HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL LIONSHEAD FILING 2 BLOCK 1 LOT 2 EVERGREEN LODGE FKA DOUBLETREE FKA CREST HOTEL SDD 14 REQUEST LEGALMINUTES
VAIL TOl,lN COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 16, 1987
7:30 P.M.
A regular meet'i ng of the Vail Town
7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT:.
bf'Lf1^Q4--
Council was held on Tuesday, June 16, 1987,
of the Vail Munjcipal Building.
Paul Johnston, Mayor
Kent Rose, Mayor Pro Tem
Eric Affeldt
Gai I Wahrl ich-Lowenthal
Gordon Pierce
5
at
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TO}IN OFFICIALS PRESENT:
John Slevin
Hermann Staufer
Ron Phj'l lips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
The fjrst order of business was a ten year emp'l oyment anniversary award for Charlie
Turnbull, a Town of Vail Heavy Equipment Operator II. Ron Phillips introduced
Charlje and gave him a silver Town of Vail belt buckle. Pete Burnett and Stan
Eerryman stated they were pleased and honored to have Charlie work for them and
commended hjm on his good attitude and sense of humor. Mayor Johnston said the
Council appreciated Charlie's commitment and h'i s loyalty to the Town.
The second item was Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1987, second reading, adopting the
1987 Edition of the Uniform Electric Code by reference. The entire tjtle of the
ordinance was read by Mayor Johnston. Peter Patten explained they had received aletter from the State raising the fees very slightly that day. After a brief
discussion, it was noted the increase in fees would be included in the ordinance on
second readjng, and it would just be published in full. Gail Wahrljch-Lowenthal
made a motion to approve the ordinance, and Kent Rose seconded. A vote was taken
and the motion passed unanimously 5-0.
The third item for discussion was Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1987, second reading,
annexing East Intermountain to the Town of Vail. Mayor Johnston read the tjtle in
n of whal the ordinance would do and
thanked Eobbi Salzman and everyone who worked hard to make this annexation happen.
There was no discussion by Council or the public. A motion to approve the ordinance
was made by Gordon Pierce and seconded by Kent Rose. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously 5-0.
The next jtem was 0rdinance No. 16, Series of 1987, first reading, amending Specjal
Development District 5 (.Vail Run ResortL by amending the site p1an. The full title
was read by Mayor Johnston. Rick Pylman explained what the amendment would do and
gave background information on the area. He noted the inpacts to Simba Run and
explained why the PEC approved the amendment unanjmously. Gordon Pierce stated he
would have to abstain from voting sjnce he did the architectural work on the plans.
Larry Eskwith then requested the Council to jnclude two fjndjngs in the motion - l)
that the SDD zoning is in conformance wjth Town of Vail zoning, and 2) was for the
general welfare of the cjtizens of Vail, Jay Peterson, representing Vail Run, asked
that the item be tabled temporarily. Vail Run and Simba Run representatives were jn
another room working out an agreement which should be concluded shortly. Kent Rose
then made a motjon to temporarily table the ordinance, and Eric Affeldt seconded. A
vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 5-0.
The fifth item was 0rdinance No. 18, Seri es of 1987, fjrst reading, amending the
parking on private property chapter of the Municipal Code. Mayor Johnston read thetjtle in full. Larry Eskwith briefly expla'i ned what the ordinance would do. Mike
Cacioppo asked questions to which Larry responded. Kent Rose made a motion to
approve this ordinance, and Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal seconded. A vote was taken and
the motjon passed unanimously 5-0.
The next item discussed was Ordinance No.20, Seri es of 1987, first reading, making
a supplemental approprjation to the Town of Vail budget. The full title was read by
Mayor Johnston. Steve Barwick explained what the supplemental appropriation was for
and djscussed a few changes made sjnce'l ast week's Work Session. Mike Cacioppo
asked questjons, to which Steve and Council responded, and stated his concerns. Ken
Wilson asked questions regarding how the Council made thejr choice for the Town
Manager's resjdence and explained the problems he saw. Cynthia Steitz, Chris
Neuswanger, Mike Cacioppo and Djana Donovan commented on their concerns regarding
the house. Ray Story, who helped Town staff plan a schematic design, explained what
was planned. Cynthia Stejtz again stated her concerns over the costs planned for
the Town Manager's house and over West Vail street assessments; she felt the money
should be spent there. Gordon Pjerce explained that street assessments were made
because the streets were jnherited from the County, and East Vail res'idents did not
want to help pay to improve them. Charlie l,lick gave a h'i story of the Town Managers'
housing problems and why he felt it was an appropriate Iong term investment for the
Town. Gajl hlahrlich-Lowenthal made a motion to approve the ordinance, with the
deletion of the Town Manager's residence jmprovements unti1 an appraisal was
completed, and this motion was seconded by Erjc Affeldt. A vote was taken and the
motjon passed unanimously 5-0.
The next item was the return of Ordinance No. 16, Serjes of 1987, first reading,
amending Special Development Djstrict 5 $lajtSua-EaEert) by amending the site p1an.
The full title was read by Mayor Johnston. Kent Rose made a mot'ion to take the
ordinance off the table, and Gordon Pierce seconded. A vote was made and the motion
passed unanimously 5-0. Jay Peterson, representing Vail Run, stated that they had
worked out their differences with Simba Run. He explained they had agreed to
certain items which shoujd be jncluded in the ordinance, which he would give to
Larry Eskwith. He read thejr list of items agreed upon:
1. Parking will be prjmarily for employees and long-term residents; no
commercial vans are to be parked there.
2. No snow is to be moved on to Simba Run property.
3. A bufferi s to be agreed upon by both parties, with the approval of the
Design Review Board.
4. The landscape plan will feature a minimum amount of ten foot spruce trees,
adeguate to locate one tree for every eight feet around the parking lot.
5. A five foot berm will be placed around the parking lot'
6. There is to be no lighting around the parkjng lot unless required by the
Town of Vail.
7. The lighting on the ramp is to be no higher than four feet.
Chris Neuswahger stated his problems with the proposed ordinance. Nicholas
Giancamilli, representing Simba Run, stated that what Jay presented was pretty much
what they wanted to accompljsh. Eric Affeldt made a motjon to approve the ordinance
with the addjtional language read by Jay Peterson, and Gail Wahrljch-Lowenthal
seconded. Peter Patten then stated his concerns that the DRB may have problems with
the eight foot spacing between the trees around the area and also no light'i ng around
the parking lot. Jay explained he only used the number of trees as the minimum to
be purchased, and that there would be no lighting around the parking lot "unless
requjred by the Town". Larry Eskwith requested that Eric include the findings that
the SDD zoning is in conformance with Town of Vail zon'i ng and is in the general
welfare of the citizens of Vail. Eric Affeldt included these findings jn his
motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0, with Gordon Pierce abstaining.
The eighth item was Ordinance No. 19, Serjes of 1987,rfifst reading)establishing a
Special Development District for The Valley Phase III (E'l k t{eadowsly( Mayor Johnston
readthetitleinfull.KrjstanPdraw.ingsandgave
detailed background information on the area. She also detailed jtems included in
the ordinance. She noted staff recommended approval wjth five conditions:
1. The development of each bujlding envelope wi l1 comply with the
environmental impact report, especially the design recommendations cited
by Mr. Dan Pettigrove in a letter concerning design mitigations for rock
fall hazards. Each indjvidual owner will be respons'i ble for completing
the rockfal 1 mitigation measure per the Pett'i grove letter. Studies will
meet the standards outlined in Section 18.69.052 of the Town of Vail
zoning code. An owner may choose to have another qualified
engineer/geologist design appropriate rockfall mitigation measures, as
long as the mitigation solution does not have negative visual impacts and
-2-
is approved by the Town of Vail Conrmunity Development Department and Town
Eng'ineer.
2. The proposed preliminary Iandscape plan and design review guidelines will
be revjewed by the Design Review Board for their approval before finai
p'l at submittal .
3. The app'l icant agrees to revegetate the access road if the general
subdjvision improvements are not completed by September 1, 1989. General
subdivision improvements are defjned in Section L7.L6.150 of the Town of
Vajl Subdivision Regulations.
4. The declaration of protective covenants for the Elk Meadow Subdivision
states that design guidelines "may be adopted". The staff would require
that the wording be changed to state that design gujdelines "shall be
adopted". The ful'l paragraph would read: "Guidelines for the development
of the building envelopes and tracts shall be adopted by the Committee,
which shal 1, among other things, interpret andlor implement the provisions
of these protective covenants. Guideljnes may be amended from time to
time with the majority vote of approval from the Committee and approval of
the Town of Vajl Design Review Board. The guidelines will be available
from the chair of the Design Committee and Town of Vajl Community
Devel opment Department. "
5. The following engineering jnformation will be submitted to staff by June
15, 1987:
a. The revised master drajnage plan.
b. The preliminary plan will be revised to show the new turn-around
dimension on the west end of the property.
c. The road plan will have an eng'i neer's stamp. The preliminary plan
will be adjusted for square footage totals due to the removal of the
four guest parking spaces on the west end of the project.
d. A letter from Nick Lampiris wjll be submitted to address the rockfal1
design requirements. A graphic is suggested.
e. Gas line and fire hydrants will be indicated on the utility plan in
the appropriate areas.
Kent Rose stated he wanted jt made clear to the public that mitigation was
recommended for the structure on1y. Peter Patten commented that rockfall
mitigation would be decided upon by the engineer and explained why the burden would
be put on the owners to do the mitigation. Peter Jamar explained how the rockfall
mitigation was developed and how jt was sjmilar to other areas. Kristan stated the
PEC did approve both requests, with J.J. Collins being the only one to vote against.
After some discussion by Council, Kent Rose made a motion to approve this ordinance
with the inclusion of a requirement that a letter from Njck Lampiris outlining his
opinion of whether or not mitigation js necessary for the open space area of the
subdivision be subm'i tted before a second reading of the ordinance, and Gail
Wahrlich-Lowenthal seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 5-0. At this time, a typographical error was noted on Section 4, lten 72. There
should be a dollar mark ($) before the .30. Krjstan then explained the Council
needed to make a motion to approve/disapprove the request for a major subdivision jn
compliance with major subd'ivision requirements. Gai'l Wahr'l jch-Lowenthal made the
motion to approve the subdivision, which Gordon Pjerce seconded- A vote was taken
and the motion passed unanimously 5-0.
The ninth item for discussion was the Town of Vail Auditors' 1986 financjal report.
Charlie l'lick introduced Jerry McMahan and Steve Thompson, head auditor, of McMahan,
Armstrong and Kenney. Jerry explained the Town was in compljance with requirements
and in very good condition at the end of 1986. He gave highl'ights of the audit
document and an overvjew of the Town's financial positjon. Charlie l.lick made
conments on jnvestments made during last year, then Jerry McMahan answered questions
of CounciI.
-,-.-''''.-.''*=--
..Tli6'next jtem was hesolution No. 20, Series of 1987, extending the SDD 14 approval
1 (Doubletree Hotel)r/ Ton Braun explained what the resolution was for and gave
Fsrlfnation on the SDD. He then explained why the staff recommendedbat
denial . Tom stated the Planning Commission had reconmended approval of the
extension for one year only with the following recommendations to Council:
1. The Town Council look at the parking requirements; it seems they may be
overly restrictive.
2. The Applicant injtiate talks with the Vail Valley Medical Center like last
year regarding shared parking.
Peter Jamar, representing Vail Holdings, urged the Council to hire a third party to
study lodges, hotels, etc. parking needs; he djd not feel jt would be near as much
as what was required. He commented the Applicant wou'l d agree to a twelve month
period, and the'l andscape plan is underway and should be done by September l, 1987.
After some discussion by Council, Mayor Johnston made a motjon to approve the
ordinance, conditional on the landscape plan being completed. Kent Rose seconded
the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 5-0.
The next item of business was an epBeaf'df a PEQ decision on a request for a density
varjance to enclose ten decks.at'Treetops EuiLdinq No. 2. Eric Affeldt called up
this item because he notice(tlQr*ie++b+eaKi-ng nlw ground by enclosing the decks.
Krjstan Pritz reviewed the lreasons the PEC approved the enclosures:
1. There was a minimal amount of increased GRFA.
Substantial 'landscaping wjll be done in excess of that required with the
fact that this was a major emphasis of the proposal and did not include
maintenance and upgrading which would normally be required.
Balconies remain for each unit and are usable.
Peter Patten gave additional background informatjon on the item. Staff recommended
approval of the exterior a1 teration, but denial of the density variance. Diana
Donovan commented on why and how the PEC made its decision. Tom Briner commented on
why he felt the variance should be granted. Gordon Pierce made a motion to uphold
the PEC decisjon to approve the request, and Kent Rose seconded. A vote was taken
and the motion passed 4-1, with Eric Affeldt opposing.
Under Citizen Partjcipation,.Diana Donovan remarked she was upset that the four-way
was cold and uninviting now with the new street lights. Stan Berryman explained the
design approvals by the State, and that we actually were able to get ten foot
shorter posts and non-standard lights approved.
Ron Philljps stated there would be no Town Manager's report.
There being no further business, the meeting was adiourned at 10:50 p'm.
Respectful ly submi tted,
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman
2.
3.
-4-
I
bl
fllr
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environrnentar commission has
unanimousry recomrnended that the Town counciL extend this
approval; and
WHEREAS, the developrnent of this property as prescribed by
ordinance #5 of 1986 will be a benefit to the health, safety
and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of VaiI.
NosI, THEREFORE, BE IT REsoLvED BY THE TowN couNcrl, oF THE ToI^rN
oF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
The approvals granted by Ordinance #5 of IggG are herein
extended for a period of twelve (12) nonths.
TNTRODUCED, READ, AND APPROVED AND ADoprED this 16th day of
June, 19A7.
RESOLUTTON NO. 20Series of 1987
A RESOLUTION EXTENDING APPROVAL OF SPECIAL
DEVEIOPMENT DTSTRICT NO. 14 (DOUBLETREE HOTEL)
FOR A PERIOD OF TWELVE MONTHS
(t
WHEREAS, the owner of the Doubletree
that the approvals granted by Ordinance #5
and
Paul R. ;Iohnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandrneyer, Tohrn Clerk
Hotel has reques
of 1986 be extended;
a*.rrout 1-i*^"J'
fiq>w.a.: \-{+ \\.Lqq-}.
.d; qPUad'a T"1"^--\
J- <--1+ \<6, ttt(.
I
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE! June 9, L987
SUBJECT: A request to extend the approval of SpeciatDeve'lopnent District No. L4 (Doubletree Hotel)Applicant: Vail Holdings, Ltd. partnership
The attached mernorandums and ordinance provide backgroundpertaining to this reguest. A nurnber oi issues relevant tothis application were discussed at the planning commissionrsreview. Among these incLude a strong concern fhat the interinlandscape plan for the DoubLetree be completed as soon aspossible. It was also suggested that the developers of theDoubletree establish contact with the VaiI valley Medicalcenter relative to the possibility of constructing a joint useparking structure. Additional iniormation wirt b6 pr6vided tothe Council concerning these issues at Tuesdayrs meeting.
The Planning conrnission action was to recomnend the approval ofthis sDD be extended for a period of L2 months. rr apiroved asper this recommendation, the approval of the sDD would-then beextended to september LB, l-988. The planning connission alsorequested the staff to pass along to the council their concernover the existing parking reguirements. rt was their hope thatan independent siuay couid be- done of existing p.irittgrequirements to evaLuate whether Town regulatlons areappropriate. This issue was raised relaiive to theDoubletreets proposal and the present shortfall of parking asrequired by Town codes.
\.
.- r(" '
(
f' TO: Planning and Environmental Cornmission
\FROM: Conmunity Developrnent Department
DATE: June 8, 1987
SU&IECT: A request to extend the approval of Special
Development District No. 1,4 (Doubletree Hotel).Applicant: VaiI Holdings, Ltd. Partnership
The approval of a special development district expires after l-Bmonths if construction of the project is not initiated.Approval of SDD No. 14, which allows for a rnajor expansion ofthe existing Doubtetree Hotel, expires in JuIy of 1987. Theapplicant has reguested an extension of this approval foranother 18 nonth period. fhe Planning Conmissionrs action onthis application is advisory. Any final approval of extendingthis zoning requires the review and approval of a resol.ution bythe Town Council .
ISSUES REI,ATED TO THIS PROPOSAIJ
(
The two main issues relative to this redevelopment centered
around parking and additional density (see enclosed merno toPlanning Commission dated February 24, 1986.) Specifically,the staff r/as uncomfortable witn Lne significant amount, ofadditionat density with the absence of an overall Land useplan, and the proposed parking that was 50 spaces short of whatis reguired. The applicant has requested approval for theidentical project as was approved in l-986.
The recently adopted Land Use Plan has enabled some re-evaluation of our previous position relative todensity. Given the outcome of the Land Use Plan, the staffwoul-d not present such strong concerns for the additionaldensity as was stated in 1986. This is due to the fact thatthere was a preference in the comrnunity for concent,ratingdensity in the existing core areas, and nore specifically, nearthe Frontage Road,
Goals fron the Land Use Plan include:
2.L The comrnunity should emphasize its role as adestination resort while accommodating day visitors.
3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the bestIocation for hotels to serve the future needs of thedestination skiers.
4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable solong as the existing character of each area ispreserved through implementation of the Urban DesignGuide PIan and the VaiI ViJ.lage Master plan.
-Ir
5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types.
The shortfall of parking spaces proposed with this developmentis still a major concern to the staff. We continue to hold theposition that private developnents should build the requiredparking to avoid the significant problems in the longei tern.As Vail Mountain becornes nore and nore developed and-skier
lurnbers.increase, there will not be available overflow parkingin public structures to make up the short fal1. For thisreason, we cannot support the extension of this specialdevelopment district.
(
t
i/. J'
tl
(
TO:Plann'i ng and Environmental Commission
FR0M: Community Development Department
DATE: February 24, 1986
SUBJECT: A request to rezone Lot 2, Block l, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing from
High Dens'ity Multiple Family to Special Development Distri ct in
order to develop an additional 92 lodge rooms,5 condominiums, and
3,350 square feet of meeting rooms/conference space at the
Doubl etree Hotel .
Applicant: Vail Holdings, a Limited Pantnership
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
A request has been made to the Town of Vail to rezone the Doubletree
Hotel sjte from High Density Multiple Family zoning to a Special
Development District. This proposal js requested jn order to allow for
additjonal development on the sjte. The rezoning is required because the
present level of development js over that allowed under existing zoning.
The development proposed with this application includes 92'lodge rooms, 5
condominiums, and 3,350 square feet of additional meeting room space.
The following table illustrates how thjs proposal relates to the existing
development on the site as well as that allowed under the existing
zoning:
ZONING ANALYSIS OF DOUBLETREE HOTEL
Site area 2.6298 acres or .l.l4,554 square feet
ALLOWED DEV. EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL
UNDER EXISTING DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT
HDMF ZONING
Units:
65 du's 83 du's 5l du's 134 du's
(19 condos (5 condos (24 condos
128 lodge rooms) 92 lodge rooms) 220 lodge
rooms )
25 units,/ac 3.|.5 units/ac 19 unjts/ac 50.95/ac
GRFA:
68,732 sq ft 73,577 sq ft 42,576 sq ft 116,153 sq ft
Parking Req'd 52 enclosed 200 enclosed 200 enclosed
198 spaces 115 surface ll surface ll surface
Req'd 261 spaces
Meeting room space: 4040 sq ft 3350 sq ft 7350 sq ft
(i^lhile this table illustrates some of the more significant elementsrel.ated to th'is proposal , there are othen zoning considerat.i ons to be
made when evaluating this application. These and other aspects of thisdevelopment plan wil l be highiighted throughout this memorandum.
(
II.EACKGROUND ON REVIEt,tl PROCESS TO DATE
18.40.010 Purpose
The purpose of the specia'l development d.i strjcts is to encounageflexibilitv ilexib_ili-ty-in the development of land_ in order to promote itsippropiiifd-irse; to improve the design-,'-'lhlricter and quality of
new development; to facjlitate the adequate and economicprovisions of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural
and scenic features of open areas.
Historically, SDD's have been proposed in Vajl to allow for thedevelopment of sites that would be unable to do so under convent.i onalzoning. Exampies of these projects would include valli Hi where densityincreases were allowed in exchange for restrictions on the property toensure their use as employee housing, or the vail village Inn whos! mixeduse character required the SDD zoning. More often than not, however, SDDzone districts have been requested to allow forincreases in densitiesover what exist'ing zoning on the site would allow. This is the case withthis appl icatjon.
There are a number of criteria to be evaluated when reviewing a requestof thjs nature. Foremost among these are the nine design standards that
Fol lowing the-acquisition of this property by Vail Holdings, Inc., amajor renovation of the existing faciIity wai compieted during the summer
and fall of 1985. It was at th.is tjme that the staff first bigan adialogue with the developers and their des.i gners concernjng thefeasibility of additional development of this site. To dale, the staffhas spent a considerable amount of time with the designers of thisproject resulting in a number of additions and modifications to theoriginal]y proposed development p1ans. To assist in this process, thedevelopers agi'ee'J to pay ihe bili to bi.ing ieff l,linston in as a designconsultant for the Town. This is similar to the role Jeff played in theieview of Phase IV of the Vail Vjllage Inn proposal iast year. Inaddition to this rev'i ew, a work session was he'l d for the Town council andPlanning and Environmental commission in Novemben to brief them on theconcepts being proposed in this plan.
