Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVail Valley Medical Center Record Request (1) Vat:/ f=/ e APPROVED BY THE TOWN OF VAIL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DATE: 6 42 d T PLANNER:.=�r"''� Project Name: PEC Number: PEC050042 PEC Type: VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CTR CUP Project Description: AMENDMENT TO PARKING MANAGEMENT CUP Participants: OWNER VAIL CLINIC INC 05/20/2005 181 W MEADOW DR VAIL CO 81657 APPLICANT MAURIELLO PLANNING GROUP, LL05/20/2005 Phone: 970-748-0920 PO BOX 1127 AVON CO 81620 License: C000001697 Project Address: 181 W MEADOW DR VAIL Location: VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER Legal Description: Lot: E&F Block: Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE FILING 2 Parcel Number: 2101-071-0101-3 Comments: see conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Kjesbo Action: APPROVED Second By: Viele Vote: 5-0-1 Date of Approval: 06/27/2005 Meeting Date: 06/27/2005 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond: CON0007261 That the applicant agrees to not to increase staffing levels in association with this proposed amendment to a Conditional Use Permit and will return to the Planning and Environmental Commission for an additional amendment to this permit upon the commencement of the anticipated Phase 2 expansion of their campus. Planner: Matt Gennett PEC Fee Paid: $650.00 Application for Review by the i Planning and Environmental Commission TOWN'OF VAIL Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail.co.us General Information: All projects requiring Planning and Environmental Commission review must receive approval prior to submitting a building permit application. Please refer to the submittal requirements for the particular approval that is requested. An application for Planning and Environmental Commission review cannot be accepted until all required information is received by the Community Development Department. The project may also need to be reviewed by the Town Council and/or the Design Review Board. Type of Application and Fee: ❑ Rezoning $1300 iIt Conditional Use Permit $650 i 4116 ❑ Major Subdivision $1500 ❑ Floodplain Modification $400 ❑ Minor Subdivision $650 ❑ Minor Exterior Alteration $650 ❑ Exemption Plat $650 ❑ Major Exterior Alteration $800 ❑ Minor Amendment to an SDD $1000 ❑ Development Plan $1500 ❑ New Special Development District $6000 ❑ Amendment to a Development Plan $250 R. ❑ Major Amendment to an SDD $6000 ❑ Zoning Code Amendment $1300 ❑ Major Amendment to an SDD $1250 ❑ Variance $500 (no exterior modifications) ❑ Sign Variance $200 Description of the Request: Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to approve revised parking management plan and allow use of vacant space within the Vail Valley Medical Center. Location of the Proposal: Lot: E and F Block: Subdivision: Vail Village 2' Filing 0 Physical Address: 181 West Meadow Drive 44 Parcel No.: 210107101013 ( Eagle Co. Assessor at 970-328-8640 for parcel no.) Zoning: GU PIIII) Name(s) of Owner(s): Vail Valley Medical Center, Stan Anderson Mailing Address: 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100, Vail CO 81675 Phone: 479-5112 Owner(s) Signature(s): .. . 5,4 '7 ' ,1il ..):( < <' Name of Applicant: Represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Mailing Address: PO Box 1127, Avon, CO 81620 Phone: 748-0920 E-mail Address:mauriello@comcast.net Fax: 748-0377 For Office Use Onl : f Fee Paid: Check No.:z( (3 Z By: u`�1 U (( Aroiee ier�.eate: —Z1• a PEC No.: ?Gr-L05-604Z Planner: Project No.: ??.....3(. 5"-' • 0 (Sc.(.. 0309!05 pa:C.©3 06q,l W TOWN OF PAIL THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on June 27, 2005, at 2:00 pm, in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to an existing platted building envelope, located at 1463 Aspen Grove Lane/Lot 8B, Lion's Ridge Filing 4, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Robert and Kristine Selby, represented by John Martin Architect, LLC Planner: Bill Gibson A request for final review of a floodplain modification, pursuant to Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for the bridge reconstruction, located at the Westhaven Drive Bridge and Pedestrian/Skier Bridge (a more complete description is available at the Department of Community Development offices); and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Cascade Village Metropolitan District, represented by Lonco, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a final review of a variance from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, Section 12- 6C-8, Density Control, and Section 12-6C-9, Site Coverage, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, located at 1448 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 18, Block 3, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Robert Stephenson, Jr. and John Schofield, represented by Snowdon & Hopkins Architects Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-4, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Second Floor and Above, Vail Town Code, to allow for a professional office and studio, located at 450 East Lionshead Circle (Treetops Building), Lot 6, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. I Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Parking, Vail Town Code, to allow for a revision to the approved parking plan at the Vail Valley Medical Center, located at 181 East Meadow Drive/Lots E and F, Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC I Planner: Matt Gennett A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan, pursuant to Chapter VIII, Section 3, Vail Land Use Plan, pursuant to Chaptery VIII, Section 3, Vail Land Use Plan, to establish a site specific land use plan for the "Chamonix Parcel", located at Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Suzanne Silverthorn Planner: Matt Gennett A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 2.8, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the boundaries of the study area to include Evergreen Lodge, located at 250 South Frontage Road West, Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Evergreen Lodge at Vail, represented by HB Development Company Planner: George Ruther A request for a final review of a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendments, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of an elevator from the front to the rear of a building, located at 595 Vail Valley Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Vail Village Filing 7, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge, represented by Bob McCleary Planner: Warren Campbell A request for final review of a text amendment to Section 12-7H-12, Density (Dwelling Units Per Acre), Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-3, Amendments, Vail Town Code, to allow multiple attached accommodation units within a dwelling unit, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther A request for a final review of a variance from Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a retaining wall in excess of 3 feet in height located in the front setback, located at 1837 Alpine Drive/Lot 49, Vail Village West Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. it Applicant: Seven Vails, Inc., represented by David Flinn Planner: Elisabeth Eckel The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24-hour notification. Please call 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published June 10, 2005, in the Vail Daily. Vail Valley Medical Center Adjacent Property Owners List April 2005 EVERGREEN LODGE AT VAIL LTD 250 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL, CO 81657 VAIL CLINIC INC 181 W MEADOW DR VAIL, CO 81657 SKAAL HUS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION NORRIS, JOAN M. 141 W MEADOW DR 2 VAIL, CO 81657 KISTLER, D.C. - STARK, P.H. - GARBE, M.S - GRIFFITHS, L. & E. 1510 S CLAYTON ST DENVER, CO 80210 MAUD B. DUKE QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST 5550 S STEELE ST LITTLETON, CO 80121 LINCOLN TRUST CO TRUSTEE FBO MERVIN LAPIN - LAPIN, MERVIN 232 W MEADOW DR VAIL, CO 81657 LAPIN, MERVYN 232 W MEADOW DR VAIL, CO 81657 CORRIGAN, GLENDA K. & FREDRIC W. -JT 6509 BISCAYNE BLVD EDINA, MN 55436 STEINWAY, PAUL R. & MERROLE - HALABY, THEODORE S. & CYNTHIA G. 12 VISTA RD ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 KING, JAMES U., JR 407 RAMBLEWOOD RD HOUSTON, TX 77079 HURTT, CALEB B. & MARYAN F. 272 W MEADOW DR VAIL, CO 81657 VAIL INTERNATIONAL CONDOMINIUM OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC. c/o SMITH SNOWDEN 300 E LIONSHEAD CIR VAIL, CO 81658 TOWN OF VAIL 75 S. FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, CO 81657 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission J FROM: Department of Community Development I' el DATE: June 27, 2005 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Parking, Vail Town Code, to allow for a revision to the approved parking plan at the Vail Valley Medical Center, located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots E and F, Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC05-0042) Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Matt Gennett SUMMARY The applicant, the Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC, is requesting to amend a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Parking, Vail Town Code, to allow for a revision to their approved parking management plan for the hospital facility located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots E and F, Vail Village Filing 2 (Attachment A). The amendment will allow the applicant to utilize 7,000 square feet of vacant interior building space for existing employees and a new computer system while not expanding staff, clientele, or services offered. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions of this request subject to the findings and conditions noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Vail Valley Medical Center is requesting to amend their conditional use permit to allow for a modified parking management plan which will allow them to more efficiently utilize approximately 7,000 square feet of vacant interior area which is comprised of two spaces: one on the basement level of the building which encompasses approximately 5,000 square feet; and the other is on the first floor level and contains approximately 2,000 square feet (Attachment B). The purpose of making use of these vacant interior spaces is to expand existing offices for current employees and accommodate a new state-of-the-art computer system designed specifically for medical offices and hospitals. Much of the vacant space now proposed to be put into active use will be set up to train current employees on the new computer system. The new proposed parking management plan was revised in order to better accommodate the medical center's patients and employees. The VVMC campus currently contains 319 total parking spaces as approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Approximately 110 of these spaces are accessed from Meadow Drive and the remaining spaces are located in the parking structure which is accessible from the South Frontage Road. 1 Along with Phase 1 of the project, which was approved in May of 2001 and added approximately 22,866 square feet of floor area, the medical center moved several offices and functions to the Edwards facility or elsewhere off campus. These employees and uses which have been relocated include materials management, transportation department employees, and the removal of some medical office space and exam rooms. The demand for parking was reduced by six (6) parking spaces by the relocation of certain uses and the reduction of floor space for parking-intensive uses. Even though there was a reduction in demand with the new facility, the medical center adopted an official parking management plan for the site to ensure efficiency and a high level of service. Approved Parking Management Plan: • Providing separate visitor and employee parking areas; • Providing shuttle service to employees from down valley areas; • Providing free bus passes to medical center staff for transportation from areas within Eagle and Lake Counties; • Maintaining the current supply of parking on the campus; and • Providing valet services (free of charge) to visitors within the surface parking area. Incentives for participation in the alternative transportation plan include free lunch vouchers for carpoolers and shuttle riders and a free annual bus pass for bus riders. VVMC operates six shuttle buses including one from Summit County to VVMC, one from Leadville to VVMC, one from Gypsum to Edwards, and two to and from Edwards/VVMC operating on 1/2-hour intervals. VVMC employs two full- time parking attendants, two full-time shuttle drivers, and a transportation coordinator. The overall budget for 2004 for the parking management plan was $300,000. In 2004 there were a total of 9,720 shuttle riders, 1,500 carpoolers, and 874 bus users. Parking statistics have been collected for the site; the results of which the applicant has stated indicate the medical center is successfully managing its parking. The following table shows the total numbers of cars parked on campus at different times of the day in 2003 and 2005. In 2003, VVMC engaged the services of the Fox Higgins Transportation Group to analyze traffic and parking on the VVMC campus. Parking Counts 2003 and 2005* Day of Week 2005 2003 10:00 am 3:00 pm 10:00 am 3:00 pm Monday Not Collected Not Collected 307 307 Tuesday 306 307 306 307 Wednesday 307 307 307 305 Thursday 304 302 289 282 Friday 296 292 284 293 2 Saturday 183 190 183 _ 188 • Sunday 145 154 144 153 Their report analyzed data collected in March 1999 (pre-Phase 1 redevelopment), March 2002 (pre-Phase 1 redevelopment), and March 2003 (post-Phase 1 redevelopment). The proposed Phase 2 stage of the VVMC redevelopment plan is expected to commence and be completed within five years and has begun with the acquisition of the West Star Bank Building immediately to the east of the existing medical center campus. The report seems to confirm the assumptions and recommendations made during the approval of the Phase 1 redevelopment: that due to the reductions made to staffing and services the traffic and parking demand would be reduced on- campus. The analysis of the traffic numbers shows a reduction in total traffic to the site by 28% (from 2002 count) and 21% (from 1999 count). The reduction is concomitant to a reduced demand level for parking spaces at the medical center. Additionally, Fox Higgins analyzed parking count data taken before and after the Phase 1 redevelopment and this analysis demonstrates that of the 319 available parking spaces, only 294 were in use (in the worst case). The analysis also showed a 2% overall reduction in total cars parked on-site. Proposed Changes to the Approved Parking Management Plan: The medical center is seeking to continually improve its parking management and transportation system. In order to the make the parking management and the alternative transportation system work with an increased level of efficiency, the medical center is proposing the following changes: • Effective February 21, 2005, those participating in the shuttle program receive double lunch vouchers rather than the single voucher offered in prior years; • Also effective February 21, 2005, the requirement for the number of carpoolers to qualify for a free lunch voucher was reduced from 3 car occupants to 2 car occupants; • Maintain all current levels of parking, hospital programs, staffing, shuttle services, and incentive programs. • Effective in May 2005, VVMC added a shuttle to and from the Gypsum/Eagle area. III. BACKGROUND The original medical clinic was constructed in 1967, and the Vail Valley Medical Center has been added over the years as the Town of Vail has grown. On May 14, 2001 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a redevelopment of a portion of the Vail Valley Medical Center known as the Phase 1 addition. The addition actually removed an existing structure and 3 provided for a new obstetrics facility (Women and Children's Center, 2nd floor) and a new ambulatory surgery center (outpatient surgery on the 3rd floor) (see Attachment B). The expansion approved in 2001 added approximately 22,866 square feet of new floor area to the medical center. On July 14, 2003 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a Parking Management Plan for the property. One of the requirements of that approval was that if the vacant space in the building is converted to other uses an amendment to the conditional use permit for the medical center and the parking management plan be reviewed and approved again by the PEC. During the past two years the hospital has expanded its campus with the purchase of the West Star Bank Building. The new purchase gives the medical center room to shift uses and services within its newly expanded campus. More importantly, 95 additional parking spaces will incrementally become available at the West Star Bank property as existing tenant leases expire. IV. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES Order of Review: Generally, conditional use permit applications will be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, and then any accompanying design review application will be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a conditional use permit application, in accordance with Chapter 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority over a conditional use permit application. However, the Design Review Board is responsible for the final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of any accompanying design review application. Town Council: The Town Council has the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination, or interpretation by the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design Review Board. The Town Council may also call up a decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design Review Board. Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also provides the Planning and Environmental Commission a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application in regard to the criteria and findings outlined by the Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS A. Town of Vail Zoning Regulations 4 For the Planning and Environmental Commission's reference, Section 12- 16-1, Vail Town Code, identifies the purpose for a conditional use permit as follows: "In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied." 12-9C-3: CONDITIONAL USES: (in part) A. Generally: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the GU district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Hospitals, medical and dental facilities, clinics, rehabilitation centers, clinical pharmacies, and ambulance facilities. 12-9C-5: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: (in part) A. Prescribed By Planning And Environmental Commission: In the general use district, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as prescribed by the planning and environmental commission: 1. Lot area and site dimensions. 2. Setbacks. 3. Building height. 4. Density control. 5. Site coverage. 6. Landscaping and site development. 7. Parking and loading. B. Reviewed By Planning And Environmental Commission: Development standards shall be proposed by the applicant as a part of a conditional use permit application. Site specific development standards shall then be determined by the planning and environmental commission during the review of the conditional use request in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title. 5 VI. ZONING ANALYSIS Legal Description: 181 EastMeadow Drive/Lots E and F, Vail Village Filing 2 Zoning: General Use zone district Land Use Plan Designation: Transition Area Current Land Use: Medical Facility Development Standards Existing Proposed Lot area/site dimensions: 166,007 sf/3.811 acres No Change Setbacks: Front: 22' No change Side (w): 39' No change Side (e): 34' No change Rear: 29' No change Building height: 53' (all inclusive) No change Density control: N/A No change Site Coverage: 3,460 sq. ft. No change Parking and loading: 329 spaces (excludes valet) No change VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: Mixed Use Special Development District No. 14 South: Residential Primary/Secondary East: Residential High Density Multiple Family West: Public/Recreational General Use VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Parking and loading are a development standard prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission in the General Use (GU) zone district. A. Consideration of Factors Regarding Conditional Use Permits: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The original parking management plan was provided to meet the Planning and Environmental Commission's condition of approval for the Phase I expansion of the Vail Valley Medical Center. The main purpose of the Phase I expansion was to improve medical services in the Vail Valley and had minor impacts on the overall capacity of the hospital. Evidently, the removal of a number of uses from the medical center's property actually reduced the number of vehicular trips to and from the site. Staff has determined the proposed use is the same as the existing use and has a very positive impact on the development objectives of the Town of Vail as it serves a distinct community need and nothing changes with respect to the building, property, or number of vehicles traveling to and from the hospital. The new parking management plan was a condition of approval from the 6 PEC should the medical center propose to use the existing vacant spaces at any point in the future. The new parking management plan bring proposed is meant to meet that condition and improve the experience for patients and visitors of the hospital, thereby increasing the level of service offered today. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes the proposed amendment to the existing conditional use permit will have negligible effects on the above- mentioned criteria as the bulk, shape, and size of the existing VVMC building will not change. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The effect upon traffic with respect to congestion, safety, convenience, flow, control, access, maneuverability, and snow removal is anticipated to be positive as the applicant is proposing to improve all the aforementioned elements of this criterion with the modifications to the parking management plan. Again, as it is being reported by the applicant that there will be no increase in number of employees, nor any increase in the number of patients to be accommodated in association with this amendment to an existing conditional use permit, the factors related to this criterion will improve. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The proposed amendment to the existing conditional use permit will have no impact upon this criterion. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 Zone District. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 7 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with conditions the applicant's request for an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Parking, Vail Town Code, to allow for a revision to the approved parking plan at the Vail Valley Medical Center, located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots E and F, Vail Village Filing 2. Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria described in Section VIII of this memo, the evidence and testimony presented, and with the following condition: 1. That the applicant agrees to not to increase staffing levels in association with this proposed amendment to a Conditional Use Permit and will return to the Planning and Environmental Commission for an additional amendment to this permit upon the commencement of the anticipated Phase 2 expansion of their campus." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose approve to the requested amendment to a Conditional Use Permit, the Department of Community Development recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission approves the request for an amendment to a conditional use permit with the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. And one condition: 1. That the applicant agrees to not to increase staffing levels in association with this proposed amendment to a Conditional Use Permit and will return to the Planning and Environmental Commission for an additional amendment to this permit upon the commencement of the anticipated Phase 2 expansion of their campus." 8 X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Reduced Floor Plans C. Applicant's Written Proposal I 9 r ": _ : . . Attachment: A mj J,00*. :1 g • IMF' f• 4• Y r + a) ,' b!T"� ` Br x xr s 7z b • —0 a As,y ��'o § 1,10,,- '„! a b eflAtil, II) $ 4 ^; .t v� 4 Nr;r = iii sikir 4:" _, ,' . ,• /1; ' f C x Q.m ' � • O a.r 3 a •- ► ro .�r.. c ; r• 0 :4.-,:-.1:,-,1- 4.1'. .*.:r.+ y ,.e;yt� d� ..4 S%•fi #( . r E C i : ” N(((( Y-°d y 3 'o ----."--r4""-,7 iii „.Pte Ci D o ,� ./{� t it @ E :� l t ae ate;.3 -V g et#�e s ,, fn y p Attachment: B • • • i NH L .. • — . ••• n rri .0 i • 4 li P A101 g1 1-1-- 1 .. . \,......4.,. • • .. • • a , I ll ,,.;* H , Lm-- : o a o co 0 . n � - C . O • . CI. 2 • - • • • • i °� � � � •-- .• . , ,V,kt.i,v.t ,, x\.\N _. \ 1 m. .-..• -:, • . 1 Da ' 1 1/4tk7k:t." \i‘4;.k‘\\: \ I'M . Er 1 ■,,,‘, -%`" \\\t, • • . r.., li . . . .: :.. . . . • . . .*. 1111 ; , � i1 ,� - . -. . N !I . ,r. 1 •.. . ,, ,,. . . . . • • • . . . . . . • .. . : .. . . . . . • • . . , .,....,)11 i"Pr f t t 14 1 - (11( 1 • it 1 1 1� 4 7-] /Y �'iiI l.M 1\ FIH A ; , ! I; Q 1 1 , k IF ,i j,( I PI 1 1 i ci►.lW►.�d�1 i 4; ►I .1 ■ S I • • . ?riA, L • 1 1 x ad CD CD :4 Cd . a I.• E'a r 1/11`- 1 6 sill a '1 �ItI• oi A? CD • i ... / v, mlin �, v. ,, , R. \ m ,...,........................) - , .--C1r- , �� 'IF. gid (9 ,.., VD i t) , _ ' ? i i . it 4 ) ( . , 0 i 06C2 Il • ' . ' . . . -/T- • • . . •• -. ' . •, . .-. . ••• ' • -..• ; killilltig' I RI; - - • • 1 I I • • • • '► 1 .1_ i 111. 111 .1, 1 ..1. 1 CD • Liu M i ..li ih ---- a� 0 1.1' �� 1 1 1 I fiT 4q ' .. �a �r{A .. lye gip:. k • ddb % 4 1 L IIIPAI iinb�ig� . [r V 3A .. A 5: ~SCI t0 k • • - e. y o • 0 . 1 / 1 I I 1 1 1 II tlta_,..r----\________,i i III . I I 11 ! LI {2� j �1 1 I 1 1 ! i I 1 ;m .-r v �5 0 1 rr_7-- i V U —-a • ".ji___.; I" 1 i'r'l ' !N -. i'i.... 0.) ti..i. .--.1 ,... ._ p ,i„,,,,,,,,,, ,......, \ , ��. 1 ti.,4 , . ,::::„ i, Li . . 2 u IC . ,� 4 °w C k 1.1 jPr.. t,- 'f •v�--1 • sA a:14 1 ;a -ski• , . -- ‘-', .3 Q '•.a f:'4._pieMil.161!,1.4.9 /0. 1 �� �- s� i' E�-`.�✓. a . ._. _.� '? ___I • , ,, 4 7.14 CA i \ \ . --! C d IC ! ' j V/ (t ) t d i.6 1 Q CI / Ili L L .V 1 i CI C \\/ . \y s \ a, w 6., ....., . . . . ,...... No 0 6 c4 ■ ( YYY"' • e f lt 1 ..\iz. \\\k\ o 0 W . / Attachment: C Vii' Vail Valley Medical Center I, _ iiii _ _........... __,-, Lr ,I k r y�/ , A x 3 bR•,I' ..._,S.-,S174-1 , ..,.._. ry..:•:,... .''''''•-•i'!',' i'-,-K;;.,'::'',,'' .''-e;,..?.--e. ■ '''':-1'. 'i 1.'1!:i1:1:', .:-..:..-,:-'..4-'...::.1r4'.',arlint.''''''':**4714117:"...--2' -'1—. ----.4.,•4,.:M.:•'.,".! I II ' '-il Tr Br i r- : '_,., ,r (-- ror, i 1 1 ii 'i j' - ' , ± z j i i. 1 rn..wm ar. , & ,.q I: LL!1! I I i I, r.�y,-7 , • lf•a P. P" _�.r i1 z I �r�,\ ._.. !I' � .wv._•r t I� "'. > v.� " k,x:Y1<, 2k.:;k4 i \ h l , i 'Y 4 ' 't ` ( / ; r,.x } ,f: --,-7-.-" ' "`�e� f.,;:,•-, ..;:..,.;,s+ r J ,-.. !� - 4 i.-,6.a -�< _ I L. _ _ _.-I f _b w1!!!'"_ -0-.r r-_i _ !1 `' �V/(.*. .1.i_.: \•1 i:iy!LAV \•i 1i t 1,1 _:1 �. i. :.ill .1L{l_1,.yl_,i .:..` / v/ Application for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit Proposed Use of Vacant Space May 2005 I. Background On May 14, 2001 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a redevelopment of a portion of the Vail Valley Medical Center known as the Phase 1 addition. The proposed addition removed an existing structure and provided for a new obstetrics facility (Women and Children's Center—2nd floor) and new ambulatory surgery center (outpatient surgery on the 3rd floor). On July 14, 2003 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a Parking Management Plan for the property. One of the requirements of that approval was that if the vacant space in the building is converted to other uses and amendment to the conditional use permit for the medical center and parking plan be reviewed and approved by the PEC. During past two years the hospital has expanded its campus with the purchase of the West Star Bank Building. This purchase has allowed the medical center to shift uses and services within its new campus. Additional parking is also now available on the West Star Bank property. This purchase has laid the groundwork for a better ultimate redevelopment solution with better access to the S. Frontage Road. As many may recall, when the new Women's and Children's Center was approved there was approximately 7,000 sq. ft. gross of vacant, unplanned area on the first floor of the building (5,000 sq. ft. on zero level of building and 2,000 sq. ft. of new core and shell space). No uses were programmed at that time for this space. The space was used in the construction and transition periods to allow medical center offices to be shuffled around the building. A portion of the space is currently occupied by the Steadman Hawkins Foundation but an equal amount of floor area was vacated in other portions of the building to compensate for this occupancy as approved by the Town. The proposed amendment will allow use of vacant space without any increase in staffing, without the addition of any new programs, and without the need for additional parking on campus. Vail Valley Medical Center Maur ello Planning Group, LLC II. The Proposed Amendment There is presently 7,000 sq. ft. of space that was left vacant or used for storage per the prior TOV approvals. The medical center would like to make use of these spaces to address four core issues: 1. The need for space for new technology facilities; 2. The need for new training facilities related to the new technology improvements; 3. The need for better quality and larger office spaces for existing users; and 4. The need for new meeting room facilities for existing users. The medical center is acquiring new state of the art computer technology that will integrate all aspects of patient care and business functions of the hospital. All medical center records will be stored and accessed digitally making for a very efficient operation. These changes affect all personnel within the medical center including accounting, billing, imaging, administration, and patient records to name a few. The physical space demands for this type of equipment are more than triple what exists today in the medical center. Additionally, the medical center will spend the next two years in extensive training with all of the medical center staff on the use of this new computer technology. Training room space of approximately 2,000 sq. ft. will be required to accommodate existing employees for training on a daily or weekly basis. One only need visit some of the existing nurses' stations, meeting rooms, and administrative spaces within the building to understand the rather cramped conditions that exist in the medical center. The proposed amendment will allow the expansion of office spaces and meeting areas to allow for better quality spaces. Vail Valley Medical Center 2 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC III. Parking Management Managing parking can be a difficult business for a business like the medical center. Most people want to be able to get in their cars in the morning, drive to work, park for 8 hours, and then return home. The only way to get the typical American to abandon their vehicle is to either make parking inconvenient or costly, provide financial or other incentives to not drive one's car, or require employees to make commuting arrangements as part of their employment. Today the medical center has been using a voluntary program of opportunities and incentives to entice employees to find other means of travel to work or to carpool. The program has been very successful but can be even more successful in the future by using a system of both carrots and sticks. It has come to the attention of the VVMC that some employees of tenants in the medical center have found it convenient to park in the Town's municipal lot across the street from the facility. The Town has not ticketed these vehicles and therefore the behavior has continued. VVMC has made it clear to employees that parking in the Town's municipal will not be tolerated. The medical center is now taking steps to enforce more stringent use of alternative means of travel to work. The following sections will detail proposed changes to the program which we believe will make the program even more successful than it is today. A. Approved Parking Management Plan The VVMC campus currently contains 319 total parking spaces as approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Approximately 110 of these spaces are accessed from Meadow Drive and the remainder are located in the parking structure and accessed from the South Frontage Road. Along with the Phase 1 project, the medical center moved several offices and functions to the Edwards facility or elsewhere off campus. These relocated employees and uses included materials management, transportation department employees, and removal of some medical office space and exam rooms. The demand for parking was reduced 6 parking spaces. Even though there was a reduction in demand with the new facility, the medical center adopted an official parking management plan for the site (VVMC had already been employing many of these programs in an informal way). Vail Valley Medical Center 3 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC The approved parking management plan includes: • Providing separate visitor and employee parking areas; • Providing shuttle service to employees from downvalley areas; • Providing free bus passes to medical center staff for transportation from areas within Eagle and Lake Counties; • Maintaining the current supply of parking on the campus; and • Providing valet services (free of charge) to visitors within the surface parking area. Incentives for participation in the alternative transportation plan include free lunch vouchers for carpoolers and shuttle riders and a free annual bus pass for bus riders. VVMC operates six shuttle buses including one from Summit County to VVMC, one from Leadville to VVMC, one from Gypsum to Edwards, and two to and from EdwardsNVMC operating on '/2-hour intervals. VVMC employs two full-time parking attendants, two full-time shuttle drivers, and a transportation coordinator. The overall budget for 2004 for the parking management plan was $300,000. B. Success of Parking Management Plan The success of the parking management plan can be shown by the numbers of people participating in the program as well as the parking counts taken annually. In 2004 there were a total of 9,720 shuttle riders, 1,500 carpoolers, and 874 bus users. Parking statistics have been collected for the site and tell a consistent story that the medical center is successfully managing its parking. The following table shows the total numbers of cars parked on campus at different times of the day in 2003 and 2005. Vail Valley Medical Center 4 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Parking Counts 2003 and 2005* Day of Week 2005 2003 10:00 am 3:00 pm 10:00 am 3:00 pm Monday Not Collected Not Collected 307 307 Tuesday 306 307 306 307 Wednesday 307 307 307 305 Thursday 304 302 289 282 Friday 296 292 284 293 Saturday 183 190 183 188 Sunday 145 154 144 153 *Parking counts taken March 3-9, 2003 and February 22-27, 2005 C. Parking and Traffic Data Analysis In 2003, VVMC engaged the services of the Fox Higgins Transportation Group to analyze traffic and parking on the VVMC campus. They analyzed the conditions that existed before the Phase 1 redevelopment began and compared that to new data collected after completion of the Phase 1 redevelopment. Their report is attached for reference. Their report analyzed data collected in March 1999 (pre-Phase 1 redevelopment), March 2002 (pre-Phase 1 redevelopment), and March 2003 (post-Phase 1 redevelopment). Their report confirms the assumptions and recommendations made during the approval of the Phase 1 redevelopment, namely that due to the reductions made to staffing and services the traffic and parking demand would be reduced on-campus. The analysis of the traffic numbers shows a reduction in total traffic to the site by 28% (from 2002 count) and 21% (from 1999 count). That reduction relates to a reduction in parking need. Additionally, Fox Higgins also analyzed parking count data taken before and after the Phase 1 redevelopment. That analysis shows that of the 319 available parking spaces, only 294 were in use (in the worst case). The analysis also showed a 2% overall reduction in total cars parked on-site. Vail Valley Medical Center Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 5 D. Proposed Changes to Parking Management Plan The medical center is continually looking for ways to improve its parking management and transportation system. In order to the make the parking management and the alternative transportation system work even more efficiently the medical center is proposing the following changes: • Effective February 21, 2005, those participating in the shuttle program receive double lunch vouchers rather than the single voucher offered in prior years; • Also effective February 21, 2005, the requirement for the number of carpoolers to qualify for a free lunch voucher was reduced from 3 car occupants to 2 car occupants; • Maintain all current levels of parking, hospital programs, staffing, shuttle services, and incentive programs. • Effective in May 2005, VVMC added a shuttle to and from the Gypsum/Eagle area. Vail Valley Medical Center Mauriello Planning Group, LLC IV. Conditional Use Permit Criteria Below is the criteria used by the staff and the Planning and Environmental Commission when reviewing a request for a Conditional Use Permit. We have addressed each of these criteria and find that the proposal fully complies with each. A. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Our Analysis: The Vail Valley Medical Center is part of the public or quasi-public infrastructure of the Town and the county. Approximately one-half of the services provided at this medical center service directly those needs of the permanent population. Without such a facility located in our community many would be required to travel to Denver or elsewhere to receive quality health care. It is largely the growth in demand placed on this facility by the local population that has created a need for improved facilities. The VVMC has responded to these demands for service with the Phase 1 addition, completed in 2002. This application is an extension of that approval and is necessary to allow the hospital to continue to operate efficiently and in a quality manner without additional negative impacts to the community. The proposed expanded use of floor area will have little, if any, impact on utilities, schools, parks, and recreation facilities. Transportation facilities will not be negatively impacted by the proposed changes since there is no increase in programs, services, or patients as a result of the proposed changes. The existing parking facilities located on-site and the parking management plan being provided for the uses on-site will allow the medical center to operate in an efficient manner thus creating a compatible relationship to other uses in the neighborhood. Vail Valley Medical Center 7 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC B. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Our Analysis: The proposed uses will have little if any impact on these issues. The Phase 1 addition and this expansion of use, given the uses that were removed from the site in 2002 (materials management employees, medical office employees, medical office exam rooms, transportation department employees, Urgent Care Center in Edwards, etc.) actually reduced the number of vehicles coming to the site as evidenced by the traffic study provided. Large delivery vehicles (especially semi-trailer) trips have all but been eliminated from the site. The proposed parking management program allows visitors to the hospital to be valet parked (free of charge) and therefore the VVMC is able to accommodate visitors to the site in an efficient and effective manner. The proposed parking management plan documents the activities and operations that have been in place at the medical center since the new addition was completed. Over the past several years VVMC has been able to show its ability to manage parking on its campus which accommodates its employees and visitors. The parking and traffic analysis also documents the reduction in traffic to and from the since which directly impacts parking resources. The proposed plan is consistent with this criterion. C. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Our Analysis: The VVMC site has long been a medical facility characterized by hospital and medical office uses. The property to the north of the hospital, the Evergreen Lodge is a 7-story lodge and condominium facility. To the east is the Weststar Bank building, a 3 to 4-story office building which is now owned by the VVMC. Also to the east is the Skaal Hus, a 2-story condominium project. The VVMC campus is bordered on the south by West Meadow Drive. Beyond West Meadow Drive to the south are single- family homes. The property to the west of the VVMC is the Dobson Ice Arena and the Library. Vail Valley Medical Center 8 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC The existing VVMC facility is comprised of a series of one, two, and three- story structures that have been connected over the years. The proposed changes will have no impact to the bulk and mass of the building. Vail Valley Medical Center Mauriello Planning Group, LLC V. Land Use Plan Goals Below is a list of Goals from the Vail Land Use Plan that are applicable to the VVMC. The Phase 1 addition was found to be consistent with these goals as the proposal is responding to the needs of the community, is being developed in an area where development is currently located, and is upgrading an older building and improving upon its character. These goals also apply to the proposed change of use and parking management plan, which allows the medical center to operate efficiently and effectively. 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. 1.10 Development of Town owned lands by the Town of Vail (other than parks and open space) may be permitted where no high hazards exist, if such development is for public use. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 6. Community Services 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. 6.2 The Town of Vail should play a role in future development through balancing growth with services. 6.3 Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. Vail Valley Medical Center I 0 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC FOX HIGGINS 1. T R A N S P O R T A T I O N G R O U P May 19, 2003 'H.01018 ANALYSIs.wro Mr. Dominic Mauriello, AICP Braun Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 2658 Edwards, Co 81632 RE: Traffic Analysis for the Vail Valley Medical Center Dear Dominic: The Fox Higgins Transportation Group has prepared a traffic and parking analysis of the existing Vail Valley Medical Center to identify traffic volumes and parking demands on the site before and after Phase I renovations were in place. The medical center is located between S. Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive. The facility has recently undergone modifications to its operations and uses known as the Phase I improvements. These improvements involved the relocation of several existing operations to a new facility in Edwards and the renovation of existing obstetrics and surgery areas. With the Phase I improvements, the daily delivery of supplies were anticipated to significantly be reduced by moving the materials management operations and medical office uses to the Edwards facility. This traffic and parking study compares data collected at the medical facility before the improvements were in place to determine any net changes in traffic characteristics with the Phase I conditions. This analysis concludes that there has been a significant reduction in traffic from the existing conditions prior to the Phase I redevelopment. The parking demand on site has also experienced a reduction since the redevelopment of the medical center. Existing Traffic Conditions The medical center site is located between the S. Frontage Road and Meadow Drive. Two parking areas are located on the site. A surface parking lot containing 110 parking spaces accessed by Meadow Drive is used as the primary visitor access and emergency access to the medical facility. At times of peak parking utilization, parking spaces in the surface lot are maximized by valet parking. The medical facility parking demands are maintained on the site at all times. A parking structure with 209 spaces serves the hospital staff parking demands with access from the S. Frontage Road. The parking structure is currently gated for controlled access. W.Meadow Drive is a two-lane roadway with sidewalks along the north side at the hospital frontage. The posted speed limit along Meadow Drive is 15 miles per hour. W.Meadow Drive serves all modes P.O. Box 1976B, BOULDER, COLORADO BO308-2769 PHONE: 3 03-652-3571 • FAX: 303-772-2329 OR 303-652-6574 Mr. Dominic Mauriello, AICP Page 2 May 19, 2003 of transportation including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use. S. Frontage Road is a three-lane roadway adjacent to the hospital parking structure and widens to a 5-lane section east of the hospital access. The S. Frontage Road is planned for future widening to a 5-lane section west of the hospital access. The existing hospital parking structure access curb cut along S. Frontage Road is wide and currently shared with the adjacent commercial use parking lot access. Traffic Count Data In order to compare current traffic characteristics of the facility to operations prior to the Phase I improvements, vehicle turning movement counts were collected at the two site access intersections on a Friday in March 2003. The data was collected in the morning peak hour period (7:30-8:30 AM) and evening peak hour period (3:30 - 5:30 PM) at site access locations. Parking utilization data was also collected in the surface lot and parking structure at peak parking periods of 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM. This data was compared to previous data collected at the medical facility in March 2002 and March 1999 prior to the Phase I improvements to determine any changes in traffic characteristics with the modifications to the site operations. Parking utilization data was only collected in 2003 and 1999. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the traffic count and parking utilization data for the facility at each count period. Figure 1 illustrates the peak hour volumes at the site access intersections for all three years. The results of the traffic count data show that there has been a net decrease of 21% to 28% in traffic volumes at the site access points since completion of the Phase I improvements. The parking utilization of the site has experienced a decrease in parking demand of 2% since the Phase I improvements were implemented. It should be noted that parking counts taken in 1999 and 2003 reflect that the parking areas were never occupied at maximum capacities (e.g. in excess of 30 spaces unoccupied). Conclusion The Vail Valley Medical Center peak traffic volumes at the site access points and parking utilization have decreased since implementation of the Phase I improvements. This decrease is primarily a result of relocating several of the medical facility operations (e.g. Urgent Care facility at Edwards Medical Center),private medical practices moving offsite, and storage areas to the Edwards facility as included in the Phase I improvements. Therefore, the parking existing on site (329 spaces) has adequate capacity to serve the existing uses and improvements at the Vail Valley Medical Center. Additionally, the managed parking plan(including valet parking)further maximizes the parking potential of the site. Sincerely, Fox Higgins Transportati n Group, LLC dr / if Ann Higgins, AICP Principal Attachments: Table 1 - Hospital Driveway Traffic Count Comparison Table 2 - Hospital Parking Demand Comparison Figure 1 - Existing Historical Traffic Counts Co) 8 2 a x o3 '2? 5 I ,.) z . 8 co c '''.:, t co T:z. r 04 04 04 CZ To 0 1- 0) 8 't.". t.- N -,t c0 i C+4 C 0 (.0 ct3 1 0 a' ' ....• 0 t-- 0 tr, cv c•,1 , 0• 0 -g 1 o a, 0 0 , 0 CI E a. 7; E o 0 CV ma. 0 0 4-5 1-• 1:5 nr. 0 0) 0 t 0 co c•i c 1— I_ — 0.., — 0 o›. t cl 8 .; T.3 1 ctl c is __. di tv -I a cr) 2 > 5 CV CO CO 43 0; 0 0 7-0 a) — 0 a. 0 1 co I.- a , 0 . . Z •- 1 . o es CNI c0 Ts- Lo CI E Cl- C) 0 03 O X C 0 0 CO•cr a cL = o c) r"-- t a. a{ - - .- T V." I 0 C .... ''''. 40 .g am 0 Ctl = el * AM Q 0 0) i 572 0 0) E E E 0 C sIZ al 15, Lt, o cc) 5 i :F. 1,,„ i_ ..- c.,1 ..-. _ to N ''"' b ---- to t [ .n v- os Ts c Z i ' 1 , o -= as 0 o — ø > .0 LO _ ti$ 0 L.9 ; ., --- — ....... ea a] 4S aa a) — 4 ..) C.) N C) 33 cc) Cr: CC c 0 0 M .1= "8 0 0 .c = 0 0 0 Q. = 00) 0.. L of " " ...".. 0 CNI N- s- st gilz 0 _c z _c ...). t., = p p_ 0 < CO CO cu (0 (Lti ....... 03 i a) rn r E ;c 0 U N . C N ~ z g O CD p .)[ it "C3 W m o b J a Q} O S4 c a �%` rte. w C7 w irj Cl) / = N / U] ¢ (..)uU ,. o LI- / ti. ri: 0) I/ z W d U U to ,N a Zt' E2 in(o 2 J �s d�, > <��Jc'�1 oo > X i-`"e°' �c (4 o w p o P 1 0 (0 - �� N \�ry " :^ �tb A m ssaxty 1e3!dsoH 7 \ [9L/ZZ] (bL/LO 79/ i' 4 i [0/0] (Z/fl) Ill o 1 o `. N 2 '.� 0 V � o N U z _3 co c o ro to < N •—• = h rn r a *t x : t h 1=L ******************************************************************************************** TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO Statement ******************************************************************************************** Statement Number: R050000649 Amount: $650.00 05/20/200504:02 PM Payment Method: Check Init: JS Notation: 218132/VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER Permit No: PEC050042 Type: PEC - Conditional Use Parcel No: 2101-071-0101-3 Site Address: 181 W MEADOW DR VAIL Location: VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER Total Fees: $650.00 This Payment: $650.00 Total ALL Pmts: $650.00 Balance: $0.00 ******************************************************************************************** ACCOUNT ITEM LIST: Account Code Description Current Pmts PV 00100003112500 PEC APPLICATION FEES 650.00 • m 31 Z003 ex iaMioJ h10.- MEMORANDUM 15-t TO: Planning and Environmental Commission S- / Clnit+s FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: May 14, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for an addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center, located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots E & F, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Braun Associates. Inc. Planner: George Ruther DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, the Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Braun Associates, Inc., is requesting an amended conditional use permit to allow for an expansion to the existing medical facility. The proposed expansion adds approximately 22,866 square feet of new floor area to the existing hospital. In order to accommodate the new square footage the applicant is proposing to expand the first and second floor levels to the south and to add a new third floor atop the existing two-story building. The proposed redevelopment is intended to improve the existing facilities on-site. The expanded and remodeled first floor will be utilized for interim functions pending the completion of the Phase 2 redevelopment. The remodeled second floor will be the new location of an improved and expanded Woman's & Children's Center (obstetrics) and the new third floor is to be utilized for the new Ambulatory Surgery facility. According to the statements submitted by the applicant, the key elements of the Phase I proposal are: • A much needed improved obstetrics facility • An improved outpatient surgery facility • A significant reduction in the size of the existing materials storage facilities and the associated reductions in staffing levels on the Vail campus. • A net reduction in the parking space requirement for the site. A Conceptual Phase II Master Plan has been submitted. The conceptual master plan was required by the Community Development Department. The purpose of the master plan is to illustrate the extent of the possible future improvements and how the proposed Phase I improvements relate to and impact future plans. A final review of the Phase II improvements is not requested, nor it is required at this time. The Phase II plans are for illustration purposes only and an approval of the requested conditional use permit shall not in any way vest or convey approvals of the plan. The applicant has provided a written general description of the goals and purposes of the Phase II plans. A copy of the description can be found on Page 2 of the applicant's 1 submittal materials entitled, "Vail Valley Medical Center—Application for Conditional I Use Permit", dated April 16, 2001." The existing gross square footage of the medical center is approximately 146,584 sf. Upon the completion of the proposed Phase I improvements the total gross square footage will be increased to approximately 169,450 sf. And finally, as conceptually proposed, the Phase II improvements add another 49,000 sf bringing the total gross square footage of the medical center to nearly 218,472 sf. It is important to note that Phase II plan is conceptually only and these numbers have been provided for illustration purposes only. E II. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for approval/denial of a Conditional Use Permit. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental TOWN OF YAIL impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. 7. Conformance with development standards of zone district Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a Conditional Use Permit, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the Phase I addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center,located at 181 West Meadow Drive, subject to the criteria as described in Section V of this memo and the following findings: 2 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this request, staff recommends the following condition be made as part of the approval: That the applicant submits a final landscape plan and exterior lighting plan to the Community Development Department for the review and approval of the Design Review Board prior to the request for a building permit. That the applicant returns to the Planning & Environmental Commission with an application for an amended conditional use permit addressing the proposed use of the first floor space prior requesting a building permit for a tenant finish of that space. IV. ZONING ANALYSIS According to Section 12-9C-5, Development Standards, of the Zoning Regulations, the development standards in the General Use zone district shall be proposed by the applicant as part of a conditional use permit application. The site specific development standards shall then be prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission during the review of the conditional use permit request. The applicant is proposing the following development standards: Development Standards Proposed Lot area/site dimensions: 166,007 sf/3.811 acres Setbacks: , 40 G ce;4 '� Front: 22' Q1.' °° Side (w): 39' Side (e): 34' Rear: 29' Building height: 53' ' (top of mechanical screening) Density control: N/A Site Coverage: per approved plan — 3 bQ 211' Parking and loading: 329 parking spaces (excludes valet) IV. REQUIRED CRITERIA AND FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3 The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town of Vail Code. The Vail Valley Medical Center is located within the General Use zone district. Section 12-9C-3 of the Zoning Regulations outlines allowable conditional uses in the General Use zone district. Pursuant to this section, hospitals, medical and dental facilities, clinics, rehabilitation centers, clinical pharmacies, and ambulance facilities are conditional uses within the General Use zone district. The purpose of the General Use zone district is: The General Use District is intended to provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 12-1-2 of this Title and to provide for the public welfare. The General Use District is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi-public uses permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. The proposal is subject to the issuance of a conditional use ermit in accordance with p the provisions of Title 12, Chapter 16. For the Planning and Environmental l Commission's reference, the purpose of a conditional use permit is to: Provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the Vail Valley Medical Center property is zoned General Use District. As previously stated, hospitals, medical facilities and other similar uses are allowed in the General Use zone district subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. 4 The Vail Land Use Plan places a designation of "Transition Area" on the medical center site. According to the Land Use Plan, Transition Area is defined as, The transition designation applies to the area between Lionshead and Vail Village. The activities and site design of this area is aimed at encouraging pedestrian flow through the area and strengthening the connection between the two commercial cores. Appropriate activities include hotels, lodging and other tourist- oriented residential units, ancillary retail and restaurant uses, museums, areas of public art, nature exhibits, gardens, pedestrian plazas, and other types of civic and culturally oriented uses, and the adjacent properties to the north. This designation would include the right-of-way of West Meadow Drive and the adjacent properties to the north. The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy guidelines during the review process for the establishment of a special development district. Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the following policies are relevant to the review of this proposal: 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). 6. Community Services 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. 6.2 The Town of Vail should play a role in future development through balancing growth with services. 6.3 Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. Based upon the review of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations and the Vail Land Use Plan, the staff believes that the proposed addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center complies with the development objectives of the Town of Vail. Further, on May 2, 2001, the Town of Vail Design Review Board reviewed the proposed plans and indicated their general acceptance of the design character. The Board. stated that they believed the proposed plans and design integrated well with the surrounding buildings and structures. 5 1 Q (;) [ i L The proposed addition does not result in an increase in demands on the medical facility. Currently, the medical center is meeting the demands of the users, however, the adequacy of the facilities are not meeting the expectations of the users. - Staff believes that while an additional story is being added atop the existing building the addition of the height is an in-fill addition to building. The height of the new addition will not exceed the height of the existing building. Staff does not believe that the addition will negatively impact the availability of light and air to the surrounding uses or adjacent properties. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The staff believes that the proposed addition will have little, if any, negative impacts on the above referenced criteria. The impacts to the Town's transportation facilities will likely improve as the staff expects a reduction in 1' vehicle trips to the site by employees and large delivery vehicles. These reductions are a direct result of the medical centers transportation management plan and the soon to open materials distribution facility on the Edwards campus. According to information requested by staff and supplied by the applicant, the medical center's employee shuttle program combines over 10,000 employee trips per year to the Vail campus. The numbers for this program are generated from l the total number of free lunches that the medical gives away as an incentive for employees to use the shuttle program. The applicant has indicated on the plans that a large area on the ground level of the medical center is to be left vacant. The programming for this vacant space has yet to be determined. While there is no doubt that a determination for the use will be made shortly, staff is recommending that once that determination is made the applicant be required to submit an application for an amendment to the conditional use permit. The need for the amended permit is required because of the potential impacts that the use of the space may have on the medical center's operations. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The applicant is proposing to improve the automotive and pedestrian safety and access with the addition to the medical center. Since a number of existing uses will be removed from the site, the Town can expect a net reduction in the total number of vehicle trips. A majority of the trip reductions are in the form of loading and delivery. According to the applicant, large, semi-truck deliveries will be all but eliminated to this site. Again, this is accomplished by the opening of a central distribution facility on the Edwards campus. Pedestrian safety will also be improved. The applicant has actively participated in the development of the master plan for the West Meadow Drive streetscape improvements. The applicant has agreed to construct those improvements immediately adjacent to the medical center property as part of the Phase II 6 • . 410 improvements. The Town will be requiring a traffic control and pedestrian access plan as part of the building permit application for the Phase I improvements. The purpose of the plan is to ensure adequate access along West Meadow Drive and the safety of the public during the construction process. While Phase II improvements are not being considered as part of this request, the applicant has illustrated that the construction of the Phase II improvements proposes to relocate primary medical center access to the South Frontage Road side of the property. Staff believes that the relocation will not only improve the functioning and operations of the medical center, but it will also significantly reduce the negative impacts of traffic on West Meadow Drive. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Staff believes there will be little, if any, negative impacts of the proposed addition on the character of the area. The addition is an in-fill within the existing bulk and mass of the medical center. The location of the addition is in the middle portion of the building away from adjacent properties and surrounding use. The applicant has met with surrounding properties to present the exterior design and responded to the feedback and input they received. As previously stated, the addition is not so much an expansion of services, but instead an expansion to facilities to meet user demands. The greatest impact the staff anticipates to the character of the area will be on the existing landscaping on the south side of the medical center. Due to the southern expansion of the medical center much of the existing landscaping will be negatively impacted. The impacted landscaping was planted at the time of the medical center construction. According to the survey more than 20 trees will need to be removed or transplanted. A final landscape plan will need to be submitted and review for compliance with the site development and landscape regulations. The applicant is proposing a 10-foot tall screen wall atop the new addition. The screen wall is to be constructed of standing seam metal and is intended to visually screen the view of any roof-top mechanical equipment from public view. The metal screening will be applied to provide the appearance of a sloping roof form. Due to the large amount of equipment that will be required of the medical center, staff believes that the screening is necessary and must be provided. B. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use'and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public 7 t g 0 0 - i t t health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or 1 improvements in the vicinity. 'E 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. n , 14DflgE5� 1/1-LA Ain bu Cte l'oCA-ri 014 v ..f.A...0.Aa., ix 1 whEae. I 5 h1 i mar l ru Nas,a t e Saul h FRO N ritutz Rod-c) 1 4.4.--rel. ,.....1.4,--m..tv-ra" • DA1'-- -1 -.. • -'1-'*'G'.4),:ii,a _twywc i • ,c.o�t�.�"", �,-1t4-A-0.� {{ �� „ _� j ' l,�1,AA-1.-': -�4..- ...1--:10 0 ■ . rrT , F • ..i--1 f --A-,/ -4/.6'000 .,42-?-1,,id ..0-��-41;14-1- -ve.` '• 4"11"4""1-4■0•41-4-4. ....t./Lo#,&.i., (""r) t'-'0'r).-.40.1 --1,--.1L/o-p', .--r,'rr}'p/-' 'c•, ..x:•'1,0 54--c., OU • ..hc� .,ice e-o•_1 .4;44-1 _46,........k. es. is 1 oi:In_ 1 .r,1 20.73 7 I Q • L. 49,01,0/ 4.411 Co ..)41V/24 r/i -ijrA.. • -41:1,0--k .,a ..c.r,-d -11/711.411.4(4-4--5.-7n,11.4-, 8 4 0 • Planning and Environmental Commission ACTION FORM Department of Community Development TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road,Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail.co.us Project Name: Conditional Use Permit PEC Number: PEC010030 Project Description: Vail Valley Medical Center Addition Participants: OWNER VAIL CLINIC INC 04/16/2001 Phone: 181 W MEADOW DR VAIL CO 81657 License: APPLICANT Dominic Mauriello 04/16/2001 Phone: 926-7575 Braun Associates Po 2658 Edwards, Co 81632 License: Project Address: 181 W MEADOW DR VAIL Location: Legal Description: Lot: E&F Block: Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE FILING 2 Parcel Number: 210107101013 Comments: See Conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Bernhardt Action: APPROVED Second By: Schofield Vote: 6-0 Date of Approval: 05/14/2001 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: CON0004812 That the conditional use permit for Phase 1 expires on May 31, 2003 and that if Phase 2 is not approved and permitted for construction by that date, that the hospital will provide additional parking for Phase 1, as determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission Cond: CON0004813 That the applicant submits a final landscape plan and exterior lighting plan to the Community Development Department for the review and approval of the Design Review Board prior to the request for a building permit. That the applicant returns to the Planning &Environmental Commission with an application for an amended conditional use permit addressing the proposed use of the first floor s p ace prior requesting a building permit for a tenant finish of that space. Planner: George Ruther PEC Fee Paid: $200.00 • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS 'tr t. Monday, May 14, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION / -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME, 11:30 am MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Diane Golden Brian Doyon John Schofield Doug Cahill Galen Aasland Dick Cleveland Site Visits : 12:45 pm 1. Vail Plaza Hotel West— 13 Vail Road 2. Vail Valley Medical Center— 181 West Meadow Drive 3. Strauss Subdivision — 1916 & 1936 West Gore Creek Drive 4. Mentlik residence—2437 Garmisch Drive 5. Vail Racquet Club—4695 Vail Racquet Club Drive Driver: George ClEal NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 -6:30 p.m. Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-10 of the Town Code, to allow for a reduction in the landscaping and site development requirements, located at 383 Beaver Dam Road/Lot 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3`d Filing. Applicant: A2Z Holdings, LLC Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Dick Cleveland VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED 2. A request for a final review of a proposed special development district, to allow for the construction of a new conference facility/hotel; and a final review of a conditional use permit, to allow for Type III employee housing units and fractional fee club units, located at 13 Vail Road/ Lots A, B, C, Block-2, Vail Village Filing 2. Applicant: Doramar Hotels, represented by the Daymer Corporation Planner: Brent Wilson 1 TOWN OF PAIL 1. 0 (3 , 1 SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REQUEST 4 MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Chas Bemhardt VOTE: 5-1 (Cleveland opposed) RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS: I 1. That the developer submits the following plans to the Department of Community Development for review and approval as a part of the building permit application for z the hotel: a. An Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan; I b. A Construction Staging and Phasing Plan; c. A Stormwater Management Plan; d. A Site Dewatering Plan; t se. A Traffic Control Plan; I f. A Spraddle Creek routing and containment plan; and . g. An environmental audit including soils and stream conditions (during excavation). 2. That the developer provides deed-restricted housing that complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13) for a minimum of 28 employees, and that said deed-restricted housing be made available for occupancy, and that the deed restrictions are recorded with the Eagle County Clerk& Recorder, I prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail Plaza Hotel 1 West. it I 3. That the developer submits a final detailed landscape plan to the Community t Development Department for Design Review Board review and approval prior to making an application for a building permit. This plan will involve the removal of the l obsolete delivery bay asphalt for the Chateau Vail on the Nine Vail Road property. L 4. That the developer submits a complete set of civil engineer drawings for all off-site improvements, including the improvements to the South Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive for review and Town approval prior to application for a building permit. I Y 5. That the developer submits a complete set of plans to the Colorado Department a ment of s Transportation for review and approval of a revised access permit, prior to application for a building permit. I 6. That the developer meets with the Town staff to prepare a memorandum of understanding outlining the responsibilities and requirements of the required off-site improvements, prior to first reading of an ordinance approving the special development district. This includes streetscaping improvements along South I Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive in accordance with the Town of Vail 1 Streetscape Master Plan, as amended. t 7. That the developer records an easement for Spraddle Creek. The easement shall be prepared by the developer and submitted for review and approval of the Town Attorney. The easement shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk& Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 1 8. That the developer submits a final exterior building materials list, a typical wall II section and complete color renderings for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to making an application for a building permit. II 9. That the developer submits a comprehensive sign program proposal for the Vail Plaza Hotel West for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to the 1 issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. I 2 t • • 10. That the developer submits a rooftop mechanical equipment plan for review and approval of the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the overall design of the hotel and enclosed and screened from public view. 11. That the developer posts a bond to provide financial security for the 150% of the total cost of the required off-site public improvements. The bond shall be in place with the Town prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12. That the developer either receives approval from the neighboring owner's associations to allow for construction activities on neighboring properties or submits a construction staging and limits of disturbance plan that indicates all of these activities will occur on the applicant's property. 13. That the developer provides access (via a permanent, legally binding easement agreement) for the Nine Vail Road Association and guests to enter the subject property from Vail Road and exit across the subject property from the location of Nine Vail Road's surface parking area to South Frontage Road. This is necessary to facilitate the applicant's proposed traffic circulation plan. 14. That the applicant submits civil drawings to determine compliance with all Town of Vail engineering requirements prior to final Design Review Board approval. 15. Pursuant to Section 12-7A-14, Town of Vail Code, the applicant shall pay road impact fees in an amount that is directly proportionate to the anticipated new road impacts generated by this development ($5000 per peak hour trip end). A specific amount for road impact fees will be declared (and adopted via a memorandum of understanding), based upon the anticipated new road impacts outlined in the applicant's traffic study. This dollar amount will be put in escrow once a building permit is issued. Any actual improvements constructed to the frontage road will be credited against the total. The escrowed dollars will be held for a period of 10 years from time of permit issuance. If and when any sort of funding mechanism is put in place (such as a special district which this development participates in) any dollars generated from the development will be offset by the amount owed. If there is an excess it will be refunded. Any shortfall will be made up by the escrowed dollars. 16. That the applicant complies with all fire department staging and access requirements pursuant to Title 14 (Development Standards), Vail Town Code. This will be demonstrated on a set of revised plans for town review and approval prior to building permit submittal. 17. That the required Type III deed-restricted employee housing units shall not be eligible for resale and that the units be owned and operated by the hotel and that said ownership transfer with the deed to the hotel property. 18. That the developer coordinates the relocation of the existing electric transformers on the property with local utility providers. The revised location of the transformers will be part of the final landscape plan to be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Board. 19. Prior to first reading of an ordinance adopting a special development district for the property, the developer shall resolve the guest exit drive alignment to the satisfaction of the town engineer. 20. Within the parameters of the approved building envelope, an additional common employee storage area must be provided. 3 4 1 I 21. An additional six inches of height (per storey) may be added along the South r ;_ Frontage Road wing within Levels 4 and above. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -FRACTIONAL FEE CLUB UNITS MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Chas Bemhardt VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH ONE CONDITION: 1. The approval of this conditional use permit is not valid unless an ordinance approving the associated special development district request is approved on second reading. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Chas Bemhardt VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH ONE CONDITION: 1. That the applicant records applicable deed restrictions for all employee housing units with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail Plaza Hotel West. 3. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of Phase I of Donovan Park improvements, generally located southeast of the intersection of Matterhorn Circle and the South Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Chas Bemhardt SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 5-2 (Schofield & Cleveland opposed) APPROVED WITH ONE CONDITION: 1. That the height of the pavilion shall not exceed 38.5 feet. 4. A request for a variance from Title 14 (Development Standards), Vail Town Code, to allow for snow storage and parking within the public right-of-way, located at 2437 Garmisch Drive/ Lot 12, Block H, Vail das Schone 2nd Filing. 3 i Applicant: William H. Mentlik, represented by John Martin, AIA Planner: Ann Kjerulf VARIANCE—SNOW STORAGE IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH ONE CONDITION: 1. That adequate screening be provided. VARIANCE—PARKING IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 6-0 DENIED— DUE TO THE AVAILABILITY OF ARCHITECTURAL ALTERNATIVES WHICH WOULD SOLVE THE PARKING PROBLEM 4 S • ey, 5. A request for a minor subdivision and a variance from Section 12-6D-5 of the Town Code to O� allow for the resubdivision of Lot 1, Strauss Subdivision, a resubdivision of Lots 46 & 47, Vail Village West Filing No. 2, re-creating Lots 46 &47, located at 1916 & 1936 West Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais, representing Richard Strauss Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL JUNE 11, 2001 6. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for an addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center, located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots E & F, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Braun Associates Planner: George Ruther MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Chas Bemhardt VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH THREE CONDITIONS: 1. That the applicant submits a final landscape plan and exterior lighting plan to the Community Development Department for the review and approval of the Design Review Board prior to the request for a building permit. 2. That the applicant returns to the Planning & Environmental Commission with an application for an amended conditional use permit addressing the proposed use of the first floor space prior requesting a building permit for a tenant finish of that space. 3. That the permit expires 5/31/03 and the applicant must r to 5/31/03 to fifeTtern additional paricints (�.t,pR�ESS iu � Ilr4SE. I. • the t 7. A request for a worksession to discuss a new special development district, to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Racquet Club, located at 4695 Vail Racquet Club DriveNail Racquet Club Condominiums, Bighom 51h Addition. Applicant: Racquet Club Owners Association, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects. Planner: Brent Wilson WORK SESSION—NO VOTE 8. A request for a work session to discuss amending certain residential zone districts in the Town of Vail to allow home day care facilities subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit and a home occupation permit. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther WORK SESSION— NO VOTE 9. A request for the review of a proposed text amendment to Chapter 11, Design Review, of the Zoning Regulations to allow for procedural changes to the performance bond process as prescribed in the Vail Town Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL JUNE 11, 2001 5 1 10. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a soccer field, located at 610 N. Frontage Rd. West/A portion of Tract C, Vail Potato Patch. A full metes & bounds a ; f legal description is available at the Department of Community Development. 1 Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs .; , TABLED TO JUNE 11, 2001 , i t , i 11. A request for a variance from Section 12-60-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the I ; 1 construction of a garage within the required front setback, located at 1956 Gore Creek Drive , ; , ; / Lot 45, Vail Village West Filing #2. ; 1 Applicant: David Irwin , ; .1; Planner: Ann Kjerulf I ; , i TABLED TO JUNE 11, 2001 i , 4 12. A request for a variance from Section 12-7H-10 of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a proposed E 4 ; addition in the rear setback, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 1, Vail Lionshead 1st ; ; I 3 Filing. , 1 , ; I , Applicant: Lions Square Condo Association , ; , i Planner: Bill Gibson ; I I I ; I i WITIVE$AWN , . ! i 13. Approval of April 23% 2001 minutes 4 .. ' • 4 E ; 14. Information Update 4 i , i i 1 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during ; ; i 1 regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community ; Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. 1 ! i : 1 ; Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, f k ; Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. ; f E 3 Community Development Department i 4 i A , ,1 I I 1 , t , ! I ) i 1 . f 4 f 1E E , 3 E f 4 E -3 E f 1 ( i 1 i t , 1 1 , 1 i i I 6 1 i t i 0 • cu-q 6-t( ' revised 10/5/92 Date of Application 6-28-96 Date of rPEC Meeting 8-12-96 APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERi� � ,iF N I . This procedure is required for any project req ' ed oa� 6 a� �i1 � ' conditional use permit . r S . ' ` Y° • COQM, un a 1 1 The application will not be accepted until all information is submitted. A. NAME OF APPLICANT Vai I Valley Medical Center ADDRESS 181 West Meadow Drive Vail , CO 81657 PHONE 479-72/1 B. NAME OF APPLICANT' S REPRESENTATIVE Dan Feeney or Ray McMahan ADDRESS 181 West Meadow Drive Vail , CO 81657 PHONE 479-7271 C. NAME OF OWNER(S) (print typ Vail Valley Medical Center / OWNER(S) SIGNATURE (S) tla__ 6771 ADDRESS Same ,i i` PHONE Same D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEGAL:LOT B:,OCK FILING ADDRESS 181 West Meadow D vir Vail-,--CD 81657 E. FEE $200 . 