HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 BLOCK 5D LOT M O VAIL PLAZA HOTEL 1999 MAJOR AMENDMENT REQUEST REVISED PART 1 LEGAL-99 SUH 22.4L L EDI'IARDS 3434799327
FAX o MAYOR RoB FORD A rD TolvN cot NcrL MEMBERS, PLAI.INTNG
ANID EI\IVIRONMENTAL coMMlssloN, AI.ID GEORGE nrrrHEn sEMoRPLANNER, TO1VN OF VAIL 970-479-2452
I I tot99
Lee M. Edwards, ph.D
483 Gore Creek Drivc # 5A
Vail CO 81652
Phonc 970-479-9529
fax 970-479-9527
mailing address in Vail
2l2l N. Frontage Rd., W #221
Vail CO 81652
re: vail village fnu and increased zoning density for all hotels
to voice my
dovelopers:
As a long time property owncr in Vail I would likeobjections to the following proposals by private
A) The plan ro increasc thc height and density for tho vail villagcInn Devclopmcnt.
B) The plan to increase zoning density for a[ hotcl facilities.
Both proposals wourd ruin view corridors, increase traffic todangerous levels, create a skyscraper effect (whrch has arreadyobliterated the forrner athactione of Beaver Creek), incroaseproperty taxes to unfair levels, and spoil the village atmosphere thathas long made Vail unique.
The proposed amendments, if passed, will turn Vail into anotherurban mess with all tbe chaoe that cntails. please don't let it happen.It is our responsibility to protcct rhc beauty of Vail.
Yours sinccrely,'L cr"
Lce M. Edwards
., ti'*'t1esor11:3$M
GRI,IE CREEK CLUEbtrt!*LE- x I
976 479WLALrPCOll lNO.996
r -s7o-+7E-4681 I.P."...'
F.l
RAYMOND F. DWITER
ATJORNBYATLAW
4690 VAIL RAg<Er CLUB Onnc g-z
VAIL, COLORADO 3T657' TEL:97&4794ie29
Io. te r99s
M[e lob FoEn ud Toua Counl MeobcnHmiqg ild Frvftmuart i#;lT-- *
mdcrEr4cnutls,sroi-u.a"",.--------
ToerofVnl
Ex4Tt-2452
Re Vd yilhgp Iun $DD prqpotrt rui!Frcster Anrfuanr r" fou riUUo Ac*uioOrri,aa zms Diefua
Deu lfrfrc Fqr4 Torar Cornsil, ?EC rud Mr. &drar
FlerserccqrtrliS crr-ffitr# #;ffi=bt#,ffifl*ff
Tte propoccd ve' vinrr h ruucun T..dd$-rlriT ic our of *p wirL tc re* af VriL Ewould rot ody ua te fr* 'ie orc rwutd.i mi rr" _"6.16o, araiag vu] hrr ir $,ouldrrrd sct q ufrltrulcp**A_a fw *mfrlig!-litrn n rc, ia thevilhgs.
trtWffi E60iifu exDtorrb3 on dtbe vilrep aesrq,iry vril,c
_9_: * .Jr" "pinc trc ircrrrcd wsisuhr ftfrc ,FogEynrtrortdilolr3rv*'usrbrdrlhgwu}lgue*c,romgwithths
ft ir dro eeq/ to inrgine fts ud of Vril,t otizas il ths dcqtuir of Vril,s benqr if grch rstru'nrD li i'oured o' bc cqruarr( rt*ril, r lr* urua ,,ii;; ,L*&-og, apm,ncdffitt Hhopotf,*
rcrco -al,iJ-iliil*.rvn, rdrrep+,.,tftr
',crr r
,rfl ,t
I
I
!
,,, I
,'
'i
a
I
I
Rc+cdrrySuDqdrod"
CIIARLES R. LIPCONVaiI Gateway Unit 5
L2 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Co. 81657
TeI. (970) 476-5LSt
Fax. (970) 476-8681-
'January I, l-999
Mayor Rob Ford and Town Council- Members,
Planning and Environmental Commission,
and George Ruther, Senior Planner
Town of Vai]-
Eax:479-2452
Re: Vai-l Village Inn
Dear Sirs and Madams :
One or more of the residential property owners at the Vail Gatewayhave the foJ-lowing objections to the VaiI Village Inn A Major
Amendment to Special Development District #6 as follows:
1. The application for Planning and Environmental Commission
Approval was signed by Jay K. Peterson as attorney in fact on April13, 1998. I received a copy of the limited power of attorney signedby Waldir R. Prado as managing director on Jan. 4, 1999. A reviewof the power of attorney indicates that: THE POBIER OF ATTORNEY IS
SPECIFfCAILY IIMIIED TO CIIAPTER 12-9a-2. THIS CHAPTER DEATS IAIITH
DEFINITIONS. THE POWER IS IN\AJ,ID ON ITS FACE TO AUTHOR]ZE JAY
PETERSON TO SIGN AN APPIICATION FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONI,IENTAI
COMMTSSTON APPRO\ZAI WITH RESPECI TO A l4A,fOR AI4ENDMENT TO AII sDD.Further, there is nothing in the record with the town that wouldindicate that Vilatdir Prado was the duly appointed managing d.irectorof Daymer Corp. or that Daymer Corp. has, through its board ofdirectors, approved the granting of a power of attorney to Jay K.
Peterson.
2. In spite of numerous requests, neither I nor any of the otherresidential owners in the Vail Gateway, to my knowledqe, have beengiven notice of any hearings whatsoever in front of the Planning
and Environmental Cornmission. Notice to SLottz Management is not
adequate since they doldid not in turn provide notice to the
owners in the Vail Gateway. This information about lack of notice
was previously provided to you. YOU HAVE ACTUAI NOTICE THAT THE
GIVING OF NOTICE TO STOITZ I'ANAGEI{ENT DOES NOT IN TURN RESULT IN
NOTICE TO THE CONDOMINIUM OVilNERS IN THE \nIL GATEWAY- This isspecial-ly troublesome in light of the fact that Stoltz Managementor their principals was represented by Jay Peterson who is also theclaimed attorney in fact and the attorney for Dayner Corp.
3. lhe Town of VaiI ordinance L2-3-6 C. dealing with notice
constitutes a denial of due process and equal protection of the 1awfor the owners in the Vail Gateway and other adjacent condominiun
owners since it does not provide for actual notice to them as
adjacent property owners. YOU HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSIY INFORMED THAT
THE GIVING OF NOTICE TO STOLTZ MANAGEMENT DOES NOT IN TURN RESULT
rN NOTICE TO THE CONDOMINIUM OIINERS IN THE \AfL GATEWAY. As such itis unconstitutional . A letter from ,fohn Breyo, owner of Unit 3 inthe VaiI Gateway was faxed to you indicating lack of notice as well
as reliance on the master plan, zoning, etc.
4. The amendment violates the "view corridor" from the four way
stop (now roundabout) established in the SDD approval for theVillage Inn. Based on this "view corridor", the height of the Vail
Gateway was reduced. In Rick Pylman's (Town Planner for Vail)letter dated Feb. L6, 1988 discussJ-ng the Vail Gateway, he stated:
"Staff feels stronqly that this building(Vail Gatewag) shouldpresent no encroachment into the view corridor that is establishedby the approved Vail Village Inn development. The existing designwill reguire substantia] revisions to maintain the view parameters
establi-shed bv the WI . "
Tt would be unfair, arbitrary, and unreasonabl-e to have reduced t,heheight of the Vail Gateway based on the "view corridor" in the SDDordinance for the Village Inn and then to turn around and ignorethe same requirement for the Village Inn itself. The agreement
between Joe Stauffer and the Town of Vait as documented in the SDDapproval constitutes a recorded real covenant that inures to thebenefit of the adjacent land owners who relied on this realcovenant. The SDD approval provides for a three story building inthe "view corridor" area. The SDD approval was the result of give
and take negotiations between the Town of VaiJ. and Joe SLauffer.
Joe Stauffer agreed to two story buildings on East Meadow Drive andVail Road in return for a five story building on Frontage Road. Inaddition to constituti-ng a real- covenant, the SDD approvalconstitutes a contract between the Town of Vail and Joe Staufferwhich inures to the benefit of adjacenL owners as third party
beneficiaries.
5. The amendment violates the Town of Vail Master Plan. The masterpf an states with respect t,o the Vail Vill-age Inn: "Mass ofbuildings shal1 step up from existing pedestrian scale along MeadowDrive to 4-5 stories along Frontage Road....Design must besensitive to maintainincr view corrj-dor from 4-way stop to VaiI
Mountain" The WI proposal will directly impact the character ofthe Vail Village. If approval of the arnendment is allowed, wherewill it stop. Won't the owners of the Holiday House property, thegas station and others wanL to have the same massive size to
maximize the value of their propert.ies. Perhaps the VaiJ- Gateway
would like to add another 4 floors a1so. The entrance to the Vail
Village would be a massive canyon of buildings more in keeping witha large cit.y rather than a unique ski village.
6- The Village Inn project does not coordinate welJ. with the Vail
Gateway. It cuts off its pedestrian access and drastically reduces
its visibility. This would be particularly harmful to the
commercial tenants in the building. The Town of Vail in considering
the Vail Gateway SDD application required that a major entrance beplaced on the side of the building facing the Village Inn. Thatentrance would be virtually worthless under the Village Inn
proposal . Ihe Vail Gateway would be facing a large wal1 that goes
up 95 feet which would only be a few feet from the Vail Gatewayproperty. A canyon would be created. This is not in keeping with
the initial representation made by the Vail Village Inrl to the Town
of Vail, that: "The architects Zehren & Aesociates were challenged
to acconmodate this program in a c,onfigiuration harnpnious to the
irrnediate neighborhood and add to the Vail Character." There j-s
nothj-ng harmonious about this project as it relates to the Vail
Gateway and j-t is certainly not in keeping wj-th the Vail Character.It is a big city project being urged on a small village.
During the appfication process for the Vail Gateway, it wasreguired that a major entrance be placed for access from theVillage Inn property. In Rick Pylmants (Town Planner for Vail)
letter dat,ed Feb. L6, l-9BB he stated: "We feel that it wi]-l beimportant that this projecL and the approved Vail Villaoe Innprolect when built, have a st.ronq pedestrian connection. We
recognize the need for the developer of the VVI project to relatehis project to the Vail Gateway. We do want. to ensure, however,that the desigrn of the Gatewav allows this pedest.rian connection to
occur . "
7. The Village Inn project comes within 2 feet or so of the VaiI
Gateway driveway where cars enter the garage and deliveries are
made. It would create a large alley that would cause auto anddiesel fumes to accumulate and enter the Vail Gateway, This would
be noxious, odorous, harmful to health, and perhaps deadly. A study
shoul-d be done to determine the buiJ-dup of carbon monoxide andother dangerous fumes that would enter the Vail Gateway and the
Village Inn from this area.
8. The Village Inn project would cut off sunlight and air for the
VaiJ- Gateway. The VaiI Gateway would for the most part be in the
shadow of the Villaqe Inn.
9. The traffic, noise, and accompanying pollution in the area ofthe roundabout, Vail Road, and Frontage Road would increase
dramatically. The roundabout presently backs up at certain times ofthe d.y, and the increase in the number of cars will only
exacerbate the problem. The Traffic Impact Analysis done by
Feisburg, HuIt & Ullevig is based on the assr.rmption that 508 of the
traffic is internal and as such reduced their trip generation
figures by 508. This ignores the fact that the Vail Village has afree transportation system that j-s unique. Even assuming a 508
reduction, the overall traffic increases from about 1050 trips per
day Lo 3100 trips per day. THIS IS A IRIPLING IN TRAFFIC. If the
assumed reduction figure is wrong then the increase could be as
much as sj-x fold. An increase percentage of 2t was used to indicate
that the traffic would go to 4600 vehicfes during the PM peak hour
in the year 2015. This assurnes that further large hotel projects
similar to the Village Inn wil-1 not be approved, which would be
unreal-istic if this project is approved. There would be a Domino
effect.
10. No studies have been filed to reflect the pollution l-evels that
would come from the increased traffic.
LL. The owner of the Village Inn knew at the time of its purchase
what was allowed and r,shat was not allowed under the SDD approval inplace at the tjme. The Village Inn proposal would change the rules
and would greatly increase the value of the Village Inn property
and at the same time diminish the value of the VaiI Gatewayproperty as well as other adjacent property owners. It woul-d beunfair to provide the Vil-J-age Inn owner with a financial- wind falI
at the expense of the Vaif Gateway owners.
12. Ourners in the Vail- Gateway purchased their properties and spent
money fj-xing them up relying on the approvals already in place forthe Vil-lagie Inn, including the view corridor. as well as the masterp1an. As such changing these items would constitute an inverse
condemnation of the ownership interests of the VaiI Gateway owners.
Ttre value of the Vail Gateway owners would be reduced so as toprovide a windfal-l to the owners of the VaiI Villagie Inn.
l-3. The Vail master plan which was enacted by ordinance cannot beviolated under the guise of an SDD, without changing the masterplan itself. Attorney John Dunn has previously submitted a
memorandum of law on this issue. The Vill-age Inn acknowledge this
wtren they submitted a "Revision of Vail Villaqe Master PIan-
Conceptual Buildinq Height Plan..." on Nov. 30, 1998.
l-4. The Village Inn proposal has not discussed the hazard of a fire
spreading Lo or from their buildings to the Vail Gateway in light
of their extremely close proximity. (The fact that the proposed
VaiI ViJ-lage Inn has exterior fireproofing does not apply to theVaiI Gateway and the Village Inn Condo which does not have special
fi-reproofing. ) What further problems would this create for the fire
department if a fire had to be fought? Also there is no showing
that the Town of VaiI fire department could handle a fire in a
bui1d5-ng of this size and height.
l-5. What assurances has the owner of the Village Inn provided thatit has the financial and real estate capability to build what theysay they want to buiJ.d? What assurances have they provided thatthey are trustworthy and will do wtrat. they say they will do?
Daymer Corporati-on N.V. has reportedly been previously J-nvolved inlitigation where claims were made of wrongful conduct by Daymer.
Daymer should make a full disclosure of prior litigation and its
outcome to properly assess its trustworthiness. AIso its true
ownershj-p should be revealed since it is a Netherlands Antill-es
Corporation.
16. The simulated pictures submitted by the Vail vill_aete Inn aremisleading. View analysis number three shows a nine story Vail
ViJ-lage Hotel not much higher than the adjacent five story VaiIcateway. If the true height of the Vaj-l Village Inn was depictedthe whole of the Golden Peak area would be blocked. Even theincorrect picture submitted shows that the view of the Golden Peak
area would be almost completely blocked.
L7 - The sales Lax revenues projected to the Tov,ne of Vait are based
on numerous assumptions. What guarantees or bonds have the VillageInn offered if their projections are wronlt. If the Village Inn is
seeking to motivate the Town of Vail by the promise of additionalfunds, certainly they should stand behind the numbers and providea guarantee or bond from a financially sound third party to back uptheir nurnbers.
l-8- The Village Inn should provide compensation to the adjacentproperty .owners, whose values will go down as a result of theVillage Inn violations of the master plan as well as the agreement
between the Tor^rn of Vail and Joe Stauffer as codified in the SDD
approval .
1-9. The Vail P1aza Hotel Fact Sheet is misleading. It indicatesthat the 1992 approval allowed a building height of 67 feet. Itdoes not indicate that this height applied to the building onFrontage Road only and does not apply to the buildings that wouldbe south of the Vail Gateway. (Between the Vail Gateway and the ski
mountain)
20. The report of the Town Planner is expected to be done by the
end of the day on Friday ilan. B, L999. ft is unknown if sufficienttime wilt be available to review the report prior to the PECmeeting scheduled for Monday Jan. 1I , 1"999. As such the right toobject on this ground is reserved until such time as the report has
been provided and studied.
21. No view corridor analysis was done other than providing photos
tr
some of which are misleading. A view corridor analysis was
requested in the memorandum to the Planning and Environmental
Commission dated June 22, l-998.
22. No urban desi-grn analysj-s was done. An urban desigm analysis wasrequested in the memorandum to the Planning and Environment.al
Commission dated Atne 22, 1998.
23. The Town Planning department claims to be unable to locate theoriginal SDD approved drawings for the Vail Village fnn referencedin Ordinance No. 7, SerJ-es of l-976 after repeated requests. Waldir
Prado also had a set utrich he received from Joe Stauffer. Mr. Pradoalso claims that he no longer has these drawings. The two known
custodians of these important drawings have conveniently tost them.
These are needed for review and reference particularly in terms ofthe View Corridor.
Where applj-cable the same objections are being rnade to the FaessLer
Amendments to the Public Accommodati-on Zone District.
Very Truly
ca-4
Ctrarles R.
Attachments
Yours,
,l/ -T
Lipcon
't I
CHARI,ES R. LIPCON EXUIBITS
SIIBI.{ITTED IN OPPOSITION TO
VAIL VILI.AGE INN SDD
AND
PT'BLIC ACCOMODAtrTONS FAESSI,ER A}{EIIDMENTS
l-. .Iohn Dunn June 2, 1-998 letter
2. Charles R. Lipcon letters and email to and from the Town of
vail
3. 'John Breyo ilan. 5, 1999 letter to the Town of Vail
4. Plaintiff's Original Petition against Daymer Corporation N.V.
5. East Village Homeowners Association White Paper on the VaiI
Plaza Hotel
6. Copies of docurnents from the Vail Gateway SDD Proposal fj-1e of
the Town of Vail .A. Feb. L6, L998 letter from Rick Pylman
B. Eeb. 22, 1998 Comnrunity Development memo.
C. Vail Gateway View Profile.
D. Revised Encroachment of Vail Gateway
E. Peter Jamar letter dated l'fiarch 24, 1998
7. Architect Steven Riden's evaluation.
ilohn Drrnn Jr.me 2, 1998 letter
Law C)r.lcEt
DuNr.r, AepLaNRup & CgnrsrEnsrru, P.C.
roo Sqvrx FRoNtaoE Roeo Wrsr
Surrt Joo
Ver!. CoLonaoo atgsz
JOt|r w. ou{ta
ARTXUT A. ASPLANAL'I JN'
alLax c. chir!t:tlsll{
grAalf L. rlfiLaN
F. C, SIEPFENSOI'
!rr<r^! covr!?r:
JEFFY W. X FNAH
'ELEPXON
E:
r9tor.76.o30o
TACSIXILZ:
tetot ata.at63
aaFEfa ta, 9u||L
cart'trtc rtq.( tnat rt
June2.l99E
Planning and Environmcntrl Commission
Town of Vgil
75 South Frontage Road
VailCO t1657
Rc: Vail Plrza Hotcl Project
Dcar Commission Mcmbers:
We rcprescnt three residentirl unit owners at Vail Gateway Plazr and have been
requcsted by them to provide you with writtcfl comment with respcct to thc application of
Daymer Corporation for a major amcndment to Special Development Disriq lt6. the Vail Village
Inn Sitc ("lhc Vril Plaz.a Horel Project" or "the Projcct'). Having rcviowed the plans rubmittcd
to thc Town. we wish to set forth our concerns with respect to the rclationship of thc Project to
thc Vril Villagc Master Plan.
From our review ofthe plnns, it apperr! that thc portions ofthe Project located
immediatcly adjecenr ro Vail Gateway Plrza will be 60 to E4 fest above the existing grade to the
sourh of Gateway Plaza on Vail Road and ?0 to 100 feet Ebove the existing grrde to the east of
Garcway Plaza on Frontage Road. This proposcd building hcight is not in conformity with the
Concepturl Building Height Plan of the Veil Village Mastcr Plan, which establishcs a building
height guideline on those parccls adjaccnt to Oateway Plaza ofl-4 (stepped) building stories.
Inasmuch as the Conccptual Building Hcight Plrn defines "building otory" as nine fcet, the
conesponding building height guidclines are 2? to 36 feet. Nor is the proposed building height in
conformity with thc Sub-Area 8l-l Plan rt pagc 17 of the Mastcr Plan, which rcquir* that the
mass of building! "stcp-up" ftom pedestrian scsle slonS Meadow Drive to 4-5 stories along
Frontage Road. Construing the two togcthcr, the structure to thc routh of Catcwry Plaza could
not by any intcrprartion exceed four slorics or 36 fcet.
Thc proposcd building hcights for the Project adjaccnt to Gatcway Plaza thcrefore
exceed mastcr plan limitrtions by rs much rs 33 lo 48 fcet on Vail Road and 43 to 64 fcct on
Frongge Rord. ln other words, the plrn proposcs a building that ir at least twice the heigbt
timitarions of the Veil Village Master Plan on those percels
Section l2-9A-8 of the Vail Municipal Code includes as part of the design criteria
for approval of rn SDD "conformity with rpplicable elements of the Vail Compreharsive Plarl
Town policics and urban design plans" and provides, with reference to tho$e stsndards, that:
"lr shdl be the burden of the applicurt to demonstrate that submitral materirl rnd
the proposed devclopment phn comply with each of thc following standards, or
demonsrate thst one or more ofthem is not applicable, or that a practical solution
consistcnt with the public intcrest har bccn achievcd: . . ."
Wc are not able to find any,thing in the applicant's submittd to suggcst thst the
height limirrtions of thc mastcr plan arc not applicablc or that the applicant is proposing a solution
to the conflict with the mester plon which is consistent with thc public intcrcst. We can only
conclude rhat the applicant is asking that the height limirationc ofthe mastor plsn be ignored for
purpos€ ofthe application. tt is thcrelore thc purpose of thir later to provide you with a review
of Colorado law on thc rclationship bctwecn master plan.r and zoning, including in particular thc
type of zone district know rs the "planned unit dcvelopment" C'PUD") ot as it ic known in Vail,
the spccial dcvclopmcnt district ("SDD"). Based upon our review of that law, it is our belief that
the master plrn must be strictly adhered to in the consideration of SDD zoning and we
resp€ctfully rcqucst thst your commission so determine st the outsel of its consideretion of the
application.
The Coloredo Supreme Court first addressed the sffcct of a mastcr plut in
Theobaldv.Btnrd<4f(ountyComm'rs,644P.2d942(Colo. l9E2). Inthatcase,thccounheld
that r mastcr plan is advisory only and that, in ordcr for it to have a direct effeA on Propcrty
rights, ir must bc furthcr implemcntcd through zoning. Thereaffo, in Beaver Mefuws v. Bmrd
oj Coanty (lumm'rs,'lQQ P.2d 928 (Colo. 1985), thc court hcld that, while a master plm 8s an
advicory documcnl is not necessarily binding on ths zoning discretion ofa govornrncntal body, it
is binding when the zoning legielrtion requires complience with it.
Most recently. in Bmrl otCounty Comm'rs v, Conder.927 P.2d 1339 (Colo.
1996). our suprcmc courr wrs fsced with g subdivision applicrtion which conformed with
applicable zoning bui not with the county marler plan, which had been adoptcd as a "grridelinc"
by thc subdivision rcguletions. Over two dissents, the court held that the county could enforce
thc masrcr plan compliance provision legislatively adopted ar part of the subdivision regulations.
Trken together, those crses tell ug thrt. to lhe extent that zoning ia inconsistcnt with thc martcr
plan, the master plrn will prevail. provided compliance with it is required by some regulation.
Wc rccognizc lhat thc Town has grcat flcxibiliry in thc emcndment of rpccitl
dcvcloprncnt district zoning and that r purpoi€ ofan SDD zonc distriot is to cncourago llcxibility
and creativiry in the development of lrnd in order to promote its most rppropriate use. We aho
recognizc rhat our local district court h8s upheld tho Town council's adoption of SDD zoniog
over a challcngc bascd upon the argumenl that the adoption ofit constituled "rpot zoning" in
contravention of thc Town's mastcr plan. However, wc are not arguing that the Ptescnt
applicrtion violates objectives or policies ofthe magter plan, which are aspirationrl in natur€.
Rather. we are arguing that no zonc district within the town may violate a vcry specific height
limitation imposed by the mrster plan. given the master plan's incorporation into thc Town's
zoning, including SDD zoning,
It should clco bc mentioned thst, go fu as we iue awsrc, there has not bcen district
court revicw ofa rczoning in this counly since the Conder docision. Prior to that decisior\ it
might have been argued that an SDD zone district, because it cstabliehes rpecial rules for thrt
zone district. mry override master plan requirements. However, in Conder (he court affrmcd
Larimcr County'r dcnial of an application for a PUD cubdivision baaed upon thc subdivision's
creation of densiry in conflict with the county master plan, even though (as thc court enrphasized)
the propored usc of the land was in compliancc with tho county's zoning resolution, It must
thereforc bc concluded that. ifthc entirely ofths Larimer County zoning resolution could not
have thc effcct of overriding thc county mssler plan, PUD or SDD zoning could not have thot
effcct.
We also recognize that zoning is a mattsr of local and municipal concern; that the
Town's zoning ruthority is govcmed by its own chartcr and ordinances, Zawla v. City & County
of Denver.lsg P.2d 664 (Colo. lgtt). Servjce Oil Co. v. Rhdus,500 P.zd E07 (Colo. 1972)l
and that lhe cases cited in this letter address county msster plans, However, the gggg! ofzoning
authoriry is contsined in stature, $ I t-23-101, C.R.S., and that authority is conditioncd upon the
adoptionofamasterplanby$ll-21-103.C.R.S. Funhef,the$tahrtorypurpose$governingthe
adoption of a municipal master plrn, |i I | -23-207, C.R.S., track with thosc govorning the
tdoption of a county master plan, $ l0-2E- t07, C.R.S., and both counties and munioipalities are
required to find master plrn compliance rs a condition to approvel of r PUD, $ 24-67-104(IXf)'
C.R.S., absent r ruperseding ordinancc of the municipality. ' Vril's ordinance in fact ir concittcnt
with thct statutc. Finally, the discussion contained in the county cases cited are a discussion of
general principles of tand use taw. tt is lhercfore our conclusion that your commission must givc
litorsl offcct to thc Vail Village Marter Plen, including in particular the height lirnitationo
conteined in it. in considering the rpplicrtion for the Project.
Ofcourse. the Town's masler plans mry be amended. but that process should only
be initirtcd by the Town council. Pursuant ro $ 31.27-207, C.R.S., "crreftl and comprehensivc
surveys and studies of present conditiona end future growth" are required. lnitiarion of that
prooess. we bclicve. ought not bc motivaled by a single application.
Ir is our undcrstanding that the applicant believes that the economic benefit ofits
project to the community. including hotel sccommodations end confercnce space, outweigh the
imponance of magter plan compliance. ln thrt connectiorl it is well to bear in mind thc purposcs
of the Town's zoning regulatiofi as they rre tet fonh in $ l2-l-2, V{l Municipal Code:
"thesc rcgulations arc enactcd for the purpose of promoting the health, safety,
morals, and gcneral welfarc of the Town, and to Promote the soordinated and
harmoniour developmcnt of thc Town in a mlnner that will con3erve ud enlrrnce
its naturat environmcnt rnd its estebliched character as a regort and residentid
community of high quality."
Jt.r\l lJl r'tllVl\i\LtJ
Thrt purposg wc suggcat. is intendcd to prcscrvc the charactcr ofthe town and not to promote
economic dcvelopment.
We nced not remind you thot members of the public, including our dicnts, hevo
rclied on thc Town's land use regulations. Our clients were told, whcn thry purchased units at
Gatewry Plaza. thrt lhey would continue to have unobstructed views, urd they made major
investmcnts bascd upon that information. lf thosc views are obstructed, thcir investments will be
significantly devrlucd. Our clients under$tsnd that the Town's zoning was not cnacted to protect
their personal view corridors. However, because they are adjacenr landowncrg and becausc the
value oftheir property may be rffected by your rccommendation lo council, they have standing
bcforc you.
Seaion l2-3-1. Vail Municipal Code, provides for edministrrtive determination or
interpretation ofthe provirions ofthe zoning ordinence and for review ofsuch determination or
intapretstion by your commission. We urgc you to request an interprctation of $ l2-9A-8(D),
Vail Municipal Code, and r determination that thrt provision requires that the application bcfore
you rtrictly comply with the building height limitations ofthe Vail Village Mrster Plon.
In meking thil rcqucr1 wc do not wish to minimizc other aspec$ of thc Projcct
which would requirc that on the merits your commission mske a recommeodation of denirl of the
applicstion. The imprct of thc Projed on Frontage Road is difficult even to imsginc. Trrffic flow
(hrough the roundrbout intcrsection and along Frontage Road would be increased very
substrntially, with thc attcndant noise and pollution caused by vchiculsr trrffic. Without En
impacr analysis. it is impossible to sty what thc cffect of thc Projcct would be on lwcl of scrvice
at the Main Vail Roundabout. That impact is aggrrvoted by the abrurce of pedectrian access
from thc villoge core. Funhcr, thc rcfoorsing of activity on Frontage Road, togother with the
overall height and mass of the Project, would havo a fundamental, potantially dwaslating effect
on the feeling and charactcr ofVail.
We intend to press thore irsues at dme of hearing on the applicstior\ if that stagc
is rerched. We aguin urge that an initial determination be msde thst the Project mu$ comply with
the Vail Village Mastcr Plan. That dctermination, for obvious rersons, would serve to focts
considerstion of the application.
Yours very truly,
D|F{N, ADPLAI{ALP & CHRISTENSEN. P.C.ttr ,,. ,tttl,l4i. / t/1/\-
lot/n W. P,,-
IWD:ipre
cc. Mr. Lipcon
Mr. Johnston
Charles R. Lipcon letters and email to and from the
Town of Vail
.,
Subj: Re: Vlllage Inn SDD
Date: 1/6/99 E:46:53 AM Mountain Stadard'Iime
From: gruths@ci.t/ail.co.us (George Ruther)
To: Sealavr@aol.com
CC: lex@ldl.net (John tum)
Dear Chuck,
I hap recdred your emd I request.
Gr,en my extreme workl€d this rrreek in peparing for Monday's meeting, I am urable
to pr.rll and organize all of the information you requested at this time. Please
feel vrdcomed to stop by our offce and the Tom Clerk's ofice to r€\ievv and get
corjes of the inbrnration you requested. You lti ll be able to reilewthe
inficnnation at yow ldsure.
Agdn, I apologize for rpt bdnS aHe to pull and orgarize all the inbrmation yo.t
rcquested.
S eala,r@aol. com wote:
> Dear George
> | tried to contact ycu Tuesday to obtdn the SDD approral and plans from 1976.
> Please make swe they are ready for riar{rq andor copying on Wednesday. I
> need that infornntion to complete my objectim letter.
> | dso need to see the ficllorling, all of wtrich apply to the Vail Village lnn:
> Ortrnance rp. 7, series 1976 establishing SDD no. 6, Vdl Mllage Inn.
> Ordirnnace no. 1 sedes 1985
> Ordinance no. '14, sedes 1S7
> Odinance no. 9, sedes 1991
> Ordinarce no. 2, series 1992
> Ordinance no. 24, ssies 1S8.
> Thanks
> Chuck Upcm
Hedes
Ret/r*Path: <gruther@i.ril.co.tts>
Recdred: trom rly-zd@.mx.ml.com (rly-zdo2.mdl.ad.conr [172.31.33.26D W air-zdO1.mdl.ad.com (!55.5) Y\ith SMTP;
Wed, 06 Jan 1999 10:46:53-O5O
Receiwd: from ci.€ l. co. r.rs (tov. vdl. net [206. 1 6E. 52. 5l )
by rly-zd@.mx.ad.com (E.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-.4.0.0)
v{th ESMTP id MA18372 for <Seelavr@ml.com>;
W.&-&v.lt||&A.lr &rtL.OGIItEl-le P.d.! I
rt| '.
Subj: Re: Village Inn
Date: 1/6/99 E:3E:45 AM Mouniain Stardard Time
From: gruther@ci.\€il.co.us (George Ruther)
To: S ealat@aol. com
DeoChwk,
I recdl making ttro copies of the rievv analysis; one for you ard one fcr Ster,e.
To refresh your memory, the iew analysis is the photographs shotting the beicre
and afier situation. l,,lo urban design analysis t/tas comdeted for the project'
Sincerely,
Georye Rrther, AIC'P
Serior Plrner
S edar@ad. com \Mote:
> Dear George
> | rerieraed the .fune 2, 1W metrpcrdum in wtrich the std foutd that a riew
> coridor analysis and urben design arnlysis vrctlld be useful.
> Were dther of these rc{ded Wth respect the the Vail Mllage Inn
> applicaUon. lf so, I vrculd like to see co$es. Th6e \ ere nct prorided to me
> at crur meeting on Jan. 4, 1999.
> Very Trully Youts,
> Charles R. U pcm
Heedets
ReturnPath: <gMher@ci.uil.co.us>
Rceircd: from rly-zdo2.mx.aol.com (rly-zdO2.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.2611bV air-zdO1.ntil.ml.com (v55.5)with SMTP;
Wed. 06 Jan 1999 't0:38:45 45@
Receired: fom ci. ri l. co. rs (tov. vdl. net 1206. 1 68. 52. 5l )
by rly-zdo2. mx.aol.com (8.6.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0. 0)
vtith ESMIP id KAA17149 br <Sedat@d.corp;
We{ 6 Jan 1S 1O36:44 {500 (EST)
Redwd: by ci.vdl.co.trs forn localhct
(router,SlMdl V2.6); Wed, 06 &n 1999 08:36:12 {700
Recdrad: by ci.ril.co.us forn ci.ril.co.tts
(152.16.1.n5::mdl daemon; unlerilied,SLMdl V2.6); Wed,06&n 199908:36:114700
MeesagelD: <3€981 CA.S053A82@ci.tail.co.rc>
Dste: Wed. OO Jan 1999 OE:31.'2 47ffi
From:'George Ruthe/' <grutha@ci.\dl.co.us>
XJrrldler: Mozilla 4.(F [enl (Wn$; l)
MIME-VerBim:1.0
To: Salaw@ad.com
Subject: Re: Village Inn
Reftrerpes: <d$3f€24.3ffi0bec@ad.com>
Omtent-Type: texUfl a'n; charset=ts-acii
W.dEd.t .J.n|'v[- !5 &r-L. Onlhi.! !-ld p.d.l t
Wsd. 6 &n 1S9 1O4€:,19 {500 (EST)
Recdrcd: by ci.uil.co.tts forn locdhct
(rcuter,SLMtll V2.6); Wed, 06.hn 1999 08:44:18 {7fi)
Recdr,ed: by cl.ril.co. t ts frorn ci.ril. co. tts
(152.1e€.1.?,,5,::mdl daenrqr; un€dfed,SLMeil V2.6); Wed, 06Jan 19S908:'4:'17 470r)
Mess4elD: <3690E380.8A92CA60@ci.til.co.w>
Date: Wed, OO &n 19S m:39:28 4700
From:'George Ruthe/' <gnnher@ci.vdl.co.us>
)Glvtdler: Mozilla 4.05 [enl (WrS; l)
MIME-Vcsim:1.0
To: Sedat@d.com
GC: John Drnn <lex@rCl.netr
Sutiect Re Mllage lm SDD
ReGrerces: <4cc8@a.3ffXhb3@aol.corn>
Content-Type: to<Uddn; charset=tts-ccii
Oontent-Transtsr€rrodng: ftit
W.dr!-drv.&nr-ttr. 1116. Onftnc Arb, t -! 2
TOWN OFVAIL
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorad.o 81657
970-479-2 r 38
FAX 970-479-2452
January 4, 1999
Charles R. Lipcon
Vail Gateway Unit #5
12 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Fax: 970476-8681
Dear Chuck,
I am in receipt of your lettcr dated January 2, 1999.
Adjacent property owner notification for the proposed redevclopment of the VVI will continue to be sent to
Stoltz Bros. Ltd., pursuant to our regulations.
The Town of Vail is unable to accept any notification obligation outside the parameters ofour regulations.
I anticipate your continued participation in thc dcvclopment process of thc rcdevclopment of thc VVI
property.
Sincerely,
tP1 -)lJr^^+'<v-*)vA
George Ruther, AICP
Senior Planner
Town r-rf Vail
Xc: R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Attomey
Russell Fonest, Cornmunity Development Director
John Dtnn
Jay Peterson
{g *rn""ro r^"",
CHARIES R. I,IPCON
vail cateway Unit 5
L2 S. Frontage RoadVail, Co. 81657
Te1. (9?0) 476-9388
Fax. (970) 476-868L
.Tanuary 2,1999
George Ruther
Town of Vail
Fax:479-2452
Re: Village Inn
Dear Mr.Ruther:
Thank you for your letter dated Dec. 30, 1998.
Sending a notice to Stoltz Management is not adequate notice for me or the other residential oumers
in the Vail Gateway with respect to any matters involving the Village Inn.
Please se,nd notices directly to me at the above address and at my Miami address which is 430 N.
Mashta Drive, Key Biscalme, Fl. 33131.
P.S. Please grve me your email address.
cc: John Dun
VeryTnrlyYourqZ"-'
Chsrles R Lipcon
TOWN OFVIN
Departnant of Community Devclopment
75 South Fmntage Road
Vail. Colordo E1657
970-479-2138
FAX 97o'489e&6i] 30. rws
Chatles R. Lipcon
veil Cralcqay Unit ts
12 South Frontage Road
vril,ColoradoEl65T Far:970476'E681
Rc; Vitlage lrm
Dear Chuck.
