HomeMy WebLinkAboutGlen Lyon 1978-1988
- -
C~ 98 I D: rJT D I STP. I CT 3 TEL h10 !303-2/18-725/1 tf-1¢ 9 POi
2:'
JTIATL Or
DEPARTMSrNT-OF NIQHWAYS 5~T a^°y~
222 Sauth Sixth 5treet, P.O. Box 2107
. ~
Orand Junction, Colorado 81602-2107 ~ .
(303) 248-7208
rr.November 23, 1988
Kristan Pritz
$eIYiOY" Pl8,Y1211er
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Ms. Pritz:
we have reviewed the G].en Lyon ofiice Building micro brewery
proposel and make the following comments:
0 Accsacn pcrmitc will bc rcquircd for bath approaches to the site.
p No loaelln7 crr unlaRCYinrf nr matPrialra may t.±zKP plnc'e wi-t-tiin
highway right of way.
c No dz'ainage or snaw fram thc citc may drain to ar be placcd
within highway right of way.
It appears that same channelization may be required; however, if
}Ytrtniari z,,r~ntee a ezr~nt i nii ~ii Fe l pf~ +-.i i rn 1 arisA i.h rai ue3}I l.hsa Eirei f-
the departinent wtauld make that a requirement c£ the aocesa
permits.
The sidewalk shown inside highway right of way will be allowed;
however, when the entire right of way is needed for hic~hway
1d~• aii+b~, •ir.'~3I,1isiw:zt iztz.y xZC.c. 1 .=.f 1 r.=.vi~a.r7 (~'SC'~Sr
to their propex`tiY• The development should plan ta replace, at
their expense, the proposed sidewalk and their bus unloada.ng
1GCatiali.
Wa hope the above i.nfarmation will assist you irt your planning
process. More definitive 1i3LUL'lil'QL.lUll wi].1 be provided when the
applications for access are received.
R. P. MOSTON
DISTRIGT ENGINEER
4C
. I. Durin, f~qine
ict RO er
Distr
CID:rb
cc: file
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
222 South Sixth Street, P.O. Box 2107
Grand Junction, Colorado 81502-2107 ~ ~(303) 248-7208
~ OF GOLO
November 23, 1988
Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Ms. Pritz:
We have reviewed the Glen Lyon Office Building micro brewery
proposal and make the following comments:
Access permits will be required for both approaches to the site.
No loading or unloading of materials may take place within
highway right of way.
No drainage or snow from the site may drain to or be placed
within highway right of way.
It appears that some channelization may be required; however, if
the town wants a continuous left turn lane through the project
the department would make that a requirement of the access
permits.
The sidewalk shown inside highway right of way will be allowed;
however, when the entire right of way is needed for highway
purposes the development may need other mean of providing access
to their property. The development should plan to replace, at
their expense, the proposed sidewalk and their bus unloading
location.
We hope the above information will assist you in your planning
process. More definitive information will be provided when the
applications for access are received.
R. P. MOSTON
DISTRICT ENGINEER
C. I. Dunn,
District RO ngineer
CID:rb
cc: file
~ UPPER EAGLE VALLEY CONSOLIDATED
WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICTS
~ 846 FOREST ROAD • VAIL, COLORADO 81657
(303) 476-7480
October 26, 1988
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: Cascade Village Brewery
Dear Kristan:
As per our phone conversation the Vail VAlley Consolidated Water District
and the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District have no problem
with the amended production rates for the above mentioned business. It is
our understanding that the 5,000 barrels stipulated for an annual rate has
changed to 7500 barrels annually.
At this time both Districts have excess capacities to process water and the
additional production of the brewery will not effect our processes.
Sincerely,
UPPER EAGLE VALLEY CONSOLIDATED
WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICTS
*14ks~.A SL
Fred S. Haslee
Engineering Technician
PARTICIPATING DISTRICTS - ARROWHEAD METRO WATER • AVON METRO WATER • BEAVER CREEK METRO WATER • BERRY CREEK METRO CLEAN
~ WATER • EAGLE-VAIL METRO WATER • EDWARDS WATER • LAKE CREEK MEADOWS WATER • UPPER EAGLE VALLEY SANITATION • VAIL
VALLEY CONSOLIDATED WATER • VAIL WATER AND SANITATION
PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS, RESEARCH
~O % 'c
CAe t ViA«eo - ~-L-)
F2OLAA ~
7s~p /YS e_ v S ~ ~ sooo
!
VA IC~o - 042'AUJ t" A~T Aj2J"r- -T~
eV,_*Ipjn -j1 t9, (Zrt.c~ ~p IZD
1vv\'PA49-) .
C400)C9 E15 To
046c 3011
,rrA<L WA-1~ P12 o O uC-'T( -0~-(
~'r-r
Pec,e yF A?, l IvCdZ&AS&9~ 1:::t2o IM C~2;,o) oc;~o CActo tJ S Tb
Z I~z. I~S o00
~ i
~
Suite 308, Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Road West • Vail, Coiorado 81657 •(303) 476-7154
Ta d
~
o00 GAC-u-onsS - w41 G L4
\WL ,5
3 ► ~ !5~0 15 UOZet~ r~-,
(&2,5'~o GAc.c,oNS f+,,Z yJly2- oF
~,1 c,t~ (~'yg. ~OtSI.-64/~2fof~ a'Z- q(", ) 87s
Tb
(~,t~(~c.aN~j (~Cr2 V1~. ~ n~ ~'7rz ~G t~ t,od~ - U P~' t~✓'.4Tti,t'~
Qy . lo t C~QCl~t-o►~ P~✓L.. W~, t n1v?~z. ~2.. w/~s~f - c.~~'~zQ''ci,~- ~~bf~
~
lfb-,-,k,t, ~.,o~~ a►~s- ~~~s P~ v~,~N~~.
qwi- gstl,~~~4,
~
F',40KZ, L-} Li
I Uv~oc~~ ~t ~~"~.`1, ►.~~~.o~ 1~~i
O
.c ► F(C~'~" i `L
Cti~~J~rz- 5~~N
~i~ 1,`7 I-WAX pv,-~ R°r5
oa JYAc?SL. - GaL.' ►~+~ic~~v°~. Y~~a2~.~T L~( ~
rT44VX1. ~~L,\) MATIL~ArtS
~ s Vrr--
~ D~. S (-t.re cftw3A" v►•t ►ArU4,4) A
5h&AjVVl, 2 -z ~ U fr~w,~
L, Yo T,-) 5 1 Tv~, •
~ p,et
~N O ~ `il,o ~rc. JS&
42r2,0 V L PA., $Ac-
V;~,l,t,"
PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS. RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO: KRISTAN PRITZ, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: PETER JAMA
DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 1988
RE: CASCADE VILLAGE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
As a follow-up to our meeting on September 7th regarding Cascade
Village parking requirements, I have met with Andy to review the
discrepancies and reaffirm the basis for our calculations.
According to Andy the following numbers are correct. Please feel
free to contact him or conduct a site visit and verify the
numbers:
Westin
The parking requirement for the Westin should be 113.87 spaces
based upon 146 accommodation units and a total GRFA of 54,673
square feet.
Clancy's
Clancy's currently has 31 seats in the bar area and 55 res~aurant
seats for a total of 86 seats. The parking requirement would be
10.75 spaces.
Cascade Club
The Cascade Club currently has 8 bar seats and 34 restaurant
seats for a total of 42 seats. The parking requirement would be
5.25 spaces.
I hope this helps you to clarify these issues. I believe that we
agree on all other calculations. Rounding the above numbers up I
believe that the verification of these numbers would reduce your
calculation of spaces required for existing space from 427 spaces
to 418 spaces, or a reduction in 9 spaces.
Please let me know if you require additional information or have
questions
Suite 308, Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Road West • Vail, Colorado 81657 •(303) 476-7154
PETER jAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
PLANNWG, DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS. RESEARCH
August 29, 1988
Kristan Pritz
Department of Community Development ~
Town of Vail /
75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657
Dear Kristan:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to your comments
regarding the Cascade Village Environmental Impact Report which
are detailed in your letter to Andy Norris dated August 25, 1988.
The response to Items 1- 9 on page 3 of your letter is, by item,
as follows:
1. Commercial square footage for the "Base Plan" and
"Conditional Use Plan" are included within the report and
are presented on page 11.
2. Section 18.46.140 of the regulations regarding Special
Development District 4 states that "In Areas A and B, no
more than thirty-five percent of the total site area shall
be covered by buildings, provided, if any portion of the
areas is developed as an institutional or educational
center, forty-five percent of the area may be covered." I
bel?eve that since Colorado MoLntain College is an
educational center that the appropriate standard to be usinq
is the 45% figure.
3. The Micro-Brewery does not discharge anything into Gore
Creek. Wastewater from the facility, as described on page
31, is treated by Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation
District.
4. The manhole will be provided.
Suite 308, Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Road West • Vail, Colorado 81657 •(303) 476-7154
Kristan Pritz
Department of Community Development
Town of Vail
August 29, 1988
5. I assume that you are referring to page 43 rather than 33.
Dave Leahy of TDA has begun discussions and is preparing the
required applications and other paperwork required by the
Colorado Department of Highways for the revised access to
Development Area D. We will keep you advised as to these
discussions and status of applications and anticipate a
pre-application meeting soon to discuss the recommended
improvements with the State.
6. Further infornation regarding views; mass and bulk, and
height is being prepared by ROMA for your review. I'm,
certain that this graphic information will provide you with
the information that you desire regarding these issues. As
mentioned previously the scale of proposed buildings is
equal to or less than that of the existing buildings.
Significant architectural revisions have been made to the
proposal in order to respond to concerns previously raised
by the staff and PEC. Once the information that ROMA is
preparing is received, let me know when we can get together
to review the information and determine whether it addresses
your concerns.
7. It is anticipated that two distributors per week will pick
up beer from the site.
8. Twenty-two foot trucks will be primarily utilized for
loading and delivery to the brewery and can be contained
within the loading area within the building. Other type
vehicles such as tractor-trailer size vehicles which will
occasionally visit the site will be scheduled for specific
times and can be accommodated within the outside loading and
delivery area.
Loading and trash facilities have been provided for the
Cornerstone and Waterford buildings based upon the
architects recommendations, Town of Vail requirements and
previous experience with these types of facilities.
9. My understanding is that Vail Brewing Company will be
responsible for construction of the bus stop and that
utilities will be buried at the time of construction along
with rerouting the bike path.
Please let me know if you require any additional information.
Sincerely,
Peter Ja ar
PJ:ns
. - . , -
PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
PLANNING. DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS, RESEARCH
January 6, 1989
Kristan Pritz
Department of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 5outh Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Kristan:
This letter is to confirm that the statistics contained within
Town of Vail Ordinance #40 of 1988 supercede those contained
within the Environmental Impact Report dated November 22, 1988.
Sin y,
Peter Jam r, AICP
PJ:ne
Suite 308, Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Road West • Vail, Colorado 81657 •(303) 476-7154
• ~ . M ppp
. 4
~
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Prepared For:
Vail Ventures, Ltd.
1000 South Frontage Road West
Vail, Colorado 81657
Prepared By:
Peter Jamar Associates, Inc.
108 South Frontage Road West
Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 476-7154
AUGUST 1988 / REVISED NOV. 22, 1988
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
INTRODUCTION 1
.
SUNiMARY 2
SECTION ONE - THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3
SECTION TWO - IMPACTS/MZTIGATION 33
SECTION THREE - APPENDICES 53
- RBD Engineering Report
- Letters from Upper Eagle Valley Water
and Sanitation District
- Parking Analysis and Parking Management
Plan - Development Area D
- Access Analysis - Development Area D
LIST OF FIGURES .
Figure 1- Cascade Village Vicinity Map 1
' Figure 2- Existing Development - Area A 5
Figure 3- Development Under Construction - 6
Area A
Figure 4- Future Development - Area A 7
Figure 5- Master Plan - Area A 8
Figure 6- Vicinity Map - Area D 9
Figure 7- Cornerstone Site Plan 21
Figure 8- Transient Residential Unit 22
Typical Floor Plan
Figure 9- Waterford Site Plan 23
Figure 10 - Millrace Phase IV Site Plan - 24
Condominiums
Figure 11 - Millrace Phase IV Site Plan - 25
Lodge Rooms
Figure 12 - Master Plan - Area D 28
Figure 13 - East Building and Condominium - 29
Area D
Figure 14 - Micro-Brewery First Floor Plan 30
Figure 15 - Micro-Brewery Second Floor Plan 31
Figure 16 - Micro-Brewery Third Floor Plan 32
Figure 17 - Cascade Village Entry Perspective 42
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 2
PAGE NO.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1- Tabulation of Completed Projects - 16
Area A
Table 2- SDD Development Standards - 17
Area A
Table 3- Comparison of Area D Proposal to 27
Development Standards of the
Arterial Business District
Table 4- Estimated Quantities of Pollutants from 38
increase of Fireplaces
Table 5- Maximum Parking Required - Area A 48
Table 6- Parkinq Requirements - Area D 49
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to present information regarding
proposed amendments to Special Development District 4(SDD4)
located within the Town of Vail, Colorado. Special Development
District 4 is located at the base of Vail Mountain, west of Vail
Lionshead and is commonly referred to as Cascade Village (see
Figure l, Vicinity Map).
Not lo Scale
NORTH
' • ' VAIL MOUNTAIN
: ~
.
x •
~ W ~ •
• ~ o• :
o. •
i tL •
• • •
C ♦
• ~ i
~ a .!x • m : ~ ~W
• „ L q
x • • • e
i C <
• • ~ ~!7+~1%~!~i/N.~
• t • • : ~ w
• ~ ~ : V
• ~ ~
• A • ~ ~
• ~ • '
• • • 10 +
• • • •
. : : 10
. • ~ . .
p • C
~ • • O
V811 ' • . o ~a9e
. ~
Village : wes,i, west vau
~O • ` ~ S°J Interchange
,..--....,..-%"y~ . . Y
4 Way
Stop Lions •head . Gore Creek : •
Village
Interstate 70 •
P°aa
North Fronta9e
Figure 1
1
SUMMARY
Vail Ventures, Inc. and Glen Lyon Office Building, a Colorado
Partnership, propose to make amendments to the existing
provisions of Special Development District 4, Cascade Village.
These amendments are intended to provide a proper balance of land
uses as well as to provide first class accommodation units,
dwelling units, special attractions, facilities, and services for
the Vail guest. Proposed future development will consist of
condominiums, lodge rooms, skier support services, commercial,
retail and office space, entertainment and/or educational and
cultural facilities, and a Micro-Brewery.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The proposed amendments will not have a negative impact upon the
physical condition of the site in terms of geologic conditions,
hydrologic conditions, noise impacts, biotic conditions, or
visual conditions.
The proposed amendments will result in the potential for
additional air pollution in the Gore Valley due to the addition
of wood burning fireplaces in excess of the number currently
allowed;
" The increased demands for water and sewer service as a result of
the amendments can be easily accommodated by Upper Eagle Valley
' Water and Sanitation District;
The traffic and circulation demands of the development can be met
by the recently constructed roadway and intersection improvements;
Parking demands generated by the development can be provided for;
The proposal helps to implement and is consistent with various
Town of Vail Goals and Policies as identified by the Vail Land
Use Plan, Community Action Plan, and Report of the Economic
Development Commission.
2
SECTION ONE - THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
3
Special Development District 4 was established in 1977 and since
that time has been evolving into a high quality mixed use resort
development consisting of residential, recreational, educational,
and commercial land uses and activities. SDD4 is divided into
four "development areas":
Development Area Area Known As
A Cascade Village
g Coldstream Condominiums
c Glen Lyon Duplex Lots
p Glen Lyon Office Building
Area A, the core of the Special Development District, is the site
of the Westin Hotel, Colorado Mountain College, Millrace
Condominiums, the Cascade Club and Parking Structure, and the
newly constructed Cascade Village Chairlift. These existing
projects are identified upon Figure 2.
Currently under construction in Area A, as indicated upon Figure
3, are the Westin Hotel's Terrace Wing and the Conference Center.
Future development areas within Area A are generally depicted
upon Figure 4. Figure 5 indicates Development Area A at
completion.
Area D is the site of the existing Glen Lyon Office Building,
(See Figure 6).
The main focus of this report is to present information regarding
the proposal for future development within Development Areas A
and D of SDD4 as they relate to previous development approvals
for SDD4, to review potential impacts resulting from the changes
proposed, and to discuss actions that can be taken to minimize
any adverse impacts.
The report is divided into three parts:
Section One - The Master Plan - Describes the proposed Develop-
ment Plan and amendments to the Special Development District.
Section Two - Impacts/Mitictation - Contains estimates of probable
impacts resulting from the proposal and summarizes actions that
can be taken to minimize any adverse effects resulting from the
proposed development revisions.
Section Three - Appendices - Provides supplementary information.
4
g
~
= W
76 t
g
0ti W oc . ~ ~O
V
J41 tl
~ ~
r a
~ ~~i~ ~~k~~ ~ a ,~~r• ~ ~ x~~~ y .~f~~ ~i ~ ~ '~`~ne ~n t~r ~~R
~w~ ~ { ~ a~ ~ ~`~r,
i
y . 1,S
' 9
~ c N °
} ap ~ i <1 ~f,~~" ~ ~ ~ ~ d
~ V . R< 9ro,: ~
< g ,m
; J r• ~•Z sst s y ; ~
~46.
~ W tll ~ J ~ ~
LU
, r ~ ~ , t ~ ~ y ~ y'' . •N
rA
~ U
C' a U 4
~
3c
. . i j ~ . . . _ .
~ ~ J F
V ~
m
_ W -
` ~
`
W
. - m !
U
M 9-
W = -
t~ W
< I~-
~
0
~
Z W
W
J Q O
~ J
~ jLL J <
J Q
oit W c 5O
G<
tij1s~~ U Q U
~
~a V
.-.-f-+
.~,.s+ z ~ J
,
~ F ~ ,~:i~ Y ` . . ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~ . ~
~
•SYS 1 .
ucc ~ y ' ~ W
i~
ui
M ~
~ 4a ✓e ' O
W W
¢IY W w ~ QJ
1L
pV
O,
3
/ . ~f y~qq l
h
~ . . . .
~
W ~
~ I < W
r
. . ~ .
~ ~
~
~
d
~ x I
R~
_
~ W
~ o
LL w ~'S"► i`
v,
y s ~ W 0
ooo! G
I ~ ~~'~i9 V 1
0- 0- N! It
~ = 4f
I:
~ ~ .
~
R r w
I ~ .
~ Z ta
~ I Z t ~7
Q I cc C r1 ( tlG +i .r+
¢
~m
; W
n
tu tu v~ A
W
a'
~
~ w
Q
~ °
r W ~ W
, t !Y W
y I cc ~ ¢ > F-
rJ °o = u+ I ~
p V0yl < W
I ( Z
0
O
d
°C =
V~ d U W
UW
~ co Cl
¢ cA
~ J
• t f' iE
~
~
~
~
r
~ f
W p
~ ~ ; - 2 - _ ~ ~ •
W F
WZ`tLL
~ LL F J
~«.ii.6dwodaF~Cf7'X'~ ~
I ~I
w
i ~
~ - ~
~ • _ -
~ _
I - ~ - _
: ~
- -
~
~
~ ~ -
,
~
WA. + ~ •
t
~ - -
~ N ~ ~ ~ •
\
~
~ F~gure 5
c ~
4) 75-
.o ' L
t = Q
H ~
.
~
Ghollf<
g ~~\\a9:~~~~..••~~
Gas~ad • ~
0
~
• Z ~
Q d
Z
O
a
4,
L ~
X° U ~ ~
J ~ : c0 i
Q _0 ~ Q
> a)
~ c 4~ ~
E
t ~o Q
0 °C C
co >
~
~ ~
~ go)
~
eropuoo
-
1~~~I~~~~~~• N.~~~~~~~~~~~~~• O >
8881dX3 88JA UJ08 J 0
ir ~
.
• a
cv U
~
. O >
LL
t
i
0
3a 2
~Cl)
a)
~
a~ 1 U)
- ~ o
> r p~
Z
cd 5 ~ 0
ssajdx3 u4e8 e4sIn ~ - •CC d) Z
>
~ ~
Figure 6
Vail Ventures, Ltd. proposes to amend SDD4 to allow several
adjustments to the remaining development sites within Development
Areas A and Glen Lyon Office Building, a Colorado Partnership
proposes to amend Development Area D of Cascade Village. These
adjustments are being requested due to changes of conditions
resulting from the construction of the Cascade Chairlift, the
completion of the Westin Hotel and the changing markets for
resort real estate and guest services; all of which have affected
the overall Master Plan for Cascade Village.
AREA A•
The remaining five development sites within Development Area A
are indicated upon Figure 4, Future Development, and are as
follows:
1. Cornerstone Buildina - located between Westhaven Drive
and the Terrace Wing, previously referred to as the
Plaza Building and Building "C".
2. Waterford Villacte - located on the east end of the site
and previously called Mansfield Village.
3. Westhaven Condominiums - also referred to as "Club
Condominiums" and located on Westhaven Drive
immediately west of the Cascade Club.
4. Millrace Condominiums Phase III - located on the west
end of the site between Gore Creek and Westhaven Drive.
5. Millrace Condominiums Phase IV - located along Gore
Creek between the Westin and Millrace Phase I.
The request to amend Area A of SDD4 consists of alternative
development programs for three of the five remaining project
sites.
Selected alternatives would be constructed over time as market
conditions dictate. Table 1 reflects the completed projects
within Development Area A to date. Table 2 contains information
regarding the previously approved overall development as
contained within Area A of SDD4.
A summary of the alternatives proposed for each of the remaining
five development sites within Area A, listed by site, are as
follows.
10
Cornerstone BuildinQ (See Figure 7)
The development program for the Cornerstone Building
consists of two alternatives:
Plan "A": Plan A, which is referred to as the "Base Plan"
for the Cornerstone Building consists of the following uses
and corresponding square footage calculations:
USE SOUARE FOOTAGE
-Restaurant 3,000
3yIo Accessory Skiing 9,330
50 "Transient Residential" Units 28,110
,Office 4,850
Retail 13,250
. Hotel Restaurant/Bar 2,465
Plan "B": Plan B, which we will refer to as the
"Conditional Use Plan" for the Cornerstone Building,
consists of the following uses and corresponding square
footages. The major difference between the "Base Plan" and
the "Conditional Use Plan" is that, under this alternative
development scenario, less retail use would be constructed
and a special attraction would be included. The special
attraction proposed is intended to be a use that would be
reviewed as a conditional use and is intended to be
complimentary to Cascade Village in all respects and
primarily a use that will be compatible with a major
conference and meeting oriented hotel. Uses that have been
included as conditional uses are various types of
educational, cultural, and entertainment facilities.
USE S4UARE FOOTAGE
Restaurant 3,000
Special Attraction 8,080
Accessory Skiing 9,330
50 "Transient Residential" Units 28,110
Office 4,850
Retail 8,195
Hotel Restaurant/Bar 2,465
"Transient Residential" ("T.R.") units are defined as relatively
small residential units containing no more than 645 square feet,
a kitchenette no larger than 25 square feet, and a fireplace.
1
Density and parking for a T.R. is calculated in the same manner
as an accommodation unit. (See Figure 8 for a typical floor
plan).
Currently the Town of Vail Zoning Code counts an accommodation
unit as one-half of a a dwelling unit for the purposes of
calculating allowable units per acre. An accommodation unit is
defined as a room or group of rooms without kitchen facilities
and designed for occupancy by guests.
The proposal contained within the SDD4 modification is to treat
Transient Residential units the same as accommodation units for
the purpose of calculation of allowable units per acre. The 25
square foot kitchenette is proposed to meet the convenience needs
of the typical guest now coming to Vail but not to provide
full-scale kitchen facilities.
In addition, it is proposed that fractionalized ownership be
allowed on dwelling units within the Westhaven Building as a
conditional use.
Waterford BuildinQ (See Figure 9)
The Waterford Building is proposed to consist of
approximately 3,800 square feet of retail space and either
~ 30 residential dwelling units or 75 transient residential
units. The Gross Residential Floor Area for either scenario
would total approximately 47,500 square feet.
Westhaven Condominiums
The Westhaven Condominiums are proposed, to consist of 24
residential dwelling units totalling approximately 24,000
square feet of GRFA.
Millrace III
Phase III of Millrace Condominiums is proposed to consist of
3 residential dwelling units totalling approximately 6,000
square feet of GRFA.
Millrace IV (See Figures 10 and 11)
Two alternatives are contemplated for the Millrace Phase IV
Site. The first alternative would be to construct a total
12
of 8 residential dwelling units totalling 14,000 square feet
of GRFA (Figure 10). The second alternative would be to
construct an addition to the Westin comprised of 32
additional accommodation units also totalling approximately
14,000 square feet of GRFA. (Figure ll).
Addition to Cascade Club
• It is also anticipated that an addition will be constructed
onto the east end of the existing Cascade Club Facility.
This addition might consist of an indoor lap pool, miniature
gymnasium, or wellness facility.
A. RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVES
As a result of the various scenarious presented above for each
individual development site, there are four basic alternatives
that could result for residential units:
PARKING
AU OR TR QU STRUC ON-SITE
Alternative
Cornerstone 50 TR 48.1
Waterford 30 60
Westhaven 24 48
Millrace III 3 6
Millrace IV 32 AU 26•8
TOTAL 82 57 134.9 54
Alternative 2
Cornerstone 50 TR 48.1
Waterford 75 TR 75
Westhaven 24 48
Millrace III 3 6
Millrace IV 32 26•8
TOTAL 125 TR 27 149.9 54
Alternative 3
Cornerstone 50 TR 48.1
Waterford 30 60
Westhaven 24 48
Millrace III 3 6
Millrace IV 8 16
TOTAL 50 65 108.1 70
Alternative 4
Cornerstone 50 48.1
Waterford 75 75
Westhaven 24 48
Millrace III 3 6
Millrace IV 8 16
TOTAL 125 35 123.1 70
Special Development District 4 allows a total maximum density of
288 dwelling units with a minimum of 308 accommodation units and a
maximum of 134 dwelling units within Area A. Currently, 38
dwelling units exist and 288 accommodation units exist, which is
the equivalent of 182 dwelling units (2 au = 1 du).
Under each alternative, the total dwelling unit equivalent is
less than the remaining equivalent of 106 dwelling units allowed.
Alternative 1: 8.0 units less than total allowed
Alternative 2: .5 units less than total allowed
Alternative 3: 16.0 units less than total allowed
Alternative 4: 8.5 units less than total allowed
All three alternatives meet the minimum requirement of 308 accommodation units as long as transient residential units are
counted as accommodation units. All of the three proposals are
2624 square feet over the allowable GRFA excluding the GRFA for
employee housing.
14
NUMBER OF AU'S OR TR PROPOSED PLUS EXZSTING AU
Alternative 1: 370 over required minimum by 62 AU/TRS
Alternative 2: 445 over required minimum by 137 AU/TRS
Alternative 3: 338 over required minimum by 30 AU/TRS
Alternative 4: 413 over required minimum by 105 AU/TRS
In summary, the proposal does not exceed the allowable density
and actually provides more AU's than are required in the existing
SDD. Al1 of the alternatives are 2,624 s.f. over the allowable
GRFA. Employee units have not been included in these
calculations. At the request of the Town of Vail, the developer
has agreed to provide a minimum of ten employee dwelling units
having a minimum of 640 square feet per unit. These units will
be provided either within development area A or D.
Also proposed is the ability to allow fractional ownership as a
conditional use for dwelling units within the Westhaven Building.
8. COMMERCIAL ALTERNATIVES
Within Development Area A, two of the five remaining development
sites will contain commercial development: The Cornerstone
Building and the Waterford Building.
The Waterford Building will contain approximately 3800 square
feet of retail space. Cornerstone has two scenarios for
commercial development. Plan A includes space for restaurant
use, office use, retail use and skier accessory related space
such as ticket offices, skier related retail, changing
facilities, locker rooms and other ski-related facilities. Plan
A plus the existing commercial development in Development Area A
is equal to 56,538 square feet. Plan B includes the uses
included in Plan A, but substitutes retail square footage with a
"special attraction" as a conditional use. Special attraction is
defined as a museum, seminar or research center, or performing
arts theatre or other similar cultural center.
Both alternative plans for the Cornerstone allow for an increase
to the total amount of commercial space within Development Area A
of 16,513 square feet to 19,538 square feet. This increase is
primarily due to the introduction of the Cascade Ski Lift and the
related accessory uses and the contemplation of providing other
special attractions for the visitor.
15
S . . . ' ' . . .
TABLE 1
COMPLETED PROJECTS - DEVELOPMEP]T ARGA A, SDD4
COMt•1ERCIAL PARKING REQE!T
COMPLETED PROJECTS AU DU SF GRFA SF SEATS PROJECT STRUCTURE
caaacc~ao-coc==¢==cccasvc='o~==av=-cccccc==e======ceco======cc==ca=oc=n=ca~~s~3=aaeccx=aa=asn=aoac=cc===
Millrace I 16 20,000 20,000 26 ,
Millrace II 14 17,534 17,534 25
westin Hotel 146 55,657 112
Alfredos 104
Cafe 74 '
Little Shop 660 8
Pepi Sports
Plaza Level 1,363
Basement Level 1,073
W e J Smith 900 900 4
CMC Building .
Cascede Wing 8 15,870 15,870 16
Clancy's 1,400 1,400 93 9'
Office 800 800 3
Cascade Theatre 4,220 275 28
College-classrooms 4,792 40
College-office 879 4
. Meeting Room 2J * 1,387 1.387 92 9
Cascade Club
Retail 330 330 1
Wellness Center 1,483 1,483 6
Terrace Wing
Guest Fooms 120 58,069 103
Retail 5,856 5,856 20
Plaza Build'ing
Guest Rooms 22 7,205 16
Retail/Office 1,099 900 4
Conference Facility-net 8,300 553 37
c:aszaaaaaaaaa=asacoe~=zaavaaaaoc=caaa3o=~a~~~======~a~~=======~=aaacsc==ae=zaooaacaa:avasccanmcc=ac===
Subtotals 288 38 88,146 174,335 13,056 1.199 53 412
NOTE: Meeting Room 2J currently not required to provide parking. The 9 space. :
requirement shown is the proposed requirement for the space as commercial
use.
TABLE 2
DEVELOPMENT AREA A SDD4 APPROVED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Residential Densitv
Dwelling Units 287 Dwelling Units Total, with a
minimum of 308 A.U.'s and a
maximum of 134 D.U.'s.
Floor Area 291,121 sq. ft. GRFA
Commercial Sctuare FootaQe 37,000 square feet
Setbacks 20 feet of the periphery of the
property with the exception of the
Cascade Club/Parking Structure
which shall be 2 feet
Heictht 71 feet for Westin, CMC, Terrace
Wing, Athletic Club/Parking
Structure, Plaza Building, 48 feet
for remaining buildings.
Site Coveracte 45%
LandscapinQ 50% including Stream Tract
Parkinct 456 spaces, plus 2 spaces per
dwelling unit for Millrace, West-
haven Condominiums and Mansfield
Village Condominiums. 75% of the
456 spaces shall be within a
structure.
17
COMPARISON OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DEVELOPMENT - AREA A
The future development for Development Area A currently
contemplated varies from the development previously envisioned
and, therefore, the standards outlined within SDD4.
A comparison of Table 1, Completed Projects, and Table 2,
Approved Development Standards, indicates the amount of remaining
development upon the site which is approved but unbuilt within
the current SDD:
REMAINING
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED SDD DEVELOPMENT UNDER CURRENT SDD
TOTAL DU 288 182 106
AU OR TR 308 min* 2$$ 20
DU 134 max* 38 96
GRFA 291,121 174,135 116,986
COMMON 37,000 17,786 19,214
*Currently, SDD4 allows a total maximum of 288 dwelling
units. The maximum and minimum numbers of au's and du's
were established to ensure that the project would have a
greater emphasis on lodge rooms than dwelling units.
The next chart compares the three proposed development
alternatives to the remaining development potential allowed under
the existing SDD.
EXISTING REMAINING DEVELOPMENT COMPARED TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
- AREA A
TOTAL DU 106 98 105.5 90 97.5
AU OR TR 20 82 157 50 125
DU 96 57 27 65 35
GRFA 116,986 119,610 119,610 119,610 119,610
COMMER 17,786 35,727(A) 35,727(A) 35,727(A) 32,727(A)
or or or or
38,752(B) 38,752(B) 38,752(B) 38,852(B)
18
The following summaries highlight how the remaining development
under the existing SDD compares to the proposed developments for
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Alternative 1 compared to remaining aparoved development:
Total Unit Number: 8 units under allowable
Minimum Accommodation Unit Number: 62 units over A.U. minimum
Maximum Dwelling Unit Number: 39 units under D.U. maximum
GRFA: 2624 s.f. over allowable
Commercial: 16,513 s.f. over allowable, Plan A
19,538 s.f. over allowable, Plan B
Alternative 2 compared to the remaininQ approved develonment:
Total Unit Number: 0.5 units under allowable
Minimum Accommodation Unit Number: 137 units over A.U. minimum
Maximum Dwelling Unit Number: 69 units under D.U. maximum
GRFA: 2,624 s.f. over allowable
Commercial: 16,513 s.f. over allowable, Plan A
19,538 s.f. over allowable, Plan B
Alternative 3 compared to the remaining approved develooment:
Total Unit Number: 16 units under allowable
Minimum Accommodation Unit Number: 30 units over A.U. minimum
Maximum Dwelling Unit Number: 31 units under D.U. maximum
GRFA: 2,624 s.f. over allowable
Commercial: 16,513 s.f. over allowable, Plan A
19,538 s.f. over allowable, Plan B
Alternative 4 comgared to the remaininQ approved development:
Total Unit Number: 8.5 under allowable
Minimum Accommodation Unit Number: 105 over A.U. minimum
Maximum Dwelling Unit Number: 61 under D.U. maximum
GRFA: 2,624 s.f. over allowable
Commercial: 16,513 s.f. over allowable, Plan A
19,538 s.f. over allowable, Plan B
The following chart compares the TOTAL approved special
development district to the TOTAL proposed Area A special
development district alternatives:
19
APPRVD PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
SDD ALT #1 ALT #2 ALT #3 ALT #4
TOTAL DU 288 280 287.5 272 279.5
AU OR TR 308 min 370 445 338 413
DU 134 max 95 65 103 73
GRFA 291,121 293,745 293,745 293,745 293,745
COMMER 37,000 53,513(A) 53,513(A) 53,513(A) 53,513(A)
OR OR OR OR OR
56,538(B) 56,538(B) 56,538(B) 56,538(B)
The proposed SDD alternatives are under the total allowable
density and meet the minimum and maximum requirements for AU'S
and DU's. The commercial is 16,513 s.f. to 19,538 s.f. over the
allowable under the existing SDD. This is a 45$ to 53% increase
in commercial square footage and is due to the addition of skier
related used and a potential special attraction. Total GRFA is
over allowable by 2,265 square feet.
20
~j ` ;~,~,r;~~im~,~r. • , .
w~ ~F1 Eii
~ • .iy.~rt~l~,rt.~~'i~l ~I~F~t;~(i't€`~' •
~ , . 4 t~ -
, . 4;c , . . t 1r t~ i wig
~ !ft' ~~dl't r : ~
.
. i °--~1„ ~ ~ R~, . ~ o . ~
, .
l , ~-tisl~::;€::::..: _
f
- y ~
~
: .
! ( : I tu +
W s
°~::::?:€:;:,~et~~•:T.
e
~ + f t t r,•4„; Z~ g,
i i.;~«<~h= a ~
J W
■h :Y 't • ~~e~'. 1=~`_~"~~: a Z
4J ~ a
. ~ _ j.. i . ~ o
N V
i"./~ •
. . • . .
t . t~. z
AM = t ' ~
/`f :::;!:w:;:::.i , i. S
■ ;~:,f:i:.'v':'.:;.; , ~
t.
~ ♦
\ .
~
.
