HomeMy WebLinkAboutCASCADE VILLAGE WESTHAVEN COMMON 3 LEGALfn\J
@
(t
@
o
(D
f ^r-
,.JJ-l' J{6ry^e /,b,,j
0 ,"-tz {uo t ./rz;t er
r'-/-L a-" d'-*o +.7 -:1.-*._.o 7
* oftI t?= .'-Al, j /-L z ( rv cr- <,t_< y'o
Y"t\ tL,.o A ..n-U- ,r^ ,1,.. , A*-J . nf) r' - -* n^ -n,".- L-'l L-. ,l' ,,, " !l:*i\ u'p
+ttd 3 1 ( o\f ,7v s .--Q"a p_ ,|.rv
'' t:'+r
*' --K +" J'a' c L'-+- s** -/r,v-,e'-(,
aya.yls
{t---,, L.<_a, f Ca sc+,o I.4
D
@
,l*r/^-s lnl.
7<
t\),/111--F3 +-4_
E,4,.-
* l, JJ s z a1..:5
lr-.J,dtt.E ...,.rr-<-.5 i..p a{_a<'e*UA,d
\;,1- n,^t/ Ar, /_1rt ( D-*''h
A^*LL yt
".
it1'-1.* L'- y.<- .-, -* A il,
r*( +i.,.r
This action would:
1. Cut down foot traffic.2. Reduce congestion at Golden Peak.3. Make the above areas of activity far more accessibleto tourists and locals a1ike.4. Increase attendance and participation to alI the abovefacilities and the events they provide because of the
more direct, convenient access.
I should like to ask the committee which is to deterrnine thefate of this land: What makes more sense for our community?
l-. Remove the land forever from public use and I'givett itto a private land owner for private developrnent.
or
2. Continue to keep this in park use designation.
I urge you take a ten to twenty year view, The eventual cost
becomes inconsequential to its uses,
f request my proposal become a matter of record and that thecornrnitteers response to this proposal also be duly noted.
Lh-^"r"17eu--4^ 4,.-.
Nancy Rondeau
Resident of Vail Golfcourse area.
.A-=?- rr
f3 t^"< 1, ,yJr_n -n_,,r 1o tt
4 Ez'l dI<
*p-' i*4 /' d/-""2 / 6 l.,[-€r .4 h ./ f ^. ."_L_**o.t
J*//". s,Je,-:."!l
b4 . Lr( au,,{-t,
ft( .tA,.l=_
# z <./r;L-,
tfz El1tr3
fY s*r/u
t't.zaf
"*? '^
6.ao, : ,0- ,*"J ,( u
_;./-r/, el * ftq
_/n."o tL 2fk<
t.+ . .4 ,,or,- t_-_,./,
/)!/Jol. t.ttaA,a\ sh/= tt{fl?
rua<,/; 6, "/<zl L1/< & 7c,k
/*" *r"'t 't> bnlof rA,_, v t-zt . c,r_", .
A ..r
'''o't
" f /'t l -. f r^o"" /t,.*---$-(1. Z/-{
{t,//- -lr'n l. iq- /
.#ez
^_j,l_iJ
/ S $:--f<r f"/*.,.-,._
,tuI'n.t'"
f/" ft.f
n,\.) )/'-*- FL,*l
6r.1 4'JqK* 4 Sftn*,t /-",^-
'/.{f Oq
"' .. '1
)
//t..r..1/r,k # | -'p
o
4
\
.:
Irt is my undersfanding that the had zoned thisit has remainedthis moment inparcel Tract C,7th Filing as
that designation\al1 these Years,i+ ic .af
time, sti11 "Par , correct?
unders dabl-e to n say j-t still belongs to a
designat'
valued use today r
observations:
Would it bepublic use
I should like to poi out tha the very best, wisest and most
1ic use for the following
(parks) by numbers of users
than ten years ago and I
continue to qrow.
ar.ns p
1. Uses of our Publ eas
alone, are great oday
envi-sion these n sto
The location of
contiguous to our
It is also locat
traffic bottle
(And note that
1S land is
Town
Golden Peak,
11 of VaiI on
not isolated, it is
of Vail multi use park
our most congested
a year round basis.
ful1 renovation andpeople, vehicles,
access and egress. )
kin
its then in easedvi1l reambulances et
I propose that th cont].quous
i-ts current zon definition
fnr .Fhal- nrrreDossess this 1 n
of land be retained in
that the Town of Vail
tion t t this parcel
remove the
hat are
e T.O.V.nsider
is due for
arrr.c ot
i-re snooth
arcel
and
ose.
S
a
A
Further, that
be used as th
present circl
shuttle servi urnaro n-Ee aR-'-Tn e reby extend i ng
e to the Vail Valley D
lacrosse field, Ford
ive corridor abuttinq the
soccer, rugbl,ark, Nature Center, Ford
Amphitheate{,Betty Ford AIpine G rden, the Town tennis
cenEers/ a V,R. D. Cross Country t il - all of whi-ch are
huttle system.erviced adequately bY our
around,'Iw East en
stil1 not \ /4.-F,^t,l,L ){-nr+
\
f-rl\*LF"!)
V'
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
February 27,1995
{.'ff *"[.-. 4r,lrr
6r{6 aa1' c <t-l \
,rtk*
SUBJECT: A request tor a major amendment to SDD #4 Cascade Village to allow for the
completion ot the Westhaven Condominiums (The Ruins) located at 1325
Westhaven Drive/Cascade Village, SDD #4.
Applicant: Gerald Wuhrman, General Manager of the Westhaven
CondominiumsPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a major SDD amendment for the Westhaven Condominiums site.
This is one of the parcels located within Area A, Cascade Village, SDD #4. In 1982, the Town
issued a building permit for this site and construction started. After a loundation and first floor
parking structure had been completed, construction stopped. The current proposal is to
complete the work, taking the existing improvements and using them as the first floor.
A major SDD amendmenl is required as the applicant is proposing to change the number of
dwelling units and increase the amounl of GRFA. Both of these modifications trigger the
major SDD amendment review process. The approved SDD allows twenty free market units,
ten employee housing units and GRFA of 22,500 square feet lor the free market units and
6,400 square feet lor the employee housing units. The proposal includes fourteen lree market
dwelling units, sixteen employee housing units. 26.284 sq. ft. of GBFA tor the free market
units and 7,707 square feet ot GRFA tor the employee housing units. There is a change to
lhe ratio of free market and employee housing units but not an increase in the overall
number of dwelling units. ln addition, there is an increase of 3,794 square leet of
additional GRFA for the tree market condominiums and 1,304 square teet of additional
GRFA for the employee housing units.
In addition to the modilications requested regarding density, the applicant is proposing minor
modifications to the architeclure, landscaping and site coverage requirements. The SDD
required 50% of the site to be landscaped. The applicant is proposing 47.9o/o. The site
coverage limitation is 35% and the applicant is proposing 36.7a/o. These aspects of the
request will be discussed in greater detail laler in lhe memo.
The other development standards are generally the same as the previous project. There will
be enclosed parking on the lirsl floor of the structure and three to four stories ol
condominiums above the parking level. Though the architectural style is different, the mass
and bulk of the building is basically the same because the footprint ol the existing foundation
will not be modified. Please see the development statistics on the following page for a
detailed comparison of the standards allowed by the SDD, the development standards for the
1982 approval, and the standards associaled with lhe proposed development.
[.
Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, is made up of four subareas. Area A is
made up of the Westin Hotel, Cascade Club, CMC, Millrace Phases I through lV, Westhaven
Condominiums, LiftsideMaterford, and Cornerstone. Area B is the Coldstream
Condominiums. Area C is made up of the Glen Lyon duplex lots. Area D is the Glen Lyon
Office Building. Development statistics are provided for each area. As a result, the site
coverage stipulated for Area A, which is 35%, applies to approximately 18 acres. Bather than
require the applicant to provide a site coverage analysis of approximately 'l I acres, in the
past, staff has applied the development statistics to each lot individually. This has been the
practice since approximately 1990. The projects that have been reviewed under this method
include Cornerstone, Waterford, Millrace Phase lll and Millrace Phase lV. The advantage to
this method is that it allows a calculation of the development statistics on the land that is
being reviewed and does not require off-site analysis. In the previous examples, the
proposals complied with the development statistics when calculated for the individual lots and
the proposed drawings clearly conformed with the maximum development allowances
orovided for in the SDD.
When the staff reviewed the development standards on the individual parcel lor this project,
there are three development standards which the applicant exceeds. This includes GRFA,
site coverage, and landscaping. The developer agrees that the request for additional GRFA is
above what the SDD allowed. That request is evaluated in greater detail in the criteria below.
However, the site coverage discrepancy (1.7%) and the landscaping discrepancy (2.1"h) may
not actually be discrepancies. depending on the method of calculation. Staff acknowledges
that the discrepancies are not significant. Moreover, stalf acknowledges that the SDD states
that site coverage and landscaping should be calculated for the entire Parcel A, of which the
Westhaven Condominiums is a small part.
Recent development approvals, specifically Millrace Phase lV, did not take advantage of all of
the available site coverage or landscaping required. Specifically, for Millrace Phase ''/. 9,g00
square feet of site coverage was "left on the table". Similarly, lhere was approximatety 10,000
square leet of landscaping which was provided in excess of the minimum amount required.
These figures cover the 1.7"/o (or 639 square feet) of site coverage overage and the ?.1"h (ol
745 square feet) of landscaping deficiency.
In conclusion, staff believes that il continues to make sense to evaluate each oarcel
individually. From a record Keeping point ol vrew, slaft believes that the develooment
standards for each site should be calculated based on the land under the proposed
development. This has been the method Jor the last five years and staff believes it is
reasonable to continue to use it. Notwilhstanding the simplicity of this method, staff
acknowledges that the site coverage and landscaping discrepancies identified in the rnemo
should not be viewed as significanl issues as. elsewhere within Area A, there is excet, site
coverage and landscaping which could hypothelically be shared.
ilt.
Lot Area:
Zoning:
Height:
GRFA:
Free ltlarket:
EHUs:
Total:
Common Area:
Density:
Free Market:
EHUs:
Setbacks:.
Site Coverage:
Landscaping:
Retaining Walls:
Parking:
Employee Housing;
SDD
55'
22,500 sq. ft.
6.400 sq. ft.
28,900 sq. ft., or 789.
10,1 15 sq. ft. or 35%
20 dwelling units
10 EHUs
30 total units
20' on periphery
of the pfoperty
35% or 12,959.1 sq. tt.
50% min. or 18,513 sq. ft.
376'
75% shall be enclosed
44 spaces required
minimurn of I units:
manimum of 648 sq. tt. each:
should not count towards
density or GFFA.
1982
Previous
Plans
0 sq. ft.
26.G80 sq. ft.
26,G80 sq. tt., or 72Eo.
4,261 sq. lt. o( 14.70/"
0 dwelling units
20 EHUs
20 total units
JY
34.3olo or 12,686 sg. ft.
41.2Y" or 15,243 sq. ft.
none proposed
37 enclosed (78%)
1 0 exterior
47 total spaces
20 units; however deed
restrictions are not clear
1995
Proposed
Plans
26284. sq. tr.
7,704 sq. ft.
33,988 .q. ft., or 92%
3,417 sq. ft. or 11.8ol.
14 dwelling units
'16 EHUs
30 total units
24'
36.704 or 13,598 sq. ft.
47.9ctu or 17,767.4 39. ft.
none proposed
36 enclosed (80%)
9 exterior
45 total spaces
16 EHUs, similar to
Type lll restrictions
0.85 acres
SDD
or 37,026 sq. ft.
.SDD requires a setback measurement on the periphery of the SDD. Staft has measured one setback, which is the distance between
the building and the north property line. The norlhern properry lrne rs rhe only one which also is the periphery of the Aroa A of the SDD.
lv.SDD CRITERIA
The proposed building rellects the general architectural style of the Cascade Village
area. The building will have a standing seam metal roof, stucco walls, and metal
railings lor the balconies. The pitched rool is broken up in several different areas by
gables and hips. There are a variety of covered and open decks on both the north and
south elevations which add interest to the building. Staff has provided reductions of
the drawings at the end of the memo which show the proposed architecture, as well as
the architecture of the building approved in 1982. The'lgg2 approval was based on a
building module that was repeated tive times, and the building also had a flat roof.
Staff believes that the current proposal incorporates much more variety and will be a
better contribution to the Cascade Village area than the 1g82 design..
The applicant is proposing a building that is 55 feet tall. The SDD allows for a building
of this height. The previous building was proposed to be 47 feet tall. The applicant
has provided the roof elevations of the surrounding buildings and the proposed bui6ing
would be 19.3 feet lower than the Cascade Club, the same height as the CMC
Buifding, and 25 feet taller than the Millrace Building to the south. lt is approximately
30 feet taller than the elevation of the south Frontage Road. After walking the site,
staff believes that the height of the building will not appear to be excessive when
viewed from the South Frontage Road or the Interstate. The ridge of the proposed
slructure is located 125 feet south of the Frontage Road and 55 feet trom westhaven
Drive. Staft believes that the height adjacent to Westhaven Drive may be signilicant;
however, it is important to keep in mind that the roof ridges comply with the height
limits set forth in the SDD.
of the three areas where there is a discrepancy between the proposed drawings and
the zoning standards setlorth in the sDD, one is site coverage. The sDD allows 35%
site coverage or 12,959.1 square feet. The applicant is proposing 36.7% or 13,s9g
square feet. Due to the 1991 change in the definition of "site coverage", there are
three areas of roof overhang that currenlly count as site coverage, that woutd not have
counted as site coverage during the 1982 review. lf these lhree areas are excluded,
the total site coverage is reduced lo 34.4"k. Staff believes that the added architectural
{eatures of deep roof overhangs help break up the massing and add visual interest.
one of the concerns raised at the PEC worksession on February 13, 1gg5 was related
to the first floor of the south elevalion ol the building. This will be the wall enclosing
the parking structure which, at the worksession, did not have any openings in it. In the
last two weeks, the applicant has redesigned this wall creating four openings for
louvers. Staff believes that this is a step in the right direction but that there should be
two additional openings created. stalf understands that due to the foundation's
structural character, it is not possible to add additional arched openings in the areas
between spaces which have already been created. Instead, staff recommends that the
A.
t
design include recesses of a similar shape to match the other openings, we alsorecommend that the louvers be finished in a way that is aesthetically pleasing. As anexample, for the police addition, lhe Town finished exhaust louvers irom the parking
structure with cedar boards which match the exterior finishes. Staff believes that with
these changes, the visual quality of the lirst floor of the building will improve.
In general, staff believes that the design compatibitity and the proposed architecture
relative to the scale, design, bulk, and height of adjacent properties is reasonable. The
building does not exceed the height alowed in the SDD. According to staff, the design
of the b_uilding is a significant improvement over the design approveo oy the Town in1982. The overall scale of the building is reasonable given the context of the
surrounding buildings. The one negative aspect of the proposal which statf has
identified is the height of the building relative to Westhaven Drive and Millrace phase
lll. Though the proposed structure will be higher than the Mijlrace lll Building, staff
believes the amount of landscaping located between the proposed building and the
street will help buffer the proposed mass and bulk. In summary, staff believes thatproposal lulfills the criteria in this section.
l .J-I*.f,*-'
the
B.
The proposed use, thirty condominiums, is an appropriate proposal for this location, in
staff's opinion. we believe that adding density, in the form of restricted employee
housing, to the Cascade Village area is appropriate. Staff will discuss the details of
the employee housing under criteria D below. one of the most significant issues
involved with this proposal is the request for additional density.
The applicant is proposing 26,284 square feet of GRFA for free market dwelling units
and 7,704 square feet of GFtF4lgrqmptoyee housing units. The total GRFA proposed
is 33.988 srua(e teet. This i{g.ze+ }quare leet more for the free markel dweiling
units and 630abquare teet m66J;the employee housing units than what the sDD
allows. Staff would like to emphasize the tact that there are sixleen employee housing
units as part of this proposal. of the total lloor area for the projecl., 7J04 square feet,
or 22.77o, is dedicated for employee housing.
The sDD allows various options regarding the employee housing and the floor area
associated with the housing. lt is clear that the sDD allows up lo ten employee
dwelling units and 6,400 square leet of floor area without diminishing the development
potential of the tree market units. However, it reouires that eight dwelling units at a
minimunl of 648 square feet each (or 5,184 square feet total) be included as employee
housing in the project. This allowance and requirement should be used in evaluating
the request lor additional lloor area for both the free market and employee housing
units.
unrelated to employee housing, the applicant has included 4,340 square feet of floor
area in fourteen separate lock-offs. Each free market dwelling unit will have one lock-
otf ol approximately 310 square feet.
d*r;,1
(l
18.52.
c.
D.
Given all the various requirements and limitations, staff believes that the cansity
increase is acceptable as the overall mass and bulk are compatible with the
surounding uses and buildings.
All parking and loading requirements have been met.
oolicies and Urban Desion Plans.
The key elements of the adopted Comprehensive Plan that pertain to this proposal
relate to employee housing. lhe SDD minimum of housing
648 e feet each for a iotal o
ude n employee 550 e feet for
to e previous proposal included twenty dwelling un
ng 1,020 to '1 ,648 square {eet, tor a total of 26,680 square feet. The
employee restrictions that were to apply to the previous project are not clear. Although
the Town has no documents on record, we believe that there was an agreement that
the employee dwelling units would be used by the employees of the westin Hotel.
There are several goals and policies from the Land Use plan which pertain to the
employee housing:
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a
balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve
both the visitor and the permanent resident.
5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in
existing platted areas as appropriate and new areas where high hazards
do not exist.
5.3 Affordabte employee housing should be made available through private
efforts assisted by timiled incentives provided by the Town of Vail with
approprlate restrictions.
5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and
upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be
accommodated at various sites throughout the community.
staff believes that the way the emptoyee housing is incorporated in this project is
consislent with the Goals and Policies of the Land Use plan as listed above. Staff
would like to emphasize that the goals to maintain growth within existing areas, that
employee housing should be created through private efforts, and that the employee
housing base needs to be upgraded are all directly lulfilled with this proposal. Stall
believes that the Cascade Village area is an excellent location for sixteen employee
housing units. The units will be located on the bus line, will be within walking distance
of a ski lift to the mountain, and will also be adjacent to a major employer, the westin
Hotel.
The applicant has discussed the type of deed restriction that would be required as part
of this proiect with staff and believes that the Type llt EHU deed restriction shoutd beused. This is much more restrictive than the previous agreement. The Type lll deed
restriction is attached at the end of this memo. Staff believes that two modifications
should be made to the deed restriction lor this project. The first is that the units should .fua
notbe sold individually. The second is that the size requirement (450 square feet ,in,,_-minimum)shou|dbewaivedinthiscase.Staffbe|ievesthatwiththesetwo
modifications to the deed restriction, that the proposed project fulfills the goal of
providing employee housing better than the 1992 project.
At the PEC worksession, there was a significant discussion regarding the Type lll deed
restriction and whether these units should be sold separately. Though staff is
recommending that they nol be sold separately, several pEC members believed that
individual ownership would be reasonable. Staff has considered the input carelully and
believes that the Aspen housing example should be considered. when units are
individually bought and sold, the Aspen Housing Authority is the listing agent and rr" J
reviews all prospective purchasers to ensure that they comply with Housing Authority , .,shndards' At this time, the Vail Housing Authority does not have the staff or the bL{t -authority to be the listing agent tor the individual sale of units. We would recommend .kn,L.n .
that the Town move in this direction to allow the sale of these type of units; however, 0
since the system is not in place at lhis time, we would recommend that the units
continue to be held by one owner. lf in the future, the Town does expand its housing
authority role, we support lhe idea ot individual ownership, whether it be for owner
occupied units or for local business owners to be able to provide housing for their
employees.
E.
er.
n and mitiqation of
propertv on which the special development district is proposed.
There are no hazards which effect this proposal.
Adjacent to the site to the north is a large berm. on the north side of this berm is a
scar made when the South Frontage Road was constructed. A utility pole is located at
the highest point of the berm and a second pole is located to the east at a lower
height. slatf believes that as part ol the redevelopment ol this site, the applicant
should be responsible for regrading and revegetating this scarred hillside. We believe
that the applicant should lower lhe berm height so that its steepest grade does not
exceed 2:1. In order to do this, removing the utility poles would be required. staff
believes the applicant should be responsible for undergrounding a streich ol utility line
from the pole adjacent to this site, to the third pole to the west and regrading and
landscaping the berm. slatf has reviewed the regrading plan submitted by the
applicants since the worksession and believes that the applicant has addressed these
issues thoroughly. Please see the attached diagram.
The site plan includes a surface parking arealor nine spaces. lt is located between
the building and the Frontage Road. Due to changes in elevation and due to its
location, north of the building it will not be highly visible.
The proposed landscape plan includes five 1O-foot tall spruce, six 8-foot tall spruce,
and seven 6-foot tall spruce. In addition, there are twenly-seven 2-inch caliper aspen.
Staff believes that a critical aspect ol the landscape plan is to berm up and screen the
south elevation of the first floor ol the building. The first floor of the building adjacent
to Westhaven Drive is the parking garage and will have a solid wall. lt will be setback
approximately 25 teet from the edge of pavement. The first tloor will be unbroken
stucco, approximately 11 feet high. Staff believes it will be imperative to provide a
significant amount of landscaping in this area to provide an aesthetically pleasing
pedestrian level.
It is important to note that the SDD requires 50o/o of the site to be landscaped. The
applicant is proposing 47.9k oI the site to be landscaped. Staff believes this
difference may be justified il the improvements discussed above regarding the grading
and landscaping in the rightotway are accomplished.
iStatt Oetieues that the slight reduction in the minimum landscaped area should be
I supported. The regrading of the berm, the burying ot the utility lines, and the
\landscaping plan are all high quality improvements that come as a result ol this
\project.
G. A circulation svstem desioned for both vehicles and oedestrians addressino on
and off-site traffic circulation.
Circulation systems which are aflected by this proposal include vehicles, pedestrians,
and bicycles. Concerning the vehicles, staff believes it is a straight fonrard design that
ties into the existing street system appropriately. The pedestrian bike path crosses a
corner of the site and statf is requiring that the applicant provide an easement for this
public access. Concerning pedestrians, staJf believes that the applicant should
construct a sidewalk, not only adjacent to this property, but also to the east. The sDD
requires a sidewalk connection from the bikepath to the eastern edge ot the properg.
The applicant has indicated a witirngness to construct this at the beginning of the
Drocess. In addition to this
also constructE3ieFwalk in to
p, the . Though not immediately adjacent to this
parcel,ugn
this area is critical
housino units.
not required as parl of the original SDD, staff believes a sisewalk in
as a result of this projeci, especially given the sixteen employee
H. Functional and aesthetic landscapino and ooen soace in order to ootimize and
preserve nalural leatures, recreation, views and functions.
Staff believes that the landscaping plan is high quality. we believe that the number of
plants proposed is adequate as there are five 10-foot tall spruce, six 8-foot tall spruce,
and seven 6-foot tall spruce. In addition, there are twenty-seven 2-inch caliper aspen.
We believe that the quality of the design could be improved il the spruce snown
between the foundation wall planting and westhaven Drive were increased in height.
We would recommend that each spruce be increased by 2 feet.
originally, statf had thought that the appticant shoutd provide a tandscaping buffer
along the Frontage Road. This is not feasible as the slope south of the Frontage Road
is very steep. The applicant has provided some planling between the building ind the
Frontage Road in areas closer to the building and surfaie parking lot, where the lot
begins to flatten out.
V,
I
There is no phasing plan for this project.
1. The building, including the garage, must be sprinklered.
2- Easement may be needed for 24-inch corrugated metal pipe crossing
the site.
3. Provide curlc and gutler next to sidewalk for the enlire length of the
propeny.
4. Prior to issuance of building permit, civil engineering plans for road
improvements must be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail
Engineer.
