg Amsden. What you have here was a unit that was
*"*10-ort over whafwas permitted. Tliere was a lot of square footage in the mass and bulk
that could have been usedfor storage. The storage problem has been sell-crealed. Greg said
he doesn't see how this was not a grant of special privilege.
Henry Pratt asked what the area of the garage was?
Dominic Mauriello said each garage was 300 sq. lt.
Greg Molfet asked for any more comments from the public. There was none'
Greg Amsden made a motion for denial, per the staff memo and he added that the hardships
were self-imposed.
Galen Aasland seconded the motion.
Galen Aasland said the lot was over 15,000 sq. ft. ll it was under that size, it might be different.
Henry pratt asked if this should be tabled until the applicant came back with a better design.
Dominic Mauriello said that he did not believe tabling would produce alternative designs, since it
would still involve a site coverage issue.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
Septembcr 23, | 996
Greg Moflel asked staff il a carport was proposed, would it then not be GRFA?
Mike Mollica said that could possibly be a staft approval, and it may not be GRFA, depending on
how the carport was designed.
The motion for denial passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
4. A request lor an exlerior addition to a master bedroom and bathroom and adding ? 9rd'
itoor, urilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 8028 Polato Patch/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Potato
Palch.
Applicants: Padraic Deighan and Birgit Toome
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 14,1996
5. A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow for the construction of a walk-in lreezer,
tocatbd at 596 Wesl Lionshead Mall/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing.
Applicant: Mitch Garfinkel
Planner: George Fluther
wlrHDRAwN
illtttttttl
6. lnformation Update
Mike Mollica had no inlormation update.
7 . Approval of Seplember 9, 1996 minutes
Mike Mollica suggested tabling the minutes, as there were more correclions on item #5 in the
minutes.
Galen Aasland had two changes for the minutes of 9/9/96.
Diane Golden made a motion to table item #4 and the 9/9/96 minutes.
The motion was seconded by Galen Aasland.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
Greg Amsden made a motion to adjourn lhe meeling'
Galen Aasland seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote ol 6-0.
The meeting adjourned at 3:00 P.m,
Planning and Eovironmenlal Commission
Minutes
Septembcr 23, 1996
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Departmenl
Septernber 23, 1996
A request for a site coverage variance to allow for a one-car garage'
i;;;6d ;i 742Sandv LaneTLot 3, Vail Potato Patch 2nd Filing'
Aoolicant: Jeri CamPisi
Pidnner: Dominic Mauriello
FIIE COPY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
The applicant is requesting a site coverage variance of 260'8 sq. ft. in order io construct a 300
sq. tt. one-car garage o" ii" *bi""t proietty' This duplex
".Y1:llll-"^"-ltains
2 enclosed garage
spaces and rhis requesr;;il-;l;;ii.'ifr.
'in.
iirowibre sire coverage for this site is 3,403'8
s[. tiiznzl ;nl ttrb proposal is for 3'664'6 sq' ft' (21'5%)'
This duplex was approved by the DRB in 1979 and constructed in 1980. The duplex' as
orisinauy approved,.ontin"Jo'ilz;$gr1r;i elFn itiilir.rt.ted in.l97e)' rhis site is allowed
5:b11.9'.q:ft ot enrn. On r,l"iinC, rbzg, a density variance for a 40 sq' fl' addition was
denied by rhe pEC Oaseion'iiinOlngrnat no nalO;tiip existed to Justity the request' On
September 21, 1988, . rJqrLtt ioi S6O sq. tt. ofCnFA was approved under the 250 Ordinance'
The slructure now contains 4,502.8 sq. ft. of GRFA as calculated today' With two 250's' the site
is permined up to 4,4s1.d;q :i. ;i ci.'in. inet"rot" tne site is 50.9 si' ft' over on GRFA and is
ff;il;;il;ieglt noncontorming struclure with respect to GRFA'
This structure also cunently encroaches into both side sehacks' This is a pre-existing
nfi,co-nfotming condition and is not atfected by the proposal'
The applicant's iustification for the sile coverage variance requestis that this addition will not
neoaiivbfv afeci adjacent properties, as adiacent properties have two and three car garages'
se-e attained lener for greater detail.
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
Zirning:
Use:
Lot Size:
Standard
Slte Coverage:
Landscape area:
GRFA:
wftwo 250's:
SElbacks:Front: 20'Slies: 15'
Flear: 15'
Parking: 5 required
tII. CFITERIA AND FINDINGS
P rim arylSecond ary Residential
Duplex residence
17,01 9 sq. ft. (entire site)
Atlowed Existino
-3,403.s sq. ft. (20%) 3,365.6 sq. ft. (19.87c)
10,211.4 sq. ft. (60%) 11,330.4 sq. ft. (66'svd ntc
3,951.9 sq. ft.
4,451.9 sq. ft.
4,502.8 sq. tl.
4,502.8 sq. tt.
30'
1 0' & 13.58'
?A'
6 (2 enclosed)
Prooosed
3,600.6 sq. tt. (21.s%)
n/c
n/c
n/c
6 (3 enclosed)
nlc
nlc
Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code' the
Cbmmunity Development Department recommends denial ot the requested site coverage
variance. The recornmendation lor denial is based on the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
l.ThErelat|onshipo|therequestedvar|ancetootherexistingor
potential uses and structures in the vicinity'
The proposal will increase the building's bulk and maslbe.yond that
enjoyed by other properties in the sa;e zone district. Stalf believes that
wtiit6 ttre propolaimt' not negatively impact neighboring properties and
while othdr siructures in tne area have two and three car garages,, there
hasbeennoindicationofanyphysica|hardshipwhichwou|d.justify
approving the requested variahc6. Other struitures in area have two and
mree caigaragei and stillcomply with the site coverage requiremenls.
essentiatt!, tnii owner enloys d tirger house at the expense of reduced
garage are;. Staff Oelievbd me grtnt ol this variance would be a grant of
special Privilege.
2. The degree to whlch relief from the strlct and llteral Interpretatlon and
entorcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity o.-f treatment among sites In the viclnity or
to attain thaobiectives of thls title wtthout grant of sPeclal privilege.
statl believes that the granting of this variance would be a grant of -special
privilege noi enioieO b! otheriots in the area or this zone district. Other
. bites in tfre arei were 6onstructed within the site coverage requirements.
l:bveryone$ecVnemosbetnpisl.923
The etfect of the requested variancs on light and air' dlstribution of
poputation, transponation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and Public safety.
Stafl believes that requested variance will increase the bulk and mass of
fne oriioing which may nave a negative effect on the light and air of
neighboring ProPerties.
before granting a variance:
l.Thatthegrantingo|thevariancewi||notconstituteagrantofspecia|..
priviieg. in.onti"tteniwith the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
2.Thatthegrantingo|thevariancewi||notbedetrimentaltothepub|ic
health, sifeiy oiwelfare, or materially injurious to properties 0r
imProvements in the vicinitY.
3.Thatthevarianceiswarrantedforoneormoreoflhe|o||owingreasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical dilticulty or unnece.ssary
pfiicainarOship inconsiitent with the objectives of this title.
b.Thereareexceptionsorextraordinarycircumstancesorconditions
"ppiicOr.
io tn'e same site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone'
c.Thestrictinterpretationorenforcementofthespecifiedregu|ation-
wouto Oeprive ihe applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district'
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department statf recommends denlal ol the applicant's
variance request subject to the following findings:
1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of sPecial privilege
inconsistdnt wittithe limitations on other properties classi1ed in the same
district.
2. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
afpticabte to this site lhat apply generaliy to other properties in the
Primary/Secondary Residential zone.
3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of me specilied regulation does not
deprive the apilicant of privileges enjoyed. by !h.e -ow1q
rs ol other
prdperties in ilie Primary/Secohdary Residential district'
3.
B.
tv.
l:bveryone$ecvnomosbamPisi 923
turng puocag € yl-qq?d ot?lod
uoFlppv rsIoIIrcJ aqJrt&a.Ota ilo|| srv .o(t!fr!ra
riillli Iit!l
i$!il
5
-A.
T
-r-t4
Ie
09
Ir',,
),N.7u,,,u,r),lffitt
E
zo
E
"E tl3 2a5 raE\I
a3
*,'//
,l
ryE
2,ry'2)
*M
"n
w//
tltt,
l,b,
aoza'd -1ul0r
ij.:tlrqlv'rElEl EtDl rstaEq
m**".II nt tslgd po@5 € lort-gnr4 o1q4
uoplPpv rsrdrrrBc eqf,
2
Bp
Hu,zoU
&
PIz
5
+>o
\?
ff3
tt.ar oca?-??--flcq l -l: t I u1>lH .|)I73/7Ot' A ).|?il Rffi, 6) e
I
t
I
.lj
1
_- NEW
.:, F.NAILY ,Ri?T -
U?
zvl q. ET.
| 1rt B.rrlliS
Ndifto^'
,5llfieFrB?la{:r,,,i;f ftr\#5.1\'f jil'ii
;?ne .{: '': i<.rrr *ji;l{:Ll 0Ct 0 Z 1990 \.:d
I$V.TOMl',l, t)FY DIPT
REQUIRED FoR FILING AN APPEAL oF A STAFF, DESIGn'REVIEW BO.{RD oR
P LANNI Nc AND ENVI RONI| ENTA L COi\rIt ISS ION ACTIO nN
ACTION/DECISION BEING AppEALED: Denial of request for a site coverage varlance to
allow for a one-car garage located at 742 Sandy Lane/ Lot 3, Vail, Potaco atch zn
filing. The specific reguJ.atlon a variance was requested of ls Section
Town of Vail Building Code regarding slte coverage which provides shar a rei idEncEE-io t to
eT!!9!,-!x9!!y-P9l!ent (207) of a total site area. The. requested sire coverage varLance
was for 260.8 qg. ft. for conscructlon of the garage.
B. DATE OF ACTION/DECISION:
C. NAN,{E OF BOARD OR PERSON RENDERINC THE DECISION/TAKJNG ACTION:
Planning and Envl-ronmencal Conrni ss ion
D.NAME OF APPELLANT(S):Charles P. Camplsi and Gerl Campisi
MAILINCADDRESS: ll46 Sandsrone Drive, Vail, CO 91657
PHYSICALADDRESS [.lVAIL142-B Sandv Lane' Val1, CO
PHONE:
4 7 5-5586
LECAIDESCRIPTIONOFAPPELLANT'SpROpERTyINVAIL: Unir B, Lot 3, vail/potaro Parch,
Second Filing, Condominiums according to the Condominiurn Man recorded llarch /r, 1980 in Book
299 at Page 597 and as defined in theCondominium Declaration recorded llarch 4, 1980 in
Book 299 at Page 5 f Colorado.
E.SIGNATURE(S):
Kerrv H, Walla torne arid ?ep-resenEa t ive o'iB:Ertzo
(970) 949-4200
A$3tl"t3:
Page I of2
rles an
F.DoL-s this appcal involve a specific parccl of land? Yes lf ves. ;rlcase pror.idc thc follog.ing infonnarion:
arc vou an adjacent propcrry o\rlcr? \'us _ no !a
lfno. give a detailed explanadon ofhorv you are a.n "aggrieved or adversely affected person." "Aggrieved or
adversely affected ferson" means any penon s,ho rvitl suffer an adverse effect to an interest prolecrcd or
funhcred by tlis title. The alleged adverse interest may'bc shared in common wirh other members of the
community at large. but shall exceed in degree the gener:l interest in community good shared by alI persons.
The appellants are aggrieved or adversely affected persons as Ehey are the owners
of the property in quesElon and the persons requesting the site coverage variance
of the soecified re tion ln thls
ractical difficultv or unnecessa hyslcal hardshlp to the
lants as at the resent tlne there ls available only one 300 sq. ft. single
car garage space for the appellantsr 3,366.5 sq. ft. residence. There is lnsuff-
lclent parklng space for the appellanEst or.n vehicles wlthout taking into
nd famlly. Parklng is not avallable uDon the
screet or surroundlng areas There 1s also insufflej.ent storage area particularly
as the single cae garage is fully utillzed for parking purposes. There also exists
dralnage problem in that the area in which the new garage r^rouId be locared
c.
f-l_
slopes toward the resldence and water f Io\rs dlrectly into a major wal1 of tbe
SEE ATTACHED SHEET
Provide the names and addresses (both person's mailing address and property's physical ad&ess in Vail) of all
orvners of property which are the subject of the appeal and all adjacent property ownsrs (including properties
separated by a rigbt-of'way. stream. or other intewening barriers). Also provide addressed and su-p.a envelopes for
each property owner on the list.
On separate sheets of pape( speciff the precise nature of the appeal. please cite specific code secrions har"ing
relevance to the action being appealed.
FEE: 50.00
Pa-ee 2 of 2
t
continuation of section F of Apoeal of Denial of Site coverase variance for
Charles and Geri Campisi
building. The drainage problem will be expensive to fix and the proposed garage will correct
the drainage problem while at the same time significanrly improving the property. In addition,
the owner of 742'A Sandy [ane, Vail, CO currently experiences a serious security problem in
that the general public has access to her emergency egress which leads to her master bedroom
and bathroom. The proposed garage will gorrect this problem for the owner of 742-4 Sandy
Lane who is Betty Guffey.
o
ACCOMPAI{TING INIORMATION FOR APPEAL OF PLANNING AND
ETWIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION REGARDING
SITE COVERAGE VARHNCE FOR CEARLES AND GERI CAMPISI
FOR 7428 SANDY LANE, VAIL, COI,ORADO t1657
SECTION E
NATURE OF APPEAL
I. Background Information
The Appellants, Charles and Geri Campisi, filed a request for a siie coverage variance
for the purposes of constructing a single car garage addition. The specific regulation which the
Appellants are seeking a variance of B section 18.13.090 of the Town of Vail Building Code
regarding site coverage. Said section of the Code provides that a residence is not to excrrd20%
of the total site area. The Campisi's are requesting a minimal variance of the regulation in order
to allow them to construct a single car garage addition. The site coverage variance would be
260.8 square feet for the purposes of constructing a 300 square footone car.gamge upon the
property. The allowable site coverage for the site is 3,403.8 square feet (20r'o) nd the proposed
variance would allow for 3664.6 square feet (21.5%r.
t
The property is a duplex which currently mntains two enclosed garage spaces and the
Appellants requested variance would add a third garage space. Currently each side of the duplex
has use of one 300 square foot garage space. As such, the Appellants currently have a 300
square foot single car garage space for a 3,366.5 square foot residence.
The Appellants' request for a site coverage variance was presented to the Planning and
Environmental Commission on September 23, 1996 and based upon the recommendations of the
Community Development Department, the request for the variance was denied.
II. Finding of the Planning and Environmental Commission
The Planning and Environmental Commission at the September 23,1996 meeting denied
the Appellana' request for a site coverage variance in order to construct a 300 square foot single
car garage addition based on the following hndings:
l. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of a special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the
same district;
2. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions that
are applicable !o this site that apply generally !o other properties in the
primary/secondary residential zone. In addition, any hardships which have been
presented, have been self-imposed; urd
3. The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation does
not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other property in the
primary/secondary residential district.
ru. It is Appellants Position that Granting of the Variance will not Constitute a
grant of a Special hivilege and that there are hactical Difficulties and/or
Hardships which the Appellants will Suffer if the Yariance is not Granted.
The specific regulation that the Appellants are seeking a site coverage variance of is
$18.62.050 of Title l8 of the Town Code of Vail also known as the'Zoning Title.' $18.62.060
specifically provides that before acting on a variance application the Planning Commission shall
consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance:
Section A.
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinities;
2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and
uniformity of treatment of sites in the vicinity, or to obtain the objectives of this
title without grant of special privilege;
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation, ard traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and
public safety; and
4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the
proposed variance.
The Planning Commission is also to make the following findings before granting a
variance:
Section B.
l. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of a special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the
same district;
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements
in the vicinity; and
G:\CAl{llSI\ACCOMP.DOC -2-
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict or literal inteqpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnec€ssaqf physical
hardship inconsislent with the objectives of this Title;
b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same zone;
c. The strict or literal interpreation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of
other properties in the same district."
The Appellants shall initially address the requirements of Section "A' of the Zoning Title
$18.62.060:
1. The rtlationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses
and structures in the vicinity. It is the Appellants position that the proposed site
coverage variance requested by the Appellants for the purpose of constructing a single
car garage addition to their property will not have any negative impact upon the other
structures in the vicinity as such structures are all residential homes with two to three car
garages and/or condominium structures in the Potato Patch area. The garage addition
will not block any views and fits in with other duplexes in the area, many of which have
three car garages or a close equivalent. The recommendations of the Planning Staff
specifically stated that the Proposal may not negatively impact neighboring properties and
that other structures in the area have two to three car garages. In addition, at the
Pluming and Environmental Commission hearing on September 23,1996 an owner of
an adjacent neighboring property, Joe Stauffer, testified stating that the garage would be
a welcome addition to the neighborhood and would not in any way negatively impact any
of the neighboring properties. There is no evidence that the proposed site coverage
variance will negatively impact neighboring properties.
2. Tbe degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
. enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and
uniformity of treatment upon sites in the vicinity or to obtain the objectives of this
title without grant of special privilege.
The grant of the minimal site coverage variance reguested by the Appellants is necessary
to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity and to attain the
objectives of this title and does not constitute a gmnt of special privilege. The Zoning Title
$18.04.130 addresses gross residential floor area ("GRFA') and addresses how GRFA is
G:\CAllflS[\ACCOMP.DOC -3-
o
calculated and the amount of GRFA that is allowed per site. $18.04.130A(l) specifically
provides, "Within buildings containing two or fewer dwelling units, the following area shall be
excluded from calculation as GRFA:
1. Enclosed garages from up to 300 square feet per vehicle space not exceeding a
maximum of two spaces for eac,h allowable dwelling unit permitted by the zoning code.'
The Zoning Title also has an entire section dedicated to parking requirements in
particular off street parking. The purpose of this title is to alleviate progressively or to prevent
traffic congestion and shortage of on street parking areas, off street parking, and loading
facilities. Chapter 18.52 of the Zoning Title requires a certain amount of off street parking for
all new facilities. 18.52. 100 requires that off street parking be determined in accordance with
the following schedule nA': if gross residential floor area is two thousand (2000') square feet
or more per dwelling unit: 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
The Appellants' property, which is 3,336 square feet, has only a single car 300 square
fmt garage space. Thus, the Appellants only have available one parking space for their dwelling
unit. This is not in compliance with 18.52.100 which requires 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit that
are 2,000 square feet or more. There currently exists insufficient off street parking for the
Appellants to park their two vehicles without taking into consideration guests and visiting family
members. If the Appellants were to merely pave the area upon which they iue requesting the
variance to build the single car garage it would not provide for year round parking for the
Appellants. The Town of Vail snowplows during the winter months pile snow from the street
onto the area where the garage would be built thus making that area unusable for parking
purposes during the winter months. In addition, a concrete parking slab in the area in which
the single car garage addition is proposed would be unattractive to the property and thus
unattractive to neighboring residences. Though other sites in the area may have been
constructed within the site coverage requirement, the only possibility for the Appellants' property
to have sufficient parking in compliance with the code will be to allow the requested minimal
site coverage variance for construction of the 300 quare foot single car garage addition. The
possibility ofon street parking is not available to the Appeltants as it is illegal to park upon the
streets in the Potato Patch area particularly during the winter months when the snowplows need
full access to the streets in order to sufficiently clear them ofsnow build up. The requested site
coverage will help achieve compatibility with the objectives of the Zoning Title.
3. The effect of the requested variance of ligbt and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and
public safety.
It is the Appellants position that the variance will have no effect on light and air,
distribution ofpopulation, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and
public safety. In fact the Appellant proposes that the requested variance will actually have a
positive affect upon these factors as it will allow for additional offstreet parking so that vehicles
G:!CAMIISMCCOMPJOC -+
will not be parked upon the street causing potentially dangerous traffic situations. There was
no evidence presented to support a different finding on this issue.
For the foregoing reasons it is the Appellants' position that the variance should be
granted for the following reasons:
1. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same district;
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinities;
and
3. The variance is warranted for the following reasons:
a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Title;
b. The strict or lileral interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of the privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
The Appellants will suffer the following practical difficulties and/or unnecessaqt physical
hardships if the site coverage variance is not granted.
a. They will be restricted to a 300 square foot garage for a 3,366 square foot
residence. The Appellants will have insufficient parking for the parking of their
own vehicles and/or parking for their guests and family members. This is a
practical difficulty and/or an unnecessary physical hardship in particular as there
if no in particular as there is no available on street parking. The Town of Vail
Code specifically requires that sufficient off site street parking be provided for
each residence. In particular 18.52.100(A) requires that a 2000 square foot or
larger dwelling unit have 2.5 off street parking spac€s per dwelling unit. The
Appellants have insufficient parking particularly in the winter months and would
be subject to ticketing by the Town of Vail for parking on the street. In addition
the Town of Vail Code specifically provides that enclosed garages of up to 300
square feet per vehicle, not to exceed a maximum of two parking spaces for each
allowable dwelling unit, permitted by the Zoning Code are not included in the
GRFA for a residence. It is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Title to
provid-e a3,3ffi square foot residence to have the capability of having at least 600
square feet of parking space, which is the amount which will be provided to the
Appellants' should be proposed variance be grutted.
ct\CAIUIISMCCOMP,DOC -5-
b. The construction of the proposed garage addition will conect a serious
drainage problem upon the property which will need to be corrected regardless
of whbther the variance B granted. The garage addition will be a positive
resolution of the drainage problem and will benefit neighboring properties in the
area because it will increase the value of the property.
c. The garage will provide additional needed storage as there currently exists
very little storage area within the residence particularly for storage ofrecreational
equipment.
d. The variance would also correct the serious security problem that exists
for the owner of the other half of the duplex, 742'A Sandy I:ne, Vail, Colorado,
who is Betty Guffey. Please see the attached Affidavit of Betty Guffey.
b. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of the privileges e4joyed by the ownem of other properties in
the same district.
Owners of other properties in the same district are typically allowed at least 600 square
feet of enclosed garage space per dwelling unit. While some of these structures have been
constructed within the site coverage requirements, it do€s not alleviate the fact that the
AppellanS'property is adversely affected by the lack ofparking space. The Appellants should
UeiUte to construct an additional 300 squarefoot enclosed parking space upon their property
to allow for off strcet parking.
cdcAIt{nsMccoMP.Doc -6
.\FFIDA\;IT OF BETTY GLFFEY
co\{ES NOW, rhe .Aftlant, Betty Guffey, having personal knoNledge of rhe follotving
facts and being duly ss'orn under oath hereby testifies n5 fellqu's:
I . That I am rhe ownsr of real propeny located in the To$'n of vail ' countl' of Eagle '
Smte of Colorado knoqn as 7Jl-A Sand,v Lane' Vail' Colorado'
2.ThatlanranremberofrheCondonriniunrAssociationforLot3'vail.PotatoPatch,
Second Filing condominiunt. To$n of Vail, Counry of Ea-ele,. Sute of colorado rvhich is
comprised of Unit 717-ltandT-I2-B Sandy Lane.} Vail, Colorado ("Condominium Association")'
.3.ThattheCondominiumAssociationiscomprisedofmyunit'a.ndunit742.BSandy
Lane. Vail, colorado rvhich is o$,ned by Charles campisi and Geri campisi (hereinafter referred
to as the "CamPisi's").
4'Thatrvithnrl,exPresspermissionandinl.olr,enenttheCampisi'shar'ereqlesteda
variance from the Torvn of \;ail for the purpose of constructing a single car garage addition to
rheir unir. The consrruction of said single car ,earage Nill not in any rvay.negatively impact upon
orlter srrucrures in ilte vicinir5' iis lllost strucrures aie resideniial homes' including condominium
units s'ith garages.
5.ThatthegarageadditionrhattheCanrpisi'shar'erequestedar'arianceforfromthe
Toun of \:ail is necessarl' fc'r a nuutber of reasons:
A.ThereissignificantdrainageproblemuponthePropertyinthattheareain
rvhich rhe ne\\, garage rl'ill be located slopes tolvard the residence and s'ater flos's directly into
a major $,all of rlie builciing. rhe construction crf tlte garage $ill resohe this drainage problem
-
s,hili at the sante time significantly improving the propenl''
B. That ar lhe present rime u'irh lhe currenr configurarion of the residence $'ithout
rhe requesred garage addirion. rhere exists a significant securiry problem rvith regard to my unit'
The general public currenrll, has access ro-an emergen.y .g.iti door lvhich leads directly into
my masler bedroom and bath area. Unfornrnatel-y, Oue ro rhe current configuration of the
building the general public often utilizes n.ty .n].rg.n.)' e-sress door as opposed to m1' main door
because ir is rhe onl1, door readill, r'isible from i-he ,it.o. titit is a cnuse for concern for me
because I cannot 596 *ho is ar the energenc)r egress door until I anr right before the door' This
is nor rhe case s,ith m1'main entrance Ooor as ic.n stt the person ar rhe door through u'indorvs
prior ro opening rhe door. In addition packa-ees and flou'ei delileries are often left mistakenll'
at nt). emergency esress door and as I d-o nor utilize thar door I do not locate the items Often for
da1.s. I haYe rerained an archirect, Ilr. Bill Pierce of Frirzlen Pierce Briner 'A'rchitects in \/ail'
ro address. among othei issues, the issue of the public access lo nly emergenc)' egress. doo.r so
rhat I could he proricted r|ith securirl'. lt Nas ultinrareh'deternrined b;'\{r' Pierce.that there
\\.is no \ar.ro pror.ide r:lc suclf securirl'due ttl design constrainrs thuS the prOpOsed garage lS
an e\cellenr solurion ro n.l), securit), problenl. As such. I feel that the granting of the Variance
ro allorv rhe construction of rhe single car earage is necessary lo prtrvide ttre $ ith adequate
securiry ar my residence and I s'ill suffer a hardship if the \/ariance is not granted as no other
oprions are available to me.