I lrave received your lenen of Deccmbcr 25o . 1998 with rcgard n the Village Inn. The pupose ot this lencr is
to povide pu with a rcsponse to the questiolE J'ou raised io your lenen'
Pusuant ro rhe TOvyn of Vail Municipal Co<le a jacCnt propeny owner notitication uras scrU to rhc Gateway
Condominium Association cJo Soitz'Bros., Ltd in Wilmiagon' Dclaware' It shr be r}rc rcsPonsibility of tn
,""*si;i ,1.*
"ryour
associatioo to disscminate informaiion to association memben. All fuiurc public notiocs
fo, a,:-"ct-opirenr X6posals on prcpe;11cr rdj8cent to 15e Cateway Building will bc scnt o Stoltz &os-' Ltd'
Asyouarelwaftfiornouprodorsrclcphoneco./e$adotls,0|cTo'nofvailPlanning&Envimnmerual
Comrnission will botd a public hearing on the firnl revicw of drc goposed Vail Plaza Horel on Monday' Ianuary
iid "i
z:lo prn in o. io*n Councit dumbcrs Substquent public lrearin5 wift $e vltJ,ro_a,Courcil or anv
other Tovn Board r" y* to U. aonf,r*.a. Olce confiI;o4 all r4uired norification will bc S.nt ro thc Gat$r'ay
Condominium Associatiou-
Thc propo53l to arncnd rhe public Accofiunodadon Zonc Disrrict developmcnt $aodards.is-scheduled for q joint
workseision *itr rhe phnning & linvironmentat C.rnmission an<l the Vail Town Council for Tric'sday' JaNary
ilt.-,lfiji-. ir,e rown C"ouncit Chamb*s. Thc pwposc of rhis mcaing is lo proride the applicant rvith
policy direction ftom dre Council and the Commission'
Accotding (o Schedule A of ft? titlc rLpon submitted with-thc developmenr aPptjt?tt"." fi1 T!^Y..til
Pleza Hotcl'
the owncr of record of rhe propcl'ty'inqocsrion is Daymcr Corporalion, N.v., i Ncthertands Aruillcs' Ctnpradon
*i l waor n. pnao as rtre Managing'Director. Jay'K Pctcrson has bcen assigned powcr of anomey lo act on
t"n rr ortrt. .orp-rtion. This infJrrJtion is pubtic record and is aveilsblc for ]'ort nview. Should pu wish to
rcview dre Town's file. pleasc rlo not hesioe'o call and we $'ill arsogp a mutually convenient dmc fd you to
rcview thc informa tion,
I anricipare ud look foruad to your coilinucd participation in $c developmenr proc€ss of he Vail Plaza Holel'
Sincerely,
fL*R,.**'..t
Gorgc Rutlt6r. AICP
Scnior Planner
Town of Vail
Xc: R, Tho,nras Moorhel4 Town Anomey
RrnfttE,, FAPTR
'.I-Jnc-n ?o-tto3-AOl., HOAI eE,II Ct€;-Oe-O3O7.ql'7-R) IrO,, B: al I
€!
CIIARIES R. LIPCON
vail Gateway ltnit 5
12 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Co. 81657
Te]. (970) 476-9388
Fax. (970) 476-868L
Decenber 25,1998
George Ruther
Town of Vail
Eaxz 479-2452
Re: ViLlage Inn
Dear Mr.Ruther:
This is to confi::n that we spoke a few days ago wtren I informed you
that f did not receive written notice from the Town of Vail about
the Dec. 28, L998 PEC meeting. It is important that I get notice of
these meetings since my condorainium is adjacent to the Village Inn
pIoperEy.
The notices should go to me at the above address and to my office
at One Biscalme Tower, Suite 2480 Miani, Florida 3313L.
You informed. me that the meeting was off in December for the
Village fnn and also the proposal to arnend the Town's PtLblic
Accommodations Zone District.
The proposal to arnend the Public Accommodations would also effect
me since I am next to several hotels. I want to be notified in
writing about these neetings also-
Please confirm in writing to rne the next meetings set up for the
village Inn and for the Public Accommodations in January, L999. I
need the time and location also.
Very Truly Yours,
-2/'zz4l>\-/ | o-
Charles R. Lipcon
cc: John Dunn
CHARLES R. LIPCON
Vail Gateway Unit 5
l-2 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Co. 81657
Tel ?0) 476-9388
Fax. (970) 476-868L
Decenber 25'L998
George Ruther
Town of VaiI
Eaxz 479-2452
Re: Village Inn
Dear Mr.Ruther:
Please confirm the true ownership of the ViIIage Inn property and
that Mr. Prado has the authority to act on their behalf.
Mr. Prad,o tras represented that he is the owner and as such I would
like to see some proof of that in writing since the corporation is
a foreign Netherlands Antilles Corporation.
Very Truly Yours,
e/L/(4Charles R. lipcon
l\CL 7@Flv DQr't"/
TOWN OFVAIL
Ofice of the Tbwn Attorney
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2 I 07/Fax 970-479-2 I 5 7
Charles R. Lipcon, Esquire
One Biscayne Tower
2 South Biscayne Blvd-
Miami, FL 33131
Dear Mr. Lipcon:
I am writing to acknowledge receipt ofyour correspondence ofApril 17,lgg8. I assure you that
the project will be submitted to the review as required by the Vail Town Code. The planning &
Environmental Commission, the Design Review Board, and the Vail Town Council will consider
the application and objections thereto consistent with the Town Code.
We anticipate and look forward to your participation in this public process.
Very truly yours,
TOWN OF VAIL
--/ "'. t, ii..j, . t i\ f\ t Jf \J t)tt ,. tv- t-,'-,.?'!
R. Thomas Moorhea<i
Town Attomey
RWIWaw
xc: John W. Durn, Esquire
Jay Peterson, Esquire
George Ruther r..--
April 29, 1998
{p *i"nuor^o*
RE-ivE0APRZ0gg
cHARLES n.-Lrpcox
Anorney At Law
Suite 2490
One Biscayne Tower
2 South. Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, Florida 33131
Email: sealaw@aol.com
Web: www.lipcon.com
Phonq (30j) 323_3016
Toll free: (S00) 83S_2759
. Fax: (305) 373_6204
April 17, i998
R. Thomas Moorhead, Esq.Town At.t.ornev
Town of Vail'75-South Frontage RoadVai1, CO 81657
RE: Vail plaza Hot,eL
Dear Mr. Moorhead:
My wife and I own Unit sa_V.ail caEeway plaza. f wiLl beopposing the vair. praza lr"i"i projecE becaus'e of its impact, o/rGateway plaza in general and o" *y rie* i." pa.Ecurar. My wi.fe andr have spenc miiions of--aJriais in ,eriT'.e -on rhe presenr,Iyapproved prans for r,he vail vii.g" i""-";;"ii. *u".er pran. Any?il:i:i:l t:l::, :Fi":"
-;h"'-6.t'"uv will r'".,. a subsranriai
ft is mv undersEstgltq t,hat Ehe _application for approval ofthe project ias been filea"ry-o"v r. peterson oi, p"rr.rr of Dal.mercoqporar ion, N. V .,. d u" rrrEir"'"a!-irrc i r r "; ;;;;; r_o,' . Accordins .odocumenEs fired -irh th;-i;;;I"*-r,
.
pererson -i" i-c".rg pursuanr. ro:J3ffi ;t.t?"J,:jJr3,,'l"."ouv'warai.rn.-t';;;s*manasi-ngoi;"eo,
you are probably unaware that Mr. pecerson is simultaneouslyrepresenting stortz M_anageme"t "t. g"la*e-r-1"-ir;. ,'nov, Lhe owner ofarr conunercial condominium - ,r.ric" at 6.t"*ay pLaza. SLoIt,zManagement'' as c-ontrolli"s-;L"rbir o_f the eareway associarion, hastaken t'he position that the orrr.." associatioi is unwilring tosupporr' the reeidenE,iar ornur"-.rra en" "o"i*l?"l!i Lenants in theiropposition to 11.._fryr-:.flp".i"ps even on Ehe advice of Mr.Peterson. rn mv opinion-Mr.-pet.erson has a conflict. of int,eres. andshould noc appla. .!ero."-iit. pi!-""rng and environment,al comrnissionor the town council as ct"-iJJ."lentative of Daymer corporaEion.
,.' ,"
I also wish to expreas my concern as to principals of Daymer
. Corporation. Ownership of a project of Ehis scope by an offshore
corporaEion is unusual . It. is my understanding t.hat waldir Prado
has an inE,erest in rhe corporaE,ion, but' no real or fu1l disclosureof ownershj.p has been made. I believe chat iE. should be made aspart, of the applicaEion process so Ehat the Town and all thoseinvolved in the review process will know which entities are reallybehind Ehe project. This information is needed tro ascertainconflicts of interesE. Please require Daymer Lo reveal their Erue
ownership.
If you have any questsions, please call me.
Charles R. tipcon
cc: John Dunn
.fay PeEerson
Very Tru1y Yours,
TOWN OF VAIL
D epart me nt of Communiry D evelopme nt
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2138
FAX 970-479-2452
January22, 1998
Charles R. Lipcon
Suite 2480
Onc Biscayne Tower
2 South Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, Florida 3313 I
Re: Vail Gateway/ Vbil Village Inn
Dear Mr. Lipcon: I
I am responding to conespondencc from you to Susan Connelly, Director of Community Development, dated
January 20,. 1998, At this time, the Town has not received any plans or application(s) from the Vail Village Inn, for the
redevelopment of thcir property.
Pleasc notc tlat the records of the Town of Vail Community Dcvelopment Departmcnt are open records qnd available
for your inspcction, subject to rcasonablc regulations. Additionally, the Public (Open) Records section of the Colorado
Revised Statute is located at 24-72-l0l et seq. .
The Town of Vail ordinanccs provide requirements lor notification of adjaccnt property owners, as wcll as public notice
in particular gircumstances. I can assure you that the Town staff is vigilant in assuring that adjacent property owners and
the public receive lhe notice required by law. We cannot, however, comnrit to providing notice 0rat is not legally
required.
If and when an application is submittcd by the Vail Viltage Inn, it will bc assigned to a planning staff member of the
Community Development Department and that individual would then be the appropriate person to contaot. Prior to an
application being submitted, the Community Dcvclopment Department has a staff member available on a daily basis
1]qathlcen Dorram, (970) 47 9-2125) whom you can contact periodically to determine if any application has been filed'
Sinccrely,
MikeMollica
Assistant Director of Community Development
x": Kathleen Dorram
F:IEVERYONEWIKE\LETTERS\LIPCON. 1 I 2
{p*"-*or^"o
,
JfT'l-2U-1998 1,5:Ul. LFI]RLI.D R. L lf'Lul\ r.oL
Janrury 20,1998
susan ConneLJ.y
Planning DirecEor
Town of VailVail, Colorado
Fax: 1- 970 -479-2452
Re: vail- Village Inn
Dear Ms. Connelly:
I am a unit owner aE, the Vail Gateway. In addltion I am on che
board of directors for Ehe association-
The VaiJ- Gat,eway opposes any development at ttre vaiJ. vlllage Innproperty which would violace the rnastser plan, which would adrrerselyaffecu the view6 from Ehe resi(lenceE and tchicb would not. coordinat,e
wiBh respect, to pedestrian Eraffic.
Please iuunediacely let me kno$ if any plans are su.bmiEued qr
discuss€d wiEh the Town of Vail with resBecE Lo the vail VillageInn properEy. AIso I woul(l like Eo have t,he schedule of meegings
and hearings at which such plans would be discussed.
If you hawe 4ny que6tion6, please call me.
Very fruly Yo|JrFr
2f 'Oh rt '{|-/vl, rC 4-1Charles R. Lipcon. cc; Norman Eelwig, Esq.fax: L-970-845-8817
CIIARLES R. LIPCON
Attorney At Law
Suitc 2480
One Biscayne Tower
2 Sourh Biscayrrc Blvd-
Miami, Florida 33131
Email: sealaw@aol-com
Web: www.lipcon.oom
Phonc: (305) 1713016
Toll free: (800) 83E-2759
Fax: (305) Y3-62U
TOTfl- P.A1
John Breyo Jan. 5, 1999 J.etter to ttre Town of VaiI
JOHN BREYO
Vail Gateway Unit 3
12 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Co. 81657
January 5,1999
George Ruther
Senior Planner
Tovm of Vail
Fxx:479-2452
Re: Vail Village Inn
Dear Mr. Ruther:
This is to confirm the following:
1. I am the oramer of Unit 3 in the Vail Gateway. It is directly adjaoent to the Village Inn Hotel.
2. I hsve not received writtsn notice from the Toum of Vail nor from Stoltz Management about the
Village Inn proposal or about any Plenning and Environmental Commission meetings. I object to any
meetings without proper and actual written notice.
3. I purchased my unit relying in part on the existing master plan and existing SDD approval.
4. I object to the Village Inn violating the master plan, ttre SDD approval, and blocking the view
corridor towards Gold Peak.
Very Truly Yours,
WhrBr ga,-
John Breyo \J
PJ.aintiff's Original Petition against Dayaner
Corporatj.on N.V.
Aura--2la-!l.t/ I O. <lo Fl?oM,
l,.J
C. T. BECK]HAM
PI"Ttiff,
v3.
DAYMER CORPORATION N. Y.
Dcfendant.
1'O TEE EONORABLE JT]DGE Of,' SAII} COURI:
COMF.S NOW C. T. Beckham, plaintitr herein, and
Daymer Corporation N. V.. and for causes of action would
following:
INTHE DISTRIgf COURT
DAI"LA,S COUNTY, TEXAS
_JUDTCIAL DISTRICT
B-44thC@PYekavf/6
ID:tl4Egtt€t<ltE|
L*.
PACE 2./7' / | L{r./wl ct'L.'"
$
s
$
s
s
$
$
$
$
bnngs. t.Hf hrffi comffi ining'6fi==
respod'utly show th€out the_< ci,
I.
pA.RTIES, Vn'NIIr: lr{ri rurtfsirtCrf(OrV
1. Plaintiff C. T. Beckharn peckhaa,,] is
Tcrcas.
atr individual who resides rn Dsllas Couuty,
z.Defsndant Daymer corpo'tior N, v. [*Daymer'] is a Netherland Antillcs corporation
which may @ serving its registered agent, Rogcr D. Moeller, with scrvjcc
3' Verrue is proper iu Dallas County, pursua$tto Section 15.001 of the To(Es Civil practice
aqrd Rernedies code,
"s all or part of the cause of agtion sccruod hereia. Frrrther, the jurisdiction
of this court is invoked rurder tho Declaratory Judgmart AcL
Pagc 1
ofproces.s atthe rcgistered office at7gT)Cf"nn
08/20/97 09:3?'rxlRx NO. 1?3 I P.002 I
G ate way Plaza Building
EddlcSit Cooditiols !d ndd Si|
|lra.0 a.rrol
rlrE { t.rtrl
4l!l{ t.rE.'
mated average grade. In the approval for
the Sonnenalp Austria Haus develooers
were requiretl to remove a floor froin their
proposal in order to conformed the heieht
guideline of the Vail Village Master Plan.
EVFIA is concerned with the fair,
equal and consistent treatrnent among
prope4y owners in the same or adjacEnt
zone districts. The Association obiects to
SDD's because thev are inconsiste-ntlv
applied and grant sirecial privileges not
generally available to all property owners
rn the same or similar zone districts.
The extentiveness of the apparent
differences between approved SDD #6
development standardS-and the Vail Plaza
Hotel propos"! creates the potential for
precedents to be established that could
open the way for similar sized develop-
ment on adjacent hotel properties. Tha
environmental, economic. infrastructure
and social impacts upon Vail Villase and
the adjacent rieighboihoods from tf,e
magnitude of this type of development
has not been address-ed in the Toin of
Vail's master planning documents. A
master planning analysis, similar to rhat
being undertaken for the Lionshead area,
should be conducted of this proposal and
the surrounding area prior td miking any
final decision. i
13
NHAWc Popcr SDDI
Copies of documents from the Vai1 Gateway SDD protrrosal
fi].e of the Town of Vail.
A. Feb. L6, 1998 letter from Riok Py,].manB. Feb. 22, 1998 Conmunity Development meno.C. VaiJ- Gateway View Profile.
D. Revised Encroachnrent of Vail GatewayE. Peter Jarnar letter dated March 24, 1998
a
a
a
a
I
75 soulh tronlage road
Yail. colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
February 16, 1988
Mr. Peter Jamar
LO8 South Frontage RoadVail , Colorado BL6S7
Re: Gateway
Dear Peter:
The foLlowing are concerns andwith regard to the Vail cateway
olllce ol communlty developmenl
issues identified by the staff
SDD proposal .
l-- rf ccr zoning is to be used as the underrying zoning forthis-project, ttren the horizontal restrictiois of thepennitted and conditl-onal uses as stated in the ccr zonedistrict shalr.apply to this project. rnis wourd requirea bank to obtain a conditional uie perrnit.
2.The proposed. uses as outlined in the development planrequire approxinately lo4 parking spaces cornpared toexisting Town of Vail standards. - tire aeveropm-ni proposarshows 75 underground parking spaces and a polsible 3 to 4surface spaces. The staff position at thii tirne is thatparking for this project must meet the requir"*"ri= p".the Town of Vail nunicipal code.
With,regard to the surface_parking spaces, CommunityDevelopment Departrnent feers they-arE not appropriate asdesigned and that. surface parkin| may not ri- appropriateat all on this site. rf you would r-ike to prrr^rir- surfaceparking,
_ it rnust be redesigned where it is l"rnfiut"fy onthe applicantrs property and does not conflict'withc]-rcuLat,ion patterns.
staff feels strongly that ttris building should present noencroachrnent into the view corridor th;t is estiuiisned bythe.approved vair Village rnn developrnent. trre existing '
design wil-1 require substantial reviiion= to-maintain ttreview pararneters established by the WI .
3.
We feel t^rat the east and west ridges are both too high,and believe that the ridge heights should be driven tf tnevlew considerations as well as their relation to the eaveline of the approved Vail Village Inn project thatsurrounds this development. Relationship of the ridgelines of the_cateway Lo the eave lines oi the vaii viifag"Inn project is irnportant in maintaining the consid,eratioiof stepping up fron the corner to the Vail Viltage Innproj ect.
With regard to building shape and forrn, we feel that theridge areas, particularly the eastern ridge form should besimplified into a single gable with dormers. This wouldstrengthen consistency with the Urban Design Guide plan.
The flat roof form is also an issue that needs to beaddressed in context with the Urban Design Guid.e plan.
4. I{e feel that the driveway width should be increased toaccornrnodate a pedestrian walkway or that the pedestrianentrance on tbe south side should be relocated closer toto Vail Road.
5. I{ith regard to setbacks, we feel strongly that the northside of the building should naintain a-Zb foot setbackfron the property line. This would keep it in line withthe plane of the approved Vail Village Inn building. Withregard to the setback on the east side of the property, lrewould encourage the architects to investigate iariyin|'trrefirst floor further to the property line fo encourage apossible architectural connection witn tne Vail viliageInn project. This would elininate any a1ley way, andwould alro'the project to maintain enough squaie footageto pul1 the north side of the buildj.ng back. -
6. we feel that it.wil] be important, that this project andthe approved Vail Village Inn project, when Uuiit, have astrong pedestrian connection. we recognize the need forthe developer of the WI project to relate his project to,. the_Vail Gateway. We do want to ensure, howevei, Lnat tnedesign of the Gateway arlows this pedestrian connection tooccur.
As you can see, the staff has substantial concerns with thecurrent proposar. lile feel that the concept is sound and wouldlike to work with you toward refinement and resolution of someof these issues. rt is our recommendation that the formarhearing date of February 22 be postponed in order- to arrowfuther cornmunications on this piojelt. rf you wish to noveforward on February z2nd, we w11l-not be abie to support theproject as proposed.
Sincerely,
-\il,/ t./, I(rcf f'{tvu,\t\\Rick pylrnan
Town Planner
RP:br
To: Planning and Environmental Conmission
FROM: Community Developnent Departnent
DATE: February 22, 1988
SUBJECT: Reguest to rezone a part of Lot N, and a portion ofLot O, Block 5D, Vail Village lst Filing frorn HeavyService District to Special Development District withunderlying Conmercial Core I zone district.Applicant: Palmer DeveLopment Company
I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
This rezoning request has been proposed in order tofacilitate the redevelopment of the existing Amoco ServiceStation on the southeast corner of the a-way intersectionin Vail Village. At the present time the Amoco Station iszoned Heavy Service District. The Heavy Service Districtuses consist of industrial and service businesses. Theexisting Amoco station consists of 8 gasoline punps and asnall one-story building containing 4 service repiir baysand a car wash. The size of this site is approxirnately24,L54 square feet.
The proposed Vail Gateway project is a mixed usedevelopment containing retail , office, commercial andresidential uses, with a rnajority of the parking beingprovj.ded in an underground structure.
section l-8.40.010 of the vai] Municipal code describes thepurpose of Special Development Districts. It reads asfollows:
I'The purpose of special development districts is toencourage flexibility in the development of land inorder to prornote its most appropriate use,. to irnprovethe design, character and quality of new developlnent;to facilitate the adeguate and economic provision ofstreets and utilities; and to preserve the naturaLand scenic features of open areas.rl
The special Development District chapter in the MunicipatCode goes on to state that:
[The uses in a Special Development District must beuses rpemitted by right, conditional uses, oraccessory uses in the zone district in which theSpecial Development District is located. rl
fn order to meet these requirements of the SpecialDevelopment District chapter, the applicant has appLied torezone this property frorn Heavy service District t6Conmercial Core I and simultaneously apply for Special
Development District No. 21. This memorandum will addressthe rezoning of the property from Heavy Service to
Cornmercial Core I, as lrell as the application of Special
Development District to this parcel with Cornmercial core Ias the underlying zone district.
A sunmary of the
A. Floor Area:
Retail:
proposed developrnent is as follows:
11,2O0 sf
3,900 sf
4r900 sf
1-2r000 sf , L3 du
Building heights of the east and west rid.ges ascalculated by the standard Town of VaiI rnethod areapproxirnately 62 and 57 feet respectively. The peakridge heights are 57 and 52 feet above the elevali"onof the 4-way intersection.
Site Coveraqe:
L4,357 sf, 5Ot
Parkinq
75 covered spaces3 surface spaces
B.
Retail/Cornnercial:
office:
Residential:
Buildinq Heiqhts:
c.
D.
E. Proposed Uses
uies.as proposed are to be those uses specifiedwithin the Commercial Core I zone distrl_ct.
f. Agcess:
Vehicular access to the underground parking wouldtake place off of Vail Road on the southwest cornerof the site. .A comprehensive traffic analysis isincluded within the developnent plan.
fn order to evaluate this proposal , we nust first evaluatethe request to amend the zoning from Heavy Service toConmercial Core I. The Heavy Service pislrict as it isdefined,in its purpose section in the zoning code isintended to provide sites for automotive oriented uses andfor conmercial service uses whicb are not appropriate inother commercial districts. Because of the nature of the
uses permitted and their operati-ng characteristics,
appearance and potential for generating traffic, aII ofthe uses in this district are subject to conditional useperrnit procedure. Some of the uses allowed as conditionaluses within the Heavy Service zone district include animalhospitals and kennels, autonotive service stations,building rnaterial supply stores, business offices,corporation yards, rnachine shops, repair garages, tiresales and service, and trucki-ng terminals.
The Heavy Service pistrict does require 2O foot setbacks
frorn aII property lines, al-lows a 38 foot building height,
75? site coverage, and requires a minimum of 10* landscapecoverage. Density standards are not appllcable to the
Heavy Service District, as no residential type use islisted as a permitted or conditional use in the HeavyService District.
The Comnercial Core I zone district atlows a variety ofretaj-l , connercial and residentj-aI uses, all of which arecontrolled as perrnitted or conditional uses on ahorizontal zoning basis.
The proposed change from HS to CCI entails a major changein the allowable uses for this parcel of 1and. A completeanalysis of the merits of this zone amendment is addressedin another section of this mernorandum.
II. CRITERIA TO BE USED TN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL
There are a number of criteria to be evaluated whenreviewing a request of this nature. The first set ofcriteria to be utilized will be the three criteriainvolved in an evaLuation of a request for zone change.The second set of criteria to be used in review of thisproposal will be the 9 development standards as set forthin the Special Developrnent District chapter of the ZoningCode. Tbe third set of criteria will be a generalcomparison of the proposed project to the Uiban DesignGuide Plan, as stipulated in the CCf zone district.
Also, the Land Use Plan should be utilized as a guidelinein any request to change zoning. However, becaute thissite is part of the area covered by the Vail VillageMaster Plan/Urban Design euide p1an, the Land Use plan
made no recommendations for this site. The Vail villageMaster Plan, as yet unapproved, recommends no changes inthe land use of this site.
Staff conments incl-ude those of ,Ieff Winston, our urbandesign/landscape consultant.
suitabilit existin
IIT. EVALUATION OF ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM HEAVY SERVICE TO
COMMERCIAL CORE I
The staff feels that the existing gas station is anacceptable use as existing on ttre corner of the 4-naystop. We do recognize, however, that it is one ofthe few uses all-owed in the Heavy Service Districtthat would be an acceptable use in this hiqhlysensitive location. The conditional use reviawprocess wouLd reguire Town of Vail approval for anychange.in use on this site. We have also recognizedfor quite sorne tine that redevelopment of this sitecould allow the opportunity to present a rnorepleasant and appropriate entrance staternent to the
Town of Vail . We generally support the uses proposedat this location.
B.Is the amendment resenti a convenient workablerelatonship with n lan es consistent w thect
A.
The Arnoco site has been called out on the UrbanDesign cuide plan as a speciat study area and hasbeen reviewed previously as a potential portion ofthe Vail Village Inn developrnent project. withconcern over the potential congestion a bank couldcause at this location, we feel that the usesproposed for this piece of ground are generallyconsistent with the surroundings uses.
C. Does lhe rgzoFinq_lprovide for the qrowth of anorderly, viable communitv
I{e feel that development of a gateway project intoVail is a sound concept. This..concept-can providefor-orderly and viable growth within the community ifrevisions to the plan, such as inclusion of a leflturn lane and elinination of parking along Vail Roadare incorporated.
IV. DESTGN STANDARDS IN EVALUATING SDD PROPOSALS
The following are staff comments concerning how thisproposal relates to the design standards as outlined inthe zoning code:
A.A buffer zone shall be rovided in a
Development District t is adiacent toresidential zone trict.e buffer zonemust be kept free of buildinqs or structures and must
sufficient si"ze to adequately separate the proDos
use from the surround ropert ofvisualht and a arraqe, and other cornparable
1 factors.
The proposed developnent is surrounded by commercial
deveJ-oprnent on the south and east sidbs, by Vail Roadon the west side and by the Frontage Road on thenorth side. There is no residential area that thisproject should provide a buffer from. The staff doesfeel stronglyr however, that the north side of tbebuilding should maintain a 20 foot setback from theproperty 1ine. lrle feel that the proposed LO footsetback is inadequate from the Frontage Road. Thereis an existing landscape buffer between the servicestation and the roadhray. This planter, trowever, isentirely located on State Highway right-of-way andneither the applicant nor the Town of Vail controlfuture developrnent on that property. We feel thatthis building should have the ability to provide asufficient buffer frorn the roadway shoul_d thisplanter be elininated.
B.A circulation sten des ed forenerated, t considerat on safeseparaton from I areas, conv ence, accessand exhaust control . private nternal streets
mav be f thev can be us Police aFire De ent vehicles for emerqen oses.Bicvcle fic shou]-d be considered and rovidedwhen the site is to be used for resident aL
Iandscaped, screened or protecled by natural featuresso that adverse effects on the surroundinq areas are
purposes.
As is many of these criteria, this consideration isintended primarily for large scale developrnent. Asit relates to this proposal , the vehiculai access tothe underground parking occurs in the southwesterncorner of the site. There is a comprehensive trafficanalysis that has been subrnitted as part of thedevelopment plan. This traffic analysis states thatthere is a 40 foot stacking distance for cars waitingto turn left into the Gateway project from Vail Road.The Comrnunity Developrnent staff and public titorks feeLthat circulation related to this project wouldbenefit greatly by the design and implementation of a
c
c.
left turn lane on VaiI Road to serve the Vail caterirayproject. this improvement makes sense due to thepredicted daily traffic flow of gt O cars/day into andout of this driveway.
The approved Vail Village Inn project does contain aleft turn lane for their access point a shortdistance down Vail Road from this project. We feelit is important to circulation at the- 4-wayintersection that this left turn lane be rnide a partof the project.
The applicant has also designed into the projectapproxinately three surface parking spacel that fal1partially on the applicantrs property and partiallyon the road right-of-way on Vail Road. The stafffeels that these surface parking spaces are notappropriate as they are designed and that surfaceparking may not be appropriate at al_l on this site.The spaces are too close to the intersection andwould irnpede future road improvements if needed. WefeeL that if the applicant wishes to pursue surfaceparking, it shoul-d be redesigned to be conpletely onthe applicantrs property and in an area where it doesnot conflict with circulation patterns.
Function?} orcen space in terms of: optimumpregervation oF natural featurgJ-lirrcIGliq trees andqrarTlage areas), recreation, views, convenience, andruncEl_on.
The Comnunity Development Departrnent feels stronglythat this building should present no encroachrnentinto the view corridor that is established by theapproved Vail Village Inn developrne,_nt. Duriig thevail village fnn phase'IV approvll piocess, mich time/ -. and effort hras put into naintaining a view corridor' from the 4-way stop. The eventual and approvedbuilding design of the Vail Vitlage Inn plase rVreflects this effort and presents a wide view fromthe 4-way stop. Although the applicant tras notsubnitted to ttre staff a cornplele view analysis, itis apparent frora the infonnalion that we do have thatthe.elisting building will require substantialrevision to rnaintain the view pararneters that areestablished by the WI .
Varigty.in te5ms of housinq tvpe, densities.racrl rE,les ancl open space.
This Special Development District proposal includesL3 dwelling units with GRFA of appioxinately l_2,OOOsquare feet. With CCI as the underlying zoning, theallowable density on this parcel woutd. fe ff units
D.
and approxinately L9,300 square feet of GRFA. Theuse of the units (i.e. rental or cond.ominium) has not
been deternined.
It is difficult, on a site of 24,OOO square feet thatcontains only 13 dwelling units to apply the criteriaof variety of housing tlpe and guality and amount ofopen space. These two criteria are not reallyapplicable to a development of this scale, Theapplicant has attempted to provide some open space bycreating a large setback froro the 4-way intersectionin the fonr of a landscape or sculpture plaza. Stafffeels that this design fonn is very appropriate tothis development.
F
ASto with other criteria,
be rnore relevant to these considerations are feltIarge scale SDD's.
I
-
The applicant has provided pedestrian entrance tothis building on the northwest corner as well as apedestrian entrance centrally located on the southelevation. The pedestrian entrance on the southelevation is located in the center of the building toallow pedestrian traffic to arrive at the building bycoming through both the existing and approved VaiiVillage Inn developrnents. The approved-Vail VillageInn Phase fV d.evelopnent was designed in a manner toscreen vjew and pedestrian access from the existinggas station. We feel that it will be i.mportant theeventual developer of the VaiI Village plasg IVproject arnend certain circulation and desigr;i aspectsof lis project to better relate to the Vait catLwayproj ect.
The staff does feel that pedestrian safety would, begreatly.benefited by providing a pedestrian walkwayfron Vail Road to the building entrance on the southside of the building. The pedestrian access asdesigned conflicts wj.th the vehicular access to theparking structure.
in terms riateness totsite relatio and bulk.
The.Community Developnent Department staff hasserious concerns with the site relationship of theproposed developnent, with the height, and with the
Briy?.gv in termF of the needs o-f individuals,farnilies and neiqhbors.
Pedestfian traffic in teErns of sa@
sollattractiveness.
G.
nassingf of the building. There was much discussionduring the approval process of Phase IV of the VaiLVillage Inn project regarding stepping thosebuildings down toward the 4-hray stop. That concept
was reinforced in the original SDD documents and inplanning studies conpleted by E1don Beck that showproposed building height allowances for the VailVillage Inn area.
The architects have recognized this concept and, to acertain extent. responded. We do. trowever, traveserious concern with the height of both the east and.west ridges. We feel that the height of these ridgespresents an unacceptable encroachment by narrowingthe wide view corridor to a smal-ler iltunnel . rl
Lowering of the ridge heights will accomplish twoobjectives in the development of this site. It wouldreduce or remove any inpact of this building on theview corridor and it would further reinforce theconcept of stepping down toward the corner. In thepresent proposal, there is approximately 5 feetdifference from the ridge heights of the Vail VillageInn and the Gateway projects. We feel there shouldbe a substantial step down frorn the VaiI Village Innridge height to the Vail cateway ridges. This-wouldreinforce previous design considerations as well asthe applicant's o$/n architectural concept.
The staff also has a soncern, as has been previouslystated in this memo, with the relationship of thisbuilding to the Frontage Road. This d,eveloprnent planproposes a L0 foot setback from the front propertyline. While there is an existing planter thatbuffers this site from the Frontage Road, thatplanter is ]ocated entirely on stite Highway right-of-way. fhere are no assurances that can be nade bythe Town of Vail or the applicant that furtherFrontage Road irnprovernents wi]l not irnpact thisplanter. We feel that a 2o foot setback fron thernain road in Vail is the minimum buffer that shouldbe alLowed.
tl .desicrn in entationals, color and texture storaqeIiqhtinq, and Folar blockaqe.
With regard to this proposal , a rnajority of theseissues relate to the Design Review 1evel ofapproval.
I.,andscapiEq of the tot+l sitg in terns of purposes,tvpeF, neinlenance, suitabititvffi
neiqhborhood.
r.
vr.
Staff feels that the design of the plaza entrance onthe northwest corner of this developnent isappropriate and presents a great opportunity for
development of a landscaped plaza, possibly with somesculpture. This plaza area can contribute much
toward the positive irnage of Vail. The plaza as itis designed is very conceptual and further work will
need to take place at the Design Review level .
ZONING'CONSIDERATIONS
A. Uses
The applicant is proposing this SpeciaL DevelopmentDistrict with the underlying zone district of CCI .As required in the Special Developrnent Districtsection of the Vail Municipal Code, the uses in an
SDD must rnatch that of the underlying zone district.In the CcI zone district, permitted and conditionaluses are defined horizontally by building level . Wefeel that utilizing cCI as an underlying zonedistrict reguires the applicant to structure his usesin accordance to the horizontal zoning of CCf. Thiswill require submittal and approval of a conditionaluse permit for the office uses. For the purpose. ofreview of this project, the staff has assumed thatoffice will be an eventual use on ttre 3rd and 4thlevels, and see no negative inpact to these uses.
The total size of this parcel is 24,L54 square feet.Under CCI zoning, this would allow a l-9,323 squarefeet of GRFA and 13 dwelting units. The applicanthas proposed approxinately L2r0OO square feet of GRFAand l-3 dwelling units. The density proposed iswithin allowable density of the zone district. Thestaff does feel , however, that the overall bulk and
rnass of this building results in several najorconcerns of this development proposal . The leve1 ofdensity being requested by the applicant contributesto the nassing of the building, and is thereforereLated to those concerns.
Parkinq
According to standards outlined in the Off-StreetPaiking section of the zoning code, the uses involvedin this proposal will reguire from 89 to 104 parkingspaces, depending upon whether or not a bank isinvoLved and what the size of that facility would. be.The applicant has proposed 75 structures spaces and 3surface spaces. Staff feels that the surfice parkingas located and designed is inappropriate. ThatIeaves 75 parking spaces to serve this d.evelopment.
B.
Staff feels that tbis is inadequate and sees no
reason on this site to entertain a parking varianceto any degree.
The applicants have submitted a parki-ng managementplan they feel addresses the ability of their
development to serve their parking needs. Theparking managernent plan has been included as a partof your packet on this project.
VII . URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PI,AN
The Urban Design Guide PIan addresses this parcel of landas a special study area and does identify two sub-areaconcepts that relate to this proposal . Sub-area conceptsL and 2 on East Meadow Drive involve both short and longterm suggested improvements as an entry into the community
and to Vail Road. Improvements include planting bedexpansi.ons, an island to narrow Vail Road, and treeplanting to further restrict views down VaiI Road. These
sub-area concepts also reinforce the fact that this parcelshould be a future study area.
other tlran some initial work done by Eldon Beck, thatsuggest building heights for this parcel as well as theVillage fnn parcel and some study done to incorporate thissite into the WI , no special study of this parcel of landhas been conducted to date. The Eldon Beck study does
show that building heights for development of this parcelof land should reach one to two stories. Tbe Beck planalso shows that the Vail Village Inn developnent behindthis parcel should be a rnaxi.mum of 3 to 4 stories. Thestaff supports the Beck concept of stepping down to theintersection, but given the heights of the approved. VailVillage Inn project, we certainly feel that 2 lo 3 storiesof development on this site are appropriate.
I{hile this proposed developrnent is within the general areaof the Urban Design Guide PIan, we feel that many of theUrban Design Considerations may not be appropriatecriteria with which to review this project. We do,however, have concerns of several aspects of this proposalin a general relation to the Urban Design Considerations.
The building height and views, in particular, are concernsof this proposal and issues that do not adequatelycorrespond to the Urban Design Consj_derations.
The Urban Design euide plan building height considerationprovides for a maximum height in the cCI zone district.This building height requirernent is a rnixed height of 33and 43 feet, with 40? of the building allowed up to 43feet in height. We feel that these height guidelines,coupled with the concept of stepping this buitding downtoward the intersection, suggest appropriate designguidelines for this developrnent proposal .
The Design Consideration regarding views and focal points
states that:
': rtVail's rnountain/valley setting is a fundarnental part.\ of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes,'. geologic features, etc. are constant reminders of the
, rnountain environment, and by repeated visibility,
" orientation reference points.tl
WhLle the view corridor through the approved Vail VillageInn project from the 4-way stop is not a designated viewcorridor by ordinance, we feel it is a very irnportant view
upon entering the conmunity. The Vail Village Inn project
responded to staff concerns and attempted to naintain an
acceptable view corridor from the 4-way stop. We feelstrongly that the Vail Gateway project must respect theview corridor as defined by the Vail Village Innnuilding -
The applicant has responded well with his building designto several of the other design considerations includingstreetscape framework, street edge, vehicle penetration
and servj-ce and delivery. However, we have major concernswith the amount of flat roof proposed. Flat roofs arediscouraged in the Urban Design Guide Plan.
VIII STAFF RECOMIT,IENDATION
staff generally supports the nixed use concept proposed inthis redevelopment plan and the concept of the rezoning to
CCI . Although it rnay be considered spot, zoning, we feelthat the uses are conpatible with the adjacent VailVillage Inn Special DeveJ.opnent District and areappropriate for this location within the community.