00 PAID'2Cb'°'sr"- CK # 92796 BY VVMC THE FEE MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WILL ACCEPT YOUR PROPOSAL. F. Stamped, addressed envelopes of the names of owners of all property adjacent to the subject property INCLUDING PROPERTY BEHIND AND ACROSS STREETS, and a list of names and mailing addresses . THE APPLICANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECT OWNERS AND CORRECT ADDRESSES . II . PRE—APPLICATION CONFERENCE: A pre—application conference with a planning staff member is strongly suggested to determine if any additional information is needed. No application will be accepted unless it complete (must include all items required by the zoning administrator) . It is the applicant' s responsibility to make an appointment with the staff to find out about additional submittal requirements . III . PLEASE NOTE THAT A COMPLETE APPLICATION WILL STREAMLINE THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR YOUR PROJECT BY DECREASING THE NUMBER OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION (PEC) MAY STIPULATE. ALL COND:.:TIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE COMPLIED WITH BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED. Four (4) copies of the following information must be submitted: 1 . A description of the precise nature of the proposed use and its operating characteristics and measures proposed to make the use compatible with other properties in the vicinity . The description must also addre:;s : a. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 1 b. E fect of the use on light a• • air, distribution population, transportati4 acilities, ilities, schools, parks an• recreation fr facilities, and other public facilities and public - facilities needs . c . Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking area. d. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses . 2 . A site plan at a scale of at least 1" = 20' showing proposed development of the site, including topography, building locations, parking, traffic circulation, - useable open space, landscaped areas and utilities and drainage features . 3 . Preliminary building elevations and floor plans . 4 . A title report to verify ownership and easements . 5 . If the building is condominiumized, a letter from the condominium association in support of the proposal must be submitted to staff. 6 . Any additional material necessary for the review of the application as determined by the zoning administrator. ** For interior modifications, an improvement survey and site plan may be waived by the zoning administrator. IV. TIME REQUIREMENTS A. The Planning and Environmental Commission meets on the 2nd and 4th Mondays of each month. A complete application form and all accompanying material (as described above) must be submitted a minimum of four (4) weeks prior to the date of the PEC public hearing. No incomplete applications (as determined by the zoning administrator) will be accepted by the planning staff before or after the designated submittal date . B. All PEC approved conditional use permits shall lapse if construction is not commenced within one year of the date of approval and diligently pursued to completion, or if the use for which the approval is granted is not commenced within one year. V. A. If this application requires a separate review by any local, State or Federal agency other than the Town of Vail, the application fee shall be increased by $200 . 00 . Examples of such review, may include, but are not limited to: Colorado Department of Highway Access Permits, Army Corps of Engineers 404, etc . B. The applicant shall be responsible for paying any publishing fees which are in excess of 50% of the application fee. If, at the applicant' s request, any matter is postponed for hearing, causing the matter to be re-published, then, the entire fee for such re-publication shall be paid by the applicant . 2 4 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 12, 1996 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Susan Connelly Greg Amsden Mike Mollica Henry Pratt Dominic Mauriello Galen Aasland Dirk Mason Gene Uselton George Ruther Diane Golden Judy Rodriguez John Schofield Public Hearing 2:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a renewal of a conditional use permit to allow for the continued operation of a mobile catheterization laboratory at the Vail Valley Medical Center, located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots F & E, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Dan Feeney Planner: Dirk Mason Dirk Mason gave an overview of the request. Dirk stated that the applicant was requesting to extend the renewal of a conditional use permit indefinitely, or at least for more than a period of one year. He explained that no complaints had been recorded. He stated that staff was recommending approval with the conditions stated in the staff memo, with an additional condition for indefinite approval. Dirk then handed out to the Board members. a late arriving letter submitted by Joan Norris. Larry Gaul. a cardiologist, thanked the community and said that the mobile catheter lab exceeded their expectations for usage. They have not experienced any complaints. The conditional use permit allows the lab to be operating three days per month. but the request is for four days per month to better distribute the patients and make it easier to get the van out by 9:00 p.m. at night. Four days per month will allow them to miss skier traffic when departing the site. Pam Stenmark, General Partner at the Evergreen Lodge, requested that the conditional use permit not be indefinite, but reviewed each year. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none. Galen Aasland had no comments. Diane Golden thought it was nice for the community having the mobile lab. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 1 Henry Pratt is reluctant to give a permanent approval for a conditional use permit. He would like the maximum amount of time to be 5 years. John Schofield had no comments. Gene Uselton had to disagree with Henry Pratt. He would like to do away with the bureaucratic red tape. As long as the PEC could call-up the permit at any time, or as stated in Condition #5, he felt that was sufficient. Greg Amsden agreed with Gene's comments. Greg Moffet asked the applicant how soon they anticipated going to 4 days? Larry Gaul said they are going to 3 days as soon as the lifts open and will wait and see when 4 days would be needed. Greg Moffet felt indefinite approval, agreeing with Gene's comments. He told Pam Stenmark to advise the PEC if there were any complaints. Gene Uselton made a motion for approval, subject to the 5 conditions as listed in the staff memo. The motion was seconded by John Schofield. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 2. A request for an amendment to an approved site development plan to allow for a shift in the building envelope of Building #8, located at 2792B Kinnickinnick Road/Innsbruck Meadows #8. Applicant: Bob Borne Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the request. Since the proposed relocation of Building #8 is by more than 2', staff could not administratively approve the relocation. Staff is recommending approval of the request with the 3 conditions as listed in the staff memo and with the additional condition that the applicant move the building out of the utility easement. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. there was none. Greg Amsden abstained, since he is a listing agent for the property. There were no comments from Gene Uselton or John Schofield. Galen Aasland asked if this would affect driveway grades. George Ruther said there would be no impacts. Diane Golden had no comment. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12. 1996 2 valid r MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a renewal of a conditional use permit to allow for the continued operation of a mobile catheterization laboratory at the Vail Valley Medical Center, located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots F & E,Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center,represented by Dan Feeney and Ray McMahan Planner: Dirk Mason I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is seeking to renew their conditional use permit to operate a mobile catheterization laboratory on site. The Vail Valley Medical Center(VVMC) is located in the General Use District, therefore, a conditional use permit is necessary. The VVMC wishes to extend the length of approval indefinitely or for a period greater than one year. In addition, VVMC requests the maximum number of days allowed for operation,be changed from three to four. Attached is the 1995 memorandum documenting the previous conditional use permit request to allow the mobile catheterization laboratory to operate on the hospital site. Included with the attachment is a site plan indicating the location where the mobile lab is to be parked,as well as the landscaping plan. Additionally,minutes from the PEC meeting are attached. II. BACKGROUND The Vail Valley Medical Center received approval for a conditional use permit on August 14, 1995 to operate a mobile catheterization laboratory. The permit was approved with the following five conditions: • The VVMC shall operate the mobile catheterization lab at the hospital for a maximum of three days per month. The mobile lab shall not arrive at,or depart the hospital,between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. • The lab shall not be scheduled for use on weekends,on days that the Eagle Care Clinic is open, and during the peak skier days between Christmas and New Years and the President's Day holiday weekend. • Permanent water, sewer, and electrical hook-ups shall be installed. so the lab can operate • without the use of the generators attached to the lab. The lab's generators shall not run while the lab is parked at the hospital, with the exception of unforseen power outages for patient safety. • The proposed landscaping shall be installed before the lab is used and shall be properly irrigated and maintained at all times. Dead or dying trees shall be replaced immediately. • The conditional use permit shall be valid for a one year period, and shall be re-evaluated by the PEC one year from the date of approval. Compliance with Previous Conditions The VVMC has complied with the above conditions placed on the previous conditional use permit approval. The mobile lab arrives in Vail the night before the scheduled use between the hours of 6:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. The lab operates on the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of each month and departs between the hours of 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. depending on the number of patients scheduled for the procedure. All of the required landscaping has been planted. Supplemental Information The Evergreen Lodge originally expressed concerns,over the operation of the mobile lab, at the PEC meeting a year ago. Staff has recently spoken with the current manager of the Evergreen Lodge regarding the mobile lab operations. The Evergreen Lodge manager stated they have not experienced any problems with the current operations. The Town of Vail Police Department, based on a records search, has not received any complaints related to the operation of the mobile catheterization laboratory. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit request for renewal. Staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions: :,.}� 1. The VVMC shall bring the mobile lab to the hospital for a maximum of four days per month. The mobile lab shall not arrive at,or depart from the hospital, between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. 2. The lab shall not be scheduled for use on weekends, on days that the Eagle Care Clinic is open, during peak skier days between Christmas and New Years and the President's Day holiday weekend. 3. The lab's generators shall not run while the lab is parked at the hospital, with the exception of unforseen power outages for patient safety. 4. Any dead or dying trees shall be replaced immediately. • r � 5. The PEC shall retain the ability to reevaluate, or call-up for review, the conditional use permit if the Vail Valley Medical Center fails to comply at any time with the above conditions, or if there are complaints or concerns from neighboring property owners. • f:\evcryone\pec\memos\vvmavp.812 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 14, 1995 SUBJECT: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the Vail Valley Medical Center to park a mobile catheter lab west of the Ambulance District's Building, located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots E and F, Block 1, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Ray McMahan and Dan Feeney Planner: Randy Stouder I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The Vail Valley Medical Center (VVMC) is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to locate a mobile catheterization lab along the retaining wall adjacent to the Ambulance District Building as a temporary, (intermittent) use. The lab is a self-contained mobile facility, that would be brought in and parked at the site for one to three days per month. The lab would enable Dr. Larry Gaul, the only resident cardiologist in the upper Eagle Valley area, to perform heart catheritization procedures in Vail. This service is currently performed at hospitals in Denver, and is not available locally. The purpose of the catheritization process is to diagnose potential heart problems and determine the need for surgical intervention. The VVMC is located in the Public Use District. The hospital is listed as a conditional use in this district, and the development standards used to evaluate proposed changes to the hospital use are established by the PEC through the conditional use permitting process. Thus, the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to park and operate the mobile catheter lab as a temporary use (1-3 days per month) at the medical center. The attached site plan shows the proposed lab location. An elevation drawing has been provided to give the PEC a perspective of how the lab will appear in the proposed location. A concrete pad is required to level and support the mobile lab. The proposed location will not require the removal of any vegetation. A light post will need to be removed and 6 large spruce trees are proposed on the bank above the lab to screen it from the Evergreen Lodge. l II. BACKGROUND On June 19, 1995 the VVMC brought the mobile catheter lab unit to the hospital. Several PEC members, the planning staff and neighboring property owners attended this meeting to get a visual image of what the catheter lab will look like and how it would fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. Pictures of the mobile unit are attached to this memorandum for reference purposes. 1 At an earlier worksession with the PEC (June 16, 1995), the applicant proposed to locate the lab in the alley leading to the parking structure from West Meadow Drive. The PEC felt that an alternative location behind the hospital was more appropriate. The PEC felt that the location initially proposed would not be compatible with the adjacent low density residential neighborhood and the pedestrian corridor along West Meadow Drive. Operational issues and parking needs were also discussed with the PEC at the worksession. III. ZONING ANALYSIS In the Public Use District, hospitals are considered to be conditional uses. Any expansion of the hospital is subject to review using the conditional use permit criteria and findings, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. The mobile catheter lab is considered to be an accessory use to the hospital and is an expansion of an existing conditional use. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The proposed use will have a positive benefit to the community in that a service that currently must be provided by traveling to Denver will be available to community residents in Vail. The temporary nature of the use will minimize the impacts to surrounding properties and the only permanent improvements that will be located on the property include a concrete pad that will replace a section of asphalt, and the utility hook-up pedestals. Much needed landscaping will be provided along the hillside between the proposed location for the lab and the Evergreen Lodge. This hillside is currently devoid of any vegetation that would provide an effective screen, • thus the proposal of landscaping in this area will have a significant benefit to the residents in the Evergreen. Staff believes the landscaping will not only screen the catheter lab when it is on its pad but it will also provide a permanent screen between the hospital and the Evergreen Lodge. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The proposed use will have no impact on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities. The proposed use will have a positive impact on public facilities needs, in that a valuable medical service will be provided within the community that is not currently available. 2 • 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The proposed lab will be parked on its pad for less than a 24-hour period, no more than three days per month. Thus it will have little to no impact on traffic, traffic flow and control, access and snow removal from the medical center's parking lot area. The proposed location will temporarily displace four parking spaces currently dedicated for emergency room drop-off, for injured skier transport. Additional emergency room drop-off parking spaces exist across from the proposed location along the north side of the building. These spaces should be adequate to provide the desired emergency parking during the 1-3 days per month that the mobile lab is in place. Staff feels that the lab should not be scheduled during peak skier periods. A condition regarding this issue is proposed. The applicant has agreed to schedule the lab on days when the Eagle Care Clinic is not open. Four (4) parking spaces are allotted for clinic use currently. This will allow the lab operating staff and patients to utilize the four vacant spaces. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale_and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The lab is proposed to be located against the retaining wall between the hospital and the Evergreen Lodge. A steep bank begins at the top of the retaining wall, up to the path along the back side of the Evergreen Lodge. First story lodge room windows are located about 20 feet above the hospital parking lot level. The trailer is approximately 13 feet tall and thus will not block any views from the first story windows at the Evergreen Lodge. The 6 large spaces proposed by the applicant should provide adequate screening along the north side of the trailer. Staff believes additional screening should be added from the proposed location of the trailer west to the parking structure, since no effective screening is provided along this bank area currently. The applicant has proposed to locate six large blue spruce trees on the bank behind the trailer. Three of the trees are to be 10 to 13 feet tall, and three are to be 12 - 15 feet tall. Staff feels that smaller vegetation in larger numbers should be utilized along the bank area and extended all the way to the parking garage. A mix of deciduous and evergreen material along with complimentary shrubs would provide a dense, effective screen that will block views of the hospital and parking areas but will not block views of the mountain over the top of the hospital building. Staff feels that if an effective screen can be provided by the applicant, that the proposed temporary use will have little to no effect on the character of the area. 3 B. Findings The Planning and Environmental Commission_shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. . That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the PEC approve the Conditional Use Permit request with the conditions outlined below. Staff feels that the proposal will have minimal impact to the surrounding community based upon a review of the criteria contained in Section IV of this memorandum. 1. The VVMC shall bring the mobile lab to the hospital for a maximum of three days per month. The mobile lab shall be brought to the hospital between 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on the evening before the services are to be provided to the patients, and will depart no later than 4:00 p.m. the day the catheterization processes are scheduled. 2. The lab shall not be scheduled for use on weekends, on days that the Eagle Care Clinic is open, and during the peak skier days between Christmas and New Years and the President's Day holiday weekend. 3. A permanent water, sewer and electrical hook-up shall be installed so that the lab can operate without the use of the generators attached to the lab. The lab's generators shall not be run while the lab is parked at the hospital. 4. The proposed landscaping shall be installed before the lab is used and shall be properly irrigated and maintained at all times. Dead or dying trees shall be replaced immediately. 5. The Conditional Use Permit shall be valid for a one year period, and shall be re-evaluated by the PEC at the end of this term. • F:\ veryone\peclmemos\wmcap.814 4 , , ' ,.4 ___, „ , , , , . <i________i,_ /7 _____I „ i. • . I ..... . , . , . . __, . ,,,,, . . .: • ,_ • , ,I , i 1 1 • 1, - 0 -____1 :: / Z , .„. . cc., :. X / i . to °II. •/ k V; 0* '02/ r0 / . ••" . F - -- . , 1 I 1 u Z Ott Z - - I \ I Q • ,, 'x ' 'I jt.W , , m .4. j a --- V 0 1 z W ' cr , 3 f P 1 a Ir z Mill ' • • ow 1.,',';. I 1.11 .y E-=-a W Q i 1 H e, W Z I 0 _ W II W :01 `�- oF co W I 1 Q Q ' JJ = 1 ' ° '' CO I 0 I �� a o i FJ . o ou Q q 1 Q—�— kill •.� � WU o W cr (4. t .' J "'40 rccr,,i !Me W y W 1 I j! . I. , 1 , ,'. __. _ _ El ...._ -1 ,, LLJ 111 11 -4;1 a I,F � � Z 1 I , . w CC l' P . " CC 1 ,., n L i Li E > u..1 --11 rt:., ] . • _ 0 . ___ __. . ____ Z _ ,►, ,-.�1 a .;,,, t 1 i . ii (...) —.7_,1 1 < . :Jl f!J'. _. i _ �' '� II o � , " z 1 O - id. 1 1 I.;: , _ p _ W 1 l-- R".,,� i '1 ' _ ` I �� � W f O 1 I 7 ,., , ;, _......g. ,I-141 ! .., F.- ii _ ___ ___. ......._. ! : ; Li L 0 — Ir'''''\-1 ' .:: 1 : . 0 . _ (..n I1 i • —1 ,i::: .1 . f F1. ii _ .c...:, 1 1, I. 1 . .1 ,„ ,.___. _ . . ,.,. ___. . ., P e 11 1 r .,. .:--- , ...__- ,.. ii _ ...... ..1 1, I . i il 11 .1.,. Li LI . ..4.. .., _ ..,___, ___ _ ...=___. ....z-_. _. ........, „ ii, '.1 I \ . . • . • - . -...‘ . • - --.• •-...,••-• I • . • • • !I ....V. '....."4:... . -.1...7,..a,. Ia. , • 41 . ......‘ ...-.T.L..er... ....\.. . .....:4:4. Z..4. •; ...el • Z. $. • li C ":r • , f. ;.• . - . . C _.„,..„. •• '''. :•..• , _ ,.,-.;„ -:1-,r1; ;;... i 1 ----" _ z. ,_ • I•el- ;1 r: . ....._ ..., .••.. , if* -', -,...4, ,..• ---,---......: 1,t■-,'•1•-- . •••••: •■•P , . ' ••••-•- :7-7------T7-,:=44. .43 1 ..,. : -- , - -- - ,..-;:,. :7' -." .Q-,‘ • 7,-... .474-- 1 .vq,,,E:',4•4,,- • :::'-.,-;,,e.---,44_,.-.-:".-. .: '..:..:27x10---,:.4.4,-,. ce----,—,..,...-7....: 41.. ttl., _ - ----..--- '''e-r..7-1.4- .V.,•:•7'7.,_34Zr'''.1'0,.11 3-,408:f 1,--,ftt, wr,4--s--.,--- !..sr=o4., ..*: ..,.:,,...--f.a. 4 . •• .,....,......• ',T.", W:7 4.....41.••41,----.moor.lagim■ lit,,S. "...,............., , ... . Iiir s• -S.-:-&-a•••■• - ----. 'Inall■111"."P MEV iiial=1*.--,......., -4., ,........_ cow . .• .(-...., ••,„ ,.. - — I r."------- - ---... --- - --•1•34,„•-i,•-• -.... ......$;..:4'11:-:-44 :-.7",-*".71 1.4,-7-. 2 -:U11.-w'' - --- _-+111111111•11•-''-...L',.-- - • , •-••''4",,,:r...itt--'!'-:--.1..P.-"- - A ;'2-..-le. - — - - ,....411.-,:1•4.‘,4 -- , • •• •-- fl!........Z.L .......••••.-....... --....- -...... -...:TI• :....... -■__. : -,•. .., lq,4r.r Z.V ..------•••■.4...•";;.=7.:7.,:••••;:..-....1_°•-•,..:7i•-'- --.3--4...,--:a---z.2.-•-•Jo- - - -7-----.'64" 4.V.:Y11::*,..-1,:i:,-; - - - ..- - . - --z-lf:=IrVr- --. ---..-te42- -'rY---- -a4.1-•' -.:.— •-.--_,,_• --1...A.A.•;.:%::"-,5•7.1 ,*........ '-----2 4"'I-4.....--.... •------.--:•7-'-----r--......,7-1--;z_z-re..;0• -•--! A.---. „--?-_,zg.:-..7-.-•-• cz-14:7-.:■:•%4;51 -- - • .0'.-.-- A „,..&....i..-:- -,--,---- . - -..- --..-7---- ------4. __ 4.-- .,,-_-71,..74,-.....r*---,;-...-41;,.-.4-,,,,;-,:r •-•.f. - . .'-e.li-i-r 0 ,, - ..,..--..:- - .,.,-, .■.1,-. .4 .,A- --e*--- •-wer--•.-.4...-!=z- .-41,--z-X4a. ---- .- :-'1:14. ' ,--‘,1-7,-,V-C%rt' '*••'' - ..-..... .. •- .:.ie•Itf::‘,.,,re.... ' - .,--1:-.:-- - . . i•11..-f---4----4w..-z..-,_ -,:t4-*....----Vig-•.„ .,_-.1,-.--..--... .•_.1.15.-,_.--rTet• i-..--•.- _. _-_-:,.....---1---•_1.441`___-,--_,V*-„." _ ..,,,e,...- ...e."--1,4,-'''.....4%; ,:!*- 1,,10.13- 94. -- ---c-.:::,-- ....,,v--......?4,,,T4v 4.---3.....,,... :-.......-,-;,.-- -.......-- ,a....- ,----..-->•_-.7. --.---.-..1,-,,z.b...-Jots-,...t.-7.3,,N- ...., ---1 . .,. _ - -, , -t-,- 4.01.••:_,: ,.-,--:..- 4...-7_;,_-?-..7,4n' a 7„'.•.•.f...,.....4•$1...4.:-.4 S.r.5.-.1,- e/.'-4"r.-”4 P'--...-4=0'.... 34•-=-i..r..',.":,•..7-%R.-3?t.Z..tTe--aN*'C-'i1cOI"?T=S-t,-".-*-.f.A,-`..--.-.,':.'"•i• : '--1--.‘""‘."7•.•,•....-s.,-.'•„•.„"•-•,,--•_•!1.-'-'.-.'..4•'.4' • ..,1,„--.._._,...._. , ,. 4..-.4,.. ,c_k- I...54! .... ..„4.., _ •••., sig. -4::.■•:-', ...:_,-74040.4.-11:-. ,W••''' -''"""f- .....- 1;='..,.,„N&'.':...4:1;,..td,r..0-4,-...e- . •:.• -->-* -- - .....- -N., s.'...r- C.-"Wr:---"'.... .-'4:mf IV "-...!:'-'.1.-.7;• *44,, It ./C--^"..A....,--,S... 714.74. 4,,-......... ----fr,....... -..e..,-- 3.--.'-'!V..--""It."-...4E_ _." .V.z.-25,'0•‘• ..410":-.1-4.i- • -_ti -----,.. • .*'-... .----,t-;.._ -,..% , _ ..,• ),---,....T., .....- .)-.--_-. ... - -- ---'.,,--......M: .r -1*..-4,6,..,r...,----;-- . N...• ..•••--'' „4...!.-.... -..-.....I•........-.1...:-,..-f,;•-.- .,1-"•-•c--",4"e.4-:1...7,-a-•-.._,7iA'' -• ••6•• ... I i., - :1---'4''''-'"‘"-• _ ,.2.-._ . 74 - Tr % - , ,-.-.-‘-.,..-.....,--;---r..t:.-.:5.1.,..,-T•* ..‘-*-.!Z,..7.1/4'k...i.e.."r"-r0.---.-•2t.'I1-C-1. Z 1, ' • -...- •.-- •... . <k ,..v--- --'-i-'1'''ri-11-•t--4 _ - - • •. .-...,.g.:....,-mtz....... •:.1.-:....." - ``•;■ *44,..... ., ,., .. , • .,....i7.,.....TS,.---•••••-••.•. \ •' • •• • , -744.4-rt.V.re.•- ;MI, .44t. •• *.‘....\•tri ....1E.•?1,c■•••••:•••• at... :-;•4;4 :4F.:r..._ 44', ter .4 ....1 . . . • i C.--•-_.._ , ......._• . _ ••••••414WM:20 ..... t'•.."' ..74.,.....a.t.A.,: -- - *-1.5,- ...--,-•,,,"Z ....-....... .....,:§1.0.4'.•.e, j•e'.'3,..., ..,"t1 .... .ir a......s- 1..-,--fi.-:1 • ' -- ... _ .. -7*,:c •-:. 'i..„At" ,. • . ..--, -- ___ - : ' ' 'kW°iN'..?-. X;;.'''-'"1-e*";'''' -. • .-''' • • - 1-:.--.. - '- . , • -, .--.. - 2.•'- - - — . ---- .. vr.:,..,.. • .-. .....4. >7."'--• ' . ------ ......- -...':•-:-;L.,-.7 1---._ --...--•• -• )i). - • --L s' - . , Wr...r.Z... Crx• --e.-1,t - '1:11-- __,...••• ---- ...,m.----:- ._•"••• ... -. _ -.._4.- •41-* 'A.%7.:-..- - ' •--'11V11 _ • .; • - ...... .- , ,....vtc,...7..,..- - - -:..A . . .....- 4......„ .• . A ._ _ . ... , • , . , . ...••_ . . .. . . .. • , ...•••••••.„ 4,.e. A..„....., --------...._--....-:1 '.. - - •-. , ,:.--. , • .. 77.•.-**„.4r61/4,..- , , -- 40.1 - Wia-----..-- ----'''---•"'"'" - - - •'' „.„ fi ,...,..i .rim. . ,,„,,. . ,----...,_ -t ,-.-. .„ - : .,..-•-•` r,I1,--cTERS filx“ .,,.......-- —. --__ r:„,-..._ . -..-- ,•41 - h: t•-•-•:---- rr 1 1. -,--h-F, . .... 1::=i 1,-s::....'t-, t•t..;'.ti 3 r "- '..:`=.. --` ' --", • • , -111.:; .1 t f • • ..-• , •- •I '7, • ,.., I- "1 •1 -I . • . I . -- -- •••• ---..-"•.-‘1. 't. , I 1...• -r -- .. ...r .,;- :T..--: r-._ .p.....„, . . , -,, .. t-:.,-.• .- 1 r, d • • ' i • - . -•• :=-__ --- so.......7„,2,,,,ft, ... Eallar .'(- -.--..,!• - - :" :i is''!Z. :_,-r-__*-----.1 Z-": -?-F-:"'-._ • ' -4S-7:zirf -- - tkr X:14 ...-----.-.-- - i ft . • . i , • 4 • , i 1 $ . -1,444 --. : . I 1 .. 4 i t .•-•*'-;••; i-;-....... i ---.I a--- -4 N104 4 ,t,....t.A:,,I;-1,,„ 0.- . ... .. X 141-m4 r;•••N 1 \1 ' • • • " • -..;', •• r:-..—._ . .P...4.1.• 1:, .. ... -/-- - ..,.,..., . 4 • ---- --,7,-...-=. '' ••••... • ' --- ..,•4:;:%"-- it., , ..."--, -...-7-L:-..---:-.-.4,.: . ---wilt= -""r"---xxxour z - ,...- •-- - ' "--'....• -i: _ ---...." vn' --1-..._ --,.- .: 4,..t . -rz.i r. - - • ..a-_,-.. _ nale 2.:.---- --1'7:.';'-.• -:'-' . 1 ' -• 1 r vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive. Su.te 100 Vail.Colorado 81657 medical center (303)476-2451 August 7, 1995 • Mr. Randy Stouder Community Development Department Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Mobile Catheterization Lab • Dear Randy: We wish to revise our application for a conditional use permit for the mobile catheterization lab, as shown on the attached drawings. Essentially, we are proposing that the lab be located in our west parking lot, next to the timber retaining wall . • To miticate the visual impact to the Evergreen Hotel, we will plant a total of six blue spruce trees on the sloped bank between our two properties . Three of the trees will be 10-13 feet tall, and three will be 12-15 feet tall . When the lab is in place, it will occupy four parking spaces. Our - Eagle Care Clinic, which is open only three days per week, has four spaces available to it on a full-time basis. (See my letter to Shelly Mello, dated '23 August 1993, copy attached, which recaps parking availability and needs. ) We will propose limiting cath lab - visits to days that the Eagle Care Clinic is closed, days on which these four spaces are not needed. • As stated in my previous letter of 20 June 95, the lab should be treated as the equivalent of one exam room, thus requiring One parking space. We have one surplus space presently available. The two technicians who operate the lab will arrive in a separate vehicle, which they will park adjacent to the lab, thus creating a new parking space during lab visits. As stated previously, the generator which is housed in the lab will not normally be run. However, if a patient is undergoing a catheterization when a power outage occurs, it will be necessary to run the generator until the procedure is complete. Although the probability of this occurring is quite low, it may happen from time to time. Ray McMahan Chief Executive Officer In working with you, the PEC and our neighbors, we believe we have developed a plan that addresses pressing medical needs, in a way that is sensitive to other community goals. We look forward to final approval of our application by- the PEC. Please call if you have any other concerns or questions . • Scerely, 'Dan Feene DF\kr • enclosures • • • Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the request for a site coverage variance with the conditions as stated in the Staff memo. • The motion was seconded by Greg Moffet. All voted unanimously in favor, with a vote of 6-0. 2. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the Vail Valley Medical Center to park a mobile catheter lab/trailer, located at 181 Vest Meadow Drive/Lots-E&F, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center,represented by Dan Feeney Planner Randy Stouder • Jeff Bowen stated he would not step down regarding this request. Randy Stouder gave an overview of the request for a Conditional Use Permit(CUP). Staff has recommended approval with conditions, since the applicant has met the CUP criteria. The Staff felt the landscaping condition was important, as well as revisiting the approval after one year. Landscaping Option A calls for six large evergreens to be placed on the north side of the lab. • Option B revised the proposal by suggesting a mixture of trees, perhaps smaller in size with an increased quantity providing a wider belt of landscape screening. Dan Feeney had comments on the Staffs conditions. To have the lab gone by 4pm might be hard to comply with, since a heavy patient load might cause a delay. A heavy patient load could lead to bringing the lab back a second time. Bob Armour asked if the lab would be brought in more than once per month. Dan Feeney stated yes: but no more than three times per month total. Dan Feeney said an exception must be made for running the generator during a power outage for patient safety. Bob Armour stated that the one year re-evaluation would be a review of how smoothly the operation was going. Randy Stouder, likewise, stated that this re-evaluation was to review operational procedures and would not be used to revoke the CUP unless major problems arose. Henry Pratt said that the purpose of the one year term was not to revoke the CUP, but would be a chance to fine tune the agreement; i.e. to change operating hours or respond to complaints. Ray McMahan was uneasy with the one year re-evaluation and wanted assurance that the term would be at least three to five years. Greg Moffet said perhaps the condition could be reworded. Planning and Enwonmemal Commission y._ 7 i. Randy Stouder strongly advised to keep the one year re-evaluation in the agreement. Greg Moffet reminded Randy Stouder that this procedure represented a three year investment. Henry Pratt suggested the language be changed. Mike Mollica mentioned Garton's Saloon was in a similar situation and had to reapply each year. He also agreed with Randy Stouder to re-evaluate the project after 1 year, not to revoke the permit, but only to tweak and refine it. Kevin Deighan agreed with Staff because the CUP could affect the neighborhood. He wanted to re-evaluate it after 1 year. Pam Stenmark,manager of the Evergreen Lodge and representing the management and condo association, agreed with examining the impacts after 1 year. She agrees with the new lab location if heavily landscaped. Right now the south facing rooms do see an nnlandscaped berm and are already faced with truck noise and views of the hospital's back side. Bob Armour asked if Pam was comfortable with the landscaping Option B. Pam said yes, if 2/3 of the plants are placed west of the Ambulance District Building. Bob Armour asked for any more public input. 1111 Henry Pratt wanted taller trees for instant gratification. He felt screening the ambulance building was a waste of money. He also doesn't believe in telling people what hours to run their businesses. He would like to see not restricting their hours of operation, but only that they could not operate before 8:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. Guests at the hotel shouldn't have to hear the noise generated from this operation. Stephanie Urbanowitz said restricting hours was going to present some problems. Weather could be a factor. To arrive on the site between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. the night before and leave between 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. was a commitment they could keep most of the time. Bob Armour said he didn't want trucks backing in and out during quiet hours and wanted the PEC to review this again next year. He felt it important to keep specific hours since this was a sensitive issue. Jeff Bowen suggested adjusting the times of departure to after 6:00 p.m. and not later than 9:00 p.m. Greg Amsden thinks there needs to be work on the landscaping around the truck area, but otherwise he is in favor of the application. • • Greg Moffet thinks to avoid peak times, they should arrive prior to 9:00 p.m. and depart prior to 8:00 p.m. the following day. Planning and Environmental Commission v r. Stephanie Urbanowitz wanted a window open between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m to depart. Greg Moffet suggested a 12 hour window, between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Kevin Deighan agreed with the 12 hour window. Bob Armour said it is best to ask them when not to operate,rather than when to operate. Randy Stouder stated that it was the transportation of the vehicle in and out of Town that was the issue, not the actual hours of operation of servicing the patients: • Pam Stenmark suggested recording the times of operation, arrivals and departures in a log. Randy Stouder stated that some of the landscaping proposed on Option B did not meet the Town's minimum size requirement for trees ( 2" caliber). Bob Armour said that all aspens should be changed to a 2" caliber. Henry Pratt said he would like see taller trees. Henry Pratt asked Randy Stouder if this plan had to go to the DRB. Randy said no, it could be Staff reviewed and approved. • e: Pam Stenmark suggested wildflower seed on the bank to supplement the trees. Bob Armour said he was comfortable with the landscaping plan and felt quantity was important. Pam Stenmark said she would like to see some taller trees in the plan. She thought perhaps fewer aspens, which are barren in the winter, adding to the height of the spruce instead, so during the winter a screen is still there. Randy Stouder suggested the applicant produce a final landscaping plan for Staff review based on the PEC's comments. Henry Pratt made a motion to approve the CUP subject to the following changes: I. That arrival or departure will not occur between 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. 2. That the plan is re-evaluated at the end of one year. 3. That the landscaping Option B is changed per the PEC's comments and subject to final review and approval by Staff. That ten(minimum 2" caliber)aspen be planted and eleven spruce with a height of 8'-12'are included in the landscaping plan. . Greg Moffet said that during unforseen power outages the lab should be able to run the generators. • Planning and Environmental Commission M,mutes ter• . t Henry amended the motion. Per Greg's comments Jeff seconded the motion. • Ray McMahan asked if the language could be changed to "review,"rather than re-evaluate. Henry Pratt was reluctant to change the language to review. Bob Armour stated that the language would remain re-evaluate. All voted unanimously in favor, with a vote of 6-0. 3. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the remodel of the Golf Course Maintenance Facility, located at 1278 Vail Valley Drive/Parcel E, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation District,represented by Ernie Bender Planner. Russell Forrest Russ Forrest said the request had been changed since the worksession. He gave an overview of the changes. Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: • A) A letter be prepared by a qualified geologist or engineer stating how mitigation • can protect the facility and not adversely affect other adjacent properties. This mitigation must be incorporated into the building plans for the facility. B) A written report from the environmental audit be provided to staff and that all • major compliance issues be resolved within 60 days of the PEC approval of this application. C) Wood siding or stucco, subject to DRB approval, be placed on the exposed concrete wall surrounding the trash enclosure. Russ Forrest said the applicants have bulked up the landscaping plan as suggested at the worksession. Staff feels that the landscaping plan will be an improvement to the site. Russ Forrest also noted that an environmental audit,that the PEC requested, was done and six different actions to clean up the site were identified. A letter is still needed from a geologist. Staff wants this done, along with completing the actions in the audit, within 60 days of approval. Russ Forrest also mentioned that wood siding is also needed on the exposed concrete for the trash container. Russ Forrest stated that Tom Moorhead was asked to look at the General Use District and whether the applicant was required to provide housing. Tom could find no provision in our code to require housing. For example, a hospital expansion may require housing for new nursing students. There seems to be no reasonable connection between housing and this application. Tom Moorhead described when housing is appropriate. He doesn't feel housing, in this case, is appropriate. Tom Moorhead prepared a memo to address employee housing. Planning and Environmentai Commission � . , . , ,I a .W i I J 7..., x � n i4/ X 7:7, an s/T,,..1,7------r VT S C.2 ,,, li L jj _. X\{ t ^ 2 N, y `� \"i OI Ll'><. Q r- ;,�a C�,i, ......: ,,.... , ,., ><,,.,D ° 11' - --- , , \ - __..- ) . , ,. \ , ›e 1 .,, - .,,-. --D 'i " --, \ \.) I ' I le 3 't I I 111 i i ° r� - - -I Z \� f/• V ` . XU h© � _b Lu° 1. .1, co ■• •(N, , w(..., , cc — i x , x, 1 = -• - - . -,,r• --.•- ' I -Tv),f,, • • i --E i -,;,',3 ...s., ..\,)li...13.4 0 ti r-- U - 1 =" -1- Z I =rte z .:� �" 0 I �� = 2 Cl)- ' :.p. o z ` Q ' / di* 1 < N �" - I le.... , _ v , . . „, U V 0 iiik _ _ _,_ 4,sr. __--------, ,. .....,, _ 1 AIL cc / ' i U �! �4 i O I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE The Vail Valley Medical Center is requesting renewal of its conditional use permit to operate a mobile catheterization laboratory on its site. The existing permit, approved by the PEC on 14 August 1995 for a one-year period, allows the hospital to use the mobile lab up to three days per month. When on-site, it is parked on a special concrete pad constructed in the hospital's west parking lot especially for this purpose. Of the five conditions stipulated by the PEC last August, all are acceptable for the renewal * with one exception: we request that the renewal be for an indefinite term, or at least longer than one year. The eleven trips that the lab has already made to town demonstrate the hospital's good faith in operating the facility in strict compliance with the PEC's conditions, and that there are no unanticipated adverse effects. II. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS A. CRITERIA: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The mobile catheterization laboratory will continue to have a positive effect on the community, in the sense that local patients will have the opportunity to have this essential medical service provided to them locally, rather than at a more distant hospital. Since construction of a concrete pad was completed in the hospital's west parking lot last fall, the catheterization lab has visited the hospital 11 times, and has provided this important service to no fewer than 24 residents of our community. During that period, we have operated the lab in full conformance with the conditions of the PEC's approval, and have observed no adverse environmental effects. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. No noticeable effect is foreseen. `r/0 3. Effect upon traffic,with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Access of the lab to the hospital's west parking lot will be via West Meadow Drive. The anticipated usage of once or twice a month (first and third Tuesdays) will result in 2 to 4 trips on West Meadow Drive. By previous agreement with the PEC, the lab will not be moved on Town of Vail streets between 9:00 PM and 9:00 AM. Patients using the service will often arrive in a private vehicle. Based on actual utilization over the last year, this will result in a maximum of four round trips per month. In short, the incremental impact of the lab on traffic flow and control will be inconsequential. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The mobile catheterization laboratory is entirely consistent with the present use of the site as a medical center. In addition, the lab will be parked in an area on the hospital campus already reserved for vehicular traffic. \_.. ,/e � É / è" � = ii'.. zo ,y Frail - oore r�� .1 `,O�* A o mp r ey� 53., ›-T2 el ' 1 33 0 -to/ i 0 _ r ..451.111 ,4._ 4.. O -> CO AIL D ' / I . I2ar-` 1 v I I"t1 m:L.z r I I 0 N- m 0 ET. 33 Do rn p. r fJ m� I a D z I - _ ,9 M Q I 1 L I f J I 4):1 4 . i / f Ost .‘ / . , D o- IN 41-1-11„,„.„:1;__": x _ 1,.. .:.;-.--: [Tr' ' ,. II I111111111111131 iI • I • :4)/1 i � I ... _.. �.., `.. ....w , r ,..:y _ ti • 1 ..' \ / LI ,.___. LI ..-....L L i, ,.... ___. ____ _ ,, I 11 i. .ill i�a �_ ., 1:',I .t. , ,`:,- 1 — ,t:ii I 1 i ‘ a . JL _ LJJII fl _.... 1 , i., ; = I i ,,,,Jj,i] ;' . . . 0 m . so , 1 Ei _ .--1 --,1.• ri • rn *.._.._ ;, r - ....... ._.;I # , _ 0 t.e:7.0.4 --z1. ,.. . • z et , 0 ,r: L . 0 1 , fil"t44.4E1.... iii 1-7 r C ) riiiii ,. ;. i n i __.__,__. Z kis,r4 -E 0 M Ti. ____ _ Hi rn ___. ,. MI _ 1., Z1 El 1-1 i lgil L: 1 ! _ i �' . . ,, L Nord Lot #9 James U. king, Jr. ,-- �: Clib B. and Mary Ann Hum `� do Kross Petroleum, Inc. 11205 Tack House Court 900 Threadneedle, Suite 650 Potomac, MD 20854 Houston, TX 77079 ., , Lot #10 ,�� �w , ,4 �c 0 of ail r „�. , 75 South Frontage Rd. W. Vail, CO 81657 The Evergreen Lodge ,.' %''� 250 S. Frontage Rd. , , - .% / . V Vail, CO81657 � � � Vail Professional Building ,_V"-- (Vail National Bank) 1910 Pacific Ave. #1700 Dallas, TX 75201 7 6 - 3 ''� S /=' C'-`-ri' ae,xf-curH) / L/c214.4_ ,..--:,..-4-1:1--C1/4-PXXL.4.- CillaYnIcituJiv"- /9- --12-e--(11-4-eA /171/ (3. NAL-1)- 4 , "2\. l lizi 6:12,5L, g/‘ 5-9 A jpf / Ate- , 7 _ if ,?— ar- --..,A_ _( /: 7 J. /!- . -. ✓ -QA''' 'Y'\ -'-^-04-,-0 C i L, vCU�. / u PO pT ' 6 • Lot #9 James U. King, Jr. CB B. and Mary Ann Hum c/o Kross Petroleum, Inc. 11205 Tack House Court 900 Threadneedle, Suite 650 Potomac, MD 20854 Houston, TX 77079 Lot 4-10 -w� 0 ofail 75 South Frontage Rd. W. Vail, CO 81657 f ' The Evergreen Lodge �; 250 S. Frontage Rd. , • - _ % f Vail, CO 81657 Vail Professional Building (Vail National Bank) 1910 Pacific Ave. #1700 Dallas, TX 75201 G2'u-�. l .0 _ A C(In...e6y7-217w,Lv-4- /9-arrit-r-A /`/l (3. /?2 .- ,7 ecul' 61(atu‘- ç/C19 �( ems- 'Yv I:J- �. '00_,j>,‘ _, ; • l niS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPEr., Y PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on August 12, 1996, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for height and front setback variances to allow for the construction of four triplex buildings, located at 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3. Applicant: Steven Gensler and Stephen Katz Planner: George Ruther A request for a conditional use permit to replace an existing well and pump station, located on the lower bench of Donovan Park. Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, represented by Gail Lucas Planner: George Ruther A request to amend Sections 18.24.020, 18.24.030, 18.24.040, 18.24.050, 18.27.030, 18.28.030, 18.28.040 and 18.29.030 of the Zoning Code to add Brew Pub as a conditional use in the Commercial Core I, Commercial Core 2, Commercial Core 3, Commercial Service Center and Arterial Business Zone Districts. Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by Jack Hunn Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for an amendment to an approved site development plan to allow for a shift in the building envelope of Building #8, located at 2792B Kinnickinnick Road/Innsbruck Meadows #8. Applicant: Bob Borne Planner: George Ruther A request for a renewal of a conditional use permit to allow for the continued operation of a mobile catheterization laboratory at the Vail Valley Medical Center, located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots F & E, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Dan Feeney Planner: Dirk Mason A request for a landscape variance to allow for a building addition and additional surface parking, located at 2131 N. Frontage Road/ Lot 3, Vail Das Schone 3rd Filing. Applicant: Safeway, Inc., represented by Dennis Wyatt Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a worksession to discuss a variance to allow detached garages in the front setback, located at 2853 and 2833 Kinnickinnick Road/Lots 7 & 8, Block 4, Vail Intermountain/Lodges at Timber Creek. Applicant: Jim Marx Planner: Dominic Mauriello ////////// Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. PQ Community Development Department Published July 26, 1996 in the Vail Trail. _Oft li'TI);,1": 1 AFPDBn D SEP 0 9 IS PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 12, 1996 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Susan Connelly Greg Amsden Mike Mollica Henry Pratt Dominic Mauriello Galen Aasland Dirk Mason Gene Uselton George Ruther Diane Golden Judy Rodriguez John Schofield Public Hearing 2:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a renewal of a conditional use permit to allow for the continued operation of a mobile catheterization laboratory at the Vail Valley Medical Center, located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots F & E, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Dan Feeney Planner: Dirk Mason Dirk Mason gave an overview of the request. Dirk stated that the applicant was requesting to extend the renewal of a conditional use permit indefinitely, or at least for more than a period of one year. He explained that no complaints had been recorded. He stated that staff was recommending approval with the conditions stated in the staff memo, with an additional condition for indefinite approval. Dirk then handed out to the Board members, a late arriving letter submitted by Joan Norris. Larry Gaul, a cardiologist, thanked the community and said that the mobile catheter lab exceeded their expectations for usage. They have not experienced any complaints. The conditional use permit allows the lab to be operating three days per month, but the request is for four days per month to better distribute the patients and make it easier to get the van out by 9:00 p.m. at night. Four days per month will allow them to miss skier traffic when departing the site. Pam Stenmark, General Partner at the Evergreen Lodge, requested that the conditional use permit not be indefinite, but reviewed each year. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none. Galen Aasland had no comments. Diane Golden thought it was nice for the community having the mobile lab. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 1 • I Henry Pratt is reluctant to give a permanent approval for a conditional use permit. He would like the maximum amount of time to be 5 years. John Schofield had no comments. Gene Uselton had to disagree with Henry Pratt. He would like to do away with the bureaucratic red tape. As long as the PEC could call-up the permit at any time, or as stated in Condition #5, he felt that was sufficient. Greg Amsden agreed with Gene's comments. • Greg Moffet asked the applicant how soon they anticipated going to 4 days? Larry Gaul said they are going to 3 days as soon as the lifts open and will wait and see when 4 days would be needed. Greg Moffet felt indefinite approval, agreeing with Gene's comments. He told Pam Stenmark to advise the PEC if there were any complaints. Gene Uselton made a motion for approval, subject to the 5 conditions as listed in the staff memo. The motion was seconded by John Schofield. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 2. A request for an amendment to an approved site development plan to allow for a shift in the building envelope of Building #8, located at 2792B Kinnickinnick Road/Innsbruck Meadows #8. Applicant: Bob Borne Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the request. Since the proposed relocation of Building #8 is by more than 2', staff could not administratively approve the relocation. Staff is recommending approval of the request with the 3 conditions as listed in the staff memo and with the additional condition that the applicant move the building out of the utility easement. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment, there was none. Greg Amsden abstained, since he is a listing agent for the property. There were no comments from Gene Uselton or John Schofield. Galen Aasland asked if this would affect driveway grades. George Ruther said there would be no impacts. Diane Golden had no comment. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 2 Henry Pratt said he would prefer not to have an encroachment agreement. Greg Moffet had no comments. Galen Aasland made a motion for approval with conditions in accordance with the staff memo. The motion was seconded by John Schofield. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Greg Amsden abstaining. 3. A request for height and front setback variances to allow for the construction of four triplex buildings, located at 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3. Applicant: Steven Gensler and Stephen Katz Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the request and said that he included all of the letters from the adjacent property owners received by the Town of Vail. George had received another letter objecting to this request, which he passed out to the PEC members. Staff has worked with the applicant to lower the building height, so the building height variance will not enter into this application. George went over the staff memo and the zoning analysis. Staff is recommending approval of the request, since the applicant's lot has steep slopes and the variance will have minimal impacts on the community. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had any comments. Ron Preston, the Architect, said the setback requirement is to give relief from the road. Without the variance, it is too narrow and limits what can be done. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. Mary Ann Vanetta, a property owner at Capstone, south of the applicant, thought it should be redesigned to include increased landscaping improvements. We see this new proposed plan as Mr. Gensler's response to a previous worksession. This doesn't address the landscaping problem. Greg Amsden said he was on the Commission at the time of the original worksession. This plan seems better for the preservation of the trees. Mary Ann Vanetta said the applicant thought if he redesigned the request, he could get a front setback variance. The redesign could have been approved if he didn't increase the dwelling units from 8 to 12. Greg Amsden reminded Ms. Vanetta that the applicant's lot is private property. If a new developer came in, he could bulldoze the property, if he chose to. Darryl Brady, an owner of Vail Point Unit #7, stated that his realtor, Mr. Hiller, represented and consummated the deal. We are violently opposed. We have a setback of 20' to protect them from encroaching. We are opposed to the setback variance request. We thought the zoning was there to protect us. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 3 Nov Roger Staten, a Vail Point homeowner, would like to voice his objection. Mr Hiller, the real estate agent, showed him the plans for the development across the street. He would have thought twice about buying his unit had he known this was going to happen. He said variances are granted because of hardship. This is a profit oriented request. This will not benefit the Town of Vail and will create a tunnel effect. The existing codes were put there for a reason. The homeowners of Vail Point have had to pay for Mr. Gensler's back taxes. How can the Town of Vail reward anyone when they haven't made good on their promises to his Vail Point project? This is a profit motivated request. Larry Eskwith, representing Vail Point, reviewed the variance and the staff memo. He would like to know where the hardship is here. The first reason for the variance request to do away with the front setback, is because of the large road right-of-way. It doesn't mean there will always be a large Town of Vail right-of-way. It is not perpetual, as stated by Greg Hall. This request doesn't show any hardship. The second and chief reason for the variance request is to preserve certain landscaping that the Capstone Condo owners placed there. In other words, to preserve the rear setback for Capstone landscaping. Capstone would like to see this go through, since they put a lot of landscaping on trespassed property. The development could be built without projecting itself into the front setback. Again, what is the hardship and why are my clients being subjected to this. One of the key findings is that the variance will not be a grant of special privilege. How many variances have been granted with a 19' out of a 20' setback. There is no hardship to support it. Marty Walbaum, Vail Point owner of Unit #8, stated that calculations on Phase II do not reflect overbuilding Phase II and underbuilding Phase III. Reasons for granting a variance must prove that the granting would not be detrimental or materially injurious to adjacent property owners. Thirty eight property owners in Vail Point object to the request, as it would be materially injurious to us. Phase II has not been completed in the three years that I have lived there. We have been obligated to pay the developer's taxes. I feel the granting of this is a special favor to the applicant, who is not even here. Steven Gensler stated that he was here. Ken Sort land, a resident of the Town of Vail and resident in the valley for 16 years, owns Vail Point#3. When the road was first put in, it was not put in the right place. Setbacks are for the purpose of buffering between units. The applicant got this property in 1989, when he purchased Vail Point. There is no hardship. I see no condition to grant a variance. The developer hasn't completed the work on the first job, nor is the job properly done. Owners had to pay for fixing a leak in the driveway when asphalt had been dumped onto it by the contractor. Owners had to come up with back taxes to the tune of $300 per unit. Please deny the variance and have the developer build within the envelope. Phillis Mango, owner of Capstone #1, has no problem with the granting of this variance. Regarding Section V, item 4, where the emergency vehicle turnaround is addressed; where is the snow going to be dumped? How are you going to preserve the plantings that are there, as identified in item 5? Marlene Zemmers of Vail Point, stated that instead of a town of chimneys, she would like to preserve what we have now. These are substandard buildings done by a developer with a debt of back payment of taxes. She is getting the feeling that he is catering to Capstone. We care about Vail and not the profit motive. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 4 To PW2 eRem sW, - - . 977 Lti/P-vc +VJ- UMC gill ' CUOA-Lel-be& Ar aidi/HOIALO ,164/j N2.0IL OVJ-- a, As2A-)A-QA-- Loka 0440 S. /1 riApsy Oa, (9)01-, -iv,t,o2 �nz a ] &be w1 .&`/Lra vsecl ' 611/1 • • , vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 ■S" medical center Vail, Colorado 81657 (303)476-2451 vib Shelly Mello J Community Development Department Skij� - Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 August 23 , 1993 • Dear Shelly: A recent reconfiguration of our parking structure has resulted in a net increase of three spaces. As shown on the attached plans, we now have 207 spaces in the structure. After deducting the recently approved Human Resources relocation, we now have six surplus spaces, tabulated as follows: Parking Structure 207 spaces Surface Parking 105 spaces Lot 10 18 spaces Total 330 spaces Available Parking 330 spaces Evergreen Parking - 20 spaces- Learning Center - 17 spaces- MRI - 2 spaces- Vail National Bank - 8 spaces-- Existing Hospital -272 spaces- 1992 Expansion - 3 spaces Human Resources - 2 spaces Surplus 6 spaces We are currently applying for a building permit that will affect four different areas of the hospital. For purposes of explaining the recalculation of our parking requirements, I will define the four areas as follows: Area "A" : Space on the second floor of the hospital currently used as an office by my secretary and 4 myself. Area "B" : Located on level 0 of the southeast corner of the parking structure. This space currently serves as an office for the Housekeeping supervisor and bulk storage of housekeeping supplies. Ray McMahan Chief Executive Officer • Shelly Mello August 23 , 1993 page: 2 Area "C" : The old Human Resources office suite, located adjacent to level 1 of the parking structure. Area "D" : A storage room at the southwest corner of our basement. A description of remodel work and the resulting changes in parking requirements follows: AREA DESCRIPTION of CHANGES NET PARKING CHANGE "A" Vacated by me and my secretary. -2 spaces ( 4 ( Converted to storage room for Data Services. 0 spaces "B" Vacated by Housekeeping Supervisor. -1 spaces Will be remodeled into a smaller bulk storage room for Housekeeping and a 0 spaces new Drug Testing Facility, consisting of two restrooms (which, under the parking formula, should be considered 2 exam rooms) , and two employees. 4 spaces "C" Human Resources will vacate the -3 spaces 3-office suite. Space will be remodeled into the EagleCare Clinic, consisting of two exam rooms and two part-time employees. 4 spaces "D" Area will be remodeled into offices for the Housekeeping supervisor, my secretary and myself. 3 spaces Net Change: 5 spaces Several clarifications are appropriate. Although we have not previously counted restrooms in calculating our parking requirements, I have made an exception in the case of the Drug Testing Facility. Since these restrooms will be used for collecting urine specimens, I feel they are more appropriately considered as exam rooms under the parking formula. Shelly Mello August 23 , 1993 page: 3 The EagleCare Clinic will treat indigent members of our community who could not otherwise afford health care services. It will be staffed by a hospital-provided nurse and a physician who donates his time. Although it will be open only two mornings a week, I have increased our full-time parking requirements by four spaces. In summary, we will have one surplus parking space when all these changes are implemented. In view of the two clarifications offered above, I believe my calculations of parking requirements to be quite conservative in adhering to the letter and spirit of the previously agreed parking formula. S ' cerely, i , e/ Dan - . - Facili ' e- Manager jh/Enclosures cc:Ray McMahan 4 4 4 4 r j Vail Valley Medical Center 7 --7 Parking Structure Level 1 -?,,j 147 146 145 144 143 I N HI 148 J� 149 I 150 160 "i ,i i -- a 1`-- 151 161 206 193 ---I I' 152 162 _ 205 192 153 163 204 191 4 Li all It 154 164 203 190 II n Ii i 155 165 202 189 i i - it 0 166 201 188 i 167 200 187 1 1 — ,i �=-_ 168 - 199 186 i, I. , 169 198 185 1 h -- {.- 156 170 197 184 i - 157 V — -- I L 171 - 196 183 158 1722 195 182 159 181 i 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 /.a_ C all • 0 z6 -- -- - Vail Valley Medical Center _V Parking Structure bevel 3 5 4 3 2 1 1 5 6 C 7 8 ,r-- 1 23 73 60 9 L — d IL 24 72 59 10 �I 25 71 58 11 t I i I 26 70 57 12 4 L-- 13 I 27 69 56 4 14 28 68 55 'I II-- 15 29 67 54 I 16 30 66 53 17 31 65 52 18 32 64 51 I 19 33 63 50 20 34 62 49 21 35 61 48 22 47 � A Ir 46 (4— I 1 _ — _ — — _ — 45 W — 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 42 44 0...••••• , 1 rtip — Vail Valley Medical Center i,5� Parking Structure Level 2 9_ 78 77 76 75 74 , (-I / N ` �) CI • ,, 1 1 I) (I _ 79 93 142 r29 — q - --11 I - II .1.,___.- 80 94 141 128 t' 1 81 95 140 127 I, 11 L- ❑ 82 96 139 126 1 II - - - L- 83 97 - 138 125 -�, ir 1 I, 84 98 _ 137 124 A 1, , 11 11 ❑ 85 99 • 136 123 II If - - 'I h _ 86 100 135 122 I II — —,1 87 101 - 134 \.19 121 / A 1. -,I 1it p ❑ 88 (-f,1p2 _ 133 120 n � 1 L 89 103 - 132 119 It - _ AI L' 90 104 - 131 118 p 9 91 105 130 117 92 116 [ 1 ) Ir 115 r�`f` i l l -J ° , im____ 106 / , 107 108 109 110 111 7 112 113 114 - / vail valley, lest Meadow Drive, Suite 100 _ Vail, Colorado 81657 medical center (303)476-2451 July 29, 1993 , , " • 1 ( CS Mr. Dan Stanek Community Development Department Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Dan: v an: v As you directed, we delivered a set of construction plans for the relocation of the Human Resource office to the Fire Department. Pending Mike McGee' s review, we would like authorization to begin demolition on Monday, August 2 . This early start of construction will enable us to verify code violations we believe to be present in tha cxiting construction, so that we can identify solutions acceptable to the Town and the hospital. To support these improvements, we will provide two additional parking spaces from our current surplus. Although we are adding three offices, we are also de-commissioning an adjacent operating room, which we will use as a sterile storage area. Under the parking formula agreed to in 1986, each operating room was considered as an "exam room" , and therefore counted as one space towards our overall parking requirement. Therefore, the net change in parking due to this project should be an additional two spaces. ncerel Dan Fe:ney 1 Project .nager cc: Shelly Mello C< Ray McMahan Chief Executive Officer CI • •nw-� w o/bJ 1 • FILE COPY „,,AAA a9 TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Department of Community Development Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2138 /479-2139 March 19, 1993 Vail Valley Medical Center c/o Dan Feeney 181 W. Meadow Drive, Suite 100 Vail, CO 81657 Re: A request for a conditional use permit to allow an addition, and roof top mechanical to the Vail Valley Medical Center located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots E & F, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Dear Dan: Enclosed is a copy of the minutes of the August 10, 1992 Planning and Environmental (PEC) meeting at which your conditional use permit request was approved. The attached copy of the meeting minutes will serve as your record of this approval. Please note that the approval of this conditional use permit shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction is not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion, or if the use for which the permit is granted has not commenced within two years from approval (August 10, 1992). If approval of this variance lapses, an application must be resubmitted for reconsideration by the Community Development Department staff and the PEC. If you have any questions or comments regarding this information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 303/479-2138. Sincerely, �, Shelly Mello Town Planner Enclosure 1 5. The applicant has agreed to plan four coniferous and eleven aspen in front of the driveway for building envelope 5. 6. The applicant shall plant clusters of trees by the entrance of the development and west of the former pond site. 7. The Planning and Environmental Commission strongly recommends that the Town not require a "pull-out" for cars to pass, located approximately between envelopes 5 and 6. 3. A request for front and side setback variances in order to construct an addition at 898 Red Sandstone Circle/Lot 7, Block 3, Vail Village 9th Filing. Applicant: Paul and Janet Testwuide Planner: Tim Devlin Tim Devlin gave a quick overview of this request. A variance had been approved several years ago, but has expired. The applicant now wants a 5-foot side and a a- foot front setback variance for construction of a garage and entry/kitchen addition. The applicant is well under on GRFA and site coverage. Staff recommends approval of the 3-feet front and 5-feet side setback variances, with conditions that one foot taken up by stone face on a portion of the north and west facades, and a portion of the asphalt parking pad be removed and the area landscaped. Diana Donovan said the only question was where the asphalt should be removed. One of the nearby property owners, the Hochtls at 890 Red Sandstone Circle, recommend approval. Gena Whitten had a reservation about granting variances, but this is okay as it is tastefully designed and the location of the house warranted some flexibility. Generally, the asphalt not in front of the new parking garage will be removed and landscaped. Jeff Bowen moved that a side and front setback variance be approved with the stipulation that asphalt be removed to the east and west of the garage that is not used for access to the garage and the area shall be landscaped and tht 1 ft. of the variance was to allow for the stone. The motion was seconded by Chuck Crist and unanimously approved by the Committee. 4. A request for a conditional use permit to allow an addition and roof top mechanical to the Vail Valley Medical Center located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots E & F, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Dan Feeney Planner: Shelly Mello Shelly outlined the major issues. The VVMC wants an 880 sq. ft addition; the temporary trailer and satellite dish have been removed from the request. There will also be additional roof-top mechanical, which will not exceed the height of the existing mechanical. Parking is one of the major issues on this site. With this addition, the VVMC now has a surplus of five parking spaces. Staff recommends approval with one condition -- they would like to see the barrier fence and revegetation of the streambank on the west installed prior to the release of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the project. This will improve and insure the condition of the stream bank. Planning and Environmental Commission August 10,1992 Dan Feeney, representing the VVMC agreed with these provisions and also agreed to reconsider the proposed facade materials and bring them to the DRB. Jeff Bowen wanted to know if there is a set time for the learning lab to move. The answer was no, but it will be moved eventually. He then asked that when that parking space becomes available, will it be a problem to terminate the lot 10 parking. Dan feeney stated that the VVMC has contingency plans when that happens. They know that sometime in the future they will lose the lot 10 parking spaces. Dalton Williams had a concern about the parking on Town property. Someday someone at the Town may take those spaces away. Will the hospital be able to accommodate the loss? Dalton Williams went on to request a bus stop right in front of the hospital. The VVMC representatives stated that this has been discussed in the past, but that there are many problems. Kristan Pritz said she would bring it up with Public Works. Diana Donovan wanted it noted in the record that any time the lease was cancelled the applicant would have to provide the the 10 parking spaces on site. Jeff Bowen asked what rent was being paid. The VVMC representative responded that it was $10.00 per year and that the VVMC has paid for existing lighting, security, and paving, etc., which exists in return for the ability to use the parking. Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve the request for a conditional use permit with the condition that the stream landscaping and barrier be put in within 30 days of the issuance of a building permit and that the VVMC will be required to provide alternative parking to lot 10 with their next expansion. Chuck Crist seconded the motion, and the request was unanimously approved. 5. Notification to the Planning and Environmental Commission concerning a minor amendment to SDD #4 - Cascade Village Area A, Cosgriff Parcel/The Cascades, generally located south of Millrace Condominiums and west of The Westin Resort, Vail, to allow an expansion to a building footprint not to exceed 5 feet. Applicant: East West Partners, represented by Ned Gwathmey Planner: Shelly Mello Dalton Williams expressed concern about the parking situation on Westhaven Drive, which is being driven by the closure of level 3 of the Cascade Village Parking Structure. Kristan Pritz responded that she is planning to discuss the issue with the Town Council on this matter. Dalton Williams feels we should put pressure on all the developments in SDD4 to resolve the parking problem. Gena Whitten said that we should not put pressure on only one person to solve this problem. Jeff Bowen said the Committee should go ahead and approve this, but something should be done in the future. Kathy Langenwalter thought it inappropriate to not approve this request due to the parking issue. She asked if the PEC could send a letter to property owners stating the concerns about approving anything in that SDD with the current parking problems. Kristan Pritz said something needs to be done and the staff is working on the issue. Chuck Crist moved to support the staff decision with the condition that the staff draft a letter to the Town Council on behalf of the PEC discussing their concerns, which was seconded by Greg Amsden and unanimously approved. A motion was made by Kathy Langenwalter and seconded by Chuck Crist to table and withdraw the remaining items on the agenda. Planning and Environmental Commission August 10,1992 4 I e Pty 1 ko c .s:: 5 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 10, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow an office addition,and roof top mechanical to the Vail Valley Medical Center located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots E & F, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Shelly Mello ,:.ti.:.,. 4,Q::. ..}n•.;: p{. nvi\}nti...•... 81.x,}.•tin,.;.. tin;v..ti-\•}} 4}:.-r...... :�.:••:•}f•:f:::::•:-y-}}}':Pix:nv• :v�' ':;ti } ,} w,,,•.}.},,:.::.,:::.::::..-.:>w:,ti.yam. ...k.. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE The Jail valley Medical Center is located the Publie Use zone distdct and any expansion in this district requires a conditional use review. The hospital is requesting a conditional use permit to expand the hospital. The additional space will be dedicated to office and storage use. Additional roof top mechanical will also be added to the project, which does not require a conditional use permit. However, the staff felt that the PEC should be aware of the additional mechanical on the roof. The conditional use request includes: Construction of 880 sq. ft. at two levels consisting of 500 sq. ft. of office/conference at level 1 and 380 sq. ft. of storage at the basement level, located on the southwest corner of the building adjacent to the hospital's southwest vehicle entry. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The staff believes that the addition is positive as it complements existing medical services on the site. It makes sense to consolidate medical services on this site as long as parking and other development standards can be met. • In the recently approved Streetscape Master Plan, certain improvements are called for along West Meadow Drive. These include locating a brick paver walk along the north side of West Meadow Drive and adding a landscape buffer on lot 10 between the walk and the hospital's existing parking. At this time, staff is not requesting any of these improvements due to the limited scope of the project. The staff believes such improvements are more appropriate at the time of the next major VVMC expansion. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. This expansion should have no significant impacts on these factors. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The following chart summarizes the parking allocation on the hospital Site given this expalisiun: Currently Future Conversion of Learning Available Lab at Elev. 8135 into Parking Parking Structure 204 spaces 250 spaces Surface Parking 105 spaces 105 spaces Lot 10 18 spaces 18 spaces Total 327 spaces 373 spaces Available Parking 327 spaces 373 spaces Evergreen Parking -20 spaces -20 spaces Learning Center Lab -17 spaces -17 spaces MRI - 2 spaces - 2 spaces Vail National Bank - 8 spaces - 8 spaces Existing Hospital -272 spaces -272 spaces Proposed 1992 - 3 spaces - 3 spaces Expansion Surplus 5 spaces 51 spaces Excluding Lot 10 -13 spaces 33 spaces Parking deficit surplus The chart above indicates that after this expansion there will be a 5- space surplus of parking in the VVMC structure. The second column indicates that 51 spaces would be available when the learning lab in the parking structure is converted to parking in the future. 33 parking -2- e spaces would be available if and when the learning lab is converted and the lot 10 parking is vacated. Six spaces have also been approved by the hospital and Town Council to meet the parking requirements for Vail National Bank. A total of 8 spaces are actually used by the Bank. The Bank chose to purchase two additional spaces from the hospital in order to be able to provide additional parking. These two spaces were not purchased to meet any Town parking requirement. The Bank's use of any additional parking in the VVMC structure to meet parking requirements for future expansions will require Town of Vail PEC and/or Council approval. At this time, the Council has stated that all future expansions of the Vail National Bank Building will require parking to be located on Bank property. In April of 1990, the Vail Valley Medical Center requested a conditional use permit to expand the parking structure by 2-1/2 levels. The request also included a learning center lab which would be located in the lowest level of the parking structure. Two break-out panels are included in the structure to connect to the adjacent Evergreen parking. �1. i c nn "- I7 g r'r�....m!co! cx .1r7 omc ��rry ,1.,, COO ,cv ter;, c lur,r ry �n :pre�� u concern about the hospital's reliance on the 18 parking spaces located on Lot 10. This lot is owned by the Town of Vail and is located on the southwest corner of the VVMC parking lot adjacent to West Meadow Drive. It is used jointly to provide parking for the hospital, the library and the VRD. The hospital, through a lease agreement with the Town, has the right to use 18 parking spaces. According to the agreement, "this lease shall be automatically renewed for subsequent 1-year terms unless either party gives written notice to the other of its intent not to renew no later than 60 days prior to the end of the lease term." The end of the lease term is April 30th of each year. In addition, the Town's Streetscape Master Plan specifies a design for West Meadow Drive to allow for better pedestrian access and safety, as well as improved emergency and vehicular traffic flow. In the future, it may be necessary to utilize a portion of Lot 10 to accommodate these design improvements. Staff believes that it is reasonable to support this expansion of the hospital which requires an additional three parking spaces. However, for future significant expansions, staff recommends that the hospital incorporate the 18 spaces on Lot 10 into parking on the hospital property. The staff has also asked the VVMC to revise the master plan reviewed by the PEC. It appears that some of the expansions may not be necessary. -3- elk • The VVMC master plan states: Addition of one half level of parking on top of the east side of the structure. This will provide dedicated access and parking for a new emergency room that we will eventually build at the east end of the property, with access directly off South Frontage Road. Construction of a detached building at the west end of the property. This facility will consolidate physician's offices enabling us to expand hospital departments into space currently occupied by these functions. - Construction of a fourth floor on top of the west wing just completed. This floor will accommodate additional patient beds, as well as the pharmacy, laboratory and building service departments. Demolition of the original hospital at the east end of the property, and construction of a new building adjoining the south side of the parking Jai_U 1 aU.,. This cast . ,:rJ ■ iII include addit:u ..l parking, a relocated main lobby and admissions area, a new emergency room with vehicular access off South Frontage Road, and relocated ambulance bays. Staff believes that the three space parking requirement for this project should not trigger the removal of the Lot 10 parking. However, the staff finds that it is reasonable to ask the hospital, in considering future expansions, to also include parking to compensate for the 18 spaces on Lot 10. Staff would like to see the current snow removal and storage practice on the west edge of the property changed. Currently snow is pushed into the creek, which has subsequently impacted the streambank. In response to staff's concern, the applicant has agreed to revegetate the streambank and construct a wood fence (approximately 3 feet high) similar to that used on the southwest corner of the property in order to protect the stream during snow removal. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The area for expansion is located under the existing second floor of the hospital on the south elevation. The addition will infill space beneath the second floor and add storage area to the basement level. The stepping back of the building from the 2nd to 1st level allows for relief in the elevation. The expansion does not extend beyond the existing line of -4- the building on the south and west elevations. This expansion should not have a major impact on the scale and bulk of the building. The DRB will review the proposed addition for compatibility of materials. Staff suggests that brick and board form concrete be used instead of the proposed metal siding. The applicant is also proposing one additional rooftop mechanical system. This system is necessary for lab space within the hospital. The system will be visible from the upper floors of the adjacent properties, as well as from the north, east and west property lines. It is not necessary to obtain a conditional use permit for this, but the staff felt that the PEC should be aware of the additional mechanical system. It will be reviewed by the DRB. III. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this conditional use request with the condition that the streambank on the west side of the property be landscaped and a permanent barrier along the west side of the property be installed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the addition in order to prevent disturbance of the stream area. We would also recommend that the DRB consider brick and board formed concrete for the exterior of the office addition. We also recommend that DRB make sure the mechanical unit is painted dark brown to match the existing mechanical. The proposed use is in compliance with the purpose of the public use zone district. There would be no negative impacts on public health, safety or welfare and the proposal complies with the conditional use review criteria. c:\PEC\memos\wmc -5- / • 'I J• • III 1111.11 .------ J • ) //i I... ' - } i ; ti �t I I I I I I I I C I , 0 ?1j Lt J[ 1 r.-,) iif------ l.� ---— r-- —Ir'c I I . ___ i I H IJWJ I t �• ,i. • 1 a r , /--1'I p:I,:III I / / — i 11 d` •s ' ' / —�1 `� I /1 I gyp,\ � I 1 / J I I 1 I,\ /� / II n • I I , 1,/ �� 11 � 11 111 I u s r1 - I r L 111 Z \ • 1, �J F �� �I S II 1 s Z 1 1 11 12 02 m / i °1 t 1� I I i — v AA 3 I r/ 2 Ig� I �I 1 I �° • v re � �� I' u l / 1 wm N 1 " I � r I' � „ I1J.4 innI 1 , ■■ h L 11 I ■ u / r mai� IJ ' 1 /_ r v ei 'i 1 „1 I L M■ / n • Ri is 1 III m / gI We —� ' I. o I —1. Ili i $ TI, 3\ _ ® _ �� I ii'f'r', 'uy , u j _ la I - j �'8 I I "e v xr(•., 1 .F / 1 li I / I T if,, $ i 1, I / r \\ e S1 tAcl I r 1 r y -_ i d / k i '., _w Yo Li ie I I I _ / B--- - `- ."bi, / / / 1 - : / .I`r /7-- I I •t I , t ____,_ //______ 1 f -/ // I Si —� / s� -t --/---- ''f,i f"-----_ r . • e '..i...N.,„.. _ - E, 11' I-1T , ___ "7 --- - t_________k _ 1 n . 