HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-11-15 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session/ Y' ~ 1
f ~~~
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1988
2:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Marketing Survey Results presented by the Marketing Committee
2. Site Visits to Cascade Village and Wetland areas along Gore Creek and
on the Katsos Ranch property
3. Wetlands Enhancement Proposal from Vail Valley Consolidated Water
District
4. Discussion of Skaal Haus Sidewalk
5. Work Session on Special Development District 4, Cascade Village
(Proposed amendments to Area A & D. Applicants: Vail Ventures,
Ltd., Cascade Club Ltd., and Glen Lyon Office Building, Inc.)
6. Planning and Environmental Commission Report
7. Information Update
8. Other
UAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1988
2:00 p.m.
EXPANDED AGENDA
2:00 1. Marketing Survey Results presented by the Marketing
Jim Gibson Committee
Action Requested of Council: Elect to proceed/not proceed
with business license fee proposal for the marketing of the
Vail Valley.
Background Rationale: The survey results will be available
for Council review.
Marketing Committee Recommendation: Proceed with first
reading of an ordinance on December 6 setting forth business
license fees for marketing purposes.
2:30 2. Site Visits to Cascade Village and Wetland areas along Gore
Creek and on the Katsos Ranch property '
3:15 3. Wetlands Enhancement Proposal from Vail Valley Consolidated
Peter Patten Water District
Action Requested of Council: Review the proposal, and offer
comments and direction as necessary.
Background Rationale: VVCWD proposed to conduct wetlands
enhancement projects by 1) revegetating certain streambank
areas of Gore Creek through Vail, and 2) creating a small
fishing pond/wetland on the Katsos Ranch property. The PEC
has reviewed the project and endorsed it with suggestions.
Staff Recommendation: We recommend approval of the
revegetation of the streambank. This is an excellent
project which is much needed due to past disturbances. The
fishing pond is an excellent proposal, but should receive
more study as to the best location, taking into
consideration community-wide summer/winter use.
4:00 4. Discussion of Skaal Haus Sidewalk
Peter Patten
Action Requested of Council: Decide how to deal with the
Skaal Haus' failure to construct a sidewalk which they were
required to do as part of a Council call-up of part of a DRB
approval. The Skaal Haus is requesting that the Council
allow them to submit a letter of credit in the amount of the
construction of the sidewalk.
Backaround Rationale: Last spring the DRB approval of the
Skaal Haus addition (3 units) was called up by the Council
for the specific purpose of reviewing the issue of a
sidewalk along West Meadow Drive. The project had been
approved without the provision of a sidewalk. The Council
concluded the sidewalk was desirable.
Staff Recommendation: Accept the letter of credit.
4:20 5. Work Session on Special Development District 4, Cascade
Kristan Pritz Village (Proposed amendments to Area A & D. Applicants:
Vail Ventures, Ltd., Cascade Club Ltd., and Glen Lyon Office
Building, Inc.)
Back round Rationale: The applicant is proposing amendments
to the SDD in Area A which refers to the development in the
vicinity of the Westin, CMC, and Cascade Club and Area D,
the Glen Lyon Office site. Due to the complexity of the
proposal, staff felt it would be helpful to give the Council
an overview of the proposed development and planning
issues. The Council is not being asked to formally review
the project.
5:20 6. Planning and Environmental Commission Report
Peter Patten
5:25 7. Information Update
Ron Phillips
5:30 8. Other
-2-
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 15, 1988
SUBJECT: Wetlands proposal from Vail Valley Consolidated Water
District
The Vail Valley Consolidated Water District proposes to conduct
wetlands enhancement projects by:
1. Revegetating certain streambank areas of Gore Creek
through Vail
2. Creating a small fishing pond/wetland on the Katsos Ranch
property.
The PEC has reviewed the project and endorsed it. They prefer
the revegetation portion of the proposal over the pond
creation. (However, they are not opposed to the pond.) Some of
the PEC's comments were:
1. Would the pond possibly aggravate the deer problem in that
area of I-70?
2. Make the pond a natural shape.
3. Don't eliminate any trees at the pond site.
The PEC was enthused about the creek being restored to
riparian environment. Also, Joe Macy of VA felt that this
would help clean the creek water by filtering run-off.
The Community Development Staff recommends approval of the
revegetation of the streambank. We feel that this is an
excellent project which is much needed, due to past
disturbances. The fishing pond is an excellent proposal, but
should receive more study as to the best location, taking into
consideration community-wide summer/winter use.
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 15, 1988
SUBJ: Skaal Hus Sidewalk
Last spring the DRB approval of the Skaal Hus addition of 3
units was called up by the Town Council for the specific
purpose of reviewing the issue of a sidewalk along West Meadow
Drive. The project had been approved without the provision of
a sidewalk after considerable debate over the pros and cons of
providing the sidewalk. (See attached memo.) The Council
concluded the sidewalk was desirable in that it would improve,
if only minimally, the existing conflict between pedestrians
and vehicles on West Meadow Drive. Also, it was felt that it
was consistent with the hospital's requirement to put in the
sidewalk as part of their approval.
For reasons that will be explained to you on Tuesday, the Skaal
Hus has not constructed the sidewalk. It is our understanding
that there is no real resistance to putting in the walk next
spring and the request is to allow the submittal of a letter of
credit for the Town to hold until the walk is constructed next
year.
Staff Recommendation:
With the new hospital addition proposal bringing back into
focus the issue of pedestrian/vehicle conflicts on West Meadow
Drive, it may be prudent to utilize the winter to study
solutions other than the sidewalk. If another solution is
found, the dollars that would have gone toward the sidewalk
could be spent on a better solution. For these reasons, the
Community 'Development staff recommends that the Council accept
the letter of credit.
TO: Ron Phillips
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 19, 1988
SUBJECT: Council appeal of Design Review Board approval of
Skaal Hus site plan.
The Council has asked to review the Skaal Hus site plan that
was approved by the Design Review Board on April 6th. The
Skaal Hus is proposing an addition of 3 condo units to the east
end of the existing building. The plan includes all necessary
parking, but the site plan did not include a public sidewalk
along West Meadow Drive.
After considerable discussion among the Community Development
Department staff, the staff decided against recommending to the
DRB that a sidewalk be constructed. One reason against
requiring the sidewalk was that there was no master plan in
place for this part of the Town. The staff has unsuccessfully
tried. to obtain construction of paths by development projects
previously without a master plan in place. A compromise
position could be to bond for the cost of the sidewalk and use
the money toward the eventual solution.
Another reason that staff did not require the sidewalk was that
it seemed unsafe to have a sidewalk directly between parked
cars and the street.
John M. Perkins/Architect, AIA/Vail Run Resort, 1000 Lions Ridge Loop/P.0.6.266/Vail, Colo. 81658/303-476-351
8 No~aember 1988
Peter Patton
Director of .Community Development
Town of Vail
South Frontage Road West
Vail, Colorado 81657
Res' SkaalhauS Sidewalk'Installation
Dear Peter;
As we discussed last week, I would like for you to
please place the Skaalhaus sidewalk installation on
the Town Council agenda for the November 15 work
session.
you
JoXi~'M. Perkin
c: Ray Brenner
Tom Thomson
Ron Anderson.
To: Vail Town Council
From: Community Development Department
Subject: Work session on Special Development District 4, Cascade
Village Area A and D (Glen Lyon Office Site): Applicant
Vail Ventures, Ltd., Cascade Club Ltd., and Glen Lyon
Office Building, Ltd.
Date: November 15, 1988
The staff has scheduled this work session on Cascade. Village to
allow the Council the opportunity to become familiar with the
requested amendments and related planning issues. The proposal
has been divided into two development. areas. Area A relates to
the land in the general vicinity of the Westin and Cascade Club.
Area B is the Glen Lyon Office site. The Planning and
Environmental Commission reviewed the amendments relating to Area
A on October 10, 1988. :They voted unanimously to approve the
amendments with conditions. The requests relating to Area B will
be reveiewed by the PEC on November 28. The total project is
scheduled for Council review of the ordinance on December 6.
The following information is enclosed:
1. Staff Memo to PEC dated October 10, 1988
2. Minutes from the PEC meeting of October 10,1988
Staff recommends that the council read the following sections of
this information to prepare for the work session:
1. Staff memo: Section I, Background and Introduction p. 1-3
Section II, Summary of Requests p. 4-7
Section III, Proposal Descriptions p. 8-13
Section VIII, Recommendation p. 38-40
2. Minutes from the PEC meeting
The council is not being asked to give any formal opinions on the
proposal.
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 10, 1988
SUBJECT: Request to amend Special Development District #4,
Area A, Cascade Village.
Applicant: Vail Ventures, Ltd.
I. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION TO THE CASCADE VILLAGE
DEVELOPMENT
Cascade Village was annexed into the Town of Vail in
December of 1975 by Ordinance No. 26. Before being
annexed to Vail, the area was zoned for 6 units per acre
with the option to propose a comprehensive development
plan. (PEC minutes 2/5/1976). In March of 1976, the SDD4
zoning was imposed. In respect to the underlying zone
district, Cascade Villge is unique in that the Town
initially approved SDD 4 zoning. There was no other Town
of Vail underlying zone district before the SDD.
