HomeMy WebLinkAboutCASCADE VILLAGE LIFTSIDE CONDOMINIUMS FLOOD PLAIN STUDY LEGALCr"sc<trc \-*\\aqg
t^A\ srcle-
C,.,r ners\cne- / U *screts{
FLOOD PLAIN STUDY
FOR THE
Liftside
Cascade Village
Hfaterford Site
NOVEMBER,I993
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
I
I Prepared For: MECM Enterprisesr P.O. Box 3149
r Vail, CO 81658
I
r Prepared By: Alpine Engineering, Inc.
I P.O. Box 97
Edwards. CO 81632
FLOOD PI,AIN STUDY
LIFTSIDE
CASCADE VILI.AGE
WATERFORD SITE
NOVEMBE& 1993
(303) 926-3373
t
I TABLE oF C'NTENTS
I L Introduction
I tr' o"'onry"'0",1;lxfl"o
2. Hydraulics
I m. Summary
I w' Exhibit A -
ffiiy3""y'il,ffiH#?1iilu.**
studv' rown of va'' cororado'
I v Exhibir B-
Fffi"#f,:*::"9,::i?"Y,iai""tT#ff:"3"",;ffi;,":;li"iffil"*'
I VI. Appendix A - HEC U Water Surface Profile Calculations
I
vII. Maps
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INIR.ODUCTION
Liftside is a pslli-rrnit building being developed in the Glen Lyon Subdivision in Vail,
Colorado. The site is bound by Cascade Village and the Westin Hotel to the wesl the
South Frontage Road to the north, and the Gore Creek to the east and south. A bike path
exists between the Gore Creek and the building.
The purpose of this study is to establish the 100 year flood plain on the Gore Creek
along the length of the development site.
II. DESIGN METHODOTOGY
1. Hvdrolow
The 100 year flow rate (Q) was taken from two sources adopted by the Town
of Vail in its Hazard Regulations. Section 18.69.045 designates and adopts areas
designated as flood hazard zones in (a) the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, as well as
the Flood Insurance Study, dated November 2, 1982 for the areas encompassed by
the Town of Vail as of December 1 1980 and O) the "Gore Creek Floodplain
Information " L975 study and accompanying maps as completed by Hydro-Triad, Ltd.
for an area described in the West Vail annexation plat, dated December 18, 1980.
Excerpts from these studies may be found in Exhibits A and B.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
Both the 1982 FEMA Flood Insurance Study and the 1975 "Gore Creek
Floodplain Information" study use 2850 cfs as the 100 year peak discharge
downstream of the confluence with Red Sandstone Creek. It is also stated in the
"Gore Creek Floodplain Information" study that peak streamflow discharge for the
main stem Gore Creek is produced by spring snowmelt and that increased
imperviousness within the Gore Creek Valley is not expected to increase snowmelt
flooding because suow in the lower valley will be melted early in the thaw before the
creek is near flood stage. Therefore the flow rate of 2850 ds is still valid even
though there has been an increase in the developed area since the studies were
prepared.
2. Hydraulics
The US Army Corys of Engineers HEC II computer program (1990 version)
was utilized to compute the water surface profiles.
Actual cross-sections were surveyed in the field by Baseline Surveys, Inc. of
Breckenridge, Colorado to obtain accurate information for input into the HEC II
computer progmm.
Sections were taken from upstrenm of the pedestrian bridge northeast ofthe
site down to the southwest end of the site.
I
I Based upon field observations and statements in the FEMA Flood Insurance
I study an "n" factor of 0.05 was chosen for the channel and 0.08 was chosen for the
overbanls upstream of the pedestrian bridge and 0.L0 for sections below the
r pedestrian bridge.
I
The pedestrian bridge was modeled based upon field measurements to obtain
r its impact on the water surface elevations.
I
r The HEC II run was completed for both subcritical and supercritical flows. The
r subcritical run resulted in higher water surface elevations and was therefore used in this
I report. The supercritical run is not included in the results.
I III. ST]MMARY
I
I On comparison with the FEMA and Hydro-Triad studies the water surface elevations
in this study are slightly higher and are therefore used as the L00 year flood plain for this
I area of the Gore Creek.
I
The results of our analysis show that neither the proposed bike path or the proposed
r building are within the 100 year flood plain.
T
I
I
I
EXHIBIT A
j
II
OD
URA
DY
FLOlNs
STU
I
I
I
T
FI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TOWN OF VAIL,
COLORADO
EAG LE COUNTY
NOVEMBER 2,19A2
Federal Emergency Management Agency
COMMUNITY NUI!188R - O8OO54
ttl
c!l\I
t:
(rl
>i
a
+J
c0
It
o
F
rt
o(U{JO
U!a!9.
qJ
q-r d
.lJ
B
o.(.)
c,tv.{ {,,q,r c,l
O(J()
OJq.r coo,
.! ultt
=0)o&
ooctccof1 al rC './_) 6(\
C! (\l C{ C'l (\il l'l
c'1
oooooooor.c' Or ...r Or Oi @rq.|t1€o|ro(\ll',{n
F".t r1 t-t Ft C{ Fr '\ N
ooooooo(>c,\odcoorlnoacn<r\OF-@OFi(n."'. A .-'l A -l n'l C{ c{
cfooooo99a- \o F.1 S '-{ dt or .'l
or o c{ rn<f tJl (.!I\-- - .-{ .'l Fl .+ '-l Ft
clooru'l@\0
(Drn(o\0co\0
-lntr,}\o\oc-
o(J
U)
OJt'
,d
o
.6
OJ
(o
F.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EE.c.g E5
P lJ | ',lJ !', 'r''
tlr ..1 '.1 ..1 'rl :tloE#t338
0roooqqo0'QooSoqooaEEc?qscOo o O or O o o o-i t t - .z a 7 5
;6 : ; r-i -o .'r - r'i
ll-1 tq tr.l rH :t lrl +'l
Cxy C C C Ft t q S_oEa 0 0 6 u .qf 8- 8()gg r* (J rr o, "3 "t,..(JU rrr E q-r lz uJ (/) qr !. '! qJ r'1 -Yo-- oA o{, o:. ; o(J o-n oo
oJ 6, - n - O $ 5 LJ oEii Ea Ei Ed 6 E- E-. Er'ooo A- 'sU A; O q- Sq 'tr(Jd.rOO orc o- a|(J q: a)= q''
t-.- - iG ;c !., - qr '-E ! '15 r'r o't4r fr !r rJ o +) -a .!-c ; i^' iE rJ ''roQo oi uL rn .r.r A glt u? rd lrl g
EFE EI ii ;fi : Efi Es E;8=,. 8. 8* I' Z, E* E"' o-
10
ol.rl
JJIol
oiFll
Irtrl
.glIrlolEol orrl U
(nl .raloo1 (lJ
.;l t..l.a't Iat I
'-r I orql ()
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.;
;>.C r,
tl) trl i
!ld:l
al t a]]r
cl !>rtG.l rltotI lol
Ul
I
o ,Elc, ojlgr >rlrr l,ool!mioitri;l
lr6l.g oll4, >ie tlqI
|.- rr1
|'rlo
^lro olc, 0.) i
{'-rlEI{)l
o'1 (ulO rrjc ldl
6O!tr ttl Io-lI
tb
H
..tx
c'r
rg
1).,{
E
0)
6)
q{
o
o
A(
$o
c,bl
z
€-
Qq:
LiJ4'n t!4ax
td
3
J.l
1{
(-)
cOooa()oc'oooOoooooooc
O O QOO c| C) O c,c' O OO O O O OOc)C
=3
?. c
r. i-z
C'l a\ ?.1 CO N
r't N lrt \o e{c'lO()O.-l
t--@aDco@
Or l'-
ol rYl
<t O,t aa a') ._t @ r'.) Ot f- r- (Yr (\ r\ € dt rt) .4 F- .{ \C
(o..l C.l yl tn.r \O @ O\NO Os.nS O rn O<tC(q! (f) rn ln \!l F F- n. F".O O\ cr O F{ C{ a') (v'} S rt <OOOOO()OOOoc)FtFt.-r.{'{.1 -1 .1 -
co @ @ @ @ 6 co @ @ co o @ co co ao 6 co co co (r
.-> ti\4 &.:7.3 ,-
ec
3ll
O\a-.-tON
fn (\ u) \o (\
r\@(o€oc0
c'\ t-
rJ.)$(\l rr
60
s cat an .n ,i oo c') o|i F. F- rt' c! l'- co ai r,.l 14 r- r{ u
to F{ c{ rn ln .n \o cc| c c{ o o <. ii <t o rn o !t (t
$ tn (l rn \O F F\ F F- @ (n O O i-l i! |Yt F) st .v IO O O O O O O O O o O'{ "r F{ Fl Fi r'{ -l r{ r
d oc € co 6 @ (.l.r @ Co dt 6 @ @ 6 @ c9 @ 6 o 6
{
(:
r:1
<n l.- .{ CO c\l
m c\t rtl \O c{ooOA-l
l-.cocO@@
Ol l'-
ol arloo
<. (\ rn an -{ o Fl cn t\ t\ rrt cat f-. € aa [n (al l\. r{ lt
rg --l C{ ln rn F) \.o @ (n C\| O O <t a'r $ O rn O lf CC<t tll rn ro \o F F F- t'\ @ o\ o o .".1 c..l .4 ra <! .itr <tO O O O o O O O O O O'{ Ft rt F{ -l -{ -t'{ F
@ Q O CO CO 6 CO 6 CO @ (D CO 6 CO CO CO CO CO.D Ca
<t3
5.1 C(^
Fi fdl.\
z-t..g.Z{R*9
=FEH
6\F-'{Qd\
c\lc!€ornN
.{ F{ Fl Fl
ro co O |\- O\ cn rt cO cn tn,.O (D'-{ c\l cO ri |.- .'l O O rn r'
rn CO lrt (\ <r. .'{ .n \O tn g\ dr ('l Ch F. CO O\ o\ l-' CO r-Fl r{ J -{ r-{
44^
16gil
Hf6"
'!|OFtQc{Ol r.- (l O\ \gc{(\rra-{m
rn@\o (r]c! aq
O\ g\ (\,1 F'||]:la{('l(nrncOaO.iOFl 6.{(\lnIa@F- fi r,- F- c) t- Fl d\ .n rn F. (n ul (n (o r'| lr| (\r u) (t(\l ri rn (\l (\l C.t (\l (n <t c\l r\t r'. c{ (\ (\ f\ C{ (.l ol (\l
;\ trJ
E3
F. l.o CO Ch <n
a{@ c{ q.) @| rn cO |J.r c) c) rO r{ (lt <> C) I.f) g rt'} O O C! C!l|o co F- r.f) <r \o i{. ao ro lrt r\ @ co F co olr'r- ln r-{ fn
U
m
uz
H
o
ll.
-t
z{F
U)
roc)|J]ornrnc|'o@\DNF-OlOfa
r-a-F-@coFl J .{ .-{ r-i
an rnr{ ..1
-tlc
O\o
[a c) rlr o o o rn |'l o o o (n o O rn o o rn O ra
F- N fa Or rr| c'! -l <! :1. r{ Fa c' Fl .n {p r'- CCf lO V} rrf
..t r.n ro t.- cr rn cD (n Q rn tn F{ ro F{ \0'-{ rn o !t 6
O O O O A .l 11 A C! (\t rv) {. <. rn U) \c| rO f'' F l"a{ a\r .N (\t c! (\t (\l N N C\ (\,l (\ Gl o.t C,.l C\| C\ C! (\l (\
z
l-{F(_)
ir1
u)
U)a
-g
Q)ol''{co(JOEI(J
0t
o
fr zoacxtr(aFDrg*t**tifHb}4Fl
EI
>-,<
!BGI€€
)a
UJItEo
u.l
E,o(9
ozur
Fzul=ouJ C)(,
= aR.:
> ILJit ?tg
= -<;n Zu)o =-so
=Itt
J
uJ
u,
t!
TAELT 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
T
T
I
8050
64b
8(}40
t#
8tL?0
o
I eozo
l-ul
UJ5zg
F
* aoro
urJul
I
- | ,u,o--ro--rr-
Srt-E 1
fr\. (
AFEA NOT
INCLUDED
;"-;ilr,7I
LIMIT OF
. DETAILEO
STUDY
FLOOD
COMTAINED IN
C1'LVERT
l--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXHIBIT B
\'
COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD',
G(}NE C
FL(){}DPLAIII IilF(}NilATI(|I{
'it;;;gu1..1
r L-" _ . _.i4!.4;,. +'.--.-,--. '. -- 1, 'a',-
3.8
5.1
3J
4.2
4.4
4.3
5.5
960
940
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
TABLE III-2 GORE CREEK DISCHARGES
Di scharges
TYPICAL
100 Ytlx
3.8
in Cub'ic Feei/Second CUM. DRAINAGE CREEK 0EFl'
LOCATION i6.YE-AF-_TM-TMR' AREAS (Sq' MJ') IN FEq
Black Gore above con-
fluence with Gore Creek
near Section 67.1
Confluence of Gore Creek and
Black Gore Creek
near Section 62.6
l.test of confluence of Gore
and B.lack Gore - h mjle
near Section 62.2
Gore Creek below conf]uence
with Bighorn Creek
near Sect'i on 55 . 1
Gore Creek below confluence
with Pitkin Creek
near Section 50
Gore Creek be'l ow confluence
with Booth Creek
near Section 49.6
Gore Creek adiacent to Golf
Course Clubhouse
near Section 45.2
Gore Creek below confluence
with East Branch Mi'll Creek
near Section 39
Gore Creek below confluence
with Spraddle Creek
near Section 23.?
- Gore Creek below confluence
\.ri th Middl e Creek
near Section 22.2
re Creek below conf'luence
ith Red Sandstone Creek
tion 18.9.1
Gore Creek above confluence
with the Eagle River
near Section 0.1
620
1.420
970 1460
1060 1590
1210
1340
1810
1990
1410
1550
2090
1590
2280
2340
1730 2530
2850
3100
20.0
34.4
35-7
40.3
48.0
55.0
58-9
66.s
68.8
76-6
90.6
5J
4.1
2150 102.0 11.0
a1a.jlq t:a:c i::aa .1{:1q 1'':a9{ ":{'tq1 ':4":al qqa'l"
s;*a* eseea EH::: *:=e* =E:::
3;3gg 39;3: :::::foi
j.
>6-
e9;
6-
n=
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
asRts* laasR gRg33 s5ts94
+++++ +++++ +++++ ++t++
i:3S$ FHRN: :3EFR H€g[[
ggssg sBgSe 938S8 flRe8B
- j+++ +++++ '+++'
*SFHE SFRfiE HHFSF gH3::
a:a:a':a1lq 9'':1q: :aq9q :1:"-: a:9:'',:
*:=;: :::;: ;;;:s gg*=g 3::;: 3::::
-o.,oo.!qlqq ".:191a 1,/: v: ?: i_elil :q:eq
ei:j=: ::::* :::=: ;==33 s:ggg
=:3:5
dded*;ooQoo
-No-6 rts6<'- n'::e9 ?qqc? gecee q9e:e e:9?':;;=-; ssiin RRRrE dldrd ;sssH H=sss e3;sE
s.";cE:.g 3 !r ?. E g
=59s8:iLro!EP;E:o!gEg--t,A-.-e€a,>i = ;.6==E;3;
,oo-t\.o qq9:^t 9q??a ^t":eqe qa1"':ad"i.,;i; ;,;dd^ d-999 =:::: =:::: 939P=
-azgst"3!5! s E !--s j-r s .. -g6:6 : r -t'c- E '!l:E: P,:a; g€ E +:SiS iE : iE
a:E -
sE'
-oo
,6-
E3=
2o
F
c31 ...-ooo<sr,|s ' locr€Fao>(il= -6 roio €cr EiFitso<r . 6F'\Ft-
35 oooooaO-IF r\Oro\ots< < l'ri |Jr rJ! 'Jt(l r.J FFFt\ F
6
o
?
6
E|I
crr,,r.\ro dr ra o rt r'r .rro r5o.'r .'1,!:1a': a":q9i :'lna': ':::--: a:e:"
F.D6{cor,' en!soe q!oq.;rt; j-Jo.i or<r-r'o 'SR53 igA66 GR:*5
FFFFF FFRFF FFFFF FFFRP FRPFF EFFER RTREE FEENEEB:
@otoEo 'rFcoto .oo€1n qa":aa :=aaq nqa'?n qt91n ":al:a
dd;oid o';;^;-: ;^;aiJ- .i'r"no'* o€Eqrq. G^d\€hE\.r 6r-s1F'N
FFXFF Fsser FgF€F EpRR}! FFFFF iEHrF iFEFF FFFFE
ooour<h -'oarror!1 c'€@oah r"'D6Ft"t !tF-(oo FFa'6F <\lol'-l\? c'rr.c|gtfid, -: -.
IFTFF IFFFF FFEEF FEFFE FEFFF iiiFF FFFFE EFEFF
;99 -*--- .oA@oro oooFol,.}F6Oaf OoOOO OOO(>-
8€Sg9 AE=SB R*8Rg ggs*B 3gsg8 ggRtsR
++-++
hs33R RsB;8 gEgEg :::E! nili= :EEEE EEEIE
oNoNo 6traof\,rno\FaO-rO
16^Nro(! N€*or.|
r:E.
u9-
?:se:r
oao> B
I
I
I
I
I
s--N
XH
/iaa F;
Scob ln F..t
NO'ES:
I S.c tola ! |!. tndtr |o lbo.l.d or.ol,
giolr|r plotar ond ln Eecr|.
2 Si.t olota 25 fo! illuitotd cro3.
3 F I lOOl, alavdl|oht ol ..ttr.ncc
.ou,-.1H,*?tt . Hto" ooo
GORE CREEK
FLOODED AREAS
HYDRO-TR|AO, LTD.
I
I
I
t .i ei5al
BOIOrI,
I
I
I
I
t,
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
STA. 127.70 TO STA
LEGCND
8?dor D.cr T"lr.Ced,,y
w'trr'
z
t t L5:
I Sa. rlol. I ft ars lo lbod"t cao3.
FOll- d.i.t drd tna Lttr'
2. S- plotaa 2_tt lot togr ol llo.a'{
!?aoa.
1 Fq tlood aLvoi€n ot ttf'r'rt'
Cq-ORADO *ATER CO'{SERVATIOT{ BOARD
TOWtr OF vArLEAGLE COUIITY. COLORADO
GORE CREEK
FLOOD PROFILES
r,AY, t975ptattrad Ot
I
I
I
T
T
I
lfE
79?O---i-€
8040
I
8030
""1
T
I
I
'f
'l
t
I
t3
dl
n_F 7940
€
t
E Slreom Stolloning ln IOO Feet
APPENDIX A
I
l:'*:i:i;*.#",' :
r 88nOF: Ot,Oz 'O3,O4 :. UPAATEO ' JUTIE I99O
I . RUN DATE 3orpvgi trtB 08:18:33t
I
I
x x xxrxxxx xlrJx xxtxx
xxxxxxx
I x xx : 'r
xxxx.xtx xxxx x xxx[x -t'Etxr
rxxxxx
I *" t" torr*,* t
ttttl
*rt','o
- EfrD oP lAxr'raR
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i U..9. .t&r,t' @IPs A|' Al,(;tltaAls
. ,trE At.?xp.IfrIc gErrrEE8lltr cENtER '
. 609 SECOND llfPEE:P, SUJrt
. g4VZS, C*rrFnula 95676'4687
. (916) 756-tro4
t
t
I
t}tlC,vg3 Ol:let3l PBB r
I
frfs Rut, BxEcal|fED 3oE)v93 o't18t33I
. HECz NELEASA BTED SEP 8E UPDA'AD JUN 7990
I
EnFOR CCRA - O1,O2,O3,O1
I
I
I 17 lrr srDa - m,fER.rcRD :oo yrar ?rND pLAtN
I 12 ,r?s -DAt JJl3ol93 - st BcxrlrcA!
t3 @Ra cRtEf, loo tR Fttpo Ptttu
I ;rz rcnrca rrp Jvrlrv rDrn sfnr lcltr'lc Et,tus Q "sat !0I
_ o o o o o o t-o 285o'o i1'o o
I J2 mrcF rprtt r.Rpvs .rsscy .rsrcrt Py Ar.r.Dc rB cpurtt rrxacg
rTroooooooo
I
- nc .200 -roo -o50 .l .3
lxTozoc2roaooo
cR 49.1s o 32.t5 33 26.79 62 25 't7 ?g 2', '27 tO8
I 61 3r-82 t22 35.42 r35 35-99 148 44.78 760 47'65 763
I
I : 50.,: ': '".i: ':: ,,.:: li ,,.:" 60 27.8s 7'
I 6F 26-19 a7 2a.]e tog 31.03 r,a 37.37 t52 g,'te 262
6R 41 .94 265 12 .38 770 46.60 J72
I
x7 2 11 67 t7O 19 56 50
I G& 4e J6 o 37 .77 35 33 .o9 60 29 .23 67 27 '52 95
I 6R 29.03 t70 2s.25 .rrJ 32.62 tJ5 32.82 t29 39 '89 ltg
-6n 39.95 165
tri3s93J3s56576i
6R 49 .38 O 4I .r9 26 32.79 s7 2S .58 8s 29 '97 93
I Gn 29.t4 7t3 io.zs ' 138 37.59 148
I
I X.l 1996t28 38 55 {J
I 6n 50.37 O 47.77 22 35.12 78 31'75 88 3r'24 96
I 6R 29 -aZ ria 32.01 rzE 32 -59 ',40
11'20 165
I
I
Pea 2I30nOvgt O8:18 t 33
Irr5s?orrra253sft cR 43.ao o 32.2t 63 31.6s to 30.76 sg 3t-96 ttt
GR J5.s5 t33 38.65 138 38.54 749 45.85 165
In?Ila7oot2o75.e3
I GR 6o.ss o 4r -70 2c 37 .tts 46 33 .53 82 35 '98 tao
6n ?9 .88 7r7 37 -O7 .133 48.95 t60
I
I
x75to5a7277677'aO
I 6& 55-09 O 4O.sO 21 31-22 43 33 '47 5e 30'79 7E
r 6R 34.OO 99 3s.52 727 39.e5 759 4'1.99 r'2 t8'3t 185
I
It, E 7 O .82 50 49 il5
!t 2 o 4E.69 45.20 82 48.40 45 '2O
6n 4A -69 O 45.20 , 38.63 t2 37 '39 48 3A'53 59
61 45-20 e7 ,18.40 e2
I
I
I
lfc o.oe o.o8 0-o5 .7 .3
xl 70 7a290 12 rr 73
en 1? -76 0 45 -75 27 38.5e 42 36.63 ?'7 3A '18 90
6n 44 -66 706 48 -tr4 723
38,65
39.61
!c o.o8 o.o8 o.o5 .3 .5
rr:sooatotoT0
Ix2.t
I
a7 i] 63465 30 70 58
GX t7.46 O 47 -4O 13 38.6A 34 35 '28
6n 57 -28 tt
.ar t2 6 76 55 69 75 7t
61 47.56 o 46.92 16 3s.7o 30 37 '83
6A 50.10 65
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I 3orDv9t 08: lE t 73
s8crc ttrrP]B Crstt CXrtsS ttSElJ( rc W flI' ot0ss L'IJU,E EIEV
I Q Qraa ocr Qr.oB Acr,B AcE AnoB wL fr a-aerf, 8tBy
I trr' vLoa vcn vRoB xNL xNcE ruf, r',' E..,'rE ssfr
-- STPPE ZTABL XLCN XI/)ER TIRTAL TDC ,CONT COXI' ,m/Sr'ZD BI'DSI
I rP&ot r
o
I ccflv- .1N cgv- -3oo
'SECID -OOO
I 3720 CEITICAL DEPTR ,"sl;]T*zD
I -ooa s.ss 37.os 37.os 32.oo i3.2o 2.06 'od 'oo 25''9
z85o.o J6o.4 2627-0 68,5 46.4 219.2 22.o .o .a 27'27
-oo 3.45 '7.96 3.72 .700 ,o50 .too 'ooo 25''? 40',,
I -ozo235 o. o. o. o 4 o 'oo 79'41 tt9'62I
I rtscp r.ooo
I J.ooa 6.st 3t.oo .oo -oo 34.44 !'41 7'28 'a6 27'89
zaio.o 202.7 2258.7 3eg.2 53.8 211.8 106.1 '6 '2 28'7e
I .oo 3.75 '0-66 3.6? .rOO ,o5o .too 'dn 25'19 53'tO
r -t'12522 82- 02. ?o. 4 o o 'oo a!''28 742'i9r
I *sEcF 2.ooot
2645 tlf,r sK aDoE av Rrtstr'6 s8c 2'oo' -'515 F! aHo EvLttPLvtrc at '933
I 36t5 20 rEZrr,A AEEBQP'@
'SBL.CCS'[,J693 .PloAeAla ,{lmrf0r sF ctrrc 8I{ER6y
I 3?2O CR'TTCA' DBFTII ISSOTA
I t.oto 6.2t 33.21 33.2r .oo 35 '!t7 2'25 '38 '2t 28''2
r 2aso.o 5a-G 2i79.t itz.3 t7.s 216.7 32'2 '8 '2 28'5t
-oo 3 -27 t2.4O 3 -4A ,7OO 'O5O 'too 'ooo 27 'o', 52 't1
r .o7a5o3 25. 25 - 2a- 20 I o 'oo 7o'3o t22 '64
I
l t6t| rvg sac .IDDED Dv n,'J'stMtt sBc t.ot. .Sl5 I'" A D tfitLfrPLvrxa Et r'o72
-
- 2.ooo 6-9t 34.13 -OO .OO 35's9 7'46 '34 'O8 29'2j
t 285o.o 75.? 2630.5 143-7 28.3 261.5 5o'1 :'o '2 29'03
t -oo 2.68 70-06 2.87 .roo .osa 'too 'ooo 2?'52 57'81
.oto356 aS. 25. 4 O O 'oo at'1' !33'JI
I
.sACtD,.OOO
tG! I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
J2rO CROS.S SECTTO!'3.AO EX'ENDED
jo$v93
sEtp
TIT'E
Sl,.PE
3 .OOO
2850.O
.a7
.oo8589
OC z lCt 33
DEPTB
QIAE
vwd
X'DBI'
crstf
QCn
vctl
XIEN
cnrtrs
oRoa
vrcB
xtroaR
HV
rrot
lflF
r@Ifr
w
*rN
conAn
h,SELT EC
AIAB ACE
JITL XIICE
I'NITT TDC
3.7t FEEf
o&oss L-8 fi ErAv
't{J[ R.IAItr ELEI|
El/',rN sstl
togtrl9 Enst
, -16 35.30
t62.5 2558.1
2-89 t.23
s6. 63.
7.23 37.32
355.o 2229.6
3,17 9.33
21- 26.
.59 .O3 29.97
I.5 .1 30.29
,ooo 28.11 6E.75
.oo 79.2s zi 8 -o/)
.oo
129.4
2.97
57.
.oo
56.3
-too
2
36 .50
277.1
,o50
o
,.20
43 .5
.100
o
'sEc]||o 4.OOO
3307 W CAA,mBO 'pXt llt{llY fiEx5
j685 20
'|nrarst A'llaEIIfED ,lsEL,cnsEL
3593 PRo.EABT,E 14 rttutr .5PAAtPIC .El{EP6r
3720 CRITICAL I'AP"I ASSVI,aD
4 .OOO 6-3A 35.eO
2850-O 267 -6 2300.6
4.6A 13.06
47,
.52 .30 3t -21
r.8 .4 tl.O4
.ooo 29.42 74.60
,oo 72.32 146.92
35 .80
281.8
1.78
.oo
255.3
3 .1E
27.
.oo
57 -2
. L00
20
.oo
tJ5.3
,100
4
i8.o7
7?6.1
.050
ll
2,27
s9.o
]00
o.020056 38.
.sBctto 5.ooo
76a5 Zvr SW TDDED Av.Rars 6 s86
3301 $v SHANG|ED TdOnA ?r r lvzrs
5.oo, -.670 Fl AND r{xtLr''Pt/!:d6 Bv .965
f 3302 r{a.Rrrrlrc: cot ccr lca crIANcE ottrsrDE oF AccErtIBLE xAncE, rcRA?ro ' :'6r
t
I
I
I
I
I
26a5 INI s.BC AaDED -sv RlltsLlrc sEc .6?0 FI AND EITLTZPLY'EC BY 1.''57
.3o .tl 3o.9e
2.o -5 17.29
.ooc 30.09 27 -?8
.oo 9O-9? t78.25
-18 .02 31-65
2.? .5 3t .t6
.ooo 30.75 33 -r2
.oa to3.t4 136.25
7.070
2850.O
,oo7754
5.OOO
zgso.o
.0068t5
38.42
239.O
-o50
o
38 .62
261.7
.050
o
7.O9
80.2
.too
o
5.94 37.70
jS'.O 2250-l
2.90 B.SO
2t- 26.
, t.or,
.oo
244.9
2.97
27.
-oo
t22.6
.100
.91
e3.4
. too
o
I
I
I
3O,DV92 O8:18:33
s8crfft DEP?E CISE! CRIFS I{s.Erff S6 frV EL OIOSS L-E iX ELEII
Q Qrna acr pRoB al,.B eca rnoa w\ TItt R-Arnx l',Sv
Trt'tE vrta vcn vRoa xNL J(flcr rfltr ptlf ELlllN sst
SIoPE XI,,BL TICE fiOAN TTRIjtr tE .ICO!'I CO&AX TOPIITD E!'T'S?
rsac O 5.OOO
6.000 7.50 3A.29 .OO -OO 3t,32 t.O2 -5' .O3 33.47
2e50.o 337.9 25t2,7 .o 91.A 293.9 -O i.O .7 39.52
.OI 3.69 8-55 -OO .1OO .otl .Oao .OOO 30.79 30.67
.otror4t 76. 8o. 77. t o o .oa 90.17 t2o.7e
I
rsEct{o 7,ooo
r 3265 DrvtDED TIps
I
3685 20 'nrAt' ATBEET@ rSea,Cfsel
I 3693 PROAABLE
'ITNrEI'E
SPrcIPIC ENERCT
I 3720 cRrtrclL DEFts tsswcp
7.ooo 6.ts 39.68 39.68 ,oo 17-50 t.e2 7-34 '24 3?'49
I 285o.o 21.a 26d7-z zsa-o 7t.4 238.7 5r.o 3-a .9 35-94
t .o2 z-tg rr.tz 2.77 .too .oco .7oo -ooo 33.53 35-60
.019654 l2O- 93. 75. 20 t2 O .OO 701.32 138-93
- cc{v- .3Oo Cg,'v- .so,
.SACT'o A.oOO
r
I 3370 t,o'E?tAL a&rDca, rRD. 2 l(rn ELrxD- 48.40 ETL ELLC= 45.20
I 3685 20 TR'ALS x,|fEEElED nsEL,CwSEL
I 3693 *R''ABLE rfl,,rulr spgctnrc ,,rEncrI3720 CRIITCAL DEPTE ,,sSI'',a:)
8.ooo 5.20 42.59 42.59 .OO 41.5t t-92 -98 'O5 48'59
I 2gso.o -o 2t5o.o .o -o 256.7 -o 4., t-o 48.10
I .oi .oo J!.JJ .oo .ooo .o5o .ooo .ooo 37.39 5.t7
.o2131g 50- 15. 49, 20 t6 O .OO 67 'O2 72 '39
I
.s.ECIfr 9.OOO
I fio2 ttARNtnG t coitvEr*.lrc5 cfiAEc.E owsrog op accs'Pl BLa R t'6.E. xR Tro - t -55
I
-f $?o rcRrllr. aRtlcE. xRD- 2 aln ELrhD- 4E-4o trr,x ELrxe a5.2or
9.ooo 5 .49 13 .88 .OO .OO 14 .92 l -O4 .t5 '26 48 '59
I 2850,a .o 2e5o.o .o .a 347'1 -o '.2 1'o 4g'4o
I .o2 .oo 8.2O .OO -OOO .O5A 'OOO 'OOO 37 '39 3 't9
-orooos to. to- to. 7 0 0 'oo 73''8 '6'6e
I
II
PJt6t 5
t
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
30fDv93
sacr€
a
TI"E
stroPa
zr.oao
2850.o
.02
-ot598A
72.ooa
2850.o
.o2
.02tEo:t
O8:18 t3J
DE9?H
QTNE
vLoa
XIAAL
crsaL
@B
vca
xLcfl
.300
43.95
2654.1
e.7o
13.
crrr's
Q@B
v&oB
XI,.BA
w
rxaa
$va
rac$?
xr.
WL
r|rltl
C19RAR
flsELX rc
A'NE ACA
JfiE I CII
'fRIAL
IE
OT,.SS I,-BAUN ELW
'ET
R.UE ELEV
ELEIN SS?I
TAPHID A{Dl''
.1t i9.J6
t.l 39.31
35.96 31.58
55.55 9A.t6
.3O 18.66
t.t 38.65
35.28 22.20
49.69 72.8E
. -lJ .o2 38.58
4.3 t-O 18.18
.oao 36.63 3t.32
.oo 72.78 to4.t5
cCW- .lOO C8W-
.sacdo.Io-ooo
lo.ooo 7.32
2850,O 82.2
.o2 2.44
.oo7379 12.
rsac!& I1.000
l6a5 n'" sac a.DoED Er RAtsrrc s&
2850.O
.02
.o09957
1615 !E? S* ADDED af n ,rsrl'C SgC
i30t rN ct NGED t,r}na TEAN Elttrs
7 -98 43.93
708.i 25e2.o
3-13 to.o2
t5. 29,
7t,oo.
.oo
60.7
2.98
35.
,oo
1t4 .7
2.97
.lt.
.00
2e -5
-o80
.oo
28.9
.o8a
6
.oo
.o
.ooo
2a
45,05
305.O
,05o
o
45 .17
267 ,7
.o50
o
16.07
204.9
.050
5
1e.37
205.6
.o50
It
38.7
,oao
o
1.47
2A.3
.080
o
2-48
t7.o
.o80
o
2 .76
t, .2
.oao
o
-675 Ft
^ND
XULlIPLrlrB BY 7.374
34 .6
-o8a
3
.24
4.5
.ooo
-ooI
t-ol, -.6?5 t|uND rn L'ZPLrI,JG Bv .728
e.30 13.58
tt?.t 2669.5
4.o5 73,03
75. 29.
7 -78 45.62
.o 2773.5
.oo t2.a9
43.31
6i ,l
3.7i
35.
45.6t
f5.4
1.15
75.
.?6
4.7
.ooo
.oo
rsEcr€ t2.ooo
3685 20 dRTALS ATr'}tvtED flSEL.CtlSE
t693 PROSAALA *rtrt$rE 5PACTFTC &,secv
3720 CRITTCAL D8PT,i .ESsUI'ED
69.7t -
1.32
5.1
.o00
.oo
.oa a6.92
t-l 39.51
37.83 18.51
42.18 60.72
55.530.5
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
cRoss sac?to|r .oo
Drsc&Atcar 2850.
PrOftED .Pot,*f.s Pf PRIORITr)-B-EO?1'a.X BRIDGA,T-'tr:'E BRIDcz, Jt-GROuND.n-tr UEn gtn,a.AtlEn6f GIADIa I,C-dXtrteAL ysEL
40.5 {5.5 60.5 65.5 70.5 75,5
.I
-x
x-
.x
l(-
t
I
I
I
ELEV 25.5
sfr-I'8ar
z o. .
10. ,
15. .
20. .
25, .
30, -
3 35. .
40. .
45. .
50..
55. .
4 60.. x
65. . x
70. .x
75. X
s 80. I
85. .X
90. .a
95. . X
too. . x
ro5. . .8
6lto.. r
125. .
7 120. ,
225. .
t30. .
I 735 , .
740. .
7r5..
9 150. .
to 260. .
.t8
.x E
xfa
x.n E
x.ltE
..r E
.na
.na
.na
.et E
.ta
.r E
.fl2
.tt E
-Fa
-tr a
.r.ra
. I3
.. r
t
I
I
I
x.
x
x
.J
.J
O gLLc- 9999999.OO EL?:RD- 9999999.00
t
I
I
T
EL(r),STA(rl
49.18 .aO
3t .82 t22.OO
32.45
35.42
33.OO
135,OO
26.?9
35.99
62.OA
ta8.oo
25.47
4t.t8
,9.OO
l50.oa
27.27
47.65
to8.oo
t63.oa
x.
I
I
t
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
T
I
I
t
cBoss sactlolt t.oo
gfnEAn 6o.nE cnaar loo ln FtmD
Drscr4.Rca. 2 Eso .
,LarttED ForN?S (ry tRtoxrrrr-€,Bo/r1tl,l BRIDf;E,t.'op BArlF;E,x*RouND,lr-uATEP. snF,t-Ett88cr GRA'DrASI 'C-cRItIcAL USEZ
ELaV 26.5 Jr-s 36.5 41.5 a6.s 51'5 56'5 6l'5 66'5 t't's 76'5
S?A-PES?
2 0. .
Io. .
20. .
25. .
3 30. .
Jt. .
ao. -
15. .
150..
55. .
5 60.. X
65. . X
6 70.. X
75. . X
so. .x
7 85. X
go. .x
95. . X
roo. . x
lo5. . .x
I tto. . x
tl5- . r
1.10. . x
125. . X
tJo. . x
.135 - .
I 7tO. .
1t5. .
10 t50. .
tss. .
1t ,60. .
t2 t6s. .
t4 17o. .
x
. .x
.x
. xxffxxxlr
.3
.lf, R
.nR
. tE
-fE
.fr8
-ttE
.*E
. tE
. tsB
.n8
. Pl
. n8
-nE
.nE
.*R
. rt
a. r E
a. n B
. TE
.x,
.x
.a
o EL[E- 9999999.OO ELrRD- 9999999.4m
AL(Z ) ,3TA(I t
50.90 .OA
26.a9 e?,OO
r2,9a t66,OO
39.83
25.28
12,38
2t -oo
toa.oo
270.OO
34 .71
3t -o3
a6.50
49.O0
138.00
172.OO
30-t2
37.31
60-oo
t52.OO
27.89
i7 -t8
7' .OO
t62.OO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
ctuss sEc'Io$ ] .oJ
.S'REI'{
DlscflrRca- 2e5o.
?tnfrED rcIl,/fn Ff PRtaRr?rt-A-ac/rftli ERI4,A,T-tuP E&rDcE, X -GtuU,JD, r-r tE8 S!IR, ETENERGr cIlDrElal.C'CRftfCiZ fSAL
E.Et' 2t .o
sfl-FEET
2 0. .
5- .
ro- .
15. .
20. .
25. .
1A. .
3 ts. .
ao-.
45- .
50..
a 55. .
60. .
5 65. .
70..
75. . r
80- . x
85. . X
6 90. X
95. - X
too. . x
9 t05. .
7to. -
t:5..
to 120. .
t25..
tro..
135. .
tt 74a..
145. .
t50. .
12 t55. .
29.O 37.o 33.o 35 -o i7.o 39.O 4t -o 43.0 a5 .o 47.0
x
f.
t
.I
XE
J .8
.a
x.
.x
J.
x.
!.veer]'r'Ett?vlrJrer
T
x
x
36.65
28.71
32.66
,05.41
32.58
32.)O
55 .98
to?.3o
28.72
32.31
62.52
t20.37
27 .O'
39.3e
t et(-
Itrr-
EC.61
r 3t.l o
t .tt
.t
.r
.,t
.r
.F
.H
-v
.tt
-g
.r
.tt
.a
.a
.E
.E
.a
.B
,E
.E
:.
.I
.x
.x
.I
o ELIE- 9999999-00 ELIRD- 9999999.OO
ELtt).sIAtr)
17.85 .OO
28.51 tO2.61
39.44 r51 .89
I
I
I
I cnots sEctton 2-oo
sttE tt &aa caEER too tn rtrcD
AtsctitR6tr 2850-
PIEiED rIt7S (By PNANITY ) -B4OtFIOt4 BRtDGE,TtTAP BRZNB t X,CRottND, f-ntTER SUl, ErEllERdf 6Rttrnar,C-Cnt"rC*! tSS*
x.
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
ELEV 27.5
s?t-Plet
2 0.
5. .
to, -
J5. .
20. .
25- .
30..
3 35. .
ao. -
45. .