5. An easement for the bike path shourd be dedicated to the pubric.
v]. coNclustoN
Statf recommends approval of the major SDD amendment. We believe the proposal fulfills
the criteria as discussed above. We are recommending approval with the foliowing eight
conditions:
/it( r.1 Prior to submitting an application for Design Review Board (DRB) review, the
applicant shall modily the architectural character of the tirst lloor wall adjacent
to westhaven Drive to include two additional arched recesses between the
openings shown on the south etevation ol the building.
Prior to submitting an apptication lor DRB review, the applicant, shall revise the
landscape plan showing that the spruce to be planted between the building and
weslhaven Drive will each be 2 feet higher than what is shown on the current
landscape plan.
Prior to issuance ol a buitding permit, the applicant shall sign Type lll EHU
deed restrictions for lhe sixleen employee housing units. The deed restrictions
shall be modilied to allow lloor area requirements to be less than 450 square
feet and shall be moditied to disallow individual ownership. ll the Town of vail
Housing Authority increases ns sdfling and role regarding the individual sale of
dwelling units, the units may be sold separately. until that time, the units shalt
be held under one ownership. & z;-L_ fL {-.4-*
€,{,N*l,ruli'L,
,rk
.b f4*rir^
Prior to issuance of a building permit, civil engineeriffi^n for road
improvements must be reviewed and approved by jfie Town of Vail enqineer.
Boad improvements shall include curb and gutter fortffieno{fr ot tne
property and a sidewalk as discussed in Condition I t
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate an easemenr
for the bike path that crosses this property.
Prior to issuance of a Temporary certificate of occupancy (Tco), the applicant
shall regrade and revegetate the berm adjacent to the site in the colorado
Department of rransportation (cDor) right-of-way so that its northern slope
does not exceed 2:'l .
Prior to issuance of a TCo, the applicant shall remove the two utility poles
adjacent to this site in the cDor right-of-way and shall bury the utility line to
the third utility pole west of this property.
Prior to issuance of a TCO, the applicanl shall construct a sidewalk in the
westhaven Drive right-of-way. This sidewalk shall extend from the weslern
edge of the property at the bike path to the east to the entrance to the cascaoe
Club.
The entire building, including the garage, must be sprinklered.
IolJ
,r)
9
clpec\m€mosVuins.
10
$
=M
1-i--Tl
=I\lII:l
e)
sF
R
$
tsI'E
=\{\vz
=$,
K
\)
*
N
j
[I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\t/A/
Ps\\t>tt- \d-:
ol'!Y^ - r (xt! tg'nl^ ,oVI6V)
sY{ntDntxNo) Nt^vHrst Ao
n-rs
FI
LI
F:l
tltl
l=l
&a
o
:
Aii
o
o
o
o,
cl
1
:
rl
I
c
3Fat<(
lt
Ei t;,ii.itl
3" i t't'i'|
'o.-arl^ t ao.
f "rrr,n ooNctc N3r\v,'*Brr*l
ltrl
'lli'
l/islrill-i
ili'l
i/ /'f
l! l :,5
[{(fl
\\,'fi
) iti
I
I
I
/tl
I
l
I
hII
Ia
d
il
\
\\R
\\\)
N
IN;
:.: :
ii,
of 'lr ' r @s . lrrrx]\ nv:fi:lsrYrlllooNo) Nl^vl{rs:I^o
H
tl
EI
n
ff
Frll.l
rl
kt
i5lfl
6l
-J5 I
1-v;
.-!
i,
i
-- -- -t
I
I
o lEl ;r"'if;*;mm lFl+l
t-r El
5-
rI
H
i,1
.ti
:::l
o E.l
o fEl s.n$';tmlgil
TYPE III EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
WHEHEAS,is the owner of
ceflain property ('th€ owneo described as:
(lhe Property"); and
WHEREAS, lhe Onner wishes to ptace certain restrictions on lhe usa of a unit or apanment
located on the Property lor the benelit ot the o ner and the Town ot vail. colorado ('the Tou/n"}.
NOW, THEREFORE, the O,vner does hereby impose, establish, acknowledge, doclare tor the
benelit ol all petsons who may hereinatler purchase, or lease, or hold lhe subi€ct tanat lh€ tollowing
reslriclions, oovsnants, and conditions. a ot which shall be de€med to run with th€ land and inwe to
the benetit and be bonding upon the Owner, its respective grantees, successors, and assrgns.
unit or Apartment _, containing _ square teet, is hereby reslicted as
a Type lU Employee Ftousing Unil (EHU) whicil must comply with a the provisions ot
Sections 18.57.020, 18.57.030, and 18.57.060 uf the Vait Municipat Code as ame1.ded.
The Type lll Employee Housrng Unit sha be leased to tenants who are lull-time
employees who work in Eagte county. An EHU shall not be leased lor a Deriod less
tnan thirty consecutive days. For the purposes ol this section, a fulFtimg €mploye€ is
one who works an average ol lhrrly hours each week.
A Type lll EHU may be sotd, lransterred, or conveyed separately f.om other dwelling
units of Employee l-tousing Units that may be located on ths same lot or withio the
same building so long as it meels the tollowing conditions:
,a) lt must b; used by the owner ol the EHU as a permanent resadence, For lhe
purpose ot lhrs paragraph, a permanent residenCe shall mean the home or
place in tt/hich one's habitation is fixed and to which one. whenever he or she
is absent, has a presenl intention ol returning after a depanurg or absence
theretrom, regardless ol the duralion ol absence, In determining what is a
permanent resldence, the TOwn slaft shalt take the tollowing cirCumslances
o
acclunl: business
l*.
relating to the owner ol the residence inlo pursuils,
etnployment, in@me sources, residence tot inc[.me ot othet Ex putposes, age,
matital status, residence of pat€nts, spouse and childten if any, location ol
petsonal and real property, an tnotor vehicle fegisttation'
b) tl a Type ltl EHU i9 sold, lranslert€d, or ootrvsy€d sepatately |tom th€ other
dwelling units ancl/or Typ€ lll EEployee flousing Unils in a multfamily
I
structure il is apart ol, or from other dwelling units and/or Type lll EHUS localed
on the same lot, the Type lll EHUS in the strudure or on that lot shall be
subiect to all the ptovision set lorlh in section 18'57.020.
4. The Typ€ l EHU sha not be divided into any lorm ol timeshargs, interval ownefship,
or ftactional tee orirnership as lhose lerms ars detind in the Municlpal code of the
Town ot Vail.
5. No later than February 1 of each yeal, the owner ot each employee housing unit with'n
the town which is conslfucted tollowing th6 effective date ol lhis chapter thall submll
-q
lwo oopies ol a repon o'l a form to be obtained from lhe Community Davelopment
Department, to the Community Oevelopment Oepattmenl of the Town ol Vail and
Chairman of the Town ol Vait Houstng Authoriry setting lorth evidence eslablishing lhat
the employee housing unit has been rented throughout lho ygat, the renlal rale, the
emptoyet, and that each tenant who resides within the employee housing unil is a lull'
time employee in Eagle Counly.
6. The owner of each EHU shalt rent the unit at a monthly renlal rale consistent wilh or
lowef lhan those market tates prevalent tor similat ptopertPs tn lhe Town ot Vaat
7. 'Ihe Town of vail Housrng Authoflly will determine the market rate based on the sudy
of othor units ol comparable stze, localion, quality and amenilies throughout the Town.
The rnarhet rate shall be based on an avetage ol a minimum of five tental rates of
comparabte units. the unit is not remed and is not availablg al the market tate it shall
be determrned to be in noncompl,ance. In addilion to any olher penalties and
resfidions provaded herein, a unit iound to be in noncompliance shall be subiecl lo
publication as determined by the Housing Authotity.
By:
Thirty days prior to the lransfer of a desd for a Type l EHU, th6 prospec0ve
purchaser shall submit an application to the communig o€t elopme oepartment
documenting that ttre gospective purchaser meets lh6 criteria set lorth above and shatl
include an affidavit aflirming that he or she meets these criteria.
The provisions of these restictive covenants may be enlorced by the Own6r and the
Town.
10. Th6 conditions, restriclions, sriputations, and agreemenb contained h€rein shal not be
waived' abandoned, terminated, or amended except by the written @nsenr ot both the
Town of vait and the owner ot the propeny.
TOWN OF VAIL, a Cotorado municipat corporation
Bob McLaurin, Town Manaoer
The foregoing Inslrumenl was acknowledged belore me this _ day ol
Notary Public
My commrssion exprres:
Property Owners
The loregoing inslrument was acknowledged betore mo this _ day ot
Norary Public
My commrssion exp,res: I
By:
c$or,t|irwrl.tl€lun
\$\
/ei\
1
I
-
il,l
I
- "\>.
s
.lt,
l
-
.l
---:-
r"
'5
-w\
1'. .l_.
lt
f)
,/ -1_-./' !.
I{o
IIt
,i1
!r t
il i
!rJ
!r)
.T
,
iri
i{l$tl
t:
il'tp
;;
1i
\r
TT.i
It,1{
-c
i{
:i
iJll
1n
I
s
$
+
ifE ijri
Llo qli*
iii: ji;'iit: li:iirlr 3iti
o(
II
I
J
c'-
J
q
-H
w
fdt
ql
'lai
li
TEol'
@
sl
BI
JIii
9i
{,1
aj
riit.'5..
$ro
q{
!
6
II$+I:r
F-oi
'${l{
.arfl!
riillii$i,$ii,
E'x
,D
D
*l
\rtbr{x.t
e
il
H
tl
slr+lrJ€I
*lr\l
tljtsl
ol
.!
ntdJ
:tJ
s
sl!lsl
\tl
&5F{fi -{
i{9,
\.!.!
.\*
L
f{
tt
rt
il
il
$it
I
i!'"f
ti .
s;
€+
fF
@
lr
.tfr
I
$
.1
ft
!&r
*t
l*rw
R ,l
$$l
Ir il
Elt
sF
S)
t--
R!t
F:;!t
t-fI
b!
III
q!
\l
1\
1
S1i{Ero
). 1
/rt\!.:/
IiH
fi r
tt :
li rtilit
It
gt
;l
3i:e
llr ffii ir
iit ii$;tii
i
I
d
iip
ril{
3(
5l
id4l{*
"riT
s
L.lr
ir
[$ti
l-$-
$e
lryt,f,i(!
;iltit
$$$
$l it
1,.
dI
.,EEAIT' Ir,. WUff|frAN
680 BEILA VIgnA @[nr gr,/r/'l'I
JIrPIlF.n, EI,,aIITA 9,8477
PHortIE: (4o21 747.22Oo nlxt EAzl Tqz-Ig4z
Sebruary 17, 1995
Colorado_ Department of Tranaportation222 South 5th Street "
Grand *function, co 91501-2769
Attentions l,[r. Tom yaughn
Subject: lileethaven/CaEcade Condominirrmrel tandacaping on C.D.O.T. lot
Dear Mr. Vaughn,
r would like to confirm our phone discueeion of 2/r7l95 whcrein rregueeted your consideration for uE to grade and revegetate theknoll on your lot which ia adjacent to our eubject proJeci in vair.
A copy of our randecape pran ie attached for your reference ae wellas a co-py of,_the aurvey of our property in the Carcade cornplex. TheTown of Vail is propoaing thal Ce regrade your knoll wilth a Z:lslope on the frontage road and revegetate wtth natural grlss€ErAlao, we intend to have the overhead electria linea buried and wewquld U-ke your consent for this elso.
we wourd appreciate your pronpt attention and connentg on the aboveto Mr. Steve Buccino of Land Deaigns by Elliaon, Inc. whoge phone
number ia (800){95-1700.
l4rrYlt1 GIDVery Truly Yours/.ttitz !.^_rp\/i
l{xaLd L. Irluhrman
cct Steven Buccino
an,r[rrr[
IM.\
I
rl
tiil'tlrl
t4,
'-rrlT ' A:ar CH I CTA CH_l
\u''
q Ttr trqZtrF AF T Ta:zT aRAr t17.J7,4
\'r,
4I
$
t"t
t
\l
)l
1l
jl
#
/-J
'F!
d|)lt
/'i I
I
I
i
I
I
I
€)
;(
\'\truJ
a.'
)
t.({\lll
,rt,
lt'-
)-r
t.,{It$
'S\
x
l$r
sl
,t!l
;ld
r.[fs
I
:t
(
t
$
(
$
iJ
$'
\1',
dt
I
I
trl$
o,..
,
Jt*
Iv
' i, ''-r -{J . r ltrrrI '. '_ *--t .-l,rl
_1,,1.'.lir==Jtl,l(
"-.1l t.F' 1jr
1il
i
I
I
I
q4r1 (4t:y
,,2',Ll
r\
\q
t-
;
I
I
rl
lt
tf
ri
ils
I
it
tl
il
i
ri
3t
I-t
I
I
i
^t*v"
t
,l'1,
I
Ii(
\)
'iy.J d
-\
.(\
\
\
.. I
'.$
\$l r d' Itl!'lt)
i)
,:-
| *, .;rr:l'l
-!{) ;.
0tt-
$'J
\) >,.
R*
UU'I
:
a.
t
J..\l
!
I
.:
;
j
:
l
t$iiJ I-(l
$r,i
,dr \.!
t-\
1
i
- lr\t .
Nl. I.l.rJIul I
J-r
rr*
It-
I
B
*
$
,t
Ju
r
$$
f$
$$
H'
'$q
P$
$,e
-N
\7
'(I
{
t"t
i)
1
t,
I
)
I
Hl!
\r:$l*
'i-
uo
Tu
{'Jt
\)t.-
ttl
n
t
I
tt
.hLt\
s.L
i,{
$
- ,.J
.lt --i l| ,r*..--_l
:rf,l "'iilll'li+i':
rii-.- -,'li!','. ..:llrli - _l,rii!'?,/. -:
'h r,",,\
'. al'i; f,
t.
lL- *-+lftr+rn2
7/,t,T/f+z
-,\
\)
7
\\J
<+1
odt rw ;^ut/ri'a
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FIL E COPY
]\1EI{ORANDUIl
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
February 8, 1993
A request for a major amendmenr ro Cascade Village, SDD #4, Area A,
I{illrace III, 1335 Westhaven Drive, Cascade Village, more specifically
described as follorvs:
A lrn of Ut. SW v, NE v. S..rion 12. Toe.rsbip 5 Sourh. Rrngc Sl Wcsr of lhc 6rh p,Il,. dcscribcd !l folloEr:
Bc8inning.t r Foint of Ue.\aih-Solrih c4ntcrjinc ('fs.id Scarion ll *he.c sn iton 0in wi$ . Fl8tic r2p n r*irg rhc ceDtcr of
trid Se.tion l2 t'c55 SOr':E -<6'w.i55.06 tc.r: rlrch.a rlcng 5ai,t ccnErliDc.\..OC'-!S'56-E I:2.6t tcct ro Uc rou$crty ROW linc of
l.?0: Olcj|cr dcp.airl8 t.id ROW lin..\-66'51'25-E 39.15 fec{ Uc.c. dci':,ning rrid ROW linc 56!.23'19'E 165.12 fcd lo. poirl
ofc!'cirhcnc€122.63tcctrlonglhclrcofrt43.lotoorr.diulcunctolhctct!hrling.ccntrslrrtlcof.a9.O8'5t'rndIchord
rh.t t'crtt SI5'J?'15'E I19.10 fccq r}cncc 5{0'32'10-E 3.OO fccr: r.\cn;c 66,30 fccl .longrhc|''cof I7?:t toot rrdiur cu rro$?
ri5ht h1r'i'!g 1 6g.t.l Mtle of.a9'12'lO' rnd I ehord lh.l bsrs S:5'-<6'05'E 64.:8 fccq $cD.c S6'{O'O?'W 90,27 tcd: rhcDc!
n*36r42'2.1-W 2:1.55 f.ati lhcnc. S'iE!lO'3tW 101.4.1 fcct ro rj,c loint of B.EinnjDB.
Applicanr:
Planner:
\{ichael Laurerbach
Jim Curnurre
Thc applicant is seeking approval of a major amendmenr ro cascade Village, sDD No. #4,
Arca A, lr'lillrace III, in order to construcr one duplex and one single family residence on the
.819 acre (35,676 sq. ft.) l\{illrace III sire. Each unit is approxinraiely 2,00b sq. ft. in size and
rvill have a two-car garase and a gas fireplace. The buildings rvill have a raiimum building
height of approximately 35 feer and a roral sire coverage of 3,907 sq. fr. Since rhis property
is cunently unplatted, the applicant nrusr also receive ipproval of a minor subdivision ptiotto
the-issuance of any building pernits related to rhis projeit. Follorving rhe consrucrion of rhe
rcsidences, the applicant rvill file single family and duplex subdivision plars.
The Millrace III property is bounded by Westhaven Drive on rhe East, rhe South Frontage
Road right-of-rvay and rhe wesrhaven Apanment propeny (rhe ruins) on rhe nonh, Gore
Creek on the south, and the Cascade Club rennis courr properry on rhe wesr. The propeny is
cr]ncntly vacant with the exceplion of ts'o paved parking areas, one unpaved parking area and
tfc p-aved recreation parh. The former orvnlr of ri',is ptoperry has allowed rhglvliltrace
condominiums to mainrain and use rhis property ror iartciniror a number of ),ears.
However, rhe Associarion does nor have any legal right to use this propeny. It appears the
Ir{illrace IiI property has been zoned SDD since the time it was annexed into the Town of
Vail in 1974. Access to this propeny rviil be fronr Westhaven Drive,lvhich runs along the
eastern property line.
[. BACKGROUND
In lr{arch of 1980, a development plan per rhe SDD rvas approved for this property by the
DRB. Under rhe approved plan, development was to occur in a single triplex building. The
toral GRFA for rhe building rvas calculared at 5,660 sq. ft., according to the definition in
effect at rhe rime. This figure equates to 6,355 sq. ft. of GRFA if calculated using today's
definition. The maximum height of this building rvas 36 feet and the total site coverage was
approxirnately 3,800 sq. ft. Approval of this plan has since expired.
In May of 199?, rhe applicant requested a rvork session rvith the PEC in order to receive
feedback on his conceptual plan ro place three sinsle familv drvellinss on the property. Each
of rhese uni15 rvas approximately 2,000 square feet in size rvith a conrbined site coverage of
approximarely 3,800 square feet. Two of rhe units were proposed to be three levels high rvith
the last unit being limited to trvo levels.
At a PEC rvorksession on Decenrber 7,1992, Mr. Lauterbach presented a nerv scenario for
developing rhe property. The conceptual site plan shorled a duplex building near lhe southem
end of rhe site and a sinele familv residence at the northern portion of the site. Each of these
units rvas proposed to be approximately 2,225 sq. ft. in size and the combined site coverage
of rhe projecr ',vas 5,570 sq. ft. The purpose of the December 7 , 1992, rvorksession was to
receive direcrion from rhe PEC regardirrg a number of development parameters. The PEC
agreed rhat rhe single familly'duplex approach rvould be acceptable as long as the building
sizes could be consolidated to reduce site coverage and overall lot disturbance. The Planning
Commission agreed not to count overlapping stairs as GRFA in lhe new development
scenario. Anorher item discussed by the PEC had to do rvith setback requirenrents from
Wesrhaven Drive and the recreation path. The PEC felt that a minimum setback of 8 ft.
would be desirable along \\resthaven Drive rvith a 12 ft. setback from the recreation path.
The Planning Commission discussed abandonment of the existing recreation parh easement
which does not line up rvith the actual location of the path. The Conmission agreed to
abandonment of the easement provided that a nerv 15 ft. rvide easement be platted directly
over lhe exisdng recreation path at the time of minor subdivision. The final comments from
the Planning Commission at the December 7, 1992 meeting had to do rvith minimum distance
betrveen buildin-ss and the proposed building locations. The Planning Commission felt that
rhe.two buildings could be as close as l2 fi. betrveen building foundarions, holever the PEC
requested that the locations of the single family residence and rhe duplex be srvitched so thar
the duplex is located on the nonh side of rhe lot.
At the January 25, 1993 PEC u,orksession, ]r{r. Lauterbach presenred his nerv scheme for the
property which took inlo account many of the comments made by rhe PEC at their December
it
7,1997 meedng. Theplans subnriued at rhis s'orksession \\,ere much more detailed than had
been previously provided (i.e. scaled floor plans, elevarion drarvings, landscape plan, etc.).
Upon revierv of these nerv detailed plans, rhe sraff and rhe PEC suggesred addirional revisions
that the applicant should make prior to requesting final SDD Anrendmenr approval. These
revisions involved the reduction of CRFA, site coverage and building heights from those
shown on the plans, preservation of rhe Gore Creek riparian zone, architectural changes to the
buildings, and Westhaven Drive improvemenrs. Wirh regard to protecrirtg the Gore Creek
riparian zone the PEC agreed to allorv i\,[r. Laurerbach to move his buildings closer the front
proPeny line than the previously imposed 8 fi. setback limit. The PEC felt that rhe building
setback reduction rvould be acceptable in light of the distance berrveen the front property line
and the edge of the Westhaven Drive pavemenr. The PEC felr rhat the trade off betrveen
having the buildings so close to the road and protecting rhe 6ore Creek narural area was
acceptable.
The applicant has addressed each of lhe recomnendations nrised at rhe January 25, 1993
meeting and norv rvishes ro be considered for final SDD Anrendnrent approval.
M. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Each of the developnrent paramelers have been compared rvirh rhe previous approval (1980
triplex) and rhe plan being proposed roday.
. Section 18.46.050 - Pernritted Uses
Allorted:
The applicable uses perrnitted in Cascade Village ar rhis locarion include
single family drvellings, trvo-family drvellings and multi-family drvellings.
Previous Approval:
One riplex building
Proposed:
One duplex and one single family residence.
Section 18.46.103 - Developmenr Srarisrics for Area A (lr,lillrace III)
Allorved:' Three du'etling unirs, 6,000 sq. ft. CRFA, six on-sire parking spaces.
Previous Approval:
Three ds'elling units (triplex) 5,660 sq. fr. of GRFA (calculared according to' the definition in place in 1980), 6,355 sq,' fr. of CRFA (calculared according ro
roday's definirion), 6,063 sq. fi. (calculared according ro roday's definition, not
including overlapping srairs), and rhree on-sire enctosed parking spaces.
Proposed:
Three drve lling units, (l duplex and 1 single family) 6,422 sq. fr of GRFA
(catculated according to today's definirion), 5,972 sq. fr. (not including
...S.." ...
overlapping sta;rs), and six on-site enclosed parking spaces.
Section 18.46.120 - Setbacks
Required:
The minimum required setback on the DeriDhew of all of Area A shall be not
less than 20 feet. . . 50 foot sream setback from Gore Creek. . .
Pre'r'ious A PProval:
In 1980 rvhen rhe riplex builcing was appro\/ed both rhe recrearion path and
rhe norrhem property line did not exist. The building was setback 15 ft. from
ihe front propeny line and 30 ft. frorn the centerline of Gore Creek.
Proposed:
The proposed plan shorvs that the duplex building is setback l5 ft' from the
norrh property line (adjacent to lhe ruins), l2 ft. from the recreation path, 53 ft
from rhe centerline of Core Creek and 3 ft. frorn the front property line
adjacent to Westhaven Drive.
Section 18.46.140 - Height
Allorved: 48 feet
Previous Approval: 36 feet
Proposed: 3l feet (duplex) and 36 feet (single family)
Section 18.46.160 - Site Coverage
. Allon'ed: 357o (12,486 sq.
Previous Approval: 10.77o (3,800 sq.
Proposed: 10.97o (3,907 sq.
Section 18.46. 170 - Landscaping
Allorled: 5070 (17,838 sq. ft. minimum)
Previous Approval: 827o (29,200 sq. ft.)
Proposed: 827o (29,400 sq. ft.)
18.46.180 - Parking and Loading
fi\
ft.)
fr.)
Section
Required:
75Vo of all required parking shall be located
buildings, and hidden from public vierv from
landscape berm.
Previous Approval:
50Vo of all rcquired (2 spaces per unit)
rvithin rhe main building or
adjoining properties within a
rvere located'rvirhin the main building.
Proposed:
85Vo of all required parking spaces are located rvithin the buildings, Each unit
has a ts'o-car garage.
Section 18.46.190 - Recrearion Anenides, Tax Assessed
Required: 25 cenrs per square foot of GRFA must be paid in conjunction
with consuuction but prior to the issuance of building permits.
