HomeMy WebLinkAboutTIMBER FALLS CONDOMINIUMS COMMON APPEAL(\-$erv\ Ci\in1 '1
Ti orbcf {a\tS
bmnorl ' Aff"(
TNMBER.F'ALN.S APPEAL
.To
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
MEDIA ADVISORY
Oclober 7, 1998Conlact: Suzanne Silverthorn. 479-2115
Communitv Information Ofiice
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR OCTOBER 6
Work Session Brlefs
Council members present: Armour, Arnett, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Kurz, Navas
-Site Visit of Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau
In preparalion lor the evening meeting, the Council toured the otfices of the VVTCB to learn
about the day-to-day operalions of the organization, as well as its coordination role in lhe areas
of special events and the Vail Valley Marketing Board.
--Site Visit and Appeal of PEC Decision re: Timber Falls
Following a site visit and public testimony, the Council voted 5-2 (Arnett and Jewett against) to
uphold a decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission which denied a request for an
amendment to a previously approved development plan for the Timber Falls development at
4469 Timber Falls Court. In voting to uphold the PEC decision, the five Councilmembers found
the proposed developmenl plan was a substantial departure from a development plan approved
by the PEC earlier this year due lo an increase in site coverage, which Councilmembers said
would have the potential to cause a dotrimental etfect to the site and surrounding uses. The
applicant, Greg Amsden, had sought approval lo construct two single family units plus one
duplex structure (4 dwelling units) on the property, while the previously approved development
plan had proposed the construction of one multi-family structure with six dwelling units. For
more inlormation, contact Dominic Mauriello in the Community Development Department at
479-2148.
--Update of Checkpoint Charlie Upgrades
Nancy Sweeney, administrator of the town's Art in Public Places (AIPP) program,
provided an update on AIPP's involvement in a temporary upgrade at "Checkpoinl Charlie," the
boolh used to monitor vehicle access to Vail Village at the intersection of Vail Valley Dr. and
Willow Rd, near the Lodge at Vail, AIPP held a local competition that attracted proposals from
lour artists, according to Sweeney. The winning design proposes a decorative finish with a
Swiss architecture lheme, including bi-fold shutters. The proposal will be presented to the
Design Review Board this week for final approval. lf approved, the work will begin in two weeks.
Eventually, Sweeney said the town intends to replace Checkpoint Charlie with a new struclure.
For more information, contact Sweeney at 479-2344.
--Lionshead Master Plan Review
The Council reviewed and approved a schedule lor completion and final review of the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan. The schedule calls lor the draft plan to be distribuled during a ioint
meeting ol the Town Council and Planning and Environmenlal Commission (PEC) on Oct. 20
with opporlunilies for the public, Council, PEC and Design Review Board to review and comment
(more)
WN OFVAIL
South Fronbge Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
{;**n"uoru*
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October6,1998
SUBJECT: An appeal ol a Planning and Environmental Commission denial of a request for an
amendment to previously approved development plan for the Timber Falls
Development, located al 4469 Timber Falls CourVunplatted.
Appellant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg Amsden.Planner: Dominic Mauriello
r. wElEcL_eRoPEErY
Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls CourVunplatted, generally described by
the appellant as Site #19 or Building #19.
II. STANDING OF APPELLANT
uraft believes the appellant has standing to file an appeal in this case as RAD Five L.L.C. is under
contract to purchase this property from Ron Riley, the owner of the subject property, who is also a
member of RAD Five L.L.C.
III. BACKGROUND
List of attachments:
- Exhibit #1 - Appellant's appeal form- Exhibit #2 - "Approved Development Plan" - April 13, 1998 PEC approval- Exhibit #3 - Denied (proposed) Development Plan - August 24, 1998 PEC denial- Exhibit #4 - August 24, 1998 - PEC Memo- Exhibit #5 - August 24, 1998 - PEC Minutes- Exhibit #6 - July 13, 1998 - PEC Memo- Exhibit #7 - July 13, 1998 - PEC Minutes- Exhibit #8 - June 8, 1998 - PEC Memo- Exhibit #9 - June 8. 1998 - PEC Minutes- Exhibit #10 - April 27, 1998 - PEC Memn- Exhibit #11 -April 27,1998 - PEC Minutes- Exhibit#12- Aorill3 1998-PEC Memo- Exhibit #13 - April 13, 1998 - PEC Minutes
A. Summary
The following is a summary of the background on this proposal and appeal. Attached to
this memo are all of memos to the PEC which contain details about each proposal to
arnend the Timber Falls development plan. Although quite redundant, each memo and
proposal was slightly different. The memo from April 13, 1998 gives the most history and-
background on the request.
Timber Falls was annexed to the Town of Vail in 1974 (Ordinance No. 13, 1974 and
Ordinance No. 20, 1974) in accordance with Chapter 20, Annexed Areas, of the Zoning
Regulations (these annexation regulations were adopted in 1973). At that time, Phases 1
and 2 ot Timber Falls were already constructed (see Exhibit #2 for phasing). The property
which was annexed included what is currently called Timber Falls and Forest Glen. No
annexation agreement was developed or approved with this annexation. The annexation
ordinance includes the statement that the land was annexed "without special terms or
conditions" which we believe indicates that no additional development rights were granted
to the landowner. The property was zoned in the interim by an emergency ordinance
(Ordinance No. 23, 1974) and ultimately zoned Low Density Multiple Family (LDMF) by
Ordinance No.26, 1974.
Since no annexation agreement was established for the property annexed, the land, in
statf's opinion, is subject to the LDMF zoning adopted tor the property.
From1975until l9S2,approvalsweregivenbytheTownof Vail forphases3-11. These
phases were reviewed and approved by the DRB and were evaluated in accordance with
the development standards of the LDMF zone district (i.e., GRFA, density, building height,
etc.).
In 1991, this applicant (same individuals, different company title) applied for a Special
Development District (SDD #27 Forest Glen). This SDD carved out a 7.5 acre parcel
(labeled as "Future Development" on the development plan) from the original Timber Falls
development to create a separate and stand-alone development. This SDD was evaluated
based on the underlying zoning of LDMF and on a survey for the property. The
development plan which the applicant is claiming is a binding (vested) development plan on
the Town of Vail was substantially modified from the original plan by carving out this 7.5
acre parcel and therefore has produced density and GRFA implications to the Timber Falls
parcel as it exists today.
B. 1998 Events
. The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), at its April 13, 1998 meeting,
disagreed with the staff opinion that the entire development should be evaluated in
accordance with an overall survey of the property and found that Phase l0 (Building #'l 9) of
Timber Falls has a vested development right for one structure in the exact form, size,
density [6 dwelling units], and config";oiion as Building #18 and that anything in addition to
or different than specifically that, will require a PEC review and approval of an amended
plan (see approved developme.t plan attached as Exhibit #2). ouilding #1 8 is a single,
multiple{amily structure containing 6 dwelling units and 6,541 sq. ft. of GRFA. Building #19
is the only building not constructed on the development plan.
. Subsequently, on April 27,1998, the PEC gave the applicant direction that they had
a right to requesr dr I arner rurrrent to the devei..-, , ,-nt plan bv orooosing sinole-f amily and
duplex development, but that the impacts to the site should be similar to the approved
development plan.
. On June 8, 1998, the PEC gave the applicant general direction that the proposal for
4 dwelling units (2 single{amily and 'l duplex) was not in keeping with the scale and
character of the area and that there was excessive site disturbance and bulk being added
to the site. There was concern expressed over the impacts to vegetation on the site.
. On July 13, 1998, the applicant returned to the PEC with a proposal lor 2 single-
family structures and 1 duplex structure, for a total of 4 dwelling units..The PEC again
expressed the same concerns that were communicated at the June 8"' meeting. The
applicant tabled the discussion so that they could develop new plans to address the PEC
concerns about scale, character, and site disturbance.
o On August 24, 1998, the applicant return to the PEC requesting approval of an
amended development plan for the site of Building #19 (see Exhibit #3). That proposal
provides one building envelope and a total ol 4 dwelling units. The building envelope is
approximately 7,400 sq. ft. in size and the building footprint shown is approximately 4,830
sq. ft. in size.
C. The Denied Development Plan - August 24, 1998
The August 24plan provides tor7,325 sq. ft. of GFIFA. The PEC, at its April 13, 1998
meeting, determined that the applicant is entitled to the GRFA contained in Building #18,
which is 6,54'l sq. ft. Additionally, staff has digitized the floor plans for Building #20, which
the applicant refers to with respect to GRFA for Building #1 I, and has determined that
Building #20 contains 7,275 sq.lt. of GRFA. Staff also analyzed this site in accordance
with the LDMF Zone District. This site, looked at as a stand-alone building site, would allow
for 8,180 sq. ft. of GRFA, and 5 dwelling units. However, statf does not believe this site
can be carved away from the Timber Falls development and looked at as a separate
development parcel. This could result in making the remainder of the development
nonconforming with respect to density. Removing acreage from this project would result in
a lower allowable dwelling figure for the project. The nonconforming use section of the
Zoning Regulations does not allow a property owner to increase or exacerbate a
nonconforming condition on a parcel of land.
The August 24 proposal includes 6 enclosed parking spaces and 6 surface parking spaces,
for a total of 12 parking spaces. The Zoning Regulations require 8 parking spaces, or 2
parking spaces per dwelling unit.
The proposed access modifies the parking area and amount of landscaping directly in front
of existing Building #20. The same number of parking spaces are maintained, but they are
moved approximately 7'closer to the building. There is a letter from the management
company representing the owners of Building #20 expressing concern over the
development of the site for Building #19.
D. Gomparison Of August 24, 1998 Plan To Previously Approved Development
Plan
Statf has prepared a comparison of the August 24, 1998 development plan with the
previously approved development plan.(that plan approved by the PEC on April 13, 1998)
and the previously approved development plan with parking (as developed by the
applicant). Sllfl h:: "nalwed thesc,,iarrs tlvo lvays. First, staff has proviJc.J arr.rrraiysrs
of the building footprints on all three concepts. This allows the site to be analfzed as to
building bulk and mass located on this parcel. Second, staff analyzed the amount of "site
disturbance" proposed for each plan. For this analysis, site disturbance is the area of
building footprint, plus any paved drive aisle or parking area.
The difference in building footprint from the Aug. 24 proposed development plan to the
previously approved development plan (April 13) is 2,477 sq. tt. ol additional mass/footprint.
The difference in site disturbance from the Aug. 24 proposed development plan to the
previously approved plan (April 13) is 6,777 sq. ft. of additional disturbance. The difference
in site disturbance from the Aug. 24 proposed development plan to the previously approved
development plan (April 13) with parking on-site (as developed by the applicant) is 1,287
sq. ft. of additional disturbance.
Bulldlng Slte
Foot Prlnt Envelope Paved Area Dlsturbance
Dlfference f rom
ProposedPlan
Aug. 24 Proposed
Development PlEn
July 13 Proposed
Development Plan
'- c I )usly Approved
Devetopment Plan
April 13, 1998
Previously Approved
Development Plan with
Parking Area
l
Jll990sc. fi. 7,400 sq. ft.
5,352 sq. ft. 8,556 sq. tt.
4,300 sq. ft. 9,130 sq. ft. n/a
3,913 sq. tt. 9,275 sq. ft. n/a
.4J&.n. nta
, ?,353 dq. ft. nla--/ it!, yg.
None
5,490 sq. ft.
2,353 sq. ft. 6,777 sq. ft.
7,843 sq. tt. 1 ,287 sq. ft.
E. Discussion of Denied Plan
Staff believes that the proposed bulk and mass (footprint) being added to the site is a
substantial departure from the previously approved development. The proposed massing
utilizes much more of the site than the approved development plan. Staff believes the
proposed use is much more consistent with the adjacent multiple family uses than the July
13 proposal.
Additionally, the proposal will have a greater physical impact to the site, which staff believes
is a substantial departure trom the approved development plan (April 13) for the site.
Staff also believes that the development provided, which shows Building #19 in its original
massing with the addition of parking, clearly demonstrates that the site can be developed
with less physical impacts to the site and with substantially less building mass (footprint).
lf the applicant wishes to proceed with the development of Building #1 I as a replica of
Building #18, the applicant may proceed with a DRB application. Parking for all uses on-
site is required.
F. Zoning vs. Development Plan
The appellant , throughout this process has been changing its arguments with
respect to development rights on this property. .staff, since the very beginning (even
back into the 80's), has believed that zoning should determine the development richts
on the Timber Falls property as a whole, lusi iike the i'own does on every multiple
family development. Statt has asked the appellants for a survey of the property from
which to determine the development rights as they apply to this property as a whole.
A survey was never produced.
; The appellant chose a different course of action and asked the PEC to ignore the zoning on
lthe property (LDMF) and look only at the "approved development plan" (a term only used in
the Zoning Regulations in reference to an SDD) for the Tiqber Falls project. The appellant
was successful at convincing the PEC to accept the development plan as determining the
density on the site and disregard the density established by zoning. The appellant, since
that decision was made on April 13, 1998, has attempted to mix the tvvo approaches, a little
zoning here and a little development plan there. Staff believes the approach must be either
one way or the other, they can not be mixed and manipulated to suit the appellant's project.
The staff also made the appellant aware that if a survey showed that there were no
remaining development rights on the property, that the appellant had the right to apply for a
Special Development District (SDD) in order to propose additional development. This
avenue was also rejected by the appellant.
IV. NATURE OF THE APPEAL
The appellants are appealing the PEC decision denying the amended development plan because
appellant believes it has been aggrieved and adversely affected by this action as detailed in the
appellant's statement attached as Exhibit #1 .
V. REQUIRED ACTION
Uphold/Overturn/Modify the Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of the amended
development plan.
The Town Council is required to make findings of fact in accordance with the Town of Vail
Municipal Code. The required finding is listed below:
Findinq: 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 (Zoning Regulations, Title 12) have or have not
been met.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council uphold the Planning and Environmental Commission's
denial of the amended development plan subject to the following findings:
1. That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title '12 (Zoning
Regulations) have not been met as they related to density on this property.
2. That the proposed development plan is a substantial departure from the approved
development plan (April 13, 1998) due to the increased site disturbance and
- building footprint, which has a potential detrimental etfect to the site and
surroundino uses.
l:\everyone\pecvnemos\timbf 006
xhibir rf I
'.i I
rou0F VAIL
appBal,s nonu Ptn,#;|', *,
urRED FoR FTLTNG AN AppEAL oF A srAFF, DEST.N R-EvrEw uoolood€n
pLANNTNG AN.D ENvTRoNMENTAL coMMISSToN AcTIoN \tREQ
ACTION/DECISION BEING APPEALED:
B.
o
DATE OF ACTION/DECISION:
NAME OF BOARD OR PERSON RENDERING THE DECISION/TAKING ACTION:
D.NAME OF APPELLANT(S):
MAILING ADDRESS:
E,.
PFTYSICALADDRESSTTqvAIT-: SAHE A.( {30t6 pTIoNs. 476-86JD
LEGAI, DESCzuPTION OF APPELLANT'S PROPERry IN VAIL:
Page 1 of2
SIGNATURE(S):
i'rtlir€:<3
F.Docs this appeal involve a specific parcel ofland? W Ifyes, please provide the following information:
are you an adjaccnt properfy orvner? Yes _ no
Ifno, give a detailed explanation ofhow you are an "aggrievcd or adversely affccted person." "Aggrievcd or
adversely affected person" means any person rvho will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or
furthered by this title. The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common rvith other menrbers of the
community at large, but shall exceed in degree th,e general interest in comnrunity good shared by all persons.
itr
l l(ri,
G.. Jt \ (.':
H.
I.ilir:.ti{ '.-l
Page2 of2
Does this appeal involve a specific parcel of land? W lfyes, please provide the following information:
are you an adjacent propcrty owner? Ycs _ no
Ifno, givc a dctailed cxplanation ofhow you are an "aggrieved or adversely affected penon." "Aggrieved or
adversely affcctcd person" means any pcrson who will suffcr an advcrsc effcct to an interest protected or
furthered by this title. The alleged adverse intercst may be shared in common with other members of thc
_/
G.!- -r \' {.-a
iL*"('
H.
I.'fi. l.o rl !!'
Page2 of2
An Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission Decision
of August 24,1998, Regarding an Amendment to an Existing
Development PIan for Timber Falls
The Appellant is appealing the above referenced decision and requesting the Town Council
overturn such decision to allow Appellant to proceed with the proposed amendment to the
development plan.
a
History: ,OOtt_'s
The first eight buildings of Timber Falls Condominiums wer{cogructed under the authority
of Eagle County prior to annexation of East Vail into t@ Tow(5f Vail in 1974. Buildings #9-
#18 and Building #20 were constructed from 1975 LS1983 gnder the authority of the Town of
Vail (see Exhibit "A"). The original developmeq5gfrpepl{the original developer is the current
owner of the parcel) was to create modest si2eQlilonffiium units spread over the parcel. The
original developer chose to only utilize a portion of the GRFA and site coverage allowed under
the Low Density Multi-Family zone district (average 2-BR condo at Timber Falls is approx.
1,000 sq.ft. and the zone district allowed for approx. 1,600 sq.ft. per unit) at the time. The
developer saved Site #19 as it was the premiere site in the entire development with regards to
views, creekside location and proximity to amenities.
AMS Development, lnc. ("AMS"), signed a purchase contract with Timber Falls Associates in
December, 1997, to purchase and develop the final parcel within the Timber Falls develop-
ment. AMS approached the Town of Vail Planning Department in January, 1998, to determine
how to process the existing development rights for Site #19, Timber Falls. Several approaches
were discussed including amending the existing development plan, a minor subdivision and
even a Special Development District. Amending the existing development plan was mutually
agreed to be the most effective approach. On April 13, I 998, the PEC confirmed the density of
Site #19 as 6 dwelling units. AMS then proposed amending the development plan to
accommodate 2 smaller single-family residences and one duplex structure (see Exhibit'ts")
resulting in a decrease in density of 2 units. On July 13, 1998, the PEC gave AMS general
direction that the single-family/duplex proposal was not acceptable and AMS suggested a
townhome approach which appeared to receive a more favorable response. On August 24,
1998, PEC denied the applicant's request for an amendment to the approved development plan
for Timber Falls (utilizing a townhome plan for 4 units) stating the following reason for denial:
The proposed development plan is a substantial departure from the approved
development plan due to the increased site disturbance and building footprint, which
has a potential detrimental effect to the site and surrounding tlses
Reasons for Appeal:
The appellant has been aggrieved and adversely affected by the action taken on August 24,
1998, by the Planning and Environmental Commission ('?EC") to deny a request for an
amendment to the approved development plan for Timbcr Falls. The Appellant's proposed
amendment is not a substantial departure from the approved plan and is very similar in nature
to other amendments to development plans approved by the Town of Vail since 1990 (ie:
changing structural format from condos to townhomes or townhomes to single-family
residences). The appellant requests that the Town Council overtum the PEC's denial for the
followine reasons:
1. The approved development plan was created in the eady 1970's to address the
developer's desire to construct smaller condominium units for both locals and
second home ownership. Twenty-five years later, this same design is not only
outdated but does not provide adequate parking under today's standards. The
appellant desires to develop less density with more desirable floorplans and
architecture. All required parking shall be on site and the building height on the
south (entry) side of the site shall be two stories (versus 3 stories in the 6-unit
building). It is unreasonable to expect the appellant to maintain a building footprint
or site disturbance parameters for a outdated site plan that does not meet current
parking standards within the Town of Vail.
2. The appellant's proposed delefopment plan is well within all applicable zoning
regulations (density, GPft(dte. coveraoe, height limitations, setback requ.irements
and parking and fire code.i$es) for the l-ow Density Multi-Family zone district as
described in Sections l2-Qi-$rgugtr 1P.-ar-tt of Article F in Chapter 6 of the
Town of Vail's Zoning S'.^$rt iStgle *nen considering the entire Timber Falls
oroiect as a whole or tku\ndividual SiE #tg on it's own (see Exhibit "C")
3 The difference in actr*tilt&is
the replica o-unit byi{$rslftth
appellant feels thatttrt is not a
project as a whole or tQJlndividual $fb #te on it's own (see Exhibit "C").
between the proposed townhome plan and
parking is approximately 1,100 sqft.. The
departure from the approved develop-
ment plan. It should be noted the planning staff did not consider the covered
stairwell portion in the center of the 6-unit building (approx. 300 sq.ft.) as site
coverage or site disturbance. This structural element not only adds to the bulk and
mass of the building, but also disturbs pre-existing site conditions.
The appellant has agreed to relocate existing aspen trees within the proposed site
disturbance area and to replace 50% ofthe trees that do not survive such
relocation. The appellant has also agreed, at it's expense, to preserve the existing
landscaping and parking in front of Building #20.
The "potential detrimental effect" to the site is that the site will go from an
undisturbed natural state to a developed property with an approved structure and
landscape plan. The appellant understands the desire ofneighboring property
owners to keep this site undeveloped, but this parcel has been a piece ofprivate
property with vested development rights since the beginning of Vail. If neighbors
were so concerned about it remaining undeveloped, they should have considered
purchasing the parcel to accomplish their goals.
The "potential detrimental effect" to the surrounding uses does not exist. A new
townhome structure (4 units) with on-site enclosed parking and an approved
landscape plan will improve and enhance adjacent buildings within the Timber Falls
project. The density of 4 townhomes versus six condominiums will also decrease
vehicular traffic within the Timber Falls project. The proposed townhome use is
A..i.
5.
6.
aonsistent with neighboring property uses in this vicinity of East Vail.
7. The appellant agreed to 7 of the 8 approval conditions in the staffrecommendation
in the Augrst 24t" PEC meeting.
In zummary, the appellant firmly believes that the proposed plan is a better development plan
with respect to the impacts to the surrounding neighbors than the original 6-unit building
desigrrated for this parcel.
.
Exhibit "A"
History of Timber Falls Condominiums
Ownership
The Timber Falls project has been under the same ownership (Timber Falls Associates) since
original work began to develop the property in 1972
Eagle County
The 21.8 acre site was received Sketch Plan approval from the Eagle County on January 3,
1973,for Lots 1-7, Timber Falls Subdivision. The lots were zoned multi-family and each lot
was to contain several condominium buildings. The breakdown is shown below:
Lot 1 Future site of Glen Falls Subdivision.
Lot 2 Avalanche area and recreational amenities.
Lot 3 Buildings 17, 18, 19 and 20.
Lot 4 Buildings l, 2, 3,4,5,6, and7.
Lot 5 Buildings 14, 15 and 16.
Lot 6 Buildings 10, ll and 12.
Lot 7 Buildings 8 and 9.
The owner performed extensive avalanche studies, which are well documented in the remaining
files at the Eagle County Planning Department, to satisfy zoning authorities at the time. The
avalanche area was required specific mitigation and only recreational amenities were allowed
to be constructed in this area.
Buildings #1-8 (44 units on 2.5 acres) were approved and permitted tkough Eagle County
prior to annexation of the Timber Falls parcel into the Town of Vail on November 4,1974.
Town of Vail
The Town of Vail annexed the subject property on November 4,1974. Annexation
documentation on file at the town does not reference any density or developer improvement
requirements.
ln 1976, a development plan Town was filed with the Town of Vail outlining the overall
Timber Falls site plan and showing a total of l9 building sites (there was no Building #13).
Buildings #10, I I and 12 were approved, permitted and constructed between 1976 and 1978.
In 1978, thc Town of Vail Planning Department requested a master plan be submitted outlining
the proposed "build out" for the remaining development in the Timber Falls project. According
to the owner, this plan was submitted and approved by the Town. The approved Master Plan
defined the remaining development as 7 buildings containing a total of 48 units. The
breakdown is shown below:
Building #14 7 Units
Buildine #15 7 Units
Building #16
Building #17
Building #18
Building #19
Building #20
Total Density
10 Units
6 Units
6 Units
6 Units
6 Units
48 Units
The approved plans for each ofthese buildings, excluding Building #19, are contained in the
files of the Town of Vail. Both the approved site plans for Building #18 and Building #20 (See
Exhibit "C") specifically denote the proposed location and size (similar to the 6-unit
confrgurations in Building #18 and Building #20) of Building #19'
Buildings #14 through #18 and Building #20 were all constructed in accordance with the
approved building and site plans on record at the Town of Vail, and the Master Plan filed in
1978.