:iix
~
- /
cc
Z
Q
_
~
N
3
EEE
~ I
~
~
~ Figure 7
~
..Y - .4L .
~
i_
. -.i 1
. o
i ~ ~
cn
F-
_
~ i ~ z
> -
o O Q -
- • < F- J 4
N O r . . . .
o: i; D O
Z 1- ° -
~ O Z. W Z v '
7? W
J~ WV y~'.~.~< Q Q) N W ]
t = a~ l, r1 U
W . ~ 6 . ZQ
W ~ ° ~ • n. W Q fn N J(
~ ~ W Y
Y ' O
: , tl : LL
~ ' •~.~.'1 II : _ _ CO)
tl a . ' ~I
o
a: .
1/~I O W: r
y c"......_...."""'._........._i i . ~
W .
N YJ
N
y~~
(cW
W
~
~ : LJ ~d
U a ~ o
W
- - ~
i
Figure 8
c ~
. 1•
. ' ~ ~
. • '•i • ~~,.~.`ti+:':: ` . kl~y •t
, • • . b-:~~•~,1~• Q 9
' . Qo ~
; • t' ti ~.K Jcc
p, W A
•t S H Q
' .y ~
::w:::' • ' ~
f .i•~ Cl...
' ,fi:•• , .
~ ~ ~ y • .
~.t. i;..
,'t f '1 £ ~ 4 •
. . f. :f ~•i.
. j~:i~ ~•r ~
. . "
: , , . , .
_ . . ; ~ ~
1~ 4 ~ ~
~ F
. . :
~
. .
.
: '
, . .
• ~
, ~ } ,
~
• ~ .
~ ~•'J::
••1'
'v.•yj-.. H~+'>> v~":l:
. .
. .
, .
, .
. .
. .
. ~
.
{
~f
G
a c o
W
Q
O
(~mf' 2
N:) C O
QJG F
W
~ W
Q
V
~ Figure 9
~ 1..-~ ~~L~•% ;i W
.lr ( W ~
.i+.. `~41 ?
~
e~ r
-
~ W F'
L Q
>..,t : C) Z
~ alx
- ~
J W
i • r J J
S.c ~ o LQ
..S .
~ /~~Ra
.
V ~i t W
0
z~s~R. z . . •
> _ - I =
x : ' '
, ~ •~1..
;
h., y ' i '1
.
~
•i~c
.l
•
,
~:i;.i..
'l'.;
- r ~
,r•. ~ w :i
~ f i' = o O
,ed 1~- W
W = J
M- ~ W
Z
~ -
r ' . i' • f,
W
co
r 5~~ ~ ♦
52h ~ ~ ~
' .
aa
aa
~
aa =
- - aa F
Figure 10
~ . < w•
1
• :
m
W r
> >
ZUJ
~ JVZ ~I
oc
a~
_ •i.i: W
~ JF., A
. + `
, ~s
ID.. ~ h .
~
sc h
~ ~ ~ . .
Yi k y~ 3's.~. ..,i. ; ~;~y,, ~ • ! i'•~
.4 . k
.
`9Q.v.. •1••~1
•i
•
.~~.i; . _
• i
.wi~• / j•
0
~
~
~ y •y ~ „'V~ . , ' . .
]
• Y'•: .-L. .
/
I •
. -1
I
.•'~y, ~y. '
~ ~ • t.:
- s _
~ ~ •
:r
p: .
_ •:i . -.;~~j
. .~J ~rK . . . 1 ' . . ` ' i~
Figure 11
AREA D•
Development Area D, which is the site of the Glen Lyon Office
Building, is proposed to be redeveloped in a manner which results
in the expansion and redesign of the existing office space, as
well as the construction of a new guest-oriented Micro-Brewery
and the addition of a new detached office and residential
building at the east end of the site (see Figure 12, Area D
Master Plan and Figure 13, East Building and Condominium). A
parking structure would also be constructed to accommodate the
required parking for the two buildings.
The development upon Area D would consist of the following
components:
USE SQUARE FOOTAGE
Office (including existing) 15,850
Brewery Operation 4,000
Beer Hall 1,774
Brew Pub 1,621
Museum 415
Retail 446
Employee Lockers, Storage,
Circulation, Restrooms,
Kitchens 5,123
- Residential (3 Dwelling Units) 2,900
As an alternative in this main plan, an additional 1500 square
feet of office would be constructed in the "East Building" in
lieu of the three dwelling units. Both scenarios would require
the same amount of parking (6 spaces).
26
COMPARISON OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND ALLOWED DEVELOPMENT -
AREA D
Development Area D is located in both the Arterial Business
District and Special Development District 4. A comparison of the
development proposed for Area D to the Arterial Business District
Standards is shown in Table 3.
.
TADLE
COMPARISON OF PROPOSED USES WZTHIN
DEVEIAPMENT AREA D OF SDDN4 TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
OF THE ARTERIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
gM PROPOSED
$ETBACKS
SIDE: 15' where buildinq height
is less than 201
201 where buildinq height 17' at closest point
is over 201. (varies).
g$Bg: 10' 15' for buildings
10' for parking structure.
FRONT: (Frontage Rd): 60} of frontage 9.5% of Building
can be 151, 40% must be 20% (excluding parking
structure) at 15'
remainder is 20' or beyond.
$TREAM: 50' from centerline of Gore 50' at closest point for
Creek. buildinqs, Bmall portion of
parking structure in 50'
. setback.
NEIGHT:
70$ may exceed 32' and none of the roof 48' maximum
may exceed 50'
Minimum Slooe: 3/12 Exceeds 3/12
Flat Area: lOt for transition of roof Does not exceed lOt
lines.
DENSITY•
60 square feet of GRFA for each 100 sq.ft. 2900 sq.ft.
of site (60$) (45,678 sq.ft.)
26. d.u./acre (43.5) 3
~gp PROPOSED
COVERAGE•
Maximum 60$ (45,678) 25,906 sq.ft. or 33.6%
F.A.R.
.75 allowed (57,097 sq.ft.) 38,000 sq.ft.
LANDSCAPING:
25$ of Site Area 66.4%
27
~
B
Z
~
<
LU Q
~ ~ ~ r/_ 'j~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
W W
} 1" ',tr . f' V Q
u- F-
i~•~ acoza
3 Z~ J
i
W O a d,
~>'poC
mJJH
j ZWN
W >
QJWa
` >C9G~
;
z
I ~5 ~t I 1; a
CL
~ r-F y r
•
.
•o •a I4 !
I ~
dl
W
~ V
z W < LL
4c Go ~
~ ~ ~ dl g oy
m O LL~~1
U0_~ Cl th ~
LL Z Y ~ ~ o~2
O~ n JN K
W 2 0- Z mw0~
W q U O v~1 IL =
M x w¢<u. oi
mwcowoo
~ N /9 ~ 10
I I ~
I 1 • '1 , \
~ • ~ I
4 r ' I
li'~
~ I
i
Figure 12
i~
. ~ ~ •
Z-
, Z
so
- m~
z
o
~ QU
, • ' W df
• . . . -o
r~a - - • ~ . , • • ' . • • ~
' . ~ . } ``i3£. . ~ i , _ .
. ~ ' • , ' . ~`":.~Y, , ~ ~ C O
~ : . . . . :x~:~ . . . ~
s,~ W
I • • , • 4• • • • . ' 14
~ ~ .
..u..:~~ •
~
~ . y>o. _ ~ • . •
~ .
~ . .
. ~ • fj , r .1 -
a,
. ,
' o •
- ` ~ • ~ ~
. . , _
O „ • '~'✓6 p ~
o ~ ~ s;'y" ~ + w~ • O
~ =u?~;°s;..14 ' V
O
^ ~iA
_ • • ~ • • 4S/.1~"'i~ ~ ~ Z I
M ~ ~~%s` °;~'w~t 1 • 2 J - _ . .
O ~ f• • pl~l -J m
z e a -
LLJ
< r'" • t: < ~
,11 0 ~ % ,einc rn w ~ ~ •u
~ ~ ~I a _ " ~r~ l U
- i
Z
il O
r-
- ' >
- W
r7 ~
i o
N
.
1 ~ Figure 13
~
- - - - - -
F
~ I
I
a
O c
} Q
~ 3 0
LLI o
0: V
m
' J J
> >
I
I
I i
~
z
o~ ~
j I ~ ~.p~mF-F 0n <
z m t-
i ! g i~ W~su"'i~5s g~ o
i <~ocoWU~iw5MC
~
~ ..ta~m mU~wm~! m w
f
~
Y I ~
. ~
g 4
n \ ~
> - - .a e
, LL- -
co cy o.
l~ "
!io
"T
j'~ ~ ; Y ~ I 5 ~ ~ ~.1 ~;1 • i
' ° L= (
\ / ,o . . ~ I r - .
~ I
i ~
= Figure 14
}
~t. Z
< a
- - ~
O
Up
wCC
3 0
w -
'O
mV
QQ
• - ' '
o ~
0
u
N V L,2~ ~
I n ¢ ~ Z ~~~Z
U2WV~~p iw Z
w
a ¢ o~ ~z ~F oo ~F d
C~~~Z~~QOKKW~07 ~
m~
`I p p ~dm0a0
mo0uf3xua 0 mw::) a m
i ~
u~
aCl)o
O
co
+
g
~ ' i `C S 4
LU tlVi
~ - ~
: ~ - - .
Tt
,
~
~ Figure 15
~ -
. ~
I '
~ I
I ~
z
~ 00
I I Uc
I cc
W
O
LLi O
W.
I '
mV
~ »
' I
~
I
I ~ cn r
47 V U
WI ~ I p aic~,~o S~mZZ~°C> o
J> r wliQ ae~' ~ pa m
~ O~o~~mm~omm~~oG~wv~i
N
! I ' I
10
. fi • +
~
~ H-- _ - - n ~ - d
~ - ~ :
g~
~ ~ , _
. Tf
--31
~ ~
a ~
~ ~ - _ _ g~~ " - r--.
• ~ ~t~ ~ ~ : , ~
~ ~ r- -
/ I
~ a.ec
j ~
\
~
\ Figure 16
SECTION TWO - IMPACTS/MITIGATION
i
33
In accordance with Town of Vail requirements regarding potential
environmental impacts of proposed projects, the following section
describes impacts which may occur as a result of the proposed
incremental revisions to the overall Development Plan for areas A
and D of SDD4. Also discussed are the relationships of the
proposal to various Town of Vail plans, goals, and policies.
HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS ~ .
Natural Features •
The proposed incremental changes to SDD4 as proposed will have
very little impact upon the natural hydrologic conditions upon
the site. The overall surface drainage collection system has
been designed to collect stona water runoff at various roof and
surface locations and is designed to contain the runoff. The
Waterford site and the Cornerstone site will collect the majority
of storm water within a roof collection system which feeds an
underground collection system which ultimately exits at Gore
Creek. The total amount of the site covered by buildings in Area
A will be approximately 31%. The SDD currently allows a total
site coverage of 45%.
Drainage of the parking garages will be designed in a manner
which will collect all silt and oil discharges that might occur.
Gore Creek, the major natural water feature within the Cascade
Village site, will continue to remain in its natural state and
will remain undisturbed by the development. Due to the proximity
of Development Area D to Gore Creek, extra precaution should be
taken during construction in order to prevent soil erosion into
the creek.
Man-Made Features
A man-made water feature consisting of a series of fountains and
pools has always been an element of the overall Master Plan for
the Core Area of Cascade Village and a portion of the system has
been in place for approximately four years. The self-contained
system is powered by two 350 gallon per minute pumps and utilizes
domestic water initially that is augmented by a natural spring
which exists upon the Millrace portion of the site. An overflow
storm drain for extreme conditions exists into Gore Creek should
the system exceed its capacity.
- 34
Water and Sewer
The revisions to the Master Plan will result in increased demands
upon the water supply and for sewage treatment capacity, both of
which have been reviewed by the Upper Eagle Valley Water and
Sanitation District and determined to be acceptable to the
District.
The increased water demand is a result of the increased increment
of commercial square footage and, most significantly, the Micro
Brewery.
The Micro-Brewery is proposed to produce a maximum of 7,500
barrels of beer per year. Each barrel is 31 gallons. Water
needed for the brewing process is estimated to be 6 gallons of
water for every gallon of beer produced.
Total water required for maximum production per year would be
1,395,000 gallons, or approximately 4.298 acre feet. Of the
1,395,000 gallons, 232,500 gallons would be consumed as product
and the remaining 1,162,500 gallons would be returned to the
stream through the sanitary sewer system, or in very small
quantities, be discharged into the atmosphere in the form of
water vapor. -Actual consumptive use at maximum production per
year will be 232,500 gallons.
It is estimated that the brewing process will occur twice per
day, three days per week, 50 weeks. per year. Dividing this
number of brew processes into the maximum yearly water demand
yields a requirement of 116,250 gallons per month. The Vail
Valley Consolidated Water District has indicated that they are
willing and able to supply the amount of water required through a
1 1/2 inch tap from their domestic water distribution system.
The quality of the water in the domestic supply is consistent
with that needed to produce a good beer through the micro-brewing
process. The Colorado Department of Health requires that
chlorine be added to public water supplies for disinfection and
that a residual amount be measurable at the tap of an end user.
This chlorine residual must be removed prior to water entering
into the brewing process.
Removal of chlorine is a very simple process and can be
accomplished by filtering through charcoal. Ozonation may be
desirable after filtration just to add a little more "sparkle"
to the water and further reduce the taste and color.
At the end of the brewing process, there are basically two waste
products which need to be disposed. One is a solid product
35
consisting primarily of spent grains. These solids are strained
or filtered off and dewatered by equipment contained within the
brewery. They are collected in a hopper and routinely trucked
out and sold for a beneficial use such as cattle feed.
The second waste product is water. It is proposed that the
1,162,500 gallons per year, or 96,875 gallons per month will be
required to be treated by the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated
Sanitation District. The District has indicated they are willing
and able to serve through a tap into their central collection-
system at the brewery.
One concern is that large volumes of wastewater not be discharged
during short periods of time, especially during peaks.
Considering again that the brewing process will occur twice per
day, three days per week, 50 weeks per year, 3,785 gallons of
wastewater will be released during and after each brewing
process. The release is not immediate. Eighty percent of that
water is used for clean up and is released throughout the brewing
process which takes approximately four hours. The remaining
twenty percent comes from the draining of the brewing equipment
itself in approximately ninety minutes. Clean up water would
then enter the sewage system at the rate of 12.92 gallons per
minute and wastewater would enter at the rate of 8.61 gallons per
minute. Both discharges occurring simultaneously would amount to
21.5 gallons per minute, a rate that can be easily absorbed by
the District at any time of day.
The second concern is the Biological Oxygen Demand, or BOD, of
the wastewater. BOD is a measurement of the strength of the
wastewater and, therefore, a measurement of the magnitude of the
treatment required prior to releasing back into the stream. In
the Vail area, 250 milligrams per liter of BOD is considered
average strength. Effluent from a micro brewery is normally less
than 250 milligrams per liter and needs no pre-treatment or
additional treatment by the District.
In areas where sewage treatment districts are affected by
industrial waste dischargers, a monitoring program is normally
set up. On a routine but unannounced basis, the district will
sample the discharger and if the measured BOD is above a
pre-agreed threshold, a surcharge for excess treatment will be
assessed until further sampling shows BOD has dropped back below
the threshold. Even though micro breweries discharge less than
250 mgl of BOD, they are normally classified as an industrial
discharger by most districts and are subject to a monitoring
program. The Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District
may want to require a manhole on the brewery sewer service line
so that they can sample BOD.
36
ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS
Atmospheric conditions will be impacted as a result of the
incremental changes proposed due to increased fireplace emissions
and the Micro-Brewery operation.
The current SDD allows that a maximum of 134 fireplaces can be
constructed within the development, but in dwelling units only.
38 dwelling units have been constructed within Cascade Village,
all with fireplaces. Therefore 96 additional fireplaces are
permitted to be constructed within remaining dwelling units.
The developer is proposing that both residential and transient
residential units be permitted to have one wood burning fireplace
each. Under all three development alternatives this would result
in additional fireplaces within Cascade Village and an increase
in the existing air pollution problem within Vail during periods
of inversion at peak times of usage.
According to the information provided by the developer and Town
of Vail Community Development Department, the following
assumptions can be made regarding anticipated fireplace
emissions:
- The average use of a fireplace is 3.5 hours, when used.
- Approximately 16.5 pounds of wood will be burned per
hour, per fireplace.
- Approximately 50% of fireplaces would be in use at any
one time.
- 100$ of the new units constructed will have wood
burning fireplaces. - Emissions factors per ton of wood burned are estimated
to be:
1) 37.79 lbs. of available particulate matter •
2) 146.6 lbs. of carbon monoxide gases
3) 1 lb. of Nitrogen Oxides
4) 5 lbs. of Hydrocarbons
37
Table No. 4 summarizes the estimated emissions attributable to
the increased increment of fireplaces proposed as a result of
each of the three alternatives. Fireplace emissions will
increase as a result of the proposal and will, during times of
peak use contribute to air pollution with the Gore Valley.
t
TABLE 4
ESTIMATED QUA!]TITIES OF POLLUTArTfS FROM INCREASE OF FIREPLACES
(IN POUNDS PER DAY) NUFIBER OF ADDITIONAL
FIRE PLACES IN EXCESS FIREPLACES IN OPERATION CARBOti NITROGEN HYDRO
OF 96 ALLOWED AT ANY ONE TIME PARTICULATES MONOXIDE OXIDES CARBONS
ALTEP.NATIVE #1 19 8 8.72 33.8 0.23 1.15
ALTERNATIVE i2 64 32 34.9 135.5 0.92 4.6
ALTERNATIVE #3 61 31 33.8 131.3 0.89 4.45
SOURCE: Emission Factors were pcovided by Ms. Susan Scanlon, Community
Development Department, Town of Vail
38
There has not been much research done in the Vail Valley
regarding wind and weather patterns. There is, however,
information available at the Eagle County Airport and at Patrol
Headquarters (PHQ) on top of Vail Mountain that can be
extrapolated to generally describe wind patterns at the Vail
Brewery site. The City of Aspen has also done extensive study on
their inversion characteristics of which may also be useful for
studying the expected emissions from the Micro-Brewery.
In comparing the data available at the airport and at PHQ, it
would be consistent to say that winds are calm for approximately
45 percent of the time. These are surface winds with measured
velocities ranging from O to 4 miles per hour. For approximately
30 percent of the time, wind velocities measure from 4 to 15
miles per hour and are fairly evenly divided from an easterly or
a westerly direction. Wind gusts ranging up to 30 miles per hour
or above from almost any direction can be experienced throughout
the remainder of the year.
For the Vail Brewery site, the assumption can be made that
surface winds are normally calm with light currents moving up or
down the valley in an easterly or westerly direction. Moderate
winds of up to 15 miles per hour could also be predicted to flow
up or down the valley with the predominance being from the west.
Emissions fxom the Brewery stack would be carried out of Cascade
Village up the forested hillside to the East or out across the
Interstate 70 corridor to the west.
During the winter months-temperature inversions may occur in the
Vail Valley. The best information indicates that a strong
inversion that sets up well and continues through the night could
occur from 6 to 12 times per year.
Again, there-have been no specific studies done in Vail relating
to duration or strength. The Aspen studies indicate that an
inversion will start to build as soon as sunlight clears the
valley floor. The inversion builds rather rapidly. With no
measurable winds, the•flow of air out of the Vail Valley -would
be down in a westerly direction.
To be more specific, an inversion, if it is going to occur, would
begin to build around 3:30 in the afternoon and be fully
developed in approximately two hours. It would continue through
the night, start to clear out around 8:00 in the morning and
would be totally dissipated in approximately one and one half
hours:
39
In discussion with various agencies in Boulder where a micro
brewery exists, there have never been complaints registered
regarding stack emissions. Odors are similar to those of baking
bread because of the yeast and are very weak. With a boiler
stack designed as an architectural element of the building at a
height of surrounding ridge lines and care not to begin a brewing
process during an identified temperature inversion, emissions
from the brewery should go undetected.
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
No impacts are expected to result from the proposed amendments
with regard to land forms, slope and soil characteristics, or
potential geologic hazards.
BIOTIC CONDITIONS
No impacts are expected to result from the proposed amendments
with regard to vegetative characteristics of the site or wildlife
habitat.
NOISE IMPACTS
Noise associated with the proposed Master Plan revisions can be
expected to be those associated with the Micro-Brewery operation.
The major sources of noise are anticipated to be the bottling
phase of operations and the process of loading and delivery of
kegs, bottles, and other brewery supplies as well as the pick-up
of the solid waste which results as a by-product of the brewing
process.
The bottling operation, as indicated in the Lower Level Floor
Plan for the Micro-Brewery, Figure 14, is proposed to be totally
enclosed and, therefore, will not produce noise external to the
building.
Loading and delivery to the brewing facility has been very
carefully designed and planned to be totally functional and also
to minimize impacts upon the Frontage Road. As indicated upon
the Upper Level Floor Plan for the Micro-Brewery, Figure 16, the
loading dock area is within the envelope of the building and has
large operable sound proof doors which will be closed before,
during, and after loading operations to eliminate any potential
noise problems resulting from either delivery of supplies or
pick-up of product and solid waste.
40
VISUAL CONDITIONS
The proposed amendments will not result in any significant
changes of the visual conditions anticipated for the site upon
full project completion. As initially planned, the architectural
character of the site is being comprehensively formulated in
order to achieve a compatible and complimentary relationship
among the individual buildings within the overall development.
While some minor variations exist in building heights proposed
from those currently permitted by the Special Development
District Regulations, the impact of the changes is very minor and
does not result in any negative impacts upon adjacent properties.
The redevelopment of the Glen Lyon Office Building will
significantly upgrade the architectural character of the site and
will integrate the overall theme and character of the entire
Cascade Village to include Area D. As can be seen in Figure 17,
Entry Perspective, the architectural and landscape treatment of
the site upon completion will provide a very pleasing visual
experience and will be constructed to a very high level of
quality.
SDD4 is not located within any designated view corridor of the Town of Vail.
LAND USE CONDITIONS
The proposed adjustment to the amount of commercial square
footage within SDD4 is compatible with the other proposed uses
within the immediate area and Vail's Land Use Plan.
Vail Land Use Plan:
The proposed amendments to SDD4 are consistent with many of the
goals of the Vail Land Use Plan. Generally, the proposed special
attraction use and ski related accessory commercial uses
accomplish the overall goals of strengthening the balance of uses
within the community, improving and increasing base skier
facilities to keep pace with mountain expansion and improving and ,
enhancing year-round tourism. Specifically, the proposal meets
the following goals of the Land Use Plan:
41
r
. ~ . .
~ \'r_~~..1`~..: _ -r r .I 1~ .
~ ~ ` l, .
~ ~ r~l ~ - `~j:, k y `i► 1 / ~ ~
, ~ . ~ ; ~
~
tf ~
-`~-'-~~^s~-z
- ~ _ • ~
. ~ • -
; - ~ - -
~ , / J I O
-~-z ~ ~ I tA
C
t. y~~ l .r . ,
~~t~ ~
<< i
j ~
Figure 17
1. General Growth/Development
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled
environment, maintaining a balance between residential,
commercial and recreational uses to serve both the
visitor and the permanent resident.
1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and
other natural resources should be protected as the Town
grows.
1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and
upgraded whenever possible.
1.12 Vail Should accommodate most of the additional growth
in existing developed areas (infill areas).
2. SkierjTourist Concerns
2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a
destination resort while accommodating day visitors.
2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town
leaders should work together closely to make existing
facilities and the Town function more efficiently.
2.3 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town
leaders should work together to improve facilities for
day skiers.
2.4 The community should improve sununer recreational and
cultural opportunities to encourage summer tourism.
2.5 The community should improve non-skier recreational
options to improve year-round tourism.
3. Commercial
3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing
commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor
needs.
3.5 Entertainment oriented businesses and cultural
activities should be encouraged in the core areas to
create diversity. More night time businesses, on-going
events and sanctioned "street happenings" should be
encouraged. 43
CIRCULATION AND TRANSPORTATION
Traffic
Traffic volumes and traffic flow patterns for Cascade Village
have been analyzed and identified and as a result of the analysis
it has been detei-mined that a modified design is desirable for
the South Frontage Road/Westhaven Drive intersection in order to
maintain an acceptable level of service at that intersection.
The modified intersection design involves the installation of
channelization to provide a separate left turn lane for westbound
traffic on the South Frontage Road. It also includes an
acceleration lane for vehicles turning left from Westhaven Drive
onto the South Frontage Road. Coupled with the intersection
modifications the travel speed for the South Frontage Road has
been recommended to be reduced to 35 miles per hour from 45 miles
per hour.
The recommended intersection modifications and reduced speed
limit have been reviewed and approved by both the Town of Vail
and State Highway Department and construction of the improvements
is almost complete. In addition to this improvement, the access
to Development Area D is proposed to move east.upon the site in a location exactly opposite to the Vail Professional Building
access. This has been viewed with a favorable reaction by the
State Highway Department due to the positive aspect of
consolidating this access point. A drop off and loading and
delivery bay will be located upon the western portion of the site
and the distance between these two points of access for Area D
exceeds State Highway Department minimum spacing standards.
Transit Service Needs
The installation of a transit facility has been included within
the revised Master Plan for Cascade Village due to the current
demands and those that will be generated by the development, most
specifically the new Cascade Chairlift.
The proposed transit facility, which has been reviewed and
approved by the Town of Vail Public Works Department, is
currently under construction. The facility is located south of
the South Frontage Road on Westhaven Drive and is designed as a
circular driveway with three separate loading/unloading areas to
serve buses making stops at Cascade Village. The Town of Vail
bus and Beaver.Creek bus will each have their own designated
stops, while the shuttle buses from nearby hotels and
condominiums, which comprise the secondary demand, will share the
use of two smaller bus stops. The daily arrival and departure
44
schedules of the shuttle buses utilizing the transit facility
will be assigned in order to provide coordinated transit service.
Control of all vehicular access to the transit facility may be
coordinated by a traffic attendant during peak periods to
regulate the waiting times of both the shuttle buses and
automobiles if necessary. Access to the stop serving the Town of
Vail bus will be controlled by electronic gates.
Loading and Delivery
Loading and delivery aspects of the development will be affected
by the additional commercial uses proposed with the additional
uses resulting in increased loading and delivery activity upon
the site.
The proposed Micro-Brewery will provide the greatest need for
increased loading and delivery and, as described previously, this
activity will be accommodated within an enclosed loading area
within the building and accessed from the Frontage Road.
Delivery to the Micro-Brewery operation will consist of the raw
materials required in the brewing process, delivery of bottles
and kegs, and removal of solid waste produced as a by-product of
the brewing process.
Raw materials required during the brewing process consist of
malted barley, hops and yeast. It is estimated that based upon
brewing 7,500 barrels per year the amount of malted barley
required will be 240,000 lbs. annually. This will be delivered
in bulk to a location off site and then delivered onto the site
via a small vehicle, most likely a pick-up truck, upon each
brewing day, packaged in 100 pound bags, 5- 6 times per year.
Hops, in 50 pound bags, are delivered three times per year and
put into dry storage within the building. It is estimated that
7,500 lbs. of hops will be required per year (1 lbs. of hops per
barrel of beer). The amount of yeast required is very small and
is delivered once per year.
The beer will be bottled at the brewery and it is estimated that
between 10,000 to 15,000 cases will be bottled per year. Bottle
storage will be off site in a location outside of Vail and a
weekly supply of empty bottles will be delivered to the site once
per month in a 22' brewery vehicle. Both keg and bottle delivery
to the Front Range Markets are anticipated to be made by regional
distributors already in the area making other types of deliveries
and it is anticipated that they would stop at a location off site
to make pick-ups and deliveries. Distribution to Eagle County
45
locations would occur also from an off site location. No tractor-
trailer size vehicles will be allowed to pickup or deliver on
site.
During the brewing process, the malted barley is crushed between
steel rollers and steeped in hot water for several hours in a
process called mashing. After mashing, the spent grain is
discarded and the remaining liquid, called the wort is boiled.
Hops are then added and after boiling, the wort is cooled and the
yeast added to begin fermentation. When the fermentation is
over, the beer is filtered through a filtering system to "clear"
the beer and remove the yeast.
The amount of waste prodnced during the final filtering process
is minimal and can be discarded into the normal trash removal.
The spent grain, however, amounts to a significant amount of
waste and will be removed from the site each brewing day which is
approximately three times per week. Each brew produces
approximately 100 cubic feet of waste. Two brews on a brewing
day will require a 7 yard capacity to remove the waste, which is
sold to ranchers for feed. This is anticipated to be
accommodated by a brewery owned trailer the size of a small dump
truck. .
Loading and deliver,y to the Cornerstone Building will be via an
enclosed loading dock and off of Westhaven Drive.
ParkinQ
Parking for Development Area A of SDD4 will be provided for in a
variety of locations, both on site for the totally residential
elements of the project and in the large common structures for
others. Westhaven Condominiums, and Millrace Condominiums Phases
III and IV are proposed to provide on site parking equivalent to
two spaces per unit. The only exception would be the alternative
which has Millrace Phase III as an additional 32 accommodation
units added to the Westin. In this plan the required 26 spaces
for this site would be accommodated within the Cascade Parking
Structure.
In addition to the existing Cascade Parking Structure which
contains 421 spaces another parking structure containing at least
144 spaces will be constructed upon the Waterford Site. This
will bring the total number of structured spaces within
Development Area A to to at least 565 spaces. These structures
are intended to provide the parking needs of the Westin, CMC
Building, Conference Center, Cascade Club, Cornerstone Building
46
and Waterford. The existing projects require a total demand of
412 spaces, including 125 spaces that are provided for the
general public in accordance with an agreement with the U.S.
Forest Service relating to the Cascade Ski Lift. This 412 space
total includes 9 spaces provided for Meeting Room 2J converted to
commercial use. Therefore at least 153 spaces will exist to
accommodate the proposed alternative development plans.
The developer has proposed that a shared use credit of 17.5% be
applied to the total parking requirement for these uses due to
the overlap of parking needs within a mixed use development of
this type. Recent studies by the Urban Land Institute address
the issue of shared parking in mixed use developments. Findings
show that individual land use parking requirements are not
additive for this type of development and common sense would
indicate that it is unlikely that 100% of the people parking
within the project would be utilizing only one use within the
project.
When calculating parking demand it is helpful to review the
development using a"worst - case" scenario. Alternative 2
contains the combination of uses which has the greatest
structured parking demand due to the number of AU/TR's. As
indicated in Table 4, the total structured parking required would
equal 649 spaces. This would mean that an additional 84 spaces
would have to be provided if this alternative constructed.
The developer has indicated that the necessary parking supply
will be provided on site and will meet projected parking demand.
Depending upon which development scenario is finally selected
either additional parking will be provided or square footages
adjusted to accommodate the parking demand in accordance with the
above calculations.
Parking demand has been analyzed for Development Area D(see
Appendix for full report) and requirements for the proposed uses
are shown in Table 6. The calculations show that the parking
requirement for Area D is 108 spaces per the Town of Vail Zoning
Regulations. The study prepared indicates that a supply of 92
spaces would be adequate for meeting peak demand created by the
uses proposed for the site. It is intended that 108 spaces be
provided to meet these projected parking demands for Area D.
The SDD currently requires that on site parking be provided for
common carriers providing charter service to the development.
Due to a number of different factors such as noise, odor, and the
generally incompatible use, the developer is proposing that this
provision be eliminated. The design of the Transit Mall allows
47
buses to drop off passengers at that location and then proceed to
the charter bus parking at the Lionshead Parking Structure. The
bus would then return for passenger pick-up at the Transit Mall
location. It is felt that it would be best to confine the bus
parking to an already established area that can readily
accommodate charter buses than to create a new area for this use
when the Transit Mall allows for very convenient pick up and drop
off.
48
TABLE 5
MAXIMUM PARKING REQUIRED - AREA A
RESIDENTIAL AU TR DU COMM STRUC. ON SITE
Cornerstone 50 48.1
Waterford 75 75
Westhaven 24 48
Millrace ZII 3 6
Millrace IV 32 26.8
COMMERCIAL
Cornerstone 29,065 166
Waterford 3,800 12.7
Room 2J Theatre 1,387 11.5
C.Club Wellness Center 4,500 22.5
Plaza Bldg. Office* .7
TOTAL 157 27 38,752 363.3 54
*Plaza space has already been counted as commercial. The
parking requirement is based on the difference between
office and retail parking requirements.
The project's parking has been calculated using all of the
standard parking requirements. All accessory hotel and ski uses
have been required to provide the full amount of parking.
*All parking for Cornerstone, Waterford, and Millrace IV (AU
Plan will be structured.
STRUCTURED PARKING CALCULATIONS
Existing Required Parking 422 Spaces
Proposed Required Parking (maximum) 364
TOTAL 786
17.5% Credit - 13.75
TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING 649 Spaces
Existing parking structure 421 Spaces
Proposed parking structure 228
Required parking 649 Spaces
49
TABLE 6
DEVELOPMENT AREA D- CASCADE VILLAGE:
Parking Demand Calculation:
PARKING
CATEGORY SQ•FT• SEATS REQUIREMENT
Office 15,850 NA 63
Beer Hall 1,774 184 23
Brew Pub 1,621 120 15
Retail 446 NA 1.4
Residential* 2,900 NA 6
TOTAL 108.4
*In lieu of the 2900 sq.ft. of residential, 1500 sq.ft. of office
may be constructed. The parking requirement for this amount of
space would equal the 6 spaces shown for residential use.
50
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS:
The special attraction use skier related accessory commercial
uses and Micro-Brewery use will result in the need for additional
employees within Cascade Village.
The Micro-Brewery will require the following full time equivalent
employees:
Full-Time Equivalent
Function EmploYees
Brewery Administration 6
Brewery Operation 3 - 5
Brew Pub, Banquet Facility 40
TOTAL 49 - 51
The skier related uses will also generate additional employees.
The ticket office, ski school, and locker facilities are expected
to generate 10 - 20 employees during ski season and would most
likely vary throughout the day during ski season. The special
attraction use depending upon its ultimate use and layout might
be expected to generate anywhere from 5 to 6 additional
employees. Based upon these projections it appears that the additional
employees required due to the proposed amendments could be
estimated to be between 64 and 77.
The current SDD contains a provision that states "on a yearly
basis a contractual agreement between the employer and the
developer showing evidence of employee housing that is
satisfactory to the Town of Vail shall be made available to the
Department of Community Development".
Currently the Westin Hotel, the major employer with approximately
185 full time equivalent employees, has human resource personnel
to assist their employees arrange for housing. There has been no
problem housing employees and they do not foresee a problem with
housing the employees that will be added as a result of the
recent Terrace Wing Addition.
The developer has proposed that the provision stated above be
deleted from the SDD Ordinance and that the needs for employee
hbusing continue to be monitored and provided for by the private
sector county-wide. The developer has indicated a willingness to
51
participate on a type of Employers Council to address the
on-going need to provide affordable housing for employees. It is
felt that the provisions of all employee housing on site is
incompatible with the nature of the development and not desirable
from a management standpoint. Long term rental housing is
available for middle management employees within the immediate
area. Other employees are typically assisted with finding
housing off site by employers and entities such as the human
resource personnel at the Westin and this practice is intended to
continue.
A commitment has been made by the developer to provide 10 on site
employee units at the Town of Vail's request. These units will
be constructed either in Development Area A or D.
52
SECTION THREE - APPENDICES
53
T:JDINC
Engineering Consultants
953 So. Frontage Rd. West, Suite 202
Vaii, Colorado 81657
3031476-6340
November 22, 1988
Mr. Peter Jamar
Jamar Associates
108 S. Frontage Rd. West
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Proposed Vail Brewery Environmental Engineering Services
Dear Peter:
In May 1988, RBD, Inc., prepared an Environmental Engineering
Report for the proposed Vail Brewery. Part of that report dealt with
water use and sewage discharge.
The report was based on a production of 5,000 barrels of beer per
year. The presentations being made to the various review agencies talk
about a 7,500 barrel per yesr production. This letter is to revise our
original report to reflect 7,500 barrels per year.