Section 18,46.280 - Conservation and Pollution Controls
Required: Protective neasures must be used to prevent soil erosion into
Gore Creek, both during arrd after construction.
IV.. SPECIAL DEVELOP]\IENT DiSTRICT CRITERIA
The criteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the nine Special Development Disu-ict
(SDD) development standards set forrh in rhe special developnrenr disrrict chapter of the
Zoning Code. The crireria are as follorvs:
A. Design conrpatibilitv and sensitivity to the imnrediate environment,
neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design,
scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, idenlity, character, visurl
integrity ancl orienta tion.
The applicant has made several revisions to his original building design and
, site planning in order to respond !o previous PEC *,orksession comments.
These revisions have resulted in a better utilization of rhe flat buildable area on
the nonh side of the lot, a reduction in building height from 43 ft. ro 36 ft., a
change in rhe rype of roof form fronr gable ro hip, a reducrion in GRFA and
site coverage, and an increase in rhe amounr of landscaped area on rhe lot and. reduced impacts ro rhe Gore Creek riparian zone.
. Staff feels rhat rhe archirecrural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer
zones, idenrity, character, visual integrity and orientarion of the proposed
development have been designed comparibly and sensirively to rhe immediate
' ' recommend certain minor revisions ro the buildings' archilecture and the
plan. Staff has visited the site to revierv rhe proposed staking of rhe bui)din;:
locadons and su-ggests that the sourhern half of rhe single family drvelling urrit
bc shifred 5 fr. rorvard rhe creek and the enrire building shifted nonh
approximately 5 ft. We believe that this minor building locarion change will
improve the appearance of the project as vierved from Westhave n Drive.
Staff s concern is that the present location of the building may present a
significant unbroken plane along Westhaven Drive and this may be reduced
with the building shift.
Staff rvould suggest that the visual appearance of the nonh side of the single
family drvelling rvould be improved rvith the addition of rvindorvs and by
carrying the stone rvall all the rvay to the end of the building.
Staff rvould suggest that the applicant consider revisions to tbe \r'est elevation
of the duplex building to lessen the ntirror image currently exhibited on fiis
side of the building.
Staff has observed certain minor discrepancies betrveen the site plan, landscape
plan and floor plan drarvings. None of these discrepancies are significant
enough to recornmend rabling of the application at this time. Horvever, staff
rvould like to see revisions ntade to the plans to retnove these ntinor
discrepancies as soon as possible. An exarnple of the differences are as
follorvs:
The deck on the west side of the southern duplex unit is not shown on
the site plan.
The covered entD/ways for both of the duplex units differs from that
drarvn on the floor plans.
The floor plans do not reflect the large deck locate d on rhe \\'est side of
the north duplex unit.
The building heights shorvn on the site plan do not match those
exhibited on lhe elevation drarvings.
The drivervay rvidth to the southern duplex unit must be revised to be a
mininrunr of l2 fi. rvide-
The landscape plan does not reflect the nerv drivervay location being
proposed for the north duplex unit. The applicant has stated that a nerv
landscape plan rvill be revised after the Planning Commission meeting
in order to incorporare all of the recommended changes the PEC may
have. Some of the differences are due to rhe fact that the applicant has
tried to respond quickly to staff comments.
B.Uses, activit.v and density rrhich provide a compatible, efficient and
norkable relationship rvith surrounding uses and activity.
. The uses, activity and density being proposed rvith this development plan
appear to be compatible rvirh surrounding uses and activities. The location and
use of the existing bike parh rvill be unaffected as a result of approval of this
plan. As mentioned previously, some residenrc of the Ir{illrace Condominium
Association use a portion of rhis property for parkin-e. The condominium
owners are arvare thar rhey do not have any legal right to continue using this
property for parking purposes. The applicant is not proposing any uses,
activities or densiries differenr from that origina)ly approved as a pan of the
overail Area A development plan for Cascade Village, SDD No. 4. The staff
has not asked for emplol'ee housing because rr,e believe rhe site is too
constrained to provide for more developrnent. This SDD is also providing
housing in more appropriare locarions rvithin the SDD, i.e. - Westhaven,
Waterford, Cornerstone, arrd Clen L1'on. We are looking ar the entire SDD in
respect to rhis issue.
Compliance rtith parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter
18.52.
Under Section 18.52 of rhe Vail i\{unicipal Code, each d*'elling unit rvith less
than 2,000 sq. ft. of GRFA has a parking requiremenr of 2 spaces and those' rvith over 2,000 sq. fr. of GRFA rvould require 2.5 spaces per unir. Trvo of rhc
three units (the single fanrily and rhe nonh half of rhe duplex) rvirhin rhe
Itlillrace III project are under 2,000 sq. ft. of CRFA and therefore require 2
parking spaces ro be provided on-sire. The parking requiremenr for rhe third
unit is 3 parking spaces, as irs roral GRFA is over rhe 2,000 sq. fr. threshold.
The proposed plan rneers rhis requirentenr by providing arrached two-car
. garages rvith each unit, plus room for several more cars in front of each garage
. -door.
D. Confornrity rlith applicable elenrents of the Vail Comprehensive Plan,
Torvn policies and Urban Design Plans.
The applicable goals and objecrives fionr rhe Torvn's Land Use Plan for rhis
area include:
, 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a
., balance behveen residential. commercial and recreational uses ro serve
_..: borh rhe visitor and the pennanent residenl
...l.Z The quality of rhe environment inctuding air, water and orher natural
resources should be prorected as lhe Town grows.
c.
t.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded
rvhenever possible.
l.12 Vail should accornmodate most of the additional gorvth in exisdng
developed areas (in fill areas).'''
l.l3 Vail recognizes irs stream tract as being a desirable land feature as rvell' as its potential for Public use'
5.1 Addirional residential grorvrh should continue to occur primarily in
. exisrin-s, plarted areas and as appropriate in nerv areas rvhere highl-: hazards do not exist.
'.l g. Identification and mitigation of naturul and/or geologic haz:rds that affect. the property otr u'hich the special delelopment district is proposed.
:' There are no narural and,/or geologic hazards affecting this propeny rvhich
rvould require mitigation or restrict its developnrent. The proposed buildings
do not encroach inro rhe 100 i'ear flood plain or the 50 ft. Gore Creek setback,
rvith the exceplion of a I ft. deck encroachrnent rvhich is allo*'ed pursuant to
Section 18.58.060 of the Vail I'lunicipal Code.
F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed
to produce a functional development responsive and sensitile to natural
features, r'egetation and overall aesthetic quality of the cornmunity.
Staff believes rhat rhe proposed site design, building design, and location and
sensitive to rhe natural features, vegelation and overall set equality of the
community. As mentioned previously, horvever, u,e do have some concerns
rvith regard ro lessening the overall construcrion impacts rvithin the Gore Creek
:. riparian zone and offer specific recotnrnendalions ar the end of this
i:' ' memorandum.
G. A circulation s]'stem designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing
on and ol-f-site traffic circulation.
The on-site circulation sl,stern being proposed in conjunction rvith this
' accessing the three ds'elling units from Westhaven Drive. This plan has been
revierved by the To*'n Engineer and found to be acceptable. As mendoned
previously, the recreadon path location and use will be unaffected as a result of
l.--"':':1::approvalof thisdevelopmentplan. Therearesomeconcernsrvithregardto
off-site circulation rvhich have not been resolved at this time. Cunently,
Westhaven Drive, from rhe Sourh Fronrage Road to Gore Creek Bridge, is not
a publicly dedicated and maintained road. The road is orvned by I{ECI{
Enterprises, Inc. and does not currently meet Town standards rvith regard to
grade, conslruclion or minimurn clearance beneath the pedesnian bridge .
connecling rhe Cascade Club ro rhe building to the south and other standards.
The Torvn is interesred in s,orking rvith i\'Ir. Lauterbach as rvell as the
developers of the Cornerstone and Waterford projects (developments being
proposed at the upper end of Wesrhaver: Dr!r'e) and othe r owners rvlthin the
SDD to bring the road up ro Torvn standards and have it dedicated to the Town
for maintenance purposes. Staff does not feel that it rvould be equitable to
require l\.{r. Lauterbach to cornplete all of the road irnprovements necessary to
bring Wesrhaven Drive up ro srandard. Insread, rve feel rhat Mr. Lauterbach
should only be required ro bring rhat ponion of the road directly in front of his
propeny up ro Torvn srandards. The applicant has agreed to complete this
work prior ro the issuence of a TCO for rhe projecr.
H. Functional and aesthetic lanclscaping and open space in order to optimize
and preserve naturcl features, recreation, r'ierls and functions.
A significant portion of this site has been previously disturbed as a result of the
construction of the paved parking areas, paved bike parh and insrallation of a
buried -eas line. The applicant has atterrrpted ro locr.re rhe buildings as close to
Westhaven Drive as possible in order lo oplimize rhe nrosr buildabte area of
the site and presen'e rhe remaining narural features, such ns the heavily treed
Gore Creek riparian zone. The proposed building placemenr, rvirhin 1-ll2 ft. of.' the front property line, mrkes rhe proposed Iandscape plan an especially
important element of rhe overnll Cevelopmenr plln. The applicant has
attempted ro provide significanr landscaping in rhe righr-of-rvay in front of rhe
proposed d*'elling unirs rvhile ar rhe sane rinre mainraining rhe Torvn's
mininrunr site distance requirernent.s.
In addition to providing a building setback of l2 fr. frorn rhe exisring recreation
Palh, the applicanr rvill be benuing and heavily landscaping an area sourh of
the path ro help buffer future residenrs frorrr path users, and vice versa. The
applicant rvill be replarring rhe recreariorr parh easement ro conform u,irh the
existing location of the recreation parh and rvill dedicare rhar easement to rhe
public. Althouglr the applicant has made several revisions to his plans in order
to lessen rhe overall impact ro rhe Gore Creek riparian zone, the cunent plan' 'still calls for the removal of a significant nunrber of rrees and sire disturbance' that rvill impacr rhe cree k vegerarion on rhe \\,esr side of rhe propeny. Staff
believes rhar rhe applicant's proposed landscape plan goes along s,ay torvard
. _ mitigating rhe impacts of his development plan, ho*,ever, rve rvoutd
.-: recommend that additional landscape marerials be added lo rhe property.
along rhe nonh side of the recreation path.
Alrhough the Torvn owns most of the tracts of land immediately adjacent to
Gore Creek throughout the Torvn of Vail, the river corridor through the
Cascade Village SDD is in private orvnership. Staff recommends that a
fishermen's access easement be provided approximately 10 ft. from the high
rvater mark along the entire length of Core Creek through this property.
In order to protect the Core Creek riparian zone as much as possible, and as
specified in Section 18.46.28 (Conservation and Pollution Controls) of
Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991, Cascade Village, slaff reconmends that'
significant proteclive measures be used to prevent unnecessary damage and
destruction of vegetation and to prevent soil erosion into Core Creek, both
during and after construclion. We rvould recommend that the plan be amended
ro designare an allorvable limit of constnrcrion activity and require that certain
physical barriers be in place on the ground prior to the issuance of a building
permit. It appears that the 50 ft. setback line rvould make a logical limit of
constructjon activity, rvith the exception of the southrvest corner of the property
adjacenr to the single family, rvhere construction may be allorved to encroach
10 ft. inro the 50 ft. setback line.
The development plan shorvs a sicnificant distance, approximately 40 ft.,
betrveen building foundations in order to provide a vierv corridor to the river
area through this development. Staff supports the idea of providing a break in
the line of buildings so lhat viervs of the Gore Creek natural area remain open.
I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that u'ill nraintain a rvorkable, functional
and efTicient relationship throughout the development of the special
developnrerrt disf ricf.
It is the applicant's intention ro conslruct these unirs at the sanle time in the
Spring of 1993, therefore, no phasing plan has been submirted for staff revierv.
STAFF RECOIT{ ]T'IENDATION :
Staff recommends approval of the proposed l\{illrace ill major amendment to
SDD No. 4. As mentioned previously in this memorandum, there are stjll a
number of concems rvhich staff feels should be addressed and the applicant has
'agreed to each of these concerns:
l. The site plan shall be amended to shorv a designared limit of
' rvith the exception of the area behind the single flrrrily residence. The
v..
l0
o
J.
purpose of this line is to ensure that construction activity be limited to
the area east of the line. A physical barrier along the limit of
construction activity line shall be in p)ace prior to the issuance of a
building permir for rhe project. Staff rvill then make periodic
inspections ro the properly rhroughout rhe construction to assure that no
disturbance occurs west of rhe construction barrier. The banier should
be of a design rvhich not only delineates rhe limit of consrruction
activity, but also provides for the control of sedimentation into Gore
Creek. This barrier may be acconrplished rhrough a combinadon of
snorv fencing, hay bales and fine mesh nerting.
A I0 ft. pedesrian/fishermen's access easenlent shall be provided along
the shore of Core Creek. This easement should extend approximately
10 ft. fronr the high rvaler mark of rhe creek to allorv fishermen access
up and dorvn Gore Creek. This eesemenr rvill be dedicared at rhe time
the minor subdivision is approved.
Additional landscaping shall be provided on rhe nonh side of rhe
existing recreation parh. This veselariorr in additiorr ro that shown on
the landscape plan rvill help mirigaie for rhe losses being proposed as a
result of the consrrucrion of rhe rrvo buildings. At a rninimum, l0
aspen or ash trees (3" cal. nrininum) shall be provided along rhe parh
along rvith l0 - 20 evergreen and deciduous shrubs.
Since this property is cunenrly unplarted, a minor subdivision plat must
be submitted, revierved and approved by the Torvn prior ro rhe issuance
of a building permit for rhe projecr.
The applicant agrees ro provide lhe necessary improvements to that
porlion of Wesrhaven Drive directly in fronr of his propeny line to
bring the road up to Torvn standards. These improvemenrs may include,
but are not linrired to, curb and guuer, drainage, and a nerv lift of
asphalt pavine.
Cenain minor modificarions shall be made to the site plan, landscape
plan and floor plans so lhat fealures shorvn on any one of the three are
accurare ly reflecred on all plans per rhe sraff memo on page 6. These
changes shall be made before rhe projecr proceeds ro first reading by
the Torvn Council.
The southern half of rhe single family residence shall be shifted 3 -5 ft.
arvay from rhe road and that rhe enrire building be shifred
approximately 5 fi. furrher ro rhc nonh.
5.
6.
7.
ll
'8*
r -.17-1-z
/;r:
F=tf+1+]S.-$-1
f:::::--P--:=\\-$\i t-\\tl-l-\:lN SWW'i\'--l\ "l.l:l]::\\\\-ti:\il-\-\\-l
\
Millra.ce Phase IIIMJL Development
Vail, Colorado
' ll!u' '
o
+.'
L
\\\
\
t\:\:.\:\t$Mfi \ 1\'\li\.N
' \. \ \ \\\\\o \ "..riiit- ta \r tr t\ \iP \i''.)r)'i)l''iillr\
\ )ri:ii\
\ .- '\\.\.\.-.'ry$.-.raQ
*{iit.-''-.--\r\:\'
\'..-rt\
\.'i,"'i)$'r\"'.!
I ETT:fr?
itl *
I
.r1
dor.,
a
Fl
ttr!irtil
Millrace Phase III
MJL Developnent
Vatl, Colorado
oo
3Fl
lt'
I-
I
t
#
E
rEx!5r{
Millrace Phase III
MJL De\relopment
Vall, Colorado
t
i
o
t
t
I
Millrace Phase IU
MJL Dev-elopment
Vall, Colorado
o
Mlllrace Phaee III
MJL Dsvelopment
Vall, Colorado
lFrIP:
Jtt
o
I ilr
\
Millrace Phaee fff
MJL Developftent
Vail, Colorado
#"o-,fit"11..1i.',,1' ,,- ll'
lN'.',it a''j'
/vrir;
'kl1
lvt "'
o'-,
Voil Ventures. Ltd.
1000 S F ontoge Rd' W
Suife 200
Voil. Colotodo 81657
3034764&2
Memorondum
ro Kristin PritzFrom: Andv Norris
luoiect sDD4 Enployee HousingL'\cte: August 31, 1988
Providing duelling units restricted for eroployee housing has never
been a requirement of SDD4. When Westin first became involved as an
owner/opeiator in 1981, they perceived an enployee housi.ng problem
comparabLe nith their experience in Hawaii.. AccordinSlL Chey requested
that the developer (ag r,hat time Mansfield, Ltd.), allocate one of its
sites (Westhaven) to an enployee renEal project. Plans were conpletedt
tniEi.al financing arranged and construction connenced. During the
lnitial construction phase, Westin re-evaluated its requirenents and the
econonics of the project. The high cost of construction for a Cascade
Yillage location, (1.e. structured parking, building tyPet archltecture'
etc.) increased the rents required to service onlv the debt (not
lncluding a recovery for land or equity) Eo an aluount approxinateLy 1002
above comparable narket rents. It became aPParent that the housing vas
going to require a subsidy of as much as $12,000 per nonEh for 30 to 40
enployees.
Westin was also concerned about having a high concentration of
hourly enployees directly adjacent to the Hote1. Conparable experiences
ln other resort locations were not very satisfactory.
After the Hotel openJ.ng in 1983, Westin concluded that the housing
Has not required and released the developer froro its obLigat'ton.
For the next two years MansfieLd master-leased between 12 and 18
aparttuents at Valli-Hi. These vere then sub-leased to Westin Hotel
employees. The venture uas cornpletely unsuccessful. Sub-!enant
occupancy vas approximately 7Ofl with the developer absorbing the 1oss.
As Westints employnent grew, it established a Direcgor of Hunan
Resources. One of her continuing responsibiliEies has been to assist in
houslng placemen . IE has been our experience that aLthough Low cost
housing has been geC,ting ttEighEertt, it has not ef f ected the qualit,y or
quant.lty of the Hotel-r s employees.
LeadviLle has become a najor source for hourLy employees. The
prlncipal reason 1s Leadvillers high unemployrnent rate and relat.ively
itigt "i.ifi leve1s. It appears thac Leadville will continue as a
dependable labor pooJ- because of its poor long terrn economic Prospects.
@MllUNllY UEvElurotutr t u'r t'
75 S. FflONTAGE RD'
vAlL @ 81657
pr. bot I lo2
Tolvll ol vAlL
COUM$IN DEVETOPTIENI DEPT.
75 S. FROMAOE RD'
vAlL@ 8l6sr
TOWN "' .L
@MI,UNIIY OEVFTOflTENT DEPT.
75 g FFONTAGE RD.
vArLco 81657
TfiYj: "r VAIL
@MMUNIrY OUVELOPUEM DEPT,
75 S. FRONNOE RD.
v lt @ 8l6st
TOWN OE!'AL
@uuut{tY DEr/Fro$rExr DEPr.
75 S, FFON'AGE RO
vAfl-co 8t0st
\
Michae.l J. [r|uterbaclrP.O. Box 3451
Vatl, CO 81658
Hlllrace Condo|tllnlu Aasoclatlon
c/o Julle Grlmr
lOOo S. Front6Se Road. Sulte 200
Vatl. CO 81657
erlorado Mountaln Condomlniur AasoclBLlon for Penthouses
OIC Re5ldentl61 Sub-Assocl,Etlon
c/o The Testl,n
l3OO llesthaven Drlve
VatI, @ 81657
ATTN; Don llaclachlan
ColorEdo l,iountaln Condomlnluo lssoclatron
VaLl Venture8-(}lc
c/o Julle GrlEn
l00O S. Frorta8e Rosd' Sutte 200
Vail, C0 81657
C€scade Club Condorlnlud llooeovnere lsaoclatlonc/o Julle Crtnutr
l0OO S, Frontage Road, Sutte 2mvBll, @ 81657
lL
d'Yrnrs rrEM MAy EFFEcT youR pRopERTy-L\,Y q' PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town'ol
Vailwill hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 ol the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail on February 27,1995, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
ln consideration of:
1. A request for a site coverage variance to allow for an addition to the Ricci Residence
located at2576 Davos Trail/Lol5, Block E, Vail Das Schone 1st Filing.
Applicant: Nancy Ricci, represented by Galen Aasland
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
2. A request for a major amendmenl to SDD #5 (Simba Run) to allow for modifications to
the previously approved development plan for the Savoy Villas Development located
on an unplatted parcel at 1100 North Frontage Road.
Applicant: Walid Said
Planner: Jim Curnutte
3. A request for a site coverage variance lo allow for an expansion of the Aasland
Residence located aI2527 Arosa Drive/Lot 3, Block D, Vail Das Schone 1st Filing.
Applicant: Galen AaslandPlanner: Randy Stouder
4. A request for a CCI minor exterior alteration to allow lor an addition to the Golden Bear
retait shop within the A and D Building, located at 286 Bridge StreeVLots A and B and
a part of C, Block 5-A, Vail Village lst Filing.
Applicant: Lee Hollis
Planner: Randy Stouder
5. A request for a proposed change to the Land Use Plan from Park (P) to Low Density
Residential (LDR) for a parcel owned by the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District,
located at 967 Vail Valley Drive/Tract C, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Vail Valley Consolidated Water District, represented by Pat Dauphanais
Planner: Jim Curnutte
6. A request for a conditional use permit for a Type ll EHU located at 4040 North
Frontage Road/Lot 3, Pitkin Meadows.
Applicant: David HilbPlanner: George Ruther
7. A request for a front setback variance to allow for the redevelopment of a residence
located at 226 Forest Road/Lot 11-A, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: John Krediet, represented by Steven RidenPlanner: Randy Stouder
8. A request for a side setback variance to allow for the construction of a new garage
located at7928'794A and 7948 Potato Patch Drive/Lots 10 and 1'1, Block 1, Vail
Potato Patch Subdivision.
Applicants: Cogswell, Clark, Willson and Ludwig, represented by Richard
Hempleman
Planner: George Ruther
L A request tor a setback variance to allow for the construction ol a freestanding garage
to be located at 4524 Meadow Driveffimberfalls Condominiums.
Applicant: RichardVossler,TimberfallsCondominiumAssociation
Planner: Randy Stouder
10. A request for a major amendment to SDD #4 Cascade Village to allow lor the
completion of the Westhaven Condominiums (The Ruins) located at 1325 Westhaven
Drive/Cascade Village, SDD #4.
Applicant: Gerald Wuhrman, General Manager ot the Westhaven CondominiumsPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
11. A request for a major exterior alteration in the Commercial Core I zone district and site
coverage, stream setback and common area variances and conditional use permits to
allow office on the third lloor and to allow an outdoor dining deck to provide for the
redevelopment of Serrano's, located at 298 Hanson Ranch Roadilot C, Block 2, Vail
Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Margretta B. Parks and Vail Associates, Inc.
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
oa
4u/z<
D
/)^-l J a-^-f/.J/
S,'A fun-l L-*-/s. ?,^t
u+=+ur- /4t= t.'l
,,M TVlu 4t -r/,.^.J-/ .'/ t arfl psro"Aj
,.OJ*^: 4 fZ*,--! I u. rX. (dtr,>
. {-ryu+4j ,s 4
1 Atr- a//nt-< tL 'J y' ,q*,.
*1 c,v-- a- s -4 u--r"cl t d/<
,F 3/. ".t/ff (a''-s.t--f/.1
,) /* ,t/, )
l^-
a
1.-,'4-pn
+
1tlXD
X)
,'lrrrfiQ'n'r"( l:
,l
YLLLI'/
lr?'v
\'a >/Q
7zw2J>.1/ tt+;(J
1 '1/ t-t"t "'4,--, ".t.,.,Jrfr 4
7'u//t }a1
4-"tn--/
l^,tsttz
v.'{-)w l,f
10
-r-tL o
7Q
1:Y,l
J9r-l"a
7e
s.h t? /<t/a vg,
:{C
N>ut
,t />/ /,a-/v
t!ry4
*za
-'/J -tf il,9
fdf /nk
7tP
>e
t;/o ' /'7
' 7 ,4 ./'o- /-"'* / ?ttr, ft'V-r/ -4--^--r^, (*r- t"y7cf7 , n-rt/a.r?tf
./--v--^+,at,.t- //t' - J, /" A
f/,.,- /)'*n 19 b// n /on '. u'T
/'/t
q/ 7 ev-.at,',,4d '. ,f /' f /^n." ' ,ff f?