Special Development District No. 4 is divided into the
following areas:
Development Area
A
B
C
D
The density allotment
original ordinance was
acres for a density of
Area Known As
Cascade Village
Coldstream Condominiums
Glen Lyon Duplex Lots
Glen Lyon Office Building
for Cascade Village, Area A in this
252 dwelling units located on 16.82
15 dwelling units per acre.
Ordinance No. 28 of 1977 revised the original ordinance in
a number of ways. This ordinance changed the development
areas B,C and D and required dedication of over 40 acres
of open space to the Town. Cascade Village continued to
be responsible for maintaining all common areas, interior
roads and plazas for the project. This ordinance also
revised some of the submittal requirements as well as
refined permitted and conditional uses allowed in
Development Area A (Cascade Village). Some other minor
changes such as numerical changes to section numbers in
the zoning code were also provided for in Ordinance 28.
In January of 1979 there was an amendment to SDD4 with
regard to submittal requirements. The applicant requested
that a determination be made as to exactly what type of
submittal requirements would be necessary to review the
project. This amendment was approved in preparation for
the April and May review of the development plan.
C On May 22, 1979, the PEC reviewed several amendment
requests. The first amendment called for enlarging
Development Area A to include the 1.25 acre Robbins tract.
The new acreage for Area A would then total 18.078 acres.
Additional commercial square footage was also requested.
The single major issue in the approval process of the
development plan of 1979 was the creation of a third
village for Vail with respect to the amount of commercial
proposed and the proposed educational/learning center.
Employee housing was an integral part of the development
plan in the discussion in May of 1979. The proposal at
that time was for 32 rental units of approximately 850
square feet each. The possibility of using industrial
revenue bonds to construct the housing was discussed. The
timing for the employee housing project was represented as
the second year of construction, but earlier if possible.
The Planning Commission approved the request for a total
commercial square footage of 21,700 square feet. The
developer agreed to easements for bicycle paths and agreed
to work with the Highway Department to provide a left-hand
turning lane and acceleration and deceleration lanes off
of the South Frontage Road to Westhaven Drive. The
developer also agreed to provide a bus shelter and turn-
C around in the project. The proposed employee housing
units (20) became part of the development plan.
In June of 1984, a major amendment was again requested for
Development Area A (Cascade Village). The amendment
requested that the original density of 15 dwelling units
per acre be applied to both .the 1.25 acre Robbins parcel
which had been annexed to the SDD in 1979, and for the
1.045 acre Cosgrif parcel proposed to be annexed with this
current request. 37,000 square feet of commercial was
requested with the. rationale that it was a necessity to
the development program to provide support retail,
considering the clientele the development was hoping to
attract. A revision to the employee housing requirement
and changes to the height calculation method. were also
addressed.
The staff supported the additional density and commercial
square footage. The employee housing issue was resolved
by requiring that "on a yearly basis, a contractual
agreement between the employer and the developer showing
evidence of employee housing that is satisfactory to the
Town of Vail be made available." The present SDD had
stated that the developer provide 20 dwelling units for
long term rentals to employees of the project on an
ongoing basis. The staff felt that 20 units was the
minimum acceptable requirement. The proposal for 18
fireplaces within accommodation units was not approved by
the staff or the PEC. The developer was required to
2
C participate in the study to develop a reasonable plan for
a left-hand turn lane off of the South Frontage Road into
the Cascade Village development. Parking requirements
were also amended to require 40 spaces for the Plaza
conference facility.
C
3
II. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT REQUESTS
Vail Ventures, Ltd. proposes to amend SDD4 to allow for
changes in requirements as well as adjustments to
development of the remaining 5 undeveloped sites within
Area A. These sites include: Cornerstone, Waterford,
Westhaven Condominiums, Millrace III and Millrace IV. The
applicant has stated that "the amendments are necessary
due to changes resulting from the construction of the
Cascade chair lift, the completion of the Westin Hotel and
the changing markets for real estate and guests services;
all of which have affected the overall master plan for
Cascade Village."
The following amendments are requested for Cascade Village
Development Area A:
A. Approval of alternative development scenarios
for Waterford, Cornerstone, and Millrace IV sites.
The developer is requesting the flexibility to have
options as to whether Waterford or Millrace IV should
be developed using the transient residential,
accommodation unit, or the dwelling unit plan. In
addition, there would be differences in commercial
development depending on whether the Cornerstone site
was. developed using the commercial plan "a" or
special attraction/commercial plan "b".
B. Approval of "restricted dwelling unit or transient
residential dwelling unit" for Cornerstone and
Waterford sites. For the purposes of this memo, the
restricted dwelling units shall be referred to as a
transient residential dwelling unit or TR in this
memo.
Transient Residential Dwelling Unit:
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.
For the purposes of this SDD 4, a short term rental
shall be deemed to be a rental for a period of time
not to exceed 31 days. Each unit shall not exceed
645 square feet of GRFA which shall include a kitchen
having a maximum of 35 square feet. The kitchen
shall be designed so that it may be locked and
separated from the rest of the unit in a closet.
A transient dwelling unit shall be accessible from
common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing
4
C through another accommodation unit, dwelling unit,. or
transient residential dwelling unit. Should such
units be developed as condominiums, they shall be
restricted as set forth in Sections 17.26.075 -
17.26.120 governing condominium conversion. The
unit shall not be used as a permanent residence.
Fractional fee ownership shall not be allowed to be
applied to transient residential units. For the
purposes of determining allowable density per acre,
transient residential units shall be counted as one-
half of a dwelling unit. Transient residential
dwelling unit parking requirements 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.
C. Special Attraction: Conditional Use for the
Cornerstone Building, 8080 s.f.
A special attraction is defined as a museum, seminar
or research center, or performing arts theatre or
other similar cultural center.
D. Approval of "Fractional Fee Ownership" as defined
in the Town of Vail Municipal Code Section 18.04.135.
Fractional fee means a tenancy in common interest in
C improved real property,. including condominiums,
created or held by persons, partnerships,
.corporations, or joint ventures or similar entities,
wherein the tenants in common have formerly arranged
by oral or written agreement or understanding, either
recorded or unrecorded allowing for the use and
occupancy of the property by one or more co-tenants
to the exclusion of one or more co-tenants during any
period, whether annually reoccurring or not which is
binding upon any assignee or future owner of a
fractional fee interest or if such agreement
continues to be in any way binding. or effecive upon
any co-tenant for the sale of any interest in the
property.
Fractional Fee Ownership shall be a conditional use
for dwelling units in Westhaven's multi°family
dwelling and shall not be applied to restricted
employee dwelling units or transient residential
dwellings. Approval for ownership intervals of no
less than 5 weeks is requested.
E. Approval of maximum height for Waterford of 48 feet,
as measured from the finished grade to the roof ridge
along the South Frontage Road and Westhaven Drive. A
building elevation height of 61 feet from the lowest
floor of the parking structure up to the building's
5
roof ridge and 40 feet from the lowest floor of the
parking structure to the eave is requested for the
creek side or southeast building elevation.
F. Approval of maximum height for Cornerstone of 71 feet
as previously approved for the Plaza building.
Height is measured from the roof ridge down to
finished or existing grade, whichever is most
restrictive.
G. Approval of addition to east end of the Cascade Club
for either a lap pool, wellness center, or small
gymnasium at 4,500 s.f. The wellness center would be
a conditional use with required parking provided.
The 20 foot setback is maintained along the South
Frontge Road. The maximum height is 26 feet.
H. Approval of first floor office space in the new Plaza
Conference Center having a maximum square footage of
925 square feet. Presently space is approved to be
retail.
I. Approval of second floor, Room 2J in the CMC building
to be converted from conference space to retail
and/or theatre with required parking provided, 1387
s.f. o
J. Approval for the mixed use credit of 17.5 to be
applicable to the Cascade Village and Waterford
parking structures.
K. Approval of request to eliminate requirement for
common carrier parking.
L. Approval of request to eliminate the existing SDD4
employee housing requirement that a "Contractual
agreement between the employer and developer showing
evidence of employee housing that is satisfactory to
the Town be made available to the Department of
Community Development." The developer proposes to
provide a minimum of 10 employee dwelling units
having a minimum square footage of 640 square feet
per unit within Development Area A and/or D. The
GRFA and number of employee units shall not be
counted toward allowable density or GRFA. The units
shall be restricted as employee housing units for 15
years from the date of the final certificate of
occupancy for said units.
The employee dwelling unit shall not be leased or
rented for any period of less than thirty consecutive
days, and that if it shall be rented, it shall be
rented only to tenants who are full-time employees in
6
C the Upper Eagle Valley. The Upper Eagle Valley shall
be deemed to include the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red
Cliff, Gilman, Eagle-Vail, and Avon and their
surrounding areas. A full-time employee is a person
who works an average of thirty hours per week.
If the unit is sold, it shall be sold to a qualified
purchaser. A qualified purchaser shall be defined as
a full-time employee in the Upper Eagle Valley as
defined in the previous paragraph.
The employee dwelling unit shall not be divided into
any form of time-shares, interval ownership or
fractional fee.
A declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be
filed of record in the office of the Eagle County
clerk and recorder in a form approved by the town
attorney for the benefit of the town to ensure that
the restrictions herein shall run with the land
before a building permit is released for the
construction of the employee units.
M. Approval for 55 foot height for Westhaven building as
measured from the finished or existing grade
C whichever is most restrictive.