The Planning and Environmental Commission determined, at it's April l3s, 1998 meeting, that
Phase X (Building #19) of Timber Falls had a vested development right for a structure in the
exact form, size, density (6 units) and configuration as Building #18. The reference to Building
#18 at this meeting was an arbitrary assignment of a building number as all buildings were
thought to be approximately the same size by both the planning staffand appellant. The Town
attorney, Tom Moorhead con{irmed this at a later PEC meeting. It is policy at the Town of
Vail Community Development Department that the planning staffmake the most restrictive
interpretation possible when face with zoning matters with unclear parameters, thus staff
recommended the 6,541 sq.ft. GRFA number contained in Building #18'
Exhibit "B"
The Chalets at Timber Falls
June22,1998
The applicant, AMS Development, Inc., is proposing to amend a previously approved
development plan for Building #19, Timber Falls Condominiums. The previously approved
development plan consisted of two 3-story structures containing 3 condominium units each
(total of six units) connected by a covered stairwell structure (see attached photos of Buildings
#18 and #20, Timber Falls Condominiums). No formal plans were ever filed on Building #19,
thus the planning staffat the Town of Vail researched GRFA figures of the adjacent buildings
and determined that Building #18 contained 6,541 sq.ft. and Building #20 contained7.275
sq.ft. The staffalso determined that the current site under consideration, given the existing
Low Density Multi-Family zoning, could accommodate 8,180 sq.ft. of GRFA.
After several worksessions regarding zoning issues and development concepts for Building Site
#19, the applicant researched constructing a duplicate of Building #18 on the subject property.
Such a building would require l2 new parking spaces on site under current zoning and the
location of the actual structure (a0' high) would be pushed toward the edge of the 40olo slope
areas and create a more visible exposure to neighboring creekside property owners to the north
(see attached site plan). Since site disturbance appeared to be an important issue at the June
PEC worksession, the applicant decided not to pursue a condominium building development.
The applicant is proposing to construct three structures, one duplex and two single-family
residences, on the property commonly known as Building Site #19. The applicant is requesting
a total GRFA number of 7,325 sq.ft. The applicant is proposing specific building envelopes for
each of the three structures. All parking shall be located within the proposed building
envelopes and the applicant is proposing a2-car garage for each residence.
Propertv Use
The condominium approach to developing Building Site #19 would create a product that
appeals exclusively to second home ownership. A single-family or duplex approach (smaller
1,825-2,020 sq.ft. floor plans) would attract local ownership as well as second home buyers.
The Vail Valley is now seeing a good number of retired and semi-retired couples moving here
as full time residences. The availability of new single-family and duplex residences with smaller
floor plans is almost non-existent. A good example of the demand for this type of product is
Innsbruck Meadows, where 7 of the 17 units constructed are occupied by local residents. Such
results would nqt occur with new condominium products.
Parking
As discussed above the applicant is providing aZ-car garage with each residence proposed. In
addition, two guest spaces per residence are proposed. Although garages do create more site
coverage, they eliminate the view of an exposed parking lot required for a condominium
building. In addition, the parking areas proposed by applicant allow for better use of
landscaping buffers than the 12-car parking lot required under the condominium approach.
Fire Department Issues
The applicant's architect, Rich and Krusin Designs, met with Mike McGee regarding fire
department access issues. Fire engine access and turn-around information provided to the
planning staffwas acceptable to Mike McGee, but the actual structures may be required to be
sprinklered in the Design Review process ( submittal of the actual plans). The applicant
acknowledges this may be a requirement in obtaining architectural and structural approval of
the proposed project.
Trees
The applicant is proposing to protect all existing evergreens on the site as well as several ofthe
aspens exceeding 6" caliper. The applicant field verified 23 aspentrees in the 4" to 5" caliper
category scattered throughout the site (see applicant's tree location site plan). It is the
applicant's intention to relocate these trees (those located within areas ofsite disturbance) to
areas adjacent to Buildings #18 and #20 to buffer the proposed structures. The actual survey
indicating the existing location of these trees shall be provided in the Design Review stage of
this development. A tree relocation plan as well as a tree mitigation plan will be discussed in
the Design Review process.
The applicant's proposal increases that portion ofthe site covered by structural elements, but
decreases the amount of site covered by asphalt (when comparing it to the condominium
building approach). The lower building heights in the proposed duplex and single-family
structures act as a compensating factor, as well as the dispersed nature of the structures.
Landscaping between driveways can also soften the front elevation as one enters the property.
The applicant feels the visual impact of this proposal is mach less than that of a 3-story
condominium building.
Comnatibilitv to Surrounding Properties
Site #19 at Timber Falls is bordered by the following property types:
South Condominiums, 900-1300 sq.ft., 2-3 BR floorplans, older structures.
West Single-Family residences, 4,000-7,000 sq.ft., 4-6 BR floorplans, new
structures.
North Duplex and Primary-Secondary residences, 1800-3000 sq.ft. floorplans,
a mix of older and remodeled structures.
East Condominiums, 900-1300 sq.ft., 2-3 BR floorplans, older structures.
The applicant believes that smaller duplex and single-family structures (1,825-2,020 sq.ft.) are
well suited for this site and very compatible to surrounding properties. Thc Design Review
Board shall administer to the specific architectural compatibility and details of the applicant's
proposal upon approval ofthis amended development plan
>-c:)
&
oF
a)
(E a)
;r' x
.d€
ll rr'tso=bF()o
_(.1 rgYag5
=lr9E
e:
,EH
9';.=5
€&
9€id.)iv6!,oF8E+Au,tr9q)Evt,
tr<
El ss9l ,'E{}HIYl ;ho(Hgdt F .F 3 H8o,l \n =
U) *E-il c.l !. rr:+tl ci i' \f N ru
ol ri E c\ F\o
.ts| $ o'(Al
deol _! .r, e>.\rf !i rtt e) u,}il 3n .P- o o:l r tr -cB q.El[ t'- t > *E
=l
ol \o * .:opcu F- -9
oot q .-€=l d - E9:Rl rrr -e _ oo-;l c {: XE
-qf
$ = C *aEl rt .; -dtl .,a \'' c-ll \.,9
srnEl eeFl 'Ed
Bl di^+ol i :f a
=l;geE<.1 o 6 c.i d)(.t-l 0o > c{ q
=l -1 4qB6l @r^!o
A
I:.
-!ExH
q)!)
ood(d
cq F-ooiF- iar\i.-,
€edctah v)
\oq$o\\O \Oo cil
tf$
c.l c.l
c)o0(glrOElbl >.obp-sl':Jl
El =.fit &6.8hi6l OOrffo.
d
P
i9s<€
o3o\l 'l Cq
*lgl
6l
cr s .R'*El {. s}P'=l -: a; d -. ! 0^;EI ij:5c .Eg5qp:l tEo i;66€
trl -,= q 92= c)=El sEE sET';Eel ). )i'i'E'i $ r oo4 g I e E e E e€3l eR&F eB &.4TI
5lt
(u(l)
oo(c(c
\O tarrr) c.l
O\ F(
t.- cr;
d4r € +i cci tri tri Ei cith.h(AAV)
rrN F- \O O\aarr|ooF-. t\ \O O
c'i -i od d e.i@F- c.t O F-F- ir"'l C.l
12-6F-1
SECTION:
12-6F- 1: Purpose
12-6F- 2: Permitted Uses
12-OF- 3: Conditional Uses
12-6F- 4: Accessory Uses
12-6F- 5: Lot Area And Site Dimensions
12-6F- 6: Setbacks
12-6F- 7: Height
12-6F- 8: Density Control
12-6F- 9: Site Coverage
12-6F-10: Landscaping And Site
Development
12-6F-11: Parking
'12-6F-1 : PURPOSE: The Low Density
Multiple-Family District is intend-
ed to provide sites for single-family, two-
lamily and multiple-family dwellings at a
density not exceeding nine (9) dwelling
units per acre, together with such public
facilities as may appropriately be located in
the same district. The Low Density Multiple-
Family District is intended to ensure ade-
quate light, air, privacy and open space foreach dwelling, commensurate with low
density occupancy, and to maintain the
desirable residential qualities of the District
by establishing appropriate site develop-
ment slandards. (Ord. 30(1972) g 4: Ord.
8(1s73) S 4.100)
12-6F-2: PERMITTED USES: The follow-
ing uses shall be permitted in
the LDMF District:
12-6F-3
Multiple-family residential dwellings, includ-
ing attached or row dwellings and condo-
minium dwellings.
Single-family residential dwellings.
Two-family residential dwellings. (Ord.
8(1s73) S 4.200)
12-6F-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The
following conditional uses shall
be permitted in the LDMF District, subjectto issuance of a conditional use permit in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter
16 of this Title:
Bed and breakfast as further regulated by
Seclion 12-14-18 of this Tifle.
Dog kennel.
Private clubs.
Public buildings, grounds and facilities.
Public or private schools.
Public park and recreation facilities.
Public utility and public service uses.
Ski lifts and tows.
Type lll employee housing unit (EHU) as
provided in Section 12-19-6 of this Tiile.
oCHAPTEB 6
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
ARTICLE F. LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY (LDMF) DISTRICT
Town of Vail
12-6F-3
Type lV employee housing unit (EHU) as
provided in Section 12-13-7 of this Title.
(Ord. 8(1992) $ '16: Ord. 31(1989) $ 4: Ord.
20(1s82) $ 5: Ord. 20(19771: ord. 8(1973)
s 4.300)
12-6F-4: ACCBSSORY USIIST The follow-
ing accessory uses shall be
permitted in the LDMF District:
Home occupations, subject to issuance of a
home occupation permit in accordance with
the provisions ol Section 12-14-12 of this
Title.
Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhous-
es, attached garages or carports, swimming
pools, patios, or recreation facilities cus-
tomarily incidental to single-family, two-
family or low density multiple-family resi-
dential uses.
Other uses customarily incidental and ac-
cessory to permitted or conditional uses,
and necessary for the operation thereof.
(Ord. 21(1ss4) S 12: Ord. 16(1e76) S 1(a):
ord. 8(1s73) S 4.400)
12.6F-5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMEN-
SIONS: The minimum lot or site
area shall be ten thousand (10,000) squar€
feet of buildable area and each site shall
have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30').
Each site shall be of a size and shape ca-
pable of enclosing a square area eighty leet
(80') on each side within its boundaries.
(ord. 12(1s78) $ 3)
12.6F-6: SETBACKS: IN thE LDMF DiS-
trict, lhe minimum front setback
shall be twenty feet (20'), the minimum side
setback shall be twenty feet (20'), and the
12-6F-9
minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet
(20'). (ord.50(1s78) $ 2)
12-6F-7: IIEIGITT: For a flat roof or man-
sard roof, the height of buildings
shall not exceed thirty five f eet (35'). For a
sloping root, the height ot buildings shall
not exceed thirty eight feet (38'). (Ord.
37(1e8o) $ 2)
12-6F-B: DI!,NSITY CONTROL:
A. Gross Residential Floor Area: Not
more than thirty (30) square feet of
gross residential floor area (GRFA)
shall be oermilted for each one hun-
dred (100) square feet of buildable
site area; provided, however, that
single-f amily and two-family dwelling
units construcled in the Low Density
Residential District shall be entitled to
an additional lwo hundred twenty five
(225) square leet ol gross residenlial
lloor area (GRFA) per constructed
dwelling unit. Total density shall not
exceed nine (9) dwelling units Per
acre of buildable site area.
B. Exemptions: All projects that have
received final Design Review Board
approval as of December 19, 1978,
shall be exempt from the changes in
this Section as long as the Project
commences within one Year from the
date ol final approval. ll the project is
to be developed in stages, each stage
shall be commenced within one Year
alter the completion of the previous
stage. (Ord. 16(1991) $ 2: Ord.
1e(1e79) $ 5: ord.50(1s78) S 18)
'12-6F-9; SITE COVERAGE: Site cover-
age shall not exceed thirtY five
Town of VaiI
12-6F-9
percent (35%) of the total site ar€a. (Ord.
17(1991) $ 4: Ord.8(1973) S 4.507)
12.6F-10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DE-
VELOPMENT: At least lorty
percent (O%l ot each site shall be land-
scaped, The minimum of any area qualify-
ing as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15')
with a minimum area not less lhan three
hundred (300) square feet. (Ord. 19(1976)
S s): ord. 8(1973) S 4.50e)
12-6F-11: PARKING: Off-street parking
shall be provided in accordance
with Ghapter 10 of this Title. No parking
shall be located in any required front set-
back area, except as may be specifically
authorized In accordance with the provi-
sions of Chapter 17 of this Title. (Ord.
8(1e73) S 4.s1O)
12-6F-11
Town of Yail
:ri:i;:,ti:r:l
i:::i::iri:j
.:.1::.::l:! ::.!.:!! : !
i:::::i:::::::::lI::
: l::i::;::i::i:iilli:l
r::.::llr:,:r.,:3:i
::::::::;.:il':!,i:::it::E
.:',P:'',F.:
:;,f;:i.*l(:
i:fi.:.:'H.,
iD
dJ
.5
a
tt
{ [:s [:!-- 4n3,E E'; E'g
1 [.tiS.E -=1>+ ;!!b?' -qld $
7, < JE E
i
E
I
6
7.
-!E a
I
b;
8
b;.
a
Ee"
66.
bi.
>3i b b
b
b
b b
€_!; - {E a>J;e:
8 5
q
ac.:
"-.= ! n
=.Ets 5
a5
3I;E!:Ji a i5 g FJ
a
2? € a e
. - a: i
=cE,':> a 9.9 (;
.9 ci.,9EEb1:.;c ! I is E_trE
;r5 o!
4 cir IR€b lx;s ! c X
s E!r3
6S
* s:.1x € o a*;s u iiiE_!Es
6S
i5 o!.l:i.!
X € o 3+;e E P i
s e-{r;
9sr !F 5 0 a;tr E I Ef EI-:E
i
E; E.'
uE: g
R E lsE+;E! E; is Ece gE
o-E:,
gEJiET
SE!egI
sib r
Fs Eir";€! 6; XJEN:gE
.1? ;5I E $.e:-
> E5: g g
E€:E
EEJIEi
s Ec! gE
.g€:! !
E;.',EV;
bi^i.)t p€
bhh,
,E PEbhnl E T*birnl 3 p;
r!
t{<
> stY t=.i: E
- &E-r
= IIE!;:IEg
t*5
E.E=f es g
F
9r E
,H,H : 5 C
!r> I
E
SS$Es
3i'E
>d :8 :i.ii.€!-
.29
;&
N
:
Eic= I
EI
g q!;
v.n &,
*;; s ig
xEiEfi ;:;U E:
k:a>.
IsEF
E
,'''g
n
c.F
Eci
CJ .Y
3E
-6N
- <-)
Et:
ttJ
cJo
l--
c- >'o(g
>:2
F6
r ir,
.i .s u
'=;-'s
r.ii';
9N
=
:l.<
X€-2.
=kFa! a=
I =E
c) hi:a *Ysr* d
.1 Yd
=€ 9N95
'tnti>,4 aEt g
EOiltraca-r,A '!1 i9-:€.E
.ooa- -5 (,
c;;cJ
6tr i.
E|iliLrl*z
5:-s;
S'{t
/.q/'-<'/
r"/, *
€,
I
if
..J
,tI
u4,\
in'/*
Yul
LLi
L)
LU
._a
I
)
Ja-
o,
L
a
J
=oozo
O
aJJt
i
I
I
u-
Ir I i
mi
€-
F
ctt
t.9trt
u
4
dIv4
o
# 6ui
t
-!
I
I
t-
\
dvt
I
tl
-t/
zc.zzftm*x
zPP
otr
).f;
&€s dF6pi !;ifi$ ?$16I HhmeF 6
- -6*l
*r-x_-\
a9
F
hl
F
rg
a
Fl
Uq
H
Ll
FC
l-'l
z
(ll -.
66rn ;\6Yn-t
t-=.--..
iF3
ft\ztt
Eo tsr5 +tl
a'\,\\ _
,*q--'r!i/ l.a
Lot:19 - Timber Falls
R.vLionr lo harloudt Appror.d Dcr&paalt pbD
Erhj\$4|rf
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
August24, 1998
A request tor an amendment to a previously approved development plan lor the
Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Fails CourUunplatted.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
Planner:
RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg Amsden
Dominic Mauriello
I. BACKGROUND
The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), at its April 13, 1998 meeting, found that
Phase X (Building #19) of Timber Falls has a vested development right for one structure in the
exact form, size, density [6 dwelling units], and configuration as Buildlng #18 and that
anything in addition to or different than specifically that, will require a PEC review and approval
of an amended olan.
Subsequently, on April 27, 1998, the PEC gave the applicant direction to amend the
development plan by proposing single-family and duplex development.
Subsequent to that meeting, on June 8, 1998, the PEC gave the applicant general direction
that the proposal was not in keeping with the scale and character of the area and that there
was excessive site disturbance and bulk being added to the site. There was concern
expressed over the impacts to vegetation on the site.
On July 13, 1998, the applicant returned to the PEC with a proposaltor 2 single-famity
structures and 1 duplex structure, for a total of 4 dwelling units. The applicant tabled the
discussion so that they could develop new plans. The July 13 minutes and memo are
attached for your reference.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST
The applicant is requesting approval of an amended development plan for the site of Building
#19. The proposal provides one building envelope and a total of 4 dwelling units. The building
envelope is approximately 7,400 sq. ft. in size and the building lootprint shown is
approximately 4,830 sq. ft. in size.
The plan provides lor 7,325 sq. ft. of GRFA. The PEC, at its April 13, 1998 meeting,
determined that the applicant is entitled to the GRFA contained in Building #18, which is 6,541
sq. ft. Additionally, staff has digitized the floor plans for Building #20, which the applicant
refers to with respect to GRFA for Building #19, and has determined that Building #20 contains
7,275 sq. ft. of GRFA. Staff also analyzed this site in accordance with the LDMFZone District.
This site, looked at as a stand-alone building site, woutd altow for 8,180 sq. ft. of GRFA, and 5
dwelling units (see Zoning Analysis).
The proposal includes 6 enclosed parking spaces and 6 surface parking spaces, for a total of
12 parking spaces. The Zoning Regulations require I parking spaces, or 2 parking spaces
per dwelling unit.
The Fire Department has determined that these dwellings will all be required to be spiinkled
per the Uniform Fire Code requirements.
The proposed access modifies the parking area and amounl of landscaping directly in tront of
Building #20. The same number of parking spaces are maintained, but they are moved
approximately 7' closer to the building. There is a letter from the management company
representing the owners of Building #20 expressing concern over the development of the site
for Building #19 (attached).
The site is located in a High and Moderate Debris Flow Hazard, High Severity Rockfall Hazard,
and a Snow Avalanche Area ol Influence. The applicant has provided a site specific geologic
hazard report addressing these hazards. The report finds that there is no impact of these
hazards to this site. An owner affidavit is required to be submitted with the Design Review
Board application for any development on this property.
III. COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PLAN TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
staff has prepared a comparison of the proposed development plan with the previously
approved development plan and the previously approved development plan with parking (as
developed by the applicant). staff has analyzed these plans two ways. First, staff has
provided an analysis of the building footprints on all three concepts. This allows the site to be
analyzed as to building bulk and mass located on this parcel. Second, staff analyzed the
amount of "site disturbance" proposed for each plan. For this analysis, site disturbance is the
area of building footprint, plus any paved drive aisle or parking area.
The difference in building footprint from the proposed development plan to the previousty
approved development planis2,477 sq. ft. of additionalmass/footprint. The difference in site
disturbance from the proposed development plan to the previously approved plan is 6,777 sq.
ft. of additional disturbance. The diflerence in site disturbance from the proposed development
plan to the previously approved development plan with parking on-site (as developed by the
applicant) is 1,287 sq. ft. of additional disturbance. The change in site disturbance from the
July 13, 1998 proposed plan is 145 sq. ft.less site disturbance.
rv. prscusstoN
stalf believes that the proposed bulk and mass (tootprint) being added to the site is a
substantialdeparture from the previously approved development. The proposed massing
utilizes much more of the site than the approved development plan. Staff believes the
proposed use is much more consistent with the adjacent multiple family uses than the previous
proposal.
Additionally, the proposal will have a greater physical impact to the site, which staff believes is
a substantial departure from the approved development plan for the site.
Staff also believes that the development provided, which shows Building #19 in its original
massing with the addition of parking, clearly demonstrates that the site can be developed with
less physical impacts to the site and with substantially less building mass (footprint).
lf the applicant wishes to proceed with the development of Building #19 as a replica of Building
#18, the applicant may proceed with a DRB application. Parking lor all uses on-site is
reouired.
Plan
Aug. 24 Proposed
D,evelopment Plan
July 13 Proposed
Devehpment Plan
Prwiously Approved
Development Plan
Previously Approved
Dwelopment Plan with
Parking Area
V.
Zoning:
Hazards:
Standard
GRFA:
Density:
Building height:
Lanoscape area:
Foot Prlnt
4,8i10 sq. ft.
5,362 sq. ft.
2,353 sq. ft.
2,353 sq. ft.
Allowed LDMF
8,180 sq. ft.
5 dwelling units
38'sloping
13,62s.88 sq. ft. (40%)
Bulldlng
EnveloDe
7,/o0 sq, ft,
8,556 sq. ft.
n/a
hla
Paved Area
4,300 sq. ft.
3,913 sq. ft.
None
5,490 sq. ft.
Allowed Bulldlnq #18
6,541 sq. ft.
6 dwelling units
Slte
Disturbance
9,130 sq. ft.
9,275 sq. ft.
2,353 sq. ft.
7,843 sq. ft.
Difference from
ProDosed
n/a
n/a
6,777 sq. ft.
1,287 sq. ft.
ZONING ANALYSIS
Low Density Multiple Fam ily
High and Moderate Debris Flow
High Severity Rockfall
Snow Avalanche Area of lnfluence
Lot area: 34,Od4.7 sq. ft. (0.782 acres)
Buildable area: 24,269.8 sq. ft. (0.557 acres)
nla
nla
Proposed
7,325 sq. ft.'
4 dwelling units
38'sloping
24,934.7 sq. ft. (73%)
Note: 'A zone check of Building #20, reveals a tolal GRFA ol 7,275.
3
vt.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends denial of the applicant's request for
an amendment to the approved development plan for Timber Falls, subject to the following
findlng:
1. The proposed development plan is a substantial departure from the approved
development plan due to the increased site disturbance and building footprint,
which has a potential detrimental effect to the site and surrounding uses.
Should the PEC decide to approve this development plan or a modified version, the pEC
should consider making the following conditions:
The site plan shall meet all development standards utilized by the Town of Vail
and that this approval is accepted only as a preliminary grading and layout plan.
A detailed plan shall be required prior to scheduling for DRB review of ihe
proposal.
The building envelope be reduced in size to correspond with the building
lootprint (4,830 sq. ft. in size).
At least 50% ot the Aspen trees located on-site shall be relocated or replaced
on-site on a per caliper basis.
Prior to DRB review of the proposal, the property be appropriately platted. The
plat shall include the building envelope, all proposed easements (including off-
site access easements), development standards (including number of dwelling
units, GRFA, parking spaces, and site coverage) and include the following note:
All future development will be restricted to the area within the platted
building envelopes. The only development permitted outside the platted
building envelopes shall be landscaping, driveways and retaining walls
associated with driveway construction. Atgrade patios (those within 5,
of existing or linished grade) will be permitted to project beyond the
building envelopes not more than ten feet (10')nor more than one-half
V4 he distance between the building envelope and the property line, or
may project not more than five feet (5') nor more than one-fourth (y4) the
minimum required dimension between buildings.
The applicant shall revise the totat GRFA for this devetopment site to 6,54.t sq.
fr.
The site area and buildable area shall be limited to the area shown on the
survey provided entiiled:site 19, Timber Fails, dated 3/31/gg, with project .
number 98-0032S, prepared by Inter-Mountain Engineering, Inc. and stamped
by Duane Feringer, P.E. and P.1.S.26626.