C. That in rhe \Yinrer monrhs rhe To$'n of Vail sno\\' removal pushes snow onto
rhe area u'here rhe nerv single car garage s'ill be constntcled thus ntaking such area unusable
panicularly for parking purposes. There is insufficient parking in the area and the single car
garage rvill provide a covered parking area 1'ear round.
6. For the foregoing reasons rhe o\\'ners of rhe property at712 Sandy l:ne constiruted
of myself and rhe Campisi's rr'ill suffer a hardship if rhe Variance is not granted allorving for
construction of the proposed single car garage.
Funher the Affiant sa1'eth naught.
STATE OF COLOR{DO
EAGLE COLiNTY
)) ss.
)
-', n!1/'.
Subscribed and srvorn to before nte ihis /Ut'ai:'of September, 1996. b1'
BETTY GUFFEY.
\\'imess m1' hand and oiflcial seal.
lr{y commission expires:
)..o3r) ?!5iii
. AFFIDAVIT OF GERI CI\IPISI
col,IEs NoW, *re Affiant, being du|y su,o.rn under oath and har,ing personal knorr'ledge
of rle foltorving facts hereby testifies as follols:
1. That I am rhe o\\.ner of real propeny located in the To$'n of Vail' counry of Eagle'
Snte of Colorado knonn as 742-8 Sandy ['ane, Vdil' Colorado'
2. That I am a member of the Condominiunr Association for I.,ot 3, Vail, Pouto Patch'
second Filing, condominiunl, counry of Eagle, Snte of colorado n'hich is consdruted of unit
il2-Aana IJZ-g Sandy bne, Vail, Colorado Ghe "Condo Association").
3. That the Condominium Association is comprised of my unit and 742'A Sandy [:ne'
Vail, Colorado u'hich is ou'ned by Beny Guffey'
4.Thatmyhusband,CharlesCampisiandmyselfhar,erequestedaVariancefromthe
To*,n of Vail for tr. purpos"bf construciing a singie car garage addition to our unit' The
construcrion of such singie car garage *'ill not in any gay negati'ely impact upon other
srrucrures in rhe vicinity .-l ntor, ,r-*.*r., are residentiai hon:es, including condominium units'
*'ith garages.
5. That rhe garage addirion thal \'e are requesting a Variance from the To$'n of vail for
is necessary for a number of reasons:
A. There is a significant drainage problenl upon the property in thatrbe area in
u.hich rhe ne\\' garage rrill b: located slopes torvard the residence and lvater flo$'s directly into
a major \.au of rhe building. This drainage problem needs to be corrected in some manner and
could be r.ery expensit,. ro-fr* pursuant ro ui,ls *rat hale been receited. The consruction of the
larage u'itt 1..roiu, rhis Jrainage problem uhile ar rhe san1e time significantly improving the
propeny.
B. Thar there exists lery linle srorage area n'ithin our residence and the existing
nr.o (2).r, gri"g, is fully urilized foirhe parking of our nvo (2) automobiles. .15 5ush, se
currenrly do nor have .n1, ,torrg, space ianicularll' for our recrealional equipment such a
bic],cles, golf clubs anO sii equip-ment. This creates a significant hardship for us in that there
are no closets in the house ,o -.ror. the equipment' no spt.e in the existing garage as it is used
for parking our automobiles and ir s'ouli be inappropriale lo store said items ourside as they
.ould b. siolen and it rvoutd detract from the area to store goods in that manner'
C. That s'e are.unable ro park an automobile on the street or elservhere on the
tor in order to make storage spaie available in the existing garage as parking is not allon'ed.upon
,h. ,,r..,, panicularly in rhi tttinter months, and the irea in u'hich the new galage s'ill be
constructed is currently unusabld for parking purposes during the rvinrer months as the Tos'n of
)g/20/98 FRt 10:03 F.LI
STATE OF COLORADO
EAGLE COUNTY
Subscntred and ss'orn
CAI\4PISI,
FurJrcr thc Affiaut saYcth naugbt'
Vail snow ,gtn6val plows large:roounts of slxtw-upou the.space' In addition' it is prcfcrable
to have our c:r in covered pirriog during rhe wintcr mon'5s.
D. That we also bave frequent guess' including numcrous farnily Eembers' and
are unabte o provide . pirtir'"rp*;4;,fi "*,:t;;;; "iti,ing. Tbis ooscs a difficult
orobtem again io t.r'" *'ott' tiono' wbcn the ;;;l;"; nccd rhi sot"ts il"tt of parkcd
i'"r,i.t"t toadeguately plow tbc succts'
6.Thattbeproposedsinglccar3aragewilladdresallofr}reabovcrefe'rcrrcedbardships
in tbat it will providc f";;" ;eii"nal-stor-agc' it *""i4 pt"ide a coverc-d parkiag spacc tbat
wi' be usabte all ,"^, ,n,i.i ,"|'ii*iff U" Jpositive usc of curreutly uolsablc space'
7. Thst thc proposed siogle car-garaga will consdrute' 3tl i-Plo]'-t'Ttnt to be Prop€rty
Orat will incrcase ,f|e "if"" niif,e ."rii.n.u .ni'rttu, would bc a positivc cffect upon thc
ncighborhood in gcneral'
8. For tbc forcgoing reasoos-$e.o*ys of the p'iopcrty:t 742-Sandy l::ic *'hich is
consdmted of mysclf, ,"v rrir-u."a. chartes c..p-i.i, ^.,i-
Bctty Guffey will suffer a hardship
if rhe Variancc i, "o,
grti.T;;;;.-G;crion of'rhc proposed sinSle car g'aretc'
)) ss.
)
to befoie mc day of SePtember, 1996' bY GERIu,'L[fl
arg cevprst
G:\CAIYIPtSt\GERI'tFF' OTH
(&
{-+_ lo+cc\
To: Tolvn of Vail or To \\hom It \,Iay Concem
From: Bett-v Guffey, Owner of 742 A Sandy I-ane
I har,e seen the plans fbr the upper deck railing for 742 B Sandl'l,ane and I approve of it.
Date: August 30, 1996
,qefu
VGJ ( (k',4o,1^L
g A-tL- z
L'+V
ON JOBSITE AT ALL TIMES
Perrnit #: 896-0179
TOWN OF VAIL
75 S. FRONTAGE R.OAD
vArL, co 81557
97 0-479-2L38
APPLICANT
CONTRACTOR
OWNER
:EPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NOTEI ?HIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED
ADD/ALT SFR BUILD PERMIT
Job Acidress
Locacioo. . .
Parcel No. .Project No.
C & h VIOODI'ToRKING
PO BOX 3e40, A-vOli, CO,
C I H WOODIIORKiNG
PO BOX 3840, A'"'ON, CO,
C.A3:}IZI CHAiJ,JS & JER.I
?42 SANDI;}..\E, VAIL,
742 SANDY LN
2101-063-15-011
PRJg6-0112
Status...: ISSUED
Applied. .z 07/03/1996
Issued. . .: 07 /03/t996Expires. . : 12/30/L996
Phone:
fornerly CAIRNS 81620
Phone:
formerly CAIRNS 81620
co.81657
3038457968
30384s7968
Description:
INTERIOR, REI,IODEL
Occupancy: R3
Type Constructiurr: V i\i
valuation : 1 ,Jt:t u\i.U
tof Gas Logs:
Bui ldi ng----->
Plan chcck--->
Invcsti gat i on>
l,i l, L cal,l.---->
R€sturrant Ptan Rcvi eY-->
)f;3 tee---------
1i5.90-:4.45 .00
.00
.00.00 Recrrati04 Fee---------->
3.( l c'.€a: -Lp leissit--------> 100.00
Tf,TAL tr:S- -----ffi*ffi*fl#*rr*t*clrtr:t'rr:. t7*fr'**t ?|xffi:(r*r'trr.Jrldr**ffii'H*i****ffi#r***t*r*#r*tffi
Addi tional, Fccs--------->
Totat Pernit Fee------->
Payments------------->
Dept: BUILDING Division;
Dept: PLANNING Division:
Dept: FIRE Division:
Dept,: PUB WORK Division:
.00
292.75
292.75
ITem: .O:1C : iLII.'...D:NG :E?.D.RTMENT
07 /03/!99q C::AR:l-l A:'c.ion: A?PRItem:' 054C'r PLANin:.(G .:,EPARTMENT
07 /03 /i I9 ( i::-L:.LI.i A:t-.en: APFR N,/AIt'e.m:'.05600 PIRE ):?Ai.TI{ENT0i /Oi /i92 E - ::iAi.!I; Action: APPR l.l/AIte.m:' .055C 3 PUBL:: rrlOiKS
07 /03 / ;9 t : tl::ARL:i iiction : APPR N/A
TOV/Comm. Dev.
Clean-up Deposit Refund
si.ngle FarniJ.y nesidenQPprOved 4-A-Type v Non-Rated amOunt l?t\.(D
.i'irl Sq Ft:
tol Gas Appt -i ances:
*ffi**ffiitr*t*rr**#**#titiit*ti.rJrt**it*ffi FEE SUl,ll,lARY **ffi*rffi*trir*r.*ffirtr(1rffiffi***it nhhlfritrt ntf,**tft
Total crtcutatcd Fe!s---> ?92.75
*t*trrffi#dt*'*ti*t**: r:i r:(***'t.ti'i{ l,i! r;r:'r t)Hdr*ffi*ffiffit*****k*****ffr***,ffi*rr*t*i*i*****t*****t*** l*t***
See ?age 2 o:'-;.is Do,:riei:: -irrr any conditions that. nay appty to this permit.
NECLARATIONS
I hercby acknovteCAc tl|at I ha,€ re:. 'hi! ao;iiration, lill,'-{ out in fuLt th. informtion requi rcd, ccnpt.ted rn accufltr ptot
Ptan, and state t4at a.r rhe i;r'lu: r,riir;n proridec as requircJ is 3orrcct. I agrle to corpl,y uith thc inforration lnd ptot plan,
to corpty vith att Tcv'r J:'c,naic:s :nd stcre ia,rs, and to buitd this structurc according to thc foun's :oning and suHivi3ion
codcs, desig;t rev;et{ aJpf:ved. Lr'ilr.! 3uiitJi:r3 iJde end o':il-.r or:inances of thc Torrn appticlbl.e thereto.
REAUESTS FoP. llisPEa-:t0hr S.AL. -:E t{.q)! :iEr';"-:3uR li3uRs lN AI|ANCE ay TELEq!oNE AT {29-2138 oRAT OUR oFFICE FR0l4 8:m
Slnd Ctcan-Up Drposit T3: C 0 ;r UOOD;el; ::i:FOR HI}ISELF AND OII ER
Page 2
********** *rt**tk *1t J * *** * 'l: s i rt** * * * * * * * * * * ,, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CCNDITIONS
Permit #: Bv6-0-79 as of 07/09/96 Status---: ISSUED
**********rr***"'t?+*'i*+***,.******rr************************************************
Permit Tllle: .C.DD,/A]-,T SFR SUILD PERl.4Il
Applicant--: Cl i H I,IOODVTOFK:I{G
3038457968
":'i S!l\"i)f Lls
2lC1-03.r -15-011.
Applied--z 07/03/L996
Issued--- t 07 /03/L996To Expirez L2/30/L996
ilob Addresc
Location---
Parcel No--
Description
INTERIOR l:.L'Mt':rEJ
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 'r: i * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * COnditiOng * * * * ,. * lr * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
1. FIi:Li/ IliSl::JCl'lOii3 ARE REQUIRED TO CHECK FOR CODE COMPLIANCE.2. SMOKE DSTECTOF.S ARE R3:QUIRED IN ALL BEDROOMS AND EVERY STORY
AS PFi. i::J, ,'2i,,1 t)3' 'ii{;i 1.991 UBC.
Asseee
Parcel PERI'IIT #
PERUTT APPLTCATION FORI,IDATE:1-3 -zltl
- t APPLfCATION MUST BE FfIJLED OUT COI'IPLETEIJY OR IT MAY NOT BE AcCEpTEDUX*t*************************** PEII!{IT fI|FORITIATJON *****************************rl ..
0fflce
TOTIN OF VAIL CONSTRUCTIO
-t)0-auilainq [{J-er,.''r''irrn t{]-etectricat [ ]-Mechanibal [ ]-other
rob ranes rlr.vl ( ^ t?t+t rob Addre "", 142 dhLL*,Jr ,t/*rrT
Legal Description, ro13 ztock_7 Filing sURDIvIsIoN: VAIL PaTATO P,{ad
Olrners Name:Address:
ItArchitectt tl/A Address:
General Description:d/' le iPE
Electri Contractor:
Address:
.Plunbing C
Address:
Mechanical Contractor:
Address:
Town of Vail
4/Pnone Number:
Town of VailI Phone Nunber:
Town of VaiI
Phone Number:
Reg. NO.
********************************FOR OFFfCE USE **!r****************************BUTLDTNG PERI,IIT FEE:
PLUT.'BING PERUTT FEE:
MECIIANICAIJ PER}IIT FEE:
ELEqIRICAL FEE:
OTHER TYPE OF FEE:
DRB FEE:
BUTLDING PIAN CHECK FEE:
PLUI'IBING PI-,AI{ CEECK FEE:I.IECI|ANICA,L PI,AI{ CTTECK FEE:
RECRELTION FEE:
CLE,AN-UP DEPOSIT:
TOTAT PERT-IIT FEES:
BUTLDTNG3
SIGNATT'RE:
ZONTNG:
SIGNANTRE:
cr.EAf, ltP DrosrT tEF0r{D r0:\
b
wPr(DFll*€rrr
lvar.l , ca *tbz-o
75 routh trcnlag. rord
uril, color.do 81657
(303) 479-21.38 ot 419-2139 ottlc. of comrnsnlty dcvclopmrnt
TO:
FEOM:
DATE:
suB.TEqt:
ALL CONTRACTORS CURRENTLYL REGISTERED WTTH NtETOIIN OF VAIL
TOI{N oF VAIL pUBLrc woRKs/co}tMIrNITy DEVELOPI|ENT
UARCH 16, 1988
CONSIRUqIION PARKTNG S UATERIAI STORAGE
rn suunary, ordinance No- 6 states that it is unrawful for anyperson to litter, track or aeposii.;t;;iri-rlli., sand, debrisor naterial, i":t:311r_l1aslr-e;psters, portabte toitets andworknen vehicles.|pon-any street', sidewalk, alley or public$lii"=i:":l5 ::f.6n tr,eieoi.--,i1," rieht_oi_r.y 3n an rown of
rhi : ;;ai;;;;' ;i ii_"i:. ::,i:8il.:l?:::L';.i;:*"*;:f+:i, "'
Public l{orks oeoaitnEnt. --iJ*ins found .rii,r"fir,g this ordi.nancewirr be siven a- zc rroui-rriti!i'i"ai;1;-;;;;;;"="id narerial.rn the event the person so notitlea.ao"=-rrlilIoipr' with tbenotice within the 24 frour tine-lng.irr.., the puLtic r{orksDeparrnent wirr t.r"""-=iiilltEiiar-ii-irrJ';*;;=" or personnotified' The oroviti""r-or-iiil orainance shirl not beapplicable to c-onstruction, -r.iii"rr.nge
9-r repair projects ofany street or alley or any'ulifiii"" in the ,i!tt_._*"y.
lo.review Ordinance.No..6.in full., please stop by ttre fown of:::i.::il:i"g"Tf,il*:*"::"";ili" - copv. rr",,i you ror your
t5 louth tronbg. road
r.ll, colo.rdo E1657(nq 479-2138 ot 479-2L39 ottler ot communlty dcvrlopmcnt
BUILDING PERI'IIT ISSUANCE TII,IE FRAITE
If this permi.t requj.res a Town of Vail Fire Departnent Approval,Engineel's (tublt" p:El l.ri"n .ni'approvat, a planning Deparhentreview or Health Deoartnint review, ani.a-review uy ttre"duitcing
3:rilg:.h"lll .' ri* teo iime
- iJr'.-tot"r ;; i;ul-*y"L i!,as I ong
All cornnercial f'rarge 91 srnall) and alr murti-family permits wilrhave to fo'llow dne imve menti6ned *xirun requirenents. Residentiarand smalt projects should t"[;-;-i";;!r'amount of time. However, ifresidential or smat l9r,projecis-i;il;;' the various above mentioneddepartments with reoa.rd' to-n.J"riii!-ieule*, these proJects mayalso take the three-week period.
Every.attenpt will be made by this department to expedite thispermi't as soon as possible. -
i;.*!i undersigned, understand the plan check procedure and time
1-7-
sheet wai tuFndlTi6-thEDate XoF[
Develooment Departnrent.
t.,O MEMORANDUM
ALL CONTRACTORS
TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MAY 9, 1994
WHEN A "PUBLIC WAY PERMI.r'IS REQUIRED
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Permit':
NO7
,/
,t/
,r/
,r/7',)
8)
ls this a new residence?
ls demolition work being perlormed
that requires the use of the right
of way, easem€nts or public propeiy?
ls any utility work needed?
ls the driveway being repaved?
ls difierent a@ess needed to site
other than existing driveway?
ls any drainage work being done
afieAing the right of way, easements,
or public property?
fs a "Revocable Right Of Way permit,
required?
A. ls the right of way, easements or
public property to be used for staging,
parking or fencing?
B. It no to 8A, is a parking, staging
or fencing plan required by Community
Development?
I have read and answered all thg above
!f19u- algwered yes to any of lhese questions, a "Public way permit" must be obtained.?ublic way_ Permit' qpplications may be obtained at the'public work's office or at
C.o.r.nT.tu-lttty Development. lf you have-any questions please cattCnarre Davis, the Townof VailConstruction Inspecto4 at 479-215g.'
YES
1)
2)
3)
4)
s)
6)
Job Name Conlractor's
TOWN OFVAIL
Department of Community Development
75 SouthFrontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2138
FAX 970-479-2452
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Buildirtg Safuy
&. Inspectiott
Services Divisiott
File, permits 896-0179, p96-0104 tlY"?
-,Gary Goodell, Chief Buildin C Officiatffi
August 17, 1998
Re: Final Inspection Approval, permit number 896-0179, Charles and Jeri Campisi Remodcl, i42B Sandy
Lane
Our office has received a number of complaints from the owner of the 7424 porlion of this duplcx, Bctty Guffl,
concerning the gas appliances located in the Carnpisi's gamge. While rescarching our records in respondiog to
thcse complaints, we discovered that the plumbing permit connectcd with the Campisi remodel, permit p96-
0104, which, according to our records, covcrcd thc plumbing work associatcd with thc rcrnodelind tlrc
installation of in floor radiant beat, received a finai inspection approval on November 19, 1996, but that our
computcr records did not show a final inspection approval for thc building permit, pcrmit numbcr 896-0179.
I visitcd thc propcrty on July 24, looked at the gas-fued boiler and water heater and took notcs regarding their
spccifications and thc manner in which they wcre installed and vcntcd. When I letuned to my officc, I also
rcscarched the specifications and installatiotr instructions for the spccific appliances and the applicable
requircments of the 199 I Uniform Mechanical Code ([IMC) as adoptcd by the town, regarding the installation.
One itemthat I noted was that no combustion air, sometimes refened to as "make-up air'," had been providcd for
the appliances installed in the garage. Although many persons involvcd with and knowledgeable about the
installation of heating equipment are of the opinion that combustion air need not be provided in garagcs becausc
sufficient air can be obtained through infiltration under and around the garage door, etc., the UMC permits
culnbustion air to be through the infiltration method only if the volume of the space containing thc appliances is
cqual to 50 cubic feet for every 1,000 Btuh of input to the applianccs. In this case, thc volume of the single-car
garage is not large enough to be considered'lmconfincd spacc," so thc UMC requiles that additional combustion
air be provided. An acceptable solution in this instance was to providc two (2) combustion air grillcs in thc
cxtedor wall of the garage behind the boiler and water heater. Each of thcsc grilles would nccd to havc an arca
of at least 100 square inches, with one located within 12 inches of the floor of the space and one located within
12 inches of the ceiling of the space, respectively. For reference, thesc provisions are contained within Chapter 6
and Table 6-4 of the 1991 UMC. I notified Mr. Campisi of this issue by telephone, and he proceedcd to makc
thc arrangcmcnts to have the combustion air grillcs installcd.
Mrs. Campisi also made anangements with our office to perfonn a finai inspection for permit number 896-0179.
Charlie Davis of our office and I performed the inspection on the moming of August i 0. We noted two
corrections at that time: l) that the combustion air openings as noted above needed to be installed in the garage,
and 2) that the door between the house and the garage
{grun"urruo
Jsls uorsrN(I secr^Jas uorlcoosql ?9,(loJEs Eqpung
JolceJr( lueurdolemq r(gmuuo3 'peuog ssna
{euro11y u^rol 'peeqeJool^{ tuol
Jslqc e4d 'rrsmo {c!( :cc
E-rE:gXg
's,rsrdue3 eqt,{q eEere8 oqt m pe1?$q ropepp 93 ,or1neq1qEr1q
ogl uo JoJorqr oq1 ,{q petzredo Euaq Je}eul OJ eql Jeqilo uo sEupeer 1e^ol OC alqepapp ,(ue
a^Jesqo ol elq?un oJo/h o/ll 'uorle^JosqoJo s3lnuru 0z lnory regy 'Euruuru oJel\ Jepoq Jol?il\ eql
pw ralroq aql qloq leql os splsouuaql enrlcedsa; eql pspnlpe oslu I 'pesolc pel[ErueJ pus p^rrre
rno uodn pesolc ss/r\ Joop a8ure8 peeqJa^o eql IBI{I peuuguoc a,tn 's8urpear 93 Eurlet ol Joud
'spaurelnba: epoc unrumnur
' ,{{^ oou?pJocce u pe1e1&uoc uoeq p?q suolt o/r1,1 oqt 1zql punoJ pus s?eJ? eseql papadsm
1 'sSurpeer OC ogl e>Ft ol pu? Joop Eursolclles oql pus salu8 lz uorlsncproo aqt Eupre8e.r
uorlcedsm aql rurogred ol asnoq eql le '1ueEe s.tstdue3 oql 'loqqv led tatu 1 pue Jerq3 ang
II€AJo u1r\oJ eql 'uBJnC >1crq 'ru'e 0€:l I lv 'eEerBE aql ur sEurpual (oc) eprxouoru uoqJBc aryl
reql luql po{se pu? luerugedeq orrd lI?A eql pelc?luoc osl? oH '8661 'Ll NnEny ',{epuogrl ro;
uorlcsdsur ue pe6anbar prru uopcoJlp srq 1e pelaldruoc uaoq p?q e^oq€ ^,(lelerpaunrn polou {Jo/h
eql leql Surlecrpur ocgto eql le eru JoJ soEesseu gal rsr&ue3 '{ tr '866I '?I NnEnV 'deppg uO
ruroJlun rc6r't#uo4dacxg '(p)gos 'cas qrn' oorr?procc? ur Eurqcpl tf#"ttff?riT1lffi
T, Io T,' d' g6/ Ll lg'rsrd,uu3
rL,
TO$IN OF VAIL
75 S. FRONTAGE ROADvArL, co 81657
97 0-47 9-2138
APPLICANT
CONTRACTOR
O$INER
Description:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NOTE: THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED
ADD/ALT SFR BUIIJD PERMIT
ON JOBSITE AT AIJIJ TIMES
Permit #: 896-0159
CONSTRUCTION PLUSP.O. BOX 18459, AVON,
CONSTRUCTION PLUSP.O. BOX 18459, AVON,
CAMPTZI CHARLIE & JERI
742 SANDY LANE, VArL,
Job Address: 742 SANDY LNLocation...z 742 SANDY LANEParcel No.. : 2101-063-15-011Project No.:
Status...: ISSUED
Applied. .2 06/L7/L996
I8sued. . .: 06/t7 /L996Expires..: t2/t4/L996
Phone:926-L4L6
Phone z 926-L4L6
TOV/Comm. Dev.
co 81620
co 81620
co.816s7 Clean-up Deposit Refund
29o:n
Geie
r. hercby .acknovtcdgc that r hrve rrad.this apptication, fil,Lcd out in fut! thc infornation regui rcd, co+L.ted an
Pl'an/ and stat. that att thc inforttation prcvidcd as required is corrcct. t agrcc to corpty riitn tire in?orrationto.corPty vith aLl' Tom ordinrncca -atrd statc_ tavs, and to buil,d this structurc according io tnc torn,s zming andcodes, dcsign rlvies aPProved, uniforn Buil,ding Cod. and othcr ordinances of th. Tovn aipticabl,e thcrcto.