N. Approval for 96 wood-burning fireplaces which is
equivalent to the number of dwelling units approved
yet unbuilt for the SDD. This means that transient
residential, accommodation units, and dwelling units
would be allowed to have wood-burning fireplaces up
to the 96 maximum amount.
O. Approval for an entry tower located at the northeast
corner of the Cascade Club. The height requested is
36 feet. The 20 foot setback is maintained.
P. Approval for a total commercial square footage of
53,513 s.f. or 56,538 s.f.
Q. Approval for 293,715 s.f. of total GRFA.
7
C III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENTS FOR THE
FIVE REMAINING SITES IN AREA A:
A. CORNERSTONE BUILDING
Location: Site is to the south of Westhaven Drive and
north of the Terrace Wing.
Proposal: Fifty transient residential units are
proposed. The request also consists of two
alternatives for commercial development.
Alternative A has 26,040 square feet of
retail, while Alternative B has 29,065
square feet which includes the "Special
Attraction" use. Ski accessory uses for
the Cascade lift are also provided for in
this building. Parking is provided in the
structures. Please see Chart at the end of
this section for a breakdown of square
footage/use.
Zoning:
CORNERSTONE ZONING ANALYSIS
C Existing SDD Remaining. Proposed SDD
Development Potential Develop. Potential
Height 71` 71'
AU 20 au 0
DU 15 du 50 transient resid.
Total Units 25 du 50 TR or 25 du
GRFA 30,628 sf 28,110 sf
Commercial 19, 214 26, 040 (A)
29,065 (B)
GRFA: Under allowable by 2,518 square feet.
Commercial: Over allowable by 6,826 square feet
(Plan A) or 9,851 square feet (Plan B.)
The increase in commercial square footage for this
site is the most outstanding difference between the
8
proposed plan and the original plan. All retail,
office, and restaurant space has been included in the
total commercial square footage. In Plan A, hotel
related retail and restaurant contributes 2,750
square feet. Accessory ski retail adds 2,190 square
feet. The remaining commercial of 21,000 square feet
is general retail and office. Plan B shows an
increase in commercial square footage due to the
Special Attraction use which equals 8,080 square
feet.
The building foot print has been extended to the east
to incorporate the ski accessory uses, such as a
ticket office, ski lockers, public restrooms and
skier retail. For this reason, site coverage has
increased for this parcel but is still under the
allowable coverage of 45%. The 71' foot height also
matches what was originally approved for the
building.
B. WATERFORD BUILDING
Location: Adjacent to the South Frontage Road. East
of the Cascade Club across Westhaven Drive.
Presently, fill is stockpiled on the
site.
Proposal: The Waterford Building consists of
approximately 3,800 square feet of retail
space and either 30 residential units or 75
transient residential units. The GRFA for
either scenario totals 47,500 square feet.
A two-level underground parking structure
would be built below-the residential and
commercial development. A 20 foot setback
shall be maintained along the north
property line adjacent to the South
Frontage Road. A minimum 20 foot buffer
shall be maintained between the edge of the
bike path along Gore Creek and the
Waterford Building.
~.
t,
C
Zoning:
WATERFORD ZONING ANALYSIS
Existing SDD Remaining Proposed SDD
Development Potential Develop. Potential
Height 48' 48' to 61'
D.U. 45 D.U. Alt. l: 30 D.U.
Alt. 2&3: 75 T.R.
GRFA 49,227 47,500
Retail 0 3,800
Number of Units: Plan 1 is under the allowable by 15
dwelling units. Plan 2 is under the allowable by
7.5 dwelling units.
GRFA: Under allowable by 1,727 square feet.
Commercial: Over by 3,800 square feet, the original
proposal did not call for retail on this site.
Height: Over height limit by 13 feet on th southeast
{Gore Creek) side of the building.
C. WESTHAVEN CONDOS
Location: The site is located north of Westhaven
Drive, immediately west of the Cascade
Club. Presently, foundations-exist on this
site. The proposal was originally called
Club Condominiums.
C
Proposal: The Westhaven Condominiums include 24
dwelling units that have 24,000 square feet
of GRFA. In addition, 7 employee dwelling
units would be located on this site.
The developer is requesting fractional fee
ownership as a conditional use for the 24
dwelling units. Fractional ownership would
not be applied to the required employee
housing units. All parking is provided on
site. The 20 foot setback is maintained
on the north, east, and west sides of the
property. Westhaven will be connected to
the Cascade Club by a sky bridge.
10
C
Zoning:
WESTHAVEN ZONING ANALYSIS
Existing SDD Remaining Proposed SDD
Development Potential Development Potential
Height 48' 55'
D.U. 25 D.U. 24 D.U.
GRFA 22,500 s.f. 24,000 s.f.
Number of Units: Under allowable by 1 dwelling unit.
GRFA: Over allowable by 1,500 square feet for
dwelling units. 6400 square feet is requested for
the employee housing units.
Height: Over allowable by 7 feet to allow for
employee housing.
D. MILLRACE III
Location: The site is just north. of the bridge
-connecting Cascade Village to the Glen Lyon
Subdivision. The site is located on the
west side of Westhaven Drive.
Proposal: Millrace III is proposed to consist of 3
residential dwelling units having 6,000
square feet of GRFA. Parking would be
provided on site.
Zonin
MILLRACE III ZONING ANALYSIS
Existing SDD
Development
Height 48'
D.U. 3
GRFA 6,500
GRFA: Under allowable
Remaining Proposed SDD
Potential Development Potential
48'
3
6,000
by 500 square feet.
11
C E. MILLRACE IV
Location: Adjacent to the west side of the Westin
Hotel along Gore Creek. Millrace Phase I
is directly to the west.
Proposal: Two alternatives are contemplated for this
site. Plan A would include 8 residential
dwelling units having 14,000 square feet of
GRFA. Plan B would be comprised of 32
accommodation units attached to the west
side of the Westin Hotel. GRFA for the
accommodation units would equal 14,000
square feet. Parking for the 8 dwelling
unit plan would be provided on site. The
accommodation unit plan would rely on
structured parking.
Zoning:
MILLRACE IV ZONING ANALYSIS
Existing SDD Remaining
Development Potential
Height 48'
D.U.
A.U.
Total D.U.
GRFA:
8
0
8
Proposed SDD
Development Potential
48'
Alt. 1: 8
Alt. 2: 32 A.U.
Alt. 1: 8 D.U.
Alt. 2: 16 D.U.
11,200 s.f. 14,000 s.f.
Number of Units: Alt. 2 is over allowable by 8 D.U.s
GRFA: Both plans over allowable by 2,800 s.f.
12
tr...i r~5^r~5
1
w
Figure 4~
__ ~ ~i, ..
Future Development '
.. 4
k_ _ ~
ON
' SITE STRUCT GRASS
AU TR DU GRFA CUM~~ SQ FT SEATS PARKING PARK SQ FT
CORNERSTONE
GRFA 50 28,110
' (avg rm 561 sf @ .962 spaces) 48.1
Acessory Ski Ra~tail 2190 7,3
Restaurant 3000 147 18.4
Hotel/Rest/Bar ~ 2465 82 10.3
Office 4850 19.4
Conf. Room 1725 7.2
Hotel Retail ~ 285 1.0
Retail (A) or ~
(13,250 (44.2
Retail (B) or
(16,275 or
( 54.3
• Access. Ski 7140
50 28,110 26,040 (A) 8865 229 155.9 ((A11 (A)84,915
29,065 (e) 166 l8) (8)92,940
14
C IV. EXPLANATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
The two primary reasons the developer i s requesting
alternative development scenarios is 1) to "allow
flexibility in terms of the number and types of
RESIDENTIAL units within the Waterford and Millrace Phase
IV buildings" and 2) to allow flexibili ty in the amount of
commercial square footag e allocated to the Cornerstone
building. The exterior building design would remain the
same regardless of which combination of units and
commercial is used. The alternatives a re as follows:
A. RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVES
Alternative PARKING
AU or TR DU STRUC. ON-SITE
Cornerstone 50 TR 48.1
Waterford 30 60
Westhaven 24 48
Millrace III 3 6
Millrace IV 32 AU 26.8
Total 82 _
57 134.9 54
Alternative 2
C Cornerstone 50 TR 48.1
Waterford 75 TR 75
Westhaven 24 48
Millrace III 3 6
Millrace IV 32 26.8
Total 125 TR _
27 149.9 54
Alternative 3
Cornerstone 50 TR 48.1
Waterford 30 60
Westhaven 24 48
Millrace III 3 6
Millrace IV 8 16
Total 50 65 108.1 70
Alternative 4
Cornerstone 50 48.1
Waterford 75 75
Westhaven 24 48
Millrace III 3 6
Millrace IV 8 16
_
Total 125 35 _
123.1 70
C
15
C Special Development District 4 allows a total maximum
density of 288 dwelling units with a minimum of 308
accommodation units and a maximum of 134 dwelling units
within Area A. Currently, 38 dwelling units exist and 288
accommodation units exist, which is the equivalent of 182
dwelling units (2 au = 1 du).
Under each alternative, the total dwelling unit equivalent
is less than the remaining equivalent of 106 dwelling
units.