Total water required for 7,500 barrels per year at 31 gallons per
barrel and 6 gallons of water per one gallon of beer is 1,395,000
gallons, or 4.28 acre feet. Of that, 232,500 would be consumed as
product and the remaining 1,162,500 would return to the stream through
the sanitary sewer system or, in very small quantities, be discharged
into the atmosphere in the form of water . Actual consumptive use
of maximum production per year will be 232~500 gallons of product or
approximately 0.71 acre feet. It is esti e~that the brewing process
will occur twice per day, three days per week, 50 weeks per year.
Dividing this number of brew processes into the maximum yearly water
demand yields a requirement of 9,300 gallons of water needing to be
delivered on brewing days or 111,600 gallons per month.
To put this in perspective, an average family of four, whose
per-capita-day consumption is between 100 and 150 gallons, uses 146,000
to 219,000 gallons per year. The brewery's actual maximum consumption
use would then be approxi~eat---e~y `v_erage_ use
-of a family of four. The Vail-Va1 - 1ey Consolidated Water District has
67 < 5
L
Other : Fort Collins, Colorado 3031226-4955 • Colorado Springs, Colorado 719/574-3504
re-emphasized their ability to supply this amount of water to the Vail
Brewery.
The proposal will return 1,162,500 gallons per year, or 96,875
gallons per month through the sanity sewer system. The Upper Eagle
Valley Consolidated Sanitati n D_'strict has also re-em Tiasized their
abi '____erve t rough a tap into their central collection an -
tkment system.
One concern is that large volumes of wastewater not be discharged
during short periods of time, especially during peaks. Considering
again that the brewing process will occur twice per day, three days per
week, SO weeks per year, 3,875 gallons of wastewater will be released
during and after each brewing process. The rPlease is not immediate.
Eighty percent of that water is used for clean up and is released
throughout the brewing process which takes approximatelq four hours.
The remaining twenty percent comes from the draining of the brewing
equipment itself in approximately ninety minutes. Clean up water would
then enter the sewage system at the rate of 12.92 gallons per minute and
wastewater would enter at the rate of 8.61 gallons per minute. Both
discharges occurring simultaneously would amount to 21.53 gallons per
minute. To put_t_hedisch~r-&e_fi.g.n.re__in_perspective, it is equivalent to
5 or 6 toilets flushing,_a rate_t.haxcan._h7e.easi._y_a sor e y the
District at any time of day.
Should you need any additional information or clarification, please
contact me.
Very truly yours,
RBD, Inc.
Kent R. Rose, P.E.
Project Manager
iNc
Engineering Consultants
953 So. Frontage Rd. West, Suite 202
Vail, Colorado 81657
3031476-6340
May. 17 , 1988 -
Mr. Peter Jamar
JAMAR ASSOCIATES
108 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, CO 81657
RE: PROPOSED YAIL BREWERY
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
Dear Peter:
Enclosed herewith is the information requested for the above-referenced
project. The basic report covers the effects the proposed Yail Brewery
would have on the water and sanitation districts serving the Valley as well
as some discussion regarding emissions into the atmosphere.
Attached to the report are various charts relating to wind and temperature
inversions, a willingness to serve letter from the Vail Yalley Consolidated
Water District and the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District
and a brief summation of the comments of the people I talked with in
preparation of this report.
You will see as you read the report that the proposed Vail Brewery can be
easily served by the water and sanitation districts, would have virtually
no negative impact on air quality and, therefore, could be a goad addition
to the neighborhood pending a favorable conclusion of the other aspects of
your environmental assessment.
Thank you for allowing us to be of assistance.
Very truly yours,
RBD, Inc.
/
V 09~~
Kent R. Rose, P.E.
Project Manager
Enc.
Other Offices: Fort Collins, Colorado 3031226-4955 • Colorado Springs, Colorado 303/574-3504
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING REPORT
FOR THE
PROPOSED YAIL BRENERY
RBD, INC.
The Micro-Brewery is proposed to produce a maximum of 5,000 barrels of beer
per year. One barrel is 31 gallons. Water needed for the brewing process
is estimated to be 6 gallons of water for every gallon of beer produced.
Total water required for maximum production per year would be 930,000
gallons, or approximately 2.85 acre feet. Of the 930,000 gallons, 155,000
gallons would be consumed as product and the remaining 175,000 gallons
would be returned to the stream through the sanitary sewer system or, in
very small quantities, be discharged into the atmosphere in the form of
water vapor. Actual consumptive use at maximum production per year will be .
155,000 gallons of product or approximately 0.48 acre feet.
It is estimated that the brewing process will occur twice per day, three
days per week, 52 weeks per year. Dividing this number of brew processes
into the maximum yearly water demand yields a requirement of 5,962 gallons
of water needing to be delivered on brewing days or 77,506 gallons per
month. The Vail Valley Consolidated Water District has indicated that they
are willing and able to supply the amount of water required through a
. 1i-inch tap from their domestic water distribution system.
The quality of the water in the domestic supply is consistent with that
needed to produce a good beer through the micro-brewing process. The
Colorado Department of Health requires that chlorine be added to public
water supplies for disinfection and that a residual amount be measurable at
the tap of an end user. This chlorine residual must be r.emoved prior to
water entering into the brewing process.
Removal of chlorine is a very simple process and can be accomplished by
filtering through charcoal. Ozonation may be desirable after filtration
just to add a little more "sparkle" to the water and further reduce the
taste and color.
At the end of the brewing process, there are basically two waste products
of which need to be disposed. One is a solid product consisting primarily
of spent grains. These solids are strained or filtered off and dewatered
by equipment contained within the brewery. They are collected in a hopper
and routinely trucked out in a vehicle the size of a pick-up and sold for a
beneficial use such as cattle feed.
The second waste product is water. It is proposed that the 775,000 gallons
per year, or 64,583 gallons per month will be required to be treated by the
Upper Eagle Yalley Consolidated Sanitation District. The District has
indicated they are willing and able to serve through a tap into their
central collection system at the brewery.
One concern is that large volumes of wastewater not be discharged during
short periods of time, especially during peaks. Considering again that the
brewing process will occur twice per day, three days per week, 52 weeks per
year, 2,484 gallons of wastewater will be released during and after each
brewing process. The release is not immediate. Eighty percent of that
water is used for clean up and is released throughout the brewing process
which takes approximately four hours. The remaining twenty percent comes
from the draining of the brewing equipment itself in approximately ninety
minutes. Clean up water would then enter the sewage system at the rate of
8.28 gallons per minute and wastewater would enter at the rate of 5.52
gallons per minute. Both discharges occuring simultaneous-ly would amount
to 13.8 gallons per minute, a rate that can be easily absorbed by the
District at any time of day..
The second concern is the Biological Oxygen Demand, or BOD, of the
wastewater. BOD is a measurement of the strength of the wastewater and,
therefore, a measurement of the magnitude of the treatment required prior
to releasing back into the stream. In the Vail area, 250 milligrams per
liter of B00 is considered average strength. Effluent from a micro-brewery
is normally less than 250 milligrams per liter and needs no pre-treatment
or additinal treatment by the District.
In areas where sewage treatment districts are affected by industrial waste
dischargers, a monitoring program is normally set up. On a routine but
unannounced basis, the district will sample the discharger and if the
measured BOD is above a preagreed threshold, a surcharge for excess
treatment will be assessed until further sampling shows BOD has dropped
back below the threshold. Even though micro-breweries discharge less than
250 mgl of B00, they are normally classified as an industrial discharger by
most districts and are subject to a monitoring program. The Upper Eagle .
Valley Consolidated Sanitation District may want to require a manhole on
the brewery sewer service line so that they can sample BOD.
There has not been much work done in the Vail Valley regarding wind and
weather patterns. There is, however, information available at the Eagle
County Airport and at Patrol Headquarters (PHQ) on top of Vail Mountain
that can be extrapolated to generally describe wind patterns at the Yail
Brewery site. The City of Aspen has also done extensive study on their
inversion characteristics which may also be useful here.
In comparing the data available at the airport and at PHQ, it would be
consistent to say that winds are calm for approximately 45 percent of the
time. There are surface winds with measured velocities ranging from 0 to 4
miles per hour. For approximately 30 percent of the time, wind velocities
measure from 4 to 15 miles per hour and are fairly evenly divided from an
easterly or a westerly direction. Wind gusts ranging up to 30 miles per
hour or above from almost any direction can be experienced throughout the
remainder of the year.
For the Vail Brewery site, the assumption can be made that surface winds
are normally calm with light currents moving up or down the valley in an
easterly or westerly direction. Moderate winds of up to 15 miles per hour
could also be predicted to flow up or down the valley with the predominance
being from the west.
Emissions from the Brewery stack would be carried out of Cascade Village up
the forested hillside to the East or out across the Interstate 70 corridor
to the west.
During the winter months temperature inversions may occur in the Vail
Valley. The best information indicates that a strong inversion that sets
up well and continues through the night could occur from 6 to 12 times per
year. .
Again, there have been no specific studies done in Vail relating to
duratSon or strength. The Aspen studies indicate that an inversion will
start to build as soon as sunlight clears the valley floor. The inversion
builds rather rapidly, and continues through the night until sunlight
begins to re-enter the valley. The inversion then dissipates rather
rapidly with the warming of the ground. With no measurable winds, the flow
of air out of the Vail Yalley would be down in a westerly direction.
To be more specific, an inversion, if it is going to occur, would begin to
build around 3:30 in the afternoon and be fully developed in approximately
two hours. It would continue through the night, start to clear out around
8:00 in the morning and would be totally dissipated in approximately one
and one half hours.
In discussions with various agencies in Boulder where a micro-brewery
exists, there have never been complaints registered regarding stack
emissions. Odors are similar to those of baking bread because of the yeast
and are very weak. With a brewery stack designed as an architectural
element of the building at a height of surrounding ridge lines and care not
to begin a brewing process during an identified temperature inversion,
emissions should go undetected.
Al1 information available on micro-breweries indicate that the process used
is totally different than that of a large scale industrial brewery. The
sounds and smells associated with an industrial brewery do not exist.
Because of this, the fact that the Water and Sanitation Districts can
provide service and the minimal emissions into the atmosphere, the proposed
Vail Brewery is totally compatible with the Cascade Village neighborhood.
360
N
30
♦
.i
.1 +
+ .I
.2 7 ~ , ,g • S 1.3 2 +
2• 0-4 42
N3 + 1.1 1.0 5.0 CALM 11.0 .4 mp
43.3
3.9 3.5
1.2 .7 1.6 + +
1.~ 2•2 1.4 1.0
1. S t
2.4 •6 + + ~
+
.2 \~yo
. I
+
2ip ~go
, S
~ I O
ALL WEATHER WIND ROSE
EAGLE COUNTY
U.S. CLIMATOLOGICAL CENTER
RBO, INC. Consultinq Enqineers
~
i
~ -
~
O a
O
~ N a. W
~ a
i CLw w
o
W
.
CD
J =
cn a a
i
`v ~ > a
W
Z ~ a
~ Z o
C ,C ~ W o
~ O C D 2
W
V ~ p F- O
1- c' E " ~ a
w Z U
U) Q. W U
~ Z Z
W -
W a. ~
3afllil-ld JNISd380N1
uoIsJanuI aiaydsowld IowJoN
n
O
Z a
O aD
U)
cr E
Q
W cD
Z
VJ ~
W-
E
~ a
Q CD 0
~
W ~ o 0
a. _ c ~
w ° o i=
I- z p w
' I.L =
0 p J
_ CD Q
H ~
E Z m
C
~
Z ~ Q
z W
W o a
E ir ~
Ir
~ v - ~
Z c°~
E W
ci
. o z z
N W
a o
cn m
c a cr.
v
E
(p N - O T N M ~
1 I 1
l~ = sja4aw£1 _ sia4aw0a1
(•Iua:) saai6ap) a:)uaja;j!a ainjoiadwal
Summary of References:
John Coffee
Eagle County Flight Service
524-7575
Do not keep records of winds aloft.
Keep records of surface winds for a four to five year period.
Records have been sumnarized at one point in time by the Eagle County
Engineer when the new runway was being designed. Larry Metternick
Eagle County Engineer
949-5257
Provided a Wind Rose for the Eagle County Airport.
Brian McCarthy
Vail Associates, Inc.
476-5601
Provided weather records kept at PHQ to look through.
Skip Miller
Boulder Brewing Company
444-8448
Emissions from the brewery consist of boiler exhaust and water vapor.
Emissions are"too small to affect anything."
Odors cannot be detected "more than 100 feet away."
Located in the center of a light industrial park and office complex
and have never had a complaint. The only emission is visual - water
vapor - and a few people asked what it was when the brewery first
started up.
Dillution with wash water is the only " pre- treatment" they use before
discharging wastewater from the brewing process into the sewage
collection system.
Solids are filtered off first.
The brewery output is 10,000 barrels per year.
Ruth Wolcoff
Boulder Sanitation District
441-3251
Treat the brewery as an industrial waste discharger, therefore
requiring a discharge permit and routine monitoring.
Surcharge for anything over 230 mgl.
Surcharge is $33.22 per 1000 lbs of BOD.
BOD mgl times volume equals lbs per day.
They normally ignore effluent samples from the brewery because they
are so low.
One recent sample was 2150 mgl BOD so they are re-sampling to see if
- • the sample was erroneous.
George Mathews
Boulder County Environmental Health
441-1180
Knows they exist "somewhere in a highly developed office complex."
They need no permits.
There has never been a complaint.
Rick Bossingham
Aspen Environmental Health Department
925-2020
Provided information relating to Aspen temperature inversions.
~ Susan Scanlan
Vail Environmental Health Department
416-7000
Stated that Aspen information was characteristic to Vail. Thought
that Aspen inversions occurred more regularly than in Vail and were
stronger. Thought that inversions in Yail happened anywhere from 6 to
12 times during the winter months. The winter of 1987-88 probably did
not experience 6 inversions.
~ UPPER EAGLE VALLEY CONSOLIDATED
WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICTS
~ 846 FOREST ROAD • VAIL COLORADO 81657
(303) 476 7480
August 4, 1988
Andy Norris
VAIL BREWERY COMPANY
1000 South Frontage Road West
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: WATER AND SEWER SERVICE FOR PROPOSED BREWERY
Dear Mr. Norris:
I understand from our meeting of August 3, 1988, that you represent the Vail
Brewery Company which is planning a micro-brewery in Development Area "D" of Cascade
Village, Vail. As proposed, the brewery is a batch process, using approximately
125,000 gallons per month and requiring a 1-1/2" water tap. Sewage discharge would
be free from solids and well below 250 parts per million BOD (biological oxygen
demand).
Based on the above information, the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation
District and the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District will provide sanitation and
domestic water service for the Vail Brewery at our standard tap fee and service fee
rates. If sewage effluent BOD exceeds 250 ppm, there would be a service fee
• adjustment proportionate to the increased loading. Also, if the process discharges
large volumes of wastewater during short periods of time, then these releases should
be timed during off peak per.iods, between 10 PM and 6 AM.
If I can be of any further help, please call.
Sincerely,
PER -EAGLE VALLEY CONSOLIDATED SANITATION DISTRICT
David E. Mott
General Manager
DEM:ikl 5.33
4\ PART7CIPATING DISTRICTS - ARROWHEAD METRO WATER • AVON METRO WATER • BEAVER CREEK METRO WATER • BERRY CREEK METRO CLEAN
WATER • EAGLE-VAIL METRO WATER • EDWAROS WATER • LAKE CREEK MEADOWS WATER • UPPER EAGLE VALIEY SANITATION • VAIL
VALLEY CONSOLIDATED WATER 0 VAIL WATER AND SANITATION
A UPPER EAGLE VALLEY CONSOLIDATED
WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICTS
~ 846 FOREST ROAD • VAIL. COLORADO 81657
13031 4767480
October 26, 1988
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: Cascade Village Brewery
Dear Kristan:
As per our phone conversation the Vail VAlley Consolidated Water District
and the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District have no problem
with the amended production rates for the above mentioned business. It is
our understanding that the 5,000 barrels stipulated for an annual rate has
changed to 7500 barrels annually.
At this time both Districts have excess capacities to process water and the
additional produ:.tion of the brewery will not effect our processes.
Sincerely,
UPPER EAGLE VALLEY CONSOLIDATED
WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICTS
Fred S. Haslee
Engineering Technician
~ PARTICIPATING DISTRICTS - ARROWHEAO METRO WATER • AVON METRO WATER • BEAVER CREEK METRO WATER • BERRY CREEK METRO CLEAN
WATER 9 EAGLE•VAIL METRO WATER 9 EOWAROS WATER 9 U1KE CREEK MEAOpWS WATER • UPPER EAGLE VALL Er SANI7ATinu .
Parking Demand Analysis and
Parking Management Plan
for the
Proposed
Vail Brewery/Glen Lyon OfSce
(Cascade Village Development Area D)
Vail, Colorado
Prepared for
Vail Brewery Company
1000 South Frontage Road West
Vall. Colorado 81657
Prepared by
TDA Colorado Inc.
1165 Sherman Street
Denver. Colorado 80203
August 10, 1988
TDA
Parking Demand Analysis
Contents
Pa e
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Proposed Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Parking Demand Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Peak Parking Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Parking Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Parking Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Parking Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Day-Skier/Commercial Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Summary 8
Figures
Figure 1: Estimated Parking Denaand/Supply by Time of Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Tabulations
Table 1: Assumed Travel Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2: Estimated Number of Persons and Vehicles Present at Peak Accumulation 6
Table 3: Parking Requirements Per Town Standazds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Proposed
VAII. BREWERY/GLEN LYON OFFICE
Parldng Demand Analysis and
Parlcing Management Plan
Introduction
This report describes an analysis of expected parking need for the proposed Vail Brewery.
The brewery is proposed as a remodeling/ redevelopment of the existing Glen Lyon offlce
butldtng in Cascade Vlllage along South FYontage Road. This project is described as
"Development Area D" in the Cascade Village Development Plan. The 3-story 13,500
square foot gross floor area office building is sited in the western half of the 1.75 acre
parcel. A linear, single bay, head-in, parking lot extends from the east end of the builciing
320 feet to the east end of the parcel. The 54-space surface parking azea is served by a
single two-way access drive from the I-70 frontage road. Entry to the ofT'ice building is at
the west end of the lot and along the north face of the building, connected by a ramp
walkway to the parking area. The north entrance is about eight feet below the frontage
road elevation as the building steps down the slope leading to Gore Creek.
Our parking demand analysis of this unique land use takes into account expected travel
and trip making characteristics of Vail Valley visitors and residents.
Proposed Project
The proposed redevelopment consists of three parts:
1) A new 16,000 square foot guest-oriented microbrewery;
2) Expansion and redesign of the existing office space;
3) Addition of a new 3.000 square foot offlce building and 2,000 square foot
residence at the east end of the parcel.
The microbrewery will feature "European Alpine" dining served banquet style in the
evening. The dinner will include live entertainment. Specific uses and attractions will be:
0 6,300 sq.ft. brewhouse, around the clock operating hours
0 200-seat beer hall, 6:00 PM to midnight (1.900 sq.ft.)
0 2,390 sq.ft. limited menu brew pub with 80 table seats (includes seasonal
outdoor deck area) and 40 bar seats, 11:00 AM to midnight
0 420 sq.ft. of retail space (brewery related merchandise)
0 825 sq.ft. museum and reception area
0 1,200 sq.ft. administrative offices
0 560 sq.ft. employee lockers
0 1,060 sq.ft. storage, loading dock and circulatron
1
Elements of the operations and staffing plan that effect parking demand include:
1. The beer hall will operate on a banquet format with advance reserved seating
or it can be reserved for a group gathering (receptions, award banquets, etc.).
2. Typically one dinner show nightly in the beer hall. A second dinner show
starting at 9:00 PM may be added during peak winter periods and summer
holiday times.
3. Typically, two brewery employees on each of three shifts.
4. Fifteen to sixteen food and beverage employees in the beer hall and six in
the brew pub through the evening hours.
. 5. Administrative staff of five to siac persons, 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM typical work
day.
Parking Demand Parameters
On-site parking demand will fluctuate by time of year. For design purposes, we have
developed typical "high day" scenarios, i.e. a condition that can be anticipated to
accommodate parking needs at all but a few days of the year. From prior experience in
Vail and other Colorado dest.ination resort communities, we have developed a range of
travel behavior indices that reIIect typical modes of travel and vehicle occupancy rates by
trip maker (employee, resident, day and destination visitors). Table 1 depicts the travel
parameters we utilized for summer and wlnter visitors to the Vail Brewery.
For. parking demand analysis we are interested in the number of vehicles expected during
"peak accumulation," i.e. that time of day when the combination of employees and visitors
on site will be highest.
Of principal interest is the portion of visitors and employees who will arrlve as either a
driver or passenger of a parked vehicle. Employees will heavily rely on private autos
followed by public transit as their preferred arrival mode. Summer visitors typically exhibit
a much higher use of private autos than do wtnter visitors. Summer visitors often will
take day trips to and from distant locations. Fewer winter visitors will use a private or
rental car as a way of reaching Vail than in the summer. Even those winter destination
visitors who arrived via auto will often leave their car parked for in-town trips preferring to
use the transit system or walk instead.
2
Table 1
Assumed Travel Parameters
Proposed Vail Microbrewery
Vall, Colorado
% By Mode:
Auto Driver/ Drop Publlc Courtesy
Mode of Arrival Passenaer _Qff T nsi Van Other Total
a. Employees
- Winter 55 10 30 0 5 100
- Summer 55 10 25 0 10 100
b. Visitors
- Winter 47 0 25 20 8 100
- Summer 68 0 12 5 15 100
# Persons/
Auto Occupancy Parked Car
a. Employees
- Winter 1.3
- Summer 1.1
b. Visitors
- Winter 3.0
- Summer 2.2
Source: TDA based on the following references:
1. The Colorado Skier. 1977-78 Season, University of Colorado. 1978.
2. Anen/Pitkin Cou= Transit/TSM Alternatives StudX. September,
1978.
3. Idaho Ski Studx, University of Idaho. 1978.
4. Vehicle occupancy counts in Park City, Winter Pazk and Keystone.
The Vail Free Shuttle publlc transit system provides year round service for residents and
visitors. The microbrewery site is served by the West Vail South route which travels along
South Frontage Road connecting Cascade Village, Lionshead Village and the Vail
'IYansportation Center in Vail Village. Site redevelopment will incorporate a bus pull-in for
an eastbound bus stop. This will augment the existing westbound stop across the road at
the Vail Professional Building. The current bus schedule provides hourly service during
summer morning and afternoon peak periods. Throughout winter, the sexvice increases to
every 45 minutes from 7:00 AM to midnight. A number of lodgings in Vail provide
courtesy vans for transporting their guests to and from local attractions. We anticipate
almost half, 45%, of winter visitors will use either public transit or courtesy vans to visit
the microbrewery. Summer visitor use of these modes will be considerably less, 17%, due
to reduced transit service and greater availability and reliance on pnvate autos during the
summer.
3
The site is served by two bikeways--a bike lane alongside eastbound Frontage Road and
bikepath along the south side of Gore Creek. An estimated 15% of summer visitors wlll
use the bikeways to either walk or bike to the microbrewery. In winter an estimated 8% of
the visitors will be "other" as pedestrian or ski-in/ski-out replaces bicycle as the non-
vehicular mode of arrival at the microbrewery.
Peak Parking Demand
By plotting the expected number of visitors and employees that could be at the brewery on
a typical busy winter or summer day and then applying the appropriate "parked car" factor
for each category, we arrive at the hourly parked vehicle distribution shown in Figure 1.
As shown, peak accumulation occurs between 7:00 PM and 8:00 PM. At this time in the
evening, all facilities would be open and operating and the number of food and beverage
employees present would be at the highest level of the day. Not present during peak
accumulation would be administrative staff of the brewery operation and tenants and
visitors to the relocated office building. Parking demand for the office building will
typically be at a maxinium in early afternoons, gradually diminishirig to just a few spaces
by 6:00 PM. Ofiice parking need is equivalent to 55 spaces for the proposed use per the
town's zoning regulations. We would expect that a block of 50 to 60 spaces will be posted
for "tenant and visitor use onl}~" for the combined office space. This restriction would be in
effect from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekdays.
Maximum brewery parking demand would occur on a busy summer day with an estirnated
demand for 88 parking spaces. Seventy-six of these spaces would be generated by visitor
demand and an estimated 12 spaces used by employees. To afford some level of
assurance of finding available spaces without extensive searching, we suggest visitor
parking supply should be slightly more than visitor parking dema,nd. Using a parking
utility factor of 95°r6 would yield a suggested visitor pazking supply of 80 spaces. Adding
12 spaces for employee use at this time of day suggests a total brewery supply of 92
spaces. Parking utilization by time of year is summarized in Table 2.
4
Qx
o =
BRE'A[ R'I f'ARK 1 t7G =
UE"~At~D ~
~
NOON
OFFICE PARKING SUPPLY = SS SPACES
1
2
3
W
u
4 a
a
~ LO N
N
5 ~
co N
6
a
a
~
. II J
7 I rn
cz
Z
8 Y
K
Q
d
9 ~
10 ~ HI6H SUh4MER DAY
11
9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
P A R K I N G S P A C E S
Figure 1
ESTIMATED PARKING DEMAND/SUPPLY BY TIME OF DAY
Proposed Vail Brewery
TD.4
-S-
Table 2
Estimated Number of Persons and Vehicles Present
at Peak Accumulation (7:00 PM)
Brewerv
Persons Vehicles
Summer
Employee 24 12
Visitor 244 76
Total 268 88"' (96%)~2'
Win r
Employee 24 10
. Visitor 304 49
Total 324 59"' (64%)121
Source: TDA based on estiinated hourly accumulation of brewery visitors and
employees.
1. See Figure 1.
2. Utilization, based on 92 space available parking supply.
With more winter visitors arriving via public transit and courtesy vans than summer
visitors, total winter demand would be less--59 spaces. Applying the same utility factor to
the 49 visitor spaces in the total would suggest a typical winter day need of 62 spaces.
Hence, some excess on-site parldng capacity would be available, even after compensating
for loss due to snow storage, during winter months.
Parking Needs
The 92-space parking supply discussed above could satisfy anticipated on-site (brewery and
office building) needs for most typical situations, if the parking is pooled for joint
office/brewery use. Fifly-five of the spaces would be earmarked for daytime office use
whffe the remaining 37 spaces would be full time brewery spaces. During evenings and on
weekends, visitor parking should extend into the vacated office parking area. Suggestions
for managing the proposed pazking supply are discussed in the subsequent section.
Parking Management
The provision of 92 parking spaces to jointty serve the proposed microbrewery and
remodelled Glen Lyon office space should be sufflcient for all but a few situations. To a
large extent, these situations can be anticipated because of advance booking requirements.
Furthermore, pazking layout and operation can greatly facilltate desired use of the pool of
on-slte parking spaces.
Parking Layout--In all likelihood. a two-level single bay parking deck will be needed to
replace the existing 54-space surface lot. A portion of this deck can be cordoned off to
serve the daytime needs of the office space. Thirty to forty of the 55 spaces needed for
office use could be accessed through a gate controlled lower level of the structure. The
6
remaining office space could be signed for "tenants of Glen Lyon only." During evening
hours when these spaces are expected to be needed for microbrewery guests, the gate
would be lifted for visitor self parking and the signed areas could be used by car hops as
valet spaces. Except for spaces marked as "2-hour visitor spaces." all other parking stalls
would be unsigned except for a blanket restriction against day-skier or other unauthorized
use.
Day-Skier/Commercial Use- As shown in Figure 1, daytime use of the parking structure
should result in a surplus of 10 to 15 spaces during a typical day in the high winter
season. During other winter periods this surplus should be higher--perhaps 20 to 25
spaces as noontime brewery use is somewhat less. These anticipated surplus spaces could
be sectioned off and sold to day-skiers between the hours of 8:00 to 10:00 AM or until
they are full, whichever comes first. Parking would be prepaid and be good until 5:00 PM.
This provision could help distribute day-skiers to the new Cascade Lift and help alleviate
congestion at the Lionshead Base.
Comparlson wlth Tovvn Zoning Requirements
As a point of reference, we have summed up the individual components of proposed
microbrewery floor space per Town of Vail Zoning Requirements, for comparlson with our
synthesized approach to supply estimation. As shown in Table 3, the sum of the
individual parts would spedfy 101 parking spaces. This compares to the 94 spaces per
our analysis (92 spaces for office and brewery plus two residential spaces). The distinction
between the two lies in our premise that spaces used by daytime ofIIce workers wlll be
used by brewery visitors during the peak evening hours. In essence. we belleve the nature
of this attraction and its location with easy access to I-70 will generate higher visitor
parking demand than the Town's respective standard provides. Conversely, the
compatibility of office and microbrewery uses affords an opportunity to manage the
proposed structured pazking supply effectively for each use.
7
Table 3
Parking Requirements Per Town Standards
Square # of Pazking
Ca e o Foota~e Seats Requirementm
Office 14,350"' 57.4
Beer Hall 1,900 200 25.0
Brew Pub 2,390 120 15.0
Retail 420 1.4
Residential 2,000 2.0
TOTAL 100.8
1. Consists of 8.950 sq.ft. of eadsting remodeled space. 2,400 sq.ft. gained in
the extension of the eidsting 3rd level, and 3.000 sq.ft. of new construction
at the east end of the property.
2. Per Town of Vail Zoning Regulations.
8ummary
Our analysis of the proposed Vail Brewery and remodeled Glen Lyon offlce space concludes
that a 92-parking space supply will be sufficient for typical peak parking needs. As there
aze no parking standards for a guest-oriented microbrewery, our analysis considered •
anticipated employment. visitor capacity and the seasonal varlation in visitation and travel
by auto in this destination resort community. Design conditions will likely be governed by
summer holiday perlods when emplayment and visitation could be at capacity and 68
percent of the visitors are estimated to arrive via a parked car. Public transit, courtesy
vans and walk/bike would account for the remaining visitor modes of arrival. Peak
microbrewery parking demand will occur between 7:00 and 8:00 PM. Daytime offlce use
peaks at about 2:00 PM and by 6:00 PM virtually all offlce spaces will be vacant. A
parking management plan for the required structured parking should be adopted to help
ensure adequate parking supply is awailable to daytiine and evening emplayees and visitors
to the Vail Brewery/Glen Lyon Office development in Cascade Village. With one access
drive. parking management of the proposed two-level structure should be virtually self-
monitored using conventional gate controls, coded cards and signing. '
8
i
i
I
1
l
~ Access Analysis
for the
, Proposed
Vail Brewery/Glea Lyon OfSce
(Cascade Village Development Area D)
Vail. Colorado
Prepased for
Vail Brewery Company
1000 South Frontage Road West
, Vail. Colorado 81867
Prepared by
TDA Colorado Inc.
1156 Sherman 8treet
• Denver. Colorado 80203
September 12. 1988
Revistd November 18. 1988 '
I
~
~
I
1
1
~ 1 DA
Access Analysis
Contents
, Pge
Introduction 1
~ Proposed Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
boLsting Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
' Project 'I`raffic volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
~ Site Access Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Other Access Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figures
I Figure 1 ViMnity Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure 2 Estimated Parking Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
' Figure 3 Proposed Site Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 4 Recommended Access Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
~
List of Tables
Table 1 Design Day Vehicle TYip Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table A-1 Assumed TYavel Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
w
I
~
I
i
i
~
~
J
~ ~ . TDA
i
F'
~ ry ' ~ l ~ \ + ~ Q
t:' _ ~ +a G=1
1'<
kZ W s , f` C~
t:~: ~ FZ,y Or 7~rw ; 'b G++
1 = EB
r : s o~ O
r. • Gi 'a ~ ,-i
c ~ ~ O
C.; ~ ~ 7 Q
O 47 K~: a ~ ~ J ri
O Q) k5:? q : l
t?S v o ,._.i CL •r1
^I ~-I ~ ti ~ ~ CC
t > n ~ ~
I k~' v.f f"'
Z oo ~ t _ ~ ~
E L;: o ~
Z k':: : ~ S-•
U a)
~ y O ~ ~ N
cn
E~=: ~ V'►~~
t::: •ri
1 r, r:..~.,. ~ ~ : • ~ (0
ts` %'I
c~., E ..y
r:: i
E: ~ I
1 ' • 1
N
Li! ►v CL 'ii I ~ o _ ``1
W
W
~ i ~ : o.,~.~ ~ ~ 1
~ ~ N f
l ii• } .[1 LL ~ rl
W
~ W ~
j :M...r ~ . . _ .
-..~YUWy. . r m i•..< m 57 ~ic >Y> ar ^»r.;
!
o~~ ~uoipuay~j
s *•r _ ^1►,
e
c.•..
fA
5e° ~Eti:S_~_~~,,....:. S ~ ~ ~ \ rQ• 's:~
,y
.y >.a
.I E.3: , O ~1
Lh'• V
• ~
E~. ' .
• i,...~...~~.^~~~~~
R J ....~.iiii~.l..::.~: n. .
. .v.~aiiix:~:..:. ~w~..~h~stA Fj< '~p .w:
. l': • •
I t~ r ~
t::i ro 'ra
L`
t;.: . ~ b s
w
:
i r:. c r
F
~
p
. .
~ .
~
.
. o
~ -2-
Elements of the operations and stafflng plan that effect travel demand include:
1. The beer hall will operate on a banquet format with advance reserved seating
, or it can be reserved for a group gathering (receptions, award banquets, etc.).
2. Typically one dinner show nightly in the beer hall. A second dinner show
starting at 9:00 PM may be added during peak winter periods and summer
holiday ttmes.
3. Typically, two brewery employees on each of three shifts.
, 4. Fifteen to sixteen food and beverage employees in the beer hall and six in
the brew pub through the evening hours.
, 5. Administrative staff of flve to six persons. 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM typical work
day.
Ezisting Conditions
South Frontage Rnad is a two-lane paved roadway with a paved. 10-foot wide-two-way
bicycle lane along the south side of the road. Frecast concrete wheel stops spaced at
regular intervals along the right edge of the eastbound travel lane pmvide a physical buffer
between auto and bicycle travel. Posted speed is 25 mph increasing to 45 mph to the
• west just beyond the project frontage. The bicycle lane departs from the roadway at the
west end of the property, dropping down the slope to cross Gore Creek and join the bike
path that continuously runs along the south side of that wateiway.
South Frontage Road is on a tangent section along the site frontage. The road curves
slightly south to the west to realign with I-70. There are no rlght or left turn speed
_ change lanes along two-lane. 25 mph South Frontage RQad in the one-mile section from
. Glen Lyon OQice park east to the Town of Vail Munidpal offlces/US Post OtIIce. West of
the project. when posted speed increases to 45 mph, speed change lanes ncent2y have
been constructed at the Cascade Village/Westin Hotel access road intersection. Then are
• no dlstinct "access drives" for the Voliter Building property along the north side of South
Frontage Road opposite Glen Lyon Offlce Building. Vehicles travel in and out of this
, property at various locations along the frontage. The Vail Professional Builciing opposite
the east end of the Brewery site dces have two distinct unpaved access drives.
' No recent traffic counts are available along South Frontage Road per Colorado Department
- of HIghways staff. Aceess drive sight distance is not affected by roadside vegetation or
topography. Traffic volume estimates were derived from the State Highway Department's 1-
70/Main Vail Interchange Report of December. 1987. Data from this report suggests 1986
March PM peak hour volume in the vicinity of Glen Lyon Office Building would be 350
r vehicles eastbound and 500 vehicles westbound.
3 TD.4
i
~
Project Trafflc volnmes
Future traffic volumes at buildout and successful operation at the proposed brewery have
been estimated for each land use and activity. These estimates were based on typical
I employee and winter visitors use of private autos. Appendix Table A illustrates typical
travel modes for Cascade Village visitors and employees.