As js the case with any rezoning request, fjnal decjsions concern.ing thisapplication are made by the Town council. The planning commission iev.iewis advisory to the council and any approval of this plin would involvethe adoption of a new ordinance granting the rezoning request.
As stated in the zoning gode, the purpose of special developmentd.istricts is toi--
III.
are listed in the zoning code. As stated in the code, ,'The developmentplan for the special Development Districts shal'l meet each of thefollowing standards or demonstrate that either one or more of them is notapplicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the publicinterest has been achieved." In addition to these criteria, it isimportant to considen the underlying zoning as a point of reference inevaluating this request. These ioning coniiderations as well as otherissues that have been raised during the course of this review will beaddressed in this memo.
IV.
(
The following are staff comments concerning how this proposal relates tothe design standards as outlined in the zoning code.
A. A buffer zone sha] I be provided in any special development districtthat is adjacent to low density residential uses. The buffer zonemust be kept free of bujld.i ngs or structures, and must be
landscaped, screened or protected by natural features so thatadverse effects on the surrounding areas are m'i nimized. This mayrequire a buffer zone of sufficient size to adequately separate theproposed use from the surrounding properties in terms of visualprivacy, noise, adequate light and air, air pollution, and other
comparable potentiaily incompatible factors.
The buffer zone referred to in this des'ign standard is specifically forsDD's proposed adjacent to low density res'i dential uses.' Zone dislrictsadjacent to this property include high density multi-family and thepubf ic use districts. Consequently, this standard is not d.i rectlyapplicable. However, with a few exceptions, the proposal is within theexisting zone district's required Z0 foot setback.
B- A circu'l ation system designed for the type of traffic generated,taking into consideration safety, separation from liviig areas,'convenience, access, noise, and exhaust control . privaie internalstreets may be permitted'i f they can be used by police and F.i reDepartment vehicles-for emergency purposes. Bicycle traffic may beconsidered and provided when the site is to be uled for residenlialpurposes.
The.proposed site p1 an involves a number of changes to the exist.i ngvehicular access, to the property. Among these aie the addition of a newaccess point to service the ioading and trash facilities, the removal ofan existing road cut to the hotel entrance, and the deveiopment of anewly al igned-entry to the hotel . As a part of the environmental impactreport for this project, a traffic report was done that evaluated tripgeneration antic'ipated from both the existing and proposed developmenI onthe site. One conclusion of this study is t[at boltr ieft ana right iurn'lanes be provided as an element of thji development proposal . Inaddition to_satisfying the recommendations of the trirfic report, ifapproved, slight grading changes would be necessary to the miin 6ntry tothe facility as per Town of vai1 engineer's requesi. It shou] d ue niteJthat any changes to the road cuts requiring state Highway approval wouiJhave to be obtained prior to the issuance of any buiidin; plimit for thisdevel opment.
t
(c. Functional open space in terms of: Opt.imum preservat.i on of naturalfeatures (including trees and drainage areas), recreation, views,
conveni ence, and funct.ion.
0ne. change proposed in this plan relative to functional open space iswith respect to the Middle creek area. At the present time this area isovergrown with vegetation with no real relationship to the existingfacility. Landscape improvements are proposed in this area of the s.ite,as well as on the Town of vail stream tract, in order to open the accessto this stream. llhile a limited amount of landscape mater.i als would be
removed to allow for this development, a preliminary landscape plan hasbeen submitted indicating a substantia'l increase in plant materials onthe site. The views,/spacial analysis provided in the environmentalimpact report indicates that there are no real significant view impactswith respect to vantage points along the Frontage Road and Interstate.The scale of the buildings, coupled with the gride change from theFrontage road to the s'i te, has mitigated the potential view blockage fromthis addition. Short range vjews from some unjts in the VailInternational condominiums would be affected by the expans.i on proposed tothe north of the existing bujldjng.
D. Variety in terms of: housing type, densit.ies, facilities and open
space.
With the exception of the five condominium units, the residentjal
development proposed with this SDD is short term lodging. Otherfaci'l ities on site in addition to the meeting room spaci include indoorjacuzzis, an outdoor pool , a restaurant, a nightclub, and limjted
commercial . Also, see Section VI on Lodge Rooms and Condomin.i um
Restri cti ons.
E. Privacy in
ne'ighbors.
Given the nature
adjacent sites,
terms of the needs of: Individuals, families and
of the uses on this site, as we] I as the uses onstaff can see no factors with respect to privacy.
F. Pedestrian traffic in terms of: safety, separation, convenience.
. - access to points of destinat.i on, and attractiveness.
At the present time, guests of the Doubletree are prov.ided wjth apedestri an Iinkage to Meadow Drive in order to utilize the Town of va.i Ibus system. l.lith this proposed addition, an extension of this wa1 kway.isincluded linking the existing walkway with the post Office/Municipal -
Building area. This walkway runs along the south side of the property.
(_
G.Bui1ding type in terms of:
relationship and bu1k.
Appropriateness to density, site
It is felt that the designers of this project have done a commendable job
'i n relating this addition to the existing structure. Spec.i f.i ca1 1y, the
addjtions are done in a way that helps reduce the mass of the existingtower. As was referred to earlier, the grade change from the Frontage
Road to the site has allowed for a design that does not appear to add
considerable bulk to the site and works to enhance the overall visualquality as compared to the exist'i ng building.
H. Buiiding design in terms of: Orientation, spacing, mater.ials,
color and texture, storage, signs, l ighting, and solar blockage.
As is the case wjth the massing of this proposal , the siting of theproposed additions work well with the exjsting tower. The extensions ofthe existing building help "step" the building off the Frontage Road.
Considerations such as materjals, color,/texture, s'i gns, and l.i ghting
would all be addressed at the Design Review Boand level if this project
were approved. A sun,/shade analysis in the envjronmental impact report
demonstrates that the proposed expansions would have a negligible effect
on the Frontage Road.
I. Landscaping of the total site in terms of: Purposes, types,
maintenance, suitabifity, and effect on the neighborhood.
The proposed 'l andscape plan shows 37% of the site being landscaped. Thisdoes not include portions of adjacent property between the Doub'l etreesite and the State Highway Department right-of-way that would also be
landscaped- It should be noted, however, that this area is required to
be landscaped. Particu] ar attentjon has been paid to the loading/trash
area as wel'l as the surface parking that js on the site. A cons.i derable
amount of materi al is proposed in this area in order to screen thisportion of the site.
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO THIS PROPOSAL
With the approval of an SDD, the development plan submitted establishes
the development standards for the property. These would address the
standard zoning considerations that are outlined in other zone d'i stricts.In evaluating this development p1an, it is important to consjder the
standards establ ished in the underlying, or exist'i ng zoning. Thefollowing is an analysis of these consjderations:
- Uses
There are no changes to exjsting uses that would not be alloweq
under HDMF zoning.
(
V.
(
- Densi ty
Aside from the important sjte plann.ing jssues which must be
discussed, the overriding issue is how to deal with the request forsignificant addjtional density. While the Town deals w.ith requestsfor additjonal density quite frequently, seldom are requests madeof thjs magnitude. Historjcally, the staff has not supported
requests for densities above that allowed under existing zoning.
hlhjle there have been notable exceptions, the Planning Comm.i ssion
and Town Council have also been quite critical of requests for
density increases. The growth management report of .|977 and ageneral concern of allowing additional development in what js
perceived by many to be an overdeveloped Val 1ey, are often cited as
reasons fon denying additional density requests.
Prompted in large part by the Sonnenalp request in 1984, the Town
has been working on the Vail Vjllage Study for over a year. One of
the goals of the study is to evaluate the potentia1 for additional
density in the Vil lage area. This potential is evaluated based
more on design considerations than on what is necessarily alIowed
under existing zoning regulations. In conjunction with this
evaluat'i on, goals and objectives are being established to outline
improvements that should be done to the Vi11age in conjunction withthis development. A trade off, or bonus system, is to be developedthat would allow for additional densities in exchange for
substantial return to the community in the form of public
improvements or other exactions. It is important to note that this
system is being proposed after a comprehensive evaluation of theentire study area that has identified both the improvements to be
made as well as where additi onal density could be accommodated in asensitive manner. It js also irnportant that during the publ icprocess that has taken p'l ace for the Village Study, there was nor a
uniform response in favor of considering additional density jn theVi11age. However, there has been support for a system that would
al'l ow density increases in conjunction with the comprehensive studyof this type combined with a substantial return by the developer .in
the form o-f public improvements.
Given the suUmittdt befoie us;lt is unfortunate that the
Doubletree Inn js not located within the Vail Village Study Area.It is equal'ly unfortunate that a Town-wide land use plan is only inits ear'ly stages of development and not near completion as is the
case with the Village Study. The land use plan would provide thestaff a better understanding of the implications that this project
may have relatjve to other development potentials in the Va11ey.
lllhi1e specific analysis of the Ooubletree site would indicate that
some degree of additional density could be accommodated, the
concern of the staff is how this request relates to Town-wide
deve.lopment issues. For example, the traffic report for the
Doubletree suggests that trip generations to the sjte can be
accommodated off of the Frontage Road. But what wou'l d a cumu'l atjve
impact have on the Frontage Road'if similar requests for density'increases were to be granted in this area? Likewise, it has been
stated that the design impacts on the 0oubletree site are positive
from a standpoint of reducing the mass of the existing tower.
However, without a comprehensive analysis, the staff js
uncomfortable of what inrplicat'ions this proposal may have on other
properties located along the frontage road. Anotherimportant
consideration is a system of trade-offs that would be establjshedfor increased density in the Vi'l 'l age. Wh'i le there has been a
formal discussion with the developers on what public 'improvements
could be provided in conjunction with this development, wjthout a
Town-wide analysis, the staff is unabie to provide recommendations
as to appropriate trade-offs for this grant of add'i tional density.
Setbacks
The proposed addition encroaches jnto the required 20 foot setbackin four areas. l,lhile three of these areas are along the Frontage
Road and jnvolve only a few feet, there is a considerable
encroachment along the west end of the property adjacent to Middle
Creek. A portion of this encroachment involves the infill of an
area underneath an existing deck. However, new construction to
accommodate a pre-function area for the meeting rooms is proposed
to be constructed up to the property line. The staff had requestedthis area to be re-evaluated in an effort to reduce this
encroachment on Middle Creek. It is important to maintain some
amount of setback of buildings from the property line in this area.
He i ght
The proposed additions do not exceed the 48 foot height ljmitationin the HDMF zone district. The existing tower is 72 feet jn
hei ght.
Site Coverage
Site coverage a1 l owedplan includes 47% of
under the HDMF zone district is 55%. This
the si te be ing covered by bu i 1d ings.
Landscapi ng
As has been mentioned, 37% of the site is landscaped.
a 30% requirement for the HDMF zone djstrict.
This exceeds
Parki ng
There are a number of approaches that can be taken in evaluatingwhat the required parking is for this deveropr"ni. n.girdilrr orhow the numbers are carculated, the proposed developmeit do", normeet-the parking that would be required'for this level of -'
deveropment. There are 167 parking spaces on the site that can beconsidered a grandfathered situation icurrent requirements for theexisting development on the site wourd be r98.pJi"ti.'- ii"'n",development proposed for the site would require g+ spaces iffrisincludes a 5% multi-use reduction as weil ds u soz r5Jr.iiJn to,^
l!: l:lyll:d, parkins for the meetins room space). Considerins thero/.granoTatherecr spaces, an additional 44 spaces are being addedto the site to accommodate the new development proposed. itrisresults in a net defjcjt of 50 park.i ng spaces on the site. Inevaluating the parking reguired, the ;taif is comiortibie-wiilr aigtal 9f 2ql spaces to be provided on site. It should be notedthat this figure of 26'l spaces gives the appl.i cant consiaerit.ionfor a 50% reduction of spaces fir a meeting'room raiiiiiv-as weiras an interpretation that acknowledges a 25 space ihortiiri-tnat ispresent at this time- |,|ithout these considerations, the requiredparking on the site courd be as high as 316 spaces.' ii-ir-iettthat the 261 figure is both rea'l isiic from a planning standpoint aswell as reasonable in terms of the interpretations tiat niue oeenmade.
VI.
Fi re Department I ss ues
At the present time, the Fire Department has not signed off on thisdesign because of inadequate access and operational widths for theadditional developnent proposed for the site. rinat aeterminat.i onsregarding code requirements wilI be made at the building-p;rmit
1_eyiew. if this project is approved. Any significant crrinies to thesrte.pran that may result from this review would requ.i re pianning
Commission approval if made.
Easements
4s--proposed, the underground parking structure and portions of thelodge addition would encroach on existing utility.lr.r.ni.. Ifapproved, the design of the underground parking ltructure woulda'l low access to these ut.i lity ljnes. Construcfion on these'easements would require approvals of all utjlity companies prior tothe issuance of any building permit for this pr6j"cii
t_
Restrictions on Lodqe Rooms and Condom.i niums
The staff has requested and the applicant has agreed that theaccommodation units proposed in this plan would be deve'l oped aslodge rooms. This would mean that if a proposa'l to convert theseunits to condominiums were to be made, they'would be reviewed wjthrespect to the criteria out'l ined in the condominium conversionordinance (i.e. if approved for conversjon to condos, they would berestricted to short-term rentais). In addition, the-applicant hasagreed to restrict the conversion of these units to a time shareform of ownership for 20 years. The staff has also requested thatthe use of the 5 condominiums be limited by those restrictionsoutlined in the condominium conversion ordinance. This wouldassure the Town that these units would be in the rental pool 49weeks of the year.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
As demonstrated in this memo, the proposed development plansatisfactorily addresses a number of design standards outlined in the SDDzone district. The plan presented provides a number of s.i gnificant
improvements !o llg existing site conditions on the property. However,the plan is s'ignificantly short of what the staff feels to 6e therequired park'i ng for this level of development. In addition to theshortfall of 50 pllfins spaces, staff also quest.ions the high percentageof v1l9t spaces within the structured parking area. As proiosed, 76 ;i-the 200 spaces would require valet service for util ization. staff isalso disappointed to see the proposed surface parking on the site. whi'l ethe location of these surface spaces is not highly visible, it would bemuch preferred to have the parking entire'ly eniloied.
It js the feeling of the staff that th'i s project's inability to meet theparking requirements is an indication that the development proposed is inexcess of what the site is capable of handling. The development proposeJincludes 134 dwelling units. This number is over twice that allbwed ---
under existing zoning. To even consider support.ing a project that isrequesting this dramatic increase in density while not meit.ing itsparking requirement is inconceivable to the staff. It is the feeling ofthe staff that it is the burden of the applicant to demonstrate how it.i ssatisfying the development standards of the Town. l,lith an SDD r..oning -
request to allow for this increase in density, .i t is the feel.ing of thEstaff !hat this application should meet and liceed the respectiie minimumor maximum development standards of the Town to show the highest qualiiydevelopment possible. This project has not demonstrated thit it ismeeting this objective.
The staff feels the parking requirements as described in the zoning codefor. those types of uses on this site are valid. Here again, it sh6uld beemphasized that the required parking acknowledges a 50%-reduction inmeeti.ng room space, the multi-use credits, as well as acceptance of thegrandfathering of the existing situation. The Town simply cannot affordto make concessions with regard to parking. we cannot riiL tt'e creatjonof a parking problem with respect to privite developments as this willaggravate the problem of prov.i ding skier parking. This becomesparticularly true when consideri ng a request for such a significantincrease in density.
10
t,|ithout the information afforded us through the completion of a land useplan and policies app'l icable to these typis of density increaseproposals, the staff is not in a position to support density increases ofthis magnitude. Approval of this proposal would'estab]ish i significaniprecedent-with respect to a Town policy on density increases wi[hin ttre
IgTn. A land use planjs an important tool in evlluating proposals oi-this nature or other issues such as the potential land traie at the Lodgeand spraddle creek sites. The Plann'ing conrmission is strongly urged to-
cons'i der these implications when evaluating this request.
(
lnwn
75 3oulh fronlage roed
yall, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
Mr. Abbas Rajabi
3080 East Geddes Place
Ljtt1eton, Colorado 80122
Re: Doubletree Landscape Plan
Dear Abbas:
offlce of communlly developmenl
August 29, 1986
I have had an opportunity to review the landscape plan (submitted duri ng the
Design Review Board hearings for the renovatjon of the hotel) fo1 lowing-our
discussion a few weeks ago. In addition, I have visited the site to evaluate
impacts from construction at the Vai'l Valley Medica1 Center. It is the opinionof this department that the proposed 'landscape plan is a vital aspect or the
overal 1 upgrading of the property. After discussion with other members of ourstaff, our position on the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy as itrelates to the required landscaping is as fol'l ows:
1, A portion of the approved plan has been installed. prior to the
issuance of a final Certificate of 0ccupancy, the installation of alllandscaping not directly .impacted by the footprint of hotel expans.i onsha'll be required. Details of which materials not to be p'l anted can be
worked out between the staff and your landscape contractors.
2. A letter of credit, equal to .|00% of the estjmated costs of thoseportions of the p1 an not'i nstalled, shal'l be subm'itted to the Town priorto the issuance of a final c. of o. This letter of credit shall be he'lduntil the approval for the hotel expansion expires. At that tjrne, ifconstruction on the expansion has commenced, the letter of credit wil'l
be re'l eased to you. If construction has not begun, the letter of creditwill be utilized to initiate the installation of the landscape p1an.
As stated, we fee] strongly that the landscaping is an important element ofthis site. I fee1 the options offered to you piovide fleiibility relative tothe potential hote'l expansion. At the same time, however, I must have concrete
assurances that the landscape improvements ultimately are instal 1ed. I hopeyou understand oun position on this matter. please feel free to contact mewith any questions you may have.
Si ncerely,
A <')
/ \ o*".. \7 j\Crlr.A-
Thomas A. Braun
Sen i or P'l anner
Peter Patten
Jim Tha'lman
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Apol 1o Park
Ho1 i day Inn
Kiandra/Talisman
Manor Vai I
Doubl etree l{orki ng Fi 1e
Com Dev staff
March 3, 1986
Doubl etree Parki ng
# of Spaces
Av. 0ccupancy
from '85 survey
Duri ng the P'l anning Commjssion review of the Doubletree subrnittal , the 3 day
parking survey of Vail's parking lots conducted in conjunction wi th the Village
Study was cited as rationale for why Town of Vail parking requirements for
lodges are unjustifiable. Staff maintained at this hearing that the 3 day
survey was not adequate information on which to base this type of decision. To
complement this survey, an additional survey was done of a number of lots on
Friday, February 28 between 6 and 7 pm. The results are as follows:
Tab'le # l
80'136
125
l8l
60%
63%
66%
40%
2/28/86
0ccupancy
88%
75%
74%
62%
The above information indicates a significant increase in utilization during
Friday's survey. It is felt that the most significant conclusion resulting from
this additiona'l survey date'i s that the utilization of these lots can vary
dramatically. This, in turn, should demonstrate that the limited survey dates
we have cannot be used for justification for questioning the parking
requirements of the Town.
In addition to the above 1ots, the
Fr i day:
f o1 l ow ing 'l odges were a'l so surveyed on
Table #2
Doub'l etree
Marri ott
Enz ian
Lionsquare Lodge
Antlers
# of Spaces
'l 76x
205
46
106
13
Occup ied Spaces
1b5
195
38
16
55
% 0ccupi ed
92%
95%
82%
71ry
1C,ol
* A number of these spaces are inaccessible due to construction activity.
75 soulh tronlage road
vail. color.do 81657
(303) 476-7000
April 2, '1986
ofllce ol communlly developmenl
Jay Peterson
0tto, Peterson and Post
Box 3149Vail, Colorado 81658
Re: Winston Statements for VVI and Doubletree
Dear Jay:
Enclosed is a bil] from Jeff ttinston for his review of last year's vvlproject. His accountants have no record of payment ueing miae on thtse bills.would you please pass this a'long to Tony Genth -or whoever".ii best sulieJr'o orscuss this will Jeff's accountant? I have also enclosed the mostrecent bill for the Doubletree review showing ttre unpiia'uiiance todate. Thanks for" your help with these matters.
Si ncerely,
4rrn
Thomas A. Braun
Senior Planner
TAB: bpr
Enc I os ures
o
MR. PEf,ER PATTEN
DEPT OF COI{MTTNTIY DEVELOP
75 S. FRONTAGE ROAD
VAIL, C0 81657
vv vvl REVIEI{' (GENTH)
'"r,"rro"
AssocrATEs. *rc. =
r426 P€ARL STREET MAL!