Alternative 1: 8.0 units less than total allowed
Alternative 2: .5 units less than total allowed
Alternative 3: 16.0 units less than total allowed
Alternative 4: 8.5 units less than total allowed
All three alternatives meet. the minimum requirement of 308
accommodation units as long as transient residential units
are counted as accommodation units. All of the three
proposals are 2624 square feet over the allowable GRFA
excluding the GRFA for employee housing.
NUMBER OF AU'S OR TR PROPOSED PLUS EX. AU
C Alternative
.Alternative 1:
2: 370
445 over required
over required minimum by
minimum by 62 AU/TRS
137 AU/TRS
Alternative 3: 338 over required minimum by 30 AU/TRS
Alternative 4: 413 over required minimum by 105 AU/TRS
In summary, the proposal does not exceed the allowable density
and actually provides more AU's than are required in the
existing SDD. All of the alternatives are 2,624 sf over the
allowable GRFA. Employee units have not been included in these
calculations.
B. COMMERCIAL SCENARIOS
The Cornerstone Building has two scenarios for commercial
development. Plan A plus the
development equals 53,513 s.f.
commercial development equals
SDD allows for 37,000 s.f. of
calls for an increase in total
to 19,538 s.f.
existing commercial
Plan B plus the existing
56,538 s.f. The existing
commercial. The proposal
commercial of 16,513 s.f.
16
V. TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COMPARISON BETWEEN THE REMAINING
APPROVED SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
This section compares the total existing approved
development potential remaining in Area A to the proposed
development requested through the amendment process. The
first chart at the end of this section shows the completed
projects for Development Area A. Below, the chart shows
the approved total square footages for SDD4 and deducts
the completed projects to indicate the remaining
development potential under the approved SDD.
EXISTING SDD4 DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
APPROVED EXISTING REMAINING DEVEL.
SDD DEVELOPMENT UNDER EXIST SDD
TOTAL DU 288 182 106
AU OR TR 308 min* 288 20
DU 134 max* 38 96
GRFA 291,121 174,135 116,986
COMMON 37,000 17,786 19,214
*Currently, SDD4 allows a total maximum of 288 dwelling units.
The maximum and minimum numbers of au's and du's were
established to ensure that the project would have a greater
emphasis on lodge rooms than dwelling units.
The next chart compares the three proposed .development alternatives
to the remaining development potential allowed under the existing
SDD.
EXISTING REMAINING DEVELOPMENT COMPARED TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOP
REMAINING ALT #1 ALT #2 ALT #3 ALT ~4
TOTAL DU 106 98 105.5 90 97.5
AU OR.TR 20 82 157 50 125
DU 96 57 27 65 35
GRFA 116,986 119,610 119,610 119,610 119,610
COMMER 17,786 35,727 (A) 35,727 (A) 35,727 (A) 32,727(A)
or or or or
38,752 (B) 38,752 (B) 38,752 (B) 38,752 (B)
The following summaries highlight how the remaining development under
the existing SDD compares to the proposed developments for
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
17
C
Alternative 1 compared to remaining approved develo ment:
Total Unit Number: 8 units under allowable
Minimum Accommodation Unit Number: 62 units over A.U. minimum
Maximum Dwelling Unit Number: 39 units under D.U. maximum
GRFA: 2624 s.f. over allowable
Commercial: 16,513 s.f. over allowable, Plan A
19,538 s.f. over allowable, Plan B
Alternative 2 compared to the remaining approved development:
Total Unit Number: 0.5 units under allowable
Minimum Accommodation Unit Number: 137 units over A.U. minimum
Maximum Dwelling Unit Number: 69 units under D.U. maximum
GRFA: 2,624 s.f. over allowable
Commercial: 16,513 s.f. over allowable, Plan A
19,538 s.f. over allowable, Plan B
Alternative 3 compared to the remaining approved development:
Total Unit Number: 16 units under allowable
Minimum Accommodation Unit Number: 30 units over A.U. minimum
Maximum Dwelling Unit Number: 31 units under D.U. maximum
GRFA: 2,624 over allowable
Commercial: 1.6,513 s.f. over allowable, Plan A
19,538 s.f. over allowable, Plan B
Alternative 4 compared to the remaining approved development:
Total Unit Number: 8.5 under allowable
Minimum Accommodation Unit Number: 105 over allowable
Maximum Dwelling Unit Number: 61 under allowable
GRFA: 2,624 over allowable
Commercial: 16,513 s.f. over allowable, Plan A
19,538 s.f. over allowable, Plan B
The following chart compares the TOTAL approved special development
district to the .TOTAL proposed special development district
alternatives:
APPRVD PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
SDD ALT #1 ALT #2 ALT #3 ALT #4
TOTAL DU 288 280 287.5 272 279.5
AU OR TR 308 min -370
445
65
293,745
53,513 (A)
or
56,538(B)
338
103
293,745
53,513 (A)
or
56,538(8)
413
DU 134 max 95
GRFA 291,121 293,.745
COMMER. 37,000 53,513 (A)
or
56,538 (B)
lg
73
293,745
53,513 (A)
or
56,538 (B)
C The proposed SDD alternatives are under the total allowable density
and met the minimum and maximum requirements for AU's and DU's. The
commercial is 16,513 s.f. to 19,538 s.f. over the allowable under the
existing SDD. This is a 45~ to 53~ increase in commercial square
footage. Total GRFA is over allowable by 2624 square feet.
19
COMPLETED PROJECTS IN SDD4 RETAIL/ NON-STRUCT STRUCT
AU DU GRFA CUMM SQ FT PARKING PARK
MILLRACE I 16 20,000
MILLRACE II 14 17,534
WESTIN 148 55,457
Alfredo's
No Cafe
Little Shop
Pepi Sports
W & H Smith, Vaurnet
8 15,870
Theatre
College Classrooms
College Office
Mtg Room 2J
TERRACE WING
Rooms -120 58,069
Retail
900
1600
4220
5856
104 seats
74 seats
1250
2436
4792
954
1387
28 0
25 0
0 115
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 16
0 13.3
28
0 40
0 4
0 :6
0 105
0 20
COMPLETED PROJECTS (CON'T)
RETAIL/
AU DU GRFA CUMM
PLAZA I
Rooms 20 7205
Retail 1099
PLAZA II
Conference
N
Retail ~ 925
CASCADE CLUB
Retail 300
Bar & Restaurant 672
Office in CMC 828
Wellness Center 1386
TOTALS 288 38 174,135 17,786
NUN-STRUCT STRUCT
SQ FT PARKING PARK
0 16
0 4
8297 0 35
0 3
0 1
0 5.6
0 3
0 7
53 422
VI SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGN CRITERIA
It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate
that submittal material and the proposed development plan
comply with each of the following standards, or to
demonstrate that one or more of them are not applicable,
or that a practical solution consistent with the public
interest has been achieved.
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.
Cornerstone•
The overall design of this building is very positive.
The building meets the height standard of 71'. The
developer has redesigned the eastern elevation of the
cornerstone building in order to pull the eaves line
down to minimize the height. A minimum setback of 20
feet will also be maintained from the bike path.
Even though the building has been extended to the
C east to allow for the ski accessory as well as a
small amount of ski retail, this portion of the
building consists primarily of rooms. and hotel
functions which are allowed presently under the
approved SDD.
Staff recommends that the Cornerstone building bridge
connection between the east and west buildings be
opened up. Our opinion is that it would be positive
to be able to see through more of the Cornerstone
building and up to the Cascade Lift and ski mountain
instead of being confronted by building mass on all
three sides as you enter the project.
Waterford:
The original proposed height was 71 feet. At the
first work session on this project, the Planning
Commission indicated that a 55' height limit would be
appropriate for this building.
The Waterford building is most visible from the South
Frontage Road and Westhaven Drive. The height has
been decreased to 48 feet as measured from finished
grade to meet the previously approved height. The
building is also situated below the Frontage Road to
decrease impacts. The proposed 61 foot height along
the southeast elevation is acceptable, as the eave
line will have a height of 40 feet which will greatly
decrease the impact of the 61 foot ridge height.
22
The 20 foot front setback will also be maintained
along the South Frontage Road which will decrease the
impact of the building mass. A 20 foot buffer will
exist between the building and bike path on the creek
side of the project. The bike path will be moved 5
feet towards the creek and the building pulled back
to establish the 20 foot buffer.
Staff feels strongly that substantial landscaping
should be required along the north and southeast
elevations of the Waterford. The developer has made
a significant effort to respond to the PEC and staff
requests to decrease the height. However, from the
view analysis, it is clear that the building's mass
will have impacts.
Millrace III•
The staff does not have a specific site plan for this
property. However, the developer is proposing to
maintain the same number of units and height and
decrease GRFA. A 20 foot setback would be maintained
along Westhaven Drive.
Millrace IV:
C Staff's opinion is that the 32 accommodation unit
site plan is much more compatible with the site than
the proposal to locate 8 dwelling units on this
parcel. The 32 accommodation unit plan allows for an
adequate open space buffer between the Westin Hotel
and the existing Millrace development. The 8
dwelling unit plan needs to be consolidated to
maintain adequate open space between the Westin and
Millrace. This buffer becomes even more important
when private residential units are adjacent to a
hotel operation.
Staff believes that the .additional GRFA on this site
for the accommodation unit plan is appropriate.
Lodge rooms meet a community need which has been
encouraged in the Land Use Plan. We do not feel that
the additional GRFA is necessary for the 8 dwelling
unit plan.