1 ' 17 , 1 i, _ r ',.__/__L_, 'i / / _ , I. _ , . z I 1 , ., , ';/!,///, il. ' ,'i likL, .._ . Hew WINI2S-4 t/ 1, '..1.• :..i.;ii i,.i): II AlKe41NUFmlo:osill4AA TO 1 reARID P,01-1E10,.. ,G.A' itta4,40E-'t r4-r- Ft7N.1.04.1.iv tio.s-rcm . L ————-41 F,(14,11>I4 I I . 4 , t T > 1,15.5T 5--"-L- V,ATIONI , .. . \ . . L,--1: LL ____--r_- _L--in il • . , , . • ..%! ________, ._,_, . _ , .., 4 4) iii .:' : ' __ iin 7____ T1 • 7.. I MI 11111111111 •-r-• 1 1 V . \ INI Illirf■E 1 rilli li 11;r1.';li 11 11 ill ,--- 2ti--11-1 !._- VATION ■■•■ • • 1 I I t g I1_______I_.__Li i 45-0" S•roRJlc E.KITINGi COI-EK FC0M ?r4,1 Z ' 20 T -1 —_ t ILA 4 ♦ _ V E tx14r11•4 I NEW —_--- I TIh ., I°AKT-1• ■ bAS • NT FL-00K °1-AN r . , ........„........„,,,,,....„.____. 1 _____ _______„7, 1- - - _ mi.: 1)/\ I 1 F___ __0• , .,T. 1. 4, 3 - ❑-II Leo-4w - C Id } 6.-0. I] CONF KH. ® - - T II I eb I,. OFFIGir GI= oFFI 1 2 } _ _____i �� 1 E 10 G'FFIGE. I n o y I exis"1"iN4 Held- EN- i ex}ST1N4 30 9 v PA I T1AL FIIeST rLOOIe I°LA _C__p_ in • • r " 1 GL! August 7 , 1992 Town of Vail Environmental Commission Vail , CO 81657 RE : Pablic Hearing 8-10-92 I am an owner at 252 West Meadow Drive , across from the Vail Valley Medical Center, and wish to protest a request for "temporary trailers and an additional satellite dish" . We have seen West Meadow Drive become nightmare of cars , busses , bikes , skaters , and what-have-you during the past several years , including the monster Vail Valley The Environmental Commission has granted every request made by the Medical Center and I think that the Commission should start saying N0 : How temporary will the trailers be , and why another satellite dish? I wish that someone on the Commission would have guts enough to turn down a request like this instead of the old rubber stamp. Wendell E . Haley PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 10, 1992 Present Staff Greg Amsden Kristan Pritz Jeff Bowen Mike Mollica Chuck Crist Andy Knudtsen Diana Donovan Tim Devlin Kathy Langenwalter Shelly Mello Dalton Williams Gena Whitten Starting at approximately 1:00 p.m. a work session was held to discuss the Police Building. The public meeting was called to order at 2:25 p.m. by Chairperson Diana Donovan. 1. A request for a determination of the parking requirement for the proposed Booth Falls Par 3 Golfcourse, located on Tract A, Vail Village 13th Filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation District Planner: Mike Mollica Kristan Pritz announced that there would be a general public meeting on August 20th at 7:00 p.m. She asked that comments at today's meeting be kept to a minimum if they did not concern the parking issue so that other items on the agenda could be addressed. Diana Donovan reiterated that the PEC was here to discuss parking, but that other comments would be noted. Mike Mollica went into the background of the property. DRB does need to approve the project, but this meeting is being held to determine the number of parking spaces to be required for the course. Jim Morter, architect for the starter shack, has done an analysis of the parking space need, as did the staff. Mike Mollica reviewed the analysis done, which came up with a need for 24 parking spaces. He also mentioned that the project will be reviewed after one year to see whether any more spaces will be needed. Jim Morter of Morter Architects, the architect for the starter house came up with approximately the same number of spaces, but used a different analysis. Kathy Langenwalter asked where handicapped parking fit in. Jim Morter said that two handicapped spaces were planned, and these were included in the numbers mentioned earlier. Dalton Williams suggested that we lay out now the spaces that might be needed after one year. Jim Morter said that that had been done. Greg Amsden said we should look for maximum need for parking. Jeff Bowen questioned Jim Morter's statement that the parking area would not be used in the winter time. He responded that this is a request from the residents. Dalton Williams said that the lot might be used by people who drive to the road and then take the bus into town. Mike Mollica read two letters received by the Town from area residents. After being questioned about whether the course would be revenue-producing, Rob Robinson, Director of the Vail Recreation District said that the Vail Golf Course is, as will this course be after approximately 7 years. Diana Donovan asked about traffic safety issues. Kristan Pritz responded that these are to be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Jim Morter said that the Public Works Department will also review the traffic safety issues. The environmental issues will be addressed by the Recreation District at the August 20th meeting. Greg Amsden said that a water quality study is currently being done for the Town of Vail and the Vail Golf Course is being studied which may relate to the Par 3 Golf Course. Diana Donovan then asked if there was any public input, and the following people responded. Rob Ford, a resident of Bald Mountain Road said that winter parking for bus riders could be a problem as the buses are already overcrowded. He said you have to get on the bus going eastbound in order to eventually get to Vail. Tim Musko, an East Vail resident, agreed with the use of the bus. He said there were no solid numbers. He also believes the parking will be an eyesore, but berms might help. He wanted to know if an environmental study had been done. He said he has 150 signatures of people who are opposed to the course. He said that he was not aware of the previous public meetings that were held on this question. In response to that statement, Rob Robinson said the Rec. District ran $120.00 worth of ads. Kristan added that the meeting on the 20th is being facilitated by the Town of Vail and notices will be sent to adjacent property owners. She suggested that the District might want to run some more ads and the Town will talk to some of the local reporters about getting an article in the papers. Tom Krebs thought the issue was all about money. He felt everything is being paved and irrigated. Tom Fitch stated he liked life in the valley the way it is. He thought open space should be kept wild and doesn't think this is an appropriate use of public money. Evie Knott of 2645 Bald Mountain Road claimed she did not receive notification of earlier meetings. She was concerned about the number of parking spaces and is opposed to the project. She thought someone should check the Eagle- Vail Par-3 Golf Course for the number of cars. She was also very concerned about safety and wanted a decision on the parking to be tabled until after the August 20 meeting. Peter Schaefer of 2650 Bald Mountain Road had several concerns. He purchased his house because of the open space and he believed the parking and traffic are pretty bad now. He wanted to know if a study had been done on whether there is a need for a par-3 golf course, and he questioned the safety of the houses around the golf course and the cars going down 1-70. Greg Amsden talked about zoning. Kristan Pritz said that a lease for the golf course had not yet been signed, and that some issues have been raised regarding the environmental impacts and that they will be answered at the 20th meeting. Gail Malloy mentioned that all recreational parking in Eagle-Vail is in the Battle Mountain High School parking lot. Rob Ford asked Diana Donovan whether she was privately involved in fighting the golf course and she answered that she was not. Herman Stauffer thought that the project should be blessed today. Colleen McCarthy said that the issue today is parking and that if a major portion of the community is opposed, that the project would be withdrawn. Jim Morter again reiterated that we are today dealing -2- • with parking. He also mentioned that the Eagle-Vail Par-3 course does not have a parking lot and asked the Planning Commission to keep an open mind. Sonny Caster of Bald Mountain Road, who represented six other residents, is for the project. He also mentioned that he had received every single notice that was sent out on this project. Gail Malloy, a resident of Manns Ranch Road, was very concerned about the parking if the lot were to be plowed. She did not think it was currently a pretty piece of property now and there remained 500,000 acres of wilderness just a short distance away. Dalton Williams asked if the Fire Department needs a plowed access. Gail Malloy responded that a fire lane would be fine. Nancy Lipsky seconded everything that Sonny Caster said. She stated that at the last meeting, a majority of the people was for the project. She stated that the plans for the golf course show a very natural area, not mowed grass, and she mentioned that Bald Mountain Road has a lot of natural snow melt. Evie Knot wanted to know how parking will be prevented as the snow melts. Kathy Langenwalter said that the PEC should go with what the staff recommends. She wanted 24 spaces plus two handicapped spaces, and the capability to expand to 30. Chuck Crist requested that the course be heavily bermed and the parking closed in the winter. Greg Amsden wanted to plan for 28-30 cars, with an additional 6-8 for expansion. He favored berming and heavy landscaping. Dalton Williams wanted 23- 24 spaces plus the handicapped spaces and was in favor of planning for the expansion and also berming. He said that the intersection is bad and maybe some work should be done to improve it. Jeff Bowen and Gena Whitten agreed with the previous comments. Greg Amsden talked about the liability to cars being hit by a ball and going off the road. He believed major liability coverage was needed for an event like that. Diana Donovan wanted 24 spaces and two handicapped spaces, and six additional spaces to be designed for later use. Greg Amsden said that if the parking lot is full and people start parking on Bald Mountain Road, something will need to be done. Kristan Fritz mentioned that an agreement might be made with Vail Mountain School if overflow parking is needed. Chuck Crist wanted to know when play will start. Jim Morter was not sure. Dick Bailey, landscape architect for the course, thought they would get grading and sod in place this fall, making the course playable for the fall of 1993 or mid-summer 1994. Evie Knott wanted to know if 30 spaces could be staked before the August 20 meeting so people could see where the parking lot would be. It was agreed that this was a good idea. Access to the lot would be from Bald Mountain Road. The total acreage of the project is 14 acres. Kathy Langenwalter made a motion to determine the parking requirement to be 24 spaces and two handicapped spaces, with a capability to expand to 30, based on a review 1-year after opening of the course. Gena Whitten seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 2. A request for an amendment to an approved development plan to allow the shifting of the building envelopes at The Valley, Phase IV/1700 Block of Buffehr Creek Road. Applicant: Ed Zneimer Planner: Andy Knudtsen -3- Andy Knudtsen went over the changes made from two weeks ago. He specifically identified the trees to be preserved around the building envelopes. He said the envelopes were shifted approximately 10 feet out in the meadow, the driveways had been redesigned, and the distance from the house to the road was now acceptable. There was a concern about retaining walls and the road bend. Diana Donovan questioned the requirements of the passing area on the road. Mr. Zneimer wanted to know if the Commission would convey this to the Fire Department. The Commission concluded that the passing area should be deleted from the design. The Board felt strongly about benching the units into the hillside. Mr. Zneimer wanted to know if this meant there should never be any cutting. Greg Amsden proposed revised language that included the phrase "in a reasonable fashion." Diana Donovan said they wanted him to add some trees to the west of the entrance and west of the former pond site. Mr. Zneimer said he will do all he can not to exceed 6 feet in the retaining walls, but that there may be some instances where he would need more than one 6-foot wall. He also requested permission from the Commission to construct entry features similar to those on Aspen Ridge Road. The Commission said that those would be acceptable. Mr. Zneimer finished by saying how professional and helpful everyone on the Committee and staff has been. Dalton Williams moved to approve the development plan with the changes noted by Andy Knudtsen. Jeff Bowen seconded and the motion was unanimously approved, with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits on envelopes 4 through 7, the applicant shall submit a metes and bounds legal description for each of the approved building envelopes. These legal descriptions shall reflect the staking and site plan presented to the Planning Commission on August 10, 1992. 2. The trees identified in this memo, which were used to determine the location of the building envelope boundaries, may not be destroyed during the development of each envelope. If a tree is destroyed, the applicant shall replace it with another tree or trees which provide a similar amount of screening. The DRB shall determine a practical and reasonable number and species needed in order to achieve the same effect. Please see site plan dated August 7, 1992 for location of trees. 3. The applicant shall provide detailed survey and architectural drawings at the time of development showing that the retaining walls needed for the driveways to enter on the sides of the envelopes do not exceed 6 feet. Any proposed solution which would require retaining of more than one 6-foot high wall shall not be allowed unless a reasonable amount of landscaping is added to the disturbed area around the driveway. 4. The applicant shall be required to design the homes in this phase benching the structure into the hillside in a reasonable fashion in order to prevent excessive regrading or retaining behind the homes. 5. The applicant has agreed to plan four coniferous and eleven aspen in front of the driveway for building envelope 5. -4- 6. The applicant shall plant clusters of trees by the entrance of the development and west of the former pond site. 7. The Planning and Environmental Commission strongly recommends that the Town not require a "pull-out" for cars to pass, located approximately between envelopes 5 and 6. 3. A request for front and side setback variances in order to construct an addition at 898 Red Sandstone Circle/Lot 7, Block 3, Vail Village 9th Filing. Applicant: Paul and Janet Testwuide Planner: Tim Devlin Tim Devlin gave a quick overview of this request. A variance had been approved several years ago, but has expired. The applicant now wants a 5-foot side and a a- foot front setback variance for construction of a garage and entry/kitchen addition. The applicant is well under on GRFA and site coverage. Staff recommends approval of the 3-feet front and 5-feet side setback variances, with conditions that one foot taken up by stone face on a portion of the north and west facades, and a portion of the asphalt parking pad be removed and the area landscaped. Diana Donovan said the only question was where the asphalt should be removed. One of the nearby property owners, the Hochtls at 890 Red Sandstone Circle, recommend approval. Gena Whitten had a reservation about granting variances, but this is okay as it is tastefully designed and the location of the house warranted some flexibility. Generally, the asphalt not in front of the new parking garage will be removed and landscaped. Jeff Bowen moved that a side and front setback variance be approved with the stipulation that asphalt be removed to the east and west of the garage that is not used for access to the garage and the area shall be landscaped and tht 1 ft. of the variance was to allow for the stone. The motion was seconded by Chuck Crist and unanimously approved by the Committee. 4. A request for a conditional use permit to allow an addition and roof top mechanical to the Vail Valley Medical Center located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots E & F, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Dan Feeney Planner: Shelly Mello Shelly outlined the major issues. The VVMC wants an 880 sq. ft addition; the temporary trailer and satellite dish have been removed from the request. There will also be additional roof-top mechanical, which will not exceed the height of the existing mechanical. Parking is one of the major issues on this site. With this addition, the VVMC now has a surplus of five parking spaces. Staff recommends approval with one condition -- they would like to see the arrier fence and revegetation of the streambank on the west installed prior to the release of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the project. This will improve and insure the condition of the stream bank. Dan Feeney, representing the VVMC agreed with these provisions and also agreed to reconsider the proposed facade materials and bring them to the DRB. Jeff Bowen wanted to know if there is a set time for the learning lab to move. The answer was no, -5- • but it will be moved eventually. He then asked that when that parking space becomes available, will it be a problem to terminate the lot 10 parking. Dan feeney stated that the VVMC has contingency plans when that happens. They know that sometime in the future they will lose the lot 10 parking spaces. Dalton Williams had a concern about the parking on Town property. Someday someone at the Town may take those spaces away. Will the hospital be able to accommodate the loss? Dalton Williams went on to request a bus stop right in front of the hospital. The VVMC representatives stated that this has been discussed in the past, but that there are many problems. Kristan Pritz said she would bring it up with Public Works. Diana Donovan wanted it noted in the record that any time the lease was cancelled the applicant would have to provide the the 10 parking spaces on site. Jeff Bowen asked what rent was being paid. The VVMC representative responded that it was $10.00 per year and that the VVMC has paid for existing lighting, security, and paving, etc., which exists in return for the ability to use the parking. Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve the request for a conditional use permit with the condition that the stream landscaping and barrier be put in within 30 days of the issuance of a building permit and that the VVMC will be required to provide alternative parking to lot 10 with their next expansion. Chuck Crist seconded the motion, and the request was unanimously approved. 5. Notification to the Planning and Environmental Commission concerning a minor amendment to SDD #4 - Cascade Village Area A, Cosgriff Parcel/The Cascades, generally located south of Millrace Condominiums and west of The Westin Resort, Vail, to allow an expansion to a building footprint not to exceed 5 feet. Applicant: East West Partners, represented by Ned Gwathmey Planner: Shelly Mello Dalton Williams expressed concern about the parking situation on Westhaven Drive, which is being driven by the closure of level 3 of the Cascade Village Parking Structure. Kristan Pritz responded that she is planning to discuss the issue with the Town Council on this matter. Dalton Williams feels we should put pressure on all the developments in SDD4 to resolve the parking problem. Gena Whitten said that we should not put pressure on only one person to solve this problem. Jeff Bowen said the Committee should go ahead and approve this, but something should be done in the future. Kathy Langenwalter thought it inappropriate to not approve this request due to the parking issue. She asked if the PEC could send a letter to property owners stating the concerns about approving anything in that SDD with the current parking problems. I Kristan Pritz said something needs to be done and the staff is working on the issue. Chuck Crist moved to support the staff decision with the condition that the staff draft a letter to the Town Council on behalf of the PEC discussing their concerns, which was seconded by Greg Amsden and unanimously approved. A motion was made by Kathy Langenwalter and seconded by Chuck Crist to table and withdraw the remaining items on the agenda. -6- 1 • • Project Application ate 1 Project N me: /l I Ug II/ \.\ev Ca-k 1 re jY I' + L I l�+ 11 tar C i e j I �O �� �l, \Qt1�J"9 Project Description: „_ - - �-u L Contact Person and Phone 16 Ai ill ../ r -� virdiffm, _ L / ,i il fZJJJiIAALI*A /. Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: b ,i,Legal Description: Lot V , Block , Filing U. U 14't , Zone Comments: rtr„ ?I �` fi/ I D .92_ a/ (rey(A.efi( f7Mts Design Review Board 4 Date Motion by: t7ir '- ,(......q Seconded by: auk/ ` J APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL �-`-- 0 t / Summary: all Wj 04)1A6--'1' &IA/4 v}/i/AAJ 6.-E, \Pot- rU c ThZ) 4 �v &-. liptvIrv\----- GJ� '�- 'Aim i 11 A Town Planner ❑ Staff Approval Date: 2) , ` C1 co AN 3 71992 '0"�_` vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 ■ ,• medical center Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-2451 August 7 , 1992 Ms . Shelly Mello Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Shelly: As you know, the hospital is developing remodel plans affecting three departments : 1 . Our pathological laboratory will relocate to space presently occupied by the business office, on the first floor, west (new) wing. 2 . The business office will move to the second floor, into space currently used by Medical Records . 3 . Medical Records will move to space now used by the Laboratory. While this remodel program will not add to the size of the hospital, it will enable us to achieve several desirable goals : • Relocation of the laboratory continues the process of consolidating our clinical departments in the new building. Our present laboratory' s physical plant does not meet the same high standards we have set for other clinical departments over the last six years . In addition, it is relatively isolated from other clinical departments (especially the Emergency Room) , as well as the large number of patients who seek its services . • Relocation of the business office consolidates that department with our accounts receivable, accounts payable, and data processing functions, leading to significant staff efficiencies . • Medical Records can be relocated to the far eastern end of the building without serious inconveniences, since patients have less contact with this department than the laboratory or business office. Ray McMahan Administrator mello. 8/7/92 pg. 2 With one exception, the remodel is consistent with our current master plan, as presented to the PEC in 1990 . That one exception is the new laboratory, which will be located on the main floor, rather than the proposed fourth floor. We feel that this is a significant improvement in the master plan, since a laboratory is a high-traffic department (especially for out-patients ) , and is more convenient on the ground floor. In my letter of August 3, 1990, to Kristen Pritz , copy attached, I outlined the main elements of our master plan. These elements remain as stated. Our expected timetable for implementing these elements has proven to be too aggressive, however. That timetable anticipated that the proposed fourth floor would be under construction at this time. This has not been necessary, primarily because utilization of in- patient beds has not grown as rapidly as we projected. There is one other factor that will provide relief for our existing facilities at the main hospital . Our proposed out-patient clinic at Beaver Creek will treat as many as twenty persons daily. In previous years , these patients would have been treated at the Emergency Room here at the hospital . While our Governing Board is committed to continuing to improve the quality and scope of medical care we offer the community, this will most likely be accomplished through remodel projects , upgrades of existing medical equipment, and small-scale projects, such as our proposed 1, 000 square foot addition for the Vail Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine group. At present, we have no firm target date for another major expansion project . Sincerely, & D n •:E . 11 -nager DF:ds cc : Ray McMahan enc 1 tt__ � va i I valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 ► medical center Vail, Colorado 45 3 August 1990 (303)476-2451 1 Kristen Pritz Director of Community Development Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail , CO 81657 Dear Kristen: Following is a synopsis of the hospital ' s master plan, presented in the sequence we feel is most probable. Like all master plans, it will be subject to frequent review and possible revisions to scope and sequence. The synopsis dovetails with drawings prepared by Page Southerland Page, previously submitted to you. • Construction of approximately 1600 square feet of new space at ground level on the north and west side of the west wing, for housing a magnetic resonance imager (MRI) . The application for a conditional use permit has been submitted. • Addition of one half level of parking on top of the east side of the structure currently under construction. This will provide dedicated access and parking for a new emergency room that we will eventually build at the east end of our property, with access directly off South Frontage Road. • Construction of a detached building at the west end of our property. This facility will consolidate physician's offices enabling us to expand hospital departments into space currently occupied by these functions. • Construction of a fourth floor on top of the west wing just completed. This floor will accommodate additional patient beds , as well as our pharmacy, laboratory and building service departments. • Demolition of the original hospital at the east end of our property, and construction of a new building adjoining the south side of the parking structure currently underway. This east wing will include additional parking, a relocated main lobby and admissions area, a new emergency room with vehicular access off South Frontage Road, and relocated ambulance bays. Other than the MRI unit, the scheduling for these various phases has not been determined. )1 i o,7ect Ma :ter DJF/bh cc: Ray McMahan Roy McMahan Jay Peterson Chief Executive Officer 6661 a s nd August 7, 1992 Town of Vail Environmental Commission Vail , CO 81657 RE : Paiblic Hearing 8-10-92 I am an owner at 252 West Meadow Drive, across from the Vail Valley Medical Center, and wish to protest a request for "temporary trailers and an additional satellite dish" . We have seen West Meadow Drive become nightmare of cars, busses, bikes , skaters, and what-have-you during the past several years , including the monster Vail Valley Medical Center. The Environmental Commission has granted every request made by the Medical Center and I think that the Commission should start saying NO How temporary will the trailers be, and why another satellite dish? I wish that someone on the Commission would have guts enough to turn down a request like this instead of the old rubber stamp. Wendell E. Haley MDrt oN - - ( C ncts a-s " MEMORANDUM • 10 t S V O-/C fe a . U v M C w► TO: Planning and Environmental Commission �'t FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 10, 1992 Nmjuk - znA �- SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow an office addition,and roof top mechanical to the Vail Valley Medical Center located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots E & F, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Shelly Mello .stay` �,.k� `,c�.ti' +} '+'o-'S•:•, '>,� t ::;�r r•.;`.':•:;M1.;:.r`••:.+r �•.. # .,,,<'c.'a; ::�:,+vac'.,,;a;;:c,2K.ti;'�:r .:<,cM2°'�'?t:.;'�3c,. <'. r>:`;�• 5•r' :�:...... ...°�..}•�......::.:.. ..�''2•., ;.:;......M:. ...:.'�5�36.•.: ..,.............+...............:s:•:?::::;:•::;::c:.............iii:%:::'�.`.ri';?�.�'8.%iw*?:n;:::':{??:.::.........................t}3�u�•>#t3•',,,,,�3:�i,',:,, DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE The Vail Valley Medical Center is located in the Public Use zone district and any expansion in this district requires a conditional use review. The hospital is requesting a conditional use permit to expand the hospital. The additional space will be dedicated to office and storage use. Additional roof top mechanical will also be added to the project, which does not require a conditional use permit. However, the staff felt that the PEC should be aware of the additional mechanical on the roof. The conditional use request includes: Construction of 880 sq. ft. at two levels consisting of 500 sq. ft. of office/conference at level 1 and 380 sq. ft. of storage at the basement level, located on the southwest corner of the building adjacent to the hospital's southwest vehicle entry. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The staff believes that the addition is positive as it complements existing medical services on the site. It makes sense to consolidate medical services on this site as long as parking and other development standards can be met. I In the recently approved Streetscape Master Plan, certain improvements are called for along West Meadow Drive. These include locating a brick paver walk along the north side of West Meadow Drive and adding a landscape buffer on lot 10 between the walk and the hospital's existing parking. At this time, staff is not requesting any of these improvements due to the limited scope of the project. The staff believes such improvements are more appropriate at the time of the next major VVMC expansion. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. This expansion should have no significant impacts on these factors. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The following chart summarizes the parking allocation on the hospital site given this expansion: Currently Future Conversion of Learning Available Lab at Elev. 8135 into Parking Parking Structure 204 spaces 250 spaces Surface Parking 105 spaces 105 spaces Lot 10 18 spaces 18 spaces Total 327 spaces 373 spaces Available Parking 327 spaces 373 spaces Evergreen Parking -20 spaces -20 spaces Learning Center Lab -17 spaces -17 spaces MRI - 2 spaces - 2 spaces Vail National Bank - 8 spaces - 8 spaces Existing Hospital -272 spaces -272 spaces Proposed 1992 - 3 spaces - 3 spaces Expansion Surplus 5 spaces 51 spaces Excluding Lot 10 -13 spaces 33 spaces Parking deficit surplus The chart above indicates that after this expansion there will be a 5- space surplus of parking in the VVMC structure. The second column indicates that 51 spaces would be available when the learning lab in the parking structure is converted to parking in the future. 33 parking -2- spaces would be available if and when the learning lab is converted and the lot 10 parking is vacated. Six spaces have also been approved by the hospital and Town Council to meet the parking requirements for Vail National Bank. A total of 8 spaces are actually used by the Bank. The Bank chose to purchase two additional spaces from the hospital in order to be able to provide additional parking. These two spaces were not purchased to meet any Town parking requirement. The Bank's use of any additional parking in the VVMC structure to meet parking requirements for future expansions will require Town of Vail PEC and/or Council approval. At this time, the Council has stated that all future expansions of the Vail National Bank Building will require parking to be located on Bank property. In April of 1990, the Vail Valley Medical Center requested a conditional use permit to expand the parking structure by 2-1/2 levels. The request also included a learning center lab which would be located in the lowest level of the parking structure. Two break-out panels are included in the structure to connect to the adjacent Evergreen parking. During the 1990 review, the Planning Commission expressed some concern about the hospital's reliance on the 18 parking spaces located on Lot 10. This lot is owned by the Town of Vail and is located on the southwest corner of the VVMC parking lot adjacent to West Meadow Drive. It is used jointly to provide parking for the hospital, the library and the VRD. The hospital, through a lease agreement with the Town, has the right to use 18 parking spaces. According to the agreement, "this lease shall be automatically renewed for subsequent 1-year terms unless either party gives written notice to the other of its intent not to renew no later than 60 days prior to the end of the lease term." The end of the lease term is April 30th of each year. In addition, the Town's Streetscape Master Plan specifies a design for West Meadow Drive to allow for better pedestrian access and safety, as well as improved emergency and vehicular traffic flow. In the future, it may be necessary to utilize a portion of Lot 10 to accommodate these design improvements. Staff believes that it is reasonable to support this expansion of the hospital which requires an additional three parking spaces. However, for future significant expansions, staff recommends that the hospital incorporate the 18 spaces on Lot 10 into parking on the hospital property. The staff has also asked the VVMC to revise the master plan reviewed by the PEC. It appears that some of the expansions may not be necessary. -3- The VVMC master plan states: Addition of one half level of parking on top of the east side of the structure. This will provide dedicated access and parking for a new emergency room that we will eventually build at the east end of the property, with access directly off South Frontage Road. Construction of a detached building at the west end of the property. This facility will consolidate physician's offices enabling us to expand hospital departments into space currently occupied by these functions. Construction of a fourth floor on top of the west wing just completed. This floor will accommodate additional patient beds, as well as the pharmacy, laboratory and building service departments. Demolition of the original hospital at the east end of the property, and construction of a new building adjoining the south side of the parking structure. This east wing will include additional parking, a relocated main lobby and admissions area, a new emergency room with vehicular access off South Frontage Road, and relocated ambulance bays. Staff believes that the three space parking requirement for this project should not trigger the removal of the Lot 10 parking. However, the staff finds that it is reasonable to ask the hospital, in considering future expansions, to also include parking to compensate for the 18 spaces on Lot 10. Staff would like to see the current snow removal and storage practice on the west edge of the property changed. Currently snow is pushed into the creek, which has subsequently impacted the streambank. In response to staff's concern, the applicant has agreed to revegetate the streambank and construct a wood fence (approximately 3 feet high) similar to that used on the southwest corner of the property in order to protect the stream during snow removal. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The area for expansion is located under the existing second floor of the hospital on the south elevation. The addition will infill space beneath the second floor and add storage area to the basement level. The stepping back of the building from the 2nd to 1st level allows for relief in the elevation. The expansion does not extend beyond the existing line of -4- • • F the building on the south and west elevations. This expansion should not have a major impact on the scale and bulk of the building. The DRB will review the proposed addition for compatibility of materials. Staff suggests that brick and board form concrete be used instead of the proposed metal siding. The applicant is also proposing one additional rooftop mechanical system. This system is necessary for lab space within the hospital. The system will be visible from the upper floors of the adjacent properties, as well as from the north, east and west property lines. It is not necessary to obtain a conditional use permit for this, but the staff felt that the PEC should be aware of the additional mechanical system. It will be reviewed by the DRB. III. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this conditional use request with the condition that the streambank on the west side of the property be landscaped and a permanent barrier along the west side of the property be installed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the addition in order to prevent disturbance of the stream area. We would also recommend that the DRB consider brick and board formed concrete for the exterior of the office addition. We also recommend that DRB make sure the mechanical unit is painted dark brown to match the existing mechanical. The proposed use is in compliance with the purpose of the public use zone district. There would be no negative impacts on public health, safety or welfare and the proposal complies with the conditional use review criteria. i �-� A-)Pvvv, ReAan- aflucil 0 1 5.1- --rt- OnnA, - wc\s1-171 .w1\\ Ufv-vv\ji v f p ./J I ,. • . . i .). / , • , An, 1 1 1 r : li .__ 1 ho „__ 1 .1 , If 1 i 1 1 ( gll I 0 .. . I ri 3 1 j 1 -- . 1 I =1 ■I 1 ° � I —1 1 > _ 1 •I d 3 z� . 1 r /• 1 I g / 11, k P r i; i/ / 1 0 I / s r gy •• 1 / sn - II1 '-- / // n �I I II / / /ry_ I I ►1 II i /, , II r w I l lj u -- 1!. 8 i I a I I z I I1 E • I o r i a q ° i� S. 11 11 I t 1919 m 1 / i / w I 1 I� I ? ZZ 5 — _ 3 r< e 11 1 1 I g F° 4 5 a;' / •-' , W I- 11 Y wm a �/ �/ I P • ' 31 '1�111j '� 1 . _�.. 1 ` N 17-1—ii III '1 I III ■■ ' � 1 L,. I 1 i MI ii 'r' // / r c 1 ;, w �/• j�..� . = 1I. II , :I j II I I■ J ' G a' it? .1 II1111 . 1 1 oill • s I I I. 0 :,l '� I, I ? 4E1 � \ Ili Ikt �' . w 1 Y I IKy I ' I n'8 I ;../ i 1_—,-.1:- -litres . -:, / M ( 1 • I I if-_ 1, yY \ • I — I 8 Vtl t it C / i'1 1 U i • Ji / S / d I8 I I tl � ,^ _ I i II I /I 11 —T.' / ± (� \, 'i &•.. . 1 • • 12 i ��M 8 / LS x I 1 WI I 5 ' o N ! , "�- aft �'-_ � I V • p,i / ,--__ Z p `c!- 7 / t ( / 8 �G / / 1 El I —,-__ / / 1 -----•4.9..,„,i_ , • /._ / i ,, / •�� .4 I I �; / o —r— / .1"'1 -� a —f_ // / 3; 1 I ,, C. 4.■ “1/1!, i G , , h ice_. is, ,/o • -----_ _. ••__• . • . r 11 1-I-1 --- -1--- . l_i_i_ 1 I , , ,_ 4. .._ . . _..._______ , ____ . , 1 ___LL____1 I I , ■ , „.______ 1 I !II 11 ' i ■ , gal= , ig I ., . l''';/ ///' Mill ILA 2 1 ••'11,4.-r Hel-I P.I14tzt-.1 Litel '..:':..:)..r,■!::o i. I , --1- ;e44,4„tetwt.hrr ,ti. PX-14;r1N4 ,r..NsT11,16 1 14514 W55"1 L_ VATION - ' \ .--- -j, _ ____ _. _ I 1._ rr I r 1 11 .1., i I-: A-■,-------- , _ i ..___, 4) . K . . .;...t /1/: // 1 I' • ' ' 1, ,1 tu 2 . I I EMI . \ _ ■ • —litillirdril 110 ai;Ili I II, ■ • Imci5TIN4 i t-r-4.--.1 I CX1sTIN4 ) .. .021J-11-4 ELEVATION \'' , 1 Y II A -1` ___I____�LI Z I s-n' Sw' 4r- EXI�fIH -IT faa•EIz FPM ,1 l Z cO 30 4 Ili T_ txl4vr* 1 1 > rAKT1A- r)AS�MNT rL-OOK 1°L-AN I I I a .. ...... ;• _=___, 4JJ ' H ._ __4 7 sr ___ 1... 4 Office 41DR., III - 3 W 1 o _a I k Li ti( mi `'`ce' GONF.RH. _ I Y M T I I za - , in ___f_ . - -- !— ' _ --T— I if it 0 -20 OIfICE. OFlacs I ° o _ fril 1 Y - rxi s 1N4 NSW --•-- OW I ENI'il 4, t Aceo 3c v PA KTIAL F1IKST FIT I°LAN _El) -n • ���` Sfr„, `� / 4 .► / PUBLIC NOTICE • NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on August 10, 1992, at 2:00 p.m. In the Town of Vail Municipal Building. Consideration of: 1. A request for a work session for a PEC determination of the parking requirement for the proposed Booth Falls Par 3 Golfcourse, located on Tract A, Vail Village 13th Filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation District Planner: Mike Mollica 2. A request for a work session for a conditional use permit for an addition to the Municipal Building to house the Vail Police Department, located at 75 South Frontage Road West (at the east end of the existing Municipal Building), and as legally described below: A part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 6, thence North 00 degrees 28 minutes 16 seconds West and along the East line of said Southeast 1/4 of said Section 6 72.75 the East line of said Southeast 1/4 of said Section 6 72.75 feet to a point, said point being 110.00 feet northeasterly from the southerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 6 as measured at right angles thereto; thence North 79 degrees 46 minutes 11 seconds West and along a line parallel to said southerly right-of-way line 145.50 feet to The True Point of Beginning; thence North 16 degrees 08 minutes 47 seconds East 78.00 feet; thence North 68 degrees 08 minutes 35 seconds West 428.70 feet; thence North 66 degrees 01 minutes 29 seconds West 152.57 feet; thence South 27 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds West 192.66 feet; thence South 52 degrees 48 minutes 50 seconds East 36.32 feet to a point, said point being 110.00 feet northeast from said South right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 6 as measured at right angles thereto; thence South 79 degrees 46 minutes 11 seconds East and along a line parallel to said South right of way line 585.56 feet to The True Point of Beginning. Except that portion conveyed to the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County, and the Department of Highways, State of Colorado by rule and order recorded January 5, 1971 in Book 219 at Page 441. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Mike Mollica 3. A request for front and side setback variances in order to construct an addition at 898 Red Sandstone Circle/Lot 7, Block 3, Vail Village 9th Filing. Applicant: Paul and Janet Testwuide Planner: Tim Devlin 1 • 4. A request for a conditional use permit to allow an addition, temporary trailers, and a )/( satellite dish to the Vail Valley Medical Center and a request for a variance from the standards of Section 18.58.320 to allow two satellite dishes for the VVMC, located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots E & F, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Dan Feeney Planner: Shelly Mello 5. A request for an amendment to an approved development plan to allow the shifting of the building envelopes at The Valley, Phase IV/1700 Block of Buffehr Creek Road. Applicant: Ed Zneimer Planner: Andy Knudtsen 6. A request for a major amendment to SDD #4 Cascade Village to amend the development plan for the Waterford parcel located at 1275 Westhaven Drive and as legally described as: That part of the SW 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way line of Interstate Highway No. 70 whence an iron pin with a plastic cap marking the center of said Section 12 bears S 33°1019" W 1447.03 feet; thence along said southly right-of-way line two courses 1) N 52°50'29" E 229.66 feet 2) N 74°38'l7" E 160.70 feet; thence departing said southerly right-of-way line N 88°45'57" E 138.93 feet; thence S 40°45'14" W 94.32 feet; thence S 18° 18'36" W 54.08 feet; thence S 01°21'36" W 205.02 feet; thence S 12°07'36" W 110.25 feet; thence S 28°28'36" W 164.48 feet; thence N 40 °17'04" W 211.16 feet; thence N 49°42'56" E 97.80 feet; thence N 37°09'31" W 95.59 feet; thence S 52°50'29" W 55.10 feet; thence 69.48 feet along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the left having a radius of 65.00 feet, a central angle of 61°14'42" and a chord that bears N 58° 55'53" W 66.22 feet; thence N 37°09'31" W 118.50 feet To The True Point of Beginning, County of Eagle, State of Colorado. Applicant: MECM Enterprises represented by Eustaquio Cortina Planner: Shelly Mello 7. Appeal of staff interpretation of Section 18.58.300 - Setback from watercourse of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. { Appellant: Bob KandeII Planner. 8. A request for a variance to Section 18.58.320 to allow for satellite dish antennas to be located at The Wren and Apollo Park Condominiums. Tract D, Vail Village 5th Filing/442 and 500 Frontage Road East. Applicant: Wren and Apollo Condominium Associations Planner: Tim Devlin I � .. • 9. A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously approved exterior alteration proposal for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Street/Part of Lots B and C, Lot 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer Planner. Tim Devlin The applications and information about the proposals are available for public review in the Community Development Department office. Town of Vail Community Development Department Published in the Vail Trail on July 24, 1992. - Ul O n G O O O 2 '-zi s 00 , ,..,0,A a vQ + r C !-, cnX w .4=. 7s. n N- I--' 01 • I-' A.)® F-' ro • (1) ox rt omtn (t hi , n O X • 0 are 10 - a W H 1"iC.111 0 '< ,.-.. —t.1IM....irri 0 r''rrI Z i-HI I • Z,3,1.w1I i-a 7::"I-1•4:itri n is :X;f`I `1 r1` . N'- _, r r i; '-.'''3 2 ° a p/c) ��1't 1•-I n i "TI I" . ;o r- D a1 cI,13 ';1:'} i in 12:1 al IA IV:�� I`�1/ l ; ' l c,`` i .'11 rTj � itt�xxhneirx/rAs t ' ilECD JUL 0 719s .. revised 9/4/91 Date of Application July 2, 1992 Date of PEC Meeting August 10, 1992 APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I . This procedure is required for any project required to obtain a conditional use permit . The application will not be accepted until all information is submitted. A. NAME OF APPLICANT VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER ADDRESS 181 West Meadow Drive Vail, CO B1657 PHONE 476-2451/ext 156 B . NAME OF APPLICANT' S REPRESENTATIVE Dan Feeney, Proiect Manager ADDRESS As Above PHONE C . NAME OF OWNER (S) (prig t e Dan Feeney OWNER(S) SIGNATURE (S)�(✓�6W Q 121 ADDRESS As Above PHONE D . LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEGAL:LOT E&F BLOCK FILING 2nd ADDRESS As Above E . FEE $200 . 00 PAID X CK # 2723 BY VVMC J 7 THE FEE MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY ( 'Z DEVELOPMENT WILL ACCEPT YOUR PROPOSAL. F . A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent to the subject property INCLUDING PROPERTY BEHIND AND ACROSS STREETS, and their mailing addresses . THE APPLICANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECT OWNERS AND CORRECT ADDRESSES . II . PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE : A pre-application conference with a planning staff member is strongly suggested to determine if any additional information is needed. No application will be accepted unless it complete (must include all items required by the zoning administrator) . It is the applicant' s responsibility to make an appointment with the staff to find out about additional submittal requirements . III . PLEASE NOTE THAT A COMPLETE APPLICATION WILL STREAMLINE THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR YOUR PROJECT BY DECREASING THE NUMBER OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION (PEC) MAY STIPULATE. ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE COMPLIED WITH BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED. Four (4) copies of the following information must be submitted : 1 . A description of the precise nature of the proposed use and its operating characteristics and measures proposed to make the use compatible with other properties in the vicinity . The description must also address : a . Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of t'he Town . 1 Z • ueoTTdde aql Aq pTed eq TTsgs uoTlsoTTgnd-al inns .zo; aa; axTwa aqq 'ueq 'pagsTTgnd-al aq of .zaggew aLq.4 buTsnso 'buz.zeau zoo peuod�sod sT aaqqew Niue 'qsenbaz s ,queoTTdde eq qs '3I ' aa; uoTgeoTTdde e144 go %0S go ssaoxa uT ale goTtM sal; t buTLZsTTgnd AXIS' buTAed .zo; aTgTsuodsai eq TTegs queoTTdde agy 'g t ' o.�e ' 606 s_zaauTbug t ;o sd.zo3 Away 'sgTw.zad ssaooy ASML45TH ;o quawglede opeaoTop : oq pagTWTT qou a.ze qnq 'apnTouT Aew 'MaTnaa eons s' Jo saTdwexg ' 00 ' 0025 Aq pasea.zouT aq TTegs aaJ uoT4eDTTdde a'1 'TTen go uMOy aq-4 ueuq .zaggo Aouabe Teaapa3 30 agegs 'TUOOT Aue Aq McTn9.1 age.zedas s sa.lTnba1 uoT.eoTTdde sTU ;I 'V ' A, t } • zeaA auo i t UTL1.4TM paouawwoo qou sT paqueab sT Tsno.1dde aql goTTM Ion asn altiq ;T ao 'uoTgaTdwoo oq pans.znd IcTquabTTTp pue Teno.1dds go agep aqq go .zeaA auo uT14-4TM paouawwoo lou sT uoTlonalsuoo ;T asdeT TTegs s1Twaad asn TSUOTgTpuoo pano.zdde pad TTK ' g { agep s TeggTwqns pageubTsep agq .zaq;e .zo aio;aq ;;sqs buTuueTd aql Aq paq.daoos eq TTTM (.1oge.zgsTUTwpe buTuoz aql .Cq pauTwaalap se) suoT�eoTTdde agaTdwoouT op • buTisaq oTTgnd Dgd auk jo agep agq oq .zoT.zd SxaaM (6) .zno; ;o wnwTuTw e p:y1.1Twgns eq qsnw (anoge pagT.zosap se) TeT.1agew buT/cuedw000e TTe pue w.IO3 uoTTeoTTdde agaTdwoo td • q uow goea go sAepuow Lult, pue 1 E.>uZ egl. uo sgaaw uoTSSTwwop TSquawuo1Tnug pue buTUUeTd et-II 'V i s, NE:tiaEin0a 214I1 ' :. - aoge.zgSTUTwpe x buTuoz aqq Aq panTeM aq AEU ueTd agTs pue ( Aenins quawano.ZdwT ue 'SUOTge3TJTpOw .zoT.zaquT .1O2 ** ' JOgeagsTUTwpe buTuoz aqq. Aq pauTwaalap se uoTleoTTP tide t eq go MaTna.1 aqq .10; /iessaoau TeT.zaTew Teuo rgTppe ,Curd ' 9 t F •;;eqs oq paggTwqns aq gsnw Tesodo.zd aggq go q.zoddns uT uOTgeToosse wnTuTwopuoo ,Dqq. woi; .1aggaT S 'pazTwnTuTwopuoo sT buTpTTnq eq .;I ' S f • squawasea pue dTLjs.auMO AgT.zan oq q.zodaa aT�T-4 v ' ft- sueid iooi; pue suoTgsnaTa buTpTTnq A.zeuTwTT.).zd ' E f • sa.zngea; abeuTeap pus saT4TTTgn pue seaie padeospueT 'aosds uado aTgeasn 'UOTgeTno1TO oT;;eaq 'bUTN.1ed 'suoTTeooT buTpTTnq 'Agdeibodoq buTpnTouT 'a1Ts agq go quawdoTanap pasodoid buTMogs ,0Z = „T gseaT 'fis go aTeos e qe ueTd ears id ' Z • sasn bUTpuno.1Jns F oi. UoT-4eTaa uT asn pasodo.zd eq go Ninq pue aTeos auq buTpnTouT 'pageooT aq oq ST asn pasodo.zd k a4 1 L{oTgM uT vale eq ;o iagoe.zeuo aql uodn loa;;g " P F • k f ' Sale buT{.zed pue sgaaags aql w03; MOUS go Tenowaa pue 'AgTTTge.zannauew F 'SSaooS 'Toaquoo pue MOT; oT;;eaq 'aouaTUanuoo pue Agages usT.zgsapad pue anT�owogne 'uoTlsabuoo oq aouaaaJaa 1eTnoTgaed LgvTM 'oT;;e.zq uodn goa3Jg • o F 1 i ' spaau saTgTTToe; oTTgnd pue SaTTTTToe; oTTgnd .zaggo pue 'SaTTTTTOe; uoTgea.oa.1 pue sx.1ed 'sToouos 'saTgTTTln , • 'saTI.TTToe; uoTgeq.zodsue.aq 'uoTgeTndod ;o • ' uoTgngT.1qsTp '.iTe pus .4145TT uo asn aqq. ;o qoe;;g •q t I C. Applications deemed by the Community Development Department. • , to have significant design, land use or other issues which may have a significant impact on the community may require review by consultants other that town staff . Should a determination be made by the town staff that, an outside consultant is needed to review any application, Community Development may hire an outside consultant, it shall estimate the amount of money necessary to pay him or her and this amount shall be forwarded to the Town by the applicant at the time he files his' application with the Community Development Department . Upon completion of the review of the application by the consultant, any of the funds forwarded by the applicant for payment of the consultant which have not been paid to the consultant shall be returned to the applicant . Expenses incurred by the Town in excess of the amount forwarded by the applicant shall be paid to the Town by the applicant within 30 days of notification by the Town . 3 vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive,Suite 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 medical center (303)476-2451 July 1, 1992 Ms. Shelly Mello Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Shelly: The hospital is hereby requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a small addition at the southwest corner of the building. The proposed expansion would add approximately 600 square feet of floor space to the first floor, and approximately 400 square feet to the basement. The proposed space on the first floor would add three offices and one conference room to Vail Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine, P.C. , which presently occupies contiguous space to the east. The physicians who operate this practice feel that the additional space is vital to their maintaining a viable practice in the Vail Valley. The additional space in the basement will be used for hospital storage. A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The proposed use of this expansion complements existing medical services offered at our facility. We do not feel such a small expansion, resulting in less than a one percent increase in habitable hospital space, will have noticeable impact on the Town's development objectives. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities need. No significant impact. It t'D ,1` 1992i n � Ray McMahan Chief Executive Officer PAGE TWO 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The proposed expansion will increase our parking requirement by three spaces. Current calculations show that we have a surplus of six spaces (See, for example, our letter of November 9, 1990 to you, summarizing available parking on our site. I have included a copy for your convenience. ) We do not feel that any other factors will be impacted. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Although we are proposing a partial in-fill of this corner, our accompanying plans show a five-foot setback on the west, and a seven-foot setback on the south. By utilizing glass and vertically-applied aluminum siding for the exterior skin, we feel we can introduce a "shadow" effect, which will contrast nicely with the existing facade, which is predominately concrete and brick. We hope to demonstrate that our plan will enhance the aesthetics of the corner, which is, in all candor, rather stark at present. Please contact me after you have had a chance to review our application. I am ready to provide whatever additional information you require to evaluate our proposal. Sincerely, AQN4 Dan Project Ma ger enc. cc: Ray McMahan Vail Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine Hammel Green and Abrahamson ADJACENT PROPERTIES BORDERING VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER (Lot E & F, 2nd filing) LOT #2 Vail National Bank Building Mr. Paul Powers VNB Building Corp. c/o Hanover Realty 650 S. Cherry Street Suite 1025 Denver, CO 80222 LOT #2 Evergreen Hotel Mr. Gerald Korn Rochester Community Savings Bank 201 East Broad Street Rochester, NY 14604 LOT #D Skaalhus Mr. Peter McEnnally President Skaalhus Condo Assoc. 141 West Meadow Dr. Vail, CO 81657 LOT #4 Richard Eddy 5085 South Fairfax Littleton, CO 80121 LOT #5 Benjamin Duke 5550 South Steele Street Littleton, CO 80121 LOT #6 Irving J. & Carol J. Schwayder 5910 Happy Canyon Drive Englewood, CO 80110 Morgan Davis P.O. Box 476 Vail, CO 81658 LOT #7 Mervyn Lapin 232 West Meadow Drive Vail, CO 81657 LOT #8 H.F. Kepner Managed by Calva Corp. 5161 Juniper c/o Century 21 Littleton, CO 80123 P.O. Box 611 Avon, CO 81620 LOT #9 James U. King, Jr. Clib B. & Mary Ann Hurtt c/o Kross Petroleum 11205 Tack House Court 900 Threadneedle, #650 Potomac, MD 20854 Houston, TX 77079 PAGE TWO LOT #10 Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 TRACT 11A Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 fi vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 • Vail, Colorado 81657 ∎ S medical center (303)476-2451 9 November 1990 Shelly Mello Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail , CO 81657 Dear Shelly: I am responding to your notification yesterday, that the parking requirement for Learning Center has been increased by two spaces, making a total of 19 required spaces. The hospital can accommodate these additional two spaces within the surplus parking spaces, which will be available on completion of the parking structure. You state in your letter to Dan Feeney, dated 29 October 1990, that at the time that the Learning Center conditional use permit was approved, the hospital had a surplus of twelve parking spaces. Our parking requirements at this time were based on approved figures for the 86-87 expansion and projections for the 89-90 expansion, calculated using the same town formula applied to all previous expansions. The 89-90 figure include day-shift employee projections which were calculated in 1988. In June 1990, we re-surveyed our day-shift employee projections and determined that the actual figure is lower than anticipated in 1988. The revised figures were submitted to the town in our approved application for the MRI expansion (letter to Kristen Pritz from Dan Feeney, dated 25 June 1990) . Our revised parking requirement at this time was stated (in the same letter) as follows: USE SPACES REQUIRED Base figure for 86-87 Expansion 203 New patient beds 20 New exam rooms 6 New day-shift employees 43 New Steadman Learning Center MRI 2 TOTAL _.2.91—Spaces /1.75 Ray McMahan Chief Executive Officer Shelly Mello TOWN OF VAIL 9 November 1990 Page 2 Total available parking, on completion of the parking structure, was listed as: Parking Structure 204 Spaces Surface Parking 1&5 Lot 10 18 TOTAL 327 Spaces Of the 327 spaces available, 20 spaces are committed for use by the Doubletree Hotel and 8 spaces are contractually committed for use by Vail National Bank. This leaves 299 spaces available for use by the hospital . Therefore, after the approval of our MRI expansion, we have eight surplus parking spaces. The eight surplus parking spaces can accommodate the additional two spaces required for the Learning Center, plus leave sufficient surplus parking should Vail National Bank exercise its ' option to purchase four more spaces in the parking structure. At present, we have no indication whether or not Vail National Bank will exercise this option. In our agreement with Vail National Bank, the bank has ten business days to exercise their option, following the date on which we give notice to Vail National Bank of the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the use of the parking structure. VNB has already exercised their first option to purchase an irrevocable license to use eight spaces in the parking structure and has issued a letter of credit to us for payment. Vail Valley Medical Center is contractually committed to allow VNB the use of the eight spaces, six of which will support their building expansion. Sincerely, W Ray McMahan Chief Executive Officer Vail Valley Medical Center /bh cc: Jay Peterson 0 ' .,. I RECD JUL 2 31990 \TO DENNIS ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Landscape Architecture • Planning • Visual Communication 0,019-,, 't IS e'-' July 23, 1990 4 Kristan Pritz \ i. TOWN OF VAIL - DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 75 South Frontage Road West Vaii, Colorado 81657 re: Vail Valley Medical Center Landscaping Dear Kristan: In response to your request for a list of changes in the landscaping from the approved DRB Plan, please note the following: ITEM \ SIZE BID DRB +1- 0 I OTY. Amur Male 2. Maple 5 3 3 Colo. Spruce 6' 6 6 0 8' 10 c(336 4 ) 10' 12 +9 12' 8 +5 14' 1 +3 16' 6 0 +3 Aspen 2" 2 -2 8 4 +4 8 18 -10 \\ tk " 2 0 +2 Deciduous Shrubs 5 gal. 159 136 +23 Evergreen Shrubs 5 gal. 51 39 +12 As you can see, the quantity in most categories is more than what was approved by DRB. Some of the reasons for changes in the plan are: 1. Final layout of planting area around the parking structure differs slightly from the Suite 310,Vail National Bank Building 108 South Frontage Road West • Vail,Colorado 81657 • (303)476-6405 plan shown to DRB. This necessitated the reduction of some plant material. 2. Shrubs under the overhang at S.E. corner of building were replaced by cobble and boulders due to past history of inability of plants to thrive in this area. 3. Larger spruce were down sized by 2' each as per discussion between Cathie Douglas and DRB. Please don't hesitate to call if you have any questions or comments about this project. Sincerely, Don Voisinet Landscape Architect D ) `kSvc9S 00-\- re2 m 8 S cAD loQi cum1eA -FraodDt 10 .f raeadlario2 \)\titvituu • lacD,2) \-\ th‘ • n ob=kr c\aN\). _ocvfku); k9A 14_\)AtiA) o\AeVe t.40\ \Dack;ov\_ c"\sA G4)00 _ Oak, tA 19,k piku6tAv • cA i\zok • saw. lct)fN --Nor\5 1\y,upoRiu ______ 1-04.11.4 OF 1-112-1 IL Miscellaneous Cash 06-26-90 09:23:22 Receipt # 049557 Account # CK # 1994 VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER \APP FEE Amount tendered > 100.00 Item paid Amount paid 01000041330000 100.00 Change returned > 0. 00 -THn=i1-11--z: YOU Your cashier ST ___________________ S Date of Application 25 June 1990 Date of PEC Meeting 3.< i, 23/ «�C APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USZ PERMIT I. This procedure is required for any project required to obtain a conditional • use permit. The application will not be accepted until all information is submitted. A. NAME OF APPLICANT Vail Valley Medical Center ADDRESS 181 West Meadow Drive Vail . CO 81657 PHONE (303) 476-2451 B. NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE Dan Feeney, Project Manager ADDRESS Ac ahnve PHONE C. NAME OF OWNER(S) (print or p eene • • OWNER(S): :SIGNATURE(S) giffd ADDRESS As abov • • • PHONE D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEGAL- LOT E&F BLOCK FILING 2nd ADDRESS 181 West Meadow Drive, Vail , Colorado E. FEE $100 PAID X CK # 1994 BY • THE FEE MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WILL ACCEPT YOUR PROPOSAL. • F. A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent to the subject property • INCLUDING PROPERTY BEHIND AND ACROSS STREETS, and their mailing addresses. THE APPLICANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECT OWNERS AND CORRECT ADDRESSES. II. PRE-APPLICATION CLAUSE • A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE WITH A PLANNING STAFF MEMBER IS STRONGLY SUGGESTED TO DETERMINE IF ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NEEDED. NO APPLICATION WILL • ; BE ACCEPTED UNLESS IT IS COMPLETE (MUST INCLUDE ALL ITEMS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR). IT IS THEAPPLICANT' S RESPONSIBLITY TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT WITH THE STAFF TO FIND OUT ABOUT ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. PLEASE NOTE THAT A COMPLETE APPLICATION WILL STREAMLINE THE APPROVAL PROCESS • FOR YOUR PROJECT BY DECREASING THE NUMBER OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT THE PEC MAY STIPULATE. ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE COMPLIED WITH BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSDJD. • ve \ ( \ . \\ \ - ( C� I ( ) ( | { \ � > . [ � { . ( to." E III Four (4) copies of the following information: A. A description of the precise nature of the proposed ( use and its operating characteristics, and measures [ proposed to make the use compatible with other properties in the vicinity. B. A description of how your request complies with Vail 's Comprehensive Plan. C. A site plan showing proposed development of the site, including topography, building locations, parking, traffic circulation, useable open space, landscaped areas and utilities and drainage features. D. Preliminary building plans and elevations sufficient {. to indicate the dimensions, general appearance, scale, and interior plan of all buildings. • • ' § . ( . ( � \ . ( . [ [ { / . \ ( ( . ( ( • • / ( , ! ( ( ADJACENT PROPERTIES BORDERING VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER (LOT E & F, 2nd FILING) LOT # 2 Vail National Bank Corp. ' 650 South Cherry Street Denver, CO 80222 LOT # 2 Resorts Inc. at Vail (Doubletree) Gerald Katzoff 3882 South Quebec 2501 Palmaire Drive Denver, CO 80237 Pompano Beach, FL 33069 LOT # D Ron Anderson (The Skall House) 727 Penn Holton, KS 66436 LOT # 4 Richard Eddy 5085 South Fairfax Littleton, CO 80121 LOT # 5 Benjamin Duke 5550 South Steele Street Littleton, CO 80121 LOT # 6 Irving J. and Carol J. Schwayder 5910 Happy Canyon Drive Englewood, CO 80110 Morgan Davis P.O. Box 476 Vail , CO 81658 LOT # 7 Mervyn Lapin 232 West Meadow Drive Vail , CO 81657 LOT # 8 H.F. Kepner Managed by Calva Corporation 5161 Juniper c/o Century 21 Littleton, CO 80123 P.O. Box 611 Avon, CO 81620 LOT # 9 James U. King, Jr. Clib B. & Mary Ann Hurtt c/o Kross Petroleum, Inc. 11205 Tack House Court 900 Threadneedle, Suite 650 Potomac, MD 20854 Houston, TX 77079 LOT # 10 Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail , CO 81657 TRACT 11 A Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail , CO 81657 PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the municipal code of the Town of Vail on July 23, 1990 at 2:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. Consideration of: 1. A request for a conditional use permit for a "Television Station" in the Commercial Core II zone district located at Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing, Sunbird Lodge, 675 Lionshead Place. Applicant: Vail/Beaver Creek Television Network. 2. A request for an exterior alteration, a site coverage variance, a height variance, a landscape variance and a floodplain modification on Lot C and Lot D, and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, all in Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing, 227 Bridge Street. Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and Bruce Amm & Associates. 3. A request for an exterior alteration and a landscape variance in order to construct an addition to the Bell Tower Building at 201 Gore Creek Drive, Part of Tract A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Hermann Staufer - Lancelot Restaurant 4. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct an addition to. a single family structure 3-1/2 feet into the western side yard setback located at Lot 16, Buffehr Creek Subdivision, 1879 Meadow Ridge Road Applicant: Jerry Farquhar 5. A request for a conditional use permit in order to expand office space for a magnetic resonance imaging system and a satellite dish at the Vail Valley Medical Center, Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 181 West Meadow Drive. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center 6. A request for a landscape variance in order to provide two additional parking spaces on the southern portion of Tract G, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 17 Vail Road. Applicant: First Bank of Vail 7. A request for a side setback variance at Lots 1-6, Block 5 Vail Village 1st Filing, Unit 3B--Vail Rowhouses, 303 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Stewart Colton 8. A request for a conditional use permit and a setback variance for a remediation system equipment building at the Alpine Standard Station, part of Lot A, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 285 S. Frontage Road West. Applicant: Amoco Corp. 177 lac (e'La / (w 9. A request for a site coverage variance at Lot 31, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing, 84 Beaver Dam Road. Applicant: H. Ross Perot 10. A request for an amendment to Town of Vail Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1983 and Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1987 governing wood-burning fireplaces, gas logs, and gas appliances. Applicant: Town of Vail 11. A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 16, part of parcel A, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing 2. (The Valley Phase III) Applicant: Brad & Susan Tjossem 12 . A request for a variance from the wall height requirement on Lot 29, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch; 805 Potato Patch Drive. Applicant: Patsy and Pedro Cerisola 13 A request for a major subdivision, to approve the preliminary plan, a request for a variance to the maximum height for retaining walls, and a request for a variance to the maximum percent grade for a road, on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek livery. Applicant: George Gillett, Jr. 14. A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 4, Coldstream Condominiums in order to amend Sections 18.46.090 (B) density, 18.46. 100 (B) floor area, 18.46.220 employee f: housing and 18.46.230 time requirements to convert existing racquetball facility into an employee housing unit, management office, laundry and owner storage area at Lot 53 Glen Lyon Subdivision, 1476 Westhaven Drive. Applicant: Coldstream Condominium Association. 15. A request to amend the Vail Municipal Code Section 18.04 to add a definition for a brew pub and a request to amend the Commercial Service Center Zone District 18.28 to allow a brew pub as a permitted use. Applicant: Dean Liotta The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection in the Community Development Department office. Town of Vail Community Development Department Published in the Vail Trail on July 11, 1990. t 1 ADJACENT PROPERTIES BORDERING VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER (LOT E & F, 2nd FILING) LOT # 2 Vail National Bank Corp. 650 South Cherry Street Denver, CO 80222 LOT # 2 Resorts Inc. at Vail (Doubletree) Gerald Katzoff 3882 South Quebec 2501 Palmaire Drive Denver, CO 80237 Pompano Beach, FL 33069 LOT # D Ron Anderson (The Skall House) 727 Penn Holton, KS 66436 LOT # 4 Richard Eddy 5085 South Fairfax Littleton, CO 80121 LOT # 5 Benjamin Duke 5550 South Steele Street Littleton, CO 80121 LOT # 6 Irving J. and Carol J. Schwayder 5910 Happy Canyon Drive Englewood, CO 80110 Morgan Davis P.O. Box 476 Vail , CO 81658 LOT # 7 Mervyn Lapin 232 West Meadow Drive Vail , CO 81657 LOT # 8 H.F. Kepner Managed by Calva Corporation 5161 Juniper c/o Century 21 Littleton, CO 80123 P.O. Box 611 Avon, CO 81620 LOT # 9 James U. King, Jr. Clib B. & Mary Ann Hurtt c/o Kross Petroleum, Inc. 11205 Tack House Court 900 Threadneedle, Suite 650 Potomac, MD 20854 Houston, TX 77079 LOT # 10 Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail , CO 81657 TRACT 11 A Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail , CO 81657 • • Y44444444444 '1,11(u; tr„; j�(. cv i -• z ,0 was ti rte? ,.∎ N L•a '.-0 o co C� ! � I 7 V -� ' l a H P4 w o wH H Pa I=4 N R: N Z U 0 H x O H E-1 O •-••- d' z0x CJ") W a H o z Lt-1 w Q /1j 0E4,4. 0r N2. . 7 0 ?os___ -E. E i litIL -a o. o t ru la I >, (/„.d t0 i 1. :.:] coy C ; � I o 0 o x u c,al w R U W u • r- e O t o p p 0 R o )y ..--, r` > o h 14 0 .us 5. A request foy variance to Section 18 . 51 120 (C) in order to construct - 5 ' high wood screen fence , the 20 ' front setback at 9 Vail Road--Holiday House, Lot B, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Holiday House/Pinnacle Resorts 6. A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 4 , Coldstream Condominiums in order to amend Sections 18 . 46. 090 (B) density, 18. 46. 100 (B) floor area, 18 .46. 220 employee housing and 18 .46. 230 time requirements to convert an existing racquetball facility into an employee housing unit, management office, laundry and owner storage area at Lot 53 Glen Lyon Subdivision, 1476 Westhaven Drive. Applicant: Coldstream Condominium Association. 7 . A request for a setback variance in order to enlarge a second story housekeeping service room at Montaneros Condominiums located at 641 W. Lionshead Circle, Lot 8, Block 1, Vail-Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Montaneros Condominium Association 8 . A request for a wall height variance and an amendment to the approved access plan for both lots at 146 and 126 Forest Road, Lots 5 and 6, Block 7 , Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Ron Byrne 9 . A request for a height variance at 2855 Snowberry Drive, Lot 6, Block 9, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Doug and Michelle Cahill 10. A request for a height variance in order to erect a satellite dish and a conditional use to expand hospital space and add a satellite dish at the Vail Valley Medical Center on Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing (181 West Meadow Drive) . Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center 11. A request for a side setback variance at Lot 3 , Block 5 Vail Village 1st Filing, Unit 3B--Vail Rowhouses, 303 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Stewart Colton 12 . A request for an exterior alteration and a height variance on Lot C and Lot D, and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, all in Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing, 227 Bridge Street (Covered Bridge Building) . Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and Bruce Amm & Associates. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection in the Community Development Department office. Town of Vail Community Development Department Published in the Vail Trail on July 27, 1990. PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18 . 66. 060 of the municipal code of the Town of Vail on August 13 , 1990 at 2 : 00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. Consideration of: 1. A work session on air quality. 2 . A request for a conditional use permit, a landscape variance, and a setback variance for a remediation system equipment building at the Alpine Standard Station, part of Lot A, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 285 S. Frontage Road West. Applicant: Amoco Corp. 3 . A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 16, part of parcel A, Linnsri_dge Subdivision, Filing 2 . (The Valley Phase III) Applicant: Brad & Susan Tjossem 4 . A request for a major subdivision, to approve the preliminary plan, a request for a variance to the maximum height for retaining walls, and a request for a variance to the maximum percent grade for a road, on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek livery. Commencing at the Northeast Corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, being an Eagle County Brass Cap properly marked and set, with all bearings contained herein being relative to a bearing of S 00 11 ' 00" E between the Northeast Corner of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, and the Southeast Corner of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 being an Eagle County Brass cap properly marked and set; said Northeast Corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 being the Point of beginning; thence S 00 11 ' 00" E along the east line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 a distance of 1320. 14 feet to the Southeast Corner the said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5; thence S 89 47 ' 48" W along the south line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 a distance of 901. 00 feet; thence N 73 48 ' 32" W along Interstate 70 Right of Way line a distance of 214 . 12 feet; thence N 66 52 ' 12" W along said Right of Way line a distance of 241. 10 feet to a point on the west line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5; thence N 00 20 ' 31" W along the west line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 a distance of 1161. 66 feet to the Northwest Corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 being an Eagle County brass cap properly marked and set; thence N 89 41 ' 12" E along the north line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 a distance of 1331. 07 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said real property containing 39. 55 acres, more or less. Applicant: George Gillett, Jr. • sn de*+ � � c„ ,., c 0 . .....in ,4......, C'.' vt W 0 O. '-' •C I C V 0 oO a O. v 3 m 0 801 IL O��%O ao.ga �� 1 0✓3n si H O H 1 H CO n t'' ii 0 - II O H ---------%.' CO jd I— y N )C / rr 'e i fn L- t_ 1 [O r ))11 c C1 (U • f • . .r.,, C.... 11,li .. rn1 PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18 . 66. 060 of the municipal code of the Town of Vail on August 13 , 1990 at 2 : 00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. Consideration of: 1. A work session on air quality. 2 . A request for a conditional use permit, a landscape variance, and a setback variance for a remediation system equipment building at the Alpine Standard Station, part of Lot A, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 285 S. Frontage Road West. Applicant: Amoco Corp. 3. A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 16, part of parcel A, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing 2 . (The Valley Phase III) Applicant: Brad & Susan Tjossem 4 . A request for a major subdivision, to approve the preliminary plan, a request for a variance to the maximum height for retaining walls, and a request for a variance to the maximum percent grade for a road, on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek livery. Commencing at the Northeast Corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, being an Eagle County Brass Cap properly marked and set, with all bearings contained herein being relative to a bearing of S 00 11 ' 00" E between the Northeast Corner of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 , and the Southeast Corner of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 being an Eagle County Brass cap properly marked and set; said Northeast Corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 being the Point of beginning; thence S 00 11 ' 00" E along the east line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 a distance of 1320. 14 feet to the Southeast Corner the said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5; thence S 89 47 ' 48" W along the south line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 a distance of 901. 00 feet; thence N 73 48 ' 32" W along Interstate 70 Right of Way line a distance of 214 . 12 feet; thence N 66 52 ' 12" W along said Right of Way line a distance of 241. 10 feet to a point on the west line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5; thence N 00 20 ' 31" W along the west line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 a distance of 1161. 66 feet to the Northwest Corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 being an Eagle County brass cap properly marked and set; thence N 89 41 ' 12" E along the north line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 a distance of 1331. 07 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said real property containing 39. 55 acres, more or less. Applicant: George Gillett, Jr. 5. A request f - a variance to Section 18 3 . 020 (C) in order to constru. a 5 ' high wood screen fence in the 20 ' front setback at 9 Vail Road--Holiday House, Lot B, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Holiday House/Pinnacle Resorts 6. A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 4 , Coldstream Condominiums in order to amend Sections 18 .46. 090 (B) density, 18.46. 100 (B) floor area, 18 .46. 220 employee housing and 18 . 46.230 time requirements to convert an existing racquetball facility into an employee housing unit, management office, laundry and owner storage area at Lot 53 Glen Lyon Subdivision, 1476 Westhaven Drive. Applicant: Coldstream Condominium Association. 7 . A request for a setback variance in order to enlarge a second story housekeeping service room at Montaneros Condominiums located at 641 W. Lionshead Circle, Lot 8, Block 1, Vail-Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Montaneros Condominium Association 8 . A request for a wall height variance and an amendment to the approved access plan for both lots at 146 and 126 Forest Road, Lots 5 and 6, Block 7 , Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Ron Byrne 9 . A request for a height variance at 2855 Snowberry Drive, Lot 6, Block 9 , Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Doug and Michelle Cahill 10. A request for a height variance in order to erect a satellite dish and a conditional use to expand hospital space and add a satellite dish at the Vail Valley Medical Center on Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing (181 West Meadow Drive) . Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center 11. A request for a side setback variance at Lot 3 , Block 5 Vail Village 1st Filing, Unit 3B--Vail Rowhouses, 303 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Stewart Colton 12 . A request for an exterior alteration and a height variance on Lot C and Lot D, and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, all in Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing, 227 Bridge Street (Covered Bridge Building) . Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and Bruce Amm & Associates. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection in the Community Development Department office. Town of Vail Community Development Department Published in the Vail Trail on July 27 , 1990. 5. A request for variance to Section 18 . 58 0 (C) in order to construct a 5 ' high wood screen fence IgIthe 20 ' front setback at 9 Vail Road--Holiday House, Lot B, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Holiday House/Pinnacle Resorts 6. A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 4 , Coldstream Condominiums in order to amend Sections 18 .46. 090 (B) density, 18.46. 100 (B) floor area, 18 .46. 220 employee housing and 18 .46.230 time requirements to convert an existing racquetball facility into an employee housing unit, management office, laundry and owner storage area at Lot 53 Glen Lyon Subdivision, 1476 Westhaven Drive. Applicant: Coldstream Condominium Association. 7 . A request for a setback variance in order to enlarge a second story housekeeping service room at Montaneros Condominiums located at 641 W. Lionshead Circle, Lot 8, Block 1, Vail-Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Montaneros Condominium Association 8 . A request for a wall height variance and an amendment to the approved access plan for both lots at 146 and 126 Forest Road, Lots 5 and 6, Block 7 , Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Ron Byrne 9. A request for a height variance at 2855 Snowberry Drive, Lot 6, Block 9, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Doug and Michelle Cahill 10. A request for a height variance in order to erect a satellite dish and a conditional use to expand hospital space and add a satellite dish at the Vail Valley Medical Center on Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing (181 West Meadow Drive) . Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center 11. A request for a side setback variance at Lot 3 , Block 5 Vail Village 1st Filing, Unit 3B--Vail Rowhouses, 303 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Stewart Colton 12 . A request for an exterior alteration and a height variance on Lot C and Lot D, and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, all in Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing, 227 Bridge Street (Covered Bridge Building) . Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and Bruce Amm & Associates. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection in the Community Development Department office. Town of Vail Community Development Department Published in the Vail Trail on July 27, 1990. PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18 . 