50..
55. .
4 60. .
5. 65- .
70. .
75. . X
80. . x
85. . j
90. .x
6 t5- X
too- - x
tos. . r
7 t7a. ,
' ,t15..
]20. .
125..
to 130. .
135..
7to. -
115. .
-r.l t50. .
t55. .
t60. .
,2 t65, .
29.5 3l,5 33 .5 35.5
XE
J .t
. .r r .E
. r. fl .a
n -E
37.5 39 .5 '(I.5 13 .5 45.5 17.5
,x
t.
-x
.I
x-
.x
x-
A EII,c- 9999999-OO ELTRD- 999999t.0O
xxtxxusxxxxxnctxx - tl .E
. , . ,t .E
. x. . r ..8
. x . ,t .s
x .E
.x
,x
,x
.I
J.
J.
. n -E
. 9t .t
.u
. t .E
. tl .a
. N .A
. r .t
. ts .E
' 'E
.x
t fr-
tarrr.
BL(r ) $rA(r )
48.36 -OO
29.03 170 -OA
3t.95 t65-AO
37.t7
29.25
35.oo
ttt.oo
i3 .o9
32.52
60.oo
Ir5.OO
2t.23
32.82
67.OO
t2t.oa
27 -52
t9 .E9
95.Oal
t4a.oo
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
cnoss s8c"ro.| 3.oo
Dl*sAreE- 2850.
pglEfAa rotN-IS (Bt DRZOR:tTtt-A-d(tEI9/ti ARZDdE.r-rg.P BnIDG.e ,*-crcroMo.t -nA?ER SUF, A-eAXdr eA.EDIEN?,C4RtrZCll ,'SEL
E.Et' 2e.t
stt-Pset
z a. .
5. .
to. .
20..
3 25. .
jo. .
35. .
10. .
a5. .
50. .
55. .
60, ,
65. .
70..
75. .
80..
a a5- -
5 90. . ta
6 95. .
too-.
lo5. . x
120. . tt
7 tts. a
t20. . x
t25. . J
t30. .
,t5. .
L10. .
745. -
9 150. .
30. t 32,1 34.7 J 6,l ao-t 42.1 11.1 46 -Z at.r
x.
-xE
. x.8
. xts . a
..r lt -B
r . r .a
x . r .a
. r .E
I. N .E
I. fl .E
_ * .E
- fl .E
- a .E
. J' .E
_ tt .E
x , r .8
I. ,I . E
.x u ,a
- x 1' .E
- f r .a
ttlr-
41 -t9
30.29
26.OO
)i8.oo
32.79
3t.59
87 -OO
t48.OO
a9.oo
o EI;.E- 9999999.00 ELTRD- 9999999 'OO
s.lt t ,st^(z )
49-38 .OO
2A.t4 713.OO
29-9' 93.OO
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
T
t
t
I
crcss sactroa a.oo
stna ,. cof,E cxEEr too yn ?I&D
DTSCfiARCE- IESA.
e&dfl@ FOZtttS (Dy P/,.roRXyr) -D-'clfIAn SntDGA.f-?Vp &RIDCB,X4'pU,',,,,tu AIIER SUA,a-afAAdr CRLoIA|'1[, C-CrttlCrt IAEI
s -FEer
2 0. .
5. .
70. .
r5. .
3 20..
25- .
jo..
35..
10..
45. .
50. . X
. .lE
,t.E
.I.a
.I .E
.XE.E
4 80. .xn
3t -tt 33,4
5 90., .X
6 95.. '-
aIEV 29.4
I t30. .
I t40. .
I.
.,' .l
.E
35,4 37.4 39.! 4l .4 45.4 47..1 19.443.4
85. ..I .F
. AAJE.
.i
.1too, .
:o5. . n
1to, . x
tr5. .r
7 t20- x
125.. r ,
.t . E
- .fl
' 'J
.E
.E
.a
J.E
.x
t.
t35. . .X
.fl
.n
.ts
.c
.r
.x
.J
245. .
250. .
255. .
150- -
lo t65. .
rln.l). o ELLC- 9999999-OO ELIRD- 9999999.00
EL(I t,s':a(I t
50.i7 .oo
29,42 1t8.OO
41.7J 22.OA
3t.ol t28.oo
3t -16 88.OO
al -2o t65.oo
33.42
32.59
78.OO
140.O0
31.21 96.aO
I
I
I
t
c803s sEc?rof .l.oJ
stneAn @R8 caE4 loo vR EL@D
DISCJIARGE- 2950.
pID'1fED IpItflS Gy pRtORt"t t-B-ac/flt/A ARfD6,E,'.'tr,P BRrD6,E, X.Gx0,t,lD,r!I/AUeR St R.E-4'EFC! GRTDTErIf,C-CRI?ICJIE Fal
ELEv 30 -t tz.t
sft-EEE!
2 0. .
5- .
10. .
t5- .
20. .
25. .
30. .
35. .
1|0- -
45- .
50- - .x
3 55- - t .
4 60.. r .
65-. X .
70. . x
75. . X
eo- .r
5 85. X
90. . x
6 95.. r .
100. . ..r
705. .
Ito. .
7 tt'. .
eno--
125- -
t tto. .
t35. .
740. .
70 145. .
31.' 36.1 38. t 40-7 42.t 4a .r, $,t 1g-l 50,t
I
I
.',(
l. E
. . x n .E
. :. tt .E
, x . n .E
l. . , .E
u .E
fr ,e
n .8
n .E
n .8
n .s
'I
.E
r ..R
r .8
w -E
fl .E
x . . f .E
.x . fl .E
. t . L s
t, E
x. E
J.A
3i .srt 54 -46
3? .98 7r9.30
.x
x-
.x
t.
..x
x.
.t
alIllt.
ta,'r.
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O EI'LC- 9999999-O0 ELTRD- 9999999.00
E (t ) ,st^(I )
{3.r3 -OO
35,20 t74.9e
60.52 3A.Ot
728.81 45.f8
85.59
ta2.65
31.29 95.9630.98
37 -97
t
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
c.Rclss saE?lolf 5.oo
sfnEpr @aa CREF( Ioo te TlIpD
DISCriAtGar 2e5O.
proiv prs's tsy PRIORITr )-bsc/?Fox aatDe'.t-mP ERIDGA,X€ROI,MD,I -NATER stn,arat{ERdf GF,f,'.la|Ir,c.Cn.trrc/ta tsSEl
wav 30. e 32 .8
s|'I-8t8lt
34-e 36.8 ?e,g {o.e a2.8 11.8 46.8 1e.e 5O.8
2 o. _ x .
,.. . .x
2o- - . x
rJ. - .r
20.. x _
25. . x -
30- - . xr,
35. - - xw a.
ao.. x. &' 5.
45.. t . g E.
50.. . r. . v E.
55- . . r tt E'
60-. t . . ,t E.
3 65- - .X . H E.
17O.. X . Y B.
75.. X . . w B.
80.. A . r a.
85-.A . I E.
go..x - w l.
95..x ' tt E'
5 too-x . ,t E.
205..X . r a.
67!o.. r . n 8.
t15.. -x fl z.
12o.. . r tt E-
125.. - t . n E-
t3o.. x ' n E-
7t35.. x . fr E-
8710., . r.
,45. . , x.
9t5o.. . x.
rs5. . -r
750.. t '
t0 t 65. .
O ELLa- 9999999-AO 2L"RQ- 9999999.OO
99.OO
t65.oo
a^|vr,
ttt.oo
I
t
I
EL(I t,st}(I )
4i.80 -oo
t5.95 t33-OO
63.00 3! -65 ,O.OO 30.76
t39.oo 38.64 tag.Oo 45.85
32 ,27
38.65
31,96
r
cnoss sEctrol' 6.00
r .9fnE'.I' @X.A CNEEf, IOO YR FZC,oDr Drsc*r.Rc8 zoso-
I g1tfe9 pory..E t (it ?Rronrtt)-a-34,g9,$ a&rDca.T-top agrDo,a ix-GRottto,r,-ntgBta ;on.E-anlncr ctrA.Dra$t, c.cnr"tca! rllt!
I
E.W 3O.8 35.A tO.O a5-8 s|.e 55-8 60-8 C5,0 'A.8 75.8 8O'8
t5. .
20. . X
- i 25-. . X.
I 30- - . .tR
35- - . X''B
ao.. x ttE
I 415.. X. "E.f so. - J . uE .
55.. r . flE.
5 60.. r - IE .
65.. X . tsE .
70- - t . tE .
75- -X . rA
f 6 ao- x . $E
! 85--X . flA
90- - x - t 8
to5.. r. PR.
II5.. .I PA
r.20. - . 211 E
8125.. . X -
t3o.. . J-
r35.. . r.
rio. - , r
715.. . r
t,a.. . x
155.. - X.
I
90. - x . t E .
.f Ft .
I
I
I
I
r 9160.. . I
I t6s- - X .
to tro- - . x
tr,.. . r
I rso-. x
Lrro5.. - x
I !rxD. o MA- s999999.OO ELTRD- 9999999.00
I
ELII),SrAlI)
s.og .oo ao-so 2'.OO 34'22 '3'OO
t3'17 58'OO io'fg 78'OO
I 34 .OO 99.OO t9 .52 727 -OO 39 '86 t5g -OO '1 '99 t72 'OO ta '39 te5 'oo
I
I
r
I cnoss sEctrolr 7.oo
I smrxr @na cREEx 7ao tR "IfiDD'SCT',.RGE- 2850.
I pl/,rtrl x)rN,s (at pRIonI,Ir .-B-BO1w| ERIDG;E.T-'|O! aFrDGE,x-croUrcD, tr II'BA SatR,E-8!'fnGr r';UAO;IBrI .CdjRt?,ICriL rSaD
ELW 33.5 3A.s 13.5 48.5 53.5 58.5 6i-5 68.5 '|3-5 7e'5 81'5
I
stA-?EEt
15. . . x
i5, . . x E
60. . x . Jt a
65. . X . r t
70..X .n t
I
20. . x
I s 2s. . . :
I io.. . .tE
40.. X( A
I 145.- x-t, Er so- - r.F E
I 55. . .r . r a
- 75..X .P E
I 5 eo. x -a t
I
x. n a
x .8 E
125..
tio. .
a 735. .
210. .
745..
I
I
.J
t55. . x
I ?t6o..
I
x .t] B ,
-XTE.
-x
1so. . - x
tn'r O B!'tc' 9999999.00 aLPRD' 9t99999 'oO
I w(t).sr (t)t 60-9g .oo at.lo 26.00 3?.49 a6.oo g.3'5t a2 '(n 35'to tao 'oo
39.8e t77.OO 37.07 733.OO 18.95 150'OO
I
I
I
I
at.4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
cBoss sEcrro e.oo
.'ttEttt cons CREE 1o.0 vn Ft&D
OI.'CI'AICE- 2612.
Pw'.tED rcrMrs (tr Pnto'At't )-A'EorzE t Btrr.oGE, r.ipP lnrDca,r-6no4lrD,fl.lrllAF
'UI,E-ENERGr
enArtlt$l,crclrltcAl flAgL
ELEV 37.4
srl-FAA!
3 0. .
t. ,
6. .
a. .
to-.
3t.1 43.4 15.1 17 -4 a9,a 5t.,53.1 55.4 s7.4
XEB..t
8rufi-
4 72. . I .
74. . X .
J6. . X .
18. . x .
2A. . X -
22. . f, -
74. . .X .
26. . X -
28. . X
3a. . X
32. _ X
34. - X
J6,- - X
38. . X
40..t
42. .x
14..X
46. X
5 ,t8. X
50..x
52. . X
5{. . r
55. . X .
6 58. . .E -
.t
.t
.t.r.84.
. g . E B.
- ,l . E B.
-fl.88-
. n . E l.
. r . E B.
.p.Ea-
.fl.4!.
. 9' . At.
. ,r . 8 a-
, n . E 4..
.tt.E'4.
.f,r.88.
, a . 8l-
. el . E B.
. H . E 8-
.v,EA-
.f.a!.
.n.EB-
.l'.AD-
.w.aa.
.n.81.
. ,t . I E.
.fl.88.
.tr.aa.
.r.Ba.
. ,l . E B.
.ts.a8.
60. .
62. .
61. .
55. -
68, .
70. .
72. .
7a. .
,6. .
70. .
7 oo. .
I e2, .
x.
.r
. r . tt . I t.
. x . 1 . A l.
. .x fl . E B,
Jfl . E I.
x . a !.
JAa.
. r a l-
. x 8.
. x.
I
I
45.2O ELERD-19.10
a5.zo a8,ao
4 ALIC'
-oo a5.20
EL(I ) ,stl(t t
a8.69 E2 .OO
.a.69 -oa $,20 t.oo 3a.6J tz.OO 37.39 le,OO 38.51 59.OA
45 .20 U .AO 48,10 A2 -OA
I
I
t
t
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
60. .
62. ,
64. .
65. .
69. .
?o. .
?5 - -
78- -
7 80- .
g 82. .
fin!-
(34s5 stc?tolr 9.oo
stnEut @n8 c&Ea[ ]oo tn ?rrno
Df$fltAIGE- 2a5O.
FIparED pottrPs pf PRto&Ittt-a-wfnox ERIDeE,t='oP 8Rru68, i-cxoultD, r-nAfaR saR,EtENERGv GEIDIEET,C4RI?,CA.L NAw,
aLav i? .1 39.4 a1.4
STA-PE4T
3 0- -
2. .
4- -
6- .
8. .
to. . x.
1 ZZ- . i( .
t1. . x .
t6-. x .
28. - I .
20. . x .
22. . X .
21. . J .
26- . i( .
28. . X
30.. j
37. , x
31. . X
35. . X
34..X
40. .x
42..X
44..X
'16.:5 48. X
50. .t
52. , X
5f. . .r
55.. r .
6 58. . I .
49 -4 15 -4 41.1 49 '4 5t -4 53.a 55-4 57 .4
-xta.
x - ,t a'.
. ts aa.
.T EB.
. I| EA.
-fl E.
. U EB.
. T EB.
-n n.
. 1 EA.
.r aa.
. n Ea.
.
'
EB.
.fl Ea.
.n Ea-
, $ EB.
.n lE.
.n aa.
.P EB.
. I' EB.
.H ZB.
.T EE.
.n at-
. e, ta.
. ,t Ea-
.u aF.
.U EB.
. lt Ea,
.r Ea.
.,, EB.
. ts EB.
.dbE-
Btxxxx}Jtxxxraxrxxtr ,
.r
.t
.T
.71
.tf
.7f
.71
.r.
.x
taxr.
tAllx.
.x . tf EB.
x - . n EB.
JT . ,' EB.
t H aa.
. T EB.
. T EB-
J.
1 gLLc- t5-2A ALJRD- aa.4oI
I .ao 45.20
a.(z ).9]rA(I t
48 -5t 82.OO 45.20 48.40
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
r4.59
a5.20
.oo t5 .2o , -oo 3e.53 t2 .OO 37 .tt 18.AO t8 's3 s9 'AO
't.oa, 18.to 82 -oo
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
t
ctolta sEeErof, to.ot
stRt|rt @na cnwx too Yn FrNo
DIsCElRcs- 2850.
PL<rttED rold:ts Fz PRIonI1y )-a-rlg4ltar EaIDGE,IaTOP ANIrcB, X.GtuUlD, rEnrtEi sux'E EnERdr 6RMEfT, c-cnldrcAl r'EL
56.612.5 11.6 46.6 aA.6 50.6 s2 -6 54 '6ELEtt 36.5 38.6 aO.6
stA-FEgt
2 0. .
5, .
to. .
15. .
20. .
3 25- -
30. -
35. .
4 10. . X
15. . X -
50.. r.
55. . X .
60. . .r .
65. - t
7A. .t
5 75. X
80. . X .
t5- . r .
6 90-. r.
95. .
700, .
7 tos. ,
Ito. -
t15. .
t20. .
I 125. .
.J
x.
xr.a
E .B
I4 .E
N .E
fl .8
n .E
v .E
E .B
tl ,E
n .E
n -E
v -z
tt .E
t, .E
XE
&urr.
tlxr.
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
o ELIE- 9999999.0O ELTRD- 9999999.OO
E .(I t ,stA(t )
47.76 -OO
4r -66 tO6.OO
36.67 77.oo 3e,18 90.oo16.15
48.34
27.oO
123.OO
38-58 42.OO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
.I
x-
x.
T
.I
I.
x.
CRAS!' SEC'IOT| t -Ot
sfEeAr @na cRE3' tOO yR PL4,D
DlscrancAr 2t5O.
PIzEIAtt POIS?li (Et ?Rt0Rlrtt-A-aOtttr|l rRrD6Br rrtDp aa.rDcB,x.cf,OUr{D, ry-rdA?ER Srn,a-Af,Aict cnADrA,f;r,c€nZrZCAr. flSA&
Elar 35 -O
S?A-?E;ell
38.O lo.o 42-O 4a.0 46.0 1e-O 5o.o 52.o 51-o 56.0
2 0. .
5. .
to. .
I5. .
3 20. .
25. .
30. .
i5. .
ao. .
4 45. .
50. .
55. .
60. . t
5 55. a
70.. x
75. .
go- .
85. .
6 90..
95. -
,.o0. .
zo5 - .
tto. ,
715. .' t20. .
.x
r8 .
)at E .
r5.
,tE.
P8.
nE.
gz.
tE-
fl4.
uE.
uE-
*E-
vE-
l(8.
ttM.
tluq.
x
-x
.x
.x
'x
.T
x.
7 125.
o ELZ,C- 9999999.00
'3/lt&D-
tc99999.oo
s.(r) .saA(I )t8.1a .ao
57 .95 t25.o5
48 -O8 17 -87 39.35 54.59 39.33
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
cRos9 sSEfrot tt.oo
DI.'C,|AX6ET 2e5O.
ErArtAD I€Zr|Ei (Er pnroRrry].-A-Barrf/n E,.IDaA, t'':oP ARIDaB, t'crcU$D,lrflLfAf, SUn,A.alEFGr cn,,.ZE tT'c'CAIttcAL
"SEL
ELEI|35.337.319.14|.343,345.347,'49.352.353.355.'
sfr-FaE:t
I
2 0., ..1(
2. . ,x
{. . -:
6. - -x
t.. .x
ro. . -x
12. . .t
3 74-. .X
t6. . x .
18.. , .ra
20- - . J. E
22- - . x . z
2t.. ' Ir ' a '
26.. . x ca . .E
25.. .J Cr . E
3a.. x . cP . a
32.. X . clf . E
a J.t.. . x ca . E
36.. - X ct . t
39.. -A cts , a
40.. x- cr - E
12.. X - ca . a
4a,. x . cn . E
5 46. X . c* . 4 -
48..x ' c r ' E '
50.. t - ei . a
s2., r . ci . B
5{., I . Cr, . E
56.. r. cfl . E
58.. .f c$ . E
60. - . r cfl . E
62.. . r cfl . a
6 64-. - x cc ' I
56.. t . cfl , E
68.. .r cl ' a
?o.. xcv - t
72- - . r . E
74-. . _ xE
75. . .r
78. .
EO- .
82. .
a{. .
86. .
t8. .
7 90,.
x.
,x
.x
I
I
I
I
I
r I{nD- o eLtE- 9g99999.Oo BLTRD- sgggggs.Oo
I EL(r ).sr'(r )
I 4?.16 ,oo lt.to tl.oo j8.6s 34.oo 35.28 lr.oo 38-65 65.00
57.2a 91 ,OO
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
C8o5s sFerrof,t 72.OO
sfREt,. &na cRaEr :oo yn gImD
Dtscflttc'E- 2t5o.
gmrfsD wt&rs pf
'{RzoRItu Faa3p4iiftrl ERIDdIE tf-ltDP rRrD6ArX-Ctuu'D,P/-HATER SllR, E-ENBR6y GR,9ZAN'',C*CRITIC,|L nAAL
ELEtt 17.8 3g.8 1r.8 13.8 a5-8 17.e ag.A st.e 53.8 55.8 57.A
stt-rE4r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
2 0. .
2. .
t, .
5. .
c. .
to- .
12. .
ta..
3 75. _
ra.,
20..
22. .
24. .
26. .
24. .
4 30. -
32- - t .
34-. r .
35.. r .
t8-.a
5 40- X
42. .X
44. . X
a6. . .r .
aB.. t .
50.. x .
52. . X .
. x. E
. J.8
. x. E
-x.E
.r.8
.x.8
.I.E
.x.E
-x,E . -a tr.
. allvr.
.xt..E
.E
.5
.E
,a
.xE
x
I.
.x
.I
T.
T.
{.
.t
O E.tC- 9999999,oO E TRD- 9199999.OO
n (tt,s" (It
a7.56
50.70
.oa
65.OO
a6.92 76.00 i9.70 37.83 40.o0 3t,6'55.OO
30.
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
PROP TE FN S'REII' CORA CREE'(
'OO
TR II&D
Prn73ED wrgr1 (Bt pntoalrlf ) g-gfteRclr. r-rarEf, suRnrcg J-INtEnr,e-cnITIctL ,,.s. 'L'If;I|? S.,If,,tr-xldnf al!'x'ft-'ItlEn EID sll
TLJSJ'ATTON 25 .
sacro cuHDrs
45, 50.
,tl
.x
,x
.a
-rl
.a
.lt
.N.
55.65.
.oo0.rln.I'E.
,o. r Lc .lt E .
20. r tn -H E -
3A. CI LE . 'T E :
40.CtL.rtE.
50.ct!n.nE.
60.cILR.WB.
70. cr L - ,t E.
ao. cl L . H 8.
t.oo 90. cr L . tt E.
too. er r' . ,t r'
l.or ,70. . r &! . r I s.
120. c I RL . n a H.
l3o.cr!'P.8t't.
2.oo 74O. C I EL. p.E lt.
2SO, C t ,. n.B Il
760. C r l. N.B t4
,7o. c r !. n.E
780. C r ln. ,19. g
190. c r l, tt fl. E
3.oo 2@. C r Lnr 18
2to. c I L N9 E
zeo. c
5-oo 290. C
300. c
3to. c
320, C
3to. e
t40. c
350. C
150. c
.rr,F . fl I
.tLn . *z
.t L R . tE .
220.CrL
230. -C ' .t
4.oo 24O. . t .RL
250. C r .L
260- C r..En
l-ot 2ro. c r.li
fl4t
flE-tf
.r a .
.r a
. ra
. n8
. rrE
A. PE .
., tE .
. & flE .
- nta .
L . rnE.
; HE -
L , rna .
L. vR a.
r.
E.
a.
A.
t-
g-
t4-
x.
!l.
.rl
.14
.tl
.tl
.u
.ll
.r
.H
.E
.tt
.tt.
.n-
.r.
.14.
'- L .
TL
5.oo 37o. c .r
380. C .r
190. c
aoo- c
ato- c
120- C
aio- c
lro-
a50.
7.OO t5O.
tro.
.I L. Xv E,
L. n r E
I,RHB
..LnrJ.a
r .ln ff.4
tc .8t, 1'.8
I .A T, '.4r. nLu E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
180.
490. .
500.
e.oo 52o.
9.OO 520. C
10.oo 530. C
5rO. c
tso. c
1,Ot 560. C
57o. C
580' '
tt -oo 590.
600.
6to. -
620. .
630.
6ao. .
650.
12.OO 650.
.tn Ia . ,t
.bt E x.L- t .
. T - T E . RLE
. t - u E. L .
. a - EE. L .
.I L . aE. A .
.t L. f R. E '
.r L . J A fi -
.I L. lt E N .
.t L . r a ,t -
I L. l.Elf
tL.rr.afi
t nl. cn .Et4
.r R .I' A .Ett
-r F . t' u, Elt
.t a . L Cl,. E .
LN. E .
H
'4Et u1 E
. r n,
- r n.
. r l-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
33.oa
34.43
35 _30
3orcVt 3 O8:lAttri
,EIs nX EtECVfAo torcvg? O8:78trO
EEC2 NZLEASE DATAD SEP 8E U'NAE@ ''UT' '99O
ERROR CORA - Ot.Oz ,O3,O4
IQDIFTCAIIOE .
rp"E- AsfaRtsn (r) Ar LaF'" oF cRoss-sEetro[ n unBER rlrDrclfss rtEssAGA ff SOIILARY OP Anlons irsf
6'o&.a cxaar 700 vR EI&D
S("*'IRY PRTNT!oI'8 \ABLB
'5O
seclp xLcE a!r|D Er.r.c E ltr$cvsEL CXrFS ae torr(s
. -oao .oo .oo 3r.o5 3l,05 33.tO 2O2.36-oo 25.tt7
.oo 26.49
-oo 2f.52
.OO 28.14
,AO 29.42
.oo 30.76
a
2 850.OO
2850.oO
2850.OO
2850.oo
2850.oo
2e,O.0O
2g50.oo
285A.OO
2050.oo
285O.oO
285o.oo
2850.OO
2850.oO
37.7O
34.29
VCE
71.96
t0.66
to.06
9 -2i
73.06
8 -50
8.55
,t.77
tr.73
I -20
8.70
13 .ot
ti.a9
,oo 31.4tt 126.22
:OO 35-e9 1o3.56
.OO 36.50 85.49
.oo 38.62 68,76
.oa 39-32 tO7.46
.eREf, .OzX
2A7 -6t 200.34
37t.la 253.67
3i9.92 280.05
377.O2 3O7.52
292.2a 20t.25
172.76 345.2t
385-7i ?ra.93
307.o, 203.29
256-O7 182.80
34?.a2 284.89
372,23 t33.13
250.81 225.'tO
227 -tto 7%.At
7.oo0 Ez.oo .oo
' 2-AOO 5O.OO .OO
3.ooo 63.00 -oo
. 1 .OOO lt.OO .OO
, 5.ooo 51.00 .oo
35.80 35.80 38.01 2OO '56
. 7 .ooo 93.ao -oo
r 8.OOO 45.OO 18.40
JO.OOO 73.00 .OO
t 11 .OOO 58.OO .AO
. ).2.OOO 71-OO .AO
6.000 80-oo .oo .oo 30.79
.oo 3t -53
t5.20 3?.39
39 .6& 39 -68 47.5O 196 .51
a2.59 42 .59 44 .51 243 .O9
. 9.OOO 7|-oo 48.10 45-20 37.t9
.oo 36 -63 43.t5 .ao
4t.58 43.31
.oo 44 .92 LOO.O8
45.o5 73.19
46.O7 t59.84
43.88
.ao
.oo 45 -6t 4t .61 4a.?l 218.o3
35.2e
37.83
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3A*IOV93 O4:)8:3i
@Ra CREAT 100 gR Ft&D
surlJd^Rv ERl,l|tt,ttf lAaLa t50
,aoo 2a50.oo
1.oao 2850.oo
2.OOo 2850,E,
3,ooo 2E50.oo
4.ooo 285a.oo
5.ooo 2850.oo
6.OOO 2450-OO
7.OOO 2850.OO
a-ooo 2850.oo
t.ooa 2850-oo
10.ooo 2850.oo
11-oOO 2e50.oo
72.OOO 2850,O0
crsEl
3t.o5
33.OO
34.43
J5.3a
35.80
37.70
3E-29
t9.54
42.59
43.e8
13 -95
43.59
45.61
DrFntsP DTFh|ST Otflfls
.oo .oo .o5
.oo 7.95 .OO
.oo t.2l .oo
.oo .87 .Oa
.oo .5o ,oo
.oo .38 .OO
-oo .59 .OO
.oo 2.38 ,OO
-oo 2-9r .OO
.oo 1.29 -00
.oo .o? .oo
-oo -.35 .OO
.oo 2-O3 .OO
TUWTID IIEH
79.tt, .oo
89.2e E2.U'
87.17 50.AO
79.25 63.W
,2.32 tlr.oo
toi.t4 51.oa
90.17 80.dt
t01.32 93.oo
57.O2 45.AO
73.4A lO-M
72.78 13.@
49.69 S8.OO
42,18 71.&
I
t
FTI6E 93OEv93 OStlStJi
I strr4rlnf oa En&x9 .e!rD SPacr L ,xxfEsr
I ca(lrro$ sac|p- .ooo PFp'PrlS- I cnrtrcAf DEPtll ASSUTIED
I
C,lu?rol{ 58ctp- 2.OOO Pno?tLE- I nrrAePoIIt.AD x-sEcfrorfs U5@
I
I c rrro!, saclp- 4.ooo PndFlr'E- I cntfrcAl DaPlu AssuaED
cAuftO.lt saCl|c- 4.OAA P'oEttE= I rRoB.aLa $NZI'UN SPECI!TC &!ERGf
- CaUfJOx SECI|O=
".OOO
PRO"I[.E. t 20 ?RIAIj ,,r'EEPTSO 70 B.L',cE IISEL
C.fir?f0l{ SECTD- 5,OOO PRopItE- I ffr8nPor,'rED X-6gC?fO!'S U98D
I cAutto.tt sadlp- 7.ooo po,,o,rr,.a r cRt',zc't DeP?,' Assurt'D
I cA,ft.n s!c!rt- 7.ooo p*F".'z' t rRoSAatE rir*rrfir sPactPrc &l'Rcr
CAOTTOIT SECID. 7 .OOO PrcEfi.E 7 20 rRIALS A?rZjffED 'A AAtljFE SEL
I c.Alt"torf sEclp- 8,ooo PRoPtLBr .t clrttcei DEPTE tssuHEDI
C60froft sACl(,' 8.OAO PRaPI.LE* I
"ROAAAf,a
,.trutaaa SPaeI?IC EJneer
CAUIIO!, SEcrF- 8.OOO PM:FILE* 7 20 TRIAI-S A?rTE],F'ED tE BAIlurE PSEL
- ruutrfl$d sEclp= 9 .o@ ProrILn- t clcllgrarra caANcE owsrDs NtEYrAata &llcr
I 4Au4tolr s5ctD- tt.ooo Ppo?rzs- 7 TNrERPaLA?ED J-stc?rolts usED
I
elutrolt sECtEl' 12.OOO PkOFIt'.' t CnrTrCA! DEPTA AsSUtqED
I crufron stcfp- 72.ooo Prcvrr.Et 7 Ptug,[BLE nrNlrlt t sPEct?tc EEercr
I c.l!'llron saclp- tz.ooo P'/c.FTLa- I 20 tRLALs ArI,r'tE,"Eo 7c 8Br'i'tcE lrsEL
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
MAPS
fitC'ODEC 1 4 ma
Ms. Shelly Mello, Planner #2
Community Development, Town of Vail75 South Frontage Road Westvail, co 8t-557
RE3 Amendments to S.D.D. #ACornerstone
Dear Shelly:
After talking to ,ferry Mullikin, our designated spokesperson,and Ned Gwathmey the architect/planner retained to rnodify thedesign for the Arnendment to S.D.D. 4, we frave surmised that weshould withdraw Scenario 2, the one with DUs. We have discussedthis with the management committee and feel that the Councilconcerns may be met with the following program which isconsistent with that which is in place at this time:
Transient Residential Dwelling Units
AJ-though there are provisions for 50 of these units in theordinance now, we have the feeling that more would be better.With the 625 square foot maximun, the building mass as approvedwill accomnodate 64 TRs and we wiII leave it to the Council toconsider the acceptabitity of the increase.Perhaps thisresponds to discussion on the need for these kinds of units inVail and the desire to make the Cornerstone project morefeasible.We must request that these TRs may be developed as
condominiums per the ordinance 18.46.020 B and that tbe other
aspects of the definitions of TRs renain.
Commercial
Planning Cornmissionrs insistence on comrnercial will be per the
approved plans with 11r0oo square feet nainly on the plaza
level .
Employee Housing
Although employee housing i-s not in the existing ordinance, inthe negotiations witn the staff they clearly became a
requirement for the proposed DUs. In that there are no longer
any DUs, we propose to use that area to fulfill the requiredparking for the 64 TR Units. If the Council feels the need for
the Enployee Units, we will request a mixed use parlcing credit
of 18 which will fitl the reguirement.
2 Steele Slreet
Suite 201
Denver, Colorado 80206
(3{Xr) 331€531
FAX: (303) 331€581
lts. Shelly llello
Page 2
It is our understanding that this can be accomnodated in the
GRFA, building volume, height and mass, site coverafte, etc.,that is in place in the existing ordinance.
I am sorry that I cannot attend the Council Work Session,
Tuesday, December LSr' but have authorized Jerry and Ned to actin our behalf in these matters.
Thank you for your continued consideration.
Sincerely,e^-*H*
Anne L. RossAssistant Vice President
t
I FtL t /j/iPy
using the 0.30 multiplier, for a total of 8 employees. All of the remaining PEC
members agreed with Dalton's analysis.
Craig Snowdon stated that the applicant has agreed to purchase two off-site dwelling
units that would be permanently restricted for use by employees of Eagle County,
Jack Cutin further discussed his concerns regarding the skier access to the Vista Bahn
area.
Jeff Winston, the Town's urban design consultant, presenled his thoughts on the
project to the PEc.
Jim Lamont, the representative of the East Village Homeowner's Association, spoke
about the project. His belief is that the proposed SDD zoning is a "gross misuse" of
the SDD process. He telt that a total lear down would be appropriate in this case. He
also stated that the applicant should utilize the "drip* easements to bring the building
more into conformance as opposed to using this area for more developmeni. He also
requested that the applicant analyze the 60/40 roof area percentage when determining
building height. Overall, he felt that the Golden Peak House should be required to be
brought into conformance with the surrounding buildings, and made smaller.
At this time, the work session was concluded and it was announced that the next PEC
work session for the Golden Peak House would occur on December 14, 1992. The
PEC had no problem with the request.
1. The regular session of the Public Hearing started at 3:15 P.M. to be notified of the staff
approval of a request for a minor SDD amendment to allow the addition of a bay
window to the Alpenrose Restaurant, located at 100 East Meadow Orive/Lot D, Block
5D, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Claus FrickePlanner: Jim Curnutte
The members of the Planning and Environmental Commission were advised of the
staff approval during the site visit earlier that day.
2. A request for a minor subdivision and a major amendment to SDD #4, Cascade
Village, to amend the development plan for the Waterford and Cornerstone parcels in
area A, described as follows:
That part ol the SW 114 NE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of th€ Sxth Principal
Meridian, Town ol Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described as lollows:
Beginning at a point on the southgdy r'rght-olway line of Interstate Highway No. 70 vyhence an iron pin wih a
plastic cap marking the center ol said Seclion 1? bears S 33"10'19'W 1447.03 leet; thenc€ along said
southerly right-of-way line two courses
1) N 52'50'29" E 229.66 leet
2) N 74"3S'17'E 160.70 teeli
th€nce departing said southerly right-of-way line N 88'45'57" E 138.93 feet; lhence S 40'45'14'W 94.32 teet;
thencs S 18" 18'36' W 54.08 teeti thence S 01"2136 W 205.02 feel: thenoe S l2'0736'W 110.25 teet;
PLANNTNG AND ENVTRONMENTAL COMMISSTON MEETTNG MTNUTES 12-7-92 4
thenoe S 28"2836" W 164.48 feeq th€nce N40"170{ W211.16 fesr; fience N 45"42'8- € 97.8O feet;
thence N 37"09'31'W 95.59.leeti thence S 52'50'29" W 55.10 leet; thence 69.48 feet along the arc of a non-
tangonl cun o to he l€tt having a radius ol 65.00 feet, a centrd an$e ot 61'14'42' and a chod thar bears N
58o 55'53' W 66.22 feeti thence N 37'09'31' W I 18.50 leet To The True Point of Beginning, County ol Eagls,
Slate of Colorado; and hs Comersbn€ parcel described as follows:
Building C Site
That part of lhe SW 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5 Sourh, Range 81 W€st of ths Sixth Principal
Men:dian, Town of Vail, Counly ol Eagle, State ol Colorado, descdbed aB tollows:
Bsginning at a point on he easledy l;ne of a non-€xc,usiye easemenl tor ingress and egress known as
Weshaven Ddve recorded in Book 421 at Page 651 in the otfioe ol he Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and
Fecorder whsnce he cenler ol said Section l2 bears S 38'34'43'W 1,168.27 feei; lhencs along said line of
Westhaven Drivo N 52'43'41'E 143.92 feel; thencs departing said line of Westhaven Drive, 132.24 teet along
the arc ol a non-tangent curve lo lhe left having a radius ot 55.00 leet, a c€nbal angle ot 137"45'30' and a
chord lhat bears N 42"11'4S"E 102.61 teel; rhence N 52'50'29'E 65.24 teet; thenca S 37"0€'31'E 95.59 f€et;
thence S 49'42'56"W 97.80 feet; henc€ S 40'17'O4E 24.12 teet; tlence S 52"5O29"W 213.66 teet: thenc€ N
37'0931"W 105-76 Ieet to the point of beginning containing 0.68rftl acres more or less.
Applicani: MECM Enterprises and Commercial Federal Savings.Planner: Shelly Mello
Shelly Mello reviened the staff memo and listed the major staff concerns for the
proposal.
Dalton Williams stated that the parking needs to be sold with the AUs and that he did
not want to see a siiuation where the parking could be condominiumized and sold
separately from the units.
General discussion was held regarding lhe concern if the skier access should be
removed due to the impact 0f the retaining walls on the southeast corner of the
Waterford building.
Greg Amsden, Kathy Langenwalter, Diana Donovan, Chuck Crist, and Jeff Bowen all
agreed that the skier access should be removed.
The definition of TR and AU was discussed. Shelly explained that the definition of TH
would change to allow lor larger TR units and would not allow for these units to be
condominiumized.
Kathy Langenwalter voiced concerns with the amount of open space and Shelly Mello
explained the areas of open space.
Dalton Wlliams again mentioned his concern about the parking for commercial space
and that only one owner should be allowed to own the TR's and the associated
parking. They should not be sold off individually.
Greg Amsden said he had no further concerns.
Kathy Langenwalter said she had no concerns.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12.7-92
Chuck Crist said he had no concerns.
Jeff Bowen said he was in support of the project.
Diana Donovan did not lhink the definition of TR should be changed to allow for the
larger unit size. Kristan then listed the remaining items which the developer agreed to
that would be included in the PEC's recommendation to the Council for approval.
Cornerstone
1. Before the buibing permit is released for the project, the three proposed employee
housing units shall be permanently restricted per the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance
as follows:
a. The EHU shall include two (2) on-site parking spaces or the EHU shall include
one (1) on-site parking space and the EHU shall be located "on" the Town's
bus route (as determined by the Town Zoning Administrator);b. The EHU shall not be subdivided into any form of time shares, interval
ownerships, or fractional fee;c. The EHU shall be leased, but only to tenants who are full-time employees who
work in Eagle County. The EHU shall not be leased for a period less than thirty
(30) consecutive days. For the purposes of this Section, a full-time employee is
one who works an average of a minimum of thirty (30) hours each week;d. No later than February 1 of each year, the owner of the employee housing unit
shall submit two (2) copies of a report (on a form to be obtained from the
Community Development Department), to the Community Development
Department of the Town of Vail and the Chairperson of the Town of Vail
Housing Authority, setting forth evidence establishing that each tenant whom
resides within the employee housing unit is a full-time employee in Eagle
County.
This agreement shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Otfice.
Transient residential units proposed on both Scenario 1 and 2 shall not be individually
condominiumized at any point in the future. These units shall remain as rental units
used in the same manner as hotel type units and are not intended for individual
ownership. The definition of TR shall be changed to accommodate this proposal.
The developer agrees to complete asphalt borings and an as-built survey and to
provide them to the Town of Vail for the area of the road adjacent to their property in
order lo determine the condition of Westhaven Drive. The Town Engineer shall
determine when these drawings shall be required.
The proposed landscape plan between the Terrace Wing and the proposed
Cornerstone building shall be revised prior to ihe review of the project by the DRB.
For emergency services, an access lane must be provided from the western courtyard
to the ski lift. In meeting this condition, the water feature on lhe landscape plan for this
amendment may be removed or revised accordingly. The proposed landscaping in this
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12.7.92 6
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2-
area shall be part of the Cornerstone development and, therefore, it is the developer's
responsibility to complete this portion of the project when lhe Comerstone project is
constructed. These plans shall be included in the building permit for the Cornerstone
development at such time that it is developed.
The area of road in which parking is proposed under Westhaven Drive lor the
Cornerstone project shall be conveyed and transferred through the proposed minor
subdivision to the Cornerstone property. An easement shall be granted to the Town of
Vail over this area for public access.