Staff recommends that the 8 D.U. plan be denied. The
request for additional GRFA is unsupportable and the
site plan does not meet the SDD criteria, particular-
ly in respect to site planning, landscaping, and
adequate buffer zones.
23
Westhaven•
This project has already received a building permit
which has since expired. Staff's understanding is
that the project would be constructed in a similar
manner to what has been previously approved. The
developer is proposing to remove 1 dwelling unit and
increase the GRFA by 1,500 square feet.
The Westhaven height will be increased from 48' to
55' to allow for the additional employee housing
units. The building. is situated below the Frontage
Road, so the height increase will have very little
impact.
B. USES, ACTIVITY AND DENSITY WHICH PROVIDE A
COMPATIBLE, EFFICIENT AND WORKABLE RELATIONSHIP WITH
SURROUNDING USES AND ACTIVITY.
Alternate Development Scenarios:
For the most part, the alternative plans focus on
flexibility in the type and number of residential
units and amount of commercial. Millrace IV is the
only alternative that. has two different site plans.
C The Waterford and Cornerstone buildings would have
the same exterior appearance and site-plan regardless
of the residential unit mix and amount of commercial.
Staff feels comfortable with the alternative
development plans proposed for the project. It is
felt that a good mix of office, retail, lodging and
residential units is maintained with these proposals.
The changes in design for the various alternatives
are minimal and therefore make it acceptable to
approve alternative uses.
Transient Residential:
The concept is that the TR unit will function as an
accommodation unit, but will have a small kitchenette
for convenience cooking. The unit is not intended
to function as a dwelling unit. The TR must also be
managed by a single management entity to ensure that
customary hotel services and facilities are provided
to occupants. These hotel services-and facilities
would typically include front desk services, lobby,
housekeeping facilities, laundry service and
recreation facilities.
In addition, the fact that the units must be used
according to the short term rental definition will
ensure that the units function as accommodation
units.
24
The TRs may be converted to condominiums under the
Lodge Room Conversion sections of the Subdivision
C Regulations. Even if the TRs were typical AUs, the
option to convert the AUs would be available.
Transient residential units should not be allowed to
have a wood burning fire place. Wood burning fire
places should be used exclusively for dwelling units.
Additional Commercial:
The increase in total square footage for commercial
space has been designed so that the buildings
containing commercial meet the existing development
standards for the special development district except
for the Waterford's southeast elevation's height.'
Staff believes that the additional square footage
should be viewed in a similar way to the manner in
which Commercial Core I and II projects are reviewed.
In these zone districts, commercial square footage is
unlimited and the buildings are required to meet
design standards. Basically, Cascade Village is very
similar to a CCI or CCII type project.
The staff feels that it would be reasonable to
require that all buildings approved for commercial on
first floor or street/plaza level have the same uses
C that are permitted in Commercial Core I zoning. The
intent of this project has always been to create a
mixed use development. By adopting the CCI permitted
uses for the first floor, staff believes that the
.mix of commercial found in the Village and Lionshead
would be ensured. Another reason that the CCI uses
.are appropriate is that 3,800 square feet of
commercial is proposed adjacent to the bus stop in
the Waterford building. This commercial should not
be convenience type retail which. would encourage
people to park on Westhaven Drive shops for easy
pick-up of goods. The staff had a similar concern
with the Treetops commercial building. We feel that
the Waterford retail space could have the same
problems as Treetops if appropriate retail uses are
not determined.
GRFA: .Staff believes that the project's total GRFA
must come under the existing SDD's approved cap of
291,121 square feet except for the additional GRFA
requested for the Millrace IV 32 AU plan. We do feel
that the mix of accommodation units and dwelling
units is very positive as long as transient
residential units are not fractionalized. We support
the exclusion of GRFA for employee housing units.
25
Fractionalization:
Fractionalization will be applied only to Westhaven
and will be reviewed as a conditional use. The
interval should not be allowed to be less than 5
weeks to ensure a high quality project. The
conditional use process will require that customary
hotel services and facilities be provided if
fractional fee ownership is requested.
Special Attraction:
Staff supports the idea of the special attraction.
It is appropriate to review the proposal as a
conditional use.
Wellness Center:
Staff has no problem with the request of a wellness
center, as long as it is reviewed as a conditional
use so that parking impacts may be addressed. If the
space is developed as a small gymnasium or pool,
there would be no additional parking impact and,
therefore, we feel it can be considered to be a
permitted use.
First Floor~Office in Plaza Conference Center:
Although at face value this request may seem very
minor, staff feels strongly that the office should
not be approved. As has been stated in the memo, the
intent of Cascade Village was to create a mixed use
project similar to CCI and CCII. The CCI and CCII
zoning does .not allow offices on first floors. The
reason for this is to insure that retail is located
on the first floor to add activity and interest at
the street level.
To .approve the office would .also be precedent setting
and would mean that first floor office space could
also be requested for other projects, such as the
Gateway Special Development District or Vail Village
Inn Special Development District.
Room 2J CMC Building:
Staff supports the request to change the conference
space to a theatre or retail space as long as the
required parking is provided.
26
Employee Housing:
Employee housing should be a requirement for this
C project. We would ask that a minimum of 10 units be
provided having a minimum size of 640 square feet
including a full kitchen. The 10 units would have a
total minimum square footage of 6,400 square feet.
Out of the total 293,745 square feet, two percent or
6,400 square feet would be used for employee housing
units.
Presently, the Town does not have a formula for
calculating employees required for certain uses.
However, by using existing employee numbers and
making some assumptions which are conservative in
respect to numbers of employees, the following demand
could be expected:
Use
Westin Hotel (276 units)
Cascade Club
Clancy's
CMC
Number of Employees
285 Full-time
15 Full-time
50 Part-time
or 25 Full-time
4 Part-time
or 2 Full-time
12. Full-time
Office & Retail (54,973 sf)
(total commercial - 1,000 x 1.5)
Wellness Center
Cascade Theater
New AU or TR (445 units)
(.9 employees x # units - 250
of employees for overlap)
83 Full-time
4 Full-time
3 Full-time
300 Full-time
733 approx.
C
* These figures are also probably low given the fact
that if you look at other employee housing
requirements for Snowmass, Aspen and Breckenridge,
the employee number generated by this type of
development is higher.
Vail has taken pride in the fact that greater numbers
of people are now staying in our community and trying
27
to raise families or trying to establish themselves
professionally. It is often said that we have become
a maturing resort community. Our main concern for
C employee housing, is to improve the living situations
for many individuals working in Vail. However, this
concern also helps to stabilize the economic and
social base of our community. Astable employee bed
base is very important for a maturing community and
adds to stability in the work force.
Staff believes that 10 units is a nominal amount of
employee housing for the Cascade Village Development
to provide. We agree with the developer that some
type of an employee housing task force would also be
helpful. In addition, there are many things that the
Town could do to encourage dispersed employee
housing. Innovative planning is needed to establish
a housing council (as suggested by the developer),
to provide incentives to assure existing rentals
remain in the housing pool.
The employee housing problem is certainly not going
to be completely addressed by the Cascade Village
project. However, the staff does feels that the
development has a responsibility to provide a certain
number of units. In our request for 10 units, we
have tried to be reasonable and feel that this is not
an undue burden on the developer. We also believe
that trade-offs are in order due to the .amendments
that are being requested, particularly in respect to
the increased amount of. commercial square footage.
Density:
The mixed use nature of the project is very positive.
Essentially, Cascade Village has become the fourth
core. area for Vail. The developer .has proposed more
accommodation units and transient residential units
than are actually required under the approved SDD.
The number of dwelling units is actually lower than
what would be allowed. The balance of accommodation
unit use to dwelling unit use is very positive.
Staff does feel that the project's GRFA should be
decreased to the originally approved amount of
291,121 square feet. Basically, although a minimum
amount of GRFA is requested above what is allowed, we
feel that the request is not warranted. We feel that
the 2,658 square feet of extra GRFA could be taken
out of the Waterford project or Millrace IV (8 DU
plan) to help with the height problem. The only
additional GRFA tht is warranted is for the Millrace
IV 332 AU plan.
28
C C. COMPLIANCE WITH PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS AS
OUTLINED IN SECTION 18.52
The most accurate way to calculate parking given the
proposed development alternatives is to use the
alternative that has the greatest STRUCTURED parking
demand. Alternative 2 has the greatest structured
parking demand due to the number of AU/TRs.
MAXIMUM PARKING REQUIRED
RESIDENTIAL AU TR DU COMM STRUC. ON SITE
Cornerstone 50 48.1
Waterford 75 75
Westhaven 24 48
Millrace III 3 6
Millrace IV 32 26.8
COMMERCIAL
Cornerstone 29,065 166
Waterford 3,800 12.7
Room 2J Theatre 1,387 11.5
C C.Club Wellness Center 4,500. 22.5
Plaza Bldq Office* .7
Total 157 27 38,752 363.3 54
*Plaza space-has already been counted as .commercial. The
parking requirement is based on the difference between office
and retail parking requirements.
The project's parking has been calculated using all of the standard
parking requirements. All accessory hotel and ski uses have been
required to provide the full amount of parking.
* All parking for Cornerstone, Waterford, and Millrace IV (AU
Plan) shall be structured.
