HomeMy WebLinkAboutLiftside Condos & Cornerstonel SENT BY:^"L-;12-o ?-s4 i 2:3BPit i NELSON &303 a?9 ?453:$ r
t
R.A. NELSON
&essocrATEs/ rNc.IEe
FAX COVEN SHEET
rFYOU ltAVErRANSMtSStOt{ ?n@LtMS, prGASt LGT trs KNOW. r}tANt(st
OAT&
IO:
COilTPANY:
D str 71 199{
FAX NUMB*
FIOM:
47!L,1S43 , PHONE NUMBtk
tthdy Me[o
NUMBTR of PAGES (ltrlClUDlNG Cove8l / 7-
BEMAIIGT
firn:
T;t
At this tine RA. Nelson & associmes is arubipating reqresting a Temporary Certlficffi cfoocupancy for the tifride project in cascade village on Friday December g, lgg4. Iwanbdto cstfirn $atwe have zubmitted all of the required documefts and thatthey have
been executed to the Town's satisfaction.
There arc two written docun€nts relaled to the SDD approval that ha\re not been executed
which are the bus stop easerneflt between MECM Enterprises and the Town and ttre
pedestrian easement between the Town and the.swner"s of the comentone property. Both
of fiese documents are in the prclcess of being devetoped bv ttre Tsrvn- while charlh
Davis har listed these the ocecution of thes€ easenenb'as a condition of hB approval for-
a T.C.O. for the property, I have discussed the issue with Creg Hall. Topn Engineer, and
he has agreed to wairre this condition should tlp Town not haw the docunrene ready for
execution. As MEgh,l Enterprises only has control of the tifbide FroFerty, the en only bd
responsible for dre scecutiiin of the-bus *op easement. Thev'hane aireeu reruafly tq
granting this easement and will sign the necessary docunrent as thsy beconre available.-i-,
P.O. tugli/w 5400 . Avsr, Colord 8164) . 303-9i9-51 5? . cs AE ?49-4379
sE'{T EY:
att-
?-s4 i 2:3?Pn NELSoN + ^:)-803 /r?9 ?45a;* e
P4e 2, J. Curnutte
Should you or any other departrnent at the Torrn need any further infonnation that would
impact the issuance of a T.C.O. on Friday, December 9, please contact either myself or Rick
Agett immedialely so that we rnay prod iE noaestxrry.
ThankYqr for all ofyourhelp and cooperation.
cc: Fred Otto, MECM
Ric* ABBtt, RANA
GregHall, TOV
552229 8-656 P-19{i Lr/30/94
Sara J. Fisher Eagle County04:11P PG 1 qF 4Clerk & Recorder
REC20.00
t CONVEYANCE OF PUBIJIC ACCESS EASEIi{ENT FOR PEDESTRIANS AND ROADWAY
THIS EASEMENT is granted as of November 17 , L994, byL-O WESTHAVEN, INC., a Coloiado corporatj-A (t,crantort) to VAIL-
ASSOCIATES, INC., a Colorado Corporation, and the CASCADE VILLAGE
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, a guasi-municipal Colorado corporation(herein col-lectively referred to as trGranteestt).
WTTNESSETH:crantor is the owner of certain real property (therrPropertyrr) l-ocated in the Town of Vail, county of Eagle, Stateof Colorado. Grantees desire to obtain an easement over theProperty for use in connection with the operation of a ski liftto be known as the rrCascade Lifttt. For good and valuableconsideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are herebyacknowledged, Grantor hereby se11s and conveys to each Grantee anon-exclusive perpetual easement and right-of-way (therrEasementrr) overr across, above (to a maximum height of twelvefeet above ground 1evel ) and over that portion of the Propertydescribed in Exhibit rutrr, attached hereto and incorporated hereinby this reference, (a) for pedestrian and vehicular access by thegeneral publie reasonably relating to the pursuit of skiing andskiing-related activities on Vail Mountaj-n, including but notlimited to ingress and egress between public roads or rights ofway and the Vail" Ski Area, and (b) for use by either of theGrantees, their agents, employees. invitees, successors andassigns, to the extent reasonably necessary or convenient inconnection with the or,rnership or operation of the Cascade Lift.Neither Grantee, however, shall exercise any rights hereunderwhich unreasonably interfere with the right of the other Granteeto own, operate, and maintain the Cascada Lift and to exerciseother functions reasonably related thereto.
Grantor reserves the right to grant other interests inthe property comprising the Easement, provided, however, that therights granted thereby shall not unreasonably interfere with therights granted herein.
Grantor shall not construct or allow the constructionof any improvements on or over the Easement at a height lowerthan twelve feet in order to ensure sufficient headroom forpedestrian and vehicular passage. Grantor shall not cause, norshall it permiL any of its agents or contractors to perform, dDyactivity within the Easement that would violate any governmentalregulations, including but not limi-ted to Forest Serviceregulations pertaining to the operation of the Cascade Lift or
mt-t'i
,-t,
the use of the Easement by the general public in the pursuit ofskiing or skiing-reLated activities on Vail Mountain.
ShouLd Grantees cease operation of the cascade T,ift forfive consecutive years, then the lignts granted to Grantee underthis conveyance shall terminate and the Easement shall revert toand be thereafter merged with the then owner of the Property.Grantor, its successors or assigns, may record a statement tothis effect (which such statement may be based sole upon ttreinformation and belief of the party signing it) , and whenrecorded sha11 constitute prirna facia evidence of the truth ofthe matters stated therein.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said Easement and right-of-way untoGrantees and their successors and assigns. Each Granteers rightsunder the Easement and right.-of-riray hereby granted may beassigned by such Grantee, its successors or assigns, to any partyentitled to own or operate the Cascade Lift, and shall run withand be a burden upon the Property, subject to the provisions fortermination contai-ned herein.
Grantor warrants that it has full right and authorityto execute this Conveyance of Easenent and to create the Easementherein provided, with the effect that either Grantee (its
successors and assigns) shall have the 1ega1 rights as set forthherein.
EXECUTED as of the date first set forth above.
L-O WESTHAVEN, rNC.,a Colorado corporation
By:
NamTit
1b
t.{
Peter R. Or ff
Sr- Vice Pre
552229 8-656 P-196 tLIIO/94 04:ttp pc z oF4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
ss.
On Novenber 17 , L994, before me, apersonally apfearea@ n.-ir."ff"notary public,
*, personallyknown to me
'erri+ence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the withininstrument and acknowledged to me that: executed the same in
@h€r-€uthorized capacity, and that by @lh*=-*ignature on theinstrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of r,shich tbeperson acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.(seal)
552229 B-656 P-196 Ll/30/94 04:1lP PG 3 oF4
r1.i
Iffi\ ffii:f$l$
etrrffii*',Kfi€li6""d*ll#"
I \l&tzt'rv comm. Expir$ ltltAR 28. i997
EXHIBIT 'A'
PROPEHTT DESCBIPTION
ghat part of the 51{1,/4 NEf/4 Sectlon 12, lorner}rip 5 South, lant;81 WEat of thc S$stb Prlnclpal t{eridlan, lcnra of VaLl, Eeg1eCouty, Colorado, doacrlbed ac f,ollolra:
Eejlnalaf at a goLat on tha aouthmly right-of-way line of a
Snrecl &nosn ae Weathavcn Drtvs Additioa whsncc al j.ron gLn wlthplaatlc cap aaetslng thc ccattr of rald Scctlon L2 bcarsS{O'50'18..W !31?.53 lcct; tbcncs, dcprrtlnS cald ritht-of-way11u.s, N52'43'41'B 86.59 fact to lrcLd rllht-of,-wey lim; thcacg,along raLd llne' 7{.O5 feet along tba arc of a noa-tanjrnt survcto thc rltht, havlal a redLuc of 55.00 fact, a ccntral an8lc of77'0,8'43", rrrd a chord tbat bearc S52'43'41"W 68.59 frct to thrPolnt Of Bsgltuin5, contalnlng 581.9 cEu:rrc f,act, Eorc or lcga.
D&at f/,y'rr
!l
tl'-lrl
Start
552229 8-656 p-196 U/B\/C4 04:1tp pG 4 oF 4
7; -^oo oo
75 Sautb Frontagc Road
Vzil, Colorado 816J7
i 0 j -47 9 - 2 1 t I / FAX 30 3 -4? 9 -2 t 66
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Departrncnt of Public lllorkt/Tran sporta t ion
MEMORANDUM
R.A. NELSON, R]CK AGETT, DAVTD SHRIENER, DAN STANEK
(TOV), JrM CURNUTTE (TOV)
CHARLIE DAVIS, TOWN OF VAIL CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR
NOVEMBER 29,1994
TCO FOR LIFTSIDE
These are the last iiems required to be completed before a TCO will be released by the
Town of Vail Public Work's Depadment:
1) All easement agreemenis to be complete including easements for pedestrian
access and Town of Vail bus shelter.
Z) A letter stating that a one year warranty will be given on the bike path. Warranty
willstart the day a TCO is issued.
3) All staging and parking must occur on Liftside property only. All sidewalks and the
enlrance to project must remain open for access.
4) All landscaping on south side ol bike path must be bonded, including the removal-
of temporary Qus shetter pad and resodding. -Some drainage work is also needed
on the nofih side of bike path . Include this in the bonding process.
S) We also reserve the right to reinspect projecl in the spring, maybe requiring more
work. At this time most of the project is covered with snow, making inspection of
drainage and right-of-ways most difficult.
All other work has been completed to the Public Work's satisfaction. This has been a
challenging project and without everyone's cooperation it would never been completed.
Thank you,
Charlie Davis, Construction lnspector
EOUE
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION BEOUIBED
ltL
Destination Hotels & Resorts, lnc.
I1777 San Vicente Boulevarcl. Suite 900
Los Angeles, California 90049
Telephone: (3lO) 820-6661
FAX: (3rO) ZO7- l r32
November 18, 1994
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Senior Planner
Town of Vail Community Development Office
75 South Frontage Roac
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mr. Curnutte:
Per your request we have revised the easement regarding the Cornerstone & Liftside Properties
that we sent to you on September 30, 1994. In that regard, enclosed please find the Conveyance
of Public Access Easement for Pedestrians and Roadway.
We have previously signed the plat on the condition that the written easement is recorded prior
to the recording of the plat and that no changes are made to the plat before its recording. We
do not approve the recording of the map if either of these two conditions afe not met.
Please return, in the enclosed envelope, the document entitled "Conveyance of Public Access
Easement for Pedestrians" that is dated September 30, 1994-
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Lowe, Jr.
Vice President
RIL/ss
Enclosures
*?u'**
oo-rt 9r..'4.1 Sd,,r rwP\+$Jr--b'
A Lowe Enterprises Company
il o
LE COPY
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2 I 38 / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303-479-2452
August 9, 1994
Deparunent of Comnunity Development
Mr. Danny Swertferger
Gwathmey Pratt Schuliz
1000 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Liftside revised grading plan
Dear Mr. Swerlferger:
As you requested, this letter shall serve as written notification that your regrading plan for the
southeastern corner of the Liftside project has been reviewed and approved by myself and
Greg Hall, Town of Vail Engineer. The staff's only concern with the proposed plan are the
notes which say that regrading will be "as close to 2:1 as possible". Town of Vail's regulations
require that any regrading be laid back no steeper than 2:1. lf an area needs to be steeper
than 2:1, it must be in the form of retaining walls.
With the above-noted exception, staff approves your regrading plan. lf you should have any
questions or cornments, please feel lree to give me a call al 479-2138.
Sincerely,A-: r -11\,pl".u Ur/ut *.diL-)
t/
Jim Curnufte
Senior Planner
xc: Greg Hall
File
WJn 7rn ,trrr1,n,,
!^^t f, , "4Ala tt?
o
August 1, 1994
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Town of Vail Community Development
11 1 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
Fe : Uftside project
Dear Jim:
Attached please find our plan for regrading the east end of the Liftside Project, This plan
is a response to Greg Hall's concerns regarding the plan I submitted to him on 7-21-54.
To the best of my knowledge this addresses all of his concerns.
lf the attached plan meets with your and his approval, I would appreciate a written
response as soon as is possible. The General Contractor would like to schedule this work
to start immediately.
Please call me if you have any questions or require additional information,
Sincerely,
oo
f - rAfeq , .flet re,-ct-t hJ/ ./',
- f,kasz/.^tt ryq_
t *^,ne-liqA7 {o s-(dateo ^3, iG g* outt
f* ., a Ce ovt rrr^-C,alV-k
August 1, 1994
Mr, Jim Curnutte
Town of Vail Community Development
11 1 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
Re : Llftside project
Dear Jim:
Attached please find our plan for regrading the east end of the Liftside Project' This plan
is a responseto Greg Hall's concerns regarding the plan lsubmitted to him on7'21'94.
To the best of my knowledge this addresses all of his concerns.
lf the attached plan meets with your and his approval, I would appreciate a written
response as soon as is possible. The General Contractor would like to schedule this work
to start immediately.
Please call me if ycu have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
GWATHMEY PRATT S
(__wlre
o
STATE O
a
FCOLORADO
DEPAFTIIIENT OF TRAT{5PORTATION
6{E gordr t{n$ Sb.ot
Grard Jrhrtitn, Colof|do S t 50t
F03)44&78fl)
Nov. 3, 1994
Henry Ptatt
Gwathney, Pratt Schultz
1000 S. Ftontage Rd'
Uest Vail' C0. 81657
{oLAqI
llr. Pratt
AfLer revleving your landscaging proposal I see no probleus. Thetefore this is
to allo* landscaping on C.D.O.T. Rlght of lfay'
The Colorado Departuent of Transportation Reserves the Rtght to teminate thts
igreesent at any ttse. At, such tine the PfoPerty fi.neE t.ill ba required to
plaee landscape area back, eg closely as possible, Co lts otlginal conditlon'
ir to a condilton agreed upon by lsnd dtner & The Coloredo Dep*rtoent of-
.
Transportatlon Hainienance-$uperlntendent, ln llainterrsnce Seetion 2t or hls
Representative .
Vcry ?ruly Yours'
t'llchael E.
ftr-v. Mtce.Sugervlsor I
#""T"14
ff- :,;.rr- ?pFrirs+tiilfz srmHflEIS,F.C.-q\i
SENT BY:
d-17-e4
;12!17"M ;BIGI-E f-rT g4g77I3i# L/ L
Pagc IRoport Dete: 1Or17194 EAGLE COUNTY TREAIiURER
CERTIFICATE OF TN(ES DUE
OFDER N0: LINDA W
VENDOR NO:
STA/VART T]TLE
SCHEDULE NO: R030331
ASSESSED TO:
MECM ENTERPRISES, LTD. % OTTO FREOERICK
PO BOX 3149
vArL, co 81658
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
SECT,TWN,RNG: TMCT: DESC:PCIIN SEC/TWN/FNG: 1 2-5-81 SWI /4NE
114 AftIA MANSFIELD PARCEL
DESC: BK-O577 PG-O215 PTD 0.8-(}8-92 B K-0578 PG-0294 PTD O4-O8-92
CLASS: O2OO ASSD vAL: 38339O
PRE:R030788 AND/THRU: TO:
PARCEL:210312100019 SITUS ADD:ootooo W FRONTAGE RD VAIL
TAX YEAB
1993
TOTAL TN(ES
TAX ATIOUNT
0.00
INT AMOUNT
o.00
ADV,PEtf.MISC
0,00
TOTAI DUE
0.oo
0.oo
ASSESSMEIIT
TOTAT ASMT
ASMT AilOUtttT INT AilOUilT ADV,PEIT,MISC TOTAT DUE
0.00
TOTAL DUE
0.00
CERTIFICATE
TOTAL CERT
CERT AMOUNT INT AMOUNT REDEMPT FEE
GRAT{D TOTAL DUE GOOD THROUGH 1O/31/S4 0.00
ORIGII{AL TAX BILIIUG FOR 1993
Alhofity
EAGLE COUNTY
cMc
REsOJ SCHOOL
TOWN OF VAIL
MINTUBN CEMETERY DISTRICT
VAIL PARK & RECREATION DIS
CASCADE VILLAGG METRO DIS
UPPER EAGLE VALLEY SANITA
COLORADO RIVER WATER CO
VAIL WATER DISTRICT
VAiL VALLEY CONSOUDATED
UPPER EAGLE VALLEY CONSO
EAGLE COUNI'Y fMERGENCY S
FEE FOR THIS CERTIFICATE
Mill Lovy
10.o18
3.997
28.306
6.200
o,o27
1.321
27.395
2,622
0-394
o.ooo
1.334
o.7M
1.163
Amount
3840-?9
1532,41
10852.24
2377.02
r o.35
506.46
10502.97
1005.25
1Sr.06
o.oo
511.44
269.91
448.14
83-487
TAX LIEN SALE AMOUNT IS SUBJECT TO CHAIIIGE DUE TO ENT'ORSEMENT OF THE CU;IHENT 'IAX BY CEFT OF PUBCHASE HOLDER.
AFTER SEPT, 1. FERSONAL PROP, & MOBILE HOI/E AMOUNT IS SUBJECT TO CHAIiIGE. AFTER OCT. 1 REAL FROP.TAX AMOUNT
IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE.PLEASE CONTACT THE TFEASUBEFS OFFICE FOR CORRECT AMOUNT PFIOR TO REMITTII'IG.
SFECTAL TAXING DISTRICTS AND THE BOUNDARIES OF SUCH DISTRICTS MAY BE ON FILE WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THE COUNTY CLERK, OR THE COUNfi ASSESSOR.
Ttis cortifiooto door not Includo land or lmprovomanlt ossasg€d under e reporetc eqhodule numbst, Pgrsonel PtoDony tax€t'
r.ansfor t€x or misc, t6r coll€at3d on bohalf of o*ter.ndri.e, spocial ot loc€l imptorrsmant dlslalol arcas*monts of
mdbllo honcs, unloss sprulflcslly maniiono.l.
l, tha und€r9ioned, do herebv oanifv lhst thr Fntito
propoty arrJ oll outetanding caloe lor urpeid terra
dua uDon tho abovo do$cdbad patcsls ot roitl
in my offioe from whioh lho iams Inay
rtill ba rodoomcd with tho .mount roquirod for
s€t my ha||d and sool this 10117194,
In ritnarB wh.r1of, I hgvs har6u||to
ra
TREASURER, EA6IE COUNTY, SHERRY
Fogt-lt' brand iax lransminal m€mo 7671
32008.08
10.00
folp.F ) |
"T;JoWiffi"m,F'"^'lPees
*'#uu)or+Tiflp__Go(;(n*"8
Depl.n*n'EiE-rN6CI"
R.A. NELSON
&assoctATEs, tNc.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kristan PritzFROM: Rick AgettDATE: July 26, 1994
. RE: Bike Path Landscaping at Liftside
We will provide the following along the south side of the, bike path:
1. A two foot wide shoulder.
2. Five planting beds will be established along the path from the large evergreen
at the west end to the large boulder at the east. No boulders will be removed,
but planting beds will be established, 12" of topsoil added, and seven 5-gallon
shrubs will be planted in each bed. Shrubswill be peryour memo of May 19,
1994, Woods Rose, Twinberry, and Alpine Current.
3. Beds will be fertilized, seeded (native seed mix) and mulched.
Thank you for your consideration. Please call me if you have any questions.
Best of luck in your future endeavors.
:
cc: Fred Otto
Danny Sweltfeger
Frank Freyer
Field
P.O. Drower 54OO . Avon, Colorodo 8l 620 . 303-949-51 52 . rp,tt.303'949'4379
)LETTT OF TRANSMilTTAT
DAIE 1-lfS- q + | JoBNo. 1Z l?
ro' J O.V' IZ-**rr,-a Dr..p-i-.
t( ec<reru Purrz
iF{tr: Llel<rn€
WE ARE SENDING YOU V
! ShoP drawings
! Copy of letter
Attached VVia
n Prints/sepias
! Change order
the following items:
n Specificationsn
!
!
n
Plans
Originals
Samples
COPIES DATE NO.DESCBIPTION
-7-t5 -74 LETfgra- rttbo\JT VeLR.t*mt[.tt,. oF EI4+iT F-l-lD
OY Rtltr- rrfr t*J[r
1 '7"t5-q4 AX-61 PA'e-n D l{r.l L"Ptnr-)
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
!
n
n
D
tr
For approval
For your use
As requested
n
!
n
Approved as submitted
Approved as noted
Returned for corrections
n For your records
n Revise and resubmit
ffi review and commenl
N PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
FOR BIDS DUE 19
REMARKS
lf enclosures are not as noted, kindly notity us at once,
t ?^+ tg UEn{
July 15, 1994
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail Planning Department
Re ; Liftside project
Dear Kristan
Attached please find our plan for regrading the East end of the Liftside Project. This plan
is a response to Greg Hall's memo dated May 20,1994 and reflects the solution I
presented at our meeting on July 14, 1994. At that time you, Greg Hall and Charles Davis
gave me a preliminary approval of that solution, which is now described on this plan.
Please review the attached plan and call me if you have any questions or require additional
information. Hopefully we can get this issue resolved prior to your leaving the planning
department.
Sincerely,
GWATHMEY// SCHULTZ ARCHITECTS, P.C.
w'i,\^t
itEMoRAtttouM
via faceimile
TO: Krlstsn ftitr
Grsg Hsll
Sick Agott
Frrd Otto
Frank Freyer
FFOM: Hanry Pratt
DAIE: June 3O, 1994
FE: Ufuldr BfG Frth Lenftcaphg
,rfi',ftf*.T'ffi''*.Ji;"ts i[, +iqqq h
ffiil1"urorJu+luflrl
In responre to your msmorandufi of May 19, 1g$rf, I hav€ diBcilsB€d fie edditionEl
landscaping you have requested witr Euetaquio Conina and he has informed me that he is
rcluctcnt t0 provide landsctpirE t0 thE extent that you documented. lt is cstimdt€d that your
list wouH cost EomEWfEro bstween S3k and e5[ to inEtall and the aeEthstic benefts woukl be
negli$ble. Plmse r€st assured that EustEqulo end tfis owners at Liftside haw no intsfltion sf
l€aving the area Bouth of tfr psth in an unsighfly condition, but I'm totd ffi r+.s€sding with
native grass oeed whh pedrape some wildflower seed rnixed in is what they s6e as the b6at
aFproach,
| 8fk th€t you look egaan at my rnano to you of MAy | , f 994 and | $routd like to Bmind you
that in lowmirg fis hike path we were seeklng no advantage beyond rhat of bilnging the
relAtlortship of the building to the bike potr into ccnpliance with whnt wss preseryted to End
apDrwad bv the F'lannhg Conrmis$on antl DHE. The 4t eror in tho ruruey has now b€al
conflrmed and lt appears trat drs enor was local ro rh6 blks path dovadons at the cast end af
fie $ate. Giv€n better infiormEtion. we would hav€ Smply rai$ed tfE building to maint{in tf|e
desire<f rdlsfon$hh tp the path. As lhse was never any discuspiorr of sdditionil land$caping
before now, ws feel that your requoat for this addhlonal landscaping is unwErranted and
unre6$0ntble.
It as lrnportard b bring this issus to dosure before yeu leavB since it se€im3 to be 5pr€sding to
qthEr TOV deperfrnenb and is becoming q de facto rquir€ment for the bulldlng TCO. Wth yeur
impending deparfirre, we ruill hc fluicc removcd from the TOV staff individuale involved with thi$
buildng and the pdential for misinformetion and confusion will increase dramatcally.
HRP
r-{tr I 5 U Il s ns 5 u L r u ; 1cu.l4 r o.lFb)
ssI
(ilrcl.uDrlrc cov8R)
JUN '14'94
o
1I:4E.NO.UU/ P.U1
R.A. NELSON
frrnSSOClATES, lNC.
nEx govsR susElq
PROgLElrs, PLEASE LHtIF YOU HAVE
ro:
moH:
ilIilBER OT'PAGES
US I$IOH. TITAHKS!
77-zKL iroB#: -?{tc
DArs: c le{/q/--------
"'&rr-*/r*,
fu*t*-e
gLE*.*s7s*. f*-.,--
*Afirr,n 7V,1x^ro,t-,
/Ak-/t)24tJ
RErfABKst /{**rfrr,
&g..'otet E ffi
,fuoor**
Ewr.,to
/re
di
4*0, E,*-g{a {"* &t,x or E**-r,;*4,/** (."- //h {,"*, f*- E /o*,
frrry-*tr*7*,u.er*,
{u,*4f*,*
P.O. Drower 5400 . Avon, Colorqdo 81620. 303'949'5152 . rAx 303.9r'9-d329
R,q, NeISBN & FISSEc ID:13054765665
Viil
EY rAcsnqd rF^It$MIIts,IQr'f
416-366t
Bury$i$rf
D-4. I\Irlron ,
IJftriic Condominiurnr
DrrrBsry;
TYc 8rG in N8rcGmffit wtth ysur pli$ t0 m0v0 t[0 trrilsrN tbr your opffrilo4
}Gdu@.
$psoif,elly, one trlils will bo mowd *onr tho clrolc down to thc monutront etoa
sr€c wi[ tE gr{.vclcd |Ird ured for pn*tng thnc vrhldc8. Tht oirch wlll bc
trdLrt rfd trnad trr pnrlr e,pJrrnrdmtr*7 1t v*lr{drr fnr *rndsr fnronaur T}a filramon
lh,rfu rmploy*r ta thr Lloqlq*d p*r{ing rrc*,
Tht erpactul dntc io rremove the tnller iotn rht ns$' lofitioh will ber lrte
Nwrmbr, 1994.
lirflocrcly,
,t9 rn^ Wrl4"ld*,,^^.;u
DodMrcl{cldst
r.ondotntnh tn fF|r|tlnir Mtritgtr
DM:tmd
THI\A'ESNN RESORT
JwHA4, 1994
ISQP Watthtvl'r t1rrr, V$ir, 9!,tgfB{ir tralt
l Frc 'l I Y/r ?t5'?&'Elr:r
JUN
Itlii {tt'llu t6r ($0i11 4lf,?911
!L etL) u:c er Nl*Jru!d.Jt\xt r\lvEg I I
ll-:48 N0.UU/ l".UZ
wG f|icwrd
thc llS. Tbs
of rundhfrg
r,hrn alurtflo
24'94
o
or +rrly
H.H. Ne lson u Hss0c . lu:1suJ4/b,{bb5
R,A. NELSOT*P' . CrASEOCIATES, tNC.SPEEI MEM
JUN 24'9ct 11:49 N0.UU/ P.U$
, z,l
F,O, Dr6wu 0a00
Avort Go5l[agc 01620to$9dg.fl& " ru tfit.l|ll.4iif
,klrr.erer neer"v D
H.ri, I{elson s HSSgc.I +Ua J4 tOJ0trf,J UI{14 y4
I rl;4Y tlu.uuf Y,t-t4
j
;
)k
flN* ] *aora*b
\\,'l/
\r . a?tr'
\ --7
\L.#
:'*-
-l;
-at\IE f
Ji.* 4=
" ' ilN fllnt* 5t
LIF
y|hlru*+J fttrv" FL'DL'$*u rA
'1, |*r,L tu*r' Yn1'ft
i r'l
d
.-{F.rit;$*
r:a
ffi 1v fil*lg,
t t Satr{'
I'EN I EY;
/
++s 4-'- NW r/,Artt*t- 6t
J-21-e4
; 3:13P[/| ;
t,-D&-**u /\
6- F*r+'t7 $*r
NEL$(JN & ASST]IJ, +TUi{N (JF VAIL [;UM-UEV;S Zo
&
uski-;$
11tl#ttt*+5 Wft
I rv fkutfr- t
,
[\#
,i:i W;;B
.5
5s*;"
-r)ffipfur&
.R.A, NELS
'&esgocrATEs ON
F,O. Brgwer
Avon, Colorddo 0l
$00-94*5]5Q . rrr
aF fi+/u-
o,
r-u4 r rJ; I drfl i
,lNc.
z
Jffil 2 1 rnt",r.t
. r, i tj, " i*iy,itvj, ilfV,
IIELUUI\l ilt AiiUUt,I
PEEs
af
r# ' ,t_-
I
F)FLEASE REPLY tr NO Y NECESSABY
T/nf
ffi $$e'tcto
[rcKi+o''o,[
(lor0rqlnpk/
i,fi;L{ 1n1,Hl_gkL-W
uvfu\\"t"i
June 15, 1994
Site lssues for T.C.O.