REOUESTS FOR INSPECTTONS SHALL 8E }IADE TUENTY-FOUR HOURS I ADVAIICE BY TELEPHONE
'f,l.79-2'I3E
OR
'rOUR
OFFICE FROI,I
TNSTALL 5 sKYLT#scio' E"rHi.t*BF Blfr ryslfPProved
nt
v3-
Occupancy:
Type Construction:
R3 SingJ.e Fanily Residencel
Valuation:68, 400
Fireptac. Infor.ation: Rcstrictcd:
Add Sq Ft,:
fof Gas Apptianccs:fof cas Logs:#of Tood/Pal.Let:
FEE SUIIIIARY
Bui f'ding---> 195.m Rrstuarant Ptan Rev'i c*F-> .m Totat cal,cutlted Feca-> 1,31E.25PLan Ch.ck*-> 360.25 DRB FeF_-__--__> 1m.0o Additional, Fccs_) 2O.OOInvestig€tiorD .00 Recreation teF------> .00 Total pennit Fcc----) 1,33g.25tiitt ca f. f.----> 3.00 Ctean-Up D.posit-------> Z50.OO payments----_-_> 1.33A.2s
ToTAL FEES-----------> 1,318.25 > .oo
Ite.qri .951q0_Eq_II,DING DEpARTMENT Depr: BUTLDING DiviEion:96/L7 /L9_96_CllARLrE ACEiont ApFn cnenr,rE DAViS-Mryri',9t1q0_Pi.4$INING DEPARTMENT --- ---Dept: pLAl.lNrNG Division:
QA/L7 /L996-CHARLIE Action! AppR pER LAUREN-W--Itbm :' 0s500 _qIRE _DEPARTMEN,i'
--
06/L7/L996 CHARTTE Acaiont AppR N/.A,Iqe.qr!'.q55q0_pvBlrc woRKg ' Depr: pUB vtoRK Division:06/17/7996 CITARLIE Rction: AppR N/A
see Page 2 of thie Document for any conditions that may apply to this permit.
DECLARATIONS
accuEtc D[ot
.nd pl,ot pl,an,
subdi vi si on
S.nd Ctean-Up Dcposit To: CoNSTRUCTION PLUS OUNER OR ANO OIINER
-.
Page 2********************************************************************************
CONDITIONSPennit'*: 895-0159 as of 0?/30/96 Status---: ISSuED**********************************************i*********************************
Perln+t rlpe: ADD/ALT SFR BUrLD pERMrr Appried--| o6/L7/Lgg6Applicant--! coNsBRUcrrON pl,us rElued---3 o6'/L7'/:-gg6926-74t6 To Expire. t2'/L4'/Lgg6
Job Addreeez 742 SATIDY LNLocation---z 742 SANDY LANEParcel No--: 2101-063-15-011
Description:
rNsTAtL 5 SKYI_,IGHTS & 2 DOORS, REPLACE EAST WArt
************************************** COnditiOng ******************************
1. FIELD INSPECTIONS AR8 REQUIRED TO CHECK FOR CODE COMPLIANCE.2. S}IOKE DETECTORS ARE REQUIRED IN ALIJ BEDROOMS AND EVERY STORY
AS PER SEC.1210 0F THE 1991 UBC.3. SKTLIGHTS !.!UST COl,tpLy WITH 1991 UBC. CHAP. 344. SAFETY GLAZING IN DOORS !.IUST COMPLY WITH 1991 UBC SEC 5406
{f#:iil:' ff :'T.3T3:'"f : : i " 1 ""#i oF vAr L coNs rRucr r O
/}
**
"*ilr3:PrrcArroN FoRr.!
Legal Description: Lot -.
z-t
-
Block_ Filingqc'{Str
PERI'IIT /I
J-Repair [ ]-otlter
t APPrJrcarroN uusr BE Frrrr.,ED our col[pr.erEr,y oR rr uay Nor BE AccEgtEDUIr****tr************************ pERlIrl ilFonuarroN *****i**********************{rl I J-Building g J-plnnr.ing t l-Electrical I J-Uechanlbal I J-Other
rob Nan!: Qa.-.lc"/d
oldners Name:
Architect:
Address:
Address:
ceneral Description:
Work Class: [ ]-Nen tf,J-Alteration t l_Adctitional I
Nunber of Dtyelling unLts, ? Nunber of Acconnodation Unl.ts:
togs_ Wood,/pel1eter and Blpe of Fireplaces: cas Appliances Gas
BUILDTNG3 $7 EI..ECTRICAL: $
UECIIN{ICALr f:ILUMBTNG: I orHER: *3LL0a
TOTAL: f--***********]ffi
Town of Val.l Reg. No.96o-SPhone Number: 1L/r- bn
Reg. No.
v
^***
*** ***** ****************f Eeneral Contractor: Ka;t colla4qrog TNFoRUATToN
Address:
Electrical Contractor:
Address:
Plunbing Contractor:
Address:
Mechanical Contractor:
Address:
* ** * * * * * *** * * ******** * **********FORBUU,DING PERI.IIT FEE:PLWBING PERMTT FEE:
}TECIIN{rCAI PER}IIT FEE:EI,ECTRICAL FEE:
OTHER TYPE oF FEE!
DR8 FEE:
OFFfCE USE ***** * **r. * * * * ********** *** t*ra*
BUTLDTNG PIAII CIIECK FEE:
Town of Vail
PhOne }{rrntrg3g
Town of Vail
Phone Nunber:
Town of Val.l
Phone Nunber:
Reg. l|O.
Reg. NO.
PLWBING PI,AN CHECK FEE:!.IECHN{TCAL PIAN CHECK FEE:RECREATIoN FEEs
CI-.TAN-UP DEPOSIT:
TOTAL PERI,IIT FEES:
BUTLDTNG:
STGNATT'RE:
ZONING:
SIGNATURE:
I'P DEOSrl NEFUf,D.Ilo:C"vf,,,-G*tf/
1
luwn
TO:
EROM:
DAIEs
SU&TECT:
?5 toulh trEn|lgc rrld}|il. coto?rdo El6Sz
(303) 479-2138 ot 479-2L39
rn su'ilar?, ordinance No. 6 states that it is unrawful for anyrrerson r,o rltter, !r.ack or aeposi!-#;-r;irl-"Jl,t, sand, debrisor naterial, includly__ti.=p-Siipster_s, portable toilets andworknen vehicres.-I19"..o"v "tr""tl siaewaii, ;Ii;y or publici:ii.=::":ig ffi.l'on rheieor. --u," iiil;:;i;;i=ln au roe,n orrhii ;;ei;;;' il.fi_T:. ::=!:fil":$::::"'"t.d*;ffi*"*i: ".
Pubric works oenartnentl--iliiins round rrii,ratirrg this ordturancewr'lL be siven "-zr nJui-""1.;i;;;"tiJe ti-;;;;;;'r.id nareriar.rn the event the person so norierea.ao""-nir-Ioiprv with thenotice within the 24 hour.t-ir"-ip""ified, tt.e pulric l{orksDepartDenr nirr r".or"-=iiirit!li"i-"i-irrJ'!*o#r" or personnotified' The orovi=i""=-ir-iiil orainance stritt not beappricable to cinstruction,-liiii:l"nge 9r repair projects ofany street or alley or any utiiiires in the right_a_way.
:::i:li:i:ffi:":irf*t.".1""ft*; I'Etii..Ti":il lti l:r":f,
oftlc. ol co|nmunlly dauclopmattl
AI..L CONTRACTORS CT'RRET{TLYL REGISTERED WITE TIIETOWN OF VAIL
TOIvN oF VAIL PUBLIC WORKS/CO!,IMUNITY DEVEIOPMENT
IrlARcIt 16, 1988
CONSTRUCIrON PARICTNG & UASERTAIJ STORAGE
acknowledged by:
contractor, owner)
'1
ln.ttn
75 ro0th front g. rord
}|ll, color.do t1657
leo3) 479-2L38 ot 479-2t39 otflcc of commr,nlty dtrdoprl|cnt
BUILDING PERF|IT ISSUANCE TIME FMitE
If this permi.t ".qril:: ? Town of Vail Fire Departnent Approvat,Engineerrs (publii p111l r-vil .il'ipproval, a planning Departmentrevlew or Hearth Departmint-review,-rni.-review ry ilre duitoing
l:rilH:'h"the estina ted tim;' rr'r-irt"r il i;.-*y',L [!,., r one
All cormercial frarge or smalr) and ar'r murti-famty pennits wi.'have to folrow ttre iuove ;;;ii6il;ximum requirements. Residentialand small projects should ta[;-;-i#ir'anount of time. However, ifresidentia'l or smal ler,prnjects-ii,pali' the various above mentioneddepartrneflts with rega.rd' to-n"".riui!-ievi"*, these projects mayalso take the three'week period.
Every attempt wil] be made by this departrnent to expedite thispermi't aS soon as pOssibie.' -"!- rrrs' L"'srrL eu s^Pesrre El
l;.*!l undersigned, understand the plan check procedure and time
L
ProJGEE
a
o
s nee t wEi-tuFiEaffio-TliEWor
Develonmert Department.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
ALL CONTRACTOFS
TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WOFKS DEPARTMENT
MAY g, 1gg4
WHEN A'PUBLIC WAY PERMIT'IS REOUIRED
Job Name:
Date: t-
Pleasehnsw
YES NO
>(
X
X
X
/r
Y
Y
Y
ls this a new residence?
ls demolition work being perlormed
that requires the use of the right
of way, easements or public froperty?
ls any utility work needed?
ls the ddveway being repaved?
ls difierent access needed lo site
other than existing driveway?
ls any drainage worfr being done
afieaing the right ol way, easements,
or public property?
ls a'Bevocable Right Of Way permit.
required?
A. is tne right of way, eas€menrc or
public property to be used for staging,
parking or fencing?
B. - lf no to 8A, is a parking, staging
or fencing ptan required by Communit!
Development?
!t-v9u- apyergd yes to any oflhese questions, a "Public way permit must be obtained.?ublic way_ Permit' appticationl miy be obtained a tr,e'public wort,s office or atc.o.r.nqulrtr Development. .! ryq h.lreiltlr questions prease cari Crrarrie DaMs, rhe Townof Vail Construc'tion tnspeaoi at 479-215g.'
I have read and answered allthe above questions.
1)
2)
3)
4)
s)
6)
8)
:; - G-f
Contracto/s Sig
3i', r
Olign Review Action Fth
TOWN OF VAIL
Building Name:
Project Descriplion:
Owner, Address and Phone:
ArchitecUOontact, Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot -r Block- Subdivision Szone Distria
Project Str€et Address:
Comments:
Motion by:
fl Approval
! Disapproval
,X staftApproval
Seconded by:
Conditions:
Il.\ l. 1 , irI ilrir*'r1, '. ,,.\-, VI il ..\--l
Town Planner
_iDate: , -i-t t-i'"\-t \ 1 t I l/-', DRB Fee Pre'paid
,\
TOWN OF VAIL
75 S. FRONTAGE ROAD
vArL, co 81657
97 0-47 9-2138
APPLICANT CONSTRUCTION PLUS
P.O. BOX 18459, AVON, CO 81620
CONTR,ACTOR CONSTRUCTION PLUS
P.O.' BOX 18459, AVON, CO 81620
OI,IINER CAIIPIZI CHARLIE & JERI
742 SANDY LANE, VArL, CO. 81657
Description:
INSTALL 5 .SKYLIGHTS & 2 DOORS, REPLACE EAST WALL
Occupancy: R3
Type Construction:
Valuation: 23,400
Fi neolace Information: Restni cted:
Single Family Residence
Add Sq Ft:
fof Gas Appl,iances:
742 SANDY LN
742 SANDY LANE
2101-0 6 3- 15-011
Status. . .
Applied..
Issued. . .
Expires. .
Phone: 926-14L6
Phone: 925-L416
#0f tlood /Pa I tet:
Bui Ldi ng---->
P Lan Check-->
Invest igation>
tli l,L Cal,t---->
285.00
1A5 .25
.00
3.00
Restuarant P lan Revi ew-->
DRB
Recreat ion Fee--------)
ctean-Up 0eposit-------->
TOTAL FEES--.--
.@
50.@
.00
1m.@
6?3.25
fof Gas Logs:
TotaI CaLcuLated Fees--->
Additional, Fees------->
Total Permit tet------>
Payments-----
BALANCE DUE_--
62323 .25
20.00
&3.&3.25
e3.25
accunate ptot
and ptot P Lan,
subdivision
lIem: O51OO BUILDING DEPARTMENT DEPI: BUILDING DiViSiON:06/77/1996 CHARLIE Action: APPR CHARLIE DAVISrt,CM:, 054OO PIAWXTWC DEPARTMENT DEPU: PLANNING DiViSiON:06/I7/1.996 CHARLIE Action: APPR PER LAUREN W-
ft€mi'.010q0 FrRE DepAntEeNT Dept: FrRE Division:
06/L7 /!996_CHARLIE Action: APPR N/Art'eni"055Q0 PUBLTC WORK$ Dept: PUB WORK Division:a6/r7/1996 CHARLTE Acrion: AppR N/A
See Page 2 of this Document for any conditions that may apply to this permit.
DECLARATIONS
I hercby acknoHtedgc that I have read this apptication, fill,ed out 'in fuLl the information requircd, conpLrted an
pl,an, and state that at! the information provided as required is correct. I agfee to comPty vith the infoflnation
to compty with ail, Town ordinances and state [aws, and to buitd this structufe according to the ToUn's zoning and
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D LOPMENT
NOTE: THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOBSITE AT ALL TIMES
ADD/ALT SFR BUILD PERMIT Pernit #: 896-0159
o
EVE
Job Address
Location...
Parcel No..
Project No.
FEE SUI'II'IARY
ISSUED
06/r'7 /Lee606/t7 /Lee6
t2 /L4 /Lee6
REOUESTS FOR INSPECTIONS SHALL BE I.IADE TIIENTY-FOUR HOURS IN AOVANCE BY
send ctean-up Deposit To: coNsTRUcTIoN PLUS
OFFICE FROI'IN An*2138
FOR HII.ISELF AND OTJNER
Page 2********************************************************************************
CONDITIONS
Permit #: 896-0159 as of 07/L9/96 status---: ISSUED********************************************************************************
permit Tlpe: ADD/AI,T SFR BUrLD PERMTT Applied--r 06/.17/.L996
Applicant--: CoNSTRUCTION PLUS Issued---z !l/.\t/.\sSl926-L4L6 To ExPire z t2/t4/L996
Job AddresEz 742 SANDY LN
Location---: ?42 SANDY LANE
Parcef No--: 2101-063-15-011
Description:
INSTALL 5 SKYEIGHTS & 2 DOORS, REPLACE EAST WAI.L
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * COnditiOns ******************************
1. FIELD INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED TO CHECK FOR CODE COMPLIA}ICE.
2. SMqKE DETECTORS ARE REQUIRED IN ALL BEDROOMS AND EVERY STORY
AS PER S8C.1210 0F THE 1991 UBC.
3. SKYLIGHTS MUST COMPLY V'ITH 1991 UBC. CHAP. 34
4. SAFETY GLAZING IN DOORS MUST COMPLY WITH 1991 UBC SEC 5406
fufl"ex
*-*..*Q
li(]o. rrrodo'/d rlb tm
crg{aaoods $oppho carta,
!d, cplcrodo t166,
g}3/a762t 70 CHECKED BY
SCALE
?foorjcr ?01-t lsiqi.st!*)26 r (hd&d) @. hc &oh. l!i!.0l1tl. h mr ? |I nu nft 1{D22s$m
TOWN OF VAIL
?5 S. FRONTAGE ROAD
vArL, co 81657
97 0-47 9-2138
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NOTE: THIS PERMIT I'{UST BE POSTED
ADD/ALT SFR BUILD PERMIT
ON JOBSIIE AI ALL TIMES
Permit #: 896-0159
Job Address
Location. . .
Parcel No..
Project No.
APPL]CANT CONSTRUCTION PLUS
P.O. BOX 18459, AVON,
CONTRACTOR CONSTRUCTION PLUS
P.O. BOX 18459, AVON/
OWNER CAMPIZI CHARLIE & JER]
742 SANDY LANE, VAIL,
742 SAI{DY LN
742 SANDY LANE
2101-063-1s-011
co 81620
co 81620
co.81657
Sratus . .
Applied.
Issued..
Expires.
Phone r 926-L4I6
Phone: 926-14L6
fof tlood/Pa L tet:
ISSUED
06/t7 /Lee6o6/t7 /Lee6
L2 /14 /ree6
Description:
INSTALLING 5 SKYLIGHTS INSTAI,LING 2 DOORS
Occupancy: R3 Single nanily Residence
Type Construction:
Valuation:20, 000 Acid Sq F-c:
#0f Gas App'[1616ss;Firlptacc lntonmation: Rcst ri 6ted:
ffi*#.#rffiffiHr**r*ffi**ffi**r*tlr*****i FEE SUltf,lARY *********Jdft***********]d*ttltff******ff.t***l('rt****itoh*
Bui tding-----> 245.00 Restuarant Ptan Revi ev-->Total, catcutateC fe.s---> 557.2s
#0f Gas Logs:
Additionat tses--------->
Tota I Pernit Fee-------->
Pavnents--------
.00
>> ( .2>
557 .25
Ptan check--->
Investigat i on>
tliLt cat t---->
159.25 DR8
.00
5.00
Recreation Fee---------->
Ctean-tlp Depcsit-------->
TOTAL FEES---.--EALANCE DU[.----
.00
50.00
.00
100.00
557 .25tri*ffi *#*r*t**tr**#lr**#*ffi #(**ffi **t**f **t* #.**ff *ff ***ffi ***
IIem: O51OO BUILDING DEPT.RTMENT DEPI: BUILDING DiViSiON:06/L7/1996 CHARLIE Action: A?FR. CHARLIE DAVISii6mi' 05460-FrAwllr+tc--DeFARTMENt- - ------ Dept: PLANlirNc Division:
06/L7 /L996 CHARLIE AcIicn: APP]I PER LAUREN W.I!en:'.056Q0 FIRE DEPARTI"IENT Dept: FIRE Drvlslon:
06/17 /L996 CHARI,IE Action: AP?R i'l/A
it'e.qri',055Q0-FUBLie troRKS- ------ - t.-- Dept: PUB Ir'oRK Division:06/I7/L996 CHARLIE Action: APP:. N/A
*Jrrffi#tH*t*l*trffiffi*ffi*ffiffiffi1H*********t*******#**t****JrffiJr***rd***rr**-^-ti*ffi****tr*ffiffid.trfi
See Page 2 of this Documen+- for any ccnditions that rnay ap;11'to this permit.
I.]ECLARATIONS
I hereby acknowtedge that t have read this apptic:tion, fii.Led out in futL the information required, compteted an accurate Ptotptan, and state thrt at[ the inforrnation provideo as requirej is :orrect. I agree:o compty x'ith the information and P[ot ptan,
to conpty Hith att Tovn ordinances and staie [a]rs, and to buiLd this structure according to the ]cwnrs :oning and suHivision
codes, design revieH approved, Unifcrn Buil,ding crde end o:ilir oriinances of fie Tovn appticabre (1,-.ieto.
REOUESTS FOR INSPECTIONS SHALL BE ITADE TTJENTY-FCUR IC'URS:N I;\;tIiCE tsY
Scnd Cl,ern-Up Deposit To: CONSTRUCTION PLUS
FRo E: (P Arl
FOR HI}ISELF AND OTINER
Paq,e 2
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * i, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *'1 1: * i * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CCNDTTIONS
Pernit #: 896-0159 as of o6/L8/96 status---: rssuED
***************************************:r*******************xi*******************
permir Type: ADD/ALT sFR sUILD PEzu.lIl Aptr>lied--t 96-/,\7/,\9-29
Applicant--: CON'STRUa*1o11 pLrUS ri.sued---' 06/L'1/!996
s26-L4L6 To ExPire I L2/t4/I996
Job Addresst 742 SANDY LN
Location---z 742 SANDY LANE
ParceI No--: 2101-063-15-011
DescriPtion:
INSTALLING 5 SKYLIGHTS IiiSTALLIIIG 2 DOORS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * COnditiOnS * * * * * * * * * * I * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
1. FIELD INSPECT]ONS ARE REQUIRED TO CHECK FOR CODE CO:{PLIANCE '
2. SMOKE DETECTORS ARE REQUIRED IN -\LL BEDROOMS AND EVERY sToRY
AS PER sEc . 12 10 0F THE 1 9 9 1 ii-i'C .
3. SKYLIGHTS MT.'ST COMPLY Ti]?H 193:. UBC. CHAP. 34
4. SAFETY GLAZING iN DOORS I'IUST COMPLY WITH 1991 UBC SEC 5406
*rtnn
' l!"fi :' ; ;:-il r-3 i: ;' pf : :i "j f o'r'offi o, vAr L coNs rRucr r op
,$iilr llt
Oldners Nane:
Architect:
N roRll
PERI-IIT iI
t APPLICATION UUST BE FILLED oUT COMPLETELY oR IT UAY NoT BE AccEpTED
x***************************** PEII{IT rNFORl,lATroN *****r***************!r*******,tl [ ]-Building [ ]-plunbing [ ]-Electrical [ ]-Mechanibal [ ]-other
Job Address:
Legal Description: Lot BIock
Address:
Address:
Ph.
Ph.
':- /JOb Nane: ,rt c'f , \_c.,rrDiZ r
ceneral Descript! pn 2 o".,1
A e, u t"r'| 7r " 4'-'i,ill-:-.1--"* 7,
l{ork Class: [ ]-New t7l-Alteration [ ]-Additional [ ]-Repatr [ ]-other
Nunber of Dwelling Units:Nunber of Acconmodation Units:
l)}rmber
and Tlpe of Flreptaces: Gas Appliances- cas Logs- !{oodlpelret_
fi**********wi!b*r2f ************* vALUATToNs *********************************
!y_r_r,-g11g: t'/)0 tjib Er.EcrRrcAL: s_ orrrER: I
lirJulrBrNc:
I uEctrru{rcArr $- ToiAi; W/H#::i,""p:",,"r+z+" '"I;:r":i:#:iI:;;;$:W
P^LI'UBTNG: $
Electrical Contractor:
Address:
.Plunbing Contractor:
Address:
Mechanical Contractor:
Address:
* ******* ***** ******** * ********** FORBUILDTNG PERMTT FEE:
PLTIMBING PERMIT FEE:
!.IECHANICAIJ PERMIT FEE :
ELECTRICAI.I FEE:
OTHER TYPE OF FEE:
DRB FEE: Af<rfr/
Reg. NO.
Town of Vail Reg. NO.
Phone Nunber:
oFFrcE usE ** ******* * ************ *********
BUTLDING PI,AN CHECK FE8:
PLI'UBING PI"AN CHECK FEE:
MECHANICAL PI.AN CHECK FEE:
RECREATTON FEE:
CI,EAN-UP DEPOSIT:
TOTAIJ PERI.IIT FEES:
Town of Vail
Phone Nunber:
Town of Vail
Phone Nunber:
Req. NO.
BUILDING!
STGNATURE:
ZONfNcs
STGNATTTRE:ommentsS
CI.BAN UP ITEPOI|IT tErUf,D TO3
75 rouh tronlagr ro.d
U|ll, color.do 81697
(303) 479-21.38 ot 479-2L39
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
su&rEqt:
Read and acknowledged by:
ottlc. of connunlty deyclopn.nt
AI.L CONTRACTORS CURRENTLYL REGISTERED IIITIT THETOWN OF VArL
TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC t{oRKS/CO!,tMrrNITy DEVEIpPMENT
l,tARCH 16, lg8g
CONSTRUCTTON PARKING & MATERIAT STORAGE
rn suu'oary, ordinance No. 6 states that it is unlawfur for anyperson to titter, track or deposii ;t-r;irl-"#i, sand, debrisor naterial , incruding trash iunpsters, portable toilets andworkmen vehictes.upon any streetl siaewaiil-;ii;y or publicprace or any porti6n tnJieoi.- ihe right-of-way on art Town ofVail streets ind_.:gag= ir-ippr"xinately 5 ft. off pavenrent.This ordinance will be "ttiElrv--enforced by the Town of vailPublic l{orks Departuent. --p"i.3ns founa ,riirriling this ord,inancewilr be siven a 24 hour rri;l;;';"ii""-t"-;;;;;:"=.id naterial.rn the event the person so notified-aoes-not-"coipry with thenotice within the 24 rrour tirne-siecitied., the pulric l{orksDepartment wilr remove =iiJ-iit"ii.i-ii-[h;';6;=e of personnotified' The orovisions-or-trrrl orainance shirl not beapplicable to c6nstruction, -r"iii.tr.nce or repair projects ofany street or alrey or any "tiiiii;"i; il"-;i;ii_"*.y.
To review Ordinance No. 6 in full, please stop by the Town of:::i"::ii3i"3"o;f,irn:*"::""it-ii" a copv. rlani< vou ror v-ur
o
I. J U.+,e 0f{-
Pto oject (i.e. contractor, owner)
lnwn
75 roulh ,ronbgc nold
rrll, colondo 8t651
l3oa, 479-2L38 ot 479-2L39 oltlc. ot communlty druolopmail
EUILDING PERI.|IT ISSUANCE TIIIIE FRA}IE
If this penlit requires 1 Towl of Vai.l Fire Departnent Approval,Engineer's (publii Ig||:l "eview .nJ'ipp"orul, a planning Departnentreview or Health Deoartrn6nt.review,-aii'a-review by the Building
S3ri[;3!',1;.lLl .'.i*ted timt ror'a-totur ili;ul ;"J"L[!'as r6ng
All commercial flarge or smalr) and a't murti-famiry permits willhave to follow itre iuove ilii;fi;iimun requirements. Residentialand small projects shourd uie-i-ieiier"amount of time. However, ifresidential or smailgr,projects impici'the various above mentioneddepartments with reoa.rd to-nicessily-""ui"*, these projects maya'l so take the three-week period.
Every.attempt wit'l be made by thispermi't as sgon as possible.department to expedite this
I, the
frame.
undersigned, understand the plan check procedure and time
O-,ztV)Zt
Proje-t[ame7
Communi ty Develooment Department.