' Figure 2 depicts the anticipated accumulation of parked vehicles for the Brewery/offlce
I building during the course of typical high winter season (mid-Febnuary to Late-March) and
summer holiday weekend days. Based on these modal choice percentages, seating capacity
of the Brewery. antidpated hourly distribution of employee and visitor private auto, truck
I trafflc and average visitor duration of stay, we have estimated the combined brewery/offlce
park will generate 820 daily vehicle trips as shown in Table 1. Consistent with the Town
of Vail and Colorado Department of Highways I-70 Main Vail Interchange study, late•March
volumes represent a likely 40th highest hour design hour volume. Projxt volumes during
the Frontage Road PM peak hour have been estimated to be 67 vehicles trips. Over 70
~ percent of these trips would be generated by motorists entering and leaving the parking
' structure aceess drive (see Figure 3). Trip distribution is estinated to be 40 percent
oriented to the west. 60 percent to the east in consideration of the bed base and
,
commercial concentration to the east.
Table 1 ~
, Design Day Vehicle Trlp Generation 61 Vail Hreaesy/Glea Lyon Office BnildinQ
~
' 4:00-8:00 PM 8:00-7:00 P'M
HSQnn Ptak Hour $sdect Peak Hoy~
DA1bC In 4ut TQfBI In $u TQtSI
- Parkhv Structure Drive
Brewery 370 12 8 20 30 31 61
Offlce 200 4 22 26 3 6 9
Residence 10 " Subtotal 580 -17 31 4~8 34 38 72
Porte Cocher Drive
Courtesy vans/taxd 150 6 4 10 15 15 30
Valet 70 4 4 8 12 12 24
Truck' 20 _4 1 1. ~Q 0
Subtotal 240 10 9 19 27 27 54
TOTAL 820 27 40 67 61 65 126
a Includes Brewery vehicles and daily food anci beverage deliveries.
81te Aceess Design Considerations
~ Figure 4 depicts the recommended access design. Access to the proposed parking deck Ls
shifted about 80 feet east of the current parking access location to align with the eadsting
I access to the Vail Professional Building (see Figure 4). Per the State Highway Department
Access Code, left tum storage lanes at either access drive would no,t be warranted for
highway peak hour volumes and posted 25 mph speed. A right turn deceleration lane at
I
;
4 TDA
i
(
°
.
90 ~
C E'REWEFV PARKING ~
i
99 DEMA:,D .
.
( •
. .
NOON ~
_l
1 OFFICE PARKIN6 SUPPLY s 55 SPACES ~
~
l 2
3 ~
1 4 y
W
Q, u
~ +n a
5 ~ "
N
6 ~ N
J ~ p •
~ J
d
~
7 ~
' y
2
8 Y
K
d
1 9
10 ~ HICM SUMMER DAY
1 9
l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
P A R K I N G S P A C E S
1
Figure 2
( ESTIMaTED PARKING DEMAND/SUPPLY BY TIME OF DAY
Proposed Vail Brewery
I
~ -5- TD.4
~
,
~ ~ ' M ~
, ; ~ . ~ i z E'W-
I • 4N~
W
~
oc o = Z
Ln ,-4 N , 3z
~ WQaL
J 0 Q
~ • ' t m J W
~ z W h'
''1 1~~ f = rr d.W~I W K
r' ~ ~ ' : . o > C7 p ~
~W ? d~
~ 3 >
cD C7
. ~
I ~ ; orJ ~ s W K 16
N 0
1 i t Q~ ~p p e
J h e
~ •1, i n- ' y~ A l~j
~ = 0 x
Q n -c C N 2
N NF~ L JhZ
~usL Z~u+O
a + '
r
I ~
!0 c~,t o
~ vWOdWOu
1 LM
1 ~ ~ f
I ( ` `
1
,
I -6-
. • . - r_ • ~ a ' ' • . . :
i 1 . ♦ i . ~ ~ '
. •1►~~ y/ ~ 'i • - _ . Q~
' f_'y ~ , • r, 1• ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~
~ `•j/~ . . . ~ i{~ ~ \7~
. ' ; i ~i . , ' . V h A v
%
. ' I ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ r• j ~ Q 1 - 4
. , .
' ' ~ r ' ..`1 ~ 1 • _ . 20
. . ~ ~ . . • .
..I . ~ ' ~
.
71,
• ~ - ~
I + ~ J . . i, f ~ ^
%
~ ~ ~ .1 . z._ I• , ~ .
. , • - ~ 4 • ,1 ~ : ~ i ti
t, ' ~1 ~ 4-1
1 I . . ~ ~
'
CL
~O V.:' r\ cn
1 ~ •1' . • v ~ ~ . ~ ; • . cn
V ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ W 11.)
''t \ \ ~ '~'~L ; ' • • U fr
N
. ` ; • ~ • Q ~
, 1• ~ t l • A s~
a ~ ~ 1 . ~ : • ~ ' ~ ~ ; ' w~ a°
w •a
~ ~ 1~ V•~~ ' ~ i ~ Q I E tt
. in ~ ,O``:
.i W r~ ~1~ ~ ~•q. . • ; t 1 W
' j ~ '1:.~,..; J V ►b ~:i~, ~ r ~ ~
, ^ ' o . • ; ~ ~ 'I ~ ~
v o y~ ~ ~r--- 3
- ~ ' ~ . ' ~
':1~. . , i ; ~ ; ~ •
• ~ ~ ; ` ~ r. k;', , ~ ~
V11~,:- ~
1, ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ .
. ; ' i ' •
~ ' i h i~•~~ i
~
~ , „ ~ ~ :'.t : ~ .
7
i
the parking deck access would be marginally warranted. An acceleration lane for right or
' left turns out of the parking structure would nQl be warranted. Site topography and town
landscaping requirements appear to preclude right turn deceleration lane construction in
I the space available. Most intersections along South Frontage Road in the 25 mph speed
~ zone do nothave deceleration lanes. Hence, the absence of a decel lane at the parking
I structure entrance would be compatible with driver expectancy.
The new Porte Cocher (front door drop-ofl' lane) would operate as a one way drive--entering
i from the west and exiting to the east. The left turn DHV, six vehicles, would not warrant
1
a left turn deceleration lane. Right turn speed changes lanes into or out of the porte
~ cocher drive are not warranted because of the low design hour volume.
, Othe: Accees eonsiaerations
In reviewing proposed commercial redevelopment of the parcels along the opposite side of
South Frontage Road (Vai1 Commercial Center), the Town has developed a plan for
- consolldating aceess points and specifying left turn storage lanes at particular locations.
: The proposed Porte Cocher Brewery entrance should be included in this access
management plan to ensure safe, conventional alignment of opposing left turn
, opportunities. Because of the bike lane and side hill slope that starts just beyond to
eastbound travelway, any South Frontage Road widening to incorporate future left turn
lanes should primarily be accomplished along the north side of the road. Any widening
~ should be done as a complete pmject for the entire business district and not as a series of
separate, independent projects to avoid a serpentine alignment of the trhough travel lanes.
t
J
i
8 TDA
Table A-1
Assumed Travel Parameters
Proposed Vail Microbrewery
Vail. Colorado
% Bv Mode:
Auto Driver/ Drop Publlc Courtesy
Mode of Arrival Passenger ~ff TYan i Van Other Total
a. Employees
- Winter 55 10 30 0 5 100
- Summer 55 10 25 0 10 100
b. Visitors
- Winter 47 0 25 20 8 100
- Summer 68 0 12 5 15 100
# Persons/
Auto OccuRancy Parked Car
a. Employees
- Winter 1.3
- Summer 1.1
b. Visitors .
- Winter 3.0
- Summer 2,2
Source: TDA based on the following references:
1. The Colorado Skier. 1977-78 Season. University of Colorado.
1978.
2. ar%en/Pitkin Countv Tran4tt/TSM Alternatives Studv,
September, 1978.
3. Idaho Ski Studv. University of Idaho. 1978.
4. Vehicle occupancy counts in Park City, Winter Park and
Keystone. TDA 7/88
A-1
b
. 5.......nv ;
.
~ .
% . ` ~ - ~ f . . . _ . . . .
' . .
{1 ~ ~
I
I
f . L~ ~
~
~ t9i~r
C:ash
~
,
,
' ` ;
# ` i
#
L: G, A F'F'l. r: rIi I CiFv _r., F F: T r: r j
r...n~' _ rF,~ ~
! y
Itern Paid
~ Hmour, t i
~ - - r _ Paid
~
R:i 1 G~F+. = -r-. ,
f _..F~iG_tCtel i
i 1C1 0. 4_7 F 1
Channo: r-,_5 ~rnNrj ~
' T' Hl=t F-th~ ;~G r~.~ ~
f
I
Your• CA:_: hi er T ~
1
i
I A
! ^
)w } )
~'1 y/
Date of Appli.. _on
APPLICATION FORM FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT DE.VELOPMENT PLAN
I. This procedure is required for any project that would go through
the Special Development District Procedure.
The application will not be accepted until all information is submitted.
A. NAME OF APPLICANT t~XIC, /`gt1,ra ,(,~5 C~D ~~/O.t~ Q~'~~C ~ acl~G
ADDRESS 1 aDo S•~r.4ce~Cc 1,~~(, r.t ~ PHONE y~-(v - lvlo D'~
B. NAME OF APPLICANT' S REPRESENTATIVE~ n,A /f102R~ S
ADDRESS J00 D s, ~,Q,t,ac~p ,Pd, !,v PHONE C~~.(o -(o(o p~j
C. AUTHORI ZATION OF PROPER OWNER ~ Va Iltu.~-u re s G.-E-d
Co-sc.aaU C_C.u6, L+4
SIGNATURE QrtcLt7
ADDRESS /ODD PHONE 4/~~ -(p6 o'Z
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL
ADDRE SS S 17O y LeA"-eoe",A,4 Arect__ A ~/4►2 F A j~
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
E. FEE $100. 00 PAID /7 ~ F. A List of the name of owners of all property adjacent to the
Subject property and their
II. Four (4) copies of the following information:
A. Detailed written/graphic description of proposal.
B. An environmental impact report shall be submitted to the zoning
administrator in accordance with Chapter 18.56 hereof unless waived ;
by Section 18.56.030, exempt projects;
~
c, An open space and recreational plan sufficient to meet the demands I
generated by the development without undue burden on available
or proposed public facilities; ~
(OVER)
' ~+211i~~1.~ ~0
lowo of uao
75 south frontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000 otflce oi community development
August 25, 1988
Mr. Andy Norris
Vail Ventures, Ltd.
1000 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Review of Cascade Village Submittal for Planning
Commission September 12, 1988
Dear Andy:
This letter summarizes our discussion on August 18 concerning
submittal requirements for the proposed SDD 4 amendments. I
have also added some additional comments on the environmental
impact report. Please submit the following information by
August 29. If possible, I would like to meet with you Monday
morning, August 29 around 8:30 a.m. Please let me know if that
is a convenient time for you.
Information needed:
1. Rewrite of the special development district
ordinance.
2. A height study: Roof ridge and eave line elevations
should be indicated on the roof plan which is then
superimposed on the site plan showing existing grades
and finished grades.
3. The 100-year floodplain and stream center line should
be indicated in the area for the proposed
spa/bridge/tower adjacent to the Water-loord site.
4. A Glen Lyon vicinity plan showing the Frontage Road,
ingress/egress points off of the Glen Lyon site, as
well as adjacent properties and their access points
should be provided.
5. Property lines on all site plans and landscape plans
are necessary.
6. The exact definitions you would like to use for a
transient residential unit, special attraction, and
fractional ownership should be submitted. Please
list number of units, type of unit, and building
.
location that will have the option of fractional
ownership.
7. The Cascade Club addition should be pulled back from
the property line a minimum of 201. (I am not sure
if I mentioned this concern to you before.)
8. Is your request for Westhaven only that
fractionalization be allowed for these units?
9. Title reports are necessary for all the parcels.
However, if you wish to wait until Design Review
Board to submit Schedule B information, that is
fine. 10. Floor plans are needed for Alternative A: Millrace
IV, the Cascade Club Addition, the Glen Lyon unit,
and the Glen Lyon parking structure.
11. Elevations are needed for Millrace IV: 1) Alternative
A-north-east-west; 2) Alternative B- the north or
south elevation. An elevation is necessary for the
north side of the Cascade Club Addition.
A combined elevation should be provided for the north
side of the Glen Lyon Office Building. The Glen Lyon
unit also requires an east and west elevation. The
Glen Lyon parking structure requires south and east
elevations.
12. A landscape plan should be provided for Millrace IV,
the Cascade Club Addition, and the Glen Lyon Office
parcel.
13. A sun/shade study should be provided for the
Cornerstone Building.
14. A view analysis using the photo overlay process
should be provided for Development Area A. The photo
should include a view driving west on the Frontage
Road in the area of the Waterford Building, a view
facing south looking at the Cascade Club Addition,
Waterford, and Cornerstone buildings, and a view
showing the project from the bike path looking to the
west to the Waterford and Cornerstone buildings.
15. I would like to have a letter from the Colorado
" Division of Highways stating their opinion of the
project, particularly in respect to the Cascade Club
Addition, Glen Lyon parking structure, and proposed
landscaping in these areas. It would also be helpful
if they would address the change in project entry for
the Glen Lyon site.
16. I would like a calculation for the buildable site
area for the Glen Lyon property. The ABD uses
0
buildable site area for determining square footages
for floor area.
17. A proposed construction phasing plan for both the
Glen Lyon site and Development Area A should be
submitted.
I also have some general comments on the environmental impact
report.
1. Page 17 and 18: I find that there are four
development scenarios which are possible with the
~ Alternative Plans. Page 17: It would be helpful if
you would list exactly what square footages are being .
considered in the commercial square footage for
W~,v~`,/,` Alternative 1 Base Plan and Alternative 2 Conditional
Use Plan.
2. Page 29: I believe that the SDD currently allows a
~~lD total site coverage of 35% as opposed to 45%. 45% is
only allowed if it is an institutional or educational
center.
3. Page 30: What type of discharge into the stream would
r,~ be created by the brewery? Where are the trash areas
~R~ for the micro-brewery?
1 4~ Page 31: I believe that the manhole should be
required with the brewery to allow for this
inspection.
5. Page 33: It would be helpful if the State Highway
Department could give you a letter commenting on the
issues addressed on this page of the EIR.
~Page 40: I think a more detailed discussion of views,
0 mass and bulk, and heights is necessary in this
section.
~ 7. Page 45: How many distributors will actuully be
picking up the beer per week?
8. Page 44: What size trucks will be used for most of
the loading and delivery at the brewery? Will these
trucks be able to be contained inside the loading
area? Is it possible to have additional loading
areas within the parking structure? Also, do you
feel confident that there is adequate loading and
trash facilities for Cornerstone and Waterford? If
yes, please let me know how you figured this out.
9. TDA Study, page 3: Will Vail Ventures build the bus
stop?° Is the proposal to reroute the bike path and
underground the utilities part of the proposal?
~~c~~ rc~,~n a~t~~~ GI~►~ 1..~~ S:c~ '
~ ~
It will be helpful if you could respond to these additional
questions concerning the EIR. I still have a lot of work to do
on the numbers for the project. I will try to get this work
completed as soon as possible so we can discuss the staff
position on the project.
I also wanted to confirm the review schedule for the project.
Assuming you go to PEC on September 12th, the lst reading of
the amended SDD Ordinance would be on September 20th with 2nd
reading on October 4th. The conditional use request for the
brewery may be submitted on September 12th for the October lOth
PEC meeting. Larry Eskwith, Jay Peterson, and I discussed this
process and agreed that it is acceptable.
I would like to set up another meeting with you and Peter
Thursday afternoon, September lst, 4:00 p.m. at our office to
discuss staff comments. Please let me know if this is a good
time for you.
Sincerely,
1 ~ 6
111 ~ ~~I
Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
KP:kc
'
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 22, 1988
RE: Cascade Village SDD No. 4 Amendments
The purpose of this work session is to review several changes
which have been made to the original proposal to amend SDD 4.
The project still includes the Waterford Building, Cornerstone
Building, Millrace IV, and Cascade Club Addition. The major
change to the amendment request is that the micro-brewery is
proposed to be located on the Glen Lyon office site. The Glen
Lyon site is zoned arterial business district. Under the
existing zoning, a micro-brewery is not allowed. For this
reason, the amendment request will also require that the
arterial business district be changed to allow for a micro-
brewery as a conditional use. Attached to this memo is the
environmental impact report which explains in detail the
proposal.
This project is scheduled to be reviewed formally by the
Planning and Environmental Commission on September 12. At that
time, the Commission would be reviewing the SDD amendment
request as well as the request to amend the arterial business
district to allow for a micro-brewery as a conditional use.
Once the SDD and ABD zoning amendments have been approved by
the Town Council, the applicant will then present the Planning
Commission with a conditional use request on October 10.
~
k
~
j
f
~
r,
1
~.1
l
Vail Ventures, Ltd. •
1000 S. Frontage Rd. W.
Suite 200
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-476-6602
Memorandum
To: Kristin Pr't
From: A n d y N o r r~r/~~,f ^
Subject: SDD4 Owne ~f~ p`~ ~
Date: August 16, 1988
Pursuant to the application for amendment to Development Areas A
and D of SDD4, the effected parcels are owned by the following entities:
Development Area A:
Cornerstone site Vail Ventures, Ltd.
Waterford Site tr
Millrace III/IV it it
Westhaven Site " it
Cascade Club Cascade Club, Ltd.
Vail Ventures, Ltd is the managing general partner for Cascade
Club, Ltd. Con Am Vail Advisors, Inc. and Mansfield are the general
partners for Vail Ventures, Ltd.
Development Area D:
Glen Lyon Office Building Glen Lyon Office Building,
a Colorado partnership
Norris Realty Company of which Andrew D. Yorris is President is the
managing general partner for the owner.
I am personally authorized to sign on behalf of each of these
entities.
~
,
r~ ~
Vail Ventures, Ltd.
1000 S. Frontage Rd. W.
` Suite 200
Vail, Colorcdo 81657
303-4 76-6602
Memcrandum •
TO: ICristin Pritz
From: Andy Norris
Subject: SDD4 Employee Housing
Date: August 31, 1988
Providing dwelling units restricted for employee housing has never
been a requirement of SDD4. When Westin first became involved as an
owner/operator in 1981, thep perceived an employee housing problem
comparable with their experience in Hawaii. Accordingly, they requested
that the developer (at that time Mansfield, Ltd.), allocate one of its
sites (Westhaven) to an emplopee rental project. Plans were completed,
initial financing arranged and construction commenced. During the
initial construction phase, Westin re-evaluated its requirements and the
economics of the project. The hioh cost of construction for a Cascade
Village location, (i.e. structured parking, building type, architecture,
_ etc.) increased the rents required to service only the debt (not
inclu•ding a recoverp for land or equity) to an amount approximatelp 100%
above comparable market rents. It became apparent that the housing was
going to require a subsidp of as much as $12,000 per month for 30 to 40
emplopees.
Westin was also concerned about having a high concentration of
hourly employees directlp adjacent to the Hotel. Comparable experiences
in other resort locations were not very satisfactorp.
After the Hotel opening in 1983, Westin concluded that the housing
was not required and released the developer from its obligation.
For the next two pears Mansfield master-leased between 12 and 18
apartments at Valli-Hi. These were then sub-leased to Westin Hotel
employees. The venture was completely unsuccessful. Sub-tenant
occupancy was approximately 70% with the developer absorbing the loss.
As Westin's employment grew, it established a Director of Human
Resources. One of her continuing responsibilities has been to assist in
housing placement. It has been our experience that although low cost
housing has been getting "tighter", it has not effected the quality or
quantity of the Hotel's employees.
Leadville has become a major source for hourly employees. The
principal reason is Leadville`s high unemployment rate and relatively
high skill levels. It appears that Leadville will continue as a
~ dependable labor pool because of its poor long term economic prospects.
.
It has been sugoested bp staff that a"few" restricted units be
included in the remaining development program for Cascade Village.
Given the current market environment, the project will probablp have a
total of 27 new dwelling units (24 at Westhaven and 3 at Millrace III).
The remaining development will be oriented to transient uses. Applying
a factor of 10% of the units restricted to employees would produce a
total of 2 or 3, an insignificant impact in the valley's housing stoclc.
Long term rentals produce severe parking requirements. Prior to
the opening of the lift, Millrace had about 40% of its units (14) in
long term rentals. Our experience was that at least one car was
required for each bedroom, creating a continuous parking problem.
Cascade Village is accommodating over 80% of its parking
requirements in structures which are privately financed and very costly.
Employee housing will produce further requirements on the parking
program.
Westin`s recent expansion will increase its peak employment from
185 to approximately 285. According to our manager Mike Sansburp,
housing for seasonal employees remains adequate and no problems are
anticipated. These employees are typically, single, short-term
residents and willing to "double-up".
r- The housing problem occurs with the year round employees required
for h.ousekeeping and food stewards. They are typically familp-oriented
and earn about $6.50/hour. They are not in positions to have their
income supplemented by tips. They can afford about $375/month rent per
wage earner. The Westin will employ approximately 40 to 50 in this
category. A large segment are presently being transported from
Leadville by the Hotel.
Unfortunately, because of income limitations and need for space to
accommodate their families, these emplopees will never be able to afford
housing in Gore Vallep.
The Westin wi11 be attempting a new concept of half-time employees
this winter. Frequently used in Europe, it breaks the work day into 4
hour segments allowing more employees to keep two jobs. Although, the
half-shift will also involve housekeeping, Mike is not optimistic that
for those positions, it will be attractive.
The employee housing prbblem can not be impacted by requiring a few
units in core areas such as Cascade Village. These units would appeal
generally to singles, who are not the employee housing problem. The
"softness" in this housing market is further demonstrated by the
availability of a large number of Pitkin Creek condominiums at prices
and rents that are below replacement cost.
A solution to the "tight" segment of the market is to organize the
employers in a manner that may stimulate a developer to construct
"family" units in a location conducive to family living. Government
should explore ways to provide land for such a project as is sometimes
done in Hawaii.
• . - ~ : ~
To: Andy Norris
From: Community Development Department
Date: September 1, 1988
Subject: Amendments to SDD 4
1. Waterford:
Southeast building should be pulled back away from the bike
path. The height of the roof ridge should also be 55 ft.
maximum.The height along the Frontage Road should be a
maximum of 55 ft.
The tower and spa along the creek will not be considered
to be part of the proposal unless stream centerline, pro-
perty line, and flood plain information is submitted.
Staff would recommend that the tower be removed from the
proposal The bulk and mass of the tower does not seem
compatible with the stream tract and bike path.
What landscaping is possible along the north elevation
of the Waterford. After reading the Highway letter con-
cerning landscaping along the Cascade Club north elevation,
it seems that not many trees are realistic.
Where are the loading and trash areas for Waterford?
2. Cornerstone:
The bridge connection between the east and west building
should be changed per the staff request in the letter
dated April 1988. The mass and bulk of the bridge is
too great. We suggest that a more transparent connection
will compensate for the mass and bulk of the eastern
building. Basically, we are asking that two floors be taken
out of the bridge. This would result in a loss of approx- ;
imately 8 to 10 rooms.
The north elevation should be designed to allow for a sidewalk
and adequate landscaping. The snow shedding problem should
be considered now before the building footprint is es-
tablished.
I
~
3. Millrace IV.:
We prefer the Accom. unit design instead of the 8 d.u.
plan. The first plan has very little impact on the
existing Millrace development. It also provides for
a much needed green space buffer between the Westin
and Millrace.
The plans show 30 units. Did you want 30 or 32 units?
If you want to proceed with the 8 unit plan, we would
ask that the GRFA meet the allowable and that the site plan
be redesigned to allow for a greater open space buffer.
The pool should be pulled back from the bike path. We
think it is positive to have activity along the bike path,
however the patio seems too close to the path.
4. Westhaven Condos:
The 1500 extra square feet of GRFA should be removed from
this site. Any extra GRFA would need to be allocated to
employee housing.
Fractional ownership will be considered as a conditional
use unless we can review a complete proposal as to how
fractional ownership would be applied to the project.
A minimum 4 week package would be our recommendation.
The proposal should include information on guest services,
management, parking, etc.
5. Employee Housinq:
We are asking that you provide 10 employee housing units
in area A. Westhaven and Waterford are appropriate sites.
A concern is that parking be readily available to the units.
6. Parkinq:
Parking will be required for the ski accessory retail and
lockers if the lockers are rented out to people outside of
the project. The special attraction parking will be cal-
culated as retail space. (300/space) We will use the num-
ber of seats to calculate parking for restaurant uses.
My calculations for parking show that 422 spaces are required
for the existing development and 260 for the proposed con-
construction. This creates a total of 682 spaces. If the
structures are treated as one, you would receive a 15% mixed
use credit. Your required parking then i
~
i
, becomes 580 spaces. The existing structure has 421 spaces and
the new structure has 144 spaces for a total of 565 spaces.
The project is 15 spaces under the required amount. Compact
car striping may help you meet the 15 spaces.
7. Development Area A Requests:
1.Transient Resid: We agree this is a reasonable request.
Please submit the exact definition of a T.R.
2.Cascade Club Addition: The Wellness Center should be
considered as a conditional use.
3.Cornerstone lounge/rest. parking at 50%: Parking will
be required per restaurant and bar requirements.
4.Cornerstone meeting facilities and lobby retail/no park-
ing: Parking will be required.
5. Room 2J as retail or theatre: ok, as long as park. met
6. Plaza level office: no
7. Waterford max. height 55 ft. from Frontage Rd. and
Westhaven Dr.: The building must have a maximum height
of 55 ft. from all sides.
8.Cornerstone max. height of 71 ft.: Yes
9.Fractional ownership for Westhaven: Need mor information.
ok if considered merely as a conditional use for now
lO.Common Carrier Parking: ok to eliminate
11.Employee housing: 10 units required
12. Development scenarios: ok except for Millrace IV-plan
for 8 dwelling units
13.Special Attraction: Cond. Use ok
14. Parking Credit of 10%: Existing code credits are
reasonable-parking structures will be considered as one
structure
15.Fireplaces:Fireplaces will be allowed only for Dwelling
units. Gas fireplaces per Town of Vail Ordinace allowed
for other units.
8. Glen Lyon:
1. Micro-Brewery Cond Use: yes
2. Dwelling unit without use restrictions: no
3. Development Plan approval: Need Final Plans before
staff can give you an opinion
4. Parking Structure in Setback: same as above
5. Height 38 ft. south, 55 ft. north: same as above
6. Site dev. Standards: Same as above
9. Public Works Comments: j
1. Drainage and snow removal/storage should be con- !
sidered now. There is concern over lack of snow ~
storage areas. !
~
I
~
i
~
. ~
2. Information on realigned bike path and the underground-
ing of utilities would be helpful.
3• Public Works is writing you a letter listing concerns
on Westhaven Drive which relate to the Town eventually
accepting the road.
4• Public Works' opinion is that Vail Ventures still has
responsibility for maintaining the bike path. Please
let me know if this in incorrect.
10. Police Department:
1. They had concerns over the 10% credit as parking
problems could be created with special attraction.
2. Charter Bus parking could be a problem.
3. Increased traffic to Cascade Village should be con-
sidered due to the new lift.
11. Recreation Department:
1• Please repair existing bike path by the Terrace
Wing as soon as possible.
~
~
,
I
~
To: Vail Town Council
From: Community Development Department
Date: December 20, 1988
Subject: Executive Summary of Special Development District 4
Special Development District 4 is made up of of four development
areas. The areas include Area A Cascade Village, Area B
Coldstream Condominiums, Area C Glen Lyon Duplex Lots, and Area D
Glen Lyon Commercial Site. Vail Ventures, Ltd. is requesting to
amend Area A. Glen Lyon Office Building, Inc., is requesting to
amend Area D. The other areas within the SDD are not affecte3 by
the amendments.
The major elements of the amendments requested are listed below:
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS: Variations in number of
units, GRFA, type of unit, and amount of commercial are
requested for four undeveloped sites within Area A. The
variations result in two development plans per site. The
exteriors of the buildings remain the same under all
alternatives except one. Two scenarios are requested for
Area D. Either rasidential/office or office will be
constructed in the eastern building on the Glen Lyon site.
GRFA/UNITS: Both areas are within the allowable GRFA and
number of units for the existing SDD except that Area A
exceeds the allowable GRFA by 1,124 s.f. for one scenario.
Staff supports this scenario as the additional GRFA is for
lodge rooms.
PARKING: All required parking is provided. The two parking
structures in Area A are treated as one structure for the
purpose of calculating the mixed use parking credit.
COMMERCIAL: Commercial is increased from 37,000 to a maximum
of 56,538 s.f. for Area A. A micro-brewery and more office
are added to Area D.
EMPLOYEE HOUSING: The existing SDD does not provide for any
on site employee housing. The amendment calls for a minimum
of 10 employee units to be located in Area A and/or Area D.
The units are restricted for 15 years and allowed to be sold
as long as it is to a local.
TRANSIENT RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT: A new type of unit is
requested for Area A. A TR is basically an accomodation unit
that is allowed to have a small kitchenette. The unit will
function as a lodge unit.
~ 1 .
SPECIAL ATTRACTION: A special attraction is defined as a
museum, seminar or research center, or performing arts
theater or other similar cultural center. This use is a
conditional use for Area A.
FIREPLACES: In Area A, 96 wood-burning fireplaces are
requested which is equivalent to the number of dwelling units
approved yet unbuilt. The request allows for wood-burning
fireplaces to be located in lodge rooms and transient
residential units as well as in dwelling units. Staff only
supports locating wood-burning fireplaces in constructed
dwelling units.
MICRO-BREWERY: A micro-brewery is proposed for the Glen
Lyon site. It would be located on the west end of the
existing office building.
Both the staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of the
amendment requests with conditions. The following information
is included in the packet:
1. Ordinance No. 40.
2. Request to amend SDD 4, Area A, Cascade Village Memo.
3. Request for a Conditional Use for a Micro-Brewery, Area
D, Memo.
4. Request to amend SDD 4, Area D, Memo.
5. EIR, Peter Jamar Associates.
6. Minutes from the PEC meeting concerning the requests
1
1 ;
~D wo° '
m m ff ~
Os
- ~ _ • i
. 1
y
8
V
_ I ~
m> ~ z ~ M: .
v0 mi
~ m ~~ti cn~
~ ° - F+-1
y
<
m
m JM
• # y ° ; r~t ; s-... «
'•..i, ~~t 7' b e _ 0
A- ♦2. '1;; . il if- . .
M f fS
`ev
~we~c ~ .v t~r~ l6v~ '~~~~~1~ ~ ~,3 ~~~~y 't~~~",r ~
C ►!f - 4, . ~e 2~: 3° c°.'.~ ~~y. t.~ +r...tis.~+ tx . ~2+~y rs.;~+. .n.. ce ~
(a. ~ _ . "ys, M . ~ . ~ f yj=f~~,,,?- t 1 "4 ,Ck .a3ti r' ~ i• #-r ~ '~T ~ } L. l7"~ ' , C 'ai ~ ~
(p . ~ nr~~,~, s -s.•, _3 S so- . s~,~`~ s~~; ~ .r . m 3! J ° y~ ~ p 0 Y (A , r''' 1
< ~ ~ r: . .Y"`~~~' 7~ 1 ~ ~ 4~ ~
J
- O a
~ C ,~a w ~.;:a`i ~ T:'T. ° . ~ct ►i t' R1 -
R ~ ..~..~,e.~~~..-'"~:r;f', i~T 'a Z T ~IL..~ y' ~ Z
Cp fD r~•'3y`~ ~ . e ,.Ft ±~'rj~-j Mtt ,i.,t. ~ t$"• ,+k" ~I G~ ~
H~ ~ C ; f 4 A f .1Fr. ~ Y ~ _
2nz
fm
- - a' ~ e O9 ~c C~ „f . ~~.~K, . 0 • w~'Y ~ ~ c: ~i~` 't
' 1 ~ y' • a L-'~ '~~I t ~ih ,~i I m s~ ~ x~~+- tA'~~'~q~ =t+ ~ Y'
~ ~ T 4 ~ ~ ~ h C = ( ~1~' ~4~ w~•- J ~ V
CD
.
fl O
ITl
S ~S ~r .sr d" ~ • v~."` :n~r..~:~'~"~ t~. r
ICL D c+t«~i,.~ ,'S.~~.~y.^~~'i' s ~ ~'a» r~F ~ .:,~~.c 'K~. ~us~..r~..s~'.•+ ,x ~'~~g,. . . ~
h:Y4M~ A~
~ ~
~ 3.1~
- ~ y,~~j.,~ • / 3S M ,i,_,~iisa~~~~ .:e~' +;,dr'~' i:~~' +,~ty..,,,,; ' . ~ Y +3. ~a ~
N : ~ r~. F ~
_ ~ ~ z ~ S yr t y ~ A ~ .n.~~ ~~a.~ ~•.A'1~ L ~ 1 1 >~x
(p : ~ (T} ~ : • ~N • N -1
;ym m
C ' -i~ ~
m~ ~
r ~ p , . ~
_ 1~ = m • 7t
o ,
-4 r-
I
~
` 14 - r
~ ~ ♦
fa ~ '
~ i
~
2
~
r%.
~
I i • ~ r,. :;~.~-r .
~ ~ L• / Q
W w
O Ux
~'v - U
U.
Q Z Z
w W
Wzpaa
cc JQ CC
J W
"J ZWy
W >
~ ` _ " 11 I QJW <
ylir1 lq-,
LU a
cn
i c YT, I v,
T' I
I ~ r d~' 7V,
i
~ ~ s . ' h i
. 'Z
~ ; II W
Z W~ U.
CL ~
~ W $ Z fAt7<
20
Y. ~
~ a oaORZE
¢
~ O < ~
W Z a Z mW O~
1,
y;j U O aoLL2
W mWOO~o~~
- ~ i ~ I / ~
~ I I I I !
~
~
~ Figure 12
. r ~,..y . .
„
I R~' . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . .
7~ .r .
~ •
~ . ~
;
~ i
it
i
~
~ Miscell~;n~, ~
+
C.3sh
~ ;
;
{ ~
# !;NGj.~.`~A.
f~ jl_
~~~~1 C~~E,~..~l.t..C~;t~li_;
I ''L'At1rN ~'r.
! - ~'C.~ :[;•(F ;(~•aC:E~: j
, Nrii~ i.
t-_,-.,
~ nc7er ed ,
~
! 1~•E?fB ~~~1~ ~
I PfiiOul'i t n 31 d ~
~ i
~ ~_•~'f•:y1--la:~i:a j-6~'t,i._!r~!`~}:,~:a . I~
~ T 1-11=~ f■-1i-: • •
Cia
-j I
i
1.,Jni_! r-
_ ~ ~
, . .
~ Petition r~ t-'Z AuQUSt 22 1988
PETITION FORM FOR AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
. . . OR : -
RE4UEST FOR -
A CHANGE IN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
I. This procedure is required for any amendment to the zoning ordinance
or for a request for a district boundary change
A. IVAME OF PETITIONER Glen Lyon Office Building, a Colorado Partnership
ADDRESS 1000 S. Frontage Road West PHONE
B. NAME OF PETITIONER' S REpRESENTATIVE Andrew D. Norris
ADDRESS 1000 S. Frontage Road West 476-6602
PHONE
C. NAME OF OWNER (print or y e)
SIGNATURE _ ADDRESS -
PHONE -
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL
ADDRESS Arterial Business District
LEGAL DESCRIPTION lot bl.ock
f il in
E. FEE $100.00 PAI11 9.~ ~
F. A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent to the
subject property , and their mailing addresses.
v 4-,*,\
(ovER)
.
r
PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, I NC.
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS, RESEARCH
TO: KRISTAN PRITZ
FROM: PETER JAMAR DATE: AUGUST 22, 1988
RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ARTERIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
Glen Lyon Office Building, a Colorado Partnership requests an
amendment to the Arterial Business District in order to include
under Section 18.29.030 of the Zoning Code as a conditional use
Micro-Breweries. The Partnership believes that, when properly
designed a Micro-Brewery is compatible with the other permitted
and conditional uses currently allowed within the District.