/,
-VT -4# 4 /E f f"?
->,J-!;\2 -{;W&( /t/"/^"q
f&1
/3rl E,"tt
z.t/.
)< a/<
[,^-*/ -1l-t-1 .
A,u-
At/,)74
47./,
/'^fd
*ht/?-'r'\-
-h'*Prt"{t\B
,-r.Jt&,
M ty'-n
n \Fn -"Jl
leeez PL<
afinJnto
f*/
SWU?a
ur^/^J
'L&uW
a /rrlA
- S-,-il,n^4.
t"or" 4-w,w
It-J
tuY) a,L/6 sc/,.!friJ1-f. t4y-
!'ltzd>\r
drw-r
3&4.<>
!.4Fffi
ruP-
J-41s*5t -
''i vf
ZrztQvr tz4
*?r
I'Zh'
??
O>jL 4 '^/,,'-^4/ '-'o P
y.S t, V. of-f*7
YP--ttn; ''ZlZ/lfJ i'y -7ltr I *r*
y.,/ -1 ,/,,
J*J "A f ''7Ew/ t po-p'. 4
' /'t s y' "9-n'a-4- /-_7_ ,A J
":Vr4'
',r-'.**oo-
O/\-,-->r / r, x.0 fi-=,v,.frz-
,4t"uy j j "(T
*t/
Y
/a"-nj "-s
t? lQtT-//'
' h" (./ -, Cr/
d7-^rp
/*{ nz
tJ'g
,(=lo7
/1.'7
-!rt"-t ;, 7rS
1".,{; r 1r
.1..J; 'd, i, !:
b.A request for a worksession lor a maior amendment to sDD #4 cascade Village to
allow for the completion ot tne weslhaven condominiums (The Ruins) located at'1325
Westhaven Drive/Cascade Village, SDD #4'
Applicant: Gerald wuhrman, General Manager of the westhaven condominiums
Planner: AndY Knudtsen
It should be noted that Karhy Langenwaller stepped down as chairperson of the PEC
lor this item as she is the architect for this project.
Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff memo'
Kathy Langenwalter, the architect for the prolect, pointed out that il is,.h.e,f belief that
rnere was-nothing in this sDD (SDD #4) tlraf tieo site Coverage to individual parts of
the SDD and thai it should be calculated for the entire Parcel A'
Andy Knudtsen stated that from an employee housing point of view, the proposed
studio units and location of the project in general are desirable'
Bob Armour inquired how deed restrictions would work for the proposed employee
housing units.
Gerald Wuhrman, the General Manager of the Westhaven Condominiums, stated he
did nof have a problem with the proposed sixteen employee housing units being deed
restricted and remaining under common ownerships. lt was his hope that should the
employee housing unitJ be deed restricted, that this designation could be reevaluated
al some future date should the market in Vail change.
Mike Mollica explained that a common owner for the deed restricted units would make
it easier to reguiate the requirements of the employee housing units (i.e. residency'
employment, etc.).
Dalton Williams was in favor of the type of proiqct that the applicant was proposing.
He stated that he did not foresee problems with the type of employee housing units ihe
applicant was proposing. He felt that the sales of the units could be done in such a
way that there was a reasonable price cap and would be consistenl with the applicant's
and the Town's goals.
Jerry Mulliken, of Slifer, Smith and Frampton Real Estate, felt that this project would
provide an opportunity for people to afford housing in Vail who may otherwise not be
able to.
Kathy Langenwalter lelt that this project had the potential to be a rental property to Vail
Valley employees.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES
February 13, 1995
Mike Mollica requested that the applicant give the PEC an overview of the lock-otf
""1i"
tn"v were proposing and il iney would be part ot a rental program'
Gerald wuhrman stated that at this time, they did not contemplale a rental program for
the lock-off units, but that the Westin Hotel could manage them'
Goncerningtherequestforadditiona|GRFA,BobArmourStatedthatgiventhe
perceived gains that *irr'ocJur tiom tni prolect^1i'e. additional employee housing)' he
had no objection to tn. riOition"f Cnfn. The S'DD should be revised, he added' so
ttr"t tit" fioposed structure could not be expanded at a later date'
Bill Anderson and Dalton Williams agreed with Bob's comments'
Mike Mollica read Greg's written comments which, in summary' said that he was not in
favor of the additional GRFA for the free markel units'
Bob, Bill and Dalton all did not have problems with the propg:gg building height 0r the
emp|oyeehousingunits.gobemphasizedthattheproposa|fa|lsunderthea|lowed
height ol the sDD.
Greg Amsden also had no objections with the proposed building height or employee
housing units.
Bob Armour stated that he did not want lo see one single entity buy.all .the employee
nousing units, in that it defeated the purpose of "the pride of ownership".
Bill Anderson asked Gerald wuhrman whether he had a problem with the requirement
of burying the overhead utility lines.
Gerald responded that they were open lo doing everything possible to improve the
"pf""t"n"b
of this site and therefoie, did not have an objection to burying the
overhead utilitY lines.
Bob, Bill and Dalton all lelt it would be favorable lor the Town and the applicant to
work together to get the overhead utility lines in this area undergrounded'
Robby Robinson, of Slifer, smith and Frampton Real Estate, inquired whether the berm
could be extended to the east.
Mike Mollica stated that CDOT may have some concerns about snow storage and ice
on the highway but that extending the berm could be looked at'
Kathy Langenwalter explained that they would like to lower the berm. In addition' she
stated there *"r" "r""1
on the property which needed fill and that the height of the
earth would be increased by 3 feet along Westhaven Drive'
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES
FebruarY 13, 1995
Concerning landscaping, Bob Armour was not opposed to the proposed landscaping
plan and the slight reduction in area was okay'
Bill Anderson stated that he did not object to the proposed landscape plan since the
applicant was doing so many other improvements regarding regrading and
undergrounding.
Dalton agreed with Bill's comment-
Greg Amsden wou|d |ike the proposed |andscaping increased to the 50% minimum, per
the SDD.
concerning architecture, Bob Armour felt that the current proposal was a great
i.pr*"rint over the lggi approved plans. He inquired whether the walls along
westhaven Drive would appear to massive'
Kathy Langenwalter explained that the proposed walls are broken-up by recessed
balconies ind that this was not represented by the current model'
Bill Anderson was concerned with the snow shedding off of the metal roof and the
location of the toP balconies.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that the rool would have to be snow-guarded, guttered and
heatiaped. She stated that the pitch of the roof was 6:12'
Dalton Williams was concerned about the roof and the proposed staircases' He
suggested that the windows be recessed and the stucco be rolled in around the
windows.
Kathy Langenwalter stated they were playing with the idea of a forest green metal rool
as opposed to a brown metal roof.
Dalton Williams favored the forest green roof.
Mike Mollica asked whether it would be a similar green, as recently installed at the
Lodge at West Vail.
Kathy Langenwalter responded that they were proposing a darker green color than the
Lodge at West Vail's roof'
Kathy Langenwalter felt that the curved window openings and staircase soltened the
appearance of the building
Dalton Williams was concerned about the big flat walls and the plain appearance of the
elevator shaft. He recommended some kind ol sculpture or relief to be incorporated
into the elevator tower. He felt that the south wall in the parking garage should be left
open.
PLANNING AND ENVIBONMENTALCOMMISSION MINUTES
g
6.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that because of Fire Code requirements, they.are proposing
"ioriO
taii in ihe parking garage. She felt that a solid wall would be a nice
background lor landscaPing.
Dalton williams lelt that some element should be introduced to this wall would make it
look more interesting.
Bill and Bob agreed with Dalton's comments and felt that there were details that could
be added that would add interest to the existing wall'
concerning site coverage, Bob, Bill, Dalton and Greg did not oppose the proposed
increase in site coverage.
Concerning the bike path, the applicant did not have a problem with dedicating an
easement for the bike Path.
Kathy Langenwalter said that the applicant would be open to realigning the bike path
but that she had
"on."rn,
ii a pfU member about the safety of such a realignment
and was atso concerneO aUout the location of the path relative to Mike Lauterbach's
approved plans.
Mike Mollica inquired whether gas fireplaces were being proposed'
Kathy Langenwalter explained that fourteen gas fireplaces were being proposed for the
free market units.
Andy Knudtsen reiterated that Greg Amsden was opposed to additional GRFA for this
proi6ct and that there had been no"increase in GRFA given to any other properties in
this sDD. Furthermore, that only three of the six voting members of the PEC were
present and that other's opinions may not reflect what had been discussed.
A request for a major amendment io SDD #5 (Simba Run) to allow for modifications to
ine-p-reviousty appioveO development plan for the Savoy Villas Development located
on an unplatted parcel at 1100 North Frontage Road.
Applicant: Walid Said
Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO FEBRUARY 27' 1995
Bob Armour made a motion to table this item to the February 27, 1gg5 PEC meeting
with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 4-0 vote tabled this item to February 27,
1995.
A requesl for a site coverage variance to allow lor an expansion of the Aasland
Residence located at 2527-Arosa Drive/Lot 3, Block D, Vail Das Schone 1st Filing'
Applicant: Galen Aasland
Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED TO FEBRUARY 27' 1995
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES
F€bruary 13, 1995 10
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
February 13, 1995
A request for a worksession for a major amendment to SDD #4 Cascade
Village to allow for the completion of the Westhaven Condominiums (The
Ruins) located at 1325 Westhaven Drive/Cascade Viltage, SDD #4.
Applicant: Gerald Wuhrman, General Manager of the Westhaven
CondominiumsPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a major SDD amendment for the Westhaven Condominiums site.
This is one of the parcels located within Area A, Cascade Village, SDD #4. In 1982, the Town
issued a building permit for this site and construction started. After a loundation and first floor
parking structure had been completed, conslruction stopped. The current proposal is to
complete the work, taking the existing improvements and using them as the first floor.
A major SDD amendment is required as the applicant is proposing to change the number of
dwelling units and increase the amount of GRFA. Both of these modilications trigger the
major amendmenl review process. The approved SDD allows twenty free market units, ten
employee housing units and GRFA ot 22,500 square feet tor the free market units and 6,400
square feet for the employee housing units. What is proposed includes lourteen free market
dwelling units, sixteen employee housing units, 26,284 sq. ft. of GRFA for the free market
units and 7,707 square feet of GRFA for the employee housing units. There is a change to
the ratio of free market and employee housing units but not an increase in the overall
number ol dwelling units. ln addition, there is an increase ot 3,784 square feet of
additional GRFA for the free market condominiums and 1,304 square feet ot additional
GRFA for the employee housing units.
In addilion to the modifications requested regarding density, the applicant is proposing slight
modifications to the architecture, landscaping and site coverage requirements. The SDD
required 50% of the site to be landscaped. The applicant is proposing 47.97o. The site
coverage limitation is 35% and the applicant is proposing 36.7"/o. These aspects of the
request will be discussed in grealer detail later in the memo,
The other development standards are generally the same as the previous project. There will
be enclosed parking on the first floor of the structure and three to four stories of
condominiums above the parking level. Though the architectural style is different, the mass
and bulk of the building is basically the same because the tootprint ol the existing foundation
will not be modified. Please see the development statistics on the following page for a
detailed comparison of the standards allowed by the SDD, the development standards
requested for the previous approval, and lhe standards associated with the proposed
development.
II. DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS
Lot Area:
Zoning:
Height:
GRFA:
Free Market:
EHUs:
, Total:
Density:
Free Market:
EHUs:
Setbacks:
Site Coverage:
Landscaping:
Retaining Walls:
Parklng:
Employee Housing:
0.85 acres
SDD
SDD
22,500 sq. ft.
6,400 sq. ft.
28,900 sq. lt., or 781"
Io,tt{ t- 3{/. *
or 37,026 sq. ft.
20 dwelling units
10 EHUs
30 total units
20' on periphery'
of the property
35% or 12,959.1 sq. ft.
50% min. or 18,513 sq. ft.
376',
75o/, shall be enclosed
44 spaces required
minimum of 8 units
minimum of 648 sq. ft.
should not count towards
density or GBFA
Previous
Plans
47'
0 sq. ft.
26.680 sq. fi.
26,680 sq. tl., or 72V"
4Zt" I tr t4,-'t /.
0 dwelling units
20 EHUs
20 total units
39',
34.3oA or 12,686 sq. ft.
41.2o/o or 15,2rlil sq. ft.
none proposed
37 interior (78"/")
1 0 exterior
47 total spaces
20 units; however deed
restrictions are not clear
Proposed
Plans
55'
26,284 sq. ft.
7,7O4 sq. tt-
33,988 sq. ff,, or 92o/"
* 34t'z ,r // E/
14 dwelling units
16 EHUs
30 total units
24'
35.7a/o or 13,598 sq. ft.
47.97" ar 17,767.4 sq. ft.
none proposed
36 interior (80o/")
I exterior
45 total spaces*
16 EHUs, similar to
Type lll r€strictions
"SDD requires a setback measurernent on the periphery of the SDD. Staff has measured one setback, which is the distance between
the building and the north property line- The northern property line is the only one which also is the periphery of the Area A ot the SDD.
III. SDD CRITEBIA
As this is a worksession, staff does not have a formal recommendation. However, we have
provided the criteria below.
A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment,
neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale,
bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and
orientation.
B. Uses, activi$ and density which provide a compatible, eflicient and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter
18.52.
D. Conformity with applicable elements ot the Vail Gomprehensive Plan, Town
policies and Urban Design plans.
E. ldentification and mitigation of natural andior geologic hazards that affect the
property on which the special development district is proposed.
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.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on
and otf-site traffic circulation.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and
preserve nalural features, recreation, views and functions.
l. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and
efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development
district.
IV. STAFF COMMENTS
Betow, staff has outlined some of the more significant points regarding this proposal.
A. Request lor Additional GBFA
The applicant is proposing 26,284 square feet of GRFA lor lree market dwelling units
and7,704 square feet of GRFA for employee housing units. The total GRFA proposed
is 33,988 square feet. This is 3,784 square feet more for the free market dvvelling
units and 1,304 sguare feet more for the employee housing units than what the SDD
allows. Staff would like to emphasize the {act that there are sixleen employee housing
units as parl of this proposal. Of the total floor area for the projecl,7,704 square feet
is dedicated for employee housing.
The sDD allows various options regarding the employee housing and the floor area
associated with the housing. lt is clear that the SDD allows up to ten employee
housing dwelling units and 6,400 square feet o{ floor area without diminishing the
development potential of the free market units. However, it requires that eight dwelling
units at a minimum of 648 square feet each (or 5,184 square feet total) be included as
employee housing in any project. This allowance and requirement should be used in
evaluating the request for additional floor area lor both the free market and employee
housing units.
Unrelated to employee housing, the applicant has included 4,340 square feet of floor
area in fourteen separate lock-offs. Each free market dwelling unit will have one lock-
olf of approximately 310 square feet.
B. Buildinq Heiqht
The applicant is proposing a building that is 55 feet tall. The SDD allows for a building
of this height. The previous building was proposed Io be 47 feet tall. The applicant
has provided the elevations of the surrounding buildings and the proposed building
would be 19.3 feet lowerthan the Cascade Club, the same height as the CMC
Building, and 25 feet taller than the Millrace Building to the south. lt is approximatety
30 feet taller than the elevation of the South Frontage Road. After walking the site,
staff believes that the height of the building will not appear to be excessive when
viewed from the South Frontage Road or the Interstate. The ridge of the proposed
structure is located 125 feet from the Frontage Fload and 55 feet trom Westhaven
Drive. Staff believes that the height adjacent to Westhaven Drive may be significant;
however, it is important to keep in mind that the roof ridges comply with the height
limits set forth in the SDD.
C. Emolovee Housinq
The SDD requires a minimum of eight units at 648 square feet each for a totalof 5,184
square feet. The proposed plans include sixteen employee housing units ranging in
size from 425 to 550 square feet for a total of 7,704 square feet. The previous
proposal included twenty dwelling units, ranging in size from 1,020 to 1,648 square
feet, for a total of 26,680 square feet. The restriclions that were to apply to the
previous project are not clear. From the SDD intormation, it appears that the
restrictions were somewhat vague. The Town has no documents on record and
believes that there was an agreement that the dwelling units would be used by the
employees of the Westin Hotel.
The applicant has discussed the type of deed restriction that would be required as part
of this project with staff and believes that the Type lll EHU deed restriction should be
used. This is much more restrictive than the previous agreement. The Type lll deed
restriction is attached at the end of this memo which stipulate the requirements. Staff
believes that two modifications should be made to the deed restriction tor this project.
The first is that the units should not be sold individually. The second is that the size
requirement (450 square leet minimum) should be waived in this case. Staff believes
that with these two modifications to the deed restriction, that the proposed project
fultills the goal of providing employee housing better than the previous project.
D. BermiOverhead Utilitv Lines
Adjacent to the site to the north is a large berm. on the north side of this berm is a
scar made when the Frontage Road was constructed. A utility pole is located at the
highest point of the berm and a second pole is located to the east at a lower height.
statf believes that as part of the redevelopment of this site, the applicant should be
responsible for regrading this scarred hillside. We believe that the applicant should
lower the berm height so that its steepest grade does not exceed 2:1. In order to do
this, removing the utility poles would be required. Staff believes the applicant should
be responsible for undergrounding a stretch of utility line from the pole adjacent to this
site, to the third pole to the west and regrading and landscaping the berm. prior to
returning for a final hearing, staff believes the applicant should develop a plan with
Holy Cross Electric Association and the Colorado Department of Transportation that
would accomplish this.
E. Landscapinq
The proposed landscape plan includes five 1O-foot tall spruce, six 8-foot tall spruce,
and seven 6-foot tall spruce. In addition, there are twenty-seven 2-inch caliper aspen.
staff believes that a critical aspect of the landscape plan is to berm up and screen the
first floor of the building. The first floor of the buiHing adjacent to Westhaven Drive is
the parking garage and will have a solid wall running adjacent to Westhaven Drive. lt
will be setback approximately 25 feet from the edge of pavement. The first floor will be
unbroken stucco, approximately 11 feet tall. staff believes it will be imperative to
provide a significant amount of landscaping in this area to provide ari aesthetically
pleasing ground level.
Another area of the site which staff believes should be landscaped is between the
building and the Frontage Road. ldeally, the staff would like to see a berm running the
full length of the property which would screen the project from the Frontage Road.
However, the slope is too steep to allow a berm for most of the length of the property.
statf believes, however, that the grades could be reworked on the west end of the site
to allow for new trees and shrubs.
It is important to note that the sDD requires 50% of the site to be landscaped. The
applicant is proposing 47.97, ot the site to be tandscaped. Statf believes this
difference may be justilied if the improvements discussed above regarding the grading
and landscaping in the right-of-way are accomplished.
F. Architecture
staff has provided reductions of the drawings at the end of this memo which show the
architecture that was approved in 1982. The previous proposal was based on a
buiHing module that was repeated live times. The building also had a flat roof. The
proposed architectural style has much more variety. lt has a sloped roof that is broken
within several different areas wilh gables and hipped roofs. There are a variety of
covered and open decks on both the north and south elevations which add interest to
the building. The building will be finished in the general style of the Westin, as it will
I
have a standing seam metal roof, stucco walls and metal railings for the balconies.
Staff believes that the architect should provide more details regarding the proposed
materials to better understand the project. Details of the railings, fascia, eave
overhangs, window trim and chimney caps should be provided.
G. Site Coveraoe
The third area where there is a discrepancy between the proposed and tne" 13,578
zoning standards setforth in the SDD is site coverage. The SDD
coverage or 12,959.1 square feet. The applicant is proposing 36.7% oi. 31 ,598
feet. There are three areas of roof overhang that count as site coverage uld
not have counted as site coverage during the 1982 review. lf these three areas are
excluded, the total site coverage is reduced to 34.47o. Staff believes that the added
architectural features of deep roof overhangs help break up the massing and add
visual interest.
t.
Fire DepartmenVPublic Works Deoartment concerns
'| . The building, including the garage, must be sprinklered.
2. Easement needed for 24-inch corrugated metal pipe crossing the siie.
3. Provide curlc and gutter next to sidewalk for the entire length of the
property.
4. Drainage appurtenances should be considered to redirect water flowing
off hillside toward the building.
5. Prior to issuance of building permii, civil engineering plans for road
improvements must be reviewed and approved by the Town ol Vail
Engineer.
Other
Staff believes that there are a few details which need to be resolved prior to a final
revrew.
Should an easement for the bike path be dedicated to the public?
Should the alignment of the path be modified, so that it is easier to
connect to the path adjacent to the creek?
Should the applicant be required to extend the sidewalk beyond the bike
path?
V.CONCLUSION
Staff has no conclusion at this time as this is a worksession.
c:\Dec\memos\ruins. 2l 3
i"
rWK.JU
H.
't.
2.
3.
ol wA . r (Xl9 . tgYII 1(,vJ6tl$rnrMlltlof, NSAvHrSt/\o
xtIt
n:rs
il
tl
l.l
H
3
(,
x
;
g
",
r'
'!:f'
,.:.
.:;
1;:l
.]:;1
o) lrv^ . r oos . 19/trh rcvl$rj
sr,{nrNslcNo) Nt^vHrsll^o
o
o
zo
o
?--\N"'
FI
illzl
H
ili
:i"q
\,'\r. ,, ' .ili,,/
i'l:l ftl
'' li,il.
9iiI
1i
2
22<{JJaa
Ei i;:tiz:;i
'oc "l|YA a O.'r aot.t.||^ lov5avg
el^,^ooro- Nr^vHlasrur
/ \r\r
tffi
ilt{({((ffi-l
li/tilWitr
l'(lffi
/,,,,DN
IN I
1.{?
I
ti/
I
I
I
\
II
,\t\
\\
\\llN
,ilfillL,'Ilffiffio
H
tl
lEl
l3lIt
.--.-.-
fi
ri
|;l
ld.l
$
6l
u
6rol
f,ai
-----1
i
5
o)'w!\ . r(rts - tcvl|^ xIvfSYJsxnrMffiof Nl vHr$ao..
t:l
it.:
:1;l
,!t:!
i!.i.ti
!ijr:
:;,1
'.1:i
J;
.rti
rl,:r
lll
NtIt!t-
of 'lrv\ . r(XF . lryIl^ i(r€ty)
swnlNlrylNo) NIAY} S:LA\o
o{
(?
t-tt\l
f"l
ft
o
:3;tt!
o:r'tr - roos . }]|nu lr€srr)${nrNtJo) Nl^vHls:t^
ol
TYPE III EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
WHEREAS,is lhe owner ol
certain property ("the ownen described as:
("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Ownet wishes to place certain restrictions on the use ot a unit or apartment
located on the Property for the benefit of the oivner and the Town of vail, colorado ('the Town").
NOW, THEREFORE, the Owner does hereby impose, estabtish, acknowledge, dectare for the
benetit of all persons who may hsreinatter purchase, or lease, or hold the subject land the lollowing
restrictions, covenanls, and @nditions, all ol which shall be d6€med to run with the land and inure to
the benelit and be bonding upon the Owner, its respeclive grantees, successors, and assigns.
Unit or Apartment _, containing _ square feet, is hereby restricted as
a Type lll Employee Housing Unit (EHU) which must comply with all the provisions of
Sections 18.57.020, 18.57.030, and 18.57.060 of the Vail Municipal Code as ameqded.
The Type lll Ernployee Housing Unit shall be leased to tenants who are fulFlimo
employees who work in Eagle County. An EHU shall not be leased lor a period less
than thirty consecutive days. For the purposes ol lhis section, a fulFtimo employee is
one who wofks an average of thirty hours each week.