I
MEMORANDUM
ALL CONTRACTORS
TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MAY g, 1gg4
WHEN A "PUBLIC WAY PERMIT'tS REOUIRED
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Job Name: 1r.,,
Date: 'Jt;t,.2 l7 /72 (,.,
Please answerthe following questionnaire regarding the need fora "PublicWay Permit':
ls this a new residence?
ls demolition work being performed
that requires the use of the right
of way, easemsnts or public properly?
ls any utility work needed?
ls lhe driveway being repaved?
ls different access needed to site
other than existing ddveway?
ls any drainage work being done
atfecting lhe right ol way, easements,
or public poperty?
ls a'Revocable Bight CI Way permit.
required?
YES NO
(
r
{
I
{
1)
2)
3)
4)
s)
6)
K
K
8) A. ls the right of way, easements or
public property to be used for staging,
pad<ing or fencing?
B. tf no to 8A, is a parking, staging
or fencing plan required by Community
Development?
!!9u_ alswered yes lo any of these questions, a'Public Way Permit" rnust be obtained.'Public Way Permit' applications may be obtained at the public Work's oflice or at
C9.ryry1ryttf Deve-lopment. lf you have-any questions ptease callCharliE Davis, the Town
of VailConstruction Inspector, at 479-215g.
d
A
d answered antne $)e fu/stions.
,r(1>:z-i (/Uo/h l,/, /rt
DateJobNamEContraclo/s Signature
o
n
=o5 r.)
F lrrF()F Ll_lJ-o
I..
I
2
h
H
\rL
h
6
$t
ll
r
{
\T'
{
'H r'
ilJ
4i
\5-
I
I
I
I
t4
7
I$l,
TOWN OF VAIL
?5 S. FRONTAGE F.C'i.''ii
vArL, CO 81657
97 0-47 9-21,38
E tectri cE --' >
InvestigE..cr>
Jcb Aid:ess
Lcr:a:1or. . .
Pe:cel flo..
Project No.
:t.00
742 SANDY LN
2101-0 6 3- 15-011
PRJ96-0112
DB?ARTT4EN! OF CO}O,IUNITY DEVELOPMENT
!.lO?E: TH:S PEzu"IIT }.UST BE POSTED ON JOBSITE AT ALL TIMES
ELECTRTCAL PERMIT Pernit #: E96-0141
APPLICANT EL:i TI'TTERP:.ISESt Cr ilSX 1:'10 , GY?Srilr'r CO 8\637
CONTRACTOR TLI' TiiTER.?RISE:']
P t' BCX 1!0), r;y35',rll CO 8i537OWNER C.U.IIZI C}LIRLI9 & JERI
T42 S:inLi -tuiE,'iAIL, CO.91657
Description : II'TliR,IOi i.il'lOi,8l,
Status...; ISSUED
Applied. .t 07/03n996
Issued. . . : O'1 /03/L996Expires. . : L2/30/1996
Phonet 3Q35247744
Phonez 3035247744
TOTAL FET:-.">:3.CC BALANCE OUE-----.00
ffiffi**ffi*****r* :e f' tii t ' i;.rr.ix:'lit rr:t!:*lril;**i*}i****rr*t*t***#***i**************tr****t(**ffi******rr*t****"ffit****
DeDt: BUILDING Division:
***'t*f*aia1(}-^-'r---.i-^11-i-^-^i.i-..1.i':.^-^-i:i.;-zir^-^-rrii/lxfrx-^'^-^1(***d*rti'r****i*i***fff*t*i#n rfR*****S***tt**tft*
CC\I]ITIOS O: APPROVAL
lx*:r**r't c: i rt,**;.*c::tr*t:i:!rt*tti*f,1****:hffi*******ffiffi*tr*ffiot**ffi1*****rrt**ffi*
oRB.e3 Additionat Fees--------->
TotaI Pernit F?e-------->.(J
uitt Cait'---> !.C'C Payments--------
DECLAP,ATIONS
I hcrcby acknowt€dg. trat I l'3'.e feai iris apitication, filted out in ful,t the infonnation r?quired, conphtad an lccurlte ptot
ptan, lnd sta:e t'lat a'.. :1.'-, i'{--.l tir'-, 1'.-i13o,1 es requi:,''J is correct. I agrec to comp(y Hith :he intornltion lnd pl,ot ptan,to conpty lith atr Tcu.r J'ci;.!:cds :::l s:aic !r,,!, a:li to bJil.J t\is structufe according to the Tolrn's zoning and subdivision
codcs, design review arJp':t'rc. Ur.if)rm Euitcirg cJCe end other ordinancrs of the Town appticabl,e thereto,
Valuation:1,500. 00
F EE SUI{IIARY *#*H***t**ff *t*t****,Htffi *t**********tff,*****l***
Total catcutated Fees---> 55.00
.m
53.00
REOUESTS FoR INSPECTIoT\: SriLi. iE ilAt! -ilriTY-i"Cjl :CL,|S I.{ ,\LvA,rc: BY TELEPHoNE AT 479-2138 OR AT OUR OFFICE tRotl E:00 A 5:00 Pil
HIIISELFOF OIJNER
-l'f
TOWN OF VAIL
75 S. FRONTAGE i.C'ilt
vArL, CO 8165'/
9',10-479-2L38
]]9.\RTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
l;OrE: 'I:{IS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOBSITE AT ALL TIMES
PLUMBING PERMIT Permit *: P96-0104
Job Acdress
Lor:a--io:r. . .
Pa:cel No..
P:r> j ect No .
742 SANDY LN
2101-0 6 3 -1s-011.
PRJ96-0112
Status...: ISSUED
Applred. . : 07/03/.L996
Issued...: 07/03/L996
Expires. . : 12/30/L996
Phone: 9709459809
co 81601
Phone: 9709459809
co 816 01
APPLICANT (IOL();;DO il.,A':B,-NG SERVICE
45105 itlcl{rlAY 5 E 24 ' GLENWOOD SPRINGS,
CONTRACTOR (:C)L,Oli-1-DO :9:,",-l4B:NG SERVICE
+5? C: i{iGlljJ.lY i i: 24, GLEIil^IOOD SPRINGS,
OWNER C.!-l :-,', -i I Ci{--'<LIA & JERI
'41 3iiNDi .1.{iE r '.,AiL, CO, o1657
Description : I:iTl-"-IOlt -i!I'!OtBL Valuati.on:4, oo0 . oo
*ffi*tik #irt*i*J(**ur*r(**rri -:r r .:*trhl* r*r-***ir*irts't**rr****xr* tEE SUl4l.lARY ffff(*lr***tf***ttJrJrtrir*,ritr(*.i**t*f**lft*t*f*t**r*
.@
78.00
Total. Calcutat.d Fees---> 7E.00PtunSing-----)
Ptan Check-->
:' si-'rr l':l '.,tan nevier--)rrTlL tEis------
Invcstigstion> i':
tli l, L ca l, !----> : . L -'
Jrffiliffi,t*i*Jr******i.t+t**i.*i+*i**+rr- *rir*ii*xr.***Jttr<*'t***i********rrr*H***trt*****Hrtrrr*********i******rrff****r.**fkf,ffi**t
DeDI: BUILDING DiViSiON:
Dept: FIRE Division:
CO:'IDIi:O:; OF APPROVAL
1. FIELD :l.rsii,a:." ))iS ;i:i.1 ::jQi-;IF3f ':C CHECK FOR CODE COMPLIANCE.
,rffi**rr..x.:Jr*;1t..i.:,..i.'''i-^.,':i.^i,.,i:'.,..:':i'^,i^-J,.l..ir,./t"....'-,c:.^-^1'r.,:rt.,xfxr,iirffiffis***!Hrjrffi*HrHnh*s'ffi
DSCLARATIONS
I h.r.by ackncvt-eJge tniit : Ir r ': 3 -r: s i.l;i:'.:':ion, liil.ed out in futt the information required, conPtet.d.sn lccurate Plot
ptan, and statc t1;t a.r '.h: i.io n--",- F:(:Jrclr 5s require-': is corrlct. I agrle to colPty vith th! infofmrtion and Ptot P[an,
io cinpty yith aLl, Tcyi cid:r:.6es :rd s:s:€ la[s, end to buitd this structure according to thc ToHn's zoning and subdivision
codcs, 1les,gir lev,e,,,,e,p.-i:., ,,r.r,,'.r ,r i,-r,.v..,g -.xlc urrJ ot:rJi e;.1;nances of the To|rn rppticabie tlleieio.
REOUESTS FOR INSPECTIotT; S' 1.:.:. 3E l:AiE -'liNiY-iCU,' !.4 i.llMl A)i','l:CE
Additionat Fees--------->
Totat Pernit fc"-------->
Paymcnts--------
BALANCE DUE-----
.m
78.m
78.00
.00
Item: lt- :{.(' : _:_.J ._..t_ .;E_,jr_R'!}1ENI
07 /03 /' :) 9 r i. :A;i" ;.- l;t.i.on : APPRIt'ern:' 056f ,1 f I:r-: l:i)A:.TI'1ENT
07 /03 / ."1:9 i ,.-,iir.:... I-:l
^ct--
-.on: AP?R
o
H eat Loss Analysrs Report
WIRSBO Radiant Panel Heating System
Proj*t#: N)5
Date:7/i22/96
Prepared By
COLORADO PLUMBING SERVICE. INC
45705HWY.6&24
GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81601
Phone #: (970) 945-9809
Fax #: (970) 945-0723By: JACK SILLS
Project lnformation
Name: CAMPISIRESIDENCE
Location: VAIL
Closing Date:
Project Summary
Total Heat Loss:
Upward:
Downward:
Supplemental:
Net:
Detailed Heat Loss Data
Room,' D.S. BATH #2
Gross Area:
Unheated Area:
Net Heated Area:
Ceiling Height:
Volume:
Air Changes:
Room Temp:
Floor Component
Floor Type:
Temp Belorv:
Floor Cover Rv:
Under Slab Rv:
Edge Rv:
Perimeter Rv:
/() n3
0tr
40 fl3
8fr
320 fl9
0.50 per Hour
72'F
Slab On Grade
40 "F
0.(x)
5.00
5.(X)
5.00
No
40 fl2
35.00
Owner: JERI CAMPISI
Engineer:
Total Area:
Outdoor Temp:
Room Intiltration:
Total lleat Loss:
Upward:
Downward:
Supplemenlal:
Net:
UniVNet:
Slab Depth:
Water Table Present:
Space Belou, Healed:
Downward Heat Loss:
Unit Heat Loss:
Floor Surface Temp:
Heat Loss:
(less sub components if any)
67,830 Btu/Hr
25,446 Btu/Hr
0 Btu/Hr
93.276 Btu/Hr
2,580 ft,
-30'F
Ceiling Component
Space Above Heated:
l,le{ Cdling Area'
Rv:
312 Btu/hr
429 Btu/hr
247 Btulhr
0 Btu/hr
676 Btu/hr
17 Btu/hr/ff
4 incfies
No
N/A
247 Blultrl
6 Btu/hrlfl3
T7 "F
117 Btu/hr
WRSBO nt Panel Heating System
Prol*l#. 1fi5
Date: 7/22106
o
Radia
Room; D.S. BED#2
Gross Area:
Unheated Area:
Net Heated Ar6a:
Ceiling Height:
Volume:
Air Changea:
Room Temp:
240tr
0fli
240 ttz
8fi
1,920 fl:
0.50 per Hour
65'F
Room : D.S. BED.
Gro6s Ar€a:
Unheeted Area:
Nel Heated Area:
Ceiling Hdght:
Volume:
Air Changes:
Room Temp:
FloorGomponent
Floor Type:
Temp Bdo,l:
Floor Cover Rv:
Under Slab Rv:
Edge Rv:
Perim€ter Rv:
No
240fr?
35.00
1.lo
208 fl3
35.00
Geiling Component
Space Above Heated:
Net Ceiling tuea:
Rv:
Floor Component
Floor Type:
Temp Below:
Floor Cover Rv:
Under Slab Rv:
Edge Rv:
Perimeter Rv:
Ceiling Gomponent
Space Above Healed:
Net Ceiling Area:
Rv:
Slab On Grade
40'F
0.00
5.00
5.fi)
5.00
R.#1
208 ftr
0fi?
2(B fl2
8fl
1,664 ff
0.50 per Hour
65 "F
Slab On Grade
40.F
0.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Room lnfiltration:
IolarHeaa Loss:
Upvard:
Domward:
Suppl€rnental:
Net:
UniUNet:
Slab Depth:
Water Table Presenl:
Space Belor Heated:
Dowrnrvard Heat Loss:
Unit l'l€et Loss:
Floor Surface Temp:
Heat Loss:
(less sub components if any)
Room Infiltration:
Total Heat Loss:
Upward:
Dowrnvard:
Supplemental:
Net:
UniUNet:
Slab Depth:
Water Table Present:
Space gelou, Heat€d:
Dovynward Heat Loss:
Unit Heat Loss:
Floor Surface Temp:
Heat Lo6s:
(less sub compon€nts if any)
1,712&ulhl
5,239 Btu/hr
2,3,16 Btu/hr
0 Btu/hr
7,585 Btu/hr
32 Btu/hr/ft'?
4 inches
No
N/A
2,316 &u/hr
9 Btu/hr/ff
75 "F
651 Btu/hr
1,510 Btu/hr
4,963 Btr/hr
2,190 Btu/hr
0 Btu/hr
7,153 Btu/hr
34 Btu/hr/{i3
4 inch€s
No
N/A
2,190 Eltu/hr
10 Btu/hr/fl2
78"F
565 Btu/hr
Room Components
wlRSBO
O
Radiant Panel Heating System
Pto,ler,l*: @5
Da&; 7/22/96
Component Length I
Wid0r (ft)
Heisht (ft)Arca (fli)Rv Heat Losg
(Btulhr)
Walll 31 8 248 20.00 988
Windoltl 5 I 40 2.00 1,900
Room: DINING
Gross Area:
Unheated Area:
Net l-l€at€d Area:
Ceiling Hdght:
Volume:
Air Change:
Room T€mp:
Floor Gomponent
Floor Type:
Temp Belorv:
Floor Cover Rv:
Under Slab Rv:
Edge Rv:
Perimeter Rv:
210tr
0fl2
210fr?
8fl
1,€80 fl9
0.50 per Hour
70.F
Slab On Grade
40'F
0.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
No
210tr
35.00
Slab On Grade
,00 "F
0.00
5.(x)
5.00
5.00
Room lntiltration:
Total Heat Loss:
Upward:
Dournward:
Supplemental:
Net:
UniUNet:
Slab Depth:
Water Table Present:
Space Belor Heated:
Dornward Heat Loss:
Unit Heat Loss:
Floor Surface Ternp:
Heat Loss:
(less sub componants if any)
Room Infiltration:
Total Heat Loss:
Upward:
Downward:
Supplemental:
Net:
UniUNet:
Slab Depth:
Water Table Present:
Space Below Fleated:
Downward Heat Lo6s:
Unit H€at Loss:
Floor Surface Temp:
Heat Loss:
1,6O4 Btu/hr
4,/+44 Btu/hr
2,290 Btr./hr
0 Btu/hr
6,734 Btu/hr
32 Btu/hr/fi3
4 inch€g
No
l.UA
2,290 Btu/hr
10 Btu/hr/ff
80 "F
600 Bttdhr
312 Btu/hr
429 Btu/hr
247 Blufin
0 Btu/hr
676 Btu/hr
17 Btu/hr/ff
4 inch€s
No
N/A
247 Blulhr
6 Btu/hrlfr'z
n"F
117 Btu/hr
Room: DOWNSIATRS BATH
Gross Area: 40 fi2
Unheated Area: 0 tr
Net Heated Area: 40 ff
Ceiling Heigttt: 8 ftVolumo: 320 fl9
Air Changes: 0.50 p€r Flour
Room Temp: 72"F
Floor Component
Ceiling Component
Space Abor/e H€at€d:
f.let Cldting nrcs;
Rv:
Floor Type:
Temp B€low:
Floor Cover Rv:
Under Slab Rv:
Edge Rv:
Peilmder Rv:
Geiling Gomponent
Space Above l-bated:
Net Coiling Area:(less sub components if any)
WIRSBO
o
Radiant Panel Heating Syetem
PtoJ*l#:06
Dab: 7/2iU06
RAM: KTTCHEN
Grosc Ares:
Unh€ated Area:
Net Heated Area:
Ceiling Fleight:
Volume:
Air Changes:
Room Temp:
Floor Gomponent
Floor Type:
Temp Belovrr:
Floor Cover Rv:
Under Slab Rv:
Edge Rv:
Perimeter Rv:
Ceiling Component
SpaeAbove l'lealed:
l,leil Oeiling Area:
Rv:
35.00
378 fl:
0ff
378 ft'
8ft
3,024 ff
0.50 per l-bur
65'F
Slab On Grade
'10 "F
0.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
532 ff
0 ft'z
532 tr
19ft
10,108 tr
0.50 p€I Hour
70"F
Slab On Grade
40'F
0.00
5.(X)
5.00
5.00
Room Infiltration:
Total Heat Loss:
Ufltrard:
DoM/rMard:
Supplem€ntal:
Net:
UniUNet:
Slab D€pth:
Water Table Present:
Space Bdow Heated:
Dovnward H€t Loss:
Unil Heat Loss:
Floor Surface Temp:
Heat Loss:
(less sub components if slry)
Room lnfiltration:
Total Heat Loss:
Upward:
DownrYard:
Supplemental:
tlet:
UniUNet:
Slab Depth:
Water Tablo Present:
Space Below l-leated:
DorvrMard Fbat Loss:
Unit Fleal Loss:
Floor Surfaca Temp:
Rv:
2,744Blulhr
5,594 Btu/hr
2,625 Btu/hr
0 Btu/hr
8,219 Hu/hr
22 Blu/hr/ff
4 inch€s
No
1.1/A
2,625 Btu/hr
6 Btu/hrlff
72',F
1,026 BturhrNo
378 nF
35.00
Room : LIWNG
Gross Area:
Unheeted Area:
Net Heated Area:
Cdling l'leight:
Volume:
Air Changes:
Room Tanp:
Floor Component
Floor Type:
Temp Below:
Floor Cover Rv:
Under Slab Rv:
Edge Rv;
Perimeter Rv:
9,65.3 Btu,/hr
22,968 Btu/hr
6,026 Btu/hr
0 Btu/hr
28,994 Btu/hr
54 Btu/hr/ftz
/3 inches
No
N/A
6,@6 Btu/hr
11 Btu/hrnr
9't 'F
o
RadiantwlRSBO Panel Heating Syctem
Ptoj*tt*: o{Ei
Room : MAIN B,R.
Grose Area:
Unheated Area:
Net Heat€d Arca:
Ceiling H€ight:
Volume:
Air Changes:
Room Tarp:
Floor Component
Floor Type:
Temp Below:
Floor Cover Rv:
Under Slab Rv:
Edge Rv:
Perimeter Rv:
285 fl3
0 t13
285 fl3
8ft
2,280 fl9
0.50 per Hour
65'F
Slab On Grade
40 "F
0.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Heat Loss:
(l€6s sub components if any)
Room Infiltration:
IofalHeat Loss:
Uoivard:
DorrnYard:
Supplemenlal:
Nd:
UniUNet:
Slab Depth:
Water Table Preent:
Space Below Heated:
Downward Fleal Loss:
Unit Heal Loss:
Floor Surface Temp:
Heat Loss:
(less sub components if any)
Room Infiltration:
Tdal Heat Loss:
Uprard:
Dorvnward:
Supplemental:
Nd:
UniUNet:
Slab Depih:
Wat6r Table Present:
2,069 Btu/hr
4,904 Btu/hr
2,604 Btu/hr
0 Btu/hr
7,508 Btu/hr
26 Btu/hr/ff
4 incheG
No
N/A
2,6(X Btr./hr
I Btr/hr/frz
73"F
774B'.ulhr
Ceiling Gomponent
Spaoe Above Fteated:
Net Ceiling Area:
Rv:
No
532 tr
35.00
No
285 fll
35.00
1,5rc Btu/hr
Space Abwe Heated:
Net Ceiling Area:
Rv:
Room : ITASTER B.R.
Gross Area:
Unheated tuea:
Net Fleated Area:
Ceiling Hdght:
Volumo:
Air Changes:
Room Temp:
Floor Gomponent
Geiling Gomponent
Floor Type:
Tonp Bdow:
255 tr
0fl,
255 ff
10fl
2,550 tr
0.50 per Hour
65 "F
2,313 Btu/hr
7,555 Bhr/hr
2,813 Btu/hr
0 Btu/hr
10,198 Btu/hr
40 Btu/hr/ff
4 irrch€s
No
Slab On Grade
40 "F
o
RadiantwtRsBo PanelHeating System
Ptot*:t*: ilE
Room.' I|ASIER BATH
Groes Area:
Unheated Area:
Itlet Heated Area:
Ceiling Height
Volume:
Air Changes:
Room T€mp:
Floor Gomponent
Floor Type:
Temp Belour:
Floor Cover Rv:
Uncler Slab Rv:
Edge Rv:
Perimder Rv:
Floor Cover Rv:
Under Slab Rv:
Edge Rv:
Perimet€r Rv:
Room: REC.
Gross Area:
Unheated Area:
l,let Heated Area:
Ceiling Height:
Volume:
Air Change6:
Room Tenp:
Ceiling Component
SpaceAbow H6ated:
Net Ceiling Area:
Rv:
No
255 ft2
35.00
0.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
No
200 n3
35.00
200 fl3
0fl3
200 flf
9fi
1,800 fl9
0.50 per Hour
72"F
1,753 Btu/hr
3,703 Btu/hr
1,9til5 Btu/hr
0 Btu/hr
6,659 Btt/hr
28 Btu/hr/ff
4 inchos
No
N/A
1,956 Btu/hf
9 Btu/hr/ff
81 "F
583 Btu/hr
Space Below Healed:
Dorvmvard He€t Los$:
Unit Heat Loss:
Floor Surface Temp:
H€at Loss:
(lsss sub component8 it any)
Room lnliltration:
Iota, F eal Lossi
Upward:
Downrnard:
Supplemental:
Net:
UniUNei:
Slab Depth:
Wat6r Table Pre6enl:
Spaca Belov l{eated:
Domward H€at Loss:
Unit Heat Loss:
Floor Surface Temp:
l'leat Loss:
(less sub componants if any)
Room Infiltration:
Iofallleaf Loss:
Upward:
Downward:
Supplemental:
Net:
UniUNet:
l,l/A
2,843 &u/trr
10 Btu/hr/ff
79'F
692 Btuhr
Slab On Grade
40'F
0.(X)
5.00
5.00
5.00
Ceiling Component
Space Above Heated:
l,le[ Cleiling Area:
Rv:
192 ff
0fl:
192ff
10fi
1,920 fli
0.50 per Hour
65 "F
1,742Blulhr
7,602 Btu/hr
2,272Blulhr
0 Btu/hr
9,874 Btu/hr
5l Btu/hr/ff
WIRSBO PanelHeating System
PtoW#: UE
Dtte: 7ft22/W
o
Radiant
Floor Component
Floor Type:
Temp Belo,v:
Floor Cover Rv:
Under Slab Rv:
Edge Rv:
Perim€der Rv:
Slab On Grade
40'F
0.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Slab Depth:
Wat€r Table Present:
Space Below Fbaled:
Downrvard Heat Los3:
Unit Heat Lo6s:
Floor Surface Temp:
Heat Loss:
(less sub components if any)
4 incfi€s
No
N/A
2,272Btulhr
11 Btu/hrlff
84 "F
521 Btu/hr
Geiling Gomponent
Space Above Heated:
N€t Ceiling Ar€e:
Rv:
No
192fr2
35.00
to6os The intended use of thb program is to provide accurate heat loss and desi;n data for Wirsbo Radiant
Systems. The heal loss and des(7n data generated by the program will only be as accurate as the information
supplied. Wirsbo Company is not responsible for the misuse of this program.
REtrT131 Tot^|N 0F UAILr COLORADU PAGE 6
AREA: CDLI/L9/96 tl7r58 REOUESTS FOR INSFECTION TJORK SHEETS FORI lI/19/i6
Activity: tr96-OlE4 Ll/L9/96 Type: B-F,LF'IB Statr.rs: ISSUED EonEtr: ASFR
Addr.ess z 74?. SANDY LN
Locat i on :
Farcel: tl0l-O63-15-011 Oer: Use!
Descr"iption; INTERIOR REMODEL AND INFLOOR HEflT
Appl icant: COLORADO PLUMBINB SFRVICE F'hone: 97t494398Ct9
OWNET": CAMF'IZI CHARLIE & JERI F.hONE:
_:::1::::::_:::!::3:_:::T:::_:::1]!:_________:::r:_11::i:::31_,_______
Inspect i on Request
Requestor: JERRY
Req Time: tlB:OlZl
Itens reqr-rested to
AOe9rA FLMB-Final
I n format i on. .
CAltltr I5I
Connent s r INbe I n spect ed.
F,hone:
FLOOR HEflTING - I^IILL
. Ac*t ion Cqnnlnts
476-5586
CRL.L F.LERSE
Time Exp
Inspeetion HiEtory.....
OAAl A FLMB-Underground
AqeeB FLMB-Ror.rgh,/D. W. U.
OOEAS FIRE-SPRINRLER RC]U6H
0OP4O FLMB-Gas Fipinq
AE/U7 /96 Inspeet or': EG
OAeSra trLMB-Rough/Wat er
AA/fr7 /96 Inspeet or': EG
00e5tzr trLMB-Foo I /Hot Tr-rb
00e6la F|LMB-Mi sc.