-BOULDER, COLOFAOO EO3O2
(303) 440-9200
CLIENT NIIMBER: 50544
STATEMEM DATE: 0l/09/86
DATE INVOICE NO AMOIJNT BALANCE
oL/o7/85 0037s 40.s6o2logles 0039s t892.2to3/o8/85 0041s 269,2r
TOTAL BALANCE DUE 220L.98
CURRENT OVER 30 OVER 60 OVER 90 INTEREST BALANCE DUE
.00 .00 .00 220L.98 329.99 253t.97
,/,1-^,t' '=:/W\wrNsroN AssoctATEt. r$fc. -1426 PEAHL STREET MALL
BOULDEB. COLORADO 80302
(303) 1404@
WINSTON ASSOCIATES
PIINNING AND TANDSCAPE AFCI.IIIECIURE
MR. PETER PATTEN
DEPT. OF CO}.IMIJNITT DEVEIOPMENT
75 SOUTIT FRONTAGE ROAJ)
vArL, c0 81657
PRO.'ECT
o
CLIENT NTMBER:
STAIEMENT DATE:
50547
03-1G-86
DOU VAIL PROI REV-DOTDLRIREE
DATts INVOICE NO
BALANCE FORWARD:
PROJECT IOTAL:
IVTAL BALANCB DUE:
A},roulfT PAY'I'{ENTS BALAI{CE
482.63
482.63
482.63
CURRENT
482.63
OVER 30
0
ovER 60
0
ovER 90
0
BALANCE DIJE
482,63
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 1, 1986
7:30 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town
7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Council was held on Tuesday, April 1, 1986, at
Kent Rose, Mayor Pro Tem
Eric Affeldt
Dan Corcoran
Gordon Pierce
Hermann Staufer
MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Johnston, Mayor
Gail Wahrl ich-Lowenthal
TOl,lN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Erandmeyer, Town Clerk
The first item on the agenda was a consent agenda for the following items:A. Approval of minutes of March 4 and 18, 1986 meetings.B. 0rdinance No. 5 Serjes of 1986 second reading, concerning the Doubletree
special Development District'
on tite."rrT*-]f.C. 0rdinance No. 6, Series of 1986, second reading, _.-.._....----
D. 0;4imneerNo. 7, Series of 1986, second reading, concerning horsr-drEwh-1.&tsls": - ----/
E( Ordjtfance No. 8, Series of 1986, second readjng, regarding the
Annexat i on of Ja]af_!.rest_._F. 0rdinance N0.9, Series of 1986, second reading, vacationing the small
portion of- a Chalet Road cul-de:la-c_ q!_9e]_den_Peak.G. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1986, second reading, zoning the reannexed
portjon of West Vail.
Mayor Pro Tem Rose read all the titles in full. Dan Corcoran abstained from voting
on item E, 0rdinance No. 8, due to hjs jnvolvement in the issue. Eric Affeldt asked
that item B,Ordinance No. 5, be removed because he would not be able to vote
affirmative on it. Jay Peterson also asked that 0rdinance No. 5 be removed from
consent agenda because he had questjons requiring further discussion. Mayor Pro Tem
Rose removed items B and E from the consent agenda. Hermann Staufer then made a
motion to approve items A, C, D, F, and G, whjch Gordon Pjerce seconded. A vote was
taken and the motion passed unanimously 5-0.
The next item was Ordinance No. 5, Seri es of 1986, second reading, concerning the
Doubletree SDD. Mayor Pro Tem Rose read the full tjtle. Jay Peterson had questions*co[e6r-nfiS SEction 9 B to which Peter Patten responded. After a short djscussion,
an additional sentence was included: "Any proposal to condominjumjze the
accommodation units would require approval as per the Subdivision Regulations of the
Town of Vail." Dan Corcoran made a motion to approve the ordinance with the
amendment, and Hernann Staufer seconded. A vote was taken and the motjon passed
4-1, with Eric Affeldt opposing.
The third item was Ordinance No. 8, Seri es of 1986, second reading, regarding the
annexation of Solar Crest. Mayor Pro Tem Rose read the title jn full. There was no
discussion by-ToTfrdiTrc-r the public. Gordon Pierce made a motion to approve the
ordinance, and Eric Affeldt seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0,
wjth Dan Corcoran absta'ining due to hjs work on the project.
The next item on the agenda was Resolution No. 9, Seri es of 1986, concerning
authorization to deal with Merri ll Lynch. Charlie t^Jick gave a brief explanation of
the resolution noting changes requested by Council at the afternoon work session had
been made. There was no discussion by Council or the public. A motion to approve
the resolutjon was made by Hermann Staufer and seconded by Eri c Affeldt. A vote was
taken and the motion passed unanimously 5-0.
o o
MINUTES
VAIL TOi,IN COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 18, 1986
7:30 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town
7:30 p.m. in the Counci l Chambers.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Councj'l was held on Tuesday, March 18, 1986, it
Paul Johnston, Mayor
Kent Rose, Mayor Pro Tem
Eric Affeldt
[)an Corcoran
Gai I Wahrl i ch-Lowenthal
Gordon Pierce
Hermann Staufer
Ron Phi11ips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
The first item the agenda was 0rdinance No. 4, Seri es of 1986, second reading,
regarding P Mayor Johnston read the full title. Kristan
Pritz briey'ly ned the background of the ordinance. There was no Council
di scussi or{.Wahrl ich-Lowenthal made a motion to approve the ordinance, which
A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.Gordon Plerce seconded.
The next item was Otdinance No. 5. Series of 1986. first reading, regarding a
special development district for the Doubletre Mayor Johnston read thetitle in full and noted the title had not been corrected of the typographical
error. Peter Patten stated that the dens'ity and parking issues haq not been
addressed and gave reasons why the staff still recommended denial . Jay Peterson,
represent'ing Va'i 1 Holdings, stated briefly why he thought the ordinance should be
passed and then answered questions from Council. Dan Corcoran made a motion to
approve the ordjnance wjth the conditions listed in Section 9 of the ordinance plus
the following:
1. Change paragraph A. to include a notice that current owners who purchase
one of the five condominiums will be exempt from the two week restniction.
2. Before a building permit is issued for construction, the owners will grant
an easement to the Town for public use for access to the Vail Va1 1ey
Medical Center.
3. Before a building permit is issued for construct'ion, the owners must pay
$235,000 into the Town of Vajl parking fund. This amount wilI be
guaranteed for six months. After sjx months, the Town may increase the sumif it chooses to do so.
Gordon Pierce seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1, with
Eric Affeldt opposing.
The third item was 0rdinance No. 6, gspies of 1985r-+i+st--+€a4+ng, negarding title
certific title. Kristan Pritz gave a brief
explanation of the ordinance. There was no discussion by Council. Kent Rose made a
motion to approve the ordinance, and Gai'l Wahrlich-Lowenihal seco,iC:J. A vote was
taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
The next item on the agenda was Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1986, first reading,
providing a definitjon of horse drawn vehicles. Mayor Johnston read the fulltitle. Larry Eskwith explained the reasoning behind the ordinance. After some
discussion by Counci1, Eric Affeldt made a motion to approve the ordinance with the
changes noted below:
1. Change wording to read that Town Council must approve any iong term
permits; short term permjts may be approved by Town Council or Town
Manager.
o
DOUBLETREE PARKING ANALYSIS
Total # of spaces required with proposed addition,
Meeting rooms
Lodge rooms, condos
Lodge rooms/condos (80 spaces)
Meeting rooms (14 spaces)
85% of 50 space deficit = 42.5
15% of 50 space deficit = 7.5
14 spaces
80 spaces
94
44Total # of additional spaces prov'ided with proposed add'ition,
211 proposed - 167 existing = tf4
42.5 spaces
7.5 spaces
$5,000/space
$3 ,000/space
50.0 spaces
$ 212,500 (lodging and condos)
(meeting roons)
@
@
. I o?L -HV \-
/' | ,,.( 1,"
'/ l*--.u{" .1 Iva' :;/1
I
= 85% of new demand
= 14.8 or 15% of new demand
spaces (lodging and condos)
spaces (meeting rooms)
o
DOUBLETREE PARKING ANALYSIS
Total # of spaces required with proposed addition,
Meeting rooms 14 spaces
Lodge rooms, condos 80 spaces
Total # of additional spaces prov'ided with proposed addition, 44
211 proposed - 167 existing = 44
Lodge rooms/condos (80 spaces) = 85% of new demand
Meeting rooms (14 spaces) = 'l 4.8 or 15% of new demand
85% of 50 space deficit = 42.5 spaces (lodging and condos)
15% of 50 space deficit = 7.5 spaces (meeting rooms)
50.0 spaces
42.5 spaces @ $5,000/space = $ 212,500 (lodging and condos)
7.5 spaces 0 $3,000/space = 22,500 (meeting rooms)
$ a5;d60
94
o.t 9o
IIIINUTES
VAIL TOt,lN COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 7, 1987
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Councjl was held on Tuesday, July 7, t987, at 7:30
p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building'
"a-ni (
OL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS NOT PRESENT:
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Kent Rose, Mayor Pro Tem
Eric Affeldt
Gai I l.lahrl ich-Lowenthal
John Slevin
Hermann Staufer
Paul Johnston, Mayor
Gordon Pierce
Ron Ph i 'l I i ps, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town AttorneY
Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
The first order of business was approval of the June 2, 16 and 30, 1987 meetings
minutes. After a short discussion, there was a correction noted to be made on the
. June 16 minutes. Eric Affeldt stated that he voted against Resolution 20, concerning
the Doubletree. Eric Affeldt then made a motion to approve the minutes with the noted
correction, which was seconded by John Slevin. A vote was taken and the rnotion passed
unanimously 5-0.
The second item was a final presentation of the market/financial feasibj'l ity study for
the Vail aouatic facilitv.- Kristan Pritz introduced Tim Garton and Ford Frick who
gave the presentaETon.-Tim Garton first thanked those who helped get to this point,
then gave background information and the goals of the Task Force and the conclusions
they had come to. He then gave a slide presentation of areas the Task Force looked
at. Ford Frick jntroduced Ron Rjnker of Barker-Rinker-Seacat & Partners, architects,
and then explained the conclusjons they arrived at and how they approached problems.
Ron Rjnker explained sjte needs and how pool area would fit in Ford Park; he also gave
a brief breakdown of operational costs. Ford next explained pricing strategjes,
marketing groups and potential revenues. Tim Garton addressed potential questions
that came up during June and noted their conclusions. Councjl asked questions of the
Task Force members and consultants. Joe Staufer first complimented the Police
Department on how they handled the July 4th crowds, then stated his concerns over the
aquatic center, to which Tjm Garton responded. Krjstan Pritz corrected Joe stating
that staff was not by any means marketing the project, but was oniy informing the
publ ic of facts concern'i ng the aquatic center. Joe responded that it I ooked 1ike a
Town priority, and Pepi Gramshammer stated he was angry over how much staff time and
expense was spent on the project when he felt the pool would not work here. Ron
Phj'l ljps responded with the hjstory of the project and compared it to the Congress
Hall and noted how the two were jn different stages of development. Al Wejss and Dave
Ganton corrnented on why they were for the aquatic center. Council then asked more
questions of the Task Force members. Mayor Pro Tem Rose thanked everyone for their
work on the project, they had been veny thorough, and stated the Council wanted to
digest the information and wajt until the Phase II report on the Congress Hall came
out, when the Counci'l would then work on bonding jssues for one or the other or both.
The thjrd item for discussion was 0rdinance No- 16, Series of 1987, second reading,
amending Special Development District No. 5 lResort) by amending the site
p1an. Mayor Pro Tem Rose read the title in full. Rick--tr9lman explained additional
condjtions which where included at the first reading. Jay Peterson, representing Vail
Run, had additjonal word changes which Sjmba Run agreed with. There was no discussion
by Counci'l or the public. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal made a motion to approve the
ordinance with the inclusion of language presented by Jay, and it was seconded by
Hermann Staufer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 5-0.
Next on the agenda was 0rdinance No. 18, Series of 1987, second reading, amending
the parkjng on private property chapter of the Munjcipal Code. The full title was
read by Mayor Pro Tem Rose. Larry Eskwith explajned brjefly what the ordinance would
do and there were no changes requested at first reading. There was no discussion by
"t
the public or 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 5-0.
The fifth order of business was Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1987, second reading,
establishing a Special Development District for the Valley Phase III (Elk Meadows).MayorProTemRosereadthefulltitle.Kristanpr@as
requested in the ordinance since the first reading. After a brief discussion by
Council, John Slevin made a motion to approve the ordinance with the changes stated by
Kristan, which was seconded by Hermann Staufer. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously 5-0.
The sixth item was Ordjnance No. 20, Serjes of 1987, second reading, making a
supplemental appropriation to the Town of Vail budget. The full tjtle was read by
Mayor Pro Tem Rose. Steve Barwick explained the changes made as requested at fjrst
reading. Erjc Affeldt commented on what expenditures were for and was disappointed
the press was not present to note how the public's tax dollars were being spent. A'l
t.leiss asked questions concerning the appropriations, to which Steve responded. There
being no other discuss'ion, a motjon to approve the ordjnance was made by GaiI
Wahrlich-Lowenthal . The motjon was seconded by Eric Affeldt. A vote was taken and
the motion passed unanimously 5-0.
The seventh item for discussion was Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1987, fjrst readjng,
amending the Town of Vai'l subdivision regulations concernjnS eond_grnjxium conversjons.MayorPioTemRosereadthetitleinfuli.KristanPrjtzeims
in the Code would be and why. She then went over criteria used in evaluatjon of the
request and why staff recommended approval . She also noted staff would like the Code
to be nevjewed every two years. Peter Patten cormented that would protect the bed
base of the town, especial'ly if there were a Congress Hal1. Mayor Pro Tem Rose made
comments regarding Sectjon 3C that there was no time ljmit for a unit to be furnished
and made available. After some djscussion by Counc'i l, it was agreed to add the
wording "wjthin 90 days after the date of recording of the condominium map". He then
stated addjtional concerns which were already in the Code, as noted by Dave Garton and
Jay Peterson. Peter Patten next stated problems with Section 2. At this time,
Hermann Staufer made a motion to approve the ordinance with the changes to Section 3C,
and to review the Code every two years, and jt was seconded by John Slevin. A vote
was taken and the motjon passed unanimously 5-0.
Next on the agenda was 0rdinance No. 22, Series of 1987, fjrst reading,
primary/secondarv connection amendment to the Vail Municipa'l Code. The ful l title was-retd-byTayor pro fim-TAs=;--ftf Pylman explained the reasoning for the ordjnance and
what 'l anguage staff wanted to add to the Code. He stated there was one sentence which
the Plannjng and Environmental Council recornmended, but was not included by Larry
Eskwith because it was too subjective. Erjc Affeldt agreed with Larry. Erjc asked
Kathy l,larren of the Design Review Board if she agreed with Larry's language; she feltjt was too loose and was not very comfortable with it. She felt it encouraged two
structures and not one. After some discussjon, it was agreed to make the first
sentence of the PEC memo the first sentence of the Section. There was more discussion
as to what the intent should be. After much discussion by Council, staff and Kathy
Warren, it was decided to table the ordinance and rework the wording. A'l t,Ieiss stated
his objections to the ordinance, to which Larry Eskwith responded. Jay Peterson then
made comments as to some past Council decisions and the reason for the ordinance.
Kathy Warren recommended applicants be encouraged to 9o to the DRB before the PEC and
a lot of money is spent. Peter Jamar noted more illustrations should be done to help
the DRB and PEC make decjsions. At thjs time, a motion to table the ordinance
indefinite'ly was made by John Slevin and seconded by Eric Affeldt. A vote was taken
and the motion passed 4-1, with Hermann Staufer opposing.
The njnth order of business was 0rdinance No. 23, Series of 1987, first reading,
/f++isid€ residential zone distrjct. Mayor Pro Tem Rose read the full title. Rick
Pylman exFIETneTThaITte-ordinance was for, what it would do and gave background
i nformati on.
Gail l'lahrl ich-Lowenthal had to 'l eave the meeting at this time.
Jay Peterson, Peter Patten and Rick Pylman answered questions of Councjl. Eric
Affeldt made a motjon to approve the ordinance with instructions to the staff to
include language that equestrian lots be required to border public'lands. The motion
was seconded by John Slevin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 4-0.
-2-
T
The tenth jtem was a Doubletree sign variance request. Rick Pylman gave background
informiiion-ana exptaTnea un-ailThe request was for. He presented photographs_ to the
Counci'l . He then explained the criteri a used jn evaluating the request and the.
iinaing., "ra rtv thi staff recorrnended approval. There was no discussion by the
puUlii-or Councii. A motion to approve the variance request with the findings as
founa in the staff memo was nade by Eric Affeldt and seconded by John Slevjn. A vote
was taken and the motion passed unan'imously 4-0.
The e] eventh item for discussion was the-Rimel density variance appeal . Eric Affeldt
spoke up that he brought this item up and-:fr'di'I6ilto know why the variance was_approved
U! tf," Ffinning and Eivjronmental Conrnission, Rick Pylman gave background infornation
;; ih; u"ri"n.6 and why staff recormended denial and overturn the PEC decision. Kathy
Warrtn, representing Lle Rimel , listed reasons why she though the variance should be
rpprouia- 'She distiibuted copies of zoning maps and discussed the areas shown. After
mirln a.ir.rtsion by Kathy, staff and Council, John Slevin made a motjon to uphold the
pEC decjsion, and Hermann Staufer seconded. Kathy asked to be able to address any
problens Councjl members may have had wjth the variance. A vote was then taken and
fhe motion was denied 2-2, with Mayor Pro Tem Rose and Eric Affeldt opposing. The
variance was denied and the PEC decision overturned-
There was no Citizen Participation.
Ron Phillips stated for the Town Manager's report, the Town received $18,000 from an
UMTA grant and out of 23 cities rated, Vail had the highest efficiency rating for our
busesl He noted that bus ridership for the total area was up 23% over last year for
the July 4th weekend, and overal 1, June was up 13% from 1986. He stated the real
estate iransfer tax iund was righi on budget for June and $12,000 over budget for the
fjrst six.months. Also, sales lax was $106,000 over budget for the year so far- Ron
commented that Heritage Cablevjsion was going to survey al I the lodges gnd pgb] ic with
guestions regarding tie publjc access studio-and the public's satisfaction with it.
There be.i ng no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
Respectful 1y submitted,
ATTEST:
Plmela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
Mjnutes taken by Brenda Chesman
-3-
The Doubletree Hotel is requesting a sign variance to a1low anadditional building identification sign of 2O square feet to beplaced approxi-mately 65 feet above grade on t,he north elevationof the building.
The staff worked extensively with the applicant to present thisparticular proposal which r.,re felt was in line with Lhe intentof the sign code and the previous approvals granted to theMarriott, the Holiday Inn, and the Raintree Inn. The DesignReview Board recommended unanimous approval of the request.
To: Design Review Board
FROM: Conmunity Development Departnent
DATE: June L7, L9g7
SUBJECT: Sign variance request for the Doubletree Hotel
APPLICANT: DTM Vail , Inc.
r.REQUEST
The Doubletree Hot,el is requesting a sign variance toallow an additional building identification sign of 20square feet to be placed approximately 65 feet above gradeon the north elevation of the existing building. The signwould be identical in size and design to the eiisting silnlocated on the east elevation of the building. Therequest requires a variance from the size, height, andnumber of signs that the sign code permits.
The Doubletree Hotel , as a single business use, is allowedup to two wall signs with a maximuru conrbined sq,uarefootage of 20 square feet. The height allowabie is Z5feet above existing grade. The noubletree currentlydisplays two wall signs, a 20 square foot sign on the eastelevation facing the South Fron€age Road and a sign of
ipprgx+Tltely five square feet on the southwest p5rt,ion ofthe- building- This sign is oriented. toward the |edestrianpathway that leads down to the bus stop by the ile arena.There is also a sign narking the western entrance to theDoubletree Hotel parking 1ot along the Frontage Road.
The reguest for additional signage requires a variancefrom the conbined maxirnurn squire foot of 20. The totalsquare.footage with the proposed addition would beapproxinately 45 square ieel. The request also requires avariance from the number of signs. ttie reguest is for atotal of 3 wall signs, along with the entrince/trafficcontrol sj-gn. A third variance is requested fbr height.The sign location is approxinately 65 feet above grade,although its distance ibove the revel of the Froniage Roadis approxirnately only 25 feet.
Attached is the applicantrs statement in support of therequest.
FINDTNGS AND STAFF RESPONSES
Before the board acts on a variance application, the
lpnlicant must prove physical hardshiir- and tne loard nustfind that:
rI.
acent lots or w
A.There are special circumstances or conditionsapelvinq :
veqetation, s structures or othei-rnEEEEiG onacent riqht-otantct the effect venessested, however t suchcl_al c rcumstances or cond ons are e to therticularbusiness or en resires to aw attentioneneralesses or enterDr se
o
s.
Staff Response:
The Doubletree Hoter does have a legitinate identifi-cation problen due to the size and various exposuresof the building and the fact that for the entireproject they are allowed only two signs with acornbined totar alrowable arei of 20 iquare feet. TheRaintree Inn, Holiday fnn, and Marrio€t Uark .rehotels that have also recently received siqnvariances due to the size of their projecti. Stafffeels that the Doubr-etree Hoter nas- siii:-ar specialcircumstances that warrant this increase in thecombined square footage for signage. We alsorecognize that due to the design or tne Doubletree,it is difficult to utilize one waII sign ttrat traseffective exposure to both east and welt_boundtravelers on the South Frontage Road. We feel thatit i9.a regitimate reguest to have two signs reratingto this exposure, and that it is also in itt" itt.r.=iof the connunity to have signage oriented to thepedestrian area that relatei to the Town of Vail busroute.
With regard to the variance for height, while thesign itself is.approximately 65 fee€, abov--graae, theFrontage Road is substantially higher than fhefinished grade of the Doubletiee farfing foi, andthat circumstance rnitigates the iinpact 5r tne heightrequest.
B. That soecial circunstances rrar6 r-r^f ^,^5.F^,r r-.. .Lr^-
Staff Response:
Special circurnstances were not created by theapplicant.
That. special circurnstances were not created bv the
c.That the antin the variance will be in eneralharmony w the e of this title and wmaterialLtrto the ns resworthe vic n o adiacent ro to thenerghborhood, or o the c welfare
Staff Response:
Generally, the staff feels that the sign is inharmony with the purposes of this titl;. Staffbelieves that the size, location and. height areharmonious with the surrounding setting ind will beconpatible with the scale of the existing building.The size of the sign is in scale with the rest of thebuilding and will not draw undue attention toitself.