8. The applicant shall provide written approval of owne(s) of the parking area in
front of Building #20, tor all modifications proposed for the parking area.
FlEVERYONE\PECWEMOS\98\TIM8F824.W PO
1.
2.
3.
4.
6.
7.
of i
g==-p%'o
A:N
Lot 19 - Timber Falls
LrLl6. to Hourlt ADDcorlrt ttdttopet pt !
E}
s#
I
'|t
\,,
Irl
I'tl
\l
(
H6
I
I
I
\
i ,.i-.vstt>-
"*f '7'- tlt
,'d-tl--,'II
-\.jY'', .,
ar22mm -tzI*x
4e
.9 5\*
t ti. t.'tr - -rtal
,.tr('..1.'.
t \'rf\. tr \tv'.\Y
ii:i::r-:ii:,-'-$t.t:F--\
i:$'l*-...+.1.rl..-S.4J3ttiJ o/
x/&ftd
Erir
Prr\r){. .lt'
'+ !{/< "-'trx,-v
m
*-,<---\
ao
lr
\lr ..Lr"
trO!ch
n-t
FUnoH
oa
tatU
(A
)-lFl
FI
FgF
z
iZE il6
*xfrlf;i6I Hus 6
Lot 19 - Timber Fells
R.d.l6r ro Houdt appEord t,.nt4Dot fb!
o
o
o
Hif,WHf,,
$6$ W++tt ;r
r' .fl',
,l
l- o
- ),',,^lnu)',-)i-t*
d fl ;.\,''Y:-2t
\ ,i c#' ,,' '\ ,'-'.:-k-
, .:r--=::z'"-*,,r",'"7't "lr)
19
I
,l
lr
ri
I
s/l8rt,t \
i-l -ll\"' ,,,' I -)tt\ '/',," il,"$E-t"-,.-r... - ---""' T,$1 /" ,,-\\.1',
I
I
i:i:_:-.--..i._--j S t&
tFt
*'<-\
ao
|r
- llE:ilFoilAi\ Ilv'llrdllo|0llftlilull-Ilv,llt!il<
llFtllFAV
llFg
lt<,,laJ
zFl
EF
z
i'q- !: : : _: \J_{-: :: _ _-
* _ .-_-: .t
6:=-a"..:; . .--.--.R*. -. *
),_t.- ----._-r-\>:-*\---ii6'-C----- - -.' I
s'.. - - --- -------- - -a::--:g:C -- -------------;-'I-,-'.it'i'.=:..*-:...:\:\;:--*::_:_1_--_-:--j; ];5
=.=--;-==_-\=.j
--:i{};S-:-'-\'.-f
i$$lH
S=:=-.--'\ 7,""'Jo-*a - \
N ar-
nft rrgg
I-'-..\/lo
izdl A
;tir
- t",,r'
b.'IE/
rl,
I
Lot 19 - Timber Fells
n ddd. to hoo.tt /|DDr@.t t .nto!,86t pfr!
ll>
llFgH
llFiloil<llFl
lluFIVllFlil<
llFlllr.AllrvilE
ll<
zFl
EF
z
i:E d6dri i;:ii :;t)nLtr i$UZU aX'i EmmYsl 6
t5_x,,;ffi.;
r-.:------j : -- I -- --- *- :i G -' - -..+.-\=\--:-- <^11 - ---- rl"l.+5iNi_---- _
Lot 19 - Timber Falls
R.rld6r to Hor||lt ADpror.d frrv.fapD.or pf.!
\${l---<\^r
o,f{f'^lts*,,
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
August 24, lggl
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERSABSENT: STAFF PRESENT:
Greg Moffet Dominic Mauriello
Galen Aasland 6eorge Ruther
Diane Golden Judy Rodriguez
John Schofield
Ann Bishop
Tom Weber
Brian Doyon
Public Hearinq 2:00 p.m.
1. A final review of a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vail Interfaith
Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road/ Tract J, Block 7, Vail Viltage 1st.
Applicant: Vail Interfaith Chapel, representecl by Gwathmey/Pratt ArchitectsPlanner: Dominic Mauriello
Brian Doyon recused himself from this item.
O Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments and if the commissioners had any comments.
Galen Aasland asked about parking requirements if the basement space was used.
John Schofield made a motion with the additional conditions that there be a provision to provide
access to the streamwalk and that parking be added if the basement is finished.
Diane Golden seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1.
2. A request for an amendment to a previously approved development plan for the Timber
Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls CourUunplatted.
Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg AmsdenPlanner: Dominic Mauriello
Donrinic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff mem^ He explained the difference between
this plan and the previously approved plan being 1300 sq. ft. and thar rrr., p,-: ,r^,,^ ^ro: f....r a
deficient parking plan.
Planning and Environmcntal Commission
Minutcs
August 24, 1998
Greg Moffet disclosed for the record that Greg Amsden was a customer of his, but that he felt itdid not present a conflict. He then asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Greg Amsden, the applicant, said the number 2,353 sq. ft. did not include the area of the
building where the stairway was making a 1,000 sq. ft. difference and that site coverage hadbeen a point of contention. He said Timber Falls had approximately 78O,ooO sq. ft. ani that sitecoverage was 35% for this zoning. He'said there was 6s,ooo sq. fi. ot site coverage, which
was well under 1/3 for the whole development and that the amount they were askiig for was
such a small amount. He explained that this project was a scaled down scenario, but said it
needed to be marketable and that the last alternative was to build another building. He said the
townhome format had decreased being in the setback and the biggest difference ivas putting allthe parking on site.
Greg Moffet asked why there was so much more parking with this plan.
Dominic Mauriello said that this needed a vehicle turnaround area, which the previous plan hadnot accommodated for.
Greg Amsden asked if there was any way to reduce the asphalt area and preserve the trees.
Jack Snow, the architect, said the lurnaround area was required by the Fire Department and
Public Works.
Greg Amsden asked to move the parking back 7', which would provide 19 spaces as part of theplan and also preserve the trees.
John Schofield said 30' from the asphalt to the building takes out landscaping, not trees.
Dominic Mauriello said the plan showed 22' from the parking to the building.
Greg Amsden said the adjacents would lose the view of the lower portion of the mountain, but
that there were no view corridors established here.
Greg Moffet said, referring to Bob Borne's Innsbruck situation, the PEC gave him flexibility toget staff approval on some changes.
Greg Amsden said they would keep the footprint of the whole building.
Dominic Mauriello said, regarding Condition #8, that the owner of the parking area had to give
permission.
John Schofield asked who the owner was.
Greg Amsden said Ron Riley.
Greg Amsden said the encroachment of 2' belonged to the Association and that they needed7,275 sn fi regslding Conclition #3 and {f r+ thay had to have it. H. said oulsid: orainrrrells
didn't count for GRFA.
Planning and Enrironmcntal Commission
Minutcs
August 24, 1998
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment.
Mel Brodie, a neighbor, said he was concerned about the site disturbance. He stated that at
the 7/13/98 PEC meeting, the PEC was concerned about site disturbance and lhat this was not
an improvement, just shuffled around.
Chris Morrison, residing at the duplex at 4494 Streamside Circle, said after walking the site, you
could see this was Putting a 10lb. project on a 5lb. site. She said she was here to speak in
opposition, as the pine trees would be stressed.
Joe clary, President of Building 18, Phase g, said that Building 20 had 6 parking spaces and
that multiple occupants had to double park for that building. He said it this project is approved,
tenants won't be able to get in and out with the parking doubled up. He also said there was no
way to access the swimming pool or tennis courts, after the garages are built, so we have to
figure out an access before this is built. He felt the path should go through Riley's land. He
said that trucks cannot maneuver around and there won't be hardly a tree left, if this project is
approved. He said it has to be a smaller development. He mentioned that the snow from
Building 20 gets pushed down to where this project will be. He said the access to the pool by
car and by people had to be addressed.
Marilyn Heller, from Building 18, wanted to bring to the PEC'S attention that the approval of the
original Building 19 was in enor and that the parking was not adequate for Building 20. She
said 12 spaces were needed, not 6. The footprint had too much going across the footpath to
the swimming pool and we don't want a footpath down steep stairs. She stated there was a
signed contract between Ron Riley and Rad lV, but Rad lV had Ron Riley on the Board,
lherefore, the buyer and the seller were the same.
Greg Moffet said lhe PEC was not permitted to look beyond the applicant Rad lV.
Dominic Mauriello said the action taken today would not take development righis away from
Timber Falls.
Tom Weber said he was concerned about the parking in the common space and the main
problem was with the footprint being almost twice as much as what was out there. He said that
views from surrounding areas would be impacted. He said if the applicant was proposing more
site disturbance, he would like to see the project lower than 38' to benefit some of the
neighbors, as the project seems too tall.
Brian Doyon said his biggest concern was the bulk and mass and now it is twice the mass. He
said he sees more opportunity to go under the building and that flat roofs could drop some of
the height. He said he was reluctant on bringing ihe parking 7' closer to the building and with a
non-conforming house, the applicant would have to get parking up to standard, which isn't
happening at all.
John Schofield said this was tweaked a little, but not enough.
Galen Aasland said he appreciaiecj rrrc. parKtng moved awayfrom 3uilding 20.
Planning and Environmcntal Commission
Minutcs
August 24, I 998
Greg Amsden said the existing development plan is not just Building 20 and we were looking atTimber Falls as a whole.
Galen Aasland said that.the Board has responsibility to the applicant and to the neighbors. Theapproval plan was for a building in similar scale with Building 19. This proposal is slgnificanly
larger than that and he couldn't support it.
Ann Bishop said lo take the comments from the neighbors and this is substantial departure.
Diane Golden said the original parking had to be in the common area and was not well thought
out and she then asked who parked down by the road.
Greg Amsden said that Building 18 and 20 were the Association,s problem and not thedevelopers and that all our parking was on-site.
Greg Moffet asked how much enclosed parking would have GRFA above it.
Greg Amsden said all of it.
Greg Moffet said what your plan does was to pull cars off the road and put them in garages and
have lower density in terms of units, therefore reducing the lraffic and parking demald oi tnlssite. He said he thought the neighbors should be in favor of this. He said the PEC approved aplan that was very close to this. He said we as a board approved a whole bunch of aspens and
he thought this was truly pretty close to something he could approve. He then said the
approved development plan had no parking on the original plan.
Greg Amsden said the applicant was going to the DRB with the approved development plan
Dominic Mauriello said parking had to be accommodated somewhere and the DRB would
determine that.
Greg Amsden said he had no say about parking on the rest of the site.
Galen Aasland made a motion for denial.
Brian Doyon seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of O-t, with Greg Moffet opposed.
3. A request for a major amendment to SDD #4, to allow for a fractional fee club and a
change to the approved Development Plan, located at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven
Condominiums/ Cascade Village Area A.
Applicant; Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby RobinsonPlanner: George Ruther
Dominic M:r rriarr^ g:..- -- : . :,-"iew c. " :l:fi ;;lemo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Planning and Environmcntal Commission
Minutcs
August 24, l99g
o
6.f'rit+ I 6
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
July 13, 1998
A request for an amendment to a previously approved development plan lor the
Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timbef Falls CourUunptatteO.
fpplicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg AmsdenPlanner: Dominic Mauriello
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST
The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), at its April 13, 1998 meeting, found that
Phase X (Building #19) of Timber Falls has a vested development right for one stiucture in the
exact form, size, density [6 dwelling units], and configuration as Building #18 and that anything
in addition to or different than specifically that, will require a PEC review and approval of an
amended plan.
Subsequently, on April 27,1998, the PEC gave the applicant direction to amend the development
plan by proposing single{amily and duplex development.
Subsequent to that meeting, on June 8, 1998, the PEC gave the applicant general direction that
the proposal was not in keeping with the scale and character of the area and that there was
excessive site disturbance and bulk being added to the site. There was concern expressed over
the impacts to vegetation on the site.
The aPplicant is requesting approval of an amended development plan for the site of Building
#19. The proposal provides 3 building envelopes (A, B, and C) and a total of 4 dwelling units.
Building envelope "C" would contain a duplex structure. The applicant has provided a site plan of
building site #19 (no building forms or plans have been provided, per PEC direction).
R_uilding envelopes "A" and "B" would allow for 1,950 sq. ft. of GRFA each and building envelope
"C" would allow for 3,425 sq. ft. of GRFA for a totat site GRFA ot 7,325 sq. ft. The pEb, ar its
April 13, 1998 meeting, determined that the applicant is entitled to the GRFA contained in
Building #18, which is 6,541 sq. ft. Additionally, statf has digitized the floor plans for Building
#20, which the applicant refers to with respect to GRFA for Building #1 9, and has determined
that Building #20 contains 7,275 sq. ft. of GRFA. Staff also analyzed this site in accordance with
the LDMF Zone District. This site, looked at as a stand-alone building site, would allow for 8,180
sq. ft. of GRFA, and 5 dwelling units (see Zoning Analysis).
The proposal includes enclosed two-car garages for each of the dwelling units located on-site.
The Zoning Regulations require 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. The applicant has provided 4
parking spaces per dwelling unit (2 enclosed, 2 surface)
The applicant has revised the building envelopes to exclude areas of 40% slope or greater and
areas where there is a substantial number of conifer trees on-site (Building envelope ,,B").
The Fire Department has.given.approval of.the general layout, but has stated to the applicant,that structures, based on final design, may be required to be sprinkleo pei tne Uniform Fire Cooerequirements.
The access to the site has been modified in order to work more etficiently. The proposed accessmodilies the parking area and amount of landscaping directly in front of Building'#2b. The ;a;;number ot parking spaces are maintained, but they are mov6d approximately /closer to the -
building. Staff has not received any indication trom tne owners df euitOing #20 as to theacceptability of this modification. There is a letter from the management dompany representing
the owners of this building expressing concern over the development of the site trir aliroing tr"g(attached).
The proposed plan no longer shows a pedestrian path easement on the western portion of the
site.
The site is located in a High and Moderate Debris Flow Hazard, High Severity Rockfall Hazard,
and a Snow Avalanche Area of Intluence. A site specific geologic -hazarO reiort and owner
affidavit are required to be submitted with the Design Review Board application for any
development on this property.
The applicant's submittal, as well as correspondence received from adjacent property owners,
are attached.
Staff has prepared a comparison of the proposed development plan with the previously approved
development plln q1d the previously approved development plan with parking 1as Oev-eto'p'eO Oy
the applicant). Staff has analyzed these plans two ways. First, staff his prov-icied an anatysis 6t
the building fooFrints on all three concepts. This allows the site to be analyzed as to buifing
bulk and mass located on this parcel. Second, staff analyzed the amount dt "site disturbancd"
proposed for each plan. For this analysis, site disturbance is the area of buildino
envelope/footprint, plus any paved drive aisle or parking area.
The difference in building footprintJrom the proposed development plan to the previously
approved development plan is 3,009 sq. ft. of additional mass/footprint. The ditference in site
disturbance from the proposed d-evelopment plan to the previously approved plan is 6,922 sq. ft.
of additional disturbance. The ditference in site disturbance from ihe proposeb development blanto the previously approved.development plan with parking on-site (as developed by the applidant)
is 1,432 sq. ft. of additional disturbance.
il.
Buildtng Slte
Foor Pflnt Envelop€ pav€d Atea Dlsturbance
Proposed/Amended 5,362 sq. ft. 8,556 sq. ft. 3,913 sq. ft. 9,275 sq. ft. nla
Development Plan
Plan
Previously Approved 2,353 sq. ft. nla
Development Plan
Pr6viously Approved
Development Plan with
Parking Area
None 2,353 sq. ft. 6,922 sq. ft.
5,490 sq. ft. 7,843 sq. ft. t,r*t2 sq. ft.
Dlfference from
Propo3ed
2,353 sq. tt. nla
DISCUSSION
Staff believes that the proposed bulk and mass (footprint) being added to the site is a substantial
departure from the previously approved development. The proposing massing utilizes much
more of the site than the.approved development plan. Addiiionally, slaff belieies the proposed
use is inconsistent with the adjacent multiple family uses. This is hot to say that multiileiamily
development and single-family/two-family are always incompatible, but in this specific'instance,
given the location of the parcel in relationship to the adjacent buildings, staff believes the
proposed use is inconsistent with the remainder ol the development.
Additionally, the proposal will have a greater physical impact to the site, ,ivhich staff believes is a
substantial departure from the approved development plan for the site.
Staff also believes that the development provided, which shows Building #19 in its original
massing with the addition of parking, clearly demonstrates that the site can be develo[ed w1h
less physical impacts to the site and with substantially less building mass (footprint). '
ff the applicant wishes to proceed with th_e development ot Building #19 as a replica of Building
#18, the applicant may proceed with a DRB application. Parking for all uses on-site is required.
IV. ZONING ANALYSIS
o
Zoning:
Hazards:
Standard
GRFA:
Density:
Building height:
Low Density Multiple Family
High and Moderate Debris Flow
High Severity Rockfall
Snow Avalanche Area of Influenco
Allowed LDMF
8,180 sq. ft.
5 dwelling units
Allo'fled Buildino #18
6,541 sq. ft.
6 dwelling units
Prooosed
7,325 sq. ft.'
4 dwelling units
35'sloping
24,789.7 sq.ft. (72%)
Lot area: 34,064.7 sq. ft. (0.782 acres)
Buildable area: 24,269.8 sq. ft. (0.557 acres)
38'sloping nla
Landscape area: 13,625.88 sq. ft. (40%) n/a
Note: 'A zone check of building #20, reveals a total GRFA ot Z,275.
V. STAFFRECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends denlal of the applicant's request for an
amendment to the approved development plan for Timber Falls, subject to the following fintlings:
1. The proposed development plan is inconsistent with the character and massing of
the area and the remainder of the Timber Falls development.
2. The proposed development plan is a substantial departure from the approved
development plan due to the increased site disturbance and building footprint,
which has a detrimental effect to the site and surrounding uses.'Lknt'"1
3. The proposal is inconsistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail
and is potentially detrimental to the environment.
Should the PEC decide to approve this development plan or a modified version, the pEG shouldconsider making the following conditions:
t.The site plan shall meet all development standards utilized by the Town of vail
and that this approvai is accepted only as a preliminary gradihg and layout plan.
A detailed plan shall be required prior to scheduling toi one rdview otineproposal.
All grading associated with buildngs on-site be contained within the building
envelopes.
At least 50% of the Aspen Trees located on-site shall be relocated or replaced on-
site on a per caliper basis.
Prior to DRB review of the proposal, the property be appropriately platted. The
plat shall include all building envelopes, all proposed easementslihcluding otf-site
qc_cgss easements), development standards (including number of dwelling units,
GRFA, parking spaces, and site coverage) and include the following note:
All future development will be restricted to the area within the platted
building envelopes. The only development permitted outside ine ptaneo
building envelopes shall be landscaping, driveways and retaining walls
associated with driveway construction. At-grade patios (those witnln s'ot
existing or finished grade) wiil be permitted ro project beyond the building
envelopes not more than ten teet (10') nor more than on'e-half (yzl the
distance between.the building envelope and the property line, or may
project not more than five feet (5') nor more than one-fourth (/+) the
minimum required dimension between buildings.
Prior to DRB applicationl the applicant shall provide a site-specific hazard repon
and a owner hazard affidavit for the development in accordance with the zoiing
Regulations.
The applicant shall revise the total GRFA for this development site to 6,s41 sq. ft.
The site area and buibable area shall be limited to the area shown on the survey
provided entitled; site 19, Timber Falls, dated 3/31igg, with project number gg- -
00325, prepared by Inter-Mountain Engineering, Inc. anO stimfeO by Duane
Feringer, P.E. and P.L.S.26626.
The applican_t_shall provide written approval of owners of the parking area in front
of Building tf20, tor all modifications proposed for the parking area.
2.
e
4.
5.
o,
7.
8.
F:\EVERYONE\PEC\ {EMOS\98\T|MBFALL.71 3
The Chalets at Timber Falls
The applicant, AMS Development, Inc., is proposing to amend a previously approved
development plan for Building #19, Timber Falls Condominiums. The previously approved
development plan consisted of two 3-story structures containing 3 condominium units each
(total of six units) connected by a covered stairwell structure (see attached photos of Buildings
#18 and #20, Timber Falls Condominiums). No formal plans were ever filed on Building #19,
thus the planning staffat the Town of Vail researched GRFA figures of the adjacent buildings
and determined that Building #18 contained 6,541 sq.ft. and Building #20 contained7,275
sq.ft. The staffalso determined that the current site under consideration, given the existing
Low Density Multi-Family zoning, could accommodate 8,180 sq.ft. of GRFA
After several worksessions regarding zoning issues and development concepts for Building Site
#19, the applicant researched constructing a duplicate of Building #18 on the subject property.
Such a building would require l2 new parking spaces on site under current zoning and the
location of the actual structure (40' high) would be pushed toward the edge of the 40% slope
areas and create a more visible exposure to neighboring creekside property owners to the north
(see attached site plan). Since site disturbance appeared to be an important issue at the June
PEC worksessiorL the applicant decided not to pursue a condominium building development.
The applicant is proposing to construct three structures, one duplex and two single-family
residences, on the property commonly known as Building Site #19. The applicant is requesting
a total GRFA number of 7,325 sq.ft The applicant is proposing specific building envelopes for
each of the three structures. All parking shall be located within the proposed building
envelopes and the applicant is proposing a 2-car garage for each residence.
Propertv Use
The condominium approach to developing Building Site #19 would create a product that
appeals exclusively to second home ownership. A single-family or duplex approach (smaller
1,825-2,020 sq.ft. floor plans) would attract local ownership as well as second home buyers.
The Vail Valley is now seeing a good number of retired and semi-retired couples moving here
as full time residences. The availability of new single-family and duplex residences with smaller
floor plans is almost non-existent. A good example of the demand for this type of product is
Innsbruck Meadows, where 7 of the l7 units constructed are occupied by local residents. Such
results would not occur with new condominium products.
Parkine
As discussed above the applicant is providing a 2-car garage with each residence proposed. In
addition, two guest spaces per residence are proposed. Although garages do create more site
coverage, they eliminate the view of an exposed parking lot required for a condominium
building. In addition, the parking areas proposed by applicant allow for better use of
landscaping buffers than the l2-car parking lot required under the condominium approach.
Fire Denartment Issues
The applicant's architect, Rich and Kruqrr Designs, met with Mke McGee regarding fire
department access issues. Fire engine access and turn-around information provided to the
planning staffwas acceptable to Mike McGee, but the actual structures may be required to be
sprinklered in the Design Review process ( submittal of the actual plans). The applicant
acknowledges this may be a requirement in obtaining architectural and structural approval of
the proposed project.
Trees
The applicant is proposing to protect all existing evergreens on the site as well as several ofthe
aspens exceeding 6" caliper. The applicant field verified 2rlaspen trees in the 4" to 5" caliper
category scattered throughout the site (see applicant's tree location site plan). It is the
applicant's intention to relocate these trees (those located within areas ofsite disturbance) to' areas adjacent to Buildings #18 and #20 to buffer the proposed structures. The actual survey
indicating the existing location of these trees shall be provided in the Design Review stage of
this development. A tree relocation plan as well as a tree mitigation plan will be discussed in
the Design Review process.
Site Coveraee and Height Issues
The applicant's proposal increases that portion ofthe site covered by structural elements, but
decreases the amount of site covered by asphalt (when comparing it to the condominium
building approach). The lower building heights in the proposed duplex and single-family
structures act as a compensating factor, as well as the dispersed nature of the structures.
Landscaping between driveways can also soften the front elevation as one enters the property.
The applicant feels the visual impact of this proposal is mrrch less than that of a 3-story
condominium buildine.
Compatibilitv to Surroundine Prooerties
Site #19 at Timber Falls is bordered by the following property types:
South Condominiums, 900-1300 sq.ft., 2-3 BR floorplans, older structures.West Single-Family residences, 4,000-7,000 sq.ft., 4-6 BR floorplans, new
structures.
North Duplex and Primary-Secondary residences, 1800-3000 sq.ft. floorplans,
a mix of older and remodeled structures.