66. 060 of the municipal code of the Town of Vail on August 13 , 1990 at 2 : 00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. Consideration of: 1. A work session on air quality. 2 . A request for a conditional use permit, a landscape variance, and a setback variance for a remediation system equipment building at the Alpine Standard Station, part of Lot A, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 285 S. Frontage Road West. Applicant: Amoco Corp. 3 . A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 16, part of parcel A, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing 2 . (The Valley Phase III) Applicant: Brad & Susan Tjossem 4 . A request for a major subdivision, to approve the preliminary plan, a request for a variance to the maximum height for retaining walls, and a request for a variance to the maximum percent grade for a road, on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek livery. Commencing at the Northeast Corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, being an Eagle County Brass Cap properly marked and set, with all bearings contained herein being relative to a bearing of S 00 11 ' 00" E between the Northeast Corner of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, and the Southeast Corner of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 being an Eagle County Brass cap properly marked and set; said Northeast Corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 being the Point of beginning; thence S 00 11 ' 00" E along the east line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 a distance of 1320. 14 feet to the Southeast Corner the said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 or Section 5; thence S 89 47 ' 48" W along the south line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 a distance of 901. 00 feet; thence N 73 48 ' 32" W along Interstate 70 Right of Way line a distance of 214 . 12 feet; thence N 66 52 ' 12" W along said Right of Way line a distance of 241. 10 feet to a point on the west line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5; thence N 00 20 ' 31" W along the west line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 a distance of 1161. 66 feet to the Northwest Corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 being an Eagle County brass cap properly marked and set; thence N 89 41 ' 12" E along the north line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 a distance of 1331. 07 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said real property containing 39. 55 acres, more or less. Applicant: George Gillett, Jr. ..... . O < -4 •—"- -... t'a c.n = O 0 (D 0 = • c= 4 O ro ,7.1 O 0- - ...= 3 0 0 .-.. I= co co — 3 -‘(0 gp Cr) (c. C (y, o. ...., 3 — cu ..< a. a. a cp . 0 3 a> = • k. =rri cn 0 , ra -i rn....... XI i ..c. 2. . 1 rn.....1 i _Ad i = 1/40 c-) c- s , 0 1 O o o 1 ci) 1 7:i i C12 eill' ill ... ; ... cn i ....._. . 4 g :-..-- , - , ... ... ........, 2' 1 len --- ....._ A- __ ... . .4 :::...... ... ....... • ... ...... :..... –- = _ . .. . —. t . , . ,_ O m 4:10 • _ n o 0 o O c c = . o o = O a C O = Fl o 0 v 3 m 3 TILt COpy .f y a t1 t.ri H z I I- m OH rn r x XD CY P.— C7 rzi Z fo, A. i 1 . G.., . ., 0 ,v , . ..c, 0 ..., . 0e, co 0 0 7y a 1-' Z O Pr) ►-. r to O d H a O r- G of r- 37;1 N tli O C n Jd it 1 i i al. �m i1s' ! � il°, AAAAAAAAA „A,, 5. A request for variance to Section 18 . 580 (C) in order to construct a .., ' high wood screen fence --4- the 20 ' front setback at 9 Vail Road--Holiday House, Lot B, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Holiday House/Pinnacle Resorts 6. A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 4 , Coldstream Condominiums in order to amend Sections 18 . 46. 090 (B) density, 18 .46. 100 (B) floor area, 18 .46.220 employee housing and 18.46.230 time requirements to convert an existing racquetball facility into an employee housing unit, management office, laundry and owner storage area at Lot 53 Glen Lyon Subdivision, 1476 Westhaven Drive. Applicant: Coldstream Condominium Association. 7. A request for a setback variance in order to enlarge a second story housekeeping service room at Montaneros Condominiums located at 641 W. Lionshead Circle, Lot 8, Block 1, Vail-Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Montaneros Condominium Association 8. A request for a wall height variance and an amendment to the approved access plan for both lots at 146 and 126 Forest Road, Lots 5 and 6, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Ron Byrne 9. A request for a height variance at 2855 Snowberry Drive, Lot 6, Block 9, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Doug and Michelle Cahill 10. A request for a height variance in order to erect a satellite dish and a conditional use to expand hospital space and add a satellite dish at the Vail Valley Medical Center on Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing (181 West Meadow Drive) . Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center 11. A request for a side setback variance at Lot 3 , Block 5 Vail Village 1st Filing, Unit 3B--Vail Rowhouses, 303 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Stewart Colton 12 . A request for an exterior alteration and a height variance on Lot C and Lot D,Lam.. �,, ai'ltl the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, all in Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing, 227 Bridge Street (Covered Bridge Building) . Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and Bruce Amm & Associates. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection in the Community Development Department office. Town of Vail Community Development Department Published in the Vail Trail on July 27, 1990. PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental r Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18 . 66. 060 of the municipal code of the Town of Vail on August 13 , 1990 at 2 : 00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. Consideration of: 1. A work session on air quality. 2 . A request for a conditional use permit, a landscape variance, and a setback variance for a remediation system equipment building at the Alpine Standard Station, part of Lot A, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 285 S. Frontage Road West. Applicant: Amoco Corp. 3 . A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 16, part of parcel A, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing 2 . (The Valley Phase III) Applicant: Brad & Susan Tjossem 4 . A request for a major subdivision, to approve the preliminary plan, a request for a variance to the maximum height for retaining walls, and a request for a variance to the maximum percent grade for a road, on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek livery. Commencing at the Northeast Corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, being an Eagle County Brass Cap properly marked and set, with all bearings contained herein being relative to a bearing of S 00 11 ' 00" E between the Northeast Corner of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 , and the Southeast Corner of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 being an Eagle County Brass cap properly marked and set; said Northeast Corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 being the Point of beginning; thence S 00 11 ' 00" E along the east line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 a distance of 1320. 14 feet to the Southeast Corner the said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 ; thence S 89 47 ' 48" W along the south line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 a distance of 901. 00 feet; thence N 73 48 ' 32" W along Interstate 70 Right of Way line a distance of 214 . 12 feet; thence N 66 52 ' 12" W along said Right of Way line a distance of 241. 10 feet to a point on the west line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5; thence N 00 20 ' 31" W along the west line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 a distance of 1161. 66 feet to the Northwest Corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 being an Eagle County brass cap properly marked and set; thence N 89 41 ' 12" E along the north line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 a distance of 1331. 07 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said real property containing 39. 55 acres, more or less. Applicant: George Gillett, Jr. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 13 , 1990 Present Staff Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz Diana Donovan Mike Mollica Connie Knight Jill Kammerer Ludwig Kurz Shelly Mello Jim Shearer Andy Knudtsen Kathy Warren Betsy Rosolack Dalton Williams Penny Perry The Planning and Environmental Commission meeting was called to order at 2 : 35 p.m. Chuck Crist was present for the site visits, and was absent at the beginning of the meeting. He was expected to return. Due to the late start, Item No. 1 was postponed to the end of the meeting. Item No. 2 : A request for a setback variance in order to enlarge a second story housekeeping service room at Montaneros Condominiums located at 641 W. Lionshead Circle, Lot 8 , Block 1, Vail-Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Montaneros Condominium Association Andy Knudtsen explained that the board had seen this item at the previous PEC meeting for an exterior alteration request. The reason it was before the board again was that staff had not published for the variance. The request met the criteria and findings for variances per the staff memo. Diana Donovan asked for public comment and there was none. A motion to approve the setback variance per the staff memo was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer VOTE: 6-0 IN FAVOR Item No. 3 was postponed until later in the meeting to allow Jill Kammerer to confer with the applicant' s representatives. 1 kr Item No. 4 : A request for a wall height variance and an amendment to the approved access plan for both lots at 146 and 126 Forest Road, Lots 5 and 6, Block 7 , Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Ron Byrne Mike Mollica presented the proposal for staff explaining that the applicant was requesting a wall height variance and an amendment to an approved access plan. Mike reviewed a brief history of the project and the criteria and findings for a variance. The staff recommendation was for approval of the proposed wall height variance request, per the drawings submitted by Gordon R. Pierce, AIA, dated July 23 , 1990 as amended July 26, 1990. Staff felt that the current proposal was a substantial decrease from the original PEC approved variance and was now in conformance with the Town's zoning code. The staff's recommendation was contingent upon the applicant maintaining a common shared driveway for both Lots 5 and 6. The staff recommended denial of the applicant 's request to amend the approved access plan. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, presented three scaled models for the PEC' s review. One depicted the PEC approval, one the DRB approval and the other depicted the proposed walls. He stated that the applicant wished to table the request to amend the access plan. Jay explained that he felt that the current proposal was a better solution than the original approval. The total sq. ft. of wall area had been decreased substantially. A large evergreen tree was being saved. He apologized that the applicant had not sought PEC approval before beginning construction on the wall . Bill Post, representing Mr. and Mrs. Mossman property owners to the west, explained that the Mossmans were concerned that their view would be obstructed and that a maximum height of 3 ft. on the upper wall would be acceptable. Discussion then centered around what grade would be used to determine the interpretation of 3 ft. by Mr. Mossman, and Mr. Mossman pointed out the area of concern on the model. Gordon Pierce felt that he could work with 4 ft. but 3 ft. might not be feasible to design. Bill Post felt that 3 1/2 feet would be acceptable and the applicant's representatives agreed. Diana Donovan wanted it clarified, for the record, that the 3-1/2 feet would be above original grade, not present grade. 2 Jay emphasized that the applicant wished to table the requested amendment to the access plan and Diana felt the PEC could proceed with the variance as long as the applicant and Jay understood that the access plan would be tabled with the understanding that only 1 curb cut was approved. Ludwig Kurz questioned why the two amendments came in together and Mike explained the staff felt the one curb cut was one consideration for allowing the wall height variance from the start. Jim Shearer felt that the reduction in height did improve the area. He wanted to see the landscape plan tied into the approval. Connie Knight stated that if the applicant wanted to propose 2 curb cuts, she did want the applicant to be required to come back to the PEC. She also wanted to see the topo map attached as part of the motion. Diana commented that she voted against the wall height variance the first time it was before the Board. She felt that boulder walls, as originally proposed, were different from veneer walls, as currently proposed. She stated that steep hillside lots were not supposed to be maximized. Buildings on this type of lot should be constructed without destroying the site. Kristan asked Jay what he expected to gain by tabling the amendment to the access plan and Jay explained that he simply wanted time to look at the possibilities. He felt he might redesign the house on the other lot to eliminate retaining walls altogether. He simply did not want to have to reapply due to the publishing time delay. Jay wished to clarify to Kathy Warren that if she voted against the proposal , the applicant could build the walls as previously approved. He felt the current proposal was better. Kristan commented that the staff supported the variance request because the they felt that the current proposal was better than the prior approval as it decreased the amount of the variance. Mike explained that if the current proposal was denied, the applicant would have the right to construct the previously approved plan as Jay had explained. A motion to table the amendment to the access plan to the September 10, 1990 meeting was made by Jim Shearer and seconded by Ludwig Kurz . VOTE: 5-1 IN FAVOR OF TABLING WITH CONNIE KNIGHT OPPOSED 3 • Connie felt that tabling the access item would give the applicant t a chance to juggle the issue and felt they should have voted on both items as proposed. A motion to approve a wall height variance per the staff memo with the following conditions was made by Ludwig Kurz and seconded by Jim Shearer Conditions: 1. The height of the upper wall could be no more than 3- 1/2 feet above the topo map of 8/7/90 2. The landscape plan be no less than that which was presented. Kristan felt that the motion could be per the staff memo with the exception that the access plan was tabled. Ludwig amended his motion to state per the staff memo, with the exception that the access plan portion was tabled with the conditions as listed above. Jim Shearer seconded the amended motion. VOTE: 4-2 IN FAVOR WITH CONNIE KNIGHT AND KATHY WARREN OPPOSED The board wished to have final comments on the project stated for the record as follows: Ludwig Kurz : He was not happy that the developer had not come in an appropriate manner or timing with the project. He did feel that the current proposal was better than the previously approved proposal. Dalton Williams: Commented that as he looked up the hill, he did not like to see all of the walls. He felt there might have been other ways. He encouraged the applicant to look at other options for the other lot to the east. Diana Donovan: Voted in favor strictly on the basis that the current plan was better than the previous plan. She did not believe in height variances in general and did not feel that the house was designed to fit this lot. Kathy Warren: Voted against the proposal for the same reasons as Diana stated above. She had voted no from the beginning of the previous proposal. 4 Jim Shearer: Voted in favor because the current proposal was better than the previous approval. He did not want to see the applicant before the Board regarding the adjacent lot and did not want to see the same large amount of drive in the future. He agreed with Dalton regarding the walls. He would rather give a site coverage variance than a retaining wall height variance. Connie Knight: Connie stated that she had already mentioned her reasons. Item No. 3 : A request for a conditional use permit, a landscape variance, and a setback variance for a remediation system equipment building at the Alpine Standard Station, part of Lot A, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 285 S . Frontage Road West. Applicant: Amoco Oil Company. Jill Kammerer presented the proposal for staff explaining that Amoco Oil Company had not committed to the landscape requirements presented in the memo as recommended conditions of approval. Jill stated that the request was for a conditional use permit, a landscape variance, and a setback variance to allow the construction of a remediation system equipment building. She reviewed the history behind the request and reviewed the criteria and finding for each request. The staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit and each of the variance requests with the landscape variance contingent upon conditions. Jill introduced the Amoco representatives; Mr. Bill Black and Debbie Phenicie of Law Environmental, Tom Briner, the project architect, and Doug and Cuny Sterkle, operators of the Alpine Standard Station. Diana Donovan felt that the work session gave the board a good understanding of the aesthetics of the building. She felt that the present discussion should address the landscaping and whether the building would be permanent or temporary. Ludwig Kurz asked if there was any indication of the length of time the building would be needed, and Bill Black responded that he thought 2 years would probably be sufficient time for the remediation system to clean up the ground water and subsoil contamination to acceptable levels. Kristan emphasized that the two year period was an estimate, there were no guarantees as to how long the system would have to remain in operation and subsequently how long the building would have to remain. 5 Jim Shearer asked if the structure would be removable, and Jill stated that the building was being built as a permanent structure with a foundation. Bill Black commented that the applicant wanted to erect a temporary structure, but that staff felt a temporary structure would not meet design standards. Diana asked if the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District had agreed to water discharge volumes and Bill Black responded that they had. He had a letter acknowledging the agreement. Diana asked if it was possible to shut down operations during peak periods such as Christmas and New Years week, and Bill Black explained that it was possible but that Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District had given no indication that this would be necessary given the volume of the water to be discharged. Further, maximum benefits were realized with continuous operation. Joe Macy, representing Vail Associates, stated that they would like to see the system underway soon. Bill Black explained that Amoco was proceeding without state approval at their own risk. He wanted to emphasize the urgency. Kristan wanted the Board to realize that the staff was in no way indicating to the Board that staff wished to hold up the proposal. Cuny Sterkle, operator of Alpine Standard since 1973 , explained that the Community Development Director in 1973 , Jim Lamont, had addressed closing the eastern access issue in 1973 and Cuny had resisted the closing at that time. Cuny stated that he was not consulted by Amoco, the Town or Law Environmental about the landscape issue until today. The proposed access closing concerned him. Cuny stated he had a conversation with Jim Rogers of Amoco Marketing Department and Jim was also concerned about the curb cut closing. Cuny stated he needed the Frontage Road access for gasoline tanker transport truck deliveries. He was also concerned that Narrowing the Vail Road curb cut, would create a hazard when the transport truck was unloading. He stated he barely had room presently for patrons to egress the site when the tanker was there unloading. He wanted access to remain as it was currently laid out. In the summer a tanker could barely fit under the canopy over the pumps but in the winter with ice build-up on the pavement, a tanker could not fit under the canopy. 6 Jill asked Cuny to describe the unloading procedure and Cuny described the procedure in detail . The tankers currently enter the site from the Vail Road curb cut and leave the site from the eastern most S. Frontage Road curb cut. Kathy Warren asked how long it took to unload, and Cuny replied that if they were quick, 20 minutes, but it could take 1-1/2 to 2 hours depending on products being unloaded. Jim Shearer asked how many cars that were parked at the station were employee cars and Cuny responded 4 . The rest of the cars were cars waiting for work. Cuny stated that he no longer allowed customers to park overnight at the station. Cars had to be picked up on the day servicing was completed. Further, it was deducted on Amoco's quality inspection standards. Parking in front of the easterly S. Frontage Road Curb Cut was not preferred. In response to a question from Jim, Cuny stated Amoco Oil Co was responsible for any improvements to the building. A dumpster enclosure which was previously located on site was destroyed by trash service. Kathy Warren asked if it would serve the station to leave the building in place when Amoco was done with it, and Cuny said they could use it for storage. Tom Briner, the architect, explained that the building was being constructed so that it could be taken down. As far as the conditions the staff recommended on the landscape variance, he felt that for the loss of 250 sq. ft. of landscaped area, the staff was asking them to replace it with 4 to 5 time the amount. The landscape cost would be more than 2 times the cost of the building. Regarding the proposed sidewalk installation, he thought it would be more advantageous to build a sidewalk across the street on the Gateway site. Kristan explained that in reality, people walk along Vail Road on the service station side of the road. They actually cut through the station. Jill explained to the board that the building could be built on the property within the setbacks. The proposed location was chosen to avoid the loss of already limited high demand parking. Kathy Warren commented that the proposed building would not completely abut the property. There was a 2 '-3 ' buffer between the remediation building and the alley to the south. She was comfortable with the sidewalk request and understood the access concern. She wanted to see the 246 sq. ft. of landscape being removed be replaced in the southeast area of the site. She could support this kind of a proposal . 7 Jim Shearer supported the proposal. He was not sure how the 1 motion should be structured. He wanted landscaping but also wanted to see the operation up and running and was therefore concerned with the South Frontage Road access closure and Vail Road access narrowing. Kathy Warren added to her previous comments that she wanted to see the building be temporary and thought it was appropriate to review the permanence issue when the conditional use permit was no longer required. Jim Shearer commented that he felt that the service station was one of the best looking he had ever seen. However, he did want to see some areas landscaped. He understood the opposition to curb cuts and would like to see landscaping per Kathy's suggestion at the southeast corner of the site with a sidewalk and with the possible use of trees. He also wanted to see the area between the station and the Holiday Inn landscaped, and a garbage enclosure constructed. He agreed with Kathy that the building should be temporary. Jim asked Mr. Black what the chances were of having to do more remediation at a later date. Mr. Black explained they would shut down the operation when the water tested clean and that he could think of only 2 instances where system operation might be required again: 1) New leak--he felt it was unlikely that a zone of contamination as extensive as the current situation would occur in the further. The laws were stiffer now and to help prevent future contamination alarm systems would notify the operator that a leak had occurred. 2) If the criteria changed to be more rigid standards, future remediation could be possible. Connie Knight agreed with Joe Macy that the project needed to be started as soon as possible. She didn't feel that the board needed to take unfair advantage of the situation in a search to gain landscaping against an environmental issue. She felt an annual review was imperative. She also felt the structure should be removed when the remediation system was no longer in operation and that a sprinkler system in the existing and southeast proposed landscape area should be installed by the applicant. Connie questioned the siting of trees so close to an intersection. She felt the planting could be a safety (line of sight) concern. Dalton Williams wanted to see a temporary building and a garbage enclosure. He was not in favor of closing the South Frontage Road access or narrowing the Vail road curb cut. He was in favor of a sidewalk along Vail Road as well as additional landscaping on the southeast corner of the property. He wanted to see "mature" trees planted to screen the cars and did not think siting trees in the southeast corner of the site would be dangerous. He was in favor of proceeding as expeditiously as possible but not as a sacrifice to landscaping. 8 Ludwig Kurz commented that the other board members had stated his feelings. He wanted the project to proceed as expeditiously as possible, however, he also felt landscaping needed to be addressed. Cuny stated he felt that Amoco would commit to the landscaping and garbage enclosure as discussed by the board. Diana asked what would happen if the noise was excessive? Kristan responded that staff didn't feel it would be a problem to add a condition of review regarding the noise and that the applicant had indicated they would be willing to add additional insulation if the staff felt the operation of the system created excessive noise. Diana wanted to see the existing landscaped areas "spiffed up" and additional landscaped area as proposed by Kathy with trees as high as possible without creating a hazard to automobile traffic. She also wanted the building to be temporary and removed when the remediation system was no longer in operation. Diana also indicated she felt the construction of a dumpster screen was necessary and that if noise is a problem, staff should negotiate with Amoco to add additional sound insulation. A motion to approve a request for a conditional use permit per the staff memo with the following conditions was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Connie Knight. Conditions: 1. Annual review and approval of the Conditional Use Permit by the PEC. The Conditional use permit for the remediation system shall terminate when the unit is no longer necessary. Annual review to address sound level emissions. 2 . Approval of a landscape variance. 3 . Approval of a rear setback variance. 4 . The building be temporary. If the applicant desires the building to remain, the applicant must obtain PEC approval. VOTE: 6-0-1 IN FAVOR WITH CHUCK CRIST ABSTAINING SINCE HE WAS ABSENT FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE PRESENTATION 9 A motion to approve a request for a rear setback variance per the staff memo was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Connie Knight VOTE: 6-0-1 IN FAVOR WITH CHUCK CRIST ABSTAINING A motion to approve a request for a landscape variance per the staff memo with the following conditions was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Connie Knight. Conditions: 1. Applicant commitment to cleanup and upgrade all existing landscaped areas per Town Landscape Architect, Community Development Director and Town Engineer approval . 2 . Applicant commitment to provide a curb, gutter and side o f Vail Road per - the west P sidewalk off site along t Town Landscape Architect, Community Development Director and Town Engineer approval . 3 . Approval of dumpster location and screening proposal by the Design Review Board. 4 . Landscape area of 250 sq. ft. be provided on site in the southeast area of the site and along west edge of Vail Road in conjunction with a 6 ' wide sidewalk with curb and gutter per condition #2 . 5. To upgrade all existing landscape areas between the Holiday Inn and the Station per Landscape Architect and Department of Community Development. 6. A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy shall not be released for the remediation building until all of the improvements, outlined in conditions 1, 2 , 3 , 4 and 5 have been completed or a letter of credit is provided to the Town of Vail to cover the costs of these improvements. VOTE: 6-0-1 IN FAVOR WITH CHUCK CRIST ABSTAINING Item No. 5: A request for a height variance at 2855 Snowberry Drive, Lot 6, Block 9 , Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Doug and Michelle Cahill Andy Knudtsen presented the proposal for staff explaining that the applicant was requesting a height variance for a new single family home. A building permit had been issued and construction 10 was underway. When the applicant had the height checked to meet the requirements for a framing inspection, the height exceeded 33 feet by 4 . 67 feet, as measured from existing grade. Two aspects of the project were important background information. There was a swale running down the site, over which the house had been built which made a 4 foot difference between height measured from finished grade compared to height measured from existing grade. A second important fact was that the owner shifted the house approximately 11 feet after the building permit was issued without first getting approval from the Community Development Department. The owners' goal was to save a 40 foot tall evergreen tree. By moving the house, the owner located the highest roof ridge over the swale. Andy reviewed the zoning considerations and related criteria and findings. The staff recommendation was for denial. Given that there were other possible locations for the house that would not likely have required a variance, staff concluded that there was not a hardship on the site. Ludwig Kurz asked Doug Cahill why he did not contact the Community Development Department for approval and Doug responded that, upon excavation, he was disturbing the root system for the tree. He did not know he needed to return for approval . Dalton Williams and Chuck Crist had no comments. Kathy Warren felt the owner was caught in a technicality. She didn't see how the problem had not occurred prior. She felt the swale should be counted. Normally she was not in favor of height variances but felt it was a technicality. Jim Shearer asked the staff, had they been consulted, what would have been the recommendation and was told that staff probably would have recommended moving the house down hill as well as west off of the swale so that it would have conformed to the height limit. Jim Shearer asked how the swale came about. It seemed to be unique to the lot. Doug Cahill explained that he was not sure. Connie Knight stated that she had no problems with the variance. She commented that if she felt the move or increase in height had been done on purpose she would not support the variance. Diana Donovan agreed with Kathy Warren. A motion to approve a request for a height variance as the height is in conformance from finished grade per findings A, B, Cl and C2 as listed in the memo was made by Connie Knight. 11 Kathy Warren wished to clarify the motion stating that there was an exceptional circumstance in that the building covered the swale, and that the swale was particular to the property, and the perimeter of the building did not violate height requirements. Connie Knight amended her motion per Kathy' s statement and the motion was seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE: 7-0 IN FAVOR Item No. 6: A request for a conditional use to expand hospital space at the Vail Valley Medical Center on Lots E and F. Vail Village 2nd Filing (181 West Meadow FILE C P Y Drive) . Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center 447d, ;9 ' Kristan Pritz explained the proposal and added that the chart onilko page 3 explained how parking was allocated on the site. She said that the staff recommended approval. Jay Peterson was present along with Ray McMahon, the Manager of the hospital, Dan Feeney, John Reece, the architect, and Greta Schultz. Jay said that Kristan had done a good job explaining the request and that Kristan had also asked for future plans. He said they had prepared a wish list for her, however, there was no further expansion authorized by the hospital at the moment. He spoke in favor of the proposal. Kristan said that the hospital had stated that they were decreasing their staff and the parking was decreased to adjust to 6 fewer employees. Chuck asked how they could have six fewer people, and Ray explained that there had been some staff changes. Dan Feeney explained that the department heads had been asked to project their needs, and therefore, they had more current information. Chuck then asked about a hospital policy called "redirect" where the hospital sent patients to other hospitals and he was wondering why the hospital had been put on redirect and Dan Feeney explained that it had not actually happened yet. Dalton then asked about the parking situation regarding the bank purchase of 8 spaces but Council approval for only the use os six. Jay explained that the bank had a right to buy 12 spaces and had the exclusive option on 8, the 8 were out of control of the hospital. He said that the purchase of 12 by the bank was a worst case scenario. 12 The use of the additional space was then discussed. Diana Donovan said that the last time the hospital was in for a request, the Planning Commission had made it clear that the hospital needed to build a new ambulance building. Diana said that for consistency, the parking spaces had to come out without a deficit if Lot 10 was removed. She wanted to see this worked out on paper. Jay said that under the lease agreement, they had a right to count the spaces on lot 10 until the lease was terminated. Diana answered that if Lot 10 was no longer used, the deficit would be made up with the valet parking. Regarding future plans of additions to the hospital, she did not feel that the Commission could support an additional floor on top of the structure and suggested they find another place to add more space. Diana repeated that the ambulance building relocation needed to be a top priority of the hospital. Connie Knight asked if there was a time schedule for the list of hospital construction proposals and Ray McMahon said that there was no schedule at that time. Connie said that she did not like having a learning lab converted to parking and Jay said that the concept was to move the learning lab center and use the area as parking. Connie asked where this plan was on the Hospital Master Plan. Jay replied that there was great flexibility as to where the Learning Lab could be located. Connie asked if there was some other area that the MRI could be placed and Jay responded that other areas had been fully utilized and that many uses had already been relocated. Connie felt that the north elevation was not aesthetically pleasing. She wanted to know if the MRI could be placed inside the existing building. Kathy Warren was concerned about the brick detail next to the concrete. Jim Shearer spoke in favor of the improvement. Kathy Warren was concerned that continuous infills added to the building would have an impact on the design of the building. She stated that although they were minor, she was not in favor of many infills, that these design features had been important to the Design Review Board as they added relief to the building. Kathy agreed with Diana regarding the Hospital Master Plan and felt that the relocation of the ambulance garage should be the number 1 priority. She did not support the addition of a 4th floor onto the new wing. Kathy felt that the Lot 10 parking needed to be addressed and she questioned if she could support this type of addition again. 13 } Diana Donovan felt that Kathy Warren' s point regarding the architecture was well taken. Dalton asked if the addition extended 3 feet beyond the building or was just an infill and Mr. Reece responded that it did extend 3 feet beyond the wall. Kathy said that the elevation did not show this clearly. Mr. Reece pointed out the 3 ' extension of the elevation. This part of the expansion was discussed, concerning the possibility of pulling the extension back and putting in a sidewalk. Diana wanted to know if approving this proposal would weaken the requirement of relocating the ambulance bay and Mr. Reece felt that this expansion would not effect the hospitals ability to relocate the ambulance facility. He said that this MRI need came on line much quicker than they had anticipated. He did not feel a 1200 sq. ft. expansion should force the ambulance building to be moved. Jay Peterson said that the ambulance building was owned by the Ambulance District. It was very costly and the District did not want to move it presently. More discussion of the site plan followed and it was decided to not place a walkway near the expansion but to continue with the bollards and to continue with emergency parking only. A motion to approve the request for a conditional use permit per the staff memo was made by Connie Knight and seconded by kathy Warren Diana felt that the conditions should be that: 1. When the Lot 10 lease ended, the hospital be required to come up with additional parking on site to meet all parking requirements. 2. That the next addition of any size to the hospital would require the relocation of the ambulance garage. Connie Knight amended her motion to include those conditions as requested by Diana and Kathy Warren amended her second. Vote: 7-0 IN FAVOR 14 Item No. 1: Approval of minutes from the July 23, 1990 meeting. Dalton had corrections on Page 10 that he would discuss with Penny regarding his statement referencing the Rekord doors. A motion to approve the minutes with corrections was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE: 7-0 IN FAVOR Item No. 7 : A request for an exterior alteration on Lot C and Lot D, and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, all in Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing, 227 Bridge Street (Covered Bridge Building) . Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and Bruce Amm & Associates. Item No. 8 : A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 16, part of parcel A, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing 2 . (The Valley Phase III) Applicant: Brad & Susan Tjossem Item NO. 9 : A request for a major subdivision, to approve the preliminary plan, a request for a variance to the maximum height for retaining walls, and a request for a variance to the maximum percent grade for a road, on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek livery. Applicant: George Gillett, Jr. Item NO. 10: A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 4 , Coldstream Condominiums in order to amend Sections 18 . 46. 090 (B) density, 18 . 46. 100 (B) floor area, 18 . 46. 220 employee housing and 18 . 46. 230 time requirements to convert an existing racquetball facility into an employee housing unit, management office, laundry and owner storage area at Lot 53 Glen Lyon Subdivision, 1476 Westhaven Drive. Applicant: Coldstream Condominium Association. A motion to table Item Nos 7 , 8 , and 9 until the August 27 , 1990 meeting and Item No. 10 indefinitely was made by Kathy_ Warren and seconded by Ludwig Kurz . VOTE: 7-0 IN FAVOR 15 Item No. 11: A request for a side setback variance at Lot 3 , Block 5 Vail Village 1st Filing, Unit 3B--Vail Rowhouses, 303 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Stewart Colton Item No. 12 : A request for a variance to Section 18 . 58. 020 (C) in order to construct a 5 ' high wood screen fence in the 20 ' front setback at 9 Vail Road--Holiday House, Lot B, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Holiday House/Pinnacle Resorts. Item No.s 11 and 12 were withdrawn, no action was needed. 16 FILE COPY town of Vail Ali 75 south frontage road office of community development vail,colorado 81657 (303)479-2138 (303)479-2139 November 14, 1990 Mr. Dan Feeney - Project Manager Vail Valley Medical Center 181 West Meadow Drive Suite 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Dan, Your letter of October 19, 1990 concerning the filtration requirements for the hospital parking structure was passed on to me for response by Kristan Pritz. Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter, but I felt it was necessary to research the facts before I responded to prevent a miscommunication or inaccurate communication of information. I have reviewed the plans for the hospital parking structure to determine exactly what was approved under the building permit. The plans show the lower levels of the structure draining through a sand and oil interceptor before entering the sanitary sewer. The upper levels are shown to drain through the storm drain and ultimately to the creek. However, on the comment sheet attached to the building permit, Joe Norris indicated under item 15 that drainage of the top level of the parking structure be provided through the sand and oil interceptor. After conversing with Gary Murrain of the Building Department the staff realizes that there are no code requirements which apply in this circumstance. As a result we cannot ask you to drain the top levels of the structure through the sand and oil interceptor. Conversations with Kristan Pritz indicate that although you are not required to drain these levels through the sand and oil interceptor that an alternate recommendation was made. The recommendation was to bring the drainage from these levels out through the necessary piping and then carry it 'ft , through a cobble swale before it passed to the creek. The purpose of this swale was to accomplish some measure of filtration before the effluent entered the creek. Kristan indicated that she conferred on this subject with Greg Hall and Todd Oppenheimer. After consideration of the circumstances the staff is willing to reconsider the stipulation to require the top levels of your structure to pass through the sand and oil interceptor. The staff encourages the VVMC to utilize a sand and oil interceptor in order to provide the most effective pollution control . If the VVMC will not provide the sand and oil interceptor some type of filtration system to purify the the water being deposited into the creek will be required. This alternative could be a relatively simple plan or something more complicated. I would suggest that you contact Kristan to discuss the previously considered option of the swale. If you have further questions regarding this issue please do not hesitate to contact this office at 479-2138 . Sincerel , ( j2S%-)2,(s _ ailo1L) ' Susan Scanlan Environmental Health Officer cc: Gary Murrain Greg Hall Kristan Pritz Nio FILE COPY TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 13 , 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use to expand hospital space at the Vail Valley Medical Center on Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing (181 West Meadow Drive) . Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center I . DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The Vail Valley Medical Center is located in the Public Use zone district and any expansion in this district requires a conditional use review. The hospital is requesting a conditional use permit to install a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system later this year. A MRI is a computerized system that uses a magnetic field and ordinary radio waves to produce images (or scans) of soft tissues that assist physicians in diagnosing soft tissue injuries. The request includes: - Construction of 1260 sq. ft. on the north side of the first floor contiguous with the emergency room. - Construction of 375 sq. ft. on the west side of the first floor immediately north of the main hospital entry doors. - Infill of 144 sq. ft. of interior courtyard for a hallway. - Renovation of 1200 sq. ft. of existing administrative space to accommodate business office personnel being displaced by the MRI unit. - The proposed MRI unit will require two parking spaces to accommodate two new daytime employees. These employees will include a receptionist and a technician for the MRI. 1 • Y903 ] JI1 II . CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18. 60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The addition of the MRI unit is positive as it complements existing medical services on the site. It makes sense to consolidate medical services in this site as long as parking and other development standards can be met. 2 . The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. This expansion should have no significant impacts on these factors. 3 . Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control , access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The following chart summarizes the parking allocation on the hospital site given this expansion. 2 Future Conversion of Available by Learning Lab November 1990 @ Elev. 8135 into Parking Parking Structure 204 spaces 250 spaces Surface Parking 105 spaces 105 spaces Lot 10 18 spaces 18 spaces Total 327 spaces 373 spaces Available Parking 327 spaces 373 spaces Doubletree Parking -20 spaces -20 spaces Learning Center Lab -17 spaces -17 spaces M R I - 2 spaces -2 spaces Vail National Bank** -12 spaces -12 spaces Existing Hospital and Expansion* -272 spaces -272 spaces Surplus 4 spaces 50 spaces Excluding Lot 10 Parking -14 spaces 32 spaces deficit surplus * These calculations recognize the six fewer daytime employees as explained in Dan Feeney 's attached letter dated June 25, 1990. The hospital "resurveyed staff projections and found that the actual number of employees anticipated is slightly lower than initially projected in 1988 . " ** Six spaces have been approved by the hospital and Town Council to meet the parking requirements for the Vail National Bank. A • potential total of 12 spaces may be used by the Bank in the future. The Bank' s use of any additional parking in the VVMC structure for future expansions will require Town of Vail PEC and/or Council approval. At this time, the Council has stated that all future expansions of the Vail National Bank Building will require parking to be located on Bank property. For planning purposes, staff felt it was appropriate to consider the 12 spaces in the VVMC structure to avoid a potential parking deficit. This consideration of the 12 spaces is not meant to indicate any type of approval to actually use all 12 spaces. 3 . t 1, The chart above indicates that after this expansion there will be a 4 space surplus of parking in the VVMC structure. The second column of figures indicates that 50 spaces would be available if the learning lab in the parking structure is converted into parking in the future. Issue of Lot 10 Parking In April of 1990, the Vail Valley Medical Center requested a conditional use permit to expand the parking structure by two 1/2 levels. The request also included a learning center lab which would be located in the lowest level of the parking structure. Two break-out panels are included in the structure to connect to the adjacent Doubletree parking. During this review, the Planning Commission expressed some concern about the hospital ' s reliance on the 18 parking spaces located on Lot 10. This lot is owned by the Town of Vail and is located on the southwest corner of the VVMC parking lot adjacent to West Meadow Drive. The hospital, through a lease agreement with the Town, has the right to use 18 parking spaces. According to the agreement, "this lease shall be automatically renewed for subsequent 1 year terms unless either party gives written notice to the other of its intent not to renew no later than 60 days prior to the end of the lease term. " The end of the lease term is April 30th of each year. The Planning staff is also in the early stages of developing a design for West Meadow Drive to allow for better pedestrian access and safety as well as improved emergency and auto traffic flow. It may be necessary to utilize a portion of Lot 10 to accommodate these design improvements. Staff believes it is reasonable to support this expansion of the hospital which requires an additional two parking spaces. However, for future expansions, as outlined in Dan Feeney's letter dated August 3 , 1990, staff recommends that the hospital incorporate the 18 spaces on Lot 10 into parking on the hospital property. From Dan Feeney's letter dated August 3 , 1990, it appears that the future phases of expansion for the hospital will be significant and will require additional parking. 4 a R The VVMC master plan includes, per Dan Feeney's letter: - "Addition of one half level of parking on top of the east side of the structure currently under construction. This will provide dedicated access and parking for a new emergency room that we will eventually build at the east end of our property, with access directly off South Frontage Road. - Construction of a detached building at the west end of our property. This facility will consolidate physician' s offices enabling us to expand hospital departments into space currently occupied by these functions. - Construction of a fourth floor on top of the west wing just completed. This floor will accommodate additional patient beds, as well as our pharmacy, laboratory and building service departments. - Demolition of the original hospital at the east end of our property, and construction of a new building adjoining the south side of the parking structure currently underway. This east wing will include additional parking, a relocated main lobby and admissions area, a new emergency room with vehicular access off South Frontage Road, and relocated ambulance bays. " Staff supports the addition of the MRI facility and believes that the two space parking requirement should not trigger the removal of the Lot 10 parking. However, it is important to emphasize that future expansions appear to be much more extensive and will have a larger parking demand. It is reasonable to ask the hospital, in considering future expansions, to also include parking to compensate for the 18 spaces on Lot 10. Staff also believes it is positive that the hospital has started an overall master planning process for the facility. 5 A_ 4 . Effect upon the character of the area in which the . proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The two areas for expansion are actually located under the existing second floor of the hospital on the north and south elevations. The additions will infill space beneath the second floor. The expansions also do not extend beyond the existing line of the building on the north and west elevations. This expansion should not have a major impact on the scale and bulk of the proposed building. III. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the conditional use request. The proposed use is in compliance with the purpose of the public use zone district. There would be no negative impacts on public health, safety or welfare and the proposal complies with the conditional use review criteria. 6 va i l valley Tois 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 KsPi Vail, Colorado 81657 medical center (303)476-2451 25 June 1990 Kristan Pritz Director of Community Development Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail , Colorado 81657 Dear Kristan: The hospital is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to install a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system later this year. An MRI is a computerized system that uses a magnetic field and ordinary radio waves to produce images (or scans) that are particularly effective in diagnosing soft-tissue injuries, complementing conventional radiology ("X-Rays") . As recently as a year ago the hospital administration had programmed an MRI for 1992-1993. However, the rapid development of MRI technology, as well as the overwhelming acceptance of MRI scans as a necessary component of the type of excellent health care we wish to provide, have convinced us that an MRI is needed now. Pending TOV approvals , we wish to begin construction in September 1990. Essential features of our application are as follows: /o'O • Construction of approximately -9fr& square feet on the north side of the first floor, contiguous with our Emergency Room. • Construction of approximately 375 square feet on the west side of the first floor, immediately north of the main entry doors. • Renovation of approximately 1200 square feet of existing administrative space, to accommodate business office personnel being displaced by the MRI. • Installation of a satellite 'sh the third-floor roof, to transmit some of the MRI scans to an off-site ility for interpretation. The dish will be 8 feet in diameter, and scree d rom view. See attached catalog cut sheet. The proposed MRI unit will requir two parking spaces to accommodate two new day-time employees, one a receptionis , the other a technician. Ray McMahan Chief Executive Officer KRISTAN PRITZ • TOWN OF VAIL 4 ' 25 June 1990 Page 2 Parking requirements for the expansion presently nearing completion were computed based on staffing projections made in September 1988. Now that occupancy is imminent, we have re-surveyed staffing projections with our respective departmental managers and found the the actual figures anticipated are actually slightly lower than initially thought: DEPARTMENT STAFF PROJECTIONS STAFF PROJECTIONS NET REVISION SEPTEMBER 1988 JUNE 1990 Surgery 24 19 - 5 Patient Care Unit 6 6 0 Dr. Steadman's Office 10 13 + 3 Business Office 5 2 - 3 Radiology 1 1 0 Building Services 3 2 - 1 TOTAL 49 43 - 6 Thus, referring to Page 3 of your 7 March 1990 memorandum to the P.E.C. , actual parking required to support the third floor expansion is 272 spaces, by virture of the six fewer daytime employees. A comparison of the actual figures for the existing hospital , as well as expansions currently in progress or proposed, is as follows: USE INITIAL PROJECTIONS 1988 CURRENT PROJECTIONS Base figure 86-87 expansion 203 Spaces 203 Spaces New patient beds 20 20 New exam rooms 6 6 New day-shift employees 49 43 New Steadman Learning Center 0 17 Proposed MRI 0 2 TOTAL 278 Spaces 291 Spaces KRISTAN PRITZ • TOWN OF VAIL 25 June 1990 Page 3 The owners of the Vail National Bank Building have exercised their option to purchase the use of eight spaces in our parking structure. Thus, with completion of our parking structure later this year, available parking on-site will be as follows: Parking Structure 204 Spaces Surface Parking 105 Lot 10 18 TOTAL 327 Spaces Available Parking 327 Doubletree - 20 Vail National Bank - 8 Required existing and proposed expansion 299 • - 2 R' .,�. mff SURPLUS 8 Spaces Attached are two sets of architectural plans and elevations. Please let me know if you require further information. S ' c-rel 1.4 ► ,' Dan .g -, Project Mana•-r DF/bh cc: Ray McMahan Doris Allen Jay Peterson l�/1 vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 l medical center Vail, Colorado 45 3 August 1990 (303)476-2451 1 Kristen Pritz Director of Community Development Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail , CO 81657 Dear Kristen: Following is a synopsis of the hospital 's master plan, presented in the sequence we feel is most probable. Like all master plans, it will be subject to frequent review and possible revisions to scope and sequence. The synopsis dovetails with drawings prepared by Page Southerland Page, previously submitted to you. • Construction of approximately 1600 square feet of new space at ground level on the north and west side of the west wing, for housing a magnetic resonance imager (MRI) . The application for a conditional use permit has been submitted. • Addition of one half level of parking on top of the east side of the structure currently under construction. This will provide dedicated access and parking for a new emergency room that we will eventually build at the east end of our property, with access directly off South Frontage Road. • Construction of a detached building at the west end of our property. This facility will consolidate physician's offices enabling us to expand hospital departments into space currently occupied by these functions. • Construction of a fourth floor on top of the west wing just completed. This floor will accommodate additional patient beds, as well as our pharmacy, laboratory and building service departments. • Demolition of the original hospital at the east end of our property, and construction of a new building adjoining the south side of the parking structure currently underway. This east wing will include additional parking, a relocated main lobby and admissions area, a new emergency room with vehicular access off South Frontage Road, and relocated ambulance bays. Other than the MRI unit, the scheduling for these various phases has not been determined. rrly) 0 oject Ma er DJF/bh cc: Ray McMahan Ray McMahan Jay Peterson Chief Executive Officer 0 v .16/1)/t1 42-- • L '' '4 g1 Lt.1 AttFaN 1\0,,C 1► \Q 19 1\)A,421V'\Qj \°_10* 0 11-2 (0:M0sOr 64 trio(0 1 X135 \n- P°(-L'‘' 8 . Pof-1.1 .40- -- '301-k yew), as.b sr:1J c- IDS- law \D os� , 1.1; u \I______*a_ki i a tl-kok 31: - qacz .3?:3 /asz - Nadi, :01_ ' __ 3 a - 4 ok,(.5) 3-)---3 a WP,sc\n_XT(P, Jo - )- D qoui) ufrik„til\ti, ► - 0 r.. i. - 1 - �) mtso k a qaov- - S ate , - . acs - 12 - i 4N\ c 1 t1) a -- J' .c6 Wocrk, . . WOW GM: ,Q-2 l0) cifaLfz, 'c,;4-. 30 V 10 PY i 6 a_IV .\.-- tt;- w . -k ilk ABC" ., tv\c, vt,CV . oi) INVNLA 1, AaAr,'&6\ -\\,a< oA446\QA WI t4c'l. co.NIAS... . _ tk- ‘6,01A-0-Q ‘ tim!“) Q.d. Nik, cAk-Y\ON aNNA, ;A, Ack-k -4_ 1 0,4114_ numt,q14trf iN4Ctr OA c-*kli i fiNie\\\ /OAT' AVOAN .f\.1. ' 1 t PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION APRIL 9, 1990 Present Staff Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz Diana Donovan Tom Braun Connie Knight Shelly Mello Ludwig Kurz Mike Mollica Jim Shearer Penny Perry Kathy Warren Dalton Williams The Planning and Environmental Commission meeting was called to order at 3 : 15 p.m. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. Item No. 1: Approval of minutes for March 26, 1990 meetinct. Motion for approval of minutes as written was made by Jim Shearer and seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR. Item No. 2 : A request for an exterior alteration and a setback variance for the Lifthouse Lodge, located at Block 1, Tract C, Site C (555 East Lionshead Circle) Applicant: Lifthouse Condominium Association Shelly Mello presented the proposal explaining that there were two requests involved: an exterior alteration and a rear setback variance. The applicant was requesting the approval in order to construct an addition to the Lifthouse that would add approximately 217 sq. ft. of common space for a lobby and 45 sq. ft. for a common office addition. The addition would encroach 10 ft. into the 10 ft. setback over an existing storage shed. The variance was necessary because the expansion would increase the nonconformity of the building. The staff recommended approval of both the variance and the exterior alteration. The expansion would not be a grant of special privilege and there were no negative impacts that would result from the addition. The proposed alterations would improve the appearance of the general area and the building. John Rosolack, architect representing the applicant, stated that he felt he could not present much more than what Shelly already had explained. 1 Shelly explained that there was no additional parking requirement due to the fact the applicant was increasing a common space. Kathy asked John Rosolack if the space below the present deck, where it was currently wood, would be stucco as shown on the plans and John responded that it would be stucco. They would rebuild the foundation area as well . Dalton Williams asked if the area underneath the stairway could be closed off in some manner and John answered that it would be awkward to do so. Chuck Crist commented that he felt the proposal would be a great improvement. Motion for approval of a SETBACK VARIANCE per the staff memo was made by Connie Knight and seconded by Ludwig Kurz . VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR. Motion for approval of an EXTERIOR ALTERATION per the staff memo with the following conditions was made by Dalton Williams and seconded by Jim Shearer. 1. Stairs to lower level opening be improved. 2 . The applicant rebuild the foundation and stucco the wall . VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR. Item No. 3 : A request for a final plat for a major subdivision and for SDD No. 22 , a resubdivision of Lots 1-19 , Block 2 , Lionsridge Filing No. 3 . Applicant: Pat Dauphinais, Dauphinais-Moseley Construction. Kristan Pritz explained that the applicant asked to have the item tabled to the next meeting. Motion to table the item to the next meeting was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Dalton Williams. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR. 2 Item No. 4 : A request for a side setback variance at Bighorn Terrace Unit 41D-7 . 4242 East Columbine Way. Applicant: Kathryn Benysh Shelly Mello presented the proposal explaining that the applicant was requesting a variance from the 10 ' side and rear setback requirement to allow for the construction of a 228 sq. ft. addition on the north side of the building. The existing duplex unit consisted of approximately 928 sq. ft. of GRFA and had an allowed GRFA of 708 .94 sq. ft. under MDMF zoning. The variance requested was for a 15 ' encroachment into the 20 ' rear setback and a 13 ' encroachment into the 20 ' side yard setback. Bighorn Terrace was a nonconforming subdivision. The applicant had also applied for additional GRFA under Section 18 .71.030. The proposed addition would impact Lot 6 to the west and would increase the amount of shade that would be cast. The staff recommendation was for denial. The staff felt that the variance would be a grant of special privilege and that there were no exceptions or extraordinary conditions applicable to Lot 7 which did not generally apply to other properties in the same zone district. Erich Hill , architect representing the applicant, presented a drawing which showed easements and parking. He felt this addressed the special privilege issue. Erich explained that the distance between structures on the side of the proposal , was 31 ' . They had a letter from Linda Moore, Lot 6 owner, stating she had no problem with the addition. Kathy Warren asked what the zoning was on the property and Eric responded MDMF. Regarding the shade problem, Erich explained that the shade did not affect the adjacent home, and only affected the lawn area in the dead of winter. Concerning the special privilege issue, Erich reiterated Shelly's statement regarding the fact that there had been 8 previous setback requests and of these, 8 were approved. There had been considerations for the setbacks. The proposal was a modest improvement to a modest home. Kathy Benysh felt that Erich had stated the proposal well and had nothing further to say. 3 f Connie Knight asked to see the letter from Linda Moore, the neighbor on Lot 6 and Dalton asked how the rest of the neighbors felt. Kathy Benysh explained that she had a few other letters and verbal approval from the rest of the neighbors. No neighbors were in opposition. Kathy Warren asked Erich to review the square footage and Erich reported that the lot was 2025 sq. ft. Under MDMF zoning 708 sq. ft. of GRFA would be allowed. Presently, there was 928 sq. ft. The additional 228 sq. ft. would be a total proposed of 1157 sq. ft. Kathy Warren commented that the property was zoned MDMF and that generally the setback applied to the whole property not each building. She felt this was a hardship. The zoning did not relate to the reality of development within the subdivision. Jim Shearer asked how typical the request was and Shelly answered that most buildings encroach into the setback and few lots have areas that they could build upon without variances. Kathy Benysh elaborated explaining that of 26 total homes, 19 had been added onto and 8 granted variances. Eric felt that it was possible that more variances had been granted prior to annexation in 1975. Dalton commented that the entire area was cramped but that this was how it was laid out. He felt that, since no neighbors opposed the project and there were hardships with setbacks, the project would not be a grant of special privilege. Diana agreed there was a hardship. A motion to approve the request for a side and rear setback per finding C-2 of the staff memo and the fact that MDMF zoning had been applied to what is in reality a P/S residence creating a physical hardship and unusual circumstances was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Ludwig Kurz . Jim Shearer felt that the proposal would be an improvement to the neighborhood and would like to see Kathy Benysh set a precedent by adding lavish landscaping and Diana explained to Jim that Mrs. Benysh would be required by the Design Review Board to landscape. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR 4 Item No. 5: A request for a major subdivision and for a major amendment to SDD No. 16 on a portion of Parcel A, lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2 (The Valley - Phase III) Applicant: Brad and susan Tiossem Mike Mollica explained that the applicant had requested to table the item. A motion to table the item was made by Chuck Crist and seconded by Kathy Warren. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR ;tem No. 6: A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 7 (The Marriott Mark) in order to add 57 timeshare units and 8 employee housing units. Applicant: Marriott Corporation. Tom Braun presented the proposal for the staff describing a brief background of the project and the justification for using the Land Use Plan for direction. Tom reviewed the 9 design criteria used in evaluating a Special Development District. Based on the goals of the Vail Land Use Plan, it was appropriate to consider a request of this nature. A number of goal statements support the concept of timeshare units and infill development in the Core areas. The task was to evaluate whether the design was sensitive to all applicable criteria outlined in the SDD section of the zoning code. The staff recommended approval of the proposal amendment with the stipulation that the developers/owner meet the conditions found within the memo. Peter Jamar, representing the applicant, explained the changes made since the January work session. The PEC, during the work session, had asked them to decrease the mass and to pull the bulk back from the creek. In response, the applicant pulled back 20 ' from the creek and stepped down the height. They had reduced the mass, increased the green area on site and created a roof garden area. They had also addressed the employee housing issue. The original application had proposed 3 employee units and they were now proposing 8 . He felt this was a good percentage. Peter felt that the project was based on the Land Use Plan. They were following the Plan carefully as a guide. Several of the Plan's goals and policies supported a project of this type in this location. An addition next to a building that already offers restaurants, transportation, and shops as well as it proximity to the Gondola was sound growth. 5 A view analysis demonstrating the mass of the new addition was presented. Regarding the density increase, the project would not be a precedent. Other high density buildings include the Christiania at 47 units/acre, Tivoli at 48 units/acre, and the Vorlaufer at 80 units/acre. In response to those who felt frustration that Vail was getting too busy, Peter asked them if they would prefer the "Day-skier" . He felt that the "Day-skier" impacted the Community greater than the "destination-skier" and the Marriott project would help to decrease the "Day-skier" and increase the "Destination-skier. " They expect 90% occupancy in the timeshare project. Bill Burding, attorney representing the Vail Spa Building, stated he believed there was a document in their archives from the Mark that demonstrated that there was no intention to build the third wing. The owners of the Vail Spa purchased their units with that understanding. He felt the addition would create a large blockage of view. In evaluating the 9 review criteria, Mr. Burding felt there were many discrepancies. Criteria "B" included a density control and Mr. Burding felt the increased density was not justified due to the increase in traffic, traffic study, and the left turn lane that would be needed. Criteria "G" covered a circulation system addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. He felt that between the Marriott addition and the rumored highway off-ramp, the Vail Spa Building will go from a "pristine" building to a "city building. " Finally, considering the pure economics, the Vail Spa units would be very difficult to rent when in competition with a building such as the Marriott which would then have a superior view. Dalton commented that the Commission had visited the site earlier in the day and did not see many units that he felt would be impacted and Mr. Burding responded that he could provide the Commission with at least 30 units that would be impacted and invited the Commission to revisit the site. Ludwig concurred with Dalton regarding the views. Manuel Marcus, a Vail Spa unit owner, stated that he was involved in the construction and sales of the units in the Vail Spa Building. He sold 40 of the 55 total units. When they sold the units in Mexico, they were sold under the premise that the zoning would not change. The buyer's view was not to be affected. He instituted the rental program and until this time it had been great to the extent that it has been making the mortgage payments for the owners since the recession in Mexico. He was afraid that the blocked view would decrease rental revenues and therefore cause many of the owners to default on their payments. When they 6 built the Vail Spa, they were forced to make special designs to leave 28% common area. They followed the PEC ruling and left the greenspace and felt that the Marriott should not be given exceptions. If the Marriott was allowed the proposed changes, the Vail Spa should ask for a density increase as well. The Marriott presented a lot of problems including noise from drunk people, yelling and traffic to mention a few. An addition would enhance these problems. Realistically, 57 units would be 3000 owners. Pedro Marcus, a Vail Spa owner, invited the Commission to his unit. He felt his view would be destroyed completely. Al Hauser, General Manager of the Vail Spa, felt that most of what needed to be said had been. He also wanted to invite the Commission to visit the Vail Spa and felt they would receive a different feeling of the view impact. Peter Jamar stated, in response to the Vail Spa representatives statement, that the Marriott had offered to do a view impact study and they had declined stating they were commissioning someone on their own. The result of the Vail Spa's study was not submitted by the Vail Spa and he had obtained the results and handed out copies of the report to the Commission. Thea Rumford, owner of 675 Forest Road, read a letter from the her neighbor opposing the construction. She had lived in her home for over 25 years. In that time, the Antlers and the bulk of Lionshead had become a major impact. She stated the noise was terrible in the summer when they had their windows open. She also did not like the timeshare concept. The Marriott had already asked for 1 variance, she felt they should not be given another. Ed Mine, owner of unit 5A Crossroads, explained that he did not have a direct concern but rather a parallel concern. When he purchased his unit at Crossroads, he had a view. Since, the time the Mountain Haus was built and blocked his view. He felt this set a precedent. He had compassion for the adjacent owners' complaint concerning the crowds and noise. He wanted to know if the development truly served the needs of Vail. What were really the Town's needs and how far should the Town go to fulfill them? If the Commission approved this project, when would they stop? He also questioned whether the number of employee units proposed was adequate and how the transportation overload would be handled. He felt that the degree of flexibility should not be given preference to larger projects. When a single family home wanted to expand, the flexibility was not given. Why should a large project such as the Marriott be given the flexibility? 7 Cindy Jacobson, a Forest Road owner, passed around a poster with _, pictures from her scrap book depicting the changes made to the area since 1967 . She stated that she felt the West Day Lot was currently zoned HDMF and that there was still development potential in that area. She felt there were probably many areas with the permitted zoning with development potential. Why allow expansion in areas that require variances. To quote the criteria, she felt that if this was not a Special Privilege, what was? As far as the noise impact, she had copies of many citations issued to the Marriott. She stated that the creek was not a buffer, it amplified the noise. Cindy quoted the Land Use Plan as stating that the Gore Creek should be maintained as open space. The current open space was ' tt made it that way. She stated not accessible because the Marriott y that the Marriott did not offer a balance as referenced on page 31. As the appendix stated, she felt that the open space along Gore Creek should be preserved and left undeveloped. She felt the Land Use Plan was like statistics, it could be interpreted to meet an individuals needs. Her property was "down zoned" in 1977 and now they are "up zoning" the Marriott land. Tom Jacobson, owner of 765 Forest Road, explained that he built his home 23 years ago. The Marriott proposal said that the building was 3 stories by the Creek, he counted 5 and wanted to know how the number 3 was derived. He agreed with the other public comments that the noise level was unbearable. The noise would be worse due to the architectural design of the building. If the Commission is not going to following the zoning regulations then why not throw them out. The Marriott was built to capacity and they had not done the landscaping promised with the last addition. It was not fair to people across the Creek, Vail Spa or Town of Vail. Greta Parks, owner of 303 Gore Greek Drive, first wanted to thank the neighboring properties for being present to express their opposition. She felt that the expansion was too large for the the Valley. Al Weiss, a West Vail owner, stated that he would not be directly affected, but felt that attention should be paid to what is necessary and what is not necessary. Where would the line be drawn setting the precedents. He felt that a preference had been given to the large projects. When he wanted to expand his home in West Vail, he couldn't get an additional foot over the allowed 250 additional GRFA, yet here the Marriott proposed to go overboard and he found it hard to believe the Commission was even considering the proposal . He felt 8 employee units for the expansion was negligible. He would rather see 57 employee units and 8 timeshare units. 8 Diana Donovan, in response to the public comments, stated that the Marriott property had no underlying zoning. It was an SDD and with an SDD, flexibility was allowed. As far as the Mountain Haus was concerned, it was built under FAR zoning which was a legal alternative at the time. The construction of the Mountain Haus was what encouraged the Commission to change the zoning regulations. Diana wanted the public to know that it was great to have them at the meeting. However, the land use policies were established during a Town wide public process, and were now set. The Commission must follow the policies as they were currently set. Jay Peterson wanted to respond to the zoning issue with a little history. He stated that in 1977 the Town of Vail began "down- zoning" property. The HDMF district was reduced from 50 to 25 units per acre. The "down-zoning" made many building non- conforming. The concern was more for other areas, not the core areas. He could understand the public' s concerns, however, he could fill the room full of people who agreed with the project. When the large density projects began to be built, the staff was concerned. Through a year-long process, the public developed the Land Use Plan. The growth should be in areas with transportation, and support functions already in place. Before the Marriott began the proposed project they looked toward the Land Use Plan for direction. He understood feelings of those affected. However, the project did comply with the Land Use Plan and the board should make their decision based on the Land Use Plan not public disagreement over private views or because it would set a precedent. Unless we were willing to say, no to growth, there would be changes. The direction should be controlled growth. Kathy Warren asked Jay Peterson what the basis was for the argument that an increase of destination skiers would decrease day skiers and Jay explained that the more destination skiers there were in the Valley, the less Vail Associates would market to attract day skiers and Peter Jamar concurred. Peter felt that Vail Associates marketing would adjust accordingly. Al Weiss asked what justified the rush for the Marriott project. Regarding the information presented, he asked how much was fact, how much was fantasy, and how much was opinion as well as what was the offset to the Town? Ludwig commented that he agreed with Tom in his presentation that the additional development was needed and appropriate. He felt it was desirable to sustain growth and rejuvenate what the Town presently had. He hoped the public understood that the board did 9 not have concern for the Marriott's profitability. In terms of growth, he also agreed that controlled growth was needed. These areas were designated and already developed, why start elsewhere. Concerning the promised landscaping not completed, the board can require that the improvements be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Dalton explained that when he ran for Town Council, he talked with many people and asked them if they felt the Town needed growth. The consensus was, not in my back yard, not in West or East Vail and that it was needed. Given this, he felt that the growth would be appropriate and that the board should look at the Land Use Plan for direction and the growth should be concentrated in infill areas. Concerning the criticism regarding the landscaping, he wanted to ensure those concerned that the proposed landscaping would be completed by requiring a bond (if the project was completed during the winter) or be in place prior to an issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. Chuck Crist asked how many new employees the project would require. Jay responded that the infra-structure basically was in place with the exception of additional maids and 1/2 maintenance person. The project would not generate as many employees as was perceived. The front desk personnel would remain the same. Chuck also questioned how employee parking was being addressed and Tom answered that the employee parking was factored into the required parking for the project. Chuck questioned Peter's figures quoting expected occupancy of the timeshare project at 90% and Peter explained that the figures were based on off season "bonus" time offered to timeshare owners. Jay continued the explanation stating that the numbers come from the Marriott and were based on the Marriott's experience with timeshare projects elsewhere. The Marriott used the timeshare projects to increase the use of their restaurants, health club facilities and other amenities during the off seasons. Chuck expressed his opinion that the current Marriott building was unattractive. He asked if the Marriott had any plans to make the property more aesthetically pleasing. Peter responded that the Marriott had a 4 million dollar budget for exterior improvements. Unfortunately, the Marriott recently painted the building and had not planned on repainting in the near future. The money was to be used to upgrade landscaping and other such improvements. Jay expanded by stating the Marriott had a chance to sell the property but had decided not to sell and made a commitment to the property. 