A Type lll EHU may be sold, lransferred, or conveyed separately from other dwelling
units or Employee Housing Units that may be located on tho same lot or within the
same bujlding so long as il meets the following conditions;
Ia) lt must bd used by lhe owner of the EHU as a permanent residence. For the
purpose ol this paragraph, a permanent residence shall mean the home or
place in which one s habitation is lixed and to which one, whenever he or she
is absent, has a present intention of retufning after a depanure or absence
lhBrefrom, regardless ol lhe duration ol absence. ln delermining what is a
permanent residence. the Town statf shall take lhe tollowing circumstances
oo
telating to the owner of the residgnce into accounl: business pursuits'
?.
employment, income sources, tesidence tor in@me or other tax purposes' age'
marital status, residsnce ol parents, spouse and childten il any' localion of
personal and real property, an motor vehicle teoisttation'
b)llaTypeltlEHUissold'trenslBrt€d,otcorwoy€d3€Paratelylromtheother
dwelling unils and/or Typo tll Employee Housinl Unlts in a multltamily
t
strudureitisapanof,o'|romo|herdwe||ingunitsand/orType|||EHUS|ocated
on the same lot, tha Type lll EHUS in the sttudura of on that lot shall be
subiect b all lhe ptovision s€t forlh in section 18'57'020'
4. The Type lll EHU shall nol be divided into any totm of timeshares' interval ownership'
or |tactional t€e ownershiP as those terms ate delin€d in tho Municipal Code of lhe
Town of vail.
5.No|atetlhanFebruarylofeachyear,theowne'oleachEmp|oyeehousingunitwithin
the town which is clnstructed lollowino the eflectfue date ot this chapt€r shall submil
two copies ol a tepott on a form b be obtained trom lhE Community Devolopmenl
oepartmenl.tothecommunityDeve|opmentDepanmento|theTownofvai|and
Chairman ot the Town of Vail Housing Authority setting lonh evidencs eslablishing lhat
the employee housing unit has been rented throughout the year' the tental tate' the
emp|oyer,andthateachtenantwhoresideswithintheemp|oyeehousingunitisafu||-
time employee in Eagle county.
6. Thg owner of each EHU shatl rent the unil at a monthly tontal rate consistent wilh or
lower than those matket rates ptevalent lor similat ptoperties in lhe Toutn ol Vail'
7. The To$rn ol Vail Housing Authority will delermine the rnarket rate based on the study
ol othe/ units ol comparable size, location, quality and amenities thtoughout lhe Town.
Themarketrateshal|bebasedonanaverageofam|nimumof|iveren|e|ratgsof
compafabte units. the unil is not rented and is not available at lhe matket rate shall
be determined to be in noncompliance. In addition to any ofier penalties and
restrislions provided herein, a unit tound to be in noncompliance shall be subject to
pt blication as determined by the Housing Authodty.
8.Thirty days prior to the transfer ot a deed tor a Type EHU, the prospecrNe
purcharser shall submit an application to the Community Devetopment Depanment
documenting that the prospective purchaser meets the criteria set lorth above and shalt
includo an atlidavit atfirming that he or she meets these criteria.
The provisions of these festriclive covenants may be enlorced by the Owner and lhe
Town.
The conditions, resfictions, stipulations, and agreements conlained herein shalt nol be
waived, abandoned, terminated, or amended except by th6 wrilten consent of both the
Town of Vail and the Owner of the property.
TOWV OF VAfL, a Co,orado municipal cotwtalion
Eob McLaurin, Town Managet
The loregoing instrument was acknowledged belore me this _ day ot
Notary Public
My commission expires:
Property owners
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day ot
Nolary Public
c$rotdng\dnhulirlll
10.
By:
By:
::-'-
+t\
$rtI
ll
r') a
\\)1
i
l{o
II,il
!r r
il I
r.rJ
!! !)
II
i
al
I;
$Ii
N
idi(t
\r
$f{r.tln<l!
r
I{
ij
1l
li
a
i.t!B
+
g-
o-
w
F
.Ds
Irlt{
NIlJlx.1
tui9iY
(
$q
I8!
.t+l
!s
- --iI
i
It
inli
lr Ii,
J' I:'ii !u;t !!!ili$il$i,
fll
$l
9ifl
tll
?\i_l
\r.:i.i
sr
A.pit
T
I
rl.r.l
f,lp
:..
ffi
@
ftiffi
fi
ft
N:r
SI#{
'd,EI
*lsl
slol
.l'E
E$
de
dT\'w
\l
sl
\y
fi'!gt*:
eir
sl
\l
?.1
yrl
\ti.=-|
L19)\.lr'l
I
ql
!16,lFi
ir*
a\
,6rd r: \' ..r
,l
,tie I1r i
!i i=ii ti13 it
al
{{;l
3t:e
ll :' i
ii ;l lr
ii$irii
'
ri.
trIrf{
II'
tii
!
$$i
ti il
$h
sF
@
:l(l
(
)i lrt t,,
:"U
\{r'l
$$
\lJ.. 14r.t*
"r.{u
l1r E
kNsll 7 r
5' lr7\ 'F
3,i rt
i*l*
$$il
nJ $$
$$ T$il
$[n
$tf;
ltN
tl
t
TO: MIKE
PROJECT:
DATE SUBM
Reviewed by:
Commcnls:
McGIIE
s$$ Ju$
t \\s5
TODD OPPENHEIMER
Relurn to _Andy Knudtscn
Town Planncr
'1 s-.
<'at is l-r. o'r
U
( tz-n- ,' u e-Z/
d t^*
r-
'Qz1 uin J J,, fl.1
'o " tc"'Y{ crJIr/
"L,.",_
/L-.." ],u,_I .f
u ,- | tsun ^-."
'l t
(nr',r'o J' CLLL
,/
?if. o--r L-"-''a'i ) e^)
Fire Dept.:
Reviewed by:
Commenls:
6,vrb, ytler &srdevJq\tl- rer\.ri ced firo.yr progrq r,irr- ko p(apc{h{ r.xrg r,r(rcrrv€ts o€ no.sl b*;r\Ai^l /
6r^;nrct t \ra.lrr\ i'-r ?4tr Ct1\P c(c1s\nc) \csiw t/
'2o^ ) "--"' '. 'l z t
drJ f | ,l ,*,rr, rc(,tttcti11y1;"iy1l ,.,
Lr-.-) 5(dr.e, ?1,*- rt,ccle{ L"
Dafe: ' I
GREG HALL
INTER.DEPARTMENTAL B EVI EW
,!. S
DATE OF PUELIC HEARING
COMMENTS NEEDED aY: =-/ r I q s*
BHIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE pROpOSAL:
C""v. s (* ^ _A, .^ o€lZ €t+t(s
a-A-J t+F-.\ ^----l,o{ (r,v.-dr|3
(vr-,tJ,-/'""n / pq,t.*x_ Fra{d.Engineering:t'0V"3*
6tea gq11
Reviewed by: Tern l4arnnru Ootc: Ic,ii.,rr{ ZS Fil.i
Comments:
'l .'f'\ rrzA o ?0' uldq, ecrsemenk lo( tt\e brrzaQcrrq -
)r
:l
qc€s) \o grt:\s.<-b\.'q5 \c, be m;\i n\Jm of zzr \.D1&J) *rrn 5goce:, grr,r'Jfi 6q ;
A{ .'-^z zq q\T{.rh m$<Xll*'*-:( tt" pi 14t6a;t' Are'1 ceq'r* | ed?'
?;r"::'.iy-1"';'.rr..+t"s. our ats *rarrr . (Aopn.,'s .,..=o r*edq .tcbegi*-ru-n* ,(vx<r.^v-d ,^n*.;;|';;;;Ull3,:?Eu5 ovr6,yw\c'ff\ . (Aspn 'rsc..eoflaed*.O.\no'\edg^Xte{grxc9stoot\EgM-*5''\5cee.on.).)patsr.r(r*ryc{fteunderqrocr}4) c\rrxno 1e o.g7.r te{w{.pg stoo U tg4*abt* '" r
'
q zrr | (5ctz 9ra5.)-).f,a\so r,rfr<n! .{ ttra underqro.r<I
"-r.,*t,.11ttiq\15de. 'a<orrrrnq horro s o u,*l,Fo con5\d€rei -F6c p.otv^ng o,ceo,, (*.+.r 3::ffc-c"n,v-i .r,jc,$td\\ side.' J ror.u\ 11 q h;5;Ti.T;;T
Ii) 5n"w 6vof64eq ,-,. .
r,'l\,^- t .r*tLandstaping: '-
C,,u; | ?lr,-,
9.'*f, *p" .
e x.k-c 5;
Dato:
Distributcd to the Fire Departmcnt, public Worl<s, and Landscaping on
EZrt/-u, /J-.41 1a-.,--"4 Cg,r&z^' ait<.*,<-i Alb /?f
/zgzo
Lcr zc
Law.<--1,1<-d\ 6 PF/r
b"ru t 37 /52<
F t4c /q4
l"r /ds>0( s'*\ W
D Qt4r\ to
z,-L /z-(
GM-
4ztyt/
Stk Ct"--^V'- t / z, t tt" *
/4"Aq;"% - /{,2,/3 d,u
/--/ 4re<. .E1; .7(:/'c-'x 37,oza /,
ta(n4 l4
rp (/az) W E t,o") ,o
tc( rze) M
E,Q/
o)
E ^t--.---.-,_4/ €- A/. / ^ h
b.-',^ 4zn-r--<,J,,o u*,-L-/",k o--.G-V fr-,.,--
/t., '/) 0 at-rz'-tt f<' 6-./.-N,, + f,'<4p*, v
/rvz-{ l*,J ,r,^J-.- r-----12 ,,
nl; ?- { ,fr/.--t- ' da -"2on F
pft,[.n W( fA-,- a.-r'L L-{ o(('r.
'('1,"L).
$": 'J;'\,
tltct d sg.J.. 1.
4q Ld *{0{t'"))->t-/ (."
t (ro
4radud-=r'ft 4 u-*{,rg .*o". *n^''l',.,
"-^ {1'-.- -x,4"u*C 1-
(
^--- 4.:rA A"4 2.,*.- {1, t ,t/= /
a a+<'-""'--f
4fll,r, b;/. /*/'1
< t Luu a-LL
{ q1,$fL> po^ Ln ,f*
J.|L el uJ',t'Jr, o'' ,.'
Jr.-,
lcf rl51..!, i' [r.t-,
F^.Lr- edu T2r"^ z /a z-,._. /t )r*Iu f-a-.-- rtt"-,(-t /4 ,-.-, h z- ?
4+-
aLl 4t'r\ -{-..4 fi-'^ baof
"-----4 a.J^<- aq- 4-/l-->.<-
^-e1 df--- t4^.---l-f [.-1"..-^ SUb ->nDo fr
fov;J''J 3G )rd.n,*
q// -4-4 t?ae-
-7-> 4r. -or_.
., ln,r ^ |fuabl !r.6 17. /Lo "o-""424 /n"for.- L
5u,zA-1 C.l- zto-f4.u* d\rz:/ z,/
& 'lrrO €.H4( \ a-ehz4,.-/
/V+-/""1
6Rru
55' tuu4t .
zz,ia-o ;:,3-
wv'6r'f^*%
2 Q , ZS { fr= *,"-Lf p..,V" J
2t o{ gt{4's f.XrJ
Z) ff-- ,^-- iat 4//"u-1
/A €7{ c:? 4{t-J
a,tb*.,t
nt'.Pa5;/7
/fU
o
Cow-*.t"t 6 etu4
&a 7.s -
I t)//
1 zo4! T7r- *
/./-u;k
#'-a*t r ry*q
/b-n
-h7^E
&p,*-".f
F'rsf
oJJfro.r,. d
W,'-!
$r"t;4
7 3{-
te4a.{-
6sz,r'
s/o.{.
3 +t7 n
? 39/.'
?s?r'-
{Ls/'
L6,2?4'-
-7-7o4-1y"rc
,6
5
3
/+"
E^4.""**
Hr\f
See-J
II ht'r 4-
lab
3f /,{
/ st.{
/?q
--'---
4
4
,t
z
LQ
4L
/ s8-.3
/s9
t4h
z &re
/st.5
/*z
t"(e
z87R
/r8.s
C,*^ 4Bn
24o
/#s
z&&
/&7
( r; tr< t,\
[t ) ( rrt',5
(r) ( rs,,\
e) ( tft\
611 rtt\
(+) (rcto)
U-^,'ls
(t\( rttt\ I
(4)( sr'z\ z,x 4
(a\ (+zs\'"* 4
(a) ( ssa\ "a /+
(+) 7t+q1 ''0" j-
tu
Frrrrft
Single F
DAfE:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot
-
Block
-
Subdivision
o
amily
ZONE CHECK
FOR
Residence, Duplex,
ZONE DISTRICTS
Primary/ SecondarY
ADDRESS:
OWNER PHONE
PHONE
ZONE DISTRICT
ARCHITECT
LOT SIZE
PROPOSED USE
Allowed
'-sa
(30) (33)
BUII,DABLE LOT AREA
Existino ProDosed Total
n{eLq]nt
tr{rotat cnre
Primary GRFA
Secondary GRFA
Setbacks
+425=
+ 425
Front
Sides
Rear
20'
L5',
15'
Site Coverage
LandscaPing
r+(ecaining Wall Heights
udarking
durage Credit'
Drive:
3'/6'
Complies with T.O.v. LiqhEing Ordinance
'.,lf5ter Course SeLback (30) (50)
etd Finish Grades Exceed 2:1 (50%)
,4nvi ronmen La1 /Hazards :
14 p.eqrd f{
(300) (600) (900) (L200) n("*-
PermiEted slope e6 Proposed
4L n*- e+1
Yes
s;/2-
JA Pnct
slope %
YEs--@-
2) Percent slope 1< > 30t) -!'z' t7'-- so f"
3)Geologic Hazards
a) Snow Avalanche
b) Rockfall
c) Debris Flow
4) wetlands r* czt^ ,9k
,-Frevious condiLions of approval (check property file):
4iew Corridor EncroachmenE :Yes-- @L--
uf;oes Lhis req-resL invoive a 250 Addition? ! T.
How much of the allowed 250 Addiif;;-f; uset]i-ftEis requesL?
1) Flood Plain
2r<
10
a...,, -slP
O n"-\J .-::', .'"3 .t n
AN oRDINANoE REPEALTNG AND REENAoTNG oro,rord,ffi fl.\Hrt*of tr,gs. oW:'"i*€efr"::,,/
ORDINANCE NO.7
SERTES OF 1993
-/,a\ t
5rl, . .f q u-".t tL- ^ zr
- ,'- 4.dr4 ?
? ^ L 7,",..^/,y
'l /tzt"tt,3 ,+-A^-tl t
TO PROVIDE CHANGES TO AREA A REOUIREMENTS FOR SDD NO.4
THAT CONCERN THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE IIILLRACE IIt
DEVELOPMENT BUILDING SITE;
AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
rl.
/
r" '1t'' l"/@
WHEREAS, lllchrel Lauterbach has requested an amendment to the existing Special
Development Distict No.4, Area A: and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has recommended that certain
changes be made to Special Devetopment District No.4;and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial
to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to repeal and reenact Ordlnance No. l,
Serles of 19$l to provide for such changes in Special Development District No. 4, Cascade
Village.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1993, is hereby repealed and reenacted, as follows:
Section 1. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled. plannino Commission Reoort.
The approval procedures described in Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code have
been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received the recommendations of tre Planning and
Environmental Commission for an amendment to the development plan for Special Development
District No.4.
Section 2. Soecial Develooment District No.4
Special Development District No. 4 and the development plans therefore, are hereby
approved for the development of Special Development District No. 4 within the Town of Vail.
Section 3 Chapter 18.46 Special Development District No.4, Gascade Village, is hereby
repealed and re-enacted with amendments to read as follows:
18.46.010 Puroose
Special Development District No.4 is established to ensure comprehensive development
and use of an area in a manner that will be harmonious with the general characier ol the Town,
provide adequate open space and recreational amenities, and promote Ure objectives of the Town
of Vail Comprehensive Plan. Special Development District No. 4 is created to ensure that the
development density will be relatively low and suitable for the area and the vicinity in which it is
o
situated, the development is regarded as complementary to
the Ptanning Commission, and because there are significant aspects of the Special Development
District which cannot be satisfied through the imposition of standard zoning districts on the area.
18.45.020 Delinitions
For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
A. 'Special attraction'shall be deftned as a museum, seminar or'research center or
performing arts theater or cultural center.
B. 'Transient residential dwelling unit or resticted dwelling unit'shall be defined as
a dwelling unit located in a multi-family dwelling 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 for a period of time not to exceed 31 days. Eacfr unit shall not exceed 845
square feet of GRFA which shall include a kitchen having a ma:<imum of 35 square feet.
The kitchen shall be designed so that it may be locked and separated from fie rest of the
unit in a closet. A transient dwelling unit shall be accessible from common corridors,
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 setforth in Chapter 17.26 Condominiums and Condominium
Conversions. The unit shall not be used as a permanent residence. Fractional lee
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 shall be
counted 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 space per unit.
18.46.030 Estabtished
A. Special Development District No. 4 is established for the development on a parcel
of land comprising 97.955 acres as more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A.
Special Development District No. 4 and the 97.955 acres may be referred to as'SDD No.
4.
B. The district shall consist of four separate development areas, as identified in this
ordinance consisting of the following approximate sizes:
ol I
the Town by the Town Council and
2
MIKE McGEE GREG HALL TODD OPPENHEIMER
Relurn lo Andv Knucltsen
Town Planncr
PROJECT:
DATESUBMTTTED: rl rtffi
COMMENTS NEEDED gY: =-/r I q f
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE pROpOSAL:
ca4,"s k _. uA, ,ry.,. o€ t Z
[?-^-J t+rt ,r
l7-c-al n-a - ( af tr*-d6'g
€t4-u's
r&"*'1,-t,"n ,/ ,'
Enginccring: / /o'['"tr 0*'l'
Reviewed by: Datc:
Comments:
Landscaping:
Reviewed by:Date:
Commcnls:
Firo Dept.:
Reviewed oy: A/artoy7 so6./-24 -75
commcnrs: Sp.;-.tcr.u- <r ftt^.^^- syst-<w--s 27r E','/'3
GAe> prnaftlg J' faez-\1 ,-.,J;- lfo' .F
' fl( i*ft <rkrtzc - urc /o'zor-
Distributed to the Fire Department, public Works, and Landscaping on
o
TO: MIKE
Return lo Andv Knudtscn
Town Planner
INTER-DEPARTM ENTAL R EVI EW
PROJECT:
DATE SUBMITTED: rl r DATE OF PUI]LIC HEARING
COMMENTS NEEDED BY: zlr
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:C c*r S lY -" cA'.n2. "f, | Z €14l,{I
McGEE GREG HALL TODD OPPENHEIMER
/e-,',J t+
{o.',.d'-./,',^
Engineering:
Reviewed by:
Comments:
Landscaping:
Reviewed bv:
Commenls:
Fire Dept.:
Reviewed by:
Comments:
,/i/ PcuF."*-fr't{Jv
(r*ta's d* d t^, ' ,., [^ y-
e.{ *t1
Date:
Dale:
Date:
k^\ ^-^* I o'{
Distributed to the Fire Departmcnt, public Worl<s, and Landscaping on
CUSTOMER
m
November 22 1994
Property Address:
CTOSER
ATEN: ARZANA RUCKER
Copies: 1
LOWE E}fTERPRISES
LO-WESTHAVEN TNC.
].500 SANSOME ST.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
AE,fn:
FAX 415-834-L475
Copies: l- via US
ss&F/VARE
JAt{ 1 I 1E35
sTE. a02
94ttt
PosEal Service
order No. : 1rT24897-3
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS
22ND FLOOR
8O]. SOIITH GRAND AVENUE
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017-4615
ATIN: MICI{ELLE M. FEATHER
2]-3 6L2-L3t2
Copies: 3 via US Postal Service
WESTHAVEN/CASCADE LLC
P.O. BOX 598
EDWARDS, cO 8L632
ALEn:
FAX 926-3316
Copies: 1 wia Us Postal Service
ss&F/VARE
h?nr. \\ VAIL I(UI\ D /
230 BRIDGE ST.
vArL, co 81657
AITN: JERRY MULI-,,IKIN
+to-z+zL
Copies: 1
(vArL RrINS)
230 BRIDGE ST.vArL, co 8L657Attn: ROBBY ROBINSON
476-242L
Copies : 1-
FIRSTBANK OF VAIL
(VAII-, RUNS)
1.7 VAIL ROAD
vArL, co 81557
Attsn: MARK RISTOW
47 6-5686
Copies: 1-
O"o* rrr,,E GUARA'*TEE coMtlv
DISTRIBUTION
November 22, 1994
Buyer,/Borrower:
Seller/owner:
Property Address:
YOUR LAND TITLE GUARAI TEE COMPANY CO}TTACTS
our Order No.: vT24897-3
WESTHAVEN/CASCADE Lr.,C, A COIqRADO LrMrrED
LIABILITY COMPANY INC.
L-O WESTHAVEN, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION
Guides to understanding tiqle insurance arq availqblg upo4reorieir,- please call our Sales department at, 303 331--6299.
If you have any inquiries or require furE.her assisEance, please
contact one of the numbers lisEed below:
For Closing Assistance: For TiEIe Assistance:
ARZANA RUCKER TRICIA KEYES
108 S. FRONTAGE RD WEST ]-08 S. FRONTAGE RD WEST
vArL, co 81657 VArL, CO 8L557
Phone: 303 476-225L Phone: 303 476-2253-
Fax: 303 476-4534 Fax: 303 476-4534
NoEe: Once an original commitmenL has been issued, any subsequent
changes will be emphasized by underlinj-ng.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDER!
#rtittent To lnsure
ALTA Commitment - 1970 Bev.
0LD REPUBUC NATI0NAL TlTtt INSURANCt C0lt4PANY, a lvlinnesora corpontion, herein called the Company, lor a
valuable considera 0n. hereby commirs to rssre it policy or policies ol tirle insurance. as idenlified in Schedule A in favor
of the proposed Insured named rn Schedule A. as owner or mongagee of the estate or interesl covered hereby in lhe land
described or refened to in Schedule A, upon paymenl of the premiums and charges lherefor; all subject to lhe provisions 0f
Schedule A and 0 and to the Conditions and Stioulations hereof.
This Commhment shall be effecrive only when rhe idendry of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy ot
policies committed tor have been insened rn Schedule A hereof by the Company. either at the ime 0l the issuance 0f this
Commiment or by subsequent endorsemenL
This [ommrlmenr is preliminary l0 the issuance of such policy or policies of ide insuraoce and all liability and 0bligalions
hereunder shall cease and lerminan six months afler lhe efieclive date hereof cr when thu policy or policies committed l0l
shall issue, whichever fict occurs. provided rhat the failure ro issre such policy or policies rs no( the faul( of the Cornpany.
CONt) ITIt)NS AND STIPUITTIO NS
l. The term "mongage'', when used herein, shall include deed of trust. lrust deed, 0r other secumy insrumenl.
2. lf lhe pr0posed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance. adverse claim or other
maner affecring the estate or interest or monqaqe thereon covered by this Commitmenr olher lhan rhose shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge
t0 fte Company in writing, rhe Company shall be relieved from liabi|ty for any loss or damage resulring from any act of reiiance hereon r0 the errenl lhe Company is preiudiced
by falure ol the proposed lnsured to so disclose such knowledge. lf the proposed Insured shall drsclose such knowledge t0 lhe C0mpany, or if the Company otheuise acqutres
actual knowledge of any such defect, Iien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter. the Company ar rrs 0plron may amend Schedrlle B of this Commitment accordingly, but
such amendmenl shall not relieve the Company kom liability previously incurred pursuant t0 paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Sipulaions.
3. tiabilly oi the Company under this Commitment shall be only lo the named proposed Insured and such panies
inc|udedunderthede|rnitionof|nsutedtntheformofpo|cyorpo|iciescommiltedlorandon|yforactua|lossincurredinte|tancehereoninundenakinging00dithlajt0
comply with the requirements hereol or lb) to eliminate erceplions shown in Schedule B. 0r (cl to acquire or create the estate or inlerest 0r mongage thereon covercd by fiis
Commitmenr. In no evenl shall such liabrlity exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for te policy or policies commhted for and such liability is subject t0 the insuring
provisions and the Condi ons and S pulaions and the Exclusions ltom Coverage of the lorm 0f policy 0r policies commined for in favor of the proposed lnsurcd which are
hefeby rncorporated by reference and made a pan o{ this Commitment except as expressly modified herein.