A Micro-Brewery is defined as follows:
Micro-Brewerv - A Brewery processes water, malt, hops
and yeast into beer or ale by mashing, cooking and
fermenting. It is limited to a maximum capacity of
barrels per year. In addition to a brew house, a brewery
includes loading dock facilities, administrative office
space, refrigerated storage, silo storage, and a bottling
line.
In addition to the addition of Micro-Brewery as a conditional use
it is requested that Brewpubs also be allowed as a conditional use
within the District. Brewpub is defined as follows:
Brewpub - A restaurant which is selling the beer
products produced by an attached Micro-Brewery. Also
included is a retail shop for the sale of Micro-Brewery
products and related memorabilia.
~
Suite 308, Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Road West • Vail, Colorado 81657 •(303) 476-7154
i
MS1
WARRAINTY DEVI)
2 9
84. EI.flORADO REALTI COMPANY. ` it ColorNdo coxDoraC
JOM~~~I.1.1P2s
~l
f ~ r~:o( dre Lkis+,~'A C OL tf? T Ak
..4.
v~_~ VAII. VENTCRES. LTD., a Coloredo limited,~ i,~ y~~
_ .'r.~
+ur~y v4
~lf~iowt WO iwalft#y 1000 S. Fcontage RoaA {i.. Va11, Coloradu 81657
, a►ir : caonr>~r Ea~Ia .Aa.~,~tcd~+r+do,~r,~~ ~j ,E
wtf'►?:+~lctT11, TLaw uw ~tr~nwr M. rst m c~mrdrrn.,n m. wm .a TE:I T)Oi.LARS dI:ID OT}IER tlOOD AlfU •3 i~;«~ ~ I
~ YAUASLE CO119IOERAtION _
~ . '~y MnKCb+MY1+t~l0~Yr~'re.l~~rhyMtrh~aimwkJ~tsd.M~piawd Mr:un.w w+idun.l,..~. ti=J aslnslfK.cpp..stdt~uq~~l.~x~1M~~1i, o
no~'Md~~tqik+tls:.rwiire.suh.ti~%ruiMU/a~f.rtr~xl.Jlrheee~Ipn~n~M~nlf~ci~nN~mpn`~nwt~ed}pXuW~ltt~iXMlyak~tiY~ilM~'
Etgle
P.enl Property ar set forth 1n ExhiDit A etrached hcrefo
,
~ ~y 3
-LL
r , o~~' z~° .
~ Ff
~ " li~111711~MrqiM~MlMe►• . . ' ~ ~ w 4~~ .
,~`r,:. 'iVGEi'NY.twllsaNaw7«h tuY+tMrwAwf+aMsaw !„wwc.~ ' . ~ . i4,~-%`~~f F~j^~ ~
RreHMw, ticmii.7Jrt wro trAW*k'n, vvni+. is..it, Yst If"!i tlMmd: #%t a!i i6c .w 4r. 14M latk. ia+rR.r .4wr, aw) dtHw'rl who«wtrt eFM+'
'junwr. sYArr m(o ai cwne). ~N. - rl mOr oms Mrr-.,aeJ rrrn.uv.. +iu, tAr r,redwmrn. .nd qy-+wWh,
KI f1A'~Y': A!'1{I T() H(qJ) Me w1 p~~nm~tt ~A+~r t~.~~~w~a ~rxl .y+,u~n.:t N~I~~, tIK dt.WhYAN,~ r. yMt) INf RtWW1. ~ MYN7'1 ri1 : . x'
MMeyPtrtMlMdgnaN.►.krlumefli.Yu~M+fa.om!(~r+r.q~lyy~cr.~auww-d+'R.nr.~~wM:rrmq.AatMA.n.mlqpeeGipdriMd~rplaMrc,.Mi.lkUlAd)
`"P x S. n, M~pM, lh.q p Oa~ tphr a/bti .n~r~l~nt ~aJ ~kbYal) .M ~Ax Snw; n~n. Ae a~n N K~~t . rt I! ~ pceduw afw~c c~ WaaxJ. 6a. ~~v'tii. wtc. .pa.A'~1M. aM~~IIK
,
~';;..a~e~;wdMJrkn+ldts~+~er~d+rl~.s~.:~~.~+nln.~9fnrti~•«pie.ww!hrrµi+Wr~rMtrllry»~~.LMI~AMIYIMMMNN~~Y~~IBM.Atl~IN.Kdd1M:uAI~Y~1C+a~n~" ..;•(r-.
!r IMauR1 ,tht k"o 1116 a6+ee..d WeA fIW IA[ 'illk' J+E MW M4I CltM IIIMt iiI T1AIK! !'fi .AkM XtArN~. ~wafl~P.. ~a4M, ti.u.. asn, -6u...etra',
CRIfRiMY'w1K~N.ItCN1'vir.~+.~}MI~Ma.'Y~~~~p~•try+yif-KYQ/,C\a'!~K thoae msttrrs eset foCth nAPacAihit 1! 'X
, sttsrhCd hereta. ~A, ~Y _ Y
, z.~~.
;
. . rat ~~r d+hs~ W;i~nnt :ar»~,.. ~F.,µ,.c~ ..,wl .....ny~ , ..1 ~h. ~;.uv.. t.;. ~n ir..vti.: +,Mx►,.i.,u~.e ,tt wr.~ r.. rrrw,n sw ~n~a~Ms s' ~
IN!r{h:4.kM}Iwn.,laro,4M..4"d..Iu.w.yunUna~r.,1.,.~.~n.,~.n.,i.w~..,u~..~4H~•.!~vNl0111!\ikf0:IfVil [!n~mrytUtr, m(AElfhill.•
t
. R N tTW..1. w ~:pf i~~. n.~,.~u~. t~,; n,...~~•.d ~.n 4w d.~.. ~ vu, ,e.. ~ . - . S.
, rs k.LDOk.;:)U RF:AI.TY c:OMP.1Nl', a
' r r. .
` - Col w.d3 C«r "r' fon `
,\YeA` I BY : Q~ _ i
. . . . . " . ..~y. ~ - ' j,
17\IP.d~q~n .rf :
. - ~ '
bMR lDe ri Je r
' 1 A:~~w~r.lu.~.4'~..•i. 14$4 N! W4f4ar t: ff1C~ d~a ;a ` p
y
. „ -
C-4...a v
U ~
4 M
~ A11.~SJA.M.II~L1. MqINN~11N1A~lYr~M~M+K.rb ww~,"ah.MM.y•.:•wr~~.. ~or..w.u.oy~,,,aui,:i~.,.nu ~rt~`~~{~
~ s
< ~ eI.
r,1 '1 ` , tp
5 ~,f
M~
t^, " . . 3• ~ j~ .
v
al, i
61 i
Kx n r u t .r „A,.
~
A t ract of irind r iCUtlteC! !t1 ChtSW 1/4'NE I~~i
Eaaation 12, 'inwnr.hip 5 Sau( h, RenKe EI 4lcet OC the (►th Pr-„inci
~ Mr.ridI an. lyinq Northweetr:ly.of the cctnter line oE-.0o r¢,'Ct~t~
-:deacclbed as follaws:
~
Brg innir.g et polnt xhence the NOrth tjuartl~x
of said Sectir~n 11 baara s ;t I1603' N 2292.72 feet;, then4a`;:S s'
Sb"i}2'_;~0" E 89.50 feet; thence 5 57°42',?4" E. !49•`8$,~0ktj -
thence 5` 33016'30" E 140.12 feet to polrtt in the eentpt'
nf ieatd rreek; thence S 651134' W 309.62 feet alung`the cenC~kf :
- tJ rar of satd creck; theore S 69004` W 90.18 .ttet.elo
center tine af oaid creek; tfiente N 23°,12'3p" W31f +re~
~
to t,het P4int r~f bsginninR.
,
ALSO UESCt2tSf.D, according tv survey.pceparsd
ragle Ym12ey Engineet'tng on May,17, 2982, es:
lseAfnoinq at e point,whancc Cbe North QuartevCoeR~t~ .
.,afwsnid 5eetLnn lT Daerb N 1100:' W 7292.91 faet., th*ria0'•.~i
85.84 feat; thence.S 57°25'30" E 169.46
u ~thence S 321159'30". E.141.G7;faet'ta 'a point;in tha c,~nie~~
a t;` o€ sa#d ccPek: thenee;'S 65°31'3~f" W 109 62 feet a2ong tlle 'A'T?
•ren.trc line oC eaid rraek; tnenea 569°Q11'3fi" w 103.02 feat~~:
41qng, c1,e rentec tfne of said Creek'; thence A 23°241C9"
319,69 feet to th• pnint oE begfnning.
. 4.:
r Tt}CFTltF.;R WI'tH an claAemenc mR dascrlhed in DQtUment
rc>ccyrded Artqust 5. 1980 ln 1300{c 306 a[ Ppge 440 end recucded ~
#n Hank 307 dt f'e)!:'e• 86. ~
k,Kt:EiPTING thr.rsfrom sn eisement ko MANSF'IELD, LTp
; rolvracic, t.imited yartnership, !n oeed reeorded OctoGer 16,
Z98'' in Bnak 311 nt PsKe 247 and recorded tn Ueed recorded
^ 5epteaiber :4. 1980 in Book 310 el PUge 1.
~
' 'LrXZIW WiTH sn easement from Mansfield, •Ltd.,
a Colnrado limited partnerahip to E2dorado Realty Catepany,
e Culoradp cvrporatioii ss describnd ia Dc,cument reccirded
1784 in Book at Paye
h ~ • . . ~x;.+ s
i
, . . . . k F
n ~:4 «
S 4 I
.
f* " •
•`1 4V _ . - 'ff
r" . . . . . . . ~ ~im.. .,"w., tid. . .s..r.... . - . _ . . . . .
I y
i
d L f. 't
+7,;
7 •
.
EXHIBIT "H"
Real Property Taxae far 1984. rfiich Grantee asawneand agreea to pay.
t .
2. [teservations of (1) rlght of proprietnr of.any
x, peiutrating vein or lodo to oxtrut his or*; srid '4,:`~ '
(2) ri ght of xay for aay ditchas or canals couatruC;ad
by authosity of the Uniud Statu, in U.S. PatttttC "
rscorded f►ugust 15, 1909 in Book 48 at Paas 542. R ~
3. Easement and Righ. of Vay fcr •ewar line or lintr graated to Upper EaQle Vallsy Sanitation District
by J.W. ROSE, in instrument zecordad Jsrwry 19, 1970
in Buok 216 at paae 865.
N 4. EasemeAt for sawer line gzan[*d to Uppez Eag ;s Vallty
_ Sanitation Diatrict by FRANGES R. ~A~tIEL in !.t►sC7CUta~ttE
recorded Apzil 16, 1970 in Eook 217 at Page 428,
- 5. Asad of Trust from M:nsfield, Ltd., a` Co2osado !in►ited j,,~, ~ r-
~ partnership to tha Public ''rustoe at the Comty of
' Ea Ie for ths tus of Blus Aivsr TraQi
8 ai ComDsnY tc ~ 4~
a t secure $250,000.00 datsd April 1, 1984 and racordtd
Jtne 25. 1984 in Book 388 at Paqe 41.
. ~ . . . . i~E
+i 't
~
.y
f V
.%ia
`y
- ur
z.°
`
E'
Y.
4
4! Y
:q
r.
, ' . .
. . ..a..zmu5.."... -'.S~i,~.i,.....a....L.~_..Y'v_u5.-...~_:. _r.m_ . . v :.xilyde:. . . . . . . .'1"....
7 _
614
,
ol^v kIR5.
l
Gxb-
)CO.q
~
~
H i~
a
. r ~
~j
U~ ~icil N' ,l"lls
~
~
M~Aw~ WD
.
~
that it would be more expensive than the building of the berm but
would do less damage to the forest. He said that he could
investigate the building of retaining walls for the planning
commission's information.
Finally, a question was raised by Ed Zhmeier in the audience
asking if mitigation or berming would be a part of the proposal
if this project were submitted tomorrow for a building permit,
and Kristan responded that the mitigation/berming would be part
of the landscape plan submitted directly to the DRB.
Item No. 5: A Work Session for an amendment to S ecial
Development District #4 Cascade Villaqe to amend
Area D, Glen Lvon Office Building at 1000 South
Frontaae Road West Lot 54 Glen Lyon Subdivision
Applicant: Glen Lvon Office Buildinq A Colorado
Partnership
This proposal was presented by Kristan Pritz. Kristan made it
clear to the PEC that no bottling would be taking place at the
brewery. She emphasized the change in the parking lot located to
the east of the brewery which will allow additional spaces. She
said that parking seems to be the biggest issue facing the
commission at this point.
Andy Norris, developer for the project, discussed the square
footage chart attached to the memo. He proceeded to go over the
conceptual schedule for completion of the project. Andy noted
that an emergency exit had been proposed for the south side of
the building and stated that it was the only place available
under the Town building codes. He also described the loading
that was designed for pick-ups, delivery vehicles, etc. and said
that it would not interfere in any way with the buses or general
vehicular traffic. The loading access was designed specifically
for vendor traffic. He also informed the commission that a trash
compactor will be installed to cut down on the frequency of trash
pick-up for the brewery.
Andy went into how the parking would work. He said that the Brew
Hall would be operated like a banquet type facility with one
seating. He stated that the Brew Pub will be a local type
establishment with a maximum seating capacity of 80 people and
will not affect the parking very much at all considering the
times that locals will be coming to the pub. He ended his speech
by giving facts related to this new project:
--The brewery would be approximately 900 feet from both the
Marriott and the Westin Hotels.
--He is looking into getting the bike path lighted for use by the
brewery in both summer and winter:
winter: sleigh rides to and from the brewery (up to 80 people
per evening could be transported this way).
,#:x_ , -f .;r
~
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: Apri 1 14, 1986
SUBJECT: Request for a minor subdivision of the Glen Lyon office building
located in Development Area D of SDD 4 at 1000 South Frontage
Road. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building
I. BACKGROUND ON THIS REQUEST
This request is for a minor subdivision of Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision
(the Glen Lyon office building located within the Cascade Village'
Special Development District), from one lot into two lots. Parcel B
(1.268 acres) would include the existing office building and all of the
surface parking on site, while Parcel A(.479 ac) would include the
westerly portion of the site where a previously approved office
expansion is to be located.
Q As the Planning Commission may recall from a recent review of this
~cuni.X v10.n property, it is located in Development Area D in SDD 4(Cascade
Village). In 1982, property adjacent to this parcel was rezoned to the
Si)0 Arterial Business District. While the subject property is technically
in the SDD zone district, the ABD development standards are utilized in
the review of any development proposals for this site. This is similar
to the manner in which the High Density Multi-Family zone district was
utilized in evaluating the proposed SOD for the Doubletree Hotel site.
While this property is not in the ABD zone district, the development
standards are utilized in review to ensure continuity between the
adjacent parcels in the ABD zone district.
II. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST
The approval of a minor subdivision creates a new parcel for development
within the Town of Vail. The purpose of reviewing the minor subdivision
request is to ensure that the subdivided parcels are suitable for
development and meet the applicable development standards the Town has
established. The following review criteria is from Section 17.16.110 of
the Subdivision Regulations:
The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the '
application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this
chapter, the zoning ordinance and other pertinent regulations that
the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the
recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the
application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town of
Vail policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed,
regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable
documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the J
surrounding land uses. /
~
►
III. THE PROPOSAL
The approved development plan for this parcel allows for an expansion of
the existing office building. This expansion would increase the
allowable square footage of the building from 13,0,00 to approximately
25,000 square feet of gross area and 18,750 net floor area. This would
be an addition of 8,000 square feet of office space and 2800 square feet
of common area such as mechanical areas, lobby areas, corridors, etc.
This addition would be located on what is proposed to be Parcel A.
Without taking measures to insure a unified development of Lot 54, the
approved development of the proposed Parcel A would be difficult to take
place as an independent parcel. It is the intention of the applicant to
insure that Parcel A and Parcel B are developed and operated as one
44_1~,,W& tract of land, The attached agreement outlines the conditions that
would be applied to this property if this subdivision is approved. This
agreement restricts the development of Parcel A to those plans on file
with the 7own of Vail, that the parking provided on parcel B be shared
and available for use by the users of Parcel A, and that a pedestrian
easement insure access from the parking area to the development on
Parcel A. In addition, the subdivision plat refers to the development
plan, which refers to the approved development plans to insure that
Parcel A is developed as a part of Parcel B and not as an independent
tract. A final condition that should be noted is that any changes to
these recorded agreements will require approval of the Town of Vail,
thereby insuring that the Town have an opportunity to review any changes
to this development plan.
IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The only zoning consideration_r.el.ative to.this proposal is with respect
-
to the required minimum lot size as outlined in the ABD zone district. Parcel A(20,895 square feet) does not meet the minimum lot size in the
nr, ABD zone district of 25,000 square feet. This minimum lot size was
S;~Qcav~v~ established to insure that parcels created in the zone district were of
ample size to accommodate the type of development to take place in this
zone district. Given the steps taken to insure that both Parcel A and
Parcel B would be developed as a whole, staff does not feel this
consideration is a significant issue relative to this requested
subdivision.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff's main concern with this request is that the property be
developed as one parcel. The applicant has proposed a number of steps
that would insure that the approved development of Parcel A would be an
element of the entire tract. The recorded conditions and references on
the subdivision plat insure that the development of Parcel A would be
compatible and function in harmony with the existing development on
parcel B. Given these assurances, the staff is comfortable with this
request and supports it as presented.
`
.
Agreement to be Recorded with Eagle County
for Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision
The following agreements outline the conditions and stipulations set forth with
the minor subdivision proposed for Lot 54 of the Glen Lyon Subdivision. It is
proposed that this agreement be filed with the County on the land records of
this parcel prior to the formal approval of this minor subdivision. It is the
intent of this agreement to insure that the development of Lot 54 proceed in a
timely and efficient manner consistent with the previously approved development
plans on file with the Department of Community Development. The agreements to
be fiiled include the following:
p 1. The development of Parcels A and B shall be limited to those plans by
umke Gordon Pierce dated December 27, 1982,.approved by the Town of Vail and
on file with the Department of Community Development, or other plans as
approved by the Town of Vail.
2. Concurrent with the development of Parcel B, the owner/developer shall be
requi red to compl y wi th those condi ti ons set forth by the P1 ann i ng
Commission memorandum dated January 20, 1983.
3. The 30 foot pedestrian access easement as shown on the development plan
for lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision shall provide pedestrian access from
the Parcel B parking easement to Parcel A.
4. The parking easement as shown on the development plan for Lot 54 of the
Glen Lyon Subdivision shall be a common parking area for development on
both parcels A and B with a minimum allocation of 32 spaces to parcel A
and 42 spaces to parcel B.
5. Any modifications or amendments to this agreement shall require review
a,e.~-•M~0 and approval of the Town of Vai1. -
~
c
. . ~ ~
~
TU: Planning and Environmental Commission /
FROM: Communi ty Devel opment Departmer;t
DATE: March 24, 1985 1--U"e~(
SUBJECT: A request to extend a currently expired approval,.for Development
Area D(Glen Lyon Office-Building) of SDD4 (Cascade Village)
located at 1000 South Frontage Road West.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building
1. BACKGROUND ON THIS REQUEST
The Cascade Village Special Development District was first established in
1976. The development plan delineates four development areas, one of
whicA the Glen Lyon Office Building (Development Area D). In January
' 0"1983 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved an amendment
to -SIlD o allow for a proposed expansion to the Glen Lyon Office
a~ Building. These amendments consisted of:
1. To change the front setback from 20 to 15 feet.
2. To change the allowable square footage from 13,000 square feet to
25,000 square feet (within Development Area D).
Relative to this review in 1983, it was mentioned in the staff inemorandum
that while the Glen Lyon Office Building site was incorporated into the
Arterial Business District zone (which was adopted in March 1982), it is
technically still a part of the Special Development District 4. As a
result of this, the development standards outlined in the Arterial
Business District were used in evaluating the merits of the 1983 proposed
expansion. .
II. THE REQUEST
As outlined in the SDD section of the zoning code, approvals of
development plans in SDD's are valid for a period of 18 months from the
date approval was obtained. With respect to SDD4, this 18 month period
would be applied specific to each of the four development areas.
Consequently, the approval for the proposed expansion to the Glen Lyon
Office Building expired in July of 1984. The request before the Planning
Commission is to extend the approval of this development plan for another
18 months.
III, EUALUATION OF THIS REQUEST
Eighteen month time limitations are placed on SDD developments so as to
allow the Town the opportunity to re-evaluate a proposal if it has not
been constructed within the 18 month period. For example, if an approved
plan were to expire and significant changes were to have taken place
within the Town or areas adjacent to the subject property, amendments to
the approved plans could then be made. With respect to this proposal,
there would not appear to be any complications involved in extending this
approval period.
•
~ -f
In evaluating this request, the Planning Commission will be making a
recommendation to the Town Council. That recommendation would include
one of the following:
1. That the approval of the special development district be extended.
2. That the approval of the special development district be revoked.
3. That the special development district be amended. IU. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff would recommend that this approval be extended for a period of
18 months. In reviewing this request, the staff compared it to the
initial review that took place in 1983. At that time the staff
recommended approval of the request, and we would offer the same
recommendation today with the same conditions of approval as outlined in
the January 20, 1983 stafif inemo.
J ~Y G` ~L~ T /l V 'r ~ ✓ ~ ~r J iS T d ~L
~ ~l..L~ r/
~
Z4 I -f +n~ ,~w~C,~~~•-f
n~~ ~
~ / ~ ,S !L tv~-dL' v i r► wc u s f -c,A s-e- 43, pQc..v.
/4; ~ -F-
p
U
~
S
0 _
.
MEMORANDUM , ro:
Planning and Environmental Canmission
FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 20, 1983
SUBJECT: Request to amend Development Area D of Special Development District
#4 to 1) change the front setback from 20 feet to 15 feet and
2) to change the allowable square footage from 13,000 square feet
to 25,000 square feet.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership
BACKGROUND
In 1976 Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, was formed. Development
area D of this SDD is the Glen Lyon Office Building. The maximum allowable
square footage for the office building was set at that time at 10,000 square
feet. The building was constructed in 1979-80 at a gross area of approximately
13,000 square feet. In March 1982 the Planning and Enviromental Commission and
Town Council approved an amendment to the SDD which allowed the space of approximaLely
3,000 square feet within the building built as storage to be utilized also as
office space. The current request is to expand the office building to approximately
25,000 square feet. Two sections of the proposed addition, each approximately
25 feet in length, are proposed to be located 15 feet away from the north property
line, and thus the need to amend i,he required 20 foot setback under the SDD require-
ments.
In March 1982 the PEC and Council adopted the Arterial Business Zone District
for the area in which the Glen Lyon office building is located. Technically,
the property is still within the Special Development District. However, the staff
believes that it is reasonable to review the proposed amendments with regard to
the standards of the Arterial Business District (ABD).
THE REQUEST
The first request is to amend the allowable square footage of building upon the
lot. The current limit set by the SDD is 13,000 square feet, and the ABD zoning
would allow 56,845 square feet. The proposal is to allow approximately 25,000
square feet of ross area and 18,750 net floor area. This would be an addition
of 8,000 square feet of office space and 2800 square feet of common area such
as mechanical areas, lobby areas, corridors, etc.
The major factorsaffected by the additional square footageare the number and place-
ment of the additional required parking spaces. A net floor area of 18,750 square
feet requires 75 parking spaces. The applicants can achieve the parking requirement
by adding 17 spaces to the east of the existing parking since the current parking
provided is in excess of the requirements. One loading berth will also be provided.
GLEN L""N OFFICE -2- 1/20/83
a
7 . .
One requiremen t of the SDD is that 50% of the
P` parking must be hidden from public
view within a landscaped berm. The applicant proposes to comply with this require-
~ ment.
The second request is to change the setback re uired b SDD alon the nor+
\ 9 Y g .h property
line fran 20 feet to 15 feet. The applicant feeis that this would permit some
flexibility in breaking up the length of the building. Only two portions of the
building, each about 25 feet in length, would project to the new 15 foot setback,
and the remainder of the addition would be located about 18 feet off of the property
1 i ne.
~ The aBD requires a front setback of 15 feet for 60% of the frontage and 20 feet
for 40% of the frontage. Only 7% of the proposed frontage (including the existing
~ structure) would have a 15 foot setback, 19.5% of the frontage would have an 18
foot setback, and 9% would have a 25 foot setback. The remaining 64.5% of the
frontage is not adjacent to the building.
The staff believes tFiat revising the front setback requirement isrconsistent with
the Arterial Business Zone District requirements and that the change permits a
design for the addition which will certain enhance the appearance of the building.
There should be no negative impacts that will result from the change. The building
will be located 55 feet away from the edge of the pavement of the South Frontage
' Road.
~ An additional aspect of the proposal which should be reviewed in relation to the
ABD standards is the roof pitch. The ABD requires that the minimum slope of the
roof shall be three feet in 12 feet with an allowance of 10% of the roof area
allowed to be flat for a transition of roof lines. The applicants ProPose addin
~ a covered entry with a 6/12 roof pitch to a portion of the existin r o 9 -
~ building and a 6/12 roof pitch on the north side of the addition, 9eavingthehe
Gore Creek side with a flat roof. Considering that the existing portion of the
building is flat roofed, the staff feels that the applicants have done a good
job trying to_irnprove'the appearance of the building with the sloped portion of
the roof. The SDD has no requirement regarding roof pitch.
CIRCULATION AND ACCESS.
As you'll recall, a circulation and access plan was to be required for the Arterial
Business District. A memo regarding the plan is contained within this packet,
and the item will be considered at Monday's meeting. The applicants are willing
to comply with this plan, and improvements consistent with the circulation and
access plan are indicated on the site plan for the office building.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The DCD staff recommends approval of the requested amendments. The changes are
generally consistent with the requirements of the Arterial Business District which
governs the development of the adjacent properties. The following conditions
should be a part of the approval:
, . _ GLEN LYC iFFICE -3- 1120183
.
1. The bike path, right turn, and left turn lanes shall be provided in accordance
with the Circulation and Access Plan for the Arterial Business Zone District;
2. The applicant shall agree to sharing in the cost of providing an additional fire hydrant within the vicinity as required by the Vail Fire Department.
PEC 1
~ Piper moved and Donovan seconded to approve the general circulation and accr~ss plan'
for the Arterial Business District with the condition that fundinq to impir-;rent
• the bike at , bridqe and edestrian crosswalks be worked out within a peri~;:: of
60 da s from that da Januar 24, 1983 and that the road not be narrowed dovrn
between t e intersection with West Lionshead Circle and the Hol_y Cross access point,
and that no building permits be issued prior to the resolution of the fundinq plan.
. Jim Sayre asked if a building permit could be issued after the 60 days if no funding
plan had been worked out, and Piper said, "No."
A1 Williams asked if DRB could process his application in the meantime, and was
told that he could continue up to the building permit.
Andy Norris asked about the location of the bike path near the Glen Lyon Office
building.
The vote was 5-0-1 in favor of the plan with Pierce abstaining.
. 3. A reeuest for twn amendments to Snecial Developrrent Distr?ct ^?o. 4=^
theGlen Lyon Office Building is located. The first request is to cnange
the front setback from 20 feet to 15 feet. The second request is to amend
the allowable square footaqe of the G1Qn Lyon Office Buildina.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership
Peter Jamar explained the memo, adding that the berm should be higher than shown
, on the site plan, that the DRB should review the ability of the berm to screen the
• parking as required, and that there were two conditions of approval, one that the
bike path, right turn and left turn lanes shall be provided in accordance with
the Circulation and Access Plan for the Arterial Business Zone District, and
the second condition was that the applicant shall agree to sharing in the cost
of providing an additional fire hydrant within the vicinity as required by the Vail Fire Department. Jamar added that the financing would have to be worked
' out on the second condition, since Voliter and the M&W office building would
also benefit from the hydrant.
Gordon Pierce, architect for the applicant, showed a model and explained the
roofs, setbacks and masses. Patten explained that this was an amendment to an
SDD, that the SDD allowed 60% of the building to have 15 foot setbacks, but this
building would only have 15 foot setbacks across 7% of the building.
One concern wasithat the DRB require large sized trees between the building and
the road. Trout asked about the Glen Lyon Office Building applying to be ;n
the Arterial Business District. Patten said there was no real urgency, but that
this would be worked out with Andy Norris.
Trout moved to approve the requests for setbaek and sguare__footageper the
staff inemo but condi~tion #1 would be reworded to includ~_~h--fact that the_fundj_ng
would be worked out within a period of 60_dars.
Andy Norris, one owner of the Glen Lyon Office Building, said that he had no
problem with funding of the bike path, but was concerned about the left and
right turn lanes, and felt that unless the funding were worked out, that this
part may never get done.
P"'' 1 /24/83
, .
► '
•
Patten stated that Norris so9e9y would not Fiave to pay for the bike path because
it was part of the Whole dfistriet.
-Tbere was Ro seEand to the metioFl,
Donovan moved and Piper seconded to approve thg two amendments er the staff
memo dafed Januar , T9 83 wit4 th e t w o eon~~;ons and that conc~j ion would
1nc u~e the fact7--thaf-the ~undin wouid be worke-out within aeriod of 60 da s
dlld no buildinq perrn~r ~,,JO~lId he ?stL2r-1 q~r ,j..
'T tf~~, , un:.anq y~asworked-oL!
, The vote was 370 in favor with 3 abstentions--eoreoran, '
_ Viele and Pjer^-
4. 9ppeal of an administrative deeision re ardin lot 17, Traet Vail Villa e
fi~~Y~ F-i'1in-7~ppellant: a~ Strauch - -
@eter Jamar expiained the happenings up to this date. Jan StraucM said he agreed
- witb the sequence of events, but ~tated that tI~g ~ieGk was under 6 feet of snow,
and eouldn't eorx~eet the error @rac~ieally. He 4dded that it wasn't until October
that iie had ob~ai~ed the corree~ qi7e o€ ffletaj chimney, and th€n it was too cold
. to @aipt it. Me theFl mentioned some problems he was having converting his fire-
piace to a gas burning fireplace.
Trout pointed out that t}-,ere was no spark arrestor in ihe flue of the w;:od burning
s~ove, Strauch asked what ~ha~ Was, and firpt~t explained, addTnQ that this should
. be installed ir~ediately.
Donovan stated t-hat Straueh had intentionally Wlt the deck intQ the setback
area. She fel t that one eh imney qhoul d be ma_dq inoperabl e now, and the dec k
!ihould be corrected to be in c-_Qmplianee wit-h the rode at this tTme.
Pier~e's €eel irags were to insta11 the spark a_w"gtor irrrnediately, wait 6 months
tQ, P~a~~~ the O}mpe,y., bu.t 04~ th,e ckck. co4T,~, kQ d-one now. He said a coupi e
•~f hq-U!r-q ef- 0i0X"(0Jn b!Q04 QrParo, t-hq e#eQk.. RrRQ►? 4gked Tf the►re was a foundation,
i~.►jd mpre discusaio~evealed ~hat the fQUndAtro was inadequate, arrd that concrete
p.i_ers would have to be poured. Steve Patte►^son, kuilding officTal, said that
he laad marked the two sets of plans that had 4Qen gubmitted fvr a building permit
WJ0+ Voe ~~,tatemeat- t-hat a prw-qr- f-qqnc#atiQrt wkqT(i itzkve to be cgrrgtructed. He
40ed that t-he cEeck c-ould be qu~ zknc# p}I rngs 1~u_t rn cit a Tater c#afi.e without
~earing the ryhole deck apart.
V,ie}e ~ved ard Ri-erce seconcted tQ mocti€ t-+ta ad~rrfrtrstratlve d~Tgf,on as follows:
I; -ffiat-they -require immediate conversion-t-v qas-of the wood bu►°nTng fireplace,
2•. fhat the pa}Rt-ing of the rhrmne,y and as__mUd Sheet metal be etone by June 1,
3.. And tt}at June 1,, 1983 a1 s-Q Wa~q the datQ, q:Qtt tq have the deck c.orrecti on
_ rc<M:r;~t~.. .
T,h~ X2te wa-~ 3_~, (:QQ+~~.pritn,. RpjMqn cjnd Tr2il:t kqar+t-iThe motTCZrr, fai 1 ed .
. ~ )
~
4voi
towo o75 south irontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000 offtce oi community development
March 26, 1986
Ms. Maureen Stark
Land Title Guarantee
P.O. Box 357
Vail, Colorado 81658
Re: Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision
Dear Maureen:
As per your request, the following information is in reference to Lot 54 of the
Glen Lyon Subdivision (Glen Lyon Office Building): _
1. The zoning classification for this property is Special Development
' District No. 4, Development Area D.
2. The permitted uses under this zoning include professional offices and
business offices not to exceed 25,000 square feet of gross floor area.
3. The Department of Community Development is not aware of any zoning
violations existing on the site at this time.
Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions you may have
concerning this property.
Sincerely,
~
Thomas A. Braun
Town Planner
TAB:bpr
0
DATE "Z~
APPLICATION FOR
MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW
(4 or fewer lots)
A. NAME OF APPLICANT ~LJ9~ /003 pF'p,LC, L't i L &,A„ PHONE 47(o 4 Po?,
MAILING ADDRESS Va~ ~ 8[dS,9
B. NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE iQ.NDv 11tOQKrS
MAILING ADDRESS /Opn S•rVOK,{ eqr QA, W PHONE cf7(o-(i(pol.
C. NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER(S) (print or
tYpe)&C..ff#.t [,-4oaa OPPlLrx- a GvCovado qracrre,~ ~r+.LrvS&crG
OWNER'S SIGNATURE PHONE Y7b -bboZ
MAILING ADDRESS lDOd 5• F'~pK-~aQr Qd. W
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL (ADDRESS) 1000 s~~OK~sqe Re1 , l~J
LOTS BLOCKS SUBDIVISION Arievta 1 ?ust " ss s-irt ct ec,rt.t
aKd Ldt sy 6c.~.N cyca s44a,us:.o„j
E. FEE $100
~
F. MATERIAL TO BE SUBMITTED
The subdivider shall submit three (3) copies, two of which must be
mylars, of the proposal following the requirements for a final plat as
found in Section 17.16.130 of the Subdivision Regulations. Certain of
these requirements may be waived by the zoning administrator and/or the
Planning and Environmental Commission if determined not applicable to the
project.
G. An environmental report may be required if so stipulated under Chapter
18.56 of the zoning code.
H. The Department of Community Development will be responsible for seeing
that the approved plat is promptly recorded with the Eagle County Clerk
and Recorder.
I. Include a list of all adjacent property owners (including those behind
and across the street) with their mailing addresses.
ye-29
a ~ ~
~
g
T0: Plannirg and Environmental Commission
~ FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 14, 1986
SUBJECT: Request for a minor subdivision of the Glen Lyon office building
located in Development Area D of SDD 4 at 1000 South Frontage
Road. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building
I. BACKGROUND ON THIS REQUEST
This request is for a minor subdivision of Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision
(the Glen Lyon office building located within the Cascade Village
Special Development District), from one lot into two lots. Parcel B
(1.268 acres) would include the existing office building and all of the
surface parking on site, while Parcel A,(.479 ac) would include the
westerly portion of the site where a previously approved office
expansion is to be located.
As the Planning Commission may recall from a recent review of this
property, it is located in Development Area D in SDD 4(Cascade
Village). In 1982, property adjacent to this parcel was rezoned to the
Arterial Business District. While the subject property is technically
in the SDD zone district, the ABD development standards are utilized in
the review of any development proposals for this site. This is similar
~ to the manner in which the High Density Multi-Family zone district was
utilized in evaluating the proposed SDD for the Doubletree Hotel site.
While this property is not in the ABD zone district, the development
standards are utilized in review to ensure continuity between the
adjacent parcels in the ABD zone district.
II. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST
The approval of a minor subdivision creates a new parcel for development
within the Town of Vail. The purpose of reviewing the minor subdivision
request is to ensure that the subdivided parcels are suitable for
development and meet the applicable development standards the Town has
established. The following review criteria is from Section 17.16.110 of
the Subdivision Regulations:
The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the
application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this
chapter, the zoning ordinance and other pertinent regulations that
the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the
recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other
agencies consulted under 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the
application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town of
Vail policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed,
regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable
documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the
surrounding land uses.