East Condominiums, 900-1300 sq.ft., 2-3 BR floorplans, older structures.
The applicant believes that smaller duplex and single-family structures (1,825-2,020 sq.ft.) are
well suited for this site and very compatible to surrounding properties. The Design Review
Board shall administer to the specific architectural compatibility and details of the applicant's
proposal upon approval ofthis amended development plan.
Buu,nnvc #18, Trunpn Fer,ls Conoonanrruus
o
Eqd toaBdoF^a(I
sIIBd reqtrllI - 6r roT
ll
tl
atl
trl ll(Jll
OII<ll
€ll
ItlFll
Elln(J x
H .> .
fr
-y''
tfriAGGd€- q
:-J
'==?
nlo
tf
z
FIAEI
rdF)-{cn
n
Fd0o
Fr
*A.H
-\-
- .. .t=-'---------.--=-\+"*"" - tt' -
'ra: r -.-\,_:
\-\\- \ \ -i----- r.._ _ il _- -'':_ s?33,bi:; :\-*\ ->- .*-- -;=-::,/ - - - -,- i:i1;*: ----,---_--\i:.1:$-l=,;:.{-----i--Ee -------l. _7_-_-_-_ _- _ _ _.\*l:i:;1:\t,,' - ----; - -^:-i -]\:.$* -i.$---{i t
[,, 1 SD:-;- -t i_.:$NS+.=- .s,:
i,'r/>'*ircrt
F{
&
\--'l+i$fiii:.g: iii
\,
l\ffi1iflDili.:._r*rg:\!I-
:8 N..q:\'-$\:li>i.l\:\'l'
\
I
I
0z
o
ro
.f\-
-aJootro
tr
.-t
lu
od
6ocl/-
Lo
ulz)
'!'\ffi- lii
:VW \r.$-/ffff \t,,,,' "f'Tr\.\,t',t'l tt
,t,
t\
lll/
lR/A
'l!
,}
,x
rnOf,ir
& !l.tATIur
Itt
tv'o
oz
6
--l
6
I
o,,.,.I
./ :J
il
Ir
z
FIfr
Frzt{"
>llAilotl
Fl llr-t llHtl>lt
rdilnll
all
F{ tlct)ll
otl
Fr lli.,oildtril;
fu ll-
\
-f- -
\
t-
,{\( .\')\-V-+ /
.l
\
\
4o:
Y
t.
. t2
I
2tl
\ ll
\ IRlr{I'
o
IUF
EJ
I
\)"
\ l\tr\
t\
1\
')/
/-'
/--
I
I
,t8
- tl\
4fi-*
,7{*
"of
ffi,FgI
a
r,oilD:= {ll
E ld ts.t[dol.aoc
sIIBd reqrull - 6I roT
-_c\
,tiFz:)
.-t!'-o,u
\)urrn
Y,Z.62
<\)to \ \ \, \ttr<.. \. \
".
3 9H - -,'"' "' '
z-* 1 \ \
rff"tu lfi\) ro4
(n -L
.r t\ =
.\
X<_
Vu
IL
fr=q+zt
{
IU
6
' -lf\,t-- $d
.o
* ---& *, -'--
{-/
I
I
R(
I
I
I
I
')l-
ir
€a.:
i5o!co
{l
\,'a
!
,\i*
6\J
=oozo
O
aJJt
eiJ- :tu iin0 il
='.\F\\
\\
\
i*.' .,
,"1rl
Y.
t.t.l
Lli
c.
u.jE
,*l
FI
.al
=l
o
Cttt9
d
8fI4
67168/L998 LL:.26 3A3-7I3-6299 PAGE 81
Dear tk. Motrl.ell1':
rrrn rritlrg to yorr lt order to protest the proposed slte 91an anendoent forS{te 19 at Tiuber Pal1s Condoninftns.
rtm a condornl.nfin ouqer of Bulldtng l8raEo$tEtiuEallBsraett of the aseoclarlonof that bullding, and an spe*king on beharf of nyaeif es gell ee othere !n E /butldtng.
the primary reagon we rowed lnto the Trrcber Falls couunlty rras our apprecla-
11* 9! the haruony that exlots betseen the deveropuear ltielf, ana. tiribeautlful vlewe that the natural retglng provldes.
Unfortuuate.ly, the proposed aueuduent to Slte 19 would creaEe a atrotg netatlvelnpact on our adjacent bulldlng ae sel1 as the entire co@rmt.ty. ArfJ k-dueto the illecotd created by the denelty of the propoaed o-enduent coupJ,ed rrlththe lnconslstency of the propoaed plan to the eristlug conplex..
I aPPreclate the opportunlty to €xpres6 the cor"rnrnlty concergs over thLsproposed anendrnenE. Please feel free to corltacc ue should you have any quest lonsabout our coocerns: 303-796-060f.
Slncerely yours,
//'16/,->%-
Uttffrrr. celle1
Z-AXIS
Date Rceeivod
,-. JUN rz tgg8
,/^v./lzcril n{oner1lerrrent, Cortr4rerng
.fune 10 , 7-998
Mr. Domini-c Mauriello
Town of Vai-1
75 South Frontage RoadVai1, Colorado Ai657
Dear Mr. Mauriello:
r represent the management company for Timber FalLs Building 20.r wouLd like t,o express the concerns of the owners of this proiertywith regards to the proposed new development adjacent to it.-
My understanding is that t.he new building wirl be only 22 feet fromTimber Falls Building 20. This is obvio-us1y very c16se. we wouldask that. the elevations of the new. building re s-oftened ly navinjthe roofline go away from the exisring Timb& FalLs building ^najoihaving just one story this close to lessen its impact.
There are current.ly only 6 parking spaces for the Timber Fa11sbuilding 20. There shourd be 15 splces. we cannot have Eheparking reduced at all. Any reduction wourd leave less than Lparking space per unit.
r would appreciate having these concerns presenEed to the commit.t,eeevaluating this new development. shourd you have any questions,p{ease feel free to call me ac 476-4262
bl-c:ry,
acDonald
o
201 Gore Creek Drive . Vail, Colorado g1657
(970) 476-4262 ' I-800-944-VAIL . Denver 893-3853 . Facsimire (gz0) 4z9-9624
Pres ident
G s137tE2012 PESTINGER DIST P0r
tuly t, l99t
Dquioic F. Maniilo
S€ldrHE
TosnofVril
75 Frcntrgr Rord
Yr[ CO. Et6iz
Rc: l.ot 19 'Iimbcr Fdb
Dc.rMr. Mauricllo:
whcn wc purchrrcd .,rr cotrdminium il 200t rurbcFr[r in 1991, we wEr! infanncrtof drc Lrr-re |)gro|rrytnq I'ti" wUc w *ongly o0jccr !o Doildhi on Url nr m rnurnDcr of ruaeorq incttdtng lrc bct of ruinblc-rpooll |qd 6c dddml of ttre rrpcngrnE wc d lo.rt ws€ ewsr of rhc po.Ille dcwlanrcu rvtrn wr puncharcd rhc unnBrfldiqg rs mnr trch pcring rrcr aru ffi fu urc b trcl, urnr Brffiirs z0 hes
""ry
o,Fdqg pbces lr thc prypr tinrcxrtich il totrfty fondrq,,.tq t E lppto\,fr pl* ,pper rcsliminac d lcilc two of thc sh. Thil il nc accipeHc.-
pc ry ph b $lohrrly inmropi4 fc L,or 19. Ir igno6 6rElpecr othc ildrE cqlsx andravirlrr{r bcany ofoc aruymow@6c btwiutorrcnize buldiry od pnrcmcnfi. It her al of the pmblemr of trc original {lrowdprqo||l h lco of F{tlq, but trc rccpil bcccncr mrl! of r rrfoty-corE!'nl o!P*iany
in thp cwnt of fre. The pmprned huitding wrutrt rnver utitity rr*n tim n tfU**g iff
wc rtongly urgc donid of eny dowbpmcot on Lot 19 bc5rond drc qigirnel ropma, ua
rcquctt &al oc rppruw{ Fstr nal bc rwirircd in rcnm of @uetc pting -c o"rqlrftty, rnldtedishltmr;c.
Thank you fu your wo* on thir sihutiur.
Siaccroly,(tr&z/e,28;r,-r..t
Cr€rF& K^dlccnhingcr
Btddng 20 ( 20ol)
hHt*)rtz
Brian Doyon said granting this would be a grant of special privilege and that having so many carswas not a hardship. He stated that behind the existing garage, there was plenty oi spacr*ith noimpact and that didn't require a variance.
John schofield asked Bill Pierce if he had explored Brian Doyon 's option.
Bill Pierce said it would be a hardship to extend the garage underground.
Luc Meyer said the land on the west side of the house was part of the tract system in potato
Patch.
Greg Moffet stated that this request was a tough one. He said the PEC volunteered to enforcethe rules and this was a spe.cial privilege, as it was based on the fact that a garage worked betterthere. He said if we granted this, we would be drinking variances from a fire hose.
Bill Pierce said there was a difference, as a garage required that a car had to fit into it. He stated
that this property was entitled to 4 enclosed parking places, as it was a duplex lot.
Dominic Mauriello apologized, as he thought this was a single-family home from reviewing the
floor plans.
Greg Moffet said that made a big difference.
John Schofield made a motion for approval.
Ann Bishop seconded the motion.
Greg Moffet stated, for the record, that because of the policy that the Town wants ample
enclosed parking on a permanent basis, he would support lhe variance.
Galen Aasland said, in the future to add G.RFA in the setback was not appropriate.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1.
B. A request for an amendment to a previously approved plan for the Timber Falls
Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls CourUunplatted.
Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg AmsdenPlanner: Dominic Mauriello
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo and added that a hazard study had been
received stating that the site would not be impacted. He also said he had received several
letters from neighboring property owners.
Ann Bishop left at 4:30 p.m. (This was the last item on the agenda).
Greg Moffet dtscioseo ior the record that he did business with ihe applicant, but that it would not
affeci his decision.
Planning and Environmcntal Commission
Minutcs
July 13, 1998
Greg Amsden, representing RAD lv and himself, showed the perspective and how low thebuilding sat on the site from the west elevation, as seen from Bald Mountain to me projeJ. Hesaid it was 6'-8' lower than Building #18 or #20 and was stepped back. He said, as'viewed fromthe property across the creek, it was lower than a condominium building. He stated that th; - "
opporlunity to replace trees was lessened dramatically, if a 6-unit buildi-ng was there instead ofthis proposal. He said that the parking scenario was better than outdoor-parking. He r"rino"othe PEC that staff was taking a conseryative approach in relation to what this siie could n"noie.He again stated that they were going from a potential condominium building to smaller single-family units.
Dominic Mauriello said that this was a substantial .departure from the plan and potentially
detrimental to adjacent neighbors, as the proposal encroached closerinto builciings in thatdevelopment. He said lhis development was zoned multiple-family and by introau-cing single-family dwellings into an area zoned multiple-family would be potentially inconsistent witn r',,unarwas built there.
Greg Amsden said he was not interested in dropping the GRFA.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment.
Marilyn Heller, an owner of a condo on the east side of Building #18, said she would be impactedwith whatever went on that site. She said it was a very large footprint and that one of tne iingiehomes would go over lhe path that was an access way to the swimming pool, tennis courts a-ndrecreation area. She said.it would be very close to her patio, impactinglhe view and tating awaythe trees. She said the original plan did not take parking into account, which was atso a pr'oUtem
and needed some rethinking. She stated that the sewei line needed to be looked into, as th;tneeded to be careful not to cross ovef the existing sewer line for Buildings #1g-#20.
Mel Brodie, who lived directly across the creek, said this was just a huge mass of buildings withthese three separate structures. He said the 35' high condo would be ieplaced by 3 build-ings
ranging in height 32' - 35' .
Dominic Mauriello made a correction on #2 of the findings in # V.- Staff Recommendation. Hesaid it should add the word "potential," before the word ,,detrimental.,,
Tom Weber stated that what was approved was the right to build the same building as Building
#18 or #20. He said he was being asked to depart from what had been approved. He said thJproposed plan caused more site disturbance and was closer to the neighboring buildings. He
said he would like to see some investigaiion of putting the parking into the exisling com]ron "."".He said that this proposal had more impact than the previously approved plan. He said because
of lhe way it looked and its use being such a departure from the original plan and it affected theneighbors more, he wouldn't be able to support the request at this time.
Brian Doyon echoed what Tom said. He said that the PEC only approved the master plan and
that this was a large massing in the footprint. He said that this was a condo project and theparking was intended to be in the common area the same as the rest of the arei. He thought
that trees should be replaced 100% caliper per caliper,
Dominic Mauriello said it was reasonable to replace al 5Q% caliper per caliper, if replacing a
large number of trees.
Planning and Enr,ironmcntal Commission
Minutes
July J 3, 1998
o
Brian Doyon again said to add as much caliper per caliper as could be accommodated.
Greg Moffet asked if the garages were counted in the GRFA figure.
Greg Amsden said, no.
Bdan Doyon suggested that moving the parking lots closer to the balconies on Building #20 was
a concern.
Tom Weber said the common area started at the exterior wall of puilding #20.
'Greg Amsden said Building #18 owned their own parking and that Building #20 did not own their
own parking. He said that Ron Riley had granted easements for the building to have access, but
he owns the common area.
Brian Doyon said to have a car parked 10'from yourwindowwas a detrimental effect.
John Schofield said the site disturbance for three foundations was much more and that access
pinned in by parking wouldn't function. Therefore, he said realistically, the site disturbance was
substantially more and the access was not accessible.
Galen Aasland said he had concerns with the site disturbance and if it couldn't be demonstrated
that the site disturbance was lhe same, the applicant shouldn't get GRFA . He said he did see
merit in enclosing the parking. He said for this to be approvable, the scale would have to be
consistent with what was on the site. He said he believed that the applicant could build
significantly more upwards to 35' and that his biggest concern was the footprint and the building
mass and bulk, so he would have trouble supporting this.
Diane Golden stated that this was a great departure from what was previously approved.
Greg Moffet said the problem in hand was that this was uncharted territory with an approved
development plan. He questioned single-family houses in the middle of this project. He said he
was hung up on the bulk and mass of the garages. He said there was an additional 2,500 sq. ft.
for the garages. He said he wanted to see covered parking, with no more bulk and mass.
Greg Amsden summarized that the single-family approach didn't seem workable with the
Ccmmission or with the staff, as there was too much disturbance. He said they needed to put
the parking on the site. He thought they would have to put a condo building here or put a
townhome scenario. He said he would like to table this and come back with a townhome
scenano.
Galen Aasland said a townhome would fit into the neighborhood better, having a common wall.
He then made a motion to table this item until 8/10i98.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote or ti-O.
I A request for a worksession of a major exterior alteration in CC2 and the establishment
of a Special Development District for the Antlers at Vail, located at 680 W. Lionshead Pl./
Lol 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 4th Filing.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutcs
July 13, 1998
Ft;bl**a
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
June 8, 1998
A worksession to discuss a request for an amendment to a previously approved
development plan for the Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls
CourVunplatted.
Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg AmsdenPlanner: Dominic Mauriello
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST
The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), at its April 13, 1998 meeting, found that
Phase X (Building #19) of Timber Falls has a vested development right lor one stiucture in the
exact form, size, density [6 dwelling units], and configuration as Building #18 and that anything
in addition to or ditferent than specifically that, will require a PEC review and approval of an
amended plan.
Subsequently, on April 27,1998, the PEC gave the applicant direction to amend the development
plan by proposing single{amily and duplex development.
The applicant is now requesting approval ol an amended development plan for the site of
Building #19. The proposal provides 3 building envelopes (A, B, and C) and a total of 4 dwetting
units. Building envelope "C" would contain a duplex structure. The applicant has provided a site
plan of building site #19 only (no building forms or plans have been provided). Staff has
requested from the applicant an overall site plan of the development so that access and Fire
Department access could be evaluated and a description of how access easements would be
established to the site. This information has not been provided to the staff in a time frame that
has allowed a review to take place and therefore the applicant has requested this item be placed
on the agenda as a worksession.
Ruilding envelopes "A" and "8" would allow for 1,950 sq. ft. ol GRFA each and building envelope
"C" would allow for 3,425 sq. ft. of GRFA for a torat site GRFA ot 7,025 sq. ft. The pEC, at its
April 13, 1998 meeting, determined that the applicant is entitled to the GRFA contained in
Building #'18, which is 6,541 sq. ft. Additionally, staft has digitized the floor plans for Building
#20, which the applicant refers to with respect to GRFA for Building #19, and has determined
that Building #20 contains 7,275 sq. ft. of GRFA. Staff also analyzed this site in accordance with
the LDMF zone district. This site, looked at as a stand-alone building site, would allow for 8,1g0
sq. ft. of GRFA, 5 dwelling units, and 11,922.6 sq. ft. of site coverage (see Zoning Analysis).
The proposal includes enclosed lwo-car garages for each of the dwelling units located on-site.
The Zoning Regulations require 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. The applicant has provided 4
parking spaces per dwelling unit.
The proposed building envelopes include areas that are unbuildable. The Zoning Regulations
prohibit development in this zone district on slopes greater than 40%. Staff requested that the
applicant revise the building envelopes to exclude these areas and also exclude the areas where
there are substantial number of trees on-site (Building envelope "B'). The applicant does not
wish to amend the building envelopes, but has stated that they would not affect these areas with
development. Staff believes that when creating building envelopes, as has occuned numerous
times in the past, that they specifically exclude areas wtrich are unbuildable, otherwise, staff
believes there is no use in creating such envelopes. Building envelopes are intended to indicate
areas where development should occur and therefore, must exclude unbuildable areas.
Additionally, the language used on plats today by the Town of Vail does not allow any grading
associated with a structure outside of a building envelope. The proposed plan shows retaining
waffs within the area ot 40o/" slope and outside of the building envelope (envelope "B" and "C").
The applicant is proposing a pedestrian path and easement on the western portion of the site.
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
Zoning: Low Density Multiple Family
Hazards: High and Moderate Debris Flow
High Severity Rockfall
Snow Avalanche Area of Intluence
Lot area: 34,06/-.7 sq. ft. (0.782 acres)
Buildable area: 24,269.8 sq. ft. (0.557 acres)
Slandard
GRFA:
Density:
Site Coverage:
Building height:
Landscape area:
AIIowed LDMF
8,180 sq. ft.
5 dwelling units
11,922.6 sq. ft. (35%)
38'sloping
13,625.88 sq. ft. (40%)
Allowed Building #18
6,541 sq. ft.
6 dwelling units
Proposed
7,325 sq. ft.-
4 dwelling units
10,245 sq. ft. (s0%)
35'sloping
19,897.7 sq. ft. (58Yd
nla
n/a
n/a
Note: .A zone check of buiEing #20, reveals a totat GRFA ot 7,275.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
No recommendation has been provided as this is a worksession. Staff has provided the
following list of issues that should be addressed prior to final approval:
1. The applicant provide an overall site plan of the entire development which clearly
shows access to this site prior to scheduling for DRB review of the proposal.
2. The site plan meet all development standards utilized by the Town of Vail and that
this approval is accepted only as a preliminary grading and layout plan. A detailed
plan shall be required prior to scheduling for DRB review of the proposal.
3. The building envelopes be amended to remove areas conlaining 40o/" or greater
slopes and the large stand of trees located in envelope ',8."
o
All grading associated with buildings on-site be contained within the building
envelopes.
Prior to DRB review ot the proposal, the property be appropriately platted. The
plat shall include all building envelopes, all proposed easements (including otf-site
qccqss easements), development standards (including number of dwelling units,
GRFA, and site coverage) and include the following note:
All future development will be restricted to the area within the platted
building_envelopes. The only development permined ouFide the platted
building envelOpes shall be landscaping, driveways and retaining walls
associated with driveway construction. At-grade patios (those within 5'of'existing
or finished graOd) Wtt be permittedlo projeA beyond rhe buitding
envelopes not more than ten feet (10) nor more than one-half (y2l the
distance between the building envelope and the property line, or may
project not more than five feet (5') nor more than one-fourth (/r) the
minimum required dimension between buildings.
Prior to DRB application, the applicant shall provide a site-specific hazard report
for the development in accordance with the Zoning Regulations.
The applicant shall revise the total GRFA for this development site to 6,541 sq. ft.
FlEVERYONE\FECWEMOS\98\TIMBFALL.608
4.
6.
7.
"Ihe-lehalets at Timber Falls"
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant is proposing to amend the previously approved development plan for Site #19 of
Timber Falls condominiums. The following amendments a'" ptopor"d,
1. Reduce density from 6 redidential units to 4 residentid units.2. Changing the residential structures from a condominium format to a single.family
or duplex format.
3. Maintain the 7,32s sq.ft. of GRFA indicated by the approved plan for Building
#20. Site #19 is the last undeveloped parcel in TimberFalls and containsZ4-2io
sq.ft. ofnet buildable area.
The applicant has established defined building envelopes forthree structures (l duplex and 2
single family homes) proposed. No structure shall be located within l5-feet oian adlacent unit
in accordance with past treatment of single-family conversions within the LDMF zone district.Exterior materials wifl be similar to those products used in the existing buildings at Timber
Falls... Stucco base with natural wood siding, possibly some stone u"&ntr. Development
standards for this LDMF zonng district shatl be adhered to under this proposal. Site #19 shall
become part of the Timber Falls master association.
Upon PEC approval of this proposed amendment to the development plaq a formal plat
defining the GRFA" density, building envelopes, 40% slope ana too-yea, tiood plain (non-
buildable) areas, easements and site boundaries shall be submitted by applicant for review and
approval by the Town ofVail.
Density
GRFA
Building Height
Parking Spaces
Buildine #20
6 units
7,325 sq.ft.
?
Unknown,
All parking offsite
The Chalets
at Timber Falls
4 units
Unchanged
35'
8 Enclosed
8 Uncovered
All parking on-site
History of Timber Falls Condominiums:
Ownershio
The Timber Falls project has been under the same ownership (Timber Falls Associates) since
original work began to develop the property n lg7L.
Ea-ele Countv
The 21 .8 acre site was received skerch plan approval from the Eagle county on January 3,
1973, for Lots 1-7, Timber Falls Subdivision. The lots were zoned multi-family and eac-h lot
was to contain several condominium buildings. The breakdown is shown below:
Lot I Future site of Glen Falls Subdivision.
Lot 2 Avalanche area and recreational amenities.
Lot 3 Buildings 17, 18, 19 and 20.
Lot 4 Buildings l, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and7.
Lot 5 Buildings 14, 15 and 16.
Lot 6 Buildings 10, ll and 12.
Lot 7 Buildings 8 and 9.
The owner performed extensive avalanche studies, which are well documented in the remaining
files at the Eagle County Planning Department, to satisfy zoning authorities at the time. The
avalanche area was required specific mitigation and only recreaiional amenities were allowedto be constructed in this area.
Buildings #l-9 (44 units on 2.5 acres) were approved and permitted through Eagle countyprior to annexation of the Timber Falls parcel into the Town of Vail on N&ember 4. 1974.
Town of Vail
The Town of Vail annexed the subject property on November 4, 1974. Arurexation
documentation on file at the town does not reference any density or developer improvement
requirements.
rn 1976, a development plan Town (see Exhibit "A' - Development plan, obtained from files atthe Town of Vail) was filed with the Town of Vail outlining the overall Timber Falls site plan
and showing a total of 19 building sites (there was no Building #13). Buildings #10, I I and lZ
were approved, permitted and constructed between 1976 and 197g.
In 1978, the Town of Vail-Planning Department requested a master plan be submitted outlining
the proposed "build out" for the lemaining development in the Timber Falls project. Accordint
to the owner, this plan was submitted and approved by the Town ( See ExhiLit ;B', _ Mart"1 -
Plan, obtained from files at tle Town of Vail). This approved Master plan clearly defines the
remaining development as 7 buildings containing a total of 48 units. The breakdown is shown
below:
7 Units
7 Units
10 Units
6 Units
6 Units
6 Units
6 Units
48 Units
The approved plans for each of these buildings, excluding Buildirrg #19, are contained in the
files of the Town of Vail. Both the approved site plans for Building #ls and Building #20 (See
Exhi_bit "C") specifically denote the proposed location and size (identicat to the 6-unit
configurations in Building #18 and Building #20) of Building #19.