STRUCTURED PARKING CALCULATIONS
Existing Required Parking 422 spaces
Proposed Required Parking 364
Total 786
17.5% Credit - 137.5
Total Required Parking 649 spaces
Existing parking structure 421 spaces
Proposed parking sructure 228
Required parking 649 spaces
29
The developer proposes that the Waterford parking structure shall be
expanded if necessary to meet the parking requirements of various
C scenarios. Presently, the Waterford structure has 144 spaces. This
means that if the developer chooses to build Alternative 3, an
additional 84 spaces must be added to the structure. The total
maximum required parking for the proposed SDD is 649 spaces.
If the parking is not consolidated, the structures would be required
to contain:
Cascade Structure:
•Total parking required 422
10% credit - 42,2
Required spaces 380
Waterford Structure:
Total parking required 364
7.5% - 27.3
Required spaces 337
The total structured parking would be 717 spaces as opposed to 649
spaces if the structures are combined. This is a difference of 68
C spaces.
The developer is requesting that the two parking structures be
counted as one structure for the purpose of calculating the credit
_ for a multiple use parking structure.. Staff supports this request,
as Cascade Village is an intense mixed use project. It is reasonable
to assume that a guest staying at the Cornerstone will frequent the
retail shops, restaurants, and theatre located in Cascade Village.
The amount of crossover among the various uses in Development Area A
is very high.• For this reason, staff agrees that a 1.7.5% mixed use
credit is supportable.. (Please see letter from CMC concerning
parking at Cascade Village at the end of the memo.)
The developer is also requesting that common carrier parking be
deleted as an SDD requirement. Staff supports this request. It is
felt that this project should have the optioin to use the bus
parking at the Lionshead structure, as other projects also have this
right.
Additional loading delivery is necessary for Waterford.
c
30
C D. CONFORMITY WITH APPLICABLE ELEMENTS OF THE VAIL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, TOWN POLICIES AND URBAN DESIGN
PLANS
The staff agrees with the Environmental Impact Report
statement that the "proposal generally is compatible
with many of the goals and Town of Vail policy
documents listed below:"
Vail Land Use Plan:
The proposed amendments to SDD4 are consistent with
many of the goals of the Vail Land Use Plan.
Generally, the proposed special attraction use and
ski related accessory commercial uses accomplish the
overall goals of strengthening the balance of uses
within the community, improving and increasing base
skier facilities to keep pace with mountain expansion
and improving and enhancing year-round tourism.
Specifically, the proposal meets the following goals
of the Land Use Plan:
1. General Growth Development
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a
controlled environment, maintaining a
balance between residential, commercial or
recreational uses to serve both the visitor
and the permanent resident.
1.2 The quality of the environment including
air, water and other natural resources
should be protected as the Town grows.
1.3 The quality of development should be
maintained and upgraded whenever possible.
1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the
additional growth in existing developed
areas (infill areas).
2. Skier/Tourist Concerns
2.1 The community should emphasize its role as
a destination resort while accommodating
day visitors.
2.2 The ski area owner, the business community
and the Town leaders should work together
closely to make existing facilities and the
Town function more efficiently.
31
2.3 The ski area owner, the business community
and the Town leaders should work together
to improve facilities for day skiers.
C 2.4 The community should improve summer
recreational and cultural opportunities to
encourage summer tourism.
2.5 The community should improve non-skier
recreational options to improve year-round
tourism.
3. Commercial
3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in
existing commercial areas to accommodate
both local and visitor needs.
3.5 Entertainment oriented businesses and
cultural activities should be encouraged in
the core areas to create diversity. More
night time businesses, on-going events and
sanctioned "street happenings" should be
encouraged.
E. IDENTIFICATION AND MITIGATION OF NATURAL AND/OR
C GEOLOGIC HAZARDS THAT EFFECT THE PROPERTY UPON WHICH
.THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IS PROPOSED.
The Town of Vail hazard maps do not show that this
area is in an avalanche, rockfall or debris flow
area. Floodplain does effect some of the property
but no improvements are proposed for this area. All
buildings will maintain the 50' stream setback for
Gore Creek. Staff is requiring that l00 year
floodplain information be provided for the area along
the Waterford site as the site has been disturbed,
and existing floodplain data is no longer relevant.
F. SITE PLAN, BUILDING, DESIGN, AND LOCATION, AND OPEN
SPACE PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO PRODUCE A FUNCTIONAL
DEVELOPMENT RESPONSIBLE AND SENSITIVE TO NATURAL
FEATURES, VEGETATION, AND OVERALL AESTHETIC QUALITY
OF THE COMMUNITY.
In general, the site planning for the project is very
positive. The planning takes advantage of the Gore
Creek area by locating a recreational path along its
bank. The pedestrian arcades and plazas establish an
attractive area for pedestrians.
32
C Millrace IV•
The site plan for Millrace IV needs to be
consolidated so that an adequate open space buffer is
created between the proposed 8 dwelling units and the
hotel.
G. A CIRCULATION SYSTEM DESIGNED FOR BOTH VEHICLES AND
PEDESTRIANS ADDRESSING ON AND OFF SITE TRAFFIC
CIRCULATION.
On-site vehicular access is well designed. The
parking structures are easily accessible for vehicles
entering the project. The transit mall has been
planned to locate the bus stop in a manner that meets
all the needs of the .Public Works Department and is
also readily accessible for pedestrians. There is
also an adequate mini-van loading area adjacent to
the Cornerstone building. Staff would like to see
specifics on loading/delivery for the Waterford
building. We are concerned that loading and delivery
does not occur on Westhaven Drive, especially due to
the fact that 3,800 s.f. of retail is proposed for
this building.
Cascade Village is also designed well for pedestrian
circulation. The project has provided a recreational
path throughout the entire length of the property.
The location of the path takes advantage of the
beauty of the Gore. Creek area. The plaza designed
between the Cornerstone and Terrace buildings allows
for easy pedestrian circulation. A sidewalk will
also extend along the entire north side of the
Cornerstone building, past the conference center, and
down to Colorado Mountain College. Staff recommends
that the sidewalk from the Cascade Club be extended
along the north side of Westhaven Drive to meet the
recreational path.
In respect to off-site circulation, the acceleration
and deceleration lanes built by the developer are
very positive and necessary for the project. Staff
does feel that Cascade Village needs an additional
emergency access point in the event that access from
the South Frontage Road to Westhaven Drive is
blocked. It is reasonable to require that the
developer provide a break-away bollard for the
emergency access road that exists between Eagle
Pointe and the Glen Lyon Subdivision. We would also
recommend that the developer try to provide adequate
snow storage areas along Westhaven Drive.
33
H. FUNCTIONAL AND AESTHETIC LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE
IN ORDER TO OPTIMIZE AND IMPROVE NATURAL FEATURES,
RECREATION, VIEWS AND FUNCTIONS.
In general, Cascade Village has been designed by
using a concept of paved pedestrian plazas, formal
plantings, and water features. This approach is
compatible with the architecture.
Waterford•
The landscaping along the north and southeast
elevations must be substantial in order to minimize
the massiveness of the building. This concern should
be passed along to the Design Review Board.
The courtyard in the center of the Waterford building
is a positive improvement. Once again, the staff
would recommend that substantial materials be located
in the plaza to soften the building mass.
Cornerstone:
C A sidewalk and landscaping similar to .what is on the
north side of the Plaza conference center will also
be constructed on~the north :side of the Cornerstone.
It is our understanding that the developer has taken
into consideration .the snow shedding impacts on the
landscaping. On the south side of the building, the
conceptual landscape plan shows a plaza with a brick
. paver surface as well as-patio space, water features,
and large planting beds.
Although the plan is only at a conceptual level, the
staff feels that the design will be very positive.
We would suggest that the final design incorporate as
much green space as possible to soften the paved
plaza area to avoid too much of a hard surface area
as is evident in some areas of Lionshead. We also
think that seating should be incorporated into the
plaza. .Once again, large landscape materials are
needed to minimize the scale of the Plaza conference
center, Cornerstone, and Terrace Wing buildings.
Both the Cornerstone and Terrace Wing buildings have
ridge heights of 71 feet, which makes for massive
building facades. By using large landscape
materials, the pedestrian scale of the plaza will be
emphasized.
34
C Millrace IV•
As stated before, the eight dwelling unit plan for
Millrace IV must be consolidated. Area A functions
well in respect to open space, as it is adjacent to
Gore Creek and the recreational path. Staff does
believe that an open space area close to the urban
development in Area A will be valued by guests and
residents. We would suggest that Millrace IV be
planned with this concern in mind.
I. PHASING PLAN OR SUBDIVISION PLAN THAT WILL MAINTAIN A
WORKABLE, FUNCTIONAL AND EFFICIENT RELATIONSHIP
THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT.
The developer states:
"My best .estimate for projecting the time which
a building permit will be applied for on each of
the undeveloped parcels is as follows. Please
remember that achieving this schedule is
dependent on reasonably conducive financing
markets:"
C
1. Westhaven site - April 1989; completion 11/89
2. Waterford Parking Structure - July 1989;
completion 12/89
3. Millrace III - April 1989; completion 11/89
4. Cornerstone - April 1990; completion 10/91
5. Millrace IV - April 1990; completion 12/90
6. Waterford - April 1991; completion 10/92
The staff position is that a temporary certificate of
occupancy for any of the buildings relying on the
Waterford parking structure to meet parking needs
will not be released until the parking structure is
completed and ready to be used.
c
35
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
A. HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS
1. Natural Features:
We agree with the EIR statement that drainage
from the parking garages should be designed in a
manner which collects all silt and metal
discharges that might occur. It will also be
necessary that extra precautions be taken during
construction of the Waterford and Cornerstone
projects in order to prevent soil erosion into
the creek.