D. The variance arrri] i ad fnr daae nnf Aayraw.{- €>an +h^
Staff Response:
The applicant is requesting an additional 20 squarefeet of signage beyond that which is existinq andapproxinately.25 feet beyond what is allowed by thesien code. Given the size of this building .rri th"difficulty orienting signage to the exposures of thisbuilding, staff feels that-the applicairt is notreguesting a departure from the provisions of thesign code any more than is truly required to identifythe applicantrs business.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff supports the variance request for size, number of
-signs and height. Staff believes that the pioposat isharmonious with the sign coders reguirenent thit signagenot call undue attention to itself.- We feel that therequest for the additionar square footage does not departdrastically fron signage al-lowed within the code and thatthe height. request does not depart radically from theintent of that section of the code. we d.o teel that theleight could be further rnitigated by placing the sign aslow as possibre on the building face. stafi recommendsapproval of the request, recognizing that the applicanthas a difficurt site and has rnade a reasonabre altenpt towork with the sign code.
The variance applied for does not depart from the
toor use.
PROPOSEIT DOUBTETREE SIGNAGE:
DTM vail, Inc. desires to erect an additional buildinqidentification sign at the Doubletree Hotel. This sign would b6located on the north face of the building and would 6erve toidentify the building to those approaching the bulLding fron thenorth and the west. Currently the only identification of thebuilding visible frorn the Frontage Road occurs on the east sideand is visibly only to those approaching the building fron theeast.
The existing signage ls proposed to remain.signage consists of one sign on the east wall ofone sign near the pool on the southwest portion ofand one srnall freestanding sign located near onedrives to the hotel .
The existingthe building,the buildingof the entry
The new sign would be consistent with the design of theexisting signs and would be located on a wall which is -currentlv
blank. (see attached sketch). The size of the proposed sigiwould be twenty (20) square feet wbich would be appropriate tothe scale of the building and the vrall face to which it vrould beattached. The height of the sign would be approximatelysixty-five (65) feet above existing grade.
The installation of the new sign would resuLt in non-compriance with provisi.ons of the Town of vail sign cocle. Thesignage would not comply with the regulations iegarding the
rnax j.mum heigtrt of signs nor the maximum size of signs. theieforea variance of those provisions is being reguested.- specifically,a variance to section 16.20.210 lJall signs - single Business u-seis requested for the following reasons:
sii_g - The maximun size of signs permitted is(?Ol square feet. The proposed signage will be inof this requirement.
1.
trventy
excess
2. Eejgh,! - The sign to be applied to the north sideof the building will exceed the naxirnum height:twenty-five (2Sl feet from the existing grade.
This variance is being requested in accordance with chapter16.36 of the vail. Municipal code-and conplies with the prolosesection of that chapter. The variance is requested to leslen-thepractical difficulties associated with strict conpliance of theprovisions of the sign code. The difficul-ty ariies because ofthe size of the structure and the relationship of the structureto its surroundilgs. The variance _is requestea to properly andadequatery identify the building and wiLl not be delriinentit topersons residing or working in the vicinityz to adjacentproperty, to the neighborhood or to the public welfaie ingeneral.
rt'
I tl
ll,lllt[-l tl[____ll
. l:
I.lr-
:. .
I
rt
tJ
14
-6tr
{?
s
Bf
I:|E
'f'
l-
.::
-:r{t'
E
(l9
l-il ll-l
E
ORDINANCE NO.5
Series of 1986
AN oRDINANCE APPR0VING A Sp[et*\, DEVEL0PMENT. DISTRICT (KNOI'|N AS SDD Nq( i4)J{D THE DEVELOPMENT, PLAN IN ACCORDANCE hIITH CffiER 18.40 OF THE VAIL
MUNiCIPAL CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARDING
THiRETO.
lrlHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes specia1 development
distri cts within the Town; and
IIHEREAS, Vail Holdings, a Co'l orado Limited Partnership, has submitted an
application for special developrnent approval for a certain parcel of property
within the Town known as Lot 2, B'l ock l, vail Lionshead 2nd Filing, to be known
as Special Development District 14, and commonly referred to as the Doub] etree
Hotel; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of the requested sDD 14 will insure unified and
coordinated development within the Town of Vail in a manner suitable for the
area in which it is situated; and
ll|HEREAS, the Planning commission has recommended approval of the proposed SDD;
and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate and
beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants and visitors to estab'l ish
said Special Developn,ent District I'lo. 14;
NOl,l, THTREFORE, BE ]T CRDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOl,lN OF VAIL,
COLORADO, THAT:
Secti on I . Amendment Frocedures Ful f i I 'l ed. P'l ann inq Conrmi ss'ion Report.
The approva'l procedures prescribed in Chapter'l 8.40 of the Vail Municipal Code
have::en fulfilled, anc the Torrn Council has received.rhe report of ihe
Plann.'ng and Envi'onre.tal conmission recoenencing approva.! of 'rhe proccsed
Cevel:rn'ani plan 1'cr" .<ll 14.
Secticn 2-. Special De'"eiopment District l4
Special Oevelopment District 14 (SDD 14) and the development plan therefore,
are hereby approved for the development of Lot 2, Block l, Vail Lionshead
Second Filing, within the Town of Vai1, consisting of 2.6?98 acres or 1'l 4,554
square f eet, more or 'l ess.
Section 3. Purlcse
Special Developnent District 14 is estab'l ished to ensure comprehensive
development and use of an area that w.i 'l 'l be harmonious w.i th the general
character of the Town of Vail and to promote the upgrading and redeve'l opment of
a key property in the Town. The development is regarded as complementary to the
Town by the Town Counci'l and meets a'l 1 design standards as set forth in Section
18.40 of the tilunic'i pal code. There are s.i gnificant aspects of Special
Development District 14 which cannot be satisfied through the imposition of the
standards in the High Dens'i ty Multiple Family zone district. sDD 14 is
compatible with the upgrading and redeve'l opment of the community whj 'l e
maintaining its unique character.
Section 4. Development plan
A. The development plan for SDD 14 is approved and shal] const.i tute the plan
for development w'i thin the special development district. The development
plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Anthony pellechia,
Architects as dated December ?7,]g8,s, and consists of the following
documents:
'l . Sjte p'l an
2. Pre'l iminary Iandscape plan by Berridge and Associates, Inc.
3. Typi cal fl oor p1 ans
4. Elevations and sections
5. The Environmental Impact Report dated January, 19g6 as prepared by
Berridge and Associates, Inc.
B. The Development Plan shall adhere to the following:
Setbacks
Se',-backs sha1 'l be noted as on the site plan'l isted above.
He i ght
Heights of structures shal'l be as'i ndicated on the e'l evations'l isted
above.
Cc'.'e:are
site coverage shall be as indicated on the site pian listed above.
Landscapinq
The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as indicated on the
prel iminary 'l andscape plan. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted
to the Design Review Board for their aocroval.
Parking and Loadiry
Parking and loading sha'll be prov'i ded as indicated on the site plan and
floor p'l ans as llsted above. In no case shal'l the parking prov'ided on
s'i ie be less than 2'l 'l spaces with 200 of those spaces underground and a
maximum of ll located on the surface. Parking access sha'l 'l be controlled
by a gate (or similar siructure) or by an attendant or by other
acceotable methods.
Section 5. Density
Ex.isting development on the site consists of 128 accommodation units and 19
dwe'f ling units consisting of 73,577 square feet of gross residentia'l f'loor area.
The approval of this developrnent plan sha11 permit an additjonal 92
accommodation units and 5 dwelling units, consisting'of 4?,576 square feet of
gross residential floor area. The tota'l density permitted with the approval of
this development plan consists of 220 accommodation units and 24 dwelling units
with a total of'1 16,.|53 square feet of gross residential floor area.
Section 6. Uses
Permitied, conditional and accessory uses shal'l be as set forth in the High
Density Mu'l tip'le Family zone district-
Section 7. Amendments
Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance
may be approved by the P1 anning and Environmental Comrnission at a regulariy
scheduled pub'l ic hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060.
Amendrnents which do change the subsiance of the development plan shall be
required to be approved by Tortn Counci'l after the above procedure has been
f o'l I oiied. The Cornmuni ty Deve''l opnent DeF,artment sha l I deterr,i ne what consti tutes
a charge in *-he subslance of :re developnent plan'
A.
Secllgn_qj_ Exp irat ion
The applicant must beg'in construction of the special development distri ct within
18 months from the time of its final approval , and continue diligently toward
the ccmpletion of the pr^oject.
If the appiicant does nci begin and diligently work toward the completion of the
special clevelopnent d'i s''rict or any stage of the special development district
within the tjme limits imposed by the preceding subsection, the P'l anning and
Environmenta] Commission shal I review the special development distrjct. They
shall recomnend to the Town Council that either the approval of the special
development district be extended, that the approval of the special development
district be revoked, or that the specia'l development district be amended.
Section 9- Qonditions of Approvals for Specia'l Development District 14
c.
The development contained within SDD 14 shal'l not be converted to any
form of time share ownership for a period of 20 years from the date of
the approval of this ordinance. The applicant agrees to limit the use of
any new dwelling units approved with this development plan to those
resirictions outlined in Section .l7.25.075.A Condominirim Convers'i on of
the Vai I Muni ci pa'l Code.
the 92 arjd'i tional accoinmodation units permitted with the approval of SDD
14 shall be deve,loped as lodge rooms under a single ownership.
Tne applicant sha'l 'l bear al'l costs related to the design and constructi on
of the right turn deceleration Iane and left turn lane as recommended 'i n
the transportation element of the Environmental Impact Report. These
inprcvements shall be corr,p leted prior to the 'i ssuance of a temporary
czr-,-i i i ca:e of c::upancy f or" any nevt resi cjenti al uni ts cievel cp:d cn
"he
si:e.
3. !:i-r- +., '.he :S:-:-;e lr a :,,-;'-irc F-",r'rit- t.:e alO'i i:ant. Shal i
cer-clstrate rnat ali r equil -o appiovals f t c'r' -une 3iare iiigiway Deparii;'eni
for changes to access off the south Frontage Road have been obtained.
B.
Section 10
If any part, section' subsection' sentence' clause or pnrase
is for any reason he1 d to be inva'l'i d' such decision sha'l I not
val idity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the
hereby dec'lares it would have passed this ordinance' and each
subsection, sentence, c1 ause or phrase thereof' regardl ess of
one or nore parts' sections' subsections' sentences' clauses
dec] ared invalid'
Section 11
The Town Council herebY
necessary and proper for
the inhabitants thereof'
Town Council
part, section,
the fact that anY
or phrases be
finds, determines and dec'l ares that this ordinance is
the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and
of this ordinance
affect the
DAY OF
ordinance on the day
the Council Chambers of the
Section 12
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vai'l
Municipalcodeasprovidedinthisordinanceshal]notaffectanyrightwhich
has accrued, any duty imposed' any violation that occurred prior to the
effectiveciatehereof'anyprosecut.ioncommenced,noranyotheractionor
proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed and
reenacied. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision
oranyordinancepreviouslyrepea.ledorsupersededun]essexpresslystated
herein.
lNTRODUCED, READ i.ND PASSED
1985, and a Public hearing
ON FIP.ST READING THIS
sha] I be he'l d on this
of
Vail MuniciPal Buiiding in
Order-ed Published in ful1
Ai ::)'
Pame'l a A- BrancineYe:" Tcwn Cl erk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON
this day of
Paul R. Johnston, MaYor
SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
thi s ciay of
.l936 at 7:30 P'm' 'rn
Vai 1 , Col orado '
, 1986.
i
II
!
I
;
ATTTST:
Pame'l a F.. Brancimeyer ' Town Cl erk
Paul R. Johnston, MaYor
, 1986.
Doubl etreeTO
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Apo11o Park
Hol iday Inn
Ki andra,/Tal i sman
Manor Va i 'l
Doubl etree
Marri ott
Enzi an
L'i onsquare Lodge
Ant'l ers
* A number of
Working Fi le
Com De
March 3, 1986
Doubl etree Park'ing
# of Spaces
Av. Occupancy
from '85 survey
During the Planning Conmission review of the Doubletree submittal , the 3 day
parking survey of Vail's parking lots conducted in conjunction with the Village
Study was cited as rationale for why Town of VaiI parking requirements for
lodges are unjustifiable. Staff majntained at this hearing that the 3 day
survey was not adequate information on which to base this type of decisjon. To
complement this survey, an addjtional survey was done of a number of lots on
Friday, February 28 between 6 and 7 pm. The results are as follows:
Table #1
The above informatjon jndicates a significant jncrease in utiljzation during
Friday's survey. It is felt that the most significant conclusion resulting fromthis additional survey date is that the utilizat'i on of these lots can vary
dramat'i ca1 'ly. This, in turn, should demonstrate that the limited survey dates
we have cannot be used for justification for questioning the parkjng
requirements of the Town.
In addition to the above 1ots, the following'l odges were also surveyed on
Friday:
Table #2
# of Soaces Occupied Spaces
80.|36
L?5
l8l
.|76*
205
46
106
73
60"/"
63%
66%
40%
163
195
38
76
55
2/28/86
0ccupancy
88%
75%
74%
62%
% 0ccupied
9?%
95%
82%
71%
75%
these spaces are inaccessible due to constructi on acti vi ty.
a ^-Date of Applicallon January 27, 1986
APPLICATION FORM FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPI{ENT
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
I. This procedure is required for any project that would go throughthe Special Development Dj.strict procedure.
The application will not be accepted until all information is submitted.
A. NAME OF APPLICANT Vail Holdinqs, a limited p
PHONE 476-78I0
81657
K. Peterson
ADDRESS P. O. Box 3149, Vai1, CO 91658 PHONE 476-0092
C. AUTHORIZATION OF PROPERTY OWNER
SIGNATURE
ADDRESS PHONE 476-78I0
D.LOCATION OF PROPOSAL
LEGAI DEscRrPTroN Lot 2, Block 1, vaiL/Ltonshead second rilinq
B.NAME OF APPLICANTIS REPRESENTATIVE JAY
E.FEE
Igroo. oo PArD tl z ,l Y (
____7_______-r__4 rt+o ,l2o.y't-'* u.-
F. A List of the name of owners of all property adjacent to theSubject property and their miling addresses.
II. Pour (4) copies of the following information:. A. Detailed written/graphic descrirrtion of DroDosal .B. An environmental -impact reiiort shilt'be submitted to the zoningadministrator in accordance with Chapter 18.56 hereof unless waivedby Section 18.56.030, exempt projects;
C. An open space and recreational plan sufficient to meet the demandsgenerated by the development without undue burden on availableor proposed public facilities;
ADDRESS 250 S. Frqntege Road West, VaiI, CO
250 S. Frontage Road West, Vai1, CO
81657
ADDRESS 250 S. Frontase Road west, Vail, CO
( ovER )
,t
a
frb' bkk'' f'tL
ORDINANCE NO. 1
Series of 1990
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING ORDINANCE
7 SERTES OF 1989, A SPECTAL DEVET.oPMENT DTSTRICT
(KNOWN AS SDD NO. 14) AND THE DEVELOPI'TENT
PI,AN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF TH8 VAIL
Mr.,NrcIPAL coDE AND ""ffi;ffidoRrH DETATLS rN REGARD
WHEREAS, chapter 18.40 of the val-l- uunlcipal Code authorizes
special developrnent districts within the Towni and
WHEREAS, SDD No. 14 for developnrent of Irtt 2' Block 1, Vall
Lionshead 2nd Filing was originally approved by ordinance 5 of
1985; and has been amended by Ordinance No.7, Series of 1989;
and
WHEREAS, The applicants wish to rndke amendrnents to sDD 14t and
WHEREAS, the establishment of the requested SDD 14 will ensure
unified and coordinated development within the Town of Vail- ln a
manner suitable for the area in whlch lt ls situated; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Conmission has recommended approval of the
proposed SDD; and
wHnnnas, the Town council considers that it is reasonable,
appropriate and beneficial to the Town and its citizenst
inhabitants and visitors to establish said Special Development
District No. L4i
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIIJ OF THE TOWN
OF VAIL, COIORADO, THAT:
SECTION 1.REPEAL AND RE.ENACTMENT.
oRDfNANCE ?, sERIEs oF l-989 is hereby repealed and re-enacted
wl-th anendments to read as set forth below.
Sectlon 2.ent Pr es FUI
sion Report.
the approval procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.40 of the Vall
Municipal code have been fulfilled, and the Town council has
received the report of the Planning and Environmental Commission
reccmmending appro";al of the proposed development plan for sDD
14.
Section 3.Special Developnent District 14.
Special Development District 14 (sDD 14) and the developrnent
plan therefore, are hereby approved for the developrnent of Lot
2, Block 1, Vail Llonshead Second Filing, within the Town of
Vail, consisting of 2.6298 acres of 1141554 square feet' more or
1ess.
Section 4. Purpose.
Special Development District L4 is established to ensure
conprehensive developnent and use of an area that will be
harrnonious with the general character of the Town of VaiI and to
prornote the upgrading and redevelopment of a key property in the
To$rn. The development is regarded as complimentary to the Town
by the Town council and meets aII design standards as set forth
in Section L8.40 of the Municipal Code. There are significant
aspects of Special Development oistrict 14 which cannot be
satisfied through the irnposition of the standards in the High
Density Mu1tiple Fanily zone district. SDD 14 is compatible
with the upgrading and redevelopment of the cornrnunity while
maintaining its unigue character.
Section 5. Definitions.
A. rrTransient residential dwelling unit or restricted dwelling
unitrr shall be defined as a dwelllng unit located in a
rnulti-fanily dweJ.J.ing that is managed as a short term
rental in which all such units are operated under a slngle
management providing the occupants thereof custonary hotel
services and facilities. A short term rental shall be
deemed to be a rental for a period of tirne not to exceed 31
days. Each unit shall not exceed 645 square feet of GRFA
which shall include a kitchen having a uraximum of 35 square
feet. The kitchen shall be designed so that it may be
locked and separated fron the rest of the unit in a closet.
A transient dwelling unit shall be accessible f,ron common
corridors, walks, or balconies without passing through
another accommodation unLt, dwelllng unit, or translent
a
residential dwelling unlt. Should such units be developed
as condoniniuns, they shall be restricted as set forth in
section L7.26.075 A-c governing condominium conversion.
The unit shall not be used as a permanent residence.
Fractional fee ownership shall not be allowed to be applied
to transient dwelling units. For the purposes of
detennining al1owab1e denslty per acre, translent
residential dwelling unJ-ts sha11 be counted as one half of
a dwelling unit. The transLent residential dwelling unit
parking reguirement sha1l be 0.4 space per unit plus 0.3.
space per each L00 square feet of GRFA with a maxinum of
l-.o space per unit.
SECTION 6. DEVEIOPMENT PI,AN.
A. The development plan for SDD 14 is approved and shall
constitute the plan for developnent within the speciat
development district. The developnent plan is comprised of
those plans submitted by Pellecchia Olson Architects as
dated as follows:
1. Site and landscape plans by PeJ-J-ecchia Olson
Architects dated January 8, 1990.
2. Floor plans and parking plans by Pellecchia oLson
Architects dated January 8, 1990.
3. Elevations and sections by Pellecchia Olson Architects
dated January 8, 1990.
. 4. The Environmental Impact Repart dated January, 1986 as
prepared by Berridge and Associates, Inc.
B. The Development Plan shall adhere to the following:
Setbacks
Setbacks shall be noted as on the site plan listed
above.
Heiqht
Heights of structures sha1l be as indicated on the
elevations listed above.
Coveraqe
Site coverage shall be as
above.
indicated on the site plan listed
Landscaplnq
The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as indicated
on the prelirninary landscape pJ.an. A detailed landscape
plan shall be subrnitted to the Design Review Board for
their approval .
PARKING AND LOADING
Parking and loading shall be provided as indicated on the
site plan and floor plans as listed above. In no case
shall the parking provided on site be less than 184 spaces,
and there shall be no less than 68 spaces available to the
Doubletree, its designated employees and guests in the Vail
Valley Medical center parking structure. These 68 spaces
shall be available to the Doubletree fron the hours of 5:30
pn to 6:00 an.
SECTION 7.DENSITY.
Existing developrnent on the site consists of 128 accornnodation
units and L9 dwelling units consisting of 73,577 square feet of
gross residential floor area. The approval of thls developrnent
plan shall pernit an additional 62 accommodation units or
transient residential units and 5 dwelling units, consisting of
33r450 square feet of ltross residential floor area. The total
density perrnitted with the approval of thls developnent plan
consists of 190 accommodation units (62 of which may be
transient residential units) and 24 dwelling units with a total
of 1071027 square feet of gross residential floor area. ALSO, a
SPA FACILTTY OF APPROXIMATELY 18,OOO SQUARE FEET SHALL BE
ALI,OWED.
SECTION 8. USES.
Pernitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be as set forth
in the High Density Multiple Farnily zone district. In addition
to these uses, Transient Residential Units shall be allowed as a
pernitted use. SPA FACILITIES SHALL BE ALLOWED AS AN ACCESSORY
RECREATIONAL USE TO A IODGE AS PER THE HDI'{F ZONE DISTRICT.
)l
Section 9.Arnendments.
Arnendrnents to the approved development plan shalI foLlow the
procedures outlined in Section 18.40.100 of the Vail Municipal
Code.
Section 10. Conditions of Approvals for Special. Developnent
District 14.