Buildings #14 through #18 and Building #20 were all constructed in accordance with the
approved building and site plans on record at the Town of Vail, and the Master plan fited in
t978.
After receiving inquiries and an offer for the purchase of Site #19 at Timber Falls, the owner
approached the Town of Vail Planning Department regarding the remaining GRFA available in
the project. A response letter from Tim Devlin at the Planning DepartmentlSee Exhibit ..D"),
dated March 3, t993, indicated the remaining GRFA as :a,OiZ sq.ft..
A second letter from Tim Devlin at the Planning Department (See Exhibit ..E'), dated March
I I, 1993, questioned the accuracy ofthe previously represented GRFA number and
recommended using it only as a "rough estimate" until such time as a starnped survey confirms
the site area and net "buildable" area. Much to the surprise ofthe owner and contrary to thedevelopment plan and master plan on file in the records of the Town of Vail, the letter goes onto indicate a remaining density of 2 units for Site #19 at Timber Falls.
The owner responded in a-letter to Tim Devlin (See Exhibit .,F"), dated March 17, 1993,
stating that the Town of Vail's analysis was flawed. If the Townis technique of using current
1?*_ng criteria in 1993 (disregarding all past approvals) to analyze the remaining aen'sity in tfreTimber Falls project, then the Town must focus their current zoning standards in 1993 to thoselands annexed into the Town in 1974, or 10.575 acres. This approaih would arrive at aremaining density of 23 units and a even higher remaining GRFA for Site #19. No further
discussions or any applications were filed at this time.
Purpose of Apptication:
The applicant, AMS Develoq."nt, Inc. (Greg Amsden) negotiated a contract on December 29,1997, to purchase site #19, Timber Falls condominiums, from the owner. The applicant
requested verification of existing density and GRFA for the subject parcel from the Town ofVail Planning Department in early January, 1998. After approximately 30 days of discussions
involving the Town of vail planning stafi, town attorney, owner, appiicant and applicant's
attorney, the Town of vail responded in a letter to the applicant 1SeL rxnuit ,,G'i, dated
Building #14
Building #15
Building #16
Building #17
Building #18
Building #19
Building #20
Total Density
February 9, 1998. , and frrther stated that the decision as to existing density for Site #19
cannot be determined by the planning staffor the Town attorney. Accordhg to state statute,
this decision must be deterrrined by a Commission or Board seated at the Town of Vail.
In the April 13, 1998, meeting of the PEC, it was determined that there was a existing
development plan for Building #19 that included 6 units. The PEC further determined that any
modification to the original densrty or square footage of the originally planned building woud
require PEC review and approval.
Utilizing the stamped and approved set of plans forBuilding #20 from the Town of Vail files,
the applicant determined the GRFA of this building to be 7,325 sq.ft.
In the April 27, 1998, meeting of the PEC, the applicant requested a work session to further
clarify the PEC's decision in regards to what development format, density and GRFA is
reasonable in the eyes of the PEC for Site #19. on a conceptual rwiew, the pEc gave the.
applicant direction that (l-)-single family or duplex stnrctures would be considered, (2) density
would have to be reduced if more site coverage was proposed by applicant, and (3) ihe GRFI
for Site #19 would need to comparable to similar buildings within tiri orieinal deviopment
plan (the 7,325 sq.ft. contained in Building #20 was discussed).
tILt c0PY
D ep artme nt of C ommunity D eve lopment
75 South Frontage Roa.d
Vail, Colora.do 81657
970-479-2IsE
FAX 970-479-2452
May 20, 1998
Greg Amsden
AMS Development, Inc.
500 S. Frontage Road East, Suite I 12
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Timber Falls - Proposed amendment to development plan
Dear Greg:
The Community Development Depaftment has reviewed your preliminary plans to construct 4
drvelling unirs on building site 19 in the Timber Falls devclopment. The ioitowing
comments/revisions need to be addressed:
l.
2.
The proposed building envelopes need to exclude areas that contain 40vo or greater
slopes. Additionally, the building envelopes should exclude the large cluster of Aspens
shown on Site B. Please revise the proposed building envelopes.
There shall not be grading of the building sites out.side of the proposed building envelopes.
Additionally, no grading shall occur in areas of 40% or greater slope. 'please revise the
plan accordiogly.
site 19, as surveyed, includes areas located in Debris Flow Moderate Hazard and snorv
avalanche. Please provide a site specific hazard report for the proposed improvemenrs.
This report shall be prepared by a professional engineer or geoiogist.
Driveway access to a site containing more than 4 dwelling units and less than I I dwelling
units is required to be 20' in width. The proposed plan does not meer this requirement.
The driveway width for 3 dwelling units or less is l2'. Please revise the plan accordingly.
A smaller scale plan needs to be provided showing existing improvemenrs from the public
street to the development site. Fire Departmcnt access requircments cannot be evaluated
A
5.
oPage I of2
{; *rn"ror^r",
l?.,.a rl *t l"-1
': -: :
without a complete iitd ptan. A fire truck will need to be able to turnaround within 150' of
the staging area.
6. The site plan must show adequate room for backing and turnaround of vehicles on-site.
As proposed the plan does not adequately provide the required 20' centerline radius for
backing and tumaround ofvehicles. Please revise the plan to accurately show the backing
radii.
7 . Please provide a written statement indicating how "legal" access to the properry will be
obtained or provided for. Will an easement be recorded?
8. Please provide spot elevations at the edge ofthe existing drive where you plan to tie into
with the proposed driveway.
9. Snow storage areas need to equal 30% ofthc paved lot area. These areas must be
accessible to plowing and must not contain obstructions which prevent use of snow
storage area. Please provide calculations for the proposed snow storage areas.
10. The proposed pedestrian easement is located very close to the proposed building envelope
for Site A. You may want to consider providing some distance benveen any proposed
envelope and this path.
I l. Staff has evaluated site 19 based on the survey provided and based on the LDMF zoning.
The analysis provides:
Lot area: 34,064.7 sq. ft. (0.7E2 acres)
Buildable area: 24,269.8 sq. ft. (0.557 acres)
Standard Allowed LDMF Allowed Buildinq #18 Proposed
GRFA: 8,180 sq. ft. 6,541 sq. ft. 7,325 sq. ft.*
Density: 5 dwelling units 6 dwelling units 4 dwelling units
Site Coverage: 11,922.6 sq. ft. (35%) nla 10,245 sq. ft. (30%)
Note: A zone check ofbuilding #20, reveals a total GRFA of 7,275.
It appears that based on a complete analysis of the site, that your proposal complies with
the LDMF zone stanards above, when looking at site l9 individually.
Page 2 of 2
RICH AND KRUSEN DESIGN, INC
ARCHITECTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
ph""":ffi i#;;ff f#fffilf l'ffil?,.1&",.^".
May 29, 1998
Dominic Mauriello
Town of Vail Community Development
re: Lot 19 Timber Falls - Proposed amendment to development plan
Dear Dominic:
These drawings should address your letter of May 20 to Greg Amsden as follows:
1. We would like to leave the building envelopes as proposed, with the
understanding that no buildings will encroach into the 4O% slope, and that the
significant trees in envelope B shall be preserved. These two conditions are
stated on the proposed development plan. Sheet 2 of the drawings.
2. We have not proposed any change in the grades within the 4O% slope. As for
grading outside of the building envelope, it is impossible to achieve driveway
access and drainage without it.
?
4.
E.
6.
7.
8.
o
A site specific hazard report will be provided to you when Art Mears returns.
We expect that to be before the PEC meeting on the 8th.
I have adjusted the driveway to be 20 feet wide.
An overall plan of the project will be provided to you by Greg Amsden.
I have indicated the backing radii for vehicles on site.
Legal access to the property will occur across Limited Common Elements. The
property seller can provide you with a statement to that effect, if necessary.
I have provided a spot elevation at the existing pavement.
I have indicated pavement and snow storage square footage on the Proposed
Site plan, Sheet 3.
10.The existing pedestrian path is actually almost
however, there is not easement f or it. We are
shown, but the path will stay where it is.
Thank you for your help. lf I can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
entirely on the Phase 9 property,
willing to provide an easement as
Sincerel
Rich and Krusen Design, Inc.
sal&r.W) sgst6 opErolof .lp4 q9 erlns dool aEpl:suo!-r orlor ,,t!*q u.3nr)t puE qr!!-, t- ,)',, . NY'ld U roralgo crlouddv A'Isnollrud orrr\ irNallrv n., -
... --..: ,' l- S1.M UggruIIfI IO-1 ';E; '|-{
- .- ,
--
1-_-____: _ F-:E t€di-:--+ --.1.ri,._-4+-=i+,;:=-: *r=. *-*___r.- _.'.-_ _e:iEr*a!F_,_|afl=_E=E_
o
>r--
\
\
1'r'
-:. _(
.+rriri
Fr.Ea-q{
o
I
I
iffi
Il
Ii
Il/
f'e
o
--iazfiEeTes)' .\ -';.
,:. (
I,'#*iN
_3,
:'f
;;=EF:=r;;3!
,l
=
I --'( -{ -.\c-'*.
!\
\
<\
H\g\
,z
::
I
ta!:
J
4
e
t
t1
F
-.t
i
Ik-'
It,-t/II
I
sa
cz
=
e
3
z
45
=>P};9F=
H:
E
iEii
l-zzS
IE
r3
g
tia2HaI-' 3
ui2
<;e=
vt
att
E;<3
Z"Ed:
F?rh.
'R,;
ooo@Pt,ror==E=-gl- :3lE = 9=!!_?+_ -!l!gga g".'_ @rr pransq osAouddv r,-isno-rn-diie or rH l.rinv ir ir.I/rnu u,ljan uddy A'tstrol^uud oI IN lNxl{lv dJsalvduugl^Ilr6l rol * €)
N O I r I o o Y H ru n o t
NOtStAtosns NUOll9tS
Tt
z
t
E
--_-_--.
\
\
t
t
tiN
f.":'- \ \ \
i rtt
k .23
I
-1
6
{d
\,Y)
-. :-j-'"'-H
H,g ;^b
Hffii ,1/4- .'i'.ffiY*
FA.\+ *
John Schofield asked if the applicant had anything to add. He did not. He then asked for anypublic comment. There was none.
Brian Doyon had no comments.
Galen Aasland said he would like the construction signage to be approved by the Town of Vail.
Galen Aasland made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo, with the, condition that the construction signage be brought into compliance with the Town of Vail
regulations.
Ann Bishop seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-0.
3. A request for additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for the conversion of a
garage to GRFA, and for the expansion of the mechanical room, located at 345 Mill Creek
Circle/Lot 14, Block 1, Vail Village 1st.
Applicant: Lee M. Bass, represented by Snowden and HopkinsPlanner: George Ruther
George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo.
John Schofield asked if the applicant had anything to add. He did not. He then asked for any
public comment. There was none.
Tom Weber asked George to review the residences on the lot.
George Ruther explained the applicant's residence.
There were no comments from the rest of the Commission.
Ann Bishop made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo, with the condition
that the Public Works Department review and approve the proposed parking plan.
Brian Doyon seconded the motion.
The molion passed bv a vote of 5-0.
4. A worksession to review an amendment to a previously approved plan for the Timber
Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls CourVunplaited.
Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg AmsdenPlanner: Dominic Mauriello
Dominic Mauriello gave an over,'iew of the staff memo. Dominic stated that the PEC had
directed him to obtain the site coverage for Building 19, which was approximately 2600 sq. fL
Planning and Ewironmcntal Commission
Minutcs
June 8, 1998
John Schofield asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Greg Amsden' with AMS Development, explained that he was developing the site along with hispartners. He stated, regarding item #3 in the staff memo, that lhe 406/o s'lope was a strictinterpretation and left a jagged edge and if they followed the edge, they would have to jog makingsurveying more difficult. .He said they could nol build inlo e 400/ "iop", urt they wouldiJ *iffi"g"to Plat restrict lhe 40% slope area and the area conlaining trees to preserve thim. He said,regarding item #4' thal he assumed the driveway and drJnage would need to be graded ouisioeof lhe envelope.
D-ominic Mauriello said grading pertaining to access was excluded, and c6uld be graded outsideof the envelope.
Greg Amsden stated the original parking plan used the existing parking areas. He said they werenow taking pressure off the existing parking and placing the pirking on-site and he said rfrit nedidn't know if the Fire Department would approve this ai this iime ai Oeing large enough.
Dominic Mauriello said the applicant would have to meet the development standards regardingparking and that cars would have to back up and turn around to exit the parking lot.
Greg Amsden said they would try to transplant all the misplaced trees.
Dominic Mauriello said, regarding item #3, that the applicant wouldn't have to follow the jagged
edge that lniermountain Surveying surveyed. He said they could simply draw a straight iinE-tnat
excludes the 40% slope area.
John Schofield asked for any public comment.
Mel Brody, a resident across the creek and an affected homeowner, stated that this was a lot ofdevelopment on such a confined area and he had personal concerns about how cluttered itwould look.
Galen Aasland stated that the PEC had to look out for the interest of the community. He said the
development right was to build the same as Building 18 and if this project was significanly larger,
it would be denied. He said if the applicant wanted to build the same as Building 2O with an -
EHU, he might listen. He said that this was larger than what Building 18 was. He stated that thewater table around the trees would be affected, killing a significant number of Aspens within 5
yea rs.
Greg Amsden said the buildings were much larger than this new proposal covering more of the
site, but that parking was within the building envelope.
Galen Aasland said the PEC could grant a larger space if parking was contained within the site.
He said lhe impact on the site was going to be more impact, then if it were Building 18. He said
building this close to the edge of the creek would affect the neighbors. He said the applicant
would need to come back with a plan more consistent in scale to Building 18 to get his vote. He
said he couldn'i voie i.,, --,l;iings that hung off the cliff, as they affected the neighbors.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
June 8, 1998
Ann Bishop said staff requested an entire development plan and this should meet thedevelopment standards set by the Town of Vail. She thought what was being proposed wasinteresting and the applicant should continue forurard on this path and hopefJlly be able lo savethe trees. she felt that three separate buildings were betterthan one large buiiding.
Tom Weber said he would like to see lower level and smaller units and he too was concernedwith the large amount of site disturbance. He supported the idea, but it still seemed like theywere cramming a lot into lhe area. He said the applicant needed to get a replat without all thejagged lines, with the break line figured out. He asked how much ovLrlay zoning was being
added to this lot.
Dominic Mauriello said this would be treated similar to a SDD.
Tom Weber asked for an analysis for design standards purposes.
Dominic Mauriello said the zoning analysis was on page 2 of the staff memo.
Brian Doyon echoed some of Galen's responses. He said regarding the similar character,
similar site disturbance and massing, that this was much larger, with the architecture and
landscaping quite different from the existing buildings. He said the landscaping would need io be
replaced caliper per caliper. He said that the example shown misses in so many categories, that
his vote would be to deny this request.
John Schofield said the previous approval was for a building to be built similar to Building 18 and
he was concerned that the site coverage would have been less than 2,600 and now tne iite
coverage was2112 times that amount with too much site disturbance. He said the driveway
access was a concern and even if it mei the development standards, the guidelines didn't
anticipate two parking lots accessed by one driveway with cars backing up in order to get out.
Dominc Mauriello asked if architectural plans would be needed at the next meetinq.
Tom Weber said he had a concern with the building heights.
John Schofield said he would like to see the site coverage and renderings.
Rick Rosen said he wanted the Commission to remember that Building 18 was an arbitrary
building. He felt it should be the average square footage of all the buildings. He said we were
not requesting the PEC to approve identical buildings, as we were needing to overturn the 1g72
type of development. He said they could bring in an sDD and get 38,000 sq. ft. He said the
development site was beautiful because of the trees and we were not going to take them down.
He said they were trying to amend an outdated development plan. He mentioned that Spruce
Creek was a Townhouse development that Michael Lauterbach did and it worked. He advised
the PEC not to just aim at Building 16. iic said if they built Building 19, they would be putting in
10 more parked cars into the already crowded Timberfalls parking lot.
Brian Doyan asked if it was better for everybody and would it fit in with the site and area. He
ciiur:'i think it did.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
June 8, 1998
Tom Moorhead said to the best of his recollection, the applicant was to build a building accordingto the prior approved plans. He said that Building 18 was selected out of a hat and th;t a;ythingother than that would have to go through the process.
Dominic Mauriello said a parking plan was needed in context with the surrounding area.
John Schofield said the PEC needed to see a plat with the access easement indicated on it.
Dominic Mauriello said that this should come back for a final approvaland not anotherworksession.
Rick Rosen said the applicant needed answers resolved in their minds.
Greg Amsden stated that if the trees were an issue, we could change.
John Schofield said he would not like lhe bike path going through someone's backyard, and toremove it from the building envelope.
Tom Weber said the site disturbance was a concern and the applicant would need lo prove why
this was a better scenario than building Building 19.
Greg Amsden stated all cars will be headed out of the parking lot the front way.
5. A request for an extension of a conditional use permit forthe Lionshead Children's Tenr,generally located next to the Lionshead Children's ski school/Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1st.
Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by David ThorpePlanner: Christie Barton
Christie Barton gave an overview of the staff memo and said that staff was recommendino
denial, as the tent was becoming a permaneni use.
John Schofjeld asked if the applicant had anything to add and stated for the record, that the
applicant was not in attendance. He then asked for any public comments. There were no publc
comments.
Galen Aasland stated that this was not approved for permanent use and with no input from the
applicant, he would deny the request.
Ann Bishop had no comments.
Tom Weber was in agreement with staff.
Brian Doyon was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
John Schofield said this was a temporary struclure.
Ann Bishop made a motion to table the item.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
June E, 1998
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Frti$+ rt lo
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
April27, 1998
A request for an amendment to a previously approved development plan lor the
Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls CourUunplatted.
Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg AmsdenPlanner: Dominic Mauriello
Attached is a copy of a letter fonrarded by the Community Development Department to the
applicant, Greg Amsden, summarizing the PEC's action on this item at the April 19, 1998
meeting. The applicant is questioning whether this letter is an accurate reflection of the PEC
action. Therefore, statf would like the PEC to review this letter and provide necessary direction
to the staff so that we can properly direct the applicant with regard to this property.
Also included is some material provided by the applicant for your review.
F lEVERYONE\PECV\,|EMOS\98\TIM BF ATI. 427
FluE Cl
Departne nt of C ommunity Deve lopme nt
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2138
FAX 970-479-2452
April 16, 1998
Greg Amsden
AMS Development, Inc.
500 S. Frontage Road East, Suite I 12
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Timber Falls-Application for an amendment to a development plan
Dear Grcg:
The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), at its April 13, 1998 meeting. found that
Phase X (Building #19) of Timber Falls has a vested development right for one structurc in the
cxact form, size, density [6 dwelling units], and configuration as Building #18 and that anything in
addition to or different than specifically that, will require a PEC review and approval of an
amended plan (see attached development plan).
Any change to the development plan will require evaluation of the proposal by the PEC in
accordance with all devclopment standards of the Low Density Multiple Family (LDMF) zone
district based upon the lot area and buildable area for Phase X, Building #19 (alone) as presented
by you (i.e., the site improvement survey prepared by Inter-Mountain Engineering, Inc, dated
3131198, entitled "Site 19, Timber Falls, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado;" site area of
34.052 sq. ft.). Also, this PEC decision makes it clcar that the development plan controls
development in the Timber Falls development and not the development standards of the LDMF
zone district, and therefore, once Building #19 is constructed there will be no available Gross
Residential Floor Area or density remaining for the balance of the Timber Falls development.
In order to proceed with an amendment to the development plan you will need to provide a
complete submittal as if you were applying for a DRB approval (i.e., stamped survey of Building
#19 site with a surveyor's calculation ofbuildable area, site plan, easement for access, hazard
report for site 19, landscape plan, grading plan, building plan.s and elevations for all buildings,
etc.). Please note that the survey submined does not have a complete calculation of buildable
area, as it must include the red avalanche hazard area and floodplain, in addition to the areas of
Page I ofZ
{g o""r"""or r"n
C-
\/
C
1-.t
IJJ
L3\ /-:i\J
a
-t'a-
oi
l't
/..'\
:.G
.,'
,.I
Y:\
L!
Lri
UJE
\
O,.)L
''+4..,
ZY- y.l
.l
.:t
6l
=l\!l
o
a
=oozo
O
CILtt9
d
u
4
d
3.v4
aJJ
1J-<
IJ-tuC0i<i
-F
o
AMS lDeveXonm.ent, [nc,
_lL
April 22, 1998
'Dominic Mauriello
c/o Town of Vail Planning Dept.
75 South Frontage road
Vail. CO. 81657
Re: The Chalets at Timber Falls
Dear Dominic:
I am in receipt of your letter dated April 16, 1998, regarding my application for an amendment to the
Timber Falls development plan. After reviewing the letter, t am still confused about the following
issues:
l. The first sentence in Paragraph 2 indicates that any change in the development plan will be
subject to all development standards of the LDMF zone district and shall be specific to Site
#19 only. Please understand that Site #19 is part of the overall Timber Falls development and
. cannot be separated from the development solely on staffs interpretation. The next sentence
then states that the development plan controls, not the standards for the LDMF zone district.
These two sentences contradict each other. Please clarify
2. In the last sentence ofParagraph 2, you state that the PEC decision dictates that the
development plan controls, not the development standards of the LDMF zone district. Since
the existing development plan does not define GRFd the amount of GRFA available to Site
#19, and the entire project, is in question.
A. Present day LDMF zoning given a current survey indicatmg net buildable area, would
show approximately 38,000+/- square feet of GRFA.
B. In measuring the plans for Building #20 on file at the Town of Vail, the GRFA shown
is 7,325 square feet. This plan does not indicate whether the GRFA for the entire
project was utilized to it's fullest extent.
C. The applicant is requesting 9,500 square feet and is willing to relinquish any
remaining GRFA in question for the development.
3. The applicant agrees to prepare and submit a complete (as if submitting to DRB) review
package including all items described in Paragraph 3. Prior to making the financial
commitment to preparing this detailed submittal package, the applicant needs direction from
the PEC regarding the following items:
A. The applicant is proposing to change the development format from condominiums to
single-family residences. Is this acceptable to the PEC?
(970\,476,861O
(97O),476,8637 (fax\
500 South Frontage R.oad East, Ste. 112
Vail, Colorado 81657
B. Given the past history of Timber Falls and the applicant's intent to lower tlre density
on Site #19 from the original building (6 units) to a lessor number ofunits, what
number ofunits are appropriate for the site under consideration?
c. Lastly, what is the marimum GRFA to be considered for the site under
consideration?
1+tt-acfre! is a set of *red lined" plans showing the 7,325 sq.ft. of GRFA in Buitding #20. please
include this memorandum in the agenda for this Monday's pEC meeting (April 276J. I will be
attending the meeting with the sole purpose of answering the above questions and tabling the actual
development presentation until May I l, 1998.
Ifyou have any questions, don't hesitate to call meat476-8610. Thank you foryour cooperation
regarding this application.
cc: Richard P. Rosen
Marty Fowler
Ron Riley
President
EGhll'|-rF fl
Brian Doyon seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with Ann Bishop voting against.
4. A request for an amendment to a previously approved plan for the Timber Falls Development,
located at 4469 Timber Falls CourUunplatted.
Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Ams Development, Inc.
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Greg Moffet disclosed for the record that Greg Amsden was a customer of his, but that he felt there
was no conflict.
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo and said that once they built the building,
there would be no GRFA left.
Greg Amsden, representing the applicant, stated that they couldn't limit the site to the development
plan, since there was no development plan. He said he disputed the second sentence of the second
paragraph of the letter. He said the applicant was afler what would be an acceptable number of units
with a format that would be acceptable.
Greg Moffet asked the PEC members for guidance for the applicant.
John Schofield stated that there was GRFA regulation when this was originally platted by the County.
John said the development plan presented at the last meeting was very specific.
O Greg Amsden said that could be established by a survey.