1. East bike path r
o B.R. NELsoN o
&assocrATEs, tNC.
Meeting Agenda
Temporary Ceftificate of Occupancy
Liftside Gondominium
2.
3.
4,
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
etainins wal'\'0utr1 o^1i'imk'l 6*d\*bllrnlt ur"l' 'ti c^ \U'
Bike path and associated landscaping lriUg .'ut^1fo{t-N'!1lO'
Emptoyee housing unir agreement{.&l 6iltdr, - *ni+r uri\t 5n *ut4ffiotr tcO
Minor sub-division ptot {*d tu'\\ 49 - \-wru)
"ooJ<
io 'lo Joqn'- hk t'j'\\o'tt-"tr
Landscape bono [lcLrJor'M b tp'uq-b"rl''"1'TJ olr$]rt
Exterior com pletion u,l\ !n- crv^pded-
Bus stop rocation :uarl r{ q f Ft , '. 0 P g q' ;|.1": '{ \B 1b'"'1'- ir cl'r'C I 'N,u,t* ft{ WUA 4 Wdh u
{ccess for construction vehicles after TCO of buildings B and C,
taV io \d\ $i[Lc-!&t'&+ oud tnOP6
.\
aillbu irrq- Ic
P.O. Drower 5400 . Avon, Colorodo 8'l 620 . 303-949-5152 . rx 303-949-4379
Building lssues for TCO
A' Fire alarm complete
'.6't'&{'s
1'74q-firltrar'"'qlrotctB. Fire protection compretr-fninfnil^T,t- ittlt'*$l$ *,i
C. Separation of construction and Occupiable space
D. Exits
E. Schedule status
F. Parking garage separation
G. $cc0,, kc {v.,',,v}t t"
^ul, r ,,..,rr.Q .. op.Q_ a,Jru^^rd sy#rnf .'
; $a:il;.slf'!ilr;lit"/t-i' '+trwri h h wui"d
7J Soatb Frontagc Roarl
Yail, Colorailo 816J7
tot -47 9 -2 r t I / FAX t|t -47 9 -2 r 66
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Dcptrtrnent of Public Works/Transportation
MEMORANDUM
I*.1Otlg, Eustaquio Cortina, Dave Schriner, Dave Agett, KeryBrtn-"r Henry Pratt, Ned Gwathmey, Kristan Rritz, 6rei ttatiTotld Oppenheirner, Dan Stanek and Gary Murrain
Public Works
June 15, 1994
PRE TCO LIFTSIDE PUNCHLIST
Landscaping for bike path must be comptete.
Revise and submit plans for the retaining walls on east end of project and receive
approval from Town engineer to construct revised plan.
The stairs that tead from westhaven Drive to ski lifi must be complete andinspected.
njj ot tlrg right of way musl be vacated and inspected. No more staging wiil beallowed in the right of way and CDOT wiil atso need to sign off.
When willthe bus shelter be retumed to original site?
when TCo is ready to be apptied for all plats/easements, etc. must be resotved.
The approved driveway access must be built and inspeded.
All drainage must be complete and inspec{ed.
The following lisi of pre TCo punchtist items need to be completod at Liftside:
1) All density tests.for bike path work must be submitted and reviewed (subgrade,
base course and asphalt).
2)
3)
4l
s)
6)
7l
8)
e)
TO;
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
o
MEMORANDUIT
Fred Ofto, Euslaquio Cortina, Dave Schriner, Dave Agett, Kerry Burns,
Henry Pratt, Ned Gwathmey, Charlie Davis, Greg Hall, Todd Oppenheimer,
Dan Stanek and Gary Murain
Kristan PriE
June 9, 1994
Review of May 31, 1994 lmprovement Location Gertificate prepared by Dennis
O'Neal
A. lmprovementLocationCertificate
I reviewed the lmprovement Location Certificate (lLC) dated May 31, 1gg4 for the Liftsideproject I am happy to say that all of the ridge elevations were exactly as indicated on the
approved plans. Congratulations!
I will need some additional information on a new ILC to finalize the documentation of the
building fooprint. These dimensions include:
1. A horizontal measurement from the southwest corner of the portion of the
building over the entry otf of Westhaven Drive to the western property line.
2. A horizontal measurement from the south end of the building over the entry off
of Westhaven Drive to the south property line.
3. A horizontal measurement from the southwest corner ol the building above the
Pool.
4. A horizont'al dimension lrom the north end of the porte cochere facing the
Fronlage Boad to the north property line.
5. All foundation walls and any other structure built along the Frontage Road must
be identified on the next tLC.
Please note I have indicated these general areas on a xerox copy of the May 31 , 1994 ILC as
it is difficult to describe them withoul a drawing.
B. Temoorarv Certificate of Occuoancv lssues
On June 15, '1994, we will be having a meeting to discuss outstanding issues for the Liftside
project. Just to give you a little time to think about a few issues, I have provided a preliminary
list for you:
F EI-E OOFY
1. Revise the design for the retaining walls on the east end of the building and '
receive approval from the Town Engineer and planning staff for these changes.
Construct new design.
. 2. Complete the bike path as approved and associated landscaping.
3. Complete the Employee Housing Unit Agreement.
4. Complete the minor subdivision plat.
5. Belore the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) is releas€d, you will
need to provide a letter of credit or bond covering 125/" ot the cost for any
incomplete items which may include paving, landscaping, etc. The exterior of
the building and roof, painting, etc. must all be linished before the TCO will be
released. The developer is responsible for providing bids from contractors to
verify the cost of the work rernaining on the project. Please allow two weeks
for the Town to review the developer's agreement, bids, and letter of credit.
See you on June 15, 1994 at the Large Conlerence Room at lhe Community Development
Department.
2
l|!n.6 irT ilr-rt
,ts-
\\::$si$Su'$$;;9aH-
r.? s!
t
ft qt-
LI
:1611 68C4
361168A
ryq
^T^(rtg
A
.d
SLOd( REIAtt{lt'lG WAII.S
glXE PATH
EOZ COMPLETE
S'IEEL & CONCRETE
cotDoulNluM
BUILDING
l*
.3
rr${$rP"u +l*i!
PTD€STRIAI{
EASEUE}TIS
K#
LtFTg0E/cORNERSIONE
SI'IE
Jb I roo
3361168A1
J61 1 68C3
75 Soath Frontage Roail
Vail, Colorado 81617
t03 -47 9 -2I t 8 / FAX t0t -47 9 -2 I 66
Dtpartment of Public llorks/Transportf,tion
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
-/Kristan Pdtzt/
Greg Hall
May 20, 1994
Liftside Retaining Wails
Based on our site visit of May 18, 1994, it is apparent the block retaining walls on theeast side of the Liftside Building will need to be e)dended and a portion of one wall rebuiltto accommodate the slopes.
The need for the wall extension follows the current slopes exceed the two to one slopesrequired' The attempt to use boulder retaining walLs, causes a dangerous situaiionadjacent to the bike path in one section, the slope between the bouldei and block wallabove exceeds the two to one slope and the boulder wall will exceed 6' which wouldrequire a variance.
The developer, will need to provide a plan which shows the e)dent of the extension, Theplan will require an updated survey of the area, a review of the walls by a structuralengineer and review by the Town.
Once the extensions are approved, the work can begin. This will delay the paving ol thebike path. We, the Town will need to extend the limits of the path ciosure to Jine 10,
1994 versus May 20,1994.
lf you have any questions please contact me at 479-2160.
GH/dsr
DR:Lifi.ret
Dave Schriner and Rick Aggett, R.A. Nelson
Kerry Bums, Stan Miller Excavating
Henry Pratt and Ned Gwathmey, Gwathmey pratt Schultz Architects
Charles Davis, Greg Hall and Todd Oppenheimer, Town of Vail
cc:
?f,4'-'Pl,t
al,tPlO ltO. Zg'Zm 400 SETS
VHIL TUtsLIL IJJUI(KS lu: $u54 /921bb
TO:
COMPI}{T NA},E:
FA"Y PHONE NUMBER!
FROMI
DATE I
NO. OE PAGES IN
RESPONSE
SENT BYT
TOT{N OF VA
NUMBERT (3031 419-2166
?r't PBOHI lFilllEptrrrr! EsElL
f IllE r
(NOT INCLUDING COI'ER SHEBTI :
?r
ARTT{ENf OF PUBI,IC T{ORfiS/TRANSPORTATION FN( PHONE
l"lftY 20'94o 6t47 N0.002 P.01
?I Scrtl Frcsttgc *ctlVtil, Ccltrtlt lI6Jl
,0 r -17 r. 2 I J U FAt( t|r.r7 e -z r 6 6
Dcplrtnen of Ffilh Wwlr,r'fnl,qwttti*s
URIL PUELIC LJt]RKS 1D r3034792166 MffY 2 0'94o 6 :47 No .002 P .02
75 Soath Frcnttgt Rond
Vail, Colorldo 8165?
t 0 r -+7 9 -2r t I IFAN t a, -47 I - 2t 66
TOr
FhOtrl:
DATE:
HEr
MEMORANDU]II
Krfstnn ernzy'
Srrg l{ell
Itlay 4, 1994
Uftside Retrlnlng lffalls
Based on our eite vleit of May 19, 1094, it is apparent the block retailring walls on th6
east side of the Ufiside Building will need to be esended and a psrtion of one wall rebuilt
lo accommodate the slopss.
The need for the wall extgnsion followg the current glope$ gxceed the two to one slope$
required. The attempt to u$e boulder retaining wall6, causes a dangerous situaliun
adjacent to ths biks paih In one section, the slope botween the boulder and block wall
above exceeds the two [o oile slope and the boulder wall wiil 6x@ed 6' which woukl
require a varience.
The developer, will need to provide a plen whieh shows the eH€nt of the extension, The
plan will require an updated $urv€y of lhe ar6a, a roview ol the walls by a structural
engineer and roview by the Town.
orlco the enensionE are approved, the work can begin. This will delay the paring of the
bike path. We, the Town will nesd to extend the limits of the path closure to Juno 10,
1994 versus May 20, 1994.
ll you have any questions please contact me at 479-2160.
GH/dsr
DR:Uft,ret
cc: Dave Schriner and Rick Aggett, H.A. Nelson
Kerry Bums, $tan Miller Excavatang
Henry Prail and Ned Gwathmey, Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Architects
Charle$ Davig, Greg Hall and Todrl Oppenheimer, Town of Vail
I)e4t?ttncdt a! Pnblit l$|otk TraatPortntioa
SENT BY:i 5:19-94 ; 2r05Pil ; NELS0N & ASS0G,TT0I|IN 0F VAIL 00iI-DEV;# 1
41q- L+s 7-O
SPEED MEM
ffi ,pr#T
r#-. ydl
R.A. NELSON
&nssoclATEs, tNc.
P.O, DrdwarS4m
Avon, Cololodo 81610
303-949-6162 . re* 303'940'i1379
tr PLEASEREFLY N NOREPLYNECESSARY
I
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
[LE COPY
MEMOBANDUM
Dave Schriner, Rick Agett; Kerry Burns, Henry Pratt, Ned Gwathmey,
Gharlie Davis, Greg Hall, and Todd Oppenheimer
Kristan Pritz
May 19, 1994
Landscaping along the south side ot the bike path adjacent to the Liftside
project
o
F
I reviewed the landscaping situation on the south side of the bike path adiacent to the Liftside
project with Todd Oppenheimer, the Town ol Vail Landscape Architect. We are asking that
you finish the edge of the bike path in the following manner:
1. Remove all of the small rocks {rocks less than 3 teet in diameter) from the edge
of the Path.
2. Create five planting beds along the length of the path from the large evergreen
on the west end to the large rock on the east end. Several layers of boulders
should be removed in this area and planting beds created. Topsoil should be
added to the bed and be a minimum of 12 inches deep. Todd estimated that
approximately seven to ten shrubs should be placed in each bed depending on
bed size. We reviewed the location of the beds with Rick Agett and Kerry
Burns.
3. The beds should be planted with the following S-gallon shrubs:
.Woods Rose (rosa woodsii);
.Twinberry (lonicera involucrata); and,
-Alpine Currant (ribes alpinum).
Please plant the shrubs 4 feet on center.
4, The beds should be fertilized. seeded and mulched alter the shrubs are
planted. Please use a native seed mix.
ln respect to the area on the east end of the building, there is a concern with the steepness of
the slope. Greg Hall is in the process of determining how this issue should be addressed.
ff you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me at 479-2138'
eo
i ,]""',1'r. \,1 lrcri
^1. t: , ..\
I, r'.1 ci .1 1r'-) /--t ;'
'I.]ttuIICIDUII \)r 1155UL rIHT Uf,'Y4 13::b N0,U1Z t'.Ul
R.A. NELSON
&nssocr,ATEs, tNC.
5/ 5/ Lle4
L IFTSIDE COI{STRUCIION I.,EETISG
ATTENDIUG: IRrist{n Pritzr Gregrlfall, David Schreiner, Charlie Davis,
DE9P.SsIST
f. i;?.};riitl require a revised landscape Ftan to be srrbmitted2, Silt fencq_qill be inetatled roday.3. R.A.H,A. will be iit"ii"a*io conrinria wlth remqval of exiEtinEbikepath, excavation to ex-pore_ to,i'*"t.J, iine "na insulationinerclratron et wat,er iin"' ""a instittiti"i ot ner pauino.: f:-ffi:||ii,ff#';Ft;l*"il r"-t.'JIIi^ii"itl'ii.'.;;'i;';;i;'5' ?tllll?lf. edsi sr-pi;;;;; uirr be construsted as per r.o,v.6. No foot tre_ffio *ill be allowed along edge of Gore Creek (eoas not to damage folage) --y-'E vs:'E r
7, HdE of Bt gradd ar lif."-,p'Egh (tf be field verlf iad by charlie^ Davis rqior bo insralt;tt; '"t J"nii,Ji: '-.8. At compler:gl of. ""; ;;;i;'o q ".;. top-ioit i.E beins Flacedanother site naetins ;itt Le n_eta i"-alieimine the extent ofaddltional l.andscanins oiolrs south eioe oti"pikepath.e. l{o horizontal .chang-ej- "tj r-il .ri i;;"!;-i.iiio"r chansee wi I Ibe ae per revis"o "ar**I"s"
"unmitiJJ'l;;i-i".*.Nqte:
As per the dlscussion today the add_itionat Iandscape will consistof topsoirlno expoeed roaa-"uaie- e loutc'l-i;;";i'path, broadcasrseeding of topsoired "-"" ""J-iosslblr idding some s galron sireHiIIolrs along South eiae of-petl.
At thls tiftc we-do not Eee. these.requirements ts be out of line,horrever rhis addirjon of w"rjt ft;-b. ;;;;;r-.0"[r"ir,. Architeat andOwner. Frior to beginni"C-l"i-I*tra sork.
should you have any questions or_cornm_ent' regarding this meetingor these noteg pleaat o"fi,ru-g-;rs_Sese or 4?l_lg9o.
Sineerel y,
David $chreiner
csl Rick AEettCharlie Davis
U.}I+ f DJtrO-J
Henry Pratt
,tGf f KeI ly Kristen pritz
Greg l11l I
P.O. Dr$iver 5400 '.Avon, Colorodo 8l620 . 303-949-5152 ' rAx3Q3-949'437?
tt-R.A. NELSON LETTEmIEF TRANSnfl ITTAL
f:'ASSOCIATES, lNC.
P.O. Drower 5400
Avon, Colorodo 8'l 620, 303-949-5152 r rnx 303-949-4375ro K n ist-an Pcif a-
> WE ARE SENDTNG YOU E Attached E Under separate cover via
tr Shop drawings
tr Copy of letter
E Prints
D Change order
E Plans E Samples
the following items:
n Specilications
o^" 4-71- q4 l'"" "93 rd
€A c6!,+: tF.r${fi #tFull
D}ir, . ' ,t)\'' jf ii
i.' c^Jb''.:: ApR ZTlg$4
'A, r r'.^,itllttil nE\, ftEPT
lUt{'t vtvttvl' vLrt Yrt
COP}ES PATE ,NO.OESCRIPTION
I 'l/n/qq imtrnu..*..n* /eaa/;on. O*+{,''(i ro,{.(l
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
E For approval
E For your use
F As requested
D Approved as submitted
! Approved as noted
D Returned for corrections
D Resubmit-copies for approval
! Submit-copies for distribution
! Return
-corr€cted
prints
E For review and comment !
tr FOR BIDS DUE 19- O PRINTS RTTURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
lt aDcro$u/rr ara not st notad, xindty!
r\rtrr 'ir{; L-trrt \)i n+,}uL
,/
I.U'JJUJ+IOJ(JDJ flnT !.f f, Yl{ Y:lJ t10 .UUl r,UI.rt.J\t .t .|,i 4!.,!.{r.t i., Hj
Mlili
,'t '' .t,:
TOV 'u'Jirtl'ri' LI.EV'
,
EPT'
ll r1, J3, ).!4y t
BaegllqE survcys I-llt: .P,0. Eox 7b'tA "
Bre*kenrldgF co. E0{?{
i. Rt,uk Agatc
,' A. Nelson I tgsociAtagtr.0. Drayer Fd004v0h co, 81520
sci Lif tsldlr Sep66plnl une.
tlear ltr . Aglto r
ror *rrer, r H:i":";iff ;*, :i:": :'ilf,:' F:3"i1..il;, lln,$ * o.lli"ll;*, no .
1) Uiltt c-51 & e108.25.-i'; ;;316 ;*:$,ft'.{3i;il:r"r:'ii*1r;:,n,") berle
?) B pod' shest 4'1- *'rchrtectur:rr-dravings) berng 111.0r) e10r.00. rhc freld;A;;;;;;if'atrnns beins iii,or & t'r.0e.3) l Pod, ..{heet {-l_(Archittctural drtvtnge) belng lJ4.E0 cre{.00. rhe rlcra'il;;;;fi-;i;;"Ii;;;,,8;in;"ill, u, i i24.02,
Fisase f +el frec tc, c:r.1.;igt. or-rr rri:i i.,r.r !!r_... r -ques'j,ion6 or-iiq,'-r.tr ani ai.iit,';;..,l"ir;l;i;:i.:l:uIo you h.rvs any
, \u,g4 tui\\ tr trrbi, &rd-r1 o nrfl )]'rl
l. c ur:e
.fi ;/'---
#'it!F"\../'soi--" 'De
Col
I LIi RL P. nl
l
[f';.,i 11; z, ":t
MEMOBANDUM
via facsimile
TO: Kri*in Pritz
FROM: Hanry Pr*tt
OATE: May 1, 1994
iE; Llft5ldE 8lk6 Prrh
As you requested, I spoke to your former employee the other dry ef?er wc spoke. end
indeed, much to my surprise, she said thdt additionsl landscaping south of the path was
hor intent, Ned handled the bike path negotiations and he uaually tclls mc when thingr
change, but this is nows to me end to Danrry. I will ask Ned when he returns from
vacatisn on the gth to se6 if he doe$ rec€il any additional planting. lt indeed N6d
agreed to edditional landscaping, I will scremble to make the additiorrs arrd suhhit
drawings to you. on the oth6r hand, if $helly Mello has unilaterally ineerted this
requirement, then wc naed to talk becarrse | +ee no justification for changee snd no
reason to re-submit drawings you already have on record.
complictting matters, and unknown to $helly Mello, another Town department hit uswith a last rninute requirement changd last time we paved th€ gath fliterallv, we were
infsrrned 24 hours before the stdrt of pavingt. publlc works now requirer a widsr path
than was originally there and they require much wider shouldere, These requirements
will seem to me to preclude putting indigenous plentinge in the supposedly wlder
shsulders we will eoon be cre€ting, You are a veteran of the East Vail bike path; if we
plont the thoulders of the new path, worr't we be setting tltc Tuwrr up for artditional
weed control tpraying as is done out east?
Unlesa you find documentation where we agreed to additionel lsndseaping, I will
contact you when Ned returns.
, 6adia^o
Ilvil-{-U r^i\d ulll k" &ds
t
&h{in t---
FfLr $$Fy
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2 I 38 / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303-479-24s2
April29, 1994
Department of Comnunity Deve loprnent
Mr. Fred Otto
Otto, Porterfield and Post
P.O. Box 3149
Vail, CO 81658
BE: Liftside project, Cascade Village SDD No.4
Dear Fred:
ln order to avoid any complicalions for the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) for the
Liftside project this fall, I wanted to remind you of the fact that we will still need to complete
the minor subdivision and the employee housing agreement for the project. My undertanding
is lhal you and Shelly Mello have discussed what needs to be done concerning these two
issues. I would appreciate it if you would try to address lhese items as soon as possible so
that we can be sure everything is wrapped up in a timely manner. lf you have any questions
or need any help on lhese two items, please feel free to call me at 479-2138.
Sincerely,
(n'+d^ ttt*
Krisfan PriE
Community Development Director
P.S. Don't worry, these issues will nol require an amendment to the SDD!!
xc: Jim Curnutte
Greg Hall
Charlie Davis
Dave Schreiner
Jeffy Kelly
oo
Fd{. f s$Py
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2 I 3 8 / 479-2 1 39
FAX 303-479-2452
Deparune nt of Community Development
January 26, 1994
Mr. Fred Otto
P. O. Box 3149
Vail, CO 81658
RE: Conditions of Approval For Liftside Project Specified In Ordinance 1, Series of 1993.
Dear Fred:
ln reviewing the approval for the Waterford/Liftside Project as specified in Ordinance 1, Series
of 1993, lfind that there are two outstanding issues on the project. They are as follows:
1. The developer shall permanently restrict the two employee housing units provided in
the Waterford development plan in accordance with Section 18.46.220 of Ordinance
No. 1, Series of 1993; and
2. A minor subdivision plat shall be completed and recorded prior to the release of any
building permits for either the Cornerstone or Waterford developments.
At the time that the building permit was released, the minor subdivision plat was under way. I
have been working with Jerry Mulliken representing Commercial Federal to complete this,
however, at this time it has not been approved or recorded. As to the first condition, I am
enclosing copies of the appropriate documents for restriction of the two employee housing
units. They will need to be completed and returned to the Town of Vail, at which time lhey will
be recorded with Eagle Coung as will the minor subdivision plat. These have been changed
as you will see to address your project. I have also included the ordinance establishing the
restrictions for Employee Housing for your in{ormation. These two items will need to be
addressed prior to the release of any temporary certificate of occupancy for the project.
As you know, I will be leaving my position with the Town of Vail as of January 28, 1994. At
this time, Kristan Pritz will be your contact for this project. Good luck with the project and I
appreciate all ol your {orts.
Kristan PriE
ni^r, A-,^1r n 4
Ne0 Gwaiit{iiey,
f- !ntcrn .,nzl 4 nnr,ri^lr-.a
Ljwaininey Praii Jchul{z
XC:
t t
F!!-t ffffiFll
TOWN OFVAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
3 03 -479-2 I 3 8 / 479,2 I 39
FAX 303-479-2452
January 10, 1994
Departnre nr of C om n uniry Deve lopme nt
Mr. Rick Agett
R.A. Nelson and Associates
P.O. Drawer 5400
Avon, CO 81620
RE:Vertica|re|ocationofrecreationpathonLiftsideproperty
Dear Rick:
The Town staff has reviewed the Floodplain Analysis of Gote Creek completed-by Alpine.,
-
Engineering tor tne area aJp""rt t" th; Liftside project. After reviewin_g,the information, the
staff finds that it can "pproi" the vertical relocation of the recreation path with the following
conditions:
1. A landscape plan for the new recreation path shall be submitted for review prior
to any constriciion. fnis plan should initude both shrubs and trees which are
indigenous to the area-
2. A fence and/or hay bales will need to be installed to prevent any construction
debris from entering the creek and to protect the existing landscaping'
3. Construction may not commence before the closure of Vail Mountain and must
oe compteteJ oy rrioay May 20, 1g94 with the bike path being open for use on
this date.
Again, we would ask the proper barriers and appropriate signs be installed to redirect the
recreation Path users.
o
Mr. Agett
January 10, 1994
Page 2
Thank you for your patience in addressing this matter'
was very helpful. Please contact me should you have
The information included in the report
any questions.
XC:Greg Hall
Kristan Pritz
Russell Forrest
Jim Curnutte
Charlie Davis
Ned Gwathmey, Gwathmey Pratt Schultz
Henry Pratt, GwathmeY Pratt Schultz
Fred Otto
Dave Schreiner, R.A. Nelson
Px, futtD tNb-
Sh
J Uppen Eecue VnlutY CaHeoltonteo.-EE7' SnNrrnTloN DlsrHlcr
r)- :{E FOpISt arae ' varr. a:;eiace al6!7. f:91 4r5.rrgc ' ..x r!6!' ,rtB'roBE
JJt)ile:fu
TQ:
FRQTTI:
f,tE;
Numrrl- of l*{lgc ,f/elgmitt€d ,tili'udittg cov.'. 'ry,e: 4-
For cofilnrnttan et7i'/at Frablg't6 withthia trat15mftrsto4 plag5eil
Kffiy al(gdgi 478-748tt
rarrxttr fE|| ?t t Folrawrc W^cr OlJ"fi€ t N
AttEtrr{C^El flEtrc wa?Efr . llt|,EF r}qEar i|IYRO wa?Ei o lfttr Cl!E( HEITO sa?ti Att
=,rO+]3'YxL trfif,O wA f ' Eg{atfir| rrrr!] w^'-rr ' w^nr Clrqr' i'=.rd€tec.it!a!lh I t\|J'|iF lrArs tEoErr! $AlGl A$tl{lllltl I v'|! u'r.llt cE t1lllg'{tll' lYstr -
lfr'A 7.\p7#.V 'o'S'f 'n'3'n llllul l-ldEtr rfE ts66I-?e-TE
FTECOFTD OF PR.OCEEDIIU€S
Minutes
UppeE EaEj.e Valley Consolidated $anltatlon DiEtrict
Deeem"ber l$, 1993
Page 9
REgUEST pOR
GEbIERAI, UTILIITry
EASEIIEIIT
DISCUEEION OF
PBI$TIIT{g OE'
HA9g
Bob Mssten and Toit Vaughn, IJeonard Rice ConeulttnEEnginccts and Joe Macy fr?or Vail- AsEociatsF, She reportedthat the represantatLveg ff,oflr the Depaftment ofTransportation retrrorted that they would not havc thc fEndo
t"o wlclen the road and lnstall the bike path in 1994 and thefunde fiey not be applied for ftve (5) years. lhts w{llresult ln constructlon coBt l-ncreaaes for the seeiler ll.nereBlaeement aF a result of the neerd to install 6" ofasBha1t. Ms. Grlder r€trrorted how€ver" that 6he w€s lsol(lnqffor weys to cut eoEts usiflg a piping called trgaFlock" twhich would allovr the water llne and seweE lines ts beplaeAd ifi the nlne tr+nch.
The Boarcl diseussed pursuing the shared funding of theproJect wlth the Colorbdo Depirtmant of llraneportEtion andobtaining eome paliticel help ln this arena. lds. Gficler
Eaid wtth regard to the on and off ramp at Eagle-Vail' tshe
Federa]. Depaltuent of trransgortation neads to gl-ve their
apBroval , wnicn nor:mally takes approximateft--6 nontha.lhlrefore the Digtriet ehall eontinue tel-th traffie eontrol
versus rarnp.
Mr. llaBlee reported that he had feceived a feguest frontLiftside CornersLone that a rurrtually exclBel,ve eSwEr
easement be redeeignated to a general utility eaFenent. A
copy of the regue*t is abtechsd hercto as Exhibit R' and
incorporated herein by thia reference. UBon ilotion duly
made End seconded, it wse unaninouely
RBSOLVED that tha rcqucet to chango the e:*alueive
sevrer easenent to a general utility eaeement at
LiftEtde CorrlerEtone be and hef,elty .ls aPPtoved '
Mr. Hflslee f,eErorted that the 1994 upidated afiApe could beprinted f,or $51510. ttr. HaElee englained the procedure forlhc updating of changea cf, the books in thc fteld. He
reporied that the red line ahanges r*ere given to the fleld
crcrr in sanstructian hcctingg' -FerLodically chanEet sould
be printed out on rerrieFd napB, He reported that thefe ar€
1?0 sheets in eech book and th6t thcra ere 3O booka in thefieLd. Upon notion duly made and g€cond€d' it was
unanimouely
REFOLVED that ataf,f be qnd hereby iE direeted to print
the 1994 updaged ftaps and bE it fucther
REsoIryED that Etaff be and hereby i$ directecl to
develop a plarr Cas ulxl{rLes afid c}ranges L(' Lhe uaPs.