A. The development contained within SDD 14 shalL not be
converted to any form of time share ownership. The
applicant agrees to lirnit the use of any new dwelling units
approved with this development plan to those restrictions
outlined in Section L7.26.075.A, Condominiun Conversion, of
the vail Municipal Code.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the restrictj-ons set forth
in Section 17.26.075 of the Municipal. Code of the Town of
Vail shalL not apply to the dwelling units during any
period during which they are owned by any individual who is
also an owner of the Doubletree Hotel.
B. The 62 additional accomrnodation units pernitted with the
approval- of SDD L4 shall be developed as lodge roorns under
a single ownership. Any proposal to condominiumize the
accommodation units would requJ-re approval in acordance
with the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of VaiI.
c. Prior to the issuance of a building perrnit, the applicant
shall submit to the building department all required
approvals from the State Highway Departrnent for changes to
access off the South Frontage Road. Prior to the issuance
of a tenporary certifj.cate of occupancy for residential
unLts constructed on slte after the effective date of this
ordinance aII inprovements reguired by the State Highway
Departnent access permit shall be completed.
,
D. Prior to the issuance of a building pernit for the
construction of any improvement in SDD 14 the olttnerr or
olitners of SDD l-4 shall provide to the Town of Vail
a copy of an agreernent between the Vail valley Medical
Center and Vail Holdings, Ltd. allowing the Doubletree
Hotel , its designated employees or guests the right to use
a minimum of 68 parking spaces in the Vail Valley Medical
center structure from the hours of 5:30 pn to 6:00 am.
This parking agreernent must be in a form that nay not be
arnended or terrninated without the approval of the Town of
VaiI.
Section lL.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of
this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this ordinancei and the Town Council hereby declares it woufd
have passed this ordinance, and each part, sectJ.on, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that
any one or nore parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses
or phrases be declared invalid.
Section L2.
The Town Council hereby finds, deterlnines and declares that this
ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and
welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
Section 13.
The repeal or the repeal and re-enactment of any provisions of
the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not
affect any right which has accrued, any duty J.mposed, any
violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any
prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as
conmenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed and
reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive
any provisLon or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded
unless expressly stated herein.
16rh
1l
DAY
Charnbers of
AND ORDERED
-&E!sl:-,
ordered published tn full this 16r! ^Zf %r leeo.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS
gp January , l99O at 7!30 prn in the Council
the Vail Municipal Building in Vail, Colorado.
ATTEST
A
Pamela A. Brandneyer, Tourn Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING
PUBLISHED by tltLe only THIS 6th DAy OF
1990.
Brandneyer, Tor.rn Clerk
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST
Parnel.a
E
$
<l). 1rn
)
I
I
I
E
E
E
F
g
oc
E
E
I
dl
g
ci
EEg€
fBjs
,.{ s9g
Qt
b
Eg
oc
E
Ioo
E!g
b
5
olJo
a
EEt
q
fr
9
.g
3 o
fi
o
F
Eo
E
E
a
8
E
g
g
sg
Eo
U'
5
f;c
ef
fi
6
E
F
Ea
Etr6o
3
.c.
€66o
b
o
-9at
l
t
I
'sl
e
ci
I
I
I
I
I
I
-l\l$
I
o
g
I
rl
)
I
E
8'
o
bo
o
o
o
a,rt
s
.c
a
bo
E
e
P,gI
7
E
o
IEI
a
'6
g
ls
Isl
\.t\
It
EIFl
sqccdciE1
EItlsl
g$
o
Eot
nx
rc
E
g
b
Ia
E
I
;N9e
EQblcl
oNElb$
5S
fl,q
btolJ
EE9=
=y
ge
Or
€ct;3Ecib{5lg\ol?l
e$'es
ENE\oip6
EEcI3BEiE;8E
i ffiEEtriEF g$
s lffiffff Fi
Eo
o
Ea
E
Eoo
5
MINUTES
VAIL TOI'IN
FEBRUARY
7:30 P.M.
COUNCIL MEETING6, 1990
A regular meeting of the Vail Town
7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TO}IN OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Council was held on Tuesday, February
of ttre Vail Municipal Building.
Kent Rose, Mayor
Tom Ste'i nberg, Mayor Pro Tem
J'im Gi bson
Merv Lapin
Robert LeVine
Peggy Osterfoss
Lynn Fritzlen
Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
W
6,
The meeting began with the approval of minutes of the January 2 and 16' 1990
meetings. There was no'discussion by Council or the public. Merv Lapin made a
motion to approve the minutes as presented, which Peggy Osterfoss seconded. A vote
was taken and the motidn passed unanirnously 6-0.
Next on the a was Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1990, second reading, regarding
the The full title was read by
Fitz gave br i ef--E l?I3T6iifr?I-Tnf ormat i on re gard i ns the
Doubletree project, and noted there were no changes made from first reading.
Kristan and Peter Jamar then answered questions of Council. Merv Lapin made a
motion to approve the ordinance, and Tom Steinberg seconded. A vote was taken and
the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
The third item was Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance
amending Title 8 of Health and Safety of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by
the addition of Chapter 8.36 Skier Safety. Mayor Rose read the fu1l title of the
ordinance. Buck Allen briefly exp'l ained what the ordinance was for and what it
would do. He then answered questions of Council. Peggy Osterfoss requested
"snowboarder" be included in each section beside "skjer." After further discussion,
it was decided to change "cross country" to "telemarking" in Section F. A motion to
approve the ordinance with the noted changes was made by Tom Steinberg and seconded
by Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
Item four was 0rdinance No.4, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance approving
an intergovernmenta'l agreement between the Town of Avon, Eagle CountV' ald the-Town
of Vail regarding the Berry Creek 5th Fi'ling and the Miller Ranch. The full title
was read by Mayor Rose. Larry Eskwith explained the ordinance and reviewed changes
made since-the Council last saw the agreement. He reviewed the change to paragraph
2, and answered questions from Council. He and Council then discussed the intent of
paragraph 9, and clarification of paragraph 9.D. It was also noted there was a
typograbhica'l error on page 1, line 2, to be corrected to read "by and among.u
niler mirch discussion, Robert LeVine made a motion to approve the ordinance with the
noted changes in the agreement. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was
taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
Next on the agenda was OrdinUSg_Nq. _5, Series of 1990, first reading' an ordinance
amending to allow private off-street surface
parking-as a conaltionaTFMayor-RolE-read the full title. Mike Mollica stated
the request for the amendment to the zoning code was being made by Vail Associates.
He reviewed the criteria used jn evaluating the request, explained why the Planning
and Environmental Conmission (by a unanimous vote of 7-0) and the staff reconmended
approva'l to change the zoning code, and answered questions of Council. Ted Ryzick,
of Vail Associates, gave further explanation regarding the requested zone change.
After much discussion by Council, Jim Gibson made a motion to approve the ordinance
as presented. Robert LeVine seconded the motjon. Peggy Qsterfoss stated her
concerns over the proposed zone district changes. A vote was taken and the motion
passed 4-2, with Peggy 0sterfoss and Merv Lapin opposing.
Next was ResoJution No. 3, Series of 1990, a reso'l ution proclaiming the week of
February 12-19 as Skier Safety Awareness l{eek. Buck A'llen distributed "I Care"
buttons to Counci'l , and gave a brief explanation regarding the resolutjon. Merv
Lapin made a motion to approve the resolution, which was seconded by Jim Gibson. A
vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
Seventh on the agenda was Reso'l ution No. 4, Series of 1990, a resolution designating
Presidents l{eekend, February 17-19, 1990, as the 10th Annua1 Smoke'l ess Weekend.
Susan Scan'l an stated this resolution encouraged people, for the tenth year in a row,
to refrain from using fireplaces and woodstoves during the Presidents Weekend. Tom
Steinberg made a motion to approve the resolution, which Peggy 0sterfoss seconded.
Robert LeVine suggested trying to get residents to use their fireplaces and
woodstoves'l ess throughout the year, because guests would not want to do it. Susan
responded this was one of the items they were working on now. A vote was taken and
the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
At this time, Larry Eskwith asked Council to go back to the Intergovernmental
Agreement. He had forgotten earlier to mention one minor change to the last
sentence of paragraph 10. A'l 'l Councilmembers agreed with the change made.
ce request was next on the agenda. Tom Braun explained
staff memo was given to the Council.
the differences between the Finishing
Pritz and Mike lvloll ica reviewed the
fi-The appl ication since the
There was some discussion by Council regardjng
Touch sign variance and this request. Kristan
di fferences
Mayor Rose took a moment to announce the unofficial results of the VMRD swimming
poo'l comp'l ex e'lection. He stated the vote was 992 against, and 199 in favor of the
pool .
The discussion of the L'0stello sign variance request continued. Tom Braun answered
questions of Council regarding the previous signage of the building. Peggy
0sterfoss commented the request h,as no larger than the previous'ly existing signs,
and the owner needed the variance for vjsualization, so she fe'lt the request was
reasonable. Robert LeVine questioned the old paint spotlighted on the side of the
build'ing, to which Jay Peterson, representing the app'l icant, responded it would be
taken care of. He also noted the landscaping, painting, etc. for the exterior would
be taken care of th'is sunmer. Peggy Osterfoss made a motion to approve the variance
question, finding this was not a grant of special privilege, and was a hardship for
the owner. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously 6-0.
The ninth agenda item was appointment of Design Review Board members and P'lanning
and Environmental Conmission members. Ron Phillips remarked that Al l{eiss wou'ld'like his name added to the list of DRB applicants. There was some discussion by
Council regarding appointrnents to committees by a majority vote. Tom Steinberg
stepped down due to Eri k Steinberg's application. Applicants for the Planning and
Environmental Commission were Erwin Bachrach, 0iana Donovan, James Johnson, Ludwig
Kurz, Erik Steinberg, and Al l,leiss. A vote was taken and Diana Donovan and Ludwig
Kurz had the majority votes for the two PEC openings. Merv Lapin made a motion to
appoint Diana and Ludwig to the PEC for a two year term, which was seconded by
Robert LeVine. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0, with Tom Steinberg
abstaining. At this time, Robert LeVjne made a motion to reappoint Jim Shearer and
Connie Knight for a two year term. They were both appointed in December to complete
terms for iwo former members whose terms ended February 1990. ltlayor Rose seconded
the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0, with Tom Steinberg
abstaining. Applicants for the Design Review Board were Erwin Bachrach, Patricia
Herrington, and Al }leiss, A vote was taken and Patricia Herrington had the only
majority vote. Merv Lapin made a motion to appoint Patricia Herrington to the DRB
for a two year term, which was seconded by Robert LeVine. A vote was taken and the
motion passed 5-0, with Tom Steinberg abstaining. Council directed Kristan Pritz to
readvertise for the other opening on the DRB.
There was no Citizen Participation.
llerv Lapin suggested the Council direct staff to look into removing the franchjse
fees on Public Service of Colorado, AT8T, Holy Cross Electric Association, and 60%
of the franchise fee on Heritage Cablevision. He explained he fe1 t since the Town
was do'ing so well, Council should lower taxes, and could do so by reducing the
franchise fees. l4ayor Rose responded that he felt now was not the time, but maybe
at a later date. Peggy Osterfoss agreed with Mayor Rose. Jim Gibson stated he
agreed with Merv's concept, and he felt it was a good idea and the time to do it was
Th
some changes-
-?-
now. After much counci'l discussion, it was declded the item cou'ld be brought
again during the budget process later thls year.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectful 1y submitted,
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Mlnutes taken by Brenda Chesman
-3-
t',
z,
F
z,
*
I
BC<trr+
ba
+
)
bqsf(v)
+
bco<f
FI+
=55luE!
sf <f r.oocfr@(Y) Fl
=E
<l(Y)
r-l
555d'o !
tO r-l <fsf cl
ro 'o !
(\toroto ro or
5'o
OlGI
FI
=!t
u)ro
=|tt
o$I
5E
f\lc)I
I
be
Fl
3
baor(o+
bar{CI+o
'
I
beOl(\I:+l
i
ooo
<f(v)
Fl
(Y)
|<)r{
(o
Fl
roorr{
N
st(vt(a
<fo
ooo
o(t
Fl
(a(\l
ln(')
FI
<\t(r)r\
@(o
(o(o
str<
st'(Y'
(7)
<tOl
ooo
oo
Fl
LL
=a
>zd,
=FFot-ad,E,g
.!-
=o
lrllrldF
UJJco
=8
CL
llz
{* | =.rlJltrllFrltrJ(5 l< l(5ot>t<cllJJ lk lj
= l- l=3 lg lJr..{ 13 l<FIJI>
c)(JCL
(5
=
LtJ Jqtd
=utlrl Cle.z,. bquJ=lJ- \u_or-r Cto r/)
d-o- F(5d-H=<=H\=a t4cZFNI
t-= aU1 =Oa/,x:hlrJ
anF(9Hz,
= a-.
=>-+Jd.14 l,r.l <5J AZ,coz,11<.=2,=oo-l\JF
JF.<=
C'z,l-a
UJ LTJ JJ (-'dO Z. llJ| < lrJ Ott) = bqdz(-) O lr.l =Fr J |J- \.F J LOan <, r{Oou)l-E<r!F>tno
FCrCtZ l! lrllrJ >
=oocL cr &,c) o- cL (5J cl o_-Zlrl < {Frr
u.r > (.'=-OFZ,FJ r_. <J 3n FU-Olt) = Ur &.4F lJ,l r-.r (5 (/!eo ill!oo
lJ.IF!J(J C5LrJ <JFlt z,V, lLt(-) !-d. d. <5frJ <9 =,CL r-r (5
]rt>2,JJr-{co d. z.<trJO
=atNo=J=J
(5
=Fr (!t>2,
JFie.z,lrl OoNtz,
=
lrl
=z.
or
(f,
J
oz
E
=&,ulo-
69 t,Btt ,rm
3od
EUJfrz;xrrv
f IJJ
<FZrt9=o<
NOr.,|'Vn]VA
P tt | | |w2 . l2 t---l----lJl \)? rl9l lql ll -e Z lt-l 1 |z :lkl < |;51;l H llrlt..E +tzt ;tbtPilio
>G
--
z
io-
66z>-ooQZt!<oqde.x
-*
=h53:EE 9r,ro Ftt't;*5co
Srtr
IJ14
H
1
Ldr{d
Hd=oo
(,z
=tr
tr)
Fo
TJ.JF
l-lJJlr.lF
tn
u.tlrl
FlrJJco=oa
UJ
=z
(D
.)
I
Il+,lq
It:ol 5l-l Nololz
I(t,l rr,(I)l (\tt-l (\J.tJl ro
(ul
-t
(hal 9,
=l E
trll o
"l<E=<t<4>
N
x
E(uo-co-
Fo =t
at!
o
-F
@
e5o.t
(u(J
Loat
!(l,
+)
=
=tr
z
ri
rrl
J
ILoz3oF
rJ)
Or(Itrft
I(f,
NTN
Irt,O
c4,
I
il
ciz
oul
J
ttoz
Botr
o
UJEI
l!
z3=c 4
z.
ur
1
a
IIo
zIF
=
l!-
><
NIrir{
>otdz
Es.f
lF. <e>
F-tr-po
Fzt3loIF
UJ)
uJ
@(\IowG,ii I
= ,.o
=;*.F@
N
uJ
ts-
E
E
-rO<F(rOr!<zEt!F(nZ
)t<o(JF
=oH#YF-zJ8
z.
6
J(L
v
;
I
z
JIY
6F
73
E6
(lirg
\JZ
O
<-os?fl
=O
ulFo
c0o?z
F(L
ulY
uJo
o-t-
(E
UJ(L
u-ON
-@a\,5Ro>
I r-l
H !'uoezo
!nl
z."ozrd)o
=zJO(L u-
:f=
=uJXdd=
BE}E}
F
u,l
LLo
UJ
z
@I
F
tr
o-
.JFh>
duJ>aLOL9oquJxo-x>Er-J
=IL
UJ
@
F
o
E
oo
(l,tt
'E
t
E
Eo(,
AO
f=e6>Ef=E
=t=o
-E
ts
=Eulo-zo
F(J
fE
6zo(J
2
TO: Planning and Environmental Cornrnission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: January 8, 1990
SUBJECT; Amendment to SDD #L4, Doubletree Hotels
I. BACKGROUND OF THE PROPOSAL
The Doubletree HoteL has been purchased by Gerald Katzoff,
owner and developer of several spa resorts throughout thecountry. Mr. Katzoff desires to construct the renovation andaddition to the Doubletree Hotel as previously approved in
L986 and as anended in early l-989. However, the proposal isto revise the interior uses of the property to accommodatean L8,000 square foot spa while reducing the number of
accomrnodation units. The rnajor elements of the proposalare as follows:
--Reduction of 30 accommodation units/transientresidential units--gz to 62
--Reduction of 9,L26 sq.ft.: of GRFA--42,576 to33,450 sq. ft.
--Addition of approxinately 18,000 sq.ft. - of spa andspa related facilities
--Reduction of 9 parking spaces--261 to 252 spaces(including 68 spaces within the proposed WMCparking structure) --Conversion of an existJ.ng spa inthe southwest corner of the hotel to new accessoryretail of 900 sq. ft.
--Elimination of 7 surface parking spaces on the northside of the site and converting the area to
landscaping
--Mi-nor revisions to proposed el-evations
--A slight easterl-y shift of the building additionadjacent to Middle Creek to enlarge the creeksetback
--A relocation of the 5 approved condominiuns retainingthe same square footage of 6585 sq. ft. of cRFAtpreviously approved in the proposed north wing, theseare noq/ proposed to be located in the south wing onthe east side top floor
--No revj-sion to the location or square footage (3/350sq.ft.) of neeting/conference space
Special Developrnent District #1-4 was created in L986 with an
approvaL to expand the hotel with respect to numbers of
accommodati-on units, condorniniums, meeting/conference space
and underground parking. The Special Development District
was approved for an extension in l-987 and then revised with
Ordinance No.7 in l-989 creating the shared parking facilitywith the vail Valley Medical Center. Please find attached adraft of revisions to Ordinance No.7 of L989 which includeprovisions for the project now proposed by Mr. Katzoff.
II. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DTSTRICT CRITERIA
Section 18.40.O8O of the zoning code sets forth designcriteria to be used in evaluating the rnerits of a proposed
Special Development District. ft is the burden of theapplicant to dernonstrate that subnittal material and the
proposed developrnent plan cornply with each of the following
standards. or demonstrate that one or more of them is notapplj-cabIe, or that a practical solution consistent with thepublic interest has been achieved. only those criteria whichare affected by the proposed revisions will be addressed.
A.Desiqn cornpatibility and sensitivity to the irnmediateenvironment, neiqhborhood and adi acent roperties
relative to architectural des scale bulk, buildin
heiqht, buffer zones, identi character visualinteqrity and orientation.
With the exception of minor changes to the elevations,the proposal has no effect upon these elenents.
Uses, ..activity and densitv which provide a compatible,efficient and Werkable relationship with surroundinq
The spa and spa-related facilities are considered to be
accessory recreational uses to a lodge as permitted
under high density nulti-fanily zone district (theunderlying zone district for the SDD). We do not
foresee any negative effects of the spa use of the hotelproperty.
Compliance with parkinq and loadinq requirernents asoutlined in Chapter 18.52.
The following are the new parking calculat,ions:
B.
Existing parking spaces L67
New Parkinq Reguirements
62 accommodation units at 40O sg.ft.
Meeting space
Condorniniums 0 2 spaces/unit
New accessory retail e 900 sq.ft.
Parking for spa facilities
TOTAL
Less 5? nixed use credit(as per previous SDD)
TOTAL NEW REQUTRED
TOTAL REQUIRED FOR ENTIRE PROJECT
VVMC structure spaces
TOTAL PARKING SPACES REQUIRED ON
50
14
10
L2
89
-4
aq
252
-68SITE 184
Thus, there is a loss of only 9 total parking spaces onsite with the reduction of 30 accommodation units. Theallocation of L2 spaces for the spa comes fron the
owner's estimation that the spa facility can handle
approximately 40 people at a tirne. A conservativeestirnation that 254 of the 40 people (10) are non-hotel
guests would result in an excess of parking provided forthe spa facilities (1-2 proposed).
D.Confornitv with annlicabl-e elements of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Desiqn
PIans.
The revisions proposed retain the project's compliancewith the VaiI Comprehensive P1an.
Identification and rnitiqation of natural and./or qeoloqic
hazards that affect the property on wffi
There are no geologic hazards that affect this site.
slte plan, buil.dinq desiqn and location and open spaceprovisions desiqned to produce a functional development
responsive and sensitive to natural features,
veqetation and overall aesthetic qual-itv of the
comnunitv.
The only revision to the site plan is to el-iminate 7surface parking spaces and to replace the asphalt withlandscaping. At previous discussions of this project
it was requested by the Planning Commission that theapplicant attempt to accomplish this revision.
F
c. A circulation system designed for both vehicles andpedestrians addressinq on and off-site trafficcirculation.
The circulation systen rernains unchanged frorn theprevious approval. An additional Level of parking isproposed due to a change of use from previously approvedparking spaces to spa facilities.
H
I.
FunctionaL and aesthetic landscapi
-
order to optimize and preserve natural features,recreation, vi"ews and function.
Again, there will be a net increase in landscape area asa result of the proposal .
Phasinq or subdivision plan that wiII rnaintain a
workabLe, functionaL and efficient relationship
throuqhout the development of the Special DeveloprnentDistrict.
No phasing plan has been proposed for the addition.
III. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Please find the proposed developrnent standards in theproposed revisions to ordinance No.7 Series of l-989. Withthe exception of the parking revisions there are no changesto the previously approved developrnent standards.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval to the proposed amendments toSpecial Development District #14 - Doubletree Hotel . We feelthat overall, the proposed developrnent should improve thearchitectural and landscaping quality of the hotel property
as well as provide the conmunity with a high qualitydestination resort facility. The proposal actually changesvery little from what has been previously approved.