In Scenario 2 of the Cornerstone project, three DUs will be condominiumized and
available on the free market with no rental restrictions. In addition, two DUs that each
have one AU and one lock off, shall have the rental restrictions applied per Section
17.26.075 of the Subdivision Regulations. An additional DU will be available with one
lock off for condominiumization. This DU/LO unit will also have the condominium-
conversion rental restrictions applied to it per Section 17.26.075 of the Subdivision
Regulations.
Waterford
3.
The two proposed employee housing units shall be restricted per the Town of Vail
Housing Ordinance. This agreement shall be submitted belore the building permit is
released for the project. This agreement shall be recorded at Eagle County Clerk and
recorder's Office. Please see the specific provisions of the ordinance under item 1.
Cornerstone.
The developer agrees to complete asphalt borings and an as-built survey to determine
the condition of Westhaven Drive from the South Frontage Road to the south end of
the Cul-de-sac. The applicanl agrees to provide stamped, engineered construction
drawings for any road revisions that are necessary to bring lhe road up to Town
standards. These construction drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the Town
of Vail's engineer prior to the release of a building permit. All road improvements shall
be completed by the developer for the project prior to T.C.O. The road will also be
dedicated to the Town prior to the release of a T.C.O. The dedication of the public
access easement for lhe rernainder of Westhaven Drive shall be conveyed at such
time that lhe minor subdivision plat is submitted prior to a building permit being
released for the project. The public access easement shall allow for parking
enforcement by the Town of Vail.
The bike path shall be relocated and the existing easement shall be amended if
possible on the minor subdivision plat to correspond to the new location. lf the bike
path is relocated while Waterford is being constructed, the bike path must be relocated
and the easement provided to the Town for public access before a T.C.O. is released.
The minor subdivision plat shall be completed and recorded prior to the release of any
building permits tor either project. The minor subdivision plat shall include lhe
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12.7.92 7
conveyance of property to Cornerstone for its parking located below grade, the Town's
public access easernent over the underground parking area in the current cuFde-sac,
and the relocation ol the bike path on the Waterford site, and the public access
easement across Weslhaven Drive.
4. The DBB will review the proposed landscaping in the areas of the retaining walls on
the west and east ends of the sile. The DFIB will review the north elevationl
architectural details. The applicant has also agreed to review the possibility of
eliminating the skier access on the east end of the project. However, the PEC felt that
if the applicant could significantly decrease the retaining walls necessary to build the
access, the skier access could remain,
Waterford/Comefstone
1. The general condominium plat and declarations shall be reviewed by the Town
Attorney and the Community Development Department. The primary concern is that
the parking be made permanently available to the users of the project. This includes
the permanent dedication of those spaces allocated to commercial areas as short term
public parking. All proposed required parking associated with the uses shall not be
conveyed, used or leased separately from the uses. Public parking on the third floor of
the Cornerstone project shall be made available to the public for short term parking
within the building.
The wording of the agreements listed above are also subject to the Town Attorney's
review. These items will appear in the proposed ordinance for this amendment unless
otherwise modified by the Town Attorney or the Town Council.
Jeff Bowen motioned to approved the request per the staff memo with the above
mentioned items, seconded by Chuck Crist. The vote was 5-1 with Diana Donovan
opposed.
3. A request for an exterior alteration and setback variance for the Vail Lionshead Center
Building located at Lot5, Btock 1, Lionshead First Filing/s2O East Lionshead Circle.
Applicant:
Planner:
Oscar Tang
Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen presented two revisions: the fascia band that was previously only zinc
now included copper; the entrance to the condominiums had been made more open by
reducing lhe commercial area somewhat.
Andy pointed out that there were three conditions per the staff memo.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall:
1. ldentify a new location for the banner pole or poles which meets the standards
of the Town, including the Public Works Department and the Town Clerk. Any
public access easements shall be dedicated, if needed.
PLANNTNG AND ENVTRONMENTAL COMMTSSTON MEETTNG MTNUTES 12-7-92 g
2. Revise the landscape plans to show a 2" caliper ash tree located in the Alfie
Packer planter north of the edge ot the new addition.
3. Revise the landscape plan to show an additional six shrubs to be planted on
the south side of the planter by the condominium enttance.
Kathy Langenwalter motioned to approve the request per the staff memo with the three
conditions and added condition lhat the employee unit be restricted if possible. Dalton
Williams seconded the motion with a 6-0 unanimous vote.
4. A request for variances for wall height and site coverage for paving to allow the
development of three single family residences located on lots 7, 8, and 9, Btock B, Vail
Ridgel2662, 2672, 2682 Cortina Lane.
Applicant: Hans WeimannPlanner: Tim Devlin
Tim Devlin reviewed the variance requesls for paving site coverage (exceeding 10%)
and wall height for the three lots. Tim explained thal since the previous PEC meeting
(11-23-92), the applicant had modilied the building plans and no longerwas requesting
a structure site coverage variance. Also, the request for a landscape variance was no
longer being requested and the applicant met or exceeded the 607" requirement on all
three lots.
Steve lsom made a brief presentation and reviewed the variance requests with the
PEC. He expressed that to build on the lots, lhe proposed solution was the most
reasonable and aesthetic.
Jeff Bowen opposed the variance requests because he felt that the lots should be built
on in accordance with the rules tor lots exceeding 30% slope. He also stated that
perhaps only two houses should be on the three lots and that what was proposed by
the applicant was too much for the sites. Jelf stated the safety concerns that he has
with the proposal did not allow him io vote for it.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she agreed with Jeff and that too much GRFA was
being proposed for the sites. She stated that she may be able to vote in favor of the
request if the applicant would agree to change the similar appearance of lhe three
houses proposed.
Diana Donovan opposed the request because she felt that the site constraints were too
great and the paving still too excessive. Also, the similar design of the three houses
bothered her.
Steve lsom responded by saying that he was willing to alter the architectural desilgn of
the Lot 8 house.
Greg Amsden, Chuck Crist, and Dalton Williams each stated that they thought the
applicant had responded to their concerns and thal they would support the variance
PLANNING AND ENVIHONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12.7.92 9
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJEGT:
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
DEcember 7, 1992
A request for a minor subdivision and a major arnendment to SDD #4, Cascade
Village, to amend the development plans for $e Waterford and Comerctone
parcels In area A. The Waterlord sib is generally located on the SE corner of
the inteeection ol Westhaven Drive and he S. Frontage Road. The
Comerstone site ls on Westhaven Drive south of the Cascade Village parking
structure- The legal descriptions are as follows:
Watericrd Site
That pfft of rhs S\rl, 1/4 NE 1/4, S€ction 12, Township 5 South, Range 8l Wbst of tlg sixh
Principal lrlhridian, Town ol Va!|, Eagle County. Colorado, deacribed as follows:
B€ginnlng at a point on the south€rly rightrl-way lins ol lr €rEbb Highvvay No. 70 whance an iron
pin with a phsdc cap marking the csnter of said Seabn 12 bears S 33'1019'W 1447.03 fuet:
thence along sald souftedy dght{hay ling two Gou'6e6 l) N 52'50'29' E 229.66 fg6t 2) N
74'38'1P E 160.70 heq hence departing said southerly right{t,,way fine N 88'4557 E t 38.93
leel; thence S 40"45'14'W 94.92 feet; hence S 18' 18'36' W 54.08 leet; thencs S 0102l'36' W
205.02 E€i; t|enos S 1fo7ts6' W 110.25 te€t thanc€ S 28"48'36'W 164.it8 fBet; tt€ncs N 40
'1f04'W 211.16feet; lhence N 49p42'56' E 97.80 beti thenc€ N 37'09'31'W 95.59 te€l; lhsnce S
5?50?9' W 55.10 bst; fien€ 69.48 te€t aloog the arc ot a non-E gent c{rwe !o he left having a
radius of 65.00 f€ot a central angle ol 61"14'42'and a d|ord that bears N 58' 55'53' W 66.22 leet;
thofloe N 37"0931' W t 18.50 te€l To The True poinl ol Beginning, County of Eagl6, Stala of
Colorado; and the Comersbne parcel d€scrib€d as lollouts:
Comerstone Sito
That part ot he SW 1/4 NE 1/4, section tA, Township 5 South, Rangp 81 WEBI of the gxdl
Prinoipal Meridian, Town of Vail, County ol Eagle, Stab ol Colorado, descrbed as tollowe:
Beginning at a point on the easbrly line of a non€xdusivg saement for ingrees and egress known
as Weslha\ren Drfue rcoordod in Book 421 at Pago 651 in the ollice ol tre Eagls Cdrnly, Colorado,
Clelk and Reoorder whencs tho c€nbr of Baid Sedion 12 bears S 38P34'43"W t,168.27 t€et:
th€nc€ along eaid llne of Westhaven Drive N 52'43'41'E 1/|l}.92 b€t; henc€ d€parling said line of
Wesfraven On'w, 132.24 test along di€ arc of a non-Enggnl cufv€ to the lelt having a radius ot
55.00 leet, a contal angle of 1374530' ard a chord ihat beare N 42'11'46'E 102.61 feet; fience
N 5?50'29'E 65.4 f€eti d|enca S 37"o931'E 95.59 b€g f,6n€ S 49o4256'W 97.80 teot; lhonoo
S 110"1704'E 24.12 h€q h6nce S 5?50'29"W a.|3.66 leet; thence N 9PO9'31'W 105.76 fe€t !o the
pctnt of begtnning conaining 0,6848 acres morB or less.
Applicant: MECM Enterprlses, Waterford Site and Commercial Federal
$avings, Comerstone SitePlanner: Shelly Mello
il.
INTFODUCTlON
ln July, September, and October of 1992, the PEC reviewed a proposed amendment to
the Cascade Village SDD f4, Area A, Development Plan. The initial proposal
specifically addressed the Waterford site located at the southeasl comer of Weslhaven
Drive and the South Frontage Road. lt has been decfded that, in order to move
lorward with the amendment to the Waterford site, that the Comerstone site to the
west of Waterford also needs to be amended. ln October, 1992, a third work sesslon
was held which specifically addressed the Comerstone site. The changes to lhe
Comerstone sit€ are necessary because cunently there ls an interdependence
between the tro s'rtes in respect to the provision of parking. Each s'rte is ov'rned by
independent entities and it is their desire to eliminate any Interdependsnce between
the two sites. The ooal ol this effort is to approve two develooment plans whiqt caQ
be constructed indeoendent of each other,
DESCFTPTTON OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District (SDD)
No. 4, Cascade Village Area A and more specifically, the Comerstone and Waterford
sites. A minor subdivision ls also being requested to create two individual lots. The
Cornerstone parcel is bound by the proposed Waterford project to the east, Gore
Creek and the Westin Terrace Building to the south and Westhaven Drive to the north.
The Waterford parcel is on lhe comer of the South Frontage Road and Westhaven
Drive with Gore Creek to the south and the Waterford site to the west. The parcel was
zoned SDD from the time it was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1974. There is no
underlying zoning.
The current approval for the Cornerstone site allows for one development scheme with
two options for the commercial area. The applicant is proposing two scenarios for this
amendment. Scenario I includes transient units and commercial area while Scenario 2
includes a mixture of dWelling units, transient units, and commerdd area. In addition,
both Scenarios include three employee units. The Comerstone site modifications are
being necessitated by the inclusion of parking which previously was located on the
Waterlord site. Parking has been accommodated below grade and on the second and
third levels. Scenario 2 calls for 34 fansient units, 6 dwelling units with 3 lockoffs, 2
accommodation units and 3 employee units in Scenario 2. Scenario 1 would allow 52
translent units and 3 employee units. Under Scenario 2, the applicant has requested
that three of the dwelling units located in the east wing be free market and proposes
that the remaining 3 dwelling units, ths 3 conesponding lockoffs, and the 2
accommodation units would be condominiumized and restricEd by the 'condo
conversion' requiremenF. The 1989 approved plan allows for 50 transient units. In
both scenarios, the applicant proposes to permanently restrict the transient residential
units to a lodging use, ie. the units will not be condominiumized. Please see $ection
lV (A) Zoning Consideration for a detailed comparison between the approved plan and
the two proposed scenarios.
o
The Comerstone proposal cunently being reviewed does propose to locate parking
below a portion of Westhaven Drive. The applicants propose to fansfer ownership of
a portion of lhe road with the proposed minor subdivision to attow lor this-
The '1989 approved Waterford plan allowed for two scenarios. The applicant is
proposing only one development plan for this amendment. The first included 75
accommodation units and the second allowed for 30 dwelling units. Both lncluded
3,800 square feet ot commercial space and parking for both the Waterford and
Comerstone sites. The applicant is cunently proposing only one scenario which allows
tor 27 dwelling units and 2 employee unib. No increase in GRFA has been requested
and the parking for the Waterlord dnelling unib will be provided on site. The applicant
also proposes to relocate the recreatlon path 10' to the south. Plsase see Section lV
(B) for specilic zoning considerations.
III. BACKGROUND
The Cascade Village Development was previously owned by a single development
entity. As proposed by the past developer, the projeot was a system of interdependent
phases to be built into an integrated complex which provided commercial areas, short-
term and long-term rssidential units and consolidated parking facilities. Since the
bankruptcy of the original developer, ownership of the sites has been dispersed among
different owners. This plan is no^, more difficult to execute, as each owner has
ditferent development obJectives for their respective sites. The change in ownership
effects the Cornerstone project because, as approved, atl of the parking for the
Cornerstone projec{ was to be focated on the Waterford site. These projects ars now
held by two entities who want to provide their own parking on their respective sites.
166 parking spaces were trc be provided in the Waterford project for the Cornerstone
development.
An additional outstianding issue in the Cascade Village development is the ownership
status of Westhaven Drive, from the Soulh Frontage Road to the Gore Greek Bridge.
The road is orned by the owner of the Watertord site, MECM Enterprises, and is
privately maintained by a separate entity. This road has not been conveyed to the
Town because it does not meet the Town's minimum road standards.
]V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Comoarlson of ADprcved and Prooosed Develooment Plans ior Corner$tone
Approved Proposed ProposedScenerlo Scenarlo! Scenarlo A
1) Denslty
(# of Unlts) 50 TR. 52 TR + 3 emp. 34 TRunits" 3DU's(free
market) 3 DU
wl3l.o. and 2
AU's
(restric-ted)
3 emp. units..
2) GRFA 28,110 sq. ft. 28,110 + 1800 sq. ft. 28,110 + 1800
for emp. units sq. fl. for
emp. unib
3) Common Area 34,919 sq. ft. 16,817 sq. ft.16,817 sq. ft.
4) Commercfal Space 26,049 or 11,100 sq. ft. 11,100 sq.ft.
29,065 sq. ft.
5) Credlts Glven None per multi-family per multi-zoning lami[
zoning
6) HelghtNorth 71'max on 71'lrom plaza 71'from plaza
lo top
of ridge to top of ridgeSouth N/A because 49 49East buildings are 70 7gWest connected E7 67
7) SetbacksNorth 0 0
South Distance between Tenace
Wing and Comerstone 45' 54East 0 0
0
54
West
8) Slte Coverage
9) Parklng
1) Densfty
(# of Unlts)
2) GRFA
3) Gommon Area
4) Retall space
5) Credlts Glven
6) Herghr
North
South
East
West
4 Setbacks (Building)
North
North (to parking lot)
South
East
0
26,533 sq. ft.
155.9 or
166 spaces
enclosed in
Waterford
Structure
Approved
$censrlo 1
75 AUs
14,297 sq. ft,
3,800 sg. fl.
None
48 feet
6l feet
61 feet
48 feet
8',-15'-18'
NA
20 min.
20-91
0
20,930 sq. ft.
Approved
Scenarlo 2
30 DUs
14,297 sq. ft.
3,800 sq. ft.
None
48leet
61 feet
61 feet
48 feet
8'-15'-19'
NA
20 min.
20-91
0
20,930 sq. ft.
89 req. spa@s wl75/o 84 req.enclosed; wfti1o
89 proposed w/ enclosed;
1007o enclosed 89 proposed
wl1O0Y"
enclosed
B,Gomrarlson of Apnrcved and Proposed Develooment Plans for Watertord
47,500 sq. ft.47,500 sq. ft.
Prgposed
27 DUs+
2 restricted emp.
units'*
47,500 sq.tt.
+ 1100 sq. ft.
restrlcted emp.
units *'
33,913 sq. fr.
0
per multi-family
zonlng
55 ft.
65 ft.
65 ft.
56 fi.
4'-46',-64
z',-25',
26 min.
10-84
5
West
8) Slte Coverage 26,186 sq. ft.
9) Parklng 72.7 spaes
allparking
enclosed
18 18
26,186 sq. ft.
87.7 spaces
allparking
enclosed
10
19,230 sq. ft.
11,100 sq. tt. surface
lot2 - 25'
58 spaoss
required;
60 proposed
48 enclosed or 75/o
or req., l9 surface
. SDD # 4 defines a transient as follows: 'Transient residential dvvelling unit or restricted
dwelling unit'shall be defined as a dwelling unit located in a mult-framlly drrvelling that
is managed as a short term rental in which all such units are operated under a single
management providing the occupants thereof customary hotel services and facilities.
A short term rental shall be deemed to be a rental tor a period of time not to exceed
31 days. Each unit shall not exceed 645 square feet ol GRFA which shall include a
kitchen having a motimum of 35 square feet. The kitchen shall be designed so that it
may be locked and separated from the rest of the unit in a closet. A translent dwelling
unit shall be accEssible from common conidors, walks, or balconies without passing
through another accommodation unit, dwelling unit, or a transient residential dwelling
unit. Should such units be developed as condominiums, they shall be restricted as set
forth in Section 17.26.075--17.26.120 governing condominium conversion. The unit
sha[ not be used as a permanent residence. Fractional fee ownership shall not be
allowed to be applied to transient dwelling units. For the purposes of determining
allowable density per acre, transient residentiat d^relling units shall be counted as one
half of a dwelling unit. The transient residential drvelling unit parking requirement shall
be 0.4 space per unit plus 0.1 space per each 100 square feet ot GRFA with a
maximum of 1.0 space per unit'
Permanently restricted employee units do not count towards density or GRFA per the
current SDD#4 Ordinance.
The proposed D.U.'s are restricted perthe Use Restrictions in Section 17.26 Condo
Conversion of the Subdivision Regulations per the developer's request.
Lock-off Unit: A dwelling unit in a multiple-family building may include one aftached
accommodation unit no larger than one{hird of the total floor area of the dwelling.
a
The proposed projects depart from fia existing definison of transient unit provldsd In this
SDD. This definition will need to be revised to allow for the larger TR units proposed in
Scenario I and ll for Comerstone. The proposed size of the lockoffs do not conform to the
definition provided in the zoning code.
As approved, the Comerstone and Waterford buiHings were connecled below grade. In the
approved plan, a large portion ol the Gornerstone common area was located on what is now
considered Waierford property. ln the proposed plan, the two projects are completely
separate and he parking structure for Waterford is located in front of the residential
development. In the previous plan, Waterford residential structure was looated directy above
the parking. Fot this reason, the staft feels that it is more accurate to conslder fie projects
together when revlewing common area and site coverage as shown belon:
CornerstoneMatertord
Approved
TotalSite Coverage 52,719 sq. ft.
Total Common Area 49,216 sq. ft.
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CHITERIA
The criteria to be used lo evaluate fris proposal are fie nlne Special Oevelopment
Districl (SDD) development standards sel forth in the specialdevelopment district
chapter of lhe Zoning Code. The criteria are as follows:
Deslgn compatlblllty and sensltlvlty to the lmmedlate envlronment,
nelghborhood and adlacent propertles rclatlve to archltactural deslgn,
scale, bulk, bulldlng helght, buffer zones, ldentlty, character, vlsual
htegrlty and orlentatlon.
Cornerstone
The mass and bulk of he proposed project is similar to lhat of the approved
development plan. The building shell will remain the same for each proposed
scenario. This building shell is similar to that of the approved plan In mass and
scafe, however, it is no longer connected to either the Conferenc€ Center to the
west or the Waterford Building to the east. The proposed building footprint is
smaller than thai of the approved development plan with the proposed site
coverage at 20,930 square feet and the approved site ooverage at 26,533
square feet. The south elevation has 6 exposed levels. Levels 3-6 are
exposed on the north elevation adjacent to Westhaven Drlve, for a total of 4
exposed floors with the following uses:
ComersloneMaterford
Proposed
40,160 + 11,100 parking structure =
51,160 sq. ft.
50,730 sq. ft.
V.
1.
lst Level Commercial (9,900 sq. ft.)
2nd Level Parking/Employee units (3 units)
3rd Level Parking/Commercial (11,200 sq. ft.)
4th Level Resldential
Sth Level Residential
6th Level Residenfial
This proposal adds an additional levelto fre bulldlng compared to the 1989
approval. The approved development plan has a total of 5 exposed lloors on
the north elevation and 3 levels on the south alwation. However, the overall
height of the building has not increased. This additional level was
accomplished by decreasing the floor to ceiling heQhts at each level and
increasing the amount of usable area in the roof form.
The need to add parking on this site has changed the overalt program for the
building. This effecb the building because more floor area is needed to
accomplish the development standards set fonilard by the SDD. This was
accomplished while working with the existing building envelope, by first adding
below grade parking and second by adding an additional level above grade.
The amount of approved commercial space has been decreased from 2S,065
square feet to 11,100 square feet. The staff recognizes that all ol these
changes are necessary in order to accommodate the need for on-sile parking.
This proposal also includes a reduction in the mass over the pedestrian access
area which is a focal point for those entering Cascade Village. The decrease in
the mass will allow for an increase in visibility of the mountain behind,
The proposal includes the use of architecturaldetails similar to those of the
other existing buildings in Cascade Village. This includes a metal roof,
protruding balconies, stucco finish and painted metal railings. In addition,
arcades similar to hose in the Terrace Wing have been included at both the
Tenace Wing level and the Westhaven Drive pedestrian level.
With the approved development plan, there was a great deal of consideration
given io the public spaces on the site. These areas include, the mall area and
the outdoor stair hrough lhe Cornerstone building connecting Weslhaven Drive
lo the ski lift, the public space between the Tenace Wing and Comerstone, as
well as public areas connecting this site to the rest of the Westin Complex.
This was accomplished with a series of connecled plazas and other site
amenities starting at Westhaven Drive leading to the ski lifupedestrian area.
Due to emergency access requiremenb, the applicant has proposed lo include
a modified plan of the approved landscape plan for the area between
Cornerstone and the Tenace Wing with this amendment. lt is the staffs
findings thal these off-site amenities are to be completed by ths developer ot
the Cornerctone project at the time of the construction of this project.
There is a severe grade change on this site from Westhaven Drive to the ski
o
liftpublic space level. This, along with the configuration of the site, present
many practical difficulties. Due to the grade change, the visual impacts ol each
building elevatlon are different. Because each side of the building is exposed
to public ways, stdf believes each elevation of the building to be very
important. t-andscape material and berms have been incorporated into the plan
In order to decrease the visual impactrs of eacfi of thess elevations.
The staff finds that although the proposal inchdes a net Incrsase in square
footage because ol the additional parking level below grade that the proposal is
in compliance with the intent ot he Gascade Village development and is
compatible with the area sunounding the project. Please note site coverage,
GRFA and common area have actually been decreased.
WaterfoJd
This site is disturbed due to the dumping of excess fill from other projects in
Cascade Village. For this reason, there are few natural characteristics
remaining on the property. fiere is also a ssvere grade change on this
property from the South Frontage Road to the bike path (adjacent to the
Creek.)
The proposed plan lor the Waterford project is more ol a departure from the
approved plan than that proposed for Comerstone in respect to architectural
style and site planning. The architectural details are similar to those ol the
Westin, however, the massing incorporates a series of smaller roof forms in a
series of staggered towers versus a single roof mass as seen in other Cascade
Village buildings.
The proposed building does exceed the ma,ximum height on he west and south
elevations. Per the SDD and the approved plans, lhe maximum helght allowed
is 48 and 61 leet respectively. The height of the proposed west elevation is 56
feet. The current proposal is to allow for a bullding of 65 feet lrom finish grade
to the top of the ridge on the south slde. The staff feels that due to the
changes in the project and the relocation of the mass, that this is an acceptable
solution. The main increase in height along the west elevatlon is acceptable for
the same reason. As approved, the minimum distance from the building to bike
path was 20 feet. As proposed, that distance would increase to 26 feet. Again,
the staff feels that this also supports he ability to increase the height to 65 feet
because of the increased distance between the pedestrian area and the bike
path. The stafl finds that the relocation of the building and the deffeased
height adjacent to the Frontage Foad justify the increase in height on the west
elevations and along the pedestrian path on the south elevation.
While the approved plan proposed more mass adjacent to the Frontage Road,
this proposal shitts the concentration of mass to the south. The stafl finds that
this is an improvement to the plan because it will provide relief along lhe
Frontage Road. Atgrade surface parking will b0 located between the Frontage
Road and the building. There is no surface parking in the approved plan. The
surface parking will be five feet below the top of the berm adjacent to the
B.
1.
Frontage Boad. This parking and landscaping will provids a buffer between the
building and the Frontage Road. ln addition, a 5-25 foot wide stdp of
landscaplng ls proposed between the parking and the applicanfs properly line.
As a result of the shifting of the mass away from the Frontage Road, lhe mass
is closer to the recreation path on the south side. While tfiere are 2-4 siories
on the norh side (Frontage Road view) there will be 4-5 112 stodes on the
south (Gore Creek side). The proposal malntains a 26 minimum setback from
the bike path whiclr is proposed to be relocated 10 teet ofl to the south. A
landscapa which Inclrdes berming between the bike path and the building helps
to maintain the podesfian scale of the area.
Staff also looked at the approved building mass adjao€nt to Westhaven Drive,
(west elevation). The staff feels that this proposal addresses the location of
mass and bulk better than the approved plan as less building is proposed In
this area. Originally, more building length was proposed along Westhaven
Drive. Though lhe building's hei,ght ampacb the bike path and the properties to
ths north and west.
The staff linds that, although the proposal indudes an overall incrsase in
common area the proposal is in compliance with the intent of the Cascade
Village development and is compatible with the area sunounding the project.
Please note, GRFA and she coverage havs not increased and a substantial
amount of floor area ls below grade. The staff encourages he applicant to add
additional architectural detail particularly windows on the north elevation prior to
DRB review.
Uses, actlvlty and denslty whlch provlde a cotnpatlble, efflclent and
workable relatlomhlp wlth surroundlng uses and actlvlty.
Comerstone
The applicant is proposing two scenarios for this site. Previously, there was a
single development plan which included transient units and retail uses. The
proposed Scenario I provides for 52 translent units, 3 employee units, 'l 1,100
square feet of commercial area, 2 loading berths, and 89 enclosed parking
spaces. This would allow 2 additional transient units or I DU &! the existing
approval.
Scenario 2 provides 34 transient units, 3 free market dtelling units, 3 dwelling
units with 3 lockoffs, 2 accommodation uniB to be restricted per fie Condo
Conversion requirements, 2 employee unib, 11,100 square tset of commerdd
atea,2loading berths, and 89 enclosed parking spaoes. The resulting
residential density is under the approved denslty by 1 DU. Of the three
restricted units, two would each be sold wih an associated lock'off and an AU
and th€ third condominium would have only one lock-off.
10
o
Aoolicant's Prooosal
. Transient uniB:
. Employee units:
Unrestricted Condominiums:
Resficted Condominiums:
3DU
2 DU each w/ 1 lockofl and
rAu
I DU with I lodtoff
34 Transient unlts
3 units
3 DU Wl lockoff
34 Transient units
2AU
3
Scsnado 2 Involves a substantial departure lrom the original plan tor Cascade
Village. The requested change Involves three unrestricted chvelllrg unhs in
Instead of all transient units. The initial intent lor Cornerstone was lo provide
shorl-term rentals which, it was believed, would subsequenily Increase tfie use
of Ure entlre Cascade facility. The stafi has researched thls issue and found
that there is a demand for short-term rentals ol th'rs type in the Valley.
Cunently, the bed base is sdit 50/50 between condos and accommodation type
units accordlng to the Vail Fosort Association. Demand for each type of unit
seems to differ between se€uion. There woufd appear to b a $eatet demand
for accommodation type units during the summer for short 2€ day stiays, while
during the r,ninter, stays tend to be longer and condominiums are more
desirable. For this reason, we feel that short-term rentals must be included in
the proposal and if Scenado 2 is approved a minimum of 3 DU's with their tock
ofis should be permanently restricted per the Condo Gonverslon requirements.
The two AU's in Scenario 2 should not be condominiumlzed with the adjac€nt
condominiums as the applicant has proposed. This would keep the AU's in the
rental pool. We also belleve that allowing 3 large free market dwelling unib is
acceptiable given the change in development requiremenls for this project such
as parklng. lt is felt that the mlxed use character of the proJect is still
maintained.
Staff's Recommendation
unrestricted condominiums: 3 DU
Resfided Condominiums:
Rentalunits:
Employee units:
11
2.Walerford
As proposed, the proiect includes 27 trce market eondominiums (with 47,500
squar€ feet of GRFA) and 2 restricted employee housing unib (1100 squar€
feet ot GRFA) for a total of 48,600 square feet of GRFA Historically, the
GRFA and the unib in SDD #4 dedicated to employee housing have not been
countEd towarG the overalldensity ol the project. The reque8t decreases the
number of approrred units from 30 to 27. The density proposed is in keeping
with the original development scenario and is compalible with he sunounding
area.
Comerstone4/Vaterford Emolovee Housino
The appticant tor Comerstone is proposing 3 employee units. In reviewing the
appticaiion, the staff used the suggested employee housing criteria. This shtdy
suggested that fie following formula be used to debrmine employee houslng
requirements for proiec{s that do not exceed density.
Cornerstone
Scenario 1:
52 TR x .75 emp. per unit = 39
11,100 sq. ft. of com x 6.5 emp. p/1000 sq. fL = 72.15
111.15x;l! housing multiplier
16.67
3.
Scenario 2:
34 TR + 2 AU x .75 emP Per unit =
6 DU x .4 emp Per unit ''
11,100 sq. ft. com x 6.5 emp per 1000 sQ. fL=
Waterford
27 DU x .4 emp per unit =
26.25
2.4
72.15
100.8x;!! housing multiPlier
15.12
10.8
xJEi housing multiplier
1.62
Assuming 2 employees will share each unit, I units would be required for
Scenario I and I unib would be required lor Scenario 2 for Gomerstone. One
unit would be required for Waterford for a maximum possible total of 10 units
lor both prolects.
12
c.
Because a total of 5 employee unils are being provlded between the Waterford
and Comerstone projects, where previously there were none proposed, and
because parking must now be provided on site, the staff finds that 5 unils are
acceptable. The proposed Waterford project is below density as is Scenario 2
of the Cornerstone proposal. As proposed, Scenario I for Waterford is 2
transient units over the approved density, but there is no increase in GRFA.
The stafi sees the provision of employee housing as a benefit to both projects
and will not require additional employee units as a result of this. Historically, in
Cascade Village, GRFA and units attribuFd to employee units have not been
counted toward density or GRFA tor the prolect.
compllance wlth the parklng and loadlng rEqulrEments as ouillned In
Chapter 18.52.
ComerstoneMaterford
Under Section 18.52 of the Municipal Code, each d\,velling unit with less than
2,000 square feet of GRFA would have a parking requirement of 2 spaces and
those with over 2,000 square feet of GRFA would require 2.5 spaces per unit.
Those with less than 500 square feet require 1.5 spaces. The parking
requirements for accommodation units and transienl units are as follows: .4
space per accommodation unit, plus .1 space per each 100 square foot of
GRFA with a maximum of 1 space per unil Each employee unit will require 1
parking space assuming the units are one bedroom units.
Each site will now satisfy its parking requirement on site. As discussed
previously, this has significant implications on the program for the Comerstone
site. The staff believes that this change is very positive because it allows each
site to be developed and operated independent of each other.
The parking provisions are listed below:
Reouired Parkino Proposed
Comerstone
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
89 spaces with 75%
enclosed
84 spaces with 75%
enclosed
89 spaces proposed
with 100o/o enclosed
89 spaces proposed
wifr 10O%enclosed
13
Waterford
58 spaces with 60 spaces with
75olo encfosed 4.il enclosed or 75o/o al req.
The Comerstone project will also provide 2 loading berths along Westhaven
Drive for the commercial uses. Staff believes this criterion ls met.
D. Gonformlty wlth the appllcable elements of the Vall Gonprehenslve Plan,
Town pollcles and Urban Deslgn Plans.
Cornerstone and Waterford
Applicable goals and objectives form the Town's land Use Plan for this area
include:1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled snvironment, maintaining a
balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve
both the visitor and the permanent resident.
1.12 Vailshould accommodate most ot the additionalgrowth in existing
developed areas (infill areas).
1.13 Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a deslrable land feature as well
as its potential for public use.
3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more etficiently.
3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail,
therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged.
3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas
to accommodate both local and visitor needs.
3.5 Entertainmsnt oriented businesses and cultural activities should be
encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More night time
businesses, on going events and sanctioned 'street happenings" should
be encouraged.
5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in
existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high
hazards do not exist.
5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private
efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with
appropriate restrictions.
5.4 Hesidential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for
a full range ot housing types.
't4
5.5 The exlsting employee housing base should be preserved and
upgraded. Additional emptoyee housing needs shoutd be
accommodated at varied sites throughout the communlty.
Comerstone
When the Cascade Village development was proposed, there was a
comprehensiveplan developed which provided a balance of long- and short-
term housing. The Goals 3.1 and 3.3 specifically address the T6wn's desire to
maintain hotel type units. In considering each pioposat, he staff considered
three poinb: 1. what was previousty approved, 2. wnat are the curent goals
and objectives of the Town at this time, 3. we recognized that the conditions of
ownership of cascade Viltage have changed. Both proposals allow for
residential and commercial growth in a recognlzed cbra area whidr are
discussed in goals 1 .1 , 1 .12,3.4, and s.t . fhe provision ol employee housing
3s agdresjed in goats 5.8 and 5.s is being incorporated into eabh broiect whiin
is a benefit to the Town. The scenario 2 propoial involves a cfrange io allow
some dwelling unib versus all short-term transient units. The staff feels that it
is important to maintain units which are available for short-term use, however,
we recognize the importiance of providing a full range of housing types.
Scenario 2 provides dwelling, accommodation, traniient anO eirpi6yee units.
This scenario will be a positive change for this parcel if s of the dwdtting units
were restricted and the lockotfs attached were also restricted by the condo
Conversion requirements. The staff would recommend that tfre tr,vo
accommodalion units in scenario 2 not be condominiumized and sold and
therefore remain in the rental pool. The remaining three dwelling unlts would
be free market.
This area is also considered to be a mixed use commercial center for the Town,
similar to Lionshead and Vail Village. The reduction of commercial square
footage has been carefully considered. The staff finds that some reduction in
commercial space is necessary in order to accommodats on-site parking.
Waterford
The Waterfod proposat request is tor ZT free market condominiums, 2
employee units, and no commercial square footage. The statf teels that the
elimination of the allowed 3,800 square feet 0f commercial space is warranted
due to the location of the project which is more removed from the commercial
areas ln cascade village and the change to f|e overalldesbn scheme lor the
project.
ldentfflcatlon and mltlgailon of natural and/or geologlc haeards that atfect
the property on whlch the speclal developmenl dlstrlct ls proposed.
Cornerstone
There are no natural and/or geologic hazards on this site which would restrict
its development.
1.
E.
1.
15
2.
F.
1.
Waterford
The proposed building does not encroach into the 100 year tloodpain or 50'
Gore Creek setback. The relocated bike path will not encroach into either the
creek selback or 100 year floodplain.
Slte plan, bulldlng deslgn end locatlon and open space ptovlstons
deslgned to produce a functlonal development rtsponglye and sengltlve
to natu|al features, yegetstlon and ovsrall aeethetlc quallty of the
communlty.
Gomerstone
The atgrade building foolprint of the proposed ptan and the approved plan are
similar however, Cornerstone is no longer connec.ted to the Waterford building
or to the Conference Building to the west. When comparing the cunent
proposalto the approved plan, the overallsetbacks are similar. An additional
lloor has been proposed in this project as a result of reducing the floor-to-
ceiling heights at each level and using the area in the rool form more efficiently.
The total height of the building has not increased. The maxlmum height as
measured form the plaza to the highest point on the roof is 71 feet.
Landscaping has been incorporated on the east elevation to screen the lower
building mass. The parking will not be open to the exterior and at any level and
the exterior ol the stucture will be detailed wlth Inset stucco arches and painted
metal railings.
A landscape plan has also been included for the plaza area between the
Terrace Wing and the Cornerstone project. The approved plan has been
modified In order to allow for emergency access. The staff feels fiat this area
should be constructed with the Cornerstone project.
Waterford
The proposed building uses a series of staggered towers and broken roof forms
with the parking facilities located to the north of the building. The approved
building for this project was a series of lower structures and a more unified roof
plan. The parking facilities were located below the facility. The building mass
was similar to that of the other Cascade Village Buildirps. This proposed plan
concentrates the mass and bulk such that the result is a more vertical buiHing
which is setback farther from the South Frontage Road than lhe original
approval.
The site planning of the proposed project and the approved project also difter.
The approved plan incorporated residential dwelling unib over the parking
facilities and spread out the development. The proposed plan does not overlay
the building and the parking facility. Instead, they are separate entities. A 5 -
25 foot wide landscape buffer has been proposed between the atgrade parking
and the property line in order to insure adequate landscaping area on the
applicant's property. There is approximately 25 feet between the property line
and the closest portion of fte building. In addilion, trere is 15-20 feet of
2.
16
1.
lanrlscaped CDOT dght-of-way between the property line and the road. tf ail of
the existing vegetation in this area is destroyed during excavation, it will be
replac€d wlh trees of c-omparable size. The applicant will be responsible for
documenting this existing vegetation prior to the release of any grading or
building permits for the project. When comparing the c{.lrrent proposal,
includino the oarkino facilitv, to 8re approved plan, he overall setbacks ar6
similar. The biggest difterenco is the location of the massing. This relocation
of mass is especially apparent in the area along the South Frontage Fload.
However on the south side, it is similar to the approved plan along Westhaven
and the bike path.
The staff is concemed with two elemenb of the site plan. The first of these is
the series of retaining walls on either end of the prolect. The staff recognizes
that these walls are necessary due to the severe grade changes on the site,
howsver, we feel that the landscaping should be more dense lor better
screening. The second issue is related to the retaining walls on the east end of
the property. The staff would like to see the proposed skier access into the
building eliminated and the building used as a retaining wall. This will also
clecrease the impact of the east elevation as viewed from the bike path.
A elrculatlon system deslgned for both vehleles and pedestrlans
addresslng on and off-slte trafflc clreulatlon.
Cornerstone and Waterford
The Town is interested in resolving an off-site circulation concern. This
involves the dedication of a portion of Westhaven Drive to the Town. Currently,
Westhaven Drive from the South Frontage Road to the Gore Creek Bridge is
owned by the Waterford project applicant, MECM Enlerprlses. The road does
not meet the Town's standards and certain improvements related to the grade,
construction and building clearance beneath the pedestrian bridge will need to
be addressed prior to the conveyance of the right-of-way to the Town. The
statf does not teel it would be equitable to require the Waterford developers to
complete all of the road improvements in coniunction with heir project. Instead,
we feelthat the Waterford developers should be required to bring the portion of
the road from the South Frontage Road to the culde-sac up to strandards and
dedicate this portion and also dedicate a public easem€nt for the remainder ol
the road to the Gore Creek bridge. The applicanfs tor Waterford have agreed
to complet€ this work prior to the issuance of a TCO tor the project. The
Comerstone developers have also agreed to perform tre necessary tests which
include borings to determine base compaction and an as-built profile of the road
to determine the condition ot the road in front of their proiect as part of this
amendment, however, they will not be required to eomplete the neeessary
improvements. Public Works' opinion is in that it would be impractical lo have
Comerstone rebuild the portion of Westhaven Drive in front of their project
because all of the road improvements from the cul-de-sac should be completed
at the same time.
17
2.Comerstone
Wlh the proposed minor subdivision, a portion of Westhaven Drive, where the
Comerstone parking is located under the roadway, will be conveyed to the
Comerstone property owner. The Town will then obtain an easement for public
acc€ss where ths Westhaven Drive will now cross private property, The Town
staff finds that this is a reasonable solution.