=a'd zeFea.Jb o1 '0's'f,'n'3'n HBHJ !'ldFI rtE vA6l-FZ-rA
ATTACHMBNT IO
UPPER EAGLE VALLEY CONSOLIDATED
$nnttalor.r Drsrnlcr
erg FoREST ngAE . vArL. COLOiADO 9!69r
i3E3) 476.74€0. FAX {ioi).7|-4DAE
MEMORAHDUM
Boarsi of, DifBctors
IJppes Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation DLstrlct
I'red $. Hasiee, RegulaLions AdninistratoE
November 29, 1993
?r li
SIJBJECTi :.if t Side,/Corner Stgne Platt - Reque3t to Grf,ntExc::tslve Sewer Easement to General Utllir,y HaBemenE,lesrgnatron.
The property orrnerB of the above referenced platt, has requestedfrom ihe Disrrict the abil.i,: ia change a nutuarly exciusive s€$€reasefl€ntr lo a general uttlity eaeement as shown on LhB attachedexhrbit.
Staff and the District constructi$n review team have both reviesedthis Froposal and reco!ruilend its approval. Board action is reguiredaE lhis action l,nvolves properET ohrned by the Districg for Dtstrtctuse to be conveyed and transferred to a seneral uttlity easen€nt.
FSII: sld
\ 8dlta\hrcl rrJv-F],+Ll, ry
fO!
fROMr
DA1E:
MAHAE'I fOF
"HE
FOLLOWIT{O WATIF QII|FlaTA!
ATTOWHEAD M€:FO WATE'I I BEAVEB CPE€K VSIIO WA-IIR . gEIRY CFEEK TJE.TFO I'IA?EF
.IAALE'VAII, MET?O WATEE T EDWAFEE MEIFO WATEE ' LAKC €REEK MEAOOINE WA?EF
UPFEI EAGLE H:GIOHAL \'YATEF AtfiHOHt?Y . vAtL VALISY CO SOUDATEO WAIEN
rfi 'J 7cb?e).b nt
N
tB'd'iH10r
EiErr
Blfri
Bioa
!!H; !q- r ,!!i : ;;I '- rii i F6
B f 9T: i ii
F i Ei
ir tia.' i3
FE
:f,ri
?
1
,",r,
oq
%.lrl
Ef
i
i
atd;
Ui5
EE
tI
E!ttr0
i/
_rtrt
lD
bqttois
_r |gi!"!!:g.
: i-t
3
5ba.
Hg
:w
.Et5
EJ
ft
I
(3^Eg Niluhrs.*fil
", ':l \!:A\
frr"'.\'
iitsi\
n
,1,
p ij s/ it t
I lt -
ti i,l
lfri-ri.t4,{ j
#t /
IJJJ.T rfft btr.trT-tP-Ifi'fi 'c':l'n'1'n un).1-.1u1p6'd 19F7,6LF
) Ll,FZ srArE tt*ffiptoF rxe t*riSUHIX
* E|}
{
CEf,TIFICATq gF IAXEI DUE
,. tiJV rtf{fi
0FDER tO: 1F19173
VENITOR ll0: €OoO2
tSE{rED TO: LA{DP. O.
VEILT
TITLE EUANANTEg
EBX 3t7co gt6ts
PAFCEL l{O; OOOE|IOO
ABBESSED TEr
COI{}IERCIAL FEDEFAL iAT${
E BIEELE TT 8TE ?OT
DEHVER, GO !oEOA
AFISUNTS REFLECIED AhE VALID S{LY I.'IIITILl,7tgt/|r7,Frudrlct C. I Sara T. Erald
FfigPEFTY SEECBIPTI
rAcT: iEc/TlJf{/ilto: tE-t-el
]L I H-St'4l / ltl{E I r' I
IX LTEI{ SiLE AT'IOUHT I5 SIJDJECT tD.lAHoE WE TO EttlDOiSEl.lEHT EF THE
JRRET{T TA; 9Y CSRT OF FI.,RCHATE
]LDER. AFTEB EEFT TI PEF€OilIAL IRSP.
I{OAILE }t0l"lF AltOUl{T 19 EU8I|ECT lO:{AHGE. IFTER PCT. I IEAL FROP. TAX.IEUI{I 13 zuBi'ECT TO GHANOE. FLEASE
flrlTACT TFIE TRgAeUREnE oFFICE FOR
IRFECT AT{OI'I{T FRTffi 'E REIIITTINC.
SFECIAL IATINO DISTRICTg AND THE
Bq,NDfiIEg'OF EUCI{ DIETRICTE HIY BE
ON FILE UIT}I THE BOARD OF COIJhITY
COIIIIISEI9HEFE, THE COUNTY CLERI(,
EN TT{g 6Outl|TY AESE55OH
r€e ron rsgutfrtc rHrE cEBTrFl€AT€ rro. oo
ADI/EETI8INO .O- OO
. PEI{ALTIEE
ilInc.
TOTAL ?AX DIJE O,CO
rtlrAr LIEI,I3 ffi DELIlfCtEltT rAf,
TOT*L AIIOUNT Ttr NEDESI" o'oo
FPEcIAL ASSESSICITJI* DT'E
':
TOTIL I'PEC. TES{T8 DI'|E
o. oo
TOTiL DUE Tllrl CHTIFTCATE
TAX ?,
TAX DI.IE
TiITEREET
o- oo
ooo
o.@
o. oo
$1,o. oo
hts srrttflertr {crr not lntludr lrnd ol lcpnovlmlntt arlrl S!
fsrrrr ttrnrlrr tgr ol nllc.ar lacrl lrtplSvnnrnt dlttrtct
nrnt l onrd.
I rrlfFrtrr eollrstrd snrrilrr|trntl olrheCulr nuFbrr. !€rtonsl proPCrtl
e[cll gf othrr rntltic*. lptcltle0llr homr!r unlr*r rprc l#ltalll
rdcrord rrlth thi emcuni rrlulrrd ior rrdroptlorr .It rr notrd irnln. In-rltnrrt
.. tir undrrlignrd, do hrr.bg ccrtl?l thrt thr.t|tlrr. ount of trrir dut lFon thr.tovl dcrcrtbri gatcrlr cf iret preirntq rnd lll outtt.ndlng lrler fcr-snltldrrtr rr rlrcen brl fhr rrgcrdr in'oU'cfficr froo uhish thr rrne aru rtlll lr
rirrrofr I hrvc tlrrvnto rrt nI hrnd rnd rrrl trtlr 17
TREASURER. EAGLE COUHTY SHERRY BHAI'|D0N 9Y Attu'r t??3
i...r.r.rrt-E rrun|'Efi - g(}(.ttllg(l I;:'AJEJARCEL NU[iEEf, - ero3.2nr-OO-Ooe
lo. o4EiAeLE COUNTY
En - elosct-*-
:l'fc . g, ??T!E 5OJ ECHEOLS.trlrtrr oF VAIL 38' 306
!r!1un.u cElr'rEny '3:l3i
ilqq4oE vILLrsE ttErRo DtsrnrcT ee.3o4|PFER g. V. SAtrt e. &eaOLO FVH }'ATER O.3?*rPFER E. v. corus o. zolt:c EI,tER/Ho8/ave t.3t,
O EPECIAL ASEEES'.IET{T FOR t??E
tt,l$e.79f{?s. gFIt. Ee+. l?
tz&,o.61t3. g7
l3r 780. E6
)3l?'6,?lt{?. rete7.17
tt6Er.95
a
Associates,ProJect per
R.A. NELSON
&nssocrATEs, tNC.
December 17, 1993
Ms. Shelly Mello
TOT/$N OF VAIL75 S. Frontage RoadVaiI, colorado 8L657
Re: Liftside Bike Path
Dear Shelly:
Per our conversation, R.A. Nelson &revising the Bike Path at the Liftside
Revised 1"O/O5/39 by Alpine Engineering.
We wiLl-begj-n this work after the last day of ski seasoncornplete the work prior to tllemorial Day Weekend.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call .
ASSOCTATES| INC.
Fred Otto
Ned cwathmeyFranlr Freyer
Inc. will be
Drawing AX-6,
and will
Hand Delivered
December 7, 1993
Ms. Shelly Mello
Town of Vail Planning Department
| 11 South Frontage Road West
Vail. Colorado 81657
Re: Liftside Flood Plain Study
Dear Shelly:
Attached please find two copies of the flood plain study prepared by Alpine
Engineering. When you review this report and the enclosed plan, you will see that the
100 year flood plain is no less than three feet below the proposed elevstion of the
lowered bike path.
Based on the attached report, I feel that the lowering of the bike path, which had
previously been approved by the Town, should be allowed to proceed. Please submit
written approval for this work and a schedule indicating when the work could start and
when it would have to be completed.
Please call if you have any guestions.
Sincerely,
GWATHMEY PRATT SCHULTZ ARCTIITECTS, P.G.
ard M. Gwathmey, Jr., AIA
EMG/ad
Enclosure
copy to: Fred Otto
Rick Agett
Frank Freyer
Danny Swertfeger
TOWNOFVAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail. Colorado 81657
303-479-2 I 3 I / 479-2 I 39
FAX s03-479-2452
October22. 1993
Department of Communiry Developnent
MECM Enterprises, Inc.
C/O Fred Otto
P.O. Box 3149
Vail, CO 81658
RE: Relocation of bike path adjacent to Gore Creek on Liftside property
Dear Fred:
I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the Town of Vail's position on the relocation of
the bike path on the Liftsid-e property. As has been represented to me by both the architects,
Gwathmey Pratt SchulE and contractors, R.A. Nelson, there was a "bust" in the topographic
survey documents. As a result, there have been some problems with the relationship o{ the
floor elevations and the bike path elevation. In recognizing some ol he survey discrepancies
which may have happened with the project, the Town feels that it is necessary to consider all
of the implications ot changes which may result.
During the course of the review of the project by the Town of Vail, the bike path was to be
moved horizontatly, but as a resutt of the survey problems which occurred earlier lhis summer,
I was informed that it had to be moved vertically. At that time, I had not Feceived any
drawings showing the proposed design. What I understood was that the bike path was
constructed at the wrong elevation. I assumed that it was installed 4 leet too high in June, not
that it would be lowered from the preexisting condition.
On Wednesday October 6, 1993, I received a telephone call lrom an adjacent property owner
concemed with the vertical relocation of the bike path on the Liftside property. He was
specifically concerned with the ability of a skier to progress down this arsa to the ski lift in
Cascade Village. In discussing this item with him, I felt that I needed to further research the
issue in order to answer his questions tully.
On Thursday October 7, 1993, I visited the site with Dave Schreiner and Rick Agett of R.A'
Nelson to further understand th€ issues related to the relocation. Later that afternoon, I met
with Henry Pratt and Ned Gwathmey ot Gwathmey Pratl Schullz, Architects, and Rick Agett on
th€ site to discuss the issue. At this time, it was discussed that due to the change in the
landscape plan which as a result of the bike path relocation, il may be necessary for the
Planning and Environmental Commission to review lhe change. Also, at this time' the
floodplJin location was discussed. The survey for the proper$ which indicated the floodplain
did not have the topographic conditions on the side of the bike path so it was ditlicult to Mr.
Otto
ocrober 22,1993
Page Two
determine the physical location o{ the floodplain. This information was not necessary during
the initial review of lhe project as there was to be no grading in this area. The main issue
during the review of the SDD was the floodplain location and the 50 foot creek setback which
were indicated on this suruey. However, as a result of the proposed changes to the vertical
alignment of the bike path, it was apparent that the available survey information on th€ south
side ol the bike path was insufficient and that this information would now be necessary.
After meeting with the representatives of Gwathmey Pratt Schultz and R.A, Nelson, I again
visited the site with Kristan Pritz, Director of Gommunity Development. lt was at this time lhat
we determined that this item would not go to the Planning and Environmental Gommission.
However, there was lurther information that we would need prior to approving the vertical
realignment of the path. This included the following:
1 . The developer would submit a stamped survey which included the '100 year
floodplain and the topographic conditions on the south side of the bike path.
2. The developer would need to have the floodplain and high water mark staked
on the site by a surveyor and the staff would review it.
3. The developer would provide a fence between the construction and the existing
vegetalion and the creek in order to protect the vegetation and eliminate the
possibility of construction debris entering Gore Greek.
Further, Kristan and I agreed that Greg Hall would need to be consulted regarding the
completion date for this project. The developer was requesting a deadline of November 1,
1993. After meeting with Kristan, lconsulted with Greg Hall, the Town of Vail Engineer. He
telt that due to the possibility ot inclement weather in late October, thai we should specify a
completion date of October 23, 1993, for the vertical realignment of the palh. Provided that
the other issues were addressed immediately, this would allow approximately two weeks to
complete the project.
On Friday October 8, 1993, I relayed these conditions Kristan, Greg and I had discusied to
Dave Schreiner who I had been working with up until this point. He indicated that these items
would be completecl. However, he was unable to commit to the October 23, 1993 completion
date. I relayed that this was a very important element of the approval, and that unless there
was inclement weather which would prohibit construction during the period before the 23rd,
that the Town would expect that the improvement would be done by the 23rd. Should there
be delays due to weather, Dave and I agreed to discuss the deadline.
Mr. Otto
october22, 1993
Page Three
On Monday October 11, 1993, I again relayed these conditions lo Flick Agett. lt was
represented to me that the surveyor was in the process of staking the proposed vertical
elevation of the path as well as the floodplain and that I would be called to review this when it
was completed.
On Tuesday October 12, 1993, I received a telephone message from Dave Schreiner stating
that the area had been staked and that he requested that I review the staking on-site. That
afternoon, Charlie Davis, Town of Vail Construction Inspector, and lvisited lhe site with Dave
Schreiner and at that poinl, after discussing with the surveyor the location of this high water
mark from the spring of 1993 and the proposed bike path elevation, lfelt that additional
inlormation would be necessary in order to approve the realignment. At the time, I did not
witness the location of the floodptain per the FEMA documenls cited on the survey. As
staked, it indicated that the high water mark was approximately 2.5 feet below the proposed
elevation of the bike path. The location of the high waler mark from this past spring was of a
concern to me because this spring we did not experience extreme tlood conditions. One
would assume that the 100 year flood condition would be more restrictive than this past
spring's high water mark and therefore the waler level would be higher than the conditions
witnessed this past sprlng. This would put the proposed bike path in direct conflicl with the
100 year lloodplain. My decision to rsquire further information was based on the location of
the proposed vertical location of the bike path in relationship to the high water mark as seen
in the spring of 1993. Charlie Davis was in agreement with me that the Town would be
assuming liability to allow the relocation of the bike path until further information was obtained
from the applicant which would verify the 100 year flood conditions.
Later that afternoon, I received a telephone call from Ned Gwathmey who stated that the
floodplain had not been staked at the time that I visited the site. I agreed that I would make
another site visit at such time that the floodplain was staked properly. At this time, I raised
the concern with Ned Gwathmey regarding the location of the high water mark in relation to
the proposed elevation of the bike path. I recognized thal the lloodplain was not staked and
that it could actually be lower than the high water mark. However, I remained concerned with
the high waler mark location.
On Wednesday October 13, 1s93, I visited the sile with Rick Agett and Greg Hall, Town
Engineer. At this time, the tloodplain as wellas the high water mark and the proposed bike
path elevations were staked, The staff at this point recognized that the proposed elevation
was nol interfering with the tloodplain, however, that the high water mark was actually above
the floo@lain. This caused concern with Greg Hall and he concurred with my October 12th
decision to require additional floodplain studies prior to altowing the relocation ot the bike path.
We discussed the possibility of moving the bike path 2 leet vertically versus 4 feet as
proposed. Again, further study would have been required to complete this move. Rick Agett
indicated that this was not the devetoper's desire and the issue was not discussed further.
The possibilily of having the developer's surveyor or engineer certify and therefore guaranlee
Mr. Otto
October 22.1993
Page Four
that there would be no conflict with the 100 year floodplain and bike path relocation was also
discussed. Rick Agett indicated that Alpine Engineering was una.ble to certity that there would
be no conflict. Because of the discrepancy between the high water mark and lhe mapped
flood plain, the statf {eels that it is possible, due to changing conditions upstream, thal the 100
year floodplain could have been altered for this site. Therefore, the floodplain as mapped per
the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) Floodway Boundary and Floodway Map
performed in 1983 from Community Panel08005rt00002 could possibly be invalid for today's
conditions.
In a letler to me dated October 13, 1993 from Rick Agett, it is stated that "it it is determined
that the bikepath is in jeopardy, we will take immediate action by conslructing a dike after the
floodplain data has been assessed". Unfortunately, we are unable to consider a possible
solution which would be built after the fact. This is because, if the cunent floodplain
information is invalid and the floodplain is relocated, work of this type which would alter the
floodplain must go through the FEMA and possibly the Army Corps of Engineers and the
floodplain would need to be remapped. This is not a Town of Vail process nor are we
authorized to approve such changes. Also in this letter, Rick indicated that they would not be
able to meel thB October 23, 1993 completion date, but would preter to be allowed to work
through October 27,1993. The extension of the deadline was not acceptable.
Please accept my apology for not laying out this background on the issue earlier. However, I
feel that it is important to lully address issues of this nature which may have significant
impacts prior to construction, rather than attempting to "fix it" next spring when possibly there
could be flooding of the area. As a result of these evenls, I would ask that the developer
study further the implications of the lopographic discrepancies especially as they relate to
access to the property as well as the relationship ol the parking area to the Frontage Road. lf
the building is in lact 4 feet lower, as it has been represented to me by the architect and the
contraclor, then I would assume that there could be implications upon the access to the
property in regard to the driveway grades as well as the vertical location of the parking area
and the retaining walls adjacent to the Frontage Road. In respecl to ihe next step to resolve
the issue, I would like to meet with the owners, contractors and architects as well as the Town
of Vail staff in order to further discuss the implications of the topographic discrepancies.
o
Mr. Otto
October 22,1993
Page Five
Thank you lor your cooperation in this matter. Should you have any questions, please conlact
me at iZg-et38 or Kristan Pritz, Director of Community Developmenl at the same telephone
number.
f\ldm"
Rick Agett, R.A. Nelson and Associates
Dave Schreiner, R.A. Nelson and Associates
Ned Gwathmey, Gwathmey Praft Schultz, Architects
Henry Pratt, Gwathmey Pratt Schultz, Architects
Greg Hall, Town Engineer
Chartie Davis, Public Works lnspector
Kristan Pritz, Community Development Director
R.A. NELSON
&nssoctATEs, tNC.
october L3, 1993
l.tE. ShellY Mellor"*n "t viil conununity Development
11I South Frontage Road t{estVail, Co 81657
Re: Liftside - Bike Path
Daar SheIlY,
t{e understood re could proceed with the lowering of the bike path
p""ai"s-tfte staking ot ihe f lood Dlli.tl. In going. to the site' you
;;;;;i;rd tfrat ifre- lowering of tlie bike path cotrld jeopardir. !h:ltiuctural integiftf of th6ibike path, and we apPreciale your p,oint
of view. ne wouth propose, therefore, that lte be allowed to
pio.""a with the work ind that lre will order a flood plain study in
the Epring.
If it ig determined that the bike path is in jeoPardY, !9 will take
ienediat action btr c6nstructing i aife after the flood plain data
has been assessed.
We removed the fence at great.expense and prepared to start/work qn
the bike path. and would like-to proceed with the understanding
that.we will plan to finish this work byWednesday, octobet 27, if
we qan start inunediateltr.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerel y,
E ASSOCTATES, rl{C.
Project Marrager
P.O. Drower 5400 . Avon, Colorodo 81 620 . 303-949-51 52 . rAx 303-949-4379
ek Agett
14r55 Ns.003 P.02r{.H. NEISOn & HE30C.r p15034763665 06 '93I0tT
t".r\
?
FI
rt
o
q
Et'
{
I
E
*J |,lJEl-o, .t?,1EL,4r|-J
4 |J'>
dt rtl
:t t!!n€
El rrl'e,.e
rt- dlN=stu
'UC
liih
5{-F .r}9e,* 'h
ElE s,
t"E! E
E g*
F' 4J {F#rE" E n13; s Ed _gt -fi i;EE+83-Sg'fi 6 o,^l-.: - hit .o d "
gEEg ta g
*oi-" E'ot E::8fl sE hf;+Er s-e H'
FlEh ;-- Eg*li ;t E
E.!:E F; E€ 38= u i:' u
EH=aE Efi Hgg,F S-i t
cg"lr '$+*t?
i't r:4.p
€! :.'-E
OJ 6JL'H-t!Dd,fLIE Et|JrJ c'si$ rn 'F rF;^- c rJ!di; g 5*ar= k b€e ltltP l'r g'r 'tsn 5$.r € =glti (r € -Tf P s 5ii f gE s| d v..J
. :4.L O ,
: ;5.'i fn € e i/'r
;i EE m tu4 hEn ,.r''E: ETA ut t-iir'r!r.,E8 cPE H I {A
iUF
EJ
ul (flo,ttEr{
P.rE rt
,;E
{.e o
(!tEC'
AEE'
UL
(')g
F:
EUoUI!n{
0
zcmJ
|JJ:-4;
{
01
a
(uE
F LfTOWNOFVAIT
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303 -47e-2 I 38 / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303-479-2452
September 13, 1993
Departrnent of Comrnuniry Developrnent
Mr. David Schreiner
Fl.A. Nelson and Associales
P.O. Drawer 5400
Avon, CO 81620
RE: Relocation of bikepath adjacent to the Littside project
Dear Dave:
As we have discussed, the Town of Vail teels that the relocation of the bike path should occur
between September 15th and October 1 Sth lor a two week period or for a two week period
prior to May 15, 1994. The decision is up to you as to during which lime period you would
like to move it. Proper signage and notification will be required as previously done in June.
Please contact me should you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
l!
365934
...L.&e!L..t-&t- ..
- \'.r.t.i l.H|l_Ltr:;. .r . | ,.:l t. . iqt.fil,l,_t
t:l l'l l0.t H'fl
gl lrlusr
(ep
.. ulrlssifr *,
Gr.b!r! lr Ghr oulrr of ierrtrla rr.1 gro!.t!t (tqr rFrcFrtlrl T]
-, {tr Qh. .!arr al ?.1.1. co|tlcr ol lrrh. glrta af calorraa. -f .jlocectd I[ Gb. torr of.?rll. Ccuacy of l.3la. glrta -cf calolra'r r;
c;;;;; lor-root ul:yitulir corrlrtrteclolr ghr rrillDB rllC"aACCl tOt IOO! a[I 'YllllDfa Bglarllra5tpl, 5rrt yrte!"b r"
rsttlcrlel ol rhlcb.:lr b*r!J reLlorhtllrtlr dorl bwby-r'lll rll
coltrr to-G.ret.. r !ca-.tc1ir1rt grrpriurl .ll|rtlB !!lar r 9!l!rrcrori, .bora a!6 ttrosth lhrt llortlon ol thr'-Progrrtt -{rrcttlaal! IrDtLlE lr .tSrcta{ t.s.tc a!d. incosPotrEaal iar.!! to! l!' ,l;rfi;;-;a liaitiqiiirt. i.lotrhtai.-riprlrtrs, rarlfrlllr-lld.- fircirrBrsctlar . tlctei. Drthr.t. tblr r.qJr.rg rhrll Dr lrao Dtai;-l;;;;;i-iitilc-il. pricrtrlia' bl'ctcl. -fta rtttrt rcttrtttrrr .i.;t.;i
lO XfVt IID f,Ofg rrld rrrrrrlt dllo C!.!3.. .!d llr ir-nceltrgrr "]'i.or .llriill T;.-;;.:;;; ii"iti-iri'iio-iu.ii-'ur-rt-[ Elt-ir;; "':lii ;ilii ;a'riiiriiiiii io iui-irirrrtt. .och Ghrt r ttu.trt-ot 'j.:iii:!iii':'':::,:::::':,:::':i:::':: ;"":.. :. :,. n'q
Frciriii-cofll trlrj tlrtr rrrirrat' grort{rd' hofl.r.r. !bt!--th:. - irtjitr irudid.trrirtt .h!11 lo! uatrloa{tl' lallrfrtl r1$t tt';i;iil i;;;;;c trrirr. ;
SrarBor' il.lt bi lolely rergolrlDll lor rll Inltldcoarl,iiittor cot3. s.ltlr.tt- to calDl.t. thr tlctel,. D.Eh to lt'
rdrolrbli lrltfaactto! of G rtrl.
Brrltrr rblll br rarDolattlr tor all coatl rld atgrlrr.rraoclrttd -9ttb th. ralltatrlcar rrprlr3 rrllacrlrlt ao' oP'arclo'
oC tbr .trironE .r . grClrtrtu , tlatclr ![d rrlar tllthrrt r
lha ir.!! of .rr...!b rhrlt be btodllj lPos .rd lb.ll lalla
co thl-lciiiii ol ebt Dlr!t.r, ch.tr r..!!atlic rsqcrrrclr lad
a18[r.
. Crattor rrttloG. 3h!t t! blr frrtt.rlStt eld ttthorllt to-
ctc"uil cblr Colrryooct of Erramn! .ad to cr€rl. tta raaurrl
harcla grorldcd.
Er.cst.d ar af thc {sto flraE lrB (orlh .bor..
uloe.
08/26/92 16:44 clsos s{6 s6o4 SURVEYING @ ooz
08/25/92 16r{8 €lsog B{E s6o4 E V SURVEYING Woog
08/ 25 / 92 cl3os o4E B Y SURVEYING B oo4
08/25/92 16:{9 83os s4s 960{E V SURVEYING
_ iort{ LttS tftrtiftta ttctol rl
Boos
t 'l :
.. c.
..-- _l
{g
+o
..t""
,1
IIt3I
""-".
{,
l
,
ofo
ro rt"t c'ilr .ttctrox tr
Golardo I
ilorrt'!o.r.|.{J
||ttf||'@'f. tratl
. atfrfault oF crgEltrr \"
rrt t?3!-t. aa?1.
r4!.||1a-t. latJ
Et*t t l $rii-,,,I:ttl
TEI,EPITONE CONFERENCE MEMORANDUII!
Shelly MelJ-o, Town of Vail Cornmunity Developrnent
Ned Gwathmey
'!0 A,ugust 1993
Waterford/f-,if tsideBlke Path Correction
Between:
Date:
Re:
In discussing the fact that the bike path was built 4' hlgher inplaces than the approved drawings, Ned said that the developerwishes to make that correelion. Shelly said she felt the Towndld not have any problem with the bike path being corrected.
Ned reguested that the parties get together to establish thebest tine of constructlon. Shelly said it could not be donebefore tabor Day and must be completed by October 15.
The foregoing constitutes ny understanding of matters discuesedand decislons reached. If the interpretation of others varies,pleaee inform us 1n wrlting.
EMG
copy to:Eustaguio Cortj.na
Fred OttoFrank Preyer
Rick Agett
Rtc'D AUG ',r 0 1993
Wr,tWb4*teAugust 11, 1993
l{s. Shelly Mel}o, Planner #2
Town of VaiI Community Development111 South Frontage Road WestVai1, CO 81657
Re: Waterf ord/f-,if tsiOe
Dear She11y:
Unfortunately, we have discovered that the bike path wasconstructed this spring not in accordance with the approvedplans and we intend to correct it.
Thls means lowering secti"ons of the bike path approximately 4'per the enclosed plan, understanding that. it will interruptbike/ski trafflc for an estirnated one to two weeks. The ownerswould like to do this {,,rork this faII and we would like for youto teLl us the earliest date when this work could be started.
thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
ARCHTTECTS, P.C.
Enclosure
eopy to: Eustaqulo CortlnaFred OttoFrank FreyerRlck Agett
rHMEY/PRATT/SCHUtTZ
Edward M. Gwathne
El{G/ad
May 18, 1993
Ms. Shelly Mello, Planner #2
Town of Vail Community Development
75 SouLh Frontage Road WestVail, co 81657
Re: l,iftside - Skier Stair
Dear Shelly:
Per our discussi-on and at the request of DRB, enclosed please
find a sketch of the plan for replaclng the skier stair from
Westhaven to the Westin lift.
We feel the proposed design will be user friendly having some
the characteristics of the oId Vail Village parking strueture
stair. The user is not vlsually confronted with the entire
risel the landingrs are large enough to rest and breathe.