Conditions of approval shall be consistent with the previousconditions adopted as part of Ordinance No.7 Serj.es of 1989as attached.
IV.
PROPOSED REVISfONS TO: ORDINANCE NO. 7
Series of L989
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING ORDINANCE
5 SERIES OF 1.986, A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
(KNOWN AS SDD NO. ].4) AND THE DEVELOPMENT
PI.,AN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL
MUNICIPAL CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD
THERETO.
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the VaiI Municipal code authorizes
special development districts within the Towni and
WHEREAS, SDD No. 14 for development of Lo:.- 2, Block L, Vail
Lionshead 2nd Filing was originatly aPproved by ordinance 5 of
L986; and
WHEREAS, The applicants wish to make extensive amendrnents to SDD
14; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of the requested SDD 14 will ensure
unified and coordinated development within the Town of vail in a
manner suitable for the area in which it is situated; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the
proposed sDD; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable,
appropriate and beneficial to the Town and its citizens,
inhabitants and visitors to establish said Special Developnent
District No. L4,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCII-, OF THE TOWN
OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
SECTION 1. REPEAL AND RE-ENACTMENT.
oRDINANCE 7, SERIES OF l-989 is hereby repealed and re-enacted
with amendments to read as set forth be1ow.
Section 2. Anendnent Procedures Fulfilled, Planninq Cornrnis-
sion Report.
The approval procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.40 of the Vail
Municipal code have been fulfilled, and the Tonn council has
received the report of the Planning and Environmental Cornrnission
recomnending approval of the proposed development plan for SDD
14.
Section 3.Special Developnent District l-4.
Special Developnent District 14 (SDD l-4) and the developnent
plan therefore, are hereby approved for the developrnent of Lot
2, Block L, Vail Lionshead Second Filing, within the Town of
Vail, consisting of 2.6298 acres of 1.14r554 square feet, more or
1ess.
Section 4.Purpose.
Special Developrnent District L4 is established to ensure
comprehensive developnent and use of an area that will be
harrnonious with the general character of the Town of VaiI and to
promote the upgrading and redevelopment of a key property in the
Town. The development is regarded as complimentary to the Town
by the Town Council and meets all design standards as set forth
in Section L8.40 of the Municipal Code. There are significant
aspects of Special Developnent District L4 which cannot be
satisfied through the inposition of the standards in the nigh
Density Multiple Fanily zone district. sDD l-4 is cornpatible
with the upgrading and redevelopnent of the conmunity while
naintaining its unigue character.
Section 5.Definitions.
A.lrTransient residential dwelling unit or restricted dwelling
unit" shall be defined as a dwelling unit located in a
rnuLti-fanily dwetling that is managed as a short terrn
rental in which aII such units are operated under a single
nanagement providing the occupants thereof customary hotel
services and facilities. A short term rental shall be
deemed to be a rental for a period of tirne not to exceed 3L
days. Each unit shall not exceed 545 square feet of GRFA
which shal1 incl-ude a kitchen having a maximum of 35 square
feet. The kitchen shall be designed so that it may be
locked and separated from the rest of the unit in a cl"oset.
A transient dwelling unit shall be accessible fron common
corridors, walks, or balconies without passing through
another accommodation unit, dwelling unit, or transient
residential dwelling unit. should such units be developed
as condominiums, they shall be restricted as set forth in
section L7.26.075 A-G governing condominium conversion.
The unit shaLl not be used as a pernanent residence.
Fractional fee ownership sha11 not be allowed to be applied
to transient dwelling units. For the purposes of
determining allowable density per acre' transient
residential dwelling units shall be counted as one half of
a dwelling unit. The transient residential dwelling unit
parking requirement shall be 0.4 space per unit plus 0.L
space per each 1oo square feet of GRFA with a maximum of
1.o space per unit.
SECTION 5. DEVELOPMENT PI,AN.
A. The development plan for SDD L4 is approved and shall
constitute the plan for development within the special
development district. The development plan is comprised of
those plans submitted by Pellecchia Olson Architects as
dated as follows:
1. Site and landscape plans by Pellecchia olson
Architects dated
2. Floor plans and parking plans by Pellecchia olson
Architects dated Decernber 7, 1989.
3. Elevations and sections by Pellecchia ol-son Architects
dated
4. The Environmental Impact Repart dated January, L986 as
prepared by Berridge and Associ.ates, Inc.
B. The Development Plan shall adhere to the following:
Setbacks
Setbacks shall be noted as on the site plan listed
above.
Heiqht
Heights of structures shall be as indicated on the
elevations listed above.
Coveraqe
Site coverage shal1 be as indicated on
above.
Landscaping
The area of the site to be landscaped
on the preliminary landscape plan. A
plan shall be subnitted to the Design
their approval.
PARKING AND LOADING
the site plan listed
shall be as indicated
detailed landscape
Revi.ew Board for
Parking and loading shall be provided as indicated on the
site plan and floor plans as listed above. fn no case
shall the parking provided on site be less than 184 spaces,
and there sha1l be no less than 68 spaces available to the
Doubletree, its designated employees and guests in the Vail
Valley MedicaL Center parking structure. These 68 spaces
shal1 be available to the Doubletree fron the hours of 5:30
pm to 6:00 am.
SECTION 7.DENSITY.
Existing development on the site consists of L28 accomrnodation
units and 19 dwelling units consisting of 73,577 square feet of
gross residential fl-oor area. The approval of this development
plan shall permit an additional 62 accommodation units or
transient residential units and 5 dwelling units, consisting of
33,45o square feet of gross residential floor area. The total
density perrnitted with the approval of this developrnent plan
consists of 190 accommodation units (62 of which may be
transient residential units) and 24 dwelling units with a total
of 107,027 square feet of gross residential floor area. ALSO, a
SPA FACTLITY OF APPROXIMATELY ]-8,OOO SQUARE FEET SHALL BE
ALLOWED,
SECTION 8.USES.
Pernitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be as set forth
in the High Density Multiple Farnily zone district. In addition
to these uses, Transient Residential Units shall be allowed as a
permitted use. SPA FACILITIES SHALL BE ALLOWED AS AN ACCESSORY
RECREATIONAL USE TO A LODGE AS PER THE HDMF ZONE DISTRICT.
Section 9.Amendments.
Amendrnents to the approved development plan shall follow the
A.
Section l-0.Conditions of A rovals for S cial Develo
District 14.
The development contained within SDD 14 shall not be
converted to any forrn of time share ownership. The
applicant agrees to limit the use of any new dwelling units
approved with this developrnent plan to those restrictj-ons
outlined in Section L7.26.075.A, Condoninium Conversion, of
the VaiI MuniciPal Code.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the restrictions set forth
in Section 17.26.O75 of the Municipal Code of the Town of
Vail shall not apply to the dwelling units during any
period during which they are owned by any individual who is
also an owner of the Doubletree Hotel .
The 62 addltional accommodation units perrnitted with the
approval of SDD l-4 sha]} be developed as lodge rooms under
a single ownership. Any proposal to condorniniurnize the
accommodation units would require approval in acordance
with the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Vail'
Prior to the issuance of a building pernit, the applicant
sha1l subrnit to the building department aI1 required
approvals from the State Highway Department for changes to
access off the south Frontage Road. Prior to the issuance
of a ternporary certificate of occupancy for residential
units constructed on site after the effective date of this
ordinance all irnprovements required by the State Highway
Departrnent access permit shatl be conpleted.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
construction of any improvenent in SDD L4 the owner' or
owners of SDD L4 sha1l provide to the Town of Vail
a copy of an agreement between the Vail Valley Medical
Center and Vail Holdings, Ltd. allowing the Doubletree
Hotel. its designated ernployees or guests the right to use
B.
D.
a ninimum of 68 parking spaces in the Vail Valley
Center structure from the hours of 5:30 pn to 6:00
This parking agreement must be in a form that rnay
arnended or terminated without the approval of the
vail.
Secti.on 1-l-.
READING THIS
in the Council
Medical
am.
not be
Town of
DAY
chanbers of
If any part, section, subsection, sentence' clause or phrase of
this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this ordinancei and the Town Council hereby declares it would
have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that
any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses
or phrases be declared invalid.
Section L2.
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this
ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and
welfare of the Town of VaiI and the inhabitants thereof.
Section l-3.
The repeal or the repeal and re-enactment of any provisions of
the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not
affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any
prosecution comnenced, nor any other action or proceeding as
cornrnenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed and
reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive
any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded
unless expresslY stated herein.
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FTRST
OF , L989 at pm
the vail Municipal Building in Vail' colorado.
ordered published in fulL this
-
day of . L9ll9.
Kent R. Rose, MaYor
ATTEST
Pamela A. Brandmeyer' Town clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED THIS DAY OF
1989.
Kent R. Rose, l{ayor
ATTEST
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
,r.j- 1
TO: Planning and Environnental Conrnission
FROM: Comrnunity DeveJ.opnent Department
DATE: ,tune 8, 1987
SU&fECT: A request to extend the approval of Special
Development District No. L4 (Doublet,ree Hotel) .Applicant: Vail Holdings, Ltd. Partnership
The approval of a special development district expires after 18
rnonths if construction of the project is not initiated.Approval of SDD No. L4, which allows for a major expansion ofthe existing Doubletree Hotel , expires in July of 1987. Theapplicant has requested an extension of this approval foranother 18 month period. The Planning Conmissionrs action onthis application is advisory. Any finat approval of extendingthis zoning requires the review and approval of a resolution bythe Town Council.
ISSUES REI,ATED TO THTS PROPOSAL
The two nain issues relative to this redevelopment centeredaround parking and additional density (see enclosed memo toPlanning Conmission dated February 24, 1996.) Specifically,the staff was uncomfortable with the significant amount ofadditional density witlr the absence of an overall- land useplan, and ttre proposed parking that was 50 spaces short of whatis reguired. The applicant has requested approval for theidentical project as was approved in 1986.
The recently adopted Land Use plan has enabled some re-evaluation of our previous position relative todensity. Given the outcome of the Land Use p1an, the staffwould not present such strong concerns for the additionaldensity as was stated in 1996. This is due to the fact thatthere was a preference in the community for concentratingdensity in the existing core areas, and more specifically, nearthe Frontage Road.
Goals fron the Land Use PIan include:
2.L The cornmunity should ernphasize its role as adestination resort while accommodating day visitors.
3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the bestlocation for hotels to serve the future needs of thedestination skiers.
4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable soIong as the existing character of each area ispreserved througtr irnplenentation of the Urban Design
Guide Plan and the Vail ViIIage Master plan.
o ,, t,
5.4 Resl.dential growth should keep pace with ttre narketplace demands for a full range of housing types.
The shortfall of parking spaces proposed with this developnentis still a naJor concern to the itatr. we contlnue to troia tneposition that prlvate developrnents should'bulld the requlredparking to avold the slgnifl.cant'problens in the longei term.As Vail Mountain becomes more and more developed and-skLernurnbers-increaee, there wlll not be availabre-overfl.ow parkingin public Etructures to uake up the short fall . For thisreason, se cannot-support the extension of this specialdevelopnent district.
'jf'.n'''
()
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
February 24, 1986
A request to rezone Lot 2, Block l, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing from
High Density Multiple Family to Special Development District in
order to develop an additional 92 lodge rooms,5 condominjums, and
3,350 square feet of meeting nooms/conference space at the
Doub'l etree Hotel .
Applicant: Vail Holdings, a Limited Partnership
(
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
A request has been made to the Town of Vail to rezone the Doubletree
Hotel sjte from High Density Multiple Famjly zoning to a Special
Development District. This proposal is requested in order to allow for
addjtional development on the site. The rezoning is requjred because the
present level of development is over that allowed under existing zoning.
The development proposed with this applicat'ion includes 92 lodge rooms, 5
condominiums, and 3,350 square feet of additional meeting room space.
The following table il'l ustrates how this proposal relates to the existing
development on the s'ite as well as that allowed under the existing
zon'i ng :
ZONING ANALYSIS OF DOUBLETREE HOTEL
Site area 2.6?98 acres or .|14,554 square feet
ALLOWED DEV. EXISTING PROPOSED
UNDER EXISTING DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT
HDMF ZONING
TOTAL
DEVELOPMENT
Units:
65 du's
25 un i ts,/ac
GRFA:
68,732 sq ft
Parking Req'd
198 spaces
Meeting room space:
83 du's
(19 condos
128 lodge rooms)
3.|.5 units/ac
73,577 sq ft
52 enclosed
115 surface
4040 sq ft
5l du's
(5 condos
92 lodge rooms)
19 uni ts,/ac
42,576 sq ft
200 enclosed
I I surface
Req'd 261 spaces
3350 sq ft
134 du's
(24 condos
220 lodge
rooms )
50. 95/ac
116,153 sq ft
200 encl osed
I I surface
7350 sq ft
4,-
(l.Jhile this table illustrates some of the more significant elementsrelated to this proposal , there are other zoning-consiJ"raiions to uemade-when evaluating_this application. These ana oir,"r-iipects of thisdevelopment plan will be highlighted throughout th.is memorandum.
II.
III.
Fo1 lowing the acquisition of this_property by Vail Holdings, Inc., amajor renovation of.the existing faciiity-wai completed auring the surrnerand fall of 1985. It was at this time tirat the slaff itrit uigan adialogue with the developers and their designers .on...ninj tn"feasibility of additional development of this site. io oiie, the staffhas.spent a considerable amount of time with the a"rign".r-of thisproject-resu'lting'in a number of add.itions and roairiiiiioni to tneoriginal 1y proposed development-plans. To assiit in ir,ii-pro.ess, thedeveiopei's agi'eed io pay ihe rriri to uring;eff winiton in'"" a designgonsultant_for the Town. This is similar to the role Jeri ptayea in thereview of Phase IV of the vair.village Inn proposal tasi yelr. Inaddition to this review, a work session was held for the iown council andPlanning and Environmentar commission in November to uriei-inem on theconcepts be'i ng proposed in this plan.
As is the case with any rezoning request, final decisions concern.ing thisapplication are made by the Town council. rne piinning"doiris.ion rev.iewis advisory to the counci.l and any approval or ilris pj'in
"oura involvethe adoption of a new ordinance granting the rezoninS ,.q;..t.
+: :!ltd in the zoning_ggde, the purpose of special deve.lopmentql sEr't cts i s to:
18.40.010 Purpose
]l:..ry1n:: gl lf :?::j1l development districts is to encourase
ftexiU_il!jy_j_l-.th9 deve'lopment of land..i.n order to promote irs
:!1..:!:i*:_-E: i rl i Tlf gy:. the des i sn,'.'niriii..-.[ir-ilriii iv"ornew development; to facilitate the idequate and economicprovisions of streets and utilities; and to p..i"ru. ir,e natura.land scenic features of open areas.
Historically, SDD's have been proposed in vail to a'l low for thedevelopment of sites that wourd be unabre to do so under conventionarzoning. Examples of these projects would incluae viiii Hi-wtrere aensitvincreases were allowed in exchange for restrictions on'ti,r'e property toensure their use as employee_housing, or the vari viii'"g;-rin whose mixeduse character required the SDD zonin6. More often il"n"noi, however, sDDzone districts have been requested to allow for in.r..r.l-ii aensitiesover what-existing zoning.on the site would allow.- inir-ir"tn" case withthis appl ication.
There are a number of criter.ia to be evaluated whenof thjs nature. Foremost among these are the njne
reviewing a request
design standards that
are listed. in^the.zoning code. As stated in the code, "The developmentr plan for the Spec'i a1 Development Districts shall meet each of the( following standards or demonstrate that either one or more of them.i s not- applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the publ icinterest has been achieved." In addition to these criteria, it is'important to consider the underlying zoning as a point of riference inevaluating this request. These zoning coniiderations as well as otherissues that have been raised duri ng the course of this review will be
add ressed .i n th i s memo .
IV.
The following are staff comments concerning how this proposal relates tothe design standards as outlined jn the zoning code.
A. A buffer zone shall be provided in any special development districtthat is adjacent to low density residential uses. The buffer zonemust be kept free of bujldings or structures, and must be
landscaped, screened or protected by natural features so thatadverse effects on the surrounding areas are m.i nimjzed. This mayrequire a buffer zone of sufficient size to adequately separate lheproposed use from the surrounding properties in terms of vjsualprivacy, noise, adequate 1.i ght and a.i r, air po11ut.ion, and other
comparable potentia'l'ly incompatible factors.
The buffer zone referred to in this design standard is specifically forsDO's proposed adjacent to low density residential uses. Zone dislrictsadjacent to thjs property include high density multi-family and thepublic use distrjcts. Consequently, thjs standard is not directlyapplicable. However, with a few exceptions, the proposal is within theexisting zone district's required 20 foot setback.
B. A circuiation system designed for the type of traffic generated,taking into consideration safety, separation from I iving areas,convenience, access, noise, and exhaust control . private inteinalstreets may be permitted if they can be used by poljce and FireDepartment vehic'l es for energency purposes. Bicycle traffic may beconsidered and prov'i ded when the site is to be uled for resideniialpurp0ses.
The.proposed site p'l an involves a number of changes to the ex.i stingvehicular access to the property. Among these aie the add.i tion of a newaccess point to service the loading and trash facilities, the removal ofan existing road cut to the hotel entrance, and the deveiopment of anewly a'l igned.entry to the hotel . As a part of the environmental .impact
report for this project, a traffic report was done that evaluated tripgeneration anticipated from both the existing and proposed developrnent onthe site. One conclusion of this study is that uotn ieft and rigirt turnlanes be provided as an element of this development proposal . Inaddition to-satisfying the recommendations of the traffic report, ifapproved, slight grading changes would be necessary to the main entry tothe facility as per Town of vail engineer's requesi. It should ue n6teathat any changes to the road cuts requiri ng State Highway approval wouldhave to be obtained prior to the issuance of any bu.iidini permit for thisdevel opment.
c. Functional open space in terms of: 0ptimum preservation of naturalfeatures ( i ncl udi ng trees and drai nage a."as) , recreati on, ui."i, -
convenjence, and function.
One. change proposed jl.tlris plan relative to functiona'l open space iswith respect to the Middle creek area. At the present tiine this area isovergrown with vegetation with no real relationship to the ex.i stj ngfacility. Landscape improvements are proposed in this area of the site,as well as on the Town of vail stream tract, in order to open the accessto this stream. l,lhile a limited amount of landscape materials would beremoved to allow for this development, a preliminary landscape plan hasbeen submitted indicating a substantial increase in plant materials onthe site. The views/spacial analysis provided in thi environmentalimpact report indicates that there are no real signjficant view impactswith respect to vantage points along the Frontage Road and Interstate.The scale of the buildings, coupled with the gride change from theFrontage road to the site, has mitigated the fotential ijew blockage fromthis addition. Short range views from some units in the vailInternational condominjums would be affected by the expansion proposed tothe north of the existing bui1ding.
0. vari ety in terms of: housing type, densit.i es, facilities and openspace.
with the exception of the five condominium units, the residentialdevelopnent proposed with thjs SDD is short term lodging. Otherfacilities on site in addition to the meeting room siaci include indoorjacuzzis, an outdoor pool, a restaurant, a nightciub, and lim.i tedcommercial . A1so, see section VI on Lodge Rooms and condom.i niumRestri ct ions.
E. Privacy in
ne i ghbors.
Given the nature
adjacent sites,
terms of the needs of : Indiv.i dua'l s, fami I ies and
of the uses on this site, as wel] as the uses onstaff can see no factors with respect to privacy.
F. Pedestri an traffic in terms of: safety, separat.i on, convenience,
. - access to points of destination, and attractjveness.
At the present time, guests of the Doub'l etree are prov.i ded with apedestrian linkage to Meadow Drive in order to utilize the Town of vailbus system. with th'i s proposed addit'i on, an extension of thii wiir<wiv'isincluded linking the existing walkway with the post Office/MunicipalBuilding area. This walkway runs along the south side of ltre property.
t
Building type in terms of:
relationship and bulk.
Appropriateness to density, site
It is felt that the designers of this project have done a commendable job
in relating this addjtjon to the existing structure. Specifical'ly, the
additjons are done in a way that helps reduce the mass of the existingtower. As was referred to earlier, the grade change from the Frontage
Road to the site has allowed for a design that does not appear to add
considerab'l e bulk to the site and works to enhance the overall visual
qual ity as compared to the existing buiIding.
H. Building design in terms of: Orientation, spacing, materials,
color and texture, storage, signs, Iight'ing, and solar blockage.
As js the case with the massing of this proposal , the siting of the
proposed additions wonk well with the existing tower. The extensjons ofthe existing bui'l ding help "step" the building off the Frontage Road.
Considerations such as materials, color/texture, signs, and lighting
would all be addressed at the Design Review Board level if this project
were approved. A sun/shade analysis in the envjronmental impact report
demonstrates that the proposed expansions would have a negligible effect
on the Frontage Road.
I. Landscaping of the total site in terms of: Purposes, types,
maintenance, suitability, and effect on the neighborhood.
The proposed landscape p'lan shows 37% of the site being Iandscaped. Thjs
does not include portions of adjacent property between the Doubletreesite and the State Highway Oepartment right-of-way that would also belandscaped. It should be noted, however, that this area js required to
be landscaped. Particular attentjon has been paid to the loading/trash
area as well as the surface parking that js on the site. A consjderable
amount of material is proposed in this area in order to screen thisportion of the sjte.
v.ZONING CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO THIS PROPOSAL
[,lith the approval of an SDD, the development plan submitted establishesthe development standards for the property. These would address the
standard zoning considerations that are outlined in other zone districts.In evaluating this development plan, it is important to consider the
standards established in the underlying, or existing zoning. The
fo1 lowing is an analysis of these considerations:
Uses
There are no changes to existing uses that would not be allowed
under HDMF zoning.