4. Any action or acrions 0r rights 0l acli0n that rhe proposed Insured may have 0r may brrng against the Company
adsing out of the status of the litle l0 $e estale 0r inl€rest 0r rhe s€tus of the mongage thereon covered by thrs Commitment must be based 0n and are subiect l0 the
provisions of lhrs Commirrnenl.
STANOARD TXCEPTIONS
In addirton to lhe ma ers c0nrained in rhe Conditons and Slipularions and hclusions from Coverage above
rqfgrgd rg,.1hig. Colmitment is a so subiect to.the.following,
L Bights or claims of panies in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easemeflls. n0t shown bv the oublic records.
3. 0iscfepancies, conllicts in borndary lines, shonage in area. encroachments. and any facts which a conect
survey and rnspecton 0l lhe ptemses world drsclose and which are not shown by the pub c records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or maredal lheret0l0fe 0r hereafter furnished, imposed by law
and nor shown by the pubhc records.
5. 0elects, liens. encumbrances, adverse clarms 0r 0rher marrers. if any, created, first appearing in the public tecotds
Commitment.
lN WITNtSS WHtRE0F, 0 d Reprbftc Na ona Tirle Insurance Company has caused ils corpofale naine and seal lo
be hereunto allixed by irs duly authorired oilicers 00 rhe date shown in Schedule A, ro be va|d when counlersigned by a validating officer or other aulhorized signalory.
iHj
OLD REPUELIC I\IATIOI'IAI. TITLE INSUBAI'ICE COMPAIIY
A Stock Conpany
400 Sec\ntl Avcaue South, Mqneapolts. Mtrnesala 55401
t6l2t 3/t
Jhn*" 9 4latYt"*8y
Aulhoned Sigoanry
OfiT torn 2582
Seuetary
Arr? coMMrrMENr o
SCHEDULE A
Our Order # W24897 -3
For Informat.ion Only
- Charges -
ALTA Owner Policy $1,306.00Alta IJender Policy $75.00
s', l3l :33
****WITH YOIJR REMITTANCE PLEASE REFER TO OIJR ORDER NO. VT24B97-3****
l-. Ef f ective Dat.e: November 03, irg94 aL 8 :00 A.M.
2. Policies Eo be issued, and proposed fnsured:
"ALTArr Owner' s Policv lO-1-7 -92 $1, 300, 000 . 00
Proposed fnsured:
WBSTHAVEN/CASCADE LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILTTY COMPANY
INC.
'fALTArt Loan Policy t0-L7-92 $650, 000 .00
Proposed fnsured:
rir nAi n nnAr(\rrrrJ x. tsROOKS AND FIRSTBANK OF VAfL AS THEfR INTERESTS MAY
APPEAR
3. The esEate or interesE, in the land described or referred to in
Ehis Commitment and cowered herein is:
A Fee Simple
4. Title Lo t,he estate or int,eresL covered herein is at t.he
effect.iwe daEe hereof west,ed in:
L-O WESTHAVEN, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION
5. The land referred Eo in this Commitment is described as
follows:
WESTHAVEN PARCEL, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
-F-6\\f .cl I
ALT?COMMTTMENT
SCHEDULE A
Our Order # W2489?-3
A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST l-l4 NORTHEAST 1/4, SECTTON 12, TOttiNSHTP
5 SOUTH, RANGE 81 WEST OF THE 5TI{ PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN , COU}TIY
OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT AT.I ANGLE POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE
OF INTERSTATE HTGHWAY NO. 70, WHENCE AN IRON PIN WITH PLASTIC
CAP MARKING THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 12 BEARS SOUTH 04
DEGREES 05 MINUTES 11 SECONDS WEST 594.72 FEET DISTAT\II; THENCE
THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES AIJONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY
LINE:
(1)
(2)
NORTH
NORTH
DEGREES
DEGREES
3L
50
4L
52
MINUTES 56 SECONDS EAST 2O4. OO FEET
MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST 1.5O.OO FEET
THENCE SOUTH 37 DEGREES 09 MINUTES 3]. SECONDS EAST 125.96
FEET,. THENCE SOUTH 55 DEGREES 48 MTNU?ES 45 SECONDS WEST 125.15
FEET,. THENCE SOUTH 1-20.47 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE
LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF L43.20 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 48
DEGREES ]-2 MINUTES 05 SECONDS, AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS SOUTH 32
DEGREES 42 MINUTES 43 SECONDS WEST ]-16,95 FEET,.THENCE NORTH 8]-
DEGREES 23 MINUTES ]-9 SECONDS WEST T65.42 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING, COTI}fIY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO.
PAGE
ALT? CoMMITMENT
SCHEDULE B-1
(RequiremenEs) Our Order # lfT24897-3
The following are t.he reErirement.s t.o be complied with:
1. Payment Eo or for Ehe account of the grantors or mort,gagors of
E.he full consideration for t.he esE.aE.e or inEeresE to be
insured.
2- Proper inst.rument(s) creating the estace or interest Eo beinsured must. be executed and duly filed for record, to-wit.:
3. ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION FOR WESTHAVEN/CASCADE LLC MUST BE FILED WITH THE
SECRETARY OF STATE. A COPY STAJVIPED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE MUST BE
FURNTsHED' To LAND Trrr,s-EuAffiEE collpffiY.-
4. EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERMS, CONDTTIONS AND
PROVIS]ONS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TRANSFER TAX TIAVE BEEN SATISFIED.
5. WARRANTY DEED FROM L-O WESTHAVEN, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION TO
wnsrttavslrTcAscApE Ltcl tlor,oRaoo r,Tr,irrsD i,raerl,rrv-EdMpANy rNclcovi/pvn'Te
SUBJECT PROPERTY.
6. DEED OF TRUST FROM WESTHAVEN/CASCADE LLC, A COLORADO I,IMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY INC. TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF EAGLE COUNTY FOR THE USE OF I{AROID
R. BROOKS AND FIRSTBANK OF VAIL AS THEIR INTERESTS MAY APPEAR TO SECURE THE;;;;-- ;--i; -;--;
-
suM oF s650, 000.00.
NOTE: fLems $.3, 5, 5 of Schedqle B-1 (of your previous commitmenL) have-=--i-;-'i-been modified or deleted.
THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFTCE REQUIRES RETURN
ADDRESSES ON DOCUMENTS SENT FOR RECORDING!!
PAGE 3
ALT? COMMITMENT
SCHEDULE B-2
(Exceotions) Our Order # W24897-3
The policy or poli-cies to be issued will contain excepEions to thefollowing unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of
the Company-:
1. Standard Exceptions 1 through 5 printed on the cover sheet,.
6. Taxes and assessments not yet due or payable and special
assessments noc vet certified to the Treasurer'g office.
't nn,, ,,---.:,{ r--.-^^ ^-^.:-^F ^-.i,1 'l ^*,1t. .'trJ \.rycr",-lr udx€s or assessment.s againsE said l-and.
L Liens for unpeid waE.er and sewer charges, if any.
9, RTGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE
THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES
AS RESERVED fN LINITED STATES PATENT RECORDED August 16, 1-909, IN BOOK 48 AT
10. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE
UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED AuguST 16, 1909,
IN BOOK 48 AT PAGE 542.
11 . RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHTCH DO NOT CONTATN A FORFEIT'IIRE OR REVERTER CLAUSE,
BUT OMITTTNG RESTRTCTIONS, IF ANY, BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR
NATIONAL ORIGIN, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED July L7, 1981, IN BOOK
325 AT PAGE 255.
12. EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AS GRANTED TO GORE CREEK ASSOCIATES, A
RHODE ISLAI{D LIMITED PARTT{ERSHTP TN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JANUARY 24, 1978 IN
BOOK 265 AT PAGE 903 AND AS RELOCATED IN DOCT]MENT RECORDED JANUARY 7, ].985
IN BOOK 404 AT PAGE 228 coMMoNL' KNowN As WESTHAVEN DRIVE.
].3. UNDERGROUND RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT AS GRANTED TO MANSF]LED LTMITBD, A
COLORADO LTMITED PARTNERSHIP TO HOLY CROSS ELECTR]C ASSOCIATTON, INC. BY
DOCUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 30, 1982 IN BOOK 344 AT PAGE 923 AND NOVEMBER ]-2,
1982 IN BOOK 348 AT PAGE 664.
]-4. EASEMENT AS GRANTED TO WESTERN GAS SUPPLY COMPANY, A COLORADO CORPORATION
IN INSTRT]MEM| RECORDED JANUARY 24, 1.985 IN BOOK 405 AT PAGB 524.
15. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF ORDER AND DECREE CREATING CASCADE
VILLAGE METROPOLITAN DTSTRTCT RECORDED April 07, 1986 IN BOOK 439 AT PAGE
349 AND ORDER FOR INCI.,US]ON RECORDED APR]L T7 , 1987 TN BOOK 461 AT PAGE
L22.
].6. TERMS, CONDTTIONS AND PROVISTONS OF CONTRACT FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE RECORDED
March 02, 19BB IN BOOK 479 AT PAGE 741 AND RECORDED JANUARY 27, 1989 IN
BOOK 499 AT PAGE 354.
r.-.\f.L .1
ALr? coMMrrMENr
SCHEDULE B-2
(Except,ions) Our Order # vT24897-3
17. UTIL]TY EASEMENT AS GRAMTED TO HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. IN
INSTRUMENT RECORDED May 02, 1989, IN BOOK 505 AT PAGE 359.
18. ASPHALT PATH AFFECTING SUBJECT PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON IMPROVEMENT TOCATION
CERTIFICATE PREPARED MARCH 2, 1992 By EAGLE VALLEY SURVEYING, INC., JOB
NO.38.20.
].9. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERM]T GRANTED
TO PUBITIC SERVfCE COMPANY OF COL,ORADO RECORDED September 30, 1993 IN BOOK
620 AT PAGE 853.
PAGE 5
t?ro"cuARANtrl coMPANyLAND
DISCLOSTIRE STATEMEMT
Required by Senate Bilt 91-1-4
A) The subject real properEy may be locaLed in a special Eaxing
district,
B) A Certificate of Taxes Due lisE,ing each taxing jurisdiction
may be obtained from the County Treasurer or the CounLy
Treasurer' s authorized aqent .
C) The informaLion regarding special disEricEs and t,he boundariesof such districts may be obtained from Ehe Board of County
COmmiSSiOnefS t.lra f-arrnFrr l-l o;ft and ReCOfdef , 01' the COUnty
Assessor.
Required by SenaLe BiIl 92-143
A) A CertificaE.e of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction
shall be obtained from the County Treasurer or t.he County
reviaed LAl5l92
DATE APPLICATTON RE
.}PPLfCATIOIT FORIII E.OR SPECLATJ D
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PI.ADT JAil l- ,,;:'j
i|lli - t 'l ,,, : i/ ^Fr. rhis procedure is resuj-red ror any project tn#v*!,111i!,tsorCy,llEPT.through the Special Development District procedure.
The application will not be accepted until all informationis submitted.
(please print or type)
A. APPLICANT_____Westhaven=Cascade L.L.C.
MAILING ADDRESS ?.0. Box 598
Edwards. c0 81632 PHONE 926-1+567
B. APPLfCANT'S REPRESENTATIVE Kathv Laneenwalrer lter
ADDRESS P.0. Box 1202. VaiI HONE_€.6--4505__
?PROPERTY OVINER(S) Westhaven-Cascade L.L.C,
owlrER (s) srct{ATnRE (s)
MAILING ADDRESS P.O.
Edwards, C0 8L632 PHONE 926-4s67
LOCATTON OF PROPOSAI.,:
STREET ADDRESS. L325 Westhaven Drive
LoT_BLOCK_SUBDIVISIoN Cascade Vi1lage, S
D.
rhu{al,-
dr4,"l
qflfr,v"
{tt y'
nt,/v /--'\ /
E. STAMPED, ADDRESSED ENVELOPES OF THE NAI4ES OF OWNERS OFALL PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ALIST OF THEIR NAMES AND MAILING ADDRESSES.
F. A TITLE REPORT TO VERIFY OUINERSHTP AND EASEMENTS.
IL Four (4) copies of the following i-nformation must besubmitted:
A. Detailed written,/graphic description of proposal,.
B. An environmental impact report shall be submitted tothe zonj.ng administrator in accordance with Chapter18.56 hereof unless waived by Section 18.56.030; exemptprojects;
C. An open space and recreational plan sufficient to meetthe demands generated by the development without undueburden on available or proposed public facilities,.
D. Existj-ng contours having contour intervals of not morethan five feet if the average slope of the site istwenty percent or less, or with contour interval"s ofnot more than ten feet if the average slope of the s.i-ters greater than threnty percent.
E. A proposed site plan, aL a scale not smalLer than oneinch equals fifty feet, showing the approximatelocations and dimensions of aII buildlngs andst.ructures, uses therein, and aII principal sitedevelopment features, such as landscaped areas,recreat.ionat facilities, pedestrian plazas andwalkways, service entries, driveways, and off-streetparking and loading areas with proposed contours aftergrading and site developmenc;
1
A preliminary landscape plan, at a scale not smaLl_erthan one inch equals fifty feet, showing existing
landscape features to be retained or removed, and
showing proposed landscaping and landscaped sitedevelopment features, such as outdoor recreationalfacilities, bicycle paths, trail-s, pedestrian plazas
and walkways, water features and other elementsi
Prel-iminary building elevations, sections, and floorpIans, at a scale not smaller than one-eighth egualsone foot, in sufficient detail to determine floor area,gross residential floor area, interior cj-rculation,locaLlons of uses within buildings, and. the generalscale and appearance of the proposed develbpment.
III. TIME REQUIREMENTS
A. The Planning and Environmental Commission meets on the2nd and 4th Mondays of each month. An application wit.hthe necessary accompanying rnaterial must be submittedfour weeks prj-or to the date of the meeting-
B. The developer must begin initial construction of thespecial development district within three years fromthe time of its final approval, and continue diligentlytoward the completion of the project. If the special -
development district is t.o be developed in phases, thedeveloper must begin const.ruction of subsequent phaseswithj-n one year of the completion of the previoui
phase.
NOTE:
F.
It is recommended that before a SpecialDevelopment District application is submitted, apre-application meeting should be set up wit.h amember of the Department of Cornmunity Development
Application Fees are as follows:
a. Establishment of sDD :
b. Major Amendments:
c. Minor Amendments:
Application fee paid: $
If this application requires a separate review by anylocal, State or Federal agency other than the Town ofVaiI, the application fee shall be increased bv$200.00. Examples of such review, may incJ_ude, but arenot limiLed to: Col-orado Department of Highway AccessPermi-ts, Army Corps of Engineers 404, etc.
The applicant shal_l_ be responsible for paying anypublishing fees which are in excess of 50% oi tneapplication fee- If, at the applicant/s requestr €rnymatter is postponed for hearing, causinq the matt-er toDe re-publl_shed, then, the entire fee for such re-publication shall be paid by the applicant.
Applications deemed by the Community DevelopmentDepartment to have significant design, land use oroLher issues which may have a significant impact on thecommunity may require review by consultants other thatt.own staff. Should a determinati_on be made bv the cownstaff that an outside consultant is needed to reviewany application, Community DeveJ_opment may hire anoutside consul-tant/ it shall estimate the amount of
n^+ ^
)r_, JUU. UU
91,000.00
$ 200.00
Check
A.
c.
, l\ ...
.l l,l ln \'"''
','li,|] f ,Llit,
i^hi i ,
cJ tr, 'll
a,
) ii".
WESTHAVEN CONDOMINITJMS
MAJOR AMENDMENT TO SDD 4
WESTI{AVEN-CASCADE L.L.C.
Enployee Units: 4 Unit
4 Unir
4 Unir
4 Unit
EA @ 483 square
EB @ 543 square
EC @ 409 square
ED @ 433 square
feet
feet
feet
feet
feet
feet
T0l,J [0lvirv,,',. 1.0[t'1
The applicant, Westhaven-Cascade L.L.C. is requesting a major anendment to
Special Development District No. 4, Area A. The Cascade Village property
owned by Westhaven-Cascade L.L.C. is l-ocated at L325 Westhaven Drive and
is commonly referred to as the Westhaven Condominium Building, Westhaven
Apartments and the Club Condominiums. It is also known as ttThe Ruinstt because
of the abandoned foundation of the property.
Ttre Ordinance No.7 Series of 1993 addresses SDD 4 and lists la/esthaven Condos
in Chart 2: AREA A PR0P0SED PROJECTS. Here Westhaven Condos are proposed
to have 20 dwelling units of 22,500 square feet GRFA and a maximum of 10
employee units of 6,400 square feet. It is noted that employee units sha11
not count toward density or GRFA in thi.s SDD. In section 18.46.220 EI,IPLOYEE
H0USING, the Westhaven Condominium Building is required to build a ninimum
of 8 ernployee dwelling units with a minimum of 6,400 square feet each. -.-"
The current development plan for this property is Westhaven Apartments which
bbgan construction in 1982. This was a 20 unit building with a GRFA of 27,697 -square feeL. The existing foundation is what remains of Westhaven Apartments.
Westhaven -Cascade L.L.C. is proposing to develop a project using the existing
foundation, garage area and tr\arking. They are proposing 14 for-sale units
and 16 employee housing units. These units are as follows:
Condominiums: 4 Unit A @ 1,842 square
10 Unit B @ 1,861 square
The enployee housing unit sizes are determi.ned by the structural l-ayout of
the existing foundation. Although studio apartnents, each unit has a fu1.l
kit'chen,fu11bathand.separates1eepingarea.
The project will- have 36 enclosed parking spaces, 8 exterior spaces and I
handicap space. this will provide 2 spaces per condominiunr and 1 space per
employee housing unit..
The allowable maximum building height for the Westhaven building is 55 feet.
Because of the excavated site and the existing foundation, it is not possible
to deternine existing grade. The proposed Westhaven Condominiums are within
the 55r height limit. when measured to finish grade and when measured to elevatlons
int.erpolated between the western undisturbed portion iof the site and existing
grades near the Cascade Club. However, the eastern grades are those of the
driveway 1-eading to underground parking and are probably several feet 1ower.
than natural grade would have been.
The Westhaven Condominium high poinL is a L2i' long ridge. This ridge is
19r lower than the adjacent Cascade Club ridge and slightly lower than the
CMC Building ridgeline.
p.o. box | 202
viil,.o81658
TOWN Ul . ,-
COMUIINITY DEI/ELOPMENT DSPT.
75 S. FRONTAGE RD'
vAll-@ 81657
:,r:
9i1:
.l:l
''t:;f. iiir.:
'jii
.lrii
il:i:
l.',!]'
i':il
! i..: i. Y:r':
' tii.
jl.:,:l
il'.1
ltl
i;
.i.1
;:lil. ::.: .
I i,rt.
lr'i
i.,i l
. iir.l
't'r:
i:l
!,
. . i:,.,
,i
1.,!.
rii.
. ir''
i::
l:
.i.
i::
i;.
i.:
i,
. t;.
.)
':.'
' 1.1
!.,:
f::
..
i.:
, r':i:"
i:t
i'
i,
ii.
ii
i:
i
I r/rr nb-ft}nifrBnD rR
Michael J. laulerbachP.O. Bor 3451
Vail, CO 81658
vail..o 81658
TOWN OF VAIL
COMMII'IITV OEVEIOPMENT DEPI.
?5 S. FRONTAGE RD.
vAll" @ 816s7
TOWit -. "LGIMMUNTIY DEVEIUP ETiIf OEPT.
?5 S. FRONTAGE ND.
vA -CO 8't657
TOtrr . ,r VAIL
@uMt['llTY 0r]/EoHtwr oEPr,
75 S. FRONTAGE RD,
vA[.@ 8t6st
royvil oE \.AtL
oolllruMtY DE1/Ji_rOPMErr Om,
75S. FROMAGERD.
vA . CO 81gt
Mlllrsce CondomtnluD Asgoclation
c/o Jul1e GrLnrn
10OO S, frontaSe Road' Sutte 20O
Vatl, CO 81.657
Colorado Mountain Condo|llnlum Assoclatlon for Penthouseg
clIC Residentlal Sub-Assoclatlon
c/o the Vestin
13OO Uesthoven DrlveVatl. C0 81.657
ATfi: Don l'laclaclrlan
Colorado llount6ln Condonlnluo l6aoci6tlon
VaI1 Ventures-olc
.c/o Julle Grirm
l00O S, Frontage Road, .Suite 200Vall' C0 8i657
Cascade Glub Condonlnlum Homeovners Assgciatlonc/o Julle Grtnn
-1000 S. Frontage Road, Suire 2OOYall, q) 81657
JJ
THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vailwill hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code ot
the Town of Vail on February 13, 1995, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
In consideration of:
1. A request regarding amendments to Chapter 18,71 (Additional GRFA) and Ghapter
18.57 (Employee Housing), deleting the section providing for Additional GRFA (the
250) and incorporating the 250 GFIFA allowance in the Employee Housing Section of
the Zoning Code, to be used exclusively for deed-restricted employee housing.
Applicant Town of VailPlanner: George Ruther
2. A request for a major CCll exterior alteration and common area and parking variances
to allow for a lobby expansion for the Lions Square Lodge located at 660 West
Lionshead Place/Lot 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing.
Applicant: Lions Square Lodge, represented by Bill PiercePlanner: Jim Curnutte
3. A request for a major exterior alteration in the Commercial Core I zone district and site
coverage, stream setback and common area variances and conditional use permits to
allow oflice on the third floor and to allow an ouldoor dining deck to provide for the
redevelopment of Serrano's, located at 298 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail
Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Margretta B. Parks and Vail Associates, Inc.Planner: Andy Knudtsen
A request for a worksession for a major amendment to SDD #4 Cascade Village to
allow for the completion of the Westhaven Condominiums (The Ftuins) located at 1325
Westhaven Drive/Cascade Village, SDD #4.
Applicant: Gerald Wuhrman, General Manager of the Westhaven CondominiumsPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
5. A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 (Simba Run) to allow for modilications to
the previously approved development plan for the Savoy Villas Development located
on an unplatted parcel at 1100 North Frontage Road.
Applicant: Walid SaidPlanner: Jim Curnutte
t
6. A request for a site coverage variance to allow for an expansion ol the Aasland
Residence located at2527 Arosa DriveiLot 3, Block D, Vail Das Schone 1st Filing.
Applicant: Galen Aasland
Planner: Randy Stouder
7. A request for a worksession foi a CCI minor exterior alteration and a site coverage
and a landscaping variance to allow for an addition to the Golden Bear retail shop
within the A and D Building, located at 286 Bridge StreeVLots A and B and a part of C,
Block 5-A, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicanl: Lee Hollis
Planner: Randy Stouder
L A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an outdoor dining deck at the
Covered Bridge Building (Covered Bridge Coffee Shop), located at227 Bridge
StreeVlots B, C and D, Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Julie lverson and Kiendra Hoover
Planner: Randy Stouder
t
WESTHAVEN CONDOMINIT]MS
MAJOR AMENDMENT TO SDD 4
WESfiIAVEI'I_CASCADE L.L.C.
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
Vail, C0 81657
COLORADO MOI]MAIN CONDOMINIUM:
TOli [(}[/lill{ DTV. DEPT,
CASCADE CLIE: Cascade Club Condorniniun Homeowners Association
c/o Julie Grirun
1000 S. Frontage Road, Suite 200
c/o The Westin
1300 Westhaven Drive
Vai1, C0 81657
ATTN: Don Maclachlan
MILLRACE CONDOMINIIJMS: Millrace Condoninium Association
c./o Julie Grimm
1000 S. Frontage Road, Suite 200
Vai1, C0 81657
CASCADE VILLAGE, Block 17, Lot 28: Michael" J. Lauterbach
P.0. Box 3451
Vail , C0 81658
Colorado Mountain Condominium Association
Vail Ventures-CMC
c/o Julie Grimm
1000 S. Frontage Road, Suite 200
Vail, C0 87657
Colorado Mountain Condominium Association for
CMC ResidentiaL Sub-Association
Penthouses
-4,'.:'t 4
'?,./.'?.