I underst,and this is still temporary and will be .incorporatedthe fuLure building design for CornersLone and that we need
Cornerstone's owner's approval to proceed. Please see the
enclosed letter to Jerry Mullikin.
Pl-ease don't hesitate to cafl if you need more informatlon or
have any questions.
Sincerely,
TZ ARCHTTECTS, P.C.
d M. Gwathme
EMG/ad
Enqlosures
copy to: Jerry l"lu1likinEustaquio Cortina
Frank Freyer
of
J-n
ol
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
Date:
Re:
- Rich Perske, Preconstruct,lon Engineer
Colorado Department of liighwaysr RegionP.O. Box 2107Grand Junctionn eO 81502
- Ned Gwathmey
Ittay 17, 1993
L,iftside - CDOH Review
o
Between:
Mr. Perske called to discuss the proJect and to request plans.
CDOH rirants to avoid snow shed and shadorir on the right-of-way as
experienced with the existlng Cascade CIub building. Ned
explained that the structure near the right-of-way is theproposed parking structure with fLat surfaces, snovr melt, and
has a low profile. The landscaping in the right-of-way was
dlscussed, and Ned reported meetlng with Leonard Oeltjenbruns on
November 16, 1992t to revi.ew maintaining the existinglandseaping. The contractor Ls proposing removing the 30 oddexisting lrees and returning them after the constructlon i.s
complete.
Ned requested, per dlscussions earller with Ed Hill, that CDOI|consider tle-baeks for shoring into the right-of-way. Richrequested plans and sections which will be forwarcled to him as
soon as possible for review.
The foregolng constitutes my understandlng of matters dlscussed
and decislons reached. If the interpretation of others varies,please inform us in wrlting.
EMG
y'sUetty MeIIo. Town of Vail Comrnuni-tyRick Agett
Frank Freyer
Eustagulo CortinaJim l4cNeil
copy Development
May 'l 8, 1993
Mr. Jerry Mul1ikin, Trustee for Comnercial FederalSlifer, Smith & Frarnpton
230 Bridge Streetvail, co 81657
Re: Cornerstone - Skier Access Stair
Dear Jerry:
Per our discussion the other day, please find enclosed aproposed plan of the wood stair for skier access to the Westinlift.
The proposal is to remove the existing stair which is partly onthe Waterford Tract, to improve the pedestrlan experience ln theprocess, putting the new stair in the easement on theCornerstone Tract for that purpose.
Although this stair does not benefit Waterford, the DRB hasreguested the design be addressed/lmproved concurrent withWaterford's review.
We would like the ourner's, Commercial Federal's, approval toproceed. Actually, the Town wants this in operation by1 October 1993. f appreciate your help in this matter.
Slncerely,
{
THMEY PRATT/TZ ARCHTTECTS, P.C.
d l*1. Gwathney
EMG/ad
Enclosures
copy to: Shelly MelloEustaguio CortinaRick AgettFrank Frever
rfitt'il lvlAil 'j *w{
Ittarch 5, 1993
Ms, Shelly Me1lo
Town of Vail Comnunity Development75 South Frontage Road WestVail, CO 81 657
Re: Liftside
Dear Shelly:
Thanks for taking the time this mornlng to help with the problemof the extra common areas in the Liftside/Waterford project. Iwould l1ke to document some of our findings and discusslons:
1. Without looking at the units thenselves, rrre digitizedthe additions and deletions to the common spaces andarrived at a total of 1049 SF of additional "space."This incLudes approximately 350 SF for an elevatoregulpment room atop elevator "A'r. This does notinclude the common area for shafts inside the unitswhich we estimate to total several hundred additionalsqluare feet.
2, Most of the additional common area is for spacerequired by the UBC and ouE electrical engineers. Someof the other additional space occurs in the covered
"arsades" at the west end of the building. We alsohave re-configured some public spaces to better suitthe buildlng. I tried to offset these latter changesby delettng or shrinking other spaces inslde thebuilding.
3. Both you and Kristan agree that there is somejustification for these additional areas and that theycan be approved by the Staff in a minor amendment tothe S.D.D. prior to issuance of a building permit.
4. You are not sure there ls justification for theexpansion of the east skier entry at the lowesL level .
My argument is that the building inspector wants a
il\
Ms. Shelly Mello
March 5, 1993
Page 2
wider path of travel. I have agreed to take anotherlook at this area and see if I can either make itsmaller or bury more of lt. I also agreed to reducethe widLh of the dining room window at Unlt C-22 toaLlow a wider bench at each level of the adjacentretaining wal1s.
We discussed the developer's desire to enclose thepool . Vou made it very clear that such a move wouldnot be well recelved unless the pool was cornpletelyburied - somethinq we cannot live with. Despite thefact that the current drawings show thls enclosure, Iwill go back to our previous design. Should thedevelopers wish to pursue this, f understand that theywilL have to take the route of a major amendment to theS.D.D. with aI1 of the political overhead.
We will meet again to review the GRFA and common areaswithin the units, but I need the time to do my owncalculations and verify compliance before we do,
If you do not agree with the above, please let me know as soonas possj.ble. Also, please let ne know how to most expedientlyget these additional common areas accepted and approved.
Sincerely,
G}''ATUIUEY I PRATT / S CHUI,TZ ARCHTTECTS, P.C.
5.
6.
Henry R.
HRP/ad
copy to:
PratL, AIA
MECM Enterprises
Mo'
%q
November 11, 1992
Ms. SheLly Me11o, Planner #2
Town of Vail Community Development75 South Frontage Road WestVail, CO 81 657 W
Re:Waterford,/ti fts icre
Temporary Site Development Sign
Dear Shelly:
The Owner,/Developers of the Waterford/f,iftside project wish toinstal.I" a discreet sign on their property which has aperspective which announces and identifies what is happeningr onthe slte.
Enclosed please find copies of your Sign Code 16.04.300
Temporary Site Developrnent Sign and subsequent 16.22.'1 10 whiehbeg guestions:
1. fs this the section which pertains to !'l/t at this time?2. At what point in time can the siqn go up: now, at perrnlt to
remove the rosks, or buildinq permit?3. As the property is nei.ther in CC3 or ABD is this applieable?
We understand all of the poj.nts related to DRB approval prlor toproceeding. I appreciate your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
GWJITHMEY/PRATT ARCHITECTS, P.C.
\t tt _ta
I \gvt\Eilward M. Gwathmey, AfA
EMG,/ad
Enclosure
copy to: Eustaquio Cortina
{
t DEFINITIONS
more parcels. sites or lots for which a plat has been submitted
and approved by the town. (Ord. 9( 1973) $ 3(9).)
16.0.{.290 Subdivision entrance sign.
"Subdivision entrance sign" means a sign permitted to iden-
tify a major subdivision, a condominium complex, or group of
apartment buildings having at least 100 linear feet of frontage
along a vehicular orpedestrian rvay inany RC. LDMF, MDMF,
HDMF, or SDD zone district. (Ord. 14(1982) g la (pan): Ord.
4(197s) $ 2(D) (part): Ord. 9{1973) $ 3(oX7).)
16,04.300 Temporary sile development sign.
"Temporary site development sign"means asign permitted to
identify a project under construction including the project name.
general contractor, architect, prime real estate agent and may
include "model apartment". (Ord.4(1975) g 2(D) (part): Ord.
9(ts73) E 3(o)(8).)
16.04.310 Traffic-control sign.
"Traffic-control sign" means a permitted sign for the pur-
pose of identiff ing private parking areas and directing the flow
of traffic on private property. (Ord. 4( 1975) g 2(D) (part): Ord.
9( 1973) ss 3(oX9).)
16.04.320 lVall sign.
"Wall sign" means a sign attached to, painted on. or erected
against the wall of a building or structure with the exposed face
of rhe sign in a plane parallel to the face of the wall and nor
projecting more tha nine inches from the face of the wall. (Ord.
4( 1975) $ 2(B) (pan): Ord, 9( 1973) $ 3(oXI).)
16.04.330 Window sign. ;
"Windorv sign" means a sign affixed on or located within
thirty-six inches of the interior surface of a window fronting a
f
.+
'))1 (v|ir ?-2{}E21
(Ord. #28
(ord. #28
SIGN CATEGORIES FOR CC3 ZOT{E DISTRICT
pedestrian way, the provisions applicable shall be the
iame as for a business ironring on an arcade, subject to the
approval of the design review- board'
a] 'Under rhis provislon a business or organization which
fronts on bbth the arcade and the end ofthe building
may have a maximum of two signs with a maximum
size of twenty square feet (based upon fronmge) com'
bined, allocated in any manner the applicant chooses'
subject to the approvil of the design review board'
b. This provision is not applicable to
businesses with frontage adjacent to
exterior boundaries of CC3 or ABD other
(1989)) than the North and South Froatage Roads.
5. Any sign erected which is part of the sign program must
receive approval of the design review board.
6. ln the case where the applicant wishes to amend a pre-
viously granted sign program, he may do so, but all signs
in the program will be reviewed in terms of the proposed
addition.
(Ord. 3(1982) $ l(part).)
16.22.110 Temporary site development signs-
Temporary site devetopment signs shall be regulated as
L
follows:
A. Purpose. to indicate or idenrify a {evelopment of real prop-
(1989)) erty under construflion in CC3 or ABD;' B. Size shall not exceed twenty square feet, with a borizontal
dimension no greater than ten feet' Combined maximum
area for more than one sign shall not exceed twenty square
feet;
C. Height, the top of a freestanding sign or wall sign shall be no
higher than eight feet from existing grade;
D, Number. one sign;
E. Location shall be subject to the approval of the design review
board. A wall-mounted sign shall be placed parallel to the
exterior wall adjacent to the street or major pedestrian way
which the building abuts and shall be subject to the approval
of the design review board;
F, Design, subject to the approval ofthe design review board;
256-r7 (v.il 7-20{tl
STCNS
c.
H.
16-22.LzO traffi.cTraffic control
('
Lighting, indirect or pan-channeled; provided that signs only
be lighted during hours of construction;
Special provisions shall be as follows:l. Temporary site development signs shall be rcmoved
within ten days afier an occupancy permit is issued. The
sign shall be permitted for a period of one year.
2. The information permitted on temporary site develop-
ment signs is limited to project name, prime real estatc
agent, general contractor and architecl.
(Ord. 3(1982) $ l(part).)
coltroL signs for priyate properEy.
signs for CC3 or ABD shall be regulated(ord.lt28 (1989) ).A.
as follows:
Purpose. to relieve vehicular and pedesiiian traffic conges-
tion and promote the safe and expedient flow and parking of
traffic on private property;
Size, all vehicular traffic control signs shall not exceed one
square foot, except multi-purpose signs, which shall not
exceed four square feet. All pedestrian traffic conrol signs
shall not exceed one square foot. except multi-purpose signs,
which shall not exceed four square feet, subject to tbe appro-
val ofthe design review board;
Height, no part ofthe sign shall exrend above six feet from
existing grade.
Number, subject to the approval of the design review board:
Location shall be determined by design review board; with a
letter of approval from the town engineer for any sign placed
adjacent to a public street or way;
Design, subject to the approval of the design review board;
Lighting, indirect, at the discretion of the design review
board;
Landscaping at discretion ofdesign review board;'
Special provisions shall be as follows:l. May be either free-standing or wall-mounted. with same
size requirements;
2. No individual sign will be approved unless it conforms to
an overall sign program for the entire building, submitted
by the applicanr;
B.
c.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
t.
t V.il 7-!Ot1)256-r 8
166 g, tyfl o,cju
TTFTSTDE
PRECONSTRUCTTON
MEETING MINUTES5-13-93
I. PURPOSE: IMPROVE CO$MUNICATION
A. ON-SITE UEETINGS DURING CONSTRUCTION
ACTION:1. Shelly MeLlow lndicated that neetl-ngs such astoday's should occur throughout the constructionprocess.
r]. STEPS FROM, NOW TO FINISH
A. BUITDING PERII{IT REQ.IITIREMENTS
I
ATTENDEES: Danny SwertfegerFrank FreyerJeff AtencioMichael l4cceey.{ristan Prltz
Heiko MuesDan $tanek
Greg HaIlSheIIy Mel-lo
Ned GwathmeyDavid SchreinerRick AgettEustaquio CorLina. Garry lturrain
Tom Sheely
GPS
Owners Representative
TOV Fire Department
TOV Fire Department
TOV Planning DepartmentAipine Engineering
TOV Building Departnent
ToV Engineer
TOV Planning Department
GPS
Nelson Zeeb ConstructionNelson Zeeb Construction
Owner
TOV BuiLding Department
TOV Police Department
ACT]ON:
Shelly 1.
Owner
Olltner
2.Shelly indicated that the foJ.lowing lnformatlon *
l:?"1".,!:,,::l*ttted prior to a buili#t"r*p tbeing issued:a. A retter of credit r"
''41,ffi
COMMENTS!
Eustaguio asked shellyEEE-reguirements foremployee housing. She indicated that she wouldget hin that information immediately.Shelly indicated that the foJ.lowing lnformatlon
liesthaven Drive .A minor subdivision plat showing the newlocation for the bike path. Ned Gwathneypointed out that there may be a problem with
b.
COUMEN?S:
t.
May 13, 1993
AGENDA FOR
WATERFORD
PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING
Purpose; lmprove Communication
.On-site meetings during construction process
Steps from now to finish
.Building permit requirements.lLc
.TCO
.Letter of Credit, appropriate form and items that can be included
Specific issues to discuss
y'Road - Letter of Credit and title
l,Bike Palh
LMinor SuMivision Plat
ll.
il1.
Wrw\f &rt *{*,unru,,.Hf
0.4tu'
Snt( -
?uv^nl - (,71 ,oac
[n i ngV &t)c - IplW g'fin
Ld tcliif- tztx.U
VrM<-ll
0+l
,Lryry.l,orhl*- y*l
.Fra
nZzr-maefl*Z
PEq 'CoNETPucrtoF-r vl4E6TrN6
.-
(.^ rlc).
(wFtY'
b lb"'ffi#)
'G5
CONT'ERENCE MEMORANDUM
Date:
Place:
Present:
November 13, 1992
Public Works Offices
Larry Grafel, Director of public WorksGreg HalI, Town EngineerShelly tilello, Planner #2
Ned Gwathney
l0atcrtord and Cornerstone
Assndrrent to SDD 4
Re:
After reviewing the pJ-ans as subnitted to Staff, public Workshad the following points:
1. As the Flre Departnent was not concerned with getti_ng on theparking deck, the clearances for vehicles will be dietatedby the size and reguirements of UPS and BFI eguipment. Nedwill meet wlth officials and get back with findlngs.
Greg was concerned about the blke path durlng constructl.onand Ned w1ll specify that the path be relocated initiallyand fenced off from construction durJ-ng constructlon.
A new easernent will need to be recorded for the new bikepath.
Shelly explained the understandings on Westhaven Drlve:bringing j.t up to Town standards and dedicating it.
Curb and gutter need to be added at both Cornerstone andWaterford, as they are built for drainage.
Greg did not want to see everyday vehicular access fromWesthaven at the bus stop across to the parking st.ructure,but that the occasional movinq van could be accommodated-
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
.-.-(.+i?\1
S1\ff'SJ.
\S' Ts,. 'i '-*'+idrare
A. APPLICANT
MAILING ADDRESS
PHON
APPLICATION FOR
CONDOMINIUM/TOWNHOUSE PLAT REVIEW
(Chapter 17 .22 Y ail Municipal Code)
B.
b{y
D.2?5
E.
F.
b.
c.
d.
(please print or type)K
APPLICANT'S REPRESE *-'O''U' FKED Ore
oooaes pnoNe 9V/1- {3ffi
C. PROPERTY OWNEH
OWNER'S SIGNATURE PHONE
MAILING ADDRESS
LOCATION OF PBC
STREET ADDRESS
LOT_ BLOCK_ SUBD|V|S|ON
APPLICATION FEE $1OO.OO PAID
MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED:
1.
cHEcK #J&j-D^rE ttlhtf
Two mylar copies and one paper copy of the subdivision plat shall be submitted
to the Department of Community Development. The plat shall include a site
map with the following requirements:
The final plat shall be drawn by a registered surveyor in India ink, or
other substiantial solution, on a reproducible medium (preferably mylar)
with dimension of twenty{our by thirty-six inches and shall be at a scale
of one hundred feet to one inch or larger with margins of one and one-
half to two inches on the left and one-half inch on all other sides.
Accurate dimensions to the nearest one-hundredth of a loot for all lines,
angles and curves used to describe boundaries, streets, setbacks,
alleys, easements, structures, areas to be reserved or dedicated lor
public or common uses and other important features. All curves shall be
circular arcs and shall be defined by the radius, central angle, arc
scored distances and bearing. All dimensions, both linear and angular,
are to be determined by an accurate control survey in the field which
musl balance and close within a limit of one in ten thousand.
North arrow and graphic scale.
A systematic identification of all existing and proposed buildings, units,
lots, blocks, and names for all streets.
e.An identification of the streets, alleys, parks, and other public area! or _facilities as shown on the plat, and a dedication thereof to the public
use. An identification of the easements as shown on lhe plat and a
grant thereof to the public use. Areas reserved for future public
acquisition shall also be shown on the plat .
A written survey description of the area including the total acreage to the
nearest appropriate significant figure. The acreage of each lot or parcel
shall be shown in this manner as well.
A description of all survey monuments, both found and set, which mark
the boundaries of the suMivision, and a description of all monuments
used in conducting the survey. Monument perimeter per Colorado
statutes. Two perimeter monuments shall be established as major
control monuments, the materials which shall be determined by the town
engineer.
A statement by the land surveyor explaining how bearing base was
determined.
A certificate by the registered land surveyor as outlined in Chapter 17.32
0f this title as to the accuracy of the survey and plat, and that the survey
was performed by him in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes
1973, Title 38, Article 51 .
A certificate by an attorney admitted to practice in the State of Colorado,
or corporate title insurer, lhat the owner(s) of record dedicating to the
public the public right-of-way, areas or facitities :rs shown thereon are
the owners thereof in fee simple, free and clear of all liens and
encumbrances except as noted.
The proper form for filing of the plat with the Eagle County Clerk and
Recorder.
Certificate of dedication and ownership. Should the certificate of
dedication and ownership provide for a dedication of land or
improvements to the public, all beneficiaries of deeds of trust and
mortgage holders on said real property will be required to sign the
certificate of dedication and ownership in addition to the fee simple
owner thereof.
m. All current taxes must be paid prior to the Town's approvat of plat. This
includes taxes which have been billed but are not yet due. The
certificate of taxes paid must be signed on the plat or a statement from
the Eagle County Assessor's Otfice must be provided with the submittal
information stating that all taxes have been paid.
n. Signature of owner.
The condominium or townhouse plat shall also include floor plans, elevations
and cross-sections as necessary to accurately determine individual air spaces
and/or other ownerships and if the project was built substantially the same asthe approved plans.
A copy of the condominium documents for staff review to assure that there are
maintenance provisions included for all commonly owned areas.
s.
h.
k.
2.
3.
APPROVAL PROCESS, REVIEW CRITERIA
upon re_ceiving two copies of a complete submittal along with payment of theappropriate fee, the zoning administrator shall route one copy of the site map to thetown engineer for his review. The zoning administrator shalt tnen conduct this reviewconcurrently. The town engineer shall review the submittal and return comments and
G.
H.
notifications to the zoning administrator who shall transmit the approval, disapproval or
approval with modifications of the plat within fourteen days to the applicant. The
zoning administrator shall sign the plat if approved or require modifications on the plat
for approval or deny approval due to inconsistencies with the originally approved pian
or failure to make other required modifications of the plat.
FILING AND RECORDING
The zoning administrator shall be the final signature required on the plat so that the
Department of Community Development will be responsible for promptly recording the
approved plat with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. Fees for recording shall be
paid by the applicant. The Community Development Department will retain one mylar
copy of the plat for their records and will record the remaining mylar copy.
lf this application requires a separate review by any local, state or Federal agency
other than the Town of Vail, tfre application fee shall be increased by $200.00.
Examples of such review, may include, but are not limited to: colorado Department of
Highway Access Permits, Army Corps of Engineers 404, etc,
The applicant shall be responsible for paying any publishing fees which are in excess
of 50% of the application fee. lf, at the applicant's request, any matter is postponed for
hearing, causing the matter to be re-published, then the entire fee for such re-
pubtication shatl be paid by lhe applicant.
Applications deemed by the Community Development Department to have significant
design, land use or other issues which may have a significant impact on the
community may require review by consultants other than town staff. Should a
determination be made by the town staff that an outside consultant is needed to review
any application, the Community Development Department may hire an outside
consultant, it shall estimate the amount of money necessary to pay him or her and this
amount shall be fonrvarded to the Town by the applicant at the time he files his
application with the Community Development Department. Upon completion of the
review of the application by the consultant, any of the funds forwarded by the applicant
for payment ot the consultant which have not been paid to the consultant shall be
returned to the applicant. Expenses incurred by the Town in excess of the amount
forwarded by the application shall be paid to the Town by the applicant within 30 days
of notification by the Town.
?
: r ,! i---., : .r :.-- i i-i i- "l !-j 1. L.
, ,__- i -:i-._ a... , =..,i,
'.,.'
RECETPT - Thc To*r ofVail
4?188
RECENED FROM
ADDRESS
Permit Numbers
HOW PAID-Cash-Check
Y*
A. APPLICANT
MAILING ADDHESS
PHONE
APPLICATION FOR
CONDOMINIUM/TOWNHOUSE PLAT REVIEW
(Chapter 17.22 Yait Municipat Code)
K
,l
0t|j 5 1994
B.AppLrcANlsREpRESErrolu. FKF-D O"flD
ADDRE PHON
C. PHOPERTYOWN
pao*e ?/f-fStu -owNER'S Sl
MAILING ADDFIESS
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
STREET ADDRESS 27q 'n\€rv''t
LOT BLOCK_ SUBD|VISION FILING
E.
F.
APPLICATION FEE $1OO.OO PAID I./cHEcK *1/1e ,/_onr
MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED:
1. Two mylar copies and one paper copy of the subdivision plat shall be submitted
to the Department of community Development. The plat shall include a site
map with the following requiremenls:
a. The final plat shall be drawn by a registered surveyor in India ink, or
other substantial solution, on a reproducible medium (preferably mylar)
with dimension of twenty-four by thirty-six inches and shall be at a scale
ol one hundred leet to one inch or larger with margins of one and one-
half to two inches on the left and one-half inch on all other sides.
b. Accurate dimensions to the nearest one-hundredth of a foot ior all lines,
angles and curves used to describe boundaries, streets, setbacks,
alleys, easements, structures, areas to be reserved or dedicated for
public or common uses and other important leatures. All curves shall be
circular arcs and shall be delined by the radius, central angle, arc
scored distances and bearing. All dimensions, both linear and angular,
are to be determined by an accurate control survey in the lield which
must balance and close within a limit of one in ten thousand.
c. North arrow and graphic scale.
d. A systematic identification of all existing and proposed buildings, units,
lots, blocks, and names for all streets.
(please print or type)
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 16, 1993
7:30 P.M.
4 "nsol* meeting of the vail rown counsil was held on Tuesday, March 16, 1gg8, in theCouncil Chambers of the VaiI Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at ?:4bP.M.
MEMBERS PRESEI{T:Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor
Jim Gibson
Jim Shearer
Tom Steinberg
Rob LeVine
Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem
Bob Buckley
Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT:
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Bill Hanlon noted. he had spoken
rvith Ken Hughey conceming increased policing in the Village and walk-throughs on private
properties as a deterrent to any potential problems during the upcoming Springbreaks. Ken
Hughey noted TOV did not have the stalfrng levels to meet peak demand times, but the
Police Department had been trying to respond to all requests for additional walk-throughs
in hotels and the parking structures. He added there were contingency plans to put stalf on
overtime to meet the needs of lodge owners and people the Village if needed.
Mr. Hanlon also expressed his feeling that TOV was at a point where a fi.rll-time Mayor and
Council, as well as a Town Manager, were needed.
Item No. 2 was a Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinhnce repealing and
reenacting Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991, to provide changes to Area A requirements for
SDD No. 4 that concern the development plans for The Waterford and The Cornerstone
Development Building Sites; and setting forth details in regard. thereto. The applicants were
MECM Enterprises and Commercial Federal Savings. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full.
Shelly Mello discussed issues addressed in the Community Development Departmenr"s (CDD)
March 11, 1993, memo to Council requesting an insertion into paragraph 18.46.104 of this
ordinance to allow the applicant, rilith staff review, to modify common areas and add up to
1,000 square feet of additional common area in order to meet adopted TOV codes. Shelly
explained, after further development ofthe structural plans for this project, the applicant had
found bhat, due to the American Disability Act, Uniform Fire Code, and the Uniform Building
Code there was a dema.d for an increase in common area and modification to common areas
for the building. Shelly noted stalf found this was a corrmon request once building plans
moved from planning stages to construction stages, and felt the requested insertion into this
ordinance was an appropriate addition. Council agreed to the requested insertion.
Fred Otto advised he had learned he did not own Westhaven Drive; it was still owned by Vail
Ventures. However, he said a coalition of the four remaining undeveloped parcels, the
MECM site, the Building C site (Cornerstone), tJle Ruins site (Westhaven Apartments), and
the Triplex site (Millrace III) and the Cascade Village Association (CVA) would make a
contribution of $97,500 to TOV to assist TOV with refurbishing Westhaven Drive and taking
it over. Mr. Otto stated the $97,500 would be contributetl as follows: $24,000 from CVA,
$23,000 from Commercial Federal who owns the Building C site (Cornerstone), $5,000 from
Mike Lauterbach for Millrace IV, $24,500 from MECM, and $21,000 from the owner of the
Ruins (Westhaven Apartments.) The $97,500 figure was the frgure derived at and detailed
in Larry Grafel's memo to Council dated Februwy 72, 1993, regarding Westhaven Drive
improvements. The memo indicated the Public Works Department (PW) had reviewed the
infonnation provided by the applicants at a meeting with Greg Hall, TOV Engineer, Estaquio
Cortina, Ned Gwathmey, Jerrry Mulliken, and Larry Grafel on February 10, 1993, a:rd PW
had analyzed that information with regard to the subdivision ordinance standards for publicstreets. The memo listed specifis improvements required for Westhaven Driver ani costestimates for those improvements.
The mechanics of transferring title and dedicating Westhaven Drive to TOV were discussed.Mr- Otto noted that Andy Norris had no problem himself deeding over the road, but Mr. Ottoindicated that Mr. Norris could not supply information about the status of transferring titlefrom other owners. Mr. Otto said this issue would. require further investigation, whih hefelt was a responsibility he hoped TOV would assist with. There was discussion about thetimefrane lor payment of the 992,b00. Mr. otto said he had hoped to have that as acondition of Certificate of Occupancy (CO). He did not, however, harre a problem eitherputting it up before that time or bonding it. He assumed if
"OV
received tiile, TOV wouldtake over maintenance and snow removal. Mayor Osterfoss felt it would be sensible for TOV
to consider taking over maintenance and snow removal once it received title to the road., and,in conjunction with that, felt that would be the appropriate time for the applicants to pay the
$97,500. Mr. Otto said that would work, but felt it was important to the participants in thisproject to understood that the only thing that was going to happen was an overlay. Therewould be no change in the curvature or line of sight, no change in the bridge, and thatexisting encroachments lyrng within Westhaven Drive would not require a license or
encroachment agreement. Mr. Otto anticipated the deeding of the road and payment of the
$97,500 would occur in 1993. He felt construction ofthe road would. not no"m-aUy be doneuntil heavy construction was completed, so he expected, if they could get started this sgmmerwith the heavy equipment and steel erection, construction ofthe road could be done in the
srunmer of 1994, Mayor Osterfoss asked if there would be any cost changes as a result ofproceeding in 1994. Larry Grafel stated if there was a delay, current prices with an
approximate 6Vo increase would be appropriate to consider. Mr. Otto pointed out the $97,500estimate in Larry Grafel's memo contained a $19,b00 contingency, and Mr, otto hoped if
conetruction was less than that, the difference would be returned pro rata to the participants.
Mayor Osterfoss felt that was a reasonable request. There was further discussion about theprojectis timeframe, Tom Steinberg indicating TOV did not want to be held to this agreement
indefinitely; this agreement was for 1993 as far as he was concerned. Mr. Otto also indicated
his group felt TOV should participate in this in some form. He said he has been struggting
to get GIen Lyon to participate in this as they were the direct beneficiary ofall ofthis, but
to date they have not been able to find a way to get Glen Lyon to participate. Tom said the
building permit was tied to TO\ts receipt of the $97,500 and the title to the land, and if Mr.