2. Man-made Features:
The many water features in Cascade Village
shall. be required to have an overflow storm
drain if the system exceeds capacity.
3. Water and Sewer:
Increased square footage in commercial is
creating an increased water demand. These
increases have been. reviewed by the Upper Eagle
Valley Water and Sanitation District and they
have been deemed acceptable.
C 4. Atmospheric Conditions:
The existing SDD4 has a maximum of 96 wood°
burning fireplaces that may be placed only in
dwelling units. Staff is strongly opposed to
allowing the A.U.'s and TR's to also have wood-
burning fireplaces. If the project is developed
using all the dwelling unit scenarios, 65
fireplaces could be added. This is a net
decrease of 25 fireplaces which is positive.
Air quality is probably one of the most highly
prized amenities of the Vail Valley. To approve
a request that would increase air pollution is
not appropriate. In addition, if this request
is approved, it would be difficult to deny other
property owners the same benefit.
5. Geologic Conditions:
Staff agrees that there are no impacts in this
area.
C
36
~ s.
Biotic Conditions:
Staff agrees that there are no impacts.
7. Noise impacts:
Staff agrees that there are no impacts.
8. Visual Conditions:
The previous section of the memo discussed our
concerns with visual impacts of the Waterford
buildings.
9. Land Use Conditions:
Please see the previous section of the memo
concerning uses and densities.
10. Circulation and Transportation:
We agree that the intersection modifications and
reduced speed limits along the South Frontage
Road are adequate to handle the traffic from
Development Area A. We also believe the
installation of the transit facility is a very
positive and necessary improvement to the
project. We support the idea of having a
traffic attendant in the transit mall to
regulate shuttle buses and cars if necessary.
11. Loading and Delivery:
Staff feels that more information is needed on
loading and delivery of trash areas for the
Waterford Area. Two enclosed loading spaces of
720 s.f. are provided for the Cornerstone
Building off of Westhaven Drive.
12. Parking: Please see the section of the memo
relating to parking.
In summary, the. main environmental impact from the
proposed amendments to Development Area A is the
additional air pollution from the fireplaces for dwelling
units and transient residential units. The EIR confirms
that additional air pollution will occur and we recommend
that this request be denied.
37
i
VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of the amendments proposed
C for SDD4 with the following conditions:
1. Wood burning fireplaces shall only be allowed for
dwelling units. The number of wood burning
fireplaces allocated to dwelling units shall not
exceed the number approved under the existing Special
Development District 4.
2. The existing first floor retail space in the Plaza
conference building shall not be converted to a real
estate office.
3. The restricted dwelling unit or transient residential
dwelling unit shall meet all of the requirements
outlined in the definition in Section IIB.
4. The Millrace IV development plan shall be approved
for the 32 accommodation units having a total GRFA of
14,000 square feet. The Millrace IV development plan
for 8 dwelling units having a GRFA of 14,000 square
feet shall not be approved.
5. The fractional fee use shall be approved as a
conditional use for the dwelling units within
Westhaven building with a condition that the minimum
C ownership interval be five weeks.
b. .Ten employee housing units as.defined in S-ection IIL
shall be provided by the developer.
7. First floor Commercial Core I zoning shall be applied
to all first floor spaces of buildings having
commercial uses within Development Area. A. The first
floor or street level shall be defined as that floor
of the building that is located at grade or street
level.
8. The-total allowed GRFA for the project shall be
293-,745 square feet only if the Millrace IV 32
accommodation plan is utilized. This allows for an
increase of 2,624 square feet of GRFA over the
allowable. If the Millrace IV 8 dwelling unit plan
-is used, the GRFA shall be 11,270 square feet for the
8 DUs. The total allowable GRFA for the project if
the Millrace IV 8 dwelling unit plan is used shall be
290,945 square feet.
9. The Environmental Impact Report shall be updated
before the amendment requests are presented to the
Town Council. The Environmental Impact Report shall
be submitted two weeks before the date of the first
reading of the ordinance by the Town Council. The
38
updating of the EIR is required due to the many
changes that have been made to the proposal.
10. The ownership entity for Development Area A shall
enter into an agreement outlining the conditions that
relate to the restricted dwelling units or transient
residential units and restricted employee housing
units.
11. All water features within Development Area A shall
have overflow storm drains per the recommendation in
the Environmental Impact Report.
12. The developer shall be responsible for providing a
break-away bollard for the emergency access road
between Eagle Pointe and Westhaven Drive. This
improvement shall be constructed when a building
permit is requested for the Cornerstone, Millrace III
or IV, Westhaven or Waterford buildings. The bollard
shall be included in the permit plans.
13. The developer shall construct a sidewalk that begins
at the entrance to the Cascade Club along Westhaven
Drive and extends to the west in front of the
Westhaven building to connect with the recreational
path to Donovan Park. The walk shall be constructed
when a building permit is requested for Westhaven.
The sidewalk shall be part. of the building permit
plans.
14. The developer shall provide 1.00 year flood plain
information for the area adjacent to the Waterford
building and Cornerstone building before building
permits. are released.
15. All required parking for the Cornerstone, Waterford
and Millrace IV (32 A.U.) buildings shall be provided
within one of the parking structures. A temporary
certificate of occupancy shall not be released for
.any of these projects until the structured parking is
available.
The following comments are strong recommendations which
the staff feels should be passed along to the Design
Review Board:
1. Substantial landscaping should be required for the
Waterford Building, particularly on the north and
creek side elevations.
2. Substantial landscaping should
Cornerstone plaza to soften the
much as possible.
be required in the
paved plaza areas as
39
3. The mass and bulk of the bridge connection between
the two buildings that comprise Cornerstone should be
decreased as much as possible to open up the view of
C the mountain from the transit mall.
4. The floor plans for the Waterford building should
indicate clearly enclosed trash and loading areas.
40
COLORADO MOUNTAIN COLLEGE
~` August 25, 1988
Kent Rose, Mayor
and the Vail Town Council
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd.
Vail, CO 81658
Dear Mr. Rose-and Town Council Members:
It is my understanding that Andy Norris has recently proposed additions and/or
changes to the Cascade Village development and is seeking Town of Vail approval
of those changes. I do not know the specifics of the proposal, but am aware
that changes in the current parking requirements are included.
As you may know, Colorado Mountain College has been concerned about the
adequacy of parking at Cascade Village for some time and now, after five
years of operation, some of our concerns have been confirmed. For example,
on two occasions this summer, June 14-17 and August 5-9, the Westin Hotel has
hosted conferences for organizations from Colorado and surrounding States.
Because of the distances, most attendees drove to Vail, and the combined public
and private (Westin Hotel) parking was not adequate to handle their guests
plus Cascade Club users and CMC students. The Westin Hotel was cooperative
in providing bus service from the parking structures during the August conference,
but the frustration and inconvenience were not well received by our students.
The Westin notified us early this week that. between August 25th and 30th, we
may experience a parking shortage once again. Apparently a conference and a
tennis classic at the Cascade Club will fill the Hotel to capacity and additional
guests will be coming from other local lodges. Most guests will be driving in
and it is anticipated that there will not be sufficient parking for all of the
Hotel guests and our users.
Although I cannot. .provide specific dates, we experienced a similar shortage
of parking at least once last summer due to large conferences. Additionally,
last winter Cascade Club use was extensive, CMC enrollments were high and as
a result, the parking structure was frequently filled to capacity. Day and
evening users are overlapping more often now and it is the hope of all businesses
here that during the winter months skiers will stay to shop and eat, potentially
compounding an existing problem.
CMC does not have user numbers for either of the parking structures, but is
attempting to get all available numbers from the Westin and Vail Ventures.
We will also be conducting an informal "count" several times a day for the
next 2-3 months to get a more accurate picture of the parking structure usage.
As we compile the data, we will keep you informed.
VAIL COMMUNITY EDUCATION
VAIL~LEARNING CENTER •1310 WESTHAVEN DRIVE •VAIL, CO 81657 • (303) 476-4040
,+~
,~'-
With the completion of the Westin's conference facilities and a tightening
of parking in Vail and Lionshead due to mountain expansion and resultant
increased skier numbers, we anticipate that the Cascade Village structures
will be insufficient to handle the users.
At this time, I respectfully request that you review Andy's proposal with
a careful eye toward ensurance of adequate parking. None of us can operate
successfully -here without parking and current information indicates we are
already on the short side. Further development without additional parking
could cause the demise of businesses here, including Colorado Mountiin College.
Although I will be on sabbatical leave from August 30, 1988 until September 1,
1989, Jim Olson, Interim Center Director, Vail, and Dr. Bob Evans, Executive
Dean, will be available to work with you if the need arises. And thank you,
in advance, for your consideration of our concern, and please feel free to
call upon Colorado Mountain College as you review Mr. Norris' proposal.