John Schofield questioned the common area and could not approve a plan which included the
common area as development potential.
Dominic Mauriello said the approved development plan showed all the spaces around the building as
common area.
John Schofield said the common area was not specific to that specific site, but pertaining to the
overall plan.
Greg Amsden said the county records don't specify a common area. He then said the owner was just
trying to finish the development out.
Brian Doyon agreed with John.
Greg Amsden said the land was owned by RAD Five and never was represented to be part of the
association, so they had no right to it. He then said he wanted to focus on this site only.
Brian Doyon said there would be no more building available after this Project.
Tom Weber said you could do Building 19 as a vested right, but stay out of the common afea,
because the common area doesn't come into play for the development rights of Building 19.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutcs
April !t( le98i?
Greg Amsden asked why the PEC would take away 2,300 sq. ft. of GRFA.
Tom Weber said the whole site had nothing to do with Building '19. He said the applicant would have
to give the PEC someplace to start, such as to overlay the zoning and the pgC n66aeO to have the
applicant propose a site.
Diane Golden had no comments.
Ann Bishop had no comments.
Galen Aasland agreed with the three other members. He said the applicant had a vested
development right to build Building 18 on the Building 19 site and that if they wanted to make any
changes, there may be a reduction in square footage.
Greg Moffet said the owner had the right to build Building 18 on the site they have. He said the
owner had a vested interest in a development plan and the fair solution was the right to build a
building here. He said he was having trouble with this being a judgement equity case. He said the
applicant could go with the development plan or with the zoning, with the development plan being
compelling for a density variance. He said if the applicant relied on the history, he could get over the
special privledge to get the 7,300 sq. ft, Greg said he needed to see a good configuration.
Greg Amsden asked the PEC for input on the condos or the single family approach. He asked, given
the site. was it swallowable to the PEC?
Galen Aasland said, yes, it was reasonable, but he would expect to see lhe impacts on the site to be
similar.
Ann Bishop and Diane Golden agreed with Galen.
Tom Weber said, yes, but it comes down to the configuration.
Brian Doyon asked the applicant if he was suggesting that the owner was going to sell off the land.
Greg Amsden said they just wanted to build a product.
Brian Doyon said he was concerned on how the lot would be divided.
Tom Weber asked if lhey were going to plat separate lots and provide parking.
Greg Amsden said all lhe envelopes were on the site and parking would be contained and the
purpose from going from a condo to a single family would be beneficial.
Brian Doyon said by dividing up the parcels, the condos had no rights to that land.
Greg Amsden said the owner would deed all the remaining lands to the association, as it made sense
to put it all in one package.
Tom Weber asked if the condo association would have to purchase that land.
Greg Amsden said, no.
Planning and Environmental Commissron
Minutes
April D( 1998'41
'/,
I
o
John Schofield said he was in favor of the single family approach.
Greg Moffet said he was not adverse to single family homes, but felt this was a site coverage issue
and he said that the PEC would be receptive, if the applicant would come in under the 7,300 sq. ft.
Dominic Mauriello summarized the PEC's comments; that the applicant seek a density variance or be
subject to GRFA statistics.
Galen Aasland said the density variance was hard to overcome.
Greg Moffet said he wanted lo amend the existing development plan and not talk about zoning. He
said the alternative was apply LDMF,-as a zoning issue. He said the development plan was giounds
for granting a densityvariance, since equitable argument was compelling.
Tom Moorhead said the PEC has determined that the vested right was to do the same as Building 18
and if anything else was done it would have to stand on its own.
Greg Amsden asked for a definition of "stand on its own," as he stated that staff would strictly enforce
the interpretation.
Greg Moffet said, from a conceptual discussion, the applicant had a different read from the
commission.
Dominic Mauriello asked the PEC for clarification on what application process the applicant needed to
go through.
Greg Moffet stated that it was up to the applicant and the PEC would not dictate what the applicant
could ask for.
Dominic Mauriello said the applicant could request an amendment to the development plan at his
own risk, or come back with a variance application.
Greg Amsden stated that there would not be specific floor plans at this time.
Greg Moffet said to come in with what he had.
Tom Weber said he wanted to see building heights.
Brian Doyon said he wanted to see massing and scale on how it fit in with the site.
Greg Moffet said on a conceptual basis, he would like to see GRFA and massing.
Dominic Mauriello stated that it sounded like a full application was needed.
5. A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to SDD #4, to allow for a
fraciional fee cluu anJ a ;i-,:,-,"- ., iire approved Development Plan, located at 1325
We.ihaven Dr., Westhaven Condominiums/ Cascade Village Area A.
Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby RobinsonPlanner: George Ruther
Planning and Environmcntal Commrssron
Minutes
April Ii, 1998
'L+ ,
Erhibit * lz
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
April 13, 1998
A request for an "amendment to a previously approved development plan" for the
Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls CourVunplatted.
Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg AmsdenPlanner: Dominic Maudello
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST
The applicant is proposing an "amendment to a previously approved development plan" for
Timber Falls. The applicant contends that plans in the Town's files from 1976 and a building
permit plan from 1982 are still binding and indicate allowable development rights. This issue
revolves around a six dwelling unit building (#19) which remains unbuilt on the property. The
applicant would like to construct 4 single family residences or 2 single family residences and 1
duplex on the site. See applicant's statement attached.
Staff has not seen documentation to substantiate the position that there is a binding approved
development plan for this property.
The applicant has not submitted a survey ol the entire Timber Falls development with which to
determine buildable area (site area excluding slopes in excess ol 40o/" slope, red avalanche
hazard, and areas of flood plain) and hence determine density and GRFA remaining in the
project. Since staff is not in possession.of this survey, we, nor the PEC, can accurately or
properly evaluate the remaining development potential of this property based on the zoning of the
property (LDMF). Therefore, staff recommends tabling this item until such time as an
adequate survey of the entire property of Timber Falls has been provided.
II. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Timber Falls was annexed to the Town of Vail in 1974 (Ordinance No. 13, 1974 and Ordinance
No. 20, 1974 attached) in accordance with Chapter 20, Annexed Areas, of the Zoning
Regulations (these annexation regulations were adopted in 1973). At that time, Phases 1 and 2
of Timber Falls were already constructed. The property which was annexed included what is
currently called Timber Falls and Forest Glen. The plans which the applicant has submined, and
contends are the binding (vested) development plan, also show what is now Forest Glen as a
part of the Timber Falls development plan. No annexation agreement was developed or
approved with this annexation. The annexation ordinance includes the statement that the land
was annexed "without special terms or conditions" which we believe indicates that no additional
development rights were granted to the landowner. The property was zoned in the interim by an
emergency ordinance (Ordinance No. 23, 1974) and ultimately zoned Low Density Multiple
Family (LDMF)by Ordinance No.26, 1974 (attached).
since no annexation agreement was established for the property annexed, it is subject to the
LDMF zoning adopted for the property.
From 1975 until 1982, approvals were given by the Town of Vail for phases 3 - 'l 1. These
phases were reviewed and approved by the DRB and were evaluated in accordance with the
development standards of the LDMF zone district (i.e., GRFA, density, building height, etc.).
In 1991, this same applicant applied for a Special Development District (SDD #27 Forest Glen).
This SDD carved out a 7.5 acre parcel from the original Timber Falls development to create a
separate and stand-alone development. This SDD was evaluated based on the underlying
zoning of LDMF and on a survey for the property. The development plan which the applicant is
claiming is a binding (vested) development plan on the Town of Vail was substantially modified
,rom the original plan by carving out this 7.5 acre parcel and therefore has produced density and
GRFA implications to the Timber Falls parcel as it exists today.
Summary ot facts:
- Timber Falls (with Forest Glen parcel) was annexed in 1974- Annexation approved without an special agreement as to density or development- Last Town approval of a new phase in Timber Falls 1982 (16 years ago)- SDD #27 (Forest Glen)approved removing 7.5 acres from Timber Falls in 1991
Please see memorandum from Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney, regarding vest rights legislation.
III. FURTHER DISCUSSION
The following arguments may be made with respect to this application:
'| . Since the annexation is "silent" on this development plan, the Town of Vail must accept
the original Eagle County approved development as a vested development (vested
forever).
Staff response: Staff believes that since there is no annexation agreement, there is no
"approved development plan" with vested rights to density, beyond that of the LDMF
zoning. Vested rights legislation did not exist in the Town of Vail, or the State of
Colorado, until 1991 or 1988, respectively. Vail's vested rights ordinance allows vesting
given specific conditions for a period of 3 years.
2. The site plan and building permit dated 1982 for building #20 shows a footprint for
building #19 (the unbuilt 6-unit structure). This permit, with the Town approval stamp, is
evidence that the Town had accepted the development plan for Timber Falls and building
#19, despite any density implications.
Staff response Staff agreeslhat this site plan in fact shows building #19. However, we
do not believe this was an "approved development plan" which vested any rights to
density beyond that of zoning. lf, for the sake of argument, one accepts that this was an
approved development plan, DRB approval of such plans are only valid for a period of
one year, and therefore would have expired 15 years ago in 1983. Additionally, if the
Forest Glen land (7.5 acres) had not been removed from the Timber Falls development in
1991 , there most likely would not be a density implication for building #19 today. Forest
Glen substantially modified the "development plan" for Timber Falls, by removing 7.5
acres of land, and has potentially created density implications for the remainder of Timber
3.
Falls. Staff can not determine if there is a density implication as the applicant has not
provided a survey of the property with which to determine buildable area.
The Town of Vail must review any development on this site in accordance with zoning
regulations in effect at the time of annexation and has no right to regulate existing
(constructed) buildings which were constructed under County regulations.
Staff response: Staff believes that if you accept that argument, then any changes to
zoning in the Town of Vail would only have etfect on undeveloped property. Therefore,
the Town would not be able to regulate the single-family houses and commercial areas
which were annexed into west Vail and would never be able to change or modify zoning
restrictions. Staff believes this argument suggests that the application of zoning is not
legal in the Town of Vail.
The Town of Vail has continuously approved the phases of Timber Falls and therefore
must have accepted the "vested" development plan.
Staff response: The DRB did in fact approve all phases up to this disputed phase of
Timber Falls. Density and GRFA standards have been applied to the development
proposals as each phase was approved. Density and GRFA figures were based on an
estimate of buildable area in the Town files, which cannot be verified without a survey.
According to the applicant, all other development standards in the LDMF zone district
apply to this development (i.e., GRFA, building height, setbacks, etc.).
Staff response: lf this development plan is a vested development plan, then why would
other LDMF zone district standards be applicable? Why then would the density
provisions not apply and why would GRFA have been applicable to all future phases of
this development? Staff believes that all of the development standards of the LDMF zone
district are applicable, including density. A landowner is not able to pick and choose
develooment standards as to best suit their needs.
In 1984, the applicant, in consideration of development on the parcel of land included in Timber
Falls, but hence developed as SDD #27 (Forest Glen), prepared an analysis (see attached) of
development potential on the 7.5 acre parcel in accordance with the LDMF zone district. lt would
appear that the applicant at that time recognized the zoning on the property as controlling density
and development standards, but is now contending that the "approved development plan"
controls the density.
A review of the Municipal Code has revealed that the term "development plan" is only used in the
tollowino instances:
1. In reference to the establishment ol CC1, CCz, CSC, and HS zone districts.
When such a district is originally established the applicant is required to provide a
general development plan for the area. Though, this plan must show locations of
buildings and uses, however, it does not establish density provisions or
development standards.
2. An SDD requires a development plan which establishes development limitatilns
and standards. This development plan expires after 3 years from the date of
approval.
4.
5.
3. The vested rights chapter ot the Zoning Regulations defines a development plan
and vested right as:
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Shallmean and be limited to a
final major or minor subdivision plat, or a special development district
development ptan.
VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT: The right to undertake and complete the
development and use of property under the terms and conditions of the
site specific development plan, and shall be deemed established upon
approval of a sile specific development plan.
A site specific development plan under this section expires after 3 years and must
contain the following language:
"Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to
Colorado Revised Statutes title 24, article 68, as amended."
This section goes on to state: "Failure to contain this statement shall invalidate
the creation of the vested property right."
Therefore, what the applicant has produced as a "development plan" has no basis in the code.
IV. ZONING ANALYSIS
Zoning: Low Density Multiple Family
Hazards: High and Modorate Debris Flow
High Severity Rockfall
Snow Avalanche Area of lnfluence
Lot area: Cannot be determined Wout a survev
Bujldable area: Cannot be determined wlout a survey
Standard Allowed/ReouiredDensity: Cannot be determined Wout a surveyGRFA: Cannot be determined Wout a survev
Existrno
'l 16 dwelling units
133,241 sq. ft.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends that the PEC table this request until
such time as the applicant has provided the necessary survey and information for the property to
be properly evaluated by the staff and the PEc.
Further, statf believes that the only two Town of Vail processes that allow deviations from zoning
density provisions available to the applicant are the variance process or the Special Development
District process.
F \EVEBYONE\PECWEMOS\98\TIMBFALL,41 3
tt@tt
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant is proposing to amend the previously approved development plan for Site #19 of
Timber Falls Condominiums. The following amendments are proposed:
'l . Reduce density from 6 residential units to 4 residential units.
2. Changing the residential structures from a condominium format to a single-family
or duplex format.
3. Reduce the remaining GRFA available in the Timber Falls Condominiums (Site #19
is the last undeveloped parcel in this project) from approximately 38,657 sq.ft. to
9,500 sq.ft..
The applicant has established defined building envelopes for each ofthe 4 units proposed. No
structure shall be located within l0-feet of an adjacent unit in accordance with UBC
requirements for fire protection. Exterior materials will be similar to those products used in the
existing buildings at Timber Falls... Stucco base with natural wood siding, possibly some stone
accents. All other development standards for this zoning district shall be adhered to under this
proposal.
History of Timber Falls Condominiums:
Ownership
The Timber Falls project has been under the same ownership (Timber Falls Associates) since
original work began to develop the property in 1972.
Eagle County
The 21.8 acre site was received Sketch Plan approval from the Eagle County on January 3,
1973, for Lots l-7, Timber Falls Subdivision. The lots were zoned multi-family and each lot
was to contain several condominium buildines. The breakdown is shown below:
Lot l Future site of Glen Falls Subdivision.
Lot 2 Avalanche area and recreational amenities.
Lot 3 Buildings 17, 18, 19 and 20.
Lot 4 Buildings l, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, and 7 .
Lot 5 Buildings 14, 15 and 16.
Lot 6 Buildings 10, ll and 12.
Lot 7 Buildings 8 and 9.
The owner performed extensive avalanche studies, which are well documented in the remaining
files at the Eagle County Planning Department, to satisff zoning authorities at the time. The
avalanche area was required specific mitigation and only recreational amenities were allowed
to be constructed in this area.
Buildings #14(44 units on 2.5 acres) were approved and permitted through Eagle county
prior to annexation ofthe Timber Falls parcel into the Town of Vail on November 4, 1974
Town of Vail
The Town of Vail annexed the subjest property on November 4, 1974. Annexation
documentation on file at the town does not reference any density or developer improvement
requirements.
, In 1976, a development plan Town (see Exhibit "A" - Development Plarq obtained from files at
the Town of Vail) was filed with the Town of Vail outlining the overall Timber Falls site plan :
and showing a total of 19 building sites (there was no Building #13). Buildings #10, I I and 12
were approv€d, permitted and construoted between 1976 and 1978.
In 1978, the Town of Vail Planning Department requested a master plan be submitted outlining
the proposed 'build out" for the remaining development in the Timber Falls project. According
to the owner, this plan was submitted and approved by the Town ( See Exhibit'8" - Master
Plan, obtained from files at the Town of Vail). This approved Master Plan clearly defines the
remaining development as 7 buildings containing a total of 48 units. The breakdown is shown
below:
Building #14 7 Unirs
Building #15 7 Units
Building #16 l0 Units
Building #17 6 Units
Building #18 6 Units
Building #19 6 Units
Building #20 6 Units
Total Density 48 Units
The approved plans for each of these buildings, excluding Building #19, are contained in the
files of the Town of Vail. Both the approved site plans for Building #18 and Building #20 (See
Exhibit "C") specifically denote the proposed location and size (identicat to the 6-unit
configurations in Building #18 and Building #20) of Building#L9.
Buildings #14 through #18 and Building #20 were all constructed in accordance with the
approved building and site plans on record at the Town of Vail, and the Master Plan filed in
t978
After receiving inquiries and an offer for the purchase of Site #19 at Timber Falls, the owner
approached the Town of Vail Planning Department regarding the remaining GRFA available in
the project. A response letter from Tim Devlin at the Planning Department (See Exhibit'Dr'),
dated March 3,1993, indicated the remaining GRFA as 38,657 sq.ft..
A second letter from Tim Devlin at the Planning Department (See Exhibit'E'), dated March
I 1 , 1993, questioned the accuracy ofthe previously represented GRFA number and
recommended using it only as a "rough estimate" until such time as a stamped survey confirms
the site area and net'buildable" area. Much to the surprise of the owner and contrary to the
development plan and master plan on file in the records of the Town of Vail, the letter goes on
to indicate a remaining density of 2 units for Site #19 at Timber Falls.
The owner responded in a letter to Tim Devlin (See Exhibit'F"), dated March 17, 1993,
stating that the Town of Vail's analysis was flawed. If the Town's technique of using current
zoning criteria in 1993 (disregarding all past approvals) to analyze the remaining density in the
Timber Falls project, then the Town must focus their current zoning standards in 1993 to those
lands annexed into the Town in 1974, or 10.575 acres. This approach would arrive at a
remaining density of 23 units and a even higher remaining GRFA for Site #19. No further
discussions or any applications were filed at this time.
Purpose of Application:
The applicant, AMS Development, Inc. (Greg Amsden) negotiated a contract on December 29,
1997 , to purchase Site #19, Timber Falls condominiums, from the owner. The applicant
requested verification of existing density and GRFA for the subject parcel from the Town of
Vail Planning Department in early January, 1998. After approximately 30 days of discussions
involving the Town of vail planning sta4 town attorney, owner, applicant and applicant's
attorney, the Town of vail responded in a letter to the applicant (See Exhibit "G'), dated
February 9, 1998. , and further stated that the decision as to existing density for Site #19
cannot be determined by the planning staffor the Town attorney. According to state statute,
this decision must be determined by a Commission or Board seated at the Town of vail.
Building Site #19, Timber Falls
These photos show different angles of the site on Msrch 13, 1998.
View of Building #18
View of Building #3
View of Building #20
View of Building #18
View looking south at
Buildings #16 aad #17
View looking east at
Buifdings #l and#2
View looking west over Glen Falls Subdivision
a _tllt{
-
-9?
-::
_-in
b,
-i-i-'.=-2
\l \-^lv':
=
=l
tE
E
,4,... Ir-IIJlii,l't llI it
tl'
t ll! :li tli ;:
r I
--
I I\_
,----f=
?p
-rqo+
-rgo.
tc.0OEEio.0OJEE
o€EN
l3or-lrt.;g
L999.g:
| -.\F.r.=trar
Alt
-.ta-
l:--\\TEN
;l
*l
,'*lFI6l
=tt$I
a
=-l
=
=oozo
C)
IJJ
UJ
- c-rq
c
zffie
-'o.%
\ $,.e
"r'-ti"*
\a-
CN:JJ
1!
lJ-ttlm ,,
: .\F '\\,
t\
s
$J\
R
s
$
u-J
LU
uJgo
ifC;
--\\
-*+ri\\
#^..
/,--\
5,///
{,//J/L__
/
I.. I,'I
-{9,,
.
w
:.-\--
t-....'..\
(-,
\/t\. t
/l
\
g
\.
EtrHIBIT IIDII
75 Soutb Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
t 0 3 -479-21 3 I / 47 9-2 I 3:
March 3, 1993
D ep artment of Comrnanity D eu elopment
l:,?, c 4 1333
though the following
Mr. Ron Riley
228 Bridge Stret
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Ron:
Upon review of
area numoers €
Total Site Area.
Total Buildable Area:
Allowable GRFA:
Existing GRFA (3/2/93):
Remaining GRFA:
Please let me know if I can
Best regards,
', ' I
,'i7i:1/:111."7, i,1:i'u
Timothy N. Devlin
Town Planner
xc: Mike Mollica
ln^,lr-Lc,L l*rd J,*',/"
.. r4- n 'eT' 'fu,U- Cn'v- l18L
dxt"L -b{14 )7
*"*J, "*'W-4, a6 -yt*'rd
W6 u,^t*
571,732 sq. r.
171,520 sq. ft.
132,863 sq. ft.
38,657 sq. ft.
answer any further questions that you may have.
/\
EKHIBIT ''EII
() rowx OFVAIL
7 5 South Frontage Road
Vail. Colorado 81657
1 0 1 -47 9 -21 t I / 47 9 -21 )9
Deputment of Commanity De ue lopment
March 11,1993 ,; a ia0?
Mr. Ron Riley
228 Bridge Street
Vail. CO 81657
Dear Ron:
As a follow-up to my letter of March 3rd to you, and upon further review of the Timberfalls file
on record with the Town of Vail, I have discovered the following in regard to the allowed
density for Timberfalls:
Total Site Area:
Total Buildable Area:
782,157 sq. ft.
571,732 sq. ft.
The allowed density in the Low Density Multiple Family (LDMF) zone district is 9 units per
buildable acre. As I believe you are aware, "buildable area" means any lot or parcel, or
portion thereof, which does not contain designated floodplain, red hazard avalanche area, or
areasinexcessot4Ql"slope. Sincethebuildableareashowninourfilesis5Tl,T32square
feet, or 13.125 acres, this results in atotaldensity of '118 dwelling units forTimberfalls.
Further, our records show that 116 units have been constructed, resulting in 2 units that cbuld
still be built.
Although the Town's records indicate a total site area and a total buildable area for the
Timberfalls project, we are not in possession of a stamped survey verifying those numbers. ln
order for us to accurately determine the remaining allowable density for Timberfalls, it will be
necessary for ycu to crovide Us with s:rch dccurnentatio;']. Ultil such tmc, ihe abo',.e
numbers shouid only be used as a rough estimate of the available density at the Timberfalls
project. lf you should have any questions, please contact me at the Office of Community
Development,479-2138. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Best reoards. ,1_ ., /-1
,/,.7;7;' /. ,r/::' ,./ \,/znai'/,'tt72u'i-
Timothy N. Devlin
Town Planner
xc: Mike Mollica
rontage Road
emen:
frT*riting in response to your let,ter of 3/LL/93. i_'6'="Hawed, in that the Town of Vail zoning regulatiorib:wo
..55i, aeres, ","rL "-""'pr"t"a- ;r;;;^;"ilr-" ";";;Ti;*
arcel.
-r.. ..,.,-': ... --.- -vt55-Eervr'e.;'\',ppLicable until II/4/74 {the date the parcel was anni
ioy}-: of Vail ) . Phases 1 &. Z , comprised of 44 ""it;-l;l
Ity Development
f t',vai1
eisbme analysis relative to GFRA would prodri'a;:Alftilelllfe.than identified in your letter of 3/3,/93'.ff$r:
1.e3tr.'fhan a suf f icient GFRA, it's not necesJGr
ENHIBIT I'FI'
!{arch
inf ornrat i on relative to
ei -^^-^1,-rrrrLci-s-tyt
Ronald H Ri ley
lqp:".L &-2, leaves L0.575 acres of buildable ground,h
i9!_o_ta} of 95 units available to be built.', iZ unltF
1-mpleted after annexation, leaving 23 units' fett,, ioijts left ,to!
. r-::,.-,,.,iIJ&#":1jjl;_l:,:ftro,E#H
ulations.
,ou need anymorene a ca1l.
28T3ndge Street, Yail,9olomdo Bt6S7 . 3O3-4764tOgt4tSO
OFVAILOrowx
De partment of C ommunity D eve lop n e nr
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-213E
FAX 970-479-2452
February 9, 1998
Greg Amsden
Amsden, Davis & Fowler
500 South Frontage Road East, Suite I 12
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Timberfalls Develol'rngn1 Potential/Bighorn 4th Unplatted
Dear Greg,
At your request, the Town of Vail Community Development Department, with the aid of the
Town Attorney, has reviewed the status of the development potential for Timberfalls.