G.
r
Dens ity
Aside from the important site planning issues which must be
discussed, the overriding issue is how to deal with the request forsignj ficant additional density. t,lhile the Town deals w.i th reguestsfor additiona'l density quite frequently, seldom are requests madeof this magnitude. Historically, the staff has not supported
requests for densitjes above that allowed under exist.ing zoning.l,lhile there have been notable exceptions, the planning commission
and Town Council have also been quite critical of requests fordensity increases. The growth management report of 1977 and ageneral concern of allowing additional development in what isperceived by many to be an overdeveloped Valley, are often cited asreasons for denying addjtional density requests.
Prompted in large part by the Sonnenalp request in'l 994, the Townhas been working on the Vajl Village Study for over a year. One ofthe goals of the study is to evaluate the potential foi additionaldensity in the Vi11age area. This potential is evaluated baseq
more on design considerations than on what is necessari ly allowedunder existing zoning regulat'ions. In conjunction with thisevaluation, goals and objectives are being established to outline
improvements that should be done to the vi11age in conjunction withthis development. A trade off, on bonus system, is to be developedthat would allow for addjtional densities in exchange forsubstantial return to the cornmunity in the form of public
improvements or other exactions. It is important to note that this
system is being proposed after a comprehensive evaluation of theentire study area that has identified both the improvements to be
made as well as where additional density could be accommodated in asensitive manner. It js also important that during the publicprocess that has taken place for the Village Study, there was nor auniform response in favor. of considering additional density .i n theVi11age. However, there has been support for a system thai wouldallow density increases in conjunction with the comprehens.i ve studyof this type combined with a substantial return by the developer inthe form of pub1 ic improvements.
Given the 3ubmittal betoie us, i-t'is unfortunate that the
Doubletree Inn is not located within the vai1 village Study Area.It is equal 1y unfortunate that a Town-wjde land use plan ii only inits early stages of development and not near compl etion as is the
case_with the Village Study. The land use plan would provide thestaff a better understanding of the implications that th.i s project
may have relative to other development potentials in the Vaite!.
L
(
lih'i 1e specific analysis of the Doubletree site would indjcate that
some degree of additiona'l density could be accommodated, the
concern of the staff is how this request relates to Town-wide
deve.lopment issues. For example, the traffic report for the
Doubletree suggests that trip generations to the site can be
accommodated off of the Frontage Road. But what would a cumulative
impact have on the Frontage Road if similar requests for density
increases were to be granted in this area? Likewise, it has been
stated that the design impacts on the Ooub'l etree site are positive
from a standpoint of reducing the mass of the existing tower.
However, without a comprehensive analysis, the staff js
uncomfortable of what implications this proposal may have on otherproperties located along the frontage road. Another important
consideratjon js a system of trade-offs that would be establishedfor increased density in the Vi11age. l'lhile there has been a
formal discussion with the developers on what public improvements
could be provided in conjunction with this development, without a
Town-wide anaiysis, the staff is unable to provide recommendations
as to appropriate trade-offs for this grant of additional density.
Setbacks
The proposed additjon encroaches into the required 20 foot setbackin four areas. hlhjle three of these areas are along the Frontage
Road and involve only a few feet, there is a considerable
encroachment along the west end of the property adjacent to Middle
Creek. A portion of this encroachment involves the infill of an
area underneath an existing deck. However, new construction to
accommodate a pre-function area for the meeting rooms 'i s proposed
to be constructed up to the property line. The staff had requestedthis area to be re-evaluated in an effort to reduce this
encroachment on Middle Creek. It is important to maintain some
amount of setback of buiIdings from the property line in this area.
He ight
The proposed addjtjons do not exceed the 48 foot height limitationin the HOMF zone distrjct. The existing tower is 72 feet jn
height.
Site Coverage
Site coverage a1 lowed under the HDMF zone djstrict is 55%. Thisplan includes 47% of the site being covered by buildings.
Landscapj ng
As has been mentioned, 37% of the sjte is Iandscaped. This exceeds
a 30% requirement for the HOMF zone district.
8
Parki ng
There are a number of approaches that can be taken in evaluatingwhat the required parking is for this development. iega;aiess orhow the numbers are calcuiated, the proposed developmeit does normeet the parking that would be required for thjs level ofdevelopment. There are 167 park'i ng spaces on the site that can beconsidered a grandfathered situation (current requirements for theexisting development on the site wouid be l9g spaces). The newdevelopment proposed for the site would require g+ spaces ittrisincludes a 5% multi-use reduction as well as a sor rlauci:on rorthe required parking for the meeting room space). considering the167 grandfathered spaces, an additional 44 ipaces are being addedto the site to accommodate the new development proposed. it'ltresults in a net deficit of 50 parking spaces on the site. Inevaluating the parking required, the ataif is comfortibie witn atotal of 261 spaces to be provided on site. It should be notedthat this figure of 261 spaces gives the applicant considerat.ionfor a 50% reduction of spaces for a meeting'room facility-ai wellas an interpretation that acknowledges a 25 space shortfall that.i spresent at this time. ||Jithout these considerat.ions, the requ.i redparking on the site could be as high as 316 spaces.' It is iertthat the 261 figure is both realist'i c from a p'l anning standpoint aswell as reasonable in terms of the interpretalions tiat travl ueen
maqe .
VI.
Fire Department Issues
At the present time, the Fire Department has not signed off on thisdesign because of inadeguate access and operational widths for theadditional development proposed for the site. rinat aeterm,i nationsregarding code requirements will be made at the build.i ng permit
_.1e_yiew_ if this project is approved. Any sign.i f.i cant ctrinses to thesite plan that may result from this review wou'l d require FlanningCommission approval if made.
Easements
-as-proposed, the underground parking structure and portions of thelodge addition would encroach on existing utility eisementi. Ifapproved, the design of tle underground parking itructure would
a'l 'l ow access to these utj 1 i ty I i nes. Construcii on on these
easements would require approvals of al l utility companies prior tothe issuance of any buiiding permit for this project.
(
The staff has requested and the applicant has agreed that theaccommodation units proposed in this plan would be developed aslodge rooms. This would mean that if a proposal to convert theseunits to condominiums were to be made, tirey'wou1d be revjewed wiihrespect to the criteria outlined in the condominium conversionordinance,(].".. if approved for conversion to condos, they would berestricted to short-term rentals). In addition, the'applicant hasagreed to restrict the conversion of these units to a time shareform of ownersh'i p for 20 years. The staff has also requestea thatthe use of the 5 condominiums be limited by those restrictionsoutlined in the condominium conversion ordinance. Th.i s wouldassure the Town that these units would be in the rental pool 4gweeks of the year.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
As demonstrated i.n this memo, the proposed development plansatisfactorily addresses a number of design standards oltlined in the SDDzone district. T!'re plan presented provid6s a number of significant ---
improvementr !o !!9 existing site-cbndit.i ons on the properly. However,the plan is significantly short of what the staff febls'to 6e the - '
required parking for this level of development. In addition to theshontfal 1 of 50 plll.jns spaces, staff also questions the high percentage
9I vglgt spaces within the structured parking area. As proiosed, 76 ;i-the 200 spaces would require valet service for utilization. Staif is
a1 so_disappointed to see the proposed surface parking on the site. whilethe location of these surface spaces is not highly visible, it would be -
much preferred to have the parking entirely eniloiea.
It is the feeling of the staff that this project's inabiiity to meet thepark'i ng requirements is an indication that the development proposed.i s.i nexcess of what the-site is capable of handl ing. The developr.ht p.oporeiincludes ]34 dwelling units. This number is over twice that allowedunder existing zoning. To even consider supporting a project that .i irequesting this dramatic increase'i n density while not meeting itsparking_requirement is inconceivable to the staff. It is the feeiing otthe staff that jt is the burden of the applicant to demonstrate how It issatisfying the development standards of the Town. t,lith an SDD rezoninq -
request to allow for this increase in density, it is the fee1.i ng or il,Estaff lhat this appljcatjon should meet and lxceed the respective mjnimumor maximum development standards of the Town to show the highest quari[v"'devel0pment possible. This project has not demonstratea itrit ii i;-"-'meeting this objective.
The staff feels the parking requirements as described in the zoning codefor. those types of uses on-this site are valid. ttere again, it sh6uld-beemphasized that the required parking acknowledges a 50%-reduct.i on inmeeti.ng room space, the multi-use ciedits, as iell as accefiance of thegrandfathering of the existing situation. The Town simply cannot affordto make concessions with regard to parking. l,le cannot risk ttre creationof a parking problem with respect to privite developments is this willaggravate the problem of provid'i ng skier parking. ihis becomesparticularly true when considering a request foi such a s.ignif.i cantincrease in density.
:C t0
(l{ithout the information afforded us through the completion of a land useplan and poljcies applicable to these typis of density increaseproposals, the staff is not_in a position to support density increases ofthis magnitude. Approval of_this ploposar wou'ld'establish i slgniiiiiniprecedent_with respect to a Town pollcy on dens.ity increases wl[tr,ln ttre
I9ryn. A land use. plan ls an 'important tool in evlluating proposals ofthjs nature or other lssues such as the potential land tiaie it the Lodgeand Spradd'le creek sites. The Plannlng commission is stronglv urgea-iJ--consider these irnplications when evaluating this request.
(;
t
C C
j, ,f, t..lt
a
(_,
ORDINANCE NO.5
Series of 1986
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT (KNOI,IN AS SDD NO. T4) AND THE DEVELOPI*IENT
PLAN IN ACCORDANCE l,lITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL
MUNICIPAL COOE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD
THERETO.
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Va'il Municipal Code authorizes special developnent
districts within the Town; and
WHEREAS, Vail Holdings, a Co'l orado Limited Partnership, has submitted an
application for special development approval for a certain parcel of property
within the Town known as Lot 2, Block l, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing, to be known
as Special Development District 14, and cormonly referred to as the Doub'l etree
Hotel; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of the requested SDD 14 wil'l insure unified and
coordinated development within the Town of Vajl in a manner suitable for the
area in which it is situated; and
WHEREAS, the P'lanning Commission has recomnended approval of the proposed SDD;
and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that jt is reasonable, appropriate and
beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants and vjsitors to establish
said Special Development District No. 14;
NOt,l, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOt,lN OF VAIL,
COLORADO, THAT:
Sectjon l. Anendment Procedures Fu'l filled. Pla4ninq Commission Report.
The approval procedures prescribed in Chapter .|8.40 of the Vail Municipal Code
have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received the report of thd
Pl anning and Environmental Commission recommending approval of the proposed
development plan for SDD 14.
Section 2. Special Development District l4
Specia'l Development District 14 (SDD 14) and the development plan therefore,
are hereby approved for the development of Lot 2, Block l, Vail Lionshead
Second Filing, with'i n the Town of Vai'l , consisting of 2.6298 acres or 114,554
sguare feet, more or 'l ess.
.- j, ','
I
c,
Section 3. Purpose
Specia'l Development District 14 is established to ensure comprehensive
development and use of an area that will be harmonious with the general
character of the Town of Vai'l and to promote the upgrading and redevelopment of
a key property in the Town. The development is regarded as complementary to the
Town by the Town Council and meets all design standands as set forth in Section
.|8.40 of the Municipal Code. There are significant aspects of Spec.i a1
Development 0istrict 14 which cannot be satisfjed through the imposition of the
standards in the High Density Multiple Family zone district. SDD 14 is
compatible wjth the upgrading and redevelopment of the community while
maintaining its unique character.
Section 4. Development P] an
A. The development plan for SDD 14 is approved and shall constitute the plan
for development within the special development district. The development
plan 'i s comprised of those plans submitted by Anthony Pellechia,
Archjtects as dated December 27, 1985, and consists of the fol1ow.i ng
documents:
l. Site plan
2. Prel iminary landscape plan by Berridge and Associates, Inc.
3. Typical floor plans
4. Elevations and sections
5. The Environmental Impact Report dated January, |986 as prepared by
Berridge and Associates, Inc.
8. The Development Plan shall adhere to the fol lowing:
Setbacks
Setbacks shall be noted as on the site plan listed above.
Hei ght
Heights of structures shall be as indicated on the e'levations listed
above.
Coverage
Site coverage shall be as indicated on the site plan listed above.
Landscapi ng
The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as indicated on the
preliminary landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted
to the Design Review Board for their approval .
Parkjng and Loading
Parking and loading sha'l'l be provided as indicated on the site plan and
floor plans as'l isted above. In no case shall the parking provided on
site be less than 2ll spaces with 200 of those spaces underground and a
maximum of'l I Iocated on the surface. Parking access shal'l be control'led
by a gate (or sjmilar structure) or by an attendant or by other
acceptable methods.
Section 5. Density
Existing development on the site consists of 128 accommodation unjts and 19
dwelling units consisting of 73,577 squane feet of gross residentia1 floor area.
The approval of this development plan shalI perm'i t an additional 92
accommodation units and 5 dwelling units, consisting of 42,576 square feet of
gross residential floor area. The tota'l density permitted with the approval of
this development plan consists of 220 accommodation units and 24 dwelling units
with a total of ll6,153 square feet of gross residential floor area.
Section 6. Uses
Permitted, conditjonal and accessory uses shall be as set forth in the High
Density Multiple Family zone district.
Section 7. Amendments
Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance
may be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly
scheduled public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.050.
Amendments whjch do change the substance of the development plan shal 1 be
required_!g_be approved by Town Councjl after the above procedure has been
fol'l owed. The Community Development Department shall determine what constitutes
a change in the substance of the development plan.
Section 8. Expiration
The applicant must begin construction of the special development district within
18 months from the time of its final approval , and continue djligently toward
the completion of the proiect. If the applicant does not begin and di'l igently
work toward the completion of the special deve'l opment djstrict or any stage of
the special development district within the time limits imposed by the preceding
subsection, the Planning and Environmental Commission sha'l 'l review the special
development distrjct. They shalI recommend to the Town Council that either the
approval of the special development district be extended, that the approval of
the special development district be revoked, or that the special development
district be amended.
Section 9. Conditions of Approva'l s for Special Development D'i strict 14
A. The development contained with'in SDD'14 sha'l'l not be converted to any
form of time share ownership for a period of 20 years from the date of
the approval of this ordinance. The applicant agrees to limit the use of
any new dwelIing units approved with this deve'l opment plan to those
restrictions outlined in Section 17.26.075.A, Condominium Conversion, of
the Vail Municipal Code.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the restrictions set forth in Section
17.26.075 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail shall not apply to
the dwel'l ing units during any period during which they are owned by any
individual who is also an owner of the Doubletree Hotel .
B. The 92 additional accommodation units permitted with the approval of SDD
14 shall be developed as lodge roons under a single ownership. Any
proposal to condominiumize the accommodation units would require approval
as per the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Vail.
C. The applicant shall bear all costs related to the design and construction
of the right turn deceleration lane and left turn'l ane as recommended in
the transportation element of the Environmental Impact Report. These
inprovements shal 1 be completed prior to the issuance of a temporary
certificate of occupancy for any new residential units deve'l oped on the
site.
D. Prior to the issuance of a bui|ding permit, the applicant shall
demonstrate that all required approvals from the State Highway Department
for changes to access off the South Frontage Road have been obtained.
E. Prior to the issuance of a bui'l ding permit for the construction of any
improvement in SDD'14, the owner or owners of SDD'l 4 shal] grant an
easement to the Town of Vai'l for the use of the pub'l ic for access across
SDD'l 4 to the Vail Val1ey Medical Center located on'l ots E and F, Vail
Vil'l age Second Fi'l ing, County of Eagle and State of Colorado.
F. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any
improvement in SDD 14, the owner or owners thereof shall pay into the
Town of Va il parli nS f-u.t4 .lhe-.-s.gm of $235,000.00. The amount of
$235,000.00 shall be firm for six months. After a six month period, the
Town shall have the rjght to increase sajd sum to ref'l ect the increased
costs of bui'l ding parking spaces within the Town.
The owner or owners of SDD 14 shall have the option of paying the parking
fee in its entirety at or before the issuance of any building permit' or
in the a'l ternative may pay the fee in five equal installments of 20% of
the entjre fee. Should the owner or owners choose to pay the parking fee
in insta'l lments, they shall pay the first installment to the Town of Vail
at or before the issuance of the building permit and at said time sha'l I
issue a promissory note to the Town requiring the issuer to pay the rest
of the parking fee in four equal annual installments of principal and
interest payabie on the anniversary date of the first payment and each
year thereafter at a yearly interest rate of l0% until paid in full. The
promissory note shal'l be secured by a deed of trust on the property
included within SDD 14 and the form of both the promissory note and the
deed of trust shall be as determined by the Town Attorney'
1n
5ection ^"'
if any part, section' subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
is for any reason held to be inva'l id, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town council
hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any
one or more parts, sect'ions, subsect'i ons, sentences, c] auses or phrases be
declared inval id.
Secti on 11.
The Town Councit hereby
necessary and proper for
the inhabitants thereof.
Section 12.
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED
1986, and a public hearing
of March
VaiI Municipa1 Building in
0rdered published jn full
ON FIRST READING
shall be held on
.|986 at 7:30 p.m.
Vail, Co1 orado.
this 18th day
THIS 18th DAY 0F March
this ordinance
in the Council
on the 18th
Chambers of the
finds, determines and declares that this ord.inance is
the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and
The repea) or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the vai'l
Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shalI not affect any right which
has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the
effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or
proceeding as cornmenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed and
reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shal'l not rev.ive any provision
or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated
herein.
?
\a day
lir
I
Pamela A. Brandmeyer,
INTRODUCED, READ AND
in full
Town Cl erk
APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this lst day of A rj I , 1986.
{
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
Kent R. Rose, Mayor Pro Tem
I
\)ir
This
the
The
A.
B.NAME OF
ADDRXSS
c.
#
D.
RSo S.futqke ?D, cxE*f
Date or apprQtio' tiP iez
-
APPLICATION FORM FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT
DrsTRrcT DErrrELopMEbrT aEFF FtfreeVtW fffEl0gto {
I.procedure is required for any project that would
Special Development District Procedure.
go through
application will not be accepted until all information is
NAI{E OF APPLICANT
ADDRESS A PHoNE?'ba38S7?k
:snuratrve PEtrEA -kflAR
loO S.frep1Mt- eI>, t'vtthT + repHoNE 17b-7!*l
V&ru-, co O1657
AUTHORIZATION OF PROPERTY OWNER
SIGNATURE
ADDRESS
LOCATION
ADDRESS
OF PROPOSAT
submitted.
J38-8788
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
$100. 0o
gta.E tlMv wtotlgr$w
^ecoAo
?rt-r..to
pArD C8* 4 51'bX - ri tl\
uoT.
--740'97 rt4rLl
A List of the name of olrners of al-1 ProPerty adjacent to the
Subject property and their miling a.ddresses.
II. Four (4) copies of the following information:
A. Detailed written/graphic description of proposal ..8. An environmentil impact report shalf.be submitted to the zoningadministrator in accordance with Chapter 18.56 hereof unless waived
by Section 18.56.030, exempt projects;
C. An open space and recreational plan sufficient to meet the demands
generated by the development without undue burden on available
or proposed public facilities;
FEEE.
E.
(0vER)
'f , Apptication fotfPecial DeveloPment Oistrlt Development Plan
D. Existing contours having contour intervals of not more than five
feet if the average slope of the site is twenty percent or less,
or with contour intervals of not more than ten feet if the average
slope of the site is greater than twenty percent.
E. A proposed site p1an, at a scale not snaller than one inch equhls
fifty feet, showing the aPproximate locations and dimensions of
all buildings and structures' uses therein, and all principal site
development features, such as landscaped areas, recreational facili-
ties, pedestrian Plazas and walkways' service entries, drivehtays'
and off-street parking and, loading areas with proposed contours
after grading and site development;
F. A preliminary landscape plan, at a scale not smaller than one inch
equals fifty feet, showing existj.ng landscape features to be retained
or removed, and showing proposed landscaping and landscaped site
development features, such as outdoor recreational facilities,
bicycle paths, trails, pedestrian plazas and walkways, Idater features,
and ottrer elements;
G. Preliminary building elevations, sections' and floor plans, at
a scale not smaller than one-eighth eguals one foot, in sufficient
detail to determine floor area, gross residential floor area, interior
circulation, locations of uses within buildings, and the general
scale and appearance of the proposed development.
III. Time Requirements
The,.Plirnning and Environmental CorunrlsSion meets on the 2nd and 4th
Mondays of each month. An application with the necessary accompanying
material must be submiut-ed four weeks prior to the daLe of the meeting.
NoTE: It is reconnended that before a special development district applicationis submitted, a review and cornnent neeting should be set up with the
Departnent of Comtunity Developnent.
PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS. RESEARCH
April 30, 1987
A. Peter Patten, Jr.Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage RoadVail, CO 81657
Dear Peters
In accordance with Section 18.40.I00 of the VaiL llunicipal Code,Vail Holdings requests a review by the Planning and Environnental
Commisslon for the purpose of granting an extenalon of the
approval of SDD*14 whlch was originally granted on April 1, 1985.
No construction will be taking place during the 18 nonth timeIimit and we request an extension of an additional 18 monthe.
Please advlse me of the hearing date when scheduled.