U7/e6/96 Inspector': CI:Notesr 1tt0 LBS. AIR TEST ON
OOagUt trLMB-Final
CUI538 FIRE-FINAL C/O
Item:
Item:
Item:
Item:
Item:
Item:
Item:
Item:
Item:
Action: AFtrR
Action: AFFR
Act i on: AFtrR
INFLOOR HEAT
16 pSI i
9tZtpsi heat t6psi gas
INFLOOR HEAT
lin
APPEAL OF PLANNING AND ETWIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
ACTION REGARDING SITE COVERAGB VARIANCE FOR CHARLES
AND GERI CAMPISI FOIK.T42 B SANDY LANE, VNL, COLORADO
81657
I
t
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INDEX OF DOCI.JMENTS
I.TOWN CODE OF VAIL ZONING TITLE, SITE COVERAGE VARIANCES
sEcTroNS 18.62.010 AND 18.62.060
2.TOWN CODE OF VAIL, ZONING TITLE, OFF STREET PARKING AND
LOADING SECTION 18.52. 101-18.52. I l0
J.MEMORANDUM FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO PLANNING
AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DATED MARCH 13. 1995
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR
RICCI RESIDENCE AT 2576 DAVOS TRAIL, VAIL, COLORADO FOR
PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING GARAGE
4.MEMORANDUM FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO PLANNING
AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DATED MARCH 24,1993
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE TO
CONSTRUCT A GARAGE AT THE TAYLOR RESIDENCE AT 2409
CHAMONIX ROAD. VAIL. COLORADO
5.MEMORANDUM FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO PLANNING
AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DATED APRIL 27, 1992 FOP.
WILHELM RESIDENCE AT 4289 NUGGET LANE, WEST UNIT, VAIL,
COLORADO RECOMMENDING SET BACK AND SITE COVERAGE
VARIANCE FOR KITCHEN EXPANSION AND STORAGE AREAS
6.AFFIDAVIT OF BARBARA RAGAN
1 AFFIDAVIT OF BETTY GUFFEY
8.LETTER FROM OSCAR RIZK
9.TESTIMONY OF JOSEF STAUFER AT PLANNING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION HEARING. ITEM NO. 3. SEPTEMBER
23, 1996
10.TRANSCRIPT OF ITEM NO. 3 OF THE PLANNING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1996
I t (
479
I
I
r
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
T
I
t
I
t
I
l,
VARIANCES
f8.60.090 Conflicting provisions.
In addition to the conditions which may be prescribed pursuant
to this chapter, a conditional use shall also be subject to all other
proce{ures, permits, and.requirements of this and other applicable
ordinances and regulations of the town. In event of any conflict
between the provisions of a conditional use permit and any other
permit or requirement, the more restricdve provision shall prevail.
(Ord. 8(1973) $ 18.900.)
Chapter 18.62
VARIANCES
Sections:
1t.62.010 Purpose.
1t.62,020 Application-Information required.
18.52.030 Fee.
18.62.040 Hearing.
1t.62.050 Planning commission action.
1t.62.060 Criteria and findings.
It.62.070 Appeal to the town council.
1t.62.0t0 Permit approval and effect.
1S.62.090 Related permits and requirements.
18.62.010 Purpose.
A. ln order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficultjes and
unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives
of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation
and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be
granted. A practical difficulry or unnecessary physical hardship
may rcsult from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the
location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or
physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or
from other physical limitations, street locations or traffic condi-
tions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the
(vaiJ 4-7-92)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
t
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
r
ZONING
applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation
shall not be a reason for granting a variance.
B. Variances may be granted only with respect to the
development standards prescribed for each district,
including lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, distances
between buildings, height, density control, building bulk
control, site coverage, useable open space, landscaping and
site development, and parking and loading requirements; or
with respect to the provisions of Ctrapter 18.52, governing
physical development on a site.
C. The power to grant variances does not extend to the use
regulations prescribed for each district because the
flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the
objectives of this title is provided by Chapter 18.60,
conditional use permits, and by Sections 18.66.100 through
I 8.66. I 60, amendments.
(Ord. 8(t973) g 19.100.)
18.62.020 Application-Information required.
Application for a variance shall be made upon a form
provided by the zoning administrator. The application shall be
supported by documents, maps, plans, and other material
containing the following information :
A. Name and address of the owner andlor applicant and a
statement that the applicant, if not the owner, has the
permission of the owner to make application and act as
agent for the owner;
B. Legal description, street address. and other identifying data
concerning the site;
C. A statement of the precise nature of the variance requested,
the regulation involved, and the practical difficulty or
unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of this title that would result from strict or literal
interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation;
D, A site plan showing all existing and proposed features on
the site, and on adjoining sites if necessary, pertinent to the
variance requested, including site boundaries, required
setbacks, building locations and heights. topography and
physical features, and similar data:
r
(vail a-7-92)
480
r rI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
J
ZONING
18.62.050 Planningcommission action.
Within twenty days of the closing of a public hearing on a
variance application, the planning corttmission shall act on tlte
application. The commission may approve the application as
submitted or may approve the application subject to such
modifications or'conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish
the purposes of this title. or the comnrission ntay deny the
application. A variance may be revocable. may be granted for a
limited time period, or may be gnanted subject to such other
conditions as the commission may prescribe. (Ord. 8(1973) S
t 9.500.)
- 18.52.060 Criteria
A. Before acting
and findings.
on a variance application, the planning
commission shall consider the following factors with respect
to the requested variance:
l. The relationship of the requested variance to other
existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity;
2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal
interpretatiort and enforcement of a specified regulation
is necessary to achieve compatability and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege;
3. The effect of the requested variance on light attd air,
distribution of population, transporta(ion and traffic
facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety;
4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed variance.
B. The planning commission shall make the following findings
before granting a variance:
l. That the granting of the variance will n<lt constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations on other properties classified in the same
district:
?. That the granting of the variance rvill not be detrimental
to the public health. safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity:
(Vail a-7-92)
482
t
VARIANCES
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the
following reasons:a. The striat or literal interpretation and enforcement
of the specified regulation would result in practical
difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship incon-
sistent with the objectives of this title,
b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that
do not apply generally to other properties in the same
zone.
c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement
of the specified regulation would deprive the appli-
cant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same district.
(Ord. 8(1973) $ 19.600.)
18.62.070 Apped to the town council.
A. An appeal to the town council may be made by the appli-
cant, adjacent property owner, or by the town manager.
The town council can also call up matters by a majority
vote of those council members present.
B. For all appeals, the appeal must be filed in writing within
ten days following the decision or must be called up by the
town council at their next regularly scheduled meeting.
C. The council shall hear the appeal within thirty days of its
being liled or called up, with a possible thirty-day exten-
sion if the council frnds that there is insufficient informa-
tion.
(Ord.37(1980) $ ll (part).)
18.62.080 Permit approval and effect.
Approval of the variance shall lapse and become void if a
building permit is not obtained and consrrucdon not commenced
and diligently.pursued toward completion within two years from
when the approval becomes final. (Ord.48 (1991) $ 2: Ord. 16
(1e78) $ s(c).)
rI
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
483
flail a-7-92)
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
t
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
2
fI
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ZONING
Chapter 18.52
OFF.STREET PARKING AND LOADING
Sections:
1E.52.010 Purpose.
rt.52.020 Applicability.
18.52.030 Exisiting facilities.
f 8.52.040 Additions or changes.
18.52.050 Construction and maintenance.
18.52.060 Parking-Off-site and joint facilities.
1t.52.070 Standards.
18.52.080 Parking-Standards.
1E.52.090 Loading-Standardsi
1E.52.100 Parking-Requirements schedule.
1E.52.I10 Parking-Schedule applicability.
18.52.120 Credit for multiple use parking facilities.
It.52.130 Loading-Requirements schedule.
18.52.140 Loading-Schedule applicability.
18.52.150 Credit for multiple-use loading facilities.
18.52.160 Exemptions.
18.52.170 Leasing of parking spaces.
18.52.1t0 Variances.
18.52.010 Purpose.
In order to alleviate progressiveiv or to prevent traffic
congestion and shortage of on-street parking areas. off-street
parking and loading facilities shall be provided incidentalto neu'
structures. enlar-gements of existing structures or a conversion to
a ne\\' use which requires additional parking under this chapter.
The number of parking spaces and loading berths prescribed in
this chapter shall be in proportion to the need for such facilities
created b5' the particular type of use. Off-street parking and
loading areas are to be designed. maintained and operated in a
manner that u'ill ensure their usefulness, protect the public safety,
pail a-7-92)
388
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
(
OFF.STREET PARKING AND LOADING
and. where appropriate. insulate surrounding land uses from
their impact. In certain districts, all or a portion of the parking
spaces prescribed by this chapter are requircd to be within the
main building in order to avoid or to mihimize the adverse visual
impact of large concentrations or exposed parking and of
separate garage or carport structures. (Ord. 26(1982) $ l: Ord.
l9(1976) $ l2 (part): Ord. E(1973) $ 14.100.)
It.52.020 Applicebilitl'.
Off-street parking and loading space shall be provided for
an!, new building. for any addition or enlargement of an existing
building or for anv conversion of uses which requires additional
parking underthis section.(Ord.26(1982) $ 2: Ord. l9(t976) g l2
(part): Ord. 8(1973) g t4.200.)
It.52.030 Existingfscilities.
Off-street parking and loading facilities used for off-street
parking and loading on the effective date of the ordinance
codified in this title shall not be reduced in capacirl'to Iess rhan
the number of spaces prescribed in this chapter, or reduced in area
or number to less than the minimum standards prescribed in this
chapter. (Ord.26(1982) $ 3: Ord. l9(1976) g l2 (pan): Ord.
8(re73) $ r4.2or.)
It.52.040 Additions or changes.
For additions or enlargemenrs of an1' existing building or
change of use that would increase the total number of parking
spaces required. the additional parking shall be required only'for
such addition. enlargement or change and not for the entire
buif ding or use. (Ord. l9( 1976) $ l2 (pan): Ord. 8( 1973) g 14.202.)
It.52.050 Construction and mainlensnce.
All off-street parking and loading faciliries required by this
chapter shall be constructed and mainrained in accordance with
the minimum standards for such faciliries prescribed by' this
chapter. and shall be maintained free of accumulated snow or
389 (trrl l4tlJ
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
ZONING
other materials preventing full use and occupancy of the
facilities in accordance with the intent of this chapter, except
fior temporary pcriods of strort duration in event of heaqy or
unusual snowfall. (Ord. 8(1973) $ 14.300.)
18.52.060 Parking-Off-site and joint facilities.
All parking and loading facilities required by this cltapter
strall be located on the same site as the use for which they are
required, provided that the town council may permit off'site or
irintly used parking tacilities if located within three hundred
feet of the use served. Authority to permit off*ite or joint
parking facilities shall not extend to parking spaces required by
this title to be located within the main building on a site, but
may extend to parking spaces permitted to be unenclosed. Prior
to permitting off-site or joint parking facilities, the council shall
determine that the proposed location of the parking facilities
and the prospective operation and maintenance of the facilities
wil fulfill the purposes of this chapter, will be as useable and
convenient as parking facilities located on the site of the use,
and will not cause traffic congestion or an unsightly
concentration of parked cars. The council may require such
leC instruments as it deems necessary to ensure unified
operation and control of joint parking facilities or to ensure the
continuation of such facilities, including evidence of ownership,
long-term lease, or easement. (Ord. 8(1973) S 14.400.)
18.5 2.070 Standards.
The standards set out in Sections 18.52.080 through
18.52.100 shall govern the design and construction of all
off-street parking and loading facilities, whether required by
this chapter or provided in addition to the requirements of this
chapter. Minor adjustments of the dimensions prescribed in this
chapter may be authorized by the zoning administrator if
consistent with generally recognized design standards for
off-street parking and loading facilities. (Ord. 8( l9?3) $
t4.5m.)
i \'.tl la-dJ I 390
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
It.52.0t0 Perking-Srenderds.
Standards for off-street parking shall be as follows:
A. Location and Dcsign. Par'king sp-"..r, aisles and turning areas
shall.be entire ly wirhin lor lines and shall nor cncroach on any
public right-of-way. No parked vehicle shall overhang any
p.ublic right-of-way. Excepr for parking facilities sening
single-family or two-family residential Cwlllings, or parking
facilitics accommodating lcss than four cais, off-streer
parking areas shall be designcd so that it will nor be necessary
for vehicles to back into any srreer or public righr-of-way.
B. Size of Space. Each off-streer parking space shall be nor less
than nine feet wide by ninereen feer long. and if cncloscd
and . or covered. not less than seven feet high. An exception to
th-e size of space shall be allowed for compacr spacei in lots
with more than fificen spaces. In this case. up to twenty-five
percent of the spaces may be cight by sixteen and the compact
spaces shall be clearly maiked as such.
C. Accessways. Unobstructed and direct accessways not less
than ten feet nor more than twenty feet in width shall bc
provided from off-street parking ro a srreet or alley.
D. Aisles. Aisles of adequate width for convenicnt and easy
access to each parking space shall be provided, affording
unobstructed vehicular passage between each parking space
and one or more accesswavs. This requirement may be waived
only during such rimes as valer par!,ing is operated in lieu of
self-parking.
E. surfacing. All parking areas shall be paved and provided with
adequare drainage facilities.
F. Landscaping. Nor less than ren percenr of the inrerior surface
area of unenclosed off-streer parking areas containing fifteen
or more parking spaces shall be devoted ro landscaping. ln
addition. landscaped borders not less rhan ten feer in diprh
shall be provided at all edges of parking lots conraining more
than fifieen parking spaces. Landscaped borders nor leis than
fifteen feet in depth shall be providei ar all edges of parking
lots containing more than thirtv parking spaces. A landscapeJ
berm. r+'all or fence nor less t han four feet in heighr of the same
architectural style as rhe building ma1' be subiriruted for the
landscaped border, subjecr ro design revie* approl,al.
OFF,STREET PARKING AND LOADING
391 (\.il l4-tr)
fI
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
ZONING
G. Surface Runoff Control. Adequate measures for the control
of surface runoff shall be provided. Such measures may
include, but are not limited to: infiltration galleries. detention
and settling ponds. sandtraps, grassed \r'ate rwavs. The com-
munity development department shall establish and maintain
a list of such control measures. Where required by subscction
A8c of Scction 18.54.050. evidence of an approved NPDES
discharge permit. or in lieu thereof. a no discharge plan shall
be presented.
(Ord. 26(1982) $ 4: Ord. 37(1980) g 8: Ord. l9( 1976) $ l2 (part):
Ord. 8(1973) $ 14.501.)
18.52.090 Loeding-Stendrrds.
Standards for off-street loading shall be as follows:
A. Location. Alloff-srreet loading bcrths shall be locared on the
same lot as the use served. bul not in rhe required front
setback. Off-street loading berths shall be provided in addi-
tion to required off-street parking and shall nor be located
within acoessways.
B. Size. Each required loading berth shall be not less than twelve
feet wide, twenty-five feet long. and if enclosed and/or
covered. fourteen feet high. Adequate turning and maneuver-
ing space shall be provided within the lor lines.
C. Access. Accessways not less than ten feet or more than twenty
feet in width shail connect all loading berrhi to " ,tr..t o,
alley. Such accessways may coincide with accessways to
parking facilities.
(Ord. 26(1982) $ 5: Ord. 8(1973) $ 14.502.)
It.52.t00 Prrling-Requirements schedule.
Off-street parking requirements shall be determined in
accordance with the following schedule:
lVrrl l4-tJ I 392
I
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
r OFF-STREET PARKT,'iG AND LOADINC
Use
A. Dwelling Unit
B. Accommodation Unit
C. Other Uses.
l. Medicaland dental
offices2. Other professional
and business offices3. Banks and financial
institutions (i.e.
savings and loan)4. Retail stores, personal
services and repair
shops
5. Eating and drinking
establishments
6. Theaters. meeting
rooms. convention
faciliries
Parking Requirements
lf gross residential floor area is
500 square feet or less: 1 .5 spaces
per dwelling unit
If gross residential floor area is' over 500 square feet up to 2,000
square feet:2 spaces per dwelling
unit
If gross residcntial floor area is
2.000 square feet or more per
dwelling unit: 2.5 spaces per dwel-
ling unit
0.4 space per accommodation
unit, plus 0.1 space pcr each 100
square feet of gross residential
floor area, with a maximum of
1.0 space per unit
1.0 space per each 200 square
feet of net floor area
1.0 space per each 250 square
feet of net floor area
1.0 space per each 200 square
feet of net floor area
1.0 space per each 300 square
feet of net floor area
1.0 space per each 8 seats. based
on seating capacitl' or building
code occupancy standards.
whichever is more restrictive
I.0 space per each 8 seats, based
on seating capacity or building
occupa ncy standards. whichever
is more restrictive
393 ( \'.rl I J-l.r I
I
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
ZONING
Use7. Quick-scrvice food/
convenience stores
8. Recreationalfacilities,
public or private
9. Hospitals
10. Warehousing
I l. Any use not listed
Parking Requirements
1.0 space per each 200 square
feet of net floor area for the first
1000 square feet of net floor
area: 1.0 space per 300 square
feet for net floorarea above 1000
square feet
Parking shall be required.
Amount to be determined by the
planning commission
1.0 space per patient bed plus I
space per 150 square feet of ner
floor area
1.0 space per each 1000 square
feet of net floor area
Parking requirement ro be de-
termined b)'the planning com-
mtssron.(ord. 26(1982) $ 6: ord. 8(te73) g t4.60t.)
16.52.110 Prrking-Schedule rpplicability.
Where fractional requirements result from application of the
schedule, the fraction shall be raised to the nexf whole number.
(Ord. 50(1978) 0 l0 (pan).)
(vril l-l-ll )394
:l.t
.TOWI|
OFVATL
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
T
I
I
I
t
75 South Frontage Road
Vail. Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
The undersigned hereby certifies the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a
Planning and EnvironmentalCommission Memorandum datedMarch 13, 1995, as
maintained in the office of Community Development.
Dated December 5. 1996
)
) SS,-
)
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
(V ^ ,t "rLHolly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me this Sth day of December, 1996, by Holly L.
McCutcheon. Town Clerk. Town of Vail.
ss.
NotanFPtbiic
My commis:sion expires:
Anne E. Wright, llolary Public
l'ly Cor , rris siori Ertires Gl7-1939
,,3'-.. Ff irl13: Rt:J
{p rr.'rrrru r^r,,,
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
T
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
March 13, 1995
A request for a site coverage variance to allow^for an addition to the Ricci
Residence located at 25;6"D;s Trail/Lot 5, Block E' Vail Das Schone 1st
Filing.
Tom and Nancy Ricci, represented by Galen Aasland
Andy Knudtsen
Applicants:
Planner:
DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST
The applicants, Tom and Nancy Ricci, are proposing to demolish their e-risting detached one-
car garage and reptace it with in attached h,vo-car i"tage, a second.story family r.oom.' and
an entrance to their home. A variance is required Oicause the additions exceed the site
coveragea||owanceintneprimarl,isecondaryTtesid:.li"lii1"^9'lIi3.:,.ffi
ed site coverage is
2,248.4square feet (or *f^133-"-1u3l1,1?::lPlll':")'iiilf,"-fr.il;'jj;il coveiage is 2,6'fsquare feet (or 23.e.%). rhe additional433.6
square feet of site covera-ge rlquires a variance. They are also requesting to expand their
living room by approximateti ge ,qr"r" feel, as well as riise the roof ridge over the living.
loori ov a te6t. 'ine tivinf ioom addition wili be located over an existing lower leveland does
not count as new site coverage.
Other changes fhal will be involved with the proposal include removing the T-111/plywood
siding that currenlly is in pface above and Oetow tne windows on the residence' The applicant
il ptJpb.ing to cover the irim and plywood with, a stucco finish. Landscaping will be changed' -
as four large aspens will b; rerou'eJ as a result of this proposal. The applicant is proposing
to replace these with four 2-inch caliper aspen. The driveway grades do not change as the
proposed Nvo-car garage will be located in approximately the same place as the existing one-
car garage.
II. HISTORY OF LOT 5
on February 26, 1gg0, the planning and Environmentalcommission (PEC) approved a
variance request tor a setnacl encioachment. In order to construct a new master bedroom on
the lower level, the applicant proposed to encroach 3.5 feet into the 15-foot rear setback' The
Design Review Boaro IDRB).approved the proposa|on March 21, 1990. |n addition to the
setback variance to allow for the master bedroom expansion, the applicant also proposed
expansionstothekitchenandasecond||oordeckwhichdidnotrequirevariances.
On June 3, 1992, the DRB approved a 250' Though the 250 *.tt.gl?1j"d'the addition was
never constructeO. fne cur6'iiptopoi"l includes 6+.3 square teet of.the 250' The applicant
has submitted the 2S0 requesl and it will Oe scneOufeO foi a DHB review if the variance is
T
I
I
T
I
t
t
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
granted. section 18.71.020 requires that variances be approved by PEC orior lo the DRB
reviewing the prolect, wnen Ooth approvals are needed tbr one prolect' 1b5'7 square feet ol
floor area will remain for future expansions, "rrraingln"
variance'is granted by the PEC and
the 250 is granted by the DRB'
ilt.BACKGROUND
I
I
The sta{f has researched proiects in which similar requests were made' and has summarized
them below:
Dean/Rousch Residence. 2942 Bellflower (Julv 19931:
At the Dean/Rousch residence, the applicants requested a 3'56% sile coverage variance (287
square feet), a setback uaiiance t+ teet into a z6lioot setback), and a wall height variance'
The request tor site coverage and wall.rrejgn| ""ri"*". *"re ipproved bv the PEc, but the
setback variance tor CniA-was denied. fi.norfOJ" *i"J in"t in" staff recommended denial
of the variance, but the PEC approved it lhe i;il;ffi;"sions of th-e garage were 225 by
225 leel,and the area of the garage calculated for site coverage was 576 square feet'
At the Taylor residence, the applicant requested and was granted a site coverage variance tor
1.3% (l12square feet) in orOli to construct "
g"t"g" and-building connection on the property'
It shoutd be noted that the allowed site coverage oi tni. lot is 20% (not 15%)' and the
applicant was also granted a variance to "onrtrjciln"
g"og" in the front setback (the slope
on this lot did not exceed 30%). The approved interior?imJnsions of the tlvo-car garage were
21 feet by 20 teet, to, aiotar i,iterior area or +zo squire leet. The garage contributed 462
square feet toward site coverage'
AttheMummaresidence,theapp|icantrequestedandwasgr4lted.al%sitecoverage
variance in order to construct a garage addition on a tot tnat'eiceeds 30% slope' The 1%
overage on site.ou"r.g-.'i;fftgqi; apro*"i.ry gg .qr"r" feet. The interior dimensions
of the approveO garage'meitri" ZO feet'6y ZO feet,ioi a total interior area of 400 square feet'
in" g"ta" contiiouteO 442 square feet toward site coverage'
Smail Residence. 4238 Nuooet Lane (geotember 19921:
At the smail resiclence, the applicant requesled and was granted side and front setback
variances in order to construct a garage anO Gnin additi6n' The interior dimensions of the
approved garage ,""*r" z2 teeig-inches by 22 teet3-inches (504 square feet)' Please
note that a site coverigl variance was noi necessary as a part of this request'
ArtheTestwuideresidence,theapplicantrequestedandwasgrantedside
variances in order to aonatru"t a g"tage addiiion to the existing residence'
i.,"g. h.d i.terior dimeisiont oiir '5 teet oy 24 leet' with a total interior
i""t."pttt"" note that a site co\terage variance was not necessary as
request.
and lront setback
The aPProved
area of 51 6 square
part ot this
Tavlor Residence. 2409 Chamonix Foad (Mav 1993):
ZONING STATISTICS
v.
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
Ricci Residence
Forcomparisonpurposes,theproposedvarianceisJor3.g%(433.6squarefeet)'Thegarage
contributes 557 square feet towards site coveraje' The interior dimensions are 21 '75 by 24'0
feet(withasmatt "ngr""riortotonesioe;.
fii-iot"rinittiot"tt"of thegarageis52l'5
souare Jeet.
lv.
Lot Size:
Zoning:
Height:
GRFA:
Satbacks:
Frontl
Sides:
Rear:
Slte Coverage:
LandscaPing:
Retaining Wall Heights:
Parking:
'| 1,242 squarg feet
Primary/SecondarY Residential
Allowed
33 leet
2,810.5 + 425 + 250 = 3,485.5 sq. ft'
20'
15'/15'
It'
zooz ori,zla.c sq. ft.
60"/o min..or 6,745.2 sq. ft.
6 feet
3 spaces required
Prooosed
33 feet
3,3299.8 sq. tt.
Front: 21'
Sides: N/A
Flear: 23'5'
23.9o/o or 2,682 eq. ft.
6,598 sq. ft. 'soft (58.7ol.)