Upon review of Chapter l9 of the Municipal Code, the Colorado Revised Statutes, the Town,s
files and the materials you havc provided, we have not seen evidence that indicates that all ofthe
requirements of the vested property rights provision of the Municipal Code and the Colorado
Revised Statutes have been mct
I have enclosed a copy of Chapter l9 for your review. The Town files are available for review
at the Community Development Department Should you have any questions or concerns, please
do not hesitate to call me You can reach me by telephone at 479-2145.
Sincerelv.
I'L+Rug.-t
George Ruther,-AICP
Senior Planner
xc: R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Attornev
$ ^"t""'' n^n'*
12-19-1 12-'t94
SECTION:
12-19- 't :
12-19- 2:
12-19- 3:
12-19- 4:
12-19- 5:
12-19- 6:
12-19- 7:
'! 2-19- 8:
12-19- 9:
'l 2-19-10:
12-19-11 :
P u roose
Defin itions
Notice; Hearing
Approval Procedure
Effective Date Of Approval
Vested Property Rights; Duration
Notice Of Approval
Exception To Vesting Of
Property Rights
Payment Of Costs
Other Provisions Unaffected
Limitations
'l 2-19-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of this
Chapter is to provide the proce-
dures necessary to implement the provi-
sions of Colorado Revised Statutes title 24.
article 68, as amended. (Ord.2(1991) S 1)
12-19-2: DEFINITIONS:
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
Shall'mean and be limited to a tinal major
or minor subdivision plat, or a special de-
velopment district development plan.
VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT: The right ro
undertake and complete the development
and use of property under the terms and
conditions of the site specific development
plan, and shall be deemed established
upon approval of a site specific develop-
ment plan. (Ord. 2(1991) g 1)
CHAPTER 19
VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS
12-19-3: NOTICE; HEARING: No site
specific development plan shall
be approved by the Town Council or any
Town board or commission as applicable,
until after a public hearing proceeded by
written notice ol such hearing, in accor-
dance with Chapter 3 of this Title. Such
notice may, at the option of the Town, be
combined with the notice for any other
hearing to be held in conjunction with the
hearing on the site specific development
plan for the subject property. At such hear-
ing, persons with an interest in the subject
matter of the hearing shall have an opportu-
nity to present relevant or material evidence
as determined by the Town Council or
Town board or commission as applicable.
(ord. 2(1ss1) $ 1)
12-19-4: APPROVAL PROCEDURE: The
action of the Town Council or
Town board or commission as applicable
for approval of a site specific development
plan shall be in the same lorm as that re-
quired to approve any request being con-
sidered for the subject property in conjunc-
tion with the hearing on the site specific
development plan, such action being either
by ordinance, resolution, or motion as the
case may be. lf any action by any board or
commission is appealed to or called up bythe Town Council, approval shall be
deemed to occur when a final decision of
the Town Council is rendered approving the
site specific development plan. The approv-
al may include such terms and conditions
as may be reasonably necessary to protect
the public health, satety, and welfare, and
the failure to abide by any such terms and
Toun of Vail
12-194
conditions may, at the option of the Town
Council or Town board or commission as
applicable, and after public hearing, result
in the forfeiture of vested property rights.
(ord. 2(1ss1) g 1)
12-19-5: EFFECTM DATE OF Ap-
PROVAL: A site specific devel-
opment plan shall be deemed approved
upon the effective date of the approval
action relating thereto by the Town Council
or the Town board or commission as the
case may be. (Ord. 2(1991) S 1)
12-19.6: VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS;
DURATION: A property right
which has been vested as provided for in
this Chapter shall remain vested for a peri-
od of three (3) years. In the event amend-
ments to a slte specilic development plan
are proposed and approved, the effective
date of such amendments for purposes of
the duration of the vested property right,
shall be the date of the approval of the
original site specific development plan,
unless the Town Council or applicable
board or commission specifically finds to
the contrary and incorporates such findingin its approval of the amendment. (Ord.
2(1es1)51)
12-19-7: NOTICE OF APPROVAL: Each
map, plat, or site plan or other
document constituting a site specific devel-
opment plan shall contain the following
ranguage:
Approval of this plan may create
a vested property right pursuantto Colorado Revised Statutes
title 24, article 68, as amended.
12-19-8
Failure to contain this statement shall inval-
idate the creation of the vested property
right. ln addition, a notice describing gener-
ally the type and intensity of use approved,
the specific parcel or parcels of property
affected, and stating that a vested property
right has been created, shall be published
once, not more than fourteen (14) days
after approval of the site specific develop-
ment plan in a newspaper of general circu-
lation within the Town. (Ord. 2(199i) g 1)
12-19-8: EXCEPTION TO VESTING OF
PROPERTY RIGHTS: A vested
property right, even though once estab-
lished as provided in this Chapter, pre-
cludes any zoning or land use action by the
Town or pursuant to an initiated measure
which would alter, impair, prevent, diminish,
or othenvise delay the development or use
of the property as set forth in the site spe-
cific development plan, except:
With the consent of the affected land-
owners; or
Upon the discovery of natural or man-
made hazards on or in the immediate
vicinity of the subject property, which
hazards could not reasonably have
been discovered at the time of site
specific development plan approval,
and which hazards, if uncorrected,
would pose a serious threat to the
public health, safety, and welfare; or
To the enent that the affected land-
owner receives just compensation forall costs, expenses, and liabilities
incurred by the landowner, including
but not limited to all fees paid in con-
sideration of financing, and all archi-
tectural, planning, marketing, legal,
and other consultants fees ingurred
after approval by the Town Council, or
A.
B.
Town of Vail
12-19-8
applicable Town board or commission,
togelher with interest thereon at the
legal rate until paid. Just compensa-
tion shall not include any diminution in
the value of the property which is
caused by such action.
D. The establishment of a vested proper-
ty right pursuant to law shall not pre-
clude the application of ordinances or
regulations which are general in na-
ture and are applicable to all proper-
ties subject to land use regulation by
the Town, including but not limited to,
Building Codes, Fire, Plumbing, Elec-
trical and Mechanical Codes, Housing,
and Dangerous Building Codes, and
design review guidelines. (Ord.
2(1esl)S 1)
12-19-9: PAYMENT OF COSTS: In addi-
tion to any and all other fees and
charges imposed by this Code, the appli-
cant for approval ol a site specific develop-
ment plan shall pay all costs relating to
such approval as a result ol the site specif-
ic development plan review including publi-
cation of notices, public hearing, and review
costs. At the option of the Town, these
costs may be imposed as a fee of one hun-
dred dollars ($100.00). (Ord. 2(1991) g 1)
12-.I 9.10: OTHER PROVISIONS I.INAF-
FECTED: Approval of a site
specific development plan shall not consti-
tute an exemption from or waiver of any
provisions of this Code pertaining to the
development and use of property. (Ord.
2(1sel)51)
12-19-11: LIMITATIONS: Nothing in this
Chapter is intended to create
any vested property right, but only to imple-
12-1 9-1 1
ment the provisions of Colorado Revised
Statutes title 24, article 68; as amended. In
the event of the repeal of said article orjudicial determination that said article is
invalid or unconstitutional or does not applyto home rule municipalities such as the
Town of Vail, this Chapter shall be deemed
to be repealed, and the provisions hereof
no longer effective. (Ord. 2(1991) g 1)
Toun of Vail
anz
F
z
(J
z
Fo
x
NOIIIqOY HIf,NOI
NOlSlAtoans NUOHSISo
-.----.---
_-.- - - --'.-
j
ontd-q
-0n
gt,
G,I
I
lm
a
hJ
NOtIlcov Hrtnol
NOtSrArOSnS NUOHSIA
:ft;---
--- I
EcEe
?EFqAEEE
iibal:ifi
l;lH F i:ilSEd iH6
!r
z
l)
Lix
,z
U
(a
F
.l
.l!
I
Fz
a.
EI
trl
(n
l|l
E'
4./a
o
o NOTITCGV HIUNOT
NOtStAtqsns NUOHCIS
LT
z
=
I
o
a\
I
I
I
i
Il/
/-jo - ---?i rK1
!:
?,/
E
.2l
a
t'
a
ri
?.1
!1,i!
il
;lil i
ii
iirlIttl
i1
:l'.!
,1
Hfl
.{
;l
;l:I
tl
i
il
;I
,,I
1F'I \
,j
N
I
,i
:l
"t
1
rl'l i\
IO.l3
'-lri u,
:1 zfi +.'l (J
.i,i
ij
,.'1
;i
Anr*rq4+ior\
ORDINANCE NO. 13Series of 19 74
ORDINANCE ANIiEXTIIG A PORTTO}ITllE BIGHORN AREA TO TLIE TOr\rIt
VTHEREAS, at 1east ten per ccnt of the
qualified dlectors, who are resid.ent in crnd Land.ovrners
of the areq proposed to be annexed, which is situated in a
county of, less than twenty_five thousand inhabitants, f ile<i
a petition for an annexation election wtth the Town Clcrk
of the Town of Vail, Cotorado. on the 22nd Cay of Harch,
1974, in accordance with Section 139_21_d(2), CoLorado
Revised statutes 1963, .es amended, requesting the nrunicipali!.y
to conmence proceedings for the hor<ling of an annexation
election to determine the mattcr of the proposed annexat:on
of a portion. of the oighorn area, eounty of Eagl_e, State
of Coloraao, described in Exhibit A attached herelo ancl
made a part hereof, to the To\rn of Vail;
I^IHEREAS, the Tolvn Council of the .nc,.,m of Vaj.l.
aolorad.o, hereinafter referred to as the ,,Tovrn,,. founi, t:'e
r)ctit'ion for annexation erection to lre in substantial c.raplilncr:
jitlr the aforesaid st.ltute and aioptcd pesoLution iio. l.
Sic:ies of 19?4, which is incorporated. heretn by referance
and nade a part hereof;
I^IIIERE-\S, on the basis of comperent crzidence
presented in the public hearing on the petition for anr:exation
election on the 4th day of June, !974, the Town Council"
determined that the applicable provisions of Tbe ],tunj.cipa1
Annexation Act of 1965, as anencled, h,,td been ::ac1sr-icd
AN
OF
c
q
i
t_
of Coloraalo, entered on the 9th day of August, 1974, the
terms or conditions a grortion of the Bighorn area, Countyr-
of Eagle, State of Colorado, descrlbed in Exhiblt A heleof,.
Section 3. Annexation costs.
All costs and expenses connected nith the
annexatlon, includlng conunissioner fecs not excleding for
each corunissioner $2.00 for each hour of necessary service,
shall be paid by the Town of Vail, Colorado.
qectio"_L. Filing of annexation tnaps.
within thirty days after the ef,fective date
hereof the Town C1erk of the Town of Vailr Colorado, shatl
fil,e one copy of the annexation map, a copy of whl,ch is on
file in the District Court in and for the County of Eagle,
State of Colorado, $rith the original of this annexatl,on
ordinance in the recorals of the Town, one copy of said map
wi-th the County Clerk of the County of Eagle, State of
Colorado, and one copy of said map r.rith the Division of
Local Government of the Dcparttnent of Local Affairs, State
of coloradlo.
Section 5- zoning of annexed BiEhorn aree.
Uithin ninety days af:cr the effective date
hereof the Town of Vail, Colorado, shall irnpose zoning on
the annexed Bighorn area in accordance lrith its Zoning
Ordj.nance, Ordinance No. 8, Serles of 1973.
' Section 6. Effective date of annexation.
The annexation, except f,or the purpose of
general taxalion as provided in Section 7 hereof, shall
talic effect upon the effective date of this anne:<ation
ordinance.
(('
Section J. Ef f ectivo date of general ta:(atj.on.
For the purpose of general taxation the annexation
shall be effective on and after the lst day of January, 19?5.
Section 8. Effective date.
ThLs ordinance sha1l take effect five days
after publication following the final passage hereof.
INTRODUCED, READ Oif FrnSr READING ' APPROVED . r1S rtrEl,lDED ,
AllD ORDERED PUBLXSHED ONCE lll FULL, this 20th day of August,
1974, and a public hearing on this ordinance shall be held
at the regular meeting of the Town CounciL of the Town of
VaiI, Colorad.o, on the 3rd day of Septenber, 1974, aE 7:30
P.M., in the Municipal Building of the Torvn.
\
rt
i.c'
i,((
EXilr0lT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A porcot of l,ond lylng ln tho south l/-2.ot Scctton 2, Townshlp 5
south, .angofBr weit,"tno soutn ll2 ot tha south l/2 ol Soctlon 3'
io"notttp 5-sbouth, "in-oo Bl uost, tho east l/2 of tho norihoast
l/4 ot loctton tl, Tovishlp 5 soutn, rango 8l wcsf,.tho wcst l/2
uno itto-southeost' t/a o1 Sectlon 12, TovnchlP 5 sou+h' range- 81
vest, thc northoast l/4 ot thc northcos+ l/4 ol Soctlon 13, Townshlp
5 soutn , rango Bl wc si, ind thc not fhwesf l/4 ot ihc norihucst
t/A of ihc n6rthwos+- iia-oi sccl'lon lB, To'nship 5 iouth, rango 80
vost of +ho 6th prtnclpal morldlan, Eogle Counfy, Colorado, and
dcscrlbcd as: BcAinning at thg soufhcast corner 91.:?ld..S99tlon 3;
thencc along the iouth ilne of sald Secflon N 89o25tfB" ll 3678'17
loot; thcnci N 63eolr24't E 665.00 feeti thenco N l7'0 lt24rr E 255 '0o
ioe+i +nence N 58oolt 24r' E lso.oo fcet; thcnce tl l5€l0rl3rr It
t26.41 teot; thenco N to"19t4Jt' E 230.oo f cef ; 1'henco -q 9L:0r ITtr E
300.00 fcct; thencc s of "ior lTtt E l0o,oo f cef ; thcncc N 6oiBr29'r l'l
41 4 ,45 fcct fo the south righl-o{-way I Ine of Infersfate 70;
thencc along salo soutlr llni ori thc iolloving courses: S 89e59 t52n E
ooe.0o iaet] H 65"l0t3ln e 32,95 feot to thc norfhwesf corner of
Vaiivillagi Elevcnth Ftlingi thcncc along the westernmost llne- ,'-rof said Subdlvislon on the Tollovlng courios: S 0o04 157" E 27 '22 'i
teoti s Jo046r lJ" l, 194.73 tcet ' s to"l5r 14" t{ 52,77 leel:' 'thence
atong tnc southernmost llne of sald Subdivlsion on +he folloving . ::
cor.ics; S 62"07t44" E 564,72 feet; S 8Oc32tOOt' E 225 '00 feet;
N 45o28'oo" E 2Bo.oo teet; N 64"28i00" E; lsO.Oo fcst; N,89"58r30" E
4lO.OC feet; N 74"Oor Oo" i 220 '00 feot: S 89o39rOO" E 270.00 feet;
N 3tolo toott-E 220.00 foet; N 14056r18" E 62.67 teet to tho south
rlohf-of -wav llne of Intcrstate 70; -thence N l4q56r lBI E 337 'ABIi t" thc'north rt ght-of -vray llno of Intersfatc 70 and thc southcrn-
f,,t tino of Vail Vlltago Tvel{th flltng; thenco along sald common
llno on iho follo$ing c6ursus: S 87"33'45" E Bll,O0 foef; N 86e4 lr40rl
E 6,i5,34 fcctt o "u"i" to the rlghf of whlch ha.! a radlus.of 2190.00
foe t and Intcr lor ang le of ?ellr20", the long chord of. t{h lch baa rs
S ?5o06 tllr E 21 tr.59-f eo'i; +hcnce along said north rlght-of-vay
llnc on o curve to the rlght rrhlch has a radlus of 2190'00 fee-f
and lnJ'crlor onglo of lo 41 t47", thc lonq ihord ot 1''h lch bears s
7Oo29t 44" E 68.66 teot; thence S r6qt7r06rr E 425.70 {ecf; thonce
N 89o5Bf 3gt' E 2?27 '73 faet to tho oast line of sald Sectlon 2;
thenc0 along said .eas+ llne s oo25to?tt E l3ll.44 fcet to 'fhs oorth-
nest co rne r-of sa id Sect lon l2; thcncc a long tho norfh llno of si,' ld
Scction ll B9o46r04tr E 1325,25 fcct; thonce S Oo22t32" E 864,47
tcel- 1o thc north rlghl':o{-rvay line of lntersta'te 70; thonco olong
sald north llnc S l9o t5 t 5l't E 595.60 feet; thencc N 89056r llrt E
95O,37 {eet; thenco S Oo2OtO4tr E 513,23 f oct 'l'o the north rlght-
ol-vay llne of Intcrstatc ?0; thence S 0o20r04rr e 504.83 fcet to
the South rtght-of-vroy llne of. Intersfate 70; thcnce S 0o20r04rr E
lf 2.OO. fccti thence S 89o52 | 42tt E t129.00 fect; thenco S 0o05t00'r E
132r.45 fect; thcnco N B9o56r lJ" E lll6.ll foct; thenco S 0q00r00rl
l32O.B5 fcct to thc northtrest corner of said Soctlon lB; t.hcnco
along l'ho north llne of said Sectlon lB s B9s53r2'1n E 241 .70 f eet;. -thcnle S 25oOlr59r' !l 505.18 foet to thc west llne o{ sald Scctlon lB;
thencc ll goooOtOorr l( 7.00 feet; thonce S 0o00r00rr 177.00 foet;
thcnce.l'l 90eOOrOO" E 7.00 {cet to thc cast llne of sald Soctlon l3;
thcncc S O"OOtOOT' 6l4.Bl fcct; +hcncc ll B9o5lr24" !l 1306.85 foct;
thencc N OoOOtOO" 1322.68 fcst to thc south linc of sold Sccflon l2i
tlicnco along sold south llne N 89o55t2!." l', 1306.85 {ect; thcnco '
N 0n4Bt lB" il I312,99 feet; thcnco N 89057|00" l{ It25.90 {ccti thonco
N 89e49t09t' tl 1541,45 tcct to thc vcat llnc of sald Sectlon ll;
thcnco along sald wcst llnc N Oo19r00" 1, l9Bl.l2 fcct; thonco
^89"50t54"
)t 662.59 foct; thcnco N 0ol9r04'r '.'l 660 'rg foel'; fhonco
IBg"r,9t06" Il 66?.":9 foct; thenco N 0002r40rr E 1320.76 fcct to fho '--r
Youf h llno of Sald Socf lon 2; t'hcnce along sald south llno lt 89"52t 42'l
ll l3?5,25 leot: tharrco tl B9o4lr45" I'l 2692.5 | {cct to tho truo poln+
o{ bcglnnlng, o tracl'ot land vrhlch contolns 65J.464 acres, moro or
locs.
A.vr*xo*ton
SRDINANCE NO. 20
Series of 197 4
AN E}IERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORDI-
NANCE ANNEXING A PORTION OT' THE BIGIIORN
AREA TO THE TO!!N BY THE INCORPORATION
TIIEREIN OF TIIE CORRECT LEGAL DESCRIPTIONOF TIIE ANNEXED AREA
WIIEREAS, the Toryn of Vail, Colorado, heleinafter
referred to as the "fown',, annexed a portion of the Bighorn
area, CouDty of Dagle, State of Colorad.o, through the enact_
ment by the Town Council of Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1924,
on the 3rd day of September, I.974t the effective date of which
was the llth day of Septenber, I974i
WIIEREAS, the 1e9al description of the annexed area,
set fortlr in Exhibit A of said annexation ordinance, contained
mlnlsterial errors, to-wj.t the erroneous designations of
Range 80 as Range 8l and Range 29 as Range 80,
WHEREAS, in ordier to correct the legal descriptj.on
of the annexed area j.n a.Ll. documents pertaining to the annexa-
ti.on which contain the aforesaid ministerial errors the Tor,rn
obtalned flon the Dj.strict Coirrt in and for the County of
Ea91e, state of Colo.rado, an Arncndled Order Authorj.zing Annexa_
tion which vrill take effect nunc pro tunc as of the fi1ing or
ef fecti.ve date of said documentsr and
. wnEREAs, the Town Council finds that it is necessarl,
for the preservation of public property, health, welfare,
peace, or. safety to enact this ordinance as an emergency nea_
sule so as to incorporate the correct legal description of the
annexed area in the annexation ordinance ancl to preclucle any
issue as to the efficacy of the annexation;
t'lOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED By THE TOI,IN COUIICIL
or TIIE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS 3
rf
\t aLo6,(\rO(oF
,,, ll
=(l,
()ii
F
'\)o
r{
\o
5
f ((((
Section l. Title.
This ordinance shall be known as the ,'Ordinance
Amending Bighorn Annexation Ordinance by hcorporating Cor-
rect Legal Description of Annexedl Area,'.
Section 2. Anendments to Ordinance Annexing a
Portion of the Bigholn Alea to the Town.
The following sectio;s of Ordinance No. 13, Series
of. L974, of the Tolrn of Vail , Colorado, are hereby amended as
hereinafter provided :
A. Section 2 is anended to read aE follows:
' Section 2. Annexatlon of a portion of the Bighorn
alea to the To$n .
Pursuant to the Amended Order Authorizing Annexation
of the District Court in and for the County of Eagle, State of
colorado, entered on the 25th day of Octobe!, 19?4, taking
effect nunc pro tunc as of the filing or effective date of
all documents pertaining to the annexatj_on, a certified copy
of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, the Town
of Vai1, Colorado, hereby annexes without special terms o!
conditions a portion of the Bighorn area, County of Eagle,
-r
State of Colorado, described in Amended Exhibit A Legal Des-
cription of said order.
B. Section 4 is arnended to read as follows:
Section 4. Filing of annexation plat.