10 Kathy Warren quoted the SDD purpose and stated that in this case, there was no underlying zoning. She was totally unprepared to make a decision. She was not comfortable with the density with the GRFA proposed at 92% of the site area. She didn't feel that additional GRFA was the most appropriate use of the land and felt that the Marriott was asking for a lot. Kathy didn't feel that this was controlled growth and was disappointed that there was not more of a decrease in density from the work session in January. Kathy felt the applicant could decrease the height more as they moved away from the building. Her two main concerns were that there had to be some type of underlying zoning and that the project needed to be reduced to a more reasonable density. Jim Shearer asked Mr. Lehigh, one of the Marriott representatives, if the Marriott was prepared to work with the Town on the left turn lane and Mr. Lehigh stated that the applicants had agreed to participate once the traffic counts had been verified and a percentage applied. A formula needed to be determined. Jim asked if the proposed pathways were to be lighted and Ned Gwathmey answered "yes" . Jim also questioned what the colors of the walkways would be and Ned explained that the walkways would be pavers and colored concrete and the streamwalk/bike path would be asphalt. Asphalt was the appropriate material for a bike path. Jim inquired what type materials would be used on the roof garden and Ned responded sod and shrubs, no large trees. Jim also asked what impact would the Marriott's purchase of the Streamside at Vail timeshare project would have on the Marriott. Would they share transportation. Mr. Lehigh explained that the infrastructure was in place. Jim also asked Mr. Lehigh if they had planned to offer Marriott amenities to Streamside guests and Mr Lehigh responded "no" . Jim explained that personally he had not decided whether to approve or deny the project. He would do the best he could in the interest of the Town of Vail to develop a reasonable position based on zoning and Town policies. In general, he wished the SDD process had more boundaries. The quoted over height limit of 10 ' didn't really exist since the underlying zoning was an SDD. He felt the addition would look better than a parking structure. He regretted the impact on the Vail Spa building and West Forest Road owners. He was not 11 impressed with the look of the existing Marriott building. He said that it was part of the Town's overall goal to increase • accommodation units and he did not know, nor want to know, how much an increase in Town revenue it would create or what the increased profits would be for the Marriott. It did give the Town 8 employee units and did seem to be compatible with the Town Land Use Plan. Connie Knight commented that she felt the proposed building looked great but that she didn't see any architectural relationship and therefore why relate height and mass to the existing Marriott? Diana Donovan stated that she didn't have a problem adding density but not quite as much and the location made sense. She did not like the flat roof garden level and felt that architectural changes could be made to make the building seem less dense. She felt that more density could be added to the landscape garden. She explained to the Vail Spa's attorney that if he found the documentation he had spoke of earlier restricting the addition, the issue would be between the Marriott and the Vail Spa. The Town was probably not party to the agreement. Diana felt that the Commission had focused too much on the philosophy rather than the fact of the project and felt the board needed to study more of the neighboring properties. She would rather see the Garden level be omitted and the building spread out and down. She would like to see the project tabled until the Commission had more time to study the facts of the project rather than the philosophy of overall growth within the Town. Dalton Williams agreed with Diana that the discussion had become too philosophical. He also wanted to see the item tabled. Peter Jamar requested to table the matter to April 23 and Tom stated that the 23rd was feasible, but that date would not be confirmed until the applicant 's presented revisions to their plans. A motion to table the item was made by Jim Shearer and seconded by Kathy Warren. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR OF TABLING 12 Item No. 7: A request for a conditional use for a Learning Center Lab in the lower level of the proposed Parking structure and to add two new half levels of parking to the parking structure at the Vail Valley Medial Center on Lots # and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing (191 West Meadow Drive) . Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center. Kristan Pritz briefly presented the proposal explaining that the Vail Valley Medical Center was proposing to add two 1/2 levels to the previously approved parking structure on the northeast corner of the property. In addition, a portion of the facility would be used for a Learning Center Lab that would focus on biomechanical studies of athletes as a means of avoiding injury. She explained that she had letters from the applicant stating that no live animal research would be conducted in the facility. The staff recommendation was for approval of the conditional use request. The proposal was very complimentary to the overall master plan for the hospital site. There would be no negative impacts. If fact, the concept of providing additional parking beneath the approved parking structure was an efficient use of the hospital site. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, explained that they were exploring the break-out panel suggested by the staff. However, they would prefer not to make it a condition of approval. Chuck Crist commented that he had calculated a 17 space requirement for the Learning Lab and therefore a 9 space net increase and Kristan explained that the applicant had also added surface spaces making a total of 58 surplus spaces after the lab was removed. Connie Knight stated that the long range plan was to convert the space to parking and asked where the Learning Lab would go in the future and Jay explained that nothing was set -at the present time. The applicant was in the process of completing a comprehensive long range plan. The Learning Lab could be moved to a future addition or in a present building area. Diana asked if the break-out panel to existing surface parking was still proposed and Mr. Feeney answered that nothing from the original proposal had changed. Diana still had a concern with Lot 10 being used in the parking space calculations and Jay responded that it had always been used in the calculations. Diana stated that she just didn't feel comfortable since the lease could be revoked with 30 days notice. 13 A motion for approval per the staff memo with conditions as follows was made by Ludwig Kurz and seconded by Jim Shearer • 1. ro live animal testing be allowed in the Learning Center Lab Facility. Diana commented that she would vote for the item but she felt that Lot 10 should not be included in the total parking figure. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR Item No. 8 : A request for an exterior alteration, stream setback variance, view corridor amendment, site coverage variance, and conditional use for a deck enclosure and new outdoor patio for the Red Lion Building. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties Tom Braun presented the changes as outlined in the staff memo. The vast majority of the proposed changes were positive. Jim Morter concurred with those items presented by Tom Braun. The basic changes included the elimination of another roof line, the deck addition on the back side, and the roof change to accommodate the Rucksack private view as suggested at the last meeting. Dalton Williams commended Jim Morter and the applicant for respecting the private view of the Rucksack Condo owner. Jim Morter showed the new configuration of the restaurant fans on the model and Diana stated that it looked like a good solution to a necessary evil. Jim Morter commented that he did not like the proposal to be called a "deck enclosure" . The area would be covered and conditions applied to the current windows would be continued with the Rekord doors. As far as the current conditions imposed on the windows, the applicant would like the opportunity to close the doors during inclement weather. Concerning the pocket park, he felt if they took the planter (by the Sczechwan restaurant) out and put the trees at grade, it would open the area up. The applicant's plans were to repair and point, not replace the brick wall. They would like to keep the character of the old brick wall. Jim Shearer pointed out that to fix the wall would be expensive and Jim Morter stated that they were aware of the cost involved. 14 Jim Morter, regarding the private condo entrance, felt it was inappropriate to have the entrance to a multi-million dollar condo come under the entrance to a chinese restaurant. Regarding the 9 ' enclosure, if it was not approved, it was possible that the rest of the restaurant improvements would not be completed. Jay stated that he understood the staff's position to not consider the economics of a project. However, from a practical standpoint, the proprietor must maximize the revenue possibilities. He felt that the applicant had given a lot and was not asking for much as presently proposed. Jim Morter then explained the rear deck area and the extensive landscaping that was proposed. Yvonne Mullaly, Rucksack Condo owner, questioned the validity of Mr. Slifer's statement of the Mill Creek Condominium owners agreement with the project. She spoke with an owner within the last week who had no knowledge of the project. She stated that she and her husband had dinner with the Tangs and that during the course of the dinner, Mrs. Tang made the statement that they were expanding because she didn't like the view from her living room. Yvonne felt the project would reduce her property value. Yvonne also questioned how the trash would be removed and Diana explained to Yvonne that the trash would be handled in the same manner that it was currently being handled. Tom Braun explained the other items requested in addition to the exterior alteration and view corridor amendment. The stream setback variance was for an area that already was in the setback. The Conditional Use Permit was for the rear dining deck and the site coverage variance was for a 2% overage of what was allowed. The permitted coverage was 80% and the requested coverage was 82%. The applicant was proposing a 23 sq. ft. net gain which was a . 25% increase. General concerns were expressed regarding construction during the summer and Diana explained that the Town had strict guidelines for traffic control and managing construction impacts. Yvonne expressed concerns that even though the applicant reduced the building mass to provide some view, there was still a deck in the area. She was also concerned about the noise level that would increase from the rear dining deck. Yvonne questioned whether the applicant was using vaulted ceilings. She felt that if there were vaulted ceiling proposed, the applicant could lower the ceilings in order to provide her a view. 15 Jay, in response to Yvonne, stated that Rod Slifer had represented that the proposal was accepted by the condominium association. That when asked at the last meeting if the condominium board or all owners had accepted the proposal Jay had stated that he did not know. Apparently, some of the owners within the Mill Creek Condominiums were not notified by the representative of the Association. Jay did not want the PEC board to feel that he had misled them. Sid Schultz, representing Bob Galvin the owner of 2 units on the 2nd floor of the Mill Creek building, stated that Mr. Galvin had no knowledge of the project until the last week. Sid read a letter from Mr. Galvin. The point Sid wished to make was that regardless of what Rod Slifer had represented as president of the condominium association, there were a number of owners who were not aware of the project. Greta Parks, representing Pepi Gramshamer, stated that Pepi was unable to stay for the meeting and had requested her to read a letter from him in opposition. (Letter attached) Diana Donovan added to the record a letter from Margret S. Burdick in support of the project. (Letter attached) Connie Knight felt that architecturally the 9 ' deck enclosure along Bridge St. was pleasing. However, she was not for the enclosure on the East side of the building. She was adamantly opposed to encroaching into the View Corridor. She was against the variance on site coverage. Basically she was against all of the request with the exception of the 9 ' deck enclosure. Jim Shearer asked the leasees of the commercial space what impacts the 9 ' deck area had and Jan Ray responded. She explained that they had been owners of the restaurant for a little over 1 1/2 years. She had been in the restaurant business for approximately 20 years. She explained that the 9 ' area simply did not work. It was like dining in a hallway. Most people do not like dining alone and consequently, her staff did not pay as much attention to the area due to the lack of customers who wished to sit there. If covered and enclosed, the space could be utilized in the winter and summer. Kathy Warren asked if the maximum ridge height was under the allowed 43 feet and Tom responded that it was 42 . 6 ' . Kathy wished to thank the applicants for their diligent effort in working with the PEC. In general she was in favor of the exterior alteration except the 9 ' deck enclosure. She felt the deck area did get used contrary to Mrs. Ray's statement. As far as the Rekord doors were concerned, she felt that the applicant should be allowed to close the doors during inclement weather. She felt it was acceptable to allow the applicants to repair 16 rather than rebuild the brick wall that the brick wall was definitely a part of the total project. The brick wall should be addressed even if the Rays' did not follow through with the commercial portion of the proposal. Kathy had no problem with the stream setback variance request and the conditional use for deck dining (on the east side) was acceptable. She appreciated the applicants keeping the rear deck on their own property. Regarding the site coverage, Kathy felt it was the "nature of the beast" . Responding to Pepi 's letter regarding the number of variances asked for, she felt that what was being asked for was small in proportion and the Town would be gaining protection from future expansion. Chuck Crist felt that the modifications to the rear dining deck were good. He was in favor of the conditional use permit for the deck. He was supportive of the site coverage variance and the stream setback variance. Regarding the exterior alteration, he felt the applicants had done a good job. Chuck liked the Rekord doors and felt the applicants should be allowed to close the doors during inclement weather as well as at late night hours in order to reduce the noise to the neighbors. Chuck also had no problem with the 9 ' deck enclosure. Dalton Williams was in favor of the stream setback, site coverage variance, conditional use permit, and the outdoor patio. He felt that the Red Lion building would not in reality encroach into the view corridor and therefore was not in opposition to the amendment. He greatly appreciated the time the applicants had invested in working with the neighbors. Unfortunately, not all people can be pleased with a project of this size. Dalton felt the venting was a great improvement. He suggested investigating an acoustic material to be used if the vents were noisy. He suggested that the restriction on the doors be expanded so that they were required to stay open, weather permitting, year-round so as to offset the closing of them during inclement weather during the summer. As far as closing the doors at night for security reasons, he recalled that in many cases during the summer the Red Lion had typically closed as early as 8: 00 or 9: 00 p.m. Dalton did not wish to see the doors closed any earlier than 10: 30 or 11: 00 p.m. and would like to see them opened during the morning. Dalton was not in favor of the 9 ' deck enclosure. He felt that with the Rekord doors in place with the current structure, the 9 ' area would be opened up. Ludwig Kurz felt that most of his feelings had been reflected by the rest of the board. In general, some inconvenience was going to happen and he sympathized with the Mullalys. However, he felt that the developers/owners had shown sensitivity and restraint. 17 He agreed with Kathy Warren that the brick wall needed to be . repaired by at least one of the applicants. If the Rays' did not - follow up with the commercial improvements the Tangs should be responsible. Ludwig did not feel there was any appreciable infringement into the View Corridor. He felt the applicants needed to be complimented. Diana Donovan also wished to compliment the applicants and felt the impact on the Rucksack building was unfortunate. She felt that most of the requests were simple technicalities. However, the View Corridor amendment did concern her. She would leave the decision to the staff as to how to handle the amendment, whether to move the line or change the picture under the line. She would prefer not to see the line redrawn. Technically she agreed with the restaurant owners regarding the 9 ' deck enclosure. She asked in return the Town receive some benefits to publicly used areas. She suggested that the applicant change the approach to the stream tract on the east in order to make it more inviting to the public. As it presently looked, she felt it seemed too private. She would also like to see the applicant spruce up the plaza area by the private condominium entrance and the Sczechwan restaurant by adding a bench, more landscaping and reconfiguring the newspaper boxes. Jay responded that he felt the applicants would be willing to work in that area. Diana liked the old brick wall as long as it was repaired. She felt the restrictions on the windows needed to be continued to the Rekord doors. She felt a statement of inclement weather was too much a matter of interpretation and felt that the staff was reasonable and would not cite the applicant if they closed the doors during a thunderstorm. All windows located in stucco areas should be recessed 3"s. The vents should be state of the art. She appreciated the consideration given to the Rucksack views and felt the roof forms were much better. She felt it was imperative that the public area in the rear of the building look public. She suggested stepping stones be used to offset the hard straight walk presently there. She also liked the restriction the Tangs were willing to impose on the GRFA. In general Diana was in favor of the requests with the following conditions: 1. DRB require recessed windows 2 . Red Lion Logo reapplied to the new building. 3 . The applicants work with the Town to help find a solution to traffic problem in the Parking and Transportation Study. 4 . Any trees killed be replaced. 5. The applicants work with Winston and Associates with improvements in the plaza area by the Rucksack including a curved wall, bench on planter wall, newspaper box improvements, condo entrance, and landscaping. 18 6. The stream tract improvements be redesigned to encourage public access and stream bank stabilization on both sides of Mill Creek. 7. The entry to the Bridge St. Condo should not be visible from Bridge Street. Jay wanted the board to know that the Tangs would make all exterior alterations except the two decks/enclosures. The brick wall and plaza would be redone. The only item that would not be completed based on the approval of the 9 ' deck enclosure would be the Rekord doors on the front and rear of the building. A motion for approval of the SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE per the staff memo was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Dalton Williams. VOTE: 6 - 1 WITH CONNIE KNIGHT OPPOSED A motion for approval of the STREAM SETBACK VARIANCE per the staff memo was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Dalton Williams. VOTE: 6 -1 WITH CONNIE KNIGHT OPPOSED A motion for approval of the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT per the staff memo was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR A motion for approval of the EXTERIOR ALTERATION per the staff memo including the staff recommended conditions of approval with the following additional conditions of approval was made by Jim Shearer and seconded by Chuck Crist. 1. As a part of this redevelopment, the applicants agree to point and repair the brick wall along Bridge Street and in the area of the small plaza at the northwest corner of the site. Improvements to this plaza shall also include upgrading existing benches, planters, newspaper box and trash receptacle locations and landscaping. 2 . The streetscape improvements shown along Hanson Ranch Road are considered conceptual , and the applicants shall agree to work with the staff and Winston Associates in refining this design relative to the Vail Village Streetscape Plan. This condition shall also apply to the plaza area referenced in condition No. 1 19 and the landscape improvements proposed adjacent to Mill Creek. • 3 . All windows located on stucco wall planes shall be recessed a minimum of 3" . 4 . State of the art venting shall be used to reduce negative impacts (smell, smoke, etc. ) emanating from the site. 5. The owner/developers of the residential development on this site shall agree to permanently restrict Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) , building height and density on this site to what is permitted by this approval . The Town of Vail shall be a party to this restriction and the restriction shall be recorded with the Clerk and Recorder's Office at Eagle County. 6. Any trees damaged or killed within two years of the completion of this project shall be replaced with similar size and type tree. 7. The Red Lion logo shall be retained as a part of this redevelopment in approximately the same size and location. 8 . The developers/owners are strongly encouraged to participate in developing solutions to traffic, loading and delivery problems in Vail Village. 9. The Rekord doors (or other type of window system installed) to the Red Lion Restaurant along Bridge Street shall remain totally open during business hours between June 15 and September 15 of each year. These windows may be opened at any other time during the year at the discretion of the restaurant management. 10. The applicants shall complete stream-bank stabilization work on both sides of Mill Creek over the entire length of the Red Lion property. The final design and implementation of these improvements shall be subject to review by the staff and the Design Review Board. 11. The owners shall agree to participate in, and not remonstrate against, a special improvement district in the Village if and when one is formed. VOTE: 5 - 2 WITH CONNIE KNIGHT AND KATHY WARREN OPPOSED 20 A motion for the recommendation of approval to the Town Council of the VIEW CORRIDOR NO. 1 AMENDMENT per the staff memo with the following conditions was made by Chuck Crist and seconded by Kathy Warren. 1. That the photo depicting View Corridor No. 1 be modified to reflect the new Red Lion Building at a time when the expansion is completed. The Commission preferred this alternative as opposed to modifying the line that delineates the View Corridor. 2 . That the specific reasons justifying this request be included in the preamble of the ordinance authorizing this amendment. VOTE: 6 - 1 WITH CONNIE KNIGHT OPPOSED Item No. 9 : NWCCOG Mtg. - Wilderness Legislation; april 12 , 1990 form 9 : 00 a.m. - 3 : 00 p.m. (Silver Creek) Kristan explained that the Federal Wilderness Legislation meeting would be held at the above mentioned time and place. The meeting was interesting though attendees where not allowed to participate. Diana explained that there was a charge and the Town was expected to cover the cost. Item No. 10: Reschedule PEC meeting of May 28 (Memorial Day) to June 4th. Diana stated that this change was apparent and asked the members to note the change. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 00 p.m. 21 - asthof ., Gramshammer, Inc. Telephone: 303/476-5626 Pepi Gramshammer 231 East Gore Creek Drive Sheika Gramshammer Vail, Colorado 81657 April 9, 1990 Planning Commission Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: Vail has become a very successful ski resort. We're constantly working to improve our town and mountain, and it is a wonderful place. Now is a critical time for us, and we must take the right steps to maintain the unique qualities of our town and control the growth of the Village that everyone loves. As many older buildings in Vail Village are remodeled, we must be careful to maintain the scale on which the Village was originally designed. The issue we're talking about today concerns the Red Lion's request for variances to add two stories to their existing building, which would almost double their square footage. If this is allowed to take place, the precedent will be set for the expansion of other buildings, which would add many, many square feet to the Village core. Where does it stop when so many variances are granted upon request? With increased density will come many negative impacts, in terms of deliveries, parking and trash removal. These will be long term, not temporary, problems. For so many years, the Village has been a construction zone in the summer. Just when we thought all of the construction was completed, we're starting again! And, let us not forget that enormous increases in property taxes for all Vail Village business owners will result from such expansion. If the Red Lion construction project - with 4 stories - is approved, other buildings will follow suit, and Bridge Street will be like a shaft of high rises, with only a narrow walkway for foot traffic. With increased deliveries, etc. , if there's one car parked on Bridge Street and another attempts to pass, there will be no room for pedestrians. I urge you to consider all of the implications of the Red Lion's request carefully, so that our town can grow gracefully and function properly. Sincerely, Pepi Gramshammer • A C4fat9attt cS. Butda • 50. O. Sox 1250 Nail, inolowdo 8165S April 9, 1990 To: The Planning Commission Town of Vail Vail, CO From: Marge Burdick P.O. Box 1268 Vail, CO 81658 I am writing concerning the proposed addition to: The Red Lion Inn Apartment 304 Bridge Street, Vail, CO 81657 Mrs. Oscar Tang, owner Morter Architects, architect The blueprints and model were just shown to me and I was told the GRFA of the proposed addition is 9,327 S.F., well under the allowed 11,166.32 S.F. The massing is attrac- tively done and has a graceful flow to it. There are three units proposed in lieu of eight units allowed. Frankie Tang has shown her usual good taste in design, which pleased me. My deep interest in this project stems from the fact that Larry Burdick and I built the Red Lion Inn in 1962, and that apartment was my home. This plan brings a proud legend of a building back to life. The present owner of the apartment and the lessees of the restaurant seem to be working well with one another in the corporate plan of the front of the restaurant and the new expansion of the apartment. It was brought to my attention that a small amount of space on the front, northwest side of the building is sttat9auf cs. L�utdlc� 50. O. 23ox 1250 Nail, Colorado 81655 needed to be included in the covered patio. I understand that need and hope you vill be able to allow it. The lessees will have a short time to recoup the loss of funds expended for the improvements, due to the remaining time in their lease. It is commendable to me that they are willing to make so great a contribution to this plan. Bridge Street was Vail's first street, our first block. The Red Lion Inn was the first privately owned restaurant and skiers from Vail and the world met there. It is part of Vail's history and did not deserve the shabby treat- ment it has recieved since being sold. Now, this proposed plan should bring Bridge Street the style it used to have and if it is acceptable to you, I, for one, will be filled with gratitude. Sincerely, [COAL t/A13 .C-IC- Margaret S. Burdick • i Date of Application 16 February 1990 - Date of PEC Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT • I. This procedure is required for any project required to obtain a conditional use permit. The application will not be accepted until all information is submitted. A. NAME OF APPLICANT Vail Valley Medical Center ADDRESS 181 West Meadow Drive Vail , Colorado PHONE (303) 476-2451 B. NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE Dan Feeney, Project Manager ADDRESS As above PHONE • C. NAME OF OWNER(S) (print or type Dan Feeney • • • OWNER(S)! SIGNATURE(S)& / A� i�.- ,m, ADDRESS As above • • PHONE D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEGAL- LOT E&F BLOCK FILING 2nd ADDRESS 181 West Meadow Drive, Vail , Colorado E. FEE $100 PAID X CK #\-u\" BY Vail Valley MPdiral fantar • THE FEE MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WILL ACCEPT YOUR PROPOSAL. F. A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent to the subject property • INCLUDING PROPERTY BEHIND AND ACROSS STREETS, and their mailing addresses. THE APPLICANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECT OWNERS AND CORRECT ADDRESSES. • II. PRE-APPLICATION CLAUSE • A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE WITH A PLANNING STAFF MEMBER IS STRONGLY SUGGESTED TO DETERMINE IF ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NEEDED. NO APPLICATION WILL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS IT IS COMPLETE (MUST INCLUDE ALL ITEMS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR). IT IS THEAPPLICANT' S RESPONSIBLITY TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT WITH THE STAFF TO FIND OUT ABOUT ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. • PLEASE NOTE THAT A COMPLETE APPLICATION WILL STREAMLINE THE •APPROVAL PROCESS FOR YOUR PROJECT BY DECREASING THE NUMBER OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT THE PEC MAY STIPULATE. ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE COMPLIED WITH BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED. • • • } eirs 1 III Four (4) copies of the following information: A. A description of the precise nature of the proposed use and its operating characteristics, and measures proposed to make the use compatible with other properties in the vicinity. B. A description of how your request complies with Vail ' s Comprehensive Plan. C. A site plan showing proposed development of the site, including topography, building locations, parking, traffic circulation, useable open space, landscaped areas and utilities and drainage features. D. Preliminary building plans and elevations sufficient to indicate the dimensions, general appearance, scale, and interior plan of all buildings. 3 • • • • ti tt� vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 AO medical center Vail, Colorado 45 (303)476--2451 1 12 March 1990 Kristen Pritz Senior Planner Town of Vail - Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail , CO 81657 Dear Kristen: Attached are five prints showing the preliminary floor plan for the Learning Center Dr. Steadman intends to operate as an adjunct to his practice. The space will be initially constructed in the lowest one-half level of the parking structure, at elevation 8135 feet. When future growth of the hospital warrants, we will convert this space to parking. The Learning Center will employ six (6) full-time day employees. There are no examination rooms or patient beds included. Thus, using the formula currently used for computing parking requirements , the space will require six additional parking spaces. (The area designated for Housekeeping/Maintenance is simply a relocation of an existing department, and will not result in additional parking requirements. ) When added to the 278 spaces required to support the expansion already approved, the new total for required parking spaces becomes 284 spaces. The revised plans submitted to you on 16 February 1990 provide for a substantially larger parking structure than the one approved by the PEC last year. The larger structure will provide immediate parking for 204 vehicles. When the Learning Center is relocated, the space will allow parking for an additional 46 vehicles, for a grand total of 250 vehicles. Revised figures for total available parking on-site are as follows: Available by Future Conversion November 1990 of Elevation 8135 Parking structure 204 spaces 250 spaces Surface parking 104 spaces 104 spaces Lot 10 18 spaces 18 spaces A Total 326 spaces 372 spaces )11 Available parking 326 spaces 12 spaces ` Doubletree parking - 20 spaces - a20 spaces Total Net 306 spaces 352 spaces Required - 184 spaces - 4 spaces Surplus 22 spaces 68 spaces Ray McMahan Chief Executive Officer , - Kristen Pritz Town of Vail 12 March 1990 Page 2 Thus, even if the owners of the Vail National Bank fully exercise their option to purchase 12 spaces, the hospital will still have a surplus of 10 spaces now, and 56 spaces when the lowest one-half level is converted to parking. As requested, I have also included two additional sets of plans showing all three and one-half levels of our proposed parking perAcerely, DDan F ney Pr DJF/bh Enclosures cc: Ray McMahan Jay Peterson c y ■ )„ q co • .16 _9,7 I l ad. _ � - C ctA aid . �A,)( _. . - -..,__ ci_ 4 , r,,, , , ,. -I ,, Gov .- ►, ' aWA _ UoApp, t(, f ar- 4 \w1‘)-4 =� -- com Aar u0` A4 \ _ .O1U: „.:„43-771 101 xvu,___ to . 7,. eiA123\- aa\ wap2 . \ i) ,, -ko_- ji 'MmiutY\e„i/‘i;;-114' —ar-i- (Its Aca,v_uvA )S- •S' eFt. 4 9$ '1 ri* 8 {\'K1EL 6\‘ .1" ii,' kuyNoy\M q3D Ilea5 \\ 1::' '',:'!. ' wi ', ,xt 1 cskIt cf4C6 \20 Q St1\ (ot G-, w wiMiGv-\ 6- wk f) r\c_i 5 CQ = Z i 1 . 64, •`OL S c m 8it-6 - asuil ‘ ) Lriv-1 \VA- - ‘)a -.0/ 0,(Q2aL -ki-0.10,(-Lnds , LIA ' -vx-427 , r •• o.x.-6 •r23.40A '1, 1\)- &comaait( w'lw,D640-- II, oy\ I 1i4t. N A. ahiva ' I Qa)60\ta s4, , y'1 IOYIH of nail 75 south frontage road office of community development vail,colorado 81657 (303)479-2138 (303)479-2139 March 16, 1990 Mr. Chuck Dunn Colorado Department of Highways P.O. Box 2107 Grand Junction, Colorado 81502 RE: Vail Valley Medical Center Spring Expansion 1990 Dear Chuck, The Vail Valley Medical Center is proposing to add 2 additional levels of parking plus a learning lab beneath the approved parking structure. I discussed this issue with Rich Perske several weeks ago. His general opinion was that additional lanes, etc. would not be necessary. However, I saw him at our Transportation meeting on March 15th and he suggested that I send you a letter documenting that you received a copy of the plans. In my planning commission memo, I will stipulate that before a building permit is released for the parking structure, the Community Development Department will need a letter from your department stating that all the appropriate approvals have been obtained and that there is no need to amend the existing access permit due to the change in plans. If you have any further questions please feel free to call me at 479-2138. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Kristan Pritz Acting Community Development Director KP: jlt I • • • • " . vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 ' medical center Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-2451 16 February 1990 Kristan Pritz Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail , Colorado 81657 Dear Kristan: During the process of securing a conditional use permit for our expansion, both the Planning Commission and the Town Council strongly encouraged the hospital to build a larger parking structure than the one initially proposed. In fact, for a brief interval the Town Council debated the legality of requiring to us construct a larger parking structure, to support further growth of the hospital . After substantial study of the engineering problems involved, our Governing Board has authorized that we seek an amendment to our present conditional use permit, to allow us to construct two additional half levels. These two half levels would be constructed beneath the parking structure presently approved, and would be entirely below grade. The above-grade appearance of the parking structure would be unchanged from the drawings and model previously reviewed and approved by the various Town bodies. The additional two half levels are shown on Sheet A-2 of the attached plans. Initially, one of the half levels would be used as parking, providing 26 additional parking spaces. The second half level (elevation 8135) would be used temporarily as finished hospital space. Although conceptual plans are still being developed, and will be submitted to the Town at a later date, we envision this space will be used to provide a sports medicine educational center run under the auspices of Dr. Steadman, as well as a maintenance/housekeeping shop. The long-range plan is to convert this bottom half-level to parking, when needed to support future hospital growth. This conversion would provide an additional 46 parking spaces. Plans have been submitted to Gary Murrain for purposes of conducting a code check. We look forward to a swift approval of our request for an amendment to our conditional use permit. . • Icerely, 0.4 •4 Projec ana' -r DJF:bh cc: Ray McMahan Ray McMahan Jay Peterson Administrator ADJACENT PROPERTIES BORDERING VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER Lot #2 Vail Professional Building (Vail National Bank) 1910 Pacific Ave. #1700 Dallas, TX 75201 2 Doubletree 250 South Frontage Road Vail , CO 81657 D Mr. Ron Anderson (The Skall House) 727 Penn Holton, Kansas 66436 4 Mr. Richard Eddy (Meadow Vail ) 5085 S. Fairfax Littleton, CO 80121 5 Mr. Benjamin Duke 5550 S. Steele Street Littleton, CO 80121 6 Mr. Irving J. and Mrs . Carol J. Schwayder 5910 Happy Canyon Drive Englewood, CO 80110 Morgan Davis P.O. Box 476 Vail , CO 81658 7 Mervyn Lapin 232 West Meadow Drive Vail , CO 81657 8 H.F. Kepner Managed by Calva Corporation 5161 Juniper c/o Century 21 Littleton, CO 80123 PO Box 611 Avon, CO 81620 9 James U. King, Jr. Clib B. & Mary Ann Hurtt c/o Kross Petroleum, Inc. 11205 Tack House Court 900 Threadneedle, Suite 650 Potomac, MD 20854 Houston, TX 77079 10 Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Rd. W. Vail , CO 81657 Tract 11 Town of Vail A 75 South Frontage Rd. W. Vail , CO 81657 vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive,Suite 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 medical center (303)476-2451 29 March 1990 d1 Kristen Pritz Senior Planner TOV-Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail , Colorado 81657 Dear Kristen: Following our application dated 16 February 1990, for a Conditional Use Permit to construct two additional below-grade levels in our parking structure, it has come to our attention that the incorrect owner of the Doubletree Hotel was shown on our list of adjacent property owners. Please note that title for this property is now held by: Resorts Inc. at Vail , a Colorado Corporation Registered Agent - Gerald Bylsma Registered Address - 3882 South Quebec Denver, Colorado 80237 The owner is listed as: Gerald Katzoff Palmaire Drive Pfrat-c /1°46" Pompano Beach, Florida 33069 eek•- Y/ 311470 We apologize for any inconvenience caused by this error. Yours sincerely, Dan Feeney Project Manager gbh cc: Jay Peterson Ray McMahan Ray McMahan Chief Executive Officer cJ/p cjcez PUBLIC NOTICE 04V i ` 3// ho NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18 . 66. 060 of the municipal code of the Town of Vail on April 9, 1990 at 3 : 00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. Consideration of: 1. A request for an exterior alteration and a setback variance for the Lifthouse Lodge, located at Block 1, Tract C, Site C (555 East Lionshead Circle) Applicant: Lifthouse Condominium Association 2 . A request for a final plat for a major subdivision and for SDD No. 22 , a resubdivision of Lots 1-19 , Block 2 , Lionsridge Filing No. 3 . Applicant: Pat Dauphinais, Dauphinais-Moseley Construction. 3 . A request for a side setback variance at Bighorn Terrace Unit #D-7 , 4242 East Columbine Way. Applicant: Kathryn Benysh 4 . A request for a major subdivision and for a major amendment to SDD No. 16 on a portion of Parcel A, Lion' s Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2 (The Valley - Phase III) Applicant: Brad and Susan Tjossem 5. A request for a conditional use for a Learning Center Lab in the lower level of the proposed parking structure at the Vail Valley Medical Center on Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing (181 West Meadow Drive) . Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center. 6. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 7 (The Marriott Mark) in order to add 57 timeshare units and 8 employee housing units. Applicant: Marriott Corporation. 7 . A request for an exterior alteration, stream setback variance, view corridor amendment, site coverage variance, and conditional use for a deck enclosure and new outdoor patio for the Red Lion Building. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection in the Community Development Department office. Town of Vail Community Development Department Published in the Vail Trail on March 23 , 1990. teed vie) CZPJ 'CuCC14 kY")\JVC.0 3/ab0 2nd Revision CIO PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18 . 66. 060 of the municipal code of the Town of Vail on March 19, 1990 at 3 : 00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. Consideration of: 1. A request for an exterior alteration, stream setback variance, view corridor amendment, site coverage variance, and conditional use for a deck enclosure and new outdoor patio for the Red Lion Building. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties 2 . A Work Session on Air Quality 3 . A request for a side setback variance for Lot 6, Block 2 , Vail Village Sixth Filing. Applicant: Clinton G. Ames, Jr. 4 . A request for a conditional use permit to expand a proposed parking structure for the Vail Valley Medical Center on Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing at 181 West Meadow Drive. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center 5. A request for a Special Development District for the Garden of the Gods on Lot K, Block 5, Vail Village Fifth Filing at 365 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Garden of the Gods, Mrs. A.G. Hill Family The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection in the Community Development Department office. Town of Vail Community Development Department Published in the Vail Trail on March 2 , 1990. • • tki\a INTER-DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT: V r l9 . CJJ\ "1/i DATE SUBMITTED: ci DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS NEEDED BY: BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF T E PROPOSAL: iLLE MAR 2 6 P PUBLIC WORKS • , Reviewed by: —�� '� 14. 1 Date u •, Tents: ! • • FIRE DEPARTMENT . Reviewed by: Date • - Comments: POLICE DEPARTMENT Reviewed by: Date Comments: • • RECREATION DEPARTMENT Reviewed by: Date . Comments: • '.03/28/90 14:41 $ 303 322 3872 Y & H PC 01 0 • Yu, Stromberg, Huotarl & Cleveland, P. C. Attorneys and Counselors at Law Frederick Y. Yu 3033 East First Avenue,Suite 700 Wallis S. Stromberg Cherry Creek National Bank Building Michael 8. Huotari Denver.Colorado 80206 H.C. Cleveland, Ill Telephone(303) 388-8311 Fax (303) 322-31372 Your FAX # 71 -cLIS '7 Sender's FAX # (303) 322-3872 FACSIMILE TRANSMITPAL MEMORANDUM To: Lcwr Esku-i +1i J Es 8, From: tcedektc.k . Re: _. Date: '� 1k Time; FAX Opera -or: m .. ! + 1cu & No. Pages (including cover) 1 7 Please notify operator immediately at (303) 388-9311 if not properly received. *************************> **************************************** FOR YOUR: PLEASE: X Information Reply By: Per Your Request Forward Approval _Review Review & Comment Telephone Sender Files Advise Accordingly File ****************************************************************** DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED L�r,y_-- cibe.phf ^' reemneittf MESSAGE CANON FAX 230 03!28;90 14:51 a 303 322 3872 Y 5 G: H PC 1 N' Yu, Stromberg, Huotari & Cleveland, P.C. Attorneys and Counselors at Law Frederick Y.Vu 3033 East Flret Avenue,Suite 700 Wallis S.$tmmbera Cherry Creek National flank Building Michael E.Huoteri Denver,Colorado 80206 H.C. Cleveland,111 Telephone(303)388-9311 Benjamin F.Gibbons March 28, 1990 Fax(303)322-3872 Ya.2EMLICQPI Larry Eskwith, Esq. Town Attorney 75 south Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Vail Valley Medical center near Larry: Enclosed is a copy of the easement granted by Vail Holdings to the Hospital, as grantee. It is perpetual, irrevocable, and is appurtenant to the Hospital 's property. Since the parking structure is being built on the easement pursuant to the Agreement between the Hospital and Vail Holdings, it would seem to be unnecessary to have the owners of the Doubletree now sign the Hospital 's zoning application. Also enclosed is a copy of the Agreement between the Hospital and Vail Holdings. You will see that it is specific in paragraph 3a as to the elevation on which knockout panels will be provided. It clearly does not call for knockout panels at elevation 8143 ' , and contemplates development at levels below 8153 ' . Thus if the Doubletree's owners assumed that there would be tie-ins with the Hospital 's parking structure at lower levels, it was an assumption made without involving the Hospital. Please advise if you need anything further. Thanks for your responsiveness and attention to this matter. Very truly yours, YU, STROMBERG, HUOTARI & CLEVELAND A Professional Co ration /4/64-ja.eir.4(1 '-‘ Frederick Y. Yu FYYtmkm cc: Ray McMahan 03%23,90 10 ' 41 $ 707 _L2 7E72 V S x H Pi. 0'_ Ric pac A055e7 B-5O9 P-327 '``bi 6/30/89 16:20 PG 1 OF w.. 1EREC x• OC • JOHNNETTE PHILLIPS EAGLE COUNTY CLERK N 1. EASEMENT \, •,� `; This easement, dated June 29, 1989, is from Vail Holdings, {r',' a South Carolina general partnership ("Grantor") to Vail Clinic, ,)� Inc. , d/b/a Vail Valley Medical Center, a Texas non-profit corporation ("Grantee") . Grantor, for and in consideration of the execution and performance by Grantee of an agreement dated as of June 29, 1989, and recorded in Book fc9 , Page Jp26, , in the records of the 01) Eagle County Clerk and Recorder ("Agreement") , by and between the . Grantor and the Grantee, the sufficiency of which consideration is C hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant and convey to Grantee an -- exclusive, perpetual and irrevocable easement and right-of-way ` over, across and through the real property described on Exhibit A ("Easement Property") , attached hereto and made a part hereof, subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, and provided, further, that this easement and all rights hereunder are subject to the terms of the Agreement. This easement is granted for the purpose of constructing, maintaining and using a vehicular parking structure, a vehicular and pedestrian access ramp and right-of-way, and to provide pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress between South Frontage Road and the real property owned by the Grantee as described on Exhibit B ("Grantee's Property") , attached hereto and made a part hereof. The easement and right-of-way granted hereby shall run with the land and shall be appurtenant to Grantee' s Property. A transfer of legal title to Grantee ' s Property shall automatically transfer this easement and right-of-way to the transferee of Grantee's Property. Grantor represents and warrants that it has full power and authority to grant this easement and right-of-way, that is well- seized of the Easement Property, and hereby warrants to Grantee all rights in such easement and right-of-way against all persons claiming under Grantor. GRANTOR: VAIL HOLDINGS, a South Carolina general partnership By VAIL VALLEY HOLDING COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation, a General Partner Y• ti n . . via-Pr ide ATTEST: i / , ' /1,m '4 ribb _deer r ;�':014��.: 1 V ! 5`e7 2E :10 14: 42 STATE OF 'iLit)- 6i2A ) C 4 COUNTY OP (7// rJulAo4L ) The foregoing was subscribed nd sworn to before me by the peLron known to me to/ e (.1).63t4,i- riiin4—as Vice-Presidents= this i '2AP, day of - , 1989 . of Vail Holdings, a South Carolina general partnership. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 220______• / Notar Public MONICA T. Per00 PUBLIC, Slits of N,V. Plogioe MY OIMINlifliCM EXpiffi . . ''," ••' • - • - • 405507 8-509 P-327 06/30/89 16 20 PG 2 OF 4 2 0: 29/ 0 14: 43 a 303 322 3872 Y S & H PC 04 .41b60 • EXHIBIT "A" CI 0 TO EASEMENT DATED JUNE 29, 1989 t4 BETWEEN VAIL HOLDINGS, A SOUTH CAROLINA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP AND VAIL CLINIC, INC. , D/B/A VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, A TEXAS NON-PROFIT CORPORATION THAT PART OF LOT 2 , BLOCK 1 , VAIL LIONSHEAD SECOND FILING, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 221 AT PAGE 990 IN THE OFFICE OF THE EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, CLERK AND RECORDER, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 2 , THENCE, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2 , NORTH 79 DEGREES 41 MINUTES 13 SECONDS WEST 177 . 31 FEET; THENCE, DEPARTING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 49 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST 28 . 72 FEET; THENCE NORTH 6 DEGREES 54 MINUTES 46 SECONDS EAST 50. 96 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 85 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST 53 . 59 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2 ; THENCE THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE: 1. SOUTH 38 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 31 SECONDS EAST 21.29 FEET 2 . 103 . 33 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 469 . 30 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 53 SECONDS, AND A CHORD THAT BEARS SOUTH 54 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 06 SECONDS EAST 103 . 12 FEET; THENCE, ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2 , SOUTH 10 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 47 SECONDS WEST 20 . 42 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 405507 B-509 P- 327 06/30/89 16:20 P3 3 OF 4 03/28/90 14: 43 a 303 322 3872 Y 5 & H PC 05 •+ •,' • rrVry 4✓ All of Lot E and Lot F, Amended Map of Sheet 1 or 2 of VAIL VILLAGE, SECOND FILING, according to the map thereof recorded in the office of Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder 405507 S-509 P-327 06/;S0/85 16; O PG 4 OF 4 1 EXHIBIT B to EASEMENT FROM Vail Holdings to Vail Clinic, Inc. • • r13:, ,:;90 14: 44 a 3 03 322 3872 V S at H PC @6 ,. I J .� \_- •∎ .. / • A:. ''' P\,, AGREEMENT to h � t��,' THIS AGREEMENT is by and between Vail Holdings, a South Carolina general partnelBliWest and Vail Meadow Drive, Vai].,Inc. , loradaVariid 11 Valley Medical Center, V0 is dated as of June 29, 1989. 07 C? PREAMBLES 1. Vail Valley Medical Center (Hospital) has proposed to the Town of Vail, Colorado to expand by constructing additional . Hospital facilities and a parking structure (the "Project") . As a condition of approval of the Hospital 's present expansion, the 82 Town of Vail may require that the Hospital provide direct accept A to the Hospital ' s present property from the South Frontage Road. 2. Vail Holdings (Hotel) presently owns property located between Hospital ' s property and South Frontage Road, and is willing to grant an easement to the Hospital for the purpose of providing w E direct access between the Hospital property and South Frontage Road a in return for other bargained for consideration. 0 3 . Hospital is the fee owner of property as described on Exhibit A, attached hereto. 0.1 4 . Hotel is the fee owner of property as described on o Exhibit B, attached hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree: x w 0J 1. easement. « u a. Hotel will grant to the Hospital, by a .r separate express grant, on or before June 29, 1989, a perpetual mc.) easement and right of way in substantially the form of and as � ;. described in Exhibit C, which is attached to this Agreement and M ' f made a part hereof, (the "Easement") , for the purpose of providing pct.,► direct access to the Hospital 's property from South Frontage Road 5c and for the construction of a portion, of Hospital 's parking w structure. The Easement shall allow vehicular and pedestrian 0 access to the Hospital 's parking structure and property from South rgi R Frontage Road. a J . J b. Hospital shall pay all costs of surveying the G I Hotel property as necessary for the definition and description of the Easement under this Agreement and all documentary and recording CO F fees associated with the Easement. w & z c. If Hospital 's parking structure is destroyed in s for any reason to such an extent as to not allow use of the parking in• I spaces by the Hotel as provided in this Agreement, and the Hospital fails to commence rebuilding or the restoration of the use of the structure within twenty-four (24) months of the date ,of,./\N 11.. lf'i4.t Ci3: 6."90 14: 44 a 303 322 3872 Y 5 : H FC 07 destruction, this Agreement shall become null and void and the Easement granted in paragraph 1(a) hereof shall terminate. 2 . Approvals. Hospital will apply for and seek with all reasonable speed all governmental approvals necessary for the implementation of the Hospital's Project. 3 . parking Sjructur - East gnd. a. As part of its Project, Hospital will construct a parking structure at the east end of its property and on the Easement property. Such structure will have on its c) northwest corner direct pedestrian and vehicular access to the c' Hotel's existing grade level (elevation 8163 ' ) . The parking C? structure will have a staircase on its northwest corner permitting ti pedestrian access between levels. The parking structure will be designed and built through the use of temporary "knock-out" panels - to allow vehicular access between the Hotel ' s proposed parking structure and the Hospital ' s parking structure at the underground level at elevation 8153 ' . Hotel shall pay for all costs associated with the removal of the knock-out panels at elevation 8153 ' and the costs of tie-in, weather-seal and all other steps necessary to facilitate or construct access from the Hotel 's parking structure at elevations 8153 ' and 8163 ' . Hospital may build up to four (4) levels below Hotel 's existing grade level at elevation 8163 ' . Underground levels below elevation 8153 ' may be used for additional parking or other Hospital uses. b. Hospital shall pay the cost of constructing, lighting, paving and landscaping the parking structure and the access to the parking structure from South Frontage Road. All title to the parking structure and all improvements constructed by the Hospital on the land subject to the Easement shall be vested in the Hospital , and Hotel shall have no rights of ownership in such parking structure and improvements. Hospital shall have no rights of ownership in any land owned by the Hotel, except as set forth in the Easement. c. The parking structure will be constructed in general accordance with the schematic plans attached hereto as Exhibit F. d. Hospital shall pay the costs of operation, maintenance, snow removal and utilities for the new parking structure and access ramps to the structure. The Hospital shall maintain appropriate property, casualty and general liability insurance coverage on the parking structure and the Hotel shall be named or included as an additional insured on such policy or policies as its interest may appear. Hotel shall maintain appropriate property, casualty and general liability insurance coverage with respect to its property and operations. 405506 B-509 P-326 06/30/89 16116 PO 2 OF 22 2 • 03!28/80 14: 45 a 303 322 3872 V 5 & H PC 08 4. P a Spacea. a. Due to the loss to the Hotel of twenty parking spaces because of the grant of the Easement, Hospital will provide twenty (20) parking spaces for the use and purposes of the Hotel, its designated employees or guests 24 hours per day in the new east parking structure described above. The 20 spaces shall be located contiguously in such part of the structure as Hospital shall designate as long as such parking spaces are located on levels 8153 ' , 8163 ' or 8173 ' . Hotel may place, at its sole expense, directional signage and parking identification signage. The quantity, size, color, design and placement of such signage shall be subject to the prior approval of the Hospital. b. In addition to the twenty (20) spaces .r identified above, and upon completion by the Hotel of its next C-- expansion which requires additional parking, Hospital will provide 48 parking spaces in the new parking structure, subject to the conditions below, for the use and purposes of the Hotel, its designated employees or guests. c. The 48 parking spaces described in subparagraph (b) shall be provided only from the hours of 5: 30 p.m. until 6: 00 a.m. the following day, each day of the year. The parties agree that either Hospital or Hotel may seek an amendment of the Ordinance #7, Series of 1989 (Special Development District #14) of the Town of Vail governing Hotel 's Special Development District to provide that the 48 parking spaces described in subparagraph (b) shall be provided only from the hours of 5: 30 p.m. until 3: 00 a.m. the following day, each day of the year. Hotel hereby consents to such an amendment of such ordinance by the Town of Vail, Should the ordinance be so amended by the Town, this Agreement shall be amended automatically to conform thereto. d. The Hospital may require at its expense that access to all 68 spaces by the Hotel , its designated employees or guests, be by parking card, ticket, or other form of identification, authorization or validation, electronic or otherwise. e. The 48 parking spaces provided under subparagraph (b) may, at the Hospital ' s option, be designated spaces within the parking structure, or may be at any location within the parking structure as long as such parking spaces are located on levels 8153 ' , 8163 ' or 8173 ' . f. The parking spaces shall be used only for the parking of automobiles, motorcycles, light trucks or vans, and shall not be used for storage or for the parking of large trucks, buses, limousines, boats, trailers, recreational vehicles, or any other oversized vehicle. g. Hotel shall not be entitled to any further or additional consideration, compensation or payment if any parking spaces provided by Hospital under this Agreement are not used. 3 . 405506 8-509 P-386 06/30/89 16; 16 P3 3 OF 82 03/28/90 14:46 a 303 322 3872 Y S 6 H PC 09 h. Hotel shall not assign or convey the rights to use the parking spaces under this Agreement to any other person or entity; provided, however, that the rights to use the spaces subject to this Agreement may be assigned or conveyed to any purchaser or lessee of the Hotel or successor in interest to Hotel. i. Except as provided above, Hotel shall be solely responsible for the designation or authorization of all persons, including employees and guests who may use the parking spaces. Under no circumstances shall such persons be considered invitees, express or implied, of the Hospital. „x, j . When Hotel on-site parking is expanded to 193 spaces, the 20 spaces provided to the Hotel pursuant to paragraph 4 (a) of this Agreement shall be available for Hotel use each day from the hours of 5: 30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. the following day and shall be available for the Hospital 's use from 6 : 00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. daily. k. Hotel shall have the right to enter the eastend Parking structure for the purpose of accessing all parking spaces licensed to Hotel under this Agreement. 1. This Agreement, and the Easement granted pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be terminated by Hotel if Hospital, or any subsequent owner of Hospital 's property or the eastend parking structure fails to make available to the Hotel, its heris, successors or assigns, the parking spaces described in paragraph 4, as provided in this Agreement. Before termination of the Agreement and the Easement as provided in this subparagraph (1) , Hotel shall give to Hospital and to the record owner(s) of the Hospital ' s property and of the parking structure (if different from the Hospital) written notice of the failure to make parking spaces available as provided in this Agreement. Such notice shall be provided at lease 30 days in advance of the effective date of any such termination. 5. New Frontage Road Access; Staging Area. a. Hotel shall pay all costs of realignment of Hotel ' s eastern entrance drive as shown on Exhibit D. b. Hospital shall pay all costs of access to its parking structure from South Frontage Road. c. Hospital shall be permitted to use the portion of Hotel 's site not subject to the Easement as shown on Exhibit E, attached hereto, for construction staging, materials storage or other functions which are associated with and reasonably necessary for the construction of the parking structure and access ramp. Such area, as defined in the attached Exhibit E, which includes the 1 existing and proposed east Hotel entrance drive will be made available starting April 15 and must be returned to functional and 4 _ . 405506 8-509 P-3226 06/30/89 16116 PG 4 OF 2 I ' ■ 03/28/90 107 a 303 322 3872 1 Y S & H PC 10 finished form by November 15th of the same year. Throughout the construction process, vehicular access must be maintained to the existing lower level of Hotel ' s parking structure. The construction site will be enclosed by a painted plywood construction fence, minimum of 8 feet in height toward the Hotel and the Frontage Road. Hospital will provide signage directing Frontage Road traffic toward the Hotel 's existing north entrance. Both fence color and signage will be approved by Hotel, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld. d. Upon completion of construction, the Hospital shall regrade the Hotel site directly adjacent to the parking structure and generally return it to usable condition, including, without limitation, such rough grading as is necessary to return it to the original grade level, allow proper site drainage, and to allow the construction of pedestrian and vehicular access to the ramp at elevation 8163 ' . Hospital shall resurface such area with asphalt paving. The Hospital shall be responsible for restoration of existing landscaping on the Hotel site of all areas disturbed by the construction process and shall also be responsible for r,r completion and costs of the landscaping as required by the Town of C' Vail Design Review Board pursuant to the approval obtained by the Hospital. e. Hospital will coordinate with the Hotel so that any interruptions to the utility service of the Hotel necessitated by Hospital 's construction are minimized. 6. future Construction_ of Hospital . a. Future. Con.atruction. Any future construction by the Hospital shall be in conformity with the attached Exhibit F and the key thereto. b. $kywalks. Hospital may, as part of any buildout or expansion of its improvements, with the prior written consent of the Hotel , which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, construct a skywalk or other walkway between enclosed portions of the building. Any such skywalk or walkway shall be harmonious with the architecture of the building, shall not totally obstruct any view corridor created by the height limitations set forth in Exhibit F and the key attached thereto and shall be placed at the south side of the Hospital 's building. c. Helipad. Hospital may construct a helipad for emergency transportation use on Area F as shown on Exhibit F. The deck of the helipad will not exceed elevation 8216 ' . In the event a helipad is constructed, Hospital may also build a stairwell and an elevator shaft, which shall have a maximum height of 15 ' above the top of the roof or maximum elevation of 8223 ' . 403506 B-509 P-326 06/0/89 16; 16 PG 5 OF 22 5 • 1 03/28/90 14:48 a 303 322 3872 Y 5 & H PC 11 • 7. Outside Storage. All outside storage shall be screened from view from the Hotel. 8. Landacaping. __of. _surface Parking. Future surface parking on Hospital 's property shall comply with applicable requirements of the Town of Vail for internal landscaping. 9. Mechanical Svstemp. No mechanical equipment or equipment enclosure or screen shall exceed fifteen feet in height above the agreed upon roof elevations. The total area occupied by the rooftop mechanical equipment and enclosures shall not exceed ten percent of the related roof area. "Mechanical equipment" , for purposes of this Agreement, includes rooftop elevator equipment. Mechanical equipment shall be located at least 25 ' from the edge or parapet of the building. 10. .or.cementl _..Remad_ies. This Agreement may be enforced by an action for damages or specific performance, or both. V., Either party may file suit in any court of competent jurisdiction C4 to seek to enjoin any breach or threatened breach of this Agreement or for a declaration of its rights hereunder. Venue for such action shall be Eagle County, Colorado. 11. Time o/ the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. 12. .C 'verpinq Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado. 13. Severability. Any provision in this Agreement prohibited by the laws of the State of Colorado or the united States of America or held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be ineffective only to the extent of such provision without invalidating the remaining provisions of this Agreement. 14 . Complete Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete agreement of the parties hereto, and may not be changed or modified except by another agreement in writing executed by both parties. 15. Representations and Warranties. Each party represents and warrants to the other that it is duly empowered and has taken all steps necessary to execute this Agreement and that this Agreement is binding with respect to it. 16. Conditional Rescission of Agreement. a. If the Town of Vail fails or refuses to finally approve the Hospital 's Project by June 1, 1989, or if any governmental body with jurisdiction over any aspect of the Project, the Easement, or access from or to the south Frontage Road fails or refuses to grant any approval required to carry out the purposes of this Agreement, or imposes any oondition precedent to the granting of any approval which, in the opinion of Hospital, is onerous or unreasonable, or if J.R. Steadman, M.D. fails or refuses 405506 0-509 P-326 06/30/89 16: 16 PG 6 OF 22 • I 03/28/90 14: 48 Z 303 322 3872 Y S : H FC 12 5 to sign an agreement by Ap ril 30, 1989 committing him to relocate r� y his practice to Vail, or if, prior to the commencement of construction of this Project, any other person or entity with an interest in the Project imposes any condition to the construction or financing of the Project which, in the opinion of the Hospital, is onerous or unreasonable, Hospital may rescind this Agreement , and shall then take all steps necessary to release and term4 the Easement, and this Agreement shall become null and vc' b. At any time prior to completion of its Project, Hospital may elect to abandon the Project, provided Hotel has not commenced construction on any expansion of the Hotel. In the event of abandonment, Hospital shall give written notice thereof to Hotel, and as soon thereafter as practicable, shall take all steps necessary to release and terminate the Easement, shall restore the land subject to the Easement to its original state, or as close thereto as practicable, and this Agreement shall become null and void. c. If Hospital has not commenced construction of the parking structure contemplated by this Agreement by June 1, 1991, this Agreement shall be null and void and the parties shall o take all steps necessary to release and terminate the Easement, and to release and terminate any encumbrance created by this Agreement ti on any property. . a 17. Licepge. This Agreement is intended to grant to Hotel a perpetual limited license to park vehicles; nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to be or to have granted to Hotel any interest in the real property of the Hospital or improvements located on the Easement property. �+ 18. Taxes. Hotel shall pay all real property taxes and assessments, if any, imposed with respect to the land subject to the Easement. Hospital shall pay all taxes and assessments, if any, imposed with respect to the improvements built on the land subject to the Easement. 19. cg 412-t gr Q Ag Qement. This Agreement or a document signed by the parties reflecting certain covenants herein may be recorded, at the Hotel 's expense, in the office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. 20. Elevations. All references to elevations in this Agreement are to elevations above sea level, and are based upon the first floor of the Hospital being elevation 8, 147 ' 4" above sea 0 level. c 21. No Opposition. Hotel agrees not to oppose, object to, or delay in any way any future Hospital construction expansion if such expansion is in accordance with this Agreement. Hospital shall be entitled to an injunction or restraining order without necessity of bond in the event of a breach of this provision. 22. Eindng Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors and assigns. 7 • 1 03/28/90 1 4:4 9 $ 303 322 3872 Y S C H PC 13 • •23 . Vail National Bank . e<_ f Parking St •gt.}i, e. Hotel to acknowledges and consents to the Hospital constructing up to twelve '-' (12) additional parking spaces in the east end parking structure and licensing such additional spaces to Vail National Bank for consideration which includes the redesign of the Bank's westernmost access so as to facilitate joint access to South Frontage Road with Hospital 's parking structure. Such spaces may be located on land subject to the Easement. Such spaces shall be specifically assigned to Bank or VNB Building Corp. and shall not affect Hotel 's parking under this Agreement. 24 . notices. Any notice required to be given hereunder shall be deemed to have been given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed as follows, or if hand delivered to the person(s) and addresses below: If to Hospital : Vail Valley Medical Center 181 West Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81658 If to Vail Holdings: Vail Holdings o c/o American Credit Services, Inc. 201 East Broad Street Rochester, NY 14604 11 With a Copy to: Jay Peterson, Esq. P. 0. Box 3149 Vail, Colorado 82658-3149 BO or to such other addresses or person(s) as the parties may vt designate in writing. 25. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in N counterparts. m VAIL CLINIC, INC. , d/b/a VAIL HOLDINGS, a South VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER Carolina general partnership, By VAIL VALLEY HOLDING COMPANY, n cn a Colorado Corporation 61 as General Partner + /wL..4 i By: 0 Haro d . ` oonce President President 0 Board of Directors Date: (0) 7-41V9 Date: "AT3�$T,j'r ATTEST: Se =tam e T t y :fOR!O ACKNI EDGED BEFORE MS 29TH DAY OF JUNE 1989, BY HAROLD W. KOONCE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF VAIL ,' .� ^F.MO a y 't. c 8 CLINIC, INC. , D/B/A VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTr r .r� ot�gl ' J�ion expires ri1 119 ?-- rr�Iir:�+� • . • • • • 03,-28!90 14:50 a 303 322 3872 Y S & H PC 14 ( 23 . Vail_.1i$tional Bank Vag of Parking Structure. Hotel Pr acknowledges and consents to the Hospital constructing up to twelve =i (12) additional parking spaces in the east end parking structure and licensing such additional spaces to Vail National Bank for consideration which includes the redesign of the Bank's wAternmost access so as to facilitate joint access to South Frontage Road with Hospital 's parking structure. Such spaces may be located on land subject to the Easement. Such spaces shall be specifically assigned to Bank or VNB Building Corp. and shall not affect Hotel 's parking under this Agreement. 24. Notices. Any notice required to be given hereunder shall be deemed to have been given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed as follows, or if hand delivered to the person(s) and addresses below: cu If to Hospital: Vail Valley Medical Center 6 181 West Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81658 Q' CD If to Vail Holdings: Vail Holdings 4 c/o American Credit Services, Inc. 201 East Broad Street ., Rochester, NY 14604 With a Copy to: Jay Peterson, Esq. P. O. Box 3149 Vail , Colorado 82658-3149 or to such other addresses or person(s) as the parties may designate in writing. 25. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in tki counterparts. Q. VAIL CLINIC, INC. , d/b/a VAIL HOLDINGS, a South VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER Carolina general partnership, By VAIL VALLEY HOLDING COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation as General artner to N By: By: a 4 Harold W. Koonce 0.A. Pr ident President Board of Directors . .. 6 • I I. e Date: Date: ATTEST: ATTEST: ;4 1//, Secretary Secretary 8 03/28/90 Cl $ 303 322 3872 Y 8 & H Pi= 15 STATE OF f• 2 ) sa. COUNTY OF 1:174 ) The foregoing was subscribed and sworn to before me by the parson known to me to be , A /. 1/ - ; ; -_• • . - ton this 6297' day of (j4LrA , , 1989. of Vail Holdings, a South Carolina general partnerhip Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: ni of ,. /(790 Notar, Pub' o MONICA T. WILSON , ;r . «•'< '. IOW PUBLIC, State of N.Y. Monroe"C4. .+'''' OrrflMrslon ExRRea_ G•.i9 ^•..,.,. • OD t.s, X. w 405506 8-509 P- 326 06/30/89 16116 Pp 10 OF 22 2 • • • 03/28/90 oi E 303 322 3972 Y S & H PC ,,, 16 • ' . '*T.'ir';. LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A Hospital 's legal description Exhibit B Hotel 's legal description Exhibit C Easement Exhibit D Hotel 's access improvements Exhibit E Diagram of Hospital 's construction staging area Exhibit F General site plan rt, C2 405506 B-509 P--326 06/30/89 16: 16 P© 11 OF 22 9 i Now Yu, Stromberg, Huotari & Cleveland, P. C. Attorneys and Counselors at Law Frederick Y. Yu 3033 East First Avenue,Suite 700 Wallis S. Stromberg Cherry Creek National Bank Building Michael E.Huotari Denver, Colorado 80206 H.C. Cleveland, Ill Telephone (303)388-9311 Benjamin F. Gibbons Fax 1303)322-3872 April 3 , 1990 Mr. Peter Jamar Peter Jamar Associates Vail National Bank Building Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Vail Valley Medical Center/Doubletree Hotel Dear Peter: Thank you for your telephone call on April 2 , 1990. I hope that this letter will put to rest any misunderstandings that may have arisen over the past week concerning the Hospital ' s application for a conditional use permit to expand its parking structure. Based upon our conversation, it is my understanding that you now understand and acknowledge that the Hospital is not required to provide access from its parking structure to the Doubletree's proposed structure at elevation 8143 ' , but that you continue to be interested in exploring whether the Hospital will consider an amendment of its agreement with Vail Holdings to do so. I have conveyed your interest to the Hospital . You further acknowledge that it is not in the interest of the Doubletree to hold up the approval of the Hospital 's parking structure as presently proposed and that the Hospital has, to date, complied fully with its agreement with Vail Holdings. I have spoken today with Larry Eskwith, the Town Attorney. He tells me that it remains his position that the Doubletree, as the owner of the land underlying the easement granted to the Hospital, must also sign the Hospital ' s conditional use permit application. You have indicated to me that you do not see any reason not to sign the application on behalf of the Doubletree. The Hospital appreciates this, as it will enable the application to come before the Town Planning Commission for its approval soon. ,401, Nuoio Yu, Stromberg, Huotari & Cleveland, P C. Mr. Peter Jamar April 3, 1990 Page 2 If you have any further questions or comments, or if this letter does not accurately state our understanding at this time, please let me know immediately. Very truly yours, YU, STROMBERG, HUOTARI & CLEVELAND A Professional Corporation Frederick Y. Yu FYY:mkm cc: Ray McMahan Gerald Katzoff / Ms. Kristin Pritz, Town of Vail Jay Peterson, Esq. I 1 1 J ti \d --■___ _,. c r / f I , r - ' . .i iit 1 . ( .4 I .:- i `r i . . , \ • . / • --�.„, .,,, . . J,T ...- / . ........... , 1 / , . F 7 •(. • s � g p� �` 3 -g F �. r r� 1' Ti '.cp 0 Vi Cs j / 1 i 1 .r e '�1 i > Id / c r r 1 L . L1.7]...tr ...,..„......„ 1 r • . I / ■ k 1 . ...--- .-.- ....-.._ -- / / 1 1/4 ‘' / '1 4 1 1 / f f r F- P < ;-4 ; . V ? r i \ t-(`- r E \\ ! t_ 'T . 1 I /r: t .. _ _ _ _ ._— - — i __- - - - -► i ! i I I ► I it _ _ - - - - - _ i • ! , 1 ` -r- i I t-71 4 .... - , li 4) -N 1 \\\::\, k ii .i. i / Zi -e_, IP-E r_ t , sF , + f 2 S o ` p W 1T r1 0 1, k • -- D - I odd f fi' f . , C C IT , TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 9 , 1990 RE: A request for a conditional use permit to expand the proposed Parking Structure and to add a Learning Center Lab within the lowest level of the parking structure at the Vail Valley Medical Center located at 181 West Meadow Drive, Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The Vail Valley Medical Center is proposing to add two 1/2 levels to the previously approved parking structure on the northeast corner of the property. The north end of the structure is located on Doubletree property. The applicant states: Initially, one of the 1/2 levels would be used as parking providing 26 additional parking spaces. The second 1/2 level (elevation 8140) would be used as a Learning Center Lab. The facility (approximately 6500 square feet in size) will be staffed by six people who will coordinate and review the results of research activities conducted at various associated centers throughout the nation. In addition, a portion of the facility will focus on biomechanical studies of athletes as a means of avoiding injury, as well as assisting in quicker and fuller rehabilitation once an injury occurs. This will entail videotaping, measuring and study of physiological actions used in activities of skiing, throwing, kicking and running. Work will be conducted on tissues and cell cultures in a small portion of this facility, as it relates to these above activities. I would like to emphasize, however, that no live animal research will be conducted in this facility, or any other facility in Eagle County by Dr. Steadman. Parking Requirement: 6 employees 6 spaces Human Performance Gym 3 . 8 spaces (930 s. f. ) Study Lab (1530 s. f. ) 6. 4 spaces 16. 2 or 17 spaces Formula = S.F./15/8/2 = Required Parking (Same formula as used for conference space) The long range plan is to convert this bottom half level to parking, when needed to support future hospital growth. This conversion would provide an additional 46 parking spaces. The two new 1/2 levels would be constructed beneath the parking structure presently approved and would be entirely below grade. The above grade appearance of the parking structure is unchanged from the drawings and model previously reviewed and approved by the various Town boards. The expansion approved by the Town in 1989 has a total parking requirement of 278 spaces. 20 spaces must also be provided for the Doubletree Hotel per the parking agreement. This results in a total parking requirement of 298 spaces. The revised figures for total available parking on site are as follows: Available by Future Conversion November 1990 of Elevation 8135 Parking structure 204 spaces 250 spaces Surface parking 105 spaces 105 spaces Lot 10 18 spaces 18 spaces Total 327 spaces 373 spaces Available parking 327 spaces 373 spaces Doubletree parking - 20 spaces - 20 spaces Learning Center Lab - 17 spaces - 17 spaces Required for existing hospital and expansion - 278 spaces - 278 spaces Surplus 12 spaces 58 spaces II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18 . 60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. a. Parking Expansion: This proposal is extremely positive. Town boards and planning staff encouraged the hospital to plan viro for additional parking within the structure for any future expansions of the hospital facility. As long as the parking structure was being constructed, it was felt that it made good planning sense to provide as much parking at this location as possible. The Vail Valley Medical Center is furthering the development objectives of the Town by providing additional parking in an efficient and logical location that is easily accessible. b. Learning Center Lab: When the hospital expansion was approved last year, a condition of Council approval was that "any usage of live animals for research in the facility must go through a conditional use review. " Two representatives for the VVMC have stated in writing that "no live animal research will be conducted in this facility or any other facility in Eagle Co. by Dr. Steadman. " (Please see attached letters from Dan Feeney dated March 21, 1990 and Jay Peterson dated April 4 , 1990) . The lab is a type of use commonly associated with a medical facility. The description of the operation of the lab is a use which is certainly compatible with a hospital use and does not conflict with any development objective of the Town. In fact, the use is very positive for the community because of the emphasis on rehabilitation and research related to athletics. 2 . The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. a. Parking Expansion/Learning Center Lab: The appearance of the parking structure will be exactly the same as the approved plan and will not effect these criteria. 3 . Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control , access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. a. Parking Expansion/Learning Center Lab: Certainly some additional traffic will be generated due to the increased number of parking spaces. However, Colorado Division of Highways will not require additional improvements as all possible roadway improvements were required during the previous hospital approval . Staff discussed the proposal with Rich Perske from CDOH and no additional Frontage Road improvements were deemed necessary. The hospital 's structure will connect to the Doubletree parking at level +/- 8162 sq. ft. A break-out panel will be built at level +/- 8151 sq. ft. At this time, no connection or break out panel is proposed at the lowest level +/- 8140 sq. ft. For this reason, the Doubletree will need to construct a ramp to connect their lowest level of parking to the level above. This connection will be underground and is possible to construct according to the Doubletree' s architect. The owner of the Doubletree has also acknowledged that this connection will need to be built completely on Doubletree property. (Please see attached correspondence from Palm Aire Doubletree, Inc. dated April 4 , 1990 and sketch form Anthony Relechia Architects. ) In order to allow for the ramp, the Doubletree will need to submit a minor amendment to their Special Development District. Staff encourages the hospital to provide a break- out panel or connection at level 8140 (lowest level) to the Doubletree structure to allow for the possibility of shared parking. Even though a proposal to share parking would still require Town approval, it seems to be a lost opportunity to not allow for this possibility. t 4 . Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. a. Parking Expansion/Learning Center Lab: There will be no change in the mass and bulk of the parking structure as the additional floors are below grade. IV. FINDINGS The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be approved/denied based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends approval of the conditional use request. The proposed location for additional parking and Learning Center Lab is very complimentary to the overall master plan for the hospital site. There will be no negative impacts due to the additional floors of parking or the Learning Center Lab. In fact, the concept of providing additional parking beneath the approved parking structure is an efficient use of the hospital site. If possible, staff encourages the hospital to incorporate the break-out panel into the lowest level of the structure to allow for future access to the Doubletree Structure. The fact that the spaces are below grade will benefit the aesthetics of the site for the hospital as well as adjacent property owners. Staff would like to commend the Vail Valley Medical Center for making the extra effort to provide as much parking as possible in the location of the parking structure. This effort makes good planning sense for the hospital as well as for the entire community. OTTO, PETERSON & POST ATTORNEYS AT LAW VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING FREDERICK S.OTTO (303)476-0092 . POST OFFICE BOX 3149 JAY K PETERSON WILLIAM J. POST VAIL,COLORADO 81658-3149 FAX LINE WENDELL B.PORTERFIELD,JR. (303)479-0467 April 4, 1990 Kristan Pritz Town of Vail Vail, CO 81657 RE: Vail Valley Medical Center Conditional Use Application Dear Kristan: Pursuant to your request I have discussed the uses of the lower 1/2 level of the parking structure with the medical center. As stated in Mr. Feeney' s letter of March 21, 1990 the facility (approximately 6500 square feet in size) will be staffed by six people who will coordinate and review the results of research activities conducted at various associated centers throughout the nation. In addition, a portion of the facility will focus on biomechanical studies of athletes as a means of avoiding injury, as well as assisting in quicker and fuller rehabilitation once an injury occurs. This will entail videotaping, measuring and study of physiological actions used in activities of skiing, throwing, kicking and running. Work will be conducted on tissues and cell cultures in a small portion of this facility, as it relates to these above activities. I would like to emphasize, however, that no live animal research will be conducted in this facility, or any other facility in Eagle County by Dr. Steadman. On occasion, a portion of the facility will also be used for continuing education programs such as lectures, slide and video presentations. If further explanation or clarification is needed please call. Sincerely, I' •eterson JP:ne '1"°'4 vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 ' medical center Vail, Colorado 81657 (303)476-2451 21 March 1990 Kristen Pritz Senior Planner Town of Vail - Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail , CO 81657 Dear Kristen: In response to your question regarding the purpose of the Learning Center we propose to construct for Dr. Steadman in the lowest one-half level of the parking structure: As a surgeon whose innovative techniques are of wide-spread interest throughout the sports medicine community, Dr. Steadman is frequently visited by orthopedic surgeons from this country and abroad. The Learning Center will be a place where such visitors to Vail can review video tapes of past surgical procedures of particular significance, as well as live "feeds" of procedures in progress in the operating room at the moment. It will also be a facility where a full-time staff of six persons will coordinate and review the results of research activities being conducted at various associated centers throughout the nation. There will be several small rooms on-site where work will be conducted on tissues and cell cultures. However, Dr. Steadman stands by his previous commitment that he will conduct no live animal research in Eagle County. In addition, Dr. Steadman will use the Learning Center to develop and evaluate conditioning techniques with human subjects, as a means of avoiding injury, as well as assisting in quicker and fuller rehabilitation, once an injury occurs. Please call if I can provide any further clarification on our application for amendment to our Conditional Use Permit. • cer .mac Da ject ager DJH:bh cc: Ray McMahan Jay Peterson Ray McMahan Chief Executive Officer APR-04-1990 17:03 FROM •M-AIRE EXEC. OFFICE TO 9130 4790467 P.02 MEMORANDUM TO: TOWN OF VAIL/ATTN: KR/STAN PRITZ FROM: PALM AIRE DOUBLETREE, INC. DATE: APRIL 4 , 1990 RE: DOUBLETREE/VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER Dear Kristen: The following items have been Valley benag agreed Center: I. owners of the Doubletree Hotel and 1. That the undersigned is in agreement with the parking structure as designed and submitted to the Town of Vail, and that such structure is in compliance with the agreement between Vail Holdings and Vail clinic, Inc. , dated June 29 , 1989 . 2 . That the undersigned has no objection to a building permit being issued for the parking structure. 3 . That the access to lower level the Doubletree Hotel shall remain That the undersigned consents to the application of Vail Valley Medical Center and hereby waives any technical defect of notice as actual notice has been received by the undersigned. PALM AIRE DOUBLETREE, INC. ,•R . By: A . _-'._._ter,,. r )t 'on Bernstein RB:ne { TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 26, 1990 RE: A request for a conditional use permit to expand the proposed Vail Valley Medical Center Parking Structure, 181 West Meadow Drive, Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The Vail Valley Medical Center is proposing to add two 1/2 levels to the proposed parking structure on the northeast corner of the property. According to the applicant: Initially, one of the 1/2 levels would be used as parking providing 26 additional parking spaces. The second 1/2 level (elevation 8135) would be used temporarily as finished hospital space. Although conceptual plans are still being developed, and will be submitted to the Town at a later date, we envision this space will be used to provide a sports medicine educational center under the auspices of Dr. Steadman, as well as a maintenance/housekeeping shop. The long range plan is to convert this bottom half level to parking, when needed to support future hospital growth. This conversion would provide an additional 46 parking spaces. The two new 1/2 levels would be constructed beneath the parking structure presently approved and would be entirely below grade. The above grade appearance of the parking structure would be unchanged from the drawings and model previously reviewed and approved by the various Town bodies. The expansion approved by the Town in 1989 has a total parking requirement of 278 spaces. 20 spaces must also be provided for the Doubletree Hotel per the parking agreement. This results in a total parking requirement of 298 spaces. The revised figures for total available parking on site are as follows: Available by Future Conversion November 1990 of Elevation 8135 Parking structure 204 spaces 250 spaces Surface parking 104 spaces 104 spaces Lot 10 18 spaces 18 spaces Total 326 spaces 372 spaces Available parking 326 spaces 372 spaces Doubletree parking - 20 spaces - 20 spaces Total Net 306 spaces 352 spaces Required - 278 spaces - 278 spaces Surplus 28 spaces 68 spaces At this time, the hospital is not requesting an amendment to their conditional use approval for the Learning Center within the parking structure. This request will be reviewed separately by the Planning Commission at the April 9th meeting. Currently, the space proposed for the Learning Center is approved only as parking. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18 . 60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. This proposal is extremely positive. Town boards and planning staff encouraged the hospital to plan for additional parking within the structure for any future expansions of the hospital facility. As long as the parking structure was being constructed, it was felt that it made good planning sense to provide as much parking at this location as possible. The Vail Valley Medical Center is furthering the development objectives of the Town by providing additional parking in an efficient and logical location that is easily accessible. 2 . The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The appearance of the parking structure will be exactly the same as the approved plan. 3 . Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Certainly additional traffic will be generated due to the increased number of parking spaces. However, Colorado Division of Highways will not require additional improvements as all possible roadway improvements were required by the previous hospital approval . 4 . Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. There will be no change in the mass and bulk of the parking structure as the additional floors are below grade. IV. FINDINGS The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be approved/denied based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends approval of the conditional use request. The proposed location for additional parking is very complimentary to the overall master plan for the hospital site. There will be no negative impacts due to the additional floors of parking. In fact, the concept of providing additional parking beneath the approved parking structure is an efficient use of the hospital site. The fact that the spaces are below grade will benefit the aesthetics of the site for the hospital as well as adjacent property owners. Staff would like to commend the Vail Valley Medical Center for making the extra effort to provide as much parking as possible in the location of the parking structure. This effort makes good planning sense for the hospital as well as the entire community. vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 O medical center Colorado 45 (303)476--2451 1 9 March 1990 Kristen Pritz Senior Planner Town of Vail - Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail , CO 81657 Dear Kristen: Our agreement with the Doubletree Hotel owners anticipated that we might elect to construct one or more additional levels of structure below those approved by the PEC last year. The Doubletree' s prior concurrence with such a contigency was secured by its agreement with paragraph 3a , which states in part: "Hospital may build up to four (4) levels below Hotel 's existing grade level at elevation 8163 ' . Underground levels below elevation 8153' may be used for additional parking or other Hospital uses. " I have included a copy of this Agreement for your convenience. The sentences quoted above are highlighted on page 2 of this Agreement. Please call if you have any further questions. cerely, an F- '--"roject .n. •er DJF/bh Enclosure cc: Jay Peterson Ray McMahan Chief Executive Officer .. e., ft.. ....0 c o FY , %, . . .., ,. lhy, 1 ,.,,...t . _ AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is by and between Vail Holdings, a South Carolina general partnership, and Vail Clinic, Inc. , d/b/a Vail Valley Medical Center, 181 West Meadow Drive, Vail, Colorado and is dated as of June 29, 1989. • ,:j.';',.:-.;JY PREAMBLES 1. Vail Valley Medical Center (Hospital) has pro osed ''_.4"`•: to the To of Vail, Colorado to expand by constructing additional r Hospital facilities and a parking structure (the "Project") . As a condition of approval of the Hospital 's present expansion, the Town of Vail may require that the Hospital . to the Hospital 's present provide direct access property from the South Frontage Road. 2. Vail Holdings (Hotel) presently owns • pro between Hospital 's property and South Frontage Road, andris Willing to grant an easement to the Hospital for the purpose of providing direct access between the Hospital property and South Frontage Road in return for other bargained for consideration. 3 . Hospital is the fee owner of property as described on Exhibit A, attached hereto. 4 . Hotel is the fee owner of property as described on Exhibit B, attached hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree: 1. Easement. a. Hotel will grant to the Hospital, by a • separate express grant, on or before June 29, 1989 , a perpetual easement and right of way in substantially the form of and as described in Exhibit C, which is attached to this Agreement and . made a part hereof, (the "Easement") , for the purpose of providing direct access to the Hospital 's property from South Frontage Road and for the construction of a portion of Hospital 's parking structure. The Easement shall allow vehicular and pedestrian access to the Hospital 's parking structure and property from South Frontage Road. b. Hospital shall pay all costs of surveying the Hotel property as necessary for the definition and description of the Easement under this Agreement and all documentary and recording fees associated with the Easement. C. If Hospital 's parking structure is destroyed for any reason to such an extent as to not allow use of the parking spaces by the Hotel as provided in this Agreement, and the Hospital fails to commence rebuilding or the restoration of the use of the structure within twenty-four (24) months of the date of r, .t '. ?destruction, this Agreement shall become null and void and the Easement granted in paragraph 1(a) hereof shall terminate. 2. Approvals. Hospital will apply for and seek with all reasonable speed all governmental approvals necessary for the implementation of the Hospital 's Project. 3. Parking Structure - East End. • a. As part of its Project, Hospital will construct a parking structure at the east end of its property and on the Easement property. Such structure will have on its northwest corner direct pedestrian and vehicular access to the Hotel 's existing grade level (elevation 8163 ' ) . The arking structure will have a staircase on its northwest corner permitting • pedestrian access between levels. The parking structure will be designed and built through the use of temporary "knock-out" panels - to allow vehicular access between the Hotel 's proposed parking structure and the Hospital's parking structure at the underground level at elevation 8153 ' . Hotel shall pay for all costs associated with the removal of the knock-out panels at elevation 8153 ' and the costs of tie-in, weather-seal and all other steps necessary to facilitate or construct access from the Hotel 's parking structure at elevations 8153 ' and 8163 ' . Hospital may build up to four (4) ' levels below Hotel 's existing grade level at elevation 8163 ' . Underground levels below elevation 8153 ' may be used for additional parking or other Hospital uses. b. Hospital shall pay the cost of constructing, lighting, paving and landscaping the parking structure and the access to the parking structure from South Frontage Road. All title to the parking structure and all improvements constructed by the Hospital on the land subject to the Easement shall be vested in the Hospital, and Hotel shall have no rights of ownership in such parking structure and improvements. Hospital shall have no rights of ownership in any land owned by the Hotel, except as set forth in the Easement. c. The parking structure will be constructed in general accordance with the schematic plans attached hereto as Exhibit F. d. Hospital shall pay the costs of operation, maintenance, snow removal and utilities for the new parking • structure and access ramps to the structure. The Hospital shall maintain appropriate property, casualty and general liability insurance coverage on the parking structure and the Hotel shall be named or included as an additional insured on such policy or policies as its interest may appear. Hotel shall maintain appropriate property, casualty and general liability insurance coverage with respect to its property and operations. . _ 2 ,t n • 4. parking Spaces. • a. Due to the loss to the Hotel of twenty parking spaces because of the grant of the Easement, Hospital will provide twenty (20) parking spaces for the use and purposes of the Hotel, its designated employees or guests 24 hours per day in the new east parking structure described above. The 20 spaces shall be located contiguously in such part of the structure as Hospital shall designate as long as such parking spaces are located on levels 8153 ' , 8163 ' or 8173 ' . Hotel may place, at its sole expense, directional signage and parking identification signage. The quantity, size, color, design and placement of such signage shall be subject to the prior approval of the Hospital. b. In addition to the twenty (20) p s aces identified above, and upon completion by the Hotel of its next expansion which requires additional parking, Hospital will provide 48 parking spaces in the new parking structure, subject to the conditions below, for the use and purposes of the Hotel, its • designated employees or guests. • C. The 48 parking spaces described in subparagraph (b) shall be provided only from the hours of 5:30 p.m. until 6: 00 a.m. the following day, each day of the year. The parties agree that either Hospital or Hotel may seek an amendment of the Ordinance #7, Series of 1989 (Special Development District #14) of the Town of Vail governing Hotel 's Special Development District to provide that the 48 parking spaces described in subparagraph (b) shall be provided only from the hours of 5:30 p.m. until 3: 00 a.m. the following day, each day of the year. Hotel hereby consents to such an amendment of such ordinance by the Town of Vail, Should the ordinance be so amended by the Town, this Agreement shall be amended automatically to conform thereto. d. The Hospital may require at its expense that access to all 68 spaces by the Hotel, its designated employees or guests, be by parking card, ticket, or other form of identification, authorization or validation, electronic or otherwise. e. The 48 parking spaces provided under subparagraph (b) may, at the Hospital 's option, be designated spaces within the parking structure, or may be at any location within the parking structure as long as such parking spaces are located on levels 8153 ' , 8163 ' or 8173 ' . f. The parking spaces shall be used only for the parking of automobiles, motorcycles, light trucks or vans, and shall not be used for storage or for the parking of large trucks, buses, limousines, boats, trailers, recreational vehicles, or any other oversized vehicle. g. Hotel shall not be entitled to any further or additional consideration, compensation or payment spaces provided by Hospital under this Agreement are notyused. 3 • • 4 AItA 1.� ;� IA h. Hotel shall not assign or convey the rights to use the parking spaces under this Agreement to any other person or entity; provided, however, that the rights to use the spaces subject to this Agreement may be assigned or conveyed to any purchaser or lessee of the Hotel or successor in interest to Hotel. i. Except as provided above, Hotel shall be solely responsible for the designation or authorization of all persons, including employees and guests who may use the parking spaces. Under no circumstances shall such persons be considered invitees, express or implied, of the Hospital. j • When Hotel on-site parking is expanded to 193 spaces, the 20 spaces provided to the Hotel pursuant to paragraph 4 (a) of this Agreement shall be available for Hotel use each day from the hours of 5: 30 p.m. to 6: 00 a.m. the following day and shall be available for the Hospital 's use from 6 : 00 a.m. to 5: 30 p.m. daily. k. Hotel shall have the right to enter the eastend Parking Structure for the purpose of accessing all parking spaces licensed to Hotel under this Agreement. 1. This Agreement, and the Easement granted pursuant to paragraph i shall be terminated by Hotel if Hospital , or any subsequent owner of Hospital 's property or the eastend parking structure fails to make available to the Hotel, its heris, successors or assigns, the parking spaces described in paragraph 4, as provided in this Agreement. Before termination of the Agreement and the Easement as provided in this subparagraph (1) , Hotel shall give to Hospital and to the record owner(s) of the Hospital 's property and . of the parking structure (if different from the Hospital) written notice of the failure to make parking spaces available as provided in this Agreement. Such notice shall be provided at lease 30 days in advance of the effective date of any such termination. 5. New Fronta.e Road Access ' Stain. Area. a. Hotel shall pay all costs of realignment of Hotel 's eastern entrance drive as shown on Exhibit D. b. Hospital shall pay all costs of access to its parking structure from South Frontage Road. • C. Hospital shall be permitted to use the portion of Hotel ' s site not subject to the Easement as shown on Exhibit E, attached hereto, for construction staging, materials storage or other functions which are associated with and reasonably necessary for the construction of the parking structure and access ramp. Such area, as defined in the attached Exhibit E, which includes the existing and proposed east Hotel entrance drive will be made available starting April 15 and must be returned to functional and 4 / • 410 *MOO . 'finished form by November 15th of the same year. Throughout the construction process, vehicular access must be maintained to the existing lower level of Hotel 's parking structure. construction site will be enclosed by a ood d construction fence, minimum of 8 feet in height towarddthel Hotel and the Frontage Road. Hospital will provide signage directing Frontage Road traffic toward the Hotel 's existing north entrance. Both fence color and signage will be approved by Hotel, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld. • d. Upon completion of construction, the Hospital shall regrade the Hotel site directly adjacent to the parking structure and generally return it to usable condition, including, without limitation, such rough grading as is necessary to return it to the original grade level, allow proper site drainage, and to allow the construction of pedestrian and vehicular access to the ramp at elevation 8163 ' . Hospital shall resurface such area with asphalt paving. The Hospital shall be responsible for restoration of existing landscaping on the Hotel site of all areas disturbed by the construction process and shall also be responsible for completion and costs of the landscaping as required by the Town of Vail Design Review Board pursuant to the approval obtained by the Hospital. e. Hospital will coordinate with the Hotel so that any interruptions to the utility service of the Hotel necessitated by Hospital 's construction are minimized. 6. Future Construction of Hos ital. a. Future Construction. Any future construction by the Hospital shall be in conformity with the attached Exhibit F and the key thereto. b. Sk- yalks. Hospital may, as buildout or expansion of its improvements, with the part of any p consent of the Hotel, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, construct a skywalk or other walkway between enclosed portions of the building. Any such skalk harmonious with the architecture of the buil in or walkway shall be, shall not totally obstruct any view corridor created by the height limitations set forth in Exhibit F and the key attached thereto and shall be placed at the south side of the Hospital 's building. c. Helibad. Hospital may construct a helipad for emergency transportation use on Area F as shown on Exhibit F. The deck of the helipad will not exceed elevation 8216 ' . In the event a helipad is constructed, Hospital may also build a stairwell and an elevator shaft, which shall have a maximum height of 15 ' above the top of the roof or maximum elevation of 8223 ' . 5 J 7. Outside Storage. All outside storage shall be screened from view from the Hotel. 8. Landscaping of Surface Parking. Future surface parking on Hospital 's property shall comply with applicable requirements of the Town of Vail for internal landscaping. 9. Mechanical Systems. No mechanical equipment or equipment enclosure or screen shall exceed fifteen feet in height above the agreed upon roof elevations. The total area occupied by the rooftop mechanical equipment and enclosures shall not exceed ten percent of the related roof area. "Mechanical equipment", for purposes of this Agreement, includes rooftop elevator equipment. Mechanical equipment shall be located at least 25 ' from the edge or parapet of the building. 10. Enforcement; Remedies. enforced by an action for damages or specific perform ncet oraboth. Either party may file suit in any court of competent jurisdiction to seek to enjoin any breach or threatened breach of this Agreement or for a declaration of its rights hereunder. Venue for such action shall be Eagle County, Colorado. 11. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. 12. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado. 13 . Severability. Any provision in this Agreement prohibited by the laws of the State of Colorado or the United States of America or held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be ineffective only to the extent of such provision without invalidating the remaining provisions of this Agreement. 14 . Complete Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete agreement of the parties hereto, and may not be changed or modified except by another agreement in writing executed by both parties. 15. Representations and Warranties. Each represents and warrants to the other that it is duly empowered aand has taken all steps necessary to execute this Agreement and that this Agreement is binding with respect to it. 16. Conditional Rescission of Agreement. a. If the Town of Vail fails or refuses to finally approve the Hospital 's Project by June 1, 1989 , or if any governmental body with jurisdiction over any aspect of the Project, the Easement, or access from or to the South Frontage Road fails or refuses to grant any approval required to carry out the purposes of this Agreement, or imposes any condition precedent to the granting of any approval which, in the opinion of Hospital, is onerous or unreasonable, or if J.R. Steadman, M.D. fails or refuses 6 a. t a ti r to sign an agreement by April 30, 1989 committing him to relocate his practice to Vail, or if, prior to the commencement of construction of this Project, any other person or entity with an interest in the Project imposes any condition to the construction or financing of the Project which, in the opinion of the Hospital, is onerous or unreasonable, Hospital may rescind this Agreement, and shall then take all steps necessary to release and terminate the Easement, and this Agreement shall become null and void. b. At any time prior to completion of its Project, Hospital may elect to abandon the Project, provided Hotel has not commenced construction on any expansion of the Hotel. In the event of abandonment, Hospital shall give written notice thereof to Hotel, and as soon thereafter as practicable, shall take all steps necessary to release and terminate the Easement, shall restore the land subject to the Easement to its original state, or as close thereto as practicable, and this Agreement shall become null and void. C. If Hospital has not commenced construction of the parking structure contemplated by this Agreement by June 1, 1991, this Agreement shall be null and void and the parties shall take all steps necessary to release and terminate the Easement, and to release and terminate any encumbrance created by this Agreement on any property. 17. License. This Agreement is intended to grant to Hotel a perpetual limited license to park vehicles; nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to be or to have granted to Hotel any interest in the real property of the Hospital or improvements located on the Easement property. 18. Taxes. Hotel shall pay all real assessments, if an property taxes and the Easement, y, imposed with respect to the land subject to any, imposed wi hsrespecthtoltheyimprovements built onmthes, if subject to the. Easement. the land 19. Recordation of A reement. This Agreement or a document signed by the parties reflecting certain covenants herein may be recorded, at the Hotel 's expense, in the office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. 20. Elevations. All references to elevations in this Agreement are to elevations above sea level, and are based upon the first floor of the Hospital being elevation 8, 147 ' 4" above sea level. 21. No O osition. Hotel agrees not to oppose, object to, or delay in any way any future Hospital construction expansion if such expansion is in accordance with this Agreement. Hospital shall be entitled to an injunction or restraining order without necessity of bond in the event of a breach of this provision. 22. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors and assigns. 7 23 . Vail National Bank Use of Parking Structure. Hotel acknowledges and consents to the Hospital constructing up to twelve (12) additional parking spaces in the east end parking structure and licensing such additional spaces to Vail National Bank for consideration which includes the redesign of the Bank's westernmost access so as to facilitate joint access to South Frontage Road with Hospital's parking structure. Such spaces may be located on land subject to the Easement. Such spaces shall be specifically assigned to Bank or VNB Building Corp. and shall not affect Hotel 's parking under this Agreement. 24. Notices. Any notice required to be given hereunder shall be deemed to have been given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed as follows, or if hand delivered to the person(s) and addresses below: If to Hospital: Vail Valley Medical Center 181 West Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81658 • If to Vail Holdings: Vail Holdings c/o American Credit Services, Inc. 201 East Broad Street Rochester, NY 14604 With a Copy to: Jay Peterson, Esq. P. O. Box 3149 Vail, Colorado 82658-3149 or to such other addresses or person(s) as the parties may designate in writing. 25. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. VAIL CLINIC, INC. , d/b/a VAIL HOLDINGS, a South VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER Carolina general partnership, By VAIL VALLEY HOLDING COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation as General Partner Y �q By: Harold . Koonce President President Board of Directors Date: 6) 740 Date: ATTEST: ATTEST: 74' . , Sec tary Secretary Notary Public 8 My commission expires rg119 • • r •.• • 23 . Vail National Bank Use of Parking Structure. Hotel - acknowledges and consents to the Hospital constructing up to twelve (12) additional parking spaces in the east end parking structure and licensing such additional spaces to Vail National Bank for consideration which includes the redesign of the Bank's westernmost access so as to facilitate joint access to South Frontage Road with Hospital 's parking structure. Such spaces may be located on land subject to the Easement. Such spaces shall be specifically assigned to Bank or VNB Building Corp. and shall not affect Hotel 's parking under this Agreement. 24 . Notices. Any notice required to be given e shall be deemed to have been given when mailed by certified hereun return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed as follows, or if hand delivered to the person(s) and addresses below: If to Hospital: Vail Valley Medical Center 181 West Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81658 If to Vail Holdings: Vail Holdings c/o American Credit Services, Inc. 201 East Broad Street Rochester, NY 14604 With a Copy to: Jay Peterson, Esq. P. 0. Box 3149 Vail, Colorado 82658-3149 or to such other addresses or person(s) as the parties may designate in writing. 25. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. VAIL CLINIC, INC. , d/b/a VAIL HOLDINGS, a South VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER Carolina general partnership, By VAIL VALLEY HOLDING COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation as General artner By: Harold W. Koonce By: President vox -Pre Board of Directors Date: �� 41 9 1 7 Date: � ATTEST: ATTEST: / // Secretary Secretary 8 ♦ \•• Ime • STATE OFD pl.]) ss• COUNTY OF 17:0'2c-iftvt. • The foregoing was subs ibed and sworn to before me by the person known to me o be &Y ' day •of , '� - - •, - ton this ' 1989' of Vail Holdings, a South Witness my and and official seal. Carolina general partnership. My commission expires: ,leJi a9/ 19% ofttea Nota Public .tj MONICA T. WILSON 1• NOTARY PUBLIC, State of N.Y., Mdnior Co r ! I My Commission Expires 10-31''', f19qa. • • • • 2 • • LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A Hospital 's legal description Exhibit B Hotel 's legal description Exhibit C Easement Exhibit D Hotel's access improvements Exhibit E Diagram of Hospital 's construction staging area Exhibit F General site plan 9 • • • LEGAL DESCRIPTION • All of Lot E and Lot F, Amended Map of Sheet 1 or 2 of VAIL VILLAGE, SECOND FILING, according to the map thereof recorded in the office of Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder • • EXHIBIT A • r V ti Tag PREMISES l t P.!5 k%• :, GOT 2 �,r, '•`7+` r VAIG/L:OW511GAD SECOND fILI4G ;b*�,w t, ACCORDING TO THE •1;,..? PLAT RCCCRDED OCTOBER 1S, 197 ` PAGE 990 NS RECEPTION N0. :17680. 1 IN POOR 221 AT 4.0.f. ".' VT'y� TOW Of VAIL +�.' l CX:LPT 3,,, �� { CONDOMINIUM UNITS S-A. S-B, S-C, S-D, 5-t. 6•J1, 6-i, 4..C, 4•n, , : �..%' -• .,,: rR : Ile,.1 6•E• P. 6-G, 6■H, 6-!. 6-1, 7-A. 7-0, 7-C, 7-0, TCGCT>it■ MITI' AI_I. COMA CLemorrS VAIL INN i3ONDONINIUNB (fORAERLY TAL�RLICE •r,,, k CONECN I J I UM6) +;` " �G'�DIMar TO THE PLAT RECORDED NAY r✓ 29, 1974 IN 600K 234 AT 4AGC R ' • 172 AS RECEPTION NO 130778 AND THE F ; •. ;.; x s. FIRST ANL'NDNLNT RECONDCO 15, 1977 !�: cC 262 AT PAGE 327 AS RECEPTION so 1$444.2 +K'.. +' AND THE CONDOMINIUM [•eCL:.RATION OF VA ' !L INN COMDONINIONS AECOOAND i ; � MAY 29, 1974 IY KOOK 234 AT PAGE all As NZCLPTIJ0 N0. 103777, �` st{s• FIRST AMEKOM,KNT. RECORDED A"GUST 6. •974 IN &DOC 23S AT PAGE 1141 - At RECEPTION NO 131990 .IHD SECOND AKCNDNENT S •i� .'"'' 'glt1 NOVEMBER 15. 19'. 0 :N Roof 262 AT PACE 327 AS RECEPTION 117, `.�, . 154612, SUBJECT TO THE TERMS, t,;r` ,' ,�c ,"h CONDITIONS. RCSTRICTIOMB, AND ”.",.-}::• i% } ,ito .:;�!-�°: STIPULATIONS CONTAINED THEREIN. ' crt4 COUNTY Of EAGLE ��;".' `: ._, .r;; F `'' •. STATE Of COLORADO r'�r" • • EXHIBIT B • . . . • . • . . . . .• : . . . . . . • • • . ... . , , , • .,i. r • EASEMENT • This easement, dated June 29, 1989, is from Vail a South Carolina general partnershi ("Grantor") gs, Holdin Inc. , d/b/a Vail Valle P to Vail Clinic, corporation ") . Y Medical Center, a Texas non-profit ("Grantee Grantor, for and in consideration of the execution performance by Grantee of an agreement dated as of June 29 and and recorded in Book 29, 1989, Eagle County Clerk and Re OC raerage ---' ,yin the records of the Grantor and the Grantee, the sufficiency of which consideration) , by and between the hereby acknowledged, does hereb lon is exclusive, perpetual and irrevocable teasement convey andt right-of-way y over, across and through the real property described on Exhibit A ("Easement Property") , attached hereto and made a subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, and provided, . part hereof, further, that this easement and all rights hereunder are subject to the terms of the Agreement, b�ect purpose of constructing, This easement is granted for the structure, a vehicular and p an access slram vandirig t of-way, and to provide pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress between • South Frontage Road and the real f described on Exhibit B �� Property owned by the Grantee as made a part hereof. ("Grantee s Property") , attached hereto and The easement and right-of-way granted hereby shall run with the land and shall be appurtenant to Grantee 's ' transfer of legal title to Grantee 's Property shall automatically transfer this easement and right-of-way to o Grantee 's Property. Y the transferee of Grantor represents and warrants that it has full ower authority to grant this easement and right-of-way, ll- Y seized of the Easement Pro ert that is well- p rights in such easement and right of waY wa agans to Grantee all claiming under Grantor. aist all persons GRANTOR: VAIL HOLDINGS, a South Carolina general partnership By VAIL VALLEY HOLDING COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation, a General Partner BY: fr 1 vi o. - President • ATTEST: • • • • /r , i' // Secrethry 1 1 • 411 . • ■ • • STATE OF 02 ) COUNTY OF 1/ 1 ss. • • • per The foregoing was supscribefi d.,and sworn to before me by th day of L., 1989 . e mn known to me to be /J ic on this Witness my hand and official seal. bly commission expires: LgariO___- /4ro-21_ Notary. Public • MONICA T. WILSON NOTARY PUBLIC. State of N.Y.. Monroe c.; My Commission Expires/0:11_.192 • • . • • 2 • • .a, • • y • EXHIBIT "A" TO EASEMENT DATED JUNE 29, 1989 VAIL HOLDINGS BETWEEN A SOUTH CAROLINA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP AND VAIL CLINIC INC. , D/B/A VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, A TEXAS NON-PROFIT CORPORATION THAT PART OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, VAIL LIONSHEAD SECOND FILING, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 221 AT PAGE 990 IN THE OFFICE OF THE EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, CLERK AND RECORDER, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 2 , THENCE, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2 , NORTH 79 DEGREES 41 • MINUTES 13 SECONDS WEST 177 . 31 FEET; THENCETING SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 49 DEGREES 10 MINUTES , 00ESECONDS EAST 28. 72 FEET; THENCE NORTH 6 DEGREES 54 MINUTES 46 SECONDS EAST 50. 96 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 85 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST 53 .59 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE: 1. SOUTH 38 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 31 SECONDS EAST 21. 29 FEET 2. 103 .33 FEET ALONG THE .ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 469 . 30 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 53 SECONDS, AND A CHORD THAT BEARS SOUTH 54 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 06 SECONDS EAST 103 . 12 FEET; THENCE, EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2 , SOUTH 10 DEGREES 18AMINUTESE47 SECONDS WEST 20.42 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. . ) • • . , • • ice. ,.:I6 r • • S • RTTYLT2jj s All of Lot E and Lot F, Amended Map of Sheet 1 or 2 of VAIL VILLAGE, SECOND FILING, according to the map thereof recorded in the office of Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder • • • • • • • • • • • EXIIIBIT B to EASEMENT FROM Vail Holdings to Vail Clinic, Inc. • • • • • • • • • • • • #— —. vD� a '<'• 111\ \ • m�0� �o 111\ I \ O • ,�: in cn 1 \ fTl a0 :� {1 o \O • 1.1.' b. r. i • • ;y• ::ii TI { \ . •.'.`*•;•:; :.•:,::-.•'::::'"' '— ' a X11 O S \ •'�t t •• , , \�. \ •,• • - f ••••:.......1 ' ;, 1 . •••••;..:-.1•:',:-,31:.:•.%.,,:•••‘: ft Tf • \\ il :- • • .',;:',',.,..,.....-..,...:. _i • „its ';.• ,' ....'•-:.' Il . il • '1 i I .I -• ' . 0,-onci: ' ' ..- ,. .74..,...,1,4:4.,,.;/,...r..;.•• r: :"� '. . fn S'-1•' V . : i •. , .\. 1 �I I. Y .41/' • 1-�cu . ./..... ' C70 .>. I • :: ::a;:::::::::iiii : •fs* '..r'. r. .i;;;;I:.,4■i:: :.:•:Y.•.:',..;.:.i.11,•-,::,.:.;;Y:. ..•. -. .• •.- . f-n .r. . ..g...,::. 1 el :. ..... .14,7... •• ........•:: .: \. • •.:�: :;a;=: °; j Z-� >�::'.I Imo,--�� .; •.••7.4 '-•:• :a '• '= (11 Itl . 't' I I i 'r �+ :; •,'`•. I m >I: I I •it til ap: `. ,_.: I. ,i. �? 4 Y 1+) t. •1 ) p — CA ,ii: sue'• .l. ^!:':.f V y SY c ` 9 t -.•-••••••••••• A 1 1 t::i:: I� \ G \ ;;-. 1 1 .4 I f..:. 1 . \ • \ \%.,..e•r!..:•...i:f.•:•■:".: / .. .. •• •e U 16 1 14 1 16 >u 1/7 .. . ... . .A\t; 4 V s\P . < - •�s'«i_ •••; o-. �, O •. ` 1 t { ( .= r fir.• g.... ..;17::.4.4*-•%,:i1:'---* (i) X CI * \ : 1 \ -'-1 r.;..Y t \ .\...... at .: . •.. .- • :I".-'• •. lid::':, ^C / ■: \ N • .. .... _ i.•, A;-: ///111"' . . • c\\( /// • \\V \‘t %%% ‘‘% 3'M \ . , J., ( • % %t ■ ;a1.1•.):.i...?,.':).; //f// ' , '0 "7 tr . ■ % t ‘o_, ci / • ■ .., . . /' ,...... ..\-V9 , .\ , %. ‘ . %% %., • \ \P.'?4.zp . •••74.1a:-.4. "..-:'....1 . 1 . 0 0 w Ai' ar -,, .4. i 31.' * • S... t. 4. . ••■•• r--------,„ 1 ........, 1 .... 1.00;--1„.....„--;;; • 1 ,. ._.< • i el X CD 03 \-'.--.Z-■"...........Z.,:z.) '''.1\, \ -■••••... j) •••••••,..--- ::)....*.....).) P \• I . .......----____ z CO CD 03 00 rt = 1-6 : '..:'Nli.i.:.:;*;;.., ENNIO , - \.••.C. \ No..„„ti, 03 = 1 c ''..•\n•;',.:...,MOM. • ;',i'`.j ,, s:, I -- ,--7--Th 1 03 Ho M ..,:::x:„...,: .:,.,, ;,4.:,.;:s .:,. ... --- Pi Pi 03 I•• • M 013 " 03 03 rt .." 0 = n c. p 0,—, 0 M ..I.:*.s' ,; .••••'.ft...:',. i 11111, —... i I Ii , ,Fe--- 1 . .:;,,,, • !MTh .' '•- ;',;.; „ :: .:.: vi " t. ',../.. CI C 03 1 i •II ard .''‘....; .i,■;.: ;... ' L. 1 :1.1 m m E cr rt cu P PI 11 I- 1 il, am 4 ....i., i fif -Ao• , 1 1 . . m N.- o m t I I ' rt gb I I H. '..4 I il Al I /1.; , 1 ' ••• 1111111) s'. . I . 1 I ! la.---; / • ri01111"(-/ /4/i' ) .•• ..,•• ?..,..)., .,. . . N. . .a 1 ,;:: :11':::::::::::.,..,..,......: ' • , % // / // i •'. 1 --. ,:44..S4;:::..::-..:-:. ::.'::.. ' , /// •X /.... .. 4::7 r-:•:-:.:::::::::::•:•.•... •'::::::*::,. / r . / • ,%1 ., ,, '. ." _0 4I tz..) 311 . ,. . - • . ",;(..- ,..,:,..;;.-: : :::.::.!:.:,‘,....:.::.,.•:.:::.i. . :.iit:"g:::::::::::: .:::.:...:: ::::: :.,-'. :. b NIC) -- ----...f • . ,• i I ::t•t:::.:::•:q::::.6,e''''''"A:,:,-. "..:/....:.:•::..:.:::::!:.:::::::::::.:':•••• , :::. •,,,(.;•."::...::::::::-:.:47 ..,,::: ...,„...,,::...„:. . . ,,. ::::::::::::::::::•:• •;I/•:(•:: .::-:.,:: ::: •••;•:8..* ::..'.: ..;:..:.:.' % - ::1:i:.t:::.::::::. •:1/,-..::..:ri: :/. • , /i 11 . ::::.: :.. . :. .. •:.:::;r:.:•:•• .:-:p.. •)!•..::./::.? . ..., ...... ... ... < •:i::i:;:il::::;:;:...::::... fa) 1:::::::::::; .::::::::./:••,.. -1. — ,,:•:.:.:.: 7.71 ....________. ____,.,., , •• .-:. i i ... — i El ..1. / ar if . . ..: / 7,Z6 4. M8 • a • I < X . • .. / • t ' i • . = t 1 I , m (1) ,-. i ; • u) ,c) t 03 _v.., ..0 1 i'r j I rj--1 r-. . " i : .• . .. • ' \ \y) L\....) • / 1 ! ,� I ,I. \ 1 rCs.......:: • N. • . 2 0* • • ,sZ.. ,,..\,.....\.:„..- m / • a •.),... -. :« • "•.••:•.••••:•.....,......•••••:••..'. !: . ---1'Y �; • ...\..,.......::\.-. • i1*--"s".• 'filmi . ----I-Z. •fia:::::11•%':V;4S. '::-.*:::•::f.. ...1,,f , ,C222. .j ..........., / --,,I.;:..?:1i ii:ii.. ' / i / /......"..........s.''''' i . . �aL :'•:•:''''" :+ 411111 `�� ° I • . •-....,• IIII Illiplilll I r I • O �`�l . ••. •lij. ij•• :.i:1 ::Al( I J`• 1' I i 0 : I t : •. • . ; $if :: ::� •IIII 1 i = 1 I :•';':: . •1111 1 1i ._...... . . . . 1.. . . • 11111, P 4 I :51.: ; • s rt5 0 7:-All • stiilil U III I' , ; 1 �( /..„...4;t;.t .4.4,•••: :... 5..„.•..r;tit; r , 0 1:0;:c;::::.:5::... .).A..„: r.• .3 r M::: %t.::•.:;:i 1 I.11 •i III , 1 i•R ///•/it/Jib'':•% rr ::• ..; . ::3,r I 1 / /ffr. jr S ''. ' }� 'lli 1 1 I , p •) C" rt.•u,: {':t+`':f�y.�;. .{t.:v,.,:x;•:::;.ri�f': 1 11,1"/ _ /11 - ' ):0,6: i M • ••• •• .� :•:{::•: _? .. . .'''' 1111 I.-•d1 •''• IIIII I: p• 6 '1::-. ): 5h: ::: .'11111 QId-*. 1 ; i .�:`-... " ailftieigs.i;.-.....:.:.:.:. . • • II .........>., ,•:•:...:**46:ii• '**)**. '''''''. .** - #'..........:.. .." .11.... .....::::::-...:::-..-1-;-:1-:iii:i.::::::::: : ........ ..:: ::••• ..-..'....... .. . p- - ..-------7 Li g , ....\ ::::::::::..•,.:.:,:.,:r.:•,...i.::,::.,.::::.:::..:::::,;:::,:„.:.:. : .. tr �-••- , ? ,, / f d ---...,, INI: t i I. R al -- i tOwN ` N ` VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER 03 • _'' �: = ADDITION :sr FISHER, ` It-I VA1L COLORADO REECE Sr& JOHNSON o-1. il ARCHITECTS Di Ns ::•:,::; MASTER Pt AN u. cotoll..nr, • • KEY TO PLAN EXHIBIT F Area A: Area A, as designated in the Plan, is intended to serve as a landscaped buffer area between the Hotel property and future improvements upon Hospital property. Significant landscaping for the purposes of buffering both vehicles and buildings shall be added in this area and shall be phased in accordance with adjacent improvements upon the property. If and when a building of any type is constructed with Area B, the grade within Area A shall be brought to the same level as the adjacent grade upon Vail Holdings' property and continued at • the same grade or higher, if necessary, to the top level elevation of the north wall of the building. The purpose shall be to provide an "earth-sheltered" or buried effect of the north wall of the building. Area B: The elevation of any structure constructed with Area B shall not exceed 8155' . If such structure is a parking structure, the elevation of the parking deck will not exceed 8155 ' above sea level, not including screens or parapets. Area C: The elevation of any structure constructed within Area C shall not exceed 8165' if constructed as a parking garage, or 8178 ' if constructed as an office building, excluding mechanical equipment. Area D: The elevation of any structure within Area D shall not exceed 8208 ' . Area-E: Any structure within Area E shall not exceed 8178 ' that if Area F is built not to exceed 8194 ' , then Area E may dbe constructed not higher than 8194 ' . Area F: Any structure within Area F shall not exceed 8208 ' . If Area E is built to exceed 8178 ' , then the maximum height within Area F shall not exceed 8194 ' . 10 •q`. t• • t Area G: The elevation of any structure constructed within Area G shall not exceed 8173 ; with the structure sloping down from 8173 ' in the north portion of Area G to 8168 ' in the south portion. These elevation limits shall not include any covered stairway or elevator shaft at the top level of the structure. Area H: The elevation of any structure constructed within Area H shall not exceed 8178 ' , with the structure sloping down from 8178 ' in the south portion of Area H to 8173 ' in the north. Area I: Area I shall be landscaped by the Hospital at the time of construction of improvements to Area G and shall be in accordance with plans approved by the Hotel and the Town of Vail. Area J: Area J shall be utilized for landscaping, vehicular circulation, and the current ambulance surface ara pe. No improvements which increase the height of the current ambulance garage shall be permitted without consent of Vail Holdings. All surface parking shall comply with applicable Town of Vail regulations regarding interior landscaping. 11 .• PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the municipal code of the Town of Vail on April 9, 1990 at 3:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. Consideration of: 1. A request for an exterior alteration and a setback variance for the Lifthouse Lodge, located at Block 1, Tract C, Site C (555 East Lionshead Circle) Applicant: Lifthouse Condominium Association 2. A request for a final plat for a major subdivision and for SDD No. 22, a resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing No. 3. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais, Dauphinais-Moseley Construction. 3. A request for a side setback variance at Bighorn Terrace Unit #D-7, 4242 East Columbine Way. Applicant: Kathryn Benysh 4. A request for a major subdivision and for a major amendment to SDD No. 16 on a portion of Parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2 (The Valley - Phase III) Applicant: Brad and Susan Tjossem 5. A request for a conditional use for a Learning Center Lab in the lower level of the proposed parking structure at the Vail Valley Medical Center on Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing (181 West Meadow Drive) . Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center. 6. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 7 (The Marriott Mark) in order to add 57 timeshare units and 8 employee housing units. Applicant: Marriott Corporation. 7. A request for an exterior alteration, stream setback variance, view corridor amendment, site coverage variance, and conditional use for a deck enclosure and new outdoor patio for the Red Lion Building. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection in the Community Development Department office. Town of Vail Community Development Department Published in the Vail Trail on March 23, 1990. kMtNtKY MM✓.Y♦a ` '. W. A ! 0 cn , .f 1-7 "=z •` �.. O OH �f .,` A O ? O OcC ` "�J•\mss/ fs 4 L) O Hj U '° r c� J� 9 CL• `,l+ P O 4, 4 H g O �lt i C W 7 w r 4 4 C E a. 0 ) d v o a, w w R c AE v � o v = t 0 O O n '7.'6 PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the municipal code of the Town of Vail on April 9, 1990 at 3:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. Consideration of: 1. A request for an exterior alteration and a setback variance for the Lifthouse Lodge, located at Block 1, Tract C, Site C (555 East Lionshead Circle) Applicant: Lifthouse Condominium Association 2. A request for a final plat for a major subdivision and for SDD No. 22, a resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing No. 3. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais, Dauphinais-Moseley Construction. 3. A request for a side setback variance at Bighorn Terrace Unit #D-7, 4242 East Columbine Way. Applicant: Kathryn Benysh 4. A request for a major subdivision and for a major amendment to SDD No. 16 on a portion of Parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2 (The Valley - Phase III) Applicant: Brad and Susan Tjossem 5. A request for a conditional use for a Learning Center Lab in X/ the lower level of the proposed parking structure at the Vail Valley Medical Center on Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing (181 West Meadow Drive) . Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center. 6. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 7 (The Marriott Mark) in order to add 57 timeshare units and 8 employee housing units. Applicant: Marriott Corporation. 7. A request for an exterior alteration, stream setback variance, view corridor amendment, site coverage variance, and conditional use for a deck enclosure and new outdoor patio for the Red Lion Building. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection in the Community Development Department office. Town of Vail Community Development Department Published in the Vail Trail on March 23, 1990. • -, ..: ; ,.--,,- r` ,.. .- ••• o - ' , 4, —... 8iS 3 . C -°-2- -:, - 3 -,9 ; c . c :1) - (r' a -4 a ....c.. a s.... ,. • ,,‘\ -i. ! '.... . - ...-, :,...: ...-. gt. ;,. m ,•,, -, '--; --,- , cc '-`.g,.`-,•:-) %?....,-'. ;..... ,. .--.. , --- --. 1-3 ui t'- H tx1 cn s) 1-3 0 l'il r' ., i'_'_, ' ' :'".' a'•-• n 7d 0 I-1'J tiJ . , ' ''..; 7.• •-. , 5 ...... c ,— N, . '-'-' 2,-.'i■ - -.,',.•- I--■ - , ••• ■._:',.. ,^ . ',. ' ,,: ■•■- ' -, :1...... .:-, .......„ - ' . ,. . .7. .,. . - -....... ....• •••• . ' :,•:: = ;,. ... - . ''.-'-.,,,- .- .---.- ' •- '-- ' . ,.. ,„.-, . ..., _ ,- . '''. _ P 411 110 • PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the municipal code of the Town of Vail on April 9, 1990 at 3:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. Consideration of: 1. A request for an exterior alteration and a setback variance for the Lifthouse Lodge, located at Block 1, Tract C, Site C (555 East Lionshead Circle) Applicant: Lifthouse Condominium Association 2. A request for a final plat for a major subdivision and for SDD No. 22, a resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing No. 3. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais, Dauphinais-Moseley Construction. 3. A request for a side setback variance at Bighorn Terrace Unit #D-7, 4242 East Columbine Way. Applicant: Kathryn Benysh 4. A request for a major subdivision and for a major amendment to SDD No. 16 on a portion of Parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2 (The Valley - Phase III) Applicant: Brad and Susan Tjossem 5. A request for a conditional use for a Learning Center Lab in X/ the lower level of the proposed parking structure at the Vail Valley Medical Center on Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing (181 West Meadow Drive) . Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center. 6. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 7 (The Marriott Mark) in order to add 57 timeshare units and 8 employee housing units. Applicant: Marriott Corporation. 7. A request for an exterior alteration, stream setback variance, view corridor amendment, site coverage variance, and conditional use for a deck enclosure and new outdoor patio for the Red Lion Building. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection in the Community Development Department office. Town of Vail Community Development Department Published in the Vail Trail on March 23, 1990. • i - i l- ),1 4 ii ti'tr� t ..... ,, O Lrl a' o U 'iii ° H iml H H it ? < < NA a..../ W' 1-l W PO a O: A H W C7 W W zaz� cn EI W -- �. r; cn A H E� ; r(� , OOH- �`> !} 1 , i ■ v C d a E g. ?5 O N T 'ev of . L 0.F J S o • 2nd Revision PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18. 66.060 of the municipal code of the Town of Vail on March 19, 1990 at 3:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. Consideration of: 1. A request for an exterior alteration, stream setback variance, view corridor amendment, site coverage variance, and conditional use for a deck enclosure and new outdoor patio for the Red Lion Building. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties 2. A Work Session on Air Quality 3 . A request for a side setback variance for Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village Sixth Filing. Applicant: Clinton G. Ames, Jr. 4. A request for a conditional use permit to expand a proposed parking structure for the Vail Valley Medical Center on Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing at 181 West Meadow Drive. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center 5. A request for a Special Development District for the Garden of the Gods on Lot K, Block 5, Vail Village Fifth Filing at 365 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Garden of the Gods, Mrs. A.G. Hill Family The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection in the Community Development Department office. Town of Vail Community Development Department Published in the Vail Trail on March 2, 1990. • - , ',", • . , . • ; • '' '1":.2-=-• l / :,+, -:.'N ...-'•' -,. 0 "'I' Lrl • %.C) r-- ' ( I' ) ci) ! - ,....,■ . _ .......:,.. ,,... - , , , r ...), :=.' '--• I,.... (....1 ...•' 11 - ;.1 -:: -T-i , c3 , i k,...,;-. 0 .4 ., ^ r..... , L ) W -., ., , = O r-4N,-, r---- : '_'.) ‘-''' 7.-• (..D • ....... ' . , , -) 1--- ri - E- ti -( () cd !- t.'--1 • CI) (i) 0 ,,, E-1 4-1 ., ■1.1.: '-2.- '.----' a) C/3 -) .."'. 0 0 C) 0 0 —1-- '-, L, '''..% c,3 .-...... `. !_i_- .. „.„., ,.. '.'•' __ -,, ,,.. .. .. , --',... ..- ,,...,.., ,. . 0 . __ ' .,.•.-n- :.,- . . ,..„, ,,- CIS .... -- • =. . . : 2 r- c , ._), ,:_.._ ...-- 4 .c—a I f i '.:',.--i-: 1,_-., m . , . ,._,_ ___ =- .,7, is _---. — -, ._ --;:1:,.:- ,-__.1._ 1__ . , .... ,_ , 1=3 6 _go i 0 -,....< Lii = a) „.. 6-1 u I !_l_ LJ..1 CC to ....- :.= 1.— 45.'5 , - .:f , .,, „` a ..ii, i 0 .,2nd Revision PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the municipal code of the Town of Vail on March 19, 1990 at 3 : 00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. Consideration of: 1. A request for an exterior alteration, stream setback variance, view corridor amendment, site coverage variance, and conditional use for a deck enclosure and new outdoor patio for the Red Lion Building. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties 2 . A Work Session on Air Quality 3 . A request for a side setback variance for Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village Sixth Filing. Applicant: Clinton G. Ames, Jr. 4. A request for a conditional use permit to expand a proposed parking structure for the Vail Valley Medical Center on Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing at 181 West Meadow Drive. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center 5. A request for a Special Development District for the Garden of the Gods on Lot K, Block 5, Vail Village Fifth Filing at 365 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Garden of the Gods, Mrs. A.G. Hill Family The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection in the Community Development Department office. Town of Vail Community Development Department Published in the Vail Trail on March 2, 1990. • w Yrrra YX ry:�,?. �'� i 0 b cg --.------.......:.._"*".".: --.,_,..,......,',.:-.. , ,,, . .-.-,,. - :,., , ' , ,=':':! ''''' w � o P4 orilrai b OEq,� c � A C c ° 7 1 ..''''',,-'.. , ' ,, ' '' -".., ' ' c I I W i h ac-o m C t'+O n cc,• _ w E E W e Vw W Cl c C t p O ...h p tV a.r ''3 A ! 'O '-.T.T '"0" ,P) 2n4 Revision • PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the municipal code of the Town of Vail on March 19, 1990 at 3:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. Consideration of: 1. A request for an exterior alteration, stream setback variance, view corridor amendment, site coverage variance, and conditional use for a deck enclosure and new outdoor patio for the Red Lion Building. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties 2. A Work Session on Air Quality 3 . A request for a side setback variance for Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village Sixth Filing. Applicant: Clinton G. Ames, Jr. 4. A request for a conditional use permit to expand a proposed parking structure for the Vail Valley Medical Center on Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing at 181 West Meadow Drive. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center 5. A request for a Special Development District for the Garden of the Gods on Lot K, Block 5, Vail Village Fifth Filing at 365 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Garden of the Gods, Mrs. A.G. Hill Family The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection in the Community Development Department office. Town of Vail as Community Development Department Published in the Vail Trail on March 2, 1990. 0 $.4 w v b C/3 H .+ a ., 0 ; U ca 4 1.+ O i . 'C P O , r -7 Rr cd O 00 ,.:- cd D, F in• 0 U ' g bo av cd o P x H W O -i • H bD Z LP1 W /6 A p(L 7 .c4 i ` C E a 0 2. m co ul 2 *m W o E ` •= - cv° o 4 w ._F eo t ° o C C V V ti BC w = in To J ` LAW OFFICES COSGRIFF, DUNN & ABPLANALP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING PETER COSGRIFF IN LEADVILLE: JOHN W. DUNN SUITE 300 COSGRIFF, DUNN & BERRY ARTHUR A.ABPLANALP,JR. P. 0. Box 2299 P. 0.BOX II TIMOTHY H. BERRY VAIL,COLORADO 81658 LEADVILLE,COLORADO 80461 ALLEN C.CHRISTENSEN TERRI S. DIEM 17191 486-1885 TELEPHONE:(303)476-7552 TELECOPIER:(303)476-4765 February 17 , 1989 Ms . Kristan Pritz Town of Vail 75 S . Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Kristan: As you are aware, I represent Vail Inn, Inc. , the association of owners of the nineteen condominiums located on the fifth and sixth floors of the Doubletree Inn. This letter is written on behalf of Vail Inn, Inc. to object to the master plan presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission by the Vail Valley Medical Center. It is the view of Vail Inn that addition of a fourth floor to the Medical Center would create a building having a scale and bulk entirely inconsistent with the character of the area. We note that recommendations have been made by staff to mitigate the impact of the building on its southern aspect by terracing or setting back the fourth floor. It seems to us that the concerns of Vail Inn owners , who look at the building from the north, have not been similarly considered. While a master plan is probably not binding on future development, approval of it certainly suggests a disposition on the part of the Commission to allow future use of the property in accordance with its guidelines . We therefore urge its disapproval by the Commission. Yours very truly, COSGRIFF, DUNN & ABPLANALP Jo n W. Dunn JWD:kem cc: Mr. Petracca Mr. Jamar Mr. Peterson THE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION IS DUNN & ABPLANALP, P.C.IN VAIL. I - . \ . 111111w Nur It. • I �•,L� x` N �' °� 9'a ,..,..,-t.;:- Y-t a T i ,Y r 4�' t••H ,4 i^-.. A- fiA��' o.!+W. ..a Y'``Y'! ,...%•,.=4,,,Srlp•c'• i"�r.m �X"v"4�.� i.' Y .�„ 14, a r rT 74%;4-.--.,...k.,0, .4;''''''. Y1 y* es r 4, � v t r'' . ` F r +� ..t•- : .> tt .Aj .^ —'w ; -Ly ' .c •'` .a,y �R#4 { ? y'r�°. ;f ,..-1.'4 • ,--•;i. s.. � 7t ,, I4� ` ,, . `; - ' tt "vi.-(2) 1 '- `'" 47-4x.•„ ,. dr , ` i'ik r3 ohn obson .„, ,, „a 4 -+ ms e f ' ! • ..`'A 0 ‘, A. x (Yzarmigan �I K � ' l �F, ` = ,s T- �; ' 0 'V/at of ado 8/657 ` x >. ” r f,;� ,^ 1 � � l'•7' s±: ' '� e �C ' ':, ,r.a': t ]. '}a4 r ' � it ."T 1.+a Jf ° ,,44r�-• .-� _ F E- a at t•.s' t, ' f ! r, � _ y,� C Y4w. ,'�,l v ..t sue' +s v,r0K� JJ A St 7; 0, •j. 'L.-+f r!:{' t � _ .} - AT. 2 ' , •t N' ,"'•4:.1, , ti ,•+.! rn r r • ,q { -05. •, k Y ;W� l � ^� 4� �� ,� 1y• ° "amit iy s Tr.7 w � �s Few �i r�� :y y< 1��yv'el r °3•" ;r ;,,,..„'X' (� 4 v -s� -�- c - ' i,!CtS F'a 'F« - . r , 1'� `cv`�rshXy r `L / �w s tt, r '",{ a�t• 7 ^b r a T`'. 4 .' • .. ti ,:,;,, l :.V " r , s ,aa r * c . eGM`' `! "�� '''t--',"� >•L. ,,day,,.y,...,. v. .mow - r 4 `-?`':r`{”' ° fir.•-i'f'-', 7 ,- _. •3 .r _' ti's' i N a. : '-1!: -,' '' 9 < . a a� 4� .ab'. e:,„ r ' �•,j� p...:-A�'�,wi,..� a �; ,,,r`'�`�>�s;r5��a�ys ti - iII V . cr0,:a `'<a' r. + Pl r ,*t a.,r X414 4 7�J \ . ?; +, -.•,,._-.4.y.„, - Vr - �74' t B� i'.i'�� " i C i�< -•. ''4-r .a ,aa , x art !la�' 4 a�k'"' ''.•="'•�•.t' !` l ` ` :4 *"°'• -- rAii.R+�k4 . 4.. 71 ., Alf.44 .• c`..*t ..S_ .,vb a":• . .'0.•-�. +a < fie. vs. .../. _,OtSr - -r, = r �'L ' v ' ; ' J' tl+- N. �YV, �1�Xi 9 X, a 4.V x a ♦ a 4T a 4R t� Y' '..,All.... +.:.M IS y ��} Tif i_:•< a La,,r +-< a �+5 ..r`� I �f�f k .�5' .,/c. a / wv • gt-''71 .r t- ?Y r�r .r'. � .•e •a'yAy t .ikok4,4 "�� `" g'�4rL+ VA4t, yi.iti ¢nt .' . ,,,,,, • ',•P a A ,Pk., 'e ._.. Y. ?7� -�; .. , , T''.."'4-"` .-i•' '• e f t . - S• o 3 trA te • }, v .z7 f '''‘''4'"• . '{may.v.4 '1 .. ;A: -1f:.lfli3i" !t'r .t `� �+ 1_ 6 a.rrs a 71.• , a.a{,rty,.a-*r.3r •%r z 4/ 't,. ■'] `•C"f fir` '' JAMES E. HOMAN 5230 Lakeshore Drive Littleton, Colorado 80123 (303) 795-6718 November 14, 1988 Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Vail ,CO . 81658 RE : Proposal to Further Enlarge the Vail Medical Facility Dear Members of the Planning Commission : - The undersigned are owners of property interests at 252 W . Meadow Drive . As such, we strongly object to the current proposal to further expand the Vail hospital. Indeed, the recently completed expansion was of itself a serious mistake and there should be no effort to only aggravate the situation . West Meadow Drive is already a bottlenecked dead- end from a traffic and congestion standpoint with an almost endless parade of pedestrians, cyclists, and automobiles . It is , in fact, a place where many accidents may be expected to happen , particularly if the situation is allowed to worsen . The hospital expansion proposal would certainly be most detrimental to the health, safety, and welfiq pf Vail Village as a mountain ski and resort area/conditions of this nature are not to be expected, much less tolerated . Even if Vail were a Boston or Manhattan , it is unlikely that a proposal of this nature would be acceptable to zoning and traffic planners . City planners would no doubt be horrified with the thought that , within a small one or two block radius, there would be an expanding hospital in such close proximity to a public library, a fire station , a sports/ entertainment public arena, two major hotels , office and other buildings , private residences , etc . . . .all accessed by a street that serves a combination of footpath, cyclg trail, and roadway for all kinds of vehicular traffic . It would seem to be the responsibilty of town planners to create and maintain a safer and more pleasant environment in keening with the concepts of the original town planners . Very Truly Yours,_ cc : Vail Town r!�,,,,„ , �c-�. X11.•- . .. j .(1,6 Mr. Peter Patten 1 A. Planning Director Town of Vail Vail, CO 81658 Dear Mr. Patten: This letter is to protest the proposed expansion of the Vail Hospital on West Meadow Drive and the construction of a 55, 000 square foot parking garage. 1. Traffic on West Meadow Drive where we live is already creating a major hazard to pedestrians who naturally like to stroll on the board roadway. All we need is more ambulances and sirens to add to the excitement. 2 . Recent newspapers and periodicals are filled with stories about the glut of empty hospital beds, and the closing of medical facilities in small rural towns. Has the need for more hospital beds in Vail really been proven? Why should everyone from the region need to drive all the way to Vail. Why not a branch facility in another town in Eagle or Summit County? 3 . At a recent meeting it was suggested that Vail hospital could become the Mayo Clinic of the Rockies. I suggest that expansion of the hospital could further erode our swiss village atmosphere by becoming the Denver General Hospital of Vail. The original clinic was designed to assist the full-time residents of Vail and treat the injuries of our visiting skiers. It does the job admirably. Do we really need a research center or is this just item #1 on someone' s "medical wish list"? Let's stop this project before it gets out of control. Yours truly, _ Charles and Jane Martz 252 West Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81658 CC: Vail Town Council Vail Trail Vail Daily S HARRISON F. KEPNER 5161 JUNIPER ROAD • LITTLETON.COLORADO 80123 October 1 , 1988 Town of Vail Town Planning Director Vail Colorado , 81658 Attention : Mr . Peter Patten Dear Mr . Patten , This is to protest any further hospital expansion or increased traffic along West Meadow Drive . I have lived on this street for twenty-five years (Skaal Hus Condominiums and private home on 252 W. Meadow drive) , which means starting there before there were any other buildings on the street . As you know, the hospital land was originally zoned residential , and we helped re-zone it to allow a small hospital/clinic for the good of the Town of Vail . Additions since have gone way beyond the original scope and "promises" to the then property owners nearby . Traffic is now such that tourists walking between main Vail and Lionshead are severely bothered . This is the only stretch between these Town centers that is open for general traffic , and is certainly a negative tourist attraction for our beautiful Town . A seperate entrance for current hospital traffic would be in our best interest to promote Vail as a "walking" village . Your kindness is considering these concerns will be most appreciated . Sincerely , Hal Ken CC: Vail Town Council • • September 23, 1988 Town of Vail Town Planning Director Vail, Colorado, 81658 Attention: Mr. Peter Patten: Dear Sr.i Patten: This letter is in regard to an article in the Vail Trail concerning a proposal by Dan Feeney to increase the size of the Vail Hospital on West Meadow Drive. We live at 252 West Meadow Drive which is directly across from the hospital and we oppose any expansion of the present building. When the original Vail Clinic (as it was once known) was proposed, the home owners on West Meadow Drive were asked to approve a zoning change in order to construct a small clinic and everyone cooperated when told that it was going to remain small and local. We opposed the recently completed expansion which was bad enough, but this new proposal is ridiculous: The building is becoming a monster without giving any consideration to the neighbors on West Meadow Drive. The street has historically been a walking, jogging, & bicycle environment and., we have already witnessed a great deal more traffic since the recent addition and we think it is time to stop any further expansion of the hospital. Vail is not the only location available in Summit and Eagle counties to construct a hospital and we protest any plan to expand the present facility in Vail. I suggest that the Planning Commission spend more time on beautification and establishing more green belts than trying to make a Denver out of Vail. Yours very truly, Wendell & Arlene aley 252 West Meadow Drive cc: Vail Trail Vail, Colorado 81658 Diana Donovan Vail Town Council Mery Lapin ,..... • 41111111e IMO • O.' . . . WE THE UNDERSIGNED. REPRESENTING THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ON WEST • . MEADOW DRIVE FROM THE FIRE STATION TO THE LIBRARY REQUEST THE FOLLOWING FROM THE TOWN COUNCIL: TO HAVE THE HOSPITAL CHANGE IT'S ENTRANCE FROM WEST MEADOW • TO THE SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD. THERE PRESENTLY EXIST A DANGEROUS SITUATION WHICH WILL ONLY WORSEN WITH THE HOSPITAL EXPANSION. AS THE DEMAND FOR THE HOSPITAL HAS AND WILL INCREASE THERE IS A GREATER CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PEDESTRIAN AND CAR TRAFFIC. THIS IS PARTICULARY DANGERIOUS BECAUSE OF THE INCREASE UTILIZATION OF THE LIBRARY AND ICE ARENA BY CHILDREN. NAME ADDRESS -I v1,: • 1 el 1 1 ‘. . ___________...... ____............._ le .g...; .__6:0,2______ a,e--...._at, . 1 WA"' 7/2201-Ita( ......,......4-AS.............•L 4 r._. _ ..../.. ."-_1_,... . . . . .... _ .........,................._.,..../... ./....,...1...4.../____ ,0_16-1.--1/.....Dhr:-. ---i.---....• •. - . ' =.,.,:cit..........a„................,.............. __.. z,..)..., _ _ . c21: • -' ........••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••,•••-•••• •■■••••••"-e,••LAD--••••■- •0.4.,4••r••■•••••412... .rwar•c•cm-mmwssar '.. ..•. - -1..-.-,....,.,-.....-.11.• .1_ ._W .1..V1/LiLeaCZ.‹)49-A....,,,....„•, _.... f.55/0/ ttreriii A 1 1 t . e • 4/11.6V/ '0 t c t.■ .), ....,...______,......,.....,..... .,.......___-....,,_......,_....,.. _ ..., _______...____.._._.._.....________............_ ./LAIL _..- -.........._._. -......`,...--. _ --. . . . ..,_ .....-----. 7 4 job ■ '' /g2- ------- ----. ..--I-----."- .•-.------,--,-,--,-.-----,-..,.‘m- - -...--- 1--- - . , 7 •,"....,s•71,•1•1,1...r.....7.4- •...1 49: i/V ,-- , ---.7■ , . i lidO,ZZ• L4<:LIY ,...■ - •-••-....-.-'r'.-..2••••• '. 2'.••••...2•22,2,22,-21.22,....1 a nr.”.t MwectwaS(1,..rrae.1,16 VIV.113....S.-.•Jr-ftr,.•■••-...sr•ts..-...•■■•.f....•a.e...•■..1.6.r•2 2....--/-•,...2.22.27%.112 2.2•,• . ■14, -Al.•,.,r-,—,r,e.r.r.,-,..,,...__•••,n,4,...,,.,_ - .. Vs,- •-•-•••••••-•••••e• ne.....12•••22-1,126,121/1• ••••■•••-•••■•••••■•=ar•ItrA•2•ON, . . - . •-•s•-•.2.•s....2.•-•-.222, -Tr,2•2 el,2.7.•.,■-••■-...,.....,••,,ra,...A.•-.-.A.Ft•-,/-tow-447,,,••.),/,.r..-Z,C.,"-.-7,:l t Li-.,--7,'—^..",...--..,-...--••-••••--+-,----•-•---••■••■.--•■■•••••••••-•c .••••••■•■••■■■•••• •-•••••■'2••••••••••••••2,..-922.2-,••2••za••••••-•....•owe......................"..”....22,2.2.22.,.......,22.•,.•..r••,..•-._-.•v7.•o al•.2,V.-2.,■••11•....-••••re.,rtne-,..pnenete v.Oen.*•••100 I Me•6•12,22,27,7C21.••-•12-,,,,,,,•••,...•11.-=• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••■•••••••.....,........m...22•••••,.,..,........2.......2.2,,,,,,,,ev•■•••••.,24•2,'Ws.I./••2•••VET!ACM.,•••.2e.2RTSZ.,••••■•••■•••■•••■■••••■••2.2••••••■.....•■•■•••141•V•0.•XII,N•12.11.1”•122••512•••••■••••••-■.!ma•S.•-.,-II••Orr 7•-.•••7•.-..••■••.. ...., .....'''' ''''' ''. ..'"-'''''- '''.'-'. - • T ••,.1 . ••••••••■...................•••••••■TI••••■•••••••.........• .. ..... . .. . . • . . . •• •. . • .. .■ -1.•■•■•••-11112•••••112,.••••2•1•11.4104......,,,,2 Aa a 1,...m.......•-...........tab.c...-.4 NW ....• .............................mon•................................e••••••••..................••■••_.....--••....- .......,. -.••••••••• ••••■•••••••••••••=www•••••■••.......www••••••••............-•••••-•••••••••••••••••••■••11.8.I•nuyeerearn•nr.e*,••7•411VIII•P••••■••-•122112••••••••••22•••••TN/id,.'re,••r-..••••••••••••••••■••■•••••••■•••••■••••••••••■•• •.,■.......................,........ ., . .. • - --VT,••••(•••••••a••••-•V r.ir•v...•/■••212 ITO,•■•-•7/22••••••20.2.2•■•••■■■••••n.•••..m.s.....,.......................:.„ .. .. , • j= • � l REC'O SEP 2 6 1988 dl/j¢s. dl/(ozgan !2 . J�ou �s aa. _Sox 476 Wail, CoL0'r0,10 81658 September 23, 1988 Mr. Ron Phillips Town Manager Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail , Colorado 81657 Dear Ron: As long time residents of Vail , residing at 142 West Meadow Drive, we are aware that the Town of Vail is concerned with the amount of traffic that uses this street. May we please bring two matters to your attention. 1. The Dead End sign is not visible until the driver has committed himself to making the turn on West Meadow Drive, so he continues on and turns around either in our circular driveway, or at the cul-de-sac. 2. A driver may be trying to get to the Lions- head parking structure. Two signs are needed at the stop signs, pointing to West Meadow Drive: NO OUTLET and NO PUBLIC PARKING, or HOSPITAL PARKING ONLY. Another suggestion is to put a traffic counter on the south side of the cul-de-sac and one going into the � hospital to determine how many people are lost, sight- • - �. _ • : ti_ SVt . Sl4ozgan 2. 9 ouLas, at.. Box 476 Wad, C..oLO7ncIo 81658 • • • seeing, or going to the Vail Valley Medical Center. Very truely yours, Catherine and Morgan Douglas o =Nair J TM V..e.(`�;,,: .:7;, vc• rwi 4;- /j1/:/1:11! 4•ittilltwoo N II tovo 0 Val 14 y 75 south frontage road vail, colorado 81657 VAIL 1989 (303)476-7000 office of the town manager October 3, 1988 Mr. and Mrs. Morgan D. Douglas, Jr. P. 0. Box 476 Vail , Colorado 81658 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Douglas: Thank you for your letter concerning traffic on West Meadow Drive. We appreciate your observations and suggestions and will be studying those to see how we can best implement change. You may be aware that the Town has been undergoing extensive study and recommendations for a new signage program, both vehicular and pedestrian, and we will take your suggestions into consideration as this program is being implemented. Your interest in the community is much appreciated, and we would be glad to hear from you at any time concerning problems or suggestions you may have. Sincerely, v, )y.)4' .... //1;) Rondall V. Phillips Town Manager RVP/bsc cc: Peter Patten Stan Berryman kifte .1,00 - r, 4,^/ /Sk \(//fil )1/ Do you care that the orthopedic surgeons at Vail Sports Medicine may be forced to leave Vail as a result of the hospital brine in Dick Steadman, the U.S. Ski Team physician? Do you care that Steadman is not coming alone but is bringing a partner and that together they will be assisted by three resident orthopedic surgeons at all times? There are three orthopedic surgeons now in Vail . When Steadman comes that number will be increased to eight. Bye-bye Gottlieb, Chipman, and Janes. But that' s the free enterprise system, right? Competition and all that? Wrong! Our hospital is non-profit , partially supported by fundraisers and contributions from locals . Physicians pay rent and receive no salaries from the hospital. The hospital has offered a contract to Dick Steadman stating that they will pay him an annual salary of $300 , 000. 00 . He will be paid $150 ,000. 00 out right and $1 ,500 . 00 for each surgery case he doe: over 500 cases . He says he does 600 each year which will add the additional $150 , 000. 00. If you question this , ask the hospital administration for a copy of his contract. Chipman and Gottlieb have been caring, responsible surgeons in Vail for many years. Their new partner, Janes , seems to be of the same calliber. They stay at the forefront of every new break- through in Sports Medicine and arthroscopic surgery. Do we really need Dick Steadman at the expense of the current orthopedic surgeons who 'have provided wonderful care to so many of us (including me) for many years? Please reconsider your support for this situation. • A Loyal Patient, Marty Swenson P.O. Box 4566 Vail, CO 81658 I � 1 d H H H O a r * )-.-. i--. I--, o * * A CO N I--• N ,--• O lD Co V .--c * * 3 H * * * * cn .A w ry �-• �-. ,-• ,--• iD CO m H --I -0 —I 07 ••-•r N t CD H o CD 0 c, 0 v -0 -0-0 - a c+ -5 c+ 7 c+ 3 3 3 3 3 = c, cv c, p, rP r c, n c, 7r a (D 0 3 3 3 3 70 b O 0 0 I-1 9 CI c+ n -h = O 7ct O A, 3 O 7v C (0 C C n H o (D = c, o z c+ c+ J. C G7 0 -a = C Hn O -f,O c* = —I H-h p< < rD < 0 — - I y CD S lD -h C7 D H n ? NOT COUNTED m r H n r� Z H -• rD ---• < -1 C H (D Cr) (D (D 3 0 1 V, N S �-+ W 0 -+• 77 m (ll 70 ,f n.) ---• ,f -5 J. (D 7r • = N rD (a Cl. 3 a o —I n. O Cr f rD 7:3--i :3 to O a) -' (' c-h CD d V -0 CL) ,D O• 'S O N000 VJt. ono, V V V V (/) Z = c rniD V LCD 1.0 V rnwo � N I 3 2 cl o rD = 3 07 T N (D -I "0 C 0) O FCT � C 7 J. N <• a (.n N (l•) J. F"-• C CI O fD m Z7 —RC c+ --1 = C o � •� m �• 0 o c, o *r— co v�i � < *m co J. J. < CD r+ < CD c+ ❑, (D --, C 0.) CU d N 0 �' NOT APPLICABLE * 0.c I `° * + 3 Cu rD Z n c+ = CD rD -I, C) -s z = z O0 O O C 3 d J• 07 _ = ' m 0 c* ,.._• I-• r--• 4•• 4-•• r-. 1--• n v' Co -t. -PNi—. •acne-. rn rn -c (DO /-• CTV01CD - (..n c r 0) r— LL O V) --I N .-4 .71 * * * N c+ -- I N LL Z •1c .--c v)1— N O its CC J Cr( (`1 (.0 00O1-4 L.10 LI) (O - 1.C) r U _-1 CO N (1 N M O N M N c O U D_ Q •--1 •--I .--4 1-4 r--I r--1 .--4 r-I {.,1 0 Ll..) -4 . C 2 c0 CL r (J) 0 E 0 O C_ 0 S Y S- s- U 4- Q) O CL U S- a) ra E CL •r * I-, --1 CO C) M CO VD lO r-1 L0101 C* LI) U) I) v Ct 00 CY VD l0 !) I) s- o N 0 N al 4--) C d r O ra 4--) • 4J > 4-) ra > S- d N W -I( ( N 0 } CO J * p ra O O W 0) .U-r J 0 r- S Fes— }) Cn w .. 3 C (� •""1 cc O c0 O p U W S 1) S` o .-r L CO m p a) O L.L. 41 I N. N 0) l0 LO CO N a) 0) L\ICr •> _ Li •n O l0 I. CO VD LI) CO I. C7) CO CO �• 0 •r Q 0 Z V) 0 L t•N. p cC 0_ 3 rL) 0 U J .. Cl.) .a O C o% O -0 C 1- O co 3 n, rn a) N C • Y v •r 3 S- r- to RS CC N U O C a W 0- r 0 al .0 N N CC w C) o N O 1- > r- (1.)r-- U r- U L.LJ CO .--1 M LC) CO 0 lO 0) Ln O Lf) •r U •r J J e--1 CO ('r) N G* LI) CT Ln ri 4- '_ •r •CU Q U r-I e-1 r-i r--I r-1 r•1 r-I 1--1 e-I e--1 > ..0 >CU I- I-4 0 > 4) > ,4 O S i > I— W 4- 4- .1 O 4- O _ O G co C O C U > C 0) O p 0 ra O p C 4- U i-) U .--e O 0 C E E E E O cc r- r- v W co ra ra ra C E E E E E +-) C +) i +--) 0- a0C CD- a 0 MS 0 a) 0 Or-I (V F- Oa 1•- 0- l- W CO 0)) r-1 1-1 r-1 r-•1 N M Gt in * •!c 4c •k Z 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 * •k •1c .--c NCO 01 C) I-1 N e1 N M Ch •k 4c I— •--■ •--1 •-y ■ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Minutes December 10 , 1990 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz Diana Donovan Mike Mollica Jim Shearer Jill Kammerer Kathy Warren Andy Knudtsen Dalton Williams Shelly Mello Susan Scanlan Connie Knight Betsy Rosolack was present for Sonnenalp issue ABSENT Ludwig Kurz The meeting was called to order at 2 : 00 p.m. by Diana Donovan, chairperson. 1 . Approval of minutes for meetings of November 26 and October 29 . Kathy Warren corrected a sentence on page 7 of the minutes of November 26 . Kathy moved to approve the minutes of both meetings, and Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0 in favor. 2 . Update on Vail Valley Medical Center Parking Structure completion and request to extend the interim parking plan on Lots F, E, 10, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Kristan --=tz explained that the construction of the parking structure was taking longer than had been anticipated. Dan Feeney, representing the hospital , affirmed Kristan' s explanation, and stated that the structure would probably be completed by the middle of February, depending on the weather. He added that they planned to continue using the temporary parking arrangements until receiving a TCO for the complete structure. Feeney planned to obtain a TCO for the west half of the top level by Christmas which would provide 35 parking spaces to augment the temporary ones being used. Dalton was concerned about the additional construction traffic on the Frontage Road and the appearance of the construction activity over the Christmas holidays. He felt the site should be cleaned up as much as possible for the time period between December 20th 1 I. and January 5th. Dan replied that he felt the majority of the trucks would be gone by December 21 and he was willing to clean up as much of the site as possible. He added that he would like to work Christmas week, otherwise the project would be delayed further into February, which would then be getting into the high tourist season. Dalton repeated that he felt there should be no appearance of construction during Presidents ' week, and he would encourage shutting down. 3 . A request for a conditional use permit in order to establish a bed and breakfast operation on Lot P, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 141 West Meadow Drive, Skall Haus. Applicant: Joan Norris Betsy Rosolack reviewed the conditional use and bed and breakfast criteria, then stated that the staff felt the criteria had been met and recommended approval . Jim Shearer moved and Chuck Crist seconded to approve the request for the bed and breakfast conditional use. The vote was 5-0 . 4 . A request for a minor subdivision in order to vacate a lot line between Lots 46 and 47 , Vail Village West #2 . Applicant: ANJA Corporation Betsy Rosolack explained that the reason the applicant wanted to vacate the lot line was so that he could construct a parking area on Lot 46, an empty lot. Art Kleimer, representing Richard Strauss, the applicant, asked if there were any questions. Chuck Crist mentioned that it appeared that the parking was already dug. Mr. Kleimer stated that he had not known this. Kristan Pritz stressed that a Design Review Board approval was necessary before work was commenced on a project. Chuck moved to approve the request and Kathy Warren seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0 in favor. 