Pedestrian circulation through the Cornerstone building to the ski lift is
proposed as a series of plazas with landscaping trom Westhaven Drive to the
ski lift pedestrian area. The stafl feels that he proposed stainray is an inviting
element which is pedestrian friendly. The plaza area at the bottom of the stair
between fie buildings includes an arcade with landscaping and will incorporate
concrote unit pavers for the walking surface. The staff feels that the pedeslrian
area a*lresses the circulation needs in an aesthetic and functional fashion.
The staft would like lo see the concrete unit pavers used in two areas which
are cunently proposed as asphalt and concrete. These areas are along the
sidewalk adjacent to Westhaven Drive and at the ski lift approach where it
@nnects into the bike path.
Functlonal and aesthetlc landseaplng and open space In order to optlmlze
and preserve natural features, r€creatlon, vlewg and functlons.
Both sites are substantially disturbed, there are fer,v remaining natural
cfiaracteristics. With the proposed development, there would be limited
remaining open space on the site. Because of this, the remaining landscaped
areas become critical. Landscaping is especially important along the South
Frontage Hoad, Westhaven Drive, and the pedestrian mall area. The
applicants have proposed landscaping plans which address these areas.
Cornerstone
The applicant has included the approved landscape plan for the public space
between the Tenace wing and lhe Cornerstone site as previously discussed.
The need for emergency access has resulbd in a modification ol the approved
plan. The proposed landscaping for the area in belween the Tenace Wing and
Comerstong includes a series of lovrr concrete planters having irregular shapes.
This landscaping is shifted towards Cornerstone to allow for the 20 feet fire
lane. ln respect to the landscaping sketch adjacent to the southeast corner of
the building, the applicant proposed to keep the green space €rs is and will
provide a 20 foot accessway through this area. Final design details will be
provided prior io DRB review. Staff believes that a paver walkway and
additional landscaping are acceptable in place of the original plan's tenace and
water feature.
The applicant has proposed to raise he grades along the east and west ends
of he building in order to turther screen these areas. The stafl would request
that the DHB consider the planting materials in these areas in order to provide
as mucfr screening as possible.
H.
t.
18
Waterford
The applicant has met with the Colorado Departrn€nt of Transportation (CDOT)
to diseuss the limil,atons on landscaping along the Frontage Road. GDOT has
indicated that all existing landscaplng may remain and that additional
landscaping may be added to the south of the existing vegetation. For this
reason, the statf finds that the proposed distance between the parking structure
and the property line is adequate. As discussed previously, any landscaping
which is destroyed during the construction process will be replaced with
comparable vegetation. The staff would also rsquest that all tvallways bs
made of concrets unit pavers versus @ncrete.
The applicant is proposing to relocate the recreation path approximately 10 feet
to he south. This is being proposed in order to increase the bufter between
the recreation path and the building. The staff has reviewed the site and feels
that this is appropriale for the first 225-250 feet ot the path from east property
line. The relocation will not displace any vegstation nor will it encroach into the
flood plain or creek setback. However, we do not leel it is necessary to move
the remaining portion of the path. The applicant also proposes to rebuild the
existing pedestrian access form Westhaven Drive to the ski lift should the
Cornerstone project not be built at the time of the construction of ihe Waterford
project.
Phashg plan or subdlvlslon plan that wlll malntaln a workable,lunctlonal
and efflclent relatlonshlp throughout the development of thE speclal
development dlstrlct.
Corne.rstone and Waterford
As initially proposed, Cornerstone and Waterford were to be constructed
simultaneously. This simultaneous phasing plan was necessitated by the
provision of parking on the Waterford site for the Cornerstone project. Due to
the subsequent change in ownership ot the two sites, this becomes a difficult
proposition. An interim landscape plan for the Watertord site has been
proposed in the event that these projects are not constructed simullaneously.
In the process of reviewing each ol these requests, it has become apparent t0
the stafi that when parking is added to the approved development plan tor
Cornerstone, it becomes difficult to maintain fie approved development rights
(ie. GHFA, number of units, and commercial space). Both proposals include a
net reduction ol development rights while adding employee units. The staff
finds that it is absolutely critical to the approval of any amendmenl for either the
Waterford or Cornerstone project, to resolve the parking issue in a workable
solution. ln the staff's opinion, he applicant's have achieved this goal.
19
vt.MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITEBIA
The standard criteria for any minor subdivision includes lot size, the road frontage and
lot configuration which are different for each zone district. Because this ls an SDD and
there is no underlying zoning, there are no lot size, frontage or lot configuration
requiremenb for this minor subdivision. A minor subdivision is being completed in
order to create two Independent lots as well as deed a portion of the road to
Comerstone. Historically, these sites have been portioned oft as the project
developed. Because there are numerous ot rners now involved in the development of
Cascade Village, the staff feels it is necessary to complete this minor subdivision. The
minor subdivision completed before a building permit is released for elther project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff supports the applicants' requests to amend the development plans for the
Waterford and Comerstone sites located in SDD #4 - Cascade Village Area A.
The staff finds that each proposal meets the SDD criteria as well as the goals and
objectives of the Town. In considering each application, the staff worked to achieve
solutions which take into account the changing conditions of Cascade Village and the
most appropriate developmenl for each parcel.
ln the Cornerstone project, the statf remains concemed wilh the apdicant's request lo
condominiumize the proposed AUs. However, we find that the merils of this
amendment are substantial and do not find that the AU issue is reason enough to
recommend denial of the project. We also find that the request to allow for 6 DUs, 3 of
which will be condominiumized without the condo conversion reguirements to be
acceptable.
With the Waterford proposal, there is an increase in the proposed common area. The
total increase in common area for the two prolects in comparison to the original two
projects is 1514 sq. ft. Given the fact that the density GRFA and site coverage are
below the previous amounb for both , stiaff believes this average is acceptable. The
same reasoning is also applicable to the height increase of four feet on the south and
east elevations. ln addition, staff prefers the building massing of the proposed project
over the previous projects.
The staff has some design concerns with the landscaping and architectural details for
the Waterford site which we believe can be addressed by the DHB. The stafl would
like to see the skier access on the east end of the building removed and the building
be used to retain a portion of the slope. We would also like to see the landscaping in
both of the retaining areas increased to screen the proposed keystone walls as well as
the east elevation of the Comerstone building. This element should be revlewed by
the DRB in detail. The statf would also require that the DRB review each building
elevation for architectural details especially those on the north elevation. On both
sites, the staff would require that all of the public walks be of concrete unit pavers.
This includes the path from the recreation path to the ski lift and the public walkways
adjacent to Westhaven Drive.
vil.
20
The staff finds that each project can now function indepandently of the oiher. We
recognize the need to make certain allowances because ol changes to the parking and
the change ln ownership and feel that each project meets the SDD criteria and Town
of Vail objectives.
The staff also supports he applicant's request for a minor subdivision in order to
create two independent lots, one for each projcct and to dedicate that portion of
Westhaven Drive needed to construct the underground parking in the Comerstone
proiect.A public easement for the portion of undedicated right-of-way will also be
dedicated at this time. This must be completed prior to the issuance of any building
permits for either projest.
The staff assumes the following conditions will be met with this amendment.
Develooment Aoreements
Cornenstone:
The three proposed employee unib shall be permanently restricted per
the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance. The agreement shall be submitted
belore a bullding permit is released for the proiect. This agreement
shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk Recorde/s Office.
The transient residential units proposed in both Scenario 1 and 2 shall
.Ag! be condominiumized at any point in the future. These units shall
remain as rental units used in the same manner as hotel type units and
are not inlended for individual ownership.
The developer agrees to complete asphalt bodngs and as-built surveys
and provide them to the Town to determine the condition of Westhaven
Drive in the area of he road adiaccnt t0 heir property.
The proposed landscape plan between the Tenace Wng and the
proposed Comerstone building shall be revised prior to the review of the
project by DRB. A 20 foot access lane for emergency services must be
provided from the Westin courlyard to the ski lift. ln meeting this
c-ondition, the Water feature on the landscape plan lor lhis amendment
may be revised accordingly.
watgrtord
1.All proposed employee housing units shall be restri€ted per the Town of
Vail's Housing Ordinance. This agreement shall be submitted betore a
building permit is released for the project. The agreement shall be
recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recordefs Office.
1.
2.
3.
4.
21
o
2. The developer agrees to complete borings and provide an as-built
suruey to determine the condilion of the road from the South Frontage
Road to he culde-sac. The applicant agrees to provide engineered
drawings for any road revisions necessary for review by the Town of
Vail Engineer prior to the release of a building permit All road
lmprovements and dedications shall be completed prior to TCO. This
includes fie dedication of a public easement acrossi Westhaven Drive
from the cul{e-sac to the bridge over Gore Creek.
3. The bike path shall be relocated and the existing easement shall be
relocated on tho minor subdivision plat.
4. The minor subdivision shall be completed prior to the rolease of any
building permits for this proiect.
5. The DHB will review proposed landscaping in the areas of the retaining
walls on he west and east ends of fie site. The DRB will review the
north elevation for architectural detail.
These items are all subject to the Town Attomey's review. The statf appreciate the
applicant's etforl to work with the PEC and stafi to develop two projecb which meet
the SDD criteria. The statf believes that the proposals are positive. The changes were
arived hrough a series of work sessions and have helped to make two well designed
projects which are independent developments within Cascade Village.
The staff would like to thank the PEC and the applicants for their work in developing
and reviewing his proiect. The staff believes that the proposal for each building are
positive and that the changes make for a better project.
IPEC\MEMOS\CASCADE. N23
o
22
REC'D NOV 1 6
IJIFTSTDE
I{ATERFORD SrTE, CASCADE VILLAGE
GRFA & COMMON AREA CALCULATIONS
suBMrrTED 11/16/92
(BASED ON PTJANS DATED 11/13/921
7(3)C = 1711 +(3)1685 =
h(3)C =
b(3)c =
1711 +(3)1685 =
1711 + (3)1685 =
?1,(1)B + (3)C = 1660 + 1711 + (3)1685 =
.L
rellrt
Level 38 t -0tt: a/
cRrA: (1)B +Circulation:
Other Common:
tevel 48 '-6": *,-GRFA: (1)B +
Ctrculation:
Other Common:
Level 59 t-0tt: &
cRrA: (1)B +
Circulation:
Other Common:
Irevel 69' -6":*
-FE:-TI)A
+Clrculatlon:
Other Conmon:
Leve1 80t-0tt 't-
rffi;--T1)A +
Cireulation:
Other Common:
Level 90' -6" z tn
t.5
(3)CP = 1650 + 2111 +
,,. ''
1560 + 1505 =
(3)2085 = 10025
2900
1568
67 66
2795
750
6766
3040
1900
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
6766 SF
2575 SF
2081 SF
8426
3317
3330
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
"?aq
(1)BP +
w
)D -GRFA: (1)A + (1
Employee Units:Circulation:
Other Common:
tevel 101 t-0'l: z.'4 7.,'
)D=2050+1505GRFA: (1)AP + (1
Circulation:
Other Common:
Level 111|-6": L
GRFA: {1}DP = 1905
Clrculation:. Other Common:
TOTAI,S
GRFA:
(we will ultimately use aIL 4'l ,500 allowed)Circulation and Common:
3165
1200
1525
1288
3555
661
263
1905
.646
90
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
47,385
28,729
a
1.
N\dr,\J
CORNERSTONE CALCUIJATIONS
NOVEMBER 13, 1992
GRFA - by scenario and unit type
A. Scenario #1
TR*A e 500 sg. ft. x 22 units = 11,000 sq. ft.
TR-B 0 800 sq. ft. x 2 units - 'l ,600 sq. ft.
TR-C g 400 sq. ft. x 22 units - 8,800 sq. ft.
TR-D G 635 sg. ft. x 2 units - 'l ,270 sq. ft.
TR-E G 1,360 sq. ft. x 4 units = 5,440 sq. ft.Total- 28,110 sq. ft.
B. Scenario #2
34 units6 units
28 ,110
6.
TR_
DU-sg.
sct.
ft.
ft.
2. common Area = 1't,980 sq. ft.l- t+b4?+ -- lbTqF
3.Commercia]Space
48 =72=
4.
5.
Site Coverage = *+41-3 sg. ft.
Parking -by level
38
60
72
Employee Units
3 units G 600 sq. ft. = 11800 sg.
Level-
LeveI
-by
9,900
1eve1
sq. ft.
1 .200 ss. ft.
1 ,100
LeveI
LeveI
Level
TotaI
38
26
25
spaces
spaces
spaces
spaces
ft.
a
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
Date:
Place:
Present:
Re:
Ned requested this neetlng as suggested by the PLanners to see
what standards/criterium the CDOT might have related to theexisting trees in and adjacent to the right-of-way south of the
South Frontage Road east of l{esthaven Drive,
In reviewlng the conditlons and looking at the plans of the
proposed Waterford development, L,eonard felt that the existl.ngtrees can remain as the area is not high hazard and the treeswill not Ehadow the Frontage Road causing icy slicks.Additional vegetatlon can be added south of the exlstlng trees.
Ned agreed to get back to the Highway Department as plans arefinalized and certainly if anything changes.
The foregoing represents my understanding of matters discussed
and decisions reached. If the interpretation of others varlestplease inform us ln writing.
Copy to: Shelly MelJ.o, Vail Comnunlty Development
o &,ryn"U"
15 Novenber 1992
Waterford Slte, Frontage Road and Westhaven, Vail
L,eonard L. Oeltjenbruns, Highway MaintenanceSupervisor, Landscaping CDOTPhil Pacheco
Ned Gwathmey
Waterford/f,:.ttsiae Amendment to SDD 4Existing and Proposed Landscaping
Jf
CONFERENCE HEMORANDUM
Date:
Place:
Present;
Re:
November 13, 1992
Pub1ic Works Offices
Larry Grafel, Director of public WorksGreg llall, Towa EngineerSbelly Mello, Planner #2
Ned Gwathmey
Waterford and Cornerstone
Amendnent to SDD 4
After revlewing the plans as subrnitted to Staff, public Vforkshad the following points;
1. As the Fj-re Departnent was not concerned wlth getting on theparking deck, the clearances for vehicles w111 be dictatedby the slze and reguirements of UPS and BFI eguipment. NedwiII neet with officlals and get back with findlngs.
2. Greg was concerned about the bike path during constructLon
and Ned will specify that the path be relocated initiallyand fenced off fron constructlon during constructj,on.
3. A new easement will need to be recorded for the new bikepath.
4. SheIIy explained the understandings on Westhaven Drl-ve:bringing J.t up to Town standards and dedicating it.
5. Curb and gutter need to be added at both Cornerstone andWaterford, as they are built for drainage.
6. Greg did not. nant to see everyday vehicular access from
Westhaven at the bus stop across to the parking structure,
.
Ooa that the occasional movinq van could be accommodated.
Confereqce Memorandum - Waterford@Page 2
7 - Gutters and snow guards should be studied/consldered at theentrances and areas where snow slide could be dangerous.
8- storm sewer and snow-neLt dralnage,/run-off must be studled:Grease and sand trap will be necessary for dlscharge off ofpaved areas and the drainage nust not sheet over the bikepath.
9 - Detalrs of the minor subdlvision were discussed and thesection at Cornerstone which extends out into Vfesthavenshould be included in the Cornerstone ownership.
10. The entry/exit to short term parking in cornerstone shouldbe made 22 feet wide.
The foregoing represents my understanding of matters discussedand decisl-ons reached. ff the interpretation of others varies,
pJ-ease lnform us 1n writing.
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
Date:
Place:
Present:
Re!
11 -5-92
Conmunity Development Offices
Shelly Mello, Planner #2
Ned Gwathmey
Cornerstone and Waterford Liftside
Amendments to SDD #4
Staff reguested the following:
1 . The 1O0-year flood-ptain and the SO-foot stream set-backshould be added to the survey.
2. Staff wants to look at the relocated bike path.
3. She1ly will talk to Jerry Mullikin about the AU's adjacentto the DU's being restricted in Cornerstone. The bank doesnot want these to be but dwelling unitsi however, they mayaccept a lock-off scenario per sketch.
The elevator shaft waII on the north elevation wiII be
redesj.gned to accept signage and,/or graphics.
Staff raised the guestion of whether the parkinq wlll bevisible from the terrace w!-ng. The handraiLs are to remaln
arid the ramp is behind a stucco wall. The garage is to be
enclosed.-
Pavers will be added in lieu of colored concrete in a numberof places in both Cornerstone and Waterford site plans.
Cornerstone north landscape area to be increased in width byreducing the walkway width. BernLng will- be added.
Landscaping Cornerstone: a detail will be added of theplanters in the pedestrian court.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Conference Memorandum
November 5, 1992
Page 2
9. Waterford: Eliminate bike storage under west wing.
10. Alternate plan offered of conditlons if cornerstone were notdone concurrently; gradinq and pedestrian access.
11. Lock off a bedroom of the employee unit.
12. An artist's rendering of Waterford would be heJ_pfuJ.,especially for presentation to Councif.
13. Copies of the easements for Westhaven Drive are needed.
'l 4. Materi.als and color board for Waterford is needed.
15. Ned agreed to render at least one elevation with details,colors, shades and shadows for PEC hearing.
16. Work out fire departnent access. Meeting scheduled for10:00 am 11-1 0-92. See enclosed memo and discuss wi.th
Mike McGee.
17. Common space calculations, marked up plans to be submittedto She11y.
The foregoing represents my understanding of matters discussed
and decisions reached. If the interpretation of others varies,please inform us in writing.
EI!G
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
Date:
Place;
Present:
Re:
The purposeto get input
PEC to amend
November 10, 1992
Firehouse - East Meadow Drive
Ir{ike McGee, Fire MarshaLlDick Duran, Fire ChiefJeff Atencio, Fire InspectorEric Johnson
Ned Gwathmey
Cornerstone and Waterford
Amendment to SDD #4, Fire Department Review
of this neeting, as suggested by the Planners, rdas
from the Flre Department on the plans submitted tothe Special Development District.
Ned walked the group through the drawings and the model- focusing
on Waterford. The proposed building is to be Type If,fire-reslstlve, fulIy sprinklered. The construction willprobably be like that of the adJacent terrace wlng of the
Westi-n.
Access
Mike reLated that ambulance only access r^ras requlred for theplaza,between Cornerstone and the Terrace Wing of the WesLin.
Access for WEterford can be from the street; they w111 not need
access to the parking deck roof. A remote slamese to punp intothe sprinkler system of Waterford at the curb of the cul-de-sacis desired. The Fire Department wlll i.nform if the nearest
hydrant is close enough or if one needs to be added within 200feet of the siamese.
As a rnatter of information, if the parking deck were to be
designed for a fire truck, the additional load reguirement iould'be 350 psf .
Conference Memorandum
Novenber 10, 1992
Page 2
Details discussed
The area has good water curve, i.e., pressure and guantity areadeguate.
Tunnel height reguirement
Townts reguirement i.s 13'.
Sprlnkler details will be
for fire department ls l4'-6t'. The
the subject of future neetings.
matters discussedof otherE varies,
The foregoing represents my understandlng ofand decislons reached. If the interpretatlonplease j.nform us in writlng.
oJ',
TOWN AFVAIL
75 Soxlh Fronttge Roail
Vail, Ctilorodo 81657
t 0t-47 9-2 I t I / 479 -21 t9
D epartmcnt of Community D caela?rnent
OctoberS0,1992
Mr. Ned Gwathmey
Gwathmey Pratt Architects
1000 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
FIE: Waterford and Cornerstone Projects
Dear Ned:
Here it isl The long awaited letter. We have tried to compile a comprehensive list of items
which we would like to see-completed prior to your submitting the drawings for the linal review
of this major amendment for SDD #4 on November 24ih. We will need this information no
later than 5$0, Wednesday, November 5. Please contact me should you have any questions
about the following ilems.
Cornerstone
1. The visual impact of elevation mass on pedestrian areas should be considered.
Landscape material and berms should be incorporated into the plan in order to screen
the lowest levels of each elevation, especially on the east elevation to decrease the
visual impacts of the parklng structure.
2, The relationship of the building to lhe pedestrian areas at both the ski lift area and the
commercial area adjacent to the terrace wing should be studied and shown in delail.
3. Architectural details, such as balconies with relief as seen in the adjacent Westin
buildings, should be incorporated.
4. The possibility of further decreasing the amount of structure in the pedestrian
passageway area should be studied. Level 92 in the area of the brldge could be
deleted to accomplish this.
5. Approrral for pa*ing under Westhaven from he owner of the property. The applicant's
should investigate transfening the land to allow for ttris parking and inctude this in th€
minor subdivision to be completed. The Town will not accept this portion of the road,
per the Public Works Department
I
6. Elevations, and floor plans at 179" = 1'. Elevations should show architectural details.
7. Site Plan at 1'=20'.
8. Site plan of model area showing public space and building around it.
9. Fevised landscape plan.
10. Detail of terra@ on 2nd level, including landscape delails.
1 1. All sidewalks should be noted as concrete pavers.
Waterford
1. The staff remains concemed with mass and elevations of each 'towef ol the building.
Variation of the roof form, the use of different colors, stucco details and the use of
balconies similar to the Westin complex should be considered to furlher break up the
mass. Materials and details should be included in the submittal.
2. The bike path needs to be located on the survey. The relocation of the bike path will
need to consider the floodplain and the 50' creek setback. Location of existing
vegetiation will also need to be considered.
3. A minimum of 10 feet should be provided for landscaping on the applicant's property
along the Frontage Road. Please contact the Colorado Department of Transportation
concemlng their requirements for this area.
4. Westhaven Drive Resolution - We must have documentation that a public access
easement does or does not exist for Westhaven Drive. We need a title report on the
Road and documentation of easements.
5. Elevations and floor plans at 1'=1/8'. Elevations should show architectural details.
6. Two to three cross sections from the Froniage Rd. south to the creek.
7, Sile plan 3t 1'=20'.
8. Detail of project connections and retaining walls. An inlerim landscaping and grading
plan should be prepared in the event that these proiects are not constructed
simultaneously.
9. On site visits with the PEC there was concern with the height and mass of the west
elevation adjacent to Westhaven Drive. This should be addressed.
10. Balcony details similar to Westin should be incorporated and shown on the elevations.
t 1. Landscape plan - The area entry should be bermed and more vegelation added to ths
plan.
12. All sidewalks should be noted as concrete unit pavers.
The staff assumes the following density for the projec'ts:
Cornerslone
Scenario #1
28,110 sq. ft.
52 TR
Employee Units
GRFA
# of units
Scenario #2
28,110 sq. ft.
34 TR's
3 free market DU's
3 resticted DU's
w/ 1 lock-off each
3AU
3
Waterford
47,500 sq. ft.
27 ftee market DU's
The staff assumes that none of the TR's or AU's will be condominiumized for individual sale.
Each DU will be allowed 1 lock-off when they are condominiumized. The 3 DU's with lockotfs
will be restricted per the condominium conversion requirements. The remaining DU's will
have no restrictions. None of the DU's in Waterford will be reshicted per the condominium
conversion requirements
Please call me should you have any questions. lt's always a pteasuret
'a
November 4, 1992
Ms. Shelly Mello, Planner #1
Town of Vail Community Development
75 South Frontage Road WestVail, CO 81657
Rd: Waterford and Cornerstone Projects
Proposed Amendment to SDD #4
Dear SheIly:
Thls ls in response to your "long awaited letter" of 30 October
and should serve as transrnlttal for all of the addltlonalinformatlon you reguested/reguired for the PEC. Addressing thepoints of your letter:
Cornerstone
Landscape material and berms have been added to the l-oqrerlevels of all elevations, especi-ally the eaat to decreasethe inpacts of the parking structure. See landscape pLansper Dennis Anderson.
The relationship of the building to the pedestrian areas arerefined and shown in detail on the landscape plans. Theseplans take into account the designs supplied to us by theStaff of the court area southwest of Cornerstone.
We have assumed all along that the detailing of Cornerstoneshall be stucco, bal-conies, windows, handralls, etc,,similar to the Westin as well as all of the colors andexterior materials.
4. The structure of the pedestrian passageway has been
decreased by deleting the bridge per your suggestion.
1.
2.
3.
2
Ms. SheLly l{ello
Novenber 4, 1992
Page 2
5, Note that the arnount of the encroachment has been reducedfor the parking under Westhaven. This has been discuseedwith the owners, of Westhaven who are ln agreernent totranefer this snall parcel and include lt in the minorsubdivislon. Dlscuss with Fred Otto If you needconfirmation.
6. El.evations and floor plans are shown at 1/8" = 1'-0tt, Weare not under contract to detaiL the buildlng at this tj.me
and feel that the Townrs interest in maintaining conslst,ency
can be outllned 1n the documentatlon/conditions of approual.simply statlng that the new bul-Iding must match theexietlng.
7, Slte Plan for Cornerstone is at l" = 2g'-0" per your
request.
8. Enclosed see site plans of model area showing public space
and building around it.
9. Revised landscape plan is ineluded.
10. l{e do not propose any landscape details qn the terrace onthe second level as this is either roof or service/acceagfor the employee units and is similar to terraces alf overtbe Westin.
11 . All sidewalks will be pavers with
along Westhaven whieh is eoncreteto the west.
Waterford
the exception of the oneto match the existing one
1. The elevations enclosed in this submittal show a greater
LeveL of detaiL and our objective is to natch the detailingof the Westin especially the stucco expaneionjoint-panelizing expression and the balcony articulation.frankly, we have not considered different colors as Lhe
adjacent bulldings are monochromati-c and we feel that the
stepping of the masses and the complexlty of the roof as
evolved are suitable means of breakl-ng up the nass.
2. The blke path is }ocated 9 feet closer to the river ln the
survey enclosed and does not displace one tree or go lntothe floodplain.
t-
Ms. Shelly He11o
November 4, 1992
Page 3
3.
4.
We have scheduLed a meeting with Leonard L. OeftJenbruns,
llighway l{aintenanee Supervlsor - tandscaplng and will letyou know of the outcome. As we have discussed, we wtll movethe ubole flve feet south if the CDOII will not allsw theexisting landscaping to remain.
To date, there ls no tttle report for the Westhayen DrivepareeJ.. However, access easements are recorded per FredOtto's letter to Ron Phi}lips on 9 September for CascadeVillage August 5, 1985t in Book 421 Page 651 . Surther,
aceess easement to Glen Lyon Subd.ivision wae recorded
18 July 1978 in Book 272 Page 370. If you need moreinformatlon, please call Fred otto.
Enclosed find elevations and plans at 1/8" = lt - 0".Again, the detailing wiLl match the Westin as well as thecolors and exterior material.s.
Enclosed flnd five cross sections from the I'rontage Roadto/through the creek.
Encloeed find site ptan at 'tt' = 20"-0".
Encloeed find detaiLs of projection connections and
retal.ning ?ralle and an interirn grading plan In the eventthat Cornerstone i.s not bullt soncurrently wlth Waterford.
The height and mass of the west eLevation has been reducedper discusslon with the PEC by clipping the hip and droppingthe level- to the mintmum allowed to maintain elearance :for
emergency vehicles under that wing.
Balcony details ldentical to the Westln have been included.
In the encfosed landscape pJ-an note that the entry area has
massive planting and the suggested berning will be
incorporated to the extent it is feasible and does not
interfere with the passage of emergency equlpment.
fn the matter of employee units for the 27 DV's propoaed, we
have always submitted and assumed one large 1100 sguare foot
unlt was acceptable, We will discuss the possibility of, a
lock-off portion of this unit with the owners and get backto you.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11
12.
Ms. Shelly Mel1o
November 4, 1992
Page 4
We hope this submittal. and the treatment of the items satisfieEyour reqluest. we are convinced that the Stafftg comfort leve1
and a positive Staff recommendatlon is egsential to the succeseof this project, and we t'ril} continue to work to satisfy your
reguests.
The study model has been brought up to snuff and can be madeavailable to you tcith a phone call if you need it for preparinEyour memo.
Sincerely,
GWATHMEY PRATTtL ARCHITECTS, P.C.
Edward M. Gwathmey. AIA
EMG/ad
Enclosures
\,.'a tv uv tN.\tlr/l,& t
utw"'(br
Dote:
re
t)r' i latrvv S'.e C-, D e 111\ e)' l' o n
. -4-'r-LJrf t Jt C1l'l I I
al>sci€',.-vt\rcnJ\
S < c, I o. 2-,c4, (^) F \c':
i-oa-) s 5!"^\\ \ro-se
vri)th of v'Jo\- \?s5
o^) o.-t'\ u*obS\ tt"-\-ot
oQ ruo+ \qss t\".
in'stnll
efPa-t"c'lrv s c^-c'L< \J
rjr\.I q2,., abS| t-r-\ J
\\.-r. 2D f**
ve r'}ielq- \ rr\ Qa'f\
\3 Dsef 6 i)rc-\.e5,
r".-Ptg . ufon afpvuv*\ by tL" cV'i'f
\
V e clicnt (- \sa-\-o'hL: fiol 6e r= l*o.), 3v'aui)r)
i, -l- ,ru ) rohon )oe s *b+ i ttFtl'{-
-
a-(4 55
ygr"*1ov+) $-\tr"ro.^c<o
\*6 'ra-\ L\-"*'to'v<,,Q 5 "t ^J'.ii*]t
sL\\ Le
-\ \"^ ip \e CI?;:Y" pF lLe "':tlvr<-t't-c-6<o ^Y .^.,'\ ^{_ -,Dt\: , ?=\(o *rr:Jr..
\<clion\ 0l(*co.,.-''t\ p{- \y'rr" r'
i-o!"; a-cs-eS1
\
xbncytt**6
--lt '7rvvi)* {i''i ftfr
Firtr Alynr*lus '$cc-c;s '- T\^* V*'\ f,t"a \"p\' v't;\\ *tt'
?f,-- caf.vlrrr- * V*rliaR\ Lloo^'111'"-6= t+ 14 +€+ 6 int!'..5
\ff)6c<-eru-\\ )^-
by
6,-\c= \/f lrr-c\gSbup\-H"€-Vc.i *.r
o?
' tl\\ rV'\\+1r ro{ E ,D=,nc\-1rlsAz
Ml,t S;'"yV
VAIIJ FIRE DEPARTI,TENT
},IINIMUM DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR VEHICLES
ac ff2-W 4-W t w',-rn€*tr
Inside Radius *,fu iz tu 17r6n 201 .3ot 6n /36t5rt
33 | 5rl
Outside Radius J]l/)u'26 t 6tl 26t 6t]37 16)t /
43 | 5rl
37 | 6rl
Length 28,2419n 26 t 6tl 25)6n 3?tl 45)
Overhang- Front 4 | l0rr 6l 6t 6l 6l
Overhang - Rear 7r3 7t 1.g | 3tl 11r
width gr4rl gr6rr g | 4rt gr4rl t2 I 6rl
GVW r1J 37 30 35 48 35
Wheel Base 2L4n 151rt 160n 134n 230r1 216r1
Road to Chassis
Clearance l4 l 18 1 lBl llr lgl
ffit -#ffil ffi fr
--
Wheel load 325 psf 3O0 psf 30O psf 350 psf 35opsf
Outrigger point
Ioad 300,0o0
psf 3 00000
psf
Front axle load 16K
Rear axle load 3lK
'K 4OO FRONT AXLE
UPDATED ,fanuary 3, Iggz
Ul:' T0 fi17. trI ft.{Ot.tT. t_:0t.,tDI.I IUFlll
ti)l - I(:r_:i ,i\t.-t*OHEI_) t,It"H TOl,tN ENEINHFIt, S0rrrfrllt:( Jr"'11,[_
' 7t.\':(, -. 1.;t:.y" t,,tt:{;!t.t tt;:Htji Tub${ HNlfiIht[-ERgl AF,FROVAI-At,il) Fl HLA f EI) Irti:I v I Nr:i $ur;:rAt:t:
FF.: I VAT'H Eil fi;F..f: I $: rtf;:f:/-||T.Ft": I t,ti.lil ;?5 r FjET I il l_EhltjTl..l
!::iERl,'|Il,lr:i f.l0l;:E l.llAl.l :t n[,[:LLIil6 Ut.tITS:':::l F-LET t il t,t t l'ilJt'l I,t I DI t I
t4AX I t4lJt.l r:it;:/il)[: -
VAIL- f. Iti:E IJF_t-"At;:Tt,tEH1-
IiTI;:[:ET DES I IjT,I I::H I1-[:F.: I A
SUF,lllAfqY Dl: SFEr_:I FI r-:ATI t-Il,l$:
FF:IVATE DFiIVEt.lil\,: *;t:t;:(,'[::j /t l,li\X It,1-.1t,l Ulj- :: D6JHLLINEE;l'l(\XIf.ll.ttt r|t. 7ti [:H,[:iT I],1 1...[:],1rlfll
t't I t,tI t,il f t'l t.t I D] | | ilF- l:tJ FLiET
t+r--t- I t[:ii1-l tL-F: DtlIr/INri !,iLjRFAct:
tjil:;:t:l I-tt: I
Ar_:r.:t.lti:1.) tt.tfi t"t.) :itJlJD.tvISInl,t FlEr.iuLATItrhlg: 97.
f\r_:i-:t.It;:DI t..lr:i I-{.1 rL,BL.Il:: t,l0F:l,l$ DEF,AR.IHENI.: A7.
FUEILIT: ,DEDIr-:ATED h:D/.\D: fllt{ iiF.:f,\uti Lta}X Il,il-lt,,l
::;- r-EEt' HIDTT-l
I $5UE5: hJ I hll t:t{ [it,,[-]]J r;i[r,tr_]Vd,\t-
{llJ lilF;:E:EI [:r':-\F,:l,lIt,lr::i
r::t)l.lvIll;i:ti l t]tt ill- l1,F:.:I r/A I H T U F,UFL I r: r,t{oFEFdTy
l:!fi, I l,r/-\J t- l;:(-)/)D!:i:
N|] I t,ll:ir:!l;ir..::l' I Dl\.1 l)t..il;;tI f.lr:i {::uN131.Fiur::T I ON
siF E[:. !3 t'.Jt.]l- /\1; !it ];: I r--:1" As r..ulrt_ I l,:: F.:oADst:0t,tF,/\t::1. I t.)ht l.,l{l I rr,li 9}1"til; I f.T
LI.IbJE[;: EiT A[.IDAED13
t
lt+
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
Date:
Place:
Present:
Re:
October 12, L992
Council Charnbers Town of Vail
PEC Members Donovan, tangenuralter, Amsten, Bowen,
Wi 1l iamsStaff: Kristan Pritz and Shelty MelloEustaquio Cortina and Fred Otto,Jerry Mullikin
Doug Cogswell
Ned Gwathney
Anendnents to SDD4,
and the Plaza would make the
and nore like the Westin.
Work Session on Cornerstone
After the site visit and much discussion, the following points
were outlined as needing further study by Ned and confirmed byStaff and Comnission for Cornerstone:
I. AII would like to see cornnercial space on the plaza level:the square footage of commerciat to be a function of thereasonable space available as opposed to an absolutenumber. The ROUA plan 6hows 29,000 square feet. Connercial
spaee of 14,000 was in the plans discussed in the meeting.
2. The Grand Stair should be nade more inviting, withadditional landings.
3. The landscaping proposed for Cornerstone should be tled intothat approved for the whote plaza. Ned will get the
approved plans from the Staff.
4. Five employee units were requested in lieu of the two
proposed . *
Arcades on the Westhaven side
walkways nore inviting, safer
5.
Conference Memorandum - CornerstoneOctober 12, L992
Page 2
6. Shopping at the street level was discouraged particularly inlleu of that at the plaza level.
7. Parking could be acconmodated in the Cornerstone project forthat building's needs.
8. In a straw vote of the Conrnissioners, the D.U. scenario wasacceptable.
The foregoing represents ny understanding of matters discussedand decisions reached. If the interpretation of others vari€s.please inforsl us in writing.
copy to: Eustaquio CortinaJerry Mullikin
Fred Otto
*Action Taken:
- I discussed employee units with Jerry Mullikin who agreed tooffer three units and he wiII discuss this with the bank.
- We have sketched the above points and will transmit to,ferry Mullikin and Anne Ross of Comnercial Federa}.
- In subsequent discussion with the Staff, given the finalpackage we delivered on Waterford, Shelly suggested no more
work sessions, but requested we go to final approval9 November on Waterford and Cornerstone.
EMG
.o
a
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
St]BJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
Ocober t2,1992
A request for a work session for a major amendment to SDD #4 Cascade
Village to amend the development plan for the Corncrstone parccl in Area A.
Applicanr MECM Enterprises rcprcsented by Eustaquio Cortina and
Commercial Federal SavingsPlanner: Shelly Mello
II.
INTRODUCTION
In July of 1992, the PEC reviewed a proposed amendrnent to the Cascade Villagc
SDD #4, Area A Development Plan. The proposal specifically addressed the
Waterford site located at the comer of Westhaven Drive and the South Frontage Road.
It has been decided that. in order to move forward with the amendment !o the
Waterford site, that the Comerstone site to the west of Waterford would also need to
be amended" The changcs to the Comerstone site are necessary because currently
there is an interdependence betrryeen the two sites as it relates to the provision of
parking. Each site is owned by independent entities and it is their desirc to eliminate
any interdependence between the two sites.
olans which can be constructed independent of the other.
For the purposes of this work session, the staff memo will focus on the proposed
development for Comerstone. There will be no comments on the issues relating to the
Waterfo'rd site as the applicant is in the process of responding to suff and PEC
comments made at the September 14, 1992 work session.
DESCRIPTION OF TT{E REOUEST
The applicanr is requesting a work session to review a proposed major amendment to
Special Development Disnict (SDD) No. 4, Cascade Village Area A and morc
specifically, the Cornerstone site. The Comerstone parcel is bound by the proposed
Waterford project to the east, Gore Creek and the Westin Terrace Building to the
south and Westhaven Drive to the north. The Waterford parcel is on ths corner of the
South Frontage Road and Westhaven Drive. The parcel was zoned SDD from the
time it was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1974.
ru. BACKGROUND
The Cascade Village Development was previously owned by a single development
entity, As proposed by the past developer, the project was a system of interdependent
phases to be built into an integrated complex which provided commercial areas, short-
term and long-t€rm residential units and consolidated parking facilities. Since the
bankruprcy of this original developer, ownership of the sites has been dispersed among
different owne$. This plan is now more difficult to execut€, as each owner has
different ideas on how to develop their respective sites. The change in ownership
effects the Cornerstone p'roject because, as approved all of the pa*ing for tlre
Comerstone project was to be located on the Waorford site. These prcjects are now
held by 2 unrelated entities who wish to provide their own parking on each site. A
total of 166 parking qpaces wer€ to be provided in the Waterford project for the
Comerstone development.
An additional outstanding issue in the Cascade Village development is the ownership
status of Westhaven Drive, from the South Frontage Road to the Gore &eek Bridge.
The rcad is owned by the owner of the Waterford sie, MECM Enterprises, and is
privately maintained. This rcad has not been conveyed to the Town because it does
not meet the Town's minimum road standards, however, there appears to be a public
access easement across the parcel. Negotiation is proceeding on this issue, but the
issue has not been resolved.
The Cornerstone proposal currently being reviewed does propose to locate parking
below a portion of Westhaven Drive. An easemont will need to be obtained from the
owner of the road parcel in order to build this parking.
IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Comparison of Approved and Proposed Development Plans for
Cornerstone
Approved Proposed
Scenario Scenario I
Proposed
Scenario 2
l) Density
(# of Units)50 TR* 52 TR + Zemp. 34 TR
6 DU's***
wR
lockoffs****
3 AU's
(unrestricted)
2 emp. unit**
o
2) GRFA
3) Common Area
4) Commercial Space
5) Credits Given
6) Height
North
South
East
West
7) Setbacks
8) Site Coverage
9) Parking
28,110 sq. ft.
as per
approved
plan
26,(X0 or
29,065 sq. ft.