Otto could not get title until 1994, the project would not go until 1994.
Mr. Otto felt TOV had to cooperate and conduct, at his cost, a condemnation proceeding. Mr.
Otto and Larry Eskwith discussed the details and timing iavolved witJr condemnation
proceedings including appraisals and public hearings. It was noted the condemned party had
thirty days to obtain an appraisal, and Mr. Otto would be responsible for charges incurred
for that. Larry felt it could be four to six months before actual receipt of immediate
possession could occur.
Mayor Osterfoss summarized the sequence of events to occur: the title for Westhaven Drive
was to be presented at no cost to TOV, that $97,500 would be contributed to TOV by the
group of interested property owners in the area, and following that a building permit would
be issued. Larry Eskwith confirmed that MECM did not presently own the road, and because
TOV could possibly be taking a Quit Claim Deed, La:ry indicated he wanted a title
commitment policy. The building permit issue was discussed. Mr. Otto felt it was reasonable
to make that a condition of occupancy. All agreed it would be to the benefrt of all to see
building commence this summer, but Mr. Otto felt if TOV made acquisition of the road a
condition of the building permit, he did not feel summer building would be possible if Larry's
four to six month estimate was correct. Mr. Otto saiil the money would be there, but title to
the road may take the amount of time Larry Eskwith thought. Mayor Osterfoss stated until
title and the money were there, TOV would not be maintaining the road. She also said
because Larry Grafel and Greg Hall had analyzed the coet for this prdect, at $97,500 it
should be considered TOV was contributing the cost of design, testing, and project
management. There was additional discussion about the 1993 cost estimates versus future
costs. Larry Grafel noted, as Mr. Otto had mentioned, there was a contingency ia the
$97,500, it was preferable to do the project all at once, and he felt it would be possible to doit after the heavy equipment was there and construction was underway. Larry Grafel felt
the damage would be minimal and it could be done at a later time without major cost
implications.
After further conversation regarding timing of the road construction, an agreement was
reached that, upon paJrment of the $9?,500, a building permit could be issued, even if title hadnot been transferred to TOV with the understanding that maintenance ofthe road would notstart nor would there be issuance of Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) until title wasalso transferred. It was also established that if TOV was iequired to proceed withcondemnation, that would be at Mr. Otto's expense. LarrT Eskwith said it needed to be clearin the ordinance that when Mr. Otto s expense was addressed, not only the expense of theproceeding was to be addressed, but also the expense of any bond as the escrow forimmediate possession. Mr. otto said he then wanted to have a heavy hand in the
condernnation p-roceeding because he felt he could do it very fast and very cheaply andwanted to be able to select the attorneys. It was mutually agreed that the developer wouldparticipate in any necessary condemnation proceedings.
After further discussion, Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinaace No. 1, Series of 19g8, on
second reading, with the following conditione agreed upon by TOV and the property owner:
an effort would begin to obtain title to Westhaven Drive at no cost to TOV, $97,500 would bepaid to Tov by the group who had made commitments to pay that, subsequeat to thepayment of the $97,500 building permits could be obtained to begin projects in Waterford and
Cornerstone, a Temporary Certificate of Occupancies would not be issued by TOV for either
building until title for the road had been transferred to TOV and at that time maintenance
of that road by TOV would begin, if the project came in for less than $97,500, those funds
would be returned by TOV to those who contributed, condemnation costs would be paid for
by the applicant and TOV would cooperate in conducting condemnation proceedings with theapplicant choosing attorneys and appraisers, the specific improvements required to
Westhaven Drive were those things specifi.ed i:r Larrry Grafel's memo dated February 12,
1993, including that all transverse and longitudinal cracks would be sealed with a pave prep
fabric prior to overlay, that any asphait distress areas would be removed and reworked prior
to overlay, 2' ofasphalt would be removed and the base recompacted and new asphalt placed
from Station O+00 (Bridee) to Station 6+75 (Westin Hotel Entrance) right edge and once that
overlay was completed, the minimum section would be 4" asphalt over 4" basecourse, tinat2'
of asphalt would be removed and tJle base recompacted and new asphalt placed from Station
5+00 (Westhaven Apartments/Parking Strrrciure Exit) to Station 7+00 (lower Cascade Club
Entrance) le{t edge and once that overlay was completed the minimum section would be 4"
asphalt over 4" ba$ecourse, that the existing concrete pan would be removed and replaced
with type II B curb and gutter at Station 0+00 - 5+00 right side, that the existing concrete
pan would be removed at Station 0+00 - 1+90 Ieft side and \pe II B curb anil gu.tter would
be installed and appropriate drive cuts and drive pans would be provided as well as a 6'
sidewalk installed, Type II B curb and gutter would be installed from Station 1+90 -5+00 left
side and appropriate drive cuts and drive plans and a 6'sidewalk would be installed at
Station 1+90 - 5+00 left side and a 6'walk would be installed from Station 2+50 - 5+00, that
at Station 5+00 - 10+00 left side, the existing concrete pan would be removed and replaced
with Type II B curb and gutter and appropriate drive cuts and drive pans would be provided
as well as a 6' sidewalk, that at Station 6+?5 right side, the pan would be reworked to
ensure storm flows stay on Westhaven Drive, that at Station 8+40 right side, the curb would
be reworked and drivecut to ensure water would not flow into delivery doors of the couference
center, that Type II B curb and gutter and a 6'sidewalk would be installed at Station 8+60 -
9+80 right side, that any broken curb sections in the cul-de-sac area would be repaired prior
to overlaying and that it would be assumed there would be 30 l.f. of curb replacement, that
the entire road would be overlayed with 1 f/2" hot bituminous pavement , that 2 hooded inletswith sediment traps and 15" cmp piping to discharge the flows to Gore Creek would beinstalled al Station 0+10 left and right eide, that at Station 5+oO left side the existingvalley
inlet would be converted to a hooded inlet, that at Station 2+00 - 3+50 right side rocks ard
landscaping would be modifred to improve sight distance, that at Station 3+00 - 4+?5 le{t side
rocks would be moved back to improve snow storage capacity, that at Station 3+50 + 4+75
right side rocks would be moved back to improve snow storage capacity, that any settled
pave$ wouldbe reworked and brought up to grade, and that applicant would work to control
runolVicing problem on the stairs to the Cascade Club, and there would be a paragraph
added to 18.46.1.04 ofthe ordinance to allow the applicant to add an additional 1,000 square
feet of common area in the Waterford Building. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. A vote
was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
Larry Grafel introduced T\JVs new Town Clerk, Holly McCutcheon.
At 8:20 P.M., a motion to afiourn the meeting to Executive Session to discuss legal,
,l-rto o
rerrloved. - Tom suggested if the end solution was a park on top of a parkjng structure,perhaps the street would not need to be nanowed to put in iandscaping f,ecause thelandscapiag would be in the park. Mayor Osterfoss advised a site visii to the area wasplanned, and felb it woulcl be an interesting leaming experience for Council and stalf to goout and enforce regulations. Merv noted the Transportition and Parking Task Force rvisreconvening so this could be another issue for their review.
ltem No. 2 was the appointment of 3 new members to the Planning and EnviroumentalCommission (PEC). The candidates, interviewed by Council on Februar5r,28, 1gg3, were BiIIAnderson, Chuck Crist, Kathy Langenwalter, and Gena Whitten. There were B positionsavaiiable, each term for two years. A ballot was taken, and Merv Lapin moved. to appointBill Anderson and I(alhy Larrgenwalter to the PEC unlil February 2S; 1995- A majority ofvotes had not been received for any candidate for the third open position, and. sia{T wasdirected to re-advertise the position. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was takenand the motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Ite'n No. 3 was the appointment of 2 new members to the Design Review Board (DRB). The
candidates, interviewed by Council on Februarl' 29, 199A, weie Michael Arnett, Sally RichBrainerd, Alice Cartwright, Dan Doerge, Florence Steinberg, aad Carmen Weiner. There
were 2 posifions available. Tom Steinberg stepped down due to conflict of interest. A batlotwas taken, and Merv Lapin u.oved to appoint Michael Arnett and Sally Rich Brainerd to theDRB unt'il February 28, 1995. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. A vbte was taken and themotion passed unanimously, 5-0-1, Tom Steinberg abstaining.
Item No. 4 was the appointment of 1 new member to the Housing Authority. The candidales,interviewed by Council on February 23, lggg, were Duane piper and Dan Doerge. There was
1 position available for a five year terrn. A ballot was taken, and Tom Steinberg moved to
re-app-oint Duane Piper to the Housing Authority until January 31, 1995. Bob Buckley
seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unaaimously, 6-0.
Item No. 5 was appointment of 4 new members to the Art in Public Placee Board (AIPP).
The candidates, intervierved by Council on February 23, 1993, were Alice Cartwright, Jimcotter, Dan Doerge, Eddy Doumas, Iolita Higbie, Erich Hill, and Kyle H. webb. There'were
4 positions available. Two terms were for two years and two terms were for three years. A
ballot was taken, and Merv Lapin moved to appoint Jim Cotter arrd Lolita Higbie to ihe AIPP
Board until February 28, 1995, a:rd Alice Cartwright and Erich HiIl until !'ebruary 28, 19g6.Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken anil the motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Item No. 6 was a Consent Agenda consisting of two items:
A. Approval of the I\{inutes of the February 2, 1999, and February 16, 19g8, Town
Council Evening l{eetings.
B. Ordinance No. 3, $eries of 1993, second reading, an ordinance concerning the issuance
of Local Improvement Refunding Bonds of the Town of Vail, Colorado for the Booth
Creek Local Improvement District; ratifying action heretofore taken in connection
therewith; prescribing details in connection with said Bonds and District; prescribing
duties ofcertain Town olficials in connection therewith; repealing all ordinarrces and
other action of the Town to the extent inconsistent herewith; and pmviding othermatters relating thereto.
Mayor Osterfoss read the titles in full. Tom Steinberg moved to approve the ConsentAgenda, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 6-0
Item No. 7 was Ordinaace No. !., Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance repealing andreenacting Ordinance No. 4L, Series of L991, to provide changes to Area A requiiements for
SDD No. 4 that concern the development plans for The Waterford and The Cornerstone
D,evelopment Building Sites; and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicants wereMECM Enterprises and Commercial Federal Savings. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full.Larry Eskwith explained that it had been assumed that Westhaven Drive was owned byMECM, who wag the developer of the Waterford site. However, it appeared there was now
some question as to who had title to that road. He advised documents had been discoveredin the foreclosure papets which made it unceriain if MECM owned that road, Consequently,
rtoo|":vo
it yq"-la be imFossible for MECM to dedicate the road t,o TOV if they do not own it. Afterbrief discussion, Merv Lapin moved to table second reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series of1993, until March 16, 1993. Torn Steinberg seconded the molion. A vote was taken and themotion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Item No. 8 was Resolution No. 3, Series of 1993, a resolution approving and adopting thel-993-1997 Town of Vail Transit Development Plan (TDP). Mayorbsterfoss read the tiile infull. Mike Rose briefly explained the content of the TDP, and advised that it needed to besubmitted to the Colorado Department of Transportation by Aprii Lb, 1998, in order tocompete for $900,000 in grant money the state had available this year. Tom Steinberg movedto approve Resolution No. 3, Series of 1993, with a second from Jim Gibson. Before a votewas taken, Merv Lapin inquired abouL time scheduie and allect if TOV were successfui inreceiving funds. After brief discussion, a vote was then taken and ihe motion passedunanimousiy, 6-0.
Item No. 9 was a Town Council appeal of a Planning and Environmental Commission (pEC)
decision regarding a Conditional Use Permit, for the expansion of the Municipal Building tohouse the Vail Police Department, localed at 75 S. Frontage Road West. Mike Moilica
referenced his memo to Council dated March z, Lgg8, detailing the February 22, Lggg, pEC
meeting during which they approved, by a vote of 4-3, a Conditional Use per:nait requestincluding ten conditions of approval, for the Police Department expansion. Mike noted thefirst seven conditions were recommendations made by the planning staff and were carried,forth by the PEC. Those seven conditions were fully detailedln the Community DevelopmentDepartment's (CDD) memo to the PEC dated February 22, 1998. The pEb acldedthreeadditional conditions which were detailed in the above referenced March z, IggB memo.There was discussion concerning additional landscaping, particularly with regard to snowstorage, parking requirements, the heliport, and communication with the ColoradoDep-artment of Transportation (CDOT) regarding some of their rights-of-way. Mike said the
CDD was trying to keep all development proposed for this project on TOV property, inclufingthe parking spaces presently on the CDOT right-of-way. He confirmed itrut -CnOf
Uua
agreed to allow plantitrg and berming in their righl-of-way. Mayor Osterfoss noted Lhere hadbeen discussions rvilh We Recycle and olhers about possible relocation because Council wasin agreement with the PEC's concern that all on-site parking should be maximized.
Jim Gibson turned the discussion to Ken Hughey's March 2, 1993, memo to Council regardinga cost analysis of the Police Department expansion based on thti PEC and CDDrecommendations. That memo explained that the PEC's approval of the Conditional UsePermii request for the Police expansion contained ten conditions, most of which were not
included in the approved project budget, and detailed the cost ofeach condition. Jim Gibsoofelt a number of the costs shown in the memo did not belong in the Police Department
expansion budget. Tom Steinberg agreed some of the items, such as crosswalks and
sidewalks, were projects which should be done as a matter of course.
Before further discussion of budget issues, Mayor Osterfoss asked if there was Council
consensus for the ten conditions approved by the PEC. Tom Sieinberg asked if the
architectural modifications lo the existing building conformed to the new building. He asked
why the new building was not automatically conforming to the existing building to avoid
expense' Mike Mollica explained there were numerous meetings with the DRB at the PECwork sessions, ald it was felt that it would not be appropriate to carr5r the architectural
design ofthe existing building over to the proposed new expansion. Mayor Osterfoss askeilif the architects had a design that would match the existing building. Ken said they did, and,in short, that design just showed the new building looking like the exjsting building. Ken
explained the $103,000 was for architectural modifrcations to make the existing building
conform to the new building. If the new building were built with new architecture, the cost
would be $103,000 to redo the exterior of the existing building to match the new building,
$27,000 of that amount for modification to the west entry of the existing building. Tom
Steinberg pointed out if this building were modified, the Municipal Annex would not match.
JeffBowen, PEC member and Police Addition Task Force member, said the PEC felt it was
important, even with consideration of addibional cost, to note that this was, in essence, the
creation of a new Town Hall. IIe felt the buildings should match, and rather than trying to
make the new buiiding look like the existing building, the existing building should be
modified so the architecture of the new building would be carried through. Dalton Williams,
PEC member also felt the two buildir:gs needed to match and needed to be more attractive
oo !li- ,irj:i
il*i-il*
lrr
o
F rL I OOPV
Mr' Abalanalp noted the Board of Directors of the Berry creek Metropolitan DistrictlupPgted the positioa of making the additional 5 acres a rif"Ur" if the School Districbdecided to construct an appropriatily sized middle school at tn* "it". He felt similar supportfrom Tov, which was,the .oiitv o**ing the largest irrterest in irrln""y creek Eth Filing,seemed appropriate. In suYrmary, Mr. Abphnati r"eg.tea tov "*a-ioe this question an<i.take two steps: (1) a{oy.the Eaele counitsch'oo] frIrt"i*it" *Jth"
""""ug" in the Berrycreek.5th Filing, and (2) permii "r" oii"tt" Berry creek Eth Fiuxg fbr construction andoperation of a middle school. He felt this was a unique opportuniiy which should be takenadvantage of to avoid,the future possibility of having t [iilo."tntirely separate middleschool at a substantially increased cost. Me"rv requested at least one or two Council membersaccompanv him to the Thursday ,Zl}llgl,meeting of the Eagle clrrrrtv n""ruation Authorityto hear The Eagle County School Districi,s proposal.
Item No' 2 on-the agenda was ordinance No. 1, series of 1gg3, second readirg, nn ordinancerepealing and reenacting ordinance No. 4t, S""i". ofrsgi, i" p"""ra" changes to Area Arequirements for sDD No. 4 that con@rn the developm*t;il6;lhe waterford andr6e,cornerstone Development Building siteg; and settiil {ilil;t"til in regard thereto. Theapplicant was MECM Enterprises*and Commercial Flderal s;;;;.. sheuy Mello advisedthe applicants had asked for a continu";; the next eveni;--;;it"c. Rob Levine movedto continue ordinance No. 1, series of 19g8, second reading, untir March z, r.gg3, with asecond from Jim Gibson. Before a vote was-taken, she[y explaio"d th" Lpprl"""fLareceived To\Ps requirements and estimate for the roaa 4f",i*-i*", and had also pursueda private estimate whr.ch appeared to be in line with To\rs. At thil time the ,ppri.-",ri-**,communicating with the individual entities involved to *"""" ""ppo"t fo" f""ai"g. tn"yproposed to come back.in two weeks dlt ? proposal for how tne road i*p*oo**"oi* *9o1ibe funded. Merv Lapin noted Larry Grafei,s memo to council art"a r."u"r., ary 12, rgg1,regarding Westhaven Drive Improvements stated the Public Works Depaytment had reviewedinformation prwided-by the applicants and had aaalyzed it witrr iug.a to the subdivisionordinance standards for prrblic-Jtreets. The memo prwicled details concerning what TOV feltwas necessary to bring tlre roa{ up to TOV standards. The cost for that *i" u.ti-.t"a ,i$97'500' In that -.*o, Larry crafel also stated .o*" typu oi*""""""" ha4 to be providedf T^OJ, perhaps through performance bonding-of 125?o of ttre project cost. Further, LarryGrafel felt a time frame for completion shouft be establishld"u""J ti*a to the TemporaryCertificate.of Qccupancy (TCO) oiCertificate of OccupancylCOl "rif," project. M;;;k-eKristan Pritz if she had reviewed a]l of the documents of the SDD to be certain that all of therequirements of the SDD were being satisfied at this time so tlr""" ,u""" no renainingrequirements, including recreational amenities, tree planting, landscaping, etc. Kristan saidthere were a few things still to be done, but they were unrelated to these projects. Shelly felbthe biggest.condition remaining dealt with ihe construction of a sidewalk in front ofWesthaven Apartments, and she said that was being addressed *itl tni. project. Becauset{r y3! originallv a single developer sDD and *r.-rro* ; *Jt pi; aeveffi" soo, u"*asked-if there was anything the original developer did not do that rilt n.a t" fu aon". 'Sh"Uy
said there was one recreational amenity that was to be placed in the center courtyard areabetween the Cornerstone Project, the Conference Center, and the Tenace Wing. Shelly saidthat this was addressed tlry Planning and Environmental Commission (pEi) t"r,a, anJiiy^" ry.t_Tgdifigd by tq"-PPC,but they allowed for it to be modified by the nesign rt;;;Board (DRB)' The PBC left that op*tr to the DRB. The PEC aia ooire"t that water Gaturewas necessarily critical or even sensible with tlre curyent plan. She felt that was tne oJywide spread anenity througlout the project that was "oi "o*prJ"d in its ""u""ty.
j#
Gibson called the question. A vote ** t"t "" and the motion pissed ,roaoi*orr*iy, "e-0. -_
Item No' 3 was Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1993, first, reading, an ordinanee concerning theij*"lry" ofr,ocal Improvement Refunding Bonds of the C";";f v;, colorado for the foothCreekLocal Improvement District; ratifying action heretofore taken in conaection therewith;prescribing details in connection with said Bonds and Dirttil; ;;;."ifios a,rties of certailTown o{fieials in connection therewith; repealing all ordinance* u"Jotrt"" i"tr"" "r-ti" i"*to the extent inconsistent herewitfu and providing other matters relating thereto. SteveThompson explained t+ry ryT-lhe_r^efunding issue which would refund rhe b;dso;l;t;di;;now. He said_or_April 1, lgg8, TOV wouil call g68,000 wortU oiine bonds because of thEas$essments Tov had received to date, so the refunding was for $800,0o0, a,,d the newinterest rate was 7.25?o as opposed 6 9.57o on the bonds-. He said the bonds matured onApril 1, 1999. He noted the owners had ten years to pay their assessments offfrom lgg3,so the bonds were due sooner than the assessments were due. If there *ere "ny UoAioutstanding on April l, 1999, TOV would have to loan the boud fund money to call the bonds.
';t'vt
MINUTESylll Tolvr{ couNCrL MEETTNG
i,3f}:^fl'2' ..ss'
A regular meetins of the Vc'Town counc' was helll on Tuesday, February 2, 1992, in the3:;:t chambers of the vail rvr"*.i,.iiiiliing. rhe meetins *as caled to order ar ?:4b
Id0t lllJ
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Peggy Osterfoss, Mavor
Merv Lapin, Mayor Fro-TemJim Shearer
Tom Steinbers
Rob LeVine
Bob Buckley
Jim Gibson
TOWN OFFICIALS pRESEI{I: Ron phillips, Town Manager
itr"ff*ffi'*J:ffi ,tf*T;'*"r"wnManager
Before beginning *.thl-hs meeting's first, agend.a item, Ron phillips announced that BillLowe, mechanic with rov's Freet M-"i";;;;; n"p""t-"rri.t"Jd.ton"", 198r, had passed:trlit_Tlffi h f8ir: n u"e *us ;L;;"ot oi.'",,ipi.y.it"iooo" orn*,s rong-rerm,
The first item on the agenda was citizen participation of which there was none.
Item No' 2 on the "*"*9" y39-t-h* presentation of plaque from the colorado Department ofTlansportation tcnor) to ron6; il;"f;; ".ru*"a piuJJ."t ri"-n . z0zo seat Belr usaeesafetv Honor Ro'. Mary Lawrence, Tov s;fetvM*-.e"r,]"#a".ili n,*" smith of cDohwho described the nrogram, and advised 4ii" seatbelt usage was hoped for by 1gg5. MarvinLeach of cDoT prLsented ttt" ptuq,r"-to rir""o" o.t"*r"."l"ra*lJlirri.ua that rov woutdappear on the National Honor it"tf i" D.C. -
Item No. B was a Consent Agenda consisting of two items:
A' Approval of Minutes of the January E, rgg', and January 19, rgg', vail TowuCouncil Evening Meetings.
B' ordinence 1rl_o. t series of rgg8, second reading, an ordinance of the Town ofvail' colorado, decriminali"ioe i"alfi" i"r"..ti"il.laiii:rg the availability ofjurv trials and jail sentences flr
^s1ch "iorutio"*l-"riJ'[ou,,g amsndms4ts toTitte 1o of the Municipal Code of thu To;-;iv;il-* -
Jim shearer moved to approve the consent Agenda, with a second from Merv Lapin. A votewas taken and the motion purr"A.ro.oioro""ir, e-0.
Item No' 4 was ordinanc" No.^l, series of r9g8, second reading, an ordinance repearing andreenacting ordinance No. jl, s""ie* or rsgr,t o"q*qg *&3i;Ar"a A requirements forsDD No. 4 that concern tni a"""i.p-""iiq"; t9" The w;;r6rd-aad rhe comerotonesDeveloFment Buildine sir€"r r"a ""tti"*e i."ri'Lr*r" ;;;#;;;"do. lhe applicanrs wereMECM Enterprises."a c"*-""L-rr-rEa'J"ri fagnss. c;il;ffi;;ceived a memo datedFebruary t, 19e8, fromrar:rv c;;J, il;;*"j*-tr""gr"i, prlli.'turs meering advisingthat a meeting with Ned c*i't-*lv,'u"ii.*i" co*t .,;;"o"M;ili[n, nrank Freyer, IGntRose, Greg HaIl' and I,*v rt"al:"" i"rJlilr.i.aul,grnuary 29, 1998. The memo statedthat meeting was positive ,-ta E;;q;'ffir: Fd. been mlde bv rhe parties trying roresolve/determine what needed to u" aoltt",'*a at what cos[, to bring westhaven Drive upto Tov standards, but indicated il;;-"#po..ftr"-i* JilJlilL information to beffi:.:rl"ilt;:ffH:_* time for tr'i" .*"ii ieading. lr"a-cr"u,-"y requesred this itemwhatcounar;;'tu;;iil:"-J:1trl:";Ll#TTJ"liltXriF5:*nlt#*;
i,
t'i! l 'o
**'#T"Trffi"d either an inevocable letter of credit Tov coutd draw on if certainrovcoJd;;il;;[Fi:l#**:ffi *-,ilj:,,"J,fr"#ff :n*"'J*:F,l#i"ft Ibonding companies *oua uelet""tiltT""""-ter into r"y tt"d;l;rety agreement for thistvpe of projecr. Larry said .n "*u-utl .,"ni.r, *;;;;;J.i uia would not be roo%accurate' but felt an .agreement could be entered into *hich *oria ,"qoi". the posting of aletter of credit from thI "ppli"r";;;;i""J"*a"a th; ".ri;;;:"frh:* was discussion abourwhat the range of costs tis'it b.. ir- stJ"gs r-#;;;;iii*1,rra u" wiser ro sripulatethat this road should h"L*"uni "pi" iov -t""d;d.;; l*o"o." to Tov before acertificate of occuoancv_(co)"was-i-sr"""jro" .rJ ;;;"iljilg]' r,.-" said that was apossibilitv, but Tov.wolra "oi il;"*JJ, to d"d. ;6;#;?o'e which could creare asituation where builrri"e.-*"i" """.lr"Jt"a, ""-co;*il;j,'Li"rn" road might not becompleted' -*' 11"-r-t::"J:t"t-bJ.""qi r"a lr"d-cJ"tffi"v
"g"""d they wantedanangements for either a set' aside in a bant< ";;;; r" #ffi"ule retter of credit anda developer's agreement tun"g o.l "rr'"?;# terns and ""rJi;;;i.how rhat eolraterar wasto be used' Tov would then be able ro iltai onthat ""ri"l""J.l"Jd the required work notbe done bv a certain a"t". urv* i[t"i"lJlr,ia, u* puJoi-tnil;;;r, based on estinates,an amount would be ascertained, and, in aaartion L'trrat, . i""f;"L"cy would be set up sothar Tov would have r d"n;;;;b; c'""""rr *r, ."-r,irt-Jii'#trr. tn", was acceptablefrom Mr' Gwathmet's perspective. shellv Mello ."ia izs,Z-rilil" "rh."t"a cost to cover thework and ury orn"""g-* ql,i""- *J-1i""0'"'"""rr*uu generaly used. Rob Levine moved tocontinue ordinance No. 1, Series "r islti, Ilil *,"-e"t;;;i'6;ft evening meering, wirha second from Jim shea:er. Before " ""t*';;; taken, Mayor"d;;;; expressed appreciationfor the cooperation of a[ in"oi"eJf* ;;-L;* toward trr" "".ol,rtiJo of t]ris long unresolvedproblem. A vote was taken ""a ifr" *.iio"r. p".*"a unnniaqusly, g_e.