5. A request for a side yard setback variance in order to construct an addition to a single family dwelling on Lot 16, Buffehr Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Jerry Farquar Andy informed the board that they had approved a side setback on July 22 , 1990 to allow Mr. Farquar to construct his addition 8 . 5 feet from the property line. However, because the side property line is not exactly parallel to the side of the house, the further the addition extends to the front of the property, the closer it gets to the side property line. The front corner of the addition 2 is now 8 feet from the property line, and the applicant is requesting an additional variance of . 5 feet. Kathy moved and Chuck seconded to approve the request per the staff memo dated December 10, 1990 . 6. A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 4 , commonly referred to as Cascade Village, Section 18 . 46, Area D, in order to add office floor area to the Glen Lyon Office Building, 1000 South Frontage Road, Lot 45, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Partners Shelly Mello explained that the request was to change an existing exterior deck on the Glen Lyon Office Building to 400 square feet of interior office space. The applicant wished like to amend SDD4 which included the addition of 2800 square feet of office space to the existing Glen Lyon Office Building. A number of conditions of approval addressing site improvements were attached to the SDD at the time of approval . The applicant was requesting to meet only a portion of the required conditions for the office expansion. The applicant agreed to the undergrounding of the electrical utilities and to the addition of more landscaping around the existing surface parking lot. The staff recommendation was for approval provided the applicant underground the electrical utilities along the north side of the Glen Lyon property. (The applicant had agreed to complete the undergrounding as well as to improve the site ' s landscaping. ) Dalton Williams moved to approve the request per the staff memo, and Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0 in favor. 7 . A request to establish a Special Development District for the Sonnenalp redevelopment, located at 20 Vail Road; a part of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. Kristan Pritz explained how the presentation would proceed. Mike Mollica reviewed the changes highlighted in the memo. Mike pointed out that the applicant had agreed to incorporate the 13 surface parking spaces near the Swiss Chalet into the parking structure and proposed a pocket park design where the surface parking had been. Regarding a traffic study for Vail Road, Mike stated that the applicant did not want to do another traffic study. He added that Arnie Ullevig, Town of Vail Transportation consultant, was in general agreement with the study, but that additional survey work was needed. Due to the widening of Vail Road to accommodate the Sonnenalp' s additional traffic load, the staff was suggesting that 3 some mitigation was needed in the form of planted medians, two of • which would be near the Gateway Building to break up the view down Vail Road and discourage additional traffic. Mike added that the Gateway project had pulled their sidewalk back to accommodate the medians. According to the traffic study, the Sonnenalp is required to have a left turn lane, and thus the staff felt a median was needed in this area. A survey is still needed to see how the medians will fit. Kristan pointed out that the parking at the bank needed to remain. Regarding Fire Department concerns, Mike stated that the applicant had met with the Fire Department and the Fire Department had signed off on the conceptual design. Modifications had been made to the Talisman parking and to the northeast corner of the Sonnenalp property which would facilitate fire truck access. A portion of the swimming pool had been pulled back out of the rear setback, but the staff felt that the entire pool should be completely out of the rear setback area and that the deck should also be pulled out of the setback. Mike then explained that a third loading space had been provided, but that all the spaces were 4 feet narrower than the required width. The applicant felt that these spaces were wide enough for the type of trucks used for Sonnenalp deliveries. Connie Knight arrived at this point. Andy Knudtsen continued the description of items of staff and PEC concern, beginning with a description of additional landscaping being added to the intersection of Meadow Drive and Vail Road, and also along Vail Road. The staff felt that more landscaping was still needed. Andy said that the applicant had not included the streamwalk in his proposal , but the staff still felt that the streamwalk should be incorporated into the proposed plan. Regarding employee housing, the staff felt that a minimum of 7 of the Sonnenalp' s existing employee units should be permanently deed restricted and at least 4 new employee units should be required. This calculation did not include additional employees for the 4700 square feet of new restaurant area. (More information was needed on this area. ) The Talisman access easement issue still had not been finalized. Concerning the height of the building, the applicant had reduced the height of the building by approximately 6 feet for a portion of the building at the northwest elevation along Vail Road. Andy showed the changes on elevation drawings which included an addition 4 of 2 feet to the height of the corner tower and a lowered portion that connects the tower to the rest of the building. Although the tower then functioned more as a focal point, the staff continued to have major concerns with the overall height, mass and bulk of the proposed structure. Andy then reviewed the Meadow Drive concerns. The staff still had 4 concerns: 1) a change in material on the large Meadow Drive dormers, 2) the arcade design, 3) landscaping should be brought to the front of the stone wall , and 4) more variation in the overall elevation was needed. Jeff Winston, Town of Vail urban design consultant, reviewed design issues. He stressed that once a building has been constructed, it will be there for a long time and although the process was frustrating, it was very important to get the building right. He felt it was a fine line to determine when a building was appropriate for Vail , when it was too big, etc. Jeff added that although the applicant was proposing a building of the highest quality, and the parking would be underground, there were still many concerns: The number of encroachments into the setbacks, the pool and patio encroached into the stream setback, loading and unloading on Vail Road, increase in traffic on Vail Road, employee housing and using the stream setback for a construction road. Jeff felt that the most important issues were: 1) what the feeling would be like when walking down Meadow Drive, 2) the areas of flat roof, and 3) public access to Gore Creek. He used a site plan to show the encroachments. Jeff also showed that the Vail Village Inn buildings were set at angles and had varied heights, both of which helped the walking experience. Jeff felt that the parking grid under the building could be moved back from East Meadow Drive and that would allow the building to be moved back some, which would decrease some of the shadow along Meadow Drive. Regarding the flat roof, Jeff felt that even though the pedestrian may not notice the flat roof from the immediate area, it would be setting a precedent. He added that flat roofs were a foreign element in Vail . He suggested that perhaps dormers could be carried through to vary the roof. Kristan then summarized the staff ' s concerns: 1. Design Compatibility : height, sun/shade and views. • 2 . Site Plan: In general the form needs to be reworked so that it does not exceed the height limits and the setbacks. 3 . Vail Village Master Plan: The plan meets 2 of 5 sub-area concepts, and the staff feels the plan should meet more than 5 this. 4 . Landscaping and open space 5. Employee housing 6. Design of Vail Road 7. Resolution of Talisman access easement 8 . The location of the access road for construction Art Albplanalp, representing the Vail Religious Foundation, stated that there were basically two types of applicants: one who follows the rules and therefore won 't face opposition, and one who tries to do what he wishes. He added that the second type of applicant first proposes something so out of scale that the Town then negotiates the project down to what the applicant wanted in the first place. Art added that the applicant purchased the property knowing the zone district that it was in. He felt that an SDD was being requested to build totally out of all proportion. He said that a building 77 feet tall did not fit in that area. Art then quoted staff concerns in the memo related to height, shade, loading, and mass. He appreciated what Johannes had done to the Sonnenalp, but felt the proposed building was not appropriate for this site. Art mentioned the problem the Chapel had with people who were going to the Sonnenalp and used the Chapel parking area. He then said that the Master Plan authorized a height of 27 to 36 feet on Vail Road, and discussed the fact that the loading zone was located directed across from the Chapel and the potential impacts upon the Chapel from loading areas that were undersized. Art discussed the streamwalk and the fact that the applicant felt that it "should not be an issue. " Art felt that SDD' s were not to be used to obtain wholesale variances. He quoted from Section VIII of the staff memo. Rick Rosen, representing the owners of condos at First Bank and Villa Cortina, felt the project should follow the Master Plan. He mentioned concerns which included the height, the canyon effect along Meadow Drive, the lack of open space along the two streets, and the fact that the applicant had not tried to design within the existing zoning. Diane Hagen spoke about construction on the site interfering with i weddings in the Chapel . She asked that construction be curtailed on the weekends. 6 Jay Peterson, attorney representing the Sonnenalp, said the S contractor was in the audience to answer construction concerns. He explained that the Faesslers were trying to build a quality hotel , and that Vail was rated #11 in ski resorts with regard to lodging. He felt that many of the encroachments were minor ones. He added that the loading dock was a necessary evil . Three times a week there would be liquor trucks that were 38 feet long. Jay stated that the streamwalk was only a study area in the Master Plan, not a requirement. He added that there would be no fireplaces in the hotel rooms. Jay explained that the tower height was needed for hydraulic elevators that must go 7 stories. Forty to 50% of the common area was below ground--hallways, stairs, lobby, and conference facilities which did not add to the bulk. He would like to solve the parking problem between the Chapel and the Sonnenalp. The mass did not change near the Bully III , but was merely a modification of the loading area. Regarding employee housing, Kathy Warren asked if the applicant were willing to restrict the requested units, and Jay stated that the applicant would comply with what the Town makes others comply with, that they agreed to restrict the 11 existing employee units, but not to 4 new units. Regarding the Talisman access easement, if a new easement is offered to the Talisman, the existing one would not be needed. Kristan responded that the staff merely wanted to be sure that Meadow Drive remained a pedestrian area . Jay compared the heights of surrounding buildings, stating that most of them were not 1 to 2 story buildings. He felt that the Town needed a hotel and bulk was inevitable with a hotel . Gordon Pierce, architect for the project, described the architectural changes made since the last proposal . He felt that most of Jeff Winston ' s criticisms were "right on the money" . He stated that he had met with Mike McGee, the Fire Marshal , and got approval of the fire truck access. Regarding the flat roof, he felt that it could not be seen except from the mountain. The meeting was adjourned for a 15 minute recess. Diana Donovan, Chairperson, called the meeting back to order. She asked the board to ask questions and make comments. Connie stated that even if the building were designed differently, the mountain view would be lost, and she asked Jeff if any view corridor study had been done in that area. Jeff responded that there were concerns with the view along Meadow Drive, and that with even a two story building, virtually all of the views would be lost. Connie then asked if the views would be lost if the building were constructed within the setbacks, and Jeff stated that part of 7 the views would still be lost. Connie stated that aesthetically, flat roofs were not what the Town wanted in the Village, and Jay responded that the Vail Gateway building had partly flat roofs, and that the first submittal for the Covered Bridge Building had a flat roof. Connie stated that, overall, she did not see any improvement over the proposal from the last meeting. She felt the shading of Meadow Drive was dreadful , that the landscaping looked better, but there still needed to be more landscaping along the Sonnenalp. She hated to see the pool encroach into the setback. She felt the Sonnenalp would handle their employee housing situation well on their own. Connie was upset about the height and felt that she could not support the project. Jim Shearer stated that he would like to see the applicant do more study along Meadow Drive. He suggested a large archway on the "punch-outs" . He liked the parking access for the Talisman, the pocket park, and the 2 loading areas. Jim wanted a commitment to a bridge for pedestrians and wanted the pool and patio moved out of the setback area. He wanted to see more study regarding the pedestrian way across to the Vail Village Inn. He felt that the applicant must address traffic increases. He wanted the DRB to look at the arcade area where there is only 3 feet of clearance. He also felt that more landscaping was needed on the northwest corner. Jim felt that flat roofs were a bad situation and required much maintenance. He said that he supported the project, he felt the Town needed the au' s, that redevelopment should be encouraged, especially a well run business . He felt that the project provided additional parking, increased the commercial base, and added a pocket park. Jim felt that more study should be done on the increase in traffic, on the number of variances being requested, and public access to the public areas. He felt the DRB should study the pedestrian ways. Kathy asked Gordon why the Meadow Drive wing could not be pulled to the south, and Gordon replied that this would cause some problems. Kathy wasn't comfortable with the implication that a building done within zoning could not be aesthetically pleasing. Kathy read from 18 . 40 . 090 Development Standards for SDD' s, " . . .Before the Town Council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the Town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. " Kathy listed the deviations the Sonnenalp was requesting, including additional units, excess accessory use square footage, excess common area, setback encroachments, and excess height. She wondered what benefits the Town was receiving that outweighed the adverse effects of the requested deviations. 8 Kathy reminded the applicant that one purpose of an SDD was to further the goals of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, and she felt this project had fallen short. Chuck Crist felt that the patio should be moved back out of the setback, was concerned about the loading docks, the sun/shade (aside from that caused by the tower) , and suggested the crosswalk to the VVI be heated. He felt that if medians were placed by the 4-way, that one should also be placed by the bank. He felt that the applicant had some responsibility to provide public open space. He did point out that the pocket park was positive, and was not concerned with the streamwalk. Chuck felt that the Sonnenalp did provide for their employees with housing, and was not concerned about the increase in height of the corner tower. He was concerned about the regulation of the construction activity and felt it should be limited to weekdays, and that no construction should be allowed on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays. He supported the project. Steve Cohen, the probable contractor for the Sonnenalp, stated that he planned 10 hour days, 5 days per week, with some work on Saturdays. He stated that he had much experience constructing buildings under difficult circumstances. Dalton Williams had no problem with the pool , but felt that the patio should be pulled back. Regarding employee units, he felt that the request to restrict a certain number of units was within reason, but did not feel additional employee units would have to be constructed. Dalton pointed out that the First Bank was within 6 feet of its property line, and he was concerned about having the left turn lane near the bank entry. Dalton wondered if the Sonnenalp could validate parking tickets for church parking. Regarding the building along Meadow Drive, he liked the idea of bringing out the dormers, and suggested that perhaps the retail could also be brought further out to really provide ins and outs. He felt that the building would read as 3 stories. He was in favor of the pocket park. Regarding construction during peak times, he felt that construction activity should cease and look the least obtrusive as possible during Christmas week, Presidents ' week, and Easter. Dalton felt no work should be done on Sunday, and only interior work done on Saturdays. Concerning the construction road along the creek, he suggested putting the utilities in the fall and leaving the road out, then putting in the road in the spring. He felt the flat roof would read as a sloped roof. Regarding the height, he felt that the building could be lowered by one story at the auto court. 9 Regarding the accessory and common space, Dalton felt the percentage for allowable accessory use and common space used by the Town should be increased. Dalton was in favor of the increase in au's and in favor of the project. Diana stated that she could not support the project because it did not meet the SDD criteria. It was not compatible with the neighborhood, the site plan could be improved, and the open space was a big issue. Diana felt the project needed a "front yard" to mitigate the height and bulk. She felt the traffic study needed to be done concerning the original circle proposed for the intersection of Vail Road and Meadow Drive. Diana felt the Town Council should determine who should construct the medians. She felt the pool setback should meet existing regulations and would like to see a letter from the Sonnenalp stating that they would not use the fact that they would not use the impact upon the pool as an excuse to protest the streamwalk. Diana was in favor of the VA parcel being an informal pocket park. She felt that the employee housing absolutely must be restricted, and that there must be more relief and interest on the Meadow Drive side of the building. Diana felt that the applicant was asking too much. She also wished to restrict the au' s permanently since this was an important part of the project. Diana felt the construction activity should be restricted, especially during July, August and from December through Easter. She felt that the applicant was placing improvements on public right-of-ways, and that the stream access was only for Sonnenalp guests. The phasing plan must be workable. She had many problems with a construction road along Gore Creek and felt that all construction activity must be contained on the site. Johannes Faessler stated that he was surprised to learn of problems with the Vail Interfaith Chapel . He stated that Don Simonton had come to a meeting at the Sonnenalp, and added that he would be happy to work out problems with the church. He also mentioned that many church goers used the Sonnenalp parking, and he had no problem with that. Craig Snowdon, representing the Talisman, stated that the Talisman had no problem with the Sonnenalp proposal . The board retired to executive session with Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney. When they returned, Kathy Warren moved to recommend denial of the project, and Connie Knight seconded the motion with the following findings: 1. The project was not in compliance with Criteria A, regarding design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties. 10 2 . SDD Criteria C, requiring that the proposal meet the loading standards of the Town, was not met. 3 . The project failed to meet SDD Criteria D regarding conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Urban Design Plans, and specifically the Vail Village Master Plan. 4 . The project did not meet SDD Criteria F regarding the site plan, in that the site plan lacked quality public open space on the site. 5. SDD Criteria H was not met, not adequate open space on the site. 6. SDD Criteria I was not met regarding the phasing plan, as there may be a conflict with the construction of the project and the weekend activities at the Vail Interfaith Chapel . In addition, the PEC summarized their specific concerns about the project, which were: 1 . The swimming pool should be moved out of the rear (south) setback. The patio adjacent to the pool should be allowed to encroach only 10 feet into the rear setback. 2 . The building is too high. 3 . More relief on Meadow Drive is needed. 4 . Ideally, Vail Road should bend at the intersection of Meadow Drive and Vail Road. Because the traffic generated by this project will require widening Vail Road, there should be some mitigation to reduce the "thoroughfare" appearance of Vail Road. This bend in the road should be done in conjunction with moving the Ski Museum. Sub-area concept 1-2 of the Vail Village Master Plan needs to be addressed. 5. The land VA owns by the Swiss Chalet should be turned into a pocket park. The improvements to this parcel should be very informal . The natural character of the site should be maintained. 6. The applicant should permanently restrict 11 employee housing units. 7 . The noise and construction activity should be limited so that it does not impact the chapel activities on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays . 8 . All construction should occur on-site. The construction activity should not affect Gore Creek, particularly with 11 erosion or sediment disturbance because of construction. ' 9. The applicant should construct the proposed pedestrian bridge across Gore Creek at the existing Vail Road Bridge. This work should be coordinated with Public Works. 10. The applicant should ensure that the Talisman access easement onto East Meadow Drive is vacated. This paperwork needs to be finalized. 11. The applicant should build a planted median in the center of Vail Road south of Meadow Drive per the traffic study. 12 . The accommodation units the applicant will be building should all be restricted permanently as lodge rooms so that no conversions to condominiums will be allowed in the future. 13 . The loading bays should be expanded in size to meet the Town ' s minimum size requirement. 14 . The applicant should provide public access to Gore Creek through green space or pocket parks. 15. The required setbacks along Meadow Drive should be met. The vote was 3-3 . Diana noted that the comments of concern were from the entire board, but were weighted differently. They requested that the staff pass along the individual comments to the Town Council . 8 . A request for a front setback variance in order to construct a garage and a wall height variance in order to construct retaining walls at 1448 Vail Valley Drive; Lot 18 , Block 3 , Vail Valley First Filing. Applicants: John and Barbara Schofield Andy Knudtsen showed a site plan and explained the request regarding setbacks and wall heights. Barbara Schofield stated that her family needed another garage and described the site. She stated that they were willing to landscape heavily. John Schofield stated that the height and slope of all the finished grades would be equal to or less than the existing grades. One wall was proposed to be 9 feet high and one wall would be 11 feet high. Kathy wondered if the garage could be placed closer to the house, and was told the house would fall down. Kathy suggested underpinning. John replied that the most distance to be gained would be 3-1/2 feet. Kathy then asked why the garage wasn 't 12 lowered so that landscaping can be placed above the garage. She also wondered why the garage could not be placed facing the street, in the same way the existing garage does. John replied that then the cars would be backing into the street. Andy stated that some portions of the lot had a slope of 35% or more. Kathy did not feel that she could support the project. She felt the garage could be moved, resulting in less retainage, minimized curb cuts, and not have a second drive. Mrs. Schofield stated that over 50% of the homes in the neighborhood had 2 curb cuts and over 50% of the homes had separate garages. Diana was against two curb cuts. She would like to see the garage door on the existing garage replaced with a people door and landscaping placed where there was now asphalt leading to this door. Barbara said that she was willing to do these things. Jim wanted to see landscaping and grass in front of the old garage door. Kathy felt the walls needed for the second driveway would be very obvious. Diana wanted to see a variance for the north wall , but have the south wall be terraced with at least a couple of good trees in place. Jim moved and Chuck seconded to approve the front setback variance with the following conditions: 1 . Take out existing garage door and close off the existing driveway with landscaping. 2 . Work with the staff on a walkway and place as much landscaping as possible around the walk and on the rest of the site. 3 . Terrace the south wall . The vote was 4-1 with Kathy voting against the proposal . 9 . Arequest for front and side setback variances to allow for a garage on Lot 10 , Block 4 , Lionsridge Filing No. 4 , 1464 Aspen Grove Lane. Applicant: Carrol P. Orrison Jim moved and Chuck seconded to table this item to January 14 . The vote was 5-0. Items 11 and 12 were read as one item, as they were to be placed on one ordinance. They were read before item #10 . 11. A request to amend Chapter 18 . 54 . 050, Design Guidelines, of the Vail Municipal Code in order to amend Section C, 6 and delete Section C, 13 . Applicant: Town of Vail 13 i 12 . A request for an amendment to Chapter 18 . 54 . 020 (E) of the Vail Municipal Code, Design Review Board Organization, in order to delete "fifth" Wednesdays of each month. Applicant: Town of Vail Kathy moved and Jim seconded to recommend approval to the Town Council of both items 11 and 12 . The vote was 5-0 in favor. 10 . A request to amend the Town of Vail Zoning Code by repealing and reenacting Chapter 8 . 18 to expand, strengthen, and clarify code provisions relating to air pollution control . Applicant: Town of Vail Susan Scanlan explained the proposed changes and lead the discussion on possible future changes. Kathy moved to recommend approval to the Town Council , and Jim seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0 in favor. 13 . A determination of 60 or 90 day review period for Lionshead (CCII) and Village (CCI) exterior alterations : 1) Lifthouse Lodge 2) Gasthof Gramshammer 3) Lodge at Vail Mike Mollica requested a 90 day review period for each item, and the board agreed. 14 . A request for a setback, density, common area, accessory use and parking variances in order to construct additions to the Christiania Lodge, 365 Hanson Ranch Road, Lot D, Block 2 , Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Paul R. Johnston This item was tabled indefinitely. I I 14 I A VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1989 7:30 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 1. Ten Year Anniversary Awards to Cathie Jarnot, Cyrus (Buck) Allen, and Brian Terrett 7:35 2. Approval of Minutes of February 7 and 21, 1989 Meetings 7:40 3. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1989, second reading, relating to Peter Patten bed and breakfast operations THIS ITEM WILL BE TABLED FOR TWO MORE WEEKS, UNTIL MARCH 21. 7:45 4. Eagle County Commissioners' presentation regarding bond election March 21, 1989 Action Requested of Council : Receive presentation and make comments/ask questions as needed. 8:05 5. Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1989, second reading, requesting Mike Mollica to rezone a 0.32 acre parcel of land at 2998 South Frontage Road West from the current Residential Cluster zone district to the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district Action Requested of Council : Approve/deny Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1989, on second reading. Background Rationale: The intent of this rezoning request is to allow the applicants to construct a small secondary, employee restricted rental unit over the existing garage. The PEC has unanimously recommended approval of this rezoning request at their 2/13/89 meeting. (Applicants: William Pierce/Lynn Fritzlen) Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1989, on second reading. 8:10 6. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1989, first reading, Special Rick Pylman Development District No. 14, Doubletree Hotel Action Requested of Council : Approve/deny Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1989, on first reading. Background Rationale: Vail Holdings Inc. , owners of the Doubletree Hotel , have applied for SDD #14 in order to add 92 accommodation units, 5 condominiums, and 3,300 square feet of meeting room facilities. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1989, on first reading. 8:50 7. An appeal of the PEC decision to approve a request for a Kristan Pritz conditional use permit for an addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center and parking structure. (Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center) Action Requested of Council : Uphold/overturn the PEC's decision to approve the request. Background Rationale: On February 27, 1989, the PEC voted to approve the conditional use request with conditions. The vote was 4-2-1. Kathy Warren and Diana Donovan voted against the proposal ; Sid Schultz abstained. r Staff Recommendation: Uphold the PEC's decision to approve the request. 9:50 8. A request for variances from the 20 foot front setback Mike Mollica requirement and from the 30 foot stream setback requirement, to allow for the construction of a primary/secondary residence on Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing (342 Mill Creek Circle) Action Requested of Council : Approve/deny the variance requests. Background Rationale: The PEC, at their February 27, 1989 public hearing, approved by a vote of 4-3 the variance requests. The Council , at their February 28, 1989 work session, has requested a review of the variance requests. Staff Recommendation: Approve both variance requests. 10:10 9. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1989, first reading, amending the Steve Thompson Town of Vail investment policy Action Requested of Council : Approve/deny Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1989, on first reading. Background Rationale: This amendment will allow us to purchase certificates of deposit marketed by brokers, at staff' s discretion. We will be able to take advantage of better interest rates and still verify in-house that the bank or savings and loan meets our standard selection criteria. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1989, on first reading. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 10:40 10. Adjournment I -2- VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1989 7:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Ten Year Anniversary Awards to Cathie Jarnot, Cyrus (Buck) Allen, and Brian Terrett 2. Approval of Minutes of February 7 and 21, 1989 Meetings 3. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1989, second reading, an ordinance amending various sections of Chapter 18 of the Vail Municipal Code and repealing and reenacting Section 18.58.310, Short Term Rental Accommodation Unit of the Municipal Code to provide for bed and breakfast operations under certain provisions and circumstances and to define bed and breakfast and setting forth details in regard thereto. THIS ITEM WILL BE TABLED FOR TWO MORE WEEKS, UNTIL MARCH 21. 4. Eagle County Commissioners' presentation regarding the bond election March 21, 1989 5. Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1989, second reading, an ordinance re-zoning a parcel of property legally described as Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Intermountain Subdivision, and amending the official zoning map in relation to the re-zoning of said property. (2998 South Frontage Road West) 6. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1989, first reading, an ordinance repealing and re-enacting Ordinance 5, Series of 1986, a Special Development District (known as SDD No. 14) and the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. 7. Appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission decision to approve a request for a conditional use permit for an addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center and Parking Structure 8. Request for variances to allow for the construction of a primary/secondary residence on Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing (342 Mill Creek Circle) 9. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1989, first reading, an ordinance amending Section 10 of the Town of Vail Investment Policy. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 10. Adjournment HOSPITAL PRESENTATION March 7 , 1989 1. Purpose of the Hospital expansion, Dan Feeney. 2 . Description of Hospital expansion, Dan Feeney. 3 . Explanation of Hospital masterplan, Dan Feeney. 4 . Description of Frontage Road improvement plan and status of the plan with Colorado Division of Highways, Dave Leahy, TDA, Colorado Incorporated. 5 . Comments on the Frontage Road plan from the Doubletree Hotel and Vail National Bank representatives. Peter Jamar, Doubletree. Sidney Schultz, Vail National Bank. 6. Presentation of Conditional Use memo, Kristan Pritz . TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 7, 1989 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to construct an addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center, including a new parking structure AND FRONTAGE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN. (Revisions are indicated by capital letters. ) Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center ON FEBRUARY 13 , 1989, THE PEC REVIEWED THE VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST. THE PEC VOTED TO TABLE THE PROPOSAL TO THE FEBRUARY 27TH PEC MEETING. THE MOTION WAS MADE BY DIANA DONOVAN AND SECONDED BY PEGGY OSTERFOSS. THE VOTE WAS 3-1 IN FAVOR OF TABLING. PAM HOPKINS VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION TO TABLE. JIM VIELE AND SIDNEY SCHULTZ ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. BRYAN HOBBS WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING. THE PEC ASKED THAT THE MEDICAL CENTER OBTAIN COLORADO DIVISION OF HIGHWAY'S COMMENTS ON THE REVISED FRONTAGE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN. I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE A. Hospital Expansion The proposed expansion entails construction of approximately 31, 209 square feet for patient care, as well as an on-site parking structure. The project would include the completion of the second floor on the north side of the recently built west wing. Completion of the second floor will allow immediate expansion of the patient care unit (PCU) by 20 beds. The second floor is 8 , 150 square feet. A small entry addition adjacent to the parking structure is proposed for the first floor (1, 242 s. f. ) . Construction of a full third floor on top of the existing west wing adds 21, 817 square feet. The new third floor will house a surgical suite comprised of four operating rooms, doctors' offices, a fourth radiology room, as well as ancillary services. B. Parking The hospital proposes to construct a 2-1/2 level parking structure at the east end of its property. The structure will provide parking for 177 vehicles, with access directly off South Frontage Road. AMBULANCE ACCESS IS PROVIDED THROUGH THE LOWEST LEVEL OF THE STRUCTURE AND OUT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE STRUCTURE TO WEST MEADOW DRIVE. A SECOND ACCESS IS PROVIDED THROUGH THE HOSPITAL'S EXISTING MAIN ENTRY. THIS ALLOWS FOR TWO ACCESSES FOR AMBULANCES. The elevation of the 1 - 1 top level of the parking structure would be slightly lower than that of the existing South Frontage Road. The north end of the structure would be constructed on land currently owned by the Doubletree Hotel. The Vail Valley Medical Center and the Doubletree Hotel have entered into an agreement to allow the structure to be built on Doubletree land in return for shared parking arrangements and other considerations. The hospital's proposed structure will be built in such a way that it can be connected to the Doubletree's underground parking at a later date to allow sharing of parking. The structure would eliminate 20 existing surface parking spaces on Doubletree property. These 20 spaces will be replaced in the proposed structure. Surface Parking will occur on the present west lot, providing for 104 vehicles with an additional 18 surface spaces on town owned Lot 10. The lot is leased from the town and will remain in its present configuration with access off West Meadow Drive for the near term. QAMtt)GSN CEO• The Vail - ey Medical Center is required to provide a total of 220 .arking spaces on site. The 1986 ad.0 oritQ o conditiona use permit calculated the requirement for 220 spaces by adding the number of day shift employees, hospital beds, and exam rooms. The overall total included an obstetrics (OB) wing on the north side of the second floor, although this was never built. Thus, the number of parking spaces calculated for the unbuilt OB wing should be credited against the overall parking requirement. The following table outlines how the 220 number was derived: USE SPACES REQR HOSPITAL 1 space per bed 30 1 space per emergency exam bed 9 1 space per employee (maximum on day shift) 55 94 94 DOCTORS OFFICES 1 space per doctor 32 1 space per employee 38 1 space per exam room 44 114 114 AMBULANCE GARAGE 1 space per transport vehicle 4 1 space per employee (on duty) 2 meeting room space 6 12 12 Total spaces required for entire facility 220 2 If the parking spaces for the obstetrics wing are deducted from the total requirement of 220, 203' spaces are needed to service the building actually constructed in 1986-87, based upon the formula agreed to by the Town and Hospital. The obstetrics wing called for the following parking: USE PARKING SPACES Patient beds-OB 10 Exam room - OB 1 Day shift employees- OB 6 Total 17 spaces The incremental parking requirements that the proposed expansion will generate are computed as follows: USE PARKING SPACES Patient beds-General 20 Exam rooms-General 6 Day shift employees-general 49 Total 75 spaces Therefore, new parking requirements are computed as follows: USE PARKING SPACES Base figure 86-87 expansion 203 01 Incremental increase, 89-90 expansion 75 70tral j�r "'_� NVOI Total Required 278 ,` 0,4, Parking will be located on the property in the fo13'btting areas: Parking structure 177 spaces Surface parking 104 spaces Lot 10 spaces Total 299 paces Available parking 299 spaces Doubletree parking in northeast structure - 20 spaces Total 279 s aces Required 278 1 space above required 3 . 1 151„o- . 1, It should be noted that no valet arking is proposed with l, ,0 • ►,� this expansion. 1,13W- Due to the fact that the hospital is proposing to construct a portion of the parking structure on Doubletree property, 20 parking spaces for the Doubletree will be lost. The Hospital has agreed to provide 20 spaces within the northeast parking structure for full time use by the Doubletree. If and when 06„11r6L, the Doubletree expands, the Hospital will permit the hotel to 'OVAjCr\ use up to 48 additional spaces between the hours of 5: 30 PM 3b �'_ b01 and 6: 00 AM. The 20 spaces previously assigned to the �D �� Doubletree on a 1.1111d15 time basis would revert to Hospital use U( u' between 6: 00 AM : 30 PM. The following chart indicates t.." 5 how the parking will be utilized by the Hospital and ifi P1 '` � Doubletree when the Doubletree expansion occurs. aor-0)- PHASE I PHASE II ab5 �b n',. EXPANSION) (DOUBLETREE EXPANSION) u / 'aw i �S' (VVMC EXPANSION b 6: OOAM-5: 30PM 5: 30PM-6: OOAM 6: OOAM-5: 30PM 5: 30PM-6: OOAM REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED DBLTREE 167 167 167 167 261 193 261 261 T: HOSPITAL 278 279 278 279 278 299 278 231 )-161-J11- i%) It should be noted that the Hospital plans to provide all of its parking on site for the current expansion. The_„Hospital will chin an additional20 parking spaces during the day once The Doubletree ex an The Hospital will have a deficit of -4137gTiEes n the evening hours between 5: 30 PM and 6 : 00 AM after the Doubletree expansion. ( The Hospital has provided parking counts indicating a rastic reduction in the number of cars on site after 5: 30 pm (Please see parking counts memo, attached) . C. South Frontage Road Improvements THE STAFF HAS SUMMARIZED BELOW THE SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD IMPROVEMENT REQUEST AS OUTLINED IN DAN FEENEY'S LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 24TH, 1989: OUR PREPARED PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WILL BE PRESENTED TO MR. ROBERT MOSTEN, DISTRICT ENGINEER FOR THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, AT 11 AM ON TUESDAY, 28 FEBRUARY, WHEN HE VISITS THE SITE. THE ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF THE PLAN ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. WE WILL WIDEN THE ROAD TO PROVIDE THREE FULL LANES FROM THE POST OFFICE/MUNICIPAL DRIVE TO A POINT WEST OF THE DOUBLETREE'S WESTERN ACCESS. THIS WILL INCLUDE A WEST-BOUND THRU 4 4ft0 writ LANE, CENTER LEFT-TURN LANE, AND AN EAST-BOUND THRU LANE. IN ADDITION, THE DOUBLETREE IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT ITS ACCELERATION/DE- CELERATION LANE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOSPITAL'S IMPROVEMENTS, RATHER THAN DEFERRING IT UNTIL THE HOTEL EXPANDS. 2. THE BANK BUILDING WILL RELOCATE EACH OF ITS TWO ACCESS DRIVES IN A WAY THAT PROVIDES MORE HORIZONTAL SEPARATION, BETTER ALIGNMENT WITH THE EXISTING POST OFFICE/MUNICIPAL DRIVE, AND JOINT USE OF THE WESTERN-MOST ACCESS FOR THE BANK BUILDING AND THE HOSPITAL'S PARKING STRUCTURE. 3. THE DOUBLETREE WILL REALIGN ITS EXISTING EAST ACCESS SO THAT IT MEETS SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD AT A RIGHT ANGLE, RATHER THAN ITS PRESENT SKEWED ORIENTATION. 4. OUR ENGINEERS ARE ALIGNING THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS SO THAT THEY WILL HAVE VIRTUALLY NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE GRADES OF EXISTING ACCESS DRIVES ON EITHER THE NORTH OR SOUTH SHOULDER, WITH ONE EXCEPTION. WIDENING ON THE NORTH SHOULDER WILL MAKE THE GRADE FOR THE WESTERN ACCESS TO THE POST OFFICE UNACCEPTABLY STEEP (14%, IN LIEU OF THE EXISTING 6-7%) . THE HOSPITAL WILL AGREE TO RELOCATE THIS DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET TO THE WEST. BY EXPLOITING THE EXISTING RISE IN SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD TO THE WEST, THIS WILL ALLOW THE GRADE OF THE NEW DRIVE TO BE KEPT TO A GRADE NO STEEPER THAN THAT OF THE EXISTING ACCESS.' 5. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM TURNING RADIUS INTO THE HOSPITAL'S PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE, ALL FUTURE WIDENING OF THE ROAD WILL HAVE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED ON THE NORTH SHOULDER. THE ELONGATED PLANTER PROPOSED BY THE BANK BUILDING TO SEPARATE ITS SHORT-TERM PARKING FROM SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD TRAFFIC WILL ALSO PRECLUDE FURTHER WIDENING ON THE SOUTH SHOULDER. AS EXHIBIT A TO HIS LETTER (COPY ATTACHED) , DAVID LEAHY HAS INDICTED CONCEPTUALLY HOW A FOURTH LANE MIGHT BE ADDED AT THE NORTH SHOULDER. WHETHER OR NOT THE SUPERELEVATION (BANKED CURVES) IS REMOVED WILL DEPEND IN LARGE MEASURE ON FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO THE EAST AND WEST OF THE ONE-EIGHTH MILE OF ROAD OUR PROPOSED PLAN AFFECTS. 5 411 6. FOR AN EXCELLENT SUMMARY OF THE SCOPE, RATIONALE AND ADVANTAGES OF OUR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT PLAN, PLEASE SEE DAVID LEAHY'S LETTER OF 24 FEBRUARY 1989 , COPY ATTACHED. TDA also states that traffic through the four-way stop shall be decreased by the access plan: "Based on observed turning movements at the bank and Doubletree Inn, between 1/3 and 1/4 of the Hospital's peak hour trips will be oriented to the west. Hence, the proposed access plan will lessen the percentage of Hospital trips passing through the 4-way stop intersection by 25 to 33%. This reduction of 25 to 30 p.m. peak hour trips using Vail Road should be noticeable in peak hour traffic operations. Specifically, the single-lane northbound Vail Road approach at the 4-way stop will experience reduced length of vehicle queue by virture of the proposed access plan. " (TDA Report, p. 9, January 3 , 1989) * Please note that the plan assumes that the configuration of the four-way stop remains the same. D. Hospital Master Plan The Hospital has developed a long range master plan which envisions future expansions and also coincides with the Doubletree's master plan. The plan calls for redevelopment of the east end of the Hospital property including demolition of the original clinic built during the late 60's. The emergency room and the ambulance garage would be relocated to the east end (South side of the parking structure) with direct access to the South Frontage Road. Demolition of the ambulance garage would allow construction of an access connecting the east structure with a parking structure at the west end. Thus, the master plan provides for moving virtually all Hospital traffic from West Meadow Drive. The Hospital submitted a plan which shows maximum build-out heights of 4 stories on the west wing, 2 stories on the center wing, and 4 stories on the east wing. This massing is restricted through agreements with the Doubletree. A future northwest parking structure is also proposed. The west parking structure would be limited to 2-1/2 stories with one floor being underground. The total build-out square footage for the Hospital is estimated to be 231, 940 square feet. ZONING ANALYSIS The site is located in the Publlc11,A_7n1. P District There are no specific development standards for this district. Instead the zoning code states: 6 "The public use district is intended to provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special characteristics cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 18 . 02 . 020 and to provide for the public welfare. " v j u5 krziQuiEw A. Site Area: 3 . 811 acres or 166, 007 square feet B. Floor Area: Existing New Total Basement 12 , 490 0 12 , 490 First Floor 48 , 752 1, 242 49, 994 Second Floor 35, 239 8 , 150 43 , 389 Third Floor 0 21, 817 21, 817 96, 481 31, 209 127, 690 C. Site Coverage: Square Feet Building 49, 994 30. 2 Ambulance Storage 2 , 320 1 Parking Structure 13 , 850 8 . 3 Paving 51, 000 30.7 Open Space 48, 845 29 . 4 Landscaping Site Area 166, 009 +100% D. Setbacks: Front/South: 25 ft. (no change) Side/East: 0 ft. Rear/North: 0 ft. ^ S U- Side/West: (no change) E. Height: 52 ft. 10 inches maximum height. The proposed expansion will�h�avice a total of three stories. S_i541!� 14604 a iiv Pea �r0�t, Ito v `�'1 b r► N Tl jo�I.p dplplL. IA) loor III . CRITERIA AND FI'DING 4 1� Upon review of Section 18 . 60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: 7 Consideration of Factors. A. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. Staff believes that the Hospital is in an acceptable location provided that proper site and land use planning is coordinated with surrounding properties. We are comfortable talklf Orr\ that if the master plan is followed the hospital can continue to expand in an orderly manner that will be positive for the lb - M community. However, we do feel that the site could benefit CC �AC)C-jra5 in the long-term by relocating the doctors' offices and � ;� pharmacy to another site. This would free up additional s i%- � square footage for necessary hospital uses and also decrease tlo `# traffic. 4r,t 1 The Vail Valley Medical Center provides vital services for Olb both permanent residents of Vail as well as our guests. The l. medical center is an important facility which will meet the present and future medical needs of the Town of Vail . The purpose section of the Public Use District states that public and quasi-public uses must provide for the public welfare and ,p also meet the general purposes as prescribed in Section lf� 18 . 02 . 020 of the zoning code. NV f' Section 18 . 02 . 020: oyV �1 1, 4 ,� , -�. 1. To provide for adequate light, air, IntO sanitation, drainage, and public facilities; 2 . To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions; 3 . To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets; 4 . To promote adequate and appropriately located off street parking and loading facilities; 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values; 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives; 7 . To prevent excessive population densities and over crowding of the land with structures; 8 . To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the Town; 8 - 9 . To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides and other desirable natural features; 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters; 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. The staff feels that the proposed hospital expansion reinforces these objectives of the zoning code. B. The effect of the use on__light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. . 1011 The height of 52ft. 10 inches proposed with this expansion should not have major impacts on light and air. Height limitations as outlined in the master plan have been designed by considering impacts on adjacent properties, particularly West Meadow Drive. �, \�� In respect to utilities, major utilities are located in the 1,1F fI area of the proposed parking structure. The applicant is in `` the process of determining how the relocation could be f �,��\ 'accomplished. WG The hospital is a significant public facility which meets community health needs. Thep ject-d finitely satisfies a major public facility need. C. The effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. 1. Frontage Road Access PERMIT REQUEST: I The proposed northeast parking structure was designed with the intent of removing traffic from the West Meadow Drive area. The approach to parking and vehicular -kb • access supports the goals listed in the Land Use Plan "k . 1% for this area. In the preliminary stages of review, both the Planning Commission and Staff indicated to the hospital that it was important to remove traffic from the West Meadow Drive area. The Land Use Plan has designated the West Meadow Drive area as a transition area between the Lionshead and Vail Village Commercial Cores. Section 4 . 4 the Land Use Plan states: 9 0 0 I' • . m 5 tr-�. ri\1jr;c\.p -1 'c \)� (1 11�c The connection between the Village Core and Lionshead Vr\i:T.• ity-j, should be enhanced through: )1111 'It Installation of a new type of people mover. B. Improving the pedestrian system with a creatively u000 0e10 designed connection, oriented toward a nature walk, ��rr alpine garden, and/or sculpture plaza. C. New development should be controlled to limit commercial uses. A high percentage of the vehicular trips on West Meadow Drive are due to the hospital. The applicants submitted information for total trips on West Meadow Drive for October 15th and October 18th. They state that: "Total trips on West Meadow Drive between 7 : 00 am 34&/ D f r),) tr and 5: 00 pm range from a low of 1, 018 trips on L' '\ �(' (J - Saturday, 15th of October to a high of 1, 618 on 1� 1,.n Thursday, September 29th. The percentage of It � , vehicles on West Meadow Drive using the hospital I�i 1 varies from approximately 34% on October 15th to 53% on October 18th. " (Letter from Dan Feeney to Kristan Pritz October 21, 1988 . ) The peak number of all vehicles using West Meadow Drive during a 60-minute interval on each date is as follows: DATE TIME INTERVAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES 29 Sept. 11 am - noon 185 15 Oct. 11 am - noon 158 18 Oct. 1 - 2 pm 156 By providing the structure and new access on the Northeast corner of the property, these trip numbers should be substantially decreased. The decrease in hospital traffic .using West Meadow Drive supports the long term community goal to develop West Meadow Drive as nk betwetwo villages. to ► V In respect to the road improvements proposed in the Access Cl 4 PERMIT REQUEST prepared by TDA Colorado Inc. , the staff believes that the nlan provides for much needed improvements to the South Frontage Road. The key issue related to the 4 :iAI,nSuQ Access Control Plan is whether or not the Colorado Division / , of Highways will find the plan acceptable. In a preliminary l review session on January 31, 1989 in Grand Junction, the hospital, Vail National Bank, Doubletree Hotel, and �w� , representatives from the Town of Vail met with the Highway cl ' •_ D'rDepartment Access Control Committee to review the plan. The X11 Highway Department wrote a letter summarizing their concerns II with the Access Control Plan. 10 Instead of denying the proposal by strict application of the State Access Code, the Colorado Division of Highways agreed that access to the parking structure would be possible provided that "continuous acceleration, deceleration, and left turn lanes are provided" . They stated that they felt that it was possible -.moo rovi e a npositive access design that will meet the requirements of the property owners_aithout compromising public - fet The highway department recommen.e. a he property owners consider the following design options: 1. Provide one access to the parking structure which in turn provides access to the Doubletree and Vail National Bank. 2 . Close the two westerly approaches to the old Post Office and provide a road to the easterly approach along the Interstate right of way and connect parking lots around the Post Office. This would allow for movement to the Frontage Road more to the North. 3 . Removal of the super elevation (bank of the road) and center line spirals to gain more room. (Please see letter from Mr. Chuck Dunn, District Right of Way Engineer, February 1, 1989 . ) j, l () The Highway Department also indicated that it would be helpful if the Town of Vail would determine what uses would be located in the Post Office building once it is vacated. The effects of a fourth lane in the northern LN_ area of the highway right-of-way should also be studied by the Town of Vail to determine how a potential for future fourth lane might effect access onto the Town of Vail property. In light of these comments, the hospital requested to "1�� meet with the council on February 7, to discuss how the �j�1/ proposed Frontage Road improvements affect the Town of "TN � Vail and to ask for Town of Vail support in resolving �.6W■ 6 � the conflict. At that meeting the council passed a ►Std r YOAA resolution addressing the hospital request. (Copies of the resolution will be available on Monday. ) The staff also agrees with the resolution in the respect that we are supportive of the property owners efforts to work out an acceptable Frontage Road improvement plan (pit1fILN b with the Colorado Department of Highways. Instead of ATC-061-- prohibiting the project from proceeding through the k, (� MAT' planning process, the staff believes that it is ge acceptable to proceed with planning commission review of 1, ,21.E . (e1P\r the proposal with the condition that an access permit be � ��`1 . ' 1 11 I approved by the Colorado Division of Highways before a building permit is released for the hospital expansion. The proposal is extremely complex and involves three private property owners plus the Town of Vail. To their �1'\j _ credit, the three property owners have reached agreement 1'\{' on a myriad of issues which allow for the completion of the Frontage Road improvements. 2 . Shared Parking. The hospital has submitted information which indicates that the required parking drastically decreases after 5: 00 pm. The parking information provided by the hospital below indicates this pattern: % OF TOTAL NUMBER OF EXCESS SPACES DATE TIME CAPACITY VEHICLES PARKED CAPACITY UNUSED Dec 30 3 : 30pm 205 158 47 23% Dec 30 8 : 00pm 205 39 166 81% Jan 4 3 : 30pm 205 165 40 19 . 5% Jan 4 8 : 00pm 205 36 169 82% Jan 11 5: 30pm 205 113 92 45% Jan 12 5: 30pm 205 101 104 51% When the parking structure is complete, our total capacity will be increased to 279 spaces. Because the mix of hospital services is not expected to change with our proposed expansion, it seems a reasonable assumption that the percentage of total spaces unused at 5: 30 pm � � ,` � ■ V n will remain approximately 45-51%, as it was on January i #, v Tti n, 11 and 12 . Thus, the number of unused par ng spaces at s1chi 5: 50 pm will increase to the range of 126-14 when the parking structure is constructed. This is almost three �� �"',a A times the number of spaces we have made avai a -o the NAV in (.1 Doubletree Hotel durin g evening evenin hours. Employees who fill day-time only jobs, such as business office personnel, normally leave the hospital between \ 4 : 30 pm and 5: 00 pm. Shift changes for positions that �CkOA,^ are staffed round-the-clock, such as nursing and EMT Q �\ ��'�'' jobs, occur variously between 3 : 00 pm and 4 : 00 pm. 60 �,,,; Thus, the overlap that occurs while one shift is Vp�L� finishing and another is coming on duty is finished long �, , ll before the spaces would have to be available to the l Doubletree. In addition, most evening shifts have 25- c - 30% fewer personnel than the day shifts they replace. (Letter from Dan Feeney January 13 , 1989) The Doubletree has submitted the following information concerning their parking utilization: 12 The results of the survey show that daytime parking demand for the Hotel employees, condominium owners, and guests ranged from approximately 15% to 38% of supply. During this period Hotel occupancy ranged from 32% to 100%. 38% of the parking supply is equal to 63 parked cars. During the evening hours the survey indicates that a number of "unauthorized" cars utilize the parking supplied by the Doubletree. These are patrons of the bar and restaurant and when factored into the survey indicate a higher utilization of the parking supply. At 9 : 00 p.m. the 167 spaces were never full but our observation is that later in the evening the parking fills close to capacity. The survey supports very strongly that the jointly shared parking arrangement proposed by the Vail Valley Medical Center and the Doubletree is a workable and d0fi^^1. �1r^�nn�V desirable solution. Even though our survey indicates y Tom"�LVS'"vr"1�' peak usage during the day is roughly 38% maximum we are 0, h1t \ proposing to provide 73% of our required spaces during Q 091 the day and 100% in the evening hours. The difference will more than provide a "cushion" for any seasonal `l fluctuations or special events that may occur. (Memo from Peter Jamar dated January 10, 1989 . ) The Staff approves of the shared parking concept for these two projects. We believe that the shared parking will UNl(1,1 , provide for a more efficient use of parking between both projects. 3 . Delivery Service: 0 The existing driveway at the east end of the hospital will be G.4 CC maintained as a fire lane to facilitate snow removal from the del O1,c_ 6upper deck of the parking structure and as an access to the service door at the southeast corner of the parking structures lower level. The service door at the south will be used only by maintenance vehicles and not by the public. --Aries will continue to be received at the materials manag ffent department in the southeast corner of the building via West Meadow Drive. At this time, the hospital does not feel that it is practical to have truck deliveries drive through the proposed parking structure at the east side. 430 Snow Removal : Snow on the top level of the parking structure will be pushed off the southeast corner into the service corridor. Because of extremely limited space the hospital anticipates trucking snow off the site after every major snow storm and after second or third moderately sized snow storm. Staff concern 13 on this issue is that the hospital agrees that all snow Al WA) removal and drainage must be handled on their site. Drainage and snow may not be pushed onto the Frontage Road or to other (W‘ �, d41•' adjacent properties. Or/An^'<dl , s ' ' 5. Pedestrian Connection With The Bank: The hospital is providing a sidewalk connection from the Vail National Bank property to the top level of the parking structure. Although the design and location of the sidewalk .t011 4— may need to be refined at the request of CDOH and at the 1_- Design Review Board level, the staff believes that the /a r , sidewalk connection between the Vail National Bank and 1 t hospital parking structure is important. p1 ' vd Staff Summary: The Staff feels that the proposal is a vast improvement over existing conditions on the Frontage Road and will provide a ( �`�P� , sound solution for parking and access to the site. The most 1 aL significant benefit of the plan is obviously for West Meadow Drive. It is estimated by the hospital that because 85 fewer parking spaces will have access off West Meadow Drive, they dj�� anticipate that an immediate reduction of 500 trips per day L V ( during peak periods will be achieved. This is based on the Ac\l hospital's observation that each parking space generates 5-6 trips on West Meadow Drive between lam and_5pm. (See letter from Dan FWEridy, -December 9, 1988) . Vehicular traffic will 4° be drastically reduced, safety will be improved and the door \�w will be opsned-Eo make the necesa_a.ry improvements to make this-a rac ive and safe •edes rian connection between the Village. • ons ead. • Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. D L','C'�� The hospital expansion does effect the character of the area 32--1) ' due to the increased bulk and mass of the proposed expansion. However, even though the hospital has somewhat of an institutional appearance, the third floor expansion on West , r(0) Meadow Drive has been designed to break up the bulk and mass t �Y` of the expansion as much as possible. The third floor is not one solid building wall extending above the second floor. 6W ti2L-6 Instead, the architects have broken up the mass by the use of ( two deck areas and one recessed area. The hospital has also used as much glass as possible along the west and south elevations. The glass also helps to decrease the perception of the bulk of the building. 14 The parking structure has minimal impacts on West Meadow DWo.-- Drive. Most of the structure is hidden from view by the W�- existing eastern wing of the hospital. From the South �-( Frontage Road, the parking structure will actually be slightly below the grade of the road so visual impacts of the " structure on the Frontage Road should be minimal . It will be U) , *important that as much landscaping as is possible (given CDOH _{� requirements) be located in the planting areas along the , Pl ' U1 South Frontage Road. Even though the structure itself will NS_ `a ��not be visible it will be positive to screen the view of cars l.,, 1 1,.e� L0�1 A, parked on the top of the structure. -14,SSO9ll�'f�'Pr OWi The hospital is proposing to decrease th amount of asphalt on the east side of the Medical Center. Access wi still need to be provided for fire, AMBULANCE and maintenance jG vehicles along the east side of the hospital . However, the hospital has proposed to landscape between the access road and the adjacent Skall Hus property. Staff believes that this will be a positive improvement for both projects. Access to the trash facility will still be maintained for the Skall Hus. IV. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. Vail Valley Medical Center Master Plan: The Staff is looking at the Master Plan as a conceptual guide for future development on the site. Below is a summary of 11,,,, �• S our comments on the proposal: 0 r 1. The parking structures should be connected by a ramp • , �l , - that will allow for direct access between the two structures. We realize that the connection is not c\CS feasible until the ambulance building is relocated to f,,QQ6-( D1\f` the eastern portion of the site. However, we do not �S � feel that it would be acceptable to build the western , ` parking structure without this connection. Even if a west parking structure is not built, we continue to recommend c mmend that access from the northeast parking structure to the west surface parking lot be provided once the ambulance building is relocated. k orv. 2 . Staff would prefer to see future parking located under � the east wing of the hospital when it is rebuilt. It would benefit the site if the western parking structure could be avoided. 3 . We feel strongly that the fourth floor for the east and west wing should be pulled back from the West Meadow viik6 Drive side of the expansion. Terracing back will reduce the mass of the building to the users of the street and 1a '' to the adjacent residences. 15 -� The Staff does not feel that the hospital should rely on aM /-141(. 1 Lot 10 to meet parking needs in the future. Eventually, once the West Meadow Drive pedestrian mall is created, Lot 10 will most likely be used for landscaping and a P pocket park. 5. Staff could not support an expanded service delivery area off of Meadow Drive on the southeast corner of the property. Instead, we would strongly encourage loading and delivery to be relocated to an area that could access off of the South Frontage Road. Master Land Use Plan: The Vail Valley Medical Center lies in the Transition Area. This land use designation is described as follows: The transition designation applies to the area between Lionshead and the Vail Village. The activities and site design of this area are aimed at encouraging pedestrian flow through the area and strengthening the connection between the two commercial cores. Appropriate activities include hotets, lodging and other tourist orienteduesidential its, ancillary retail and restaurant uses, museums, areas of public art, nature exhibits, gardens, pedestrian plazas, and other types of civic and culturally oriented uses, and the adjacent properties to the north. This designation would include the right-of-way of West Meadow Drive and the adjacent properties to the north. (Land Use Plan, page 33) Also, as previously noted, policy 4 . 4 refers to possible future improvements to the West Meadow Drive area. The staff finds that the proposal is in concert-with the_Land Use Plan. The key element is reducing traffic on West Meadow Drive to facilitate implementation of policy 4 . 4 . We feel the Vail Valley Medical Center, Doubletree and Bank deserve credit for working out an agreement to allow access for the Vail Valley Medical Center from the Frontage Road. V. FINDINGS The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be approved based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 16 That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Staff recommends approval of the conditional use request and adoption of the development standards per the proposed plans with the following conditions: (IT) An access permit for the South Frontage Road improvement plan shall be obtained by the Vail Valley Medical Center as well as Vail National Bank before a building permit will be released for the proposed hospital expansion. qJ The Frontage Road improvement plan will include a minimum of three lanes as proposed in the Access PERMIT REQUEST OUTLINED IN THIS MEMO. ,/® The proposed Special Development District 14 for the Doubletree Hotel is AMENDED TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PORTION OF THE PARKING STRUCTURE TO BE BUILT ON DOUBLETREE PROPERTY. Snow removal and drainage from the proposed expansion ��// and parking structure shall not be handled on the South Frontage Road right of way. Access through the southeast corner of the parking structure shall be limited to fire, AMBULANCE and maintenance vehicles. The general public and hospital (76 . employees shall not utilize this access. THE HOSPITAL CONCURS THAT THE RELOCATED ACCESS DRIVE TO/// THE HELIPAD: * SHALL NOT EXCEED A 7% GRADE (THIS ASSUMES THAT THE EXISTING ACCESS DRIVE GRADE DOES NOT EXCEED 7%) * SHALL ALLOW FOR SAFE SEMI-TRUCK ACCESS AND LOADING FOR THE POST OFFICE. * SHALL NOT COMPROMISE THE EXISTING CDOH PERMIT FOR THE HELIPAD. * ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AFFECTED BY THE ACCESS SHALL BE RELOCATED IN THE SAME GENERAL AREA. 17 Peggy Osterfoss moved for approval and Jim Viele seconded the motion with the following conditions added to those recommended by the staff: d) In the event the CDOH deems the helipad must be moved, the hospital must bear the expenses of the relocation of the helipad. 08. The mature evergreens to be transplanted due to the new access drive shall be guaranteed to live for a period of 3 years or be replaced with trees of comparable size. The PEC puts the Hospital on notice that as part of any future building plans, the ambulance garage must be relocated to allow for, a. direct access from the ambulance garage to the Sough Frontage Road and b. for direct access from the South Frontage Road via the parking structure to the west parking lot. 1�. Directions shall be given to DRB that they make certain ^ � � that maximum substantial landscaping be placed on either Camv �p ,lc side of the entrance to the parking structure, even if O f this will require regrading, filling and retention. 11 Suggestion to the Town Council that the TOV assume responsibility for the cost of a 4th lane along the Town of Vail site on the Frontage Road and associated modifications to the TOV site if a 4th lane addition is required by the CDOH. NOTE: The Town Council has asked that the PEC discuss with the applicants how an assessment district could be structured which would commit the Vail Valley Medical Center, Bank and Doubletree Hotel owners to helping fund necessary future road widening improvements in the area directly in front of these properties. The Council feels that the proposed improvements would push future widening to the north side of the right of way and they do not feel that the town should be responsible for the total cost of these improvements. fib- aTh NFL Vim- a 0Xd- I LU ( 18 , ko vail valley ►` medical cente 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 r Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-2451 October 3, 1988 Ms. Kristan Pritz Senior Planner Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. W. Vail , CO 81657 Dear Kristan: Attached are summary sheets of two traffic surveys we conducted on West Meadow Drive. The first survey, conducted on 21 Sep 88, includes vehicles arriving and departing the hospital , between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Arrivals and departures, as well as hourly counts of vehicles parked on-site, were tabulated for both the west and east lots. We conducted a second survey on 29 Sep 88 in the same manner, except that we also counted the total number of vehicles passing our checkpoint at the First Bank of Vail . On this day, 46% of the vehicles traveling West Meadow Drive between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. were on hospital-related business. Lyn Morgan, manager of the Eagle County Ambulance District, has provided the following information on numbers of emergency calls for a 12-month period: SEP 87 47 calls OCT 87 42 NOV 87 45 DEC 87 140 JAN 88 153 FEB 88 122 MAR 88 178 APR 88 89 MAY 88 36 JUN 88 54 JUL 88 104 AUG 88 84 Please call if you need any further information. Sincerely &I/12X Da'' --.e Project .n..er /lrp = enclosure Ray McMahan Administrator vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 medical center Vail, Colorado 81657 (303)03) 476--2451 1 February 24, 1989 Ms. Kristan Pritz Senior Planner Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. W. Vail , CO 81657 Dear Kristan: Reference your letter of 17 February 1989: 1. Our prepared plan for improvements to South Frontage Road will be presented to Mr. Robert Mosten, District Engineer for the Colorado Department of Highways, at 11 AM on Tuesday, 28 February, when he visits the site. The essential features of the plan are as follows: A. We will widen the road to provide three full lanes from the Post Office/Municipal drive to a point west of the Doubletree' s western access. This will include a west-bound thru lane, center left- turn lane, and an east-bound thru lane. In addition, the Double- ' tree is proposing to construct its acceleration/deceleration lane in conjunction with the hospital ' s improvements , rather than de- ferring it until the hotel expands. B. The Bank Building will relocate each of its two access drives in a way that provides more horizontal separation, better alignment with the existing Post Office/Municipal drive, and joint use of the western-most access for the Bank Building and the hospital 's parking structure. C. The Doubletree will realign its existing east access so that it meets South Frontage Road at a right angle, rather than its pre- sent skewed orientation. D. Our engineers are aligning the road improvements so that they will have virtually no negative impact on the grades of existing access drives on either the north or south shoulder, with one exception. Widening on the north shoulder will make the grade for the western access to the Post Office unacceptably steep (14%, in lieu of the existing 6-7%) . The hospital will agree to relocate this drive approximately 30 feet to the west. By exploiting the existing rise in South Frontage Road to the west, this will allow the grade of the new drive to be kept to a grade no steeper than that of the existing access. Ray McMahan Administrator Ms. Kristan Pritz February 24, 1989 Page two E. In order to maintain a minimum turning radius into the hospital 's proposed parking structure, all future widening of the road will have to be accomplished on the north shoulder. The elongated planter proposed by the Bank Building to separate its short-term parking from South Frontage road traffic will also preclude fur- ther widening on the south shoulder. As Exhibit A to his letter (copy attached) , David Leahy has indicated conceptually how a fourth lane might be added at the north shoulder. Whether or not the superelevation (banked curves) is removed will depend in large measure on future improvements made to the east and west of the one-eighth mile of road our proposed plan affects. F. For an excellent summary of the scope, rationale and advantages of our proposed improvement plan, please see David Leahy's letter of 24 February 1989, copy attached. 2. Our proposed improvements will have either positive or neutral impacts on adjacent properties, with the exception of the west drive into the Post Office. Please see Paragraph 1D above. 3. The Administration feels that an engineering study of South Frontage Road from Cascade Village to Ford Park is indeed warranted, regardless of whether the hospital expands. We are prepared to recommend hospi- tal support for an Area-wide Special Improvement District at our next Governing Board meeting, scheduled for 6 March. We cannot, however, recommend support for a Vicinity Special Improvement District, which would presumably entail improvements only to the one-eighth mile of road which fronts property belonging to the Doubletree Hotel and Vail National Bank Building. A limited approach to this extensive problem will not result in the sound and cost-effective engineering solution needed to correct the many long-standing deficiencies on South Frontage Road. 4. We understand that Sydney Schultz, architect for the Vail National Bank Building, will present preliminary plans for realignment of the two existing access drives at the 27 February work session. Please see Paragraph 1B above, as well as David Leahy's letter, for additional information. 5. The parking structure we have proposed could be constructed another one and one-half levels down, without encountering ground water. We have had preliminary discussions with the new owners of the Bank • Building, regarding constructing a larger (deeper) parking structure, in increments of one-half level , in return for payment of incremental construction costs. An underground pedestrian tunnel linking this lower level with the Bank Building 's existing structured parking is feasible. I Ms. Kristan Pritz February 24, 1989 Page three 6. Master Plan A. The Master Plan envisions that the Emergency Room and Ambulance Garage will be relocated to the east end of our property whenever the original building is demolished and re-constructed. It is not possible to forecast if this will occur during the next expansion. Whether the next expansion entails a new fourth floor at the west end or a re-development of the east end depends on the types of additional services our Governing Board feels are needed to meet the community's health care needs. B. Delivery will continue to be handled at the present service loca- tion at the southeast corner, with access off West Meadow Drive. Accepting truck deliveries through our proposed parking structure, with its 24-foot wide aisles and sharp turning radii , is not prac- tical . That would result in a situation where neither deliveries nor patient circulation through the parking structure is effi- ciently served. Presently, we accept an average of only ten truck deliveries each day during the week (Monday thru Friday) , and even fewer on the weekends. Future growth of the hospital is more likely to result in larger deliveries (of slightly longer dura- tion) , rather than more frequent use of West Meadow Drive. C. A connection between the proposed parking structure and the west lot is predicated on relocation of the Ambulance Garage, which in turn is predicated on re-development of the east wing. While re- development of the east end seems likely, we are unable to predict a date. D. We understand the general need for some terracing of a future fourth floor. However, until we determine which specific func- tions will occupy this space, we cannot intelligently discuss the specific form a fourth floor might assume. E. Our proposed widening of South Frontage Road will not affect the present manner of helicopter take-offs and landings at the heli- pad. The hospital has no definite plans to re-locate the existing helipad. 7. We understand the concerns of the PEC and DRB regarding the mass of our building, and are actively investigating alternatives. In the meantime, we plan to bring a scale model of the proposed expansion to the work session on 27 February. I r Ms. Kristan Pritz February 24, 1989 Page four 8. The Ambulance District will have a secondary egress through the lower level of the parking structure. The western drive will once again become the primary egress, as it was several years ago. The Ambulance District Board understands that our proposed parking structure will decrease trips by private passenger vehicles on West Meadow Drive by as many as 500 a day. This is an advantage ambulance drivers will realize every time they make a call during daylight hours. In addition, the Ambulance Board understands that the Master Plan envisions relocation of the Ambulance Garage to the east end of a re-developed hospital , with dedicated access to South Frontage Road. In short, the plan is currently safe, and will be further improved by continued growth of the Medical Center. 9. The CDOH is aware that the northeast side of our proposed structure must essentially coincide with the highway right-of-way line. Personnel from the District Engineer's office have advised us that only minimal landscaping, involving native grasses and low-lying shrubs , will be permitted. Larger plantings would obviously interfere with line-of-sight viewing of traffic, as well as windrows created during snowplowing of the road. Please bear in mind, however, that the Bank Building is proposing an enlarged planter/island as a component of its portions of our coordinated access plan for South Frontage Road. 10. In response to your verbal inquiry, we will continue to incinerate pathological wastes, as well as combustible materials contaminated with body fluids, on site. We are currently breaking in a new incinerator which has a larger burning chamber than the old model , and will utilize improved technology for cleaner burning. We have scheduled a stack test next month to ensure that this model meets all Colorado emission standards. The unit is adequate to service the pro- posed expansion, as well as some subsequent growth of demand. /4— )371...)>UL cerel D Project Man er /lrp enclosure 440 tow ofuai 75 south frontage road vail, colorado 81657 (303) 476-7000 office of community development February 17, 1989 Mr. Dan Feeney, P.E. Project Manager Vail Valley Medical Center 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 Reference: Hospital work session, PEC meeting February 27, 1989 Dear Dan, You requested that the staff summarize the issues that the hospital should address at the PEC work session on February 27th. The following list of issues should be covered at the meeting: 1. Frontage Road improvement plan: * What is the final plan? * Who will construct the improvements and at what time? * What is the Colorado Division of Highways position on the preliminary plan? * How is the Vail National Bank Building involved? * How is the Doubletree Hotel involved? 2. What are the effects of the plan on adjacent properties, including the Town of Vail site? (General impacts - from the Frontage Road improvement plan on adjacent properties?) 