None
7l' max on
south elevation
with variations
on others
As per approved
development
plan
as per
approved
plan
155.9 or
166 spaces
28,110 + 1200 sq. fr
for emp. units
To be
determined
14,415 sq. ft.
per multi-family
zoning
93 req. spaces w[5%
enclosed;
96 proposed fl
100% enclosed
28,110 + 1200
sq. fr fm
emp. units
To be
determined
14,415 sq. ft.
per multi-
family
zoning
96 req.
wl75%
enclo@
96 proposed
wll00,%
enclosed
69',69',
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
as per
plan
as per
plan
TR = "Transicnt residential dwelling unit or restricted dwelling unit" shall bc defined
as a dwelling unit located in a multi-family dwelling that ir managed as a shori term
rental in which all such units are operated under a single management providing the
occupanB thereof customary hotel services and facilities. A short term renml shall be
deemed to be a rental for a period of time not to exceed 3l days. Each unit shall not
exceed 645 square feet of CRFA which shall include a kitchen having a maximum of
35 square feet. The kirchen shall be designed so that it may be locked and separated
from the rest of the unit in a closet. A transient dwelling unit shall be accessible from
common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing thmugh another accom-
modation unit, dwelling unit, or a transient residential dwelling unit. Should such
units be developed as condominiums, they shall be resricted as sct fortl in Section
17.26.M5--L7.26.120 governing condominium conversion. The unit shall not be used
as a permanent residence. Fractional fee ownership shall not be allowed to be applied
to transient dwelling units. For the purposes of determining allowable density per
acre, transient residential dwelling units strall be counted as one half of a dwelling
unit. The uansient residential dwelling unit parking requirement shall bc 0.4 space per
unit plus 0.1 space per each 100 square feet of GRFA with a maximum of 1.0 space
per unit.
Employee units do not count towards density or GRFA per the cument
SDD#4 Ordinance.
The proposed D.U,'s are not proposed to be restricted per the Use Resrictions in
Section 17.26 Condo Conversion of the Subdivision Regulations per the developer's
request.
Lock-off Uniu A dwelling unit in a multiple-family building may include one
attached accommodation unit no larger that one-third of the total floor
area of the dwelling.
V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRI-TERIA
The criteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the nine Special Development District
(SDD) development standards set forth in the special development disnict chapter of the
Zoning Code. The criteria arc as follows:
A. DesiEr compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment,
neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design'
scale, bulk, building height, buffer mnes, identity, character, visual
integrity and orientation.
The proposed building is similar in mass and form to the approved building
plans and to the adjacent Westin Complex. The proposed building is 2 feet
lower than the approved building. The building shell will remain tle same for
each proposed scenario, There are three deparnres in regard to building mass,
from the migrnal plan. The first of these is that the original plan's at-grade
commercial level facing the Terrace Wing has been changed to parking with a
one-sto,ry commercial addition in front of the parking. The total commercial
area with this addition is 14,415 squarc feet. A second change, which is also
due to the introducrion ofparking on this site, is vehicular access on each end
of the building and t'wo loading brths on the west end of the project adjacent
to Westhaven Drive. The third change deals with the stairway from Westhaven
Drive down to the ski lift level.
There is a severe grade change on this site from Westhaven Drive to the ski
lift\public space level. This, along with the configuration of the site, present
many practical difficulties. Due to the grade change, the visual impacts of
each building elevation are very different and because each side of the building
is exposed to public ways, staff believes each elevation of the building to be
very important. Landscape material and berms should be incorporated into the
plan in order to screen the lowest levels of each elevation, especially on the
east elevation to desrease the visual impacts of the parking strucurre.
With the approved development plan, there was a grcat deal of consideration
given to the public spaces on the site. Specifically, the passageway and
outdoor stair connecting Westhaven Drive to the ski lift and public space in
front of the Terrace Wing, as well as the relationship of the Cornerstone public
areas to the rest of the Westin Complex. This was accomplished with a series
of connected plazas and other site amenities. The staff feels that further study
should be given to the relationship of the proposed project to the existing
facilities in the area.
In regard to this criteria, the staff has the following overall concerns:
l. The visual impact of elevation mass on pedestrian areas: The
commercial addition on the south elevation will break up the
elevation as well as screen the first and second level of parking.
The subsequent distance between the buildings and landscaping
of the area should be studied in detail in order to maintain the
pedestrian alea.
2. The relationshio of buildine to nedestrian arcas at both the ski
lift area and the commercial area adiacent to tlte terrace rvins:
A large plaza area was approved with the previous plan. This
was located to the south of the southwest comer of the building.
The staff would like to see this completed with this project.
The provision of architectural details such as balconies and
arcades as seen in the adiacent buildinss: Arcadcs should be
inco,rporated into all of the commercial areas, especially along
Westhaven Drive and if possible at the Terrace Wing level.
Inco{noration of landscapine and landscape berms: Berming
along the east end of the building should be added in order to
scrcen as much of the parking as possible.
The steepness of the stairwav should be decreased so that it does
not appear to be so dominating.
The possibilitv of further desreasing the amount of structure in
the pedestrian passaeewav arca should be studied.
Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, eflicient and
workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
The applicant is proposing two scenarios for this site. Previously, there was a
single development plan which included accommodation unit, and retail uses.
Scenario I provides for 52 ransient units, 2 employee units, 14,415 square feet
of commercial area, 2 loading berths, and 96 enclosed parking spaces. This
would allow 2 additional transient units over the existing approval.
Scenario 2 provides 34 transient units, 6 dwelling units with 3 lockoffs, 3
accommodation units, 2 employee units, 14,415 square feet of commercial
area,, 2loading berths, and 96 enclosed parking spaces. The resulting
residential dcnsity is under the approved density by .5 DU's.
The requested change to allow unrestricted dwelling units in Scenario 2 (versus
accommodation units) is a substantial deparnre from the original plan for
Cascade Village. Ttre initial intent for Cornerstone was to provide short-term
rentals which, it was believed, would subsequcntly increase the use of the
entire Cascade facility. The staff has researched this issue and found that there
is a demand for short-term rentals of this type in the Valley. Currently, the
bed base is split 50/50 between condos and accommodation type units
according to the Vail Resort Associarion. Demand for each type of unit seems
to differ between season. There would appear to be a greater demand for
accommodation type units during the summer and for short 2-3 day stays,
while during the winter, stays tend to be longer and condominiums are more
desirable. For this reason, we feel that short-term rentals should be included in
the proposal and if Scenario 2 is approved that all of the dwelling units should
be permanently restricted per the Condo Conversion requirements. We also
feel that 6 lockoffs, which could be rented independently of the 6 dwelling
units, should be incorporated into all of the proposed D.U.'s, instead of just 3.
A second change in the proposed program is the deletion of a portion oftlle
3.
4.
f,.
6.
B.
approved commercial space. In the Waterford project, the staff supported the
deletion of the commercial space because the project was removod from the
commercial areas in Cascade Village and because it is a condominium project.
Given this site's proximity to the existing Terrace Wing commercial area, staff
feels it is important to maintain a considerable portion of the commercial
square footage as well as locating a po'rtion of it at the Terrace wing level. In
o,rder to accommodate parking demands, it will be necessary far this additional
commercial to be located in front of the parking in the Terrace Wing level,
which will also screen the structured parking from the pedestrian area. The
details ofthis addition need to be studied further. Specifically, the subsequent
distance betrveen the existing Terrace Wing and this pnoposed s[uctur€, and the
mass of the commercial addition, should also be considered in regard to the
impact on the pedestrian area. The applicant should consider connecting tlre
commercial area to the stairway that connects Westhaven Drive to the ski lift.
In addition, stalT suggests making the second level of the structure a terrace in
order to minimize the bulk of the commercial addition. The commercial that is
proposed along Westhaven Drive is positive as it will add activity and interest
to the ptoject.
The applicant is proposing 2 employee units. In reviewing the application, the
staff used the suggested employee housing criteria. This study suggested that
the following formula be used to determine employee housing requirements for
projects that do not exceed densiry.
Scenario I
50 units
x 1.25 employees required per unit
62.5
.15 housing multiplier
= 9.4 employees or l0 employees
Assuming 2 employees will share each unit, 5 units would be required for
Scenario 1. Five units would also be required for Scenario 2 using the same
formula. The staff would require that a minimum of five employee units be
included for both Scenarios. We would suggest that the 3 additional employee
units be taken out of the proposed uqit number and allowed GRFA for the
project. If 5 employee units were provided, 2 in addition to the allowed
density and 3 from the approved density, therp would be a subsequent decrease
in units and GRFA dedicated to TR's, AU's, and DU's. The employec units
will need to meet the requirements of the Town's new Housing Ordinance.
The most applicable type of unit would be a Type III.
The staff also feels that the provision of short-tem units is imperative. In
speaking with the operators of ths Westin, the staff found that thue is a
demand for TR type units. We would suggest that AU lockoffs be attached to
all of the proposed dwelling units. This would not increase the parking
demand and would make additional short-term units available. The staff would
also suggest the deletiron of I DU and the substihrtion of additional TR's,
howevetr, this would increase the parking demand. The staff would suggest the
following density:
# of units
Aporoved
50 TR
28,110 sq. ft.
Scenario I
47TR+
26,310 + 3000
sq. ft
for emp. units
Scenario ?
31 TR
GRFA
5 employee units 5 DU with 6lockoffs
3AU
5 employee units'r
26,310 sq. fr + 3000
sq. fr
for ernp. units
* Another option is to reduce 1 DU and TR to accommodatc the additional
employee units requested.
Staff concems:
l. Chanee in residential dwelling use from uansient units to
dwellins unitsi Staff feels that the provision of transient units on
this site is imporunt and that if Scenario 2, with DU's is approved" they
should all be rcstricted by fte Condo Conversion requirements.
Lockoffs should also be pmvided with each dwelling unit.
2. The number of qmplovee units beins p,rovided.
Compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined in
Chapter 1&52.
Scenario 1, with the pmposed accommodation units and commercial square
footage, requires 93 parking spaces and 2loading berths. Scenario 2 requires
96 parking spaces. The introduction of parking on-site has subsequently
increased the size of the building and decreased the amount of commercial
squarc footage provided on the site. It would appear that the overall square
footage of the building has increased. This can be attributed to two things.
One is that there will be more building located below grade than in &e
approved project. The apptcant is proposing to locate parking below
D.
Westhaven Drive. (This was not part of the approved project.) Second, the
floor to ceiling heights of the approved project arc grcater than what is
currently proposed" This results in an additional floor being added to the
building.
Under Section 18.52 of the Municipal Code, each dwelling unit with less than
2,000 square feet of GR.FA would have a parking requirement of 2 spaces and
those with over 2,000 square feet of GRFA would require 2.5 spaces per unit
Those with less than 500 square feet require 1.5 spaces. The parking
rcquirements for accommodation units and transient units are as follows: .4
space per accommodation unit, plus .l space per each 100 square foot of
GRFA with a maximum of I space per unit. Each employee unit will require 1
parking space assuming the units are one bedroom units.
Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan,
Town policies and Urban Design Plans.
For this area, the Town's Land Use Plan states:
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a
balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to ssrvc
both the visitor and tbe permanent resident.
l.l2 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing
developed arcas (infill areas).
l.L3 Vail recognizes iB stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well
as its potential for public use.
3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used rnore effhiently.
3.3 Hotels are imponant to the continued success of the Town of Vail,
therefse conversion to condominiums should be discouraged.
3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas
to accommodate both local and visitor nceds.
Entefiainment oriented businesses and cultural activities should be
encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More night time
businesses, on going events and sanctioned "street happenings" should
be encouraged
Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in
3.5
5.1
F.
existing planed arcas and as appropriarc in new areas where high
hazards do not exist.
5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private
efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail,
with appropriate restrictions.
5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the martet place demands for
a full range of housing types.
5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded.
Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied
sies throughout the community.
rilhen the Cascade Village development was proposed" there was a
comprehensive plan developed which provided a balance of long- and sho'rt-
term housing. The curent Scenario 2 proposal r€quests a change to allow
some dwelling units versus all short-terrn accommodation units. The staff feels
that it is important to maintain units which are available for short-term use,
however, we recognize the importance of providing a full range of housing
types. Scenario 2 provides dwelling, accommodation, transient, and employee
units. If all of the units were resuicted and available for short-term rental, then
this scenario could be a positive change for this parcel.
This alea is also considered to be a mixed use commercial center for the Town,
similar to Lionshead and Vail Village. The reduction of commercial square
footage should be carefully considered. However, staff agrees that some
reduction in commercial space is necessary in order to accommodate parking
on the site.
Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affm't
the property on which the special development district is propoced-
There are no natural and/or geologic hazards on this site which would restrict
its development.
Site plan, buitding design and location and open space provisions designed
to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural
featureg vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community,
The at-grade building footprint of the proposed plan and the approved plan are
similar. When comparing the current proposal, includins the parkine facilitv.
10
G.
I.
to the approved plan, the overall setbacks are similar. An additional floor has
been proposed in this project as a result of reducing the floor to ceiling heights
at each levcl. However, the actual height of the building has decleased by nro
feer Landscaping should be incorporaod to screcn parking areas and building
mass, particularly on the east end of the building. Staff would also like to
undersand if the pedestrian mall between the Terrace Wing and Comerstone
Wing is at the same grade or if there will be elevation changes in the mall due
to the pmposed building.
A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing
on and off-site traffic circutation.
The Town is interested in resolving an off-site circulation concern. This
involvcs thc dedication of Westhaven Drive to fte Town. Currently,
Westhaven Drive from the South Frontage Road to the Gore Creek Bridge is
owned by the applicant. The road does not meet the Town's standards and
certain impmvements related to the grade, construction and building clearance
beneath the pedestrian bridge will need to be addressed by the applicant prior
to the conveyance of the right-of-way. The Town would require, as a condition
of any approval of this application, that the roadway be upgraded and dedicated
to the Town. An easement would also be required prior to the release of a
building permit for the parking to be located below the road.
Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
Because this site has been substantially disturbed, there are few remaining
natural characteristics. With thc proposed density of the project, there would
be limited remaining open space on the site. Because of this, the remaining
landsca@ areas become critical. Landscaping is especially important along
Westhaven Drive, and the pedesnian mall area. Landscape berms are also
important in order to scr€en the lowest levels of parking on the east and south
elevations where commercial is not proposed.
Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional
snd efficient relationship throughout the development of the special
development district.
As initially proposed" Comerstone and Waterforrd were to be constructed
simultaneously. This phasing plan was necessitated by the provision of parking
on the Vy'aterford site for the Cornerstone project. Due to the subsequent
change in ownership of the two sites, this becomes a difficult proposition.
Howevet the staff finds that it is absolutelv critical to the aooroval of a4y
ll
o
amendment for either the Waterford or Cornentone proiect. to resolve thc
narking issue in a workable solution.
In the process of reviewing each of these requests, it has become apparent to
the suff that when parking is added to the approved development plan for
Cornersbne" it becomes difficult to maintain the approved development rights
(ie. GRFA, number of units, commercial space). Both Scenario I and 2
propose a decrease in commercial space.
VI. STAFFCONCERNS
There is no formal staff recommendarion at this time. The intent of this work session
is to give the applicant initial direction and feedback on the Comerstonc Project.
In summary, the staff concerns are:
1. Compatibility of building mass with surrounding uses.
2. Increase of landscaping and further development of public spaces.
3. Architectural details, (ie. balconies, arcades,) which would make this building
sympathetic to surrounding development4. Improvements to Westhaven Drive in onder to meet TOV standards and
subsequent dedication of roadway to the Town of Vail;
5. Resolution of interdependent parking plan for the Cornerstone and $/aterford
projects, while considering the impact on the mass and bulk of the C.ornerstone
projecr.
6. The inuoduction of a second Scenario to the Cornerstone project with
umestricted dwelling units versus transient residential units for the entire
project;
7. Thc number of employee units provided;
8. All conditions set forth by the Public Works Deparrnent and Fire Departnent,
which relate to proper drainage and fire access, will need to be addressed prior
to the final review of the S.D.D.
:VEC'&IEMO$CASCADE. I I 2
t2
.+THIS ITEM MAY AFFECUUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town ol
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordan@ with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Codo of
the Town of Vail on October 12,1992, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Builidng.
Consideration of:
1. A request for setbae,k variances to allor for an addition at 2963 Bellflower/Lot 7, Block
6, Vail Intermountain.
2.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
A request for variances to allow encroadlments into setbacks and to allow an increase
in common area for the Sonnenalp Hotel, Bavaria Haus, located at 20 Vail Road/ Lob
J and K, Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing.
Hans and Mia Vlaar
Mike MollicaiJim Cumutte
Johannes Faessler
Andy Knudtsen
3.A request for a minor subdivision and a major amendment to SDD #4, Cascade
Village, to amend the development plan for the Waterford and Comerstone parcels in
area A, described as follows:
That parl of the SW 1/4 NE l/4, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 Wbsl ot the Sixft Principal
Metidian, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described as follows:
Bsginning at a point on hs souherly right-of-way line ot Int$stab Highway No. 70 whenca an iron pin with a
plastic cap ma*ing fi€ conbr of said Section 12 bears S Stll'10'19'W 1447.03 t€€t; lhence abng said
southerly rightd-rvay line two cours€s
1) tt 52"5029' E 229.66 b6r
2) N 74"38'17' E 160.70 leet;
th€noo d€parlhg said souherly dght-oFway lin€ N 88'45 57' E 138.93 f€€t; th€nco S 40"45 14'W 94.32 foet;
thenc€ S 184 18'36' W 54.08 feet; thence S 01"21'36" t r 2o5.O2 l€'eq ihenc€ S 12"0738' W 110.25 l€el;
f|snc€ S 28"2836'W 164.48 leet; thence N 40 "1701'W 211.18 t€6U thence N 49%?56" E 97.80 fe€t;
th€nco N 3709'31'W 95.59 b6t; theno€ S 5P50'29'W 55.10 fest; thenco 59.48 fraet along the arc of a non-
tangent curw b he bft having a radius of 85.00 teet, a oentral angls ol 61"14'42' and a chord that bears N
58o 5553' W 66.22 f€et; th€nce N 37"09'31' W 1 18.50 leEt To The Tru€ Pdnt of B€ginning, County ot Eagl6,
State of Colorado; and the Com€|6bn€ paroal described as follovs:
Buildng C Sib
That part of h6 SW l/4 NE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5 South, Rango 81 Wsst of th€ Sixth Principd
i,leddian, Torrn ol Vail, County of EaglB, Stala of Colorado, descdb€d as lollw{6:
Boginning at a point on lhe oasbrly line of a non-er(clusive easemenl for ingr€ss and egr€6s known as
Weefiaven Ddve recorded in Book 421 at Page 651 in h€ otfice of he Eagle County, Colo.ado, Cl€|k and
Recorder wh€nce fte cent€I of said Seclion 12 bears S 38"34'.13"W 1,168.27 teot; lhenca along said lin€ of
Weslhanen Driv€ N 52'43'41'E 143,92 teet; lhenca demrling said line of W€stha\ron Drive, 132.24 teet along
the arc of a non-hngent curve b the left having a radius of 55.00 f,B€t, a central angls of 13/45'30' and a
chord that bears N 42'l l'46'E 102.61 f€eq thenc€ N 52"50'29'E 65.24 teet: thence S 3f09'S1'E 95.59 bet;
thonoe S 49'42'56'W 97.80 bst; ttencs S 40'17'O4'E 24.12 f€€q t|€nce S 52"50'Z€'W 213.66 feel; }|enoe N
3f00'31W 105.76 fe€l lo the pcint of beginning containing 0.6848 ac{es more or less.
Applicant: MECM Enterprises represented by Eustaquio Cortina and
Commercial Federal Savings.Planner: Shelly Mello
4. A request for a variance from Section 17.28.330 to allor a residential driveway to
exceed the maximum slope permitted. Lot 16, Vail Potato Patch\782 Potato Patch Dr.
Applicant Andrew DalyPlanner: Shelly Mello
5. A request lor a joint work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission
and the Design Revlew Board for a conditional use permit tor an addition to the
Municipal Building to houss the Vail Police Depafiment, located at 75 South Frontage
Rod West (at the east end of the existing Municipal Building), and as legally
described below:
A parl of |he Southe6t t/4 ol S€clion 6, Township 5 South, Range 80 We3t of h€ Sixth Principel lt eridian,
Counly of Eagle, Stab ol Colorado, more particularly described as frcllorrs: Cofnrnoneing ei th€ Southsast
mrner of said Section 6, th€rEs North 00 degr€€s 28 minubs 16 seconds West and along the Easf line of
6aid Soufieast 1/4 of sakJ Sedioo 6 72.75lhe East line of said Souhoast 1/4 of said Seabn 6 72.75 bst b
a point saii poirt being 110.00 hst northeasierly frorn the southedy right-of-wry lin6 ol U.S. Highway No. 6
a8 moaeurod at right a.€les thsrsro; thence North 79 d€grc€s 4€ minubs l1 s€conds W€st and alor€ a line
paralld b sakt southerly ft?ht-olway line 145.50 bet to The True Point of B€ginning; th€nce Norh 16.
d€grces 0S minubs 47 s€conds EBt 78.00 bst; thonc€ North 68 d€gre€s 08 minubs 35 s€oonds Wsst
428.70 teet; honca Norfi 66 d€gre€s 01 minutes 29 seconds West 152.57 tost; henoe Souh 27 &grws 42
minut€e /O secoods W66t 192.66 fset; honce South 52 degre€s 1|8 minubs 50 seconds Essl35.32 b€t b a
pdni, sakJ point b€ing 110.00 le€t norrheest lrom said South righl-ol-way line of U.S. Highway No. I as
m€astr€d at right angbs thereto; th€nc€ South 79 degrees 46 minutss 11 seconds Easl and alor€ a lin€
paralld b saij Souft right of way line 585.56 t€et io The True Poinl of Beginning.
Except hat portion corwoyed to he Board of County Commbsionols ol Eagl€ County, ard fie D€partn€nt of
Highways, Stab of Colorado by rule and order recordsd January 5, 1971 in Book 219 al Pag€ 441.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Mike Mollica
, lE' 08rs?o
r*Q l.i&9r&#*.,J l&.,1 ffiL H"
Iot
lmls
nar
ctssrrcltl tf{.t|rl Etnk tg-oh polnrrlon o! thr coarrrtonrrrlrcgr drur _ro serrutd-lv_thi "tEil;i-iiir.roprr or rhr c*cr.r.Ill*1;' coruriJrii--riirrcr -r;-;--=;irileans orn.r os rhrr
Ccqnrrrton:, _llg_,1-!vcal othrr crrtrlde VLtkEr p.roF.r*tcr, lfsreoffrrcir ac--recurlit--a# " aevri"piini--ioo' rn r'r snounr of8g.elt. lrr oi--i[" iii**-pro!Fri-e- riive been Bold 6rf exceprror rha -co-nerrtona prlier'. -rr.ii-ittn--i sarr ot r-hlr Farcrr,coan*cr.ar .Fed*ar "t-n["-i" roeJiii:riis.i"ry s{}r on ure l.,an.
coro€rarar Federal Bank'* trnanorar- roas r,r not thr Eonc6.r*-ogths irotrr _of vifi."na--ftf, zgnrng a"tfriiityl bgt it !.s Luportanrfor *. ,toIr_ to- rcn"v--Inic iiii"Iiiil;-;il agprovrc eceirarlor,Counrerclal Fe€letal "r- dL ^ovnil of thr cornerr?ong parcol lagctng to +gse
-r c'nsh;;inr ano[nt-irio-r,Iy. Trrrrerorr, tt rgexrrrucrv rnportant ioi-co]ilner"i;ri;e";;'i-to_ cgtrrn the- zonlnsfor vuiEb FF--ni;; "piirii,---i" u"ri.iI-if;at q,t- current zsnr'sdoer hor arlox ro.-i[.-Jii, i; il-il;lri$la e$rrer tocray sr rt:, tD! tlne {n the fuCuir
r co&arohl Frderal -aant rr-lr not_ be - thr d.vrro'€r ef *hr; cotr:re$tone arter-.ri--rrri. pa ;oia Erc iii-a cevelopar rsho vrtltrrvr the ree_pcn"ir*r*v_ii-o'.riaiiir -Fr i!.i the zonr.ns ro sakett attrq'tivE --eneush 'rJi
_a aEviifopei'tli-!u""rr"_.9 the propcrry' and burld. -ws_niad -eine fonrn ot ioning $htchallovr for:::S:?*tY: 13*,d-.luii!--r'--ni.i*--"r--ti* FroJBct- t{e bavcpropogcd !s p*b .or :sui sceneiro'r,"a aHerIiliiiE?uX""f;il;allonn ror eix a*irtni-unia;;-;i iiinrilii rsgrd€ntrar rrnlrr,ana ei* 1!!ohFda?ioi-"Gnrts. ' p;rr-;;-thl; pren lrour.E r.nclud,ctra enptoyrr uo*s!;g uilii-rurcrr_t A;;dtry nor requlrrd ou:l;o'S*fi:Tff" :il*","f:, :;ill:*l-ii-#**t"-li, i;p-'sr!r', , :.- Errlplrr ths ptan alro* roi ii-+-conamrni"rl-it'iii-oiiri';."#i;orr and woula- asxp criir trrg--t-osE-;a-buiii{il-TtJ;n[i;"r. a'riretur.- f4 m- unrii- couie -then -f,r i"or.a out trrrough a,r ' , ,.
prlvltr ranrgirneni=' cod;n] or througb trre treetrn gotel nrxt,i i feer'
!: :r: .
l. "!?:.::r.".
!1 ," '.. r'
eB.d.0$r.t
8ut!rzOL
sEts Br €1 fi:t19 F62
ogtoDrr 7, Lgxz
llorn of Vrtr c@untty Drvrtotrrnt OffLcr
SavtnEC glrrk.Dlrn tao'lt ccaa|taltl lrdrrrl
"rfr I
Torm of Vrll
gstnrllo rr ts n6t thrt dtft.r-|nt ftrll tht su'lrirnt rsnl.ngl lnl.str. -rt dfns.r-_ rliiry--iitEld; ---s;n-# -iii-rr.rr. yr hrvrrubtfrr*tr ult5 rh-r trr, uaitrl-tlr-iu nniEllr^nta-Jttrd-d;ifdcrlltnq unr.tr,__ ttrera nouii E i io€litril for {r ur{rrrqur'vrl-nr to iu unitr---unarr-i"nrrnE aefi;; rI havr so. trr.rr rtllr arklng- F.t . tll -iu.rr ind Dgrr not Dr f6strltrtr{ tsI$ttl uit-onrv,- F-l!,g.rta1nry tm edtrnirir-'iJr taii-iiiil-ildir. _ rccsElrodarton .unltr Fay Ee attiser{vi-En-rone-o-i tlr- -;il#;;
rnd vosld br rlnrrd eB rucrr--&u;ina;;rstGT; 'Y-r' '
totb .fs-lqarlot .l _ltrn It inclucr lll'en t4Lt grcrtly rrat|cc lE:beuto'nt o! raqulted. coanercriiEal". -rn-Eanf-ilicuccronc yrtlrth.- planntrrE -oapartuclt;--ftf; -i.* to be e clrhce;rn, r{6 htvsanalyctd,. $re ca'nirrcili-not."ilal- for the area end rind tt|are 1gvary ltttle nced today-rofinilA.iitf;:nat-;rdiciar rDac. .,.ndcan 3r. ao rc€nqrio vhlch soui.d d"Tge that niid ;it ll?I;antliln tbs trrturr. . Bgth plrna -qontaii- ri,ooo-ii or co'ruerctal!pac., . - ead 19 adllflrrt. St i;;. tiii-u,tr-f i -iurlr"iini-spioe-to
b.€t tlre nccdE a! the itllier ln thc futuro. ii-roor. ccnrnarciar.slrace_ t nddeit t3,!{r ur,tiabs, it ;iir-il =ri.niGfrtTil;i;;thc.- devetlper to. burld eilpti qpiiE. - ai-iadtns-E";;tclqr to rbrgurs:nt_ Flln, tb.era are onri tno g-lacer t5 coEo. onc ls robuud ln ttre .rEa currenrry Seergircir-ii-paiiril ;; the sost ory*:*_r. _gTrlng sprce6. ini-irei-rc- t; 5"il;"i"-irre'open-ireiDetrrccn Cornorston? _ end the rfrltln bulldtng, gieitiy-iiAucinSFlr- opcn aftn uh+9h -r'r feer te qutte bporEinEl--ruig-arri-lEt+gFt cnough ar _tt_ ts and aaarns' to ttc-iuira-rng iii-trrr. ir.*rv1ll only nake tt feel uore rqu"-ied.
comGcial Federal B|ntc har fubhltt€d tvo FroFoears rlrtetr rafe€l 1g a gr?qt ln;rroveaerlt ovri ure iurrinfionrng for trresorneraEonc Dulldlng. h'e rra a.sklfft thats theee nlins, bothScrnarLo. r end rr, D6 e;rproved er tn.f-iiivc d.en-ei[rr[t c;' ---.
o t
August 28, 1992
Ms. Shelly Mello
?own of VaiL Comnunity Development
75 South Frontage Road Westvall, co 81657
Re: Proposed Amendment to S.D.D. 4 - Cornerstone
Dear $helly:
Below is the sunmary of numbers for parking, commercial , and
GRFA for the proposed Cornerstone project per the August 19,
1992 drawings.
Scenario #1:
Parking
Commercial
GRFA - By unit typeunit A 0 450 sO FT x 40 units = 18,000 sO FTUnit B 0 900 SQ FT x 4 units = 3,600 SQ FTUnit C 0 900 sA rr x 6 units = 5,40
Level 30Level 40
Level 50
38
23
35
spaces
spaces
spaces
Level 40 2,000 sQ
Leve1 60 9,900 sQ
TotaI 't ,900 sQ
Employee Unit 600 sQ PT
tts. SheL1y ldelJ-o
August 28, 1992
Page Tsro
Scenario #2:
Parking
Commercial.Total (at
GRPA
22 Units
A revised sufiuaary
drawlnge.
Sincerely,
Level 40) - 2,000 SQ rT
@ 1277 SQ Fs = 28,110 SO FT
sheel will be submltted with the revLsed
GWATHMEY/PRETT ARCHTTECTS, P,C.
Q**1* A"-e",
.fennifer 'uecker
tJd
Level 40
L,evel 50
20
32
spaces
spaces
<l
-'
Re!
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
Date:
Place:
8-26-92
Town of ValL Community
E6ot sz 3n!0,clu
t
Developnent offices
ItnItt
,D)
Present: Shelly Mello, Planner
JennLfer Decker
Ned Gwathney
Waterf ord/ Cornerstone
Proposed llodifications to S.D.D. 4
Shelly relayed the staff comments on the appl-ication subarittedfor Cornerstone:
1. Staff Le not supportive of the Scenario 2 on
Corneretone, i.e., the dwe1llng unit alternative.
The reason glven ls the Urban Design Guide Plan
which potnts out the need for accommodation units.
2. Staff is ln favor of commercial in both scenarios; -J
hopefullyr sortr€ on the plaza level and some at :s.street level
ot@tfnhddd;:q., T3. Staff wlJ.l suggest that ln Scenario l, the ihrei#ng
unit6 be deed restricted so they cannot be . (converted. , /) =R
4. The pedestrtan passage should be more op"n M!!' ,, , ^ -N.!r *---L--!g! --1 rrr €Fff @.|kffi#bfft*{ :""r,y6ffiff*< \s. sraff wants to see a tandscaee pranl wffiImr?^, s5. Stafr wants to see a lanctscaPe planl '- f|y,tr'"ilflr, \
6. Bhey want to see elther sketches ry'ur the. Frontase AlthpnA' tL Road or a nodel which shows Corneg€tone, the t .nxl L-- Iiltr6l4 t ! cr ||lrJi4E 4 wllf \,tl DrrlrwE \,\/. rrEY- ev..E t slv' -raertace Winc of the Westin, and.nOre. of, the Cascade -i'./ ciii. q*.{ 4 |a,ea ^wb+ UidlaQld 1fu-?-lwD;tu4 s -tterrace Winc of the Westin, and.nOre. of, the Cascade
cr 9p,. @'*'<"t 4" .X ry1., ry + !, 4 *@MN.,1]w- -tw o tu'+,r'r"[ri,truffi,effir ^a b+ I!:idd4'kfd,:ff;to! ffi-,s":*
^ t'e \ril ffi-,t,trtr"w"1k;ff^6 * rr
I ; : M,prr#w, ^ #lir,,, li
crqF. ta*rl 4 tqn l nafu+ k_,
ur il i!,lf tp nw!l"I-+h_t,1N Nfu
+14 tlWLl/;ld,rh th {bp. N uk'W'*Wr-ffiiEw'ff,ffi' ,#Wffiw-S,ffi-,q
X,W {p-% W{1dn^y,
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Envlronmental Commisslon of the Toarn of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 ol the lrunicipal Gode ol
the Tontn of Vail on August 10, 1992, at 2O0 p.m. in the Town of Vall Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
1.A reguest for a work session for a PEG determination of he parklng requirement for
the.proposed Booth Falls Par 3 Golfcourse, located on Tract A, Vail Village 13th Fillng.
Applicant: VaifRecreatlonDlstictPlanner: Mike Mollica
A rsquest tor a work session for a conditional use permit for an addiuon fo the
Municipal Building to house the Vail Police Department, located at 75 South Frontage
Road West (at the east end of the existing Municipal Bullding), ard as legally
described below:
A part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, Townshlp 5 South, Rang€ 80 West of
the Slxth Pdncipal Meridian, County of Eagle, State ot Golorado, mors
particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast comer ol said
Section 6, thence Norh 00 degrees 28 minutes 16 semnds West and along the
East line of said Southeast 1/4 ol said Section 672.75 the East line of said
Southeast 1/4 of said Seclion 6 72.75 feet to a point, sald point being 1 10.00
feet northeasterly lrom the southerly right-ol-way line of U.S. Highway No. 6 as
measured at rlght angles thereto; thence North 79 degrees 46 minutes 11
seconds West and along a line parallel to said southerly right-of-way line
145.50 het to The True Point of Beginning; hence North 16 degrees 08
minubs 47 semnds East 78.00 feet; thence Nodh 68 degrees 08 minutes 35
seconds West 428.70 feet; thence North 66 degrees 01 minutes 29 seconds
West 152.57 feet; thence South 27 degrees 42 minutes 40 seonds West
192.66 feet; thenc,e South 52 degregs 48 minutes 50 seconds East 36.32 feet
io a point, said point being 110.00 feet northeast from said South righFof-way
line of U.S. Highway No. 6 as measured at right angles thereto; thence South
79 degrees 46 minules 11 seconds East and along a llne parallel to said South
right of way line 585.56 feet b The True Point of Beginning.
Except hat portion conveyed to the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle
County, and the Department ol Highways, State of Colorado by rule and order
recorded January 5, 1971 in Book 219 at Page 441.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Mike Mollica
A request lor front and side setback variancgs in order to construct an addition at 898
Bed Sandstone Circldlot 7, Block 3, Vail Village 9th Filing.
Applicant Paul and Janet TestwuidePlanner: Tim Devlin
l
b\
4. A request for a conditional use pemit h allorv an addition, temporary trailers, and a
satellite dish to the Vail Valley Medcal Cantsr and a reguest for a variance from fre
standards of Section 18.58.320 to allofl two satellite dshes for fr|e Wlvlo, locahd at
181 West tvleadow Drive/Lots E & F, Vail Vittags znd Filing.
r{ppticant Vail Valley MedicalGenler, represented by Dan FeeneyPlanner: Shelly Mello
5. A request for an amendment to an approved development plan to allow the shifting of
the building envelopes at The Valley, Phase lV/1700 Btock of Buffehr Creek Road.
Applicant: Ed Zneimer
Planner: Andy Knudben
6. A request for a major amendment to SDD #4 Cascade Mllage to amend the
development plan lor he Waterford parcal located at 1275 Westhaven Drive and as
legally described as:
That pad of the SW 1/4 NE l/4, SeCion 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the
Sixth Principal Meridian, Town ol Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described as follors:
Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way line of Interctate Highway No. 70
whence an iron pin with a plastic cap marklng the center ol said Section 12 bears
S 33"10'19' W 1447.03 feet; thence along said southly dght-of-way line tr'vo courses
1) N 52050'29' E 229.66 feet
2) N 74'38'17' E 160.70 feet;
thence departing said sou$rerly right-of-way line N 88'/1557" E 138.93 feet; thencs S
40"45'14'W 94.32 feet; thence S 18. 18'36'W 54.08 feet; thencs S 01o21'36'W
205.02 feet; thence S 1200736'W 110.25 feet;thence S 28'28'36'W 164.48ieet;
thence N 40 "17'04" W 21 1 .16 feet; thenc€ N 49'42'56' E 97.80 feet; thence N
37o09'31'W 95.59 lEet; thence S 52"50'29'W 55.10 leet; hence 69.48 feet along the
arc of a non-tangent curve to the left having a radius of 65.00 feet, a central angle of
61"14'42* and a chord that bears N 5go 55'53" W 66.22 feet; thence N 37o09ts1. W
118.50 teet To The True Point of Beginning, County of Eagle, State of Colorado.
Applicant: MECM Enterprises represented by Eustaquio CortinaPlanner: Shelly Mello
7. Appeal of staff Interpretation of Section 18.58.300 - Setback from watercourse of the
Town of Vail Municipal Code.Appellanl Bob Kandell
Planner:
8. A request for a variance to section 18.58.320 to allow for satellite dish antennas to be
located at The Wren and Apollo Park Condominiums. Trac{ D, Vail Milage Sth
Filingl44a and 500 Frontagb Road East.Applicant Wren and Apollo Condominium AssociatjonsPlanner: Tim Devlin
u
_-1tl
9. A request to modlff the landscaping plan associated with fie previously approved
exterior alteration proposal tor the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge SfeeVPart of Lob B and
C, Lot 5, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant Rod and Beth StiferPlanner: Tim Devlin
The applications and information about tre proposals are available tor public review in ths
Community Development Department office.
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
Published In the VailTrailon July 24, 1992.
TIMOTHY I{, - PENNINGTON, III
BREN'JI$I0QD AS SOCIATES
11150 saNTA UoNICA BLVD, #1200
Los ANGELES, CA 90025
JAMES S. WEITE
63I VOLTZ N
NoRTHBR00K, rL. 60062
CAROL SCHMIDT - CUSTODIAN
S.E. & M.G. SCHMIDT . CUSTODIAN
55 MEAD LANE
ENGLEWOOD, CO 8OIIO
COLORADO DEPT OF SIGTiWAYS
41413 us llrcrrwAY 6
AVON, C0 81620
CASCADE CLSB LTD
i295 WESTHAVEN DRIVE
vArL, co 81657
I!R. RAY BRENNER
725 NORTII AlA
SUITE B1O4
JUPITER, FL 33477
ANN H, BROCK
P.0. Box 847varl, c0 81658
IIES?IN RESORT
13OO I{ESTHAVEN DRIVE
vAlL, co 81657
SEATTLE lST NATIONAL
C/O STEVEN SALYER
P.0. Box 3586
SEAITLE, WA 98124
!.{R. DOUG CoeSSIEIL
WESTIN HOTET,
I3OO WESTIIAVEN DR
vArL, co 81657
MR. THODTAS TITOMSON
TIIOMSON CORP
12760 W NORTE AVENUE
BR0oKFIELD, WI 53005
AOWARD & CATIIERINE STONE
12121 WrLSttrRE, #1201
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
STANLEY S. EEARD
2121 N TRONTAGE RD. #2rOvart, c0 81657
EXOHO ASSOC tTD
C/O lST AMERICAN SAVII{GS BANK
ATTN: K. WOUACK
P.0. Box 878
FT: SI.{rTH, AK 72902
BANK FRSDERICK GRNEN
P.O. BoK 1308
vArL, co 81658
}!R. STEVE LINDSTROU
CASCADE VILLAGE THEATER
P.O. BOX 1152
vArL, c0 8L1658
MS KAY SAULSBERRY
COLOR.ADO MOI'NTAIN COLLEGE
13IO WESTTIAVEN DRIVS
vArL, co 81657
CLANCYI S
MR. KEVIN $ALL
13IO WESTHAVEN DRIVE
VAIL, C0 8f657
LESLIE BRYANT
795 CIELO LA}IE
EVERGREEN, CO
FINDgtL
80439
MR. NEIL SIROTKIN
2121 N FROMAGE ROAD WEST
IJNIT 197
VAIL, C0 81657
MR. GREG AMSDEN
288 BRIDCE STREET
VAIL, c0 81557
qlp'tloP,@
$)A
-1--wN
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GTVEN that the Plannlng and EnvlrOnmentral commisslon ol lhe Torn of
Vaif oriff hotd a public hearing In accordance wlttr Section 18.66.060 of the Munidpal CodE of
Ure town of Vail on August i0, 1992, at 2O0 p.m. ln the Totrrn of Vall Municlpal Bullding.