Holvever, we are not supportive of the uses proposedwithout the left turn lane and elimination of the surfaceparking as well as adequate parking provisions. We feelthat the general concept of deveLopment proposed by theapplicant is appropriate and believe that there is anopportunity here to provide an exciting and aestheticallypleasing entrance into Vail .
The Conmunity Development Departrnent staff has, however,major concerns with the project as proposed. We feel theissues of bulk and mass, height, setbacks, view corridorencroachnent and parking are all irnportant issues thatmust be addressed. The staff reconmendation for thisproject would be for the Planning Connission to table thisand a11ow the staff and the applicant to work together totry to resolve some of these issues. We feel that wittr
adeguate resolution of the aforementioned issues, we couldsupport this project. However, as presented, we feel
there are maJor issues that need to be addressed and
cannot support this project as presented. Although manyof the uses of the Heavy Service District would certainlynot be acceptable in this location, we feel that theexisting service station is appropriate to this location.
We believe that'SDD #21 as proposed, presents inpacts thatare not acceptable. If the applicant wishes to move
forward with this project as proposed, staff
recornnendation is for denial .
.ri*l
F
Uu
I
1-g
C
1
f(t
r+
=
U
c
c
*
fI
fII
Lt
Lr
E
a-
I
I
tf,F
c
t.
t
f-
t
I
I
f
I
t'. I
li'r" - il
i
li
ti
{
i.:l
iii
},
I.o
U)
o
3o
((ta
(u
o
to
o
coc
o(uo
(tc
UJ
Eo
.9)
otr
.d
U'
6
o
6o
(U
({
.g
o
-o
oso
(t
u,
\r
o
U'(o
E,(Lt
Do
o
o
o
E
oc!o
oc
I,IJ
PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
PLANNING. OEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS. RESEARCI.I
March 24, Lg8g
A. Peter Patten, Jr.Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 S. Frcntage RoadVail, CO 81657
Dear Peter:
The purpose of this letter is to summarize the changes andrevisions made to the plans for the Vail cateway Developrnent as aresult of the connents and suggestions rnade by the Town Council .
The changes and revisions, which we reviewed with you and Rickyesterday, are as follows:
r-) PARKING AND FLOO_R AREAS.
As requested by the Town Council , the parking reguirement will nowbe totally net within the underground garage. Revisions to thebuildinq design have resulted in slight changes in building floorarea and parking requi,rements as shoqrn below:
USE
Retail
Bank/ConmercialOffice
Dwelting Units
FLOOR AREA
11-,250 sq. ft.
3,600 sq. ft.
3,80O sg. ft-
l-3 , 000 sq. fE. /12 units
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED
TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED
PARKING ROMT.
37 .1
l_B
15.2
spaces
spaces
sFaees
z+spaces
94.7 spaces95 spaces
2) BUTLpING ORIENTATTON/ENTRIES
As reguested by the Town Council , the building and landscaping
have been redesigned to provide a major entrance near thesouthwest area of the building and to lessen the inportance ofthe northwest corner.
Suale 308. Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Boad West . Vail, Colorado 81657 . {303) 476-7154
A. Peter Patten, Jr.Director of community Development
Town of Vail
March 24, 1988
Page 2
3) EAST SETBACK
As requested by the Town Councj-I, the east setback has been
reduced to 0' for the ground level tlrerefore eliminating therralleyrr effect. In addition, the northeast corner has beenrcut*offrr to provide a better transition to the future
developnent to the east.
4) NORTH SETBACK
The building face has been pulled back an additional 2 feet in
order to provide a 17 foot setback for the ground leve1 of thebuilding and to allow the bay window projections to meet the L5
foot setback fron the north property 1ine. In addition, the
column adjacent to the northwest entry has been pulled back 7
feet from its original l-ocation.
5) I,ANDSCAPING
The hardscape plaza area at the northwest corner of the site has
been mininized and the building tras been setback an additional 10
feet on the southwest to allow for a larger plaza and entry areain this location. Also, the planter on the north has been
increased in size.
6) ARCETTECTURAL pETAIT,S
The redesign of the building
as major modification of the
inportance of the northwest
roof, and a rnininization and
has resulted in detail changes such
southwest area, rninimization of the
area, an increased amount of sloped
off-set of flat roofed areas.
As you know, \.re will be discussing these nodifications in detail
vith the Tohrn Council and Planning and Environmental Commission
on Tuesday. We believe that all of these changes address the
concerns which the majority of the Council and PEC has raised
during the review process. Please let ne know if you need
additional inforrnation or have any questions.
Peter Jamar, AICP
PJ:ns
Sincerely
,^, t't t I
Arctritect Stewen Riden' s eva].uation.
- tr t I
f{ffil|il.Phohr: gl094o.{12t
F/tlc sf0.0{0,(xxx
oD.it rrldc!6 r,r.['tet
Wednesday, January 0, 1999
Members of the Town of Vail Plannhg and Envlronmental Commission
Department of Communlty Development
VaiI, CO 8165?
Re: Vall Plaza Hotel
Dear Members
I have been asked to make an obJecuve evaluation ofthe proposed Vall plaza
Hotel and analize the potentlal detrinents lfom the realtratlon of this development, t
have reviewed the submittal and the followiry are comments for the record-
My tlrst observstion ls as to the overall masslng and scale of the devdoDment.
The scale ls far beyond what I see as compatible wlth the surroundlng shuctures the
proposed project absolutely dwarfs the Vail Gateway and rises far above any other
structure in the lmmediate area . The proposal rndlcates tlrat there wlll be large masslng
at the edges of the boundarles ofthe property and wlthout any requlred setbacls tom
the adacent bulldings nor is there any stepping ofthe strucfure in a relauonship to the
exfsung buildlngs. It would seem that this ts not the lntention of any of the prevlons
approvals or any of the underllnlng zoning from whlch the SDD has been based.
AI ot the pedestrian space ls surrounded by structure that is often 40 to 70 feet
tn helght creating areas that wlll be permanenuy ln shadow and oilbrhg very llttle
openness or landscapirg and unlesS you are within the butlding itseu there tS not any
Dr0tection ftom the ni6se nlimstss in the area created by the new structure such as
wlnd. Thls design does not create any enclosrue.
Based on the appltcants own study ofthe shadows, the Frontage road would also
remain ln shadow and visuslly create a wau ofstructure that prohlblts any vlew
beyond. Wlrat ever happened to vlew corrldor that initially restrictecl the development
surrounding the roundabout? Those resHctlons have been ln place since the earllest
proposals for this area were presented. It is obvious that the tntent ofprevlous review
ilecisions held the height to maintaln thls vlew.
I would like to guestion the valldlry ofsuch a gross devladon to the apprqved
SDD especially when it appears that thls project slgnlncanuy lncreases the slze above
the previous approval and essentially doubles the density and hetght ofthe underltnlng
CPC Ltt!
PGt O|trc. S.rr 32!E Vdu. C0
Slt6crr:88
u@l:rr8
t-\|Ju-ljtd-tJ7 I O. <lO FRr)M:tE.2r4E9t54r9
.\.../
PAcE 3,/ 7
II.
STATEMEN| die FAgrs
4' on the first day of April, r98a wardir R pra o ["prado'], on berralf of Daymer, aod
Bccliharr signcd a document styled ..JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENf-,r, which wa.s not a
binding contracL but rather was a preliminary document which exprcssly contemplated the later
'execution of s "FINAL ACREEMENT'- The JoiDt veohlfe Agreancnt did not contain all the
material terms necessary to qeate a valid and qrforccable ageamen! and expressly statcd that a
final as,reefient would contain additional detailcd tcnns, whioh wquld obviorrsly have to be
negotiated behryeen the parties. The Joint venhhre Agreement also contained condidon
prccedents to dre formation of a corrtrast- Tlc conditions p.*"d"nt-*otemplated
'nder the
prelimlnarv Joint Venture Agreeurent did not occur, or did not timely occu-. Therefore, no
binding agacment was ever fonted.
5- On the first day of April' l9E4 Daymer and Beckfiam signed a document styled *A
JOINT EFFORTS AGREEMENT'2 sraled to be entcred into as of the 3rst day ofMarcl,' l9ga.
6' Dwing the time pcciod following April r, r9M, the parties failed F *e"L tnter apa, one
of the conditions precedent by failing to ever negotiate and execute a ..FINAL AGREEMENT
as contomplated by the Joint Yenturo Agreenent. Further, the parties conduct in thc ycars
following 1984 established that they did not intend to be bound by the Joint ve.nture Agree*enf
as both parties did not firily perform under rho non-binding Joint Vc.ntrre Agreerncnt_
7 ' Approximately five years later, on March ?2, lg8g,Becklam, during a conversatioa with
hado' inforrred Prado that Beckham was negotiating to sell Beckbam,s rcal pfirperty which was
uentioned in the Joint venture Agrctmc,nl on the nsct dan lvlarch 23, lggg,prado, on behalf
t Tho .loDt'r vrrruRr AGREEMENT is attacbod hereto as Exhibit .rl--
'Tbe JOTNT EFFORTS AGREEMENT t *t""t"O lct.io
""
Exbibit .2.-
Pege2
08/20/97 09:3?TXIRX N0.1731 P.003 r
^er-1$_y / r|d!]lt F|?OM=rErr2l4E;glrs|4tEl
aq.j
Pege 3
PAcE 4./?
of Daymer, filed thc Joint venture Ag:r€eolent arrd a docunent titrcd *sunmary,,3 ahoug thcReaI ftDpsrty Records of rarrant &*,y, Texss, the situs of the rcal estate which was the
:ti:::t i:
t"t:t
1*l*" Agreeuenr Appare'ntlv' p,a<io made this bad faith niing, intendingto limi6 Bec,kham's ability to sell Beckham,s por&on of the property.Prado made this bad faithliling without Dotice to gcckhae.
8. Il response to prado's bad lbith ftin& Beckham lited a noticea ,rnong the Real property
Records of Tatrant coutrty' Texas which clearty stated tbat the Joint venhre Agreeurent was nota binding contract' aad in the altemative, Becrcbarn ga.ve notice of his termination of the JointVentuf,e Agreedlent_
9. Frpm that time untd tho plesent, tlrerc bave becq po firrtlrcr dc-ting;s lctween Daymer andBeckham on tha subject property which would evidence performaace uncler either the JointVenture Agreement or the Joint Efforts Agrcancnt
lo' In March of 1994, some ten years afrer the ocecutioa of the Joint ventue Acree*ent,Prado' purportedly actlng oa behalf of Daymcr, approached Becktram fqr rhe first time and,attempted lo enforce provisions of the Joint Venture Agroement. Beqkha$ disclaimed the Jotrntventure Agreement arrd stated tlnt it never became a biuding a8reement, prado then gave noticeof his intent to att€rnpt to enforce the Joint ve,ntue AgrEciucfrl prado,s abovc describcd dilatoryaction, which constihrtes waiver, laches and estoppel, has grven risE to an actual conkov€rsy
betwcqr Beckham and prado orDaplrer.
t lic -su^vrraenv is attac&od hcrcro a5 Fxhibit ..3_,- Thc NOTICE, flled by Beckhun t ,".p""*t i)(nibir .3,, is a$achod hcreto ,r Exhibrt -4--
0B/20/97 09:3?TXlnX N0.1?31 P. 004 !
rEl ,2lllEsl!s{rg
14' conseguently' pursualrt to section 3z.0ot, et seq., of the T",<as civir
Remedies cade' plaintitr asr* oris cout for dcclaratory judgment as set forth in
above, and for fees and cosrs rgrdcr Section 37_009.
PAGE S/7
I I ' Plaindff inoorporatos in this scction of tho petition the allegations ia paragraphs I throughlO as iffidly set forth hercin
There eriscs an astusr conkovcrsyripefora{iudication regarding the facs p104
"600,
13' Thc Joht vcntrucAgreementnever became a co't,act of any form or frshion becarxe ofthe aon-occrurencc of tho condition pnccoaent stated therein- fo tUu iJrr,"tivc, in thc evcnt tbatihe Joint vcntrrre Agrecrnent wus a co'tracl tben the aou-occiurence of rlc cond,itions prccedentthcrcin cxgused Bcckham ftom pcfennanca thaeunder- In the alternativg in the event thst tbeJoint Venture was a contract, prado and DaSnner travc waived 8ny riShts thet they may havc cverhad
'nder
the Joint vcnture Agreemcot- In the altornativq in the went that the Joint ventr*e wsse contracl' Prado a'd p*-cr are estop.ped ftom asserting any rights that they rnay bave evcr badundcr the Joint Venh'us AgrpeEeol In rhe altcrnativg lu the cvcnt that the Joint ventur ie aconoact' hado and Daymer are barred by thc doctrine of laches fiom asscrting any rights thatthey may have cver had undcr the Joint Venture agreemeot- AaOitionally, lhero erdsts an actualcontrovcrsy ripc for adjudicatiorg resqrdiog the rights, if ".ry, of C- T- Beclchaq prado andDalmer under the Joint E0forts Agrcement.
r2.
:
'^:n'
Practicc md
paragraph 13
FrRST CaUsn dr rffiOry
08/20/97 09:3?'rxlRx N0.1731 P.005 r
r u:.. r f xulrt i Ift:2!4Ei9t9{19
rv.
allegations of paragxaphs t
SE CONp caust (r.tr aCTTON
t5. Plsiatiff hereby incorpqrstcs in thls c{urr of attion lhe
through 15 hsreof as if sct forth herein in thcir cntircty.
16' As indicated above, Daymcr's conduct coDstifutes tortious intcrference with the potetrtisl
busi:ness relations between plaintiff and potcntiar priicbaxirs of plaintiffs pfopefty. praintif
rnay have * reasonable probability of closing e sale of rhe property at islr", but for the intedio&l
condrrct of Defendant Daymer.
17' Defcadant Daymer has no privilege or justification to iqterfere with tbo potentist contacts
and contractual rclations of Plaindff- Dayme,r's tortious interferencc has proximately caused
Plaintiff to suffer actual &onotary dnrn4ges and bas fi,*ther prevented plaintitr ftorn marketing
clcan title to his property.
v.
DEMANIT FORAJURYTRiAL
I ' Plaintirf hereby respectfrrlly de' nds a triar by jury in tbe above captioned &atter.
Pago5
PAGE B./7
\.:/
08/20/s7 09:32 TXIRX No.1?31 P.006 r
AUc-20-92 tor42 FROM:tD,2t4E9r94tE PAcE 7./2
'\i,/
vI.
PNAYEIIF.ONTbLTDF
WHEREFoRD' PREMTSES coNsrDERED, Piaiatiffprays that defeadant be cired to appear
anrd answer' and that on final tial hereof,, thc courl. declare jrrdgmmt as set forth above, anrl outplaintitrhas and recovcrs Au-"go &om and against defcndant Dayrne,r.
StateBarNo. 1ol5itg00
4741 Roxbury Lane
Dallas, Texas 75229
Ql4) 36945t9 voice anj fax
AT.f ORI{EY FOR PLATNTIF]F
C.T. BECKHAM
C. \CI,IE$T\AOSTfiBSS\CTBURAPAITO\DET,TICN.
DOC
Page 6
0B/20/97 09: JT 1'XIRX N0.1731 P.007 f,
East ViJ.J-age Homeowners Agsociation White Paper on theVail P1aza Hotel
EVFIA White Paper: Special Development Districts
\Za. il P La,z,a Hotel
Itrrr |1ra.|
rlata t.?rl
u\a,t |.rt0
rnat t.tr tl
|ltal ortD
uaE,l (.ratl
ltt40(lua
lllG.r lrrat.'
u!q, a &ttl
rj.,!,tt.rttg
The Vail Plaz.a Hotel is a major
convention hotel project proposed for
the Vail Vitlage lnn (VVI) sile. Tfre
proiect will replace the existins hotel
wiig built in the early 1960's.'Also, the
recently remodeled lobby and confer-
ence building is scheduled for demoli-
tion. The Vail Pl""a Hotel proposal
included 340 hotet room. 12 timeshare
club dwelling unis, a 16,750 sq. ft.
convention and conference center.
25,000 sq. {t. spa" 5,600 sq. ft. of retail
space, a 9,500 -sq. ft. restaurant and a
parking garase for 389 oarkins sDaces.- lie-3.+S-S acre Vaii Villafe inn site
was one of the first Special Development
District approved by ihe Town of Vail in
the mid-1970's. Known as Special
Development District Numbelr 6 (SDD
#6), it has been amended four times
sincebeingadopted in 1976. The
underlying zone district for the site is
Public Accommodations. The site of
SDD #6 is separated into Phases I-V.
The Vail Plai Hotel is the final phase
(also known as Phase IV) of the SDD to
be completed.
The size of the proposed proiect will
most likely be debated in pubiic hearings
because rt appears to exceeds some of
the approved development standards
contained in the SDD #6 legislation as
well as some guidelines in the Vail
Village Master Plan. Some of the
subjects to be debated may be the
allowable Gross Residential Floor Area
(GRFA) and the height of the proposed
buildine.
GHFA Issues: The Vail Plaza Hotel
application, based upon a review of
Town of Vail records, appe:rs to exceed
approved GRFA limitation for the entire
site by approximately 85,795 sq. ft. and
for the Phase fV oortion of the site bv
90,657 sq. ft. A iotal of 148,002 sq. ft.
of GRFA is beins proposed for the Phase
lV portion of thJsite.'
A 1991 amendment to SDD #6 limits
total GRFA on the 3.455 acre site to 124,
521 sq. ft. Combining the Vail Plaza
Hotel portion of the site with existing
GRFA on the remainder of the site yields
a total of 2 I 0, 322 sq. f.t. of GRFA 6n the
entire SDD #6 site.
Height lssues: If approved, theVail
Plaza Hotel buildine will be the tallest
structure allowed tdbe built in the
community since the earlv 1970's. The
proposed plan appears tobe at odds with
an established view corridor that has a
controlling effect upon buildings in SDD
#6.
The original approval in 1976 of
SDD #6 established a view corridor from
a location in what is now the northwest
quadrant of the main Vail roundabout.
fhis was the first view corridor estab-
lished for the community. The purpose
of the view corridor was to preserve a
view of Golden Peak and Vail Mountain
from the entrance to the community. All
subsequent development including the
Gateway Plaza building have beei'
reouired to conform to the view corridor.
lniggZ a dispute arose over a portion of
a remodel to the lobby building of the
VVI that protruded into the view corri-
dor. The owncr was required by the
Town of Vail to remove the proirusion
from the view corridor.
The plan also appears to be incon-
sistent with the Vail Village Master Plan
height guidelines. The Vail Village
Master Plan calls for a height that steps
back from a pedestrian scale on Meadow
Drive to 4-5 stories along the South
Frontage Road. According to the Master
Plan the height of a building would be
from 36 feet to 45 feet not including the
heisht of the roof. The apolication for
the-Vail Plaza Hotel showi the buitdins
steps from 7 to 9 stories along the Souih
Frontage Road and from 5 to 7 stories
along Vail Road. Includingthe height of
the roof the highest point of the structure
is approximately 100 feet above esti-
VaiI Y illa ge
66
Phase III
View From South Frontage Road Looking South
Lowcst Lcvcl of Und€18round P.rkin8
t2
t'. ri '"
JHIt.UB-IY:) ]U'TJ
f
zoning. Is thls the way the Master Plan lntended the development to proceed? I belleve
upon careflrl e:camlnatlon you wtu trnd this Droject does not meet that criterla.
Addlttonally I wonld like to touch upon other aspects ofthe proposal. Accordtng
to the submittal, the trafnc sfu(y indlcates that there would be litue efect upoD the
exlstlng conditions, but I would tend to dltrer on tlrls because thts project woulrl only
begin io set a precedent for others tbat would eventually maxlmlre the caDaclty of the
roundabout and lt is clear that thls now creates an alley out ofthe ftontage road and
diminishes the character of the entrance to the vtllage, The model utlrzed for this study
does not take thls lnto consideratlon.
Generally the request to slgnificantly reduce the setbacks require the appllcant
to show there would be a hardshlp. I cannot see lhe hard ship in thls case. Acatn there is
very llttle consideration tlven to the nelghborlng development.
A tinal question. Was not a similat' but smaller project for this area prevlotsly
rejected by the Council arul Plannlng Commlsslon? And what has change to make thls
approval?
Sincerely,
Steven James Rlden A.I.A. Architect
TOTAL P.AZ
*ALt C ^r!'f E
:::F---__---
hrfla;i
f",l'rf,i
-at'tnQ,,n,
flnenphywowrcd*W,ui*u
ovlu99
Dear Mayor Ford, Tol^/rt Council, Mr. Ruther and PEC:
I am lhe oumer of a Reslaumnt in the Gateu/ay hrtlding in Vail Wlage. I have
only just found out about a meeting with the Towr of Vail regarding the Vail
Mllage lnn ftoject I only found this out by charrce. .. lhe Torm never notified
us, and neither did our landlord, Stoltz Management.
This is not the way the Tom usually does hrsiness. I have been notified in
the past about other issues regarding development in he Tovrm when it vvould
affect my business.
I oppose the Vail Mllage Inn flan.
The trafftc urould be honendous, and after the sr-rmmer of 1999, nraybe we strorld
all look at the rate of con$uctbn ard timing of such projeds. \rWEt
happened to the small cute mountain to$/n? lM|at abcx.rl ihe effed on air
qrality? \Mrat about the master flan and all lhe is$es when the Vail Gataaray
tuildiing was h.rilp The Vail Gataaray and the Vail Mllage Inn u/ere supposed
to have a pedestrian connec'tion. The dan being propoaed nrq.rld isolate and
hide the Vail Gateuray behind a huge building. Between the buildings an alley
\ /ould be created that r^,ould not be inviting to visitors to the Vail Gatevuay.
I have not had a chance lo study the proposal in detail. These are my
immedhte objeclions.
To not notify us wfien there is potentially a 9 story building, wftir:h'*ulld
take 16 months to hrild, is outrageous.
Sincerely,
%V^"-
2077 n frontage rd- suite 103b vail, co 81657
97 0-47 6-2090 fax 97 0-4 7 9-6 494
Eat-inq@IfrG.com
JRN-09-1999 L4"27 FROH I<INNEY JoHNSON TO 476t3687 P.Az
I trust tlnt good judgmilt and a fue scnse to prGscrvc drc valuc of Vail Villagc will overcomc a
purcly grccdy and irresponsible decision.
Yours truly,
Kinncy L. Jobruon
CC: Village Inn Plaza Condominium Association
TOTAL P. 02
J Hll-Ud-.t!:J> IU. rJ JrLvLrr J.rl
zonint. Is this the way the Master Plan Intended the developBent to proceed.? I beueve
upon careftrf examlnatlon you wlU trnd this project does not meel that criterla.
Addlttona[y I would like to touch upon other aspects ofthe proposal. Accordlng
to the submittal, the trarlic study indlcates that there would be Utue etrect upon the
existlng conditions, but I would tend to dltrer on thls because thls project woulrl only
betin to set a precedenl for others that wsuld eventilrlly marlmlze the capaclw ofthe
roundabout and lt is clear that thls now creates an alley out ofthe ffontage road and
diminishes the character of the entrance to the vlllage. The model uilUzed for ilds study
does not take thls lnto consideratlon.
GeneraUy the request to slgniflcantly reduce tlre setbacks require the appllcant
to show there would be a harGhlp. I cannot sse the hard sNp in thls case. Agaln tbere is
very lltUe consideration glven to the nelghborlng development.
A nnal question. Was not a sirnilar lgf gmsller project for this arsa prevlously
reJected by the Cquncrl and Planning Commtsslon? And what has change to Eate thlg
approval?
Sincerely,
Steven James Rlden A.I.A. Architect
TOTffL P.82
JAN-49-1999 !4:29 FROI1 KINNEY JOHNSON 476A681 P.At
January'7, 1996
Mr. Rob Ford
Mapr, Townof:Vail.
Mr. Gcorgc Ruther
Senior Plarsrer
TownofVail
Fax:970.479.2452
Dear Mr. Ford aad Mr. Ruther,
I would like to formally object b the pmposed Vail Village Inn's Special Devetopmort District
as defined for tbc Vail Village lrm (WI) sitc. As a ycar-round rcsidcat of rhe Viitagc Inn Ptaza
Condomtniums, *hich are adjaccnt to thc proposed Vail Viltagc Inn developmenr, I am disturbed
wilh apparcar disrcgard for thc cunenr planning guidelines ard rhc rnagninlde and aroganc€ of
&c proposed developmcnt.
As proposed, the site, referrcd to as Spccid Development DisdA Numba 6 (SDD #6), grossty
erceeds thc APPROVED developmcnt standards contarned in the SDD #5 lcgisluion as well as
some guideliues in rho Vail Villagc Masrcr Plan. Spccifrcally, at issue are the Gross Rcsidential
Floor Area and thc hcight of the proposcd building. currendy, the proposcd plan violatcs an
esEblished vi€w coridor rhr. ha< 1 6pntrelling cffcct upon buildings in sDD #6. Likcwise, the
proposcd plan roally disrcgards 0rc Vail Vilfue Masrcr Plalr hcight guidelines.
As the owner of &e sourhwcst unit iu thc village hn Plaza condomiaiuns, thc proposed ptan:l) eliminAtes all wcstcrn o<posurc to rhe moumains and the sun,
2) ptaccs truck docks literally against a be&oom walt,3) eliminates any privecy from ny patios, and4) s"egcsts trafrc patterns that will bc unacccptable.
Docs the proposcd plan compensate my potendal loss in rcal gstate raluc? Does tle propos€d
plan compensate me for several ycsrs of din ald construction noise? Can you boldly climinate
valu$ thal wcre dcveloped lo prolcct my ncighbors and me?
I am not opposcd to changc. I also believe that a qualiry hmel would, in the long run, enhance thc
corc of thc Villagc. Wh* I am oppooed to is the blatad and rcckless disrcgard io guidclines that
u'erc csablished to preserve thc iittcgrity of Vail Villagc aad to prcnea individualJsuch as
mlself ls your intent lo build another Beaver Creek? Construct a ccmenr ciw in the mountains?
TO
Grcl|il.Phon : tto.9€.{r2l
FAI( t0.e$.60{
ood! rr&lcad n|lnet
Wednesday, January 6, 1999
Members of the Town of Vail Ptannlng and Envtronmental Commission
Department of Communlty Developuent
VaiI, CO 81657
Re: Vall Plaza Hotel
Dear Members
I have been asked to make an obJecUve evduatton ofthe l,roDogerl Vall pleza
Hotel antl analize the potentlal detri$ents tlom the reallzauon of this development. I
have reviewed the submittal and the fouowing are comments for the lecord-
My trrst observation ig as to the ovel"il masslnt andscale of the deydoDEent.
The scale is far beyond what I eee as compatible wtth the surroundlng sfucnres the
proposecl prOJect absolutely dwarB the Vail Gateway and rises far above any other
structure in the tmmediate area . The proposal rndlcates that there wlll be lsrge masslng
at the edges of the boundarles ofthe proDerty and wlthout alty requlred setbacls ftom
the adiacent bullilints nor is there any steppiDg ofthe structure in a reladonship to the
exrsung buildings. It would seem that this is not the lntention ol any of the Drevlous
approvats or any ofthe underllnlng zoning ftom wblch the SDD has been based.
AI ofthe pedestrian space ls surrounded by structure that is often 40 to ?0 teet
h ne[ht creatint areas that wlU be permanen0y ln shadow and ofibrtng very lttde
openness or landscaping and unless you are within the bulldlng itsell there !s not any
protection ffom the micro climates in the area created by the new stnrchrre sucb as
wlnd. Thls design does not create any endosure.
Based on the appllcants own study ofthe shadows, the Frontage road wolgd also
remain ln shadow and visually create a wau ofstructure that prohtblts any vlew
beyond. What ever happened to vlew corddor that initialy restrtcted the development
sturounding the roundabout? Those restrictlons have been ln place since the earllest
proposals for this area wers presented It ls obvlous that the htent ofprevlous mview
decisions held the height to maintaln thls vlew.
I wonld like to question the vaUdlry ofsucb a gross devlation to the approved
SDD especially when it appears that thle project slsnlncanUy lncreases the sue above
the previous approval and essentially doubles the densi8 and heteht ofthe underltning
GFC LIA
P6t O[!c. I'r oilro VolL cp
0ra6Er7a8
6!Ht!8
Sent 8y: PW. Associat es;954 753 9775;Jan- 10 -99 4:29PU;
Village Inn Plaza phase V Condominium Assoc.
100 East Meadow Drive #31
Vail, Colorado 81657
January 10, 1999
The Honorable Robert Ford
Mayor of Vail
Town of VailMunicipat Office
Vail, Colorado 91657
Subject: Construction of the new Vail Mllage INN
Your Honor,
I am writing as a director and officer of the above.Association. During
lhe annual meeting of our association on Dec. 2grh lggg we were, foi
the first time, allowed to review sorne information about the
construction plans of the new Vail Plaza Hotel to be erected on the
grounds of the current \A/1.
1. We consider the planned project a substantial departure from the
Special Development District as approved on the property.
2 lt is in conflict with the quiet enjoyment of the property rights of
Phase V condominium Association property owners in al much as
it violates the reciprocal easement and access agreement of 1997.
This aqreement quarantees Phase V Condominium_Association
to have access across VailVi
oarkino soaces.
3- The owners represented at the meeting and other owners in Vlp
Phase V condominium Association have expressed great concern
over the impact a nine-story building would have on the overall
atmosphere of Vail Village. lt would set a dangerous precedent
that could impact on other potential development prans of such re-
developable properties as the sonnenalp swiss chalet, chateau
Vail (formerly Holiday lnn), the Tivoli and possibly others.
Page 112
X' :-'
&_''1. -
J Ftil-lJtj- ,t :r:r:r lu' -rJ Jrl'-!'Lrr Jfll
zoning. Is this the way the Master plan lntended the development to proceed? I belleve
upon carefLu er€mlnatlon you wlU trntl this project does not meet that criterla.
Addltlonaly I would like to touch upon other aspects ofthe proposal Accordlng
to the submittal, the trallic stu(y indlcates tlrat there woul<l be UtUe elfect upoD the
exlstlng conditions, but I would tend to dltrer on this because thls project woull only
begin to set a precedent for others that would eventually ma$nlze the caDaclry of the
roundabout and lt ls clear that thts now creates an alley out of the bontage road and
diminishes the character ofthe entrance to the vulage. The model udltzed for thts study
does not take thls lnto considsratlon.
Generally the request to slgnificanUy reduce tie setbacks require the appUcant
to show there would be a hardshlp. I cannot ses the hard sNp ir thts c$e. Agatn tbere iE
very llttle consideration glven to the nelghborlng development.
A nnal question. Was not a sir ilar bUt smaller project for tJds area Drevtogsly
reJected by the Councrl and Planning Commtsslon? And what has cbange to nate thls
approval?
Sincerely,
Steyen James Rlden A.I.A- Architect
TOTRL P.A2
1000 i., :.. l-t-t-t
i
VailPlaza Hotel ' .
Major Amendment Request
(revised) ;
L
To: George Ruther
From: Greg Hall
Date: August 19,1999
Subject: Vail Plaza Hotel
I have reviewed the latest submittal of the Vail Plaza Hotel and have the following
comments that will need to bc addressed:
6.
The loading and delivery scheme will need to address the vehicles we had previously
stated which included placement of the following AASHTO design vehicles, l,
WB65 semi off of the travel way, the ability to park 2, WB-50 semis and 3, SU-30
single unit trucks. Three of these will need to be accommodated for the hotel and 2
for the remainder of the special development district. In addition, the trash system
will need to be idcntified and its operation shown independently of the loading and
delivery operation. The previous underground tunnel to the other phases of the plan
has been removed. It should be reinstated.
The site must be able to handle the use of40' over-the-road passenger coaches.
The drive rarnps of the parking structure in one-way operation need to meet minimum
width of 72' and at the turns a greater width is required to accommodate tuming radii.
A more detailed review of the parking structure and all the turning radii will be
required.
Provide the site improvements discussed previously and show these on the plan.
Curb, gutter and walk to Crossroads, including street lights, improvements to the bus
stop and East Meadow Drive, a landscaped median to the frontage road, etc.
The parallel roadway scheme is inconsistent with the adjacent improvements of the
frontage road.. It creates a hole and additional asphalt in an area where the goal is to
lessen the visual affcct of asphalt, not to increasc it. This will need to reviewcd more
to determine the affects of the frontage road and roundabout operations. How will we
ensure one way opcration? Left tums out may be prohibited. It will need to approved
by the state DOT for an access permit
This development will need to address the off site roadway impacts that havc been
applied to new approvals in the Lionshead area this equates to approximately $3788
for each additional unit, the town has then paid 20% of this fee. The Conference area
and Spa will require additional payment, but it is not known at this time. Some of the
offsite improvemcnts may be credited against this dollar amount ( the landscape
median beyond the site, and dcpending on how ernployee fiaffic numbers and parking
spaces
^re
provided or not the sidewalk to Village Center Chute).
Drainage improvements as have been previously required and a detail review of the
grading plan.
The close proximity of thc west exit driveway to the driveway of the Gateway
Building is an issue to be studied.
2.
1J-
4.
5.
7.
8.
9. The impacts during construction.
10. The shading of the walks and the need to heat the walks and drives will need to be
reviewed.
I l. The requirement to provide the access to the condos to the east drives a lot ofthis
design. It appears that they have access and providing them access but not
convenient access does it meet their requirements?
MEMORANDTJM
To: Vail Town Council
Town of Vail planning & Environmental Commission
Town of Vail Design Review Board
From: George Ruther, Senior Planner
Date: August 24, 1999
Re: A joint worksession to begin preliminary discussions with regard to the proposed redevelopmcnt of the Vail
Village Inn, Phase IV, located within Special Development District No. 6.
I. PURPOSE OF THE WORKSESSION
The purpose ofthejoint worksession meeting is:
To provide the applicant with the opportunity to present the proposed redevelopment to each of the Boards
involved in thc review process.
To describe the development review process ofthe proposed major amendment to SDD No. 6.
To provide the Town Council, planning & Environmental Commission and the Desip Review Board with an
opportunity to identify issues or areas of concem early on in the development review process.
To seek consensus amongst the Boards regarding issues and areas ofconcem that the applicant will need to
address.
I DESCRIPTIONOFTHEREOUEST
The applicant, Valdir hatto, dba Daymer Corporation and represented by Tim Losa of Zehren & Associates, is
proposing a major amendment to Special Development District No.6, Vail Village Inn. The major amendmcnt is
intended to facilitate the demolition and redevclopment of Phase IV, Vail Village Lrn.
The applicant is proposing to construct the Vail Plaza Hotel. The Vail Plaza Hotel is intended to be a new major
hotel in the Vail Villagc Commercial area of the Town of Vail. The hotel is to be comprised of 97 hotel rooms,40
intcrval ownership units, and one condominium. ln addition to the residential uses proposed, the hotel is also
proposed to include two restaurants, spaihealth club facilities, a conference and meeting arca and a limited arnount
ofaccessory retail/commercial space. The main guest entrance to the hotel will be on the west side of thc building
from Vail Road. A loading/delivery area will be provided on the north side of the building with vehicular access
from the South Frontagc Road. Guest parking for the hotel is to be provided in an underground parking slructue.
Vehicular access to the structure will bc from Vail Road. The underground parking structure provides two levels of
parking to accommodate 214 cers.
A more delailcd summary ofthe proposal is attachcd for reference.
BACKGROUND
In 1976, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 7, Series 1976, establishing Special Development
Districts No. 6, Vail Village Inn, to ensure the unified and coordinated developmcnt of a critical site to the
Town of Vail, as a whole, and in a manner suitable for the area in which it is situated.
IIr.
. In 1985, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinancc No. 1, Series 1985, providing certain amendments to thc
approved development plan for Special Development District No. 6. (eliminate distance between building
requirements, increase in height, amend the allowable uses, increase density)
. In 1987, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinancc No.14, Series 1987, which amended and modified
Section 8 relating to the allowed density of the development plan for Special Dcve lopment District No. 6.
(incrcase density)
. In 1992, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 2, Series 1992, allowing for modifications and
amendments to various sections of Special Development District No. 6 which related directly to Phase IV,
and which made certain changes to the approved development plan for Special Development District No. 6
as they relate to Phase IV. (architectural elevation changes, modifications to the 4u floor plans)
. In 1998, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 24, Series 1998, providing certain amcndments to
the approvcd development plan for Special Development District No. 6.
According to the ordinance which originally established Special Development District No. 6, the underlying zoning
for the District is Fublic Accommodation. The purpose of the District is to provide additional areas in Town for
mixed use development. The District has resulted in a substantial incease in allowable density on the site of the
Vail Villagc Inn. When originally considering deviations from the underlying zoning in 1976, the Town Council
found that such deviations were acccptable as the community was to realize a substantial increase in the hotel bed
base. An incrcase in short-term accommodations has been a long standing objective of the community.
On January 26, 1999, the applicant appeared before the Vail Town Corurcil for a worksession to discuss the
proposed major amendment. Upon discussion of thc proposal, the Town Council directed the applicant to rcvise the
plans to address several major concems. The Council's major concems included thc hcight of the hotel, guest
access to thc hotcl and lhe proposed loading and delivery area. More specifically, the Council believed that the hotel
was too tall and that the overall hcight nccded to be reduced, that the guest entrance to thc hotel from the South
Frontage Road crcatcd traffic congestion resulting in a potentially dangcrous situation and that instead the entrance
should be taken from Vail Road, and that the loading and delivery area as designed was detrimental to thc "front
door" to Vail.
ry. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITES OF THE BOARDS
The roles and responsibilities ofeach of the Town's boards in the developmcnt review process for a major
amendment to an existing special developmcnt district is clearly defined in the Town Code. The following is a
summary of cach of the Board's roles and responsibilities:
Order of Review: Generally, applications for major amendmcnts are reviewed first by the PEC, then by the DRB
and finally by the Town Council. Thc PEC evaluates the proposal for potential impacts of usc/developm€nt on the
Town's development objectives. The DRR considers an application for compliance ofproposed buildings and sitc
planning with the Town's adopted architectural design guidelines. The Town Council reviews the proposal in
consideration of an arnending ordinance.