~
r i
• • ! , ~
III. THE PROPOSAL
S The approved development plan for this parcel allows for an expansion of
the existing office building. This expansion would increase the
allowable square footage of the building from 13,000 to approximately
25,000 square feet of gross area and 18,750 net floor area. This would
be an addition of 8,000 square feet of office space and 2800 square feet
of common area such as mechanical areas, lobby areas, corridors, etc.
This addition would be located on what is proposed to be Parcel A.
Without taking measures to insure a unified development of Lot 54, the
approved development of the proposed Parcel A would be difficult to take
place as an independent parcel. It is the intention of the applicant to
insure that Parcel A and Parcel B are developed and operated as one
tract of land. The attached agreement outlines the conditions that
would be applied to this property if this subdivision is approved. This
agreement restricts the development of Parcel A to those plans on file
with the Town of Vail, that the parking provided on parcel B be shared
and available for use by the users of Parcel A, and that a pedestrian
easement insure access from the parking area to the development on
Parcel A. In addition, the subdivision plat refers to the development
plan, which refers to the approved development plans to insure that
Parcel A is developed as a part of Parcel B and not as an independent
tract. A final condition that should be noted is that any changes to
these recorded agreements will require approval of the Town of Vail,
thereby insuring that the Town have an opportunity to review any changes
~ to this development plan.
IU. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The only zoning consideration relative to this proposal is with respect
to the required minimum lot size as outlined in the ABD zone district.
Parcel A(20,895 square feet) does not meet the minimum lot size in the
ABD zone district of 25,000 square feet. This minimum lot size was
established to insure that parcels created in the zone district were of
ample size to accommodate the type of development to take place in this
zone district. Given the steps taken to insure that both Parcel A and
Parcel B would be developed as a whole, staff does not feel this
consideration is a significant issue relative to this requested
subdivision.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff's main concern with this request is that the property be
developed as one parcel. The applicant has proposed a number of steps
that would insure that the approved development of Parcel A would be an
element of the entire tract. The recorded conditions and references on
the subdivision plat insure that the development of Parcel A would be
compatible and function in harmony with the existing development on
parcel B. Given these assurances, the staff is comfortable with this
• request and supports it as presented.
.
Agreement to be Recorded with Eagle County
~ for Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision
The following agreements outline the conditions and stipulations set forth with
the minor subdivision proposed for Lot 54 of the Glen Lyon Subdivision. It is
proposed that this agreement be filed with the County on the land records of
this parcel prior to the formal approval of this minor subdivision. It is the
intent of this agreement to insure that the development of Lot 54 proceed in a
timely and efficient manner consistent with the previously approved development
plans on file with the Department of Community Development. The agreements to
be fiiled include the following:
l. The development of Parcels A and B shall be limited to those plans by
Gordon Pierce dated December 27, 1982, approved by the Town of Vail and
on file with the Department of Community Development, or other plans as
approved by the Town of Vail.
2. Concurrent with the development of Parcel B, the owner/developer shall be
required to comply with those conditions set forth by the Planning
Commission memorandum dated January 20, 1983.
3. The 30 foot pedestrian access easement as shown on the development plan
for lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision shall provide pedestrian access from
the Parcel B parking easement to Parcel A.
4. The parking easement as shown on the development plan for Lot 54 of the
Glen Lyon Subdivision shall be a common parking area for development on
~ both parcels A and B with a minimum allocation of 32 spaces to parcel A
and 42 spaces to parcel B.
5. Any modifications or amendments to this agreement shall require review
and approval of the Town of Vail.
•
,enting the applicant, stated that is was hard to visualize what the
act would look like when it was finished. Jamar stated that the applicant t that they could save and re-use all the existing trees except two.
onovan asked if the large rear elevation would be screened with big trees, and
Jamar assured her that the trees would be large in that area. .
A discussion followed concerning the construction of the bike path, and staff
suggested a fair share of $4900 rather than an Improvement District in the
future. Peterson pointed out that the SDD did not have an impact, although the -
bike path along the creek is a good idea, and the applicant agrees to
contribute to it. Patten replied that SDD's have been required to do bike
paths, and this is no different. Peterson stated that they.did not mind paying a fair share for a bike path as long as the money did not go into the Town of
Vail general fund. .
Donovan asked about the feasibility of a sidewalk along Willow Place and Jamar
replied that since this was a low impact area, there was no need for a
sidewalk. Diana was concerned about the lighting, and Jamar said they would
address this concern at Design Review Board. Viele agreed with Diana that this
project was a good use of the SDD process. Piper asked why surface parking
spaces were planned. Patten stated that both the staff and owners felt the
spaces were practical. Duane asked about the stair tower and °;vas told that'
would come up to the full height of the wall, not the top of the roof. He then
asked if the courtyards could be tightened up to increase setbacks, and Jamar
replied that he did not feel the buffers were inadequate. Piper asked if it
was possible to recommend that the bike path be a fair and equitable figure
rather than a specific dollar, and Patten replied that the final decision would
~ be made at the Town Council meeting.
Uiele moved and Hopkins seconded to recommend approval of the minor subdivision
and of the rezoninq to an SDD including the minor suqqestions for buildinq 5
and 6 that the applicant trv to increase the setback on Willow Road withou.*,
going into the 50' stream setback and that a fair and equitable solution be ~
-found to the dollar amount to be contributed bv the applicant to the bike path
fund. The vote was 5- 0 in favor.
3. A request for a minor subdivision of the Glen Lvon Office Buildinq located on Lot 54, Glen Lvon Subdivision. Applicant• Glen Lvon Office
Building.
Tom Braun made the presentation and explained that Andy Norris would like to
create a new lot but development would be limited to the previous plans
approved for the parcel. Norris added that this would enable them to divide
ownership prior to construction. Braun explained how the proposed plat was
tied to the development plan as well as how covenants would be recorded to
ensure a unified development of the parcel. "
Donovan moved and Schultz seconded to approve the request for a minor
subdivision per the staff inemo with the five conditions attachea io the memo
The vote was 4 in favor, none aqainst with Viele abstaininq
7` / ~V/
l1- ~o
i~
The fifth item was Resolution No. 10, Series of 1986, extending the approval of SDD
No... Tom Braun explained the reasoning for the resolution. Hermann Staufer
recommended approval for 12 months instead of 18 months. After a short discussion
by council, Hermann Staufer made a motion to approve the resolution with the change
in time period, which Eric Affeldt seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed
3-0, with Dan Corcoran and Gordon Pierce abstaining because they both were tenants
in the building and worked on the development.
T
Affeld he next item was Resolution No. 11, Series of 1986, approving the payment to_ Eric
. t for personal budgeting class for Town employees. Charlie Wick gave
backgroun in ormation--or'~'t~~e reso u ion. Larry Eskwith gave details from the Town
Charter noting there were no conflicts. After a brief discussion by Council,
Hermann Staufer made a motion to approve the resolution. Gordon Pierce seconded the
motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0, with Eric Affeldt abstaining.
The seventh item was the consideration of the Ford Am hitheater lease agreement with
the Vail Valley Foundation. John Horan-Kates iscussed the wor ing o~_the lease
with the Council. He noted that first ten items listed in paragraph 6 were already
funded and would be done this year. Jack Hunn gave an explanation of some
construction plans on the Amphitheater. John Horan-Kates wanted to include a
section giving them the ability to take small groups of people onto site for fund
raising purposes. After a lengthy discussion with Council, Ron Phillips made the
following wording suggestions:
1) Term of lease changed from five years to one year. If the Foundation does
not complete Phase I, the lease will terminate, but the five year
maintenance requirement will still be in effect.
2) Lunches/picnics/performances could be done before completion for fund
raising efforts.
3) Paragraph 6, first sentence to read "During the term of this lease the
Foundation shall be permitted to construct the following elements of the
Amphitheater in accordance with plans approved by the Town of Vail".
Eric Affeldt made a motion to approve the lease agreement with the changes suggested
by Ron Phillips, and Hermann Staufer seconded. A vote was taken and the motion
passed 4-1, with Dan Corcoran opposing. Mayor Pro Tem Rose suggested that Ron
Phillips, Larry Eskwith or he should approach the Upper Eagle Valley Water and
Sanitation District to drop the tap fees for the Amphitheater.
Next was citizen Participation. Sissy Dobson stated she was glad to hear there will
be a roof on the Amphitheater.
The Town Manager's report was next. Ron Phillips noted there was only one applicant
so far for the Planning and Environmental Commission opening and none for the Design
Review Board opening. Also, Tom Braun had been promoted to a Senior Planner in the
Community Development Department.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kent R. Rose, Mayor Pro Tem
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman
owa75 south frontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000 office of community development
April 4, 1986
Mr. Andy Norris
Glen Lyon Office Building
1000 South Frontaae Road
Vail, Loiorado 81657
Re: Minor Subdivision of Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision
Dear Andy:
To add further assurances that Parcels A and B are developed as one tract as
per the approved development plan, Larry Eskwith has requested that covenants
be recorded with Eagle County further clarifying the conditions outlined on
the subdivision plat and development plan. I have drafted 5 conditions that
are intended to express the same concepts we have been discussing that will
insure the parcels are developed and operated as one parcel. The attached
draft will be submitted to the Planning Commission for their review on the
14th. Larry has requested you have these conditions drafted into more
"legalized" language suitable for recording with the County. The recording of
these conditions would have to occur prior to or concurrent with the recordin;
of the subdivision plat.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Braun
Senior Planner
TAB:bpr
Enclosure
~
' 0 ~
Agreement to be Recorded with Eagle County
for Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision
The following agreements outline the conditions ar;; sti;,alatiNns set forth with
the minor subdivision proposed for Lot 54 of the Glen Lyon Subdivision. It is
proposed that this agreement be filed with the County on the land records of
thi.. to ~,-.p.vo-val of +Ehis minur subdivision. It is the
intent of this'agreement toinsure that the development of Lot 54 proceed in a
timely and efficient manner consistent with the previously approved development
plans on file with the Department of Community Development. The agreements to
be filed include the following:
1. The development of Parcels A and B shall be limited to those plans by
Gordon Pierce dated December 27, 1982, approved by the Town of Vail and
on file with the Department of Community Development, or other plans as
approved by the Town of Vail.
2. Concurrent with the development of Parcel B, the owner/developer shall be
required to comply with those conditions set forth by the Planning
Commission memorandum dated January 20, 1983.
3. The 30 foot pedestrian access easement as shown on the development plan
for lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision shall provide pedestrian access from
the Parcel B parking easement to Parcel A.
4. The parking easement as shown on the development plan for Lot 54 of the
Glen Lyon Subdivision shall be a common parking area for development on
both parcels A and B with a minimum allocation of 32 spaces to parcel A
and 42 spaces to parcel B.
5. Any modifications or amendments to this agreement shall require review
and approval of the Town of Vail.
~
a '
. ~ ~
v
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
~ J FROM: Community Devel opment Department
DATE: March 24, 1986
SUBJECT: A request to extend a currently expired approval for Development
Area D(Glen Lyon Office Building) of SDD4 (Cascade Village)
located at 1000 South Frontage Road West.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building
I. BACKGROIlND ON THIS REQUEST
The Cascade Village Special Development District was first established in
1976. The development plan delineates four development areas, one of
which is the Glen Lyon Office Building (Development Area D). In January
of 1983, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved an amendmeni
to SDD4 to allow for a proposed expansion to the Glen lyon Office
Building. These amendments consisted of:
1. To change the front setback from 20 to 15 feet.
2. To change the allowable square footage from 13,000 square feet to
25,000 square feet (within Development Area D).
Relative to this review in 1983, it was mentioned in the staff inemorandum
that while the Glen Lyon Office Building site was incorporated into the
~ Arterial Business District zone (which was adopted in March 1982), it is
technically still a part of the Special Development District 4. As a
result of this, the development standards outlined in the Arterial
Business District were used in evaluating the merits of the 1983 proposed
expansion.
II. THE REQUEST -
As outlined in the SDD section of the zoning code, approvals of
development plans in SDD's are valid for a period of 18 months from the
date approval was obtained. With respect to SDD4, this 18 month period
would be applied specific to each of the four development areas.
Consequently, the approval for the proposed expansion to the Glen Lyon
Office Building expired in July of 1984. The request before the Planning
Commission is to extend the approval of this development plan for another
18 months.
III, EVALUATION QF THIS REQUEST
Eighteen month time limitations are placed on SDD developments so as to
allow the Town the opportunity to re-evaluate a proposal if it has not
been constructed within the 18 month period. For example, if an approved
plan were to expire and significant changes were to have taken place
within the Town or areas adjacent to the subject property, amendments to
the approved plans could then be made. With respect to this proposal,
` there would not appear to be any complications involved in extending this
approval period.
1In evaluating this request, the Planning Commission will be making a
recommendation to the Town Council. That recommendation would include
~ one of the following:
~
1. That the approval of the special development district be extended.
2. That the approval of the special development district be revoked.
3. That the special development district be amended. IU. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff would recommend that this approval be extended for a period of
18 months:' In reviewin"g-this request, the staff compared it to the
initial review tfiat took place in 1983. At that time the staff
'•recommended approval of the request, and we would offer the same
recommendation today with the-same conditions-of approval as outlined in
the January 20, 1983 staff inemo.
. ; -
~
_ _ , . . _ . . . _
i ~ . . _ . . . . _
c~ A
. r✓ • '
1
MEh10RANDUM
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission - -
FROM: Community Development Department . -DATE: January 20, 1983 SUBJECT: Request to amend Development Area D of Special Development District
S-:r- #.4 to 1) change the front setback from 20 feet to 15 feet and
2Y=to-thang-e-the allowable square footage from 13,000 square fee±
. to 25,000 square feet. -
~ Appl ica_nt;_._ C1en;Lyon ,Office.Bujld;ing_ Partnership. ,
BACKGROllND ~ _ : . . : _ , . _
v+r.........__._ ._^.r.^ ..r...,. _ _ . . . .
In 1976 Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, was formed. Development
area D of this SDD is the Glen Lyon Office Building. The maximum allowable
square footage for the office building was set at that time at 10,000 square
feet. The building was constructed in 1979-80 at a gross area of approximately
' 13,000 square feet. In March 1982 the Planning and Enviromental Commission and
Town Council approved an amendment to the SDD which allowed the space of approximately
3,000 square feet within the building built as storage to be utilized also as
office space. The current request is to expand the office building to approximately
25,000 square feet. Two sections of the proposed addition, each approximately
~ 25 feet in length, are proposed to be located 15 feet away from the north property
line, and thus the need to amend the required 20 foot setback under the SDD require-
ments,
In March 1982 the PEC and Council adopted the Arterial Business Zone District
for the area in which the Glen Lyon office building is located. Technically,
the property is still within the,Special Development District. However, the staff
believes that it is reasonable to review the proposed amendments with regard to
the standards of the Arterial Business District (ABD).
THE REQUEST
The first request is to amend the allowable square footage of building upon the
lot. The current limit set by the SDD is 13,000 square feet, and the ABD zoning
would allow 56,845 square feet. The proposal is to allow approximately 25,000
square feet of r~ oss area and 18,750 net floor area. This would be an addition
of 8,000 square feet of office space and 2800 square feet of common area such
as mechanical areas, lobby areas, corridors, etc.
The major factorsaffected by the additional square footageare the number and place-
ment of the additional required parking spaces. A net floor area of 18,750 square
feet requires 75 parking spaces. The applicants can achieve the parking requirement
by adding 17 spaces to the east of the existing parking since the current parking
provided is in excess of the requirements. One loading berth will also be provided.
~
• ' GLEN LYON OFFICE -2- 1/20/83
~
• • _ ~ .
. . ~
` One requirement of the SDD is that 50% of the parking must be hidden from public
view within a landscaped berm. The applicant proposes to c anply with this require-
ment.
The second request is to change the setback required by SDD along the north property
line fran 20 feet to 15 feet. The applicant feels that this would permit some
flexibility in-breaking`up the length of the building. Only two portions of the
building, each about 25 feet in length, would project to the new 15 foot setback,
and the remainder of the addition would be located about 18 feet off of the property
line.
The ABD requires a front setback of 15 feet for 60'~' of the frontage and 20 feet
for 40% of the frontage. Only 7°6 of the proposed frontage (including the existing
structure):woUrd have-a`15 foot setback, 19.5% of the frontage would have an 18
foot setback, and 9% would have a 25 foot setback. The remaining 64.5% of the ~
frontage is not adjacent to the building.
The staff-believes tfiat revising the front setback requirement is~consi'stent with
the Arterial Business-Zone District requirements and that the change permits a"
design for the addition which will certain enhance the appearance of the building.
There should be-no negative :impacts that will result from the change. The building
will be located 55 feet away from the edge of the pavement of the South Frontage
' Road.
An additi_onal aspect of the pr.oposal which should be revievred in relation to the
ABD standards is the roof pitch. The ABD requires that the minimum slope of the
roof shall be three feet in 12 feet with an allowance of 10% of the roof area
/ allowed to be flat for a transition of roof lines. The a licants
PP propose adding
( a covered entry with a 6/12 roof pitch to a portion of the existing part of tne
building and a 6/12 roof pitch on the north side of the addition, leaving the
Gore Creek side with a flat roof. Considering that the existing portion of the
building is flat roofed, the staff feels that the applicants have done a good
job trying to _irnprove the appearance of the building with the sloped portion of
the roof. The SDD has no requirement regarding roof pitch.
CIRCULATION AND ACCESS.
As you'll recall, a circulation and access plan was to be required for the Arterial
Business District. A memo regarding the plan is contained within this packet,
and the item will be considered at Monday's meeting. The applicants are willing
to comply with this plan, and improvements consistent with the circulation and
access plan are indicated on the site plan for the office build;ng.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The DCD staff recommends approval of the requested amendments. The changes are
generally consistent with the requirements of the Arterial Business District which
governs the development of the adjacent properties. The following conditions
should be a part of the approval: _
, GLEN LM' IFFICE -3- 1/20/83
. • ~ • ~
~ . _
1. The bike path, right turn, and left turn lanes shall be provided in accordance
with the Circulation and Access Plan for the Arterial Business Zone District;
2. The applicant shall agree to sharing in the cost of providing an additional
fire hydrant_.wi.thin the vicinity as required by the Vail Fire Department-.
. , .
c.' wl' i...;.,_ . _ _ . _ ~Y'Gi:~nU~
Sr
. . . Y„ . . . _ . _ .
~ _ • , _ _ . _ . ' . _ . ' , . ` .
~
~
° PEC 1/24/83 -2-
, .
~ Piper moved and Donovan seconded to approve the general circulation and accfLss plan
for the Arterial Business District with the condition that funding to implen;;~nt
• the bike at , bridqe and edestrian crosswalks be worked out within a per•i(;d of
~ 60 days from that da Januar 24, 1983 and that the road not be narrowed down
between t e intersection with West Lionshead Circle and the Holy Cross access point,
and that no building permits be issued prior to the resolution of the fundin(i plan.
. Jim Sayre asked if a building permit could be issued after the 60 days if no funding
plan had been worked out, and Piper said, "No."
A1 Williams asked if DRB could process his application in the meantime, and was
told that he could continue up to the building permit.
Andy Norris asked about the location of the bike path near the Glen Lyon Office
building.
The vote was 5-0-1 in favor of the plan with Pierce abstaininq.
. 3. A request for two amendments to Special Development District No. 4 in which
the Glen Lyon Office Building is located. The first request is to change
the front setback from 20 feet to 15 feet. The second request is to arend
the allowable square footage of the Glen Lyon Office Buildinq. .
Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership
Peter Jamar explained the memo, adding that the berm should be higher than shown
. on the site plan, that the DRB should review the ability of the berm to screen the
• parking as required, and that there were two conditions of approval, one that the
bike path, right turn and left turn lanes shall be provided in accordance with
~the Circulation and Access Plan for the Arterial Business Zone District, and
the second condition was that the applicant shall agree to sharing in the cost
of providing an additional fire hydrant within the vicinity as required by the Vail Fire Department. Jamar added that the financing would have to be worked
' out on the second condition, since Voliter and the M&W office building would
also benefit from the hydrant.
Gordon Pierce, architect for the applicant, showed a model and explained the
roofs, setbacks and masses. Patten explained that this was an amendment to an
SDD, that the SDD allowed 60% of the buiiding to have 15 foot setbacks, but this
building would only have 15 foot setbacks across 7% of the building.
One concern was'~that the DRB require large sized trees between the building and
the road. Trout asked about the Glen Lyon Office Building applyirg to be in
the Arterial Business District. Patten said there was no real urgency, but that
this would be worked out with Andy Norris.
Trout moved to approve the requests for setbaek and sguare__footageper the
staff inemo but condition ;;l would be reworded to includ~th~f_acttha~the_fund
would be worked out within a period of 60_) da~s. .
Andy Norris, one owner of the Glen Lyon Office Building, said that he had no
problem with funding of the bike path, but was concerned about the left and
right turn lanes, and felt that unless the funding were worked out, that this
part may never get done. ~ .
PE~ 1 /24/83 ~3t
Pa~ten-stated-that Norris=soejy wQU9d not have to pay for the bike path because
• -,:it was part o#'Ahe ~rhole.distriet,
~ ` _ ' - _
-Tbere was Ro seeend to the mstion. - ~ . . - - - .
Donovan moved and Piper seconded to approve the two amendments per the staff
memo dafed January 1983 with -tFie two eond-jt~ons and that con~ion nl would
~ncrud-e-the fact-thaf-the #'undin wouid be work_ed_out within a prjod of 60 days
and no-building permit would be -issued untiT tF-6- fundinq was worked out.
The vote was 370 in-favor with 3 abstentions--eorearan, Viele and Pjerce.
4:=A'ppeal- of--a`n adFriinistrati~ve deeision reqardinq Tot 17, -Traet Vail Uillage
fifith Fi`Ting--xSppellan3trauch , -
@eter Jamar explained the happenings up to this date. Jan StraucM-Said he agreed
_ wit"he-'seqq"ce of -events-, .-:b~tt-~~at:e~-t~a~kt~~Gk-was under -6 €eet of -snocv,
and eouldn't eorreet the error L)-ractiea33y-. --.t#e 4dded that--it wagn't until October
that kie had obtained the correet size of metal ehimney, and then it was too cold
~o @aipt it. Me then mentioned som.e problems he was having converting his_fire-
place to a_gas burnin.g fireplace. ~
frout pointed out that there was no spark arrestor in the flue of the wood burning
~stove. Strauch asked what that was, and firQqt explained, addfng that this should
be iRStalled irrxnediately.
Donovan stated t-Mat Straueh had intentionally built the deck intv the setback
ar-ea. She €elt -tha~ Q,ne ehimney ~hould be r~ade inoperable now, dnd the deck ~i~ould be !corrected to be in c-
Wltanee with tMe Qode at this t1me.
P_ie~~e's feelings were to fnstal1 the spark. arrestor irranediately, rvait 6 months
tQ p,,aFr~t the ~at ~.e ~.eck Qv_~1,c~ ~Q #one now. He ~id a coupl e
. 6f be~;~~ qf :qX,&ri,►~q ~►.~~,l 4 ~rj~,~ ~q e#~ck.. Prp~M 4gkec~ Tf ~Ft~r°~ ro~a~ a foundatZOn,
4P4* Nre- 05eA!~:~-Foa'~-evealed that='oe founc±q_tr.Qrt was inadequate> arrd that concrete
piers would have to be poured. Steve Patterson, kuilding officTal, said that
he had marked the t,wo sets o~ plar~s that hac~ submitted for a huilding permit
vit~ tF+e staterpexrt- t-hat a pr~qr, ~ur~c#a~rQr~ w,QQTci have to be c-gngtr-ucted. He
i~dded that the deek c-c~u7d be ~r~c~ PtT rr~gg Rqt fn ~t a Tater ctate without
. . . ' L 4i
`~eari t~g the wh_ol e` -de ck -ap.art,'
Y,}e}e mc>ved arrd P-i-erce secondet!- tQ modify tf're ad~Trrrstratlve ct&CTgTan as fol 1 ows •
1.---~fia~-~hey requ~re immed}ate conversion ~ gas of the wood buwning fireplace,
2T=That--the-pq-ia~}ng of -the- rhr~ney-aad ass~mt~ sh.eet metal be c~one by-- June 1,
And tha~ Jur~e 1,;,1983 alao Wo~!~ the da.~~ ~t tQ have the deck correction
Tihf-1- xQte Waq q~va_n 4_0 TrQu;t Ggai-rr!W The mot7rnr. fai 1 ed .
~
~ . .
~ . TD t/Aza- p N A L
~ Q2t)c.~ s ls c~-oolJZ ~Sfle.~or-j
I-Is~►,~~ l~ T ~ ~ -T)D -nM ps~o
G~~
43O-L)L3
@F- SC~~ J g v i
-L- A C„ L.i.A~C,, l~D
wi
FW VP6 -3
0-0- Ccg ~ D~ T10 V S~ ~,J l~rt~. ~P Zon 1~'j . ~ ~ . .
~
. ~
~ . . . _
. `l
b _
_ . . . . :
, : . . ~
z _ - ~t ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~
_ _ - . _ ~~x .t ~ . ~ k~~ . . .
0
e O 0 0 ~ 0 ~ p~ > p O p m m
? Z ~ Z ~ n Zr ~m ~m n Z ~ aO
~ C m C7 m Z = m Z C~ D ~ r ~
~ o ~ •y.
m D m > z ~ W ~m m m~ r m~C ~ p
~ Z -i C7 --i D O
O 0 D 0 ~ 0 D -
0 r ~ m r 2 n r mi eo O° ~
r ~ Z7 r ~ ~ T ~ m ~ 0 D~~ 0 n
m O T ~ ~ D ~ Z i Z "m0 ~ m 0 3 m 0 ~ m ~ m m ~ G) D D m~ c~
Z z z z ~ z p m O
0 0 0 = o = <o ~ o n 3 n
~ -t -n N'n ~ T CD 0 m rm- O
~ C
D D D ~ D rn D i ~ ~ m Z m El 0El -0
cn z ~ Z
r ~ F W F ~
m ~
m m m N m C m m 0 O N O O~ m C" ~
~ ~ ~ cn ~ m ~ r x o - z W eo
~ Z m '"i Z ~ O < ~7
p O O O m O n ~ ~ ~ T. 'Yp W ~ to /V
D Z U' 3 C ~
oo ~ i CF) = r^ ~ ~ G~ y ~
00 -N-I ~ 'T' z n A
m
I N °
~ T
o
cn m m Z
~ rn
j o v w w D = m ~ 2 o m ~ D L~ M
f ~ m D ~ ~ D O ~ 0 ~ O C ~ m ~ ~ m ~
l ~ w 0 - O i v~ 0 ~ m ~ * ~o r= r r-• ~ n m ~
to 0 ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ Z > c 0 ~
(p (~A (D 3 ~ ~ Z ai ~ n D -I fTl ~ Z f7
N"D cp D 0-{ C r m;:u m
~ N"(p Q' r Z z m Wm ;u N n < z
~ N 7 O'* lG -o cn m ;0 ~ I ~
'a a A ~ m O r D No p IT1 A ~ ~
~-Q fl- n ~ r m ~ C - Zl
00 3~~ K ~ p v~m o°_ ~ ~ v Z
eJ < a. ~ ~ ~ < o c7 Z u, -v D p
~.~`Da~..~ ~°g U' m o~ o 0 o m~
C fl' ~ c m rT' Z ~ ~ Z Z m
. w a m o ~ a ~ y o cs, ~
~ ~ T O 0 T ~ ~
I~✓ O vi 3 lD ~ 0 = m 9 0 y r T. ~ n
~ - im. O N ~ a O OO ~
~ C ~ r. ~ ~ m n D D
t/ n "p - D (1) m ~ r = 7¢f m
' I a~0 ?w ~Z ~ cn cn ~ W 0
~ z rv < v' _ <
i•'cQ. m z ~ Q° A m
C:D
~ C~ 7 a N Z D ~ m O D O 3 ]7
~
~ ~O O p~ ,N. p_ y C D p O D
~ a Q W 7 ~ m m p Z m
'7 a'~ J
~ co~ v, N ~ ° O
a,.- o
p ~'am.,~o N o m VALUATION ~ m
z m~ A _ z Z O m ~ m r^ m ~ m n c
~ k ~
~ ? w ~i ~ o ~ m ~ 0 ~ C ~ z ~ ~ C m c \ m
o ~ ~ a~0 s~ o o ~ X ~ ~ D ~ m
Z z 0 0 a o3 n
0 ~ ° o~
i 0
p m ~D O T~ m 0 < mZ > 0 D 70c m n ~ D G~') Z
~
m Z O , C) N-d 3~ r -NI ~ G ' O ~ T ~ r r O~
w 2 D A r ~ Vl W m
m-1 ~(D j.z fl-
P3 ~ . ::i
D ~ ~
T L
z co z m o v m -i
~ . o O~ ~ m m ~ m
~
~ ~~wo~ m
o ~a-~•c cn I I ~ o -1
7Cl ~ O~
N C)
Z
.
O m m m a 0
Z:l 4~:2- -,J o m o CZ)
m o~~ I 4 c.`' cn o oO N
D cn. a~ o rv o iv o C``
I ~ ° o0 0
~ 6n m ~ ~ D1 rr4- 1//1
T ~ d~ ~0 - >I m1
fA
Q ~ Vj 7 ~ Ly-~ ' l
m I ~ ..t
~ ~ cn W 00 @
m a a
= ~
vi 9~~~ I C~°rn ~
m w.. Q ~ I
n (D 113 s6
' s ' ~
~
~ . . /
Qtotectton dj ~ ' •
a^
low~ of voi box 100 • vail, colorado 81657 • 303-476-7000
C-Ac
- - ~ ~
~
_,~dl
- r~
t
i
i
!
~ ~f . . _
i
1
i
a
1
3
i
i!
~
~
1
. ~ ~
o
~ O O m 0 v 0 ~ Z~ ~ ~ p 0 m m
m pc-~p~
~ C ~ n ~ Z 2 m Z n D ❑ LJ IJ ~ ed0 ~
-I r 'O
2
m m ~z na° n~ n m ~ m ~~o° { o ~e
o
~D ~ m r 2C~r O
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m
---1 ~ ~ ~
~ T ~ ~ ,n -i ~ -i ~ T c~ T c> r ~ Z ~ Z ~ a _
m O x m O ~ m O m m O m Om D
r- Z D (7 L~ 0
~ K m * m m * m ~ ~ m
{ D m~ 0
Z m z z z z D cn r ~ m 0
^
p O O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ tn z Cn ~ m O
c < < < m r^ c oc c
y D D "p
r- r D D N N ~ ~ i..-~ ~ ~
r ~ r L r O
m m m iD m ~ m~ o rn-z a (n
~ c) G) .A c> I c) r14 e c -lj 0- r c~ 0 m c. ~
Z z z ~ z ~ z~ `t U'r o r W z~ o
p O O ~ O ~ O J~~ Q~ D~ vi O
~ _ ~ ? 0 ~ m D 3 c
cn 0 z
Z 3 ~
V fD m ~
O 0
z
Z rn
~
Io D m ~ D 2 ~ D X ~ Z m O m ~ m iv
~ ~ D 0 D ~ ~ p ~ O ~ (p Z ~
~ ~ c~ O - o Z ~ c ~ i m " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v m ~ O m n m
C S Z ~ D D Z ~ D C
~ ~
~ N C~D 3 ~ 0 Z ~ ~ Z 0 ~ r D ~ ~
~ CD -0 (D D ~ 0 T ~ a o
C r fD c+ m Z 0
W N Q r Z Z '-1 3 G) N n O
w 7 O~`G ~ tn m ~ m
I M 0 ~ ~ c iZ~
~ a n fl. W Rl ~ m ~ > N 0 SL ~ ~
OG 7 2 ~ - fi O 5 O n ~ Z
(D 6 a N O Z <n -u -i ~ O
O_ K n* m Ai O O O --1
~ Z ~ c+ „ z z m
o-~c~ m z a m
(fl o p ~ D ~ O ~
a~ C)
- ? m ~ m -1 o ° c) -5 M
o v ~ v K o D sv ~ 0
3 ~CD~ ~ ~ ~ o o a - ;j O
W C O ~1 ~ ~ Z ~ D Z ~ N cp ~
~ D
C- C° IZ O ~ ~n tmn p r N m O
~3 7 N O Z W = -
(S1 < - < Lri TI
(Q W~ NCD Z v ~
nn 7 a(D Z D (~i~ m D 3 31
~
S3) ~ r ~
O O p~ ~ p_ D r' D O
~ Oa a?; S ~ m ~ Z ~
0 C A ~ < m
~O
N ~ ~ ~
m (0,0
Q (n
r. ~
0
ni o ~ VALUATION m
D(!) s? W=-. O Z I ~ C n 0 m g m m 'v o0
Z- (D 0 Z r Q ~ r m m m r r r C j
p~ p~ z O ~ m m cn 0 n C r^ D r ; p m W m
~ D (~D = ~ G) I-I Z ~ t/) D ~ z G> m S C 0 Z v m ~ m C ~
~ .O D O ct D ~ n n r
fn C~ n~ 7 0 Ia 0 ~ CD ~ X C A ~ Z Z 0 m L) D W
~ < ~ m c~ G~ 2
w 0- c z°J ; ~ rD m v < Z a ~ Z z 0 ~ Z
m m r M D ~ >
~
Z~t N N a 0 ~ D) p ~ m 3 r O
y
~ • 0 Z ~ N W m ~
o
O O ~ ~ I~ -n O W W
O (p I7'1 ~
m o x ~
m ° ~ m ~
m ~ o' ~ cn N ~ o ~ m
O c m I 1~ ~
m 0-
O y ~
~ c Q~ T Z
Z ~a~wm j m O
~
m ~<'o- m ~
y -o v: a~ o I O
o -w
m 6o 5 ~ I ol
o o m°' ° ~
~ cn ml oo
„
p ~ (1) ~;o ~ > oo
cn N
~ ~(n w0 ~
_ I
~
~ m ~
I
C I
U) 0 y cn A
m ~1 a ~
T `D
I I
►
nRTS, INC. UNITED RE0
CARRIAGEHOUSE June 27, 2985
105 E. HARMON AVENUE
LAS VEGAS. NEVADA 89109
(702) 798-1020
CAMBRIDGE TOWERS MY'. Steve Patteraon
3890 sWF"s°" "VE"UE
LAS VEGAS. NEVADA 89109 BuiddinO p. DePt., ToW[3 of VSil
(702) 732-8889 Vail, CO 81657
ALL SEASONS RESORT
P.O. BOX 4296
807 AIDER AVF.NUF
inci_iNF vii Lnce. nevnDn evaso ~E8I' .~'l~r:
(702) xii-zaii
SUNBIRD LODGE
675 LIoNS HFAD PLACE Attached is a copy of permit application and submittal
VAIL. COLORAUO 81657
„03,476-5264 for the building permit on our etairwsy on the south
GATEWAY side of our buiidiag.
P.O. BOX 147
LAND O' LAKEti. WISCONSIN 54540
,,,s, 547-1321 As per our last discussion concernir_a the landscaping
ROCANA for the lower level, I would like to propose the
2555CARTWRIGHTSlREET followingi
HONOLUL.U, HAWAII 96815
(809) 923-1144
MAKAHA VALLEY Phase one of course being the stairway itself, to be
PLANTATION constructed immediately. Phase two, being the planters
86-754 ALA MAHIKU DRIVF. i
WAINAE, OAHU, HAWAII 96792 (three) and landacaping with the pavers at the v8de of
(808)695-9523 the stairway being constructed upon receipC of the bond
KIHEIAKAHI monies in escrow, being completed no later than October
ZS" s. "'"EI R°°'°
KIHEI, MAU L HAWAII 96792 15f 19$5• Phase three beinp p the IandscaPinS and Planters
(808) 879-6445 with the balance of the paving being delayed until next
CORPORATEOFFICE season, poesibly completed this season, but a firm
1820 E. SAHARA AVENUE
surre iso commitment by July, 1986 forzthe bllance of the overall
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89104 landscape plaYZ.