Item No' 5 was Resolution No, 2, series of 19g8, a resolution authorizing the purchase of anunplatted piece of f:Lc".T;;il'L""*" as the v*' c;;;;;s property, and moreparticularly described in-Exhibit e "ttr"ma neretoand made a parifrereof l,,the property,,).Larry Eskwith explained thi. **l;;;;'*l"ra ""tn"J* nirit*pL.n*" a parcel of landlocated on the wo'tn r"o"tag RJj;;;il;rv rr*"- *H" #iib"--ons property. Henoted negotiations had 151-o"s9i"i iJ" "*"lrr.ia.rable period of time, and terms had nowbeen agreed upon bv the seu"r.'ine"n"".irl mce f9r thl p*""r, "pp**i*ately 6.9 acres,was g8'16r,922' The crosing *ur ;;h;;i"d .fo" ArJ {*lrdb]' r,rro said the onlycontingencv that could fu"1 irr" p"t""ii"rl""chase o? irr" ir"Juy Tov, other than titre,survev, or environmental problems, was trafttre ilt;;;i;lii Jt "" an appraisar whichwould show he was sellins the;;;i,""" ilTov Ib" l;;. th;]Jr"ia"t* value because hewanted to take a charitable d"d*;i;; f* ihat po.tioo of the ditreientiation between thepurchase price and the value. L;;;;;irrui.J,pp"*r;;;;"; show the value of theland to [s g':rfficisat',
_then tn" F"'."li""" ?ryr_u rr"".i *" oppo*rrity to terminate theconrract. other than that, the "orrt"a.i *u, f.;ry ;;d;;. "6#t*rouerg asked if rovhad an environmsplal report racu o"-trre]"operty yet, but Larry said he did not want toexpend funds on an environmentar ""p"J"'itiii"-ilj;";t#ffi;il1r, o,rr ro" conrract wastotallv contingent on Tov [i"c r;i"dJ,"i" it. ""1"-afr"*;irr\ iitr, trr* reeurts of theenvironmenral survev. rom st€tbe;;;;; ;6;;;il;;il;iJ No. 2, Series of 1ee3,#: " second from Merv Lapin. e ""li*"r'trren talen ""dlh* ;;;;" passed unanimously,
Item No' 6 was a review o{1sien varnance request.for curtin-Hill sports (previously vail skiRentals), 2b4 Bridee str"uyr,oii, rr".n sa, vtr vi[qge lstFiling. ^T]re appricants were Jackcurtin and Teak simonett. At g:0b p.'rra., tt" appli-cant haln-ot vet arrived, and Mayorf,::XtnHffiirnT ne"no to' il.k; ;:rr#"i, ?ir'ril Xo,nill,", berore beginning
while waiting for a resoonsefrom Jack curtin,council discussed a work session item movedto the Eveni:rg Meetine, Tov """grJ".ti"i.'bt rre n""G.r ar"iJu"#d a proposed schedureentitled "schedure oraggviligs o"-nl""r"pil"i, ofN"*.ru-n M;;c";ent/Budger syslems,,which showed how Tov *ight p"ocleJ#ft; of the reorganizatiins discussed within thelast few weeks. steve aeke; c;";"il lb.;;lt"rt o.o the-schedure, and, if council agreed tothe recommended steeringTeam, ;;ili i;d*ncil member appointments to the Team. Hereviewed the recommended ream g";;;ftt"; He.said- lhis group would be charged withinvestigating the various aspects of the program-au_d melring recommendations to the Townabout format changes in Torn";r;A;;;;;ia buaget systems. Estabrishmenr of the Teamwould take place at this meeting, pii tn-"-iil" ftuJ" oo th" ;;;il; steve reviewed the
tl.-'l
JOHN W. DUN N
ARTHUR A. AB PLANALP, JR.
ALLEN c'. CHRISTENSEN
LAWR E NC E P, HARTLAUB
DIANE L, H ERMAN
TELEPHON E:
(3O3) 476-75s2
TELECOPIER:
(3O3) 476'476s
LAw O FFTGES
DUNN, Aepl-eunLp & CHRtsrENsEN, P.C.
A PROFESSIONAL CORFORATION
VAIL NATIONAL EANK B U ILDING
SU ITE 3OO
I c)8 SoUTH FRoNTAGE RoAD WEST
VAIL, coLoRADo 8I657
SPECIAL COUNSELT
JERRY W, HAN NAH
? January 1993
Town of Vail
Department of Community DevelopmentAttention: Kristan Pritz
?5 South Frontage RoadVail, Colorado 81557
Re: Speciat Development District No. 4
Dear Kristan:
Ae you are aware, this office rePresents the owner of the
Westin notet. In that capacity, f have had the opportunity-lo
attend the Town of VaiI work session which occurred on the 15th
of December and the Town council meeting of the 5th of Januaryt
at which the redevelopment plans related to the lfaterford and
Cornerstone aspects of Special Development District No. 4 were
considerect by the Town Council and staff. At the latter meeting,
it was clear that the Town of ValI wlshed to have some response
regarding the willingness of the various property owners in
Ca6cade fittage to pirticipate in a joint effort to resolve the
problems whicfr surround Westhaven Drive. Having conferred with
6ur ctient, and with ot,her nembers of the Cascade Village
Association, it seems fair to state that there is a consensus
which may be the subject of discussion at the meeting involving
the Town of Vail scheduled for the 8th of January.
First, our client l'tishes to emphasize its enthusiastic
support for the plans recently submitted tor the redesign and
ft;al developmenl of the Waterford and Cornerstone projects-.
Secondly, oui client is in agreement with the goals volced by the
members of the Town Council ihat the Westhaven Drive situation
should be resolved in association l^tith the development revised
plans for the waterford and cornerstone projects. rn order to
lchieve that goal, the o$rner of the Westin Hotel is willing to
participate in an equitable program to share reasonable cogts-necessaiy for the resolution of the Westhaven Drive problems.
Before getttng into the specifics of the proposal' it seems
appropriate t6 review the background of our client's analysis.
tne slffent points upon which we rely are the following:
1. The present basis for allocating assessments among the
mernbers of thl Cascade Village Association is based upon assessed
valuation. For that reason, at the present time theresponsibllity for assessments borne by the Waterford andCornerstone projects would be minimal . The bulk of anyassessment wouLd be borne by the oerner of the Westin Hotelproperty.
2. The property which is the subject of the MECM proposalis effectively the remainder of the undeveloped portion of
Casqade Village. As such, the property includes not only (a) theWaterford site and (b) the lands upon vrhich that portion ofllesthaven Drlve to be dedlcated to the Town of ValI is located,but also that land under the balance of Westhaven Drive, betvreenthe Waterford sj,te and GIen Lyon subdivision. It seemsappropriate, therefore, that the Town effectively provide for thecompletion of the balance of the lands (specifically WesthavenDrive) which are part of the Special Development District whileit considers the revisj-on of the development plans for the
I{aterford project, the adjacent portion of Westhaven Drive, and
the Cornerstone project.
3. The Town of Vail has a direct interest in the resolutionof this problem, due to the fact that GIen Lyon subdivision was
approved, and substantlal investments have been made in that
area, notwithstanding the fact that the subdivision is not served
by a public road.
4. All of the property osrners in Cascade Vlllage, as wellthe Town of Vail, have a slgnificant lnterest in the resolutionof the problems associated with liesthaven Drive.
Based upon the foregoing considerationsr our client bellevesthat the following prollram may be generally acceptable by allparties, if it ls acceptable to the Town of VaiI:
1. Based upon the information available, our client
belleves that all existing construction associated with tlesthaven
Drlve was in compliance with appllcable codes and standards in
effect at the time of construction. However' if the Town of VaiI
believes that any aspect of Westhaven Drive is not now in
compliance with applicable codes and standards' then the Town ofVail would grant variances or such other rel.ief as may be
necessary or appropriate to permit the maintenance of WesthavenDrive in its present condition, including but not llmited to thepedestrian way over !{esthaven Drive, the Millrace curve and anyother presently non-conforming conditions.
2. westhaven Drive, and not an easement across westhaven
Drive, would be dedicated to the publicr not necessarily
dedlcated to and accepted by the Town of VaII.
3. Responsibility for the maintenance of Westhaven Drive,
in its entirety, would be assumed by the Town of Vail, inrecognition of its use as a public road, beginning on or aboutthe 1st day of November, 1993.
4. Any borings and other tests necessary or appropriate tosatisfy the Town of VaiI of the adequacy of sub-base will beperformed, €rf,y correctlve action w111 be taken, and adequateasphalt will be placed over the road, on or before the lst day ofNovember, 1993, or by the issuance of the first temporarycertificate of occupancy for either the Cornerstone or Waterfordprojects, whlchever is the earlier date.
The costs of the foregoing would be borne in the followlng
manner:
a. The Cascade Village Assoclation, of which the owner ofthe westin Hotel ls the major contributor, lviIl contrlbute a
reasonable amount toward the road up-grade costs, in comparisonto the road maintenance expense which would otherwise be
incurred.
b. The balance of Lhe costs necessary for the road
improvements wiII be borne by the MECM, Commercial Federal
Savings, and the Town of VaiI, as may be mutually agreed among
the three entlties. This allocation of additional costs ls
necessary, as to MECM and CommerclaL Federal Savings, due to thefact that those entities witl not bear an appropriate share ofthe assessments allocated through t.he Cascade VillageAssociation. The involvement of the Town of vail' seems
appropriate because of the fact that the Toetn of Vail has some
exposure regarding its approval of a subdlvlsion without public
access.
The foregoing has been generally discussed among most of the
members of the Cascade vlllage Association. Members faniliarwith the proposal find it acceptable. The proposal involves the
participation of most entities affected by the Westhaven Roadproblern. We have not identified an effestive way to bring the
residents of GIen Lyon into the package, and our client does not
wish the waterford./Cornerstone project to fail because vte are
only able to develop and effective and not a perfect plan. For
that reason, our client feels that the foregoing proposal is as
equltable and reasonable as possible, allocating costs among most
of those who will beneflt, while recognizing that developers of
the Waterford and Cornerstone project,s will benefit to thegreatest extent. The foregoing proposal relies, of course, on
the Town of Vail's wlllingness to have some flexibility regarding
the standards of the roads it maintains.
It appears that no one's pocket is so deep that a perfect
road or a perfect solution can be created. That being the case,
our client isWaterford andvail favorablyresolution of
AAAJT:xc: Mr. James WearAttorney for
Cascade village AssociationMr. Fred OttoAttorney for MECM
enthusiastic about the opportunlty offered byCornerstone proposals and urges that, the Townconsider those proposals in association withthe Westhaven
ur A. Abplana
theofthe
ery truly
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Town counci, E@BANqgu
Community Development Department
December 30, 1992
Ordinance No. I, Series of 1993, addressing a proposed maior amendment to
SDD #4 - Cascade Village.
On DecemberTth, 1992, the PEC recommended approval for a request to amend
SDD #4, Cascade Village, Area A. The vote was 5 - l, with Diana Donovan voting in
opposition. The PEC's conditions of approval are specified in the attached memo to the Town
Councildated December 8, 1992.
On December 8th and lsth, 1992, the Town Council reviewed the proposed amendment during
work sessions. At this time, the Town Council suggested a number of modifications to the
project which included changes to the density and unit types on the Cornerstone building site.
_rleJe was also further discussion as to the status of Westhaven Drive.
As a result of the feedback from the Town Council, the applicant has chosen to modify the
Cornerstone project to allow a single development plan for Cornerstone with 64 transient units
versus the two development scenarios previously proposed to the PEC on Decembe( 7,199?.
With the current proposal there are no dwelling units located in the Cornerstone project. The
applicant has not made any modifications to the Waterford project since the Planning
Commission review. All statistics listed in the December 7th, 1992 memo to the PEC from the
Community Development Department are up-to-date. The changes to the Cornerstone project
are listed in the proposed Ordinance No. #'t , Series of 1993.
Ordinance #1 , Series of 1993 has been written to address the applicant's current proposal
which was a result of the Town Council's direction. This ordinance does not inctude those
recommendations from the PEC which addressed the change to the definition of TR, as well
as the restrictions on proposed dwelting units. These items are discussed further in the
December 8th memo to the Town Council from Community Development under Cornerstone
(item #2 and item #6). Because Scenario 2 has been deleted, these recommendations are
not included in the proposed ordinance.
The Ordinance will be delivered to the Town'Councll on Monday.
I
UEMORANpUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development
DATE: December 8, 1992
SUBJECT; Planning Commission recommendations to the Town Council to approve a -
minor subdivision and major amendment to SDD #4 Cascade Village to amend
the Development Plan for Waterford and Cornerstone paroels in Area A.
On December7,1992, the PEC recommended approval for a request to amend SDD #4
Cascade Village Area A, The vote was 5-1. Diana Donovan opposed the application based
on concerns related to the following:
1. The change in the TR definition to allow for uniis larger than 645 sq. tt. of
GRFA,
The proximity of the Waterford building to the creek; and
The 20'width of the emergency access befween the Cornerstone Building and
the existing Terrace Wing Building.
She afso stated that she was generally more comfortable with the proposed Waterford project
than the proposed Cornerstone project.
The PEC also approved a request for a minor subdivision lo create two independent lots for
tho two sites in question, the Waterford and Cornerstone building sites.
The following items were conditions of the Planning Commission's recommendations to the
Town Council. The staff's reccmmendation is listed in the attached memorandum, to the PEC
dated December7,1992.
Cornerstone
l. . Before the buitding permit is released for the project, the three proposed employee
housing units shalt be permanently restricted per the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance
The EHU shall include two (2) on-site parking spaces gg the EHU shall include
one (1) on-site parking space and the EHU shall be located'on'lhe Town's
bus roule (as determined by the Town Zoning Administrator);
2.
3.
The EHU shall not be suMivided into any form of time shares, interval
ownerships, or tractional fee;
The EHU shallbe leased, but only to tenants who are full'time employees who
work in Eagle County. The EHU shall not be leased for a period less than thirty
2.
3.
4.
(30) consecutive days. For the purposes oi this Section, a fulFtime employee is
one who works an average of a minimum of thirty (30) hours each week;, d. No later than February 1 of each year, the owner of the employee housing unit
shall submit two (2) copies of a report (on a form to be obtained lrom the
Community Development Department), to the Community Development
Department of the Town of Vail and the Chairperson of the Town of Vail
Housing Authority, setting forth evidence establishing that each tenant whom
resides within the employee housing unit is a full-time employee in Eagle
County.
This agreement shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office.
Transient residential units proposed on both Scenario 1 and 2 shall not be individually
- condominiumized at any point in the future. These units shall remain as renlal units
: used in the same manner as holel type units.and are not intended for individuall ownership. The definition of TR shall be changed to accommodate this proposal.
:'The developer agrees to complete asphalt borings and an as-built survey and to- provide them to lhe Town of Vail for the area of lhe road adjacent to their property in
order to determine the condition ol Westhaven Drive. The Town Engineer shall
determine when these drawings shall be required.
The proposed landscape plan between the Tenace Wing and the proposed
Cornerstone building shall be revised prior to the review of the project by the DRB.
For emergency services, an access lane must be provided lrom the western courtyard
to the ski lift. In meeting this condilion, the waler feature on lhe landscape plan for this
amendment may be removed or revised accordingly. The proposed landscaping in this
area shall be part of the Cornerstone development and, therefore, it is the developer's
responsibility to complete this portion ot the project when the Cornerstone project is
constructed. These plans shall be included in the building permit for the Cornerstone
- development at such time that it is developed.
The area of road in which parking is proposed under Westhaven Drive for therCornerstone pioject shalt be conieyed and transferred through the proposed minor
. ; ' i'subdivision td th'e Cornerston" proierty. An easement shatlle granted to the Tor,vn of;'Vail over this area for public access.
6. ln Scenario 2 of the Cornerstone project, three DUs will be condominiumized and
available on the free market with iro iental restrictions. ln addition, two DUs that each
have ons AU and one lock off, shall have the rental restrictions applied per Section
17.26.075 of the Subdivision Regulations. An additional DU will ti6 availaUte with one
fock off for condominiumization. This DU/LO unit will also have the condominium-
conversion rental restrictions applied to it per Section 17.26.075 of the Subdivision
c.
I
1.
2.
lffaterford
]!e two proposed employee housing units shall be restricted per the Town of Vail
Housing Ordinance. This agreement shall be submitted before the building permit is
released. fol lhe project. This agreement shall be recorded at Eagle Counfu'Cterk and
recorder's Office. Please see the specific provisions of the ordinince under item 1.
Comerstone.
The developer agrees to complete asphalt borings and an as-built survey to determine
the condition of Westhaven Drive from the South Frontage Road to the south end of
the Cul-de-sac. The applicant agrees lo provide stamped, engineered construction
drawings for any road revisions that are necessary to bring the road up to Town
slandards. These construction drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the Town
of Vail's engineer prior to lhe release of a building permit. All road improvements shall
be completed by the developer lor the project prior to T.c.o. The road will also be
dedicated to the Town prior to the release of a T.C.O. The dedication of the public
access easement for the remainder of Westhaven Drive shall be conveyed at such
time that the minor subdivision plat is submitted prior to a building permit being
released {or the project. The public access easement shall allow for parking
enforcement by the Town of Vail.
The bike path shall be relocated qnd the existing easement shall be amended if--possible on the minor subdivision plat to correspond lo the new location. lf the bike' path is relocated while Waterford is being constructed, the bike path must be relocated
and the easement provided to the Town for public access before a T.C.O. is released.
The minor subdivision plat shall be completed and recorded prior to the release of any
building permits for either prbject. The minor subdivision plat shall include the
conveyance of property lo Cornerstone for its parking located below grade, the Town'spublic access easement over the underground parking area in the cuirent cul-de-sac,
and lhe relocation of the bike path on the waterford site, and the public access
easement across Westhaven Drive.
The DRB will review lhe proposed landscaping in the areas of the retaining walts on
the west and east ends of the site. The DRB will review the north elevation's
architectural details. The applicant has also agreed to review the possibility of
eliminating the skier access on the east end of the project. However, tne pEC felt that
if the.applicant could significantly decrease the retaining walls necessary to build the
access, the skier access could remain.
3.
4.
Waterford/Cornerstone
L The general condominlum pfat and declarations shall be reviewed by the Town
ailorney and lhe Community Development Department. The primary concem is that
the parking be made permanently available to the users of the project. This includes
the permanent dedication of those spaces allooated to commercial areas as short term
:
public parking. All proposed required parking associated with the uses shall not be
conveyed, used or leased separately from ihe uses. Public parking on the third lloor of
the Cornerstone project shall be made available to the public for shorl term parking
within the building.
The wording of the agresments listed above are also subject to the Town Attomey's review.
These items will appear in the proposed ordinance for this amendment unless otherwise
modified by the Town Attorney or the Town Council.
o
.I
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
December 7,1992
A request for a minor subdivision and a major amendment to SDD #4, Cascade-
Village, to amend the development plans for the Walerford and Cornerslone
parcels in area A. The Waterlord site is generally located on the SE corner of
the iritersection of Westhaven Drive and the S. Frontage Road. The
Cornerstone sile is on Westhaven Drive south of the Cascade Village parking
structure. The legal descriptions are as followsi
Waterford Sil€
That pan of s|s SW 1/4 NE 'tl4, Secrion 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West ot thg Sixfi
Principal Meridian. Town ot Vail. Eagle County, Colorado, desctibed aF follows:
Eeginning al s point on ha southerly right-of.way line of Interstate Highway No. 70 whence an irori
pin with a plasli.t cap marking the center ot said S€clion 12 beafs S 33"10'19'W 1447.03 teel;
lhehce along said southerly right-of-way lins two cpurses 1) N 52o5O'29' E 229.66 {e€t 2) N
74'38'17 E 160.70 feet: th€nc€ dsparting said southerly. riglt-oJ-vray line N 88"45'57' E t 38.93
feet: henca S 40'4t14'W 94.32 leet; thence S 18" l8'36'W 54.08 teet; thencs S 0l'?t'36'W
205.02 {eet: thence S lfOT'36'W 110.25 teeti lhenc6'S 28"28'36'W ,|64.48 feeq henc€ N 40
o17'04' W 211.16 teef thenca N 49'42'56' E 97.80 leett henco N 37q09'31' W 95.59 fe€l; thence S
. 52"50'29' W 55.10leet; hencs 69.48 feet along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the left having a
radiug of 65.00 te€t a csntraf angle of 6 t'14'42' and a chord that bears N 58" 55'53' W 66.22 feet;
thence N 3709'31'W 118.50 fe€t To The True Poinl of Beginning, County of €agle. Stat€ ot
Coloiado; and the Cornerstone parcel desqibed as follows:
Comsrsbns Sile
That part of fiB SW 1/4 NE V4, Secdon 12, Township 5 South, Fange 8l West of the Sixfl: . Prin<iPal Meddian, Town ot Vail. counu of Eagle, State ol Colorado. desctibed es tollo,/€:: Beginning at a point on the easterly line of a non+xclusive easement for lngr€ss and egress knonn
.as Wesfraven Drive recorded in Book 421 et Page 551 in the oflice ol the Eagle Counly, Colorado,
. Olerk a;d Recorder whence th€ center ol said Section 12 bears s 38'34'43.W 1.168.27 leeti
thence along said line ol Westhaven Drive N 52'43'41'E 143.92 feer; thencs deparring said tine ol
Westha,ren Drive, 132.24 feet abng $e arc of a non-tangent c{five lo th€ lett having a radius of
55.00 feet, a cental angle of 137'45'30'and a cho.d that bears N 42'11?6'E t02.61 feet; henc€
N 52'50'29'E 55.24 feet; thenos S 37'09'31'E 95.59 te€ri thenoo $ 49'425614t 97.80 f€ett ftenoa
S 40'1704'E 24.12 leeq henoe S 5250'29ryV 213.65 teeti fiencs N 3f0g'31'W t 05.76 fs€l to fie
point o! beginning contraining 0.6848 acrcs more or less.
MECM Enterprises, Waterford Site and Commercial Federal
Savings, Comerstone Site
I. INTRODUCTION
ln July, September, and October of 1992, the PEC reviewed a proposed amendment to
the Cascade Village SDD #4, Area A, Development Plan. The initial proposal
specifically addressed the Waterford site located at the southeast corner of Westhaven
Drlve and the South Frontage Road. lt has been decided that, in order to move
forward with the amendment to the Waterford site, that the Cornerstone site to the
west of Waterford also needs to be amended. In Oclober, 1992, a third work session
was held which specilically addressed the Cornerstone site. The changes to the
Cornerstone site are necessary because curently there is an interdependence' between the two sites in respect to the provision of parking. Each siie is owned by
.- independent entities and it is their desire to eliminate any interdependence between* the two sites. The qQal of this effort is to aporoie tgo developlnent plans which can
be consiructed independent of each other.
il. DESCRTPTTON Of THE REOUEII
The applicant is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District (SDD)
No. 4, Cascade Village Area A and more specifically, the Cornerstone and Waterford
sites. A minor subdivision is also being requested to create two individuat lots. The
Cornerstone parcel is bound by the proposed Waterford project to the east, Gore
Creek and the Westin Terrace Buibing to the south and Westhaven Drive to the no-rtFi-
The Waterford parcel is on the corner of the South Frontage Road and Westhaven
Drive with Gore Creek to the south and the Waterford site to the west. The parcel was
zoned SDD from the time it was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1974. There is no
underlying zoning.
The current approval for the Cornerstone sile allows for one development scheme with
two options for the commercial area. The applicant is proposing two scenarios for this
-. amendment. Scenario I includes transient units and commercial area while Scenario 2
.! includes a mixture of dwelling units, transient units, and commercial area. In addition,' i both Scenarios incltrde three employee units. The Cornerslone site modifications are
-ibeing necessitated by the inclusion of parking which previoristy was located on the
,,, .,Waterford site. Parking has been accommodaled below grade and on the second and'third levels' Scenario 2 calls for 34 transient units, 6 dwelling units with 3 lockoffs, 2
accommodation units and 3 employee units in Scenario 2. Scenario 1 would allow 52
lransient units and 3 employee units. Under Scenario 2, the applicant has requested
that three of the dwelling units located in the east wing be free market and proposes
that the remaining 3 dvvelling units, the 3 conesponding lockoffs, and the 2
accommodation units would be condominiumized and restricted bv the "condo
conversion'requirements. The 1989 approved plan allows for 50 transient units, In
both scenarios, the applicant proposes to permanently restrict the transient residential
units to a lodging use, ie. the units will not be condominiumized. Please see Section- lV (A) Zoning Consideration for a detailed cbmparison between the approved plan and '
the two proposed scenarios.
I
The Comerstone proposal currently being reviewed does propose to locate parking
below a portion of Westhaven Drive. The applicants propose to lransfer ownership ol
a portion of the road with the proposed minoi subdivision to allow for this.
The 1989 approved Waterford plan allowed for two scenarios. The applicant is
proposing only one development plan for this amendment. The tirst included 75
accommodation units and the second atlowed for 30 dwelling units. Both included
3,800 square feet of commercial space and parking for both the Waterford and
Cornerstone sites. The applicant is currently proposing only one scenario which allows-
for 27 dwelling units and 2'employee units.
-No increaie in-GRFA has been requested
and the parking for the Waterford dwelling units will be provided on site. The appticant
also proposes to relocate lhe recreation oath 10'to the south. Please see Section lV
(B) for specific zoning considerations.
III. BACKGROUND
The Cascade Village Development was previously owned by a single development
entity. As proposed by the past developer, the project was a system of interdependent
phases to be built into an integrated complex which provided commercial areas, short-
term and long-lerm residential units and consolidated parking facilitieq.-Since the
bankruplcy of the original developer, ownership of the sites has been dispersed among
different owners. This plan is now more difficult lo execute, as each owner has
ditferent development objectives for their respective sites. The change in ownership
etfecls the Cornerstone project because, as approved, all of the parking for the
Cornerstone project was to be localed on the Waterford site. These projects are now
held by two entities who want to provide their own parking on their respective sites.
166 parking spaces were to be provided in the Waterford project for the Cornerstone
development.
An additional outstanding issue in the Cascade Village development is the ownership
btatus ol Westhaven Drive, from the South Frontage Road to the Gor6 Creek Bridge.
The road is owned by the oWner of the Waterford site, MECM Enterprises, and is
privately maintained by a separate entity. This road has not been conveyed to the' Town because it does not meet the Town's minimum road standards.
1) Denslty
(# ol Unlts)
:
2) GRFA
3) Common Area
4) Commerclal Space
5) Credits Glven
...] ,_. :
6) Helght
, North
of ridge
South
East
West
Approved
Scenario_
50 TR'
28,1 10 sq. ft.
34,919 sq. ft.
26,040 or
29,065 sq. tt.
None
71'max on
lo top of ridge
NIA because
buildings are
connected
Proposed
Scenarlo'l
52TR+3emp.
units "
28,110 + 1800 sq. ft.
for emp. units
16,817 sq. ft.
1 1 ,1 00 sq. ft.
per multi-family
zoning
71'lrom plaza
49
70
67
10,817 sq. ft.
11,'100 sq. ft.
per multi-
family
r,r .zoning
l. i: .'
71'from plazai , . ..'totop
0
.54
A. Cotlparlson of AForoved and Proposed Develoolnent Plans for Cornersfone
Proposed
Scenarlo 2
34 TR
3 DU's (free
market) 3 DU
wl3l.o. and2
AU's
(restricted)
3 emp. units*'
28,110 + 1800
sq. ft. for
emp. units
49
70
67
7) SetbacksNorth 0
South Dislance between Tenace
Wing and Cornerstona 45'East 0
0
54
0
West
8) Slte Coverage
9) Parklng
1) Denslty
(# of Unlts)
2) GRFA
3) Common Area
4) RetallSpace
5) Credlts Glven
6) Helght
North
South
East
West
0
26,533 sq. ft.
155.9 or
166 spaces
enclosed in
Waterford
Structure
Approved
Scenarlo 1
75 AUs
47,500 sq. ft.
14,297 sq. ft.
3,800 sq. ft.
Nsne
0
20,930 sq. ft.
89 req. spaces wt75h 84 req.enclosed; wftS"/"
89 proposed w/ encfosed;
100% enclosed 89 proposed
w100%
enclosed
0
20,930 sq, ft.
B.comDarlson of Approved and ProDosed Development Plans for waterford
48 feet
61 feet ..
61 feet
48 feet
Approved
Scenario 2
30 DUs
47,500 sq. ft.
14,297 sq. ft.
3,800 sq. ft.
None
48 feet
61 feet
6.'l feet
48 leet
Prooospd
27 DUs+
2 restricted emp.
unils "
47,500 sq.fl
+ 1 100 sq. ft.
restricted emp.
units'*
33,913 sq. ft.
7) Setbacks (Building)North 8'-15'-18'
North (lo parking lot) NASouth 20 min.
East
8'-15'-18'
NA
West
8) Slte Coverage
9l Parklng
18
26,186 sq. ft.
72.7 spaces
all parking
enclosed
18
26,186 sq. ft.
87.7 spaces
allparking
enclosed
10
19,230 sq, ft.
11,100 sq. ft. surface
lot2 - 25'
58 spaces
required;
60 proposed
43 enclosed or 75o/o -
or req., 19 surface
.i
' i SDD # 4 delines a transient as follows: "Transient residential dwelling unit or restricted
-. 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. Each unii 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
through another accomrnodalion unit, dwelling unit, or a transient residential dwelling
unit. Should such units be developed as condominltl"nfs, they shall be restricted as set
forth fn Seetion 17.26.075--17.26J20 governing iondominium conversion. The unit
shall not be used as a permanent residence. Fractional fee ownership shall not be
allowed to be applied to transient dwelling units. For the purposes of determining
allowable density per acre, transient residential dwelling units 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 at maximum of 1.0 space per unit.':k. r :
.l::.
Permanently restricted employee units do not count towards density or GRFA per the
current SDD#4 Ordinance.