Please contact ne if you have any questions.
PJ:ns
cc3 .I. ltichael Holloway
Suite 308, Vail National Bank Building
108 South Fronlage Road Wbsl . Vail, Colorado 81657 . (303) 476-7154
1.
2.
AD.]ACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
Lots E & F, Vail Village 2nd
Vail Valley Medical Center
181 West Meadow DriveVail, Colorado 81557
Lot 2, a resubdivision of part of Lot D, Vail Village 2nd
Vail Professional Building Joint Venture (/ r -r N&f 4arJL
crlo Box 3100Vail, Colorado 81658
3. Lot 4, BLock l, a resubdivision of Lot 1, Block l,
Vail International
300 E. Lionshead CircleVail, Colorado 81657
4. Tract A
Vail Associates
Box 7Vail, Col-orado 81658
Town of Vail-
75 S. Frontage RoadVail, Colorado 81657
Highway Depdrtment
420L East''Arkansas
Denverrr..Colorado 80222Attn: Rick Evans
R'th.a r'f-
Irtb
7z
tQ^ i
jr-
5.r>, r r /
Prolect Application
"l-. ,:- c-*
"!
r,
Proiecl Name: i
Proiect Description:
Contact Person and Phone
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architecl. Address and Phone:
Design Review Board
Date
DISAPPROVAL
E statt Approval
Project Appllcatlon O
prolect Name: ..\.
)*.\, f(\ee- --1--* .^.-
Proiect Description:r' a,u*...,k " \
Contact Person and Phone
Owner. Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot L- , Block rilngt-/ r1.
Comments:
Design Review Board
Date
\
Motion by: [,.-Ja,^,t ,,'-
seconded ,r, t^l:- ^:{
9 r-/
DISAPPROVAL--app66v[---at
-
-r'
--.
v
APPL I CAT] ON 24 JuIy 1985
DATE 0F DRB ,MEETING: 7 Auqust legs
DRB APPLICATION
*****THIS APPLICATION l.lILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNTIL ALL INFORMATION I5 SUBMITTED*****
I. PRE-APPLICATION MEETING:
A pre-application meeting with a plannjng staff member is strongly suggested to
determine if any additional information is needed. No appljcation will be accepted
unless it is complete (must include all items required by the zoning administrator).It is the applicant's responsibility to make an appointnent tr,ith the staff to find
out about additional submittal requirements. Please note that a COMPLETE applica-
tion will streamline the approval process for your project by decreasing the number
of conditions of approval that the DRB may stipulate. ALL conditions of approval must
be resolved before a building permit is issued.
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTI0NI Genera.l- upqrading of rhe former Cresr. pRB issues:
guest tower repainting, re-roofinq of comnercial buildinq, new elevation
treatment (windows, doors, paint, etc. on commercial building) new signage,
landscaping upgrade, garage entry cover.
DATE!
B. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
AddresS 250 S. Frontage Rd. West 81657
.lIItt Legal Description Lot Bl ock
Va i 1/Lionshead
Fi 1 i ng 2nd filins
Zoni ng
C. NME OF
Add res s
APPL I CANT :
250 S- Fronf ^.ra R.l WeSt 81657 telephone 476-7Bro
D. NAME 0F APPLICANT'S RTPRESENTATIVE: Altlony Perrecchia A bon)
AddreSS 730 Seventeenth St., Suite 414 Denver, CO AO2O2 tel ephone s34-4rj,4
E. NAME OF OWNERS:
Si gnature
V_ail Holdings -- Srnith Bovd Associates - Abbas Ra
AddreSS 171 Church St., Charleston, SC telephone (8o3) s77-
00 70
F. DRB FEE: The fee will be paid at the time a building permit is requested.
VALUATION FEE
$ 0-$ 10,000 $10.00
$10,001 -$ 50,000 $25.00
$5o,oo1 -$ 15o,ooo $5o.oo
$150,001 -$ 500,000 $100.00
$500,001 - $1,000,000 $200.00$ 0ver $1,000,000 $300.00
II4PORTANT NOTICE REGARDING ALL SUBMISS.]ONS TO THE DRB:
1. In addjtion to meeting submittal requirements, the applicant nust stake the site
to indjcate property iines and building corners. Trees that will be removed
shou'l d a'l so be inarfLa. This work must be completed before the DRB visits the
si te.
2. The review process for NEl.l BUILDINGS will norrnally involve two separate neetings
of the Design Review Board, so plan on at least two meetings for their approva'l .
3. Peopie who fail to appear before the Design Review Board at their scheduled
meeling and who have not asked for a postponement will be required to be
republ i shed.
MATERIAL TO.BE SUBMITTED
NE!\| CONSTRUCTION
A. Topographic map and site pian of site containing the following (2 copies):
1. Licensed surveyor's stamp.
2. Contour intervals of not more than 2' unless the parcel consists of 6 acres or
more, in which case, 5' contour intervals will be accepted.
3. Existing trees or groups of trees having trunks with diameters of 4" or more
one foot above grade.
4. Rock outcroppings and other significant natural features (1arge boulders,
intermittent streams, etc. ).
5. Avalanche areas, 100 year flood plajn and slopes 40% or more, if applicable.
6. Ties to exjsting benchmark, ejther USGS landmark or sewer jnvert.
7 . Locations of the following:
a. Proposed surface drainage on and off sjte showing size and type of
cul verts, swal es, etc.
b. Exact locations of all utilities to include existing sources and proposed
service lines from sources to the structure. Utilities to'i nclude:
cabl e TV
Tel ephone
sewer gas
water el ectri c
c. Property lines showing d'istances and bearjngs and a basis of beari ng
d. Proposed driveways with percent slope and spot elevatjons
e. Al I easements
Exi sti ng and fi ni shed grades .
All existjng and proposed improvements including structures, landscaped areas,
servj ce areis , storage areas , wa1 ks , dri veways , off-street parki ng ' l oadi ng
areas, retai nj ng wai I s (with spot el evations) , and other si te improvements '
Elevations of top of roof ridges (with existing grade shown underneath) to'determine heiqht of buildinq.
B. A statement from each utility verifying location of service and availability. To
be submitted with site plan.
C. Preliminary title report to accompany all submittals, to jnsure property ownership
and all easements on property.
D. Landscape Plan (L" = 20' or larger) - 2 cop'i es
1. Show the location of 4" diameter or,larger trees,.other'shnu6s-anil-nai.iVe.olants th
are on the site and the locatjon and deiign of pioposed landscape area.S rvith
the varieties and approximate sjzes of plant materials to be planted. N
?. Complete 1andscape materi als.l ist.
3. Designate trees to be saved and those to be lost.
NOTE: As much of the above information as possible should occur on the site p1an, so that
the inter-relation of the various components is clear. The landscape p'l an shou'l d be
separate. The existing topographic and vegetational characteristjcs may be a separate
map. The applicant must stake the site to show lot ljnes and bujldjng corners. Trees
tnit wi ll bb'lost during constructjon must be tagged. The work should be completed
before the DRB site visit.
q
10.
E. Archi tectural Pl ans (t/e"lt ' or l arger) 2 copi es O
1. Must include floor plans ahd all elevations as they will appear on completion.
Elevations must show both exjsting and finjshed grades'
Z. Exterjor surfacing materials and colors shall be specified and-submjtted for
review on the mat6rials list available from the Department of Cornmunity Develop-
ment. Color chjps, siding samples etc., shou'l d be presented at the Design Review
Board meeting.
F. The Zoning Admjnistrator and/or DRB may require the-submission of addjtjonal plans'
drawings, specifications, samples and -other material (including a model) if deemed
necessary ro determine whethei a project wili comply with design guidelines'
II. MINOR ALTERATIONS TO THE EXTERIOR OF BUiLDINGS
photos or sketches that clearly'i ndicate what is proposed and the locatjon (s'ite plan)
of proposal may be submitted in tieu of the more formal requirement: S]vql above, as
long ai they piovide all important specificat'ions for the proposed jncludjng colors and
materials to be used.
III. ADDITIONS - RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL
v/a. 0riginal floor plans with al1 specifications shown
B. Floor plan for addition - 2 copies
'/ c. site pl an showing exjsting and proposed constructjon - 2 copies topos
,-.''D. El evati ons of add'i ti on
E. Photos of exjsting structure
F. Specifications for all rnaterjals and color samples on materjals l'i st available at
Department of Community Development
At the request of the Desi9n Review Administrator you may also be required to submit:
G. Statement from each ut'i f ity verifying location of service and ava'i lability' See
attached util ity locatjon verification form.
H. site .improvement survey, stamped by registered professional surveyor.
I. Preliminary title report, verifying ownership of property and ljsts of easements'
IV. FINAL SITE PLAN
After a building permit has been issued, and
wi l I be requi red before any bui l di ng recei ves
Department: A certified improvement survey
A. Building locations with ties to property
B. Bujld'i ng d'imensions to nearest tenth of foot'
C. All utility serv'i ce lines as-bujlts showing size of ljnes, type of materjal used'
and exact locations. 2 copies
Drainage as-builts. 2 coPies
Basis of bearing to tje to section corner.
A11 property pins are to be ejther found or set and stated on map'
All easements
Bui.l ding floor elevations and roof ridge e1 evat'ions'
when the proiect is underway, the following
a framing inspection from the Build'i ng
showi ng:
corners, i.e- distances and an91es'
n
E.
H.
NAME 0F PRoJECT: Doubletre
LI)I UT TU\ILKI'{LJ
tel Vail, Colorado
STREET ADDRESS:
DESCRIPTI0N 0F PR0JECT: General upsradinq of rhe former crest
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:z 1 trd,/Vai,l- Lionshead
The fol'lowing
Board before
A. BUILDING
jnformation is required for submittal by the app]icant to the Design Review
a final approval can be fiven:
TIATERIALS: TYPE 0F I'IATERIAL COLOR
nooi
Si di n9
0ther |Ja'l I Materi al s
Fasci a
Soffi ts
l'li ndows
I'lindow Trim
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck Rails
F'lues
Fl ashi ngs
Chimneys
metal - to match the roof
B. LANDSCAPING: Name of Designer:
phone:
refinished meta
painted wood
natural finish wood
painted stucco
prefinished metal &ted wood
painted wood
wood and metal
wood and metal
painted wood
metal - to match the roof
metit - to match the roof
existi
cLear glass with nted frame
Trash Enc'losures
Greenhouses
0ther
PLANT I,IATERIALS:
PROPOSED TREES
Botanica'l Name Common Name Quani tY Si ze*
EXISTING TREES TO
BE REMOVEO
for coni fers.
(over )
*Indicate caliper for deciduc'ious trees' Indicate height
PLANT I,'IATERIALS:
(con't)
SHRUBS
EXISTING SHRUBS
T0 BE REI,|OVED
tt
Botanical Nhme Cormon Name qn.i,,Si ze
Type Square Footage
GROUND covERs
s0D
SEED
TYPE OF
IRRIGATION
TYPE OR I,IETHOD OF
EROSION CONTROL
C. oTHER LANDSCAPE FEATURES (retaining walls'fences, swirming pools, etc.) Please specify'
;L.^ ?
,_i
UTILIfi LOCATION VERIFICATION
SUBDIVISiON
JOB NAME
LOT BLOCK F ILING
ADDRESS
The location of utilities, whether they be main trunk
1ines, nust be approved and verified by the following
accornpanying site plan .
Authori zed S ignature
Mountain Bell
I -634-3778
Western Slope Gas
Harry Moyes
Public Service ComPanY
Gary Hall
Holy Cross Electric Assoc.
Ted Husky/Michael LavertY
Vail Cable T.V.
Gary Johnson
Upper Eagle Va11eY l,later
and Sanitation Discrict
David Krenek
lines or ProPosedutilities for the
Date
* For new cc
please fill
attached sht
NOTE: 'Itrese verifications do not relieve the contractor of his
responsibility to obtain a street cut Pernj't fron the
Town of Vail, Departnent of Public Works and to obtain
utility locations before digging in any public right-
of-way or easenent in the Town of Vail ' d building pernit
is not a street cut Pernit. A street cut pernit nust be
obtained separatelY.
This fo rn is to verify service availablity and location'
This should be used in conjunction with preparing your
utility plan and scheduling installations.
\
Proiect Appllcatlon
Proiect Name:
Proiect D€scription:
Contact Person and Phone
Owner. Address and Phone:
Legal D€scription: Lol
Architeci. Address and Phone:
Comments:
Design Review Board
Date
DISAPPROVAL
Summary:
,.1., l, |,
Town Plan ner E statt Approval
Project Application
Proiect Name:
Proiect Oescription:
Contact Person and Phone
1 t :l ) /. /,>> t l/17 d, 1.4 0
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architect, Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot Block Filing Zone
-
Design Review Board
Date
Motion by:
Seconded by:
DISAPPROVAL
i\.'t .'li ..,4 -- II
,l-,ul
{"r^u Approval
j
i.. I 'r ,11/' .t lh.
toi""t Appllcatlon
Project Name:
Proiect Description:
Contact Person and
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architecl. Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot Block Filing Zone
-
Comments:
b
Design Review Board
Date
Motion by:
Seconded by:
)
APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL
---
Summary:
B-st6lifpprovat
b/!;-.i.,:' . f, |- l, .a C,
ORDINANCE NO.5
Series of 1986
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT (KNOl,lN 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.
I'IHEREAS, Chapter'18.40 of the Vai'l Municipal Code authorizes special development
districts w'ithin the Town; and
I{HEREAS, Vail Holdings, a Colorado Limited Partnership, has submitted an
application for special development approval for a certain parce'l of property
within the Town known as Lot 2,8lock l, Vai'l Lionshead 2nd Filing, to be known
as Special Development Distrjct 14, and conmonly referred to as the Doubletree
Hotel; and
C
IIHEREAS, the establishment of the requested SDD
coordinated development within the Town of Vail
area in which it is situated; and
Section l.
will insure unified and
a manner suitable for the
14
in
tr|HEREAS, the Planning Cormjssion has reconmended approval of the proposed SDD;
and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate and
beneficia'l to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants and visitors to establish
said Special Development District No. 14;
NOl..,, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOl,lN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL,
COLORADO, THAT:
The approva'l procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code
have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received the report of thd
Planning and Environmental Commission recommending approval of the proposed
development plan for SDD 14.
Section 2. Special Development Distrjct l4
Special Development District 14 (SDD 14) and the development plan therefore,
are hereby approved for the development of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead
Second Fi'l ing, within the Town of Vail, consisting of 2.6298 acres or .|14,554
square feet, more or 'l ess.
-.t-
.i. jr I,'
a
C,
Section 3. PurPose
Special Development District 14 is established to ensure comprehensive
deve'l opment and use of an area that wi1 I be harmonious with the general
character of the Town of Vail and to promote the upgrading and redevelopment of
a key property in the Town. The development is regarded as complementary to the
Town by the Town Council and meets al1 design standards as set forth in Section
18.40 of the Municipal Code. There are significant aspects of Special
Development Distri ct 14 which cannot be satisfied through the imposition of the
standards in the High Density Multip]e Family zone district. SDD 14 is
compatible with the upgrading and redevelopment of the community while
maintaining its unique character.
Secti on 4. Deve'l opment P'l an
A. The development plan for SDD 14 is approved and shall constitute the plan
for development within the special development distrjct. The deve'l opment
plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Anthony Pellechia,
Architects as dated December 27, 1985, and consists of the following
documents:
'1. Site plan
2. Pre'l iminary landscape plan by Berridge and Associates, Inc.
3. Typical floor plans
4. E] evations and sections
5. The Environmental Impact Report dated January, 1986 as prepared by
Berridge and Associates, Inc.
B. The Development Plan shall adhere to the following:
Setbacks
Setbacks shall be noted as on the site p1 an'l isted above.
He i sht
Heights of structures shall be as indj cated on the elevatjons listed
above.
Coverage
Site coverage sha'l I be as indicated on the site plan'l isted above.
Landscapi ng
The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as indicated on the
preliminany landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted
to the Design Review Board for their approval .
a'
Parking and Loading
Parking and loading shall be provided as'indicated on the site plan and
floor plans as listed above. In no case shall the parking provjded on
site be less than 21 1 spaces with 200 of those spaces underground and a
maximum of l1 located on the surface. Parking access shall be controlled
by a gate (or similar structure) or by an attendant or by other
acceptable methods.0
-ry DensitY
Existing development on the site consists of .|28 accommodation units and 19
dwelling units consisting of 73,577 square feet of gross residential f'l oor area.
The approval of this development plan sha'l I permit an additional 92
acconrnodation units and 5 dwelling units, consisting of 42,576 square feet of
gross residential f'l oor area. The total density permitted with the approval of
this deve] opment plan consists of 220 accommodation units and 24 dwel'l ing units
with a tota'l of l16,l53 square feet of gross residential floor area.
ction 6. Uses
and accessory uses shall be as set forth in the High
1y zone distnict.
$j.s--L. Amendments
Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance
may be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regular'ly
scheduled public hearing in accordance with the provisjons of Section .|8.66.060.
Amendments whjch do change the substance of the development plan shalI be
required to be approved by Town Council after the above procedure has been
followed. The Community Deve'l opment Department shalI determine what constitutes
a change in the substance of the development p'l an.
rmitted, condi
l\nsity Multiple
Pe ti on
Fam
(
'" i.,:'-' r t
Sect'i on 8. Expiration
The applicant must beg'i n construction of the special development district within
'18 months from the time of its final approval , and continue diligent'ly toward
the comp'letion of the project. If the app'licant does not begin and diligently
work toward the completion of the special development distrjct or any stage of
the special deve'lopment district within the time limits imposed by the preceding
subsection, the Planning and Environmental Commission sha'l'l review the specia'l
development district. They shal'l recommend to the Town Councjl that ejther the
approval of the specia'l development district be extended, that the approval of
the special development district be revoked, or that the spec'ial deve'lopment
district be amended.
Section 9. Conditions vals for I Development District l4
A. The development contained within SDD 14 shall not be converted to any
form of time share ownership for a period of 20 years from the date of
the approval of thjs ordinance. The applicant agrees to limit the use of
any new dwel] ing units approved wjth this deve'l opment p1 an to those
restrictions outlined in Sect'i on 17.26.075.A, Condominium Conversion' of
C
in Section
not appiy to
owned by any
the Vai'l Municipa] Code.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the restrictions set forth
17.26.075 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail shal'l
the dwelling units during any period during which they are
individual who is also an owner of the Doubletree Hotel .
B.The 92 additjona'l acconmodation units permjtted with the approval of SDD
14 shall be developed as lodge nooms under a single ownership. Any
proposal to condominjumjze the accommodatjon units wou'l d require approval
as per the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Vail.
The applicant shal'l bear all costs related to the design and construction
of the right turn deceleration'lane and left turn lane as recommended in
the transportation e'l ement of the Environmental Impact Report. These
improvements shal 1 be completed prior to the issuance of a temporary
certificate of occupancy for any new residential units developed on the
si te.
c.
t'
t:'"
C
D. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the app'l icant shall
demonstrate that all required approvals from the State Highway Department
for changes to access off the South Frontage Road have been obtained.
E. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any
improvement in SDD 14, the owner or owners of SDD 14 shall grdnt an
easement to the Town of Vail for the use of the public for access across
SOD 14 to the Vail Valley Medical Center located on'l ots E and F, Vail
Village Second Filing, County of Eagle and State of Colorado.
F. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any
improvement in SDD 14, the owner or owners thereof shall pay into the
Town of Vai 1 parli nS f-u.nC .lhe_ _9.um of $235 ,000 . 00 . The amount of
$235,000.00 shall be firm for s'ix months. After a six month period, the
Town shal1 have the rjght to increase said sum to ref'l ect the increased
costs of bui'l ding parking spaces within the Town.
The owner or owners of SDD 14 sha'l I have the option of paying the parking
fee in its entirety at or before the issuance of any building permit, or
in the a'f ternative may pay the fee in five equal installments of 20% of
the entire fee. Shou'l d the owner or owners choose to pay the parking fee
in installments, they shalI pay the finst installment to the Town of Vail
at or before the issuance of the building permit and at said time shal'l
issue a promissory note to the Town requiring the issuer to pay the rest
of the parking fee in four equal annual installments of principal and
interest payab'l e on the anniversary date of the first payment and each
year thereafter at a yearly interest nate of l0% until paid in full. The
promissory note shall be secured by a deed of trust on the property
included withjn SDD 14 and the form of both the promissory note and the
deed of trust shal'l be as determined by the Town Attorney.
-.
-
1n
Secti on '"'
lf any part' section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town council
hereby declares it wou'l d have passed this ordinance, and each part, section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regard'l ess of the fact that any
one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be
decl ared inval id.
Section 11.
The Town Councj'l hereby finds, determines and dec'l ares that this ordinance is
necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and
the inhabitants thereof.
Section 12.
The repea'l or the repeal and reenactment of any provis'i ons of the Vajl
Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which
has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the
effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other actjon or
proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed and
reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision
or any ordinance previously repea'l ed or superseded un1 ess expressly stated
herei n.
? INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED 0N FIRST READING
\ 1986, and a public hearing shall be held on
of March ,'l 986 at 7:30 p.m.
Vail Municipal Bui'lding in
Ordered publ i shed i n ful l
Vail, Colorado.
this 18th day
THIS 18th DAY 0F March
this ordinance
in the Counci'l
on the 18th day
Chambers of the tj'
Pamela A. Brandmeyer,
INTRODUCED, READ AND
in ful I
Town Clerk
APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this lst day of
oO
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
Kent R. Rose, MaYor Pro Tem