--,a 4ts ?-'7 / /.e'/Af
l('ltii,s ..i2,-2;:
MEMORANDUM
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FR0M: Commun'ity Development Department
DATE: June 6, .|984
SUBJECT: Request for major amendment to area A (Cascade Vi'l1age) of
Special Development District 4Applicant: Mansfield Ltd (Andy Norris)
I. CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY
Illg_appticant, Andy Norris, is requesting a number of revisions to the cascadevi'llage,portion of sDD 4 --in the'areas ot totat density, total commercialsquare footage, building heights, parking requirements, employee housing andthe number of fireplaces to be allowed. Due to our previous two work sessionson this item, the Planning and Environmental Commission is now quite familiarwith the proposal. This memorandum wi'11 begin with a brief chronologic historyof Special Development District 4 fol lowed 5y an explanation of the fiajor issuEsinvojved.in the approval of the development plan in .|979 and wiIl procied withthe spec'ific request by tlrg_applicants'with_i discussion regarding'the various
changes proposed, then we'll look at the related policies cdntain6d within lhe
Community Action Plan and conclude with the staff recommendation.
0rdinance No. 5 of 1976 was the original establishing ordinance for sDD 4.
This ordinance created the special developnent district, while calling for aspecific development plan with certain submittal requirements at a later date.
The ordinance divided the tota'l area of SDD4 'into four separate areas known
as A,B'C, and D. Area A is the Cascade Village project, Area B is the Coldstream
Condominjum project, while Area C is the Glen-Lyon Subdivision duplex lots and
..,-4f99 D is now the Glen Lyon 0ffice Building. The density allotment for Cascade
.,]Vi1lage in this original-ordinance was 252-dwelling uniti located on .t6.82 acres-' for a. density of l5 dwel'l ing units per acre. Neiiher the dens'ity provisions
nor the bas_ic provisions of this original ordinance have changed'in any significant
manner until this point in time.
Ordinance No. 28 of 1977 revised the original ordinance in a number of ways. This'ordinance changed the deve'lopment areas of Areas B, C, and D and required dedjcationof over 40 acres of open space to the Town. It also revised some of the submittal
requirements.as wel.l as refjned permitted and condit'ional uses allowed in deve'l op-
ment Area A (Cascade V'i 'l lage). Some other minor changes such as numerical changesto section numbers in the zoning code were a'l so provided for jn Ordinance 28.
In January of 1979 there was an amendment to SDD4 with reqard to submittal re-quirements once again. The applicant had requested that ihe submitta'l requirementsbe up-dated and clarified with regard to what actually was necessary informationto.review the pro,ject. This was done at that date in preparation for the April
and May revjew of the deve'lopment plan .itself
0n April 27,'1979 the Planning and Environmental Commission conducted a preliminary
review of the Cascade Village proposal . 0f note in this review was the acknowledge-
ment that there were approximatell'17 acres involved along with two approximately-
sDDo -. 6/6/84
one-acre parcels zoned for 6 and 7 units, respectively. Also discussed was theproposal _regarding on-site employee housing rbr ihe-pi'oi..i-ina th; i;; ,ii.-"-nature of the building heights.- Ol lly 22, \gtg, ttrb piC neia a pubt.ic treirtnqfor two requests. One, approvar of thi aevetopmeni prir-tJ.';u;.5;;'viri'li!,"'and tlvo, to enlarge Development Area A to include th! l.zS-acre Robbins tract.It was noted in t[e staff memorandum itit il'";;;;;;";;;-ii-tne Area A nowtotaled .l8.078 acres which, of course, included tfre nonlins'tract zoned for 7units at the time. This deveropment pran was subsequently approved by thePlanning and Environmental Commiiiion'una ,o"n Counc.i t.
II. ISSUES IN I979 ADOPTION OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The single major issue in the.approval process of the development plan of 1979was the creation of.a.third village_for Vail with respect to the amount ot iom-mercial proposed-and. the educational/learn'ing c9l.l!ef ilroposed. it was fett-lvthe p'lanning staff that the creation of such'a third maj6r village louio-negitiueryimpact the bus system, road. system and other serv.ices "iii,in ih;";.;;;;;ty)"rn"".was also a-questioning of the relationship between the proposed trotet wii"n-tireeducat'ional/'learning center. The staff felt the learning center should le iJn-structed before the hotel and that the applicant had not"convincea tne slari-tnatthe. necessary link between the hotel and the 'learning center would ever-be estab-lished. 0ther staff concerns centered around the lnieiiection of Westhaven Drivewith South Frontage Road, access to the,excluded Cosgriff parce.l , providinf ontyone access point to the entire area, and lastly, the-overall iiz,i 5na'riis'oitfg Rarkins.structure and hotel in relation to'ihe frontage road as *"ji-as-ioother buildings on the site and the duplex lots to the south.
The. Planning and Environmental commission agreed in part and disagreed in partwith the staff's recormendations and concerns. ttre i:rc felt ii,ido-iquiru'i..tof commercial to be acceptabre to the project. Mr. Noiris exptiineo-io-ti"'-'
,t! ggnuniss]on that more.specific intormition-on tne potentiir uiirJ ;i1h; ieirning''' center and the relationship of the hotel to thelbarning center would ue iorif,-coming, he agreed to dedication of stream tract and eas6ments for bicycle puihr,he.agreed to work with the Highway_Department to provlJe i i.rt-f,una-iu"ntIg"iun"and acceleration and decelerat'ion- lanbs on the South Frontaqe Road,,and final"lv A.ry.ao.lto provide access to the excluded Cosgriff parcel. conierning in-oridoo;' ,-.J"Ju'j'="tion area, the Planning and Environmeital cbn'rnission reii lt ilas not n.c.sriiuto the projec.t, contrary to.the p'lanning staff recommenaition.--rinirit;-M;:''Norris agreed to the provision oi a bus-shelter and tuin-arouna on ihe'p"oj..tsite.
4p]9I9. housing was an integral part of-the-development plan discussion in Mayof^1979. The proposal at thit time was for 32 rental ,niit-or approximatelvu)u square teet each on the site with the-possibility of using ihiustrial rlvenuebonds to construct that housi.ng. The timing for the-emptovel-nousing projsit- --
was represented as the second year of construct.ion, but'eaiiier if posilUje. -
III. THE REOUEST
Andy Norris has submitted the attached letter to the Community Development Depart-ment concerning the request and his reasons for his .r"i.ni'piooosal
| -3- 6/6/a4
Summary and Discussion of Request
In summary, Mr. Norris is requesting_to reprogram the remaining developmentof cascade.Village in order to fulfill a mirk6ting program wtriin iirey' -
feel will be successful for the development and the Vail community. -Andy,s
letter.does a good job of ouilining whit they feel the necessary -ingrediinis
to such a successful program are.
TI.{ u1g, with.regard to density, asking for the original density of15 dweillng units per acre to be applied at this point to both the 1.25acre_Robbirir! parcel which was annexed to the SDD in 1979, and for the
.1.045 acre cosgriff pfrc91 proposed to be annexed with thjs cument request.Moreover, they feel the 37,000 square feet of commercial is a necessityt9 tl,q development program to provide for support retail to the typeof clientele they are attemptiirg to attract.
0ther parts of the request not addressed in the above letter are: Arevision to the employee housing provision and at the urging of the planning
ItgfI: leY'isjlg the height reguTation to become consisteit riitn tne Lxistin!height_definition as well_as cieaning up qnd up-dating the entire eightyear old sDD ordinance. Finaily, with additioiral deniity and commeri.ial,the parking requirements for Ar-ea A must be revjsed.
IV.RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S C0MMUNITy ACTI0N pLAN: F0CUS 1985
With such a major
important that weto evaluate thisof the plan which
A. Statement of Purpose
, Po1 icy. To recognize that Vai'l is1. recreation and real estate
conceptual change proposed for Cas'cade Village, it islook to the Community Action Plan for guidance and criteriaproposal. The fo1 Iowing are excerpts fiom various sectionsare important in reviewing this SDD plan amendment:
moving quickly from an economy based on
more diverse economic and
45lplqvidi ng service to uests remains extremely inrportant.
Policy To recognize and strengthen vail's principal products and services:?' -Business and professional meetings
B. Socia'l/Cultural/Educational Considelations
Policy vail should 'improve as an educational and intellectual center:3.
-Promote seminars and conferences
-Develop facilities to provide for these activities
to a mature resort community with a stronger
soci al base. llerketrjg_lle_comnglily
D4 -4- 6/6/84
C. Economic Considerations
Po] icy The summer season should be signif.i cantly developed and promoted.3.
-Maximize current summer programsr opportunities and facilities.-!tldy new summer programs, opportunities and iiciiities.-Set up marketing programs to promote the summei-reiion.
oo;].t The shourder seasons also should be significantl.v developed and romoted.
r
-taentitv ana prffiation, shoppin etc.
Policy Study the feasibjlity of an economjc development conmjssion to organize5. efforts to direct thr's activitv.
-!tq9y the feasibility of building a conventjon facilitv-Define the role of municipal govirnment .in economic'ae"vetopment
It is evident that the.corrnunity Action plan strongly promotes the type ofproject.whr'ch the applicants arL proposing. rne pian i, .uiiing oufiorfacilities to allow vail to_becomb a'yearirouna risoit ir..g w.ith the marketinqand promotion of those facitities as wetl as exptortng iri poiiiur.";r;;;;""''of economic !evel9qm91t for the community. w.ith tn.is-in miha, ttre-p;;il;;irepresents the willingness of a major private sector entity wittrin ine'iomnrunltvto accomplish these goals and objeittvbs within tne communitv nliioi"Fr;;':""""'"'Furthermore, with regard to defining tne ioie "r ,rrriiipii"givernment .,n
economic _development, certainly on6 of those roles woula Ui-agreeable pian_nllg ?la land use-regulations w-hen economic developmeni iciiviiies in-c6niertwith the communities overarl goars and objectives ire p.op6iea.
V.
tU -u- 6/6/84
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The community Development Department is highly supportive, with somemjnor exceptions, of this prbposal to amend tie cbscade villag; po.iion
9f special Development Djstrict 4. we feer strong'ry that the"priipoiuits ln concert with the community's goals and objectives as outiinbd inthe.community Action p1an. l,ie ire 6r tne opinion that when the privatesector steps forward in this manner to_accomplish what could be i signifi-cant contribution to the economic development of the Vail community,-thatthe mun'icipal govenment should be highly supportive. The additionii densityrequested is proposed to be put into-aciomm6iation units so that a sufficie-ntnumber of accommodations can be located on site in order to accomp'l ishthe objectives of the overall iuxury destinat'ion resort plan. It'onlymakes sense that accompanying that critical mass of density is a commLrcial
lupport system of a sufficient size and nature to work with and complementthis overall goal.
!g do_, however, feel .that the aspects of park.i ng, employee housing, andfireplaces, need to be serious'ly'addresseb at tnis pbini in time. Theparking must be sufficient on the site to take care of this project's
demands. The zoning code calls for 484 spaces, and we feel strong'ly thatthis number should be met. currently the'struiture is approvea ai +esparking spaces, and we would expect lhe applicant to e'ithbr expand ihestructure or provide other surface parking'distributed throughbut the
Proiect to supplement that number. There must be provision ior employeehousing on this project. lrJhether or not the employee housing js oh siteis probably-not critical to the success of the proJect, but iertainlyon-site snployee housing for the Westin Hotel ii the best solution. -The
final section of the revised SDD ordinance states that the developer sha11provide 20 dwelling units for'long-term rentals to employees of the project
on an on-going basis. lle feel this to be the minimum acceptable reqirirement.
The proposal for 18 fireplaces within accommodation unjts is not acceptableto the staff at this time. we feel strongly that we should recognize'
and deal with the Town of vail's air pollution problems and look-closelval .1|.," precedent setting nature of grinting thii request. Furthermore,within the last several-years the fireplac6 ordinanie was revfsed to removethe variance section which means that to grant this request would requireay91{ing the fireplace ordinance. The maiketing impord,ance of firepiaceswithin luxury accommodation units can be fulfillea wittr the provisi6nof gas fireplaces.
we also feel that it is very important to the safety and the circu'lation
system into and from the project that a left-turn line on South Frontage
Road be provided for this third major village of Vail.
In conclusion the p'l anning staff is excited about the revised developmentplan for cascade vil)age ind its potential to fulfill stated conrmunitygoals and objectives. with the piovisions noted above, thjs project ianbe a tremendous asset to the community of vail and raunch Cisiuad viliageinto the competitive market of destination resorts around the country. -
0ur recommendations are written into the enclosed revised and updateiSpecial Development District 4 0rdinance.
-
..., ,1: ,. :
'.. :
Del'ebPment of illans.(
t}ror:gfiout the nation, scrme EDdificaticrns to tlre rsaitrins. e".r.r*- '.-l,t.
rcgamn at cascade village Erre necessaalr. -rhese changes ar6 requirld ...".!e areas: 1) gr:est locps,'2) nqeting iacilities, and g) retail_.,,t- .,1,i;*.;,i'.
l,.rff*llli;iri-it!,fff1r1ffii;;,1i",,;,,i$'f.1'F"'r=-fiirffilii1lifi{i,:it
-,, .---,-"; ,-- : i:!...- -;.,:
qiEsT R0c[4si- .r 'f-n.,: 1 ..iij,r'^.,,- ..,r'. -.:-i r .'r:r:i::;:, , .':i;:7.', f. j:. ':': i ; r'-
'ii'nlti;ilii-l]tjli {,i' :i;i'1'';'
i''f
";:A
,;.ii..',;.'J,,i.'.fi{J4rnitially, 'the udiel"}raftio#";-ea iJ''irrcr"a" u0 qpiUi,,iii;,",,::,.,,j':..?;,r:tttt rnitlal]r, '$re uciigr l'is-"pii5ffa#;a'id incrir,ad"Go'i#iUi"i,tt!'i- ;H!'
:rii;ii:i:Ltillt+90 "e. f_t.),:p1us erql:sirrc rnanigerent over an aaaitionli-ez-"*j*iri*
i:l,ti,it'i.',\;i't:r-rt9, eao\ cctntaining 3 bedrocns,:kitchslette, fireplace,
".rd ;;1.;-,At
;.,r:.;ii,'.9c'ry1etion, the-developmert vrouldprovide a hotel_rrith 336 'key-s", ;p1ui'.-.; ;."" , i:;}i.,:99uPretictn, the developmert vrould provide a hotel rrith 336 'kevs".,nlui'..':.;:
:::i't;;i'i:i!i.92 parlors. 4* Dol1viaf beLierrcd to becpti:no forrfiar was iupected tb I'li;'i;;i:.::..i: l'.,ri'Ji,ji i.o, Parrors. r!+s II]1r< ltas Delaeveo.Eo De ctPtln!.[0 tor \ihat was oeeited -t(i' 'i
;:;,'.r,.1',1ttr..* a guest-profile that included a signifient proporEion of far."fi.1ies;"',,ir,il:
iti,.jl;.;j'..1-:..t)1l]re condonirtiurs in ttre Oe Building \€re consb:ucted to accoctrDdate *riS ':*:r,,{il$i-.',:flff;;;tt4g*iir.tff *i*1"#=;#;T j:#;!$rt"dft
ffiryi1di
:..':r'.:ti."lr:.i:[rrequired a re-er.raluation of the gr:est r:oon program. co:norate uLetings ana
;;:: .l:' l;r:r'Vail. Very few faily-oriented gr:est rocm suites lr'oufUb requirJ h d* ."1,;-i1-.tii
,,..1',t, ,',t,nP": alttougfr coryorate ngeturgg.qeically involrre spouses, so a high ,: .,"i:t{ii:
.,,.', . . ft"ft of dor:b1e-ocg4a?cy-is .reali-id. tr guest roon epansic'n profra .-,q.:;ir', ' tor Cascade Villase/Westin fus been d€ns.ed to ednnr rn iho ^^-^..oio I- '.,^
.'
"t'i;.il;i
...: I Percslc or clolble-ocstgancy- is -reall-'?ed. '+a Euest roon epansicrrr progre'" o:.-:;':,.'' 'tor Cascade Village/Westio lE been dunged- go adopr to the-corporaie E qp ':-.ii'.irl-:,
: loarket. Condominfutrype uaits, includiig kitcher;; are beine iuoi.""t bv- ' :;'::.;;.i.ir r: : orrcr-sized t'rpical gu.il rocr", including-wet bars,'r"i-ie"i#.;i;J- l1:,', . :,',-;,;,*il;
balconies. Fbr corfetitirc pr:rposes, a fimited nr-urber of"iG61;i"" -iral i:;1,i."ii'lii1[i
{'#i i.reql-reo a re-e'\raruation ot the guest lsoon program. co4orate ueetirgs and' serriiurs becare the !"'st iryorlalt xoa*et tlut could appreciate and aFford
- '' in tlre suites are regr:ested (aciordirlg to actr:al Westin operi'erces,' ;.t"if- .1:iff
, . . ;.. .-". j; j.:.1:;r;
trlu'tLa'rc Copr)mtion, .v.truqlin!1 Generat partns ' IUn .*)uth !'-n)rttLrep Roa.4 vi,st. vail, colundo "ror,
. sro'sr;i*ril:;
Eo. stpport
occlpancy u.rst
the facilities
REVISED SDD4 ORDINANCE
18.46.010 PURPosE.
18.46.020 ESTABLISHED.
18.46.030 DEVELOPMENT PLAN-REQUIRED-APPROVAL PROCEDURE.18.46.040 DEVELOPMENT PLAN-CONTENTS. .
18.46.050 PERMITTED USES.
18.46.050 C0NDrrr0NA_L !!rs (ns pER cHAprER 18.60 0F THE ZoNTNG CoDE).18.46.070 ACCESSoRY USES.
iB.46.O8O DENSITY-DWELLING UNITS.18.46.090 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
18.46.100 SETBACKS.
18.46.120 HETGHT.
18.46.140 C0VERAGE.
18.46.160 LANDSCAPING.
18.46.170 PARKING.
18.46.180 RECREATION AMENITIES TAX ASSESSED.18.46.190 CONSERVATION AND POLLUTION CONTROLS.18.46.200 RECREATIONAL AMENITIES.
78.46.210 ADDITIONAL AMENiTIES.
L8.46.229 EMPLOYEE HOUSING.
18.46.010 PURPoSE
. _Special development distrjct 4 is established to ensure comprehensive
development and use of an area in a manner that will be harmon'ioirs withthe general character of the town, provide adequate Open space andrecreational amenities, and promote the objectjves of the zon'ing ordinance
AND C0MMUNITY AcrI0N PLAN F0cus 1985. spiciat development disirict 4 iscreated to ensure that the development density will be re1 atively low andsuitable for the area and the vicinity in whjth it is situated, the develop-ment js regarded as complementary to ine town by the town council and theplanning commission, and there are signif.icant ispects of the special
developrnent which cannot be satisfied-through the imposition of'standardzoning districts on the area.
18.46.020 ESTABLISHED
A. Special development district 4 is established for the development on
I parcel of land comprising 99.1 acres as more particulariy described'in the
1CgA1 dCSCriPt'iON ON fiIE iN thE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D-EVELOPMENT.specjal development district 4 and the 99.1 acres may be referred to as "s04.,'
B. The district shall consist of four separate development areas, asidentified on the map, consisting of the foltowing approximate size:
Area Known As Development Area Roads:4.7
Cascade Vil l age
Col dstream Condomi niums
Glen Lyon Duplex Lots
Glen Lyon 0ffice Bldg.
Dedicated Open Space
Roads
A
B
a
n
Acreage
19 .1
4 .00
29.t0
I.U
40.4
4.7
99 .1
18.46.030 DEVELoPMENT PLAN-REQUTRED-ApPRoVAL pRoCEDURE.
A. Before the owner commences site preparation, bui'lding construction
o-r otherimprovements withjn SD4, there shall be an approved development planfor SD4. Development of SD4 may be phased by development area and within
development area, but a sufficient amount of information shalI be supplied withrespect to all developmdnt areas in order to al low the p1 anning corrnission
and town council to ensure the compatability of any proposed development plan
with the remainder of SD4.
. B. Each development area with the exceptjon of development area D sha'l 'l
be subject to a single development plan. Development area b shall be
regu'ired only to go through the design review process
C. A proposed development p1 an for SD4 shall be submitted to the zoning
administrator who shall refer the development plan to the planning commission
and to the design review board, which shall consider the plan at a regularly
scheduled meeting, and a report of the planning conrnission setting forthits findings and recommendatjons shall be transmitted to the town councilin accordance wjth the applicable provisions of Chapter 18.66.
.D.. Upon receipt of the proposed. development plan and planning
commission report, the town councjl shall determine whether'the p1 5n .i sacceptable to the town in accordance with the applicable provisibns ofSection 18.66.150 and 18.66.160. This determinatjon by the town councjl shallbe made through its enactment of a resolution which incorporates the develop-ment plan as an official Town of Vail document.
c-., t: ,The.approved.development_p1an shall be used as the principai guidet9f 311 development within sD4. Amendments to an approved dbvelopment-p1anwhich do not change its substance may be approved uy'ttre PLANNING'AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 18.66.060 - 18.66.100 OFTHE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE. Each phase of development shall require, piio"-toissuance of building permits, approval of the design review board in accordancewith applicable provisions of Chapter 18.52.
18.46.040 DEVELOPMENT PLAN- CONTENTS.
- -- Tt,. proposed development plan shall include, but is not limited to thefo1 l owi ng data :
A. A complete environmental impact report submitted in accordance withChapter 18.56 .
^ 9, Existing contours lav]ng contour intervals of not more than five (5)feet if the average siope of the-site i's twenty percent or less wiilr coniorli''interva'ls of not more than ten (10) feet if thl average slope of the site isgreater than twenty percent. Existing and proposed contours after gradingfor each phase.
' A conceptual site p1an, at a scale not smaller than one inch equalsfifty feet, showing the locations and dimensions of all buildinqs t;; -'-- -
structures with the-exception of single-family and two-famiiy siructures,uses therein, and al! PrinciPal site development features, such as landsiapedareas ' recreati onal faci I i'ti es , pedestri an pl azas and wal kways , servi ce-:-ientries, driveways, and off-street and loading areas.
D. A conceptual landscape pian, at a scale not smaller than one inchequals fifty feet, showing existing landscape features to be retained orremoved, and showing,. proposed landscaping and landscaped site deveiopmentfeatures such as outdoor recreational tacitities, bicycle paths, trails,'-pedestrian plazas and walkways, water features and other eiemenis.
E. Preliminary building sections and floor plans at a scale not smallerthan one inch equalg twenty feet,'i n sufficient detajl to determ'ine floor area,gross residential floor area, general uses within the buildings, and thegeneral scale and appearance of the proposed development for each developmentarea.
f., A proposed plan of parking, loading, traffic circulation, and transitfacilities; and a proposed.program for satisfying traffjc and transportation
needs generated by the project.
G. A volumetric model at a scale not sma'l ler than one inch equals fiftyfeet, portraying the scale and relationships of the proposed development to'the s'ite and iliustrating the form and mass of the proposed bujldings fordevelopment areas A, B and D.
ri
. l: A,proposed program indicat'ing order of construction phases, trans-portation facilities, and recreational amenities.
I. A proposal regarding the dedication to the town or private owner-sh'lp and maintenance of that portion of the development area within the one-
!yna1e$ year floodplain of Gore creek. In the eveirt the one-hundred yearfloodplain is not dedicated to the town, such lands sharI be subject io aright of public access to Gore creek and the right to use a portion of thelands-tor a-bicycle path, and for park purposes prov'ided that the locat'ion anduse of the facilities and access shall be determined by mutual agreementbetween the town and the owner of the development areai involvedl
18.46.050 PERMITTED U5E5.
Single-family residential dwelling sha11 be permitted uses in development
1f.?,0. , ryg.family dwellings, resideniiat clustei" dwelf ings, and multiplbfamily dwellings- shall be permitted uses in development areai I and B.Professional offices and business offices, w'ith a iotal gross floor area notto exceed thirteen thousand square feet, iha11 be permitied use in developmentarea D.