ConsidEration of:
1.A roquest for a work eession lor a PEC determlnation of the parklngrequircment for
fiedrop&eO Booth Falls Par 3 Golfcourse, located on Tract A, Vall Vlll4e 13th Flling'
r{ppllcanu VailRecreatonDistrict
Plarrner: Mike Mollica
A requgst for a rroft session for a conditional use permit for atl. eddiuor| to the
frluniOpaiBunOing to house ths Vail Pollce Deputmet$, located at 75 Sottth Frontage
nJaO'frEsf (et tn'e east end of the existing lrluhiclpat Building), and as legally
described bElow:
A part of the souilreast 1/4 of sectlon 6, Township 5 994, Range 80 west ol
ttri S1xn Principal Meridian, Gounty of Eagle, SEte of Golorado, more
fnicufarU OescriUed as foliows: 6ommencing at-the Southgast cornor of saH
bectlon e, tnence Horn OO Oegtees 28 minute=s 16 seconds West and atong the
East line ol said Southeast 1/4-of said Section 672-75 tre Eastline of said
southeast l/a ot said section 672.75 teet to a polnt, said polnt belng 110'90
feet northeastsrly from tha southerly right-of-way llne of u.s. Highway No. 6 as
measureO at riglit angles thereto; ttience North 79 degreeg 46 mlnutes l1
seconds West and al6ng a line parallel to said southerly dght-of-way line
t+S.SO bet to The truipoint oi Beginnlng; thence North 16 de_grees 08
;ffiiit 4tieonos East 78.00 teef menle North 68 degrees 08 minutes 35
seconds Wesf *Zg.7O ieet; trence hionh 66 degrees 01 minutes 29 seconds
West 152.57 feet; hencg South 27 degrees 42 mlnutes 40 seconds West
192.66 teet; ttrence Souift SZ degrees-rt8 minutes 50 seconds East 36.32 feet
tJipoint,dafO poiniUehg t 10.0:0 feet northeast from sald South righl'of-way
iinJif U.S. Highway Ho. 6 as measured at fight angtel thereto; thence gouth
ig Oegree. +e minites ll seconds East and atongitine paralletb said South
right & way line 585.56 feet to The True Point of Beginning'.
Eicept trai portiJn conueyed to hq Board of Countygommissioners of Eagle
County, anO ttre Dep"rtm6il of Highways, State of Colorado by ru6 and order
record',jd January d 1971 in Book 219 at Fage 441'
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Mike Mollica
A requesl for front and side setback variances In order to consttuct an addition at 898
Red bandstone Circle/Lot 7, Block 3, Vail Village 9th Filing'
Appllcan[ Paul and Janet Testwuide
Planner: Tim Devlin
J ^-
I
7a?/^
TICE
sdtp8iF>E-!$s
oo E^
Paii3
W
JBLIC NO
-ry-"UP?,
Applicant:
Planner:
I and Environmental Commission of the Town of
ith Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
8.58.320 to allow two satellite dishes to be
haven Drive\described as follows:
lodh Rr 9. 8t ltbd ot lh. Sixlh P.iEip.l Mcriri.n. ToYJft d V.JL El8l. Coudy,
rl .a hnd .tlon'| on lh. coido.r&rium tl5p lo.lhc 6lo..do l,to!t{.h Cottdo.dinirtr
lb Coudy, Colqrdo. Cb* |nd R6co?d.r. {i.nca tha t|st rerlhedt Frll't of raid
lollr/in9 nll. oovtr . dqrg tl. rornhdtt bourd:ty ol rri(l plrFl: (ll N 5e 312lr E
' E t.00 r€d; l4l N 3? 1245' W t3t fr.t 15, N 5e .?lf g ra€o h.r; (6) N 37 r215'
E 22.40 hdi (9) N 5a 5o"9 g 3528 F.6t; rhcnc. drp.ning ..ir, todh.dy toundafy N
tcr.. N 5e 5(r2g E a3.70 fsot; th.n6 S 37 09'31' E qeo t..t; lhcnc. N 52 so?f E
f E e1.3C bsi: ih€oc. S 37 0931' E 220.02 l..t 10 Gor. Cn *i lhorE lh.loto.irC
sr; (4 S 22 3136 W r2,Er7 ft.r; (3) i 53 37S' r 119.3a l..t: (.{} S a5 3i56' W
{tJ? lEti }l.nc. N 57 259 W laa.@ le+ thcn . N
',
0a3i'W t 18.45 b.t lc lh.
!cr{. nDta (' lFr.
i County Cable Vision
'7.2833A to allow a residentialdrivewayto
Lot 16, Vail Potato Patch\782 Potato Patch Dr.
8.58.020 to allow the construction of two
tck which exceed 3 feet, located on Lot 10,
and The Town of Vaif
7.28.3301o allow a residential driveway to
Lot 14, Block A, Vail das Schone Filing No.
qrior alteration and setback variance for the Vail
:t 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing\S20
qlqlST^,t* I
W)Y
W ' 4. A request for a work session on the proposed 1992\1993 Environmenlal Work
/ Program.
lqJ,/
V ' Staff: Fussell Forrest and susan Scanlan
- , 7. A request for a maior amendment to SDD #4, Gascade Village, to amend the
Y deveiopment plan lor the Waterford and Cornerstone parcels in area A, described as
/ \ follows:
That part of tho SW 1l.l NE l/rt, Section 12, Township 5 South. Range 8l West of th€ Sixh Pdncipd
Meridian, Tonn ol Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described as follows:
Beginning at a point on he souherly right+f-way line of Inl€rstate Highway No. 70 wh€n6 an iron Ftin wift a
plastic cap mad<ing fie oenter of said Seclion l2 bears S 93'10'19' W 1447.03 teeti thenoe along $aiJ
souhly right'of-way Ine lwo oourses
1) N 52'5029' E 22s.68 feet
2) N 74"38'lr E 160.70 feett
thence deparring said souherly righr-of-way line N 88".15'57'E 138.93 feet; lhencs S 40'45'14' W 9i1.32 fs€t;
thence S 18. 18'36'W 54.08 teet: thenoe S 01'21'36'W 205.02 teetl thenc€ S 12"0736'W 110.25 fseti
thenco S 28'2836'W 164.4a fuet f|enco N 40'1704'W 211.16 teeti thencg N 49"47fi'E 97.80 f6el;
thenc€ N 3fO€'31' W 95:59 teet;t|6ncB S 52'50'29' W 55.10 teet; lhenc€ 69.48 teet along the aro of a non-
tangent curr€ to he left havirvg a radus of 65.00 feet, a central angle of 61'14'42' and a clDrd thal hars N
58. 55,53. w 65.22 test tlenc€ N 3?.09'31- W 118.50 foet To The True Pc'inl of Beginnhg, county ot Eegle.
Stalo of Coloradot and the Comerstrcne paroel described as lollows:
Building O Site
That part of h€ SW 114 NE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5 sbulh, Rangs 81 Wast of th€ Sixh Prircipal
MEddian, Tqpn of Vail, County ot Eagle, State of Colorado, descriH as follov"s:
Boginnlng al a polnt on lhe easterly line of a non+xdusfu€ easom€nt for ingress and egrc8s known a3
Westhaven Driw recordsd in bok121at Pag€ 651 in fre office ot dre Eagle County, Colorado, Cle* ard
Record€r wh€nc€ t|s csnter of said Sbclion 12 b6ars S 38o34'/fit1 / 1,168.27 f€eti lhenae aloflg said lino ol
Westhaven Orivo N 52"€'41'E 143.92 bst; f|enca depaning said line of Weethanen DrivE. 132.24 fe6t along
tha arc of a non-tangent cuNe to the lefi having a radus of 55.00 teet, a centsal angl€ of l3P453O' and a
chord f|at b€ars N 42'11'4ti'E 102.61 te€q thenca N 52'50'29'E 55.24 teet; thencs S 3f0931'E 95.59 b€t;
thence S 49"4256W 97.80 leeh frence S 4c17'04'E 24,12 teel; thenoe S 52'5o29'Yy 213.66 t€€t; thence N
3P09'314V 105,76 teet |o hs point ol beginning conaining 0.6848 acres more or less.
Applicant: MECM Enterprises represented by Eustaquio Cortina and
Gommercial Federal $avings.Planner: Shelly Mello
8. A request for for an amendment to Chapter 18.57 Employee Housing for the Town of
VailZoning Code.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
Published in the Vail Trail on September 1 1, 1 992
o
SrmEn" Surrrl & Fnevrprox,:
o
Ir.tc.
REAL ESTAIE BROKERS AND CONSUI-TANTS
230 BRIDGE STREET
v4rL, coLoRADO 81657
TEI,EPHONE
(s's3) 4762421
TELEFAX
<303) 476-2658
Werrrber 25, 1W2
Shellq Mello
Connnaity D*ebpment Affrce
Town of Vail
75 So Frontage RoadWest
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Com.erstonc Parcel, Scmafio 2, Rer;oni;z.lg Plan
Deu Ms. Mello:
At the lost P.E.C. ,neetine I felt it becamc apparent tlut P.E.C. wat rnt going to qryrove
the 12 dwelling mi* we were reque$ing h Scenafio 2 Durfury the mcah6, I wga*ed. that
we would be satisftcd wiih a plan that allowed 6 d.welling wtits, with ,p rqstal twtr{rctiotr;.
In thd same pla4 we would have 34 TR unia and 2 employee housirg uni*. We would still
hsve the rcmmercial sprce and the appropriate arnawrt of parking rcWit"n
In kzqtry wiilt this nact scenaio, of primary Inpoftance to Commscial Fed,ual is (a)
Sffiitrg confuminiam writtt fusisned hto the Comcrstonc buildbg ed (b) havfu those
condomiaiwa carry no ra*rictiow for rcntal requirene-nts. We ue anefiWittg to bign a
buiWing thatwill alirlw ads,ebperto build and.realize enotqh of arcarnto mol@ itworth
his while to go through ihe Sort Without coilominiams to sell, and having only hotd
ftxrms utd conmercial to devebp, this building will rut be built If the town is in fact
concented. about the availability of hotel accommodatiotu, it do6 very little good to mtE a
bttikliilg in such a way tha there is no pwsibility of it being built
Scsrub 2, as we a.re atnently gives the town an dditiaml 35 hotel rooms and
a il'welapr 6IwEl condomhiurw *tat can be sold offto help cover the costs of anutre-tb* This is certahly a compromisq and I feel a reasonable onc.
OFFICES IN VAIL A\D BFAVhR CREEK
I
Pqe 2
Mello
*you cwt se,e from the accompanyhg mqp, we have locadke dnehingwdts as poposd
h the ust wing ar.d on the upper floor of he Conurstorc fuildirre Wc hnc bcated thc
dwe$hg utits h thece qea becatue this affods the sb a nfuminiumt w,cllet vicwt up
towards tIrc ski lift
Because the proposed. plan is for
rquiremut of the urd*. The type of bvyer for one of thete condomiaiums ,)W want tu rent,
but in genaral the Purchasqs want complcte fredom to choose where and how ofnt thcir
Wprty nnil be offenlfor rental, if at aU
The TR'c Mthe cordomhfur?uwillbe abletobe separutedh such away hartcTRwrits
will be h the wqt whg on l"cvels 82 and 92 The wrdomhiuttts wottld then be on Isvel
102 wd the east w'tttg of 82 ond 92. This allaws for easy sepuafion of fie *o types of war.
sr4E6jE-\
\ ]
-"n-.:\------ +f:- ../' lj,"-^- ."
Ierry Mullikinl '*-
rMlie
a flf[ [1
(0$P y
Present
Jeff Bowen
Diana Donovan
Kathy Langenwalter
Dalton Wlliams
Applicant:
Planner:
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
September 14, 1992
Town of Vail
Mike Mollica
Staff Present
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Andy Knudtsen
Tim Devlin
, $helly'[&'
Jim Curnutte
'f . Starting at approximately 2:2A P.M., a joint work session with DRB was held to discuss
a request for a conditional use permit for an addilion to the Municipal Building to house
the Vail Police Department, located at 75 S. Frontage Road West (at the east end of
the exisling Municipal Building).
A part ot $6 Southeast 1/4 ot Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 80 west ol he Sixth Principal Meddian,
County of Eagl€, State of Colora&, mo@ panbulady described as follows: Commercing at the Souheasl
corner ol sau Section 6, fience North 00 d€gre€s 28 minutes 16 seoonds WeEt and along lhe Easl lins ol
said Southeast 1/4 of said Seclion 6 72.75 the Easl line of said Southeast 1/4 ol said Seolion 5 72.75 feet to
a point, said point bEing 110.00 teet norhsasterly trom ths southerly righl-olway line ot U.S. Highway No, 6
ag measured at r'lght angles rheretoi thence Norlh 79 degr€es 46 minutes 11 seconds West and along a line
parallel to said southedy right-of-way line 145.50 leet to TI|e True Point ol Eeginning; thencs North 16
dogr€es 08 miDubs 47 secords Ebst 78.00 ,eet; thenco Nonh 68 degroes 08 minutss 35 s€cords West
428.70 teet: lhenoe North 66 degrees 01 minutes 29 seconds We6t 152.57 feet; thenos Souh 27 degrees 42
.. minutes .O seconds West 192.66 feet; fienoe South 52 degrees 48 minutss 50 seconds East 36.32 feet to a
point, said point being .|10.00 leet nonheast hom said South right-oFway line of U.S. Highway No. 6 as
m€cur€d at right angles ther€lo; th€rre South 79 d€gre66 46 minut€s 11 seconds East and along a line
parallel to said Souh right of way line 585.56 l€€t to The True Point of geginning.
Exoept lhar podion conveysd to fie goard ol County Commissioners of Eagle County, and lhe Departmont of
Highways, State ot Colorado by rule and order reoorded January 5, 1971 in Book 219 at Page 441.
A site visit was made at which time the building tootprint was staked out and a balloon
was raised to the ridge height of the building in three areas.
At the work session it was generally discussed that the mass of the building wErs not in
keeping with the theme of the Village, that the retaining walls should be terraced and
softened more to break up the wall heights, that the number of parking spaces may not
be adequate, and that the building height should be lowered and that the building mass
should be broken into different buildings, or redesigned. lt was also a concern of the
PEC that the landscaping plan be carefully thought out. lt was the general consensus
that the building should be modified to incorporate all of the concems mentioned.
t
The public meeting was called to order at 3:33 P.M. by Chairperson Diana Donovan.
1. A request for a work session to discuss a proposal to construct a modular telephone
cell site in the East Vail area.
Applicant:
Planner:
U.S. West\Cellular One\United States Forest Service
Andy Knudsten
Andy Knudsten presented the item to the Planning Commission, introducing persons in
the audience who were in attendance to discuss this issue. Representatives from
Cellular One, and U.S. West were present. The Bsard discussed their concerns and
listed their conditions as follows:
a. The access road that needs to be improved\constructed to allow maintenance
vehicles to reach the cell site should be "finished" so that it can accommodate a
four wheel drive type of vehicle only. Constructing the road so that it can
accommodate concrete trucks (for construction purposes) or the average two
wheel drive type of vehicle may require cutting down trees and will result in an
unsightly, highly visible cut across the mountain side. The PEC recommended,
and the applicants agreed at the meeting, that all construction materials be air
lifted inlo the site.
b. The PEC recommended using four towers at this cell site. By increasing the
number of towers from two to four, the tower height could be reduced belween
15 and 30 feet and the amount of antenna structure on the lowers could also
be reduced. By using two towers, the PEC understood lhat a triangular
superstructure was required on each lower. By providing four lowers, this
superstruclure could be replaced with a cross bar. The PEC believed that this
change would reduce the visibility significantly.
c. All components of this cell site should be located outside all geologic hazard
areas, such as avalanche runs.
d. All components of the cell site should be located in areas that do not preclude
an expansion plan by the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District.
The Town understands that the District is looking at relocating the water tank in
this area. The new location is intended to be located outside hazardous areas
and be somewhat larger in capacity.
The Forest Service will have the final approval or denial decision. Given that the site
is outside the Town boundary, the PEC did not approve or deny the request. They
directed staff to write the Forest service and the County and provide these comments
to the other agencies.
2.A request for a work session for a major amendment to SDD #4, Cascade Village, to
amend the development plan for the Waterford and Cornerstone parcels in Area A, as
described as follows:
Thetpanofhs SW l/4 NE U4, Section 12. Township 5 Soulh, Range 8l West of the Sixh Principal
ttieruian, Tolm ol Vail, Eagl€ County, Colorado, desoribed as follows:
Beginning at a point on the sou*rerly rfuht-of-way lina of Inl€rstate Highway No. 70 whence an iran pin with a
plasdc cap mafting tha @ntar ol sakj Sbcrion 12 bears S 33o1O19'W 1447.03l€eq rhencs along said
souherly righrct-way lin€ two oourses
1) N 52"50'29' E 22S.66 leet
2) N 74'38'17'E 160.70 fest:
thence departing said soutrerly dght-ot- ay line N 88"45'57' E 138.93 leet; lhence S 40'45'14'W 94.32 foet;
thence S 18" 18'36'W 54.0S teel; thence S 01"2136'W205.02 teet; thonco S 12"0736'W t10.25 teet;
rhenoe S 28028'35'W 154.48 feet; thence N 40 '1704'W 211.16 fe€t; thence N 49'42'56' E 97.80 feet;
thence N 37"0931'W 95.59 feet; lhence S 52"50'29'W 55.10 leet; hence 69.48 feet along the arc of a non-
tangent cuwe F he |ett havr'ng a radius of 65.00 feet, a central angle of 61'14'42'and a chord that b€ars N
58o 5653" W 66.22 teet; henco N 37"09'31' W 1 18.50 feet To The Tru€ Point ol Beginning, County of Eagle.
Stat6 of Colorado: ard lhe Comersnne garc€l describ€d as follows:
Buildng C Site
That part of drs SW 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the Sxh Principal
Meridian. Town of Vail, County ol Eagle, State of Colorado, described a6 followE:
Eeginning at a point on th€ sa$ledy liAe ot a non-excbsive easernent for ingress and egress known as
Wesbayen Drive recorded in Book 421 at Page 651 in the otfic€ ol the Eagle Gounty, Colorado, Cbrk end
Recorder whence the conter of said Section 12 bears S 38"34'€"W 1,168.27 leet; thenoe along said line ol
Weslhaven Drive N 52'43'41'E 143.92 teet: hence departing said line of Weshaven Driv€, 132.24 teer along
the atc of a non-langent cajrve to the left having a radius ol 55.00 l6et, a central angle ol 137'4530' and a
chord thal bears N 42'11'46'E 102.61 fset; thenc€ N 52"50'29'E 65.24 teel; thence S 37'@'31'E 95.59 feet;
lhence S 4S'42'56'W 97.80 leet; hence S 40'17'04'E 24.12 leet; thence S 52'50'29'W 213.66 feet; th€nce N
37"0931'W 105.75 feol b lhe point of b€ginning containing 0.684t1 acre6 more or less.
Applicant:MECM Enterprises represented by Eustaquio Cortina and
Commercial Federal Savings
Planner: Shelly Metlo
Shelly Mello presented this item to the Planning Commission. The originalsite plan
was presented showing the original approvals of locations and styles of buildings,
roofs, walhfiays, parking, and setbacks. Shelly explained the proposed Scenario 1
and Scenario 2 for the Cornerstone proiect. Shelly delineated the four departures from
the original approval, and the three concems of the staff: DU's vs. AU's; amount of
commercial space and the relationship of public areas of Cornerstone to existing public
spaces. Parking requirements and loading facilities were discussed as a concern of
the PEC. Mixed use parking credits were discussed. lt was the general consensus
that no parking credits should be granted to either project. Ned Gwathmey, architect
for the project, suggested that the parking reguirements be considered separately for
the two projects, since there will ultimately be two separate owners and that projects
should be considered on their own. Kathy Langenwalter recommended thal the
applicant work with the same heights as originally approved for Waterford and
Comerstone. Other than a concern for density, Kathy Langenwalter believed that the
archibcture of the proposed project is similar to original approval, however, the ends of
the buildings need attention, and that the roof should possibly tie in with the
Convention center. As well, lGthy Langenwalter felt another employee unit should be
3.
added to the proposal.
Diana Donovan stated there is a need lo examine how the entire project works in
respect to the mix of uses, designs, parking, etc. She explained that the original
concept of the area was to have lodge rooms for the Conlerence Cenler. lt was
further discussed that the building mass for Waterford needed to be reduced. The
heights ol the buildings as stated by the applicant (65') ditfered from the actual
drawings which have a height of 78 tt. Shelly Mello pointed out that the Ordinance
states the buildings are to be 61 ft. Ned Gwathmey agreed that the buildings would be
lowered in height.
Kathy Langenwalter added that the bike path and the landscaping for Waterford needs
to b€ designed similar to the existing Westin Complex treatment. The question of
parking credits was raised, Ned Gwathmey stated that the HOMF criteria are
acceptable. Diana Donovan read Greg Amsden's concerns which included parking
considerations; architecture still needs refinement; and what is the tocal point of the
entry?
Jeff Bowen discussed concerns of too much development on too little land. He
expressed concern about the bulk and mass being too large for the property size as it
relates to parking and access. Jeff Bowen went on to point out that the Westin is no
longer a single proiect. What would rent, what would sell, and the economics of the
proposal should be considered so that the project would be successful.
Kathy Langenwalter said she is not concerned with the economic issue, but the
landscaping, architecture, and parking. Fred Otto, representing MECM, said that 11
units have been sold and thai they are optimistic that the project will be successful.
Dalton Williams said he likes the project in relation to the Frontage Road but that the
creek side is not as attractive. He said that he believed that residential units are
appropriate at Waterford. Kristan Pritz read Sherry Dorward's comments, representing
the DRB. She liked the Waterford project and felt that Cornerstone should make a
connection with the creek at the southeast corner ol the building with landscaping and
public spaces, and that the first floor should incorporate a restaurant to add activity to
the pedestrian space between the Teraca Wing and Cornerslone.
A request lor a work session for front and side setback variances and a variance to
allow parking in the front setback for the construction of a triplex located at 44 Wllow
Road/Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Village First Fiting.
Applicant: TowermarcPlanner: Shelly Mello
Shelly Mello presented the request to the Commission, with Ned Gwathmey, the
architect, and property representatives and owners of adjacent properties in
attendance. lt was the general consen$Js of the Board that the proposed struclure
was an improvement and architecturally acceptable. The setback issues were
unanimously agreed to be of concern. The PEC stated lhat no encroachment into the
rear setback adjacent to Vail Road would be acceptable. Encroachments atong Wiltow
I
4.
Circle also needed to be pulled back. Landscaping needed to be addressed along Vail
Road, Willow Road, and the east side of the building. ll was requested that the
pedestrian access from Vail Road to the project be consolidated and gates and
columns be minimized. The adjacent property owners unanimously stated that their
concerns were that the drainage needed to be studied and managed, the deck on the
Willow Road side needs to be reduced in size, and that during construction, the site be
kept neat and construction materials be contained properly. For the next PEC
meeting, the staff stated that the decks, the building, and setbacks would need to be
staked.
A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow for the addition of bay windows at
Gotthelf's Jewelry located at 122 East Meadow Drive\Block 5-E, Vail Village First Filing
(Village Cenler Shops).
Applicant: Fred HibberdPianner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica presented this item to the Commission and it was discussed whether to
have flat or sloped tops to the bays. Sid Schultz, the applicant's architect, stated he
would review the design further and present il to the DFIB for their approval. Jeff
Bowen motioned to approve the request, with Dalton Williams seconding. lt was
unanimously voted 4-0 to approve this request per the staff memo.
A request for a variance {rom the parking standards for paving to allow for a gravel
parking lot located at the ABC School\l49 N. Frontage Road, an unplatted site
commonly relerred to as the Mountain Bell site, north of 1-70 and west of the Main Vail
1-70 interchange.
Applicant The ABC School, Inc, represented by Holly BukacekPlanner: Shelly Mello
Kristan Pritz presented this request to the Commission. The future proposal for the
possibility of an employee housing project on the site gives reason to extend the
conditional use for three years, however, not to approve a variance. Kathy
Langenwalter motioned to approve the request, with a second by Dalton Williams. A
unanimous vote 4-0 denied the variance and a second molion by Kathy Langenwalter
to extended the conditional use, with a se@nd by Jeff Bowen, was approved by a vote
of 4-0 based on the staff memo,
A request for a work session to discuss a setback variance to allow an addition to the
residence located at 716 Forest Road/Lot 10, Block 1, VailVillage Sixttr Filing.
Applicant: Charles AckermanPlanner: Tim Devlin
Tim Devlin reviewed this work session item with the Commission. The applicant
explained revised plans from those that were reviewed in the staff memo that would
enclose portions of the existing deck already under roof. The request is for a 6 loot
side setback encroachment. lt was discussed and the general consensus was that it
was an improvement over the original variance request. Staff believes that the
5.
6.
7.
concems in the memo had been addressed. The applicant was directed to amend his
request per the new drawings for the September 28th PEC meeting.
A request for a site coverage variance to allow an addition to the residence located at
Lot 1, Vail Village Thirteenth Filing/3025 Booth Falls Road.
Applicant: William and Julie EsreyPlanner: Mike Mollica
This item was tabled, at the applicant's request, until the Seplember 28, 1992,
meeting. The vote was 4-0 for approval of the tabling.
A request to amend the development plan at the Gold Peak ski base to allow the
addition of two ski tows located adjacent to th6 Vail Associates Children's Centen498
Vail Valley Drive\as well as the Golden Peak tennis courts\Tract B Vail Village,
Seventh Filing.
Applicant: Vail Associales, represented by Joe MacyPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudsten presenled lhis request to the Commission with the representative Joe
Macy. Andy Knudtsen presented pictures of the poma and a magic carpet at
Breckenridge. In attendance were also Mr. and Mrs. Brown and Mr. and Mrs. Higbie,
adjacent property owners. Discussion was held regarding the planting of trees to
screen the lift from the Brown's and Higbie's residences and to add access for the
Higbie's to ski to their residence. Joe Macy agreed lo plant two spruce for the Browns
at their designated location. Jefl Bowen made the motion and Kathy Langenwalter
provided the second, and the Planning Commission approved the request with a 4-0
vote. The conditions of approval which were placed on the proposal are as follows:
a. Prior to the operation of the poma lift for the 92-93 ski season, the applicant will
plant two 7 foot tall spruce trees in locations specified by Mr. Brown, the
adjacent propeny owner.
The previous approval for the Mighty Mite shall become void upon approval of
this requesl.
The base terminal of the poma lift shall be moved 76' south from the location
shown on the engineer's drawings, dated 7\28\92 drawn by Tramway
Engineering.
The applicant shall plant several tall bushes and install a fence around the top
platform of the magic carpet so that it will prevent children from accidently
skiing down the berm on the north side. The applicant shall provide approval
from Manor Vail regarding the bushes and fencing to be constructed at the top
of the berm, stating that Manor Vail approves of the additional material.
The applicant shall apply materiat to the side ol the magic carpet other than
"indoor-outdoor' carpeting. The material to be used on the side shall be
approved by DRB. The PEC recommends a material such as cedar siding, if it
8.
e.
would allow proper maintenance and operation of the lift.
f. The applicant shall provide a letter to staff from the manutacturer of the
conveyor belt stating that any unintended use of the lift, such as jumping on it,
will not be damaging to the lift or potentially injurious to an individual.
g. The PEC recommends that the DRB consider the "Long lsland" color of
carpeting (a tan\brown color) for the surface of the platforms and deck area on
either side of the conveyor belt.
9. A request for a conditional use permit and setback variances lo allow construction ol a
ski tow at the Uonshead base area located on Tracks D and B, Vail\Lionshead First
Filing, sou$r of 520 E. Lionshead Circle (Lionshead Center Building).
Applicant: Vail Associates, represenled by Joe MacyPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudsten presented this request to the Board. Joe Macy represented Vail
Associates. A brochure of the magic carpet was presented by Mr. Macy to show what
the magic capet looks like. General discussion was held concerning covering the
sides lor protection ol the equipment and to improve aesthetics. A motion by Kathy
Langenwalter and a second by Jeff Bowen, voted 4-0 to approve your request to
amend the Development Plan. The conditions of approval are as follows:
a. The applicant shall provide a regrading plan of the area for staff and DRB
review and approval. The grading plan should address the pedestrian skier
bridge, ensuring that access to that bridge is not blocked by any of the
regrading plan. All grades shall be less than 2:1 slope. The grading plan shall
be redesigned so that the ground is flush with the conveyor belt on the north
side of the lift.
b. The applicant shall provide writlen approval from all utility companies, stating
that the proposal is not in conflict with any use ot the easement.
c. The applicant shall apply material to the side of the magic carpet other than
'indoor-ouldoor'carpeting. The material to be used on the side shall be
approved by DRB. The PEC recommends a material such as cedar siding, if it
would allow proper maintenance and operation of the lift.
d. The applicant shall revegetate the ground, up to the east side of the Chair I
terminal, prior to the operation of the lift.
10. A request lor a setback variance to allow for a new garage and an expansion to an
existing residence, located at 4238 Nugget Lane\Lot 5, Bighorn Estates.
Applicant W.C. and CarolSmail
11.
Planner: Shelly Mello
Kathy l-angenwalter presented this issue to the Commission stating that the house is
under contract and that the request is really made by the Connollys. General
discussion of garage sizes was held and the impact on the surrounding area. lt was a
general consensus that the garage size was not of concern, however, that existing
landscaping and trees be preserved by fencing, and if any existing aspens are lost as
a result of the construction, thal they will be replaced with two 3' - 4" caliper aspens.
As well, if the large aspen to the south of the parking area is lost, then the parking
space will be enlarged to meet the Town's standards and new vegetation as indicated
in condition 1 will be added. Jeff Bowen motioned to approve the request except tor
#3 restricting the size of the garage. Dalton William$ seconded the molion. The PEC
voted unanimously to approve the request 3-0-1 with the above conditions, with Kathy
Langenwalter abstaining.
Diana Donovan stated that with the corrections to the minutes that the minutes to the,
August 24, 1992 PEC meeling were approved. A motion was made by Jeff Bowen to
approve the minutes as corrected. Dalton Williams seconded. A vote was taken and
the motion passed unanimously.
As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:16 P.M.
Fcvdnuir3\og14e
MEMORANDTJM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM:Community Devclopment Departnrent
September 14,1992DATE:
SIJBJECT: A request for a work session for a major amendment to SDD #4 Cascade
Village to amend the development plan for the Waterford and Cornerstone
parcels in Area A.
Applicant MECM Enterprises represented by Eustaquio Cortina and
Commercial Federal Savings
Planner: Shelly Mello
INTRODUCTION
In July of L992, the PEC reviewed a proposed amendment to the Cascade Village
SDD #4, Area A Development Plan. The proposal specifically addressed the
Waterford site located at the comer of Westhaven Drive and the South Frontage Road.
Upon completion of this work session, it was decided that in order to move fonvard
with the amendment to the Waterford site, that the Comerstone site to the west of
S/aterford would also need to be amended. The changes to the Cornerstone_site are
necessary because currently there is an intcrdependence between the two sites as it
relates to the provision of parking. Each site is owned by independent entities and it
is their desires to eliminate any interdependence between the two sites. &gg4l o:!
this effort is two development plans which can be constructed indenendent of the
other.
For the purposes of this work session, the staff memo will focus on the poposed
development for Comerstone and limit comments on the Waterford site to issues of
ongoing concern.
DESCRIPTION OF TI{E REOUEST
The applicant is requesting a work session to review a proposed major amendment to
Special Development Disuict (SDD) No. 4, Cascade Village Area A and morc
specifrcally, the Cornerstone and Waterford sites. The Cornerstone parcel is bound by
the proposed Waterford project to Ore easq Gore Cheek and the Westin Terrace
o
ff.
Building to the south and Westhaven Drive to the north. The Waterford parcel is on
the corner of the South Frontage Road and Westhaven Drive. Both parcels were
zoned SDD from the time they were annexed iuto the Town of Yul in 1974.
Both properties haye changed ownership and the current owners do not wish to
continue the previously approved development concepts. In addition, as discussed in
Section I of this memo, the owners wish to eliminate any dependence between the
Waterford and Comerstone sites.
BACKGROUIp
The Cascade Village Development was previously owned by a single development
entity. As proposed by the past developer, the pmject was a system of interdependent
phases to be built into an integrated complex which provided commercial areas, short-
term and long+erm residential units and consolidated parking facilities. Since the
bankruprcy of this original developer, ownership of the sites has been dispersed among
different owners. This plan is now more difficult to execute, as each owner has
different ideas on how to develop their respective sites. The change in ownership
effects the Cornerstone project because, as approved, all of the parking for the
Cornerstone project was to be located on the Waterford site, These projects are now
held by 2 unrelated entities who wish to provide their own parking on each site. A
total of 166 parking spaces were to be provided in the Waterford project for the
Cornerstone development.
An additional outstanding issue in the Cascade Village development is the ownership
status of Westhaven Drive, from the South Frontage Road to the Gore Geek Bridge.
The road is owned by the applicant, MECM Enterprises, and is privately maintained.
This road has not been conveyed to the Town because it does not meet the Town's
minimum road standarrds, however, there appears to be a public access easement.
Attached, please find a copy of a lettcr sent to Frank Freyer, a representative of the
previous owner of the roadway, which specifies the deficiencies of the roadway.
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Comparison of Aoproved and Prooosed Develonment Plans for
Cornerstone
Approved
Scenario
50 TR*
tv.
l) Density *+
(# of Units)
Proposed
Scenario I
5?AV+1emp.
unit
Proposed
Scenario 2
24 AU's +
12 DU's,
I emp. unit
2
-
I
from the rest of the unit in a closet. A transient swelling unit shall be accessible frsm
common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing through another
accommodation unit, dwelling unit, or 2 transient residential dwelling unit. Should
such units be developed as condominiums, they shall be restricted as set forth in
Section 17.26.m5--17.26.120 governing condominium conversion. The unit shall not
be used as a pennanent rcsidence. Fractional fee ownership shall not be allowed to be
applied to fiansient dwelling units. For the purposes of determining allowable density
per acre, transient residential dwelling units shall be countcd as one half of a dwelling
unit. The transient residential dwelling unit parking requirement shall be 0.4 space per
unit plus 0.1 space per each 100 square feet of GRFA with a maximum of 1.0 qpace
per unit.
* Employee units do not count towards density or GRFA per the curent
SDD,*4 Ordinance.
B. Comparison of Approved and Prooosed Development Plans for Waterford
Approved Approved
Scensriol Scenario2 ProDosed
l) Density
(# of Units) 75 AUs 30 DUs 27 DUs+
I restricted emp.
unit
2) GRFA 47,500 sq. ft. 47,500 sq. ft. 47,500 sq.ft.
+ 900 sq. ft
restricted emp.
unit *
3) Common Area as per as per To be determined
approved approved
plan plan
I 4) Retail Space 3,8fi) sq. fe 3,800 sq. ft. 0
5) Credits Given None None To be
determined
4
48 feet l
61 feet i
61 feet
48 feet
6) Height
North
'South
East
West
7) Setbacks
8) Site Coverage
9) Parking
. as per
as per
approved
plan
72.7 spaces
(757o enclosed)
48 feet
61 feet
61 feet
48 feet
as per
approved
plan
as per
approved
plan
87.7 spaces
(757o enclosed)
51 feet
67-78 fwt
70 feet
54 feet
North 5 ft. to parking
South 40 ft.
East 12 ft.
West 12 ft.
as p€r
proposed
dev. plan
57 spaces
required
60 proposed
43 enclosed or757o
of req., 19 surface
Employee units do not count towards density or GRFA per the cturent
SDD #4 Ordinance.
V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA
The criteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the nine Special Development District
(SDD) development standards set forth in the special development district chapter of the
Tnning Code. The criteria are as follows:
A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment,- neighborhood and adjacent propertim relative to ardritectural design,
scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual
integrity and orientation.
Cornerstone
The proposed building is similar in mass and form to the approved building
plans and to the adjacent Westin C-omplex. The building shell will remain the
plan
same for each proposed scenario. There are four departr:res in regard to
building mass, from the original plan. The first of these is one additional floor
in the building. This is necessitated by the location of parking in this building
which was previously appmved to be located in the Waterford Building. A
second change, which is also due to the introduction of parking on this site, is
the vehicular access way on the west end of the building. The thfud change
relates to the roof form. With the approved plan, the roof form inco4rorated
two building levels and therefore, decreased the visual impact of the elevations.
This roof form is not incorporated into the curent proposal. Thc fourth change
deals with the pedestrian passage from Westhaven Drive to the ski lift level.
The mass of this element should be studied to provide a stronger pedestrian
entry element.
There is a severe grade change on this site from Westhaven Drive to the ski
Iift\public space level. This, along with the configuration of the site, plesent
many practical difficulties. Due to the gfade change, the visual impacts of
each building elevation are very different and because each side of the building
is exposed to the public ways, staff believes each elevation of the building to
be very important.
In regard to this criteria, the staff has the following overall concems:
1. The increase in height and visual impact of elevation mass on
pedestrian areas;
2. Impact of building mass due to the vehicular access, as it relarcs
to the public areas at the ski lift/public area level in front of the
Terrace Wing;
3. Architecoral details of elevations.
Waterford
The staff feels that further study should be given to the mass and elevations of
each "tower" of t}re building in order to break up the mass of the building.
Variation of the roof form, the use of different colors, stucco details and the
use of balconies similar to the Westin complex should be considered to further
break up the mass. 'We would like to see the applicant bring the height into
closer compliance with the original approval. It is clear that some increase in
height is necessary because of the relocation of the building mass. However,
we believe some height could be lost.
Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, elfrcient andB.
workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
Comerstone
The applicant is proposing two scenarios for this site. Prreviously, there was a single
dcvelopment plan which included accommodation units, and mixed commercial uses.
Scenario I provides for 52 accommodation units, 12,000 square feet of commercial
area and 94 enclosed par{<ing spaces. Scenario 2 provides 12 dwelling units and 24
accommodation units, 12,000 square feet of commercial and 82 parking spaces. The
residential density docs not dramatically differ, however, the requested change to allow
dwelling units (versus accommodation units) is a substantial departure from the
original plan for Cascade Village. The initial intent for Comerstone was to provide
short term rentals which, it was believed, would subsequently increase the use of the
entire C-ascade facility.
A second change in the proposed program is the deletion of a portion of the approved
commercial space. In the Waterford project, the staff supported the deletion of the
commercial space. On this site, due to its proximity to the existing Terrace Wing
commercial arca, staff feels it is important to maintain a considerable portion of the
commercial square footage. With the approved development plan, there was a great
deal of eonsideration given to the public spaces on the site. Specifically, the
passageway and outdoor stair connecting Westhaven Drive to the ski lift and public
space in front of the Terrace Wing, as well as the relationship of the Cornerslone
public areas to the rcst of the Westin Complex. This was accomplished with a series
of connected plazas and other site amenities. With this proposal, the pedestrian appeal
of some of these elements would be decreased because of the parking ramp. The staff
feels that further sudy should be given to the relationship of the proposed pmject to
the existing facilities in the area.
Staff concems:
1. Change in residential dwelling use from accommodation units to
dwelling units. Staff feels that the provision of accommodation units on
this site is important.
2. The amount of commercial square footage which should be provided.
3. Rclationship of public areas of the proposed Cornerstone development
to the existing public qpaces.
C. Compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined in
Chapter 1852.
Comerstone
Scenario 1, with the proposed accommodation units and commercial square footage,
requires 94 parking spaces. Scenario 2 with dwelling units, and commercial squarre
footage requires 82 parking spaces. Because this site was not originally to have on-
sib parking, the approved development did not attempt to accommodate this type of
use. The introduction of parking on site has subsequently increased the size of the
building.