Planninp and Environmental Commission:
Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council.
The PEC shall review the proposal and makes a recommendation to the Town Council on the following:
r Permitted, accesory, and conditional useso Evaluation of nine design critcria as outlined in the Town Code.
Staff:
The staffis responsiblc for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided, that all required
development review procedures are followed, and that the proposed plans conform to the tcchnical
requircmcnts of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the
design guidelines.
The Staffprovides a memorandum to the Boards containing a description ofthe request, background on the
property and providcs an evaluation of the application with respect to the required critcria and findings, and
a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staffalso facilitates the review
process.
Town Council:
Action: The Town Council is responsible for the fnal approval or denial ofan SDD.
The Town Cormcil shall review the proposal for thc following:
. Permitted, accessory, and conditional uses.o Evaluation of the nine design criteria as outlincd in the Town Code.
Design Review Board:
Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a SDD proposal, but must review an accompanying DRB
application The DRB review of an SDD prior rc Town Council approval is purely advisory in nature.
Thc DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal:
- Architectural compatibility with other structucs, the land and surroundings- Fitting buildings into landscape
- Configuration ofbuilding and grading of a site which respects the topo$aphy- Removal/Preservation oftrees and native vegetation
- Adequate provision for snow storage on-site
- Acceptability of building materials and colors- Acceptability ofroofelements, eavcs, overhangs, and other building forms- Provision of landscape and drainage
- Provision offencing, walls, and accessory structures- Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances- Iocation and design of satellite dishcs- Provision ofoutdoor lighting- Compliance with the architectural design guidelines of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
V. DEVELOPMENTRJVIEWPROCESS
The Town of Vail Municipal Code outlines the process by which an application for an amendmcnt to an established
Special Development Distriot shall be reviewed. Thc following is a description of thc review process:
According to Section 12-9A-1, Purpose, of the Municipal Code, the purpose ofthe Spccial Development District is,
Ato encourage flcxibility and creativity in the devclopment of land in order to promote its most appropriate
use; to improve the design character and quality of the new devclopment with the Town; to facilitate the
adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic featwes of
opcn space iueas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensivc
Plan. An approvcd development plan for a Special Development District, in conjunction with the
property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uscs of
property included in the Special Development District. The Special Development District does not apply to
and is not available in the following zone districts: Hillside Residcntial, Single-Family, Duplex,
Primary/Secondary.
Pwsuant to Section 12-9A-2 of the Municipl Code, in part, a major amendment is defined as,
'Any proposal to change uses; increase gross residcntial floor area; change the number of dwelling or
accommodation units; modify, enlargc or expand any approved special development district."
Since the applicant proposes to change the uses, change the number of dwelling and accommodation units
and to increase the gross residential floor area on the site, staff has identified the applicant's request as a
major SDD amendment.
In accordance with Section l2-9A4 (A)-(C) of the Municipal Code, in part,
"an approved development plan shall be required pior to construction. The approved development plan
shall establish requirements regulating development, uses and other activities in the spccial development
district."
Additionally, the applicant shall be rcquired to hold a pre-application meeting with thc Community Development
Department prior to submitting a formal application. The purpose of the meeting shall be to discuss the goals of the
proposed special development district, the Town's Master Plan and the review procedure which will be followed for
evaluating the application.
Further, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall conduct the initial review of the amendment to the
special development district. The review shall take place at a regularly scheduled meeting. Following the Planning
and Environmental Commission's review, the Community Development Departrncnt shall forward a report to the
Town Council stating the PEC's findings and recommendations on the amendment request. The Town Council shall
then review the application based upon the information submitted. An approval of the application by the Town
Council shall require two readings ofan ordinance.
In accordance with Scction l2-94-8, Design Criteria, of the Municpal Code,
The following design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed special
developmcnt district. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed
development plan comply with each of thc following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not
applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved:
A. Compatibility:
Design comJntibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent
properties rclative to architeotural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity,
character, visual integrity and orientation.
B. Relationship:
Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workablc relationship with
sunounding uscs and activity.
C. Parking And Loading:
Compliance with parking and loading rcquircments as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Titlc.
D. Comprchensive Plan:
Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban
dcsign plans.
E. Natural And/Or Geologic Hazard:
Identification and mitigation of natual and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which
the special development district is proposcd.
F. Design Features:
Site plan, building desigr and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional
development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic qualib/
of the community.
G. Traffic:
A circulation system designed for both vchiclcs and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic
ciroulation.
H. Landscaping:
Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural
features, recreation, views and function.
I. Workable Plan:
Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient
relationship ttroughout the development of the special development district.
VL DISCUSSION ISSUES
l. Maior Amendment Submittal Reouirements.
Section 12-9A-5 of thc Zoning Regulations outlines the subm.ittal requirements for a major amendment to a
special development district. Staff has conducted a preliminary review of the materials submitted to date
by the applicant. As a result of our preliminary rcview, staff has determined that the application is not
complete. In order to complete the application, the applicant shall be required to submit the following
materials to the Town of Vail:
a. Fiscal Impact Report
b. Traffic Analysis Rcport
c. Written statement outlining how the prolnsal complies with the nine design criteria prescribed in
Section l2-9A-8 of the Town Coded. Emplolae Generation Reporte. Stamped and addressed envelopes of all adjoining property owncrsf. Preliminary Uniform tsuilding Code Compliance Reportg. Drainage Planh. Off-site Improvement Plan
The Town of Vail Public Works Department has complctcd a prcliminary review of the hotel proposal. A
copy ofthcir rcport has been attached for reference. The issues iurd concems raised in that report shall be
addressed by the applicant in the development review process.
Each of the above described submittal materials shall be provided to the Town of Vail by no latcr than the
end ofthe business day on September 7, 1999 in ordcr for thc application to be scheduled for a worksession
with the Planning & Environmental Commission. Failure to submit the required materials will rcsult in a
delay in the developmenl review process.
The tentative schedule for the continued review ofthe Vail Plaza Hotcl application includes a worksession
with thc Planning & Environmental Commission on Monday, September 27 and a conceptual review with
Design Review Board on Wednesday, October 6, 1999. Additional mcctings will be scheduled as
necessary. The Town Council will be provided with progress reports during the regularly scheduled
PECiDRB reports.
2. Compliance with Town of Vail Master Plan and other relevant documents.
When considering proposals for redevelopment, the staffrelics upon thc Town's various master plans and
other relcvant documents for guidance and direction. Staff anticipates that we will again be reviewing the
Town's master plan documents and analyzing thc applicant's proposal for compliance with the pltms. The
following plans will be reviewed:
Vail Village Master Plan
Zoning Regulations
Vail Land Usc Plan
J.
. Streetscape Master Plan. Vail Transportation Master Plan. Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan
Bulk, Mass and Scale.
In preliminary discussions about the proposed hotel redcvclopment, much has been said about the bulk,
mass and scale of the project. There is no doubt that, if approved in its present configuration, the Vail
Plaza Hotel will be one of the larger buildings in the Town of Vail. Due to the location of the building and
the scale of the projcct, the staff has employed the services of JeffWinston, of Winston & Associates, Inc.,
in Boulder, Co. Jeff Winston has served as the Town's Urban Design Consultant for many of the more
significant projccts in Town. Jeff Winston will be present at the joint worksession meeting on Tucsday,
August 24, 1999 to present the findings of his preliminary analysis.
At this time, based upon the information provided to date, staff would recommend the Design Review
Board, the Commission and the Courcil provide the staff and the applicant with any direction they may
have relative to the bulk, mass and scale of the project (i.e., is a 6-story building appropriate in this
location?, is the desigrr of the building compatible with the swrounding environment?, does the building fit
in with the context of the area and the character of Vail?, etc.) Please recognize that a morc in depth review
of the application will be completed prior to future hearings.
Emplowe Housinq Requirements
The Town has historically required developers ofSpecial Developmcnt Districts to provide employre
housing within the community. Typically, the Town has identified the incremental increase in employees
gcncratcd as a result of the new development and then required the developer to providc dccd-restricted
housing for a percentage of the new employees. In this instance, the developer has indicated a desire to
providc dccd-restricted housing. At this point however, it is unclear as to how the Town will dctcrminc thc
housing need and where the housing should be provided. The determination of the housing need and its
location will become clearer once the Emplolee Generation Report is provided to the Town of Vail.
Staffwould recommend that the Commission and thc Council provide the staff and the applicant with
direction on thc issue of employee housing (i.e., how shall the need be determined?, what type ofunits shall
be provided?, should the units be new construction or should deed restrictions be placed on existing units?,
where shall the units bc provided; in town vs. down valley?, what shall be the time frame for providing the
units?, public/private putnerships?, etc.)
VII. STAF'FRECOMMENDATION
As this is a joint worksession only, staffwill not be providing a formal recommendation at this time. Staff is
requesting that the Dcsigr Rcview Board, the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council listcn
to the applicant's presentation of the redevelopment proposal and providc staffwith any direction the Boards may
have regarding the proposcd SDD amendment and the proposed development review process. Staff is most
interested in having the Boards identifu any "red flag" (i.e. height, dcnsity, traffic, mix ofuses, etc.) issues which the
Boards would like the applicant and staffto address during the devekrpment review process. Staff will continually
provide op;rurtunities for interested parties to comment on the proposal.
A
znV
@
@H
@VEe,+
=6XI
V'7ur
L
I. I
AvF=
=JH
ts
OE
N
"Jg
=JF<
o
at)
.A
F
4)
-c)+r
'|Tla
-€\€.i
L\Fcg;
--Fry
-{o-
cl
z9;
:g;iiir
;l;;!i'
xll i
{.
ID
ah
*
-()+)A
fTlal-i c\
sl o
ed;
-aFry
-(.x
66
=! " i ,,
',r ii ii,
ff;ii3i
.": li :ir.tl i
.a
qh
tc)
-q)\F.A
.|.'laFO\
G;N:cg;
-=Fry
-{.!l
cg
,,,-. ii !!
*iilii
'l 9i !lru?!
t'
t\
at)
a
'o
-6)€A
|Tialrl€\
6l;N:cg;
-=trT
-{.I
cq
li;ii;i;:"61u.t; i E !€nt? i
al
q2
o>.
tq)
-c)*JA
Fra
-o\|tt:: fn[\l F(
-ubu e)
-=IT
-<./
.cg
zei
'; ii ii.
:i itff!
': !!:i
xr? i
rna
(D
Fc)
o\o\€\
t.J
ah
oo
-€)*)A
H-t
cgNG
-A.
-
-o-
c!
=2 .i,,rrr . E: i?-f, ii tg,': ;; iii
=fi !i ;iim;:! !nN:!
m
(t)
0>.
o
o\o\
tfi
ah
o0
-€)+r
IFt{
-N
cg
-,l,f-l
-.-
.e{
22 .i u,ul- i i ::.i il !E:; ; ! lrl19 !: E3t
': ii;!ruli
v
0
at)
I
0)
-o+)A
.|Tta
-€\G;N:G;
-=F{S
-{.-
6l
li;iii;
'": Ei !EruI!
lil
o
o
'
-q)
'{raAttaFl o\sicg;
-l=AT-<.-
cg
=i;llii'j si !!rvi i
t'
rn
ar)
at)
F
o\o\g\
(a
at)
E0
-c)+)A
E
-
cg
N
G
-A,
-.-
fl. l.Y
z!:
,,,=. : i !;
''iiilir;r igiFt
nr;:i !€nl? !
rn
(A
(A
Fc)
't
o\o\o\
aa
g0
-lq)+)Avltlt{
GING
-A
-t
-.-
G
li*iii
,lE!!!
xri !
O
th
F
c)
tl
q)
o!
-q)
:)
rTrf{
-N
-
-F\,
-.tl
-
z2i: . ! Ei||t.:::?
"siiiii19 gi lEa; ; - 6iur; !i;E
Ni'.
t'
'1
(h
ah
F
-q)
*)
^rl'.tl 5i
-o\Gl .<N=sli,bl a)
-=FrT
-{.-
G
z2 .i,,
*ii!i;
'; E!!Exri !
rr
ah
Q
>-.
'o
F
-q)
+J
l''ra
-c\G;N-lrtY t,
-=FrT
-{.-
cg
z2
",, *ur" !: i:
I;;;iEi; E: E'ui;:E iaN:!
,'
-t
r-
U'
o
GI
B
4)
-q)
*)o^lTl Ei
-o\G=N=cg;
-=*s
-{.-
cg
29E
,,,.1i!l
,; ii li:
;iil;$l
nr;:!is
N?!
00
a)
Eh>'
q)
€\o\e\
rn
U)
oo
-()
{.4A
Ht{
,a
N
c€
-A,
-
-.-
-.bY
zei,;;:;i
-i !: tr:'r*l:i i:*r9 ;: BE.; ;: Eiru;;E i€ruii
l.
a
ID
o
'l
-O
*J
ljl
cg
N
G
-A.
-.-
.cq
o\g\
u)
oo
if, ." _.itriti,:..:
j. ' !1 .. ']'!]l !,;.
, l. . r'l
: :.. .- ir'':.
l:; .i:::: = '':
i ::.:. .,:,i ,riiiili ::: r. ,.'::.i:r1;i!:
, if'! r. "i i'
1.,1,,,,i 1;
,r. iir'r.:rr' ..i ''ll
..i_.r,,ir t:.i,:-
.,;,: rir',:,. -
- ...;t,._ '
" ":i1=.
niigxtl i
o\o
an
F
6J
o\g\
o\
tl
an
a0
-€)Io
lTlf-i
cqN
G
-A.FI
Fl.-
.G
liffiir
': l!l!
r..li i
o\
ah
(A
6l
tq)
o\o\o\
0
a0
-o*),t:t
FTt-l
GN
G
-tu
-.-
.G
,,,=. lE !!-fr !! ti.d: :: r:i
;8 Egli!
': Eifl
N:I
tt Q)'=l-iK= trl'! Gl
E 3=<i: r
at A -,t
-E A€
? +5
= t2a*
o
o\
g\
(?)
0
a0
-c)*.)Av
H*r
GN
G
-A.l-l
-.!l
-.tY
=?.i,"rr .E! l;l! !i li'LL< i 9??
-HEl|Er
': ii:!wlI
N
I
N
c)L
!ia
.99
9"7
d(JtrF<E{, (ih
cl q)E2V)=trc
=rra*
't
o\o\g\
(fl
o
o0
-(D
{rJ,Av
l.t.l
GN
EB
-A.
-t
-.!l
.G
z9i: "3 tirrl .:l a:
,''; il li:
;'EiiEl
m; iE iEr..ti i
N
.?9
-SE EgF8
1#:
;6N
4?3
=La*
c\o\o\
(.rJ
a)
OD
-()\F)
f-{
cnN
cq
-A
-l.=
-.bY
#iiii'r'.rl i
t'
Fra-c.i|-
I
N
o)
r!
.29
9,=
d(Jt?<5
61 u)
cE q)E2a=tro
=,a*
't
o\o\g\
gO
U)-
a0
1
-O
'{ra,-v
fl.{
cg
Ns,bY
-tA,
-FI.-
G
u;is
N
.9eE!t=cliEocll cJ F{a? |
.d=rdo:E ?F
F =9;&E
-q)
*)arilaFt o\
daN !-"teE;
-=F.r y
-{.-
CB
zei: "c tr; iilEr
;i;i{;i
u; e ! I!rul i
lr'
.99tr0==gEp
;87EEq)cl q)!E2t-'a.o
;EA
\l
trl
a
o\o\€\
(a
aD
a0
-(l)
{r),.v
-l*,i
GN
G
-A,
-.Fl
.cg
li*iii
': E!!!
r..r? i
v)
.E
!.1 3
tt> !6i
oJ
q,
OJ
4 3.(!!A
NFS
-:i+a 9i
=
Ei!ii
tliirN
g
5
a
i
z-F- 6:F 'E!iadE 6rE
ts
z
sJ
#\
(!
q,
UJ
3
vtc.
.9tjroit.,) {.<li't I
E
A)Par
Tc.Lo 4oE (oE!X NfF'd (d:t
6 F3ir!_UI '6\-
t!
B
ttt
=ow,
N
1
L:
vl
9"rrJ I
hoI
=
c
(!
o
UJ
-c
tn
ttl
=
a6
o.)
(!tL!
0)
.c.(gIiNisd:- ldsi
=
*d*
i
k
$
$$rfi$
o
r.rJ
E
z
N|
fTf$T
rt
()ot..)q
4i\:.
bo*
*
r
I
tr
r'BE
T
I
++-aET
TT
t
il+
+
*
F
I
I
YFo>t!;
I \./
ra
.9'o
a! t!
Eolu
0)
r(Utt
Nf5'.d;-$
Lt'
=(d
rtlItr:IIililil+++
t
$
.:-
':df, >.
EJ
OL,
EEtll r-ci
Eoz
+
*
Frt+
E
F
r;lii
tlillN
I
fit
I
It
$
+GtI
i
I
t
$
+j
T
I
I
I
It
{
1
+
ta
o-
EJI
,r!
t
(d E$Nis(g:.EEsi
=
E
q,
ILJ
d
CJ
UJ
(nut
.E
!!
0,E
OJ
=
It)
z
Nll
+tg
s
F
+4
T
I
+tt
E
1l
t-
t,
+*
$
F
I
+s
ltI
!
I
I
+rlt
T
I
I
t
$
hr
$$
vlc
q)(n?6t
boic{
7l
!6d FENis.rt-!--=**--s.
'6
ri!i!
nilir
N
ii!>!!or >-t!i-=
tv
rt$tfi
+I
E
T
*$$*$
I
+IL
T
I
I
*
F
I
+&
T
I
I
o
Ets
_i$gJ:€o
EUz
+*
T
*rb
T
II
-l
_:l cLB
'(a "
/
a)ts)
e-(!ESNisd:-'a89.
(d
Fi!!i
*5ilr
frEl!:
N
o
E
#
p
.fiiii
o
o
I.(gEENis(g:gEs.
:(d
.3
ttl5!.E!
=i0,
q,J
a
i-'------'r
iii -_^-- l
!-\:\!\
IIri
i
'il
'ir--'
\
1_t i+ \+' f,-t_
-T-
II
t
I
I
a-.;--
a
r
J
a
I
t
I
T]rrr'l
)
IIt
I-_lrlrlr
ttl
ri !
ttI
-!
:tr
=io)
J
Ir. l\!
ti!
I
)
96(gEENit',rl-E-:: ='Px-E{
=
.riiii
o
o
o
E
-Yrl\e
dr
a\t
c)
ta(! !ENist!=-n
^ E{
=
iiiiiN
8/t
CI6#w,/qo
,-i i'il
ti
'i
0)
>IoJ-
-.1/i^v
0)
o
J--(6i$
NF}'
J: -J F
o- g'
=
y'--rttN/
;ooooroopoooo{ O O.
'oot)oo
F
@ry#,cl,i
\tr8
$
t
.friiiiil0
o
o
o
F*-ir;r
-ltlv
o
9-(!EnNis(v _- aE5i
=
-,igiii
o)
AJ
-.c qr-I
3i
J
/.^\v
q)
T-!-9.(gE!
Ni!d:.!o-s'
:
rd
ill
Nfr!I
o
L
'Pl;lOJ-
-I
/^\v
o
3-,+l lRNis,!; $
=(g
-,friiii
(tJ
il.l
;+o.J
l//^\v
L e-(!ESNis(d:- itt:
=rg
.-Eiiii
A<v't --,' I\il
€_
C)#
llr,-)
.xv)q
-RCridr
/v
qJ
9-(!!3Nis
_Ii =- $o-s'
=(!
.iiiii
C
I
t
;-r :
u,
/,\r'
c)
J-
(gEANis(o:-:Ee:
(6
E;iii
nliir
N
i
I
I
\
\
\
\
\
-'/-|/.-1!]
\-
\J_
rl
g
p
{.,,x,--'
(!
bD
T
I ttl.,ll
TI L,>ii
>i0
!Yt'.,-itA
it
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
!t rhLl
,)rETlE E
+EBe?!
+-! ii f,Jl<-
a
o
T
.e.d E!Nis(g:Eds.
=rg
"(,
/,1l
I
I
I
i
N||
I
'5
:
5r
P.t
€i
t
-!!
N
(!
-bo
o'r
ho
a^
trt
l\/ i
1i {Jt/i(ir,n
7/iv4
fy
it fx
'TItt
2l
q)
(! ESNi5'
J=iFn t<
=
rilii
l!iil
(
I
\
\
I
I
ii
f;
../ \-z' )
_.., x.<,rr)
HIGHLIGHTS for the proposed VAIL PLAZA HOTEL
(redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn site)
.--
aJ bed rm living rm baths keys
weeks
lyear
1-Hotel (shoulder seasons)1E6 47 213 201 21 hotel owned
year round 96 96 96 52
Club (after sale) t o 90 47 117 108 2E pfivate
* lt is expected that, of the sold units, some whole units or lock-offs rooms will be rented through the hotel.* Club units while not sold will be integrated to the hotel operation.
2-AMENITIES
seats format The original dimension
Confierence:19,562 sf capacity:55{t banquet tor 326 hotel/club rooms
800 amphitheater is maintained
SPA : | 23,il2 sf (Similarto the new Hyatt Beaver Creek SPA)
World class lobby, lounge, etc.
3-SIZE REDUCTION:13o/o The number of hotel/club bed rooms was reduced
from 326 hotel/dub bed rooms to lE5 hoteUclub rooms.
Even with that 130 reduction in the number of total rooms, it is maintained the original capacity
(dimensioned for 326 bed rooms) of the Conference and SPA because those amenities are considered to
be essential to obtain year round high occupancy, particularly on shoulder and ofi seasons.
lyUN!lytl't...9lzlE: the desired high occupancy, pa4lelErlv on off and shoulderseasons, can be obtained
tr only via the grcup business market, which requires:
a) good hotel/club category Oe have that);
b) appropriate amenities, conference, spa, el :c. (Considering the rec
ll
luced hotel, we are abundant on that);
c) hotel/club capable of accommodating the larger groups 9l rn9!9 !!qn oneglg!{p sl!!4!q!99!$y.
d) strong marketing budget.
The size of the proposed amenities (Conference, SPA, lobby, etc.) can accommodate a volume of group
business more than double of the proposed hotel/club capacily. | |
I Despite the reduced hotel/club accomodation capacity, we will market for the group business to fill up as
much as psgslqg lCr Confererce capacily, hopefully overflowing the excess guests to neighb_gring
accommodations.
4-IDENSITY for the Wl Special Development Districl with tlq ilqpglgq VqH:1.07 sf grfa/sf land
Ausfiia Haus l.'t6
5-BUILDING HIGH's
I
Above Vail road grade:3 floors + 1 recessed floor and roof I
Above Wl Plaza grade 3 floors and roof (equal to tfte existing hotel building high).
Above Frontage rd. grade:3 floors +recessed floor and roof
Equal to the existing condomanium building adiacent at the East.
6-VEHICLES TRAFFIC
On Frontage road:Only deliveries. Trucks will be one level bellow Frontage rd. grade.
There will be a screen at the Frontage rd. level so that even the top of the
tucks wall not be sesn from the street
L On Vail roarl.Only automobiles
The entrance/eit toffrom the Hotel/club (and automobiles garage) will be on Vail road.
PARKING 266 256 indoor parkinq spaces + 10 outdoor (check in)
v)co
utotrnl
OT
v\
o
T s.(d !ENls(!:. EE9i
=(t
Eiiii
N
q,l
tlJ
z
T!
6
$
ql
llt
o
3
I
s
3
r
!$!'
rhc
.ofi^B{thI
,i{iid
E
E
o
(gi3Nis(g:l
o-s"
=(!
r;lil
rlii!
N
E
#
(!
o
tll
4
3I
!nc
(!
g"
rrr I
bDI
:;
o
(!ttNid(d
=-.8o-c'
.E
illilN
UJ
v)
r!
q)
au
3
ddd
rfi$ffi
tlIr
${$$
t
$
t
E
$
co
(E
B
tlt
Cttrl
c,
tr,
z
+IIt
F
I
I
tt
+
*
r
I
rttrtl
ttlc
.9
q)u)q<i
bD*c',
==
6
(gI$Nlsftl'r__i: i Fo-s'
=6
i{lii
EC>!!o>.
=\J
I/'
.:-
.:6r'>.
c) !J
=
o,
>>r
*!
Eotl,t
EE
GR
z
I
+f
I
l
Fr*
!l+
e*
T
I
Lt
$
+a
T
I
I
I
I
I
$
I
t
$
N|
t^E
(!
g.
rr.t I
,.h:
-.rbrO IE
==o
o
o
(oiE
Nld#it
iiiiiN
c
t!
q,
|ll
vt
.9
j
0t
uJ
$t$d
I
il
l!
a)
tll
l!!!
(!
g,
|lT
z
o*
T
+I
T
I
+I
T
t,
rftl
{d
c
o(nl
bol
o
I(!i$NislTt - ti:dFo-s''t
Ei!il
l!iil
EEt(!ar>trJ;
flv
t
tt$$r
+
f;
F
+I
E
T
I
+:ffi
T
I
I
+E
T
I
+t[
+
F
I
l
€pt! rE>>_eE
;,q
tlj
c
EI>r!_cb
.c6
EUz
++.d!l&*
TTI
otg
$
F
I
Nll
c(!rEi
Eii;'
/^
o
o
(!t!Nis,n-l_i:t'Fn sr
=(E
3;lil
l!iir
N
o
g
#
p
,}
ta:tq.El>i
T
OJJ
/^v
't
i\
\\.(('
)-i\-. \
\
oI
(gt$Nl:'
o.s;l
=G'
i)
ji
i!.t\t
l\rlli
"-t
i
i i ----
.iiili
I llr ltlrll rltl!ll rl!ltll!lr l!
rlr Ir l! Ir lr Ir Irlrilt Irltltl! l!il'i lrlrlrlr
I lt ltlt lt ltlt lt I tfltlt I rllt l! | rlt
59
>i
E
J
/av
or
oI 3-(UE!Nls,!;-$
=
..-riiil
El!llBlrlil!lrll iIt
o
ffi
)
xJ'--..
9rI\E
drJ/^
36(o itNisfrt-t-i:is.r g{
:
(E
niiii
it
il
ii
-i 1'ji
i_.i
N|
o)
_tttJ
/'^\v
o
I .l6dEENfrd(U:.1
o-s'
'a
,-fr$iii
$
ffi
dsrF
4
#
F
hh
;ooooroopooooqoorroolcoo
,3.r-*-;iiY.I2aa
;
4 C)
&@
rs,
q)
I(!tENts
Jdln J'
=
#
p
.friili
o)
EtcFi
3loJ
t/^\v
o
!,(!IgNI:(!:l
=(E
1:l
N'fli
IJ- ;
dr
-)
/\v
o
or 9.(s ESNfiSci.i
,$i[i!:
ilttt:
,,..'l \C
\l1=\J ,--
g
f
q)
:i- c
iliJ
/t^v
o
oI
(Bi$NislTl-t
dFT
Gl
,-iiiil
^a-/ |\ta\l
U
d
&,
.x(/)q_BoldiJ
/v
o
(!iiNis.Tl-t__:: i $o-s'
=(!
/-1,,'-lr-
\Jal
C)
I4
o
u-e
;-r :
u
//^v
T
t6(gEINisrll-gJ+F
cL t'
Ei!i!
tliir
N|
rl
r\IJU
(!
to*€,.;J TE }i lrl-_;* ;
r- ?i
=
t4v
O+)r .e66 E3Nisd:. tEg.
.G
Ei!il
nliir
I!
L/
A
li-4ul
tt
it,:
I
'I
I
\
\
\
I
I
\
\
I
i
I
\
I
,' l.r' ,/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)
tt
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
s#,r,'
t
'EI
Io
lq
$i
al
5
6
E
(!tg
Ni!'rrl-t-i:*Fo-g'
=
rilil
nliir
N
-
-t-
L
/v
Il!r
li
th
lr-1IJ
>i
1t
1)
rt
I
\\:
t
it
(
I
Il
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
i
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
+
I
I
I
f,
P
',', \,
E''
o
6l
!
6)
-C)+.,9-EA
S*6l;
-=Fry
-{o-
Js7
:iiiii'
trtl I
ah
v)l.
6l
F(t)
-(l)+)A#al-l o\
Sg6l;
-AFrs
-{.-
G
;i;iii
r..ti i
N
-€)+)Aiie
-€\,d:: (t)
N l-{GE
E$
-{.-
.6t
o
Iiiitr'o
cl
o
at)
GI
t!)
o\o\o\
ra
E
a0
-(l)*.oFIH
G
N
cc
-fr
-l.-
^61
t;iil'
GIo
o
6l
E
'o)
-lq)+.,9-trasi6l;
E$
-{.-
.61
ll;lii'
t?)
o
o
6l
Fc)
-l€)+)o^Ft al- o\
alN3clE
-=Fry
-{.-
6l
?
ii;i*'
m
ah
a
t6)
o\o\o\
(a
,h
oo
-6)+)AHtst
G
N
6g
-A.
-.-
6l
z2 "i,.
I; i!iE,
;r;!::t;!;r !!'*o : ! PeNii
$o
o
6t
tr
!o
-(l)+.o^.lTta
-€\rlN:6l;
-=AT
-<.-
G
;*iii'
t
(A
(tt
6l
F()
-o+)o^Fl 5i|-tC\
|tt:: (r)
NFl6l;
-=FrP
-{.E
G
lftiiii
'i Ei !lrrti !
l,n
o
o
6l
t
C)
-c)+)o^
Fr-{ 6i
-c\Ftiiecl;
-=Fry
-r{.-
ct
$siil'
,
i
ra
(t)
(t)
F(D
p
o
-e)*)o^FlaHC\
Gl .*N=GU
-=FrT
-(.-
6t
o
FFV-
lftiiii.l5i!!
r..t? i
\o
0
o
6l
tr
tc,
-q)+)
ffaf-l €\
r{N3ccu
-t=AY
-{.-
.G
Ir;iil'
\o
o
art
6l
t(D
-l(D+)AiieFt €\
6l .sN=6lE
-=tFrS
-{.-
.G
;l;iii
r.\
v,
IA
GI
tr
!€)
-€)€r^i:e|-€\
rtN96t;
-=Fry
-{.-clt\7
ir;i$'
r-
(h
(h
cl
to
-(D+)'9.EE
G-sN=G;
-5F{ry
-{r-
.cg
;l;iii
a
ah
(h
tqJ
o\o\o\
c.t
o
o0
-€)+./^,v
Frrtrl
6[
N6l
-Fr
-.E
.cE
li;iili
': i! !!
r..rl i
co
o
0
Io
o\o\o\
a,
a0
,,,. !i l!
.;:!!h
;tgtiif
...9 :; !!-o:! ltxri I
Flo+)A!,
f.l.lFrl
cq
N
G
-A.
-.-
.61
o\
(t
U'
6l
'ol
-€)+Jo^F| o\..Fl o\
,r|N9cl;
-uFrP
-{O-
.G
liii$
o\
at)
0
6t
'6)
-o)+./q
EAc!:N=6lU
-=FrP
-{.I
.G
z2!
,.,=. lE !t-! il 1!,
- E! tlard El iil:ET:I-
rrt? I
EE :
E F=<.! rola-<EdN
.E fr€
? BEa&.
-l€)+)o^|,rtaFt o\
al-': cr)NiGE
-=AT
-{o-d
l;;lili,llill
NlI
.99g3 E
EE.S<ts,
€€:# H.H! E>chfu
o\o\o\
(r)
o,
a0
-(D+roFi
-GNcl
-A,
-.-
6l
=i;liii'l Ei l!r..ti E
.29
BE E
E 3sf8l
E 6.-l
2?E5Lia*
o\q\o\
(t)
u,
a0
-o)+)oHt-l
GNG
-F{
-.!l
6l
ri;iiii
'l Ei!i
tl? E
.39?=€5 F
{,E f
0) ,.r t-l'C€61G|q).,az=tr of-
=,a*
o\o\g\
(a
att
a0
-C)*.r-lvl+'lt+l
6t
N
G
-A.
-
-o-
.cq
:liiii
w?I
.eeEsEsg FTf#FtrE x6toxE 2Za=tr
; gA
o\c\€\
c"I
1t
b0
-€)+.oHf{
GN6l
-F{
-.l
.cc
*iii'N:l
iEi
# 3€
;EA
-q)+.
€aFt €\
rl:: (a
NFGU
-=Fry
-{.rl
.61
ffiiii'
N|
-l w tlr
SpEngERG & ASSocIATES LLC
ofuomEu and &uue/ou at %out
NoRwEsr CENTER, SulrE 2O5
ROBERTL. SPERBERG 70 BENCHMARK RoAD, P. O. BoX3420 97GA45.o2OO
MTCHAEL R. DUNLEVTE AvoN. CoLoRADo 81620 FAx 9708457339
August 24, 1999
VIA FACSIMILE (479-2452) and FIRST CLASS MAIL
George Ruther, Senior Planner
Town of Vail
111 S. Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Phase IV Development, Vail Village Inn.
Dear George:
We represent Meadow Drive Ventures, Inc., owner of units 17 and l8 in Phase V of the
Village Irur Plaza Special Development District. We understand that you are the planner
assigned to the proposed development of Phase IV-B of the Village Inn Plaza. The purpose of
this letter is to express our client's concern that adequate parking for Phase V owners be
provided for in the Phase IV-A development plan.
It is common knowledge to all of us that the original developer of the Village Inn Plaza
Special Development District 6 ("SD6") wanted to defer the responsibility to provide parking for
the project until the latter stages ofthe project. To accomplish this, the original developer
successfully persuaded the Town of Vail to permit the construction of Phases I-A, I-B, l-C, II-A,
II-8. a portion of Phase III and Phase V. all without parking of an1'kind (or with a minimum
amount of parking availability), with its promise to provide parking for these phases in the larger
Phase III and Phase IV structures. These promises, for the most part, were placed of public
record. The promise specific to Phase V was contained in a document entitled "Declaration of
Easements and Rights," recorded February 4, 1988, in Book 478 atPage 377 , in the records of
the Recorder for Eagle County, Colorado. In that document, the developer promised as follows:
"Upon separation and subdivision of Phase V from the Property,
any vehicular parking, in addition to that contained in Phase trI
and Phase IV, required to satisfu the total parking requirement of
the SD6 development plan shall be included in the development
plan for Phase IV, when such plan is submitted to the Town of
Vail for its approval."
Date Receivet
AU6 2 ? 099
,lr
We are of the view that any condominiumized parking space in Phase III that is not deed
restricted for use solely in SD6 or otherwise restricted to parking within SD6 should not count
toward the required parking in SD6 established by the the Town of Vail Ordinance No. 7, Series
of 1976, as amended. After all, the parking requirements for the special development district
were based upon the anticipated parking need in the special district, not the Town of Vail in
general. Thus, in accordance with the promises made by the original developer, the current
developer of Phase IV-A should be required to provide all remaining parking required for SD6,
not including parking spaces in Phase III without deed restrictions. Further, in accordance with
the promises made in the above-quoted document, at least a portion of the parking provided in
Phase IV-A (about 36 spaces) should be deed restricted for use by Phase V residential owners.
Any other resolution of the parking issue would result in Phase V owners being denied what was
promised to them in a document filed of public record, upon which they relied in purchasing
their properties.
We ask that the Town of Vail act to protect the interests of the owners in Phase V when it
considers and approves the development plan for Phase IV-A. We think that the Town Council
and the Plaruring Department have an obligation to protect such interests, since the Town
Council was the govemmental entity that allowed construction of Phase V without the required
parking based solely upon a promise of the developer to provide such parking in the future Phase
IV plans. The failure of the Town to protect the interests of the owners in Phase V would result
in a substantial diminution in the value of Phase V residential units, and would be a denial of
substantial substantive rights promised and conveyed to such owners by the original developer.
We thank you in advance for your consideration of this letter, and your anticipated
cooperation in ensuring that the owners in Phase V of SD6 get what was promised to them by the
original developer. If we can answer any questions, or provide additional information, please
call.
i@
,/,IFRO\I-EAD
Date: August24,l999
ARROWHEAD at VAIL
Post Offrce Box 3418
Vail, Colorado 81658
(800) 535-8882 or (970) 926-3000
R, E A L E S TA T E
This fax contains 5 pages including this cover sheet.
Dear George,
David Bruckmann asked me to follow up with the following information conceming parking for the Vail
Village Inn Phase V condominiums. The following is a letter from Mr. Bruckmann and the Decalaration of
Easements, which are part of the Articles of Incorporation for WI Phase V and are recorded documents.
The underlined portion of these documents lead me to believe that some parking rights were to be granted to
Phase V of the Vail Village from Phase IV. If these were not defined properly, it seems that now would be a
good time to bring Phase IV and Phase V into proper parking compliance.
Please feel free to give me a call if you have any questions.
Sincerelv.
4,.$/"' '\ :.l.)-,
.-,." i. 'r ; i' c --' I
i',.\', I P-. .,,
t-^i \.
"" ., d.
_j-_.f.
I i,
t/
e _1 ;. .J, r. ''. i
'-'-f-
I a ,.i
i\r,.,o.'\ir'1 t'i , '-
:,, l. l.
"t
, I -"(:
Date Receive,
AUo 24 1999
To:George Ruther
Fax #:479-2r57
From:J. Dudley Ottley, Jr.
Fax #:(970) 926-3317
Dudlev Ottlev
o
Mr. George Ruther
Senior Planner
Town Of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Co. 81657
u.s.A.