#*frf#reo.av.l
6 feet
4 spacas ProPosEd
Upon review of criteria and Findings, section 18.62.060 of the vail Municipalcode' the
Community Development Department recomme;d;approvat of the requested variance based
on the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1'There|ationshipo|therequestedvariancetootherexistingor
potential uses ind structures in the vicinity'
stafl believes that the proposed addition will be compatible.with the surrounding
devetopment. w" iJi;"Jtn"r tn" additional mass and bulk associated with the
proposal is similar io tn" r"ss and bulk of surrounding homes' stafl would like
to point out matihe site has significanr evergreen landscaping around the
perimeter ot tne norne, and th;t the additioriwill be buf{ered by the existing
landscaPing'
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal Interpretation
and enforcemeni oi a specifieO regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility anO unitoimity of treatment among sites in the vicinity
or to attain tn. oOi""tiu"s ot tni" tltle without grant of special
privilege'
Staff has traditionally supported site coverage variance requesls and.setback
variance requests *nenliinvotves construciing garages' an-d. yh:-n 11.
variances do not negatively impact adiacent proferties' Stall believes that it is
beneficiat to the commu.iii' i" lrr.* i'ioiuiorit. io construct garages' as it
typically improves tnu "pp6uonce
of a site' In this case' the applicant will be
d6motlsning a one-car garage and replacing it with a two-car garage'
ln addition to site coverage variance requests for garages, staff has€uoported
requests for connectionillt*".n the residence a-nO ttie garage. This is true in
all ihree ol the examples provided in the background section of this memo'
which requireo site covJrJg" u"ii"nt"t' tn eain case' staff has worked with
the applicant and the arcniiect to minimize the amount of variance needed. In
the past, stafl believes tnii eacn linal variance request has been for the
minimum amount of site coverage necessary'
staff believes that the reduction in the size of the garage since lhe previous
FFC n""ting, to 521.5 sq. ft' brings the proposal within the scope of what has
Oeen approied in the p"it. St"tf-Oelievis ii meets this criteria as the variance
*orro-iii,t be a grant of special privilege, since other variances have been
approved for similarcituiiion. in tne p]ast. Furthermore, staff believes that the
location and size ot tne existing building are physical hardships whjch make the
e"jinsion impossible wiinout i varlanci. wb tirint< that the size of the two-car
garag" which is proposed is reasonable and should be supported'
3'Theef|ecto|therequestedvarianceonlightandair,d.istributiono|
population, trrn"poii.tion and traffic facitities, public facilities and
utllities, and Publlc safety.
staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts on the above-
referenced criteria if the proposal is constructed'
B.The Plannino and Environmental commission shall make the lollowino findinos
before qranlinq a variance:
1.That the granting of the variance will not
privilege inconsistent with the limitations
the same district.
constitute a grant ol special
on other ProPerties classified in
T
I
t
I
I z
;::ili:r',:1;'Il-"J,'nriffi,uiii,?:i,i.::'iff':Fj;?"iepub ic
I 3. ;l - -:-iT-""];d for one or more or the forowins reasons:
I a
l*",1*:l'[ff!?:"Jfiilil?:.i::il?,',i."JffT,'Jiff"'$:'li"o
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.I
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance lhat do not
apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement ol the specified regulalion
would deprive the applicant ol privileges enjoyed by the owners
ol othdr properties in the same district.
- VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
! Staff recommends approval of the variance. We believe it meets the criteria, as discussed
r above, as well as the findings. Specifically finding 81 is met, and staft's opinion, as the
t variance will not a grant of special privilege as this type of request has been approved severalr times in the past. Finding 82 is met, in staff's opinion, as there will be no impacts to the
public heallh, safety or welfare. Finding B3c is met as a strict enforcement of the site
I coverage regulation would deprive thisipplicant from constructing an addition to his homet that has been granted to other individuals with similar situations. Therefore slaff recommends
approval with the following conditions:
I 1. That the variance approval is contingent upon the Design Review Board (DRB)
making the necessary findings and granting the "250" to this applicant. lf the
DRB does not grant the '250", this variance approval shall be void.
I 2. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall agree to plant four 2-
inch caliper aspen adjacent to the entry to mitigate the loss of the lour existing
I aspen trees.
I 3. Prior to submittal to the DRB, the applicant shall amend the elevation drawings
I of the residence to show the specilic exterior treatment lhat shall be used to
replace the existing T-111 plywood linish.
I FEVERYoNE\pEc\MEMosv cct.3r 3
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
/Z?\ ENTRY LEVELfl
I
t
t
I
I
I
II
I
It
t
I
I
I
t
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I'l
I
I
I
I
I
I,
\,\\\
----tt )
. ,'
i,.
' ir,
i:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
II
I
l-l
I
II
II/II
--r
'/
i:
i,
{.
I
i'
I
I
i
T
t
I
I
I
r
li lli Frc^prrrrar -__3*Api^uI jl t:'t Cc.I
t
I
I
ll
!'l
l,iI :..:.Iit
:
l"tIf.t ,tit
t.
I'il:i
liIiI,i
I .::!Ilt
'i..:t .':
r.lli 'i
l:
l,j j
l!I :i;I .:t
,.::
I .::i
I:iI;i
lit .:.
l:It ,,.1
'i:j
l:iI':I ,.i
il
:.'lr: ;,I .:'
I r':
:"
I;It
II
I
I
i
i.l
I
fit:_
3il
Hil
r..lll'
?!l
ttt lt -
tr[.xh
Et
;l-1.-
1
'2a liii*.ffi-- rurlE-[[f
1
G
tlIt-
:
a
'i
..,;
t
i,. tl
.:
j
'I'!
I
.i
.j
'.1
l
...!
i
.j..
'i
'l
I
t
I
I
It
I
II
II
I
T
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
i
+
Ir
l',t;t.
F[
'
0tr
./T\tv
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
T
t
I
I
t
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
May 24, 1993
A request for a setback and site coverage variance to allow for the construction
ol an addition and a garage located at t4O9 Chamonix Road/Lot 19' Block A'
Vail das Schone Fiting Nd. 1. (Please note changes are ln bold ltallcs,)
Applicant:
Planner:
Anneliese Taylor
Shelly Mello
t. DESCBIPTION OF THE FLOUEST
The applicant is requesting site coverage and setback variances in order to construct a two-
ca, gar'age and building aJdition to an 6xisting residence located on a Primary/Secondary lot
wnic-n isiess than 1S,0b0 square feet in size. There is an existing employee restricted
dwelling unit on this site located in the lower level of the project'
Currently, the property has a covered carport to meet the requirement lor enclosed parking for
a primary unit with a iestricted employee dwelling unit. Under current zoning, the property
.
w[ufO require four on-site parking spices with aileast one space covered' The site currently
has three'on-sife parking spaceJanO one partially on-sile spa99. At the time this carport was
approved, the carport wis considered enciosed parking, but did not contribule to site
coverage using the definition in place at the time.
Under the current site coverage definition, the carport is counted as site coverage' The
proprrty currently allows for tlZg+ sq. ft. of site coverage o( zOV" of the lot size and with the
'exiitinj carport has a total of 1,635 sq. ft. of site coverlge. As proposed the project would
nave f]gOO'sq. ft. ol site coverage or'21.3%. A variance is required lor the 1'3% site
coverage or 122 square teet.
The proposed garage is approximately 17 feet 6 inches into the 20 foot lront setback which
will liave a 2 foot g incnei'setback from the south property. There will be a 2 foot
encroachment into the 15 footside yard setback. A 13 foot setbackwill remain along the
west property line. Variances are n'eeded for the 17 foot 6 inch and 2 foot encroachments'
It. BACKGROUND
ln 1989, the applicant received a variance to locate a carport in the front setback' This was in
response to the requirement for enclosed parking when a restricted secondary unit is
provided. Priorto the 1989 application, avarianie lrom the parking standardswas requested
in order to add secondary uniiwithout providing the required enclosed parking' This was
denied and the applicant was directed lo construct a garage'
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
l
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
fn April and May of this year, the PEC reviewed this application al worksessions. The
applicant was directed by the PEC to minimize the overage on site coverage, but that someoverage would be acceptable because of the addition of enclosed garage ipace. The
applicant has revised the application by decreasing the width of the garige'and the stairwayleading to lhe house which decreases the amount of site coverage nlceJsary to complete t'hisproject. At the time of the review the staff also discussed the removal of the closet aiea tothe north ol the main entry in order to turther come into compliance with the site coverage
regulations. The applicant has selected not to eliminate this area therefore it remains a-partof the request.
At the PEC revlew ln May, the appltcant was agaln directed to detete the c,oset portlonof the request. The statt suggested that approxlmatety 68 feet of slte coverage'couldbe deleted. The appllcant has responded by delettng a porlon of the closet whtchcontrlbuted approxlmately 40 square feet oi slte coierage.
I
III* ZONTNG ANALYSIS
Total Size Area:
Zoning:
Allowed Density:
Existing Density:
GRFA:
Allowed:
Existing:
proposed:
Site Coverage:
Allowed:
Existing:
proposed:
Parking Proposed:
Enclosed:
Surface:
0.2048 acres or 8,921 square feet
Primary/Secondary Residential
One Primary with one restricted employee unit
One Primary with one restricted employee unit
3,080 square feet
2,814 square leet
3,019 square feet
1,784 square teet (zOv"1
1,225 (Building) + 410 (Carport)
= 1,635 total square feet
1,225 (Building) + 471 (Garage)
190 (Addition) = 1,906 total (2t,3o/o)
2 spaces
2 spaces (completely on-site)
'.ln order.to allow for a garage in the front setback, the average slope beneath the garage and
the dwelling unit must exceed 30% slope. In a previous applicatiori, the staff determined that
this site did not quality to allow the garage to encroach into the front setback due to excessive
site grades. While historically this site may have qualified for this allowance, it was
determined that because the existing on-site parking area is virtually flat, this site would notqualify for the allowance. lf it had qualified, site coverage would have been restricted lurther
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
to 15% and the existing project would be non-conforming to site coverage requirements.
IV. CRITEFIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail MunicipalCode, the
Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based
on the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relatlonshlp of the requested varlance to other exlstlng or
potentlal uses and structures In the vlclnlty.
The proposed garage encroaches a maximum of 17 feet 6 inches into the 20
foot tront yard setback leaving a 2 loot 6 inch setback from the lront property
line. There will be 2 foot encroachment into the 15 foot side yard setback
leaving a 13 loot setback lrom the western property line. The roof is pitched,
however there is no proposed floor area within the lofted area of the garage.
Materials are proposed to match the existing residence.
The applicant has minimized the size of the proposed garage in order lo
maintain the maximum setback possible trom the soulh property line.
The applicant has also minimized the amount of site coverage overage for lhe
proposed garage. However, the staff feels lhat it is possible to further decrease
the site coverage generated by the addition and garage. The staff feels that
the connection between the garage and the building is important because it
furthers the compliance of this project with the Design Review Guidelines,
which specifies that the buildings should be connected, but feel that the
connection could be minimized. The appllcant has reduced the proposed
slte coverage by 40 sguare feet from 21.8% to 21.3% by decreaslng the
slze of the entry and closet area per the statf and PEC rcquests,
In addition, the staff would like to see additional landscaping added to the
project to minimize the impacts of the garage, especially on the south (adjacent '
to retaining walls) and west (adjacent to the garage) elevations. The applicant
is proposing to remove a portion of the existing stairs leading from the parking
area to the building. In order to meet the wall height standards, the applicant
has stepped the new portions of wall which exceed the slandards. The staff
asks that landscaped steps also be added to the existing portions of exposed
timber walls which exceed 3 feet in height in the front setback and 6 feet in
height on the remaining porlions of lhe property.
2. The degree to whlch rellef from the strlct and llteral Interpretatlon
and enforcement ot a speclfled regulation ls necessary to achleve
compatlbllity and unltormlty of treatment among sltes In the vlclnlty
or to attaln the obJectives of thls tltle without grant ol speclal
prlvllege.
I
I
I
I
t
t
t
I
I
I
2.
3.
B.
t
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
T
The statf recognizes that the siting of the existing building does constilute a
physical hardship. Because ol the existing location ol the house, as well as the
topography ol the site, it is difficult to improve the property without obtaining
variances. The staff feels that the addition of the enclosed parking is beneficial
and that the proposed location will have minimal impact on the adjacent
properties. The staff feels that the granting of the requested setback variances
for this garage will not be a grant of special privilege.
The staff also supports the overage on site coverage in order to add the garage
as well as the building connection. We feel that ffre bulldlng connectlonis an
important element of the applicalion whlch has been decreased ln slte as
much as posslble and that it furthers the compliance of this project with the
Design Review Guidelines. We do not feel that a granting of a site coverage
variance would be a grant of special privilege il it were minimized, as discussed
above.
3. The effect of the requested varlance on llght and alr, dlstrlbutlon of
populatlon, transportatlon and tratflc facllltles, publlc tacllltles and
utllltles, and publlc salety.
The addition ol the enclosed garage will improve the existing parking problems
for this property. The applicant will be able to obtain four parking spaces
entirely on the property and meet the parking requirement. Currently, there are
3-1/2 spaces located on the properly. The staff feels that additions of this type
on non-conforming properties are important because they decrease the need
for on-street parking.
This proposal does not impact any of the other criteria listed above.
The Plannlno and Envlronmental Commlsslon shall make the lollowlnq
flndlnos before orantlnq a varlance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not-constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsislent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious lo properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of lhe specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
l
I
t
s
I
t
apply generally to other propertiesin the same zone,
c. The strict interoretation or enlorcement ot the specilied regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners
of other properties in the same district'
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The stafi supports the garage portion ol the request as well as the building connection,
including the necessary setback variances with the lollowing conditions:
1. Additional landscaping be added to the south and west etevations to screen the
garage and building addition; and
2. Additional landscaping steps be added to the existing retaining walls'
We lind that this request, will not be a grant of special privilege and meets the criteria set out
in Section lV B, 1 ,2, 3, a, and c of this memo.
The stafl feels that this application is a posilive improvement. we feel that the garage
addition has been minimized lo decrease site coverage. Due to the location of the existing
unit, as well as the topography of the site, we recognize that some additional site coverage is
needed to provide forthe g'arige and the connection between the units and the garage. The
staff finds that it would noibe possiOle to incorporate any portion of the garage into the
existing building. We believe ihe proposed building connection to be a positive improvement
becauJe it brings the structure more into conformance with the Design Guidelines.
The applicant has worked with the staff to obtain a proposed plan for this garage and addition
that tdd stalf can support. ln the past, the staff has supported site coverage and setback
variances when they are attributed to the provision of additional enclosed garage spaces'
N@
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r=n
i/1-'ii
.t..\\
-\-\_
. t.'-..-
:w\'
-\',:t
'-. 'i.-
-.._=l*lL-
:'-t:tD
:#;
/--,.-\
\
Ir) |,l
C5l l-I
I'|
t
I
T
I
I
I
I
L
o
4
itr
_l
rJ,r
F.do
?-
.lr
l
t-
a
(,
olrl
o
oEG
{
cr:$..f f.OooOot-
6
F
s
TUJul
-r
F
a
t / :l r,,rI iF, tujt ;c(* .i2r o,I :o
, lF..: 6
,iz
,- _ .:-- *.-r i
rl
d>z-*6
<x
ooU,F
o:Jor)2,F
!u
!J<
OEo, r!OFG<o.:
ac:o
a
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
6H1-'s
I.IJJt!
Fa
tr.J
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
t
t
I
Bachrach Vtp LTD
PO Box 2236
Avon, CO 81620
303/949-9408 FAX 949-0629
May 14,1993
TO: Planning and Environment Commission
Town of Vail, Colorado
FROft/:Erwin Bachrach on behalf of
Anneliese Taylor
I l. Subsequent to the work session we have:
1. Reduced the garage dimensions by 2,-4,,2. Lowered the garage roof pitch from 12110 to 12lg3. By the combination of items 1&2 we have lowered thegarage roof ridge by approximately 3,-0,'4. Made the stairs & stair enclosure narrower by 6,'5. Added terracing with landscaping along the retaining
walls to the north of the proposed garage.
subject: A request for a set back and site coverage variance toallow for the construction of an addition and a garage located at2409 chamonix Road Lot 19, Btock A, Vail das sinone Filing No. 1.
Dear Commission and Staff Members:
considering the discussions before the planning and Environment
Commission work session on April 12, 1gg3, the Community
Development Department memorandum dated May 10, lggg and thetabled discussion before the planning and Environment commission,also on May 10 we are herewith submitting a-revised applicationhaving addressed concerns as follows:I
I
I
I
I
I
t
II
t'-r ll. Subsequent to the hearing (now tabled) before the Planning and
Environment Commission on May 10 we have:
t 1. Added a North elevation to the concept drawing for
I clearer presentation of the building connection.
t Z. Added more terracing3. Added more landscaping materials; 5 Aspen, 1 Blue
Sprucer 4. Deleted the entire bench area and exit aisle,, reducing lhe site coverage by an additional 50
r square feet. We are however retaining a 2'-0" deep
closet, adjoining (as close as possible) the existing
I entry door. The closet is an essential feature for
t lhe owner and the key to the entire remodel effort.
Retainiqg the closet will have no impact on the
t visual appearance of the building connection,I interfere with no one's views, has no bearing onr lfll' ,,?',1i.';::Jff::1'' ,i1,,,::olll'h0113"J"?:l?l'"'! Will be entirely within the set-back lines and in an
r area presently occupied by the existing deck.
It is very unfortunate that previous government agencies allowed
I developers to subdivide into now non-conforming lots, especially on
f diff icult terrain.
We are not asking for any special privilege; we are asking for a
closet. lt will not be to the detriment of the neighborhood, of the
Town of Vail, or anyone.
It is unfair that present day homeowners must depend on granting of
variances for permission to modify their homes to bring them to
reasonable standards and even comply to Design guidelines.
Fortunately it is within the province of this commission to right a
wrong by granting this variance applied for here. The site coverage
increase is only from 20o/o to 21.20/o.
Respectf u lly,
Erwin Bachrach
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OFVAILWNTO
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF COLOMDO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
The undersigned hereby certifies the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a
Pfanning and Environmental Commission Memorandum dated May 24,1993, as
maintained in the office of Community Development.
Dated December 5, 1996
)
)ss
)
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
[Mo#nnulu-r',
Holly l-. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me this Sth day of December, 1996, by Holly L.
McCutcheon, Town Clerk, Town of Vail.
,1
.,,, /.;. 1 c.) 4
/ .L /7.,'t'-" -' c I L
Notarv Public 'l' ,/ _- Anne E. Wigtrt, Nobry pubtic
My cornmissicn expires: M'c'TTt]ilo,EH;'.Tou:7leee
SS.
$ *"''""t" '^"o
',,,;iij.
t
TOW OFVAIL
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
The undersigned hereby certifies the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a
Planning and Environmental Commission Memorandum dated April27 , 1992, as
maintained in the office of Community Development.
Dated December 5. 1996
ta])lMurt waotiotunt
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
STATE OF COLORADO I
) ss.
COUNryOF EAGLE )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this Sth day of December, 1996, by Holly L.
McCutcheon, Town Clerk, Town of Vail.
75 S. Fro:rtagc Roa,iMy comrnission expires:
{9 r"''"""^"'
T
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
Aplil27,1992
SUBJECT: A request for front and side setback and site coverage variances for the
Wilhclm Residence, 4289 Nugget Lane, West Unitl-ot 5, Bighorn Estates,
Resubdivision of Ints l0 and ll, Bighorn Estates.
Applicant Robert and Karen Wilhelm
Planner: Jill Kammerer
I. DESCRIPTION OF T}IE VARIANCES REOUESTED
The applicant prcposes to remodel an existing duplex unit. Under the redevelopment
proposed, an additional 191 sq. ft. of GRFA will be added to the residence. Chapter 18.71 -
Additional Gross Residential Floor Area ("250 Ordinance") will be utilized in order to allow
the addition to be constructed. Under this rcdevelopment proposal, sitc coverage will be
increased by 177 sq. ft. In order to construct the modifications to the residence as proposed,
the applicant must obtain site coverage, and east side, west side and front setback variance
approvals. In conjunction with the redevelopment of this unit, the applicant will be installing
3 additional aspens along the westem FOpeIty line adjacent to the street. Further, the
applicant will be converting one existing woodburning fueplace to two gas fireplaces.
A. Front Setback Variance
1. Kitchen Expansion/Ski Storase (South Elevation)
The applicant proposes to expand the existing kitchen and construct a ski
storage arca on the first floor. The existing structure encroaches 3'-5" into the
required 2O-foot front setback. The kitchen expansiorVski storage addition will
encroach 2'-9" further into the front setback. Therefore. a 5'-9" setback
vu'iance is required in order to allow this kitchen exoansion/ski storase area to' be constructed. resulting in a 14'-3" front setback. @lease note this area also
requires an east side setback variance ddscribed in IC.)
I
B.
c.
t
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
2. Dinine Room Bav Window
The applicant proposes to remove an existing dining room window and replace
it with a bay window. The existing srructure encroaches 3'- I I " into the front
setback in this arca. The new bay window will encroach an additional 9 inches
into the rcquired 20-foot front setback. Therefore. a 4'-8" setback variance is
reouired to allow this bav window to be constructed. resultins in a l5'-4" front
setback. (Please note the kitchen cxpansion"/ski storage addition will encroach
into the front setback to a greater extent than will this proposed bay window.)
West Side Setback Variance
1. First and Second Floor Bav Windows (North Elevation)
The applicant proposes to change existing fust and second floor windows to
bay windows. The existing structure encroaches 6'-1" into the required 1S-foot
side setback. Therefore. a 6'1" setback variance is reouired. resultinq in a
8'11" side setback. Although these proposed windows will not encroach into
the side setback to a grcater cxtcnt than does the existing building, because the
proposed construction would increase the amount of GRFA within the required
setback, a side setback variance is required.
2. West Side Storasc Area
The applicant proposes to construct a 5' x l0' exterior storage area on the west
side of the existing structuro. The existing structure encroaches 5 feet to 3'-6"
into the required l5-foot side setback in this location. This 46 sq. ft. storage
area would encroach a maximum of an additional 5'-3" into the required 15-
foot side setback. Therefore, a l0'-3" setback variance is reouired to allow this
storase area to be constructed. resultine in a 4'9" side.setback.
East Side Setback Variance
l. Kitchen Expansion/Ski Storaee Area
The existing east side sctback is 0. The building is built on the eastern
property line. This new kitchen expansion/ski storage area will also encroach
15 feet into the required l5-foot side setback. Therefore. a lS-foot setback
variance is recuired to allow the kitchen exnansion/ski storaqe arca to be
constructed. The proposed addition will encroach to no greater extent than
does the existing structurc.
D.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
T
I
I
t
t
I
I
t
I
2. Rear Extcrior Storage Area
The applicant proposes to construct a new exterior storage arca on the rear of
the building under an existing deck and stair. please note the existing east side
setback is 0. The building is built on the eastern property line. This new
cxterior storage area will also encroach 15 feet into the rcqirirea l5-foot side
setback.
storase area to be constructed. The proposed addition will encroach to no
greater extent than does the existing sructure.
3. l,oft Expansion
The applicant proposes to expand an existing loft by 39 sq. ft. of GRFA. This
new second floor area will not encroach furthcr into thc requircd lS-foot side
setback than thb l5 feet the existing structurc encroaches. However, because
the proposed construction would increase the amount of development within
the required side setback, a side setback variance is required. (please note all
variances are calculated to the building footprint. The eave is not included
which is approximately one foot in certain arcas.)
Site Coverage Variance
site coverage allowed on this lot is 20vo of the lot size (.106 acres, or 4,617
sq' ft.). Therefore, the allowed site coveragc is 923 sq. ft. The cxisting site
gglerace is 995 sq. ft. (2l.5vo). The addition will increase the site coverage by
177 sq. ft., for a total of 1,172 sq. ft, (257o) of site coverage. A site coverase
variance is needed for the additional lZ7 squarc feet of GRFA.
l. Kitchen Expansion/Ski Storaee Area
This proposed addition will result in an additional 53 sq. ft. of site coverage.
2. West Side Exterior Storase Area
The proposed 5' x l0' storage area would increase site coverage by 5l sq. ft.
Therefore, a site coverage variance is required in order to allow this exterior
storage area to be constructed.
3. Rear Exterior Storaqe
The applicant proposes to construct an exterior storage arsa under an existing
deck/stair. This exterior storage area will result in an additional 49 sq. ft. of
GRFA and 65 sq. ft. of site coverage. Therefore, a site coverage variance is
required in order to allow this exterior storage arca to be constructed.
I
I
II. BACKGROUND
,l
I The zoning for this property is duplex. Bighorn Estates, L,ots 10 and 1l were subdivided into
townhomes, which were later divided into small lots, numbered 1-7. This subdivision created
I legal, non-conforming lots of a lot sizc smaller than that which would be allowcd underI prcsent zoning.
T M. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
I ^n,nrIo-Family
I Site Area: 0.106 acres/4,617 sq. ft.
J GRFA:
r. Allowed: 1,579 sq. ft,
I Existing: 2,337 sq. ft.Proposed: 2,512 sq. ft.
r Increasc*: 191 sq. ft.
t 250 GRFA Remaining: 59 sq. ft.
I * Increase in GRFA is possible under 250 Ordinance
I
Site Coverage
I (20Vo of Site Area):
I Allowed: 923 sq. ft.
Existing: 995 sq. ft. (2l.5%o)
I Proposed: 1,172 sq. ft. (25Vo)
I Increase: 177 sq. ft.
I Height: No Change
a
Setbacks:
I Front:
t Required: 20 feet
Existing: 16'-9"
I Proposed: 14'-3"
!
West Side:
I Required: 15 feetIt Existing: 8'-9"
Proposed: 4'-9"
I
I
I
15 feet
15 feet
15 feet
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
T
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
East Side:
Requircd:
Existing:
Proposcd:
Rear:
Required:
Existing:
Proposed:
15 feet
0 feet
0 feet
ry. CzuTERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the
Community Development Department recommends approval of the front, east and west side
setback variances in order to allow the construction of the exterior storage area under the
deck/stairs and the bay windows or1 the first and second stories on the nonh elevation; the
kitchery'ski storage expansion, and dining room bay window on the south elevation. Staff
further recommends approval of the requested site coverage variance rcquests associated. with
these additions. Staff recommends denial of the west side setback variance and site coverage
variance requests required to allow the construction of the 5' x 10' exterior storage area.