Under Section 18.52 of the Municipal Code, each dwelling unit with less than 2,000
sguare feet of GRFA would have a parking requirement of 2 spaces and those with
over 2,000 square feet of GRFA would require 2.5 spaces per unit. Those with less
than 500 square feet require 1.5 spaces. The parkirrg requirements for accommodation
units is as follows: .4 space per accommodation unit, plus .1 space per each 100
sguarc foot of GRFA with a maximum of I space per uniL
The loading facilities for this project should also be studied further. The applicant is
proposing to use the existing loading facilitics for the Conference Wing to the west.
Conceptually, the staff believes that this would be inadequate and additional loading
areas should be provided.
As state4 the staff is conccmed about the impact of the parking structure acsess mmp
. on the pedestrian plaza benveen the Terrace Wing and the proposed C-omentone
building.
Waterford
The applicant has rcvised the proposal which was previously reviewed at thc work
session for this project. The requir€d number ofparking spaces has beon incorl'orated
into the oroiecl The 757o enclosed parking reouirement has been met as well. Therc
was no mixed-use parking credit given for ttris site.
However, because this is a mixed-use development, a parking credit can be given.
This amount of credit should be determined through this amendmcnt process. The
approved project was given a 17 -5% credit. This would appear to have been based on
the total number of parking spaces in all of Cascade Village. With the curent
prqnsal, if you consider the Cornerstone facility independently, the project would
receive between O-2.5% parking credit.
are considered
Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan,
Tovrn policies and Urban Design Plans.
For this area, the Town's Land Use PIan states:
D.
I
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a
balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to scrve
both the visitor and the permanent resident.
l.l2 VaiI should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing
developed areas (infill areas).
1.13 Vail recognizes its sream rract as being a desirablc land feature as well
as its potential for public use.
3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently.
\3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail,
thereforc convenion to condominiums should be discouraged.
\.+ Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas
to accommodate both local and visitor needs.
\,Entertainment oriented businesses and cultural activities should be
encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More night time .
businesses, on going events and sanctioned "street happenings" should
be encouraged.
Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in
existing, planed areas and as appropriate in new areas where high
hazards do not exist.
5-3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private
efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail,
with appropriate restrictions.
5.4 Residential gpowth should keep pace with the market place demands for
a full range of housing types.
5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded.
Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied
sites throughout rhe community.
Comerstone
When the Cascade Village development was proposed, there was a
comprehensive plan developed which prcvided a balance of long- and short-
term housing. The current Scenario 2 proposal requests a change to allow
dwelling units versus short-term accommodation units. The staff feels that it is
5.1
important to maintain units which are available for short-term use.
This area is also considered to be a mixed commercial center for the Town,
similar to Lionshead and Vail Village. The reduction of commercial square
footage should be looked at carefully. However, staff agrees that some
reduction in commercial is necessary because of parking.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazrrds that affect
the property on which the special development district is proposed.
Comerstone
There are no natural and/or geologic hazards on this site which would resEict
its developmenl
Waterford
This proposal complies with the Town's flood plain requirements and the 50'
Gore Cbeek setback. The applicant is considering relocating the existing bike
path 5 to 10 feet to the south in order to further increase the buffer betwcen the
bike path and the building. If this is proposed, then the relocation would need
to consider the floodplain and creek setback. Location ofexisting vegetation
would also need to be considered.
F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed
to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural
features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
Cornerstone
The basic layout of the proposed plan and the approved plan are similar.
When comparing the currrnt proposal, including the parking facilitv. to the
approved plan, the overall setbacks are similar. The biggest difference is the
addition of the mass atuibutable to the inroduction of parking on the site.
Waterford
The staff feels that the massing of the proposed building should be studied
further to achieve a terracing of the building mass.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing
on and off-site traffrc circulation.
Cornerstone
The on-site circulation plan should be studied morc closely to determine if
there is a more efficient approach to the ramping and parking system, to
10
I
decrease the visual impact of these elements. The staff is concemed with the
proposed vehicular access on the west end of the building. As proposed, it
would greatly impact the pedesrian mall. We would ask the applicant t<l
consider other access points and circulation systems. The pedestrian area
which passes through the building and down to the ski lift level should also be
studied further in order to create a better pedestrian experience.
In addition to the on-site concerns, the Town is interested in rcsolving an off-
sie circulation concern. This involves the dedication of Westhaven Drive to
the Town. Currently, Westhaven Drive firom the South Frontage Road to the
Gore Creek Bridge is owned by thc applicant. The road does nor meet the
Town's standards and certain improvements related to the grade, construction
and building clearance would need to be addressed by the applicant prior to the
conveyance of the right-of-way. The Town would requirc, as a condition of
any approval of this application, that the roadway be upgraded and dedicated to
the Town. (Please see attached letter).
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open spase in order to optimize
and pr€serye natural features, recreation, views and functions.
Comerstone
Because this site has been substantially disturbed, there are few remaining
natural characteristics. With the proposed density of the project, there would
be limited remaining open space on the site. Because of this, the remaining
landscaped areas become critical. Increasing the landscaping is cspecially
important along Westhaven Drive, and the pedestrian maII area. Staff would
recommend that the applicant consider using a natural planting scheme on the
east side of the building, adjacent to Gore Cleek.
V/aterford
The current Waterford proposal allows for a 5 to 6 foot buffer along the South
Frontage Road. We believe that it is critical *rat there be an adequate buffer
between the proposed surface parking and the property line to ensure that there
will be substantial landscaping between the projecr and the South Frontage
Road" A saong landscape buffer is also important along the east and creek
sides of the building because of the height and building mass proposed in 0ris
area.
L Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional
and eflicient relationship throughout the development of the speciat
development district.
Comerstone Ailaterford
As initially proposed, Comentone and Waterfond were to be constructed
11
simultaneously. This phasing plan was necessitated by the provision of parking
on the Watcrford site for the Corncrstone project. Due to the subsequent
change in ownership of the nvo sites, this becomes a difficult proposition.
However- the staff finds that it is absolutelv critical to the apnroval of anv .
amendment for either the Waterford or Cornerstone nroject. to resolve the
parking issuc in a workable solution.
In the process of reviewing each of these requests, it has become apparcnt to
the suff that when parking is added to the approved development plan for
Comerstone, it becomes difficult to rnaintain the approved development rights
(ie. GRFA, number of units, commercial space). Both Scenario 1 and 2
propose a decrease in commercial space. It may be necessary to also consider
decreasing the number of units and GRFA for this site. This would
subsequently decrease the parking requirements.
V. STAFFCONCERNS
There is no formal staff recommendation at this time. The intent of this worksession is to
grve the applicant initial direction and feedback on the Comerstone Project and further input
on the Waterford project.
In summary, the staff concerns are:
1. Compatibility of building mass with surrounding uses for both Cornerstone and
Waterfordl
2. Increase of landscaping and funher development of public spaces for both projects;
3. Improvements to Westhaven Drive in order to mect TOV standards and subsequcnt
dedication of roadway to the Town of Vail;
4. Resolution of interdependent parking plan for the Cornerstone and Waterford projects,
while considering the impact on the mass and bulk of the Cornerstone project. It may
be necessary to consider decreasing the number of allowed units as well as GRFA for
Cornerstone in order to accommodate the parking now being proposed on the site.
Further decreas€ of both commercial floor area and residential density would
subsequently decrease the parking requiremeng
5. The introduction of a second Scenario to the Cornerstone project with dwelling units
versus ascommodation units for the entire project;
6. All conditions set forth by the Public Works Deparunent and Fire Deparunent, which
relate to proper drainage and fire access, will need to be addressed prior to the final
rcview of the S.D.D.
t2
\\lAra( ro(D
,l
fit
V
=!::1.-__-:=:'*@u
Affiotep
|VKRP&, Wlr')(/
cr6xlzKbroNY_,
PtW"ru\r-iL
A.uLk A1b
I
cohn€nstor{E
-l v':o*z<r+r'o
Sourn eueJAT\onJ
\y
flKOVAP WAffiKYOKDAPr /\{-/ l h-r A u'. t Ar{ \/t-t<
.ADDrTlaF.rA.L r,\r-t DszAPt Nz,
-
?e? €E rf 3. IFL l're.qtrv, .-----.---
./'
./ -)
I l:''il.. i:5=ili#r
i $r
\l$il-t\
l\\\
'\4o' fQn€a#P\/vK#'WP. loa
EAST ELEVATION $ *
NORTH ELEVATION
- SOUTH ELEVATION at+ts f'.?"-o'
Vlt4Wt" 1'fr9
P trlcxj9
4-3-1L
o
U W*.;t-[4
,rlll_tP-
a. tdz:+:-
a\ n?-.r
^AL.qt-
*72
a; 1.2
Y
,,'4
-.i t1>-----l
PForcE.e.a
LoKtJ*.RSffrlffir
e Yho r trb furaaa& 'u!tNJd'
a-3 -nL
o
E
tI
fl
o -.--l
___.1
?+!J+?D:.t-- APjAc€Ntr 1D N&;r1aPu*t
ffiq'3 -aL
ha/po
:_* ArY tro)
l-Ao/Pu
f*K\c rNlr/C,oM
--F-#PA/2 K
*-6|4F4gFa\AL
PA{lKrr..Jo-"+I
eEFtftA1at +F l-Au6r trL€vATtofl
ffi
o
-!-eHAE)o n l-,"-trj,{ Es2ltrloY34J-€.. lt' t Zl)t-an
tI
\___-____.___ - -
l2^PL)Hcsa A)te
\
I
I
?,"Fu7,?'*
SLEj|,\F\O+l
rP,4€77'l |-lFi.e
w\tffiT^,?l'r|#|*4 t&va--'
#:'qlAAC;+lLa/e;+8 (E
----.'-..---_----/
4t Atr/ LotAtAPlactN'' WbL
1-3-1L
54iEllt4.F;lo rf I
LE\/FL 60
-z.a,@
/\^c^?$l n,"t
\eap\ o^ lotrl'\ A&' -
---"----/
r".tt txfP. Ox\ * \ {trfi
i:i-.l-;
.-!-i --
;-r-i-i:'"_-r"
;-rl_'
uaTF vr-i1 WNe
- LA\^JN2 f.tx c% r-^, rr\) !-Y \d V:-* LV
rFl
$
ADr,-
'<-l)
"1>
I
i
osf
7€PEbT7r4Hszev- &..-e35
PA,Ft.tt*- F^t4?EF'c\/HaU-tP.
> f:, q 7e3FLex€L 7Z 3YDs
5F
E(lsTlhlz,Lr+ tP-ufT
ltt^r4ara.ta,L.gD.9 Fr
TAPFlvL
L6,/E' g sUMFIAFY
t€.teL. (o e.elf€,e=lejf.4sl
t7 ?<-4.TaPPAG wtt<.
!','Jr6Tit!. tstr-aEL
Gt
4.\
xal.O
6,sM LFt'gl,"*
Lc#VrlCNl
Uu t1-6
w{&LVl N&-
+e$l1;€,;to ?_
tt-.--..-------.-..---
o?
It-l
%EllhFto*l
LB/ZL 8L
-
lffifDr4 af
lkl arggp<p,,to
D)/5L
-------.------.--
ha/DQ
LeD Ft rna
| &y|Au-
L."f*fr- \^ffifl{4ur+J
1'3 -12
e__
ffiIlA?to.+l#
ffi
1'3-1L
{-Ccp,.1*t Dd o? fui,ttut eMtaL
<{a?ll<Flo+r-
L-F/EL VZw..-ku/Prt L"?t1eD-q*,{WFofffi'
1-8 -12
o
o
g-zHAY)O i*I
?W PL-AN=-^fu WF Pr*A
4lr+
r' 4 Z/"-''10*T ry?OFT'.-fr
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
lhe Town of Vail on September 14, 1992, at 3:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Munlcipal Building.
Consideration ot:
1. A request for a setback variance to allow for a new garage and an expanslon to an
existing residence, located at 4238 Nugget Lane/Lot 5, Bighorn Estates.
Applicant:
Planner:
W.C. and Carol R. Smail
Shelly Mello
A request for a work session for a major amendment to SDD#4, Gascade Village, to
amend the development plan for the Waterford parcel, described as follows:
That part of the SW 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West
of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described
as follows:
Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way line of lnterstate Highway No.
70 whence an iron pin with a plastic cap marking the center of said Section 12
bears S 33"10'19" W 14tr.7.03 feet;thence along said southly right-oFway line
two courses
1) N 52"50'29" E 229.66 feet
2) N 74'38'17'E 160.70 feet;
thence departing said southerly right-of-way line N 88'45'57' E 138.93 feet;
thence S 40'45'14' W 94.32 feet; thence S 18" 18'36" W 54.08 feet; thence S
01"2136. W 205.02feet;thence S 12'07'36'W 110.25 feet;thence S
28'28'36" W 164.48 feet; thence N 40 "17'04" W 211.16 feet; thence N
4942'56'E 97.80 feet; thence N 37'0931'W 95.59 feet; thence S 52'50'29'
W 55.10 feet;thence 69.48 feet along the arc of a non-tiangent curve to the left
having a radius of 65.00 feet, a central angle of 61'14'42'and a chord that
bears N 58" 55'53' W 66.22 feet; thence N 37"09'31' W 118.50 leet To The
True Point of Beginning, County of Eagle, State of Colorado; and the
Gornerstone parcel described as lollows:
Building C Site
That part of the sw 1/4 NE 1/4, secition 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West
of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of
Colorado, described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the easterly line of a non-exclusivs easement for
ingress and egress known as Westhaven Drive recorded in Book 421 alPage
651 in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder whence
the center of said Section 12 bears S 38o34'43"W 1,16827 feet; thence along
said line of Westhaven Drive N 52o43'41"E 1€.92 feet; thence departing said
line of Westhaven Drive, 132.24 feet along the arc of a non-tangent curve to
the left having a radius of 55.00 feet, a central angle of 137o45'30" and a chord
2-
7ru2 r/*/r^
that bears N 42'1 I'46"E 102.61 feet; thence N 52"50'29'E 65.24 teet; thence S
37'0931'E 95.59 feet; lhence S 49'42'56'W 97.80 feet; thence S 40'17'04.E
24.12leet; thence S 52"50'29"W 2'13.66 feet;thence N 37"09'31nV 105.76 feet
to the point of beginning contiaining 0.6848 acr€s more or less.
3.
4,
A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow for the addition of bay windows at
Gotthelf's Jelvelry located at 122 East Meadow Drive/Block 5-E, Vail Village First Filing
(Village Center Shops).
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
MECM Enterprises represented by Eustaquio Cortina
Shelly Mello
Fred Hibberd
Mike Mollica
Town of Vail
Mike Mollica
A request for a work session for a conditional use permit lor an addition to the
Municipal Building to house the Vail Police Department, located at 75 South Frontage
Road West (at the east end of the existing Municipal Building), and as legally
described below:
A part of the Southeasl114 ol Section 6, Township 5 South, Flange 80 West of
the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more
particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said
Section 6, thence North 00 degrees 28 minutes 16 seconds West and along the
East line of said Southeast 1/4 of said Section 6 72.75 he East line of said
Southeast 1/4 of said Section 6 72.75 feet to a point, said point being 110.00
feet northeasterly lrom the southerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 6 as
measured at right angles thereto; thence North 79 degrees 46 minutes 11
seconds West and along a line parallel to sald southerly right-oFway line
145.50 feet to The True Point ol Beginning; thence North 16 degrees 08
minutes 47 seconds East 78.00 feet; thence North 68 degrees 08 minutes 35
seconds West 428.70 feet; hence North 66 degrees 01 minutes 29 seconds
West 152.57 feet; thence South 27 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds West
192.66 feet; thence South 52 degrees 48 minutes 50 seconds East 36.32 feet
to a point, said point being 110.00 feet northeast lrom said South right-oFway
line of U.S. Highway No. 6 as measured at right angles thereto; thence South
79 degrees 46 minutes 11 seconds East and along a line parallel to said South
right of way line 585.56 feet to The True Point of Beginning.
Except that portion conveyed to the Board of Gounty Commissioners of Eagle
Gounty, and the Department of Highways, State of Colorado by rule and order
recorded January 5, 1971 in Book 219 at Page 441.
5. A request for a site coverage variance to allow an addition to the resldence located at
Lot 1, VailVillage 13th Filing/3025 Booth Falls Boad.
-2-
Applicant: William T. and Julie C. EsreyPlanner: Mike Molica
6. A request for a setback variance to allow an addition to the residence located at 716
Forest Road/Lot 10, Block 1, VailVillage 6th Filing.
Applicant: Charles AckermanPlanner: Tim Devlin
7. A request for a work session for an exterior alteration and setback variance for the Vail
Lionshead Center Building located at Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing/S20 E.
Lionshead Circle.
Applicant: Oscar TangPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
8. A request to amend the development plan at the Gold Peak base to allow ths addition
of two ski tows located adjacent to the Vail Associates Chlldren Center/498 Vail Valley
Drive/Tract B Vail Village,7th Filing.
Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by Joe MacyPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
9. A request for a conditional use permit and setback varian@s to allow the construction
of a ski tow at the Lionshead base area located on Tracts D and B, Vail/Lionshead
First Filing, south ol 520 E Lionshead Circle (the Lionshead Center Building).
Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by Joe MacyPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
10. A request for front and side setback variances and a variance to allow parking in the
front setback and wall height variances to allow the construction of a triplex located at
44 Willow Road/Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant Towermar CorporationPlanner: Shelly Mello
11. A request lor a variance from the parking standards for paving to allow a gravel
parking lot located at the ABC School/149 N. Frontage Road.
Applicant: The ABC Scfrool, Inc., represented by Holly BukacekPlanner: Shelly Mello
12. A request for a work session to discuss a proposal to construct a modular telephone
cell site in the East Vail area.
Applicant: U.S.Wesvcellular Onetunited States Forest Service
-3-
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
13. A request for a worksesslon on the proposed 1992/1993 Environmential Work Program.
Staff: Russell Forrest
Susan Scanlan
The appllcatons and information about the proposals are avallable for public review in the
Community Development Department office.
Town ol Vail
Community Development Department
Published In the Vail Trail on August 26, 1992.
c:tsac\cog|xlas\9t.t92 -4-
OO
September 11, 1992
Ms. Shelly Mello, Planner #1
Town of Vail Comnunity Development
75 South Frontage Road WestVai1, CO 81657
Re: Proposed Amendment to S.D.D. #4
Cornerstone
Dear Shelly:
We are scrambling to modify the Cornerstoneto reflect Staff comments and the propertythe PEC consider two scenarios:
UNTTS GRFA COMMERCIAL
SCENARTO 1
52 AU's
SCENARTO 2
28,110 12 ,000
oo
drawings and model
ovrnerts reguest that
PARKTNG
94
8224 AUts
1 2 DUrs
28 ,110
We are certain that the above cana form similar to that approved.
commercial areas are no more than
Please don't hesitate to call ifadditional information-
Sincerely,
THMEY/PRATT ARCHITECTS, P.C.
ward M. Gwathmey, AIA
12 r000
be accommodated on
Note that the GRFA
those approved.
you have questions
the
and
site in
the
or need
EMG/ad
August 21, 1992
Ms. Shelly MeIIo
Town of VaiL Community Development75 South !'rontage Road l\lestVaiI, CO 81657
Re: Waterford Calculations
Dear SheIIy:
Here are the numbers for the Waterford project.actual areas will follow next week.
O fgoAuoz.l fggt
Drawings showing
NUMBER UNIT PARKING GRFA
SUB-TOTALOF UNITS TYPE GRTA REQID
3
I
A
AP
B
BP
c
1654 SF
2067 sF
1715 sF
2119 sF
1688 sF
2092 SF
1509 sF'1912 sE
5
2.5I
2.5
24
7.5
4
2
4992 sE
2067 sF
6860 SF
2119 sF
20256 sF, 6276 sF
3018 sF
1912 sr
4
1
12
3
2
1
CP
D
DP
56. 5 47500 sF
132,205 sF
40,000 sF
30.25 I
STTE AREA: 3.035 ACRES X 43560 SF/ACRE
PROPOSED SITE COVERAGE (approximate)
SITE COVERAGE PERCENTAGE
riili Au,t'z t199?
Ms. Shelly Mello
Waterford Calculations
August 21, 1992
Page 2
LEVEL
COMMON SPACES
CIRCULATION MECHANICAL COMMON STORAGE, TRASH, ETC TOTAL
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
1 388
1388
1 388
3558
4587
2425
4083
3625
U
0
0
0
2138
0
0
529
2
2
2
1442
275
275
1667
846
1500 SF
1500 sF
1500 sF
5000 SF
7000 sF
2700 sF
5750 sF
5000 sr
TOTAL
COMMON SPACE PERCENTAGE
LANDSCAPE COVERAGE
TANDSCAPE PERCENTAGE
Please call if you would like to
Sincerely,
GWATHMEY/PRATT ARCITITECTS, P.C.tll .-, A 'Jl / ^{h=lt_)*- J //./ ,//t*\--- r/v//
Henry R. Pratt,, AIA
HRP/ad
29950 SF
63r
!2OO@ SF
t5z
discuss this.
./
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
Date:
Place:
Present:
Re:
September 3, 1992 copy to:
GPA Offices
Shelly Mello, Planner #1
Ned Gwathney
Modifications to S.D.D.4 - Waterford
Eustaguio Cortina
Mlguel Madero
Shelly MelLo
Jerry Mullican
File
Tract
Shelly transmitted Staff recommendatlons/reguLrernents on thecurrent infornation they have:
1. They need a grading/site plan which will bedelivered the week of September '7.
2. They need a landscaping plan.
3. The offset ln the roofs sho!'rn in the model as
opposed to the drawings should be carried through.4. The west elevation needs nore design work:balcony, etc.5. Project should be moved away from the highwayright-of-way to allow trees/landscape screen inthe event the existlng could not be maintained.
Ned will do thts.
The study model- will be delivered to the Town Staff by 2:00 p.m.
Septenber 4, 1992.
The foregoing represents my understanding of matters discussedand decisions reached. If the interpretation of others varles,please inform us in writing.
-r'-EMG
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
Date:
Place:
Present:
Re:
September 3, 1992
GPA Offices
Shel-ly Mello
Ned Gwathney
Modiflcations to S.D.D, 4
Cornerstone
copy to: Anne RossJerry Mullican
Eustaguio Cortj.na
Miguel Madero
SheJ.ly MelloFileFred Otto (fax)
Vlhlle revler,ring the Waterford tract portlon of the S.D.D.Modlfications, Shelly transmitted Lhe fottowing staff comnents
on the Cornerstone information they have:
1. Loading and trash removal must be considered.2. Staff feels that P.E.C. will focus on the currentparking structure discussions. They were of a
mind not to consider a minor nodlfication toS.D.D. 4 at Cascades until these problems were
resolved.3. Although Staff feels the project should be A.U.s,
Ned felt the Bank may want to keep optlons forD.U.s open if possible.
Shelly suggested the study nodel of these items be developedfurther and delivered to the Town for consideratlon 2:00 p.n.
September 4.
The foregoJ-ng represents my understanding of matters dlscussed
and decisions reached. If the interpretatlon of others varies,please inform us in writlng.
t --l r-v'lrH
Lot 40
Lot 41
Lot 43
Lot 44
Lot 45-A
Lot 45-B
Lot 46-A
Lot 46-B
Cascade Inn
Westin Hotel
Valli Hi
Apartment
ffit) Akls2l @
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
CORNERSTONE PARCEL
GLEN LYON SUBDIVISION
Timothy M. Pennington, III
Brentwood Associates
1 1150 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1200Los Angeles, CA 90025
Leslie W. Bryant Findell
795 Cielo Lane
Evergreen, CO 80439
Leslie W. Bryant FindeII
795 Cielo Lane
Evergreen, CO 80439
Howard L. and Catherine A. Stone
12'l 21 Wilshire, #120'lLos Angeles, CA 90025
James S. White
631 Voltz N.
Northbrook, IL 60062
Ann H. Brock
P.O. Box 847Vail, CO 81558
Stanley S. Beard
2'1 21 N. Frontage Road, #21 OVail, CO 81657
Carol S. Schmidt - CustodianS.E. and M.G. Schnidt - Custodian
55 Mead Lane
Englewood, co 80110
Westin Resort
1300 Westhaven DriveVai1, CO 81657
EXOHO Associates Limited Partnershlp
c/o 1st American Savings BankAttention K. Womack
P.O. Box 878Ft. Smith, AK 72902
9,.-
Adjacent Property Ohrners
Cornerstone Parcel
Page 2
I-70 Colorado Department of Highways
414'13 U.S. Highway 6
Avon, CO 81620
Cascad.e CIub1 SeattLe 1st Natlonal Bank
c/o Steven SalyerP.o. Box 3586Seattle, wA 98124
2 Seattle 1st Natlonal Bankc/o Steven Salyer
P.O. Box 3586
Seattle, WA 981 24
' $T31"ilin,36rn'""'Vall, co 81658
4 Cascade Club Llmlted
1295 Westhaven DriveVall, Co 81657
INTEP.-DEPARTI'IENTAL REVI El,l
/
PP.gJECT: +--.a,r?.'tzzi)) S-z),tz;- .A't zs,t.'--" J)1-
DATE SUil'llTTE0:_ DATE 0F pUBLtC HEARING
CCI"i/'ENTS }IEEDEO BY :
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
PUBLIC VIORKS
P.evier*ed by:Date
Coanents:
FIRE DEPP.RTI'iENTT-.4tt'"1 c:' .s=t--Date ? -' ZReviewed by:
POLICE DEPARTI.IENT
--
Conments:7 a"(
sil,z :',-'4 / O . ,.zo/.r4,,) 7to'" 'tz /.2j"3'' '77rt'*4.a'fi -=:" ry)*Y;Zu1-:/'
'C-':j'
-; lea tuFz'z'- t,
L./
,/,,/.,a,"2; Jz&,1,.7/,. .;rQ-/ .:4't rq'e'*'t-i?u'',fc*n'e''1"^''
=) ,ntt-*- 4zJ<t'tzo"*''/ .'=4n /ooZ i/'-' 57'e"'"act{ft
Revierred by:
Connents:
Date
i
'.ft'
. .: -'i
Reviewed.by:
Co;;ents:
Rt9,::34Ti 0X DEPARTI.::NT
Date
w Auszl w
August 21 , 1992
Ms. Shelly Me1lo, Planner #1
Town of Vail Community Development Department75 South Frontage Road WestVaiI, CO 81657
Re:Proposed Amendment to S.D.D. 4
Cornerstone
Dear She11y:
Enclosed find four copies of the Plans and Elevations ofScenarios 1 and 2 of Cornerstone for your consideration. The
ovrners of the property have reguested these two developmentoptions be left open to them. In both cases, the regui"redparki.ng ls incorporated on the Cornerstone property.
Please note thaL both Scenarios are simifar in appearance to the
approved plans and elevations prepared by ROMA. A11 parties are
anxious for the anendments on this parcel to be considered alongwith the Waterford Proposals.
PLease review and let us know if we need to provide addi-tionalinformation or a model . Thank vou for vour consideration.
Sincerely,
GW PRATT ARCHITECTS, P.C.
ward M. Gwathmeyj JT. AIA
Enclosures
copy to: Anne RossJerry Mullican
v.r"r%
a
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
Date :
Place :
Present:
August 6, 1992
Community Development Offices, TOV
Shelly Mello
Eustaguio CortinaJerry ltulllcan
Ned Gwathmey
Waterford ProJect
The purpose of this meeting was to bring the designated planner
up to speed on the modifications made to the drawings and study
nodel after and in response to the comments of PEC at the Work
Seesion. Shelly feLt that moving the building back from the
bike path, J.owering the mass and improving the auto court werepositive steps.
The project is tabled for the Monday 10 August meeting' but she
needs the following for her continued analysis:
1. Final GRFA count
2. Common Area Calculatlons3. Site Coverage Calcul.atlons
4. Percentage of Landscape Calculations
5. Plan of the relocated bike path
6. Schedule A and B of the title report
7. Survey
The following would be helpful for their Staff meeting Tuesday
11 August:
8. Revi.sed elevatlons
9. Site plan
10. Model
?
CONFEEENCE IIEMORANDUM - Wat,erfordffiPage 2
cornerstone was discussed and Ned presented rough sketches ofthe first scenario: 50 accommodation units, 10r000 sguare feetof commercial and 90 cars parking. ft seems to work Jnd begsthe guestion: is ellminating all the commercial at the plazalevel beneficial even though it is not feasible. uea wtl1further develop and get plans to Shelly the week of 6 August.
The foregoing represents my understanding of natters discussedand decisions reached. If the int,erpretation of others varies,please inform us in writing.
EMG
/
29 JaLy 1992
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM #7
Date :
Place :
Present:
27 JuIy 1992
Council Chambers - planning Commj-ssion Meeting
4iA\.PEC members: Jeff Bowen, Greg ams'ted,Kathy Langenwalter, Dianna Donovan, fena Witten,Chuck Christ.Staff: Shelly Mello
Doug Cogs\^lell, JerryFred Otto, Eustaquio
Ned Gwathmey
Waterford Project
and Krlstan Pritz.Mullican
Cortina
The work session vras preceded by a site visit in which thebuilding outline was flagged. The Staff presented a t"temorandumwhich outlines the issues and is enclosed.
Commissloner Kathy L,angenwalter began the commentary wlth thefollowing concerns: The height and proximity of the west end to!{esthaven; the height and proxinity to the bike path; and theregulrement that 75t of the parklng be covered. The other
commlssi.oners followed and the comnents will be considered anddiscussed in the next hearlng.
In additlon, the followlng points were discussed:
GPA ls authorized by Commercial Federal to develop twoalternatives for developnent on Cornerstone, with Cornerstonersrequired parking on the property. The purpose is to amend the
SDD for Cornerstone concurrent I'rith that of Waterford.
Site plan will be revi.sed, moving the conplex north and furtherfrom the bike path.
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM - WaterfordffiPage 2
The parking will be revised, making 75* of the required parki.ng
below grade. The ramp for the Cornerstone parking will beeliminated. The remaining outdoor parking will be met in acourt with landscaping, pavers, etc., more 1n keeping wlth theparking courts in the existlng Glen Lyon Complex.
The entire project will be dropped in grade, i.e., lowered toreduce scale to west and to bike path.
Discussions on the dedication of Westhaven wtII be initlated.
Landscaping will be increased and detailed with plans.
Employee housing unit. will. be sketched/1ocated.
Public works and the Fire Department requirements rnet; Ned wlll
schedule meetings by the next hearing.
The foregoing represents my understanding of natters dlscussed
and decisions reached. ff the interpretatlon of others varies,please inform us in wrlting.
-rMra
Enclosure
I
MEMORANDTJM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Departnent
laly 27,1992
A rcqucst fsr a work session for a major amendment to SDD dH Cascadc
Village to amend the development plan for the Waterford parccl located at
1275 Westhavcn Drive.
Applicanu MECM Enterprises represented by Eustaquio CortinaPlanncr: Shelly Mello
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOIJEST
The applicant is requesting a worksession to review a proposed major amendment to Special
Development District (SDD) No. 4, Cascade Village Area A. This proposal would allow 27
dwelling units with a maximum of 47,500 sq. ft. of GRFA and 1 resuicted employee dwelling
unit with 900 square feet of GRFA. The parcel is bound by the Colorado Deparuncnt of
Tranqportation right-of-way and Glen Lyon Office Building to the east, the proposed
Cornerstone project to the west, the South Frontage Road to the north and Gore Creek to the
south. The parcel was zoned as an SDD from the tirne it was annexcd into the Town of Vail
in 1974.
The property has changed ownenhip and the ctrrrent owner does not wish to continue the
approved development concept. The applicant is not requesting any additional residential
development over what was previously approved for this parcel, except for 900 square feet of
additional GRFA for the restricted employee unit. The applicant also wishcs to delete the
required 3,800 sq. ft. of renil space.
tr. BACKGROT.J}ID
The Cascade Village Development was previously owned by a single development entity. As
proposed by the past developer, the project was a system of interdependcnt phases to be built
into an integrated complex which provided commcrcial areas, short-term and long-term
residential units and consolidated parking facilities. Since the banlauprcy of this original
developer, ownership of tltc sites has been dispersed among diffcrcnt owners. This plan is
now morc difficult to execute, as each owner has different ideas on how to develop their
rcspective sites. The change in ownership effects this project becausc, as apgroved thc
project is required to provide parking for the V/aterford project, but also for the proposed and
/
1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SIJBJECT:
o
unbuilt project to the wesg Cornerstone. These projects are now held by 2 unrelated entities.
As approved, the Cornerstonc project is a mixed use containing commercial
space, conferrnce spac€ and accommodation units, but no on sitc parting. A maximum of
166 parking q)aces were to be provided in the Waterford for Csnersone. For the
purposes of this worksession, it is assumed that the Developmcnt plan will bc
amended to provide parking on site or the proposed plan will
Comerstone. At this timc, the applicant and thc Cornerstone
the rcquired qpaces fu
issue.
An additional outstanding issue in rhe Cascade Village is the ownership *anrs of
Bridge. fite rcad islVesrhaven Drive, from the South Fronage Road to the Gore
owned by the applicant and is privately maintained. This road has not been conveyed to tbe
Town because it does not meet the Town's minimurn road
ZONINC CONSIDERATIONS
The approved developmcnt plan for this parcel allows for 75 accomrnodation units with
of GRFA. The applicant's47,5N sq. fr of GRFA, gq 30 dwclling units with 47,500 sq.
proposal includes 27 dwelling units and I resnicted employee The request also includes
the deletion of 3,800 square feet of rctail space, which was
following.
require4 with the
1) Density
(# of Units)
2) GRFA
3) Common Area
Approved
Scenario I
30 AUs
47,500 sq. ft.
as per
approved
plan
3,800 sq. ft.
Approved
Sccnario 2
75 DUs
havc not resolved this
Froposed
27 DUs+
1 rcsricbd emp.
unit
47,5W sq.ft. DU
+ 900 sq. ft.
resficted emp.
unit *
to be
determined
0
47,500 se. ft]
as Per
approved
plan
3,800 sq. ft.
l
4) Retail Space
+' $ Credits Given
O Heigtt **
Norttt
Soutlr
East
Wcst
7) Setbacks
8) Site Coverage
9) Parking
48 feet
61 feet
61 fcet
48 feet
as per
approved
plan
as POr
approved
plan
72.7 spaces
O5% enclosed)
,18 fcet
61 feet
61 feet
48 feet
as per
approved
plan
as p€r
approved
plan
87.7 spaces
(75% enclosed)
to be
dctemined
57 feet
69 feet
68 feet
57 feet
North 20 ft to bldg.
South 30 fr
East 47 ft.
West 1l fr
as p€r
proposed f
dev. plan
***57 spaces
required
51 proposed
(27 enclosed sr 531o,
25 surface)
None Nouc
Employec units do not count towards density on GRFA per the cun€nt
SDD#4 Ordinance.** See Section IV(F) for detailed description ofheight allowances for approved plan.*** Does not include Cornentone parking.
ry. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA
The ctiteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the nine Special Development Disuia
(SDD) development standards set forth in the special development disuict chapter of the
Zorang Code. The cdtcria arc as follows:
A. Design compatibitity and sensitivity to the immediate environmenf
neighborhood and adjactnt properties relative to architectural desigtl
scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones' identitn character, visual
integrity and orientation.
The site of the proposed projea is disturbed duc to the dumping of excess fill
from the other projects in Cascade Village. For this reason there arc vcry
+
B.
limited natural characteristics rcmaining on the property.
There is a severc change in grade fiom the South Frontagc Road to thc bike
path (adjacent to the creek). Due to the grade change and building design, the
visual impacts of each building elevation are very differcne On the nsth sidc,
adjacent to the South Frontage road, thc building is 2-112 to 4 stories big[,
while on the south elevation, adjacent o the bike path and fieck, it is 112 m
5-1/2 stories. The building's hcight impacts the bikc path and the properties
across the creek to the south much more than those properties o the nsth and
wesL
The mass and bulk of the building is similar o that of the Wcstin complex and
the proposed building on the adjacent Cornerstone project to the wesL
However, in contrast to the Westin complex, the proposal incorporates smaller
roof masses. The proposed building uses a series of suggercd towers with
smaller roof forms vErsus a singlc roof form as used in the Wcstin complex.
The applicant has proposed to use stucco finish and metal roofs similar to those
used in the other Cascade Village buildings.
The staff frnds that further study should be given to the elevation of each tower
of the building in order to brcak up the mass of the building. In addition, the
use of diffcrcnt colors, stucco details and the use of balconies similar to the
Westin complex should be considered to further break up the mass.
Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and
workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
As proposed, the project includes 2l free market condominiums (with 47,5ffi
square feet of GRFA) and I restricted employee housing unit (with 900 square
feet of GnfA) for a lotal of 48,400 square feet of GRFA. Thc request
decrcascs the number of approved units from 30 to 28. There would be a net
increase in GRFA of 900 squarc feet due to the employee housing unir
Historically, in Cascade Village, GRFA atributed to employee units has not
been counted toward dcnsity or GRFA for thc projecr The density proposed is
in keeping with thc original development scenario and is compatible with the
surrounding area-
Compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined in
Chapter 18.52.
The total parking requirement for this proposal is 57 spaces. The SDD rcquircs
that 75Vo or 43 spaces be cnclosed. The proposal includes a total of 51
proposed spaces with 27 (or 53Vo of the required spaces) being enclosed and 25
o
t
D.
surface spaces. Under Section 18.52, each dwelling unit with less than 2,000
square feet of GRFA would have a parking rcquirement of 2 qpaces and those
with over 2,000 squre feet of GRFA would rcqufu? 2.5 spaces. Therc are 2
units over 2000 square feet which require 2.5 puking E)aces.
As propose4 the pnoject is 6 spaces short of mccting its pa*ing requirement.
Because this is an SDD, tlre development standards such as parking are
flexible. The staff would recommend that the project meet its parking
requircment Parking in Cascade Village appears to already be limited at
certain times of the day, and particularly during the ski season. Consi&ration
should also be givcn to the provision ofguest parking. The stafffinds that thc
surface parking should bc limited to 25% of the required parking versus the
proposed 477o. T\ts position is based on ttrc visibiliry of the parking and thc
proximity of it o the main entry to Cascade Villagc. In gcneral, surface
parking is very limited in Area A, and when it is used it is incorporarcd into
thc site plan rather than appearing as a parking lor Design elcments should be
added to the surface parking to diminish thc impact and improve the visual
quality of the areas through the use of pavers, tree gates, planters, or possibly
a water featurc.
Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan,
Town policies and Urban Design Plans
For this area, the Land Use Plan states:
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a confiolled environment, maintaining a
balance between residential, commercial and rccreational uses to serve
both the visitor and the permancnt rresident
l.l3 Vail recognizes its stream tract as being adesirable land feature as well
as its potential for public use.
5.1 Additional residential growth should continue io occur primuily in
existing, plattcd areas and as appropriate in ncw arcas where high
hazards do not exist.
Affordable employec housing should be made available through private
efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail,
with appropriate resftictions.
Residential gowth should kccp pacc with rhe martet place demands for
a full range of housing types.
5.3
5.4
+5.5 The existing employee housing base should be p'reserved and upgraded-
Additional employce housing needs should be accommodated at varied
sircs throughout thc communiry.
When the Cascade Village development was pmposed dren was a
comprehensive plan developed which pmvided a balance of long- and short-
term housing. The proposal of 28 dwclling uni$ is in kecping with this
development plan. In addition, onc rcstricted employee housing unit is
prcposed, which the Town supports.
Therc are no other specific criteria in the Comprchensive Plan which p€nain !o
this area-
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affec't
the property on which the special development district is proposed.
The proposal will need to comply with the Town's floodplain and 50' Gorr
Creek setback.
F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed
to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural
featureg vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community,
The proposed building uses a series of staggered towers with broken rmf forms
with &c parking facilities located to the north of drc building. The approved
building for this project was a series of lower structures and morc unified roof
structurres. The parking facilities wcre located below the facility. The building
mass was similar to that of the o&er Cascade Buildings. This proposed plan
concentrates the mass and bulk such that the result is a more vertical building
which is s€tback farther from the South Frontage Road than the original
approval, excluding the parking structue. The parking structurc is gencrally in
the location which was previously proposed for thc building under 0re
approved plan. This approach differs from the built stnrctur€s in Cascadc
Village. In Section III (6) the heights for the approved project and proposed
project are given. The following is an excerpt from the appoved SDD #
which details how the building heigha were calculaed:
"Waterford Building: Ma:rimum height of 48 feet as measured from
finished grade m any portion of the roof along the north elcvation
(South Frontage Road) and west elevation (Westhaven Drive). A
ma:<imum height of 40 feet as measured from the lowest floor of the
parking structure to the roof eave is approved for the south and cast
building elevations. A maximum height of 61 feet as mcasured fiom
the lowest floor of the parking structure to thc roofridge is approved
I for the south and east building elevations."