Lock-off Unit: A dwelling unit in a multiple-family building may include one attached
accommodation unit no larger than one-ihird of lhe total floor area of the dwelling.
':r _=: :.-'ll
.: ;::, :.;,L.:. :..
' ,:-, :r- .:i :-
:;,:-:,,,'
.,..: -r''l '
,,::' i'
Eo
I
The proposed proiects depart from the existing definition of transient unit provided in this
SDD. This definition witl need io be revised to allow for the larger TR units proposed in
Scenario I and ll for Cornerstone. The proposed size of the lockoffs do not conform lo the
definition provided in the zoning code.
As approved, the Cornerstone and Waterford buildings were connected below grade. ln the
approved plan, a large portion of the Cornerstone common area was located on what is now
considered Waterford properly. In the proposed ptan, the two projects are completely
separate and the parking structure for Waterford is located in front of the residential
development. In the previous plan, Waterford residential structure was located directly above
the parking. For this reason, the statf feels that it is more accurate to consider the projects
together when reviewing common area and site coverage as shown below:
Cornerstone/Waterford
Approved
Total Site Coverage 52,719 sq. ft.
TotalCommon Area 49,216 sq. ft.
Co rnerstone/ll/aterf ord
Proposed
40,160 + 11,100 parking $tructure =
51,160 sq. ft.
50,730 sq. ft.
V.SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA
The criteria to be used lo evaluate this proposal are the nine Special Development
Dislrict (SDD) development standards set forth in the special development district '
chapter of the Zoning Code. The criteria are as follows:
A. ' Deslgn compatibility and sensitlvity to the lmmediate envlronment,
nelghborhood and adlacent propertles relatlve to archltectural deslgn,
scale, bulk, bulldlng helght, buffer zones, ldentlty, character, vlsual
Integrity and orlentatlon.
1. Cornerstone; r ,. The mass and bulk of the proposed project is similar to that of the approved
development plan. The building shell will remain the same for each proposed
scenario, This buifding shell is similar to that of the approved plan in mass and
scale, however, it is no longer connected to either the Gonference Center to the, ,.wost or the Watertord Building to the east. The proposed building footprint is, : smaller than lhat of the approved development plan with the proposed site'.. coverage at 20,930 square {eet and the approved site coverage at 26,533
:::ri, ,: 1.: square feet. , The South elevation has 6 exposed levels. Levels 3-G are
.:'i:.!l:ir:,:, ,. exposed on the north elevation adjacent to westhaven Drlve, for a total of 4' : exposed floors with the following uses: .:.:.1
I
'€
1st Level Commercial (9,900 sq. ft.)
2nd Level Parking/Employee units (3 units)
3rd Level Parking/Commercial (11,200 sq. ft.)
4th Level Residential
Sth Level Residential
6th Level Residential
This proposaladds an additionallevelto the building compared to the 1989
approval. The approved development plan has a total of 5 exposed lloors on
the north elevation and 3 levels on the south elevation. However, the overall
height of the building has not increased. This additional level was
accomplished by decreasing the floor to ceiling heights at each level and
increasing the amount of usable area in the roof form.
The need to add parking on this site has changed the overall program for the
building. This effects the building becAuse more floor area is needed to
accomplish the development standards set forward by the SDO. This was
accomplished while working wilh the existing building envelope, by first adding
betow grade parking and second by adding an additional level above grade.
The amount of approved commercial space has been decreased from 29,065
square feet to 11,100 square feet. The qtaff recognizes that all of these
changes are necessary in order to accommodate the need {or on-site parking.
This proposal also includes a reduction in the mass over the pedestrian access
area which is a focal point for lhose entering Cascade Village. The decrease in
the mass will allow for dn increase in visibility of the mouniain behind.
The proposal includes the use of architeclural details similar to those of the
other existing buildings in Cascade Village. This includes a metal roof,
protruding balconies, stucco linish and p-ainted metal railings. In addition,
arcades similar to those in the Terrace Wing have been incfuded at both the
Terrace Wing level and the Westhaven Drive pedestrian level.
. a. Wth the approved development plan, lhere was a great deal of consideration' ,-t given to the public spaces on the site. These areas include, the mall area and
:r -' the outdoor stair through the Cornerstone building connecting Westhaven Drive,i. '- :-: to the ski lift, the public space between the Tenace Wng and Comerstone, as
well as public areas connecting this site to the rest of the Westin Comptex.' This was accomplished with a series of connected plazas and other site. :' amenities starting at Westhaven Drive leading to the ski lifypedestrian area.', , Due lo emergency access requirements, the applicant has proposed to include
a modified plan of the approved landscape plan for the area between.' , .; Comerstone and the Teiiace Wng with inis amendment tt is the staffs
':' :i!,1 :':':'i,: 'findings that these off-site amenities are to be completed by the developer of
:.. . : '' the Cornerstone project at the time ot the construciion ot this project.
There is a severe grade change on this site from Westhaven Drive to the skl
I
lift\public space levei. This, along with the configuration of the site, present
many practica! dilficulties. Due to the grade change, the visual impacts of each, building ele.vation are dilferent. Because each side of the building is exposed
' to public ways, sta{f believes each elevation of the building to be very
important. landscape material and berms have been incorporaled into the plan
in order to decrease the visual impacts of each of these elevations.
The staff finds that although the proposal includes a net increase in square
footage because of the additional parking level below grade that the proposal is
in compliance with the intent of the Cascade Village development and is
compatible with lhe area surrounding the project. Please note site coverage,
GRFA and common area have actually been decreased.
Waterford
This site is disturbed due to the dumping of excess fill from other projects in
Cascade Village. For this reason, there are few nalural characteristics
remaining on the prope(y. There is also a severe grade change on this
property from the South Frontage Road to the bike path (adjaeent to the
Creek.)
The proposed plan for the Waterford project is more of a departure from the
approved plan than that proposed for Cornerstone in respect to archilectural
style and site planning. The architectural details a{_e-g,imilar to those of the
Westin, however, the massing incorporates a series of smaller roof forms in a
series of staggered towers versus a single roof mass as seen in other Cascade
Village buildings.
The proposed building does exceed the maximum height on the west and south
elevations. Per the SDD and the approved plans, the maximum height allowed
is 48 and 61 feet respectively. The height of lhe proposed west elevation is 56
feet. The current proposal is to allow for a building of 65 feet from finish grade
to the top of the ridge on lhe south side. The staff feels that due to the
changes in the project and the relocation of the mass, that this is an acceptable
solution. The main increase in height along the west elevation is acceptable for
the same reason. As approved, the minimum distance from the buitding to bikei : path was 20 feet. As proposed, that distance would increase to 26 feet. Again,
tha staff feels that this also supports the ability to increase the height to 65 feet
because of the increased distance between the pedestrian area and the bikepath. The staff tinds that the relocation of the building and the decreased
height adjacenl lo the Frontage Road justity the increase in helght on the west
elevations and along the pedestrian path on the south elevation.
While the approved plan proposed more mass adjacent to the Frontage Road,": I ' this proposal shitts the concentration ot'mass to the south. The staff finds that
this is an improvement to the plan because it will provide relief along the
Frontage Road. Atgrade surface parking willbe located befween the Frontago
Road and the building. There is no surface parking in the approved plan. The
surface parking will be five feet below the top of the berm adjacent to the
2.
I
I I
Frontage Road. This parking and landscaping will provide a buffer between the
building and the Frontage Road. In addition, a 5-25 foot wide strip of
landscaping is proposed between the parking and the applicant's property line.
As a result of the shilting of the mass away from the Frontage Road, the mass
is closer to the recreation path on'the south side, While there are 2-4 slories
on the north side (Frontage Road view) lhere will be 4-5 1/2 stories on lhe
south (Gore Creek side). The proposal maintains a 26 minimum setback from
the bike path which is proposed lo be relocated 10 feet otf to the south. A
landscape which includes berming between the bike path and the building helps
to maintain ihe pedestrian scale of the area.
Staff also looked at the approved building mass adjacent to Westhaven Drive, -
(west elevation). The staff feels that this proposal addresses the locaiion of
mass and bulk better than the approved plan as less building is proposed in
this area. Originalty, more building length was proposed along Westhaven
Drive. Though the building's height impacts the bike path and the properties to
the north and wesl.
The staff finds that, although the proposal includes an overall increase in
common area the proposal is in compliance with the intent of the Cascade
Village development and is compaiible with the area surrounding the project.
Please note, GRFA and site coverage have not increased and a substantial
amount of floor area is below grade. The staff encourages the applicant to add
addllional architectural detail particularly windows on the north el€V6lidn prior to
DRB review.
B. Uses, activity and density whlch provlde a compatlble, efllclent and
workable relatfonshlp wlth surrounding uses and acfivity.
l 1: Cornerstone:. The applicant is proposing two scenarios for this site. Previously, there was at single development plan which included transient units and retail uses. The
. proposed Scenario I provides for 52 transient units, 3 employee units, 1 1 ,100
square feet of commercial area,2loading berths, and 8g enclosed parking
spaces. This would allow 2 additional transient units or 1 DU over the existing
approval.
Scenario 2 provides 34 transient units, 3 free market dwelling units, 3 dwelling
units with 3 lockoffs, 2 accommodation units to be restricted per the Gondo
Conversion requirements, 2 employee units, 11,100 square fbet of commercial
area,2loading berlhs, and 89 enclosed parking spaces. The resulting
residential density is undel the approved density by 1 DU. Of the three
restricted units, two woutO each be sold with an associated tock-off and an AU
...'.
10
Applicant's Proposal
Unrestricted Condominiums:
Restricted Condominiums:
Transient units:
Employee units:
3DU
2 DU each w/ 1 lockoff and
1AU
1 DU with 1 lockoff
34 Transient units
3 units
Scenario 2 invoives a substantial depariure from the original plan for Cascade
Village. The requested change involves three unrestricted dwelling units in
instead of all transient units. The initial intent for Cornerstone was to provide
short-term rentals which, it was believed, would subsequently increase the use
oi lhe entire Cascade facility. The staff has researched this lssue and found
that there is a demand for short-term rentals of this type in the Valley.
Curently, the bed base is split 50/50 between condos and accommodation type
units according to the Vail Ftesort Association. Demand for each type of unit
seems to differ between season. There would appear to be a greater demand'-fsr-accommodation type:-rnits during the summer for short 2-3 day stays, while' during the winter, stays tend to be longer and condominiums are more
desirable. For this reason, we feel that short{ern rentals must be included in
the proposal and if Scenario 2 is approved a minimum of 3 DU's with their lock
offs should be permanently restricted per the Condo Conversion requirements.
The two AU's in Scenario 2 should not be condominlumized with the adjacent
condominiums as the applicant has proposed. This would keep the AU's in the
rental pool. We also believe that allowing 3 large free market dwelling units is
acceptable given the change in development requirements for this project such
as parking. lt is fett that the mixed use character of the project is still
maintained.
Staff's Recommendation
11
2. Waterford
As proposed, the project includes 27 tree market condominiums (with 47.5O0
squarb leet of GBFA) and 2 reslricted employee housing units (1 1 00 square- teet of GRFA) for a total ot 48,600 square feet of GRFA. Historically, the
GRFA and the units in SDD #4 dedicated to employee housing have not been
;:HHl;;:iltj:5ffi :"il#H'1""iI'-F;:
j:::JrfiX:::t,:",'f ?::;,ff
with the original development scenario and is compatible with the surrounding
" area.
' 3. CornerstoneMaterford Emolovee Housino
" : ta" aptt*, tor *nerstone is proposing 3 employee units. ln reviewing the
application, the staff used the suggested employee housing criteria. This study
, suggested that the following formula be used to determine employee housing
requirements for projects that do not exceed density.
ii' : Cornersione', sc6Eii6:i]-
52 TR x .75 emp. per unit = 39
11,100 sq. ft. of ._o.j9.5 emp. p/1000 sq. ft. = 72.15
-rr1-?.{5
' x_J! housing multiplier, 16.67
Scenario 2:
34 TR + 2 AU x .75 emp per unit = 26.25
6 DU x .4 emp per unit = 2.4' 11,100 sq. ft. com x 6.5 emp per 1000 sq. ft.= 72.15
100.8x-!! housing multiplier
15.12
Waterford
27 DIJ x .4 emp per unit 10.8x .15 housing multiplier':' : .: - . 1.62
Assuming 2 employees will share each unit, 9 units would be required for
Scenario 1 and I units would be required for Scenario 2 for Comerstone, One
unit would be required for Waterford for a modmum possible total of 10 units
for both projects.
c.
Because a total of 5 employee units are being provided between the Waterford
and Cornerstone projects, where previously there were none proposed, and
because parking must now be provided on sits, the stalf finds that 5 units are
acceptable. The proposed Waterford project is below density as is Scenario 2
of the Cornerstone proposal. As proposed, Scenario 1 for Waterford is 2
transient units over the approved densily, but there is no increase in GRFA.
The staff sees the provision of employee housing as a benefit to both projects
and will not require additional employee units as a result of this. Historically, in
Cascade Village' GRFA and units attributed to employee units have not been
eounted towarci ciensii,y or GRFn for ihe project.
Compllance wlth the parklng and loadlng requlrements as oulllned In
Chapter 18.52.
Cornerston elfVaterf o rd
Under Section 18.52 of the Municipal Code, each dwelling unit with less than
2,000 square feet of GRFA would have a parking requirement of 2 spaces and
those with over 2,000 square feet of GFIFA would require 2.5 spaces per unit.
Those with less than 500 square leet require 1.5 spaces. The parking
requirements tor accommodation units and transient units are as follows: .4
space per accommodation unit, plus .1 space per each 100 square foot of
GRFA with a maximum of 1 space per unit. Each employee unit will require 1
parking space assuming the units are one bedroom units.
Each site will now satisfy its parking requirement on site. As discussed
previously, this has significant implications on the program for the Cornerstone
site. The statf believes that this change is very positive because it allows each
site to be developed and operated independent of each other.
The parking provisions are listed befow:
Required Parkino
Combrslone
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
89 spaces with 75lo
enclosed
84 spaces with 75%
enclosed
Prooosed
89 spaces proposed
with 100% enclosed
89 spaces proposed
with 10O%enclosed
13
Waterford
58 spaces with 60 spaces with
75% enclosed 43 enclosed or 75% of req.
The Comerstone project will also provide 2 loading berths along Westhaven
Drive for the commercial uses. Staff believes this criterion is met.
D. Conformlty wlth the appllcable elements of the Vail Comprehenslve Plan,
: Town policies and Urban Deslgn plans,
.;.ffiobjectivesformtheTown,sLandUseP|anforthisarea
lnctuoe:: ;- 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a-i balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve: s both the visitor and lhe permanent resident.
.. 1:-
-i ''' 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additionat growth in existing
,,* 1.13 Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well
as its potential for public use.
- _ 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently.
3 3 ll:E;lJ".ilg:lil [ gilHlili'fJ:ff:ii;i $:"1:ff1*u'
1: ': 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas-: ;r to accommodate both tocal and visitor needs.' 'i:
3.5 Entertainment oriented businesses and cultural activities should be
encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More night time
be encouraged."...''.
i ': 5.1 Additional residentialgrowth should continue to occur primarily in:' -' existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high
hazards do not exist.
5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made availabte through private' efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with
t
The existing employee housing base should be preserved and
upgraded. Additionat employee housing needs should be
accommodated at varied sites throughout the community.
'l . Cornerstone
When the Cascade Village development was proposed, there was a
comprehensive plan developed which provided a balance of long- and short-
term housing. The Goals 3.1 and 3.3 specifically address the Town's desire to
maintain holel type units. In considering each proposat, the staff considered
three points: 1. What was previously approved, 2, What are the curent goals
and objeclives of the Town at this time, 3. We recognized that the conditions of
ownership of Cascade Village have changed. Both proposals allow for
residential and commercial growth in a recognized core area which are
discussed in goals 1.1,1.12,3.4, and 5.1. The provision of employee housing
as addressed in goals 5.3 and 5.5 is being incorporated into each project which
is a benefit to the Town. The Scenario 2 proposal involves a change to allow
some dwelling units versus all short-term transient units. The staff feels that it
is important to maintain units which are available for short-term use, however,
we recognize the importance of providing a {ull range of housing types.
Scenario 2 provides dwelling, aqcommodation, lransient, and employee units.
This scenario will be a positive change for this parcel if 3 of the dwelling units
were restricled and the lockofts attached were also restricto-d by the Condo
Conversion requirements. The staff would recommend that the two
accommodation units in Scenario 2 not be condominiumized and sold and
therefore remain in the rental pool. The remaining three dwelling units would
be free market.
This area is also considered to be a mixed use commercial center for the Town,
similar to Lionshead and Vail Village. The reduction of commercial square
foolage has been carefully considered. The staff finds that some reduction in
commercial space is necessary in order to accommodate on-site parking.
Waterford
The Waterford proposal request is tor 27 free market condominiums, 2
employee units, and no commercial square footage. The staff feels that the
elimination of the allowed 3,800 square feet of commercial space is warranted
due to the location of the project which is more removed from the commercial
areas in Cascade Village and the change to the overall design schems tor the
project.
5.5
2.
15
WaterfordfnffiseO building does not encroach into the 100 year ftoodplain or 50'
Gore Creek setback. The relocated bike path will not encroach into either the
creek setback or 100 year floodplain.
Site plan, bullding deslgn and location and open space provlslons
deslgned to produce a functlonal development responslve and sensltlve
to natural ieatures, vegetatlon and overall aesthetlc quallty of the
communlty.
Oornerstone
The at-grade building foolprint of the proposed plan and the approved plan are
similar however, Cornerstone is no longer connected to the Waterford building
or to the Conference Building to the west. When comparing the current
proposal to the approved plan, the overall setbacks are similar. An additional
floor has been proposed in ihis project as a result of reducing the floor-to-
ceiling heighls at each level and using the areain the roof form more etficiently.
The total height of the building has not increased. The maximum height as
measured lorm the plaza to the highest point on the roof is 71 feet.
Landscaping has been incorporated on the east elevation to screen the lower
building mass. The parking will not be open to the exterior and at any level and
the exterior of the structure will be detailed with inset stucco arches and.painted
metaf railings
A landscape plan has also been included for the plaza area between the
Terrace Wing and the Cornerstone project. The approved plan has been
modified in order to allow for emergency access. The staff feels that this area
should be constructed with the Cornerstone project.
Waterford
The proposed building uses a series of staggered towers and broken roof forms
with the parking facilities located to the north of the building. The approved
building for this project was a series of lower struclures and a more unified roof
plan. The parking {acilities were located below the facitity. The building mass
was similar to lhat of the olher Cascade Village Buildings. This proposed plan
concentrates ihe mass and bulk such thal the result is a more vertical building
which is setback farther from the South Frontage Fload than the original
approval.
The site planning of the proposed project and the approved project also differ.
The approved plan incorporated residential dwelling units over the parking
. , facilities and spread out the development. The proposed plan does not overlay
the. building and the parking facility. Instead, they are separale entities. A 5 -
25 foot wide landscape buffer has been proposed between the at-grade parking
and the property line in order to insure adequate landscaping area on the
applicani's proplrty. There is approximately 25 feet Oetweei the property line
-J ^l-- -l^--^
2.
F:
.., I
;
:.;
f.
-
;i 1.
-'f
16
landscaped CDOT right-of-way between the property line and the road. lf all of
the existing vegetation in this area is destroyed during excavation, it will be
reptaced with trees of comparable size. The applicant will be responsible lor
documenting this existing vegetation prior to the release of any grading or
building permits for the project. When comparing the current proposal,
includino the parkino facilitv. to the approved plan, the overall setbacks are
similar. The biggest difference is the tocation of the massing. This relocation
of mass is especially apparent in the area along the South Frontage Fload.
However on the south side, it is similar to the approved plan along Westhaven
and the bike path.
The statf is concerned with two elements of the site plan. The first of these is
the series of retaining walls on either end of the project. The staff recognizes
that these walls are necessary due to the severe grade changes on the site,
however, we leel that the landscaping should be more dense for better
screening. The second issue is related to the retaining walls on the east end of
the property. The staff would like to see the proposed skier access into the
building eliminated and the building used as a relaining wall. This will also
decrease the impaet of the east elevation as viewed from the bike path.
G. A circulation system deslgned for both vehlcles and pedestrians
addres-slog on and off-site traffic circulation.
1. Cornerstohe and Waterford
The Town is interesled in resolving an off-site circulation concern. This
involves the dedication of a portion of Westhaven Drive lo the Town. Currently,
Westhaven Drive from the South Frontage Road to the Gore Creek Bridge is' owned by the Waterford project applicant, MECM Enterprises. The road does
not meet the Town's standards and certain improvements related 1o the grade,
construction and building clearance beneath the pedestrian bridge will need to
be addressed prior to th-e conveyance of the righi-of-way to the lown. The
staff does not feel it would be equitable to require the Waterford developers to
complete all of the road improvemenls in conjunction with their project. lnstead,
we feel that the Waterford developers should be required to bring the portion of
.the road from the South Frontage Road to the cul-de-sac up to standards and
dedicate this portion and also dedicate a public easement for the remainder of
' . to. cdmplete this work prior to the issuance of a TCO for the project. The' Cornerstone developers have also agreed to perform the necessary tests which
to determine the condition of the road in tront of their project as part of this
amendment, however, they will not be required io complete the necessaryr .. ,, . improvements. Public Woifsl opinion is in that it woulil be impractical to have
. . Cornerstone rebuild the portion of Westhaven Drive in front of their project; - - because all of the road improvements from the cul-de-sae should be completed' r: ' ." at the same time.
17
2. . Cornerstone' With the proposed minor subdivision, a portion of Westhaven Drive, where the
. Cornerstone parking is located under the roadway, will be conveyed to the
Cornerstone property owner. The Town will then obtain an easement for public
access where ihe Westhaven Drive will now cross private property. The Town
staff finds that this is a reasonable solution.
Pedestrian circulation through the Cornerstone building to the ski lift is. proposed as a series of plazas with tandscaping from Westhaven Drive to the
ski lift pedestrian area. The staff feels that the proposed stairway is an inviting
element which is pedestrian friendly. The plaza arcaal the bottom of the stair -
between the buildings includes an arcade with landscaping and will incorporate
concrete unit pavers for the walking sur{ace. The staff feels that the pedestrian
area addiesses the circulation needs in an aesthetic and functional fashion.
The staff would like to see the concrete unit pavers used in two areas which
are currently proposed as asphalt and concrete. These areas are along the
sidewalk adjacent to Westhaven Drive and at the ski lift approach where it
connects into the bike path.
..,
.Yl:
t
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optlmfze
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functlons.
Both sites are subslanti6lly disturbed, there are few remaining natural
characteristics. With the proposed development, there would be limited
rernaining open space on the site. Because of this, the remaining landscaped
areas become critical. Landscaping is especially important along the South
Frontage Road, Westhaven Drive, and the pedestrian mall area. The
applicants have proposed landscaping plans which address these areas.
Cornerstone
The applicant has included the approved landscape plan for the public space
between the Terrace wing and the Cornerstone site as previously discussed.
The need tor emergency access has resulted in a modification of the approved'plan. The proposed fandscaping for the area in between the Tenace Wing and
Cornerstone includes a series of low concrete planters having irregular shapes.
This landscaping is shifted towards Cornerstone to allow for the 20 feet fire
lane. ln respect to the landscaping sketch adjacent to the southeast corner of'the building, the applicant proposed to keep the green space as is and will
provide a 20 foot accessway through ihis area. Final design details will be' provided prior to DRB review. Staff believes that a paver walkway and
additional landscaping are acceptable in place of the original plan's tenace and
water teature.
2. Waterford
The applicant has met with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
to discuss the limitations on landscaping along the Frontage Road. CDOT has
indicated that all existing landscaping may remain and that additional
landscaping may be added to the south of the existing vegetation. For this
reason, the staff finds that the proposed distance between the parking struciure
and the property line is adequate. As discussed previously, any landscaping
which is destroyed during the construction process witl be replaced with
comparable vegetation. The staff would also request that all walla,,rays be
made of concrete unit pavers versus concrete.
The applicant is proposing to relocate the recreation path approximately 10 feet
lo the south. This is being proposed in order lo increase the buffer between
the recreation path and the building. The staff has reviewed the site and feels
that this is appropriate for the lirst Z2S-ZS0 feet of the palh from east property
line. The relocation will not displace any vegetation nor will it encroach into the
flood plain or creek setback. However, we do not feel it is necessary to move
the remaining portion of the path. The applicant also proposes to rebuild the
existing pedestrian access form Westhaven Drive to the ski lift should the
Cornerstone project not be built at the time of the construction of the Waterford
project.
l. Phasing plan or subdivislon plan that will malntaln a workable, functlonal
and eftlclent retationship throughout the devetopment ol the speclal
development district.
Cornerstone and Waterford
As initially proposed, Cornerstone and Waterford were to be constructed
simultaneously. This simultaneous phasing plan was necessitated by the. provision of parking on the Waterford site for the Cornerstone project. Due to
the subsequent change in ownership of the two sites, this becomes a difficult
proposition. An interim landscape plan for the Waterford site has been' proposed in the event that these projecls are not constructed simultaneously.
ln the proces$ of reviewing each of these requests, it has become apparent to
ths staff that when parking is added lo the approved development plan for'. Comerslone, it becomes difficult to maintain the approved development rights.', - (ie. GFIFA, numberof units, and commercial space). Both proposals include a
net reduction of development rights while adding employee units. The staff' linds that it is absolutely critical to the approval of any amendment for either the
Waterford or Cornerstone project, to resolve the parking issue in a workable
solution. In the staff's opinion, the applicant's have achieved this goal.
19
vl.MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW CFITERIA
The standard criteria for any minor subdivision includes lot size, the road frontage and
lot configuration which are different for each zone district. Because this is an SDD and
there is no underlying zoning, there are no lol size, frontage or lot configuration
requirements for this minor subdivision. A minor subdivision is being completed in
order to create tvyo independent lots as well as deed a portion of the road to
Cornerstone. Historically, these sites have been portioned off as the project
developed. Because there are numerous owners now involved in the development of
Gascade Village, the staff feels it is necessary to complete this minor subdivision. The
minor subdivision completed before a buiHing permit is released for either project.
VII. STAFFRECOMMENDATION
The staff supports the applicants' requests to amend the development plans for the
Waterford and Cornerstone sites located in SDD #4 - Cascade Village Area A.
- The staff finds that each proposal meeis the SDD criteria as well as the goals and5-'objectives of the Town. in considering each application, the staff workedto achieve. solutions which take into account the changing conditions of Cascade Village and the
most appropriate development for each parcel.
In the Cornerstone project, the stafl remains concerned with the applicant's request to
condominiumize the proposed AUs. However, we lind that the merits of this
amendment are substantial and do not find that the AU issue is reason enough to
.recommend denial of the project. We also lind that the request to allow for 6 DUs, 3 of
which will be condominiumized without the condo conversion requirements to be
acceptable.
-, With the Waterford proposal, there is an increase in the proposed common area. The:i total increase in common area for the two projects in compirison to the original two
* projects is 1514 sq. ft. Given the fact that the density GRFA and site coverage are: below the previous amounts for both , staff believes ihis average is acceptable. The
." same reasoning is also applicable to the height increase of four feet on the south andj.''' east elevations. In addition, stalf prefers the building massing of ihe proposed project
i gu"t the previous projecls.
The staff has some design concerns with the landscaping and architectural details for
the Waterford site which-we believe can be addressed Ui tne OnA. The staff would
like to see lhe skier access on the east end of the building removed and the building
be used to retain a portion of the slope. We would also like to see the landscaping in,, both of the retaining areas increased to screen the proposed keystone walls as well as
the east elevation of the Cornerstone building. This element should be reviewed by
the DBB in detail. The staff would also require that the DF|B review each building: elevation tor architectural details especially those on the north elevation. On both
sites, the staff would require that all of the public walks be of concrete unit pavers.
Thjs includes the path from the recreation iath to the ski lift and the public wath'r,ays
adjacent to Westhaven Drive.
20
The staft finds that each proiect can now function independently of the other. We
recognize the need to make certain allowances because of changes lo the parking and
the change in ownership and feel that each project meets the sDD criteria ino rdwn
of Vail objectives.
The staff also supports the applicant's request for a minor subdivision in order to
create two independent lots, one for each project and lo dedicate that portion of
Westhaven Dri'.'e needed to construct the underground parking in the Cornerstone
project. A public easement for the portion of undedicated right-of-way will also be
dedicated at this time. This must be completed prior lo the issuance of any buitding
permits lor either project.