Re: Development of Vail Village Inn Phase [V
D.P.K.Bruckmann
Little Court
Neb Lane
Oxted, Suney RH8 9JN
England
August 23,1999
Sincerely Yours,
David P.K. Bruckmann
Dear George:
I am writing on behalf of Fy clienq Mgadoy Drive Ventures [nc., which owns ,nits lZ & lg inIll"g" It" 4A* t!*e V . It is o* obi"ioo tl"t oo parking has ever been provided, by the develooer of
$llage Il+ Plaza-Phasg v, to satisg dle sD6 Parking tequ"ire.eots ortne iorrm oiviirLwt"i-lrii
ftaufer df{ was to.give b}ry"r.t of P[iaseV urits parkiig c6ndos h phas;rtr. He neverEeed t*iriJia
urese par-Kng condos rn relauon to Phase V . I arn-sure it was tle original developels intention to deedrestict these parking-condos so that the transfer of units in Phase V fouia aho reluliin i[i t u".f"i orthe parking condos.Unfortunately, this was not done.
.. A case T pginjwhich illustrates this is when Phase Vunits 17 & 18 were sold in 1993. The ownerofthetwo units. had hYo parking-condos in Phase III. In the sale of the two units the settei Llpt-one oltnepaxkrng mndos so that he could use it with another property he had 1n another part of Vail'. His aUillty tokeep the^one pqtcing splce shows that there is in efiecf no iarking that ir-uppuit"o*t to phase V.
"^_t;h:::t^"5 111911,o!1"_ l9n tlat t|9 d,eveloper of Phase N sholl-d providd_ihe total required p*ki"eror rnase v. n snould also be provtded tn such a manner tlat when a sale of interest in Phase V occursit continues to have the requir6d amount of parking after the sale.
, , V,nfort "ately
Phase V seems not to be id.com_pliance with ttre parking requirements of the Town Ofvarl. lt rs our understanrttng txat by code units l7 & 18 in Phase V should have 4 parkine spaces whichare.appl{telant to it ,when in fact it has none. This is the perfect opportunity fot tt{" iouir-6i Vuii L9df thit de^velopment finally-comply with the parking ldws of thi'iown. iam sure it is the intention oftne 'l own ut vail to correct this problem and therefore look forward to their actions on this matter.
a'
THIS DECLARATION is made this
-
day of ,
L987, by VAIL VILLAGE INN, INC., a Colorado corPoratiorr
( ttDeclarant" ) .
DECLAMTION
OF
EASE},IENTS AND RIGHTS
RECITALS
1. Declarant is the record and beneficial owner of the
part hereof.
remainder of the Propert
real property (the "Property") situate in the Town of Vail,
County of Eag1e, State of Colorado, which Property is more
partibularly-described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a
3. The Property consists of Phase IV and Phase V, which
phaee V is more pirtitularly described in Exhibit B attached
hereto and made i part herebf and with Phase IV being the
2, Town of Vail Ordinance No. 7, Series of L976,
established Special Developnent District 6 ("SD6") for Ehe
purpose of eniuring the unified and coordinated development and
irse'of the Property and other contiguous Property previously
owned by Declaiant. SD6 recognized and anticipates that the
property covered thereby would be developed in phases, with all
vehicullr parking requiied for the SD6 develoPmel! to be
contained in phaies denominaced as "Phase IIII', "Phase IV" and
"Phase V"
t+. Declarant has constructed on Phase V the projecE
"Project") known as Village Inn Plaza-Phase V Condominiums
has lequested approval of-the Town of Vail of a subdivision
the Prdperty so that Phase V will be legally seParated fron
IV. As Ph red as a seDaraEe proper
ers t'
eclarant des
the vehicular Par sPaces Prov n Phase IV.
5. Vehicular ingress and egress to the northly side-of-
Parcel V and vehicular-parking foi delivery and service vehicles
are presently provided bver, icross and upon a portion of Parcel
iV. 'Declarant'desires to grant to the Owners an easement for the
continued use of such pres6nt ingress, egress and vehicular
parking.
6. Utility lines now servicing Parcel IV may present-l-y be
locaEed in Parcei V and utility lines now servicing Parcel V may
presently be located in Parcel IV. Declarant desires to grSnt
Lnd reseive reciprocal easements to continue the use of such
present utility lines.
t'
7, To permit unobstructed pedestrian access betv/een PhaseIV and Phase V, Declarant desires to grant and reserve reciproc:rl
easements for the ingress, egress and passage of pedesCrians on,over and across Phase IV and Phase V.
8. Trash collection and removal receptacles are presently
located on Phase IV. There are presently no such receptacleslocated on Phase V. Declarant desires to grant to the Ownerscertain rights to use the trash receptacles located on Phase IV.
9. An outdoor swinrming pool and related deck area(col1ecCively called herein the "Swimming Pool") are presently
located on Phase IV. Declarant desires to grant to certain of
Ehe Owners certain rights to use the swiarning pool and related
deck area located on Phase IV.
10. Declarant desires to grant the above described
easements and rights pursuant to Ehe terqs and conditions setforth in this Declaration.
DECLARATION
Declarant does hereb ublish clare thatfol1ow:inffi ons. eaa res triction:,;
e a Duroen ano a
Declarant, its succ#sors and assigns, and any person or entityacquiring or owning an interest in the real property described inExhibit A and all other real property which is or becomes subjectto this Declarati,on and improvements builE thereon, theirgrantees, successors, heirs, personal representatives, deviseel;or asslgns.
SD6 PARKING RIGHTS
n and subdivi
contained in
when sucti d to theVail for
parking
provide
In accordance with the agreement that
as may be required pursuant to Paragraph
such additionalI above willthe parking requirements of Phase V,
conveYs
resDec ve cus t t to use
e reasona owner of
g, hrithout tation, the right to c rge a Iee
use of such vehicular parking spaces; provided,however,
Phas e
such terms and
Owners, their condi t ions
Cenants or
shal l
Eheir
not discriminate againstrespective customers and
theinvitccs
ACCESS AND PARKING EASEMENT
1. Declarant hereby grants and conveys to each Owner anon-exclusive, Derpe-tual Laiement a"a iilttt'ir-ri"y ( ghq ',d6c€rsgand Parking EasimeirE").over, ""io"" and Ehrough parcer rv, forEhe purposes of providing.ro each ownei,-i;;-E;";"ts and theirrespective customers and-invitees, (i) i vehicular parking areaupon Parcel rv located-adjacenr to dtr!_""tti""i"i*parking arealocated on rhe northerly iia" rr parcel v;;J-;; te shown as a"loading zone" on the Ci,"aori"i.tsr.M"p (the ,,Map,,) of the project,to be recorded in the real prof"lty r..ords in rhe office of c'eclerk and Recorder of nagre-coinly, coroiaao,-tJ provide inconjuncrion with. such derignaEed i""ii;;-;;;; ;; la"q"ii"-farkingarea (collectively_ the "pa;king Area") F"i-d"ii""iy ".,o servicevehicres makine deriveries or Eeivice ca11s to-ana pick-ups atPhase v, wirh iarking itr.i"on r:-iric"a to such-rirn. p".iods assuch vehicles ire acEually rati"l deriveries-'o.-"er.,ri"e carls Loor pick-ups ar phase V; and (ii)"a-roaar"y-in"i.iio' pro.ridingvehicular insress and egress'from-Vail n"ia,'-"-i.isn ot Vair,colorado, pubric road, Eo ;h"-p;;5i"g-4i""-;"; i;; rhree parkingspaces located on the norrherly siae"oi-f;r;;i u,'-ao be shown asliurited conunon elemenE parking'-snaces on the.nf"e. So long assuch ingress and, egress'and pirk'ing are provided for, DecraranLreserves the risht from time to t:-ile to h"rit".te the actualroute of such iigress.ana lgress across parcEl rv and the actuallocation of such"p".ti"l-.r3"i-itt. northerry boundary ri_ne ofParcel V.
2, Declarant, as the owner of phase IV, shall at i_ts solecost and expense clean, remove snow and i-c", i"pair and maintairrthe roadway-and parking .;;;;-ii.rua"a within rire Access andParking EaiemenE^ i" go;a-oiJlr]"Ionoirion anJ i"pui..
3. The Access and parking Easement sharl run with the larrdand shall be appurtenant to parIel V, such that a transfer oflegar title ro'itt. or any p.;;i;; of'parcel -v-"rr"rr
auromarical ly:::i:I:: a proporrionare- ii,t"re"c in the n""""i--..a i;;;;;;-"-"tEascment.
e shall Iand
to all oa proportionate r.nceres t
o
August 24, 1999
George Reuther, Town of Vail Community Dwelopment
JeffWinston
Vail Plaza Hotel Design Review
VAIL VILIAGE MASTER PLAN
lllustrative Plans
Elland Use Plan - ls consistent with Medium/High Density Residential designation.
EIOpen Space Plan - Does not reduce Village Inn Plaza w/ Greenspace.
EParking and Circulation - Does not continue EAr'r' pedestrian linkage from Crossroads to Vail Road.
EBuilding Height - Exceeds 3 to 4 story designation to achieve "stepping down" to Gateway building.
EBuilding Height Profile--Does not achieve stepping down toward Vail Road.
EIAction Plan - lmplements projected infill development of residential/lodging infill.
ESub-area | - Commercial development at ground level to frame interior plaza with greenspoce -
Cl Mass of building does not "step up" fiom existing pedestrian scale along Meadow Drive to 4-5
stories dong Frontage Road. Rather, makes an abrupt transition to 5 to 5 stories.
tr Desigp does not maintain view corridor from 4-way stop (roundabout) to Vail Mountain.
Applicable Objectives ("Special Emphasis"):
gl .7 Encourages the upgnding and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities.
pl2.3 Increases the number of residential units available for short-term ovemight accommodations.
@,2.4 Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible wrth existing
land uses.pl2.6 Encourages the development of affordable housing units through the efforts ofthe Private sector,
g3.l Minimizes the amount of vehicular trafiic in the Village to the greatest extent possible.
tr4. I Does not improve existjng open spoce oreos or oeote new plozos with greenspace and pocket park.
Ets. I Meets parking demands with public and private pa*ing facilities.
g6.l Provides service and delivery facilities for existing and new development.
Land Use Comparison (Appendix A)
WMP Appendix A Pnposed
Unbuilt units 148 a.u. fl4 e.d.u.)4 | d.u.+ 97 a.u. (90 e,d.u.)
Unbuilt square feet 45,636 | 0 r,060
nA\
--. nr' \"
X
nlJJ/\
q)'$:)$
The location and conte>d of this building makes the Vail Village Ma*er the primary guiding documenl n
the Urban Design Guide Plan.
2299 PEARL STREET. SUITE 100 o BOULDER. CO 80302 I 303-440-9200 o FAX 301-449-6911 o
Qt
TOWN OFVEN
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970479-2100
FAX 970479-2157
August 26, 1999
Tim Losa
Zebren & Associates
48 East beaver Creek Boulevard
Avon, Colorado 81658
Vail Plaza Hotel
Dear Tim.
Thank you for meeting with me tbis moming to discuss the next steps in the development review process of the Vail
Plaza Hotel.
The purpose of my letter is to zummarize our discussion and provide you with written documentation of the
proceedings of the joint worksession meeting held on Tuesday, August 24'.
As we discussed, the proposed development review process for the Vail Plaza Hotel will include the following
meetmgs:
PEC - September 27t (worksession)
DRB - October 6'n (conceptual review)
PEC - October 1 th (worksession)
TOWN COLiNCIL - October t2d lupdate;
DRB - October 20d (conceptual review)
PEC - October 25'n (final review)
TOWN COUNCIL - October 26' (update)
TOWN COLTNCIL - November 2'd (worksession/ls reading)'[OWN COUNCIL - November 16'n (worksession/2od rcadi"gl
These dates are tentative anri subject to change depending upon your abililv to meet submittai deadlines and the
magnitude of the issues to be addressed. Please m;uk your calendar accordingly.
ln addition to the development revierv schedule, rve also discussed the issues raised during the joint rvorksession
meeting. According to my notes, the fbllowing issues or concems wcro expressed by the various board mernbers
during the joint rvorkscssion discussion:
r How will left tums out of the loading/delivery area be handled?o What portion of the ioading/delivery improvements is in the South Frontage Road right-of-way?. How will the deficit parking requirement for the entte special development district be handled?. How does the current proposai compare,/contrast to the original proposal and the previous SDD approval?o The pedestrian walkways in and around the hotel need to be addressed. As proposed they are too narrow and
fail to function poperly. How will pedesrian circulation be addressed?o How will access to the hotel from East Meadow Drive be orovided?
{g*no*"uo
f
. what steps are bein-c;at6qtf*rue that the Cateway Bu.ilding is isolaed from the pedestrian ramc on Easr aMeadow Drive? , n-'. ...1-
. The long, linear fagde of the north eievation, along the South Frontage Rbad, needs to be articulated. What
can be done to this elevation to increase the articulation?r The canyons between the buiidings are unattractive. What solutions are there to eiiminating the unattractiveness
of the canyms?. What exactly is being proposed to improve the streetscape along Vail Road?r What are the rafiic impacts of the proposed hotel?. How is the "sense of anival" to the hotel being ad&essed?. The height of the building should vary along tle South Frontage Road. What soiutions are there to varying the
roofheigbt?
o How would you propose to incorporate the comments of JeffWinston into the proposed plans?o What solutions have you developed to respond to the issues raised by Greg tlall in his letter to me of August 19'
r999?
Each of tbese issues needs to be addressed in writrng by September f aud discussed wi& the Planning &
Environmental Commission on September 27".
Again, thank you for meeting with me to continue the discussions on the Vail Plaza Hotel. Should you have any
questions or concerns with regard to the information addressed in my letter, piease do not hesitate to call. You can
reach me by telephme at 479-2145.
Sincerely,
e-*-',Q-**,t
George Ruthe{, AICP
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
Xc: Vail Town Council
Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission
Town of Vail Desip Review Board
Russell Forrest, Community Development Director
Waldir Pratto
"a tlr
The developer further obligated itself to provide parking for Phase V owners in Phase IV
ofthe project by granting Phase V owners certain rights, as follows:
"... Declarant hereby grants and conveys to each Owner, its tenants
and their respective customers and invitees, the right to use such
vehicular parking spaces on Phase IV under the terms and conditions
as are reasonably established by the owner ofPhase IV including,
without limitation, the right to charge a fee for the use of such
vehicular parking spaces..."
Based upon such promise, the Town of Vail permitted the original developer to construct
Phase V without parking ofany kind, except for about three outside parking spaces on the
northwest side of the building, reserved exclusively for commercial owners, and two "loading
zone only" parking spaces made available in the same location for all owners. Thus, residential
owners in Phase V have nothing but the developers promise, and the Town of Vail's resolve, to
ensure that they have adequate parking for themselves and their guests and invitees.
In order to make the residential units in Phase V attractive to potential purchasers, the
original developer sold to each purchaser of a residential unit a condominiumized parking place
owned by the developer in Phase III. These parking places were deeded separate from the units,
and were not made appurtenant to the units. Thus, each owner was free to resell hisftrer/its
parking place independent ofhis/herlits unit. At least one such ownerhas taken advantage of
that ownership arrangement. A predecessor of Meadow Creek Ventures purchased two units
(Units 17 and l8) in Phase V and was thus allowed to purchase two parking spaces in Phase III
as a result. The owner then combined the trvo units into one penthouse unit, and sold the
penthouse unit to a purchaser. ln the sale, the owner sold only one ofthe two parking spaces to
the purchaser, and retained the other parking space for his own use. As it turns out, the prior
owner also owned other property in Vail (not in the Village Inn Plaza SD6), and wanted the
second parking space for that unit.
The sum result of the development of SD6 to date is that no parking exists in SD6 for
owners in Phase V other than what they have been able to purchase from independent owners of
condominiumized parking places in Phase III. With respect to Phase III condomiumized parking
spaces, none are deed restricted for use solely by owners in SD6, and all may be sold to owners
outside SD6. In fact, many such spaces have already been sold to owners outside SD6. Thus,
there is no guarantee that the condominiumized parking spaces in Phase III will be available for
owners in SD6, or Phase V for that matter, in the future. The only thing the owners in Phase V
have to ensure adequate parking in the future is the original owner's promise as quoted above.
OFVAILCumv
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail. Colorado 81657
970-479-2 r 38
FAx e7*($*845?rsss
o(teop
\b
Tim Losa
Zefuen & Associates
48 East beaver Creek Boulevard
Avon. Colorado 81658
Re:Vail Plaza Hotel
Dear Tim.
Thank you for meeting yesterday moming to discuss the traffic corffnents outlined in the memorandum from Greg
tlall, dated August 19'n, with regard to the Vail Plaza Hotel.
The purpose of my letter is to summarize our discussion and provide you with written documentation of the meeting.
As we discussed, the plans will bc reviseri to provide a minimum of five loadingidelivery berths on the north side of
the hotel. It is our understanding that the loading/delivery area will provide facilities for the entire special
development district. We firther understand that the loading/delivery area will be designed to accornmodate tash
removal and drop-off for passenger coachcs serving the hotel. No passenger coach drop-off will be permitted on
Vail Road.
The drive ramps to the undergound structure shall meet minimum width requiremcnts of 12 feet. It is our
understanding the plans will bc reviewed to insure compliance.
An off-site improvements pian is required. The off-site improvements plan shall illustrats the proposed
improvemcnts along the South Frontage Road, Vail Road, and East Meadow Drive, including the bus stop and plaza
area. It is our understanding that the sidewalks and driveways wili be equipped with a snow melt system. The
proposed off-site improvements shall be reviewed by the Town of Vail. Those off-site improvements affccting the
public right-of-way shall be reviewed and approved by the Colorado Deparfinent of Transponation.
A surfacc waler drainage plan is requircd along with the site gading plan. The plan shall illustrate of surtbce water
will be handled on the site and horv the on-sitc drainage system will tie into the Town's sto[n sewer svstem.
The traffic report needs to be revised to include additional information. The revised report shall includc an analysis
prepared by the consulting engineer of the traffic impacts of the hotel at each of thc access points to the hotel
propeily.
Lastly, we understand that you will be revisiting the design of the parking garage exit where it intersects with Vail
Road. As desiped, the streetscape does not project the appearaDce of a pedesrian-friendly area. A good example
of a pedestrian-friendly streetscap€ where vehicles and people must interface with one another is in front of the
Sonnenalo.
{g *""t"uo r^r*
-.t -. \l" .tG l\1-.,:\ -.;.r'
ttt'- .t'**
$ Eacb of trhese issues oeeds to be adfressed by Sepernber / . Once the rwisios have been made to the plans please
cootact GregHall,(479-Zli0) to schedule a meetingtinre to review tbe cbanges.'-\
AeBio,lhmklo0 formeaingtocontinue the discussionsontbeVail Plazallotel. Shouldyou have any quesions u
concems wi6_rogird to th€ information ad&essed in my l€ter, please do nbt hesitate to call. You can reach nr by
EkFqilI47e-2r45.
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
-Quth./t
GregHalt, Drectoof Pnblic Wc.ks
Jay Peterson
Waldir Pratto
Xc:
o
1:t
T
9Extr
.9€'o}rLJ .6
Sa'
s 6lit
e !iir
tnEoeIot4,
(Dgeth
l/^'v
g
o=tr
6N6
&
:6
F
:AE
c
.F
_g|rJ
A(!9o O
_c! dl:E 9psE
e
tE
z
-g=
=E-o-3
c
.F
6
o
LU
Er!
e,
obo(!
B;
'e
3
I
€$i:F
-Y ao
8,8_.E
I,ct
nilll
.tlE
.94JUov,
6N
G'E
1^v
€)Po
=6NG
L
6
co
G'
_9u.t
r!
N(!
CL
o,,t
-g=
*$>f,
rh
e,o
IE
otll i
EO€Ea
E
=EA
/^,\v
9S6 Ei
Nq*
EFF
fiiffi
oPo
=
c-6
E
.9
(!
c,
!L-
E
=o3t',
c
.F
G'
E
c)
Eo
(E
_9l!
t-oz
N!|
?
YI
U
a
es
i:F
_=oEI_-5'; E->3
Eriii
N?lll
ttlEo
Huo3t'
boC
ret
==6
/-,v
€)Po
=GN6
L
.E
o
EE>(!oP:
'r=
= \.,ov)
€pEEfi>.E=
EE3
c.oE
(d(d
OEtriR
Er)uJ
(gLa*|rr=
-coEU
z
{
N!|
.hEo
ftt
c)
UJEbE6n
boIE#
==E
/v
986dIe-
Nq+
EgF
E i!i!
* Siir
Io
=
6
N
,F(!
c,
tJ'J
-c
=ovt
o
6
g
tr.l
ltl
o)
(d
g
|rJ
(g
tlJ
o
(!
o
IJJ
ts
z
a8,
=o
(J
343
Eai
hfr *
=3E
=eo
//^v
€)HoT 9SGT9.
Ne*
E5F
s$iii
N?ll:
6
co
EP
_as
'r=-coE(Joca
i;str=
g6
.oE
.E(!
otsER
EUtrl
o
EP
_asrfJ 5<o
EUz
N!|
o.lt-
ta,
=E3
=< Jr
?o r'i
oJ
l/^,v
oPoT 936Fs.
N9*Es-'
"E
\.
\i
\\.(\)
)
I
E A!il
* !iil
! | i I iil iF, Illi lt l tlf il ! l EllE l5 l! ilr lE lr
t
J, I
lls li lh ls lt llr lrlrllr lrlSllE l5lEIls r llr lr ls llr
3,
tr
: li lilt: lE lilli l:liililil:ll:l! lillill r ll-"t t il t t il t t il t t il t t il il -il I a_ltt i
Iril:c
q9ll e
gt q
E
1?q
?{ SIrB+lTr-
d.! i Il! x
r iili
TI
i lis ll s
1l r:C
a lE lq I = li lF I F l* lc
oE
O
rr,
=F.EE!
.22
o
(uJ
/\v
o
oT
9S6dI3-NFE6:€
E3*'
r Stii
frgiii
"a
N
\.
)
(
_-_---J
i.v'
i\\i\,i\\L___- \
{'(
\-\/
00mil0
ttr;--r-;+IT:-----t-----:i--r-t
tt9
6tf
gt?;--r-;
tli
----------------ttt
Ett
a_ __iL _ _:-
Elr il Elllalslall :li l: ll ilili
g
o\frq€
6zJ
/^,v
oHoT
9g6Ee-N8;rs_.E
ESF
6
s i!l!
=
liil
'O,trEtrit-f-l
)
(
{,FL.oooCIoooCIooo
o oooocloooo
o oooooioooo
oooooioooo
ooooooooooo
ooiooooooo
ooiooooooo
4
---<
otro;
E;
G'J
/.'v
oPo
=9g6Eq
N9;
EE*.
.E
n[lli
(
(
It
OnO O7^to
=-<
o3aFJ
o1
o.sJ
/^v
oHoT
oq
6EE.
NEErs_.8Es-'
6
=
Stii
tr!iii_--"-
oo
EbFB
llo;
odJ
//^'v
€)PoT
-sgcEq
N8Ers_-E
Es-"
6
n[!li-.'-L
=Oalr fo
O:-)-e€) .I
/-,v
oHo
=p$6Is-N8;rg_-F
Es-'
G
r 3!il
frgiii-/.
o
rr3
€ri)g
Y.;
/v
oPo
=9g683-NiE6:E
ESF
.E
s alil
* !iir-.-1.
.Xtt, 4E?
o*J';
//a'v
g
o
=9E6EiN5;rs__E
EEF
.E
=illl
4
D
D
€
=--a
e
G'
6_i
o!o.cM
//^v
aPoT !s6sq
Nq;Es*'
.E
s ilii
* !iir
,E
D
€
n
€
D.E
_t
=6q
6_E
Id)i€*
.h
/v
@Po
=9S6siNF;c:€
E5*'
.E
hft aTrg8 NA;ffi{
#
p
ol>1
e
q)
\:\eorl ratru
nilll
g
(J
q)
lg
o9t=r>:c_9o!!
q,
AI
e3
l:F-9dokuf
3e'
g Alil
n !iil
=_EL
E@
o
=boE
E
=EA
/^v
oPoT
6N
_qL
:6
ffiK
I
It-
/$
I
I
I
i\
I
Iv,e
Ilt
i&,
c,E
uiqosb-57X."i'<E;
E*T d
0J+
E
9S
i:-9.o'ohu-6
Sa'
ftilll
N
tr
-EL
E.9(u
=bo
.EE
=EA
/^v
IoT
6
N
_qL
G
btl
l/S
t,-
I
/t
l1
I
l
I
1\
I
5../,e
t,.g i
n,4/n,,q
___Ll/n
ulj\El I
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Department of Community Development
September 27, 'l999
A request for a worksession to begin preliminary discussions with regard
to the proposed redevelopment of the VailVillage Inn, Phase lV, located
within Special Development District No. 6.
Applicant:
Planner:
lt.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS
The applicant, Waldir Prado, dba Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson is
requesting a worksession with the Planning & Environmental Commission to begin
discussions regarding the proposed redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn. The purpose
of the worksession with the Planning & Environmental Commission is to discuss the
employee housing element of the proposal. From previous discussions with the Vail
Town Council, the applicant will be required to provide deed-restricted affordable
housing for a percentage of those new employee positions created as a result of the
proposed hotel redevelopment. Due to insufficient submittal information, the Community
Development Department staff is not prepared to discuss the many other aspects of the
proposal (i.e., pedestrian/vehicle circulation, site planning, bulk/mass, etc.) at this time.
BACKGROUND
As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives ol the Town's Master Plans,
providing affordable housing for employees is a critical issue which should be addressed
through the planning process for Special Development District proposals. For example,
Vail's Strategic Housing Plan identilies two critical issues facing the community:
maintaining Vail's economic vitality and enhancing Vail's sense of community, and, the
Vail Village Master Plan encourages the development of affordable housing units
through the efforts of the private sector.
In reviewing the VailVillage Inn proposalfor employee housing needs, staff relied on the
Town of Vail Employee Housing Report. This report has been used by the Community
Development Department staff in the past to evaluate employee housing needs. The
guidelines contained within the report were used most recently in the special
development district review of the Austria Haus and Gore Creek Club development
proposals.
fi?
eoPr
Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson
George Ruther
r .ib
t
':t
Thb Employee Housing Report, was prepared for the Town by the consulting firm Rosall,' Remmen and Cares, Inc., of Boulder, Colorado. Rosall, Remmen and Gares, Inc. has
extensively researched the matters of affordable housing throughout the Rocky
Mountain west with information from seventeen mountain resort communities. The
report provides the recommended ranges of employee housing units needed based on
the type of use and the amount of lloor area dedicated to each use. Utilizing the
guidelines prescribed in the Employee Housing Report, the staff analyzed ths
incremental increase of employees (square footage per use), that result from the Vail
Plaza Hotel redevelopment. A copy of the Suooested Emolovment Cateoories and
Ranoes for Vail Exoressed as Emolovees oer 1000 Souare Feet has been attached for
reference.
The ligures identified in the Housing Report are based on surveys of commercial-use
employment needs of the Town of Vail and other mountain resort communities. For
comparison purposes, Telluride, Aspen and Whistler, 8.C.. all have "employment
generation" ordinances requiring developers to provide atfordable housing for a
percentage of the "new" employees resulting from commercial development. "New"
employees are defined as the incremental increase in total employment needs resulting
from commercial redevelopment, Each of the communities assesses a different
percentage of affordable housing a developer must provide for the "new" employees.
For example, Telluride requires developers to provide housing tor 40/o (0.40) of the
"new" employees, Aspen requires that 60% (0.60) of the "new" employees are provided
housing and Whistler, B.C. requires that 100% (1.00) of the "new" employees be
provided housing by the developer. In comparison, Vail has conservatively determined
that developers shall provide housing tor 15h (0.15) or 30% (0.30) of the "new"
employees resulting from commercial development. In recent discussions, the Vail
Town Council has expressed an interest in increasing the percentage into the 40% to
60% range. Historically, however, when a project has proposed to exceed the density
allowed by the underlying zone district, the 30% (0.30) figure has been used in the
calculation. lf a project was proposed at, or below, the density allowed by the underlying
zone district, the 15% (0.15) figure was used. The Vail Plaza Hotel special development
district major amendment proposal exceeds the density permitted by the underlying zone
district, and therefore, the 30% figure shall be used.
During previous discussions with both the Planning & Environmental Commission and
the Vail Town Council, the issue of affordable housing has been briefly discussed. A
majority of the discussion has focused on two issues: where the affordable housing will
be provided and what percentage of the "new" employees will be provided housing. Of
greatest importance is the matter of 'where". Due lo the limited availability of vacant
land resources within the Town of Vail, compounded by the potentially large number of
a{fordable units that will be required to be provided, the Council, the Commission and
the applicant have briefly discussed "down-valley" alternatives. In discussing the
possible alternatives of providing the required affordable units "down-valley", members
ot the both the Council and the Commission have expressed an interest in increasing the
percentage of "new" employees that shall be provided housing. Historically, the
Community Development Department staff has recommended that at a minimum of 15%
of the "new" employees are provided affordable housing if the proposal does not exceed
allowable density figures and 30"/o if it does. In the case of the Vail Plaza Hotel
proposal, staff would recommend that if the applicant is unable to provide affordable
units within the Town of Vail, that the percent of "new" employees that need to be
ilt.
provided affordable housing opportunities be increased. Staff believes that an increase
beyond the historical 30% requirement is appropriate if the unils can not be provided
within the Town of Vail. Staff feels that the increase is necessary since the immediate
benefits of the affordable housing units will not be fully realized by the community (year-
round occupancy in Vail, sense of community, economic vitality and sustainability,
reduction in l-70 traffic, Vail residents employed by Vail businesses, etc.) Staff believes
that the loss of benefits can be mitigated by requiring more affordable units of the
developer. In staff's opinion, the amount of increase should be dependent upon the
location of the housing (Avon versus Eagle), the type of units (for sale versus rental), the
size of the units (one bedroom studio versus three bedroom single family), the long-term
master lease potential of the units, the provision of employer-provided shuttle
transportation service t0 Vail, the proximity and availability of public transit, how the
requirement is being met (new construction versus deed-restricting existing units), etc.
The applicant has provided projected employment figures for the operation of the
redeveloped Vail Plaza Hotel. The applicant estimates a need for approximately 218
employees. Of the 218 new employees the applicant is proposing to provide affordable
housing for 55 (25%) of the employees. The applicant's estimate is the result of an in-
depth analysis of employee need prepared by the applicant. The applicant's analysis is
based, in part, upon the current staffing needs of the Vail Village Inn, established
industry standards, and an interview of similar local hotels. The analysis includes a full-
time and part-time position breakdown in the projected employee staffing need. Besides
concluding that the projected employee need for the Vail Plaza Hotel will be
approximately 218 total employees (both full-time and part{ime) the applicant believes
that the guidelines and ratio proposed in the Town of Vail Employee Housing Report are
excessive and do not reflect industry standards nor do they represent actual local hotel
needs. According to the applicant's analysis, the greatest discrepancy between the Vail
Plaza Hotel's projected need and the Town of Vail guidelines is the employee need for
the "lodging" aspect of the hotel (concierge, bellmen, reservations, housekeeping, etc.)
A copy of the "Vail Villaqe lnn Staffino Summarv' has been attached for reference.
DISCUSSION ISSUES
1. The applicant has indicated a potential need to provide some or all of the
required employee housing for the Vail Plaza Hotel outside of the Town of
Vail. The need to look outside of the Town is a direct result of the lack of
available private land for developing employee housing in Town. The staff
would suggest that the applicant and Planning & Environmental Commission
discuss the possibility of building the required employee housing outside the
Town.
2. The applicant and the staff have each completed projections of the potential
number of "new" employees resulting from the redevelopment of the Vail Village
Inn. The method of calculation used by both the applicant and the staff has been
essentially the same. Though the method of calculation was similar, there is a
discrepancies in the projected number of "new" employees between the staff's
analysis and the applicant's analysis. The staff has projected an anticipated
need for 266 "neW'employees, while the applicant anticipates a need tor 218
"new" employees. The difference in the projections is 48 employees. The major
J
a)
b)
c)
o)
e)
f)
differences between the stalf's calculations and the applicant's calculations are in
the anticipated number of employee needed to operate the lodging (bellmen,
reservations, housekeeping, etc.), the retail and the restaurant components of
the hotel. In several instances the applicant is anticipating a greater need than is
anticipated by staff. For example, the applicant projects that 36 employees will
be needed to successfully operate the health club while staff is projecting only
29. Staff would suggest that the applicant, the staff and the Commission discuss
the calculation methodology of the employee generation analysis.
3. Staff would turther suggest that the applicant and the Planning & Environmental
Commission discuss providing a portion of the required employee housing on-
site in the form of Manager's-types of units. On-site employee units have been
identified by the community as being one of the most desirable locations for
employee housing because of the many benefits realized by on-site housing.
On-site employee housing units have been provided in several recent proposals.
For example the Austria Haus deed-restricted a dwelling unit within the building
and has reserved its occupancy for a Hotel Manager and the Marrioft will be
providing 10 beds within the hotsl.
EMPLOYEE HOUSTNG GENERATTON ANALYSIS
The Employee Housing Generation Analysis below indicates the top, the middle and the
bottom of the ranges recommended by the Town of Vail Employee Housing Report, as
well as a stiaff recommended figure which was used in determining the employe€
housing needs of the Vail Plaza Hotel. A summary of the Employee Housing Generation
Analysis is as follows:
Bottom of Range Calculations:
Retail/Service Commercial =3,550 sq. ft. @(5/1000 sq. ft.) ='17.8 employees
Health Club =19,955 sq. ft. @(1/1000 sq. ft.) =19.9 employees
RestauranUlounge/Kitchen =8,700 sq. ft. @(5/1000 sq. ft.) = 43.5 employees
Conference Center
Lodging
=15,338 sq. ft. @(1/1000 sq. ft.) = 15.4 employees
= 98 units @(.25lunit)=24.5 employees
=18.4 employeesMulti Family (Club Units) = 46 units @(.4/unit)
Total Employees
(-60 existing employees)
(X 0.30 multiplier)
=139.5 employees
= 79.5 employees
= 23.9 new employees
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Mlddle of Range Calculations:
Retail/service commercial = 3,550 sq. ft. @(6.5/1000 sq. ft.) =23.1 emptoyees
Health Ctub =19,955 sq. ft. @(1.25/1000 sq. ft.) =25.0 emptoyees
Restauranvlounge/Kitchen = 8,700 sq. ft. @(6.s/1000 sq. ft.) =56.5 emptoyees
Conference Center =15,338 sq. ft. @(1i1000 sq. ft.) =1.b.4 emptoyees
Lodging =98 units @(.75lunit) =73.5 emptoyees
Multi Family (Club Units) =46 units @(.4/unit) =18.4 employees
Total Employees =211.9 employees
(-60 existing employees) =151.9 employees
(x 0.30 mulriplio0 = 45.6 new employees
Top of Range Calculations:
Retail/Service Commercial =3,550 sq. ft. @(8/1000 sq. ft.)
Health Club =19,955 sq. ft. @(1.5/1000 sq. ft.)
RestauranVLounge/Kitchen = 8,700 sq. ft. @(8/1000 sq. ft.)
Conference Center =15,338 sq. ft. @(1/1000 sq. ft.)
Lodging = 98 units @(1.25lunit)
Multi Family (Club Units) = 46 units
Total Employees
@(.a/unit)
=28.4 employees
-29.9 employees
=69.6 employees
=15.4 employees
=122.5 employees
= 18.4 employees
=284.2 employees
(-60 existing employees) =224.2 employees
(X 0.30 multiplier)= 67.3 new employees
Staff Recommended Ranqe Calculations:
The staff believes that the Vail Plaza redevelopment will create a need for 206 additional
employees. Of the additional employees, at least 62 employees (30%) will need to be provided
deed-restricted housing by the developers of the vail Plaza Hotel il the housing is provided in
the Town of Vail. lf the housing is located down-valley, at least 124 employees will need to be
provided housing. The range recommended by staff is based on:
1. the type 0f retail and commercial use proposed in the commercial space
within the Vail Plaza Hotel;
2. the size 0f the vail Plaza Hotel lodging component;
3. the level of services and amenities proposed by the developers for the guests of
the vail Plaza Hotel;and
4. the result of research completed by Town of Vail staff of similar hotel operations
in the Vail Valley.
a) Retail/Service Commercial =3,550 sq. ft. @(6.5/1000 sq. ft.) =23.1 employees
(middle of range)b) Health Club =19,955 sq. ft. @(1.5/1000 sq. ft.) =29.9 employees
(top of range)c) RestauranULounge/Kitchen =8,700 sq. ft. @(6.5/1000 sq. ft.) =56.5 employees
(middle of range)d) Conference Center =15,338 sq. ft. @(1/1000 sq. ft.) =15.4 employees
(range does not vary)e) Lodging =98 units @(1.25lunit) =122.5 employees
(toP of range)f) Multi Family (Club Units) =46 units @(.4/unit) = 18.4 employees
(range does not vary)
Total =265.8 employees
(-60 existing employees) =205'8 employees
(X 0'30 multiplie| =61.7 new employees
(X 0.60 multiplier) =123.5 new employees
'Lodging h!! a pailcdarly large tarlatlon ol emdoy66 per roo.n, depondlng r.pon tactor3 swh a! rlze ol lacility and level ol servicer'suppoft
servicos and EmsnitlE provldod.
Depending upon the size of the employee housing unit provided, it is possible to
have up to two employees per bedroom. For example, a two-bedroom unit in the
size range of 2150 - 900 square feet, is possible of accommodating three to four
employees. These figures are consistent with the requirements for the Type lll
employee housing units outlined in the Municipal Code.
E\l Fl-o \'I{s}..J 6ENEFJT'ON R TES
EXiIII!IT A
S ucc EstrD E[ff r_o \a l]sr{t Crrec orul-s,,t xo lt,,l,xcrs Fo R VAJ LExpn-esseo As Elu,royEns peR 1000 SeuAnE FErr-r
RRC RESE^RCH
OVERlLL
AVERAGEs
Succesrso
R;,rqce
BarlRestaurant
5.7/1000 s,f.5-811000 s.f.Rctail and Service Commercial 5.9/1000 5-8/1000Retail; Groccry/Liquor/Conveniencc I . 8/1000 r.5-3/1000Office: Real Estate
6-9lr000Office: Financial
3. I /1000 2.5-4t1000Officc; Profcssional/OrIcr 6,6/t 000 5-8/1000
onfcrcncc Ccnter
Health Clrrb
l-l.s/I000
I-odging*
I .3/room .25-1.25/room
L-ocal Govcrnnrent
6.5/1000
Construction (Officcs, Interior Storagc, etc.)10.6/1000 9.r 3/1000
Multi-Fanrily
Single Family
u.l/unltOrier: To be determined tlrough dre SDDprocess, upon submission of adequate
docunrerrtation antj a revicu, of the apprlication
matcrials.