These recommendations are based on the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
l. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
a. Setback Variances
In general, the setback variances requested will have no ncgative ,
impacts on adjacent properties, excluding the west storage area.
Staff believes the west side storage addition will negatively
impact the propeny owner to the west. The resulting side
setback would be 4'-9". If the adjacent property owner were
also to pursue such an addition, the accessway to the rear yard
between the two duplexes would be very narrow. Staff believes
the addition of the west side storage area reduces, to a great
degree, the alrready small amount of open space which presently
exists betwcen this dwelling and the adjacent residence.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
b. Site Coverage Variance
Due to the unusual suMivision of the lot, staff believes it is
reasonable to allow some flexibility concerning site coverage.
This expansion, excluding the west storage area, will result in
additional site coverage of 125 sq, ft. Staff further believes
these additions will have no negative impacts on existing or
potential uses or structures in the vicinity. The staff does not
believe the additional site coverage for the west storage area is
appropriate.
The degree to which relief from the strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is
necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
a. Setback Variances
The duplex lots which werc created under the resubdivision of
Lots 10 and 1l of Bighorn Estates have lot configurations which
make it almost impossible to modify the units without variances.
As previously stated, the existing units already encroach into the
required front and side setbacks. These encroachments are due
to the fact the lots are very narow and small. Instead of a
minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet, this lot is 4,617 square
feet. Staff believes there are extraordinary circumstances due to
the original lot layout of these duplex lots.
Othcr duplexes in this resubdivision have received similar
setback variance requests. In November, 1988, Lot 3, obtained
approval of front, side, and site coverage variances in order to
constnlct a trash enclosure and to enlarge a kitchen. As
previously stated, the duplex los associated with the
resubdivision of l-ots 10 and 11 of Bighorn Estates are all
substandard in size. For this proposal, staff believes it is
reasonable to consider the existing residence's location in the
front, east and west side setbacks to be a practical difficulty
wananting setback variances for the additions supported by tho
staff. This degree of relief from the strict and literal
interpretation of the codc is appropriate, and has been granted to
other property owners with similar circumstances.
B.
t
I
I
l
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
III
I
t
I
I
I
I
Staff does not believe, however, there is a practical difficulty
warranting thc construction of the 5' x l0' exterior storage arca
on the west side of the property. The degree of relief from the
setback for this request is not appropriate.
b. Sitc Coveraee Variance
Because of the small lots, existing sitc coverage of all lots in the
vicinity is over the allowed. Staff feels that adding 125 sq. ft. of
site coverage to accommodate the exterior rear storage area, the
bay windows and the kitchen expansiory'ski storage additions
does not increase to any great extent the existing site coverage.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
a. Setback Variances and Site Coveraee Variance
The staff finds that the requested variance will have no
significant effect upon any of the above considerations. As
previously stated undcr this redevelopmcnt proposal, the
applicant will be installing two additional aspen uees along the
westem property line adjacent to the roadway. In addition to
installing these aspens, thc applicant will climinate an existing
woodburning fireplace and install two gas fueplaces. Staff
believes, with the exception of the proposed 5' x 10' proposed
storage arca on the west side of the building, this proposal will
have no negative impacts on the factors listed above. With
regard to the proposed 5' x 10' exterior storage area, staff
believes the construction of such a storage area will limit access
to the rear of the property from the east side of the building,
which could negatively impact public safety.
The Plannine and Environmental Commission shall make the followins
findings before qranting a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified
in the same district.
2.
3.
I
I
t
t
I
I
That the ganting of the variance will not be derimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not
apply generally to other properties in thc same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specifred
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by
the owners of other properties in the same district.
V. STATtr RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the
Community Development Department recommends approval of the front, east and west side
setback variances in order to allow the construction of the exterior stomge area under the
declc/stairs and the bay windows on the first and second stories on the nonh elcvation; the
kitchery'ski storage expansion, and dining room bay window on the south elevation. Staff
further recommends approval of the requested site coverage variance requests associated with
these additions. Staff recommends denial of the west side setback variance and site coverage
variance requests required to allow the construction ofthe 5'x l0'exterior storage area.
Staff believcs the variances which are recommended for approval meet the criteria and
findings for a variance. Staff does not believe approval of these variances would be a grant
of special privilege, because variancc applications have been approved for similar requests.
The proposal is not potentially injurious to the public health, safety and welfare. Lastly, the
staff frnds the location of the lot lines to be an extraordinary circumstance that is not typically
found in the Two-Family zone district, and that other property owners in the same
development have received variances from the strict interpretation of the zoning code for
similar t1'pes of requests when there were no negative impacts from the requests.
Please note that, under Section 18.62.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval
shall lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and
diligently pursued to completion.
I
t
t
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
c :\cc\ncmos\wi.lhclm.427
: i l'i.
I ;3!
l!d oJ
! 5! ir!;s;i g:!i." i;rE!:
€e!'i; I
;;E;ii
B
i"
'*"*
*fs
uo di'
3:5I
:!a?
o->;!
t; oi
EcB0ie
:6-
z
R.\
(.
\
\E
\l
e\, I)'I
\
\.I
\
\\
.Y It t6lri!
iiii
i;!i
ii!ill:ril;rll{
liiii
t,. \
. Nle
-..€1 "^'$)g$ul gv
I
(''I
\\ .-'
\
I
I
I
t,'*,
_--" 9,
(
(
-.2
.'\
"?sq*
e
\ ?-') ..-!f
\
\'o\
cr.'
\ /'
\ ,--'.-\/\
\
I ,-*,^,r!^9'
..,,a9-1.*if"J5
1""
!,i i iiui.a i Es;lli i ii:.iEf, ; Ei:
+? i, Eii
Ji: :i :E:
jii: i: i3ii
aa?
t;lsrl;ili
iii:iiitii
:iiEiiiiiit;i!i; i; i:
iiiiiiiiiii
ii* ;i! i: iE i
\it
iin
li
\ 6..|,l
\.87\
c\
,/"
$-?3F\I
fl, w\.'l \o\\l,\'i \br, tt
\
\ ,4'4--.'.. .dI
tiiaz,lii
?!;
li:
l;jIIS
l!riil:;
INI
1
c{
\|ill
: 0l': tl!
,/\.\ J .-- \ -,'\ r1'T i6f E --- i-v$'' \ :
r$
\<
f
N
)
:
3
s:
f
$)TF
{
\
u
\
TT
,&JT
.utd
RSJn\.4$
t
I
I
'Jf.
\)JI)i ,i\
il$f,[iltv
-=l)F
)
\
k
\\J
-\$I
\-2
$
\
\
j
]T:\
N[, SiTV \O'
a rL-'!) I-: s!f:[s."iIE- \
I
\i\
I
r-t
t-{
L
$u
*r
u\3
't)
I
f
.n
J .l
X zlY 30-oa Fp
1 nia P3c Xp\5 .]r
w
.F
za
\[\
I
v
{
\\
Ii
1r)
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
C\Jd)l=
l=
Lr
IH
t
T
--
I
=s
I
T
I -3
9S<4g' r':a/'
='n
I
rtll
_\.
2
SI
T
t\\
ilu
02l
tr\ I
t=f{r
NT,
lll 4l
\l./
rY-
\t tll
l rl
HH
I
:l
I
:'. ;
tv$,,
ill
N\J
\
L_l
\i '', l-'''I -. \'r rt-/Ys-,wlv t{\\ \-v..ll .1 ,... { S rt\,)'
I
t-\
I
I
t/
z.o
l-s5ld
h
'l{ll=
I
t
I
I
IJ
\\l
--I)'tt:-7sl\\\s'
l-
F
/
f,u
"*
It
Nrt\
s
l-
vt\
!
sul
lJ
!
$r{l
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
l
,"n
t_rl
:
6-
,N\r
iiilF;,r'ifsi-;fi :fl;;5iiif ff f.6;-tn-6-f .6.TS$i,y-"4':"'-- -.A-1.---- -.-_J > ''- ;fr':t':4.t . ..i :.,..- - D i ..-i :"..' J) . lmprowme:'-' bt l-ot J. :ila ;'F:i;;t. Ii' in'o oto"o acs'crrtidl]. ;
por"J-6"n - tni" 'd otc, Fobruory 24, l99e crccpt utility. connoc-'
[ro"r:';;;' entircty wlthin the boundorie: of the Porcel, exccp-[
O: shorn, thot tiorc ore no crrcroochments upon thc described
p-rir"t by improrrcmcnts. on ony--odjoining p.rcmiscr. ercopt ol
inoicoioa, jna inot thcrc is no APPARENT cvidcnco or sign-of ony , ,
eoscment crosslng or burdc:ring ony port of soid porccl,I
noted.
ffifD i',1' .According
No.08005
shofii htrr
flooding.
w.'[T
Stewn K. Scot
Senlor Mce Pr
Johnson. Ku
;.- t;' :;tt..' - .
/9 ,or'lod'
{rg-
a 16"aI \q
I
I
II
t
I
I
I
I
t'
"-"1"'t'
<.3.'
ASPHALT
at\PARKING /t
'/
;:h "',fo?
'&_r*
NOI1C8 Ac...dl^o to Coldldo br F IUSI Gdn.n'le' -ont ltld oclldi
bo..a uoqt qrv oit*t h thi. .rrt" dgrh EYL t'rn qn- FJ
-..t .|l.l.a. h 'ra -rl iEY dtv ocudr Dot a uooit
v,ff/ffi
. :j -'i"i. r'-'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AFFIDAVIT OF BARBARA RAGAN
REGARDING PROPOSED SITE COVERAGE VARJANCE
FROM TOWN OF VAIL FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF SINGLE CAR GARAGE
The Affiant, being of lawful age, being duly sworn under oath and having personal
knowledge of the following facts do hereby testify as follows:
l. That I am the owner of real property located at 744 Sandy hne, Vail, Colorado.
2. That my residence at 744 Sandy Lane, Vail, Colorado is located next door to the East
of the property owned by Charles and Geri Campisi at 742 Sandy lane, Vail, Colorado.
3. That Mr. and Mrs. Campisi have made substantial improvements to the residence at
742 Sandy Lane, Vail, Colorado to the extent that the neighbors in the area, including myself,
are very appreciative of their efforts in improving the property.
4. That the improvements made by Mr. and Mrs. Campisi upon their property at742
Sandy l:ne, Vail, Colorado to date have been extremely beneficial not only to their property
but also to surrounding properties as it has improved the real property at742 Sandy Lane, Vail,
Colorado substantially from its previous condition.
5. That it is my opinion that the construction of an additional one car garage upon the
Campisis propefty would benefit the residence at 742 Sandy Lane, Vail, Colorado in that it
would visually create a finished look to that side of the house. At the present time, that side of
the house appears to be unfinished and it would be appropriate and beneficial to construct -a
garage in that area,
6. That there is absolutely no negative impact which will occur to my property at744
Sandy Lane, Vail, Colorado or to any other neighboring property that I know of with regard to
the construction of a single car garage upon the Campisis' property at 742 Sandy I:ne, Vail,
Colorado and a granting of a site coverage variance for that purpose.
7. That to construct a carport upon the property, I feel, would be visually intrusive and
create an eye sore. It is my preference that a enclosed garage be constructed on that area.
8. That as an adjacent homeowner to Mr. and Mrs. Campisis' properry at 744 Sandy
Lane, Vail, Colorado I have no objections to the construction of a single car garage or any
variances necessary to allow such construction. In fact, I would encourage approval of anyI
I
I
ll
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
T
)qc
action needed, including granting of a site coverage variancg for the purpose of allowing the
garage to be constructed.
Further the Affiant sayeth nauqht.
STATE OFCOLORADO )
EAGLE COUNTY
Ragan.
,rlh\J ' Ouy of December, tgg6, by BarbaraSubscribed and sworn to before me this
G : \CAMP]SI\BARBARA. OTH
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
'I
ri
,".. .
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
t
I
T
\Fl'(l)AVIT Ol: llt:I I \ (;LfFE\
Ct))'1E,SNO\\.lhc--\it.lrllt.Bettl,Cuiicl.ltllrinqPelsonalktli-.rrlcd:coltheloilottlnc
ii,.als 3itri [,eing dulr S\\ r]!'ll IlliJtf oath hercbY iesiiiics ts lollotl s.
i. l'har I arl] rhe Lr\\ nef (ri real propert)r ltrcsted lrl rhe To\\'n of \'ril COuntl' ol' Eagle'
Slllte c.i Coiorado Knor,,.n as ?.1].A Sandl' Lane. \'arl. Colorado.
l. That I anr a nrenrber of the condoniiniurtl Asstrciation for Lot l' \/ail' Potato Patch'
Sgslrnd Filing Condon'liniunl' Torvtt of r'^lf iounty.of fagtt' Sute of Colorado rvhich is
cornprised of Unir 742-A and 712-B Sandy r-ont,iuii''Colorad*o (' Condomiruum Association") '
S.ThattheCondominiumAssociationiscomprisedofmyurutandunitT42-BSandy
13n6. \;ail, Colorado r"hi.h i, o\\,ne,j b),Ct'rrf.r^b.rfiil anO Gerl bampisi (hereinafter referred
to as the 'CamPisi's')'
-l.Thatrr.trhnlyeXpresspennissronandinr'olt.emenllheCampisi.sharerequesled.a
r.anance from the Torvn ol ittil fo' tnt pu'po" of-ton't^t'ing a single car sarage addition to
their unir. The construction of said single car garage $'ill not in any way nesativell' tmpact upon
orirer srrucrures in rhe 'icinitl as lllosi sliucrures al'e residenlral Somes' including condominium
pni15 rlith garages.
5-ThatthegarageadditionthatlheCampisi'shar'erequestedavarianceforfromthe
Torr n of Vail ls necessarl for a nuntber ot reasons:
.\. There is significanr drainage problent upon rhe propeny in rhat.the ltt?-]n
*hich rhe new garaqe *,ill be locared rtop.r roru.J the residence and.*'ater flo*'s directly tnto
a nrajor *,alI of rire butlding. TIie co.sttucrio" oi ti''t garage r'ill resolr e this drainage problenr
u'hile at lhe sane iime significantl.v improving the propen)'
B.Thatattl]epresenrtimeu,iththecurrentconfigurationoftheresidencerr.ithout
therequeStedgarageaddirion.thereeXiStsasignificantSecutitr,p':.b]:'rr,ithregardlonlyurut.
Tlre general publrc currenrl), has ,...rr ao ,n'.*.i!.n.1' .g,.ti doot *'hich leads directly into
nt), masrer bedroom .no ur,n ur.u. untonunr,.r*y, oue io rhe currenr configuration of the
buildmgrheseneralpub)icoftenutilizesntut*t'gtnt)tegress-doorasopposedt:li^T::::t
becau-ceitisrheon;t-Joo'-"tdi)1'r'isiblefronrihestreetTirisisacrtuseforconcernlorrne
because I cannot s33 rr ho rs at the elllerselrc\' tg"" Ooo' until I anl risht before lhe dtror Thts
is nor ihe cac!- \\'lln nll nlain entrance door as it'n "t the person lt r*he door through \\ llldo\\ s
prior to C!en)ng li.i3 .]Ljo I In r<ltlition p;rck:rges and tlo.,r.er de]ir eries are often lefr nltsta}lell]r'
iil tlr'. Jlllerlcl,a\ ;-;'iss :joor 3llri ils l di'' rlr'r utrlize that dt'i'r l..jtl ilot locate the itettls trl-tctt f t'r
.1.r.. i I l.iic ;.1::.:t:-i a'-, arai,,,aa, \1r llill I)r.:lCc .l ljt'it;:lc. I'rcte c [Jritler '\rch::r.-l' rtt \':' ]
i.' .:i.iij:! :r:rr,::rr ' ,;.I;;' ;t";"t' r:le rssLrl. "1.
1ils Iubllc ;l"c\\ li) irr\ cillerseic\ c:ri 'i\ 'jt\(\i \'
I I -,.,;:,-i '. ,: .:-i-.-i .::li' \!-Ltll'L\ ' 'i'l' rtiltllrliti'' Liti'l:ll:;lu- l:-' \11 I):c':'- "
rll:li lll';-'
.':\l:'i::::r'-i::'-':;::'iL-i.'..:J\lsll!{\ll\i;rr:rl\'::'',si:-c:-':\r:r"'\i-'i:i!c'
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
II
I
I
I
T
t
I
T
I
T
t
t
Subscribed and srvern to before nre lhis 2CWi, of September. 1996' b1'
BETTY GUFFEY
\\'itness mr hartd and oil-icial seal.
lr{y commission expires: t-}'- &CU-t?
.1ll L \!:- i:-:.: ll:li,':: t't tl:1
i{),rll\'." : - - il.l'i,!tir.ril
SeC'Jtlt\ .1i :l. i.cSldCllac
/\nti, '11\ ,,., :,- 1rl;111,' 111vl. \, '.-
STATE OF COLOR\DO
EAGLE COUNTY
.\: .Lr.tr. | :.cl lirlri li:-' gtltt.lti:.-: : iic \'.t;l:lll!''
-- ....t.!.11.1-C I\ ilC-r'::.:l) .' ;-:'\\ IL U ri': ' iir ': L : r'j t I t ' ' r ' '-
lrtrid.ltif ;1' 1113 \':rr ilrli.c i: il()t ,q:.1:::J'.i .is :l'r ir:itc:'J
(-- 'fhar in rhe \\:inrer ittonths the 'fou n of \:lrll \n()\\' removal pushes (no\\r ont(l
the lire:r .,'. lt.:;.c llre pew slngle car q:it'aqe rvill be con-qlructed thus ntaking such aiea ultusable
panicularlr r,-,1 parkirrg purposes. There is insuffjcient prri'kine. in the area and the single car
garase uili pi'ovide a covered parking area lear round
6. iroi- rhe foregoing r€asons the orvners of rhe propertl, at 7-11 Sandv Lane constlruted
of n.r1,seli and rhe Campisi's rvill sufter a hardship if the Variance is not granted allorving ft-rr
construction of the proposed single car garage.
Further rhe Affiant sayslh nauohl.
)
) ss.
)
\cli\ P! tlla
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1A./98/!396 t 3:0e I REDES Y SIS'I-,ras rEL F*UE AII
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
l,
I
l'
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
t
FAX TRANSNAISSI@N FAX
-II'I.- I IIII.-III IIr' I T ..IITITI-I It- '
III
oscAR RtzK AZIZargultscto
TO / PARA: Betty Gufty
FAX J (970) 476 6717
FROU / DE: Oscar Bizk Aztz
SUBJECT / ASUNTO: Town of Vait epplication
DAJE / FEGHA: October 8th. 1996
PAGEA / PAGTNAS:_Z_ Including this page.
COIIMENTS / COMENTARIOS:
Dear Bctry:
lf you n€ed any aclditlonat h€tp, pteasa do not hesltate to cail m€.
R. Kipling 11315. Comptejo Induetrial Chihuahua.
TevPhone: 011 52 1.1 81 35 99
Chlhuahua, Chih. Mexico. 31't09
Far: Ol 1 5214 81 02 47
tLL'., .Jd,, !ii6 13: gA 14_? -rg REDtrs Y SIS I .^,IAS TEL
t
I
t
t
I
t
t
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
Oscar Rizk Azizarquitecto
Y11.-A"nV Qu!_and Ms. GeriCampisi
742 A and 742 Sandy Ln.
Vail Colorado.
Oear Betty:
Yt:.T"il Fouland my house keeper s€nt me a copy of your application with th€ toyrn otVailto build s new addltion in your house. (gange),
The purpose of this letter is to let you know that as your naighboor lrom 71O B, I do nothave any Problem wilh your project. tt does not eftect my vi6w whalsoever. I hope youg€t this approved by the town oi vail.
I hope we will see you arround chrietmas and get together ro have a dfink.
Sincerely
Oscar Rizk
740 I Sandy Ln.
Chrhuahua, Chih. Mexico. October gth. 1999
Fudyarct Kipling No. | 'l 3 15 complojo Inctustrial chihuEhua
APclo. Poslat Z. I 565
Tel. {r4) 81.35-89 Fsr (14) 81-{1247
Chlhuehua. Chlh., M6xlco 3t tog
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
,'|i!
iH
'7
;f,
I
lrorffi
l';"f;tr:;::;:":;,:i*
970-479-2100
lnex s7o-47s-2is7
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
The undersigned hereby certifies the foregoing is a full, true and correct transcription of
Item No.3 of the Planning and EnvironmentalCommission of September23, 1996, as it
appears in the original records of the Town of Vail, Department of Community
Development.
Dated December 5, 1996
5?o-- A. J..*/'D
Administrative Services
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
Subscribed and sworn to before me thisSth day of December, 1996, by Mary A. Caster,
)
) ss.
)
ss.
Notary Public
{2 *,,','r,,u,^,,^
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Joe Staufer:
Greg Moffit:
Dominic Mauriello:
Greg Moffit:
Betty Guffey:
Greg Moffit:
Galen Aasland:
My name is Joe Staufer, I live a1746 Sandy Lane and maybe I
shouldn't be here because where they want to build, that's where
my dogs go every night at 10:00. I like to address a couple of
things that I start finding, and number one is it's not, the
neighborhood may not negatively impact it and then it says it's a
negative effect on light, air and on the neighboring properties, well,
I can't see how that little addition of that building is negative to
anybody and I live up there so it certainly doesn't affect me and I'm
sure it wouldn't affect anybody else to give them that variance.
The other is that it says safety, welfare and health. Well, lthink
security is another area where you have every right if you wish to
do so to grant this variance. We are living in a dark neighborhood.
When I'm out of town, this lady is the only one on the block. And
for her to be able to drive into the garage and from the garage a
secure (inaudible) going to her unit is certainly a safety factor and I
think that, you know, we are here to address those things and I
think that granting a variance that in fact is, if I read it right, one
half of one percent over or under the site coverage, allowable site
coverage, for one and a half percent, I don't know how
bureaucratic we want to become. I feel very strongly that this
variance helps somebody in terms of safety, security and a better
place to live in. And I can't see any conceivable reason that would
hurt somebody else. So, why not grant it? Thank you.
Thank you. ls there any additional public comment? Dominic.
I just wanted to follow up on something that was said earlier about
the closet and storage space. We have DRB plans that were
approved right now for the additionsfor the work that they're doing
right now. There used to be a storage space, kind of below that
area below Ms. Guffey's area, that was converted to living space,
so while their argument, yea, that we need more storage space,
this prior approval actually eliminated that storage and created a
living area out of it. I just wanted to point that out.
Thank you. Come on back up.
The neighbor in the lovely half to the right of mine, (inaudible), had
to go to physical therapy at this hour and she let me video tape her
a few minutes before this, but we don't have a video, and she's in
approval of granting this to us also.
Okay, thank you. Let's go to the commission. Galen, comments,
questions?
ldo have'one question of Dominic or for the applicant. How big is
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
t
I
I
I
T
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-21s7
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF COLOMDO
COUNW OF EAGLE
The undersigned hereby certifies the foregoing is a full, true and correct transcription of
Item No.3 of the Planning and Environmental Commission of September 23, 1996, as it
appears in the original records of the Town of Vail, Department of Community
Development.
Dated December 5, 1996
7*- A !.-/-.'
Administrative Services
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
Subscribed and sworn to before me thisSth day of December, 1996, by Mary A. Caster,
)
) ss.
)
SS.
Notary Public
{i ^"""o'^"^
TRANSCRIPT OF JERICAMPISI REQUEST FOR SITE EOVERAGE VARIANCE AT
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEETING, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23. 1996:
Greg Moffit: Third item is the Jeri Campisi request, Dominic?
Dominic Mauriello:
Greg Moffit:
Kerry Wallace:
The applicants have requested a site coverage variance in order to
construct a one-car garage of approximately 300 square feet,
making the request approximately 260.9 square feet. The
allowable site coverage for the site is approximately 3403 square
feet, which is 20% of the lot area, and they're proposing 3664,
which is approximately 2'l.S%. This duplex, when it wa! originally
approved in 1980, contained 3763 square feet of GRFA. The way
that is calculated today, they contain, they have 4SOZ.8 square
feet, and thafs also due to i, in tggg they received Soo.square
feet of GRFA under the 250 ordinance. So with today's twb eSO's,
the site is permitted up to 4451 square feet, and therefore the site
is over on GRFA by approximately S0 square feet. The structure
also currently encroaches on the site setbacks on both sides. lt's a
pre-existing non-conforming condition and it's really not
aggravated by this request. Attached you will find some
justification provided by the applicant and l,ve also passed out to
you today two affidavits from owners of the property stating some
other issues and hardships that they have. staff believes ihat the
request will increase the building's bulk and mass beyond that
enjoyed by other iroperties in the district. staff believes that white
the.proposal may not negatively impact neighboring properties,
and while other structures in the have two and three-cai garages,
the.V have enjoyed that within the timitations of the site coverage
limitations, and they also have two and three-car garages buill
within those limitations. Staff does believe that this woutd be a
special privilege, as other structures in the zone district have been
able to construct within these limitations and enjoy the fact that
they have a two-car garage. Staff is recommending denial of the
variance request, subject to the three findings that you find on
page 3, and that's all I have for you today.
Thank you, Dominic. Does the applicant have any comments?