Within thirty days afte! the effective date hereof
the Town Clerk of the Town of Vai1, Colorado, shall file one
copy of the Amended Annexation plat, a copy of which is on
file in the District Court in and for the County of Eagle,
State of Colorado, with the original of this annexation ordi-
nance in the records of the Tovrn, one copy of said plat with
the County Clerk and Recorder of the County of Eagle, State
of Colorado, and one .opy oi said plat with the Division of
tocal Government of the Department of Local Affairs, State of
Colcrado.
c
i.tt '\
AMEn-DED
EXHIBIT A
LEGA L DESCRIPTION
A parcel of lard tying in the south l,/2 of Section 2, Township 5 south, range
80 west, the south 1/2 oF th,e south 1,/2 of Section 3, Township 5 south, range
80 west, the east 1/2 oF th'e northeast 1,/4 oF Section 11, Townshlp 5 sorth,
range 80 west, the west 'l,/2 and the so.,theast l,/4 of Section 12, Township
5 south, range 80 west, the nontheast 1/4 oF tr:,e northeast 1/4 of Section 13,
Townshi,p 5 south, range 80 west, ard the nonthwest 'l/4 of th'e northwest 1,/4
of the northrvest 1/4 of Section 18, Township 5 south, range 79 west of the
6th pnincipat rneridtan, Eagte Colrnty, Cotorado, and described as: BeginnirE
at the southeast corneF of said Sectlon 3; thence atong the south line of said
section N 89023'38" W 3674.17 Feet; thence N 63oOl '24" E 665.OO feet; thence
N l7ool '24" E 255.OO Feeti thence N 58oOl'24', E 3AO.OO feet; thence N 15o1or13rr
w 126.41 feet; thence N 7Oo39'43" E 23O.OO Feet; thence S 67"20'17n E 3OO.OO
feeti thence S 83o2o' 17" E 3Oo.OO feet; thence N BoOA,29,, w 414.45 Feet to the
south night-of-way line oF Interstate 70; thence along said south Iine on the
following counses: S 89059,521' E 868.80 Feet, N 650lOrA!" E 92.gS Feet to
the northwest conner of Vail Vittage Eleventh Filing; thence along the westenn-
most [ine oF said subdivision on the foltowing courses: s o"o4'57[ E 27 .22 feeti
s 30046'13" W 194.73 feet; S 50"35'14n W 52.77 feet; thenee along the southern-
most [ine oF said Subdivision on the following cbdnses: S 6eoO7'44r' E 564.7p
feet; S 8Oo32rOO" E 225.OO Feet, N 45028,00" E 2BO.OO feet; N 6402g100,' E;
180.OO feet; N 89"58r3O" E 41O.OO feet; N 74oOO,OO'' E 22O.OO reet; S 89.39'OO"
E 27O,OO feet; N 33o3OrOO" E 22O.OO feet; N 14'56'18t| E 62.67 feet to the south
night-of-way line of Intenstate 70; thence N 14056rtg" E Og7.4B feet to the north
ntght-oF-way line oF Intenstate 70 and the southernmost line of Vait Vi age
Twetfth filingi thence along said common line on the folLowing courses: S
a7o33'O5rt E 811.Oa feet; N 86"41r4o,t E 645.34 Feet; a curve tothe night oF
which has a radius oF 2't90.OO feet and intenior angle oF 7.11r2on, the long
chond of which bears S 75"06' 11" E 274.59 Feeti thence along said nonth night-
oF-way ltne on a cunve to the right whtch has a radius of 219O.OO feet and i,nter-
lonangle of 1o47t47r, the tong chond oiwhtch beans s 7oo2gr44r' E 69.66 Feet;
thence s 56017'06" E 425.;C feet; thence N 89o58'38r, E 2227.73 teet to the
east line oF sai.d Section 2; thence along said east line S OoASrO2r' E 1O11 .44
feet to the nonthwest cornen oF said Section 12i thence atong the north line of
said section N 89o46104rr E 1325.25 feet; thence s oo22,32'' E 864.47 Feet to
the nonth right-oF-way line of lntenstate 70; thence atong sai,d north tine S
39o15151'! E 595.60 feeti thence N 89"56, 11,, E 95O-97 feet; thence S Oo2O,O4,l
E 513.23 feet to the north r ight-of-way line oF Interstate 70; thence S Oo2O'O4[
E 5O4.43 feet to the south night-oF-way line oF tntenstate 70; thence S Oo20'04r'
E 312.OO feet; thence S 89o52t42t' E 1329.OO feet; thence S OoOg,OOn E 1g2S,45
feet; thence N 89056,tg', E 1316.11 feet; thence S OoOO'OOI' lgAO.gS feet tothe
northwest conner oF said section 18; tfrence atong the north line oF said section
1A S 89o53t24n E 247 .7O feet; thence w 585.3g feet to the west
ltne oF said Section 18; thence N gOoOOTOO'r \^/ 7,OO feet; thence S OoOO'OO" 177.OO
feet; thence N 9OoOO'OO" E 7.OO feet to the east line oF said Secticn 19; thence
S Oooo'oorr 6'14.81 Feet; thence N Ago5g'24" w 1O06.BS feet; thence N OoOO,OO"
1322.68 feet to the south Iine of said section 12; thence atong said sorth line
N 89'53'24" \^r' 1306.gS Feet; thence N Oo4B'18'' w 1912.99 Feet; thence N
89o57rOO" W 1123.90 feet; thence N B9'49'O9" W tS41,45 feet to the west tine ...
oF said section 1l; thence along said west line N oo19roo" w 1983.12 feeti thences 89o5or54" W 662.59 feet; thence w 660.59 feeti thence N 89049'06r'w 662.59 feet; thence N oo02r4o'r E 132o.76 feet to the south llne of said section
2; thence alorg said south line N AgoS?,42', W 1g2S.2s feet; thence N g9o49,4S"
W 2692.51 Feet to the tnue point oF beginning, a tract oF land whtch contains
653.464 acres, more on less.
(r
IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE
COUNTY OF EAGLE
STATE OF COLORADO
Ctvtl ,Action No. 2206
Cortltied to be tull, tr-:e aidl cottt€l
copY ot the o;i-i:ol it rny cusia':Y.
o or. . - -&e%.......e".,t7.!2zz:EW?_-:m
otSTRlCT C ll rriT
Eagle CountY, i,Jl:'?nCo
iN THE AAATTER OF THE )
ANND<ATION OF A PORTTON )
OF THE BIGHORN AREA, )
EAG LE COUNTV, COLORADO, )
TO THE TOWN OF VAIL, )
COLORADO )
Bt
AMENDED ORDER
AUTHORIZING ANNE)<ATION
AfteF consideration of the ex Pat'te Motton For A rnended
Onder Authonizi4g Annexatton fi led herein pursuant to Section 139-
21-1 1, Cotorado Revised Statutes 1963' as arnenoeo, and there being
good cause therefor,
tT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: I
1. The minlsterial erroFs in the legal description ot tfre
annexed anea contained tn Exhibtt A of thc Petition to Hold an Arnexa-
tion Etectlon, tl€ Anneration Plat, and vaFious other docurnents Filed
herein and pertaining to the annexation, to-w it the erroneous designa-
tiorls of Range 80 as Range 81 and Range 79 as Range 80, weFe technical'
minor, ard had no aPpreciable effect on the annexation electton anct
constituted harmless errors with respect to the annexation.
. 2. The correct legal description of tfe annexed area is set
forth tn A rnended Exhibit A Legal Description which ls attached fEneto
and rnade q paFt hereof.
3. Atl docutnenLs filed heretn and pertainirB to the annexa-
tion which contatn the aforesaid mintstertal erroFs in the legat descrip-
tlon of the annexed area aFe amended by the substitution therein of the
legal description of the annexed area set Forth in Amended Exhlbit A
Legal Description for the errorEous legat descriPtton.
$p
:q
dfi
4. In accordance with the result of the annexation electlon
held on tt|e 6th day oloAugust, 1974, whenein thene were l5l votes for
annexation and 68 votes against annexation, a rrajorit5r of the votes.
cast betng in favo,^ oF annexation, the Town of Vail, Colonado, ts
' author.ized to annex without spectal tenms on conditions a portion oF
'the Btghorn area, Eagle County, Cotonado, descnibed tn
^
mendeij ...,
Exhtb(t A Legal DescFiption. I
. 6. All costs and expenses connected wtth the annexation.,
tnctuding commisslonen fees not exceeding for each commlsstoneF
$2.OO fon each houn oF necessany service, slrall be pald by the Town
of Vail , Colonado.
6. Petltloner will forthwith File henein an Arnended Annexa-
tton Plat which contains the legal descniptlon of the annexed area set
fonth tn Amended Exhtbit A Legat Descriptioh.
7. Wtth respect to all documents fited frenein and pentainhg
t
to the annexation upon the filing hereof this ordeF wtn take eflect rulnc
pro tunc as of the Fi ting on eFiective date ol sai.d documents .
DATEO: Eagte, Colorado, this 25 day of October,
1974.
Charles .R. Casey.
JUDGE OF THE ABOVE ENTITLED COURT
('(.
Zonrqg
ORDINANCE NO. 26
Serles ot 19? 4
AN ORDINANCE IITPOfIING ZONING DISTBICTS ON THA
POBTION OF TIIE BIGHORN ANEA ANNEXED TO TEE
TOWN AND AUENDING TIIE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
trHEREAS, the Toen of Vall , Colorado, herelnafter
referled to aa the "Town", annexed a portion ol the Blghorn,
arei, County ot Eagle, State of Colorado, effective on the
llth day of Septernber, 1974;
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordlnance, Ordlnance No. 8,
Serles of 19?3., of the Town of Vail, Colorado, as arnended, is
appllcable to any alea annexed to the TowE end colttalns pro-
cedures for the lmposltlon of zonltrg distrl.cts on an annexed
area; and
WHEREAS, Sectlon 139,2f-1.4(2), Colorado Revised
statutes 1963, as amended, requires the Town to brlng the
annexed Bighorn area under its Zonlng Ordinance withln nlnety
days after the effective date of the annexatlon;
NOW , TIIEREFORB , BE IT ORDAI IIED BY TIIE TOIYN COUNC I L
OF THE TOIYN OF VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOIVS:
Sectlon 1. Tltle.
Thls ordinance shall be knorvn as the "Ordinance
Imposlng Zonlng Districts on Annexed Blghorrn Area".
Sectlon 2, Procedures Fulfilled.
The procedures for the detelmination of the zonlng
dlstricts,to be imposed on the annexed Blghorn area whlch are
prescribed in Section 22.3OO of the Zoning Ordlnance have been
fulfilled.
Sectlon 3.Imposition of Zonlng Districts on Annexed
Blghorn Area; Additlon to Official Zoning Map.
- Pulsuant to Articl,e 22 ot ln'e Zonlng Ordlnarce, Ordi-J
nance No. 8, Series of 1973, of the Town of Vail, Colorado,
c
..r
&6G'F
rrr lJ
f{dE
-#F
(
(
Ord. 26, 1974 Page 2
as amended, the portion of tbe Bigborn area annexed to the
TowD through the eDactment of Ordinance No. 13, Series of
1974, of tbe ?own of Vai1, Colorado, as amended, effective
on the lIth day of Septeftber, 1974, is hereby divlded into
zonlng distlicts as shown on a map lncotporated herein by
reference whl,ch amends and shall become an additlon to the
Offtclal Zonlng Map.
Seetion 4. Change in Otficial Zoning Map.
The addition to the Official Zoning Map adopted
by the Town Council ih SectLon 3 hereof shall be entered on
the Ofticial Zoning Map promptly by the Zoning Administrator
ln accordance with SectioD I.203 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 5. Effective Date.
Thi6 ordinance sha11 take effect five days after
publicat j.on following the final passage hereof.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AI\ID
ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this l,gth day of November,
\974, znd a public hearlng on this ordinance shall be treld
at the regular neetiDg of the Town Council. of the Town of Vail,
Colorado, on the 3rd day of December, 1974, at ?:30 P,M,, ln
the Municipal Building of the Town.
(C
{
ATTEST:
(
OFVAIL()rowx
Office of the Tbwn Attorney
75 Sourh Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2 I O7/F ax 970-479-2 I 5 7
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Planning & Environmental Commission
1-,-\
R. Thomas Moorhead ., t jttrL'
April 7, 1998
Vested Property fughts
Effective January l, 1988, Colorado adopted a statutory vested property rights scheme.
Pursuant to state statute, a vested property right is established upon the approval ofa site specific
development plan, following notice and public hearing, by the local governrnent in which the
property is situated. Each vested property right confers upon the land owner the right to undertake
and complete the development and use of the property under the terms and conditions of the site
specifi c development plan.
The properr.v right vested pursuant to this statute shall remain vested for a period of three years. The
vesting period shall not be extended by any amendments to the plan unless expressly authorized by
tl.re local government.
A vested property right once established precludes any zoning or land use action by a local
govemment which would alter, impair. prevent. diminish....or otherwise delay the development or
usc of the property as set forth in a site specific development plan.
A "site specific development plan" pursuant to this statutory framework means a plan which has
been submitted to a local government by a land owner or his representative describing with
reasonable certainty the type and intensity of use for a specific parcel or parcels of property.
Including. but not limited to. a planned unit development plan, a subdivision plat, a specially planned
area' a plarured building group, a general submission plan, a preliminary or general develoirment
plan. a condition or special use plan. a development agreement or any other land use apiroval
designated as may be utilized by a local govemment. What constitutes a site specific development
plan pursuant to this statutolT framework that would trigger a vested property right shall be
{7 *'"'""o '^'"*
finally determined by the local government either pursuant to ordinance or regulation and thedocument that triggers such a vesting shall be so identified at the time of its approval.
The statutory provision conceming vested rights applies only to site specific development plans
approved on or after January 1, 1988.
In l99l' the Town ofVail adopted a vested property rights ordinance to provide the procedures
necessary to implement the provisions of Colorado Revised Statutes, C.R.S. Title Zq. Xticle SS.
Pursuant to that ordinance a site specificdevelopmentplan shall mean and be limited to a final maior
or minor subdivision plat, or a special development district development plan.
A property right which has been vested as provided for in the Town of Vail ordinance shall remain
vested for a period ofthree years.
Additionally, each map, plat or site plan or other document constituting a site specific development
plan shall contain the following language:
"Approval of this plan may created a vested propeffy right pursuant to Colorado Revised
Statutes, Title 24, Article 68 as amended. This Town of Vail ordinance does not create anv
vested property right, but only implements the provisions of Colorado Revised Statutes.,,
RTM/aw
Berridge Associates, f nc.
Ptannrng . Landscape Archrlecture
October 18. l9Btl
Ron Riley
Timberf alls Corporat ion
{tf 96 East Meadow Drive
Vail. CO 81657
BeEr Ron,
Enclosed is the compreted survey from Intermountain Engineering which depictsthe topography of the entire Timberfalrs Estetes parcel. we heve indiceted the100 year Floodplain, areas over rl0% slope and denoted the totel buildable erea.Due to the increase in the area of over rt0% stope the unit count has changedto 58- | t{d.tr.. The eree of over 4o% srope which consists of 'man-made- areaamounts to.09 acre which eguates to.gl unit in density.
I have hed discussions r./ith Peter Patten and he has t6ld me that these sress r^rill'probably not" be counted as unbuildable but hes not made e definite decisionEt this time, should he decide that we will not be "penalized" for this portion ofthe area greater than Ho%. the toter number of units alowed will be 58.gsd.u..I will try to get a definite answer from peter this week.
Regarding the vacation of the rot rines between the two Timberfals parcers, rstill need to receive information on phases l-3 in order to celculate the existingGRFA. I will be out of rown untir october-zb and wiil cail you then. rf you canhave the plans compited by someone in your office we cen cLrcurate the existingGRFA and determine the amount that courd potentialry be transferred.
Sincerely,
Peter Jamer
ciates, I
e nc losure
W
245 Valtero Sr . San Francrsco CalJornre E41.t I . (415) 433.2357P O Box6364 . Denver Coi6:33s BCZo€ . i303)g63-f059'10C0 So Frontage RC Wes: Su,le .10:, . \,a, Cororaoog1657 . (3C3r 476.0951
Berridge Associates, Inc.
Planning , Landscape Archtteclure
October I B. I 9Bt{
zqNtNG ANALYSIS - TTMBERFALLS ESTATES
Introduct ion
This zoning Anarysis of rimberfeils Estsres was conducred for the primarypurpose of estabrishing e unit count and a owabre square footage for an
llqr8!red 7-5 ecre parcer rocated in the NEt of swt of section-r2, Tss,R80w.' 6rh P-M-. Town of Vair, Eagre county cororado. The Anarysis isbased upon e review of rown of vEil records and files, Town or vril Floodplainand Avalenche Hazard rnformetion, end e Topogrephicar survey comptetedby Intermountain Engineering on April 6. 1982.
Current Zoning
The Timberferls Estates parcer is currentry zoned Low Density Murtipre FemityZone District tLDMFl. The LDMF zone eilows single famiry, two-famiry. andmultiple-femify dwellings per buildable ecre of tsnd. The u-Or./|p District allowsnot more than thirty square feet of Gross Residential Froor Area IGRFAJ foreach one hundred square feet of buildable site erea.
An Analysis of the Timberfalls E srates parcel was ibnducted lcopy attechedJsnd reveals rhat e roter of 6.r{6 acres of the site is considered u"0". ii":iorn,,def inition es buirdabre. nBuirdabre Area" is defined by the ro.",n "i that portionol the site which is not within the l0o year floodplsin, avalanche hazard area,or in excess or 40% srope. This buirdabre screege wes utif ized to compute theinf ormarion in the f ollowing Teble.
245 \'allelo Sl . Sa:r Francrsco. Callornta 9411.1 . 1A151433_2351P O Box6354 . Denve' Cotoraoo 80206 . (3C3,863.1059
1000 Sc Froniag€ Rc Vr,esl Sure t 0O . \,art. Co:craoc g1657 . (303) {76^0g51
-r;:dcf',D
if;g ,:lrec
ll; g;; frgg
'?qgB!e'*jB't\ @. r.r tD lI ItJ a\, - -
0r
o
.5
EoDt
E
.5
ooto
!tT'o
E
IcE
flolEI.JI'tl
tl
FI6l
dl
BI
o. ; -88\1 ..i H'E 3 g' -E'l;;
-';{ "'E
g;;
:gF;si#
J.F -.= O (!, rO-;i!e'8:E'LotrtLLtDa\t--
-^iadcto:o@
ocDo(':)N.
rotr)NNItDevarro!,LLaJuootD
u? sn
t\ Gl
Esr tI 'ur iriE'- I "fl'3C -' COO
er;fi; gfg
is;3iiIs
t
Erh:bil * 13
9. A request for an amendment to a previously approved plan for the Timber Falls
Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls CourUunplatted.
Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C.Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the memo and recommended tabling this item until the
survey was complete.
Greg Motfet disclosed for the r-ecord that Greg Amsden was a customer of his company, but he
felt there was no conflict.
Dominic Mauriello said AMS Development was the applicant, not RAD.
R.ick Rosen, not representing the applicant as an attomey, but as a partner of the development,
disagreed with what Dominic said. He said one of the suggestions was to apply for an SbD, but
we were told not to. He said we have been at this for 90 days and were told last week to table
the request.
Ron Riley, the developer/owner since 1972 with Jim Reiniche began his history. He explained
how they^very simply received a buiEing permit in 1968. He said in 1972 and 1973 we were part
of Eagle Cgunty and the issue of annexation came up, since the TOV was interested in taking
over East Vail. He said since we were a low density project and were comfortable with this
designation, we were annexed into the Town and in 1975-1977 we enjoyed a good relationship
with the Town. He said at the time, the Town Manager, building inspector, and other locals lived
in this project and they were not given preferential treatment. He said in 1978 it was requested
by the Town to have a build-out plan. He then showed the plan to the Commission which was
located in the Town files, dated December, 1978. He said this was originally not done with a
great deal ot documentation. He asked why would the TOV have this in the file if not to establish
the build-out plan on the blutf for Timber Falls? He said Holy Cross needed to have this plan for
their transformer. He said that signage was installed in 1982 and has the building on the sign
and therefore, there was no question of its existence. He said in 1991, they bought Forest Glen.r;- downzoned. He said they made sure there was no confusion of zoning that existed for
Building 19 with the Forest Glen downzoning. He said they have never puineO the envelope and
that the trail of evidence was conclusive that this was the build-out on the bluff. He said these
rights and understandings were with the Town and now are valid.
Rick Rosen stated Dominic had alluded to two things, one being density with Forest Glen. He
said an SDD was provided and 23 units were given up on that site. He said we kept hearing
comments about vested rights, but this case was not about vested rights. He said it was
annexed in 1974 and brought into the Town of Vail with clear property rights, yet 3/4 of the memo
was on vested property rights. He said there were documents and plans stamped by the Town
located in the file and Ron Riley has continued on his property with no amendments since day 1.
Greg Amsden said he spoke with Eagle County and reviewed all of the files and could not find an
approved Development Plan. He said the vested right issue came out and we have been asking
how much density was allowed. He said the letter he received from George Ruther and Tom
Moorhead said it had to go before a board and George said to look at the development plaru He
said they had no concerns that this was in the plans to begin with. He asked as the public, what
are we to do when we are told there is no development plan, when it was written all over the
plans in the TOV files. He stated that this was never deeded to the association, as there was no
master association, only individual units.
n rt\ i'1 '1 VffP{' ' ' tr' PSc-9,{,1.,.'{ s
John Scholield asked if the master association had been ratified.
Greg Amsden said it was not final. He said the proposal was a low density solution.
Ron Riley said the master association issue was tied to condominium law and although these
were originally meant to stand on their own, we referred to them as a master association.
Dominic Mauriello said there were DRB approval forms in the file for the later phases.
Galen Aasland said he had no idea of what was ultimately allowed to be built on this site without
. numbers and the applicant needed to sit down with staff and get the numbers together.
Greg Amsd_e_n suggested filing for an SDD. He said Buildings 11 and 12were never requested tohave a $4,p00_ gqrvey, so this_request was irresponsible and why was this a new thought. He
reminded the PEC that an SDD meant it was open game and could potentially be 38,060 sq. ft. in
structures.
Rick Rosen said we were not arguing with GRFA, but just the number of units. He said the TOV
said two units, but we had proof of 6 units.
Mel Brodie, a homeowner in the atfected area, said he had a problem with the sharp overhangs
and that he spoke with an architect that was active in this community who said you'coulOn't plt
these two units on that site. He said the architect said the four unitsproposed would nol be able
to fit. He said he couldn't see how it would work and was also in his iine of sight to the waterfall.
Galen Aasland said the PEC has no idea, without numbers, if they were allowed 1 building, or 4,
or 6.
John Schofield said it was time to finish this project up and get it right. He said a survey was
appropriate.
Diane Golden said you have the right to buiE a 6 dweiling unit building.
Tom Weber said it was ob19ys they could build something, but it was hard to verily the starting
point and he asked if the 1978 plan was what was adopted by the Town.
Ron Riley said, yes and proceeded to explain the build-out plan.
Tom Weber asked if the footprints of the other buildings had changed.
Ron Riley said, no, except Building 19, He said they wanted to alter the 6 stacked units into
duolexes.
Tom Weber said the PEC needed to start with that plan and try to verify it, as the lot seemed
pretty small.
Brian Doyon had no comments.
),
Tom Moorhead explained the vested rights legislation.
Greg Motfet summarized the degree of documentation.
Lynn Fritzlen said she represented one of the owners on the Lodge at Vail and said she had
relied on early documentation. She said that density from the early 80's did not apply. She said
the conclusion she came to, as a policy making board, was the original development in the best
interest of the community. she stated that in some cases there was not a black and white
answer and the governing body needed to make a decision.
Greg Moffet said this looked like an SDD slam-dunk.
John Schofield asked how that parcel related to its surroundings.
Greg Moflet asked if it was reasonable for an applicant to rely on the document trail. He said a
reasonable person acted reasonably over a number of years to do something on this property
and he felt an SDD was right for this property.
Dominic Mauriello said that even with an SDD, a survey of the entire development would be
required.
Greg Amsden asked why you would survey private property.
Rick Rosen said he was not a proponent of an SDD because it changes the use of the property
and we need direction on where to go with this application. He felt an SDD would not be a slamt'. k. He said he believed we have the documents out of the Town,s tiles that allow
approximately 38,000 sq. ft. of GRFA. He felt once they can finalize the master association, they
would give up the two units and build only the four units.
Greg Moffet asked for clarification on what was being amended?
Rick Rosen said we were only amending those six units and the footprint was identical. He
asked why they had to do different elevations on the same building on a building site that has
been in existence for over 26 years. He said they wanted to amend the site plan of the six
stackable units.
John Schofield asked what was approved and he asked if this was ever filed in the County.
Ron Riley said, yes, that each phase was filed.
Dominic Mauriello said every phase was a separate condo Association document.
Greg Moffet accepted that the replication of Building 18 was the same as Building 19. He said
that anything different would require all the specifics of the approved. He said the applicant had
what they always thought they had, but if something different was done, then the PEC would
have to take a look at it.
Mike Mollica said if there was a question whether there were development rights, then the PEC
should make a motion to that effect.
Greg Moffet asked since the application stated an amendment to the plan, was it appropriate to
ratify this.
Gelen Aasland made a motion for approval that Building #19 is a vested right in the exact same
rorm, size, density, and configuration as Building #18 and that anything ,,in addition to" or
o
"different than" Epecitically that, will require a review ol an amended plan,
John Schofield seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
Ron Riley saH Forest Glen left 7.5 acres silent and since it was btally unrelated to the other side
would confusd the issue.
John Schofield said the Foresf Gbn sile was approved as an SDD and the tegat process
elimlnated that portion and that we were dealing with the remaining portion.
Greg Amsden said the, building plan for Buildings 1-20, never included the 7.S acre piece.
Dominic Mauriello asked about a process for the amendment and if the pEC wanted them to do
an amendment for an approved development plan.
Greg Amsden sugges&dtablhg the application.
John Schofield said we were amending the development plan and how it related to it.
Rick Rosen said to amend the site specific Building #.t9.
Greg Moffet asked how much GRFA and site coverage was there on the building site for Building
#19?
Dominic Mauriello said there was 19, 600 sq. ft., according to the applicant's survey.
Galen Aasland made a motion to table the request to amend a previously approved Development
Plan until May 11, 1998.
Tom Weber seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
.,