Multlpl.ler based on densi,ty
.'30 1f exceeding denslty
.15 if at or below densliy
o
ED(u(L
eo
E
E
a
(U
ul
Io
gl Et .
.Et.gtt
$IBH
63
fi
c€
GI
e
.6l
!E(tg
o
a
5
{J
'
Eo
6l
EiD
o)ah
v,
o
!)E
cl()
.lt
B
a,
ut
c)
()
.g
B
o
()
o
qtEl'5t6
rFlttiul<-
BIE
€lE
9t{.).Ei >
!)l/
-81'E
-8tE
EIE
3l;
5le
Hlc
=1 ,
Fl!
'lE9t9
EI<
.0la
4
!)
{)
o
o
N
tf
rJi
Eq,
o
(t
sJ
o
(J
ID
(]
tE
a
q)-
I
l|')
atoxctio
F
€
a
E
FIo!il)
x
€
qr
q)
E€
aIc
!J
€)l,x!,
P
q!
c)
c)
F.
6
g
E,s
g
(lt
{)
lrlI
(|)
o
B
s'
,ttt
o
!)
()
r{
!,
LIJ
o
tt
!l
B
B
.l|)
!)
s
;
()
B
{]
E
€t)
3(q
ai'
9a
=
E
F
ststsolo\lrnO lo\ IO
;E$
ssGOCFra
tsal.E
trI
toE
'3Ial
d,
o
ID
a2
(t)
&
:
O
hh
titn
d)E
(J
q)
a
z
ti
E
F<7
a)
I€
B
F
'|r ,l
hol
;t()ltrl
otl!LXIolvrl';l
NIctl
(Dl
h0l
asI
>l
ol
o
}<
tr
tu
I
o
!,
vF
q,
a
In,lEt!)t>tx
l"
t#
I
tu
I
I
I>l
ql
1tl
a)l
!Igri
AI0)lololctl
>,1
!)
go
l:()
((tl
€l
()l
b0l
p. I
sFt-
.,l
(rl
0)lEl
b0l>la1l:rl-oI
6tl
cl:l
C)l
'-l
(Dl(l)llrl
3l
o1
i6l
<jl I
st I
-ltot I
>l
I
ct, I
(Jt Ic I
ot Ir L--l
I
adl I
€t Iq)t I
cti Irl I
s
Iel
ol
ol
ET
Jal';l
,Yl.ltl
EIr-
orI>l
^t
tt r-ttI
cLlAI(sl
(l)l
blB]>[-
-ol
#lr+i I:l
>L-
ql
Nl
c,l
I
I
I
I
I
I
^l
:l
(sl
c)l()l
ol
E]XIol
G
nl!rl
6tlol
rDl
ot
El
EI';l
>l
olrDl()l
Xi!r1
a
(l
o
{)E
bt!
F
o
oIt()
x
()
l"d
lat
rg
oY
rL)
i)
o
CJ
q)
h0
bl)
t:
(,)
ttl)o()
.ll
L!)
tQJ
(H'
o
I
EI
{l
arl
q|
']
t-'l
,l
;l0Jl
(gl
9{
a)l
=l:-l
;l.al
n')I()lxli)f
':l
ol
(sl
I
I
II
o
.b,{)
'E
il
!Jl
.+. I
:-l
o
!)
!)
B
9a
o
tu
!
o
aE
F()
c)!u
3
q,)
()
I
I
()
t{)Iitl(a
tc)
la)l,
LoIF
N€o\
I
I
*llltl
EI
bol
.ol
EI
;ti-l
o'tr
(J
RI
ID
a)
ct
oo
o
ol*il
b0l
nl;lNI
3l
'-|ol
0Jt
9aT
EI
6l
ul
()l
nl
>rl
6'l
ol
rl
q,
9l
ol
qrl
xl()l
aal
'El
.lll
,!) |
;5
.Et
E
{)
a:t
()
{J
o0
t-l0)
|tlt
|.:
]lto
lo
IB
-_ ql
)r.o9
F.. E
F
6la
N st\s x'+.
'-r i
i
N
(\l
a^l a-nl
dl
Ell
Etl{)tl
.{I
9tl;ll
.=tl
.-tl
Eil
"u=l
EI
.{tl
el
.21
ql
c)
q)
.2
.3
t
4lIP
o
tq,
l*
l6t
Iq)IU
s ss x
t\t
s xq
1
s
J
(l)l
(!l
.sl
EI
;l
,11:l
o1
(qlvl
H]
>t
'd
x
c)
q)
e
(D
c,
qJ
o
(l)
(ut
c)
B
JI
a)l
ol
9l;l
a'r I
-lLI
;
q)
,gl
{)
!J
hO
btl
o
{)
<)
0)
citq)
o
F
z
a ,--
cg
'PQEf-l .9lartt<5
-()tll x,.o
!F
F<
ll ar'ir
L.C6|EEo
t-Oltt :fi,i \o
I,.i
:f,\a,t r(l g\ra e{ F-.i.lo
\c
a'-
I
I
I
I
I
I
-1
I
I
I
I
>l
!,) |
lol
| !,1
lr.llol
tll
lell>.1
lot>
trDtt>t
tol
tot
16|l
FI
>l()|
(Jl0)t;l(.)l
GI
atXI!)l
9al-:l
dl
3l
EI
>l
:tnJl
o0l
=J,;a::
iasi
,!il
't t"
."];l
!)r
I
a
.(l
o
tu
(D
a)
o
rL)
o
I
I
I
h|)l
oal
'il
trl€linl..t I
'.,
ol
-l
C.)lol
3l
U1
:i>l
'.,:1
o
a
;
3l
-l
;lq.r Iv)l
(|)t-t
()t
b0l
s.l
o.l
.rl-liL,
i,2t<
tn
a.)
F
tl(Jl
9l
o1
ta
F
!)
(J
8"t)a
-ct
0-,
!J
(D
'ct
i-o
o
o
i;
c,
lol()
IF
a1
€iE<tr
g\
'-l
c!l>l(;,l
'E'l{)l
o.l(!l
g
n)
B
l(|]
t()
I'E
l. bo
t>lratvIF
lo.r
t!lr+.l:
l.'l
t.J
I6J
l8
l3Itr
l8Ir
ql
te
t:tx
L;
t0)
ta)tlt
lr!
I(ll€
c\.i
,.
fl
;
;
ahn)
br)
tD
'lt
()
o
()
9a
!)
Ea)
'ctru
(J
()
al
19
5
F
fEl
z
3
rqg
x
Fiz
\)r
\o.;
a,l
oa
\o \a -{\o rt! \oci di -;
^.--ral la1 i-
-r\Ad
(\rfl
I
d
Fi
(.)€
ID
ct
o
q
>99EFii
\e
q)
>.t9()aa
6)
sr^
p
(,
a\.at i
c)
tr
C)
a
u
0)
C)Q
{.)(.)
I
,o
()
l.=Itr
EEIg
$ gte
P
baE
o
O
t)E
al
E
U
a c)q)bt 5
!t ta)
(\l
!t
.3t
-
e(5
E
-a--i (E
o
1-
(L
(')
Q)c',(E(L
oo
as
(E
Eo(J
a!.a
I
TL
!tA()
5
(lJ
tt
(:,
a
F
I
c
(gE
.!
tJa
FI
3
tr
F
Fr
frE
E:EE
EEFi
>RF s s se.l x xt Eg o
"*FE>,2a>EoE
Er
c!
N€Nb I s
e.l
s srt<t
s s
c)E
iD
t<
it)
€
I
Fl
F
t'rF
x3:
.l s ,{.,1 .;v)3l i
tsC!
6a7
€)
t:E
Lo
din
I
6 +
e.'l .";
\€tlta a
6|L
oF
C,iu
o
{J
cttt)
G'
.Et
c)
t)a
-d
lu
o
o
'b
q,
t:ID
||l(|]
F
c,
€
(\l
tt
Fl
I
fri
U)tr&
rt)
t-l
q
Fl
Fr
bo.d
Fl
q)
(J
(,(J
a)
Q
!s
(a
F
q)
(.)
d
6)
!ll9
E{)
:t
a.l*c,l \oldl\ae{ le IFl\6 lr/)
o
EI
oI!)
Etl)
€€€o\\oal e{(.1al
G
6|
I
L)
+
a
()
o
"ct
4)"o
htl
a
6t
rf,€
a.l c^tat
;<t6t
=iE
t\o\a!.
oo 6
c.l
(\,1!$o0
()o
C)
a
!)
!J
6)6'
iU
6)
b!
bn
,l
bx
tt)
!l
a
v
C)
oI
{)o
g
e
()
a
(J
.()
'tf*
tu q)
s
(J
(D
a
o
e
v
q
Q(,
I
n)
e
()
tt)
.0
()
0)
()
0)
U)
a
tl)
CI
(,*
t:rl
t
IttlII|atlf
I tctt4ttQ s
-tl
*o
q_,
-_tt
oq)
-o
E(oo-,*
-)!-
(u
g)
Io-
I
I
I
I
I
I
-l
qrl
15l
(l)I
-8f
xl
sl(!l
ot
'il
*.': Isf
'rtltll*f
€l
ot},I
>{
lqtll{)lptt It'-lt-l
t€l
tslll*llolt.tltutl
t3ltrDl
t-l
tolItrltdlt{)lloItr
t8lElc,
lo
ct
lo
(,
LE
lv,
IH
1>
tuAF!>.24
3
s€s sN so\$
N NsY
s
o\.
s I
I
I
I
I
,.r I:l
EI
8l
bt
El
BI.rrl
.dltl
EI
€l
rltlil€lEI
Fl
>,19l
fl
>l
I rzl
tNl
la1
l&tGl
l>
I alt
lE
lo
{(J
a)l
EIil
6t
>lol
F<l
EI
H!!
E
F
al q ..'l \o\
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.lc)l
b|t
xl
6tl
q)t
6ll
FI.al
ol
otJ
L':
l(|)
l-o
lnJ
lb0
t(J
t:
t-to
tolx
I
I
Iril
allal
c)|
EI(\ttol
t)l
ctlr.l
EI
sll
FI
tAl
xl
-^lr.l
El
rrj
Lu
ld5
IBl*
l'at'-
I q.)tc)
I att
ID
lor
o
al co €o\al ol .tl€\ut lcld let
obl
ctEIJIr.l,xl
()
i1co
e
t()
t9
tCll
t(uI a:l
IU'
9t
lu
r-o\$€&({
c.ltf cl
c
o
{r
U
(J
!4
(]
{)U
E
cj
U)
IDnr
n)o
a
o&
\o
at
U)
c)o
&
It{,
E(t
CL
o
Ga
I&
E
=3
Eq)
o
q)
='=
#
E
(!
tt,
E
(!
Eo
o)
(!
;eK)F
q)
EF
(l,
o
;
(!
U'
6)
=-v
(u
c
E
(s
a{)
o
'=
o
E
o
(!
(o
th
(l)
(\t
3
o)oc
E.o
o
Q)
o
E
0)q
{)
-o
'=
u,o.H
o
$
'6
(uooo
t\.g
o
Eo
E
(D
o
o
6+
o
oI
gca
ooo
o
cl-
Eo
(,
(g
3
U'o
eq)oq
oq)
=
o3:r
14oor!T
E
ot
$
aa
5(u
=o
o-o
E
c
l _l
Iarl
o)
o
dt
cl.c
t-oF
E(!
(l)
Eo€
e
E(!
q)
lo
lE
L a/t
IE
t(!lo
tol>I|l)lctolo
l-clq)
l5
l6
IEt:l(!
16lq)
let;
l5
ls
tt
lslc
t!
It
t:IrtcIC
utl
6t
GI
an1
el
0)
o
c,tt
o)
o-
tho
=o
U'
E
E
(!
tng
c)
o
.g
o
6
o
.9
E
(E
06
E
(Er.
IElota
IE
l0)
t;
t:
t(ulolol;
<ilEIdt
EIol€lal
-cl
o1(lrl
E]
(\l
g(!E
E
E
o
ao(tl
(go
Eo6
.!2
(os
o0t
6o€
.E
@s
Eta,ti
IEt6t3
IDlo
IEloto
_l
.9s
(E
(u
.q
o6
(l)
o
_l l
6oo
E
E()
(o(o ao
at,
r?cll\l
I
To.
o
e(o
(A
o
(l)o6
c)-c
-lol
Eoo
6
E
-o
ooo(!
-o
lq,
t-
lo)
lo
16
ls)
ldlolo)
lo
l6Ic)tatl6'
IFt..
[o
tgloIE
I
Il>I(s
l.tl.tt>l(E
lv
ct
t>ltAlo
t:-
t(D
|U
E
ID
(a
36c)
ec)o
E
A
ulo(l)
E
E
dt
(oo lo(o 10(t,C\l oat.a ro a{oro F.NF
-5
I
oF
_o
TL
;i o-
.Ea
EE
3tlE'
oF
oa-
lolool>.lo
llo StEcloE
IEEl) +.t-olgzloIF
;
E
E/a(,
d)
!:
0)otg
{tt-clllo
t:
l_3
l€
lF
le
l3
IE
lc
IEt:
tf;
o
l-
lo
l+
tglolc
I
I
->l>l
€Elo>lF*l
t
EI
agtol
6lC'I
3lurl
6rl
-clEt
-cl
o
|llo
IEo
(J
.l
b
+te6
=ct
Fo)(ort sFsEtg oo(\l
(rt
c,o
|rr_o
(\llrt
r.)-
ct
@C'ro_
c)
otr
.Etl
c)(o l.
J'
s6
l
I
at!t
(!
o
o
o
Eo6
q)
(l)
E
=
tl
o)
r0o-i()
taEt:
l6
lo)
l*
o
oIL
II
o(t
G,o
Eq.
il.Itl!..
s,
,(,s
|D2
oz
=oJ
oll.
UI
Fzo
oulo
6
L
oz
ILl|-
F
at,
o
tr an ta
I
Ilolcl6lv,tolo-
.^l(:lc)l
olol
oto o o It (n
sIJc (Y)
@
a?t
c
6,
EE6ooo
a,
o otrc ro ro ro to rf'o
o rc rO
o
=
tgcl!,a
tt
9,g
o
oo
o
CI
Eut
d€
(D
oI
o)
(6
(D
q)
ct
oa
E
TL
o)
ooc
E
o
ai
5
E
=o(,
T-
=(!
E.
o{,o5
()
o-
o
o
.o
6
+
d)
o
:E
(!
oo
oo
CD
o5o
oat
o
o
Ec)
o.
=
C'o
an
oeo,o.
.F
$E
o.o
at(t.co
o
+
dt
oI
q)
Lo
c
x
(6;
t(U
-o
.6
E
66
o)u
oEo=x
it)o
Ec)
oo
(L
U)h
6
(!oI
(!
d)tr
oIt
Elg
Jo
to
o
ttEr!
Eotl
oot
E
E
n,
o
0)
=('l
o€
d'
oE
(U
ict
=
oc):oo
ro
=c
p
rl)
Eo
U'
()
J
t5
B
(5o
'=
o
Q)
z{)Q
sllEc[ .
E llto[>
EIIE
'ilt
E
3
;
F
o
oc
g
t,
Lt
oo{)
o
o.
E
UJ
o:*
.o!tq)
o
Eq,
thtao
'6
o
q q
(\I
l/t o (l (t
(\i
q
GI
ul u?od ul g?
(\l !'
.Deoq
oo
og
tr
!'
Eo
U)
cl
(U
Eat,
6)o
ooN
oo\
lr)ola
r'N(o
ootJt
oo(o_
ooo)
oo()-
oo@
oot\
tt
ooo_
c{
olf,
@-
lo
()
Eoz
at,(,oc
u,
o
o
o
J
(g
Nc)F
x
o
o
6o
oF
o
v)
od
oto
o
v,
0,
o
c
o
g
=o
(,
Etuo
E
oa
(!
_o
c,
Q
o
CLo
i
=c,{,o.o
o*$
ut
E()
tho
g
(Eo
xo
Y
e
-9
d(,
o)x.
{)
-go
e
C)
(E
(j,
(g
N
-g(L
(g
o
@
(l,
cD
i-v
IFv,
Es<{
^-ot (LG=e-trlu
Y?>\J
E>
a
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
IIOUSING POINTS:
First it is WORTH REPEATING that it is our intention to have a first
class service oriented hotel and it's main objective is obtaining year
round business.
And, as mentioned in orn STAFFING POINTS we also have planned
our staffrng based on an operation that maintains full-time year-
round employees that are more dedicated and motivated. By staffrng
under these polices we will be able to offer a higher rate of pay giving
our employees the opportunity to BIIY a home in the area and not
rent.
The level of staff that will make up our year-round employees are of
the type that will already be established in a home in the valley.
Part-time employees will be a full-time employee for another business
in the valley and they will not need housing from VPH. Therefore onr
housing needs (again) will be minimal, if any.
Of the 98 possible part-time employees that VPH will need. Using the
TOV Staffs forrrula 3 part-time equalsl full-time we would need
beds for no more tban32.7 employees.
t ?2 [,,/( /-r^* u t ?f , r,-*/ - 7''a7al l;u. =f zst
,.>12./ i-r'-L'\'Ln ?? :// 6
x 202 "2tZ ntuZ
\/ PH
vvt
/6s
4r
An^*u, ,. 23 :,22 :-?s
COPYFIL T
Orowx OFVAIL
Depanment of Communiry Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2138
MX 970-479-2452
Septcmber 27, 1999
Tim Losa
Zehren & Associates, Inc.
48 East Beaver Creek Boulevard
Avon, Colorado 81658
Re: Vail Plaza Hotel
Dear Tim,
On August 24,1999, we discussed the outstanding submittal items you would need to submit to complete your
application for the major amendrnent to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Im.
I was recently reviewing the file and determined that there are still several items ttrat must be submitted to my office
to complete your application. Those items include the written statement outlining how the redevelopment proposal
complies with the nine desig review criteria prescribed in Section l2-9A-8 of the Town Code, a preliminary
Uniform Building Code Compliance Report, a revised Traffic Impact Report, the Surface/Storm Water Drainage
Plan and an Off-site Improvements Plan. Each of these items was to have been submitted to my office by
September 7 in order to remain on the September 27 Planning & Environmental Commission.
The next mecting with the Planning & Envbonrnental Commission is scheduled for Monday, October 1 I, 1999. The
Vail Plaza Hotel is tentatively scheduled for review at this meeting. [r order to remain on the agenda you will need
to provide a complete submittal by no later than noon, Wednesday, September 29. This deadline will provide the
town staffan opportunity to review the proposal and retum any comments to you prior to the October I I meeting.
In the absence ofa complete submittal, I see no reason to appear before the Planning & Environmental on October
As I have stated in the past, thc Town is fully committed to moving the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel through the
development review process in a timely manner. However, in order to do so, ample opportunity for review and
meeting prcparation is required and established deadiines rnust be met.
Upon the receipt of this letter please contact me so we may discuss the outstanding submittal infirrmation and the
timeframc lor submining those items. You can rcach me most casily by tclcphonc at 479-2145.
Sin0erelv.
".kffi-Q,.th.tSenior Special Projects Planner
Town of Vail
tP *n'-o"o
Z E H R E N
AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Tuesday, September 28, 1999
Mr. Gcorgc Ruther
Senior Special Projects Planner
Town of Vail
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re:Vail Plaza Hotel
George:
This letter is to address design criteria A through I as outlined in section 18.40.080 of the town code. It is
our understanding that these nine (9) criteria are to be used in evaluating the merits of the Vail Plaza Hotel,
the final phase of the Vail Village Inn Special Development District.
A. Design Compatibility. We believe that the hotel is designed in such a way that is both compatible and
sensitive to the environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties.
Setbacks are consistent with the underlyrng zoning in that they maintain an average of trventy feet
(20') from most adjacent properties to the primary building walls. Additionally, the structure maintains
setbacks consistent with adjacent properties along both the Frontage Road and Vail Road.
Mass and bulk are sensitive to adjacent structures in that the hotel is designed to step up in height
and bulk from both the street and adjacent smaller structures in order to maintain a comforlable
pedestrian scale while maintaining consistent heights with adjacent structures roof lines and ridges.
Additionally, we have purposefully hipped most of the roof forms at or along public streets and plazas
to provide a consistent bulk plane at sheet level. The stepping and broken ridge lines, along with
variations in materials and wall planes act to break down the overall mass and bulk of the project and
relate the hotel to the surrounding neighborhood.
The architectural design is meant to be both compatible with both the Gateway building and the
remainder of the special development district while providing some identity to the hotel as both a
recognizable and viable commercial structure within the community.
B. Uses, Density, and Activity. The Vail Plaza Hotel is the last phase of the Vail Village lnn Special
Development District and as such was always meant to be the anchor or most densely developed
portion of the district. As a full service hotel, which includes conference, spa, restaurant, and
commercial activities, the hotel meant to act as a "magnet" that draws people through the other
smaller, commercial based structures in the special development district, (including the Gateway
building). Additionally, the hotel is legally required to provide loading and delivery services,
automobile access, and parking for the remainder of the special development district.
C. Parking and Loading. We believe our loading facilities are in compliance with the requirements of
chapter 18.52.
We are providing six (6), 12' x 25' loading berths. The maximum required is five (5) 12' x 25'
berths in accordance with 18.52.150. We believe our parking facilities meet the needs of the special
development district of which it is a part.
ARCH ITECTU RE. PLAN N INC.INTERIORS. LAN Ds(APE ARCI IITECTURE
P(). Ilox 1976 . Avon, (-olorado 81620 . (970) 949-0257 . FAX (920) 949-1080
Vail Plaza Hotel
961070.00
Zehren and Associates, Inc.
09128/99
We are proposing to provide all parking required by zoning chapter 18.52 for our hotel and thirty
five, (35), ofan existing seventy five, (75) space deficit left by previous development in the district. It
is our belief that the mixed-use reduction in the cunent zoning ordinance may not be adequate or
correctly applied to the overall special development district. In addition, we feel that the requirements
for parking, especially with regard to dwelling units that act as fraction fee units, (which are not
addressed by current zoning), may be excessive.
D. Conformity with Master Plan. We believe our development substantially complies with the goals
expressed in the various plans contained within the adopted Vail Village Master Plan.
The Land Use Plan indicates our site as MediumAligh Density Residential and as such
recommends a lodging orientation with a limited amount of accessory retail.
We are proposing to provide an increased amount of "urban open space" or public plaza and
buffering greenspace in the areas indicated as such in The Open Space Plan.
We believe that our project complies with the recommendation s in The Parking and Circalation
Plan. We are proposing an intemal connection to the Vail Gateway shared pedestrian/auto area as
indicated, an improved pedestrian connection to East Meadow Drive including new bus facilities as
indicated, and a secondary external pedestrian connection to Vail Road between phase five and our
project. Additionally we would be providing sidewalk improvements from the new bus stop on East
Meadow Drive to the Gateway on Vail Road, and Bike/Pedestrian sidewalk improvements liom the
Vail Gateway to the Vail Transportation Center on the Frontage Road.
We believe that our design substantially complies with Building Height Plan in that the plan
indicates buildings offive stories both to the east and west ofour site along the frontage road and north
and south of our site on Vail Road. Our design maintains this four to five story relationship with our
neighbors. We feel as though the three to four story designation is inconsistent with current conditions
and are not applicable as they relate to our site. It is our understanding that these heights indicated in
the plan were based on preserving views to Vail Mountain from the four way stop at the lntersection of
Vail Road and the Frontage Road prior to development of the Vail Gateway and the Roundabouts.
Because these views no longer exist with the development of the Vail Gateway as acknowledged in the
plan, and because stopping to view the mountain is actually discouraged by the movement of trafflc in
the roundabout, we feel that these standards may no longer apply.
The Action Plan indicates our site as an area for potential residentiaVlodging infill in accordance
with previous town approvals with which our proposed project is consistent.
The Yail Village Sub-Areas 1-1 of the Vail Village Master Plan indicates our site as the final
phase of SDD #6. In doing so, it identifies a series of goals, which we believe we comply with.
Item 1.2 encourages "the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities."
Item 2.3 "shongly encourages the development short term accommodation units" and recognizes that
when units are "developed above the existing density levels, they should be managed in such a way
that allows for short term ovemight rental".
Item 2.4 encourages the development of new commercial infill compatible with existing land uses.
Item 2.6 encourages the development of affordable housing units and may be required as part of any
redevelopment project requesting a density over levels allowed by existing zoning.
Item 3.2 recognizes the will to "reduce vehicular traffic in the village to the greatest extent possible".
Item 4.1 encourages the improvement of existing open space to create new plazas with greenspace.
Item 5.1 recognizes the need and desire to provide for parking demands on site and with underground
and visually concealed parking.
Item 6.1 recognizes the need to provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new
development.
."' .|-
Vail Plaza Hotel
961070.00
Zehren and Associates, Inc.
09/28/99
E.
G.
H.
F.
Natural Hazards. We believe there are no natural hazards that may affect development of this site.
Site and Building Design. We believe we have addressed this issue by compliance with the Vail
Village Master Plan.
Pedestrian/Vehicular Circulation. We believe we have addressed this issue by compliance with the
Vail Village Master Plan. Additionally, haffic studies indicate that vehicular circulation pattems are
considered safe and have relatively little impact on existing vehicular circulation systems.
Functional and Aesthetic Landscaping. We believe we have addressed this issue by compliance
with the Vail Village Master Plan. Additionally, we believe we have substantially improved on the
amount and quality publicly accessible plazas, greenspaces, and pedestrian circulation systems.
I. Phasing Plan. The development will be constructed in one phase with completion anticipated for late
fall of2001.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concems regarding the information presanted.
Additionally, if you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Tim Losa
Project Manager
Zehren and Associates, Inc.
..,,'|'
Vail Villaee Inn
Preliminarv Code Review
Zehren and Associates. Inc.
September 28. 1999
Underlyins Zonins - Public Accommodation
Permitted Uses. Lodges
Conditional Uses. Theaters, Meeting rooms, Convention Facilities.
Public or commercial Parking Facilities.
Retail, Eating, Drbking, Recreational uses not exceeding l0% of total GRFA of the main
smrcnrres.
Major Arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, or
walkway.
Type III EHU.
Type IV EHU.
Accessory Uses. Swimming pools, patios, or other recreational facilities customarily incidental to permitted
Lodge Uses.
Lot Area 10,000 sq. ft. minimum.
30 ft. minimum street frontage.
Size and shape capable ofenclosing a square eighty feet on each side.
Setbacks. 20' front setback.
20' side setback.
20' rear setback.
Height. 45' flat roof.
48' sloped roof.
Density. 80 sq. ft. GRFA per 100 sq. ft. ofbuildable site area.
25 dwelling units per acre maximum.
Site Coverage. 55% oftotal site area.
Landscaping. 30% ofthe total site area.
l5 ft minimum width and length to be included.
300 sq. ft. minimum area to be included.
Parking. Per chapter 18.52.
No parking or loading in the front setback area.
Desisn Criteria - Special Development District
A. Design compatibility with immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to
architectural design scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual identity and
character.
B. Uses, activity, and density which provide a compatible, eflicient and workable relationship with
surrounding uses.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements.
')
D,
E.
F.
G.
H.
Conformity with applicable elements ofthe Vail comprehensive plan, town policies, and urban design plans.
Identification and mitigation of natural and./or geologic hazards that affect the property.
Site plan, building design, location, and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development
responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the environment.
A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traIfic circulation.
Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve nafural features,
recreation. views. and fturction.
I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional, and effecient relationship throughout
the development ofthe special development district.
Uniform Buildine Code - 1997 edition
Occupancy Groups (Table 3-A)
Grouo
A-2.1
A-3
B
M
R-1
s-2
s-3
Atrium
Section Description
303.1.1 A building or portion of a building having an assembly room with an occupant load of more
than 300 without a legitimate stage.
303.1.1 A building or portion ofa building having an assembly room with an occupant load dfless
than 300 without a legitimate stage.
304.1 A building or portion thereof, for oflice, professional, or service type transactions,
including storage ofrecords, and eating drhking establishments with an occupant load of
less than 50.
309.1 A building or portion thereof, for the display and sale of merchandise, involving stocks of
goods, wares, or merchandise, incidental to such purposes and accessible to the public.
310.1 Hotels, apartrnent houses, and congregate residences (each accommodating more than l0
persons).
3l l.l Low-ha"ard occupancies include buildings or portions ofbuildings used for storage ofnon-
combustible materials.
31 l. I Parking garages not classified as Group S, Division 4 Occupancies (open garages).
402 An opening through two or more floor levels other than enclosed stairways, elevators,
hoistways escalators, plumbing, electrical, air-conditioning, or other equipment, which is
closed at the too and not defrned as a mall.
Occupancy Senarations (Table 3-B)
Groun Group
A-2
A-2
A-2
Group
B
B
B
B
M
M
M
R-l
atria
Group
M
R-l
s-2
s-3
R-l
s-2
s-3
s-2
R-l
A-2 A-3
Separation
No Requirements
One Hour
One Hour
One Hour
One Hour
One Hour
No Requirements
No Requirements
One Hour
One Hour
One Hour
A-2 B
A-2 M
R-1
s-2
s-3
A-3 B
A-3 M
R-1
s-2
A-3 S-3
Separation
No Requirements
One Hour
One Hour
One Hour
One Hour
One Hour
One Hour
One Hour
One Hour-Unprotected
Tenants No Requirements - 3 floors
A-3
A-3 atria
atria R-3 One Hour - Protected
* Commercial Kitchens accessory to A2lA3 dining areas which they serve do not need separation.
* Administrative, clerical offices, gift shops, etc. accessory to Rl do not need separation (10% max. area).
Buildins Height and Floor Area (Table 4-A. 5-B)
GrouD
A-2.1
A-3
B
M
R-1
s-2
s-3
Atrium
Grouo
A-2.1
A-3
B
M
R-1
s-2
s-3
Const.
Tvne
I-FR
I.FR
I-FR
I.FR
I.FR
I.FR
I-FR
I-FR
Const.
Tvoe
I.FR
I-FR
I.FR
I-FR
I-FR
I-FR
I.FR
Location on Propertv (Table 5A)
MaximumHeight
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
4 Stories
Ratine - Bearinq Walls
Four Hour N/C
Four Hour N/C
Four Hour N/C < 5'
Two Hour N/C Elsewhere
Four Hour < 5'
Two Hour N/C Elsewhere
Four Hour < 3'
Two Hour N/C Elsewhere
Four Hour < 5'
Two Hour N/C Elsewhere
Four Hour < 5'
Two Hour N/C Elsewhere
Maximum Area
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
20' Diameter Clear Min.
Rating - Non-Bearing
Walls
Four Hour N/C < 5'
Two Hour N/C < 20'
Four Horu N/C < 5'
Two Hour N/C < 20'
Four Hour N/C < 5'
Two Hour N/C < 20'
Four Hour N/C < 5'
Two Hour N/C < 20'
Four Hour N/C < 5'
Two Hour N/C < 20'
Four Hour N/C < 5'
Two Hour N/C < 20'
Four Hour N/C < 5'
Two Hour N/C < 20'
Openinqs
Not Permitted < 5'
Protected < 20'
Not Permitted < 5'
Protected < 20'
Not Permitted < 5'
Protected < 20'
Not Permitted < 5'
Protected < 20'
Not Permitted < 3'
Protected < 20'
Not Permitted < 3'
Protected < 20'
Not Permitted < 5'
Protected < 20'
f ire Resistive Requirements - Tvpe I - FR
Buildins Elementl Bearing Walls - Exterior
2. Bearing Walls - Interior
3. Non Bearing Walls - Exterior
4. Strucfural Frame
5. Partitions - Pennanent
6. Shaft Enclosures
7. Floors and Floor/Ceiling
8. Roofs and RooflCeiling
9. Exterior Doors and Windows
I 0. Stairway Construction
I l. Atrium Roof
Fire - Resistive Ratine
4 Hour
3 Hour
4 Hour
3 Hour/4 Hour at Ext. wall
I Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
Table 5A
602.4
Unprotected
\
Lieht Ventilation and Sanitation (Section -1203)
General. Exterior openings for natural light or ventilation required by this section shall open directly onto a public
way or a yard or a court as set forth in section 1203.4.
Exceptions 2. Skylights.
Light. Guest rooms and habitable rooms within a dwelling unit or congregate residence, (group R), shall be provided
with natural light by means of exterior glazed openings with an area ofnot less than one tenth the of the floor area of
such rooms with a minimum of l0 square feet.
Yards. Yards shall not be less than 3 feet in width for one and two story buildings. For buildings more than two
stories in height, the minimum width of the yard shall be increased at a rate of I foot for each additional story. Such
yards shall be on the same property as the building.
Courts. Courts shall not be less than 3 feet in width. Courts having windows opening on opposite sides shall not be
less than 6 feet in width. For buildings more than two stories in height, the minimum width of the yard shall be
increased at a rate of I foot in width for each additional story. Such courts shall be on the same properQr as the
building.
Buildine
A
B
C
D
Atrium/Court
Elevation
West
North
South
East
All Interior
Use
Assembly; less concentrated
use
Commercial Kitchen
Assembly; less concentrated
use
Commercial Kitchen
Oflices
Retail - Gmd Fl./Basement
Retail Stores - Upper Floor
Mall
Aparfinents and Hotels
Dwelling Units
Storage and Stock Rooms
Parking Garages
Heisht
6/7 Stories
5/6 Stories
4/5 Stories
6/7 Stories
6/7 Stories
Occupant Load
Factor
15 sq. ft./occ.
200 sq. ft./occ.
15 sq. ft./occ.
200 sq. ft./occ.
100 sq. ft./occ.
30 sq. ft./occ.
60 sq. ft.iocc.
30 sq. ft.*/occ.
200 sq. ft./occ.
300 sq. ft./occ.
300 sq. ft./occ.
200 sq. ft./occ.
Required Court/Yard Setback
7 /8 Feet
6/7 Feet
516 Feet
7 /8 Feet
l0/1 I Feet (20' at Atrium)
Occupant Load (Table 10-A)
Group
A-2
A-3
B
M
R-1
R-3
s-2
s-3
Occupant Load
Requirinq Two
Means of Egress
50 occ.
30 occ.
50 occ.
30 occ.
30 occ.
50 occ.
50 occ.
50 occ.
l0 occ.
10 occ.
30 occ.
30 occ.
Area Reouirinq
Two Means of
Esress
750 sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
750 sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
3,000 sq. ft.
1,500 sq. ft.
3,000 sq. ft.
2,000 sq. ft.
3,000 sq. ft.
9,000 sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
*Gross Leasable Area
Every story or portion thereof having an occupant load of50l to 1,000 shall not have less than three exits.
Every story or portion thereof fpving an occupant load of more than 1,000 shall not have less than four exits.
Eeress Width (1003.2)
Stairways - 0.3 inches per occupant
Other Components - 0.2 inches per occupant
Mall exit minimum - 66"
.r, ' \.
O MaximumTravelDistance(10(M.2.5)
Indivldual Tenant Spaces - 200 feet to mall (atrium area).
Atrfum - 100 feet maximum of travel distance allowed by 1005.2.2 may be an open exit-access balcony within thc
atiurn
Sprlnkled Buildings - 250 feet maximrn
Increases - Up to an additional
100 feet provided last portion of exit access occun in within a conidor. The leagth of such a corridor shall not be
less tha[ the arnount ofincrease taken
cSPyFIL T
Depanment of Communiry Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail" Colarado 81657
970-479-2138
FAX 970-479-2452
September 30, 1999
Tim Iosa
Project Manager
Zehteifl & Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 1976
Avon, Colorado 81620
RECENED
ocT 0 5 1999
ZEHREN & ASSOCIATES' INC
Re: Vail Plaza Hotel
Dear Tirn,
The Community Development Department has completed an initial review of the plans.you submitted for the
proposed Vail Plaza Hotel. Upon completion of our review, I am passing along issues and/or cornments associated
with the proposal. Once you have bad an opportunity to review this letter, please cotrtact rne so we can scheduje a
time to go tbrougb each of the issues identified
Please respond in writing to each of the iterns below:
l. Tbere appears to be a discrepancies between the model, the roofplan and the site plan with regard to the height
and desip of tie elevator tower. Please makc any necessary correctrons.2. A sidewalk is required on the eastside of the hotel. The sidewalk is needed to provide an all-weather connection
b€t\reen the pla"a area and the South Frodage Road. The sidewalk shall be heated and a minimum of four feet
inwidth.
3. The pede$rian sidewalk between the pool and the commercial buildings in Phase I needs to be a minimum of
ten feet rvide. The ten foot width is consistent throuehout the develmment area.
Can the corridor benpeen the conference break out rooms and the service area on Sheet Level one be reduced in
width? If the conidor is reduced the conference area could become larger.
The Level 0 and the I-evel -1 pool deck area plans conflict. One plan identifies a rvalkwav around the prxrl and
the other does not. Please amend the appropriate plan.
Rctail space #2 should have an exterior entrance out onto the plaza.
The roofplan does not reflect potential mechanical equipment locations. Please anticipate the requircment for
screening the equiprnent in false chimneys, dormers, elc.
Plelse illustratc thc 40 foot passcnger bus tuming radius on lhe Level i plan.
The Level 0 and the Level I pliurs indicate that the building encroaches onr.o Phase lll propeny. Please
elirninatc the eusroachment or provide written approval liom rhe propeny orvner.
How do you access Hotel Room #9?
Can the second and third be&ooms of the fractional fee club units be made available for shon-term occuoancv
wheD not in use by club members?