For the purposes of reviewing this application, we havc given buildirrg heights
in Section trI from ridge to proposed grade.
The layout of the proposed plan and the approved plan also differ. The
approved ptan incorrpuated building over thc parking facilities and spread out
thc development The proposed plan does not overlay drc building and the
parking facility. lnstead, they are separate entities. When comparing the
curcnt proposal, includine thc oa*ine facilitv, to the appmved plan, the
,:.'
nassin$.{\his rclocadon of mass is cqpecially rppar€nt in the area along tbe
$ setbacks arc similar. The biggcst differcnce is the location of the
,4 South Frob'{age Road and the bike path. The staff finds that the massing of rhe
proposed building should be studied further to achicve a t€,rracing of building
mas8.
A circulation system designed for both vetrides and pedeshians addressing
on and off-site traffic circulation.
The on-site circulation plan should be studicd more closely to dctcrminc if
there is a more effrcient approach to the ramping and parking system to allow
more room for landscaping. Additional pedestian access should be
incorporated along Westhaven Drive to connect this project and the Tou'n of
Vail bus stop to the existing ski lifr This will also provide a pedestrian tink
from the bus stop to the remainder of rhe project when the Comerstone project
is completed.
In addition to the on-site concerns, thc Town is interested in resolving an off-
site circulation concem. This involves the dcdication of Westhaven Drive io
thc Town. Currcntly, Westhaven Drive from the South Frontage Road to the
Gore Geek Bridge is owned by the applicant. The road does not meet the
Town's standards and cenain improvements related !o the grade, constmction
and building clearancc would need to be addressed by the applicant prior to the
conveyance of thc right-of-way. The Town would require, as a condition of
any approval of this application, that the roadway bc upgraded and dsdicated o
*re Town.
Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open spac* in order to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
Because this site has been substantially disturbed, there are few remaining
natural characteristics. With thc proposed density of thc p'roject, thert would
be limited rcmaining open space on thc site. Because of this, the rcmaining
landscaped areas become critical. Additional landscaping should be obtained
G.
It
ibJ dccreasing the amounr of surfacc par*ing and incrsasing thc landscaping for
this arca Increasing thc lanilscaping is especially important along ttre intryud Frontage Road as well as along thc bike parh. The applicanisnouu atso
considcr using a natural planting scheme whcre pocsible versus a formal
tandscapc plan along thc bikc path and Frontage Road.
Phasing plan or srbdivision ptan that will mainfain a workable, fimctional
and eflicient relationship throughout the devetopment of the spcial
development district
As initially proposeq Cornerstonc, O thc west of thc proposcd project, and
Warcrfond were to be constnrctcd simulaneously. This phasingplan was
neccssilated by the provision of parking on rhe Warrford sir for tbe
comerstone project Due to rhe bankruprcy of thc odgnal dcvelo'pcr and thc
subsequcnt sev@d owncrship of tlrc 2 sites, this bccourcs a difficult
proposition. However, thc staff finds that it is absolurcly gritical o the
approval of any amendment for cither the watcrford m ccncrstons prcjcct, to
address the parking issue. It could bc resolvcd in nro different *ayi. iitsr
the:equircd parking for the existing approved cornerstonc devetopmcnt plan
could be amcnded with this r€qugst to prcvidp parking on the Cmncrstone sitey{ ttryrerore, cach project would provide its own parting u alt of tlre parting
for both projccts could be providcd on the watcrford sirc. Ttre statr has
recommended that the cornerstone development plan be amcnded and cach
projcct's parking will be handled on the rcspective sites. Should it be
necessary for the waterford Foject to provide parking for both the comersonc
project and its own parking, thc applicant would need trs add tw6 a,rditionsl
underground parking levels as well as nddidsnal at-gradc circulation.
There is no formal staff rccommcndation at this time. The intcnt of this wsrksession is to
grve the applicant initial direction and feedback on the request. Stafffeels that, in general,
this request to decrcasc numbers of units and add a permanently rcsrictcd cmployd unit is
an appropriate plan for the parcel.
In summary, thc staff concerns are:
v.STAFF CONCERNS
Compatibility of mass with surrounding uses;
Increase oflandscaping, espccially at thc cascade villagc entranse, by dccruasing at
gradc parking and circulation;
ImprcvemenB io westhaven Drive in order to meet Tov standards and subscgucnt
dedication of roadway to the Town of Vail;
I.
2.
3.
{' 4. Resolution of intedependent parking plan for the Comersone and Waterford prcjects.
5. AII conditions set fmh by the Public Works Deparunent and Fire Deparuncnt, which
rclate to prop€r drainage and fire access, will need to be addressed prior o the
approval of the S.D.D.
cjWtsO&IEMO$CASCADETzT
z
UJ
=:q;o:dt>:UJEo&aiolL''
ff5
s5t2
FT;3
P$
o.o.
lrtltl
ll
ll
tltf
U
ll
ril
I
V
tE,T
ffi;f
i$ F$
iB gf)
5;-5
lii
\II
llt
tr
lll i
.s
o
ze<:J=ILBff[
(!) t
=z>3
uJ|)9ifgJ>rurfioF<3LtEg)'<;Lfo..E
fiA
,
t
I
A3v7 I
b t,ldr
-gnrym<rJ-
+" '''a-YL
o
bt Cfi;f/-Fp-rA
I
i&frh (lo,ytrl - pnte "F r,,,.u;l : 1-o" 0b[,s,'-Y,r,r.f\( uc / 0nr.rv_rgtr>rnr
Nk,,^{ ,l\wt]. - Mr+n_ L6(/^\!",1\f S",:0LA{.+11 ,,f S,t^ tl),rr,'' ,). | , \ ,t ^ " i (-lp{tvi dLrj.tirhff,rr.I urn*;( is c4r
YM^(-
^N-cCI-,t^-,cL
t{ef,
k"r,
@ofr
\J
COt",44.1,m<-o{- ,Ji
Q**n.rt3Jrirr-t
\lV'drrt*D/ro\rd -\ ,;NWu'^,.,*
lwvvrwE SVxvvJ^ L3r rrroiv^r_e(t/ \, \,utr"il^t " a 2;,<t, 91 pLLW tlov"-jr0",4. rtl.a_LJw
fi) vw,*viaureryr- v,-'*
\-/\-x-lwr'/v. 'v
I' lAJ4/vLta , ;\<- Clrw,r-rto#, 0rryrrrt.tn\ k \*;.4"a" CttL-ilk'tU f{.nvr,.r,vtu( 0 | 5p,^^
" lrurd'tf' ry YW sr'ltsnr- (Arn:-}.','t \ Yd
fffi*I fn-nLtw, @ r\.\-
^.,}u{'{n ^,-. -2a+l ,afu-t"-hr-,, I
^res
f LlLil o,t- g-u-r-
:i*'P^ rtrt"^*,
? .o lelz.,*,.- lcr Czut,c-a-o[-l
G na - gw {V'r *r y '.1 (^y,s,l gfu"a a-+.07}^.
tU*^,e, - ,O\9r( pzt.f N; r*{ y\\a"4,\tu
"ry{;),n in4,4"q,,y1{ Ll-a-T'd.^I{
|".r,ty'".,t- % ur*f r-h-u
I*,on' Kf,rK ,*,,-r.Stru$ p.^- I*Ut Qrrl,-
Irlad- -W@ffi NauNt {a c,t!\\
lllt.t-1-yt4f - -4r,t t r[ n {]p 2nL\t)Ltl-1f t 1,'- yL1+..
rorq
jl
ULn* ,^ t'-t sufTg )f -,"*: 'l i r)r,t ;;d"a ['a'u[t'o' - ^ ff,@
1.'l'*,'"1- -,"w\t 0"\\ yr ln.r- ;1.ift.r
x'
ilf-, W
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission ol he Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Seclion 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail on July 27, 1992, at 2:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Buikling.
Consileration of:
l. A request for a work session for an exterior alteration for the Vail Uonshsad Center
Building, located at Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing/ 520 East Llonshead
Circle.
Applicant: Oscar L. Tang
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
A request for a work session for a major amendment to SDD #4 Cascade Village to
amedd the development plan for the Waterford parcellocated a|1275 Westhaven
Drive and as legally described as:
That part of the sw 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 12, Township_5.South, Tansg 81 West of the
Sixth Principal Meridian, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described es follows:
Beginning at a point on the southerly right-oFway line ol Interstate Highway No. 70
wn6nce in iron'pin with a plastic cap marking the center of said Section 12 bears
s 33010'19" w 1447.03 teet; thence along said southly right-of-way line two courses
1) N 52'50'29' E 229.66 teet
2) N 74'38'17' E 160.70 teet;
tlience departing said southerly rlght-oFway line N 88"45'57' E 138.93 feet; thence S
40045'14'w 94:32 feet; thence S 18' 18'36'w 54.08 leet; thence S 01"21'36'W
205.02 feeu thence s 12"0736', W 110.25 te6t; thence s 28o28'36* W 16438 feet;
thence N 40'17'04" W 211.16 feeu thence N 49'42'56" E 97.80 teet;thence N
37'09'31'W 95.59 feet; thence S 52'50'29'W 55.10 teeu thence 69.48 feet along the
arc of a non-tangent curue to the left having a radius of 65.00 feet, a central angle of
61"'14'42'and a chord that bears N 58' 55'53" W 66.22 feet; thence N 37"0931' W
118.50 feet To The True Point of Beginning, County of Eagle, State of Golorado.
Applicant: MECM Enterprises represented by Eustaquio Cortina
Planner: Shelly Mello
A request to amend a condition of a previously approved vqlalg? and exterior
alteration, regarding the CCI parking pay-in-lieu fee for the Red Uon Bullding, located
at 304 Bridge SreeyUots E, F, G and H, Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Vencura,Ltd/JayPeterson
Planner: Mike Mollica
3.
4.A requesl for a work session lor a conditional use permit for an addition to the
Municipal Building lo house the Vail Police Department, located at 75 South Frontage
Road West (at the east end of the existing Municipal Building), and as legally
described below:
A part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of
lhe Sixth Pfncipal Meridian, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more
particularly described as follows: Commencing at he Southeast comer of said
Section 6, thence Norlh 00 degrees 28 minubs 16 seconds WEst and along the
East line of said Southeast 1/4 of said Section 672,75 he East line of said
Southeast 1/4 of said Section 672.75le€t to a point, said point being 110.00
feet northeasterly from the southerly dght-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 6 as
measured at right angles thereto; thence North 79 dsgrsgs 46 minutes 11
seconds West and along a line parallel to said southerly dghFof-way line
145.50 feet to The True Point ol Beginnlng; thence North 16 degrees 08
minutes 47 seconds East 78.00 feet; thence North 68 degrees 08 minutes 35
seconds West 428.70 feet; thence North 66 degrees 01 mlnutes 29 seconds
West 152.57 feet; thence South 27 degrees 42 minutes 40 sesnds West
192.66 feet; thence South 52 degrees 48 minutes 50 seconds East 36.32 leet
to a point, said point being 110.00 feet northeast fom said South dght-of-way
line of U.S. Highway No. 6 as measured at rlght angles thereto; thence South
79 degrees 46 minutes 11 seconds East and along a line parallel to said South
right of way line 585.56 feet to The True Point of Beginning.
Excepl that portion conveyed to the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle
County, and the Department of Highways, State ot Colorado by rule ard order
recorded January 5, 1971 in Book 219 at Page 441.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Mike Mollica
A request for a conditional use permit, a site coverage varian@, and a minor exErior
alteration to allow for the expansion of an existing outdoor dinlng deck for Sweet Basil
Restiaurant, 193 Gore Creek Drive, part of Lot A, Block 58, Vail Village First Filing.Applicant Kevin GlairPlanner: Shelly Metlo
Any items tabled lrom the July 13, 1992 meeting.
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public review in the
Community Development Department otfice.
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
Published in the Vail Trail on July 10, 1992.
5.
t
20 July, 1992
Ms. Shelly Mello, Planner #1
Community Development
Town of VaiL
75 South Frontage Rd WestVail, CO 81657
Re:Proposed Amendments to S.D.D.4
Response to Staff Comments
Dear Shelly:
This letter is in response to the points discussed in our
conference of 7-8-92 and is in preparation for our work session
with the Planning Commission on 27 Ju1y, 1992.
1. Enclosed flnd Stewart Titl-ets report including the Legal
Description.
2. The retainage slopes have been reduced and w1lt be in
compliance with town standards.
3. The roof heights have been radically varied from the original
subrnittaL. The model has been changed, call if you need it.
4. The height of the building at the pool has been revised and
is now 65 feet to the ridge.
5. Westhaven dedication discusslons will be initiated by the
attorneys for the applicant with Town of VaiI officials.
6. The parking structure is shown wlth 60 additional spaces for
Cornerstone. Discussions are in progress with Commercial
Federal to amend the SDD to lncLude the Cornerstone parking on
their property.
7. t{e have included sone sectlons to explain the grades. The
existing vegetation and berm along the Frontage Road can remain.
8. The West elevatj-on has been raodified; the arched entry is
expressed on the west adding interest and light lnto the entry.
9. Architects have notes fron Public Works and the Fire
Department regardlng the entry and access. The building is
proposed to be sprinklered and the helght/access thru the entry
can be anything. We will try to run thls by Greg Hall and Mike
Mccee prlor to the work session.
Hope this is what you need for now; thank you for your contlnued
cooperation.
Sincerely,
GW THMEY PRATT ARCHITECTS, P.C.
Edward M. Gwathmey,
EMG/ts
Enclosureg
ATA
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
Date:
PIace:
Present:
Re:
7 -8-92
Town Hall
Shelly MeIIo, Planner #1
Ned Gwathmey
Proposed Amendrnents to S.D.D.4,Staff comments on the Submittal documents
Shelly ca1led to go over the Staff concerns and reguests forinformation. The following points were conveyed to Ned:
1. Staff needs the legal description of the property.2. The retainage/slopes l_ooked too severe on the model and mustbe per town standards.3. The staff would like to see a little more variation in theroof heights; Ned will study.
1. Height at pool seemed over the G5r max in the approveddocuments.5. Westhaven must be dedlcated; brought to standards with somecompromise prior to submittal of building permit.6. On the Parki.ng: Two scenarios, either the parking structurebe built per the approved development plan on the Waterfordtract or the Cornerstone portion of the development plan beamended to show the parking on Cornerstone. Ned lrill discussthis with the MECM representatives.7. Staff is having trouble understanding the grades and Shellysuggested that some cross-sections would be helpful:Particularly at the Frontage Road berm.8. The West elevation needs work, Ned Agreed.9. Archltects need to meet with pub11c Works and the FireDepartnent regardi-ng the height of the entry tunnel, turningradi-us standards etc.19. We are scheduled for a work session with the planning
Commissj.on afternoon of 27 JuJ-y, 1992.
The foregoing constitutes my understanding of matters discussedand decisions reached. If the interpretation of others varies,do-rr't hesitate to tet us know.
4,10.
r'
EMG
II
IN]ffi - DEPART},IEIIIAL REVIEW
DA]E zuBI{INE&
COMMEHTS HEEDED
BRIEF OESCRIPTION
ov,//!\fi]/---"_\--
OF THE PROFOSAL
PUBLIC V;ORKS
'o**"n"' &r, 4. u:t/ pu7 *, b. aal*-s,*l J pr-s
A re'r'r$t;>T- -+-U'a--T-"'#z 5J"+ *7 lx- r7u''u't'
D;+ LcL.- ;"*-Fr** of b,'tl', *'ale' *^
1Z,r(^^- *
D"H l':/.. 6^'fJ*b
/* | 2'-o't['-
*1.*'1" s
P*A s -t-/ c.Una,v-*a L*
'+'4'A 3;L^'J\L Fno*.---- Bu* ' 6I'f
d** l,-[/-
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW
PROJECT:
PUBLIC WORKS
Reviewed by:
Comments:
DATE SUBMITTED:
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAI:
Date:
Date:
fpc. to.'2.onc ?Q. npp'.o|-'s 6""cs Y",:n--:t Y,,t':*P;l
0,5.,.ur'o ;I oit,n';;; ;;t i.*1,r*, i,)i
" l' I":.H.,.j'tr",,i*)"'Tr*"ffi'",i, '",",,i't-o" f*5 -="-u
;: +* **il::r("/ ryo,o,.f?*" rlO^ot'"i"| , ''-.^--J',t--'"', \ *.,\'u^\,.a_
..,-\2,', t>v,V,yi 7+r,' ct"pip(7 pw!'.kJ ,-'T{^ 1^,, ^W".llj *"
/-
DATE OF PUBLIC HEAR]NG -)'O () \,/'---'-.--
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
conments z u((
f-r fatf $"'lt"ng.Tht bu;lJp"_t .'c
dxrlPliar o ne i
ut
r,. n "bsto " dar)
oC w,\ \ets
;;";-;;r.l:l'"'y"+.13. ..;,
/pn"u,rro*s / fr^is 5t.-\to"' v',.y be
L S<,c$.1c, ta2. Zo+LA) Frrc App*r*!s, c\c'q-is tlJt ,s\"\\ \"'ue <'r..
\l iy'fvr oF \rt \...:= iu--* ! a s.ot '-n! " *'bstr'Aea rter\ia'-\ c"Ao,,i*"ti"? i;." "g;"il+ ^"i- "*'bs*,Ae'r rter\i*-\ c\:io-'^'c
-\-\i^v.. \3 t.:"+r Gf..&5.
&re-"{\'""
7P Dtxf,/L\e) i l"oollo* ol
I u (*fi'a n Dl
I u c* lr tt,t- ol
'Th, SPt,:rklr
e>r9 €Wd
i s t\-.s
P..'*t\.1,,
og' ",
n
,\\
vy'por
BICREATION DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Conments:
tdEN'l' ,/ ./ .
-,/ ,/ ,/r^1"./ i/' /
-//tr
hrc -).pt 0......*f"r..-sftr; ftt^.,.^ , ?-n.',1F $i,-; Hy',l,.l p& L^nl'\*"''ivr c\i
- 57-rt,.r C.^t.,. ,',f t* .f,'.] in
+- J\.. "tlef_
'.-ot9\t '),--trt' ow {V
Date:
J''
Timothy Pennington lll
Brentwood Associates
Suite 1200
11150 Santa Monica Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Leslie Bryant Findell
795 Cielo Lane
Evergreen, CO 80,lil9
Howard & Catherine Sbne
12121 Wilshire, #1201
Los Angeles, CA 90025
James White
631 Voltz N.
Northbrook, lL 60062
Ann Brock
P.O. Box 847
Vail, CO 81658
Stanley Beard
2121 N Frontage Rd, #210
Vail, CO 81657
Garol Schmidt, Custodian
S.E. & M.G. Schmidt, Custodians
55 Mead Lane
Englewood, CO 80110
Westin Resort
1300 Westhaven Drive
Vail, CO 81657
EXOHO Assoc Ld Partnership
c/o lst American Savings Bank
Attention: K. Womack
P.O. Box 878
Ft. smith, AK 72902
Golorado Department of Highways
P.O. Box 2107
Grand Juncdon, CO 81502
Seattle 1st National Bank
c/o Steven Salyer
P.O. Box 3586
seanle, wA 98124
Frederick Green
P.O. Box 1308
Vail, CO 81658
Cascade Club Umited
1295 Westhaven Drive
Vail, CO 81657
I
I t
IHONE
D.LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
@11 AU0 21 1gg2
I. This procedure is reguired for any project that, &rould gothrough the speciar Dever.opment, oistri6r fro-eaure.
The appticat,ion wilL not be accepted untir atl informationrs submitted.
(please print or type)
revised 914/9L
DATE AppLrcATroN REcETvED &/21/92
APFTICATION FORM FOR SPECI.trJ. DSVEIOP!,EN!
DXSTRICT DEVEIOP!,IENA PI.N[
A. APPLICAI{T_ tgelnmercial Federal Mortgage Corporation
MAITING ADDRESS 2 Stee1e Street, Sulte 20i
Denver, CO 80206 pHONE 331-3547
c.
B.AppLICANTTS REpRESENTATM Anne rJ. Ross
ADDRESS same ,3.31 .--3 s 47
PROPERTY
om[ER(S'
olcNER (S)cial Federal Mortgage Corpori-
SI (s)
MAITING ADDRESS same
LOT_BLOCK_SUBDMSrON
E. A IIST OF THE NAMES OF OWNERS OF ALL PROPERTY ADJACENTTO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY o*ID THEIR MAILING ADDRESSES.
F. A TITTE REFORT TO VERIFY OWNERSHIP AND EASEMENTS.Fortheomi_ngfI. Fo.ur..(4) -copies of the foJ.Iowing information must besubnitted:
A. DetaiLed written/graphic description of proposal; enclosed.
B' An environnental impact report shalr be submitted tothe zoning admrnistrator iir accoiJinc!-wit.rr ch;pi.;-18.56 hereof unless waived uv ie.iion-rii.s6.0i0; -exenptprojects; N.A.
c. An open space and recreat,ionaL plan sufficienL to meet,the demands g?le.r3red by the deieiop^"ri wirhout undueburden on availabre or proposed pubric racrriiie"r-F.T.
D. Existing contours having contour intervaLs of not morethan five feet if the average slope of the sit,e istvrenty percent or less, or iitn cbntour-intervals ofnot more than ten feet if the average slope of the sLteis grealer than t,wenty percent. Fo,nthcomrng.
E. I proposeg "ilq pl?n, at a scaLe not amarler than oneinch eguafs fifry reet, snowing-tiir-"ipio"imatelocarions and dimensions of afi uuifJif,gs anosLructures, uses therein, and all piirrcipur sit.developmel!,f:"ry5?gr suth as ri"olcapei, .r""",recreationaL facilities, pedestrian piizas anawarkways, service enrri;s; driveways; -;;-.ilIbt.reet
parking and ]oading areas wit.h prJio!.a--"orrt.ours aftergrading and sit,e development; - enclosed
t -1
E. .i
- t:lt.r al
F.;
III. TIME
A.
NOTE:
F.
G.
A.v.
B.
B.
e. prtinary randscape ptan, u! """r. nor snatrerfl:l-:l: inch. equals fifty feeL, showint e"i"iG;-randscape features to be retained or removed, an6showing proposed landscaping and landscapea !iie-development features, sutn is outdoor recreatlonalfacilities, bicycle paths, trails, pedestrian p:.irasand walkways, wat.er feaLures and bt-trer etenenti;enclosed.
Preliminary building elevat,ions, sect.ions, and floorplans, at a scale not smarrer tiran one-eilrrih-eq"irsone foot, in sufficient detair t.o det.ermiie rrooi area,gross residential floor area, jnterior circulation,locaLions of uses within OuiiOings, and ttre generiscare and appearance of the prop6sed developfreni.-rncrosed.
REOUIREMENTS
The Planning and EnvironnentaL Commission meets on theznd and 4th Mondays of each nonth. An appJ.ication withthe necessary accompanying naterial must Le submittedfour weeks prior to the dite of the meeting.
The deveLoper must begin initial construction of thespecial development district within three years fromthe time of it,s finar approvar, and continire dirigenttytoward the completion-of rhe project. If the spe;ial -
development district is to be deieJ-oped in pnasis, tf,edeveloper nust. begin construct,ron of- subseqirent firaseswithin one year of the compLetion of the previou's -
pbase.
It is recommended that before a SpecialDevelopment. District application is submitted, apre-applicatlon meeting should be set up wlt.h amernber of the Departnent of Community Dlvelopment.
IV. FEES
Application Fees are as follows:
a. Establishment of SDD :
b. Major Anendrnents:
c. Mlnor Arnendments:
$1, 500 . 00
$1, 000.00
s 200.00
Application fee paid: $_ Date_Check #
If this_application requires a separate review by anyIocal, State or Federal agency otirer than the Toin of
Ylil, ^the applicarion fee-sha1t be increased by- -
$200-00. Exanples of such review, may include] but arenot limited t.o: Co.Lorado Department oi Hiqn$ray'AccessPernits, Army Corps of Engineers a0n, etci
The appllcant shall be responsible for paying anypublishing fees which are in excess or bOi of tfr6application fee. Ifr_ at the applicantrs requestr dnymatter is postponed for hearing, causing tfre matt,er tobe re-published, then, the entiie fee f5r sucfr relpublication shaLL be paid by the applicant
Applicat.ions deened by the Conrnunity DevelopmentDepartment t,o have significant. design, Iand- use orother issues which may have a signiFicant inpact on t.hecommunity may require review by consurtants -other t,hattown staff. Should a det.ernination be made by the townsLaff that an outside consultant is needed to reviewany application, Comlnunity Development may hire anoutside consultant, it shall estimate the amount of
c.
u
money necessary to pay hlm or her and this amounL shallbe forwarded to the- Town by the appllcant. at tne-timehe files his apptication "itf, ine Conmunity Development?:pilt*:lt. - Upon complerion of rhe review'"i-rfr"-
1I)prrclEr:ol Oy- the consultant, any of the fundsror!,rardecl by the applicant for payment of theconsuJtant which have not ueen faio to irt"-."nsultantshaLl be returned to the applicirrt. Expenses incurredby the Town in excess of tirl amounr foriraiaJA UV-it"appllcant shall be paid to the Town by tne-aJpficantwithin 30 days of not.ification by the Tornn.
\-rl
t
+
T
\
l;.=.:i-: atF r"Jl:i I L-
, ---.-.: .i .. ri it!-I_r:- '_..1: : r
i. .j ; i. i: .iI
1.
2.
SCHEDI'I-,E A
ORDER Nt !!BER.: 91o07394C5
EFFECIM DAIE: Uarch 15, 1992 at
POIJICI OR POI,ICIES BO B8 ISSUED:
A. AI,TA OW!IM,'S POIJICY
PROPOSED INST]RED:
B. ALTA LOAI{ POIICY
PROPOSED INSURED:
C. AI"TA I"OAN POLICY
PROPOSED INSTTRED:
fHE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE I,AND DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO IN THIS
couMrTuErflr AlfD covERED HEREIN rs Fnn-stuPLE AND TITLE TITERETo Is AT
TIIE EFFECTIVE DATE I{EREOF VESTED IN:
FREDERICK S. OTTO
TI'E I,AND BEFSRRED TO IN trIIIS COMMITMENT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
SEE ATTACHED IJEGAL
PREMTU}':OWNERS: 180.00
copLes to:
FreCl otto
STEWART IITLS
OF EAGLE COI'NTY, INC.
P.O. BOX 2000vArL, CO. 81558(303) 949-1011
8: OO A.14.
AIIIOI'NT OF XNSURAIICE
$ reo
3.
4.
SCHEDTILE A
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
ORDER NO,;91007394C5
That part of the Sff 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 12, Township
5 South, Range 81 West of thb sixth Principal-Meridian, Town or
Vai1, Eigle.eounty, Colorado, described as foLlons:
Beqinnin€t at a point on the soutberly right-of-way line of
InEersta€e Hiqhitay No. 70 whence an iron pin with a plastic cap
narking the c6ntei of said Section 12 beais S 33 degrees 19'19rt
w L447.03 feet;thence along siid southerly right-of-way line ttto courses
X) N 52 d.egrees 50'29rr E 229.56 feet
2) N 74 de<lrees 38'L7tt E 160.70 feet;
tirence depirting said southerly right-of-way line N 88 degrees
45'57t' E 138.93 feetr'thence S 4O degrees 45'14rr W 94.32 feet;
thence S 18 degrees 18'36rf W 54.08 feet;
thance s 01 degrees 2X'36x w 205.02 feet;
thence s 12 degrees 07'36x W 110.25 feeti
thence S 28 degrees 28'36rr w 164.48 feet;
tlrence N 40 degrees L7to4u w zLL. 16 feeti
thence N 49 degrees 42'56n E 97.80 feet;
thence N 37 degreeE o9'31il w 95.59 feet;
thence S 52 degrees 50'29t' lfl 55.10 feet;
thence 69.4g f6et along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the
left lraving a radius oi 65.00 feet, a central angle of 61
degrees 14i42rt and a chord that bears N 58 degrees 55'53r' W
66.22 f,eet;thence N 37 deqrees 09'31rr W 118.50 feet
To The True Point of Beginning.
COU!(TY OF EAGLA
STATE OF COI,oRADO
THIS COultI${ENT WAS PREPARED ON UARCH 23, L992. FOR QUESTIONS
PT.EASE CALL KAREIT BROSTUS (303) e49-1011.
SCHEDUI,EB-SECTIONl
oRDffi. $UtlBER: 91007394C5
REQUIRTX.IENTS
.TEE FOLLOWING ARE THE REQUIRE!'IENTS To BE CoMPLIED YIITH:
rrElt (A) pAyllgNT to oR FoR rEE ACCOI Mt OF THE GR,AlflxoRs oR MORTGAGORS
or rld iqnr. collsrDERAtrou FoR THE ESTATE oR TNTEREST ro BE rNsttRED.
rTElt (B) PROPEB INSTRITMENT (S) CREATING THE ESTATA OR INTEREST TO BE
usunio-ldusr BE ExEctrxED eNo Dtnv FrLED FoR REcoRD, To wrr:
1. Execution of affidavit as to Debts and Liens and its return to
Stewart Title Guaranty ComPanY.
2. Evidence satisfactory to stewart Title Guaranty Conpany. of.
palment of all outstanding taxes and assessments as cerElrleo
by The Eagle CountY ,Treasurer.
3' Execution of certificate - Entity Transferor'lrndividual
Transferor and its return to the office.
4. Evidence Eatisfactory to Stewart Tltle Guaranty^C,qnPSnlr that the
real estate transfer-tax assessed by the Eown of Vail has been
paid or that the transaction is exernpt fron said tax.
5. Release by the Public trustee of Eagle county of the Deed of
Trust troi Viit Ventures, Ltd., a C6lorado L-inited-Partnershipfor the use oi-Slt Mortgale Corforation, a California corporation
io se'cure $7r5oorooo.06, -dated-october 31, 1984 recorded
Novenber 15,'198i in goik 399 at Page 843 as Reception No.
295133.
6. Assiqnment of above Deed of Trust to Beverly Hills Savings &
Loan-Agsociation recorded Deeernber 31, 1984-in Book 4O3 at Page
eff as Reception !Io, ZggglT and rerec6rded January 14,. 1985 in
Book 4o5 aCPage 6 as Reeeption No. 301290.
7. Deed of Trust fron the Borrohler to the Public Trustee for ttre
use of the proposed lender to secure the loan.
8. Redenption eel:tificate executed by the Pub1ic Trustee-'
evidencinq redenption by a lienholder. who currently nolos a
valid liefi aqain-st subject property fron the sale shown bypublic Trust6e,s CertificatE o? Purchase recorded January 8'
1992 in Book 570 at Page 241 as Reception No. 466360.
Continued on next Page
CONTINUATION SHEES
SCTIEDT'LEB-SEEIIOHr.
ORDER NTITIBER: 91OO?394C5
.9. pubtlc Trusteera Deed issued to the above referenced lienlrolder,
at the ocpiration of the redenption period.
NOTE:
'NOVTONO
rltE VALID LIEI{ITOLDER REDEIX'IS ST'B"'ECT PROPERTY,
OTITER TIIAT{ BEVMI,Y TIILLS SAVING AI{D LOAIT ASSOCTATION,
REQUXREUENTS 5 AITD 5 WILI, BE DELESED.
NOTE: For aD addltlonal charge, Stewart Title of Eagle County
nill provide any copies of ex6eltions as shown on schedule B -
Section 2.
\
SCHEDI'LEB.SECTION2
EXCEPTIONS
ORDER NTUBER: 91007394C5
EIIE POL C:T OR POLICfES TO BE ISSUED WXLL CONTAIN EXCEPAIONS fO TIIE
FOIJPWXNG T'NLESS THE SAI{E ARE DISPOSED OF TO TTTE SATISFAqIION OF
AgE CO}TPANY:
1. RIGHTS OR CI,JilII{S OF PARTIES IN POSSESSION NOT
PI'BI,TC RECORDS.2. EASE!,IENTS, OR CIAr!{S OF EASE!,IENrS, NOT SHOWN
RECORDS.3. DTSCREPANCIES, CONFIICIIS rN BOITNDARY LINES, SHORTAGE IN AREA',
ENCROACHI,{ENTS; AND Al{Y FACTS WHrCH A CORRECT SURVEy A}rD
INSPEC:FION OF-THE PRE!,IISES WOI'LD DISCLOSE AND I{HICH ARE NOT
SHOIiil BY THE PT'BLTC RECORDS.4. AIiIY LIEN, OR RIG}IT TO A LIEN, FOR SERVICES, I,ABOR OR }IATERIAL
ITERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER FURNISHED, IUPOSED BY LAw AIID NOT
SHOWN BY THE PI'BI,IC RECORDS.5. DEFECTS, LIENS, ENCUMBRANCES, ADVERSE CI"AIMS OR OTHER U,ATIERS,
IN ANY,-CREATED, FTRST APPEARING IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OR
A1.TAcHtNc SUBSEqUENT To THE EFFECTIyE DATE HEREgF BUf PRIOR
TO THE DATE PROFOSED INSI'RED ACQUIRES OF RECORD FOR VALUE
THE ESTATE OR INTEREST OR MORTGAGE THEREON COVERED BY TIIIS
coMl,llTlr[El.lT.6. UNPATENIED MINING cLArMSi RESERVATIoNS oR EXCEPTIoNS
IN PATENTS OR AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE THEREOF'
WATER RIGHTS CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WASER.
NOTE: rrlIECHAllIC'S LIENil AllD/oR nGAPil PROTECTION
(E:KCSFTTONS 4 AlrD 5 ABOVE) MAY B8 AVArr,,ABr,E WmH AN
OWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSI'RANCE ON RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY I'PON CO}IIPLIA}.ICE WITII STEWART TITLE GUARANTY
REQUIREMSNTS. PTEASE CALL TOR FURrIIER INFORI,TATION
AS TO TIIOSE SPECIFIC REQUIREI,TENT (S) NECESSARY TO
OBTAIN TIIIS COVERAGE.
7. Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments
sales.
and any unredes[ed tax
SHOIIN BY TIIE
BY IIIE PTJBI.IC
8.The effect of inclusions in any general or specific water
conservancy, fire protection, -oi.l conservation or other
aiJiiici ol'inctusion in any'uater service or street inprovenent
area.
Reeervations or exceptions contained in U-S- Patentg,- o1^!1 |ctsauthorizinE the issubnce thereof, recorded Aggust 16' l?99-1"-Book 48 at-Page 542' reserving 1) Rights of the EroPrietor-of a
vein or lode €o extiact and r6novi.tii"l'8".1:ffit;#"and 2)
9.
I
CONTTNUATTON SHEET
SCIIEDT'LEB-SECTION2
EXCEPTIONS
ORDER iltn{BER: 910o7394C5
rights of way for ditctres and canals constructed under the
authority of the United States.
10. Teras and Conditions of the Declaration Creating Covenants'
conditions, Restrietions and Easements for cascade_villa?e, --recorded ;ruly rz, 198x. in Book 326 at Page 255 as Reception No.
2226La.
11, Terms and Conditions of the Agreement by and between-Hol-y-Cross
Electric Association, Inc., a-colorado eorporation, Cascade
Lodqe. a Colorado Joint Venture and lilansfield Linited, a
Eof5iiao finilta partnership, recorded Augusl 26, 1982 in Bool<
344 at Page 811 as Reception No. 24LL56.
12. Underqrround Right-of-way granted by Mansfiefd Linited, a
Colorido Lirnited Partnership to ltoly Cross Electrrc AssoclaEron,
Inc., by docurnent recorded lugust 3-0, 1982 in Book 34tl at Page
923 as Reception No. 24L268.
13. A 25 foot wide gas line easement and 2O foot wide sewer easement
as shown on the Improvement Location Survey' prepared by E?gle
vaLley Engineering- & surveying, Inc., dated Septenber 9, 1982'
insofar as they nay affect subject property.
14. Right of Way Easement Eranted to western Gas gupply ggnPln{, a
coiorado colporation by Mansfield, Ltd. r a colorado Linited
Partnership,-recorded January 24, 1985 in Book 405 at.Page 524
ii-necep|ibn llo. 3o1gog, ins6far'as it nay affect subject property.
15. Conveyance of Easenent from Vail Ventures, Ltd., a Colorado _linit-ed partnership to Cascade CIub, ltd., a Coloraclo limiteclpii€n"isiiip. for iirgress and egress purposes, etc. recorded
ipiif ro, iges in B5ok 41t at Fage e1s,- insofar as it nay
. affect subject ProPertY.
16. Ter:ms, conditions, reservations, restrictions and obligations.as--' ;;din"a-'ii-trre- 6ecilration Ji' REstrictive covenantE recorded'
JUne 23, Lg87 in Book 464 at Page 898 as Reception No. 36LLZ3.
1?. Convevance of Ski Lift Easement to vall Assoclateg' rnc., a.
Colorado corporation and Cascade Village Metropolitan Dj-strlct,
a quasi-nuniiipat Colorado corporation, recorded JanuaEy 23,
x96? in Book *B+ at Page ssz ai Reception No. 35116e'
Continued on next Page
*
CONTINUATION SHEET
SCHEDULEB.SECTION2
EXCEPTTONS
oRDER NTUBER: 91007394C5
18. Easement Deed fron Vall Ventures, Ltd.,a Colorado linited
cartnership to uDDer Eaqle vallei consolidated Sanitationbistrict, i guasi--nunicipal corp-oration, recorded septenber 14,
1987 in Book 459 at Page 713 as Reception No. 365933.
19. Conveyance of Easement from Vait Venturesr Ltd., a Coloradolinited partnership to cascade village Association' Inc-, a -colorado-nonprofit-corporation, recoidea september 14, 1987 in
Book 459 at Page 714 as Reception No. 365934.
20. Conveyance of Public Access Easement for Pedestrians.by Vail
ventuies, Ltd., a Colorado linited partnership to vail
Associatis, Ini., a Colorado corporition and the Cascade Village
Metropolitin Disirict, a quasi-nirnicipal colorado corporation,
resorded June 23, L987 in-Book 464 at-Page 941 as Reception No.
361156.
21. Notice of AsEessment by Eagle county Assessor,property type, recorded MMarch l-3, 1992 in Book
as Reception No. 47LL26
22. Certificate, by Town Clerk of Vail, recorded March 13, 1992 in
Book 575 at Page Xl aE RecePtion No. 471125.
notlng the
575 at PaEe 12 I
tt
1.
2.
CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS
The term mortgage, when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or
other security instrument.
lf the proposed Inurred has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien,
encumbrunce, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or
mortgagE thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in
Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose srch knowledge to the Company in
writing, the Company strall be reliwed from liability for any loss or damage
rmrlting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced
by failure to so discloae zuch knowledge. lf the proposed Insured shall disclose Erctr
knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual
knowledge of any s.rch defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or othcr matts,
the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment
accordingly, but $ich amendment shall not reliwe the Company from liability
prwiously incurred pu$uant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulatioris.
Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named
proposed InEired and zuch parties included under the definition of lnsured in the
form of policy or poticiee committed for and only for actual les incurred in
reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith {al to comply with the reguirements
hereof, or (bl to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (e) to acquirc or
create the €state or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this commitment. In
no event $all crch liability exceed ths amount stated in Schedule A for the policy
or policies committed for and srch liability is subject to the inzuring prwisions and
the Conditions and Stipulations and the exclusions from coverage of the form of
policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby
incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except s
expressly modified herein.
Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and which arises
out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the lien of the insured
mortgage covered hereby or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to
the provisions and Conditions and Stipulations of this Commitment.
STE.WAR.T TITLE
GII'ARANTY OOTIPANY
All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to
be furnished the Company shall be addressed to it at P.O. Box 2029, Houston, Texas
77252, and identify this commitment by its printed COMMTTMENT SERIAL NUM-
BER which appears on the botrom of the front of the first page of this commitment.
3.
i4.
STIPULATIONS
Page 5
/