(702) 731-I600
Please review this requeat and feel free to contact me
if you have mny questions or ifaa decision is made.
Also, please let me know when the council meets on the
disbursement of the $23,000.00 in bond money , as this
plays a very important factor on the landscaping and
planter phases.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sinc regl,y,
.0. Ntoo re
ce-Preent
Vi
Construction Plannir.g
UnitedBResorts, Ilic.
.
n UNITED RE rl.)Ts, INC. .
CARRIAGE HOUSE June 27, 2985
105 E. HARMON AVENUE
LAS VEGAS. NEVADA 89109
(702) 798-I020
CAMBRIDGE TOWERS Mr. Steve Patterson
aHeosweHSONnveNUe Building Dept., Town of Vail
LAS VEGAS. NEVADA 89109
i702>7 32-8889 Vail, CO 81657
ALL SEASONS RESORT
P.O. uox azxe
807 ALUFR AVENI'F
INCLINF VILLAGE. NEVADA x9450 DQar S lr :
(~021 871-2711
SUNBIRD I.ODGE
F,sLIoNSHenD PLAcF Attached is a copy of permit application and submittal
vAu.coLoaADoH1hs,
„o,, 476 - szva for the building Permit on our stairwaY on the south
GATEWAY side of our building.
P.Q BOX 147
LnNOO'LnKES.WIScoNSIvs4sa1)
(715) 547-3 32 i As Per our last discussion concerning the landscaping
ROCANA for the lower level, I would like to propose the
2555CARTWRIGHTSTREFT fOllOWlllg:
HONOLULU. HAWAII 96815
I8081923-1144
MAKAHA VALLEY Phase one of course being the stairway itself, to be
PLANTATION constructed immediately. Phase two, being the planters
84-754ALA MAHIKU DRIVE
WAINAE. OAHU, HAWAII 96792 (three) and landscaping with the pavers at the base of
(soa) 695-9523 the stairway being constructed upon receipt of the bond
KIHEIAKAtII monies in escrow, being completed no later than October
2531 S. KIHEI RQAU
KIHEI, MAU I , HAWAII 96792 151 1985. Phase three beinb O the landscaping and Planters
(808)879-645 with the balance of the paving being delayed until next
CORPORATEOFFICE season, possibly completed this season, but a firm
1820 e. sAHARA AVer,uE commitment b Jul 1986 for the balance of the overall
Y Y ~
S~,ITE 150
1 AS VFC^s. NEV^DA 89104 landscape plan.
(702) 731-1e00
Please review this request and feel free to contact me
if you have any questions or if a decision is made.
Also, please let me know when the council meets on the
disbursement of the $23,000.00 in bond money , as this
plays a very important factor on the landscaping and
planter phases.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely„
' L 0. Moore
Vice-Presi ent
Construction Planning
United Resorts, Inc.
o
~ p-,C) p m O D - 0` ~ r
. m.. ~
~ Z 0 z m z r z m ~ m n * 0~0 N Gj r~a ❑
~ Z = m Z 0 D ~ u ~ 0 ~
n m C~ Z W C) ~ C) x m ~ ? K ~ C
4 O ~ ~ D p~ p~ ~D ~ m T r- =nm ~ 3~
0
D ~ 0 0 0
r ~ Z~ Z TI 0 O m O ~ m O ~ m O M m O m m Om D D
m Z K m Z ~ m Z g m Z m Z g 1 D 3 < D m ~ D D ~ m~ ~
p
p O o O O o o r ~m 3 n
T ~1 T T -1 T7 ~ ~ r ~ O
D D D D D tn ~
m C Z
m m m m p~ 0
W
Z z z z z r Z~ o ~ M
0 0 0 0 0 ~ ooo v,
D ~ C 0 `
o z 3 n
- _ z 0
~z m
o
T O
m `
~ T
rn
Z ~
p D w ~ D 2 m
D ~ y~~ p ~ O L m ~ v Z
~ ~ c~ O o z ~ ~ m T v ~ D ~ ~ rn ~ C: m ~
cD 3 c~ ~ ~ Z Z 0 v r v ~ ~
s. _ cD ~Cp D cn p~ c > ~ Z
W- <p Q r Z z m ~ n { Z
A> > O lG
(D ~ V) ~ ~ z7 p --.~7 L) N
. ~ fl' ~ ~ n ~ pr n ~ C ~ ~ ~
\;y p O ~ ~ Z ~ 0 O o n ~ Z
(D D'~ N O ~ v Z N > 0
CL C. n~ Z m ^ O O O m -j
~o- ~ c m m z a z z m
- 3?~ cQ o ~ n p ~ o ~
O T m
O tnS~~ p 2 m ~ ~ D T 0
tn cD ~ v ~ D _ 0
. ~ c O A~ ~ ~ D ~
~
.a37< 0 c < W = C ~
~o p~ S IZ p tDi~ t~i~ tmn p ~ m = 0
,
M A7 ~ ~ Z ~ A 17 < ~
fl. m Z D ai m > 3 ~
0) r-
. °ao ww a v C: a o
m m
ID aa ~
~ cfl -a vi p
~ a,..o ~ m v
0 0.o SD '0 N ao - VALUATION W
O Z c I --I C 0 p m g v m v oo m
r
~ ~ G~ ~ tD 7 S~ ~ Z I p ~ m r m m cn m n m C~ C r n r z r C X
3 ~ ~ m Rl
~D ON O z a zl r ~ Z Z m D ~ ~ n 0 n C n ~ ~
~ d 00 jp W O X C Z Z 0 m G) D ao ~ O
p~ 7~ O O~. W ~ O I. m 0 < 0 D ~ Dr 7nc m Z Z 0 0 Z
~ m = vi 3~- C z A :U m m Z 5 L~
1 ZO c)NV3 F D~ ~ p~ m 3 > ~ ~
\ ~ O w_ p_ Z D i„ ~ W
'
o ~ o~~.() o o m O D ~ cn
~
~ Z Z ~ m o ~ m -i
m =r~, o ~ cn m ~ rn
~o ~ 7 0, o ~ ~
O m a--•c cn ~
0CDa + I I , ~ . Z
Z ~ a~ ~ ~ I ~ . m ~
<.o~~
~ y o " -5
~ w o ~'c ~ I I
~ 3J 0-0 =3 D~
~ T aCD a0 DI mI
o ~
~N=
~ ~v~wc~- r"I
~
~ ~ a° m
Ui ~ ~ I
cn °cn
~'I
~ T ~ - I ~
~ ~ •
3264 Cripple Creek Trail -
Boulder, Colorado 80303 •
(303) 494-7835
NORTHEAST
JO11\IERS March 4, 1983
Radio KRVV Remodel
#306 Contract Specifications
GENERAL: Building permits, liability insurance, and Workman's Compensation
Insurance to be provided by the Contractor. Insurance of contents of leased
space after installation and liability coverage for all those person's not
a part of the Contractor's Work force to be provided by the Contracting party,
(KRVV Radio).
Final Cleanup to be by Contractor, to include cleaning windows,
cabinetry and countertops, vacuuming of carpet, removal of any and all debris
relevant to the construction process. Contractor will not be responsible for
the removal of any debris or stored items prior to the start of construction.
There will be an extra charge to KRVV Radio if space is not empty at start
of construction and removal of debris or stored items is required.
ROUGH CARPENTRY: Partition and exterior wall studs to be of fir or white-
woods, and shal extend to underside of floor above. Typical partition:
2x4's @ 16" On center. Partitions at steel Foundation Bracing to be furred
out beyond steel beam as required. Location of partitions may be adjusted
as required by location of new steel beams.
Exterior Window to be finisned with painted brick moulding and
caulked to siding.New partitions at interior entry to leased space to extend
only to underside of floor joists above.
MECHANICAL: Air handling system to consist of three Tradewind BQT fans,
independently controlled by variable speed switches. Regular Buff ceiling
grills and exterior wall/ caps. Ductwork to be 12"x6" or comperable cross
sectional area and insulated with 1" fiberglass all around.
ELECTRICAL: Contract price is contingent upon electrical contractor being
"Merging old-time Vankee Craltsmanship
with Contemporary Design"
NORTHEAST JOINERS - Page 2.'
Radio KRVV Remodel - #306
Contract Specifications
~March 4, 1983
able to use existing service panel in hallway outside of leased space. In
the event that a separate panel and new meter is required, there will be
an extra charge to KRVV which wil.l require authorization before start of
the electrical work.
Heat will be electric baseboard, using the existing two 3'long
sections (relocated) and three additional 2000W heaters, 220 Volt circuits
for heat. lights as indicated on plan, with eleven 75W cans on tracks, and
one recessed at interior entry. Flourescent fixtures and other circuits to
be switched according to plans. Fourplex receptacles to be located as indi-
cated on plans.
INTERIOR MATERIALS: Walls to be 5/8" Fire Rated Drywall, taped and finish2d
with a mediun slap texture. Drywall to extend to underside of floor above
at soundproofed walls. These soundproofed walls to be insulated with 32"
unfaced fiberglass batts (more where wall thickness allows) and one face
of wall to have Z" cellulose fiber soundboard or an extra thickness of 2'
regular drywall applied prior to finish layer of drywall.
Interior trirn will consist of those materials necessary to match
the existing leased area (by other tenants) adjacent to this area on the
South. Doors will be as listed on plans. Paint grade doors are Masonite
with smooth finish. Hardware is listed on schedule on plans.
Cabinets not in this contract except for closet finish and shelving
indicated on plans which will be painted particle board/plywood/pine const-
ruction.
Ceiling to be refitted between new partitions using existing
materials to the extent possible. Any new materials will match existing.
PAINTING: Exterior paint will match existing. Interior will consist of
prirner plus two coats of flat latex off white interior wall paint. Shelving
will be latex semi-gloss, Doors will be enaniel, of color of tznants choosing.
Pine Trim will be coated with aolyurethane sealant and finish.
. /
f ~
Pi~r c~,~ ~ A Associ,-:~ s . ~
a,
.
~-:ch s, ,Qsi
illis j. [vriaht, Jr.
~
Gan;-~ra1_ Par',-rer
Glen Lyon Or `ices
s^x 230
ol f6:3
.r.. C'. '
21
De3r J.---n:
r1i`dlly COt '-''Cli LO OIl thE.' Gc=' 1 llI'C3 Of
the bi"dc? Oi"1 i~7? v:o5t E';1u Orl ti1,~ 1C;:?S lE~'V21. Ti l'Oll
c,3cicie to ao aLead tnis, I c,.._--s you .d Lirst g~-.•e it to
Craig `or pricing.
p RL7C Er-U' _ j-- ~ .
Y'J' cCP_ 1-S LO 1C1 T~IaC.''~ QIlT"lI~g 2?1t1.Y't?
a-nd`1S I1'JL t0 be, i"t.?=V,---'d Lilt11 I"?c`.•7 Jr'aC'~2 h:5 Lx=_'Il
~'Ot tO
iO:;:~ . +2-E.='rC Oli' 4~~ Gu11Crti_'tE'. Slr}J t,=.iti1L.=c? LO ~OLLr' f`
'Cj,~
nol-th of exis'=ing foot~ing. Pour f~tii~.g tii?-~-e f~2t
{~~.;.~1~.? inc".:s C'oc:D tO t.UD OL Slab w1t17 fOL1r 45 _-i~,i:.~r,C~'11"_•? .s.~ 5 C=?Ci1`%tiay at ~boftc:?1 O~ fc?OLinq a1.Io-.,]-,! j
t-r, S_.:ti ~ c._';•~. S~ ;~f? ~ L lilil ~1:? t? OII -nQ
1 i L
_o r.-:tC:Z
S:.
G.
D3S
cc : CY, iq B,-,.in-,_ z
n Ea St \a'c: l) ,'~~c;i~ ~r IL~t~ / I~ C~~Ci r~~~ ~
.`I'
.
_ ~ • ~
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
- - - - - - - - - -
s~ ~ r+,'_ r~ i:: • . ~7 ~`-:v' = l
~ ! ~;•,~.?~1,~ f_l~-~.Z ~ i.~,.:r '
~ ~v. - - - - - - - - -----1__
t { ,
~
i
~
~
,
- ~ ~ - - -J ~ ~ ~ J
.O
I
~ . ^
_ I ~ . _ - - - - - - _ . - ,
- - +
~ Z--- _ r~-= _ _ _ - -
-1----
- /
-
_ - - - L=-== - ~
' - \
C
_ _ - - - - -
- - - =t--= - -
. . . - _ -
~ i G`-.~..: y 2: G.i _ ~ /
~ ~^i~, ~~t /
' ± i.c,i'.t- , _ ~ ,i j ••/F~_:~-~ i'-',~ ~
~ i ~ / -~f
' - - -
1- - - ~ - - -1 -
I':
'f-✓ ' .~L. r. - -
Il,~.;" i ~ r.T'.'~'li .
I 1 " ~ ~ ~
''t I
~
r~~ ~ ~ ~ ~r
~ •
-;,d ass~~iei,<eS . ~ .
~ _L / _ • +
t-..-,-1 5, 1 ~ g 1 / ~ •
jtil lll.s J. t4'".1C`.,1t, i1r•
Ci`'r,c.-3I P3rt:;G-,r
Gier.
-7-cx ?30
1, C,. c16,3
St-_~1
Dear Jen:
d `1.^:d!-lV QO~. ~C~ t0 OI1 t}?E,' G0:,?1]it19 Oi
c:10_-~;_'?inG i r1E~' braLr? ~,tl ij1e %•:_'Si. E'_Ild Or t;~? 10.:,2?" l~-'Vel. IL 1'OU
r ~~.IG~ il?"St. Q'-'c 1L L.O
~!~1 ~'R? S ~S 'l
~3 i , I LJll S:
G''-'i'].Ge t0 gO 2t:'a..
Cra i_q `cr pri c i rq .
l?i_c'<;7~'il~~l bI-act 1S t0 i,---_.. ~ T1 lfl i7l=:C,:~ CjU-ri p,9 EIILLT'2
0:=4?i3LlOi1 n'1d 1S T10t t0 1?*2 IU +Jl'':1 l:?ltl 1 bL-,:'ICo hy:S L3c~°Il
~ r ~ f~c`-~=
Fi2"E~c?.'{ OLt 4~~ GoiiC'-e'-L S1 cCl t(1'r L:o ~p L :)LL L t0
:?oL-i.'1 U'L eX1St7._*?g ~c_~i=??-~.~• Fot;r ioctLlI?g ft_° t
ir.c..c-s c: -p to tc;o of slab with o~.:r =5 s+_ -.-`1
:.^<7 ..'7?~~J 3t lzi- Lto:;1 OF T~~~~'~Q 3110~~' -=J
. .~.t._- ' . C. . __",l~l :~Li:_~':~''~y l , L.._
are j._.o I'.?~C:7 i=1i'2 ~'.ti;ls'~.Tly
1 .
1. I 1__',.•? S.'ii~ 5...3 _---3 C`~.:`~_: V'
1S
.
t'. • . ' ,
S;.
IIavid G. 52l1~-rs
IY'~• y~ °
.
c:-: CYaiq ~nan..
~a
~y nri,,,,~ ~ V;il ~~I/P03) ~'r,'o <<:_ 7
Fi~~~~~ Asso cia;es . ~
tlil,lil..:~.!U'C; / aicl;ii:;f~l~ •
5, 19g1 ~ ~ .
a'Lr. `'~lI I lS U. Wr1.C:lL~ vr-
:r ' i'-
G~.`r ;1 Par. 'c-^ e
G1E'_^.L:'O:1 O'_ r1C`: 5
Bc}: 2 30
gt ,:5 3
.._,t,g
..11 Str'1
:)F?3r' Jt=ii:
L1.^:d1.lV QOt bzj-C1- t0 T't' OI1 t}"?E.' Gc?~21.]it':9 Of
' l~'i'el. Ii 1'Gll
1Q i_(1E,' ~'I-dC? ~,11 tl1-` %•:"SL EIZC~ Or ! IC
c:lOi-~::'?
, ~ a 1 1' ; I »~s ~~ou iirst gi%'e it Lo
G~~C' G,' ~O UO 2t. 0 ~!1 ~R_S, ~
Cra i_q `or p?'i c i na .
b_-rc" 15 'L.O '1 ln t=1 &uri.n.; EI1tit`e
J
o::~(-_ra r ion a-1d~ i s not to lk-_ rc. un ; 1 r '_,~r: ce h ~_.s b~°n
lo:_: , out 4~~ co~;c tizL-.,..~ t.o `our f~ot to
~~c.'. Br~.~~{
».OT-~."1 OF t--~x1S}-;n.., fC7JLl-. FOLir 1ly,,llI:q fF:-t F,_~'
L '
a?", .~•~i~',? 1.P.^_.,s t0 f:.Cp Of SIatiJ W1.t}1 _`Olir -,S S± .e1
c:,--},-.J at tm o` foo~~:~g a11c..ci
_ ~ C' `_"~~1 ;i ~ j''cSl7F?~
, • C~i' . - i ~:T-,i~..L Z fL0 I'.71 ~C:1 i:!i•~' : X1~
t .
. , • 3 1. ..-~:l ~ c_-:~,_.-_~•.::'~•
c:-
- - - -
• ~ • ~ 1 r` /-('l ~
IIavid G. Sell~_rs
IY'.~ : -]e
cc. CY?iq Br-iintz
V(--il Va i' ~y Dri~. _ / V :il . C~'~~; . ~~7/(:~03) ~r1'o - ~c:-.7
~ / j~ s
S ' ~ _ . !\i ~ .
.r ~ ~ . ~
I ~
I 4~ r
I
-
-
- - - - - - -
- - ~
- - - ~r~ ~:J' ' L.-r y:.; . ~7 T \ .
; ti~;, ~Y _ ~ ~ - - ~ r: ~ ; > > - - ~
, . ' . - J ~ ~
~ - - - - - - ~ ?I
I ,
,
_ ' I
,
, ;
. .
' ; -i _ l~ _ ~YT 4' I r ~ ~
~ 1 _.._i 1;0:,~:~c ~j~_ - _ %7
~ ~
- - 1 f.~; s E-..~ ~ ~ I
_J 'J
~
- 1 ~ -
~ I _ ~ - - - . _ .
L
1 II ~ --------Z--
- _ _ - _ - _ - _ _
=1 ~ ~
~~j:ti,:; ~ ~'~/:='_f `'.1 ~L 1
f1, --1,,?~r ~ ~
Y
~ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ - -
a: _ _ - - _ _ ` _ ; ~
, ~
~ = - ~ - _ _
irr C-- - - ' ~
hil.'
• ~ ~ ~
~ ti•~~ ' i y h~~-.~ G Ct~.~J'___..:j.1♦J ' / ~..'a- _
t - T _ :J~ -,=f --'S - _
; ~/_j~.
~ ' . - . _ - i: :
~ , ~ ~
% ~ _ J i= ~ y r ~
: i~•~' , ~ =c ~ ~ ~ /
~ 1 ~ " ~ ~ ~
I / ~ ~ ~ _
! + / ---~~'J
~ ' -
- - -
, , ~ ~
-
1_ _ ~ L_- - -1 - -
~-r ~ ~ ~ , ~
G~-•J r` - - -
~ ~~~~~y~~ ~J 1 v • ~"J~ [~i' 'v 1~~ 7~Gw_~ a' ~ ~~J ~.J r-: ~t•,~i i!: ~
________1G'~~'4~ Cw.:,~'.~?-. ~::j ~a ~1; ~r cJ ' ~T.. !-:.rJ J':~S
r;:.i ~.c:4 '1:~.%=-1 i'--'J~•• h-.?_~,; -~z~-'~ ~-r.:,~~
/ I I l~ 4 ~ ~1 ~ i~
~;`I ~ rJ I ~,V✓ JI- _ ~~~`i \ -
. _ ~ _ _ . . i \
.i~-J.~'.ti ~ ~ ' ~ '
t~ . : `t_ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~v ` t ` 7
`~i; 1_~ ~ i=. .-1!~
~
.
R Project Appiication
Date ;,25.
Project Name: ' t~>t°.'e ~ f ~i` '!~P}`' _ 17^,~"•? t. h~ i 4'1G`! t'!7 T' 'T''
Project Description: °,r;mTCid O'E 3{11" ,'WT'I:TJTF DzSH UT+
~ Contact Person and Phone - Ur N -M- ''E2tERAT. MAW,r17?, Ef? rtAt. 1.1 r~C
Owner, Address and Phone: uRjrv F3j1'ii7,' rRf]'aT.4GF R''!_ ':d (GTF.ti: 7' niJ rip T j' T f
"'.?'L, CC''
Architect, Address and Phone: n011
Legal Description: Lot , Block , Filing , Zone
Comments: •no; Ai ..~,3 DrG:.sa--~7~LC'~ E` C73} z.~, :+J;' Y- f csY 7']:+#^` '~e°:a'! •-.F; _
: •
rt:> g
Ar~~rt{ oiran to prnvt~ ~~F ~c~ ~ti~'''l nZaclY:,
~ °-qnat , 3.ne.s. ,.s x_he
]
, r- y_t'lr I smd11 / Y' tF3lI ?_~':t" Y thE? pL t .?O^f? r'
D. Id; - ..r~ 2'EB.Y !matint.air, .^y]...C.' O t P C E•.
\r!7'YYT @Ifl +13 °P'1r.l"4`C
Design Review Board
,r
Date / .1 ~i /
Motion by:
Seconded by:
APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL
Summary:
i r
1
Town Planner ❑ Staff Approval
Date:
mi
~ e
~
~
~1`i ~ , +t,,~ • ~ ,~F „
1¢+r~r s
/ • '=i. 1 ~ I
- ~u
ilJpwl
lr ` -
r.,
~
~
I
'
~ , I-.
I
, , . . . .
~
Project Application , .
Date °
,
Project Name:
Project Description:
Contact Person and Phone `
Owner, Address and Phone.
Architect, Address and Phone:
, Zone
Legal Description: Lot , Block Filing
Comments:
Design Review Board
,
Date Motion by:
Seconded by:
APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL
,y
Summary: ~
. ~ . . i- .
i t
~
, .
i.~
Town Planner Staff Approval
Date: ~ `
Project Application
Date
Project Name:
t, '
' _ ( t ~ / tL ~ 'v.~` ~„j ~ ~ f? ~ ~ ' r ,
Project Description:
Contact Person and Phone
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architect, Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot , Block Filing , Zone
Comments:
Design Review Board
Date
Motion by:
Seconded by:
APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL
Summary:
~
r Town Planner ' Staff Approval
f ~
Date:
Ihe printeryrvall
, . : _ .
.
~ .
.
\I
c/
tow 40~i v75 south irontage road April 12, 1983
vaii, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
Andy Norris
Norris Real Estate
` 1000 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Andy: . I
We would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude for your
willingness to participate financially in the Arterial Business District
Pedestrian/Bicycle Path project.
Although a small portion of the path across the Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation
District's property may be constructed this summer (they will install their
portion themselves), we feel that we cannot adequately budget the project
in our Capital Improvement Program until summer 1984. This may coincide
more favorably with improvements planned tor 1983 on the west end of the
district as well as allow each of you to budget for your assessment more
comfortably.
Please find enclosed the contract agreement form for your organization stipu-
lating the dollar figure for your assessment as agreed upon. Please note
that with the participation of Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District your
cost may be lower than the last figure you've seen. We would like to have
the signed agreement returned to the following address by May 13, 1983:
Peter Patten, Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Once again, thanks for your voluntary participation in this project.
Sincere ,
A. P TER PATTEN, JR.
Senior Planner
APP:bpr
Encl.
cc: Rich Caplan, Larry Eskwith
~
PEC 1/24/83 -Z-
Piper moved and Donovan seconded to aQProve thP general irculzltion and aan
for the Arterial Business DistHct viit
h the condition that fundin9 to im~l~ ;~nt
the bike ath, bridae and pedestFian cross~walks be worked oiat ,ithin a per i.,:; of
60 days from that da (January 24, 1983) and that the road not be narrowed dovm
between t e intersection with West Lionshead Circle and the Ho~ Cross access point,
and that no building permits be issued prior to the resolution of the fundinfl plan
~ Jim Sayre asked if a building permit could be issued after the 60 days if no funding
pTan had been worked out, and Piper said, "No."
A1 Williams asked if DRB could process his application in the meantime, and was
- told that he could continue up to the building pErmit.
Andy Norris asked about the location of the bike path near the Glen Lyon Office
building.
The vote was 5-0-1 in favor of the plan with Pierce abstaininq
~ 3. A request for two amendments to Special Development Uistrict No 4 in which
the Glen Lyon Office Buildinq is located. The first request is to chan e
the front setback from 20 feet to 15 feet. The second re uest is to amend
the allowable square foota e of the Glen Lyon Office Buildin
Applicant. Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership
Peter Jamar explained the memo, adding that the berm should be higher than shown
. on the site plan, that ithe DRB should review the ability of the berm to screen the
- parking as required, and that there were two conditions of approval, one that the
bike path, right turn and left turn lanes shall be provided in accordance with
the Circulation and Access Plan for the Arterial Business Zone District, and
the second condition was that the applicant shall agree to sharing in the cost
of providing an additional fire hydrant within the vicinity as required by the "
Vail Fire Department. Jamar added that the financing would have to be worked
out on the second condition, since Voliter and the M&W office building would
also benefit from the hydrant.
Gordon Pierce, architect for the applicant, showed a model and explained the
roofs, setbacks and masses. Patten explained that this was an amendment to an
SDD, that the SDD allowed 60% of the building to have 15 foot setbacks, but this '
building would only have 15 foot setbacks across 7% of the building.
One concern was:that the DRB require large sized trees between the building and
the road. Trout asked about the Glen Lyon Office Building applying to be in
the Arterial Business District. Patten said there was no real urgency, but that
this would be worked out with Andy Norris.
.
Trout moved to approve the re~uests for setba:ek and s_qua.re ,footaeg_~er__the
staff inemo but condi~tion #1 would be reworded to_ i_nclude_ ~h~_fa-t -tha
would be worked out_within a Period of 60__da~,ys. - ~the__fundi '
_ _
Andy Norris, one owner of the Glen Lyon Office Building, said that he had no
problem with funding of the bike path, but was concerned about the left and
right turn lanes, and felt that unless the funding were worked out, that this
part may never get done.
~
• • ~ PF 1/24/83 ~3-
.
Patten stated that Norris so3ely wou9d not have to pay for the bike path because
it was part of the whole distriet.
- fiqere was no seEeno to the rnotion,
Donovan moved and Piper seconded to approve the two amendments pgr the staff
memo dated Januar-y-7D, 1983 wi th 6e two eon~€Tons and that con _~j-on #1 woul d
inc ude the fac-t-that-the #'undin - wouid be-work-e-d-out within a` p~rjod of 60 da s
and no building permit would be issued untiT-th€ funding was worked out.
fihe vote_was_ 370 in favor with 3 abstentions--Eorearan, Viele and Pjerce.
4. 9ppeal of an administrative deeision re arding lot 17, Tract E, Vail Villaqe
fi7tb-Filing. XrppelTant. ~ar~ -strauch
@eter Jamar explained the happenings up to this date. Jan Strauch Said he agreed
. witb tkie sequence of events, but 5tated that the deck was under 6feet of snow,
and couldn't eorxeet the error practically, t#e added that it wasn't until October
that he had obtaiRed the correet size o€ meta1 chimney, and then it was too cold
io @aint it. F~e then mentioned some problems he was having converting his fire-
Qlace to a gas burning fireplace.
Trout pointed out that there was no spark arrestor in the flue of the wood burning
stove. Strauch asked what that was, and firQut explained, adding that this should
be`ipstalled immediately.
Donovanstated t-hat Straueh had rntentionallx ~uilt the deck intQ the setback
area. She felt that one chimne_y ~hould be m4da, inQperable now, and the deck
Oould be corrected to be in c_orffpltanee wfth the eode at this tTrne.
Pier-c-e's €eel irags were to install the spark; arftstor imnediately, wait 6 months
t
Q, Pc~►~~ ~h e c-~ t~tPe~r, but 04t 0,e dqek. Q0.j41, k ~Q (ipne now. He said d coupi e
. 0f la;~;uxs~ Q,f ~qW~",~n b~Qu1~ qt,~ro, t~; e#~k.. R~iI~M ~~ke~i 1f ttte~ rwas a foundation,
i~rad mqre diseussiQn ~evea_lec# that the fQU.nOAtrQn w-as inadequate, arrd that concrete
piers would have to be poured. Steve Patterson, kuilding officTal, said that
he had marked the two sets of plans that had 4"n submitted for a building permit
W:}ta the atatemeat- t-ha~ a Rx~-Qp~~ ~trur~c#atrQt~ ~,Tc~ h~ave to be cor!rgtr~ucted. He
~dded ~ha~ ~he dk-k c-ou7d be Eut a►~c# prl rr~gg ~t rn at a Tater~ c~~ without
tearing the ryhole deck apart.
Ili;ete moved an-d P_i-er•ce seeonc#edt tQ moc#i€y tfvQ ~r~rstrativ2 c#ecTgion as follows:
r- 'Ffiat-they require immedrate conversion- tv gas-of the wood bur°nTng fireplace,
2.. fhat the paiorrting of the ormr~~_yr. and aswmt-0 gheet metal be done by June 1,
3.. And tI}a
_t June t.,. 1983 aT:W wa~q the dat% g~t tQ have the deck correction
F4-- x2te vya~ 3_3, (;Q,2+?IqQr,trf,,. D.Rfm,~_n, a_0 TneAtt Wtrngt) The motT.cur, fai 1 ed .
P':C 1/24/83 -4-
After more discussion, Trout moved to approve the staff recommendation with the
exception of painting the flue and installation of the concrete foundation, and
these could be done June 15.
There was no second.
More discussion followed, and Corcoran moved and Viele seconded to'reconsider
the original motion. The vote was 4-2 to reconsider with Donovan and Trout
against.
Viele moved and Pierce seconded that the administw~`tive decision be modified
to require conformance with respect to the fireplace that was bein chan ed
to gas burning, and that the spark arrestor be installed, both of which were
to be done within 10 da s, and that the deck and paint~n be done b June 1,
83. e vote was -2 with Donovan and Trout votin a ainst. The motion assed.
Corcoran stated that the only reason he was willing to change his vote was because
he_felt it was more practical for the appearance of the neighborhood.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:45.
. ~
IZ MEMORANDUM ~Ik3
C~
;~~ir
,
, e
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
~
ua d~~~K zr-n~~/,
DATE: January 20, 1983 yq 1/ ~ / a~_ l` ~.L~. ~./l ~.='1~ -L l. vJ j.l C Y. /1
~ J
SUBJECT: Request to amend Development Area D of Special Development District
#4 to 1) change the front setback from 20 feet to 15 feet and
2) to change the allowable square footage from 13,000 square feet
to 25,000 square feet.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership
BACKGROUND
In 1976 Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, was formed. Development
area D of this SDD is the Glen Lyon Office Building. The maximum allowable
square footage for the office building was set at that time at 10,000 square
feet. The building was constructed in 1979-80 at a gross area of approximately
13,000 square feet. In March 1982 the Planning and Enviromental Commission and
Town Council approved an amendment to the SDD which allowed the space of approximately
3,000 square feet within the building built as storage to be utilized also as
office space. The current request is to expand the office building to approximately
25,000 square feet. Two sections of the proposed addition, each approximately
25 feet in length, are proposed to be located 15 feet away from the north property
line, and thus the need to amend the required 20 foot setback under the SDD require-
ments.
~
In March 1982 the PEC and Council adopted the Arterial Business Zone District I
for the area in which the Glen Lyon office building is located. Technically,
the property is still within the Special Development District. However, thestaff
believes that it is reasonable to review the proposed amendments with regard to
the standards of the Arterial Business District (ABD).
THE REQUEST
The first request is to amend the allowable square footage of building upon the
lot. The current limit set by the SDD is 13,000 square feet, and the ABD zoning
would allow 56,845 square feet. The proposal is to allow approximately 25,000
square feet of ross area and 18,750 net floor area. This would be an addition
of 8,000 square feet of office space and 2800 square feet of common area such
as mechanical areas, lobby areas, corridors, etc.
The major factorsaffected by the additional square footage are the number and place-
ment of the additional required parking spaces. A net floor area of 18,750 square
feet requires 75 parking spaces. The applicants can achieve the parking requirement ~
by adding 17 spaces to the east of the existing parking since the current parking
provided is in excess of the requirements. One loading berth will also be provided.
~
GLEN LYON OFFICE -2- 1120183
.
One requirement of the SDD is that 50% of the parking must be hidden from public
view within a landscaped berm. The applicant proposes to comply with this require-
ment.
The second request is to change the setback required by SDD along the north property
line from 20 feet to 15 feet. The applicant feels that this would permit some
flexibility in breaking up the length of the building. Only two portions of the
building, each about 25 feet in length, would project to the new 15 foot setback,
and the remainder of the addition would be located about 18 feet off of the property
line.
The ABD requires a front setback of 15 feet for 60% of the frontage and 20 feet
for 40% of the frontage. Only 7% of the proposed frontage (including the existing
structure) would have a 15 foot setback, 19.5% of the frontage would have an 18
foot setback, and 9% would have a 25 foot setback. The remaining 64.5% of the ,
frontage is not adjacent to the building. The staff believes tliat revising the front setback requirement isrconsi'stent with
the Arterial Business Zone District requirements and that the change permits a
design for the addition which will certain enhance the appearance of the building.
There should be no negative impacts that will result from the change. The building
will be located 55 feet away from the edge of the pavement of the South Frontage
Road.
An additional aspect of the proposal which should be reviewed in relation to the
ABD standards is the roof pitch. The ABD requires that the minimum slope of the
roof shall be three feet in 12 feet with an allowance of 10% of the roof area
allowed to be flat for a transition of roof lines. The applicants propose adding
a covered entry with a 6/12 roof pitch to a portion of the existing part of the
building and a 6/12 roof pitch on the north side of the addition, leaving the
Gore Creek side with a flat roof. Considering that the existing portion of the
building is flat roofed, the staff feels that the applicants have done a good
job trying to irnprove the appearance of the building with the sloped portion of
the roof. The SDD has no requirement regarding roof pitch.
CIRCULATION AND ACCESS
As you'll recall, a circulation and access plan was to be required for the Arterial
Business District. A memo regarding the plan is contained within this packet,
and the item will be considered at Monday's meeting. The applicants are willing
to comply with this plan, and improvements consistent with the circulation and
access plan are indicated on the site plan for the office building.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The DCD staff recommends approval of the requested amendments. The changes are
generally consistent with the requirements of the Arterial Business District which
governs the development of the adjacent properties. The following conditions
should be a part of the approval:
. ~
~ .
GLEN LYON nFFICE -3- 1120183
~
1. The bike path, right turn, and left turn lanes shall be provided in accordance
with the Circulation and Access Plan for the Arterial Business Zone District;
2. The applicant shall agree to sharing in the cost of providing an additional
fire hydrant within the vicinity as required by the Vail Fire Department.
y
U
. i
I
I
~
s
<< . Z
pEC -3. . , _2132'
Jim Rea, lessee of the Texaco station at the site, expressed his concern that t-iie
costs per sc,uare foot not be too expensive for potential businesses to iease.
Dick kyan again emphasized that the surrounding buildings, i.e. sewer treatment plant,
Glen Lyon office building a.nd others were 1 or 2 stories, Peter P, quoted from the
Neavy Service purpose section of the code relating to the fact ttlat Council and PEC
may prescribe more restrictive development standards than the standards prescribed
for the district in order to protect adjoining uses f rom adverse influences. Post
felt that all related questions had been answered. Dick answered that the board
had to decide what was best for Vail. I
Eric Monsan and Andy Norris supported the building, with Aridy suggesting that there
be caution to insure that the surrounding properties did not automatically feel that
they could also have the same density. Elliot Hlport felt that the 1.04 FAR was
common in the core areas and could be handled sensitively.