The four parking spaces in the center of the pofle cochere and the four parking spaces in front of the offrces
need to be eliminated and a more pedestdan-friendly design proposed at the entance to the hotel.
A twenty foot setback should be provided along Vaii Road. This will provide ample area for vehicle
maneuvering and landscaping. The current desip sipificantly impacts the Vail Road sEeetscape.
6.
7.
It.
9.
10.
11.
4.
).
t2.
TJ,
{po"'o'*'uo
o A copy of the plans that were submitted on Wednesday, September 29, were forwarded to the Town of Vail Public
Works Departrnent for review. Geg Hall provided the following comments:
1. The Traffic Report doesn't address the confererlce facility witbin the hotel. The impact of this use needs to be
addressed in the report.
2. The Traffic Report doesn't split the trips generated by the hotel into the various modes of fansportation- The
Town is especially inte.rested in pedestriao rips along the South Frontage Road and through the development to
East Meadow Drive.
3. The Off-Site Improvements Plan has not been &awn to the lcvel of detail requested. The Town specifically
requesed that the areas where off-site improvements are proposd be "blown-up" in scale with details
illustrated to fully Inrlsrstan4 what is proposed.
4. The loading/delivery ea is to be desiped to accommodate two semi-lnrcks and three parcel trucks.5. Please indicate the location of the trash facilities oo tbe appropriate plans. The location of the trash facilities
will factor in the operatim and function of the entire loading/delivery area.6. The Surface Drainage Plan submitted is unacceptable. The plan does not evm reflect the current proposal.
7. Please provide a corrplete Grading Plan. The grading as shown on the Roof Height Plan is insufiicient in
detail.
Again, please review the list of comments and issues and contact me to schedule a meeting time to discuss the itens.
You can reach rne by telephone at 479 2145.
Sincerely,
George Ruther, AICP
Senior Special Pmjects Plamer
Town of Vail
Xc: Russell Forrest, Conrnrmity Developrnent Director
Greg llall, Director of Public Worlts
Waldir Prado
Jav Peterson
Z E H R E N
AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Wednesday, October 06, 1999
Mr. George Ruther
Senior Special Projects Planner
Town of Vail
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re:Vail Plaza Hotel
George:
This letter is to address the iterns outlined in your letter dated September 30,1999.
1. All corrections and revisions to the model will be made prior to first reading of the amendment to
the Vail Village Inn Special Development District. This was my understanding of our verbal
agreement in order to allow for DRB, PEC, and public comment to be incorporated into the model
at one time.
2. A sidewalk and stairway will be incorporated into the landscape design at the eastside of the
structure. Preliminary ideas will be presented for public cornment at the October 6, 1999 design
review board meeting.
3. A minimum width of ten feet will be maintained at the pedestrian sidewalk between phase one
(western building) and the pool landscaping areas at level one. We will field veri$ the phase one
westem wall prior to relocating the pool retaining wall.
4. The corridor width at level one can be reduced in width if coordinated with connecfing stairs,
egress requirements and structure. However, the conference break out rooms may or may not be
need to be increased due to amount of conference space necessary to economically support the
other functions in the hotel.
5. The walkway around the pool would be eliminated to the greatest extend possible in order to
maximize the amount of landscaping to the north and east of the pool area. Any walkway would be
the minimum allowed by applicable codes requiring access to the pool and be located directly
adjacent to the poo..
6. Retail space #2 will be revised to include an exterior enhance.
7. Mechanical equipment locations will be screened to the greatest extent possible. Potential
locations for equipment may be in the elevator tower penthouse and below finished grade at the
eastem side of the site. All mechanical equipmant will be designed in such a way to minimize
potential noise and/or exhaust.
8. A 40' passenger coach turning radius will be drawn on the level one plan.
9. The level one and level zero plans encroach onto phase three property to alleviate concerns
regarding an open air service alley between the buildings at the existing grade. Any proposed
sfucfure would not bear on nor effect the existing phase tlnee structure. In the event an agreement
cannot be reached between the two property owners, an open air service alley in the width of the
proposed service corridor will be maintained at level one and the service corridor will be relocated
from phase three property at level zero.
10. Hotel room #9 will be accessed from the corridor to the north. The point ofaccess to that room and
the configuration of the maid's closet is deperndent upon the ramp length required by code and
ARCH ITECTU RE. PLAN N tNC. tNTERtORS. LAN DSCAPT ARCH TTECTU RE
P.O. Box 1976 . Avc:n, Coloraclo 81 620 . (970) 949-0257 . FAX (970) 949-1080
Vail Plaza Hotel
961070.00
Zehren and Associates, Inc.
r0/06t99
design of the lobby space that accesses both this ramp and the westem side of the project. This
access will be provided upon comment on design ofthat lobby and access from the various boards.
1 1. The fractional fee units have been designed to maximize the amount of "lock-offs" or rentable
short-term accofi[nodation units to be rented under the proposed management structure.
12. The eight spaces indicated are intended for short term parking for loading and unloading. Detailed
drawings areas will be provided for design review and mitigation of parking concerns.
13. The setback along Vail Road is consistent with setbacks at the gateway and phase five. Increasing
the setback would have serious economic impacts and may effect the viability of the project.
In response to Greg Hall's comments:
L The conference facility is intended to be used predominantly by hotel guests with overflow
guests staying in short term rental accommodations within the Vail Village Inn Special
development and neighboring hotels. Any additional taffic impacts would be minimal and
most likely not significantly impact peak hour volumes.
2. The tafftc report addresses other transportation modes by allowing for a fifty- percent
reduction for internal uses. Pedestrian trips are difficult to estimate especially between the
South Frontage Road and East Meadow Drive because there are no existing facilities for trips
between these two areas and because there is very little dernand for trips between these two
areas generated by the proposed uses on our site.
It was my understanding that we had verbally agreed to accept design input from the various
review boards and public comment prior to submitting a final public improvements plan. The
submitted plan reflects the gereral areas in which we would be providing public improvements
subject to the public approvals process. In addition to the improvements plan, a written
description of those improvements will be provided contingent upon approvals.
The loading and delivery system can accommodate the specified vehicles. The two semi-trucks
can be located in the west and center bay. Two parcel trucks can be located in the east bay
with the third parcel truck stacking behind the semi-truck in the west bay.
The trash area will be in a fully enclosed room located in the service area indicated to the east
of the loading area. Final size and location of this area is dependent on foodseryice facilities
equipment, and its relationship to restaurants, kitchens, storage areas, and receiving areas.
The drainage plan represents the previous submittal, of which this submittal is a continuation.
The surface area of the site, the relative areas of impervious materials, and the underground
building envelope remains essantially unchanged and will should little effect on drainage
system outlined in the drainage plan submitted. Connection points to town systems and
volumes of water should remain unchanged.
Proposed finish grades are indicated on all ground level plans. A finish grading plan will be
submitted.
3.
4.
!.
6.
7.
Vail Plaza Hotel
961070.00
Zehren and Associates, Inc.
10t06t99
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concems regarding the information presented.
Additionally, ifyou need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
<--1
:,e- F-.=-_r
Tim Losa
Project Manager
Zehren and Associates, Inc.
cc: Waldir Prado
Jay Peterson
Enclosure
VPH PARKING ANALYSES ro[r lrs
)use VPH data
current ordinance
Consultant proposal
as ts average
unit sf lformula spaces spaces per ratio per
I rpaces
hotel lroomsl 98 35,66710.4+0.1 per 100 grfa 74.87 0.76 room 1.0 room 98.00
club lunits 40 63,661lZunit or 2.5 if>2000 sf 93.00 2.02 unit 1.1 unit 50.60
dwelling lunit 1 5,03512.5 > 2,ooo sf 2.50 2.50 unit 1.0 unit 1.00
rcsteurant lseat 175 3,61311 perB seats ?1.89 6.06 1000 sf 't.0 6*40 sf I 15.05
retail lunit 3 3,55011 per300 sf. I 11.83 3.33 1000 sf 1.5 1000 sf I 5.33
conference lseat 467 7,004h per 8 seats . .-SS 8.33 1000 sf 1 6 s€als i-i:Sfrffi
262.45 228.35
SDD6 deficit 75.00 less than I 75.00
337.45 303.35
7.5%mixed use reduc{ion -25.3'.1 -22.75
parking required 312.14 280.59
" provided 268.00 268.00
" balance q.ll -12.c9
ADJUSTMENTS
It is generally recognized tfrat current ordinance is high in some ibms.
For VPH we suggest tfrat some peculiaraties shoud be considcred:
a) - Majority of Club owners will be from the East Coast, Canada, Central and South America, Europe,
Texas and South US. Less than 33% may be from the front range that eventually will drive.
b) - Customers for VPH shops will be predominantly hotel/club guests for which the parking is already taken care o
Certainly there will be not more than 2 to 4 outside customers at same time in those shops., We assumed the Consultant ratio for retail, which is higher than 5 spaces.
cl - All conventioneers will be staying at the hoteuclub and nearby hotels and rental condos.
Parking for those very few that drove to Vail is already provided by their accommodation (wherever it is locate d).
Any way, 20 spaces are considered for the conference.
d) - Other items, like resteurent should also be adjusted under the consideralion that it is a "hotel restaurant"
primarily used by hotel guests.
e) - lt should also be considered that all the VPH parking spaoes are 'roteting or floating' spaces that allows a much
higher occupancy or, in other words, a higher mixed use reducition.
use VPH data
curent orcrnance
with some adjustnents Consultant proposal
adiusted as "a, b, c" above average
sf requlrement spaces spaces per spaces per
I
spaces
hotel rooms 98 35,667 q.4{.1 pqllq_grfa 74.87 0.76 room 't.0 room 98.00
50.c0
1.00
club see "a' above units t06 63,661 1.1 per unit 50.e0 1.'10 unit 1.'l unit
unit-'-ldwellingunit15,035 2.5 > 2,000 sf I 2.50 2.50 unit 1.0
restaurant seat 175 3,613 1 perS seats 21.89 6.06 1000 sf 1.0 6'40 sf 15.05
retail see "b"above unit 3 3,550 1.5 per 1000 sf 5.311 1.50 1000 sf 1.5 1000 sf 5.33
conference "c"above seat 467 7.OO4 2.86 1000 sf
total 175.1E total 189.98
SDDO deficit 75.00 loss than 75.00
250.18 264.98
nob "e"above mixed use reduction -31.27 -33.'12
parting required 218.91 231.E8
\" provided 268.00 266.00
)" balance surplus surplus 36.14
VPH STAFF (permanent end s€esonaypail-time)Page'l
Total tull 0me
Number of part time n"r"s =(avg hs.per peak
VPH STAFF (permanent and seasonal/part-time)Page 2
f ,T
A B c D E F G H
46 note 1: includes "day off' coverage were applicable.
A7 note 2: Maid service is based on 10 occupied roomsi/maid. Minor occasional fluctuations in
demand (less than 1007o occupancl)will be covered with overtime of the permanent staff.
49 note 3: Occasional lape banquettes will be serviced by the Conferenoe waiter slaff and the two shifis
50 reslaurant and kitchen s{aff in over time.
51 note 4: Same therapist may oover more than 1 of the 14 treatment roomg for eorne llqalrneqq
52 note 5: The total 42,oEE seasonal work hoursi/year divided by the regular one full
53 time employee 2,000 hourvyear is =21 equivalent full time
54 employees.
55 note 6: it is a typical hourvpeak day of a part time helper.
56 noG Z: it is the total pan time "names" on the payroll. Evidently depends on the average pert-time hourtpeakday
57
5E Employee Totals VPH
VPFI
equiv
WI
Net
Wl inqoa-
Euiv.' se
42
7
59 full lime 't32 132 42
60 paft time 116 21'32
61 total 248 153 74 4eI
62 ' part time at same ratio as VPH
63
64 VPH STAFFING IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWNG
65 uses note units quant,
66 Hotel units 97
67 Club units 46
68 Hotel + Club E units 143
H Hotel & Club YEAR occupancy 7ga
persons/occupied unit t.75
71 Hotel + Club population 9 188
72 maid service maid 10
73 walk in for lunch or dinner 10 customerv func{ion/day EO
74 Restaurant & bar tl sf | 3,613
75 kitchen 11 sf 3,2001
76 Conference 11 sf 7,0041
77 Health Club/SPA 11 sf 7,0091
78 Retail 11 sf 3,550
79
80 hish=Aaanemand f or restauranUday I
81 nob lunch danner
per 3 nights staE2hotel & Club guests 12 ,|,|v.
E3 seryes/funr 18 48
E4 Walk in customerVfunction/day
E5 - _ serves/func{ion/day t0 60 neryfunction/day
E6 -ToEl seruesi/function/day t3 12E 128 13 servesArva ite rff u ncti o n
87 bieakfast is buffet type, served by the same lunch staff.
E8 note E: Hotel & Club are staffed as a unified operation
E9 note9:popu|ationforthespecifiednumberofunits'o@
90 nob l0: all hotel restaurants offthe main pedeg :rian trq
91 walk in demand.This E(lserves/functioilday is a very high assulnple!.
92
33
note t t att ttrese uses are stafred based on real demand and not based on sq.n., or seats or any other parameter.
t4 and 1 dinner per 3 nights stay. lt is part of guests program to dine out in
95 other resleurants. Vail is plenty of those.
96 nob 13: The low ratio of 13 servesl$raiter/shifi/day indicates that this staff can serve
97 more than 2 times this demand.
'. ',1
MAXIMUM HOLIDAYS AND PEAKWEEK ENDS
1999 days/
holidays n'lnbt holidays
days/peak
wk.end
days
total
Vetenns ll-Nov 3I
Thankglvlng 2$'NOV 3
2-Ilec
$Dec
lGDec
Chtutnat 7
NewYear 7
SJan
Luther K 13-Jan 3
20Jan
Linc,Val,Pre 3
Ash 3
3
3
3
StPatick 3
3
Good Fri 3
7-Apr
winter total 35 12 47
Independence 3
3
3
3
3I3
$mm€f total
1+Apr
3 15 18
21-Aprl
28-Apr
Mothe/s 5-May 3
Armed Forc 12-May
19-May
Memorial 26-Mayl 3
2.JunGrandParen g-.run
Father's 16-Jun 3
2$'run 3
1z-Aw 3
1$ArE 3
e,At{
2€cp
$S€p
Yom Kipur l&Sep 3
2$'8ep
3{l-S6pColumbus | 7-Octl 3
14-Oct
21-Oc{
Halloween 28-Oct 3
4-Nov
18 I 27
year total 56 36 92
Ser, 29, 1999 8:30A1[ZEHREN AND ASSOCIA
Z E H R E N
AND ASS()CIATES, lNC.
AR(.t.u I€(:IURE.I't ANN|NG.lM f F|ORS. rANDSgrPE AIiCH'TLCTURf
P.O. Box 197(r o Avofl, Colorado tll620 . (970) 9494257 ' FAX (970t 949'10tl0
No.965l P. 1/10
Fron:10?0
Tucsday, Scptcmbcr 28, 1999
Mr. Gcorge Rudrcr
Scnior Special Projects Plmner
Townof Vail
Departncnt of Community Developmcnt
75 SoulhFrontagcRoad
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re : Vnil Plaza Hotel
Gocgc:
This lcttcr is to addrcss desig citcrie A Srough I as outlined in section I 8 .40.080 of thc town oodc. It is
o|r udcrstanding ttEt thcsciine (9) crituia uc to bc uscd in erntuating the rrcrits of the Vril Plaza Hobl'
the final phase of thc Vail Villagc hrn Spccid Developmcut DisFict
A. Design competibility. we betiwe thst thc hotel is desigrcd ia srch a uay that is both conpatible aod
scnsfire to the cnvirurment, neigtrbodoodr rnit adjac'eot propcrties
Setbacks als cottsi.t*t wift ttrc undcrlying zdling in that rhry uraintrin an rverdgE of turcnty frct
(20') &om rut adjrccot propcrtics to Ore Prinary building -walls'
Additifd!:.* sructnc maintains
s€b;fs csrsigoriwm aajaccnt prWernes almg both thc Frurtagc Road and Vail Road-
Ivlass and butk are scnsitive m adjaccut stuctr€s in tbat thc hotel is designed to stcp up t1h"i4t
and bulk tom both thc steet and adjaccnt srnaller errrcturts in order b mainbin a corDfortablc
pcitastsian scalc while uraintaining conslstent trei$Js wrn adjacent 8trrtcturcs rcof lines and ridges-
edaitionrtty, ve havc purposefutlitlppeO urost of the roof forrns at u alorg public ettcts and plazas
to provide " .*"ittcnt UuU ptn " ri -stcct lwc!. Ttr s@ing Td broken 4dgc lincs, dole wttlg
variations in materials snd wait phrcs sct to brcak down tlrc orrcrrll nuss od bulk of thc projcct and
relatc fre hotel to tbc nrnormding ncighborhood.
The architcctural dcsigr is 6canito be botr conpatibla with both he Gaervay building f,drhe
rcmaind€r of thc spccial
-rlcrrcloprmcnt disfuict whitc providing sornc identity to thc hotcl as both a
recogrizabtc urd viablc commeroial stuctwc within 0re cunmwity'
B. Uscq Dcnrity, illd Acfivity. The Vail Pleze Hotcl is the lrst phase of tlrc Vail Villagc Iul Spo0id
U*Aop-ari District atrtt as such was always neaDt to bc &c anclrc'r c nnst denscly dgttEloped
pordon of thc disrict As a firll scrvicc horct, vhich includes oqrference' spr, rcstcunnq {|d
commcrclal astivitics, thc hotel me$rt to ad as a 'lnagncf' that dra*s pooplc through thc ooer
smallcr, csffincrcial bascd sguotres in ihe spcoial developnrent distict, (including thc Gatcway
b"ildtd). Mditionally, thc hotcl is legelly requircd to provide loading, and dclivsv scrtrices,
autornofilc acccsg andparking for the ramind66 of thc speid dcvclopnrcnt dis'tict
C, prr54 rsd t slding. Wc bclicve orr loading facilities are in cor4tiance wtth thc rcquhe'meob of
chaptcr 18.52.
w€ ffi providitrs six (6), 12' x 25' loading b€rths. 'fhc maximum required is five (5) 12' x25',
bertlrs in accordance wittr IS.SZ.ISO- We beliwc our parking facililies meet tlle needs of tlre special
devclopmort distict of which it is a part
Ser.29, 1999 8:3?Alr{ ZEHREII AllD ASSOCIA l{0. 9651 P. 8/10
From:10?0
vdl Plrzr Uotcl
961070.00
Zchrfir md A$ociates, luc.
09nu99
Wc arc proposing !o proyide all parking requircd by zoning chaptcr 18.52 for qu hotel and thirty
fivg (35), of ur cxisting swcnty livc, (75) space delicit left by prwious derrelqrurent in thc disrict It
is our bclicf that thc mixcd+sc rcducfion in thc currsnt zoning mdinance rnay not be adequatc or
corectly applicd to trc orrcrall spccial dorclopmcnt distict. hr additict, we fecl that the requirennrts
for parking, espccially wih rcg3rd to dwclling units that act as fraction fee unis. (which are not
addressed by cunvrt zoning), may be excqssi\rc,
D. Confornity with Mrster Plrn. Wc bclicvc our derclopmmt subswrtially cornplies with tto goals
expresscd in the vrriors plans cortrined withh thc adoptod vail villagc Mrsta Plao.
Ihe Iawl Use Plan indicates orr site as Mediurl/lligh D€nsity Resideotial and as such
rccomrrmrds a l@ing mienation with a limited annunt of accccsory rctail.
We arc prcposing o providc an incrtascd amolnt of "ubao opco qtacs" or public plaa ad
buffering gre€nryace in the areas indicated as such in The Qpat Spae PIan-
We believe that orr projec{ corrplies with the recommendatims in fte Poking and Ciradation
PIan. lIJe arc prop$ing m btcrnal cmncction to the Vail Grlcuay shand pcdcstiu/anb arca as
indicatcd, an iryovcd pcdcstian connccfm to East Meadow Drivc including rew bus fasilities as
indicatcd, urd a sccondary cxtcrnal pcdesFian corrrcstion to Vail R@d be$tccn phasc fivc srd ow
projcct Additionally we would bc providing sidcuNalk imprortnenb frorn fic ncrv bus stop on East
Meadow Drivc to the Gatcway m Vail Road, and Bikc/PedesEian sidswalk improvcnrcnts frorn the
vail Gat{ ,vsy to the Vail Trosportation Csrta on tttc Frfitbge Road.
Wc beliwo that oru dcsign subsmtially complies vt|& Buildhg Height Plon in &st flc plan
indicates buildings of irve $ories both to the eest and west of orr site aloog the fiontagc load and nqth
and south of our sib on Vail Road. Ow desigrr rnaintains tftis four o fivc story rclatioruhip with our
ncigbbss Wc fccl as thouglr thc tluoc to four sb,ry dpsigution is iaconsistent with currat conditims
a$d lrc not applicablc as lhcy rtlatc to our sitc. It js otn $derstmding tbat thcsc bcigltb indicatcd in
the plan were bascd on prcscrving views to Vail Mountain tom thc four way stop at tbe Intmection of
Vail Road and thc Frontagc Road prior to develop,rncnt of the Vsil Gatewry ard the Roundabouts-
Becausc tlrcec yiewr no longcr exist with thc dwclopnrent of tlc Vail Gates.y as ackrowledged in tbe
ptan, and because sbppng to vicrw lbc ntounbb is actually discouragcd by tbc trcvtotcnt of traffic in
tlrc mundabout we fccl that thcsc sbndards may no loger apply-
The Action Plaz indicabs or sitc as an area for poreutial residc,atiModging infiU in accorddtce
wltb pr€vious to!#n app,rovals with whioh our poposed projctt is oonsistent.
-Ihe Vail Village &tb-Arus /-I of the Yail Village Mastet Plat indicatcs oru sitc as the final
phase of SDD #6. Lr doing so, it ideotilies a ssies of gods, which rrrc bcliwe rve corrply witb.
/rern 1,2 €ncouragps "ttrc rrpgrrding and redcwloprrrcrrt of resiitrntiel and commercinl facilitics-"
Item 2-j *stsrongly cncorragcE thc dwclo,ymcnt shqt tcrrr accomrnodation unib' md rccopizs that
when units ae "dcrrcloped above the existing density l€velq they shorld bc managcd in such a way
that allorvs fsr short term overnight reahl".
ttqn 2,4 cncouragEs the devclopncnt of new cosme(cial infill compatible with eldsling land uses-
ftea 2.6 encorreges the developmcnt of affordsble housing units and may be required as part of any
rcdweloprncnt pmject requesting a density ovu levels allowed by exi*ing zcning.
ftqn 3.2 recoglizcs thc will to'tcducc vchicular taffio in hc village to $c grcalcl cxHtt possiblC'-
Itat 4.1 encflragcs ftc improvenurt of eristing ecn space to creaE naw plazas with greeaupace.
ttem 5.1 recognizcs ttrc need and dcsir€ to providc for pcking dcmands on sirc md urith rrrdergmrnd
and visually conccalcd prrking.
Iten 6.1 recognizes the need to provide senrice and delivery hcilities for existing urd new
dwclopment
Ser.29, 1999 8:3?Al|ZEHNEI AI{D ASSOCIA
Vail Plaza Holcl
96tW0.00
No. 9051 P. 9/10
From:10?0
Zebrcn aud AssocieEs, Inc.
wna99
E.
F.
G.
Neturel llezrrds We believe tlrcre rrc no natural hrzuds that may afrect dwelqnurt of tris sits.
Site rnd Building D.slg"- We bcticve ws have ad&csscd this issuc by comptiance wift the Vail
Villagc lvlastcr Plan.
PcdcrtiauYeliculer Circnlation. We beliwe wc have addrcasd this issue by compliance with the
Vail Villagc Master Plan. Additonrlly, taffrc gMies indicate that vehicular circulati@ paftcrns ut
considcrcd safe and have retatively littlc irrpact on eristing vehiculr circulrtion systeras'
Fuctbnet and Aertlctic Laldscrpiag. We believe we havs sddrqescd tlris issrr by compliancc
witb thc Vail Villagc Mastcr Plan. Additionally, we bclio,c wc havc substantially improved cr tbc
amount and qrnlity publicly acccssiblc phzas, greenspaccs, and pedesrian circulation systems'
L pLering P[n" The dwclopncnt will be cqrstucted in onc phase wilb cottpletiut an6cipated for latc
frll of 2001.
Plcasc dp not hc6itap to cmtact mc witb my questions or concans rtguding tbe infurration fEsettod-
Additionill1 if yurr. nccd any additioual infumaticr, please do not hcsitate to cqntrct r1e.
Sincerely,
Tim lnsa
Projcct Maoager
Zeluu and Associates, Inc.
"'seD. 29, lggg'' 8:38ilf ''ozEHREll Al{D AssoclA l{0. 9051 P, 10/i0 " ^
From:10?0
I lJr .llr /5a ,ll'435',
TORNOF
Wrnat 6amu$ Dcaclqrrs*
75 tud.Frwup Pd
W @brdo 61657.
e701n.2118
FN( 97M79.4s2
ScgdcrZt, 1999
fmLo
z&EirAr$cirE$Inc.
4tbsEcrvsGr*Bctlgwd
Avo"CdmdoEl65t
Rs vrlPLu.Ilad
'DcarTsq
OnAugs Z, 199, urt discrs*d thcmEndhf ruhtctt ryqaVu wo19-1qa o srbmft o co@cc yau
q0dicdb ft( tbpmjo udcor to Spocll Dcvclqruot DislaNo 6 VrI vtrIrgc ra
Iuasrccotlyrwirmiryrbcflcroddccrulnrtrhd rbcrcsc*illt6,q"Ilmtbdo$bc$biwdtory"rF.c
tosq|erc ygur edic*r. TloF ih5 ioEhdc tcwnnocrt@ o$lbbsbout Oitdatdfrat treocrl
cosplicswdlUcntcOcSprwlrrcriqiapcsiUcAbSGim I2-9NdtbcTornSdc.rFdilrtiry
t'ai'is guilOog codc Cclp|ire X4s1, I r?yi*d Trrfic Irya R4cl' tb Sqftcctkm Wu Dnbgr
Plnodaoff-Ctc tryormn na. Hdtlsc nrGrar lohn'c bcctrshdualn ny officcby
Sc4enrbs ? in cdstororiaoatbc Squnbrr ? Plmiqg & Edvi@I Ctrunirsicn
ttrc lsr ffiingwith thc Plaobg & hcir@lanl Omirsio is scbcdtlcd fg llodry, Ocobcr I I, I 999. IIlc
VrilPhallddrermairclysbcdrlcdfrrcvicsrttbisrEri!& Inad:rtollragiBolbrgBA),trlwiUDccd
opoi&acc4lacrfioitblWmhcrtbaDooq\rr$.edry,$opoabcr29- Ihtrd?dltswillprovi&6c
ui,a srff a opcuu&y rc nvicw rheprgwl rnd ream uy cmtots b yur pic ro rbc Ocr0bcr I I rrEEtl4E"
I!&eabecDpc ofs csDlctc stgrittrl,I sc?trorr.smto aporbdcc 6c Plrsring& Ewlouanl m Ocrobcr
u-
esIbew$rt€d irrbp prsLrbcToum S fu[ya@ficdtonoviegth!Fqoadvril Plrzrltrilcl &wghtbe
6cvctryrrwiorFoccsbrtiEdyre. llorwn, inadcrtodoo,arytcWstrlsiyfsrwtarrod
utcrins trEDsatlo ir quird eod cltliid d:tdlbun be u.
Upo thc rcccip of DiB htF pl$sG euct c ro w3 nry dlsee $s mdiog crDoft.l idoiD.tio srtl thsrMre fs gbmiubgfu itcms- Yqr sea rcash c EGt cdlyby tdcpbor J. aV)-2146.
SfrF.rdy,
fI*Q,.*t-t
Gsgpnuher,AlCP
Sruic Spocirl hdocts Plaog
TornofVril
g4airrD"-
o
o
VAILPLAZAHOTEL
BUILDINGAREA
CALCULATIONS & SUMMARY
917199
-o
Vail Plaza Hotel
961070.00
Levcl 6
Grors Squrrc Footegc
Dwellins Unit
Dwelling Unit (upper level)
Club Unlts
Utrlt Number
Club Unit 39 (Upper trvel)
Club Unit 40 (Upper lrvel)
Club Unit 4l (Upper Level)
Club Unit 42 (Upper l-evel)
Club Unit 43 (Upp€r Irvel)
Club Unit 44 (Upper Irvel)
Sub-Totd Club
Conidor (public)
Corc (clcvator)
Maid
CorB (strir)
Mechanical (rmftop)
SubTotd Arer
Dvelling Unit Net
Club Unit Nct
Other Net
Totd Net
NcVGmss Dlfferencc
Level 6 Zehren and Associates, lnc.
9t8t99
7,791.00
Arer
2,002.00
Area
Et4.00
814.00
860.00
7t5.00
814.00
814.00
4,t3t.00
0.00
150.00
0.00
0.00
222.N
372.N
2,002.00
4,t31.00
372.00
71205.0O
5t6.00
Deck Aree
0.00
Dcck Arer
l0 t.00
l0 t.(X)
101.00
10 t.00
l0l.00
101.00
506.00
92r/o
Bedrooms
t.00
1.00
1.00
L00
1.00
1.00
6.00
LrlKlt
1.00
1.00
1.00
t.00
I.00
1.00
6.00
Plllows
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
24.N
Keys
0.00
Kerrs
1.00
1.00
| .00
1.00
t.00
1.00
6.00
Bedrooms LvtrlRm Pillows
1.00 0.00 2.00
Page I
Vail Plaza Hotel
961070.00
Lcvel 5
Gross Squrr. f,'ootrga
Ilwelline Unit
DwElling Unit flowcr level)
Club Units
Unlt Number
Club unit 32 (Uppcr ["cvcl)
Club unit 33 (Upper L:vel)
Club Unit 34 (Upper t-evel)
Club Unit 35 (Upper Levc)
Club unit 36 (Jpper Level)
Club Unit 39 (Lower tevel)
Club Unit ,t0 (t ower Lrvcl)
Club Unit 4 I (Irwer l-evel)
Club Unit 42 (Iower Lrvel)
Club Unit 43 (Lower Lrvcl)
Club Unit,g flrwer t vcl)
SutsTotrl Club
Other Areas
Corridor (public)
Core (clevator, mech. shaft)
Maid
Cor€ (sr&ir)
SubTord 0ther Arc$
Dwelling Unit Net
Club Unit Net
Oths Nct
Totrl Nct
Ntd/Gross Dlffcrencc
Level 5 Zchren and Associates, Inc.
9t8/99
t5,E9t.00
Arce
3,033.00
Arcr
814.00
8 r 4.00
814.00
8 | 4.00
E 14.00
913.00
979.00
4E6.00
r,369.00
992.00
9q2.00
9,t0I.00
Arca
1,6t6.00
l5l .00
0.m
r28.00
I,t95.0()
3,033.00
9,80t.00
1.895.00
t4,729.00
I,t69.qt
Deck Aree
450.00
Dcck Arca
154.00
154.00
154.00
154.00
154.00
0.00
0.00
o.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
770.00
Kevs
4.00
Kcvs
1.00
L00
t.00
| .00
r.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
17.00
Bedrooms
1.00
t.00
1.00
l.00
1.00
2.W
2.OO
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
16.00
Bedrooms Studio Pillows
3.00 1.00 8.00
LR/Klt Plllows
1.00 4,00
1.00 4.00
1.00 4.00
1.00 4.00
r.00 4.00
0.00 4.00
0.00 4.00
0.00 2.00
l.m 6.fi)
0.00 4.00
0.00
5.00
4.00
44.00
Page 2
Vail Plaza Hotel
961070.00
Level 4
Gross Squrr€ Footrge
Club Units
Unit Number
Club Unit l9 (Upper l-evcl)
Club Unit 20 (Upper l-evel)
Club Unit 2l (Jpper l-evcl)
Club Unit 23 (tjpper LeveD
Club Unit 25 flJpper l-evel)
Club Unit 26 (Upper Irvel)
Club Unit 27 (Upper trvel)
Club Unir 3l (Flat)
Club Unit 32 (Lower kvel)
Club Unit 33 (t wer Irvel)
Club Unit 34(Lower t-cvcl)
Club Unit 35 (I-ower I-fCD
Club Unit 36 (towo l*vel)
Club Unit 37 (Flat)
Club Lhit 38 (Rs0
Sub-Totel Club
Accomodatlon Units
Unit Type A
Other Arees
Conidor (public)
Core (elevator)
Maid
Cor€ (stair)
Sub.Totel Other Arcrs
Club Unit Net
Accornrndation Net
Other Net
Totrl Nct
Neucross Dilleretrce
Level 4 Zehren and Associates, lnc.
9/Et99
26,288.00
Arer
790.00
790.00
790.00
915.00
790.00
790.00
1,216.00
r,095.00
513.00
l,034.00
1,034.00
1,034.00
979.OO
l:34.00
1234.00
14,238.00
Ave. Aree
371.5E
@
2,915.00
150.00
209.00
379.00
3,653.00
14,238.0O
6,3t6.79
3.653.00
u,207.79
2,040.21
Deck Arer
10t.00
| 0l _00
t 0 t.00
250.00
t0r.00
101.00
101.00
|0r.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.00
0.00
101.00
101.00
r,r59.00
Bedrooms
1.00
1.00
t.00
1.00
t.00
r.00
L00
| .00
I .00
2.00
2.N
2.OO
2.00
2.00
2.O0
21.00
Pillows
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
6.00
6.00
62.00
Kevs
1.00
r.00
L00
t.00
1.00
l.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.(n
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.N
2.W
22.O0
Studio
1.00
l.0o
L00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
t.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
t 0.00
o
Kevs Total Area
t7.00 6.316.79
Page 3
Vail Plaza Hotel
96r070.00
Level 3
Grors Squerc Footrgc
Club Units
Unlt Tvnc
Club Unit 45 (Flat)
Club thit 46 (Flat)
Club unit t7 (Flsi)
club unit t8 (Ftat)
Club Unit 19 (Lower Level)
Club Unit 20 (Lower trvel)
Club Unit 2l (lrwer Lrvel)
Club Unit 22 (Flat)
Club Unit 23 (lower Lrvcl)
Club Unil 24 (Flat)
Club unit 25 (Iower Level)
Club Unir 26 (Lower Lrvcl)
Club Unit 27 (L,ower Lrvcl)
Club Unit 2E (Flat)
Club unit 29 (Flat)
Club Unit 30 (Rat)
Sub.Totrl Club Urits
Accomodrdon UniE
IJnit Tlpe A
Other Aress
Maid
Conidor (public)
CorE (elevator)
Corc (steir)
Sub-Totd Other Arers
Totds
Club Net
Acconfibdation Net
Other Nct
Totrl Net
NeVGross Ditlcrcoce
Level 3 Zehren and Associates, Inc.
9t8/99
32,759.00
Arer Dcck Arer
I,160.00 101.00
r,164.00 t0t.00
79.00 81.00
lrl4.00 81.00
593.00 0.00
1,088.00 0.00
t,060.00 0.00
I,129.00 142.00
975.00 0.00
97E.00 0.00
9?8.00 0.00
978.00 0.o0
97E.00 0.00
951.00 0.00
t275.00 81.00
1.234.OO Er.00
16,519.00 66t.00
Studio Pillows
1.00 4.00
1.00 4.00
t.00 6.00
1.00 4.00
0.00 2.00
0.00 4.00
0.@ 4.00
l.(x) 4.00
0.00 4.00
L00 4.00
0.00 4.00
0.00 4.00
0.00 4.00
1.00 4.00
1.00 6.00
t.00 6.00
9.00 68.00
Kevs
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.N
2.@
2.00
2.N
2.N
2.@
27.O0
Bedrooms
1.00
1.00
2.00
I.0o
1.00
2.00
2.@
1.00
2.U)
r .00
2.00
2.ffi
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.@
25.00
Ave, Arcl
368.62
278.00
4,632.W
150.@
444.00
5,504.00
t6,519.00
9,584.00
5.504.00
3t,07.00
r,152.00
Keys Totrl Arcr
26.@ 9584.00
Page 4
Vail Plaza Hotel
96t070.00
Lcvel 2
Gross Squere Footegc
Club Units
Unit Tvne
Club llnit 4 (Flat)
Club unit 5 (Flat)
Club Unit 6 (Fl8t)
Club Llnit 7 (Flat)
Club Lrnit 8 (Flat)
Club Unit 9 (Flat)
Club Unit l0 (Flat)
Clubunitll(nat)
Club Unit 12 (Flat)
Club Unit l3 (Flat)
Club Unir 14 (Flat)
Club Unit 15 (Flat)
Club Unir l6 (Flat)
Sub-Torrl Club Urlts
Accomodation Units
Unit Type A
Othcr Arers
Maid
Ccridor (public)
Corc (elcvator)
Corc (stair)
Sub-Totd Oth.r Arc:r
Totels
Club Net
Acconunodation Net
OlherNet
Totrl Net
NcUGrosr Dilfcrcrcc
Levcl2 Zehren and Associates, Inc.
9t8t99
33,947.00
Arer Deck Aree
1,t92.00 81.00
982.00 0.00
I,193.00 8r.00
1,485.00 t42.00
t,042.N 0.00
965.00 200.00
969.00 0.00
969.00 8t.00
969.00 8t.00
969.00 8r.00
951 .00 8l .00
1,275.W 8t.00
| .22t .O0 8 I .00
r4,rE2.00 990.00
Kevs
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.O0
t.00
2.W
2.00
2.N
2.00
2.(n
2.00
2.W
2.00
24.00
Bcdrooms
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
t.00
1.00
1.00
t.00
2.00
2.00
20.00
Studio
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
| -00
l,00
1.00
t.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
I -00
I1.00
Plllows
6.00
4.00
6.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
6.00
6.00
62.00
Avc. Area
362.85
300.00
4,328.00
150.00
491.00
s269.@
14,182.00
12,335.80
5J69.00
31,7t7.t0
2,159.20
Kevs Totrl Arer
34.00 12.336.80
Page 5
Vail Plaza Hotel
961070.00
Lcvel I
Gross Squere Footege
Club Units
Unit Tvoe
Club Unit I (Flat)
Club Unit 2 (Flat)
Club Unit 3 (F1at)
Sub-Totd Club Units
Accorpodation Unlts
Unit Type A
Retail
Rctail Three
Retail Four
Sub-Totrl Ret|it
R€strurent
Mah Rcstaur|nt (Buffct)
Specislty Restaurant
Sub-Toirl Restaurrnl
Lounse
lormge
Other Areas
Conidor (public)
KitchedService
Truck DocldAuto Circ.