18.46.060 CONDITIONAL USE5 ( AS PER CHAPTER 18.60 OF THE ZONING CODE).
A. MAJOR ARCADES t,lITH NO FRONTAGE ON ANY PUBLIC l'lAY, STREET, |.lALKl'lAY
OR MALL AREA.
B. PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATTONAL FACILITIES.
C. SKi LIFTS.
18.46.065 oFFICE USE
. NO PROFESSIONAL OR BUSINES5 OFFTCE SHALL BE LOCATED ON STREET LEVEL
OR FIRST FLOOR (AS DEFINED TN SECTION 18.24.030(A) OF THE ZONING CODE)IN AREA A UNLESS IT IS CLEARLY ACCESSORY TO A I.OOEE ON EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTION.
18.46..070 ACCESSORY USES
A. The fol 'lowi ng accessory uses sha'l IA, B and C:
be permitted in development areas
1. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupationspermit in accordance wjth the provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through
18.58.190;
2. 0ther uses customarily incidental and accessory to permittedor conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof.
-3. Attached garages or carports, private greenhouses, swimming
poo ls, tennis courts, patios, or other recreational facjlities
customarily incidental to permitted residential uses.
t.
:-:;
-:i
B. The fol lowing accessory uses shall be permitted in development areaC only:
Attached garages or carports, private greenhouses, swimmjng pools,tennis courts, patios, or other recreat'ional facilities customirilyincidental to permitted residentjal uses.
c. In addit'ion, the following accessory uses shall be permr'tted indevelopment areas A and B:
_ .Swimming pools,.tennis.courts, patios, or other recreationalfacil ities customariiy incidental to permitted or conditional-uses, andnecessary to the operation thereof.
D. The fol'lowing accessory use shall be permitted in Development Area A:
Minor arcade (Ord 6, 1982).
18.46.080 DENSITY-DWELLING UNITS.
The number of dwelling units shall not exceed the following:
..-.._?9yrlg.pment Area A, TIJO HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE DWELLING UNITS TOTALMAXIMUM, t.llTH A.!IryiryqM OF 308 ACCOMMODAIIqN UNITS AND MAXIMUM OF 13iDWELLING UNITS AS DEFTNED BY THE TABLE BILOt.r|:
Development Area B, sixty-five units;
Development Area C, one hundred four units.
18.46.081 DENSITY-FLOOR AREA
The gross residentiai floor area of-all. bui'ldings in each developmentarea shall not exceed .35 GRFA in area A, which is i maximun or zgt,iit's-quare feet, sixty five thousand square feet GRFA in area B, and .zr6-enrefor the first fifteen thousand square feet of site area, plus not mJre '
than .10 GRFA shall be perm'itted for each square foot of sjte area overfjfteen thousand not to exceed thirty thousand square feet of iii. i".i;plus not more than .05 square feet oi GRFA for each squire root ot iiie'area over thirty thousand square feet in area C
. _In Area c, any site containing two dwelling units, one of the unitsshall no't exceed 40% of the a'l lowable tota'l gr6ss residential ftoor area(cRFA) .
18.46.082 C0MMERCTAL SQUARE FooTAGE
Area A shall contain a maximum of 37,000 square feet of commercial(retail, office, theater and restaurant)-as aeiinea in-irt" table inSection 18.46.089.
PROJ ECT
18.46.089 COMPUTER PRINT-OUT TABLE AS REVISED
ACCOM DWELLING
UNITS UNITS
PARKI NG REQM.(sr)
SF GRFA SEATS EXIST. PROP. COMMERCIAL
9AIgLEIEq=!8q4q.stYll race I
Millrace II
t^lestin Hotel (2/unit) 148
Al fredo 's
CafeLittle Shop
Pepi Sports
CMC Building
Cascade Wing (2/unit)
Compass Rose
Cascade Theater
Co1 l ege-Ci assrooms
Co'l 1 ege -0ff i ce
Meeting Room 2J
PROPOSED PROJECTS
ilEstfuVenTonAos_
Terrace Wing
Guest Rooms (2/unit) LlO
Reta i I
Plaza Building
Guest Rooms (Zlunit) 40
Condomi n i ums
Retail/0ffice
Confefence Facil.-Net
Millrace III
Millrace IV
Mansfieid Vi llage Condos
t,Iestin Additions
Retai I -Accessory
Cafe Expansion
Rumours Expansion
Cascade Cl ub
Retai I -Accessory
Restaurant
0ffices-l,lel I ness Center
Cascade Court
Retai l -Ski er Accessor.y
Guest Services
16
14
20,000
17 ,534
20,000
17,534
55,457
28
z5
115 (s )
104
74
I
(a)
1,250
2,200
15,870
3 ,111
4,220
4,792
879
1,387
22,500
55,000
6,399
18 ,333
19,500
19 , 000
9 ,500
o,f,uu
11 , 200
EA Ann
900
15,870
11 ,JUV
55,000
18 ,333
19 ,500
o,tuu
1 1 ,200
49,227
80
275
3i9
3 ,111
4,220
16(s)
8(s)
28(s )
ao(s)
a(s)
5n25
103(s)
21(s)
26(s)
30(s)
63(s)
7e(s)
a
16
84
6 ?OO
19,000
15
3I
42
633
(a)
(a)
(a)
308 * 2 131
=I54
1,025
945
2,160
2,000
2,000
307,005 29L,Lzt L,493
1,025
945
2,160
554 36,860
(minus 70 (multiple
use) 12.5%) =
484 requ'i rement.
a(s )
8(s)
e(s )
(s) - Structure(a) - Accessory
168
DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS
Original Parcel
Robbins Parcel
Cosgriff Parcel
Requi red setbacks
minimum setback on the
WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT
ATHLETIC CLUB BUiLDING
COUNCIL.
T8.46.1.20 HEIGHT
Area
(Acres )
ro -6t
7.23
I ndq
19.095
Uni ts
15 d.u./Acre
252
18
15
z-6J
uKrft
256,437
18,752
291,121
18.46.090 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The development standards set out in sections 18.46.100 through rg.46.zr0are approve{ !y tne town council. These standards shail be incorp6rated intothe approved development plan pertinent to_each developmeni area to protectthe i.ntegrity of the development of sD4. Tlr"y are minimum aevelopmehtstandards and shall apply unless more restriciive standards are incorporatedin the approved development plan which is adopted ov irre iown councit.
18.46.100 SETBACKS
shall be as indicated in each development plan with apgliplgl.I.gl !!q ptqpgrly of not tesi than twenty feet,
^THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT ADJACENT TO THE PARKING"STRUCiURE/
SHALL BE FEET AS APPROVED IN 19 BY PEC AND
IN AREA A, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR THE FOLLOWING BUILDINGS SHALL BE 71 FEET:WESTiN HOTEL, CMC/LEARNING CENTER, TERRACE t,llNG, PARKING STRUCTURE/ATHLETiC
CLUB, PLAZA BUiLDING. THE REMINDER OF BUILDiNGS IN AREA A SHALL HAVE A
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 48 FEET.
IN AREA B, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT SHALL BE 48 FEET, IN AREA C, THE MAXIMUM
HEIGHT SHALL BE 33 FEET. IN AREA D, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT SHALL Bi 38 FEET.
HEIGHT SHALL BE AS DEFINED IN SECTION 18.04.170 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE.
18.45.140 COVERAGE
In areas A and B, no more than thirty-five percent of the total sitearea shall be covered by buildings, provided, if'any portion of the areji isdeveloped. as an institutional or educational center-, iorty-five perceni of in"area may be covered. .In-areas c and D, lo.Tqfe than tweniy-five'percent of -
the total site area shall be covered by buildings, UNLEss iuf NOnE nESfnfcflve
STANDARDS OF CHAPTER 18.69 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAI dOOE RPPI-Y.
18.46.160 LANDSCAPING
At least the following proportions of the total development area shallbelandscaped as provided in the deveiopment plan. This sha'l l'incluAe-reiention-otnatural landscape, if appropriate. Areas A and B, fifty percent and areas c andD, s'ixty percent, of the area shall be landscaped. - '
.t
:- ir
18.46.170 PARKING
0ff-street park'i ng shall be provided in accordance with Chapter L8.52,
except that seventy-five percent of the requ'i red parking in area A shall be
located within the main building or buildings. USING THE DEVEL0PMENT TABLE
IN SECTIoN 18.46.089, THE MTNIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT FoR AREA A SHALL BE
484 SPACES PLUS TWO SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT FOR MILLRACE CONDOMINIUMS, WEST-
HAVEN CONDOMINiUMS AND MANSFIELD VILLAGE CONDOMINIUMS. AT LEAST SEVENTY FIVE
PERCENT 0F THE 484 SPACES SHALL BE I,IITHIN A PARKING STRUCTURE. IF THE
DEVELOPMENT TABLE IN SECTION 18.46.089 IS AMENDED, THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
SHALL BE AMENDED ACCORDiNGLY. I'n areas B and D, fifty percent of'therequired parking shall be located within the majn building or buildings and
hidden from pubiic view from adjoining properties within a landscaped-berm.
Onsite parking shall be prov'ided in development area A for common carriersproviding charter service to the development. Bus parking shall be indicated
on the development plan. No parkfng or ioading area shall be located in any
rcqUiTEd fTONt SCIbACK ArCA. NO CERTTFICATE OF OCCUPANCY SHALL BE ISSUED FOR
THE TERRACE },IING, PLAZA BUlLDING, ATHLETIC CLUB OR EXPANSION OF THE I{ESTIN
HOTEL OR CMC/LEARNING CENTER UNTIL THE PARKING STRUCTURE CERTIFiCATE OF
OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR THE ENTIRE FINISHED (AS APPROVED) PARKING STRUCTURE.
18.46.180 RECREATION AMENITIES TAX ASSESSED.
The recreational amenities tax due for the development with'in SD4 under
Chapter 3.20 shall be assessed at a rate not to exceed twenty-five cents per
square foot of the floor area i'n development area A and at a rate not to exceedfifty cents per square foot of GRFA in development area B, and at a rate not to
exceed fifteen cents per square foot of GRFA in development area C; and at arate not to exceed seventy-five cents per square foot in development area D;
and shall be paid in conjunction w'ith each construction phase prior to the
issuance of building permit.
. 18.46.185 LEFT-TURN LANE.
THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A LEFT-TURN LANE ON THE SOUTH FRONTAGE
ROAD BY NOVEMBER 15, 1985.
18.46.190 CONSERVATION AND POLLUTION CONTROLS.
A. Developer's drainage plan shall include
po11ut'ion from surface runoff;
B. Developer shall include in the buiiding
water conservation controls as general technology
structi on.
C. NO WOOD-BURNING FIREPLACES/WOODSTOVES SHALL BE ALLOWED IN ACCOMMODATION
UNITS.
D. If fireplaces are provided within the development, they must be heatefficient through the use of glass enclosures and heat circulating devices as
technology exists at the time of development.
provision for prevention of
construction energy and
exists at the time of con-
o
18.46.200 RECREATIONAL AMENITI'ES.
The approved development plan shall
ameni ti es :
include the foi iowing recreational
Bike and pedestrian path traversing.property from east property'line to west property 1lne shall be provided by ieveloper w.iitr lxacilocation to be mutually acceptable to developei and town council.
18.46.210 ADDITIONAL AMENITIES.
. 4. Developer shall provide 0R w0RK WITH THE T0i,lN To pR0vIDE adequateprivate transportation services to the owners and guests of the aeveicipmentso as. to transport them from the development to the vjllaqe core area andLionshead area as outlined in the approved development p15n.
- q' .Developer shall provide in its approved development plan a bus shelterof.a design and location mutually agreeablb to developer and town council.Said shelter to serve the area geneially.
18.46.220 EMPLOYEE HOUSING.
I,IESTIN HOTEL SHALL MAKE AVAILABLE A MINIMUM OF 20 DWELLING UNITS FOR
I9ry9-IFIT BFNTAIS (30 DAYS OR MORE) TO THEIR EMPLOYEES ON A CONTINUING BASIS.
SUCH HOUSING SHOULD BE BUT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO BE LOCATED IN AREA A.
PROOF OF SUCH HOUSING AVAILABTLTTY (COPY OF LEASE, ETC.) SHALL BE PROVIDEDT0 THE T0|.lN 0F VAIL C0MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMTNT sy',lRNuAny st 0F EAcH yEAR.
ANY REVISIONS TO THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL BE REGARDED AS AN AMENDMENT TO SDD4
AND t,.lrLL FoLLoW PR0CEDURES tN SECTIoN 18.46.030(E)
,W o ,rr
%.t'iltfir
I'iiL1C:.AND'"r)1
To: Sieve liarper
,t:dtL -L-LJ-!-tsF::on: A:rdy Norris
Re : Cascade \ii1 lage Par:king Prcgran - r 983.
Date : April 13 , 1983 .
)u:rng ihc s'.i:::--r rjtc ial-l of 1933, )1ans5ie1d, Ltd. anticipates
the f ollcril-ng constr--,icur'-ort actirzities to 'ce taking place:
1. Ccir.p.l-el,'lcn of \{es1-i.n iiltel 2!aza, j'n'liuding replaci'lg
cs;lta1L .: .t-r1r ltiLh ;:',rrjrs, c,';tsi- --t cr: io;r o- Cce oi-a ti\e 1na Lerriray,
and corLect-ive \^JL)r:k ior prcvi.cusly iestalled pave::s.
2. InsLallation of paver:s at c.ilst willg of hotel, eest
and north per:i:eters of CllC tsui ldj-ng.
3 ' Planting of t;t'cs along entry to p]324 and ort ierrace
a dj ac ent to Pepi SPor Ls .
4 . Installaticrn of landscaping, ;nc1ud-ing irrigation; o1-I
site of Plaza 3riilr-iing.
5. Installatlon of lancsc!p:Lilg, -j.'1c1,r:dir-rg irrigation , at -Ccscade '"i1. lege unLr.1z; 1;.:, Cse apilrg to irlg'-irr'.e :::'ea a rou'rd i o\'m or
Vail bus shelter.
6 . Repair: of lie sthaven Drive .
7 , Construc t j-un of si,ai:i';a-v a'd decorati\re ltaiercoul-se
l.retween ci"1c tsuildir-rg and I.,TesLin Holel, including associated
planti;rg a:rd irrigatitrn.
8. Conpletion of Phase 1Lrai:king Struc-cur:e, projected
to begur llay 15 , 19E3 , r"ith ccrrP-le;ii'n by Decei:ber 1 ' 1983 '
g. Cori-nenceaenL of ccnsr-l-':,ic tion f or Cascade CLub;
scheduled io begin Jule l-, 1983, -*i ih crnpl,eLion Feb::uary 7984.
l:r :'---?i':"lse to ihe pr-oji c-;c'd. cur'ls'-:-'1c - -iu:1 , the f o1Lo";ing par-krng
i.jiogr.iin shculd be ac,heL:cd to:
1. Fhase I Parking Str-rictrrr.e (capacity I35 cars) -
;','a i1ao1e f or l{escin Hotei gu3sts and pati:oi1s, i:rciuCin3 ic si;:'-ir-,::ris
-l\ f\ 1,,')J'''"/. '1 '-la/:';'fvr'l I
041
tl.
.. .iL i3, 1983
C-,scr.de \till-age Theat:e Dairo:s, Con::ss LtSe' F:s:auiant Pa'Lrc:ls.
2, \rTesthaven Condoninir-l',.ns pa:kr':rg s.ruc:uie (capacity 37
cars) - limiied to empic','ces of Colo::ado ilou:r:ain Co11ege, Conpass
Rose Restaurant, Ir'esi-in l'lctel , and Cascaie \ri-r-l.age Theatre.
Sra-ip lt-rto )'.trn tor 'J ^ .-: r.'-' - r -'-.-'. -.Vee etr -C--al -- ,,: s i..-r-11 be- --.,- r - ,,).... arr<jl L-Lr ) -:15 tr.ll/r -Cevclopcd ior th:ls -iacili'-y.
3. Lot no. 1i.:d loc no. 2 (on graJe pa:-.i:.::g :ast of
Parking Struc Lure) - t|ese areas rvj-11 be the si'.e of the contin'rance
of the Parkins g:r"icf;"'p 1--ni-r.f end ri:-11 be u:..a',-rilable for
guest usage.
4. Tc-.,.-r-ace p'. 1-kirg (1ocat:d to tl-.e sort:l of the Tcr''n of
Vail bus shelter - capaciiy 80 ce::s) - i-i-ris 1oc riill be finj-sh
^---,r^.r --r .-.-^...i. p;;-<-i:rrr io ho '?r.Fil.:bl e io Colorado }iour:cin5L cll-Ell cllll,l :(i-lLC{rr r,-! j\-:r!)
College studi:nLs e nd a'- ;.n ove::f lo-c i or the oll,ter iacilities '
f'-* , :--.,^ i- : .--- ^.'--!v!,!!r L!,-rr- ! r,irr i,..'{ jng r.ii1l '-le Lilnited t,o Lhe a-.i:la at the .:asiei-n-
::rcst- ,:rd of thc L:-oject :l:d io i1.i s:LJ Ji i: j I l:.1 '-'e .l:ase I l"I.
?he easi parl-.iitg 1ot i+:-11 be c.l,c,-.red uP, 1,t,,,1 tt,,,-,.,--i,'d and f iilish:d.
Because a1l 1a:tdsc&pj.ng in t'lre 114'................:ir 'rf the lj6l-e1- ard CliC Bu-i-lding
will be conple:ed by car-ly :,u.::-er, l.."kitg ?:;l .i'.rii:'.,r:rs in Lhose
areas ivil1 6e strongly *nio.'c ed . Pariring enf or ce ;:e-nt r+ill , of
course, conEinue along ',v'eschavJn f riYe. If uhe iacil ities Pro-vided f or constr:uction workers ar:e iiraCequate, rre lvill provi de
off -s j ie oar:kilrs f or those autoinobiles and use brtse s to tr:ansPor t
CI]e r,r:OIK€]lS.
ADNiJh
r-r-. P-t;'- ?af i .,;l /TokTr of \taiI/!.LLvlr,/
Je::e Lia lters/l"lansf i eld
i.a;-icly }.ii,liroan /CIIC
PRESENT
Diana Donovan
Duane Piper
Gordon Rapson
Wil I Trout
Jim Viele
ABSENT
P'l anning and Environmental Commission
May 29, 1984
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Kristan Pritz
Lamy Eskwith
Betsy Rosolack
Scott Edwards
Gondon Pierce
The meetinq was called to order by the chairman, Duane Piper, at 3t00 pm.
1. Approval of minutes of meeting of May 14. Donovan moved and Viele secondedto approve the minutes. Vote was 4 in favor with Trout abstaining.
2. RgQuegt,fgr a setback variance and a conditional use permit in order to con-
:.tzur North Frontagg._8g.gg_wgst, Applicant: lst National Bank of vail
,"a"" **n r*d changes made to the site plan since the last meeting. Hefelt that two things.coul-d clean up the parkiirg;1ot; Str:'iping as periii" p""uiousbank approval on Vail Commons (there was to be a joint paricin! igrL*"nt-wit['"e-.striping to include compact cars which would add more siaces)l aia tne landscapingislands which could better define driving lanes.
Rick Baldwin, architect for the appf icant, showed e'levations and perspectives
.9I tttg project. Discussion of reiocation of the bike path followbd aird then--the size of the planters was discussed. It was felt that they were too small'.-to lypRort plants. Patten reminded the board that this propoial would be reviewedat ORB.
Trout moved and Ra on seconded to a the variance uest
memo o
3. Work session to amend the
rev I se stan
r the staff
increase commercial
ti ona rep taces
Andy Norris: gpplicant, explained the changes ana ato#d that a study had been
,frh%-C"tso4
chanoes and atapfr t
made which indicated more need for hotel r-oors and meeting space with additiona'lretail. Rapson felt.a need to know when the construction 6f the phases wouldtake place because the market could change again jn 3 or 4 years.' Norris mentionedthat Cascade V'i'l1age will be more self c6ntained so that it can survive anythinq
and can fill the shoulder seasons, plus compete with Beaver creek as we] I isKeystone, Copper Mountain, etc.
e vote was 4-0
cia'l Development District 4
add two parcel s
o -2- 5/2e/84
^uest for a_selDacK yari.ange in order to enclose a covered deck and hot tubat Lot .l9, Block 7. Va aqe I st ilinq at 324 Beaver Dam Road.eter
5.uest to rezone I ots and 9, Elock H, Vail das Schgne #2, from Residentia'l
ma ryl )econ ary to VE n stric ano a concurre uesor a mlnor vision to ne thr t ree lots nto one.I ina^L>.
Trout wondered how to..resolve the.firepiace. request with other projects thatrequire fireplaces. Norrjs stated that in.his originat piinl o2 iii.iiu."i-6uubeen approved, and he.was asking for oniy 1g. riout winaered if upb"ouui *ouracome back at the board, and others would ask for fireplaces.
Norris stated that he planned to_complete-phase ii, the parking structure andthe athletic club and beg'in the Terrace wing, to ue compieted 6v the tiri oi rges.Next spring start the-Piaza wing conference, quest rooms and retail to be completedbv December of '86. Also finish west Haven next summer. viere-iit.i-u[iri"'liiliiiv"u
.!oyljng, and Norris replied_that there were 20 units reseru.J ior-"*ptil;;;;l'''valli Hi, but these were.only 60% occupied. He added ih.t,ort emptbyeis-weresemi-permanent, and housing was not an'issue. patten stitea tnai ln-impiri;;-housing survey had just been completed by Eagle CJuniVl-Uri-tn" staff had not
{9t,ltgd time to study it. His feeiing was that employee housing wis noi-criiicatat this time, but that Valli Hi was n6t a barometer. He felt ilrat theie wai a--need to plan for long term employee housing. He added that the staff felt thatnot all of the-employee hous'ing should be ieleased. ltoiiis iaaeo itrat ieueiii-apartments at Coldstream were leased for employees.
Donovan-suggested gas fireplaces, ski trails were discussed, and the parking structurewas.explained. Piper then mentioned that dwelling units were ctrangea'io ilio*ro-dat'ion un'its, and then fireplaces were asked for." tte teii-ttrat others could savthat they couid change.accommodation units to dwelling units ana-aii io"-ii""pii..r.The study session ended here.
''I 'i Kristan Pritz outlined the request. She explained that the adjacent lot was in,:', the process of being dedicated to the Town is ot;; ;t;;.: The-staff teit itrarthjs was a "no-.impact" type of varjance and reconrnended approvar. craig-snowaon,architect for the applicant, stated that the intent was to'try to use eiisting
-:posts and not disturb the site..t
Viele moved and qemo.m voTe w;sT:O- tn ravor.
Peter Patten reviewed the proposal and explained that an SDD will often resultin a.better sit p1an. .He showed.site plahs which indiiit.a-un open meadow toremain-open.space.- Patten.explafned tirat origingltv ilre-appiicui ts trau piannea
::.j:.1:* lp :I?]9y.e units, and since the ippticunil-nii"removed *,e brpiov."yl'ltls.trom the proposal , the staff was recommending denia'l . patten polnteb o"ui-that the. Cornnunity Action Plan stressed tfre need f6r etnpiovee nouiing.
"'ionn-iltreeter,
one,of.the appl'icants, stated that he felt the employee'un"iii wouta iarre. reii-hardship in marketing the project.
vjele felt that such a.smal) project should nqt be required to supply employeehousing. Rapson agreed with Viele, Donovan added that sinie-the iitil wai vlry
l
I
,I
I
I
I
I
8r-rB-9!t2z23t2t
Receipt I l64$s
ficcorrtt O(t1983
L6 UISTS DAt\SPECrm-
ho.nr 1nO!rcO >
It r p.ld
af9€@/tl13060
Change rctut'nrd )
DEU DI5T
l@.€€
b.nr prid
1g€.8
8.W :
.:rl{E|}I< 1/Cx.J
Your crchlrr IEIDI
I-
DATE {6s67
\.*-4
I
L
HOIV PAID-Csdr-Qiec