Sincerely,
Kay Sau sherry
Center irector
cc: Dr. Bob Evans, CMC
Jim Olson, CMC
Kristin Prig, TOV
KS/ j c
c
PEC minutes 10/10/88
C 3. Request to amend Special Development District 4, Area A,
Cascade Village.
Applicant: Vail Ventures, Ltd.
Kristan Pritz presented the staff memo on the request. She
described the background on the Cascade Village Development.
The presentation followed the format of the memo. The staff
recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the Special
Development District 4, Area A with conditions as outlined in
the memo. During the meeting, staff added the following
notations to the list of conditions:
1. In respect to condition 8:
The difference in GRFA for the total project
{existing) 291,121 s.f. and the (proposed) 8 d.u.
Millrace plan scenario of 290,945 s.f. is 176 s.f.
The 176 s.f. may be applied to Westhaven so that the
developer does not lose development rights.
2. In respect to Condition 15:
The Waterford structure when built will trigger the
development plan for Millrace IV. This means that
the accommodation unit or dwelling unit plan must be
selected before the Waterford structure could be
built. This is due to the fact that parking for
Millrace IV is located in the Waterford structure.
3. In respect to Condition 15:
The parking structure will have pollution control
mechanisms.
4. New Condition #16:
Erosion control methods will be used during
construction of the Waterford and Cornerstone
buildings to avoid impacts on the stream.
Andy Norris, representing Vail Ventures, Ltd., responded to the
conditions of the staff approval.
1. Andy felt he was entitled to the 96 fireplaces and
stated that it was important to provide the
fireplaces in transient residential units and
dwelling units up to his maximum amount.
2. He wanted to have the office space. He agreed that
Commercial Core I zoning was appropriate for first
floor space as long as he could have the one office
space in the Plaza Conference Building.
s
C 3. Okay!
4. He felt that this was a site planning issue and that
the Design Review Board could work out the site plan
for the dwelling unit scenario for Millrace IV.
5. & 6. & 7. Okay!
8. He wanted 293,745 square feet of GRFA for the
completed project.
9. & 10. & 11. Okay!
12. Andy said that he had a fundamental disagreement with
this requirement as he felt that the developer of
Eagle Pointe should be responsible for the bollard.
The bollard was an original requirement of the Eagle
Pointe project which was not followed through with by
the developer.
13. Okay!
14. Andy agreed to provide floodplain and stream
centerline information for Waterford. He felt that
if the staff wanted the 100-year floodplain
C information updated for this stretch of stream that
it was the Town's responsibility to contact the Flood
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to request that
this work be completed.
15. & 16. Okay!
In respect to the Design Review Board recommendations, Andy
agreed with points 1, 2 & 4, but did not agree that point 3
should be passed on to the Design Review Board. His opinion is
that the bridge connection between the two buildings in the
Cornerstone project is very appropriate.
Peggy Osterfoss asked if the Commercial for Cascade Village
would be similar to Lionshead and/or the Village. Andy
responded that yes, it would be similar. He said that
basically the amount of retail is limited by the amount of
parking he could provide. Peggy stated that she felt parking
was a big issue due to the impacts of the Colorado Mountain
College, and lift. She felt that the lift will impact parking
in a way that would be difficult to ascertain.
Andy responded that valet parking is used on extremely busy
days and will be necessary in the future. Peggy stated that
C she felt that it was unfair that the developer lose his maximum
amount of fireplaces for the project.
Bryan Hobbs felt that the number of fireplaces should be based
on a dwelling unit count. He supported all the other staff
conditions. He stated that he was unsure about the emergency
bollard issue. He felt that the mass and bulk of the bridge
connection on the Cornerstone building was fine.
Diana Donovan did not see how the project would work for
circulation. Andy Norris explained how the general circulation
for pedestrians and vehicles worked. He stated that the
covered bridge to the club is, important and should be used.
The Cascade Club covered entry by the bridge is also a space
that can be used for drop-offs. Andy agreed that better
management of the drop-off and pick-up areas in the project is
necessary. He explained to Diana that drop-off by the CMC
building is allowed and that the Westin plaza area had been
specifically designed to allow for cars to flow in and out of
this area. Diana asked how trash would be handled. He stated
that all projects will have interior trash compactors.
Diana suggested that benches and bike racks be added to the
Westin, CMC and Cascade Club areas. Diana said that the office
may be nice but that Andy could not have it both ways.
C In respect to the Millrace IV plan,
supported the 32-accommodation plan
additional square footage could be
being devoted to lodge rooms.
Diana said that she
and that she agreed that
allowed due to the area
She stated that she did not have any problem with the bridge
connection on the Cornerstone building.
Sidney Schultz questioned why it would not be more appropriate
to change the definition of an accommodation unit to allow for
a kitchen as opposed to putting restrictions on a dwelling unit
to create the transient residential unit. Kristan Pritz
responded that the staff had discussed this issue with the Town
Attorney, Larry Eskwith. She stated that he and the staff felt
that it was a more logical approach to restrict dwelling units
instead of creating a new definition for an accommodation unit.
The definition of a dwelling unit and an accommodation unit is
based primarily on whether or not the unit has a kitchen. To
change this approach could have unknown ramifications on how
density is calculated for projects throughout the community.
Sidney stated that he felt fireplaces should be limited to
dwelling units only and perhaps allocate fireplaces on a
building by building basis.
Pam Hopkins was concerned about the Frontage Road landscaping
and fireplace .number. She was concerned that the north facade
4
C along the Waterford building would be more like a wall. Andy
stated that they were trying to get away from the Interstate
due to the negative impacts I-70 has on the project. Pam liked
the requirement for the bollard. She also felt comfortable
with the office space in the plaza conference wing.
She was concerned about snow/shedding problems and felt that
the architects needed to look at this issue closely. She
suggested using snow guards. Andy stated that they are using a
combination of snow guards and protection for pedestrians to
avoid the snow/shedding problem.
Jim Viele stated that there were excellent points made on both
sides of the issue .concerning the fireplaces. He felt that it
was a difficult issue to decide. He was open to allowing some
fireplaces for certain transient residential units and was
willing to look at some kind of compromise on the issue. He
agreed that the first floor office space should be allowed.
The use exists in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II. He
felt that a small amount of office space on first floor was
justifiable.
In respect to the Millrace IV 8-dwelling unit plan, he agreed
with staff that additional work needed to be done on the site
planning for this proposal.
C In respect to the GRFA for the project, he agreed with the
staff's condition in number 8. This would require that the
GRFA for the project, if Millrace IV (8-dwelling unit plan) is
used, would be 290,945 square feet. If the Millrace IV 32-
accommodation plan is utilized, then the total project GRFA
would 293,745 square feet. He agreed with the staff amendment
to this condition which stated that the difference in GRFA of
176 square feet could be applied to the Westhaven property.
Jim felt that the bollard was a reasonable off-site improvement
given the magnitude of the project.
Jim felt the bridge connection on the Cornerstone project was
not a big concern. He felt that the bridge connection was
important to the architecture for the building. He stated that
the view up to the mountain is already very nice.
Kristan Pritz pointed out that the office could go on the
second floor of the Cornerstone building and still be very
accessible to walk-in traffic. The location is adjacent to the
stairway down to the lift. She also pointed out that
fireplaces in Denver had been cited as a major contributor to
the air pollution problem. She also stated that it would be a
special privilege to allow Andy to have fireplaces in units
other than dwelling units. She also reiterated the need for
the bollard due to the size of the project and concern for
adequate emergency access.
5
Peggy Osterfoss stated that she felt that support of the office
C was a good trade-off for requiring Andy to add the bollard.
Diana Donovan made a motion to approve the project per the
staff memo with the following amendments:
1. Condition #2 - The office space would be allowed to
be located in the Plaza Conference building.
2. Condition #4 - The 32-accommodation unit plan is
acceptable. The 8-dwelling unit plan is denied.
Square footage for the 8 dwelling unit is only
approved to be 11,200 square feet, the original
approved GRFA. She stated that Andy may submit a
plan before the project is presented to the Town
Council for staff approval. The plan is to allow for
adequate open space between Millrace IV and the
Westin. She felt that it was also acceptable to
allow the additional GRFA of 176 square feet to be
applied to the Westhaven property.
3. She moved that the concern over the bridge connection
in the Cornerstone building be removed from the
comments passed on to the Design Review Board.
The motion was seconded by Pam Hopkins. The motion passed
unanimously.
4. A work session on the request for a conditional use for an
addition to the hospital.
5. A work session on the Glen Lyon Office Building, includin
the micro-brewery.
6
Planning and Environmental Commission
November 14, 1988
3:00 PM
SITE VISITS
2:00 PM
1 1. A request for exterior alteration in
Commercial Core I for the Hong Kong Cafe.
Applicant: Phil Hoversten
2 2. A request for side and front setback
variances and for a site coverage variance
in order to construct an addition to a
residence on Lot 3, Bighorn Estates.
Applicant: Robert and Harriet McCue
3. A request for an amendment to the Vail
Municipal Code to allow bed and breakfast
short term lodging in Single Family,
Primary/Secondary and Duplex zone districts
and setting forth applicable regulations.
Applicant: Town of Vail
4. A work session on alternative dump sites,.
snow melt machines and erosion control for
Ford Park parking lot.
Stan Berryman
5. Consideration to cancel December 26th PEC
meeting.