Hi, I'm Kerry Wallace, my daughter gave me her cold, so if I sound
like a swallowed a box of cotton balls, that's why. I'm here on
behalf of the Campisi's. They would have liked to have been here
today, but there was a medical emergency in the family that
required them in New York. I'm their attorney, with
Stovall Goodman Wallace. Their offices are in Avon and we
assisted them in preparing the variance application. Obviously, as
I
I
I
I
t
t
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
you've seen lrom the affidavits that are attached, the Campisi's, in
addition. the owner of the other half of the duplex' Betty Guffy, who
is also present, I understand has some comments to make today. I
feel that there a number of issues which does make this a hardship
issue as opposed to, say, a special privilege. A major issue for the
Campisi's is a lack of storage. Obviously, this was a property that
was constructed some time ago and it does have a fairly odd floor
plan in the way it's designed. The Campisi's have informed me
that there is little or no closet space within their residence and so it
makes it very ditficult for them to store items in the house, in
particular, you know, as anyone who lives in Vail, you have a lot of
recreationalgoods, such as skis and golf clubs, those types of
items. They have no where to put them in the house and so their
having addational garage space would be of assistance. Right now
the two-car garage that they have which is not oversized is used to
park both of their vehicles, so there's not a lot of additional storage
space. There's also a problem with parking, especially in the
winter moilths. They do have a lot of guests that come out, they
have family members that like to come out and visit and there's a
problem with parking, particularly in the winter when the plows
need to come through and it needs to be a open area. An area
where there is now, even say if you were going to put a parking
pad there, from what I understand the Town of Vail, when they
plow the snow, it piles up on that spot, so it's really not a usable
parking spot in the winter, so they'd like to be able to have an
additional car to allow guests and any other person to be able to
park in an enclosed area during the winter months' -The Campisi's,
and I think Ms. Guffey will substantiate this, have significantly
improved the property since purchasing it with, you know, I think
it's been a real benetit to the general area. The garage will
essentially be an improvement to the property, not a detriment, it '
will increase the value which is a positive thing for the
neighborhood. lt's my understanding that the space, and I know
thal you've had a site visit, is not really usable as is. And that the
garage would be good use of that space. I was informed by the
ircniiect that the post garage, is as small as they can possibly
make it and still park a regular size car in it' lt's not made for, say,
a 4x4 or an over-sized car, so he made it as small as possible,
keeping in mind the variance issue. And it's also my
undersianding in talking to the architect, i.e', I don't look at plans
and analyze them, but he did inform me that it was not going to
encroach on any of the setbacks. There's also the issue of a
serious drainage problem right in the area where the garage would
be constructed. lt's my understanding that it slopes and so
drainage from Sandy Lane hooks right into a major wall of the
building. This has to be corrected one way or the other. lt's my
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
Greg Moffit:
Kerry Wallace:
Greg Moffit:
Betty Guffey::
Greg Moffit:
Betty Guffey::
understanding that Betty Guffey caneubstantiate this. She's talked
with some contractors. lt will be substantially expensive to fix the
drainage by having to fix the grade or do something of that nature.
The garage, by raising up the front of the grade, willtake care of
the drainage problem while at the same time being a benefit to the
property. And I know that a major issue doesn't necessarily affect
my client, but it does atfect Ms. Guffey and she can tell you more
about that as a security issue in that it's my understanding that
there's access to a private door. lt's a door she has to have in her
unit for egress purposes, in case of fire or some kind of
emergency. But there's public access to this door. lt leads right
into her bathroom and her bedroom. She says people use it all the
time - knock on the door and, you know, you open the door and
you might be in your bathrobe. She's concerned with regard to
security issues on that. She can see from her main door out the
window and see who's at the door and have a little bit more control
than wheqsomeone knocks on this other door. She's got some
pretty serious concerns about that. So, you know, there's a
number of issues that they feel do create, you know, hardship in
this case. And, like I said, it is the minimum amount that they could
possibly do to put in a garage, and I know Ms. Gutfey has
landscape plans. They're planning on doing some further
improvements to the property and, you know, beautifying the area.
It is my understanding that the unit was a bit of an eyesore for a
while. You know, until all of the changes that Campisi's have done.
So, for those reasons, I know the Campisi's would really like to you
to consider, you know, approving the variance. I think that in the
area there are a number of places with two and three-car garages,
so this is not something out of the ordinary or out of place. ldon't
think any of the adjacent units will be negatively impacted. lt's not
going to be a high garage, so it shouldn't impact views or light to .
other units or that type of thing and we would like you to take those
things into consideration when making your decision.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other applicant comments?
I'd just like to reiterate what ..
First, you have to tell us who you are.
Oh, I'm Betty Guffey, and
Greg Moffit:
Betty Guffey:
Thank you.
for five years I've owned the upper half of the house, or the upper
third of the house known ot "A",742A, and I've been waiting on
waiting on somebody like the Campisi's for five years, to come
along and help me redo the outside. I refuse to allow the previous
owners to paint it. lt takes both of our approvals to do anything.
And I didn't want it painted blue gray again. I wanted stucco or
some rock or something put on it and the Campisi's also fit the
mold that they didn't want to subdivide it, make a little loft here and
a little kitchen here and rent it out part time. They plan to live in it
with their grandchildren visiting them and that was the perfect
person to buy it. The only problem was I didn't sell it to them,
another realtor, but they, we agreed on doing this stucco, which is
a great improvement, over $60,000 for that, and I have to pay my
share of that and when it comes down to repairing the drainage
problem, qnd doing something with that area, lwas very happy that
they agreed to have an architect design a space that's small, that
doesn't exceed the lot lines, will solve my problem about the
emergency egress door, will open onto a deck that looks like the
house to me from the front, looks like it always should have gone
around that corner with the deck. And I have some videos, but I
found out you didn't have, I have a video of when I bought it five
years ago and my son was ready to put me in a nursing home
because thatwas the ugliest house he had everseen. So I had
videos of it and I put up with a lot in the five years that I've had, oh,
the propane tank that was there. The Campisi's have removed that
and are going to put a garden in its place. The propane tank was
to heat the hot tub. They brought in gas. The propane tank was
right underneath my bedroom window and some of the renters said
they've had short term downstairs before the Campisi's bought it, .
left the propane tank in my driveway for several weeks. I had to
get the Fire Department to come out and move them. And one of
my neighbors, Joe Staufer, is here to tell you too, that we had snow
mobilers coming in at 2:00 in the morning, 3:00, shaking that
garage underneath my bedroom, And if the Campisi's want a
garage there for storage, I'm so happy to try to help them get it. lt
will help me too. lt will have a deck of 300 square feet that they're
willing to put in. And, I've stated that the security is the biggest
concern and the biggest hardship I have. And I live there alone and
lwould, ldefinitely like these plans more than anything else, but it
seems like 50 square feet overage is a really minor problem
compared to the expense and the lack of security for me.
Thank you. ls there any public comment? Come on up!
I
I
T
Greg Moffit:
I
I
I
Joe Staufer:
Greg Moffit:
Dominic Mauriello:
Greg Moffit:
Betty Guffey:
Greg Moffit:
Galen Aasland:
My name is Joe Staufer, I live at 74&Sandy Lane and maybe I
shouldn't be here because where they want to build, that's where
my dogs go every night at 10:00. I like to address a couple of
things that I start finding, and number one is it's not, the
neighborhood may not negatively impact it and then it says it's a
negative effect on light, air and on the neighboring properties, well,
I can't see how that little addition of that building is negative to
anybody and I live up there so it certainly doesn't atfect me and I'm
sure it wouldn't affect anybody else to give them that variance.
The other is that it says safety, welfare and health. Well, I think
security is another area where you have every right if you wish to
do so to grant this variance. We are living in a dark neighborhood.
When I'm out of town, this lady is the only one on the block. And
for her to be able to drive into the garage and from the garage a
secure (inaudible) going to her unit is certainly a safety factor and I
think that, you know, we are here to address those things and I
think that granting a variance that in fact is, if I read it right, one
half of one percent over or under the site coverage, allowable site
coverage, for one and a half percent, I don't know how
bureaucratic we want to become. I feel very strongly that this
variance helps somebody in terms of safety, security and a better
place to live in. And I can't see any conceivable reason that would
hurt somebody else. So, why not grant it? Thank you.
Thank you. ls there any additional public comment? Dominic.
I just wanted to follow up on something that was said earlier about
the closet and storage space. We have DRB plans that were
approved right now for the additions for the work that they're doing
right now. There used to be a storage space, kind of below that
area below Ms. Guffey's area, that was converted to living space, .'
so while their argument, yea, that we need more storage space,
this prior approval actually eliminated that storage and created a
living area out of it. I just wanted to point that out.
Thank you. Come on back up.
The neighbor in the lovely half to the right of mine, (inaudible), had
to go to physical therapy at this hour and she let me video tape her
a few minutes before this, but we don't have a video, and she's in
approval of granting this to us also.
Okay, thank you. Let's go to the commission. Galen, comments,
questions?
I do have one question of Dominic or for the applicant. How big is
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
existing two-car garage?
Dominic Mauriello: The existing two-car garage? | think they're each about 300
Square feet, each of those garage Spaces, so you're |ooking at 600
square feet existing now.
Galen Aasland: ls that, do you concur with that?
Dominic Mauriello: lt's at least that.
(Cannot understand comment from audience)
Galen Aasland:
(Cannot understand response from audience)
Galen Aasland:
Betty Guffey:
Galen Aasland:
Okay. So, under this application, it's like the garage-that is being
built, would that go to your unit or would it go to the Campisi's?
So they ha've access from their current garage inside? And it won't
change the access into your house?
No. (Garbled comment).
Okay. On the south side. Okay. Alright. Actually, in ways [o19ite
coverage variance, I have some kind ol unusual sympathy' I think
in certain cases there's some good grounds for it, especially on
smaller lots. lf this lot was under 15,000 square feet, lwould feel
much more strongly about it. I think the lot's under 15'000 square
feet have a particular problem once they get over that they have
less and less a problem, although this is not that much larger
than..,. I do have some concerns about it though, is that the
building seems to be already pushing the envelope of developm.enf
under 5f different grounds aiready, and this would obviously make
it push things further beyond what the zoning is consistent with the
neignoornood. I think the deck that you're talking about could.be
built without a variance, in fact, I know it could off of your unit in
terms of getting rid of the door. And so, well it's nice that that can
be there. Thafs already an allowed use and it's not that you can't
build a deck and you can't do certain things, it's just that' in this
particular case, happens to make this more convenient' I'm
somewhat bothered by the argument that the campisi's don't have
storage because they;re doing tnis big remodel on the house right
now ind obviously they've gotten rid of storage, so I really don't
think that there's really any argument from that particular
standooint. I would be interested if there's an opportunity because
there is existing site coverage left whether the existing garage
could be added to within what the allowed zoning to add storage
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
t
Greg Moffit:
Diane Golden:
Betty Guffey:
Diane Golden:
Betty Guffey:
Diane Golden:
BG:
Diane Golden:
Diane Golden:
Greg Moffit:
Diane Goldlen:
Dominic Mauriello:
Betty Guffey:
on to that, so I do have a fair amount of sympathy for the site
coverage, but I also see that there's some problems with it that you
've really done a remodel, that the owners have done a remodel
and they really, they're creating some of their own conditions.
Thank you, Galen. Diane?
lf the garage is not put in, do you have to leave that staircase
coming out of your bathroom? How did that get put in and when
was that put there?
It had a prior staircase (inaudible) and was buried in snow.
So how long has that staircase been there?
Five years that I've lived there. Stormshed and garage door
(inaudiblelshort term rental (inaudible)
And from your garage, so have to step outside and then go to your
front door?
(lnaudible)
But lt's covered? Okay.
Where will the snow be put if the garage is there?
Would you come up to the microphone so we can, we're being
recorded believe it nor not.
Where will the snow be put if the garage is put in?
I mean, that's the owner's option. The fact that there's snow on
their site, I mean, that's their own snow removal issue, As far as
the door going in upstairs, I mean, I'm sure there's a variety of
architectural solutions for that, not just having the stairs there. l'm
sure that either of the architects on the board could tell you there's
probably ten different ways to address that egress.
Well, Bill Pierce worked with me to, we ran up a bill of $1600 to try
to design a garage and an entrance around that. One plan was to
enter my house in front of my fireplace, which I don't think is
acceptable, and another was to put a rock stairway to the north
corner and that exceeded the setback, so we scratched that, so it
didn't make any sense to spend $70,000 and still have an ugly
entry. You know, and to have that door that now goes down with
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
T
I
I
I
I
Diane Golden:
Greg Motfit:
Henry Pratt:
this plan, with Jeri's, or Campisi's garage, then I don't have to get
access from it and my stairway can go up. Bill pierce,s
architectural plan was to have a stairway, not from a garage there,
to g0 up and around and enter where my laundry room is now and
that was terribly expensive and this is just the best plan that I've
seen that, from the front of the house it looks like it was meant to
be that way instead of looking like a double-wide trailer, it will took
like a house with a nice sized deck that usable. I don't have a deck
on the house that's usable. And if, one of your plans was to build a
deck up here, that still leaves the drainage problem, which is very
expensive to repair. The drainage problem has been there for a
long time, creating problems for the other side of the house and it
seems silly to me to spend $28,000 to repair the drainage problem
when, well, it would have been a litile bit easier if they,d left the
snowmobile garage there. Probably would have been cheaper to
repair that, but I am so happy to have that out of there, and people
running under my bedroom with gasoline and engines, so if they
gave up the storage to build a room there, I guess I should be
willing to sacrifice and pay for the drainage. But it just seems
logical that, I think it does, to we're only exceeding 50 square feet
that for the expense involved and somebody willing to make the
place look better and more functional. About the question about
the snow coming in. lt would just be the front part of our driveway
that would have to be plowed. lt's piled back in there and buries
any car that parks in that space there, that's there now and in the
stairuay, ugly as it is, is buried in snow also.
I have no further comment right now.
Thank you, Diane. Henry?
I guess first I'd like to say that I think that you're extremely tucky to
have new neighbors like the Campisi's who are willing to come in
and address all wrongs and spend the money and take some pride
in their ownership. In terms of this application, t'm hearing a lot of
things being put forth as hardships that I don't think realty are. I
think you're security issue is more an architectural issue of
identifying where the front door is, the drainage issue is something
that should have been corrected when the current remodel was
designed or laid out. On the other hand, I think that, like everyone
else in town, you are entitled to 600 square feet of garage, but as
the staff memo points out, you should be able to do it without
asking for a site coverage variance because everybody else is held
to those rules. During our pre-meeting and during the site visit,
we've talked about, well if you just took away some GRFA or
moved it somewhere else, then you'd have that site coverage for a
T
T
T
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Greg Moffit :
John Scofield:
Greg Motfit:
Greg Amsden:
garage. At this point I think that's impractical, given the way you've
got horizontal condominium type zoning on this thing. So I guess
even though I don't want it be considered as a precedent, this
garage has no impact on any neighbors in terms of light, air, mass
and bulk and guess I'd be in favor of granting the variance in this
case, even though I do not really find adequate grounds for a
hardship. And that's a tough one for me.
Thank you, Henry. John.
lwould have to agree very much with Henry in all aspects. You
are lucky to have a neighbor thafs willing to spend the money to
upgrade and I think we should do everything we can as a town to
encourage that. I agree that the drain is something that really is
not a hardship, lt could be fixed with or without the garage. l've
had similar problems, I understand what you're working with.
Likewise, lthink the door, it's a downright lousy location, but it
could also, I think, be fixed in other aspects, I think what we have
to looK at as a board is perhaps balancing the issues of site
coverage and what's really going to sit on that site and no mater
what we do, you're probably going to have a car sitting in that
corner. So I would tend to agree with Henry that perhaps the
hardship of getting parking tickets when you park out in the street
would be something that I would look at and say that I could
support this type of thing because I really don't think it's going to
affect the neighbors at all and I think it would perhaps be an
improvement over having a car sitting out there looking ugly all the
time.
Thanks, John. Greg?
This application, and l'm leaning more to what Galen said, is that a
lot of these are self imposed problems that have occurred here.
The drainage situation at one time that house did not have a
structure underneath your apartment. And there was no drainage
problem whatsoever with that site. I was here when the house was
constructed in the beginning. I know the whole history of the
house. In fact, our real estate company marketed that house when
it was first built. So I don't, I mean, the drainage problem has
occurred when the house was expanded into that area and it still
can be cured by proper treatment of the expansion, in which it has
not been done, so the storage argument just doesn't hold water
because they've removed the storage space and even the garage
that they're suggesting building is only the size of one car. lt would
be filled with a car and there would not be much storage in it
anyway. So, again, they're left with no storage. They've got their
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
Betty Guffey:
Greg Amsden:
Betty Gutfey:
Greg Amsden:
iral.gnc.e in a garage and yet they ha/en't solved at teast trying tojustify this variance with. The safety concern, I believe yor"r ca-n put
either a small or a large deck off that door. I would definitety
remove what's there. I don't know if there,s really, and it was
mentioned but I don't even know if that is there for a fire purpose,
does the statf know? | mean, no one knows if that,s even an
ingress/egress...
That's an emergency egress. I don,t have another way out of the
house, out of the master....
Yea, but we don't know if that's why that stairway's there or even if
it was there in the beginning and no one's even brought that point
up or whether it has to be there or not, so if it doesn,t have to be
there, a deck would be a good treatment off that door.
l've tried tq find another access, or egress, and I don't have one.
All the windows are on the second floor and they don't open large
enough to get out.
But I mean, in looking at this application, I have a hard time just
because it does set a precedent. When you grant a varianc-e
without substantial hardship or reasons for that, and I don't find
these to be justifiable reasons for granting a variance, I think that
we open up, I mean we have a very hard time for the next guy that
comes in and says, "Hey, I want to go over my site coverage
because of this, this and this." I mean, literally they can aJsociate
their causes with what's mentioned here that idon;t think, I think
they're self imposed situations. And it sounds like the Campisi,s
want a second garage. My solution woufd be, it's a design driven
problem. You have to fit that garage within existing struCture.
Without increasing that site coverage to go over thlt site coverage
limit. And they need to take a hard took at that. I believe it's
doable where their family room is, And where they've enclosed
and that house has been expanded. ln fact, in the memo by the
staff, the 500 square feet, two 250's that was granted that site were
all put on the large side of that home. Why, I don't know. I do
know that it was under one ownership. The platners at that time.
And that's probably why it occurred. But, that,s the case and that's
what is in existence.
Basically in agreement with Greg on this one. What we've got here
is kind of a classic zoning dilemma. you've got a unit, we,ve got a
unit that is maxed. We've got as much square footage as
permitted, we've got about as much site coverage as permitted,
and now we want to add more despite the fact that there,s a lot of
I
I
Greg Moffit:
r0
t
I
Dominic Mauriello:
Greg Moffit:
Greg Moffit:
Dominic Maureillo:
Greg Moffit:
Dominic Maureillo:
Greg Moffit:
Greg Moffit:
Greg Amsden:
square footage inside the existing br.rlk and mass that could have
been designed to hold cars or to store kayaks or to put a ski locker,
or whatever. Without going into reiterating all of what Greg said, I
think the storage issue is one of self creation and I am very
concerned about the slippery slope aspect of it. Yes, Joe, in
response to your comment that the 50 feet is maybe one and a half
percent, but the next application may be an 8000 foot house.
It's 260 square feet, it's 50 square feet over on GRFA, so what
we're talking about is 260 square feet.
Okay. And if it's an 8000 foot house, that starts to look like a pretty
big bubble. ldon't see how granting this variance isn't a grant of
special privilege - hardship or not. lt just strikes me as a grant of
special privilege. My guess is that we're going to have to split
votes.
What's the^area of the garage thafs being proposed?
300 square feet.
So, essentially the site coverage is maxed before you add this.
It's 40 square feet - less than 40.
Yea, I just wish I could find something to hang my hat on here.
lf there are no further comments from the applicant, or the public,
then somebody gets to make a motion.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the request for a site coverage variance.
to allow for a one-car garage located at742 Sandy Lane, Lot 3;
Vail Potato Patch, Second Filing, being denied, per the staff memo
and that granting the variance will constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties
classified the same district. There are no exceptions or
extraordinary circumstances in conditions applicable to this site
that apply generally to other properties in primary/secondary
residential zone district. And I might add that least, I believe that
the hardships that have been presented by the applicant, many of
them are self imposed by the handling of the expansion of the
livable area in the large side of that duplex and that, finally, the
strict interpretation or enforcement of this specific regulation does
not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the primary/secondary residential district.
ll
I
II Greg Moffit: Motion by Greg. Do we have a second?
I Galen Aasland: l'llsecond that.
Greg Moffit: Seconded by Galen. Any further discussion?
r Galen Aasland: I would also like to add, if this lot was under 15,000 square feet, I
I l?$'TtH::ili|3 3:.1ffi"'::il'Ji['?,"T[:ractthat
it's over
r Greg Moffit: Okay, thank you Galen.
I lguess I have a question forthe board and staff. Does anybody
t ;:i,fl:"i31'J:?l?Ji3$TfJTJ?fi"#:#: 'et
them find a wav to
I -: I don't thin! that there's any other way to do it. I mean, they've
I hired people to look at it themselves and I don't know if they've,
they haven't presented any alternatives to us, but I would guess
I that there's ....
_: Yea, let me ask a question. lf the deck, if they put a deck out of
I that door, thafs not site coverage, correct.
Dominic Maureillo: Correct.
I
-:
And they could put a hard deck...
t Dominic Maureillo: That's correct.
-: outside that door. Now granted, you haven't got a heated garage,'
I but what you've got is cdvered pirking - a car-port. The rules are
screwy, but unfortunately, we got appointed to enforce them. That
I i't:il:1:li'1"ffi:l'3",''.'J,Tf?J?l!1:l'J.?,1"t
Henrv sussested
I _: That's strictly a DRB or staff approval type of issue - it doesn't
I involve Planning.
I Greg Moffit: Okay. So we have a motion on the floor. ls there any further
I discussion? Allthose in favor?
t AYe'
Greg Moffit: Opposed?
I
I t2
I
I , rra raa*a*aaNo response.
t Gres Morrit: illl"fi I giil H:'i:JIT,,Ti.lliTT?,i;''onJn.
apprication is
I
t
I
l3
_l
ar ''fiign Review Action Flh
TOWN OF VAIL
Category Numbel
Project Name:
Building Name:
Project Description:
Architecvoontact, Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot ? Bbck
Project Street Address:
Subdivision Zone District
Comments:
Staff Action
Motion by:
Seconded by:
! Approval
a Disapproval
XStaff ARRrovat
condirions: Al\ rnc"t av;c.ls -fc ir\t*t r\-. e.{i.-.t\naJ
I .\ , Itl',u,'nr,r i\k'.[e^rtvw-
Town Planner
o""' \<-rn*- l?,lL DRBFeePre-paid
rev-t r.alr 7./ l{ /9a
DESIGN REVI
t
ON . TOWN OF
o
EW BOARD APPIJIt-VAIL, COLORADO
TE RECETVED:
LJt{ L C.DRB MEETTNG:*t****
It i*rl*!atTPROJECT TNFORMATION:
DESCRIPTION:
EI TYPE OF REVIEW:
New ConstrucLionAddiLion ($50.00)
ADDRESS:
"7
I.,EGAL DESCRIPTTON:I ^!Subdivision
,Y Vinor Alteration ($20.00)
($0)Conceptual Review
L
BIock
-
/'Ya-2 ^* l,t jL //-
a meeE.s and bounds legalon a separaLe sheeL and attach
t I r:,
hone ?./.r'
It'i
..4
( $ 200,1r 00 )
1
c.
D.
.:a
g{'
b&If property is describeddescriptj.on, please provi.Lo this application.
/:2
F.
ZONTNG:
NAME OF APPLICANT:G F.trzlMailing Address:
NAME OF
Mailing
APPLICANT, S REPRESAddress:/._- f '-
.r ,i.:J | ."t"
T
I
J
Phone
NAME OF OWNER (S) :
Mailing ,-AOOress: P-f)
APPLTCATIONS WILL NOT BE PSOCESS.ED WITHOUT OWNER'S ST6NA?UR.E
Condominium Approval rf applicable.
DRB FEE: DRB fees, as shown abovelLirne or submirl.i "r rhe DRB .ooiif:ii",l? o""3lll,",ln!l"
applying .for a bujtding permir-.-pfbu"" iaenrity,-ine accuracevaluaLion of Lhe proposgl..; The iown of vait wilt- adjus[ uhefee according co rhe- tabre'b;i;r; ro ensure Lhe correct feers paid
t
FEE SCHEDULE:
FEE
,D z'J. UU
$ s0.00
$100.00
$200.00
$400.00
$s00.00
ONE YEAR AFTER FINA]..
ISSUED AND CONSTRUCTION
VALUATION$ o 6 10,000$ 10,001 $ 50:000$ s0,001 $ L50.;000
$1s0, 001 - $ 5OO:, O0o$500,001 $1,000, Oo0$ Over $1,000,000
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAIJ EXPTRESAPPROVAL IJNLESS A BUILDING PERMIT ISIS STARTED.
t ) ['>; /-.>
a/
r,- e ] t. 1-'--'r -
Phone
NA.I,TE OF PRO.]ECT:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:LOTTB
STREET ADDRESS:
SUBDTVISTON
ired for submiLt.al to t.he Des ign
al can be given:
OF MATERIAIJ COL,OR
.i '/: tJI)
The following
Review Board
informaEion is
before a final a
A.BUIIJDING
Roof
Sidinq
OLher WalI MaEerials
Fascia
Soffits
Windows
Wrndow Trim
Doors :
Door Trim
lland or Deck Rails
Flues
Flashings
Chimneys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
Retaining WaIIs
Exterior Lightinq
Other
LANDSCAPING: Name of
=,.i E</aT- a /?, /'thA{,t6(.'\
-'.'lt
';
II
It
pesiiner:
Flione:
.;
NO Cu*u,aa=f7zarfr>P,p
- C4yttrr 2t /Zd'z,m op{V_
Thi:tu z-_
it,trlf;pi VUpittu:i
,tlrffr i,,1,,,,.h r\oov>
\'..-----.-)