3 . Will the hospital agree to not remonstrate against a Special Improvement District, if improvements beyond the three lane preliminary design are necessary in the future? * Area wide Special Improvement District? * Vicinity Special Improvement District? Mr. Dan Feeney 2/17/89 - Page 2 _ - 4 . Vail National Bank: * How are they involved in the project? * A plan showing the requested improvements to their property should be submitted by the bank. This will require coordination with Sydney Schultz , Architect for Vail National Bank. Peter Patten has already discussed with Sid the possibility of preparing a plan in time for the February 27th meeting. 5. Is it possible to connect the Vail National Bank parking structure to the hospital parking structure? 6. Master Plan: * When will the emergency room and ambulance building be moved to the east building? Will this occur in the next phase? * How will service and delivery be handled in the future? Our understanding is that deliveries will continue to occur on West Meadow Drive with this expansion. You should explain why this is necessary and what type of screening from the delivery area could be provided. * What is the timeline for the construction of a connection between the northeast parking structure and the west surface parking lot? Will this connection occur even if the hospital does not expand in the near future? * Will it be acceptable to the hospital to terrace the fourth floor so that the fourth floor is not visible from the pedestrian areas on West Meadow Drive? * How will the Frontage Road expansion effect the heli- copter landing pad. Where will the long-term location of the heli pad be? 7. Architecture: The Planning and Environmental Commission as well as Design Review Board requested that the hospital make an effort to soften the institutional appearance of the structure. They stated that window groupings could be more residential. The DRB suggested that the hospital provide a massing model for the PEC meeting. 8 . Ambulance Ingress/Egress: * Is the proposed plan acceptable to the Ambulance District? * Is the proposed plan safe? :..S .- . _* 9. Landscaping: * What is the landscape plan in front of the structure? * Is the landscaping possible given CDOH concerns? Please submit a landscape plan showing materials that are possible. This is the staff's best effort at listing issues raised by the Planning Commission at the meeting on February 13th. You may wish to call several of the planning commissioners to go over this list just to make sure that all the issues are addressed. We have scheduled the hospital for a work session with the PEC at 12 : 30 - 2: 15 on February 27th. Our understanding is that you would also like to have a public hearing on the project. We have scheduled the hospital as the first item for the public hearing. The hearing will begin at 3 : 00 p.m. in the Town Council Chambers. If you have any further questions please feel free to call me at 479-2138. Sincerely, ri Llr) Kristan Pritz Senior Planner KP:sm . � ti PROPOSED ACCESS CONTROL PLAN for a Portion of SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD Vail, Colorado Prepared for Town of Vail and Doubletree Inn Vail Valley Medical Center Vail National Bank ' Prepared by TDA Colorado, Inc. 1675 Larimer Street, #600 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 825-7107 January 3, 1989 CONTENTS Introduction 1 Existing Conditions 3 Planned Development 6 Doubletree Inn 6 Vail Valley Medical Center 6 Vail National Bank 7 Access Control Plan 7 Area-wide Impacts 9 Figures 1. Location Plan, Project Limits 2 2 . Existing Access & Circulation 4 3 . P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 5 4 . Proposed Access Control Plan 8 PROPOSED ACCESS CONTROL PLAN FOR A PORTION OF SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD Vail , Colorado Introduction This report discusses the traffic operation elements of a proposed access control plan for a one eighth-mile section of S. Frontage Road in Vail, Colorado. S. Frontage Road is essentially a two-lane paved road with graded shoulders serving property frontages and public roadway intersections along the south side of Interstate 70 through the Town of Vail. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. The road widens to five lanes (two through lanes in each direction, plus left turn lane) beginning 600 feet east of the 4-way stop intersection at Vail Road, see Figure 1. The need for an access management plan is dictated by several development plans: 1. Planned expansion and on-site circulation changes for the existing Doubletree Inn at the west portion of the project. 2 . Construction of a 185-space multilevel parking structure at the center of the project to serve Vail Valley Medical Center's planned expansion. This structure will be used primarily by physicians, employees and outpatients to hospital and medical offices. 3 . Planned reconstruction along the frontage of Vail National Bank to gain additional short-term parking spaces and to relieve current safety and capacity deficiencies. The resulting access changes along S. Frontage Road to accommodate each of these projects are being evaluated collectively in the interest of providing the maximum compliance possible with the State Department of Highways Access Code. S. Frontage Road is under the administrative jurisdiction of the State Highway Department and any changes to existing access provisions require concurrence by the Highway Department. This report describes existing and anticipated future traffic conditions and depicts the suggested access control plan for the effected section of S. Frontage Road. -1- .----) i!: ...,. -. $4 • i•- 1'1 / 11440iik 1 1 i'.. -. I 1 IIMI • 0 Cr^ ,---s - •..ir i . 4,/ / / T-I I:.:i = ,-.1 1: .. ,- itil ! 0/ I / c./ \../ F < ',-.4 i MI I'M t.''i — ,tir ..1' / _ C.--) r0 -.• / =u i ••I r 1 W Z = a ..-. I.-LJ • / I _ I-1 L ,-,r-i j. 711,4 a 1 LT. V •i 1 I'• El3 I r * .:,zr 13''‘a P741 i:l. o .i.::':.::'■.4.:. ..:'::':::::1 '-'s •••■.:.,• 2 ' •'0::.§".r.:••:. .•:'..:.:::4 t / '.-I E.1 :11 = CI) A ... A i: --1 • A •• ii c:: cu C.:1 p:;• a A -• Q., a. -,..1 I=C •••• 'Li .... -I ,- , F•1 kJ.. • o A to 1* a , i 1... C..b . 0 t. f.• = CX • )l.' 4 :1 U ai sa 4 ' : Z ,!. .,i > I r=t4 — : . i F:'•': '-'-. 1 • 1:4 ■_,.. o. 1 ti) -•,, 1 . kiii .... ..-... . t ...tirs 1 rAt"...'74.7!:!!!!!,:!!!""'''"••"""'""'''''`-....'.;.x.,,;,A; "..i i• I .1 I, x iI-.- ■'... ..1 rrr• E AO C.-. - .'., '1 F.' .(.' ... ... = ... :3 Lli ,e , 2 F?• ; I-• ?.1 1•:•-• . - ,.:.: r *• 7.. .:: .. ., ::,.■ 1 O' c... '.. . .. •. „ 4.• ...:, . t o \ • ... - - . :am .f.:I up!P!Aail '....._........ ..„,o G.i• !I5./. %I t. , ••■ '---- -----.4 jillIlli: : as - 'f: A a -- . Greer !:11 ,stot"t:. \ \ ••,-.1 0 \ (j ••1 F,/ 73 *2 il c.• U :'•" 4.............................IN a.war•••Me•OM ale....014.4111,..••..4111,01■■• !;...r...v.;.;;;■:::::;;;; ...: ,.....::.;; ;;;;;;;;;i4;iic ;;;;;;;;:,....m...: IE'.'. 1 °- ;)i:f4 . • ., 1 ii:::i "•1 ..,..i ::::'.• a S !-7,... I. Z l :.:::" -.., '•:: a. _ l' E.., ...I 7•••••?v a. (.. .... I. • cl--. El} • ......A.6 C) '''' 0.0.., ...0.. -.".- • - . • . ...._ .\.. . . 0 0 .J -2- rI (14 Existing Conditions Within the project area there are currently four full- movement access drives along the south side of the road and two full-movement access drives along the north side of the road, see Figure 2 . Following the natural topography, access drives on the north side ramp down to join S. Frontage Road. Driveways along the south side ramp up to join the roadway elevation. Through the curve opposite the Post Office, the Frontage Road is super elevated (banked) opposite to the natural slope of the land. Driveways leading up to the Post Office/Town Hall and down to the Doubletree Hotel are quite steep--approximately 10 percent grades. Both drives are skewed from a normal radial alignment to favor movements to and from the east. About 80 feet east of the Doubletree Main access drive is located the first of two access drives for the Vail National Bank Building. The second access drive is about 60 feet to the east. Six short term parking spaces are provided along a portion of the bank frontage for bank patrons. Visitor parking is along the west side of the building. Long term parking for tenant use is accessed from the rear via the driveway along the west side of the building. During afternoon peak traffic periods motorists often park illegally along the eastbound frontage road shoulder if parking spaces are not available along the front of the building. Traffic counts taken on the afternoon of Thursday, December 22, 1988 from 4 to 6: 00 p.m. indicate bank traffic is oriented 65% to the east and 35% to the west. As shown in Figure 3, total volume in the peak 4-5: 00 p.m. hour was 109 vehicles of which 40%i were inbound and 60% outbound. The shortage of parking and close access drive spacing results in noticeable internal congestion and delay within the Bank's parking and circulation area during peak periods. Traffic counts taken in January 1986 at the Doubletree main access drive show a total of 36 outbound and 33 inbound vehicles during the p.m. peak hour. Trips were oriented 70% to the east, 30% to the west. Volume on the frontage road was 567 vehicles eastbound, 382 westbound. Vehicles entering and exiting the Post Office/Town Hall access drive were not counted in either count since the Post Office is relocating to a North Frontage Road location in 1989 . Future reuse of the Post Office building is anticipated to be a town or joint town/county public use. In any event, the future use will likely be accompanied by noticeable reduction in site generated traffic as compared to the short-term, high turnover demand exhibited by the Post Office. The principal deficiencies with current S. Frontage Road operation in the project area are: -3- EXISTING 567 Nik 4'd X382 12` �zl 2r4 DOUBLETREE X18 • HOTEL 1 x(" 14 ( 1/ 11/86 ) �l 11 18 20 >, 0 6 22 BANK BUILDING ( 12/22/88 ) 1- 2 1 48 R 15 J FUTURE BUILDOUT 17 48 DOUBLETREE HOTEL x'` 31 14* 36 f-- 44 n► 72 •-► 104 0 rC-1"30 HOSPITAL PARKING BANK BUILDING STRUCTURE No Scale P .M . PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ( 4 : 00 to 5 : 00 p .m . ) FIGURE 3 5 TDA 1. The rather abrupt transition from a five-lane cross section to a two-lane section leaves left turning motorists uncertain about their proper deceleration and storage position relative to thru travel lanes. 2 . Closely spaced, full-movement access drives at Vail National Bank result in noticeable on-site maneuvering and circulation delays as well as hesitation by motorists turning off S. Frontage Road to enter either of the Bank's access drives. 3 . The skewed approaches and steep drives for the Post Office and Doubletree result in hazardously high entry and exit speeds for some motorists using these drives. These current deficiencies are considered in the development of the preferred access control plan. Planned Development This section of the report describes planned land use changes in the project area and the access implications associated with these changes. Doubletree Inn has prepared plans for extending the north and east wings. Underground parking would be expanded as part of this project. A new single access entryway is planned and access to underground parking will be revised. A traffic study prepared in 1986 projects a future Doubletree p.m. peak hour volume of 72 outbound and 67 inbound vehicles using the future access drive. Vail Valley Medical Center is planning a 185-space parking structure in conjunction with vertical expansion of the existing hospital footprint. Hospital physicians, employees and staff, many of whom now park in valet stalls 3 and 4-cars deep in a surface lot, will instead use the parking structure. All access to VVMC parking is currently via Vail Road to West Meadow Drive. Hence, virtually all hospital traffic passes through the 4-way stop sign at the Vail Road/S. Frontage Road intersection. Town of Vail staff have indicated that consistent with the Town's adopted Land Use Plan (1) , any traffic growth associated with hospital expansion will not be permitted on West Meadow Drive. West Meadow Drive is identified as predominately a pedestrian link between the Village Core and Lionshead Village in the Land Use Plan and local traffic use is discouraged. Hence, parking 1. Adopted November 18, 1986 -6- N structure access will be exclusively to S. Frontage Road. Based on the size of the facility, intended use, and the hospital 's demonstrated work day and shift patterns, we estimate 108 p.m. peak hour trips (72 outbound 36 inbound) will access S. Frontage Road to and from the planned parking structure. VVMC is requesting a setback variance from the Town of Vail to allow the structure to be built up to the north property line. This is to allow normal ramp gradients within the structure. Vail National Bank is undergoing a change of ownership. The new owners wish to remedy the current short term parking deficiencies and on-site circulation problems by expanding the parking row in front of the building and gaining greater separation between access drives. We estimate the improved parking and circulation plan will result in a 15% increase in access drive volume for site generated trips. Accordingly, we anticipate the future p.m. peak hour volume for bank building trips will be 125 vehicles (76 outbound, 49 inbound) . Access Control Plan With encouragement from Town of Vail staff and in accordance with guidelines contained in the State Highway Access Code (Section 2 . 12) , representatives of each effected abutting land use have met jointly to develop a mutually acceptable access plan for the project area. On December 22 , 1988 representatives from the Town of Vail, Vail National Bank, Vail Valley Medical Center and, the Doubletree Hotel met in Vail to review three conceptual access control alternatives prepared by TDA Colorado Inc. A basic plan was agreed upon in concept for subsequent refinement and review. Figure 4 depicts the access control plan that has been agreed upon by the effected abutting property owner representatives for buildout of each property. Features of the plan are: 1. The existing six, full-movement access drives in the study area will be consolidated into four full-movement and one partial-movement (inbound only) access drives. A restricted use (delivery truck only access drive) is anticipated at the west end of the project for the future Doubletree Inn loading dock location. 2 . The existing center left turn lane on S. Frontage Road that extends from the 4-way stop sign to the c,o Town Hall/Post Office access drive will be extended west as a continuous 2-way left turn 'WU lane for 500 feet. This will provide left-turn storage for each future access drive. Center-to- center spacing for competing access drive left -7- • turns will be approximately 150 feet. This spacing falls between the limiting 100-foot spacing and the preferable minimum 185-foot spacing for successive right turns as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. (2) 3 . Subject to final engineering plan and profile investigations, a right turn deceleration lane will be constructed along eastbound S. Frontage Road in conjunction with Doubletree Inn expansion. Per the Access Code, the lane will be 150 feet long plus a 90 foot taper section. 4 . The Medical Center will share its full-movement access drive with the adjacent bank property. All parking structure entering and exiting movements will use this access drive. Vehicles exiting the bank will also use this drive. Vehicles approaching the bank from the west may also use this as an entrance to the bank property. 5. The bank will have an entrance-only drive located opposite the existing Post Office/Town Hall access drive for patrol approach.ing from the east. The geometry of the entrance and the orientation of • parking stalls will force one-way clockwise circulation in front of the bank. This improvement will eliminate the overlapping opposing left turn storage problem that now exists • at this intersection. Area-wide Impacts - The proposed access control plan shifts some Hospital turning movement volumes from West Meadow Drive to S. Frontage Road. This is done in compliance with the Town's Land Use Plan, as previously discussed. Based on observed turning movements at the bank and Doubletree Inn, between 1/3 and 1/4 of the Hospital 's peak hour trips will be oriented to the west. Hence, the proposed access plan will lessen the percentage of Hospital trips passing through the 4-way stop intersection by 25 to 33%. This reduction of 25 to 30 p.m. peak hour trips using Vail Road should be noticeable in peak hour traffic operations. Specifically, the single-lane northbound Vail Road approach at the 4-way stop will experience reduced length of vehicle queue by virtue of the proposed access plan. 2. Transportation and Land Development, Table 4-6 30 mph, ITE, 1988. -9- 4,,,. r4710 111111111111.1.1"...n' 111111.111111.11.1"..n. et—..r. • f`I _ Ark �• , ��,, F}.j ♦0 (11:: (.� ' ' 4C* ., 1 i�r j .'1,.1„- ; -pi i '1y_ 'T� V 3 . •(ice_ j .Pal +�, i Fj.,.rC< {j • •9� -,-"1-..A.._.` i r..".a i`': 3 ;? ;\;\ i t7� 1 e_ • ' '!3 ' - i s ? :'� t t,. µ�, a 'S. '41't*, ' i ms �'+4.. k. 1 f k Y t t..,..0 1 ( )1 1 li!f* 1 i 'ar. ,..ssr•• `� 1 5• r.„,,..._ /".1. 1 V 1 t r � , `'` 1 "` �! _ r anti . '� ,4•i-, \ A e r v 1 ` at...'. 4':.. 1 4 io -4441,-- . , " 1 4 .l• :f`r ` J ' .s f. 1 . 3 - 14. 4tr.7 :-Y+¢f 1 .'. !. _ by t ref , Ks1 '1%)ay i ,rs �Y •.. 4 ' . .►l1i�r A 4• tai a( i ! .�¢+. t. �j„ t• ..-„44 . .- . ,-•....,, ,'i ,„ , -,-, ,.- -,;:,-, e_ ..,,-,„,3, , ,. .' 4)I S j j ' I 1 t 1 # f -0• • r s -.[. , a.. .3>t z- #_. - f 1;,.... tat 7:„.4..,•„4.,r a� j { �1 s{�`�7 ' t•45 .. t �'• t ✓ • i 2 ,;.4',.,i° in 4L- • �•?iM i-a ? tit/ LT/. �. � s] ;r). ,- .� � t�. '� 'f;4+ r,{-h �� c 4. —"--4•1"• t1p44 - _,. ../.1 ,-..-.1-,;.� aea 3 u� !r k d r. S I'P �, . . _ tt 1‘ ' . • i r-t allittj .' Wit. ' N t' ft */ ;' r ?`q 1� • L 1 1a r � r ,(�'�.,{'1y „t ;� l•+� afj'c4y ' . .,;(2,.,,,,,-;,..:,i., Y •' ♦ y� 1 aS.�t+ 1 H •j•#fi - b 4 r ° 'H".1 �"' '1 . ` ,� 7 _ , ,t V .1 !-v, a 1 f. 1 .. ; ..4. • - k war r, 1.... /r. . ,. - ' ' •1 _ /a. . ='• s • yet ?C e =4,-'.1'.14. , _ J F c r ` r 1• e i 1 '- 1 A: i w !, ,!i kj �.t , 4 K r � •441 „„ - _ ,�, "' 1e' ' • ' 7C w �( $ i s. 1 i1 4-an'!1 :0 9 y •may' :t i'f, ( Y � 'if,.• N r a11 � � ',1 ..Y .••1 I LIi , s! 1 •y. t1 .1 1 14 _ 'g t 4 Rf ,' f,leo {iSitriC r�� • i „r +'S ',.1 i'1 }• ' an '1,0 1 t� 11 •�) ..1 ',. • ' `I F, BANJO Y W. No .3038936553 b 24 ,89 14 :49 P .01 w • TDAFebruary 24, 1989 COLORADO _INC Mr. C.I. Dunn, Jr. District ROW Engineer • Colorado Department of Highways Transportation 222 S. 6th Street, P.O. Box 2107 Consultants Grand Junction, Colorado 81502-2107 Re: Vail Valley Hospital, Vail National Bank, Doubletree Inn, SH 70 S. Frontage Road Dear Mr. Dunn, As discussed with you and Rich Perske recently, we are herewith transmitting four applications for re-permitting four existing access drives along the south side of South Frontage Road in Vail. These permit requests were originally to be part of an Access Control Plan for a 1/8-mile stretch of South Frontage Road. Preliminary plans for the access control plan were sent to Rich Perske on January 6, 1989 by the Town of Vail and were subsequently discussed with the District's access committee on January 31st in Grand Junction. In consideration of your letter of February 1st and the Towns subsequent position that the applicants should proceed independently with the State Highway Department, we are submitting two of these permit requests at this time. This action reflects a cooperative agreement between Vail Valley Hospital and the two existing adjacent accesses The Doubletree Inn and the Vail National Bank. To restate the current situation regarding this access request: 1. Vail Valley Hospital's proposed parking structure is to access South Frontage Road rather than West Meadow Drive in conformance with the Town's Land Use Plan. 2. The new owners of Vail National Bank have agreed to share one of their two access drives with the Hospital in the interest of gaining greater separation between existing access drives and, in so doing, create an opportunity to add several short-term parking spaces along the Bank's frontage. 3. The Doubletree Inn will agree to slightly reorient • their existing east access to be radial to the South Frontage Road curve rather than the unsafe skew intersection that now exists. The Doubletree Inn will continue to use this reshaped access drive until a losu10%6 La;nWr$,. , future expansion program relocates access to under- Der,ve.COL0?02 round parking (303)a2s7107 ground ebuiltinthe existing.ofthei parking rsite. With be this future expansion their two existing full movement • s BARCLRY TEL No .3033936553 0 Feb 2489 14 :51 P .03 - •� 1 A,. J 1 . � yy Mr. C.I. Dunn, Jr. February 24 , 1989 4' Page 3 south sides of South Frontage Road to the maximum extent possible without prematurely affecting existing Doubletree or Town of Vail €; access drives. This translates to holding the existing south edge of paving at the easterly Doubletree access drive and in front of the Bank, and, not starting widening on the north side until after passing west of the existing access drive to the Post Office/Town Hall. This project achieves the following safety and operational improvements as compared to existing conditions: 1. Introduces 500 feet of new, two-way center left turn lane for use by all abutting properties. All four of the two-car accidents recorded in the last two years could be attributed to substandard left turn provisions. 2. Introduces at the west end of the project 350 feet of widening of what eventually can become a future continuous eastbound accel/decel lane for all three abutters (Doubletree, Hospital, Bank) . 3. Removes the current unfavorable offset between the Town/Post Office drive and the Bank's east access drive. The current offset results in overlapping left turns. The Bank's proposed one-way flow along their frontage reduces the number of turning conflicts at ¢' . this driveway intersection. Vail Valley Hospital and Doubletree Inn have agreed to fund the Phase One widening of South Frontage Road as part of the permit approvals. Vail National Bank would be responsible for relocating their east access drive and for coordinating landscaping and parking modification agreements along their frontage with you. Doubletree Inn will fund the cost of the realignment of their existing east driveway and will participate in the improvements shown on the south side of the road. future Construction Depending on the future disposition of the Town's central access drive, some future widening could occur on the north side of the road to effect the full four-lane crossection (two eastbound, two-way left turn, one westbound) west of the Town's central access drive. If the Town's central access remains open, the right hand westbound lane would become a "Must Turn Lane" into the Town's parking lot. These matters would be negotiated between the Town and the Highway Department as part of the Town's permitting process in the future. j g / • ,., . ,1. a 1.1A trt, '1 t ' �. o NNW i1r— :j1 s , 11 I 11 1° .. .. 4.. . : f c, • r 1 r • 11): . ;;-..",1/ , .. . •s•).,'► ." • O ,l/I. / 1-{�a (,,,!...c...'I�yw ��IiyIr" I !;. ., .9• *Its. .A' r r,,. '�I;f / 1 .. '; ..:-,:t.1:'•l'0;114:1 i .I'�• 1 ::r,'...:.,..,,t!. *,- ..., n. , . .•- ...... , . . :•.;4 ..i.": 4 •••• • •• ! _r !,:;.',/ , /• i .; '., .• ., , II 1.r• . ..•,s'790'V' 'ft:.• AS. + '•'1 I � `a11 th ./../. j, .�' / / ,•-•:'''....:. '1•. ,,. ::'.....•;..I.• 11. ..IiF•' 1'I. • 4 I Imo /1// 4r•'cam s.• 1:! W ,if.., •j /%/ ` 1. w _ 4 / , I _ f{i' ••1', it `t• ( e•i �• •,• r. 1 /// e1 f , / t ..• i a1 �ltl.�lu"• • ,t , ..� .'l i 1''' /• , p l r. /:P , , .la • . N 11 t , ;•, ` b • •;,fr,•,.,e:. ', .. . .,. 1, . •f ',Z / ,., /' 1 r 1 ' •�� MI / 1,1 H: • V31 .'•L ..\ • 0 •P •4: , •Ifr 'l /' it::('''''IV/ ! 1 ' C i nl ,r: , r 11.•• M • • b• . .r / . '1. ••tf.1, .1:. �1 t :.1 r'• / i a� .• •{. ....•�;jO`�: r1� �,` •;' /-N1 /1 ; e' I ) ..4 +111• a'.,..t .y.•1,'.; +II)r'� %.'m ,` `j .! / •�1� /0~ '1 ' it'.• !II... }•..01;!"..:. Q / fit/ l y ' • 1,= ,..,., ''',.;..4I..-.. • fn 1�'I 1 � �, / f , r b e 1.' '`• ' •I•' \ / • , . I. .., Zii.4,,i ,. 'I, ( i I S� ! t1 t't �3 w f' w..l II r $ / !.' I :' •� ., 5.. r' d, f. '•' r.• C '; D 1 ... 11, lr ,I.S :y1 y. 4 . lit.... ' al hi t, ;1.w t .4.�a �. I .. li f� A 1 ! r1 Sttl� a •- •1' j. ■ ' N S ':II . .W• t �1 4"!.0%:.:;••i'/ y • • •'. ,, • � � • > , Q t' li . . y i . ` , f / 7. i1 # -C ` -• i •�. f):• f..s'i;P � ,O•r ('tir '\\ _ ? 1 ; /_ �►). 1 . r .7 s ' oAi .i •.il.'' ' :6►:J4 r•S t,}1`. )'• {;:`:'•:•� •..$1. 1 ( r I :ct '"••1 :,. ;•►l I' _•• •14.1 •t .p�1 ,•t• Y •f,. ' i r ; '' . • ` r'.5. '•r ,;..{'`^i ? e 1 I W "t t.f. . .'.• . l!1 .� • tl 11 S''• •rt y" if1 S 03•i r• 9 1 's �', 1 / r ( • l • 1, r r (lt •t .L.,%. G4'�•i, �•, ;�•� t 1. �'k r: tpl ' i. S`` �' ` L y f,yl•.11•-..7.1.7,' A.� / e,!yl.r I: 1 1 •, l ,, •i m 1• r•..1. 1 j• If; .'1' •,�:' .It%i1. "• t • ' y ` I 1 1 i• r , ,, i.,, ,1 ,1•''X•' 'k t:,.. . • d 1 1 ! l i. {� 1y 1 ' .F f a t v1 i r ``tt ..1�4.:` . 1/ }} 1' t,44 S +•.�.rL.�..r. .rr.r� -� w41L.ni0.11,/J 211.:d.,:Yi NrbL.Wrr :.iN•1:wiM�°af•'arC1i S0' d ZS: VT 68' 17Z q.3 2SS9268202' oN 131 Ab1JdldS vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 • medical center Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-2451 October 21 , 1988 Ms. Kristan Pritz Senior Planner Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. W. Vail , CO 81657 Dear Kristan: The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the additional parking and traffic flow information you requested in your letter of 3 October 1988. • Reference Item 6: We have conducted two additional surveys of traffic on West Meadow Drive. We conducted the first on Saturday, 15 October, and the second on Tuesday, 18 October, copies of which are attached. (For the sake of completeness, I have also attached copies of the two previous surveys, which you have already seen. ) Total trips on West Meadow Drive between 7 am and 5 pm ranged from a low of 1018 trips on Saturday, 15 October, to a high of 1618 on Thursday, 29 September. The percentage of vehicles on West Meadow Drive using the hospital varied from 34% on 15 October to 53% on 18 October. The peak number of all vehicles using West Meadow Drive during a 60-minute interval on each date is as follows: DATE TIME INTERVAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES 21 Sept not counted 29 Sept 11 am - noon 185 15 Oct 11 am - noon 158 18 Oct 1 - 2 pm 156 Statistics on ambulance calls between September 87 and August 88 were provided in my letter of 3 October 1988, a copy of which is attached for your convenience. • Reference Item 8 : The Conditional Use Permit issued in 1986 requires the hospital to provide 220 spaces for patients and staff during the ski season. The permit allows the hospital to achieve the total of 220 spaces by augmenting on-site parking with up to 30 spaces off-site, for use by employees. During the 1987-88 ski season, we maintained 205 spaces on-site, and leased 15 spaces at Manor Vail Lodge. Ray McMahan Administrator Ms. Kristan Pritz Town of Vail Page two The 205 spaces on-site consisted of 102 self-park spaces , and 103 valet spaces. Only staff used the valet spaces. During the summer months, we maintain 151 spaces on-site. We do not valet park, nor do we lease spaces off-site. We do, however, have a rotating list where 15-20 day-shift employees park at the Lionshead parking structure Monday thru Friday. Plans submitted previously for a 3-level parking structure at the northwest corner of our property would enable us to park 290 vehicles, as follows : PARKING STRUCTURE 220 SURFACE PARKING-WEST 36 SURFACE PARKING-EAST 34 VALET 0 290 These 290 parking spaces will be available year-round. • Reference Item 9: Although we have reems of parking surveys on hand, we conducted them before the new wing was opened last summer, and felt that they were irrelevant to the current configuration of the hospital . Therefore, we conducted a new survey on Tuesday, 11 October, between the hours of 8 am and 5 pm. Results are as follows: DEPARTMENT NUMBER OF PARKED VEHICLES Emergency Room 15 X-Ray 3 Pharmacy 6 Patient Care Unit 14 Sports Medicine Center 55 Business Office 10 Employees 94 Miscellaneous 13 Dr. Chow 19 Dr. Gerner 2 Drs. Eck/Zeitlin 16 Vail Mountain Medical 82 Jimmy Heuga Center 8 • Reference Item 10: Experience has shown that a large number of our employees drive smaller cars. Such cars , if properly segregated, can be parked four deep in the valet section, rather than the three deep originally envisioned. This will enable us to park 214 vehicles on-site during the 1988-89 ski season. If we lease the full thirty spaces available to us at Manor Vail Lodge, we will have a total of 244 spaces this winter. Ms. Kristan Pritz Town of Vail Page three Ray McMahan' s 16 May 88 letter to Ron Phillips was meant merely to document that we have more parking available both on- and off-site, using present resources, than either the Town or the hospital originally thought possible. He did not mean to imply that he felt that the 220 spaces agreed to during the 1986 approval process was inadequate. In fact, we have had several discussions that this additional on-site parking might allow us to ask fewer of our employees to park off-site at Manor Vail , at least on certain days. • Reference Item 11 : The 1986 permit calculated the requirement for 220 spaces by adding the number of day-shift employees, hospital beds and exam rooms. The overall total included an Obstetrics (OB) wing on the north side of the second floor, although this was never built. Thus, the number of parking spaces calculated for this department should be "credited" against our new overall requirements. (The 1986 Conditional Use Permit makes provisions for this. ) USE PARKING Patient beds - OB 10 spaces Exam room - OB 1 Day-shift employees - OB 6 TOTAL 17 spaces Subtracting this from 220 shows that 203 spaces are needed to service the building actually constructed in 1986-87, based upon the formula agreed to by the Town and the hospital . Incremental parking requirements that our new expansion will generate are computed as follows: USE PARKING Patient beds - general 20 spaces Exam rooms - general 6 Day-shift employees - general 49 TOTAL 75 spaces Therefore, new parking requirements are computed as follows: USE PARKING Base figure 86-87 expansion 203 spaces Incremental increase 89-90 expansion 75 TOTAL REQUIRED 278 spaces Thus, we propose to construct 12 more spaces than the calculated peak demand, based on the agreed-to formula. • Reference Item 12: None of the 290 spaces to be provided will be valet-parked. • Reference Item 15 : It was our understanding that the Town would provide a new bus stop at the southwest corner of our new wing. We concur in the need for this. Ms. Kristan Pritz Town of Vail Page four Questions on the ultimate traffic-conveying capacity of West Meadow Drive have been asked. We feel that a study of this sort, which must of necessity include Vail Road as well as the 4-way stop, is beyond the purview of any individual owner. We do, however, feel that West Meadow Drive could safely handle additional vehicular traffic if pedestrians were provided with a separate, attractively landscaped mall . Conversely, if pedestrians continue to walk 4 or 5 abreast down the middle of West Meadow Drive, it is difficult to argue that any amount of vehicular traffic can be safely handled by the road. Our architect is currently working on a revised package of plans which will , we hope, address the other issues raised in your letter. This effort has been somewhat delayed by my requests that he study alternate proposals for resolving the access issue, such as various schemes for constructing a parking structure jointly on hospital and Doubletree land, at the east end of our property. Nevertheless, I expect to have a revised set of drawings to you not later that 28 October. Sincerely, :. i�.a- _.• - . Project 'Wager /lrp enclosures cc: Ray McMahan John Reece vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 it medical center Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-2451 January 13, 1989 Ms. Kristan Pritz Senior Planner Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. W. Vail , CO 81657 Dear Kristan: Reference your letter of 10 January 1989. Following are specific re- sponses: I A. SHARED PARKING WITH THE DOUBLETREE. We took counts of vehicles parked at the hospital at 5:30 pm on two consecutive days: TOTAL NO. OF VEHICLES EXCESS % OF DATE CAPACITY PARKED CAPACITY SPACES UNUSED Jan 11 205 113 92 45% Jan 12 205 101 104 51% When the parking structure is complete, our total capacity will be increased to 279 spaces. Because the mix of hospital services is not expected to - change with our proposed expansion, it seems a reasonable assumption that the percentage of total spaces unused at 5:30 pm will remain approximately 45-51%, as it was on January 11 and 12. Thus, the number of unused parking spaces at 5:50 pm will increase to the range of 126-142 when the parking structure is constructed. This is almost three times the number of spaces we have made available to the Doubletree Hotel during evening hours. Employees who fill day-time only jobs, such as business office personnel , normally leave the hospital between 4:30 pm and 5:00 pm. Shift changes for positions that are staffed round-the-clock, such as nursing and EMT jobs, occur variously between 3:00 pm and 4:00 pm. Thus, the overlap that occurs while one shift is finishing and another is coming on duty is finished long before the spaces would have to be available to the Doubletree. In addi- tion, most evening shifts have 25-30% fewer personal then the day shifts they replace. B. PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION WITH BANK. Sheet 1 was revised on 11 January 89, to show a separate pedestrian access (sidewalk) from the Vail National Bank property to the top level of the parking structure. Ray McMahan Administrator 4 Ms. Kristan Pritz Town of Vail January 13, 1989 Page two C. SNOW REMOVAL FROM TOP LEVEL OF PARKING STRUCTURE. Snow on the top level of the parking structure will be pushed off the southeast corner, into the service corridor. Because of extremely limited space here, we anticipate that we will have to truck snow off site after every major snowstorm, and after every second or third moderately-sized snowstorm. D. AIR SPACE AT EAST SIDE OF STRUCTURE. Construction will create an open air space between the east side of the parking structure and the existing retaining wall at the west side of bank parking. However, this air space will be essentially the same minimal depth as the present retaining wall . In addition, the opening will be as much as 25 feet across. Design of a steel grate would reouire a rather substantial structure to support its own dead weight, as well as live loads due to snow and persons who might venture on top. We propose to leave this area open, and protect it with safety rails. E. SERVICE AND DELIVERY. The existing driveway at the east end of the hos- pital will be maintained as a fire lane, to facilitate snow removal from the upper deck (see Paragraph "C" above) , and as an access to the service door at the southeast corner of the parking structure's lower level . The service door at the southeast corner will be used only by maintenance ve- hicles; certainly, we cannot envision it ever being used by the public. De- liveries will continue to be received at our Materials Management Depart- ment, in the southeast corner of the building, via West Meadow Drive. We do not see any practical way of taking truck deliveries through the pro- posed parking structure at the east side. F. STAKE CORNERS OF PARKING STRUCTURE. We will do this by noon on Monday, - as requested. G. REVISE PLANS. See Sheet 1 , revised 11 January 89, four copies of which are attached. We will have a service entrance to the lower level of the parking structure at the west side. However, until the emergency room and ambulance garage are eventually moved, this access will be blocked fre- quently by ambulances and skier transport vehicles off-loading patients. Thus , another service access in the southeast corner is essential . Please call if you need any further information. Si acerely, Dan keeney, P.E ProjecTMcu aver /lrp STATE OF COLOO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS 222 South Sixth Street, P.O. Box 2107 ;,�"� °F Grand Junction,Colorado 81502-2107 (303)248-7208 5�•f� Op'p p '. February 1, 1989 *,°� °;• Mr. Peter Patten Director of Community Development Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Patten: The Colorado Department of Highways (CDOH) has completed our analysis of the information provided to us during our meeting on January 31, 1989 regarding the Vail Valley Medical Center. We have the following comments: The south frontage road is a category five roadway. The State Highway Access Code 2 CCR 601-1. Par 3 . 8 . 2 states, "One direct access will be provided to each individual parcel or to contiguous parcels under the same ownership or control. " Par 3 . 8 . 3 continues, "Additional access may be permitted to a parcel when (a) there will not be any significant safety or operational problems and (b) the spacing meets the access spacing requirements of the code, subsection 4 . 9 . 2 and (c) additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property. " Par 1. 3 . 2 of The State Highway Access Code states in part, "In no event shall an access be allowed or permitted if it is detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety. Section 43-2-147 (b) Colorado Revised Statutes states in part, "After June 21, 1979, no person may submit an application for subdivision approval to a local authority unless the subdivision plan or plat provides that all lots and parcels created by the subdivision will have access to the state highway system in conformance with the state highway access code. " In light of the above, CDOH could deny any access from the frontage road to the parking structure for the following reasons : The Vail Valley Medical Center is not currently an abutting property owner to the frontage road. Subdivision after June 21, 1979 would require internal circulation with one approach providing access to the subdivision. The owners on either side of the proposed access indicated and the Vail Valley Medical Center design engineer agreed that some hardships (driveway approach grades) would result from the access. Nwe 7 11 The increased traffic volume would create operational problems on the frontage road which has been identified in the I-70/Main Vail interchange improvements Environmental Assessment as already having operation problems. The addition of the access without all of the necessary channelization would be detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety. Recognizing the needs of the Town of Vail, CDOH will agree to an access to the parking structure provided that continuous acceleration, deceleration and left turn lanes are provided. We believe that it is possible to provide a positive access design that will meet the requirements of the property owners without compromising public safety. In reviewing the plans provided it was noted that when both proposals were drawn on one sheet that the continuous acceleration/deceleration design utilized a more restrictive turning radius near the bank parcel. In addition the three-lane proposal indicated that some channelization was being provided. However, the area shown was actually the through lane and not channelization. We suggest consideration of the following possible design options: (1) Provide one access to the parking structure which in turn provides access to the Double Tree and Bank of Vail. (2) Close the two westerly approaches to the old Post Office and provide a road from the easterly approach along the interstate right of way and connect the parking lots around the post office. This would allow for movement of the frontage road more to the north. (3) Removal of the superelevation and centerline spirals to gain more room. We recognize that this access proposal presents some difficult design problems; however, we must assure that highway safety is not compromised. Our design engineers are available to discuss design details and will work with the project designers to discuss design solutions. R. P. MOSTON DISTRICT ENGINEER 82 :9- 41P1 C. I. Dunn, Jr. District ROW Engineer • CID:rb cc: Demosthenes Moston Sanburg Perske file PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS, RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: RICK PYLMAN, OWN OF VAIL FROM: PETER JAMA DATE: JANUARY 10, 1989 RE: DOUBLETREE HOTEL EXPANSION - PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS AND PROPOSED PARKING PROGRAM In support of the re-approval of Special Development District No. 14 I am providing you with the following additional information regarding the provision of parking for the proposed expansion of the Doubletree. As previously outlined and documented within the Environmental Impact Report completed for our initial application the statistics regarding parking are as follows: Current Existing Parking Supply: 167 Spaces Total Parking Supply required per Town of Vail for Hotel Expansion: 261 Spaces Previously it was anticipated that a total of 211 spaces would be provided on-site to meet the Doubletree projected parking demand. This meant that there was a 50 parking space difference between the amount of parking that Doubletree felt was needed and the amount required by the Town of Vail parking requirements in the Zoning Code. The provision of 211 spaces was based upon Doubletree's past experience with the operation of various resort hotels and the observation of the parking characteristics of the typical Vail guest and the characteristics of the Vail visitor in general. At the time of the approval of' SDD 14 a condition was attached which in effect granted a "variance" to the parking requirements and required the property owners to contribute to the Town of Vail parking funds. Suite 308,Vail National Bank Building 108 South Frontage Road West • Vail,Colorado 81657 • (303)476-7154 The construction of a joint parking structure on Doubletree and Vail Valley Medical Center property has now opened up new opportunities to provide for meeting the Doubletree parking demand. The fact that the VVMC needs to increase its parking supply to accommodate its expansion provides the opportunity for joint use of the parking between the VVMC and Doubletree. Whereas VVMC's peak parking demand is during daytime hours, the Doubletree peak demand is in the evening hours when restaurant and bar patrons utilize the facilities of the Hotel . The VVMC will be constructing a 185 space parking structure as indicated upon the plans that have been submitted to the Town. This parking structure will remove approximately 20 existing surface spaces at the Doubletree which will be replaced within the middle level of the structure and will be directly accessible from the Doubletree's surface lot. These 20 spaces will initially be designated for use exclusively by the Doubletree. Therefore, the Doubletree's current parking supply will remain at 167 spaces. Upon expansion of the Hotel the VVMC has agreed that from the hours of 5: 30 p.m. - 2 : 30 a.m. an additional 48 spaces will be made available within the structure to accommodate our total parking requirement (per Town of Vail) during our peak demand period. The parking provided on site at the Doubletree will be increased to 193 spaces when the expansion is constructed. Therefore our total supply during peak hours will equal the required 261 spaces. It is also anticipated upon full Hotel expansion that, during the daytime hours, when the Doubletree's parking demand is low and the VVMC's at peak, 20 spaces can be allocated for the Hospital 's use. The hours that this parking will be available to the Hospital will be from 7 : 00 a.m. - 5: 30 p.m. We feel very confident that the arrangement described above can more than accommodate the Hotel's parking needs. Continual observation of our parking characteristics over the past several years supports our request. A recent survey of parking taken during the peak holiday period is indicative of the real parking needs of the Hotel. Copies of the survey are attached. The parking survey was conducted starting December 20 and was ended on January 3 , 1989. The purpose was to analyze parking demand of hotel employees, hotel guests, other visitors to the Hotel , and unauthorized parking. Parking passes were distributed to both Hotel employees and Hotel guests in order to enable identification of each by category. Parking counts were taken three times a day: 7: 00 a.m. , 2: 00 p.m. , and 9 : 00 p.m. ftivf ‘400) The results of the survey show that daytime parking demand for the Hotel employees, condominium owners, and guests ranged from approximately 15% to 38% of supply. During this period Hotel occupancy ranged from 32% to 100%. 38% of the parking supply is equal to 63 parked cars. During the evening hours the survey indicates that a number of "unauthorized" cars utilize the parking supplied by the Doubletree. These are patrons of the bar and restaurant and when factored into the survey indicate a higher utilization of the parking supply. At 9:00 p.m. the 167 spaces were never full but our observation is that later in the evening the parking fills close to capacity. The survey supports very strongly that the jointly shared parking arrangement proposed by the Vail Valley Medical Center and the Doubletree is a workable and desirable solution. Even though our survey indicates peak usage during the day is roughly 38% maximum we are proposing to provide 73% of our required spaces during the day and 100% in the evening hours. The difference will more than provide a "cushion" for any seasonal fluctuations or special events that may occur. vail valley k4t3: 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 ,,:imedical center Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-2451 December 9, 1988 Ms. Kristan Pritz Senior Planner Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. W. Vail , CO 81657 Dear Kristan: In cooperation with the Doubletree Hotel , we have developed an expansion plan which we believe satisfies the objectives of the planning staff and the PEC. Major features of this plan are as follows: • The hospital proposes to construct a 21 level parking structure at the east end of its property. The structure would provide parking for 180-185 vehicles , with access directly off South Frontage Road. The elevation of the top level would be slightly lower than that of the existing South Frontage Road. • The north end of the structure would be constructed on land current- ly owned by the Doubletree, and would be situated such that it would not interfere with previously-approved expansion plans for that fa- cility. The hospital ' s proposed structure could be connected to the Doubletree' s underground parking at a lower level , to allow sharing of parking. • The structure would eliminate 10-12 existing surface parking spaces on Doubletree property. These spaces would be replaced in full with spaces in the proposed structure. • The present west lot, providing parking for 118 vehicles, will re- main in its present configuration, with access off West Meadow Drive for the near term. However, because 85 fewer parking spaces will have access off West Meadow Drive, we estimate that this plan will achieve an immediate reduction of 500 trips per day during peak per- iods. This is based on our observation that each parking space gen- erates 5-6 trips on West Meadow Drive between 7 am and 5 pm. • The proposed structure, together with the existing west lot, will provide on-site parking for 298-303 vehicles on a year-round basis, with no valet parking contemplated. Based on the formula agreed-to during the approval process for the last expansion, we calculate that the proposed expansion will increase our parking requirement to Ray McMahan Administrator Ms. Kristan Pritz Town of Vail December 9, 1988 Page two 285 vehicles. Please note that the hospital intends to provide suf- ficient parking to meet its current needs, without the need for shared parking with the Doubletree. Both properties , however, wish to arrive at a reasonable formula for shared parking during subse- quent expansions. • The hospital is developing a master plan which will dovetail with the Doubletree' s master plan. Our master plan envisions redevelop- ment of the east end of our property, including demolition of the original clinic, built during the late sixties. The emergency room and the ambulance garage would be relocated to the east end, with direct access to South Frontage Road. Demolition of the ambulance garage would allow construction of a short, level road connecting the east structure with parking at the west end. Thus , future expan- sion of the hospital will enable us to remove virtually all hospital traffic from West Meadow Drive. • We recognize that existing problems with traffic flow on South Front- age Road could be aggrevated by our proposed east parking structure. We have hired a consultant to advise us and you on possible solu- tions, and to assist us in any discussions with the State Highway Department. • We have developed some architectural revisions to address the PEC's concerns with the mass of the building. The extent of the expansion to the hospital building itself, however, remains as described in our Application of September, 1988. Sincerely, an Feeney, P ana er /lrp cc: Peter Jamar (a) . 6,4 ,,tuA• -6 BL ODL ark tu vt640 1 � : 0Cofvf\err\. 19Q,-;givv Leuv\.6/ v\, ► I *-0,m - c arv\ AA/\ ,c1/1/10_ ATI a.cWi) Jytno'av-61 ,Ml9lf L . PsEN. \(\?,);\ kLW1 Cv\:. L0,60,0 ')o- yftid_ Mok 01\ ci is - • • k_ CA V‘)1/4q-- cm\wA. ore kmtd- -C(y- I 410, .1 jcA, • \sfL cioa\x,, poy--U uA)k 41/-e_ Ociafyl& (OA cv,a(TuAdIsh ►•�� 1 ye. •- :► caVv, ►•►.;�, _ v X11rul 0, 6 ary\e\N-.\-fah\LL_ aAciAJiv-c4- col& 4(1} svr- u I I Uri or 4\,. _f(ov\ g ). I' • ' A then answered questions of the Council and public. Dick Gustafson invited the Council to attend one of their meetings and would appreciate a petition of support from the Council on their plans. The next item for discussion was Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1989, second reading, requesting to rezone a parcel of land at 2998 South Frontage Road West from the current residential cluster zone district to the primary/secondary residential zone district. Mayor Rose read the full title of the ordinance. At this time, Mike Cacioppo left the room. Mike Mollica gave brief background information on the rezoning request. He noted the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously recommended approval , that no changes had been made since first reading, and staff recommended approval . There was no discussion by the public or Council . Eric Affeldt made a motion to approve the ordinance, which was seconded by John Slevin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. Mike Cacioppo returned. Mayor Rose noted that items 6 and 7 would be reversed since the majority of the audience was present for item 7. The next item was an appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission decision to approve a request for a conditional use permit for an addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center (VVMC) and parking structure. Kristan Pritz introduced the item. Dan Feeney gave background information of the VVMC expansion .and how it came about, reviewed drawings of the proposed expansion, explained how the operations would be improved, and answered questions of Council . Kristan discussed changes to the Frontage Road proposal . David Leahy reviewed the drawings showing the Frontage Road as it is today and gave background information. He explained the problems with the road today, then discussed the proposed changes and how they would correct the problems. He stated they would be sending the proposal in to the Colorado Department of Highways soon and were told there would be a decision within two weeks. David commented he expected approval from the State. He then answered questions of Council . Peter Jamar, representing Vail Holdings, owners of the Doubletree Hotel , gave background information on their expansion and relayed their concerns. He remarked they worked through the details and came up with the most • acceptable plan which the Doubletree supported, and requested the Council to approve the plan so they could move forward. Sydney Schultz, representing the Vail National Bank, then answered questions of Council . Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal commented she had a problem with the parking situation at the Vail National Bank and asked that the Bank look at incorporating their parking in the Hospital structure. Kristan began discussing the conditional use permit request and staff's position, referring to staff's memo to Council dated March 7, 1989, page 6. She reviewed the Zoning Analysis statistics, reviewed the criteria used in evaluating the proposed changes, then remarked on staff's recommendation with six conditions. She noted the Planning and Environmental Commission moved for approval with these and an additional five conditions, which was passed 4-2 with one abstention. Peter Patten and Kristan then answered questions of Council . Ben Bartell remarked about his concerns over the traffic flow on West Meadow Drive, to which Peter Patten • responded. Blondie Vucich, representing the local Humane Society, stated their concerns over a possible animal testing research lab in the VVMC expansion. They were requesting Council to find out if there would be a lab or not and hopefully have Council take a stand. Ray McMahan responded the VVMC would be dealing with Dr. Steadman as a tenant; he was not sure about a lab, but any conditions the VVMC must meet for Council approval would be fine with them. Dan Feeney commented on his concerns, but noted the VVMC Board had met earlier and agreed to all conditions. Mayor Rose stated he was prepared to approve the request, but would like the ambulance garage moved as soon as possible over the next couple of years. There was much discussion by Council , Peter, Kristan, and Ron Phillips regarding parking on the west side of the VVMC and the traffic flow on West Meadow Drive. Peggy Osterfoss requested the VVMC do traffic counts on West Meadow Drive after the expansion was completed; Ray McMahan responded they would comply with this request. There was more discussion by the public. Diana Donovan discussed her concerns over the expansion. Mery Lapin made a motion to uphold the Planning and Environmental Commission decision with all of staff's and the PEC's conditions, along with the conditions of 1) any usage of live animals for research in the facility must go through the conditional use permit process; 2) the VVMC would conduct parking utilization and traffic surveys with advice from the Community Development Department on how to conduct the analysis. The study is to be completed within one year after the expansion was finished to determine use patterns of the Hospital 's parking and to indicate any impacts on West Meadow Drive traffic; and 3) -2- :.. e • there would be no remonstrations against a special development district for improvements on the South Frontage Road or West Meadow Drive. Mike Cacioppo seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. The seventh order of business was Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1989, first reading, regarding the Special Development District No. 14 for the Doubletree Hotel . The full title of the ordinance was read by Mayor Rose. Rick Pylman gave background information on the SDD request and answered questions of Council . He reviewed the 1986 SDD which had lapsed, the proposed SDD and modifications from the 1986 SDD. He then reviewed the considerations in evaluating the proposal and staff • recommendation was for approval with several conditions as noted in Section 10 of the ordinance. Rick then answered questions of Council . After some discussion by Council , staff, and Peter Jamar, Eric Affeldt made a motion to approve the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mike Cacioppo. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-2, with Mery Lapin and Tom Steinberg opposing. The next item was Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1989, first reading, amending the Town of Vail investment policy. Mayor Rose read the full title of the ordinance. There was minimal discussion by Council . A motion to approve the ordinance was made by Eric Affeldt and seconded by John Slevin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. There was no Citizen Participation. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:50 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman -3- AL 411 411 Planning and Environmental Commission ` t(ti February 27, 1989 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Chuck Crist Peter Patten Diana Donovan Kristan Pritz Pam Hopkins Rick Pylman Peggy Osterfoss Mike Mollica Sid Schultz Betsy Rosolack Jim Viele Kathy Warren A work session was held on the Medical Center and on air emission inventory. The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. The new members, Sid Schultz, Chuck Crist and Kathy Warren were sworn in by the Town Clerk, Pam Brandmeyer. 1. Approval of minutes of the meeting of 2/13. Diana Donovan suggested corrections and moved that the minutes be approved as corrected. The second was made by Sid and the vote was 7-0 in favor. 2. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct an addition and a parking structure to the Vail Valley Medical Center on Lot F- vas illage 2nd Filing at 181 West Meadow Driye�� Applicant. Vail Talley Medical Center Kristan Pritz explained changes that had been made since the last meeting regarding the Frontage Road and the ambulance egress and ingress. She mentioned a letter from John Dunn of the Doubletree condos regarding the height of the project. She also reviewed the DRB comments on the project. A conceptual DRB review of the project occurred on February 15th. Jim Viele had discussed a possible conflict of interest he may have had with the town attorney, and found he did not have a conflict of interest. Sid Schultz removed himself from the discussion and voting. 4 Kathy Warren wondered about the height of the hospital addition, and Skip Spence of the Reece Johnson Architects, stated the height was approximately 54 feet to the top of the parapet. Kathy asked more detail questions which Skip answered. She felt concern with the site planning and was not comfortable with the open space between the bank and the F parking structure, the height on West Meadow Drive and the entry on West Meadow Drive. Chuck Crist suggested perhaps a porte, cochere at the entry would soften the elevation, and Dan Feeney replied that he would suggest this idea to the board. Kathy then mentioned t the loss of part of the view when approaching the hospital from the library, and Skip replied that the architects did cut back some, but could not determine the exact size of each floor until it was determined exactly what would be in each space. 1 Peggy Osterfoss felt that there were concerns in four areas: access and the helipad, landscaping, relocation of the ambulance garage and the bulk and mass of the building. With regard to access, Peggy felt the Town of Vail must determine if they are willing to accept the impact on their property due to the future lane. She had concerns about the helipad q relocation, if this were deemed necessary. She questioned where the helipad could be located. Peggy felt there was a dearth of landscaping, and the proposal as presented was =' unacceptable without more landscaping. She asked that the hopital provide a landscape plan for the area in front of the parking structure along the South Frontage Road. Peggy felt that the relocation of the ambulance garage was needed before any future additions were made to the hospital. Concerning the bulk and mass, pping back would help, and she felt that a ste k perhaps the areas that appear to be greenhouse could be eliminated. Peggy felt that to step back on only the 4th floor would look ridiculous and that the stepping back should begin now She wanted to see both the south and west elevations terraced. Diana felt that not enough time had been spent on the solution and that an approval given at this time would eliminate options. Diana stated that the parking structure should be constructed a floor and a half lower now, because it would be impossible to do in the future. She felt that since the hospital fronted on a residential street, the architecture s should be more in sympathy with the neighborhood. The additional floor would destroy the down-valley view. She felt the hospital should accommodate deliveries away off of the South Frontage Road. Diana also felt that Lot 10 should not be } used to meet parking needs. She felt the use of Lot 10 made the library less accessible. Diana said it was essential that the hospital state exactly when all traffic would be removed f from West Meadow Drive and there be a time limit on the the construction of a parking link from the structure to the parking lot with the next expansion. s 1 2 I ' F • Diana pointed out that some landscaping was being removed and this was a big concern. She also expressed concern about the helipad per the staff memo. Diana believed the project was close to being acceptable, but the project definitely needed additional work before she could support it. Pam Hopkins agreed about the need for more landscaping and the need for reducing the height of the hospital expansion. She pointed out that the next floor would make the hospital 70 feet high. She felt the 3rd floor height of 53-54 feet was barely acceptabale. Pam approved the Frontage Road plan. She said that Vail was pedestrian oriented, and this must be taken into consideration when designing the hospital "from the inside out. " Chuck Crist agreed with Kathy regarding the site planning. He could foresee the Vail National Bank Building as an "off shoot" of doctors' offices and would have liked to have seen the parking structure tied into the bank. He pointed out that tall trees were shown on the model, and felt that tall trees would mitigate the height of the addition. He also agreed that additional landscaping was critical. Jim Viele felt the access proposal was a substantial improvement and that the hospital had done a good job in addressing parking. He expressed concern that the Town was not further along in their planning on the South Frontage Road. He stated that he would like to see a master plan which would locate the ambulance garage in further stages. Jim felt that the building should be softened at the front entry but felt this and the issue of substantial landscaping could be dealt with at the Design Review Board meetings. Jim would also like to see a "decent" pedestrian connection along West Meadow Drive. He pointed out the he did not feel the window of opportunity in working with the CDOH on the South Frontage Road would exist forever. Therefore, he was prepared to support the project per the staff memo and pass it along to the Design Review Board for "fine tuning. " Peter Patten said that the Town Council had asked the PEC to discuss with the hospital the possibility of an assessment district. Dan Feeney said he and Ray McMahon would take this request to the hospital board which met the following week. Dan believed the hospital would be opposed to a vicinity improvement district. He said he would recommend favorable consideration of support for an area-wide Frontage Road improvement district to the board. Viele felt that the town must look at a larger area with regard to an improvement district on the South Frontage Road. Peter Jamar, representing the Doubletree Hotel, stated that he did not support an improvement district concept on the South 3 Frontage Road because the improvements being made by the Doubletree, hospital and bank were mitigating impacts from their proposal. With regard to mentioned deficiencies in the overall plan of the sites, he reminded the board that the properties were not under one ownership. Peter mentioned the difficulty in getting the different parties together over the many months of working on the proposal and felt that commendation was in order on the results regarding the access plan and moving of the parking structure. Peter felt that the remaining issues were not entirely up to the PEC. With regard to landscaping, he stated that there was now an increase, he felt that the parking structure was well designed, he felt it was unfair to bring up views at this point. The adopted view corridors did not include views in the area of the hospital. With regard to the style of the architecture, Peter stated that public buildings such as churches, schools, and other facilities have the scale and proportion of "public" buildings. The uniqueness of public buildings should be a consideration. Given design constraints, there is plenty of time to work on the design details at DRB. Jay Peterson, also representing the Doubletree, mentioned that the Town had put pressure on the hospital to build a parking structure on the northeast corner of the site. If the PEC disapproved this proposal, the parking would go back on West Meadow Drive. Perhaps this was not the optimum solution, but it was better than putting the parking on West Meadow Drive. fi Peggy agreed with many of the points made, and did not feel that these properties should be made to participate in a vicinity improvement district, but did feel that some specific conditions should be part of the approval to address the PEC concerns. Diana felt the project had come far, but issues still needed to be addressed. Jay suggested adding a list of conditions related to the PEC concerns that would pass the PEC concerns on in a clear manner to the Council. Kathy felt day trips would be increased on West Meadow Drive with the hospital expansion due to more use by Sports Medicine and visitors. She pointed out that employees make only one trip per day. She also felt the ambulance trips would be increased. Ray MacMahon pointed out that the doctors' office generated many trips (they would park in the structure) . Pam and Kathy also asked why the structure would not be constructed deeper, and Dan Feeney replied that the ramps would be too steep and it was also unaffordable at this time. Peggy moved for approval and Jim Viele seconded with the conditions of the staff memo which were: 1. An access permit for the South Frontage Road improvement plan shall be obtained by the Vail Valley Medical Center as well as Vail National Bank before a building permit will be released for the proposed hospital expansion. 4 • • 2. The Frontage Road improvement plan will include a minimum of three lanes as proposed in the Access Permit Request outlined in this memo. 3. The proposed Special Development District 14 for the Doubletree Hotel shall be amended to allow for the construction of a portion of the parking structure to be built on Doubletree property. 4. Snow removal and drainage from the proposed expansion and parking structure shall not be handled on the South Frontage Road right-of-way. 5. Access through the southeast corner of the parking structure shall be limited to fire and maintenance vehicles. The general public and Hospital employees shall not utilize this access. 6. The Hospital concurs that the relocated access drive to the helipad: * Shall not exceed a 7% grade (this assumes that the existing access drive grade does not exceed 7%) * Shall allow for safe semi-truck access and loading for the Post Office * Shall not compromise the existing CDOH permit for the helipad * Any trees or shrubs affected by the access shall be relocated in the same general area. The motion included the following conditions as well: 7. In the event the CDOH deems the helipad must be moved, the Hospital must bear the expenses of the relocation of the helipad. 8. The mature evergreens to be transplanted due to the new access drive shall be guaranteed to live for a period of 3 years or be replaced with trees of comparable size. 9. The PEC puts the Hospital on notice that as a part of any future building plans, the ambulance garage must be relocated to allow for, A. Direct access from the ambulance garage to the South Frontage Road and, b. for direct access from the South Frontage Road via the parking structure to the west parking lot. 10. Directions shall be given to DRB that they make certain that maximum substantial landscaping be placed on either side of the entrance to the parking structure, even if this will require regrading, filling and retention. 5 11. Suggestion to the Town Council that the Town of Vail assume responsibility for the cost of a 4th lane along the Town of Vail site on the Frontage Road and associated modifications to the Town site if a 4th lane addition is required by the CDOH. Peggy recommended that the Town look at changes to access and parking due to the fourth lane. The vote was 4-2-1 with Schultz abstaining and Diana and Kathy voting against the motion. 3 . A request to amend Special Development District #14, Doubletree Hotel, Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Holdings, Inc. Rick Pylman gave the staff presentation, reviewing the history of the original SDD 14 which was adopted in 1986. This SDD expired on September 18, 1988. The present request included two changes: a shared parking arrangement with the Hospital and utilizing the transient residential unit concept as originally defined and approved in the Cascade Village SDD. This would apply to 92 lodge rooms. Rick stated that in the original SDD proposal, the staff was not comfortable with the increased density, but this has now been dealt with in the Land Use Plan. He said the other concern had been the parking. He felt that this had been taken care of with the parking structure, and would not be dependent upon the public parking structures. Rick then reviewed the zoning analysis and criteria that must be evaluated for SDD's. Peter Jamar, representing the applicant, gave further explanation and told of utilizing only 35% of the existing parking during the day on busy ski days. He stated that the Doubletree could now meet the parking requirements. He stated that his client would like to landscape 7 parking spaces later when the Town did a study of Frontage Road improvements. They '' had no problem with the conditions in the memo. With regard to the setback encroachment, this was not adjacent to another property and they were not within the 30 foot stream setback. John Dunn, a condo owner in the Doubletree, supported the third condition related to the construction costs of the deceleration lane improvements. But he added that the condo owners did not feel responsible toward paying toward these costs. He added that the last condition could not be amended or rescinded without the approval of the Town of Vail, but that a certain number of parking spaces had been guaranteed to the condo owners. Chuck asked for an explanation of the condo useage ?' restrictions, and Peggy wished to see the 7 parking spaces 6 4' I Z/ / y / rg' 4. A request for a condominium conversion for the Bell Tower Building. Applicant: Bell Tower Associates, Inc. Rick Pylman presented the request. He stated that the applicant had agreed to restrict the housing units for employee housing for 15 years for R3 and R4. Rick reviewed the criteria and stated that all building code requirements must be met. Jay Peterson stated that the building was not "entirely" up to code. Peter Patten clarified the employee housing question. Diana moved and Grant seconded to approve the request per the staff memo with two conditions: 1) final condominium declarations to be recorded must contain appropriate language restricting Units R-2 and R-3 . This language will be reviewed by Town staff prior to recording. 2) The applicant must satisfy the building inspection report requirements. The vote was 7-0 in favor. 5. Preliminary hearing to determine review period for exterior alterations in Commercial Core I. Mike Mollica presented the Sitzmark Lodge application and recommended a 60-day study period. Diana moved and Grant seconded to approve a 60-day process for the Sitzmark. The vote was 7-0 in favor. Discussion followed concerning exterior alteration review periods. Sid questioned whether there should be a restricted time period in which CCI exterior alterations can be considered. Diana felt applicants should plan ahead. Peter felt that if the change is significant, the November and May deadlines usually worked. He felt it might be a hardship for smaller projects, however. - Jim felt there may be room to "liberalize the window" for submittals, possibly keeping construction out of the busy periods. Peter stated that the present method worked well for regulating the construction when there were many projects. Diana suggested putting a notice in the newspaper as a reminder to those who m�e contemplating construction. ,7 " �\ i Hospital Expansion Discussion Pam-asked about eight limitations. Peter responded that there were no pment standards, but that the PEC reviews a site master plan and can develop standards for the long run on this ` site. Diana felt only one parking structure was needed, not two. IV II di existing B&B owners must apply so that the Town will know where they are. Peter suggested starting a file that Kathy Fagan could give him on the existing owners. It was suggested that the complaints be written only. Diana wanted it understood that if the business did not apply to be grandfathered, it would not be grandfathered. The vote was 6-0 in favor. 5. A ycsrk session on the conditional use request for the Vail Valley Medical CenteF Paul--.Jahns_t.Qn.,._.._.dire €or of the Hospital Board, stated that a window of opportunity had come in, in that Dr. Steadman, an orthopedic surgeon, would like to relocate in Vail and will bring "his whole team. " Paul added that Dr. Steadman did 700 to 800 surgeries per year for people from all over the country. He said the principle issue was that of entering into negotiations with Steadman, and wanting to be able to move Dr. Steadman into the Medical Center by July, 1990. Paul discussed meetings with the Doubletree to solve the parking problem. He stated that one problem they had was that they did not feel they had the luxury of time to resolve the parking issue and asked the PEC for permission to move the parking solution to the end of the project. Paul proposed that the west parking structure be built at the end of the construction of the addition. This approach allows a one year time frame to address parking and access before the structure is built. Paul stated that the Board was willing to build the west parking structure with a fair share participation on improvements to West Meadow Drive. Peter Patten stated that discussions on a solution involving the Doubletree had been initiated with Paul, Dan Feeney, etc. , but that no conclusions had been reached. He could not think of any instance when the Town of Vail had allowed approval of a project with a parking solution scheduled at a later date. He felt that this would make it difficult to set a date for a solution. Paul stated that the Board would agree to put money in escrow for a parking solution. Wendell Haley, a property owner across the street, spoke in protest of the proposed expansion. He also read a letter of protest from Jim and Joan Horrigan, adjacent property owners. Susie Bruce, who also lives on West Meadow Drive, stated that she had seen a great increase in traffic along West Meadow Drive and many "close calls" between vehicles and pedestrians. She felt West Meadow Drive needed to be a pedestrian way. Joan Norris, another nearby resident, agreed. Suzanne Dauphanis said that she had heard that the hospital was to become a research center and was concerned that it was to become more than just a community hospital. Peter Jamar, representing Vail Holdings, owners of the Doubletree Hotel, stated that Vail Holdings was not interested in fighting hospital expansion, and in fact were supportive of the expansion. Vail Holdings was only interested in what impact the parking structure would have upon the Doubletree. He suggested moving the parking structure toward West Meadow Drive, and added that with the current design, the top level of the structure was level with the second floor rooms of the Doubletree, and that in the future it could go up even further. Jamar also stated that if the structure were to go on the east end of the Doubletree property, the Doubletree could share the parking and reduce by 10-20% the amount needed by both the hospital and the Doubletree. The Doubletree would then locate lodge rooms to the southwest using a portion of hospital property. Peter Jamar felt the solution must work for both the hospital and the Doubletree. If the current location of the parking structure is proposed (west location) , he stated the Doubletree would have concerns with the property. Paul Johnston stated that the hospital board was optimistic about working something out with the Doubletree. He pointed out the economic advantage to Vail if the hospital were to become a national medical facility. Grant Riva felt accessing from the North Frontage Road made sense. He pointed out that in March there were 3 ambulance calls per day and 1600 trips during the month of March which were not ambulances. Grant felt that there would be trouble in the future if the traffic were not diverted from West Meadow Drive. Pam Hopkins agreed with Grant and stated that she felt the Planning Commission's primary charge was to put planning concerns first. She felt there were two main issues: 1) the access and 2) the master plan for the ultimate build-out of the hospital. Pam pointed out that there was much traffic even during the slower months. She wondered what kind of improvements could be made to West Meadow Drive. Peter responded that at most, West Meadow Drive would have a 50 foot right-of-way. Pam stressed that the scenario presented was the current one, but the PEC should look at the long term. She felt that now was the time to resolve the issues and suggested that many breakthroughs in negotiations are made in a "time bind" such as the hospital said they were in. Paul Johnston pointed out that the Doubletree did not have a time bind. Peggy said the Doubletree was very concerned about the parking structure, which could be a strong motivator. • ! Bryan agreed with Grant and Pam. He felt the parking structure should be on the east end. Paul responded that there was not enough room on the northeast corner. Jim Viele stated that a better solution could be found. His biggest concern was parking and access. In general, he felt the expansion was very positive. He stated that the hospital had a responsibility to plan their additions and parking "right. " He said strong incentives were necessary to be certain the best solution is found for parking and access and that the parties involved must work diligently toward a solution. Diana agreed with everyone else on the board. Diana stressed the need for a master plan and a plan for the intersection on the North Frontage Road. She felt that moving the parking structure toward West Meadow Drive as suggested by the Doubletree would impact the major pedestrian connection between Lionshead and the Village, but placed where currently proposed would impact the Doubletree. Diana's feeling was that the only solution was a parking structure in conjunction with the Doubletree on the northeast corner of the hospital property. Pam said the hospital most do some planning. She suggested that they look at parking useage. For example, the wellness clinic used 90 spaces per day. The doctors could be located elsewhere and she suggested making sure that the ambulance entrance was connected with the parking structure. Pam felt it was appropriate for the Town to ask for a master plan. Paul responded that if they had submitted a master plan the last time, they would probably have had to come in with a change to the master plan. Pam pointed out that the access being asked for was still the same. Paul volunteered that if the Town were to improve Meadow Drive, the hospital would be willing to participate in an improvement district. Pam repeated her observation that if the doctors were moved to a different location, 90 parking spaces would become available. Ray McMahon responded that the doctors liked to be next to the hospital. He mentioned that there had been a meeting with George Gillett, Dr. Steadman, the hospital board, Town Council and the doctors. He stated that the next expansion would involve tearing down the old east side and begin building there. He felt that there could be underground parking from West Meadow Drive and into the Doubletree property. Ray felt the real issue was the complex process to negotiate with the Doubletree (the time it would entail) and the necessity to start construction in April. He felt he knew the hospital could solve the parking problem, and pointed out that the last time, the parking was the subject, not the access. Diana said she did not mind the scenario, but felt there should be some type of guarantee that the hospital would not come back and say that the Doubletree would not cooperate, etc. She felt the proposal as it was presently presented was not acceptable as a planning solution. Diana felt the PEC was being put under undue pressure. fi 6. A work session on alternative dump sites, snow melt machines and erosion control for Ford Park parking lot. Stan Berryman, Director of Public Works. Stan said that the Town removed 80,000 cubic yards of snow in an average year. The Town had looked at alternative sites, such as Donovan Park and the Stevens parcel, but they were too small. He added that if the Town must travel further with snow, the cost would rise dramatically. Stan showed literature about snow melting machines for a possible future use and discussed the gravel, etc. which were used to alleviate the runoff into Gore Creek. 7. Consideration to cancel December 26th PEC meeting. Diana moved and Grant seconded to cancel this meeting. The vote was 6-0 in favor.