The staff assumes the following conditions will be met with this amendment.
Development Aoreements
Cornerstone:
The three proposed employee units shall be permanently restricted per
the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance. The agreement shall be submitted
before a building permit is released for the project. This agreement
shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk Flecorder's Otfice.
The transj.e-ntlesidential units proposedin both $cenario 1 and 2 shall
not be condominiumized at any point in the future. These units shall
remain as rental'units used in the same manner as hotel type units and
are not intended for individual ownership.
The developer agrees to complete asphalt borings and as-built surveys
and provide them to the Town to determine the condition of Westhaven
Drive in the area of the road adjacent to their property.
The proposed landscape plan between the Terrace Wing and the
proposed Cornerstone building shall be revised prior to the review of the
project by DFIB. A 20 foot access lane for emergency services must be
provided from the Westin courtyard to the ski lift. In meeting this
condition, the Water feature on the landscape plan for this amendment
may be revised accordingly,
Waterford
1.All proposed employee housing units shall be restricted per the Town of
Vail's Housing Ordinance. This agreement shall be submitted before a
building permit is reteased for the project. The agreement shall be
recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office.
1.
2-
3.
21.i
2. The developer agrees to complete borings and provide an as-built
survey to dbterm'ine the condition of the road from the Souih F ontage
Road to the cul-de-sac. The applicant agrees to provide engineered
drawings for any road revisions necessary for review by the Town of
Vail Engineer prior to the release of a building permit All road. improvements and dedications shall be completed prior to TCO. This
includes the dedication of a pubtic easemenl across Westhaven Drive
from the culde-sac to the bridge over Gore Creek.
3. The bike path shall be retocaled and the existing easement shatt be
relocated on the minor subdivision plat.
4. The minor subdivision shall be completed prior to the release of any
building permits for this project.
5. The DRB will review proposed landscaping in the areas of the retaining
walls on the west and east ends of the site. The DRB will review the
north elevation for architectural detail.
These items are all subject to the Town Attorney's review. The staff appreciate the
applicant's effort to work with the PEC and staff to develop two projects which meet
the SDD criteria. The staff betieves that the proposals are positive. The changes were
arrived through a series of work sessions and have helped to make &Ug_Ufell designed
projects which are independent developmOn-tiifrithin Cascade Village.
The staff would like to thank the PEC and the applicants for their work in developing
and reviewing this project. The stafl believes that the proposal for each building are
positive and that ihe changes make for a better project.
;t .!-
LEVEL 102
9'r\-5-t'. t>'O1
:i+..''-i'l..2.,fF"a fg',r ,
.i_.i$ | | | ! lll,,ffilf lr :mil i., itiffi
ffilmlj+::i'ilfTL'$FT.
ou-l
,:F.A 'rF-\:irF ii-^a I i . -l-.,. ! :' ...- -:,.--r .i _ :-r-r":F,r - ,! -- '-:- --
,'..' a:' ' _ - .i ''
'
Lr\Ti-rA.fi.A 'iL.A ><'lW
#r,H 'i||| IF;;;=l'ih-€:,i.,._-:nr r.rJ'r&;q}x; di;!i,i$,.:;;*r:r+:F,-_;i*;.
-
!=:-::3:tLgg.l-|r.,:...-i--.lu:{.ri.flj:ttcr...Fir,!.:-'rri"r-r -::-. li':r:rii*El*';5lE r!+di*#;Xt
rPA TF,IA T-2\'iiF..A fF.a
i-:!r-i:r-ta.:.€_+:q:jr ;+rl,ta-F-,-
:.'-: :-:!14:rrr--l a,:'^-l 'r'6Y/.t sr.UUll:sgi.:€!:r'E.;..'rgr'r-IlEItilttglilll,*sifl llilli::
3 =11' *l*._:. l:,.,, r'. -.ii'1,;\,,.:,_ l':_'_ij, ,. 1f,-EVEL 82 .tnso 6 /
D-$
g\LE 1..9'9.%EA,efit'D,\
t
t
LEVEL 38
*-L. r..zat-d
ztM
"br{
iEr:,a<-Z LJ'r-:- |t .ie:Ji.t\ hrt::- ^
I
I
i---l,,o,,o
tr+#j-"
FEd€tl?r.-Y.+t-tZ| '412.2*
PA:Ltr.tt-
'.5..\u"!c>
p
)
'.|R2!-f 'cf TY..o-
7Pg^"-
.t
fFt;
ITf;
INa!ii
2t
It'I- l,I.
€
0
asB\e
Ff,)b
->$-ct
e
(,"ti
rir \lf,',llijt
t
ifi
ilt
'iL?I
1
:lt:
n!IfFrt
n!
F
[{
n/
n
u
flu
IIl
-l Id
L,-.--)Itl_qt
I
vL:-;
+ it--.i-: r-fF-- rfiF -1jliiH'ilHltrlj
it ltJ 'ar -
t:l
t---
:i J.
IF
tl"
L
D
t
0
I
!
s
RlN5
$(il$
zE
R7t
JJ
e
@
ilEtlZ
iH
F
D
a
)
@
["l' Irrr
i_
lf
It-[}I
I
!ili
/
I
I
I
'l
.|
.l
I
1
i
I
I
\-T
70'>
a,
II
-)
v
$\
q
b
7
lilI ll --
I L.-
:
!:r-:rir.-tr-
;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IL
-tt-
!IrtlL
!ilr*
t'l_-'
I
l,-
ra l-
'ri
r:lfl
t\
ri
lirl
,rj
I
I
I
i
f
E
3
L
xe-\(-r
rY\kis
<1
R)
)lt3fi)g .' i
lu :r,i {
.i
!+
! *r-
! *t'.
ml
nn
t]I
rinUJ.J
ml
ml
m
m
m
LTU
m
u]l
m
ull
i+l
[,u
!i;il.l
., ' ' /i---
I /:i
_trs;MTil
l --L{
.
m laT
| --.J4.mlFll:-:*mIEl'
iil' ''
1:.,.
':i :l
'.,
z
6-I
rn.I- ..
m
-{o':z
Ii
..
B
s
b)
2
4
$
e
Frontago Road
Waterford'
Le gcn d (E5ti'nnl.d orantitleel
Otoo -,
/tr (dv
/,;'Pl
0(,o/ i
r4'
'G oo,
ffimffi:
(v€s?HAV=N DarVEt
Il
TF
ol.'ll ^.z.F
F
I
z
m-'n
__lfl ;
.. nl
.N
Sl
6"
$v
€E
$
\
I
tl1ltl
\J
Iz
:
;
^ a'7?fffi:+?-azz%.r-2-E d.'ii:g_7:3gfr
",g;$ao?=E-E
(?}
F-o^
A_;ilT' )'t'
m
a-l
rnf--m
{:oz
oIiI'
I
EY
g€.-ctrF(\
"'7
1u
o
$
-tlntI5lTrlol
el
i
l
I
I*
I
t
Itl5.n
o
:
olol
71r|ll
atl{I
9l
rn l'
I.l.*.t
-; rr+
€EE
?97< -1/ q.g-
qF-
6F---
-QrZ ts-w?--Lad
i,..=.,
t i. -..
i;{! r "71
,. i-*'r.' l,*.
',-,.ifi:
U
i
i
.l
I
'a'rj i
I
{c4, ,l,t.];;?
'ti
r:
-lt
d+sl '
iri t
-r'!Jz
F
z
o(t
-+
II
t
ritiII
o
qr
lt'h{t;:
rl;
o rn
clf-Co
t
[:_-l
.Il
\\
G
-'1fn
rn
!zo
o
ocf-'ozo
t--l_l
1)nz
-tf,
7_'I
2
)7
;)
Fii*P
v
.J
n
s
J
-.-i
ffi$$F"'
J
fri*q;i*'_-r Aii'r
---l s'il+i'* i$Ei
--{IN
o-
d 9;eil;:.f
'1 ,.
\_-.-----...--.|
PLAZA bUILOING \f,tt ^r:
,-{ l: I
'1\ .'
1 :;'' ,.,
,1 ..u^rE#FoRO/ p-ani*c .,6GAt a ail
suo. ,T4rl}RNER 5T
RTTAL
dacrtar|d
i.ilii'$,-
e*:i-i:+
tt.liv.rqtr(
eciirei.nr
totti- . .
5r,ro , rl
f'..11:'Fleu'ti.
TiRRACE UIf.I6
-l..!'' i-. !.l'l
I
I
I
I
.t
I
I
I
I
t
I
,
;
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
,t.
I
I
'l
=lil
I
I
I
It.
I
I
(l
ia
t
I lr
C ri*"i'j
I
iq
c
n
IrI
E
R
?. z'..hn
l- -l
oo-t*B 2 sFi$ T bt E :- {€ f qIt' '' o F-rt,
;13 drl n;l: f s -0lr-t>
- LE 7
2rn27 = r;: e inE .r<$ .->
a5O>z
J
i,CI
'.!'or
FI{i66
o8F t"r *.." id ;ii;i*:$
F- "t'-o:i
.rYttr't't+tlg{.l,3f i:.t$f -+::i:'.1:+...,.iee
\IItti t.lgi,;k
\'/)
'r)
l./
.4.
- -i.
-7r\\
'{-
> t-'.
=i> /'J
t-
i\ /'J
&at..atJd:/ffi
/iFna+{sr.:il
I
10'. 08t$1o,*91.:&i,&,'K.,J*.{HLH" e=o sr ssr
oseobar 9, Lg?z
trtrwn of Vllt c@unlty Dovrlolrurnt, OttLc.t
g"-"rrctal Erdlrel- Bank- took pgrrrrrl0n oE tre colzrrrrtonqFlr€c.r. rur .,__g:f.3rd_lytil ";i;G;t-di".iiprfor rb,! casssda;ll}:i:' cotecxcl'al sc&eiii -ie a. raruct-a,ii- qirrnrr or rhts
csrrrrr-t'nr' anld , Erv.rax oilrer qlSceda vltl*Er propcr*lc!1 H€t6offsrsd Ec' securrty i;i -J-tuioropna.t roan r,n t.c ascunE cf€8.eH. rtt of,. tfre o*er-p";;;rri;;-il;""*;;;-;i"td olf exceptror the eornerrron;- p"tIhi'-oi*ur, vrtrr- a rirJ Jr ehrs parcrr,connrrchr'Fedaral srrnii-iJlo".-affriiG"i.ii'iqi' on .ne loan.cornersrar Fgderal' Ban*rs trnano{sl- lcss rl npt lhr concdle-of,tQ€ Torrn of vatt .ane tl" ,i"iil curhJifry] b; fl ie LnportanrtoE thc tcr.-n ro_ know tn"J'i"iu.ar.c"-i[6 i!!rii"a ecenarlor,caEEercl.r:. Fecerlr "" th"--oilIf . of _thr ccririretone parecl Legolng to ro'e , q. cubstalti"r-ioo-int_of noney. rtu1s6g64.sr it la
ffi:r! ii. irF lr:li.i; i;ilI r: r j, i*: t*"tun*,:*' : :ii#lli'*riltotilt .ffiX.lfr" erie i" k-civerJ!.a Jiir.Ir aoa;y-;;-lE
*519 PBz
Vlc{l ptrnldcnt
Flrn gfglr CaEllttsltl Frdrrel.
P 0.2 .-
{
Tot
Srant
8rr
coElL+roh1 Frderal BanJ( irJ.U noe, ba - thr drvrloper nf tb.r....-: fl;l"'if:n-e er{ei-.rr-'"rri. re rJia "ir iJ-.. devqloper rrho w{il.,,:,.:, j 1? i
-"riiiJiis':i* 3iii :tif :t ! iil fl;, ; g;.4 *$;:il{: Ttt ""
j& :$;;,' - -.:-. ,: an{.- bulld.- . we niea -s6au for:a ir zonlng ilhlch allovs for, . €ondonlnlilue t"- rl--l"iii"_q. p+re -or--GL proJects. t{E ba,vepropoaed 6E .Fert .eg oui scenaiJolrr-a-d&eropn$1r plqn vhlch' atlot,s for eii- -ariiirdii-"nrtr, sr iiin"iiii reetaentrat unlrer' qndl atx ao.oulbaciioi-"inite .; _ part 6t. thls pran B,ould .tnclud.n' - tr.o enoroyrc__trousihg uil"ii-vurc;-;;" ;u#stry nct requrred on_, ttrc colncistcne slti. ---trro.."o;";i;;i-t**.lo rr arE qultrj ' ':,'----Eisptqi ttre p{in "iii.'r roi six ,dnamini""I:rrtrt"t, courd be gord'-'-or't rnd wquii- rr"rp a"ii; -ag_-;'"E-'6r*-urudrng rho enttrs, ,r iililltf.;"___?o ER- ""ii;- coutd, therr -f,. f""-qra_our r_b,rough a..,,,.,,n"*E-o-ri-- -ane.,9enflt coDPBnJ , or 'thiouea -thi- we"tii-Hffii-il*, -;..,';-i-|it;ir; ,.-,.:-,.,. ' ,l' :--'-,r.-:*ii;r;; :
5-.;i..11.: . tl.-1-1r-r.:'
,, .;:i1,...5r:ti-: ag"S6rrrt_ - -,.-, ' : ," .
1 o. ogr#l*,fi to',&*f*.,{ t&i T*k flT"
betrei:n. cdrnereiong ead, the Hectln bull4lng, greatly regUClngthc ot)an atr!, nhlcb vr feEl le qutte $rportant. Thle arra Lrtlght enough ar tt Ie and rddlng to tbn bulldtng in tlrlr areqvlll, only rlake lC feel uore rqqceted.
Conrrrjsslul Fed.eral . Bad< hat Eubtrttt€d tuo proFoeals vlrlch nEf,c€I La a grBtc lrprrrveraeflC ov.E .tha cartnen9 zontng for thedorneratona bulldlng. Iife ar. a.sklng thlt, thcge-planr, both
bulld, ln- the arss curr€.rrtfy deetgnell-a* parkLngr at tbe coat ofoulrcf ln Etle dSea suErenEly cearEnscr- A{r parJ<rnlf aE EBe seEE ofvatrrable _parflng 6prces!. .-inoglag.La- to_Eutl,A Ir, tlrg op6n arca
Scenarlojl nnd-Ir. be alrproved'ar they hivc b+en subr.Lttcd.
cO Po3 -r383 3313581 K5r9 P4r \
?lEc ITorfir of vrll
Sernrrl,o rr tc ac! thrt dl(fcr.ng f!.eE ehr gurrrnt ronlnfl Lnfatrt; Le cbrnE.r tE vct':f llttlc. Undrr t&r plrnr vr hrvrau.hlttedr tlttr thr lf,R unl.tr. tbr rV turltrr and, tle tbrcr raalldrrlllng urLtl, . ther6' souli br' * pstrntlrl lor {l 'un{tr
cqu{vrlint, tE xI un{ti. gnd.r currrnt ronJ,rig, ra havr 50r lfelr. ;IIII aeklnq thet thr AIttB and DErg nots br fastrletr{ torontal usl on1y, bug cot*Blnly the potrgrtlal far th€Il b*r.ng' uEeda4 {rosonc}datlon unltr uay bc Ettf{cElvr to gone of, tlrc gt|nerc
rnd vculd b. rrntcd aE'ruch durlng pealc tlrres.,
Sath Becriirl,ot I rnd, If lncluct. F1tnt tilac grcaely =rdueo tts.t.'ounb 'oE raqulred conrrerclal rpaie , rn 'nany dlrquaclons ultlrtha Fldnfihg. D€ptrt$+ntr t&ls asalri3 to be a c6nc€,irrr. l{a b.trvaanalyrcd,' the cora:rcrclal Fotcntlal for the area and find, there, 1gvery littlc hee{ today for anlr add{tlonal coruarclal qgac,o endcan gre no Ecenarlo vhlqh gould change that ncad eleniflsa$t1yln tho fututr. Doth' planu eontrin l2,0oo rf, of coulerclal'Epac., aad ffe adaraantly believe tlat thls la suff,icicnt epace touret the naede of.the vlllag* in the future. If rorc conraexcialaFacg lc added to the budldfi1g, it will bc esa.'ltlally forclngtha develoiler to butld ebFey Epace. ry adding ccqnerclel to thacurrent plan, tl1er6 are only tHo placer to do co. Onc ia go
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Town Gouncil
Communily Development
December 8, 1992
Planning Commission recommendations to the Town Council to approve a
minor subdivision and major amendment to SDD #4 Cascade Village to amend
the Development Plan for Waterford and Cornerstone parcels in Area A.
On December 7, 1992, the PEC recommended approval for a request to amend SDD #4
Cascade Village Area A. The vote was 5-1. Diana Donovan opposed the application based
on concerns related to the following:
1. The change in the TR definition to allow for units larger than 645 sq. ft. of
GRFA,2. The proximity of the Waterford building to the creek; and3. The 20' width of the ernergency access between the Cornerstone Building and
the existing Terrace'Wing Building.
She also stated that she was generally more comfortable with the proposed Waterlord project
than the proposed Cornerstone project.
The PEC also approved a request for a minor subdivision to create two independent lots for
the two sites in question, the Waterford and Cornerstone building sites.
The following items were conditions of the Planning Commission's recommendations to the
Town Council. The stalfs recommendation is listed in the attached memorandum, to the PEC
dated December 7, 1992.
Cornerstone
1. Before the building permit is released {or the project, the three proposed employee
housing units shall be permanently restricted per the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance
as follows:
a. The EHU shall include two (2) on-site parking spaces gg the EHU shall include
one (1) on-site parking space and the EHU shall be located "onn the Town's
bus route (as determined by the Town Zoning Administrator);b. The EHU shall not be subdivided into any form of time shares, interval
ownerships, or fractional fee;c. The EHU shallbe leased, but only lo tenanF who are fulFtime employees who
work in Eagle County. The EHU shall not be leased lor a period less than thirty
2.
rt.
-.
6.
(30) consecutive days. For the purposes of this Section, a full-time employee is
one who works an average of a minimum of thirty (30) hours each week;d. No later than February 1 of each year, the owner of the employee housing unit
shall submit Wvo (2) copies of a report (on a form to be obtained from the
Community Development Department), to the Community Development
Department of the Town of Vail and the Chairperson of the Town of Vail
Housing Authority, setting forth evidence establishing that each tenant whom
resides within the employee housing unit is a full-time employee in Eagle
County.
This agreement shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office.
Transient residential units proposed on both Scenario 1 and 2 shall not be individually
condominiumized al any point in the future. These units shall remain as rental unils
used in the same manner as hotel type units and are not intended for Individual
ownership. The de{inition of TR shalt be changed to accommodate this proposal.
The developer agrees to complete asphalt borings and an as-built survey and lo
provide them to the Town of Vail for the area of the road adjacent to their property in
order to determine the condition of Westhaven Drive- The Town Engineer shall
determine when these drawings shall be required.
The proposed landscape plan between lhe Terrace Wing and the proposed
Cornerslone building shall be revised prior to the review of the project by the DRB.
For emergency services, an access lane must be provided from the western courtyard
to the ski lift. In meeting this condition, the water teature on the landscape plan for this
amendment may be removed or revised accordingly. The proposed landscaping in this
area shall be part of lhe Cornerstone development and, therefore, it is the developer's
responsibility to complete this portion of the project when the Cornerstone project is
constructed. These plans shall be included in the building permit for the Cornerstone
development at such time that it is developed.
The area of road in which parking is proposed under Westhaven Drive for the
Cornerslone project shall be conveyed and transferred through the proposed minor
subdivision to the Cornerstone property. An easement shall be granted to the Town of
Vail over this area for public access.
In Scenario 2 of the Cornerstone project, three DUs will be condominiumized and
available on the free market with no renlal restrictions. ln addition, two DUs that each
have one AU and one lock off, shall have the rental restrictions applied per Section
17.26.075 of the Subdivision Regulations. An additional DU will be available with one
lock off for condominiumization. This DU/LO unit will also have the condominium-
conversion rental restrictions applied to it per Section 17.26.075 of the Subdivision
Regulations.
o
3.
Waterford
1.The two proposed employee housing units shall be restricted per the Town ot Vail
Housing Ordinance. This agreement shall be submitted before the building permit is
released for the project. This agreement shall be recorded at Eagle County Clerk and
recorder's Office. Please see the specific provisions of the ordinance under item 1.
Cornerstone.
The developer agrees to complete asphalt borings and an as-built survey to determine
the condition of Westhaven Drive from the South Frontage Road to the south end of
the Cul-de-sac. The applicant agrees to provide stamped, engineered construction
drawings for any road revisions that are necessary to bring the road up to Town
standards. These construction drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the Town
of Vail's engineer prior to the release of a building permit. All road improvements shall
be completed by the developer for the project prior to T.C.O. The road will also be
dedicated to ihe Town prior to the release of a T.C.O. The dedication of the public
access easement for the remainder of Westhaven Drive shall be conveyed at such
time that the minor suMivision plat is submitted prior to a building permit being
released for the project. The public access easement shall allow for parking
enforcement by the Town of Vail.
The bike path shall be relocated and the existing easement shall be amended if
possible on the minorsubdivision plat to correspond to the new location. lf the bike
path is relocated while Walerford is being constructed, the bike path must be relocated
and the easement provided to the Town for public access before a T.C.O. is released.
The minor subdivision plat shall be completed and recorded prior to the release of any
building permits for either project. The minor subdivision plat shall include the
@nveyance of property to Cornerstone for its parking located below grade, the Town's
public access easement over the underground parking area in the cunent cul-de-sac,
and the relocation of the bike path on the Waterford site, and the public access
easement across Westhaven Drive.
The DRB will review the proposed landscaping in the areas of the retaining walls on
the west and east ends of the site. The DRB will review the north elevation's
architectural details, The applicant has also agreed to review the possibility of
eliminating the skier access on the east end of the project. However, the PEC felt that
if the applicant could signilicantly decrease the retaining walls necessary to build the
access, the skier access could remain.
Wate rfo rd/Co rnerstone
1. The general condominium plat and declarations shall be reviewed by the Town
attorney and the Community Development Department. The primary concern is that
the parking be made permanently available to the users of the project. This includes
the permanent dedication of those spaces allocated to commercial areas as short term
4.
public parking. All proposed required parking associated with the uses shall not be
conveyed, used or leased separately from the uses. Public parking on the third floor of
the Comerstone project shall be made available to the public for short term parking
within the building.
The wording of the agreements listed above are also subject to the Town Attorney's review.
These items will appear in the proposed ordinance for this amendment unless otherwise
modified by the Town Attorney or the Town Council.
+f't
era "Vall.ttt,
Gr"A _+IJ,rt*"qdn
+YP:! +n ryrw Mt *GW
+ry op + fitu& + ql; W
)raqil
^*tut4+ +2\ d_L ag*
,
?
4tb'Q\- L'r
e
trlwv- tva _::, "ttl, 4tnw V q* T1,*$e4'
fv r{r*r &* #erfa r $ffi tu -u- --
-- ar
.s
,A rUAaW'n t t
l,/l,ut6' "-;EA +r ",hdtfluvAf -
to
/ tlli'dh '+l^w
ul t'i,
'
1tr,ffw, p,",1
fLu[C$ii'V v^-tv rYW'k& .
'lc*"tYlurty uarl P ix
U
@'JWvl Krzn't P""lt
bbrd
),te b-o vortu1 \/,1vy
D!- JD w Dr
'&tV - rv;lUct ti[x r
LP Sur,o1t*' 1k fuKnrU
lL4'v l v\/teJ'twWu9\
Lrlu, \ -t ^hCclu[A l*L
t;l* nr f\0, 5 rJ1 D 0'E
,;1,V J1q C1r+o':l L"tt, CetLdll'
'lpt,v\;;it- t( ltprc v *ki* (
ft+KntftcL
vArv;v<A
Ok * *fl..t q,i,vfu'"'tcf , ,l"vr- A {T' +1",('
\M*q, ltJ,vrT .
W - Y\r-t ,,sq.i l'fira 1lAt(tw tvX
'Jrr(ftnr* (,(trutl1e,,", Cvkn"f \^urr,,-,1,-t
L!,Lil \ ,
gtr-- Iuf ^'[
Dill+,rt - F"D\C*, , U ,\\,. l,t 0r lr( 0ntt d'o^n 'v'-'t z{&
:lthr+ p*f U irD'^^
t?@tI
,-L (^J{sT-
g7iv rMuy f,e,,t 1d,{latuy
Jrg - 6v*,f Prf"t *'1uo tl ,
",r.ny
Itr,bU tJI
NMW tfll
'*;
TO:
FROM:
DATE: DecembErZ,1992
SURJECT: l..Fqrr"rt for a mrnor subdivision and a major amerdment to sDD #4, cascadeviilage, to gmeng tre deveropment prans ror mE wierrori and comerstoneparcels In area A. The waterford si'te ls generatry locaiio on ths sE comer olthe rntersecrion of westhaven Drive ano Ire s. i;fiage Road. TheComerstone site ls on WEsthaven Drirre south or neb?scaoe vlilage pa*ingstructure. The legal descriptions are as follows: . -
W.tsrbrd Sire
Thet tsl-oJ tt€ sw t/4 NE 1/4, Soslim 12. Tow'r3hip 5 Soutr, Rangs Bl h,bst d $e Stixflpnhcipar
^feridian,
Tom of Vair, Esgre counry, couioo. oi*LJ'o uro",",Beginning ar a point on fre aoutrerty righr+r-d f;?ir,er.aJffi9-h*"y l,fo. Zo ufrenca an ironein wih-a_etas_dc.ep rnar*ing the c6ntsr ot calo-ssalon tz uear" s 5g.tqtg. w t.t47.og het;
tr{rlll,elli_t$s:i9,ilffi ,#"il:trffi ;l;u,ffia,r_'gig,$' ji$;
bet t6nca s 4$.15'14' w 94,32 b€t: lhence s te. ta;ge:w sl.d bet nenoe s ol?t'g6. w205.02 feet; trenoe s l,no736'w tto.as bet; ttr"t* s aa;iidi: w t6.t..tg hsq h€nc€ N 40'170^1:!.?!!16 test; tlence N 4s4256' E ez.so tesr; he; H gtoe'sr. w 9s.s9 feer; rhence s52!50'29'w 55.10 h6t; $enca 69.48.!91_1ry rtr. a* oia nonirnanr cr,tw b rha t€ft haring etEdus ol. q5j^00^b?! ? csltt4 angle of 61o1il'4t' anc a ctord trar belt N sa' s5.oy w 66.a L"r;tience N 37'0931'll\' 118.50 het To The True Point ol Boginnltr. Co*ry of Eagte, $are oi- --"
Cobradoi and the Comersone ggrasl deslribed ae bllows:
Cortefsbne S:ita
Thet Fl.ol qte st ' 1/.1 NE l/4, soctiofl 12, Township 5 south, HerEe st utgat ot ura siixthPr;ndpal lileddan. Tom ot vail corllty of eaee. sdo ol A6caooltsccrtec as toilo,6;Beginning al a Point on tre eascrly tine of a non+xclusive easemenr 6 ingress and gg€3g k^own.t w6havEn Driw reoorded in Boor azt st Pag€ 65t irn tre ornce oiirrJE"gb co,rfi, c;;;;,clerft .nd Flecorder wtrnca the cenbr ol said Secrion 12 bo.r8 S ge"3arg.vi t,t6s .zi i*i; - -'
lf|€nce along said tine ol Westhawn Drive N 62"r1341'E r€.ei h"t tt*,r" oeparung said line ofw*taT-D::, r:3,rJ rrl-lglg-tr arc of a non-tans€nt o*" ri o" teft halns ;;il;l -
ss.mree-r' lcentsal angle ol 137%5'30'and a cfioc nrei tears l.r l2:irre-g roa.6i g"t; t*".N S?50'29.E 65.24 ber:6encB S g7qog.gt.E eS.Sg feer; hence S b.la,Sefry eZ.eO f"ti 1,"n."S.t0'17'04.E 24.14 teer: h€nc€ S S?50.A9fry Zre.ee b;t fi€r,J Hif.Offit.Vlr tog.z6 fir u t"poant ot b€ginniru conEining 0.6949 aer€s mors or l6ss. '
Applicant: MECM Enteryrises, Waterforrt Site and GommercialFederal
Savlngs, Comerstone SitePlanner: Shelly Melto