Duarie moved and Jim V seconded to approve the request for a conditional use to con-
struct an office building in a Heavy Service Zone District at the existing Texaco
site or the South Frontage Road per the staff inemo dated March 15, 1982.
The vote was 4~.2 in favor with Dan and Diane voting against it, and Jim M abstaining,
4. Rec uest~for an amedment t~o ~S ecial Develo ment District 4 to increase the allowable
rass-Tf'foor area aT.l~od with~'n the G en: Lyon 0~f ce Building. Applicant' ,ancfy Norri
Peter Jamar explained the memo and added that the percentage of site coverage was
not being changed, but.that the increase was within the existing building.
After discussion, Scott moved and Will seconded to approve the request to increase
the allowable gross floor area within the Glen Lyon office building. The vote 4vas
6-0 with Jim V abstaining,
This item was to go to the Council April 6.
5, B~Ruest for a. rezoni_ng_of iots 1 through 5, Cliffside subdivision from Residential
Distrlct to Si~Ule Fam7~y District: Applicants: Charles Rosenquist, Uavid Cole,
Dary'l-_Surns, Richard Brown,
Peter Patten explained the previous action leading up to this request. The applicants
werenot at the meeting, and Peter described various efforts to get in touch witll
their attorney to no avail. Since there were in the audience several people inte►-ested
in the outcome of the proposal, it was decided to go afiead with the hearing.
Peter P. explained that the staff was in favor of the request only if the condition
on the memo were includeci, The staff's reasons were the steepness of the sites,
the size of the lots, and the fact that when The Ridge was beirg developed, oru
restriction placed on The Ridge was that the homes be pulled back from the ridge
so that they did not sit on top of it,
The discussion that followed concerned access problems and what restrictions could
be placed on the development of lots 4 and 5, Craig Snowdoii; architect repre:senting
~ + '
~PE • 31122182
the Ridge at Vail owners,showed a survey study and sections which showed various
grades and explained the difficulty with keeping within the Town requirement of
an 8% grade on the roads. He added that the owners of the Ridge were not coricerned
with square footage requested, but were very concerned with access,
Various solutions were discussed. k'ill questioned whether the Planning Commission
could impose restrictions on someone's land on a rezoning. Dick answered that they
woul:d have to amend the zoning in order to add restrictions.
Duane moved to approve the request to rezone Cliffside Subdivision, lots 1-5
from existing Residential Cluster to Single Family Residential with the following
restriction;
That no structure, -•improvement or increased grade occur at a height greater than
the existing elevation at any point on the back property line which is the common
property line with The Ridge at Vail subdivision.
Will seconded and the vote was 5-0 in favor with Dan and Jim Morgan abstaining.
1 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COhfMISSION
i ~ March 22, 1982 •
* 2i00 p,m. Site visits
3:00 P.M.
1. Approval of minutes of ineeting of March 8, 1982.
2. Ftequest for a rezoning of lot 2, block 5, Intermountain, to rezone from
Residential Cluster to Low Density Multi-Family to allow the construction
of two units. Applicant: Richard Torrisi.
3. Request for a conditional use permit to construct an office building on the
existing Texaco Station site at 953 South Frontage Road West in a Heavy
Service Zone district. Applicant: M F, W Venture.
4. Request for an amendment to Special Development District 4 to increase
the allowable gross floor area within professional and business offices.
Applicant: Andrew Norris.
5. Request for a rezoning of lots 1 through 5, Cliffside subdivision from
Residential Cluster District to Single Family District. Applicants:
Charles Rosenquist, Uavid Cole, Daryl R. Burns, Richard Brown.
~ ~ .
• MEMORANDUM
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: March 16, 1982
SUBJECT: A request f or an amendment to Special Development District 4-
Cascade Village/Glen Lyon. Applicant: Andy Norris
THE REQUEST
Andy Norris is requesting an amendment to Section 18.46.050 of Special Development
District 4 to allow an increase in floor area for use as professional and business
office space in development area D. Specifically, the request is to increase
the allowable square footage for use as office sFace within the Glen Lyon Office
Building by approximately 3000 square feet. The space is currently being utilized
as storage space.
BACKGROUND
At the time SDD4 was adopted in 1977, a maximum of 10,000 square feet was designated
to be allowed for use as office space within the project. In 1980 the Glen
Lyon Office 8uilding was constructed at a gross area of 13,000 square feet,
10,000 of which is currently utilized as office space. The applicant wishes
to convert approximately 3,000 square feet of storage area to office use.
- STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the use of the
3,000 square feet as office space. The limit of 10,000 square feet initially
applied to the site seems somewhat arbitrary, and the site is able to accommodate
the additional use of space as office.
The area of the site is 75,794 square feet. Thus, the floor area ratio proposed
is 17%, a figure which the staff feels is acceptable. The building including
the additional space to be used as office, is required to have 43 parking spaces
and one loading space, which is well below the 58 parking spaces and 2 loading
spaces which currently exist. Therefore, the site can handle the additionai
parking and loading requirements of the proposal. Concerning the exterior
design of the building, there will be no modification other than the addition
of one small window.
In summary, the staff believes that the conversion of the space currently
designated as storage to office use will not have any negative impacts upon
the site or adjacent properties and should be approved.
i
ppl.ic=ation
k. Date of A
APPLICATION FOR.M FOR SPECIAL DEVELUPMENT'
DISTRICT DEUELOPMENT PLAN
I. This procedure is r.equired for any project that woul.d go through
the Special Development District Procedure.
The application will not be accepted until all informatiun is subm~;.tted.
~ azc/ ~oYL~,~i S S
A. NAME OF APPLICANT - -
ADDRLSS _ PHONE ~
B. N.Ab1E UF APPLICANT' S 1ZEPRESENTATIVE
ADDRESS ~ PHOI~TE^___
C. AU'I'HURI ZATION GF i ROPERTY/ `OWNER
SIGNATUR.E A
ADDRESS Pfi~NE -
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAi.a
ADURESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION _ E. FEE $100.00 plus 18¢ for each property owner ~o be notif.iF d.
F. A List of the name of owners of all. pr.opert.y adjacent to the
Subject propert and theix ~`~iiling addresses.
r-
zI. Four (4) copies of t~ fo lowi_ng informatian:
A. Detailed written/f;raphic descriptian of proposal.
B. An environrnental impact repc7rt shaa.J.. be submitted to thc zonirLg
admini.strator a_n accardancF wi.th Chapter 18.56 liercof uziles., waivcd
by Section 18.56.030, exempt pro.jects;
C. An open space and recreati_onal p.lan suffi.cient to mLet. the c:7~~n«ands
qenerated by ttie devel.cpmt'rat: tiTi.t:hnuL undue burden ori ava:ilable
or propUSed pub.lic facili.ties;
A'-' Application f SpeGial llevelopment Dis ;^fi Development Ylan
D. Existing contours having contour intervals of not more than five
feet if the average slope of the site is twenty percent or Iessr
or with contour intervals of not more than ten feet if the average
slope of the site is greater than twenty percent.
. E. A proposed site plan, at a scale nct smaller than ane inch equa]_s
fifty feet, showir.g the approximate locations and dimensions of
all buildings and structures, usestherein, and all priricipal site
development features, such as land.scaped areas, recreational f..acili-
ties, pedestrian plazas and wa?_kways, service entries, driveways,
ancl off-street parking and J.oading areas with proposed contours
aft.er grading and site developrnent;
F. A preliminary la.ndscape plan, at a scal.e not smaller trzan. one i.nch
equals fifty feet, showing existiiag landscape featur.es -to be r_etained
or removed, and sllowir:g propased landscaping anc3 lar7.dsra.ped site
development fea-tur.•es, such as outdoor recr_eat.ional fac.i7..ities,
bicycle paths, trails, pedestrian plazas and wa.lKways, water f_eatures
and other elerients;
G. Prel.iminary builc?ing elevati.ons, sections, and floor plans, at
. a scale not smallc:r than one--eightt.). eqtzals one foot, in suffici.er:t
detail to de-ter.rziine floor ar_ea, gross resi-dzntia.l floor e-a-ea, izlteri_o
circulation, loca tions of u:,es vaithin buildin.gs, and the general
scale and appearance of the propased developmerit.
ZII. Time RequirementU
The._Planning and Environmental Cor.nm2lssion mee-ts on, the 2nd and 4th
Mondays of each month. An app:i_ication wi-cri the neccssar;y accom,panying
mater.ial must be submitted foui° weeKS praor to the date of t.tae nleeting
NO'1'E: It is recammendc:d that bnfore a special development dis-i:rzct a-pplicatio.l
is submitted., a review and comment meeting should be set up Gvitfi L-he
Departrnent of Community Development.
f ~
e&l~ ~i~ a~
13
LZ~
.*~?xli %~a~
~~0ss A wel ol
~
/Y~''r
Tor~s ~~ss a ~ ~~Z
~fr Ig
~
~ - -
--1' _ ;
- - - -
- -
- - - - - -
,
- - _ - ,
, ,
-
- - - -
, .
~ - _ -
- _ _ - - - - - - -
i
-
-
c '4e~
~
3 z
~
i n
- r' . 1L . .
' " ~ . 1'I. ~~1'• ~•ry~~ ' ~ ~ ~
6` f p
~ i
~
S
/
7.6
.
/ f V / ~ • • ti ~ ~ . ~ r
.i1~ .
/ ' - _ . i • a. _ I .
a y 9~z
'r ~
L '
_ 1
_ ~
Of Petition D _ December 27, 1982
PETITION FORr1 FOR AMENDMEPdT TO TIIE ?ONING ORDINANCE
OR
REQUEST FOR
A CHANGE IN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
I. This procedure is required for any amendment to the zoning ordinance
or for a request for a district boundary change
A. NAME OF PETITIONER Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership
ADDRESS 1000 South Frontage Road, West PHONE 476-4433
B. NAME OF PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATIVE Pierce, Baldwin & Associates, Inc.
ADDRESS 1000 South Frontage Road, West PHONE 476-4433
C. AUTHORIZATION-OF PROPERfiY OWPdER
/
SIGNATURE 7,k
ADDRESS 1000 South Frontage Road, West PHONE 476-0838
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL
ADDRESS 1000 South Frontage Road, West
LEGAL DESCRIPTION lot 54 block filing Glen Lyon Sub-division
E. FEE $100.00 plus an amount equal to then current first class
postage rate for each property owner to be notified hereunder.
F. A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent to the
subject property and their mailing addresses.
'
M11
/!J
:
1
~ t1 GI ~'ti 1~.~ f~~S
~
.
6
The purpose of this petition is to amend the Special Development
District (SDD 4) in which the Glen Lyon Office Building and Duplex
lots 1-52 are located.
The first request is to change the front set back from 20'-0" to
15'-0°f. This would permit some additional flexibility in breaking
up the apparent length of the building. Only two relatively short
portions of the building would project to the new set back line.
This request is also consistent with the newly addopted Arterial
Business District fronting this property on the north side of the
South Frontage Road. Additionally, the existing parking area would
be expanded to handle a total of 75 cars plus a new loading berth.
The existing berm on the north of the parking area will be raised
and,ladditional landscaping will be provided as per the new plan.
~
The second request is to ammend the SDD, Glen Lyon Sub-division,
~p for existing Duplex lots 1-52, known as Development 'C', to become
Primary/Secondary (60/40) zoning.
~
The third request is to ammend the existing SDD square footage allowed
to accomodate 18,750 Net Floor Area as def ined under section 18.04.135
~ of the Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance. The property contains 1.75 acres
and could support a considerably larger building with structured
parking. This petition only requests additional square footage in
conjunction with increased surface parking.
It is the applicants intent to develop this property,through the
proposed addition to the existing office building, with the ammendment
of the SDD, to be compatible with the adjacent Arterial Business Dist-
rict.
~
X
~
. . . . . . . - " . _ . . . ' . . . . . , . - p .
y~ 1
~
PIERCE, BALDWIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. O~ T ~ p~v 6 E 0~~'Q~,
Architecture/Planning
1000 South Frontage Road, West
VAIL, CO 81657
DATE J06 NO.
(303) 476•4433 " V T~,
' s ♦ ~
,
~ RE~JVG~~ ~ V
TO 0-W h . `
l~
cp
~
WE ARE SENDING YOU Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items:
❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans 0 Samples ❑ Specifications
O Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
l~ca
~
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval
❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution
- ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints
❑ For review and comment ❑
❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
P REMARKS ~
COPY TO ~
SIGNED:
Iuct2aa3 ees inc., Gmmn, h~sc 01471 It enclosuros are not as noted, kindly notify us at once.
i
. y,~` r V ~}c ~ `~.~~y ~yp 9 . a
ry? r at ~
~ ~ +
• ( s ,f'Y -
1 )17
; I
. ,11~' 1 't ~~y ~ ~ \
r )
1
,
" • ~ :q~ _ ~
/
O
rn' (
k
~
rQ
~ m ° ~ `
. `
,
'
N 4.-
21,
r
Petition Date July 26, 1982
PETITION FORM FOR AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
- OR
REQUEST FOR
A CHANGE IN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
I. This procedure is required for any amendment to the zoning ordinance
or for a request for a district boundary change
A. NAME OF PETITIONER Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership
ADDRESS 1000 Snuth Frontage Road, West
PHOtiE 476-4433
B. NAME OF PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATIVE Pierce, Baldwin & Associates, Inc.
ADDRESS 1000 South Frontage Road, West
PHO~E 476-4433
C. AUTHORIZATIO OF PROPE OWNER
SIGIYATURE
ADDRESS 1000 South Frontage Road, West PH01E 476-0838
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL
ADDRESS 1000 South Frontage Road, West
LEGAL DESCRIPTION lot 54 block filin Glen Lyon Sub-division
E. FEE $100.00 plus an amount equal to the then current first-cla_s postage
rate for each property owner to be notified hereunder.
F. A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent tz; the
subjeCt property, and their mailing addresses.
r . . . . . . .
~
. ~
The purpose of this partition is to ammend the sdd in which the Glen Lyon
Office Building and Duplex lots 1-52 are located,
The irst request s to ammend the square footage allowed for the Glen
Lyon 0 ce ui].ding from 13,500 gross square feet to a total of 20,000
square feet "net rentable". Tlie existing building has 11,336 square feet
net rentable. The property contains 1.75 acres and could support a con-
siderably larger building, if structured parking w0slkdeveloped, However,
the apglicant is requesting the increased square feet based on surface
parking.
_
The~sec~cnd requesto change the front set back from 20'-0" to 151-0".
This would permit some flexibtlity in breaking up the visual long line of
the building. Only two relatively sFiort portions of the building woul.d
extend into the new set back.
The existing parking would be expanded slightly to handle a total of 75
cars plus a loading area. (See new site plan.) The berm wi11 be raised
in areas and additional planting will be provided as per the new plan.
t~ hird rec~ is to ammend the sdd, Glen Lyon Sub--division, for exist-
ing up ex lots 1-52 known as Development 'C' to rimar -seco d
p y n ary zoning.
I ,
Petition Date July 26, 1982
PETITION FORM FOR ANiENDMENT TO THE ZONING OADINANCE
- OR
REQUEST FOR
A CHANGE IN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
I. This procedure is required for any amendment to the zoning ordinance
or for a request for a district boundary change
A. NAME OF PETITIONER Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership
ADDRESS 7000 Soutti Frontage Road, West
, PHONE. 476-4433
-
B. NAME OF PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATIVE Pierce, Baldwin & Associates, Inc.
ADDRESS 1000 South Frontage Road, West
PH01'E 476-4433
C. AUTHORIZATIO OF PROPE OWNER
SIGNATURE
ADDRESS 1000 South Frontage Road, West ,
PHO\E 476-0838
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL
ADDRESS 1000 South Frontage Road, West
, LEGAL DESCRIPTION lot 54 block filin Glen Lyon Sub-division
. E. FEE $ 10 0.0 0 plus an amount equal to the then current first-class
rate for each property owner to be notified hereunder. Postage
F. A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent t~:; the
subject property , and their mailing addresses.
- fi
The purpose of this ~titior~ is to aiqmend the~-s~a4 in whicfi tfie Glen Lyon
Office Building and uplex lots 1-52 are located,
The first reouest is to ammend the square footage allowed for the Glen
Lyon Office Building from 13,500 gross square feet to a total of 20,000
square feet "net rentable". The existing liuilding has 11,336 square feet
net rentable. The property contains 1.75 acres and could support a con-
siderably larger building, if structured parking was developed. However,
the applicant is requesting the increased square feet based on surface
parking.
The second reouest is to change the front set back from 20'--0" to 15'-0".
This would permit some flexitiility in breaking up the visual long line of
the building. Only two relatively sfiort portions of the building would
extend into the new set back.
The existing parking would be expanded slightly to handle a total of 75
cars plus a loading axea. (-See new site p1an.) The berm will be raised
in areas and additional planting wi11 lie provided as per the new plan.
The third request is to amme=thla~
le
n Lyon Sub-division, for exist-
ing Duplex lots 1-52 known as I?evelopment 'C' to primary--secondary zoning.
. , . ~ .
~
~ ~
,
,
ApI?IiCatiC>n L)ate
~
Al'PLICA'I'TON FOP,M 1?OR A VARIA1VCE
This prucedure is required for «ny projecf-. -reqL7F;stinq aVaxi,:.ncc.
TYie appli.cati.on will not be accepted until all izzforznation is stabmitted.
A. I`1AI4E OF APPT,,IC11NT Glen Lvon Office Building Partnership
ADDRE,SS 1000 S. Frontage Road West, Suite 200, Vail, CO -PHQNE 476-0838 '
.r
B. NA.NS.L QF APPLICAN'1" S REPRESENTATIVE William H. Duddy . AUDRESS_ ~ ppp ~„rage Road West, Suite 202 Vails CO PIiONE 476-3082
C. AUTHORIZATIOIV OP PROPERTY OVdNER
~
SIGNATURE ~ ~ADD~';SS_ 1000_ S. Fronta~e Road West Suite 200, Vail, CO PHONE 476-0838
D. LOCATION OF PRUPOS7'L
ADURESS Amended Plat of Glen Lyon Subdivision
LEGAL DESCRIPTION lot 54 _~JXX.,&XXXXXXXXkWX=
)~J E. FEE. $100.00 plus an amount equal to the then currE:nt first-class jpostage
' J ratc for each property oi-mc:r to be notified hereunder.
10 I
'
F. A list of the names of ownexs ot all property adjaceTit to the
subject property and their addresses.
Tract K Town of Vail
} Lot 39, Glen Lyon Subd. Andrew Norris
1000 S. Frontage Road West, Suite 200
Vail, Colorado 81657
Voliter Nursery Bob Voliter
1031 S. Frontage Road West
Vail, Colorado 81657
Texaco Service Station
Property : -
Chevron Service Station Property
~ • " , ~
J-
(Series RESOLUTION # 11 of 1982-Y
, A RESOL~TION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
AMENDING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT l0 u f
N0. 4 TO PROVIDE THAT THE TOTAL GROSS ~
FLOOR AREA FOR USE AS PROFESSIONAL AND V` E
BUSINESS OFFICE SPACE IN DEVELOPMENT AREA
D MAY BE INCREASED FROM 10,000 SQUARE
FEET TO 13,000 SQUARE FEET; AND SETTING -
FORTH DETAILS RELATING THERETO. ,
WHEREAS, the Town Council has previously approved Special Development ~
~E
District 4, commonly known as Cascade Village/Glen Lyon Subdivision, to I
insure its planned and coordinated development in a manner suitable f or
the area in which it is situated; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council,is of the opinion that the existing !
Development Area D possesses characteristics making it appropriate to ~
, increase the total gross floor area for use as professional and business
~ office space; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has reviewed
said amendment to Special Development District 4 and recommended its
approval; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TNE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE 70WN
OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Section 18.46.050 of Special Development District
;
4 is amended to increase the total gross floor area for use as professional
and business office space from 10,000 square feet to 13,000 square feet.
INTRODUCED, READ,APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 6TH DAY OF RPRIL,
1982. ~
- 1
Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor
ATTEST:
Colleen Kline, Town C1erk
• 10
• ~ MEMORANDUM
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: March 16, 1982
SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to Special Development District 4-
: Cascade Village/Glen Lyon. Applicant: Andy.Norris-
THE REQUEST . , . .
Andy Norris is requesting an amendm'ent to Section 18.46.050 of Special, qevelopment
District 4 to allow an increase in floor area for use as professional and business
office space in development area D. Specifically, the request is to increase
the allowable square £ootage for use as'office space within the Glen Lyon Office Building by approxirrately 3000 square feet. The space is currently being utilized
as storage space. ,
BACKGROUND
At the time SDD4 was adopted in 1977, a maximum of 10,000 square feet was designated
to be allowed for use as office space within the project. In 1980 the Glen
Lyon Office Building was constructed at a gross area of 13,000 square feet,
10,000 of which is currently utilized as office space. The applicant wishes
to convert approximately 3,000 square feet of storage area to office use.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Cornrnuni ty Devel opment recommends.approval of the use of the
3,000 square feet as office space. The limit of 10,000 square feet initially
applied to the site seems somewhat arbitrary, and the site is able to accommodate
the additional use of space as off.ice.
The area of the site is 75,794 square feet. Thus the floor area ratio proposed
is 17%, a figure which the staff feels is acceptable. The building including
the addit.ional space to be used as office, is required to have 43 parking spaces
and one loading space, which is well below the 58 parking spaces and 2 loading
spaces which currently exist. Therefore, the site can handle the additionaJ
parking and loading requirements of the proposal. Concerning the exterior
design of the building, there will be no modification other than the addition ,
of one small window.
In summary, the staff believes that the conversion of the space currently
designated as storage•to,office use will not have any negative impacts upon
the site or adjacent properties and should be approved.
Col 1 een K1 i ne , To~jn C1 erk
~ .
Oi;f)IPJ/~NCf= ~r 1O
(Series of' 1_tc;2)
AN ui;U'if;AiVCE OF TiiE i+JWi•i CiiUPJCIL
AMENDING SPECIAL KVi-1__011,1ENT DISIRICT N0. 4 r0 PROVIDE THr1f 1-!iE TOTAL GROSS
FLOOR AREA FOR USE AS P?;01`ESSICNAL AND
BUSINCSS 01=FICE 5PACE TN L)EVEL_rJrMEN7 AREA
D MAY 3E INCRE:ASED Ff(ii(1 10,000 SQUARE
FEET TU 13,000 SQUf;RE 17EFT; ANU SETTIPdG
FdRTN DFTAILS RELATIidG 1-IiERETO.
4JHEREAS, the Town Council has previously approved Special Developrient
District 4, cammonly kriown as Cascade Village/Glen Lyan Subdivision, to
insure its planried and coordinated development in a manner suitable for
the area in which it is situated; a.nd "
WHEREAS, the Town Council is of the opinion that the existing
Developnient Area D possPsses characteristics making it appropriate to
incr°ease the total gross f1oor area f or use as professional and business
offi ce space; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Envir•onmental Commission has reviewed
said a;nendment to Special Development District 4 and recommended its
approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY 7HE TUWN COUNCIL OF TFIE TOWN
OF VP,IL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1. Section 18.46.050 of Special Development District
4 is amended to increase the total gross floor area for use as professional
and business office space from 10,000 square feet to 13,000 square feet
so that it reads:
18.46.050 Permitted uses
Single-family residential dweliing shall be permitted uses
in development area C. Two family dwellings, residential cluster
dwellings, and multiple family dwellings shall be permitted uses
in development areas R and B. Professional offices and business
offices, with a total gross floor area not to exceed thirteen
thousand square feet, shall be a permitted use in developiTient
area D.
Section 2. If any part, section, sub-section, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance is for any reason hcld to be invalid, such decision
shall nat affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance;
and t:he Town Council hei°eby declares i;: would have passed this ordinance,
and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof,
.
e 2
regard 1 ess ofi the fact that: ariy one or riiore, part, , section s, sub-secti nns ,
setlte►1CES, clauses, or phra;r_s be declared irvalic!.
Sectiun 3, The l awn Counc i 1 hereby f'i nds, cletermi nes , and declares
that this ordinance is neccssary and proper for i;he health, safety and
welfare of the Town of Vail and the ir1}zabitants triereof.
Section 4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision
of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect
any right which is accrued, any duty irnposed, any violation that occurred
prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other
action or proceeding that has c anmenced under or by virtue of the provisions
repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall
not revive any provision of any ordinance previously repealed or superceded
unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCEp, READ ON FIRST READI;d(;, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
ONCE IN FULL THIS 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 1982.
Rodney E. Slifer, htayor
ATTEST:
Colleen Kiine, Town C1erk
~
a ~ •
~ ~ . . . z. _
• MEMORAIvpUM T0: Plann-ing ar7d Ervironmenta) CoflFfll ss ion . ,
FFOM: Department of Coinmunity Development '
UtiTE: March 16, 1982
SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to S,pr_•cial Development District 4-
. Cascade Village/Glen Lyon. Applicarit: Andy.Norris
TNE REOUEST ,
Andy Norris is requesting an amendment to Section 18.46.050 of Special, Development
District 4 to allow an increase in floor area for use as prafessional and business
office space in development area D. Specifically, the request is to increase
the al7owable square footage for use as'office space within the Glen Lyon Office Building by approximately 3000 square feet. The space is currently being utilized
as storage space.
BACKGRCUND
At the tirrjL SDD4 was adopted in 1977, a maximum of 10,000 square feet was designated
to be allowed for use as office space within t:he project. In 1980 the Glen
Lyon Office Building was constructed at a yr-oss ai°ea of 13,000 square feet,
101000 of which is currently utilized as office space. The Gpplicant wishes
to convert approx-imately 3,000 square feet of storage area to office use.
STAFF RFCOMMENDATION
The Department of Connunity Development recommends.approval of the use of the
3,000 Square feet as office space. • The limit of 10,000 square feet initially
applied to the site seerris somewhat arbitraryy, and the site is able to accommadate
the additional use of space as off.ice. The area of the site is 75,794 square feet. Thus, the floor area ratio proposed
is 171, a tigure which the staff feels is acr.eptable. The building including
the addit.ional spdce to be used as office, is required to have 43 parking spaces
and one loading space, which is well below the 58 parking spaces and 2 loading
spaces which currently exist. Therefore, the site can handle the additianal
parking and laading requirements of the proposal, Concerning the exterior
design of the building, there will be no modification other than the addition
of one small window.
In s!anlmary, the staff believes that the conversion of the space currently
designated as storage-to office use will riot have any negative irripacts upon
the site nr adjacent praperties and should be approved.
~
~
~
,N02RI S RBALTY COMPANY
December 4, 1981
Mr. Peter Patten
Town of Vail
P. 0. Box 100
Vail, Colorado 81658
Dear Peter;
Pursuant to our discussions of December 2, 1981, I would
like to modify the Request to Amend Special Development
District 4 to include the following:
1. Request subdivision of lot 39, Parcel C. into two
single family lots. 2. Request variance from set-back requirements in Parcel A
to enable construction of parking structure/athletic
facility in north setback.
. 3. Request removal of Parcel D(Glen Lyon Office Building
lot) from Special Development District inc u' -
of said parcel into Commercidl Core 4.
It is understood that these three requests will be considered
at the same time and would first appear before the Planning
and Environmental Commission in January, 1982.
Should you require any further information, please call me.
Sincerely,
Andrew D. Norris ADN / j h ~
iA'
- -r ► ~ (et./l- l-.~ -t' ~ I !
Glen Lyon Of~lce [3uilding • 100~f S. Frontaae Rd Wey[ • Suite 200 • Vail. CO 81657 •(303) 476-0838
gli box 100 department of community development
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-5613
June 12, 1981
From: Steve Patterson
Building Official
Re: Handrail and Guardrail Installation at Glen Lyon Office Building
To: To Whom It May Concern
Sirs:
After reviewing all existing records pertainin g to said project, we have
failed to find any sort of letter or inspection sheet stating any discre-
pancies in the installation or material of any or all steel railings on
said building.
There is one inspection sheet that states that there is a need for an
additional "wood" handrail needed on the exterior staircase located on
the Northwest corner of the building.
.
. . ;e~, ~ !p."~'~j ~S T~. :F . ~f . _ ' ,~,s • ~ cC T~Rt~~~~s~ rf,~ ;i' : ~ 3~-.T
~
• Y ` ~ ' f V
Project Application
Date
Project Name:
,
Project Description:
r ,
Owner Address and Phone:
Architect Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot Block Filing 1 ~ 0~ ~ 1.
,
Zone:
Zoning Approved:
{ l
i `
Design Review Board
~
,
Date
Motion by:
Seconded by: --•-""~~~T~~ f ~ _ ~ ~Y~-`
c; -
"~_--APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL
r
i
; -
yi
Su m m a ry:
( if r i~
S
~e ~ + ~ ~
Zoning Administrat, r/ Chief Building Official
,f
~
Date: Date:
the printery/vail
Gordon R. Pierce and Associates
Architecture / Planning
February 1$, 1981
Town of Vail
Department of Community Development
Box 100
Vail, Colorado 81658
RE: Design Review Board
Glen Lyon Offices
Dear Sir:
Please schedule us for the DRB Meeting on March 4, 1981.
If you have any questions, I'll be glad to help.
Sincerely,
David G. Sellers
DGS:de
Enclosures- DRB List of Materials
2 sets Site Plan and Sign Drawing
1650 East Vail Valley Drive / Vail, Colorado 81657/(303) 476 - 2657
# .
, F n...e.
~ . ~ r •
Project Application Date
Project Name:
Project Description: z-
Owner Address and Phone:
Architect Address and Phone: E..) /4 /D O A/
' , e ~
f ~
,
Legal Description: Lot ~ mm 1-1
- ,
, Block , Filing L:-'<
J J"t. tZone:
Zoning Approved: ~
Design Review Board
Date
Motion by:
Seconded by:
APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL
Summary: ~ ~ ~ •
Zoning Administrator Chief Building Official
Date:
Date:
Ihe orinlerv-,i
~
~
towo of voi box 100 department of community development
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-5613
July 26, 1979
Gordon Pierce
Bcm 2208
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Glen Lyon Office Building 4-
Flood Wain Detexmination
Dear Gordcn:
This letter is to conf.irm t,hat the Glen Lyon Office Building
proposed to be located on Lot 54 of the Glen Lyon Subdivision
is not located within the 100 year floodplain as determined by
the Gore Creek Floodplain Report.
Sincerely,
Jaires A. Rubin
Zoning Administrator
JAR:caj
~
~
`
`
y~11
lowo, of voi
box 100 department of community development
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-5613
April 3, 1979
Andrew Norris
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Sir: The Building Permit applied for in October for the
Glen Lyon Bridge is ready.
The total Permit Fee is $618.60.
Please let us know if this project will be under
construction during the 1979 building season. If
it is to be constructed, please come in for your
Building Permit as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Catherine A. Jarnot
Building Dept. Aide
caj
Uii t:c M'~czc.~.~ i~IR7~~~~3~
• -
LIST OF h1/17'EItIAT,S
NU1; OF 11110Jl,:C'1' Gl.~► l.Yon! UFFi= =1,1,[»►J6
LEGAL DI.SC1tIPTTON LO't' BLC)CK FILIKG
DESCItII''11ION OI' 1'ItOJ1:CT The fallowing information is required for subrnittal by tho Applicant
to the llusi6n ltevicw 13oard beforc a finul uPPi•oval cun be given.
A. ) 13U1LDING NtATI,RIAGS; TypQ oL Mnterial Color
R o o t 6rb'Nrel - surf,84 }~ui l+- v~ rcx~ i , -gt15T
' S i ct i n g ~ Calsw- 5ic1 Lv,o. -tXlzK
Oihcr Tall V'.aterimis
rit5 ci a r--------
Sorfits
lY i nd owS
1V i n uw T ri m
Doors
Door Ti•itn (~1~1. ~na~►n n~ru ~ors -hWTo~& L
o~K- . ~LUSH~S7 E~tasS ~ wrart
llund or Deck Itails fl~ss
F 1 u e s
Flushings ~UST
C h i mn e y s
T rash En c 1 o s u r e s
N ^
Greenhotises
Otlici• .
E.) PLANT MATLRIALS
(Vesetative, Landscaping Materinle ineluding Treee, Shrubs,
atici Grouild Cover)
Eot,znicnl NamQ Common Name uantit Size
wS 2
n. s Asr~ 5
t2' HT
EA, PvNGbNS ~i~ "T .
Jvh
Rr.
. ~
~
, .
, •
M'
~ PAgU Z
P1anC Me[erinls ConCinued
Eotanical NatmQ Common Namc uantit Size
~
C.) OTHER LANDSCAPE FEATURES (Rataining Walle, Fencoe, Swinaning Pools, etc,)
(Pleas@ Specify) ' s}-one ~'avers _ ~ar~h - covered ark~n~ -
N
Project Application " y
. n Date
> , .7 ~ ,r• ~
Project Name:
r .
Project Description: aZ, 0 r J) 1~ V
Owner Address and Phone:
1
Architect Address and Phone:
r
Legal Description: Lot , Block , Filing t-:?'_r .W
'
Zone:
Zoning Approved:
v--U _)J-,u~
Design Review Board
Date
,
Motion by:
Seconded by:
APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL
Summary:
,
Zo Admiristrat r Chief Building Official
Date~ Date:
theprintery vad
Cilen Lyon .
1} , ~
Box 2941
Vail, Colorado 81657
.
~ r
March 29, 1978
Ms. Diana Toughill
Town of Vail
P. O. Box 100
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Diana:
On behalf of the Glen Lyon Subdivision I have reached an agreement with
Holy Cross Electric Association for the removal of the triple power poles
from the building site on lot 54.
The poles in question will be replaced with a single pole structure located
within the platted utility easement of lot 54.
It is recognized that this step is a temporary solution enabling an office
building to be constructed on lot 54 during the summer of 1978. Glen Lyon
agrees to work with the Town of Vail, Holy Cross Electric and other appropriate
land owners to develop a plan for undergrounding the Holy Cross transmission
lines.
Sincerely,
Andrew . Norris, III
ADN/s
Vail National Bankt Building 303-476-0838
Cilen Lyon
Box 2941
Vail, Colorado 81657
February 21, 1978
Mr. Joseph Langmaid
Chairman, Fire Protection District
Town of Vail
P. O. Box 100
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Joe:
In response to your inquiry of February 9, 1978 concerning the commitment
by Glen Lyon to provide utilities prior to requesting building pe,rmits -
I would make the following explanation: The only non-residential site in
the subdivision is on the South Frontage Road, and is zoned for a 10,000
square foot office building.
Because of the site's location adjacent to existing water lines, adequate
fire protection is available during a construction period even though utilities
to the residential sites have not been installed.
Should you have further questions regarding this matter, I would be happy
to meet with the Board at their next regularly scheduled meeting.
Very truly yours,
Andrew D Norris, III
ADN/S
CC: Diana Toughill
Vail National Bank Building 303 -476 -0838
ts ~
~n .
~
January 20, 1978
Gore Creek Associates
c/o Andrew D. Norris
P. O. Box 2941
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mr. Norris:
Pursuant to section 18.58.260 of the Vail Municipal Zoning Code, I, Steve
Cadwell, hereby request approval from Gore Creek Associates to graze horses
in the manner prescribed in the above mentioned Code.
Steve Cadwell
Rocky Mountain [aagons, Teams
and Teamsters :
~
/s
APPROVED:
Date : f 2 D
GOF.E CREEK ASSOCIATE
1
By:
Andrew D. Norris
i
;
i
~
1 t
~..~:o~
o w .04ii
box 100 • department of community development
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-5613 March 9, 1978
Andy Norris
Box 2941 .
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision
Dear Andy:
Lot 54,dPsignated as Development Area D, is zoned for
professional offices and business offices with a total gross
floor area not to exceed 10,000 square feet. This zoning
designation is provided in Section 18.46.050 of the ibiunicipal
Code.
If you have further questions, please give me a call.
Smi 'e , ~ v
• La~j c.! `O.Ll.~/~ ~
Diana S. Toughill~
Zoning Administrator
DST/di
~ .
I .r
~