Rrstmnls
Maid
CorE (€levator)
Core (stair)
SubTotel Other Arcu
Totels
Club Nct
Accommodation Net
Retsil Net
Reshurant Net
t oungc Net
Other Net
Totrl Net Aree
NcUGross Dilfercncc
Level I
Deck Aree
81.00
81.00
t42.00
304.00
Keys Totrl Are.
21.00 7,429.00
Occ. Frctor Occupaot!
18.00 109.1'l
25.00 6s.92
t75.09
Occ. tr'rctor Occuprntr
18.00 74.1r
Zehren and Associates. Inc.
9t8t99
42,02E.tX1
Arer
t2n.w
1,251.00
l s42.o0
4,090.fi)
Ave Arer
353.76
Arer
605.00
0.00
605.00
Arcr
1,965.00
1.648.00
r.6t3.00
Ar.|
t,334.00
5,397 .00
t,223.00
6263.0O
589.00
293.W
275.00
546.00
2r1586.00
4,090.00
7 429.0O
605.00
3,6 t 3.00
1,334.00
21.586.00
3t,657.00
337r.00
Kcvs
2.N
2.00
2.OO
6.00
Bedroorrs
2.00
2.O0
2.Q0
6.00
Studio Pillows
1.00 6.00
1.00 6.00
1.00 6.00
3.00 t8.00
92t/o
Page 6
Vail Plaza Hotel
961070.00
Level 0
Grosr Squar€ Foohgc
Rctril
Reiail Onc
Rctril Two
Sub-Totd Retrll
Lobbv Ber
t obby Bar
Lobbv
Lobby
Administration
Front Desk
Accounting
Totd AdminbtrrtioD
Spe - Mcn ts/Workout
Merr's tnckcn/Facilities
Trcatnent
Deck
Exercise/Workout
Sub-Totrl Spr
Conference
Main Ballroom
Prc.conv€nc
Sub-Totd Confcrcncc
Scrylcc Arcrs
Erterior Clrcnletlon
Covered Ramp (North)
Covercd Auto Entry (West)
Covered Pedestrian (East)
Totrl
Other Areas
Rcslrootrs
Core (elevator)
Corc (Stair)
Corridor(Public)
Toirl Othcr Arert
Perkinq Pmvided
Valet Spaces
I*vel 0 Zehren and Associates, Inc-
9/8t99
,t8,923.00
1,615.00
1.330.00
2,945.00
Area
647.W
Area
2,426.00
2,t92.ffi
1.340-00
3,532.00
3,150.00
2,447.N
93s 00
t.686.00
E 2tE.00
Arce
7,004.00
2.485.00
9,{t9.00
6J18.00
1,008.00
5264.OO
1.368.00
7,6.10.0O
5E9.00
275.00
568.00
3.740.00
s,172.00
12.00
Occ. Frct
20.00
Occ Frct
30.00
OccuD.
32.35
OccuD.
E0.t7
Occ. Frctor Occttprtrts
15.00 466.93
7.00 355.00
Page 7
Vail Plaza Hotel
96r070.00
TdIs
R.tril Net
B|rNct
Lrbby Net
Aftinistrtior Net
Spa Nct
Coftrtncc litct
S.rvicc Nct
Extcic cinulrtim Na
Orh.r Nct
Tohl Nct
NcllGms| Dlllcrcncs
2,945.00
g7.n
2,426.W
3J32.00
8,2 t 8.00
9J89.00
6JrE.00
7,64O.U
5.172.00
,639t.00
1536.00
kvcl0 Zchnn ard Associaes, Inc.
9t8199
)s%
Page 8
Vsil Pkza Hotel
961070.00
Levcl Mlnur Onc
Groro Sqqrn loo0rg
Spc
lVmsr'cL,cl n/F.cilitica
'Ihfig|t
Dcck ArE
Excrciscrr*rq,lout
PmlArEr
SrbTotrl Spr
Cofcnncc
Btaftoln
ft+cmvarc
SubTotrl Corfcrrocc
Scrvlcc
OttcrArcrr
Mcchmicrl
Conldor(PtrUtlc)
Cm (clqvstr)
Corc (slrir)
Public Rcgtroofiig
SubTotrl
Prrldnr Flovldod
Vrla Spaces
hcing SXccs (Fun Sizc)
Pr*inq SFccr acoi4|rcr)
Sub'Tot{ Ferllrg
Totrls
Othcr fuEcs Nst
Sp6Nel
C.onfqqrcc Nct
Scrvicc Nct
Pa*inqrrd Rrnp ct
Tot l Ncr
NrL/lGrog Dlfioracc
I4vcl -l
Occ. hctor Ocauprntr
r 5.00 224.27
7.00 355.m
Ara Arta^bm.
2t,289.00 367
'!ny.
Zchren rnd Associates, Inc.
9tw9
5539r.00
ArCI
3,r 50.00
4090.m
sJl1.00
785.00
2.n2.N
r{,60!r.00
Arcr
3,364.00
2.485.00
sta9.00
7gn.oo
I t7.(n
22E9.0O
275.00
56E.00
5t9.00
3t3t.00
Slrs
2.00
49.m
7.m
st txt
AEr
3,$8.m
t4,609.00
5,E 19.(n
7,971.00
21280.m
53554..(l
rt35.00
Pagc 9
Vail Plrza Hoel
%t(n0.00
Iad Mlnu Trro
Grocr Squrrc Fmt4c
Oltcr Anrs
Mcchmicrl
Co.ddo (pblic)
Ccc (clcvr,fr)
CdG (rt*)
SubTotrl Orhcr Arc$
Artr
Vrli Sprcct
tudry Sprccr (Fun SiE)
PrtinS Soacas (Comoect)
SrbTofrl hrld4
Tot&
Oth€r Nct
ffiinq rnd RrrT Nct
Totrl N.n
NcdlGros llifiercnce
a&623.00
I.cGI-2
299.75
Zchcn md Asrosirtcs, lac.
9np9
0.00
2,15.00
t5{t.(n
2t5.m
660.00
35.m
l rg.flt
4.00
1t|6.00 467$n
Ag
660.fl)
45J6r.N
n/2l,/0
u0100
Pagc l0
Vail Plaza Hotel
96t0?0.00
Dwellins Units
Drclling unit I
Club Unib
Club Unit I (Fla0
Club Unit 2 (Rat)
Club Unit 3 (FlaQ
Club Unit 4 (Fl8t)
Club Unit 5 (Flat)
Club Unit 6 (nat)
Club Unit 7 (Flat)
Club Unit E (Flat)
Club Unit 9 (Flat)
Club Unit l0 (nat)
Club Unit ll (Flat)
Club Unit 12 (Flat)
Club Unit l3 (Flat)
Club Unit 14 (Flat)
Club Unit 15 (Flat)
Club Unit l6 (Flat)
Club unit l7 (Flat)
Club Unit 18 (Flat)
Club Unit l9 (Two lrvel)
Club Unit 20 (Two lrvel)
Club Unit 2l (Iwo I-evel)
Club (hit 22 (Flat)
Club t nit 23 (Two lrvcD
Club Unit 24 (Flat)
Club lJnit 25 (Two l-evel)
Club t nit 26 ('I\/o lrveD
Club Unit 27 (Iwo L.evcl)
club ttnit 28 (FlaQ
Club thit 29 (Flat)
CIub Unit 30 (Flat)
Club Unit 3l (Flat)
Club lJnit 32 (two Level)
Club Unit 33 (Two kvcl)
Club unit 34 (Two l-evel)
Club Unit 35 (Tuo l-cvc)
Club lJnit 36 (Two I-eve)
Club Unit 37 (Ret)
Club Unit 3t (Flat)
Club Unit 39 (Two l-crd)
Club Unit 40 (Two kvel)
Club Unit 4 I (Two l-cvcl)
Club lJnit 42 (Two L-evcl)
Club Unit 43 (Two l-cvel)
Club Unit 44 (Two Lcvcl)
Club Unit 45 (Flat)
club unit 46 Flar)
Totrl Chb Prrking
Parking Sununary
Total Arcr Park. Factor Park. Req'd
5,035.m >2000 2.50
Zehren and Associates, Inc.
9t8t99
Totel Arcr
1297.W
I,251,00
1,542.00
t,t 92.00
982.00
l,193.00
1,485.00
I,M2.00
965.00
969.00
969.00
969.00
969.00
951.00
t,275.00
r22t.w
764.00
l,214.00
r,383.00
1,878.00
r,850.00
I,129.00
|,t90.00
978.00
r,768.00
r J6E.00
2,t94.00
951.00
r,275.@
t,2t4.@
I,09s.00
r,327.OO
1,848.00
I,84E.00
1,84t.00
|,793.00
1,234.00
r214.N
|,727 .00
1,793.00
I,346.00
2,084.00
I,806.00
1,E06.00
l,160.00
1.164.00
63,661.fi'
Frctor
500<2000
500<2000
500<2000
500<2000
500<2000
500<2000
50k2000
500<2000
500<2000
500<2000
500<2000
500<2000
5fiK2000
500<2000
500<2000
5@<2m0
500<2000
500<2000
500<2000
500<2000
500<2000
50(x2000
500<2000
500<2000
5m<2000
500<2000
>2000
500<2000
500<2000
500<2000
50G2000
500<2000
500<2000
50(X20@
500<2000
500<2000
500<2000
500<2000
500<2000
500<2000
5oo<2mo
>2000
500<2000
500<2000
500<2000
500<2000
Soecer
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.OO
2.00
2.OO
2.00
2.@
2.00
2.00
2.O0
2.00
2.00
2.N
2.00
2,00
2.00
2.N
2.00
2-W
2.N
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.M
2.50
2.O0
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.QO
2.00
2.@
2.N
2.00
2.W
2.M
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.50
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.OO
t0.50
Page I I
Vail Plaza Hotel
961070.00
Accommodation Units
Total Acc. IJnits
Resteurrnt
Total Rcslaurant
Lounpe
Total lrunge
Reteil
Total Retail
Confercnce
Main Ballroom
Total Reoulred Soaces
Total Dwelling Unit
Total Club
Total Accornrnodation
Total Rcstaurant
Total Irunge
Total Retail
Main Balboom
Sub-Totrl PrrHtrg
Parking Dcficit (Prev. SDD)
Sub.'Totd PrrHrS Reqrd
Mixed Use Reduction (7.5%)
Totel Perldng Requircd
Totd PrHng Providcd
Prrkitrg DIllcretrce
Prrkinq Providcd
Prcvious SDD
I-evel Zero Parking
Irvel Minus One Parking
kvd Minus Two Parking
Totrl Prrldng Providcd
Pcrccntrgc
Parking Summary
Kevs Spacer
98.00 74.87
Sert Frci. Scrts
20.64 175.09
Sert Frct. S9g[1
25.00 65.92
Zehren and Associates, Inc.
9tEt99
Ar0a
35,666.s9
Arcr
3,613.00
Arcr
I,9E1.00
Arer
3,550.00
Ar€r
7,004.00
2.50
80.50
7 4.87
2t.89
8.24
I l.E3
58.37
258.19
75.00
333.19
-24.99
308.20
26t
-40.20
Full Size
42
0
49
119
2r0
76'/c
Frctor
l;8 seats
tr'rctor
l:E seats
Sprc€!
2r.E9
W
8.24
Sneccs
I l.t3
Sorccs
s8.37
Frctor
1:300 sq. Il.
Se4-Ec4
t5.00
Cornpact
0
0
't
;
3v.
Serts
466.93
Frctor
l:8 seats
Total
42
t)
5t
t50
268
100uo
Valet
0
t2
2
35
49
18./o
Page I 2
Vail Plaza Hotel
961070.00
Dwellins Unlts
Dwelling Unit I
Club Units
Club Unit I (Flat)
Club Unit 2 (Rat)
Club Unit 3 (Flat)
Club Unit 4 (Rat)
Club Unit 5 (Flat)
Club unit 6 (Rao
Club Unit 7 (Flat)
Club Unit 8 (l'lat)
Club Unit 9 (Flao
Club Unit l0 (F180
Club Unit ll (Flat)
Club Unit 12 (RaD
Club Unit 13 (Rat)
Club Unit l4 (Flat)
Club Unit 15 (Flat)
Club Unit 16 (Flat)
Club Unit l7 (Rat)
Club Unit l8 (Flar)
Club Unit l9 (Two lrvel)
Club Unit 20 (Two kvel)
Club Unit 2l (Two Level)
Club Unit 22 (Flat)
Club Unit 23 (Tuo Lcvel)
Club Unit 24 (Rat)
Club Unit 25 (Two t-evel)
Club Unit 26 (two L,cvel)
Club Unit 27 (Two Level)
Club Unit 28 (Flat)
Club Unit 29 (Flat)
Club Lhit 30 (Fla9
Club Unit 3l (Flat)
Club Unit 32 (Trro L€vel)
Club Unit 33 (two trvel)
Club Unit 34 (Two t evel)
CIub Unit 35 (Two Level)
Club Unit 36 CIwo lrvel)
Club Unit 37 (Flat)
Club Unit 38 (Flat)
Club Unit 19 (Two kvel)
Club Unit 40 (Two l"evel)
Club Unit4l (Two t vel)
Club Unit 42 (Two Lrvel)
Club Unit 43 (lwo l-evel)
Club Unit 44 (Two t evel)
Club Unit 45 (Flat)
Club Unit 46 Glat)
Totsl Club Utrits
Program Summary
UpperArea LowerArea Total Area
2,002.N 3,033.00 s,035.00
Zehren and Associates, Inc.
9t8t99
LWKitDeck Area
450.00
Deck Area
81.00
81.00
142.O0
81.00
0.00
81.00
t42.O0
0.00
200.00
0.00
81.00
8l .00
81.00
81.00
81.00
81.00
8l.00
81.00
101.00
101.00
101.00
t42.00
0.00
0.o0
r01.00
101.00
101.00
0.00
8 t.00
81.00
101.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
l0l.00
l0l .00
l0 r .00
r 0l .00
l0l .00
10t.00
r01.00
l0l.00
t01.00
101.00
3,477.00
Bedrooms
4.00
Pillows
t0.00
Pillows
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
4.00
6.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
4.00
6,00
8.00
8.00
4.00
8.00
4_00
8.00
8.00
8.00
4.00
6.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
8.00
8.00
6_00
10.00
8.00
8.00
4.00
4_00
268.00
Kevs
4.00
Upper Area
t,297.W
I,251.00
t,542.00
1,192.00
982.00
I,193.00
1,485.00
1,042.00
965.00
969.00
969.00
%9.00
969.00
951.00
1,2'15.00
1,22t.00
764.OO
l,2t4.N
790.00
790.00
790.00
I,l29.00
915.00
978.00
790.00
?90.00
1,216.00
951.00
r27s.N
| 234.N
I,O95.00
814.00
814.00
814.00
814.00
814.00
|,234.00
|,234.00
8 t4.00
814.00
E60.00
715.00
8 t4.00
8 14.00
l,l 60.00
l.l 64.00
46,686.00
Lower Area
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
593.00
I,088.00
1,060.00
0.00
9?5.00
0.00
978-00
978.00
978.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
513.00
1,034.00
1,034.00
1,034.00
9?9-00
0.00
0.00
913.00
979.00
486.00
1,369.00
992.00
992.00
0.00
0.04
16,97s.00
Total Area
1297.00
I,25t.00
1,542.00
1,192.00
982.00
I,193.00
1,485.00
t,042.00
965.00
969.00
969.00
969.00
969.00
951.00
r,275.00
t22r.00
764.00
I,214.00
l,381.00
1,878.00
1,850_00
I,129.@
I,E90.00
978.00
1,768.00
1,768.00
2,1 .o0
951.00
r27s.N
t,234.00
l,095.00
1,327.@
1,848.O0
I,E48.00
I,84E.00
r,793.W
|,234.00
r,234.@
|,727 .00
1,793.00
I,346.00
2,084.00
r,806.00
1,806.00
I,160.00
I . | 64.00
63,661.00
Keys Bedrooms LR/Kit
2.00 2.00 1.00
2.00 2.00 1.00
2.00 2.00 t.00
2.00 2.00 1.00
1.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 1.00
2.00 2.00 1.00
1.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 t.00 1.00
2.N 1.00 I .00
2.N 1.00 | .00
2.OO 1.00 I .00
2.00 L00 1.00
2.N 1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00 1.00
2.00 2.00 1.00
2.00 2.OO 1.00
t.00 1.00 1.00
2 00 2.00 I 00
3.00 3.00 1.00
3.00 3.00 1.00
l.00 1.00 r.00
3.00 3.00 1.00
2.00 L00 L00
3.00 3.00 1.00
3.00 1.00 1.00
3.00 3.00 1.00
2.00 r.00 1.00
2.N 2.00 1.00
2.00 2.00 1.00
2.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 t.00
2.00 2.00 1.00
2.00 2.00 1.00
2.00 2.00 1.00
2.00 2.00 1.00
2.00 2.00 1.00
2.00 2.00 L00
3.00 3.00 t.00
3.00 3.00 t.00
2.00 2.00 1.00
4.00 3.00 2.@
3.00 3.00 1.00
3.00 3.00 1.00
1.00 L00 1.00
l.00 1.00 t.00
97.00 E9.00 45.00
Page 13
Vail Plaza Hotel
961070.00
Accommodatlon Units
Totrl Acc. Utritt
Rc3ldcrtirl Totrlr
Restrnrrnt
Main Restaurant
SpccirltvR€st rrnt
Totd Rcrtrlrrrt
Lounpe
I-obby Bar
Conference Fecilites
Main Ballroom
&€akouf
Pre{onvenc
Total Convcrtion
Sor
l*vcl Zqo
Level Minus One
Totrl
Rctell
Reail One
Retail TVo
Retail Thrcc
Retail Four
Totd Rcrrll
Admingtntot
Program Sununary
RoomArer Room! Totel Arcr Dcck Aru
163.N 9t,txt 31666.59 0.00
104362.59
ScrtinqArcr Occ. Frctor SertE
1,965.@ t8.00 t09.17
1.64E.00 25.00 65.92
3,613.00 At,g 175.09
1,648.00 65.92
ScetsScrtinq Arcr Occ. Frctor
7,004
3,364
Zehren and Associates, Inc.
9/8/99
KcvE
9E.00
t99,00
Bcdmorls
9t,00
t9t.00
Plllows
r96.00
174.W
l5
l)
467
224
3iu4.970 7
r5338
8,218.00
14.609.00
22,827.OO
l6l5
1330
605.00
0.00
t,5stt.00
3532.0O
Page 14
Vail Plaza Hotei
961070.00
Lcvel 0 Level I
4E,923.00 42.028.N
Level 2 Level3
33,947.N 32,759.00
14,182.00
12,336.80
Level4 Level 5
26,288.00 i5,E98.00
Area Surnmary
Level 6 Total
7,791.00 311,648.00
Dwclling Unit
Club Unit
Acconunodation Unit
Retail
Irbby
Rcstaurant
bunge/Bar
Conference
Pre-Conviene
Kitchcn
F'ood and Beveragc
Frcnt Oflice
SalcVCater. (multi-use)
Accountlng
Ex€cutivc Ofiice
Rccciving/Storage
Personnel (oflice)
Servicc Arcas
Laundry
Housekccping
Engineering
Mechanical (Pl8nt)
lai:T"'"*'
Spa (Trcatment)
Pool Deck
Pool Area
ExercisG Roorns
Coridor (public)
Corridor (service)
Core (elevator)
Core (stair)
Parking (spaces, rarlp)
Club Unit Storage Area
Restrooms/Coats/Etc.
I-oading Dock
Service Storage
Maid (Satellite)
Sub-Total Net Arear
Level -2
48,623.00
225.OO
r50.00
285.00
46,761.OO
0.00
47,42t.0o
Level -l
55,391.00
3,164.00
2,485.00
t 17.00
3,r 50.00
2,090.00
5,711.00
2,E72.O0
786.00
2J89.00
275.O0
568.00
2r 189.00
589.00
0.00
s3,556.00
I,835.00
97y,
2,945.OO
2,426.O0
64't.OO
7,004.00
2,485.00
2,r92.O0
I 340.00
3,l 50.00
2,44',1.O0
935.00
1,686.00
3J40.00
27 5.Q0
568.00
7,640.O0
2,i36.00
95%
4,090.00
7,429.00
605.00
3,613.00
1,334.00
5,39?.00
'275.00
546.00
3,371.00
920/0
4,328.00
150.00
491.00
2,t59.20
94vo
1,616.00
151.00
128.00
1,169.00
93%
0.00
150.00
0.00
5,035.00
63,661.00
3s,666.59
3550.00
4426.OO
3,613.00
1,981.00
10,368.00
4,970.00
0.00
0.00
2,t92.00
0.00
1J40.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22,512.0O
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
339.00
6300.00
4,537.00
6,646.00
2,87LoO
2A72.OO
25,142.00
0.00
1,726.0O
3,409.00
75,690.00
0.00
t,767.OO
6,263.OO
0.00
r,080.00
295,557.59
r6,090.41
95o/o
7,971.O0 63r8.00 8,223.00
16,519.00 14,238.00
9,584.00 6,316.79
4,632.W 2,915.00
150.00 150.00
444.N 379.00
3,033.00 2,002.00
9,801.00 4,83t.00
589.00 589.00
6,263.00
0.00 293.00
46,38?.00 38,6s7.00
300.00 278.00
31,787.80 3r,607.00
209.00 0.00
24,201.19 14,729.00
Gross-Net (wall) Area 1,202.00
Cross-Nct Factor 98%
1,152.00
96Vo
2.080.21
92%
0.00
7,205.00
586.00
92vo
Page 15
,i o.\
=o\,,:r >
Ea
6
I
a,N
E|3 Fgg$$AAg5sE$gi:::[:===3389[F*=EgF=EE=fl$ a*h
5
a
TA
a,9r
ag Fx
Xs98
.-:
6l^-lx;6 F.
.i
..i i<
o\x!x
x:sF.\I
66a 65g-€ gi
o
i.|c
88 e88 I Ivi \ci : jvi .i o4-+- g8--+- q {a{a\|Fa\|
- )<^
ei i6c;ci(\c{
\el P 9 e
-l \'a -a -Ol- crr -qlR- 8- 3-
-tF a! t
tl siol l::
g\ot r:
QI FAI Fiqitl
8r F
Pl €ad -t
8l Fqt
=
o
qiN
6('r
F Rs E$ n$
i$; E3 FF3 F u5
iiA;*F$ RFF t sF
=o35. Fi*5 -.,
I 88:$ 8EEt\ i a{ \ttt
+vi
FI T.
"lEg*
'll E
!t$
Eir=E*e,q$€sH.*ggEE*€Eggeg$EcfgiaE
*! Hg F;E's53gre$:$il5EIsg$s!FxppiEE$$E
t EEP :;\o" 9!
E ccI ;;3 35
:5 :5o.q
oo
d ".;
eN
t5
66l
qE
q€-
,at 8
?ls..]|I
=t 8
TIR,{F
=o\-F
ci5
8:
:it-rfr
o€.i \.,
3 a.,l
.'rt 8
El n",lt s
..rt 8
Tl ts{n
x
{\IFt
E5€
\o
q
F
r-
-t 8
it$
ot 8
I|$
i
I
L
iii
iii
!r
-"
9er qA 9= *
Efl gE u csef, ;
f;El gig $ t i F*€la E c
EEI H$g l $ ."i.ilpH'&sc R
rE
g
(o(\I6l
|.J{
u-
E
do.o>s.!FJ.,|(\1
-E
=gl gs ; :s
AE|ggg*$.=.fiF$
ci]t
@o)
od(q
rF b
ea e{[ E t,ei Ffa q g
sss ilg FEE g $
CD
- 6.!+ E.= -id.*9 :-''ri H gEI hoi-El .r S*J S
-gl F Srs s fr9=I (\l . lta XE=I R bHH S bt-I
E3l E gUE x S
o,e
o
E'(D
.9,
o
CT
5t :EI :TE
'El * a= i $ E
'iEI El Ee s s €;
EEI 3B fi5 E RRRFi ir E$
6N
E
.>co
oo>6'-ooor,allct -s4o-t!_-:<
.-i
,:r
cri otocoo) (\l
<'td(olrl
AraoOobEoo
F- l!(o rorf tiJai
o
.N1'
c FE| ;$ gg glEsEF F E Eg
Vail Plaza Hotel
Proposal Comparison
(revised l0/lll99l
The following table provides a comparism between the 1998 Vail Plaza Hotel proposal and the most recent 1999
Vail Plaza Hotel proposal
Development
S:tandard/
Lot Area:
GRFA:
Drdling
units per acrs:
Site coverage:
Setbacks:
front:
sides:
te.ati
H€ight:
Parking:
Loading:
Gommercial
sg. footage:
Gross Building Area:
Conferencd M6eting
Facility:
Spa Area:
1998 SDD Malol
Amendment Prooosal
150,282 sq. ft.
133% or 200,460 sq. ft.
(12q156 sq. ft proposed)
0.29 du/acre
(276 au)
(15 ffu)
(1 du)
62%o192,637 sq.ft.
't2'
5" 0" 8',& 6',
I'
85.75'sloping
87.5' (arch.proj.)
394 parking spaces
six berths
23/" or 47,226 sq. ft.
approx. 395,862 sq. ft.
approx. 21 ,00t1 sq. ft.
approx. 27,802 sq. ft.
1999 SDD ilalor@slfJelesd
'150,282 sq. ft.
'117o/o ot 175,666 sq. ft.
(104,362 sq. ft. proposed)
0.29 du/acre
(98 au)
(aftu)
(1 du)
62% or 92,637 sq. ft.
6'
5"0"2"&5'
73'sloping
73.75'(arch. proj.)
256 parking spaces
(218 nar parking spaces)
(42 existing parking spaces)
f ive berths
26%or 46,124sq.tt
approx. 295,557 sq. ft.
approx. 15,338sq.ft.
approx. 22,827 sq. ft.
Plus/Mlnus
No Change
160/o or 24,794 sq. tt.
( - 24,794 sq. ft.)
M Change
- 178 au
+ 29 ffu
No Ghange
No Change
-6'
nc, nc, -6, -1
-3',
- 12.75',
- 13.75'
- 138 parking spaces
- one berth
+3% and- 1,102 sq. ft.
- 100,305 sq. ft.
- 5,671 sq. ft.
- 4,975 sq. ft.
F :\Everyon e\pecvnem os\wipc
PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE
Monday, October 11, 1999
MEETING RESULTS
Proiect Orientation / PEC LUNCH - Communiw Development Deoartment
Driver:
KEX
MEMBERS PHESENT
John Schofield
Galen Aasland
Diane Golden
Brian Doyon
Tom Weber
Chas Bernhardt
Site Visits :
z,
PI-ANNTNG AND ENvrRoNMENrALcoMMrssroN ilLE, c[lPY
12:00 p.m.
MEMBERS ABSENT
Doug Cahill
1:00 p.m.
1. Vail Plaza Hotel- 100 E. Meadow Drive
NOTE: lf the PEC hearing €nends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearino - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
l.A request for a worksession to begin preliminary discussions with regard to the proposed
redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn, Phase lV, located within Special Development
District No. 6.
Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Pelerson
Planner: George Buther
WORKSESSION-NO VOTE
A request for a variance from Section 12-6C-9, Town of Vail Code, to allow for two{amily
residential site coverage in excess ol 2c./" of lot area, and a request for a conditional use
permit, to allow for the construction of a Type ll employee housing unit, located at 1007
Eagle's Nest Circle / Lot 1, Block 6, Vail Village Filing 7.
Applicant: Kathleen Ferry, represented by Eric Johnson, ArchitectPlanner: Brent Wilson
MOTION: Brian Doyon
DENIED
SECOND: Tom Weber VOTE: 5-0 (Galen recused)
3 A reguest for a minor subdivision, to vacate common lot lines to create a new lot, located
at2477,2485,2487,2497 Garmisch Drive/ Lots 1-4, Block H, Vail Das Schone #2.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Nina Timm
Planner: Allison Ochs
TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 25, 1999
4. A request for a worksession to discuss a redevelopment proposal involving a rezoning,
conditional use permit revision and development plan epprovalfor Ski Club Vail, located
at 598 Vail Valley Drive I Pan ol Tract B, Vail Village 7"' Filing.
Applicant: Ski Club Vail, represented by Snowdon & Hopkins ArchitectsPlanner: Brent Wilson
TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 25, 1999
5. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a Type ll employee
housing unit, located at3847 Lupine Drive lLol7, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision First
Addition.
Applicant:. Randy Nichols, represented by the Mulhern GroupPlanner: Allison Ochs
TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 25, 1999
6. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the establishment of a new parcel and the
vacation of platted easements, located on a Portion of Lot 1, Sunburst Filing #3 (Golf
Terrace).
Applicant: FallridgeCondominiumAssociationPlanner: Brent Wilson
TABLED UNTTL OCTOBER 25, 1999
7. Information Update
8. Approval ol September 27, 1999 minutes.
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the
Hearing lmpaired, for informatbn.
Community DE/elopment Department
Published October 8, 1999 in the Vail Trail
()romt OFVAIL
Department of Comtnunity Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2138
FAX 970-479-2452
Memorandum
To: Vail Town Council
From: George Ruther, Senior Special Projects Planner
Date: October 12,1999
Re: Vail Plaza Hotel
The purpose of this memorandum is to update the Town Council on the progess of the development review process
and to inform the Council of the issues discussed to date.
On Monday, October I 1, I 999, the Planning & Environmental Commission held a worksession meeting to discuss
the proposed major amendment to Special Development District No.6, Vail Village Inn. The major amendment is
intended to facilitate the construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel. This was the second worksession rvith the
Commission. The previous worksession, held on September 27 , was devoted entirely 1o the issue of employee
housing requirements. One or possibly two more worksessions are anticipated prior to the Commission making a
final recommendation to the Town Council on the proposal.
Included in the Toum Council packet was a copy of the staff memorandum to the Planning & Environmental
Commission. The memorandum outlines the purpose of the worksession, a partial description of the applicant's
request, a summary of the background and history ofthe Distriot, a zoning analysis ofthe proposal, a comparison of
the 1999 major sdd amendment to the previous 1998 proposal and a numbcr of issues which the staff was
recommending that the Con,mission and applicant discuss.
Following a site visit to the devclopment site. the Comrrussion eurd the applicant discussed tire issues identified by
staff. Thc following is a srunmalv of the Commissioner's comments:
Vail Road Setback
In general, the Commissioners disagreed with stal-f s concem that the proposed hotel should be required to maintain
the required twenty-foot setback along Vail Road. The Comrnissioners believed that the setback r,vas appropriate
given the cxisting development on adjacent properties. Several Commissioners did express an interest, however, in
reviewing a landscape plan to insure that the streetscape along Vail Road can be adequately provided and that the
applicant address the setback criteria and demonstrate why a setback encroachment should be granted.
{p rrn uor^r""
Buildine Heisht
The staff had identified a concem with the proposed height of the hotel on several portions of the development site.
Upon reviewing the plans, the Commissioners believed that the proposed height ofthe hotel was acceptable.
Several Commissioners did indicate that certain areas of the hotel did not respect the development on adjacent
properties. Of greatest concem lvas the height of the hotel in relation to the residential uses in the Gateway Building
and that the hotel tumed its back on the Gateway Building.
Greenspac e/Pedestrian Circu lation
This particular issue generated the most discussion. The Vail Village Inn Special Development District
contemplated an interior counyard partially sunounded by commercial development. The courtyard was intended to
serve the guests and visitors staying within the Vail Village Inn as well as pedestrian traffic off of East Meadow
Drive. The Commissioners were most concemed that the current proposal did not provide adequate pedestrian
circulation throughout the District. The applicant was asked to review the site plans and seek opportunities to
improve circulation. Possible improvements suggested included reducing the size of the pool deck area, increasing
the walkrvay widths near Phases I & tr, introducing more retail frontage to the courtyarq creating a better pedestrian
connection to the Gateway Building raising the fucish eievation of the pool deck, revising the tower design at the
south entrance to the hotel and repairing the pavers within the District.
Building Entrance on Vail Road
The Commissioners generally believed that the proposed qntrance desip on Vail Road was acceptable. Several
Commissioners did request that the applicant preseDt addrtional drawings and details of the proposed entrance
design at the next meeting. Depending upon the information submitted, improvements to the entrance maybe
requested. The concem with the entrance was that it may lack a sense of anival.
Acc ommodation Unit Requirement
Over the years the Town has consistently required that accommodation units be provided in Phase IV ofthe Vail
Village Inn. The required number was once as high as 175 units. The existing ordinance requires no fewer than 148
accommodation units. The applicant's pnoposal includes 98 acoornmodation units and 44 part-time fractional club
units for a combined total of 142 units. The Commissioners believed that given the type s of units proposed and the
antioipated operation of the fractional fee club units, that the spirit and the intent of the requirement was essentially
being met.
The next step in the development review process is a second conceptual review of the proposal by the Desigr
Review Board. The Board initially reviewed the proposal on October 6 and their comments are outlined in Section
VI of the Planning & Environmental Commission memorandum. The next meeting of the Board is Wednesday,
October 20. Staff anticipates that the proposal will be back before the Plaming & Environmental Commission for a
third rvorksession on Monday, October 25 and progress towards a final recommendation on November 8.
fo
(Dromt
fttt
coPr
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2138
FAX 970-479-2452
October 13,1999
Tim Losa
Project Manager
Zehren & Associates
48 East Beaver Creek Boulevard
Avon, Colorado 81620
Vail Plaza Hotel
Dear Tim,
Thank you for meeting with the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission on Monday, October I I ,
1999, for a rvorksession to discuss the request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail
Village Inn.
The purpose of this letter is to provide you written summary of the Commissioners' comments from yesterday's
meeting and to establish a deadline for all requested and revised information to be submitted to the Community
Development Departrnent in anticipation of a fural recommendation by the Planning & Environmental Commission
to the Vail Town Council on Novernber 8, 1999.
The following is a list of comments expressed by the Planning & Environmental Commission on October I 1:
Vail Road Setback
. Generally, the Commission supported the proposed setback along Vail Road. Several Commissioners felt that
more detailed information rvas needed to fully comprehend the impacts of the proposed setbacks and
additionally requested that you aniculate why the setback encroachment should be granted. You should speak
specifically to the public beneiits to the Town of Vail in answering the Commissioner's qucstions.
Buildine Hcieht
. Generally, the Commission supported the overall building height as proposed. There was questir:n, however, as
to the relationship of the proposed height to the Cateway Plaza Building on the north side of the hotel, t-he
perceived height of the hotel from the plaza uea, the negative effects of the hotel's height in terms of shading
and loss of light to the Gateway Plaza Building and the need to re-orient the mass of the hotel to mitigate the
negative impacts on the Gateway Plaza Building and the need to break-up the easVwest ridge line on the
northem portion of the hotel.
$ ^"n"r"or^ro
,{-
Pedestrian Circulation
' This issue was of great concem to the Commissioners. Almost unan.imously the Commission members felt that
the site planning needed to be revised to conect numerous pedestrian circulation issues. The issues included a
redesign to the tower elsrnent near tbe hotel entrance off East Meadow Drive, the lack of adequate width
between the pool and the Phase I buildings, the narrow conidor between the hotel and Phase V, the awkward
circulation on the north side ofthe hotel adjacent to the Gateway Plaza Building., the depth of the pool and the
twenty-foot tall retaining walls, the need to improve the paver surface thLroughout the District, the minviting
nature of the pedestrian experience in the porte cochere and the lack of interesting retail or activity spaces on
the plaza level ofthe hotel.
Buildine Entance
' Generally, the Commission supported the building's entrance design and configuralion. Several Commissioners
questioned the interface between the pedestrian and the vehicles, the lack of a prominent sense of anival to the
hotel and the potentially minimal areas devoted to landscaping .
Acc ommodation Unit Requirement
' The Commission unanimously agreed that the spirit and the intent of the accommodation unit requirement
established in previous ordinances.
Submittal Information
The Town of Vail is commined to preparing for a final recommendation of the request for a major amendrnent to
Special Development Distict No. 6, Vail Village Inn and a conditional use permit for a fractional fee ciub by the
Planning & Environmental Commission on November 8, 1999. In order to prepare for the final recommendation,
the hotel proposal and submittal information must be frralized
The following information must be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Deparunent by no later
than 9:00 arg Wednesday, October 20:
tr i5 sets of revised final plans. The fural plans shall comply with the requirements outlined for major
amendments in Section 12-9A-5 of the Town Code. This shall include building elevations, floor plans, roof
plans, landscape plans, drainage plans, off-site improvements plans, building sections, building height plans,
roof-top mechanical plans, and site plans.
o A complete and detailed written description of the proposed operation of tie fractional fee club (i.e., interval
structure, reservations, operations, amenities, management, marketing, etc.) The written description shall
address compliance with the Town's requirements for fractional fee clubs and the conditional use permil
criteria.
o A revised final written statement describing the major amendment request (i.e., number of au's/du's, building
area calculations ofthe proposed uses, parking requirements, etc.) and how the request complies with the nine
criteria prescribed for special development drstrict amendments in Section 12-9A-8 of the To*'n Code.o A written description of how the project's off-site impacts rvill bc mitigated as required pursuant to Section 12-
7A-14 of the Torvn Code (i.e., emplope housing, strcetscape improvements, infrastructure lmprovements,
publie art, etc.)Q One set of rctluced drarvings (8 /2" x i I ") of all pl;urs submitted tbr review.tr ,{ revised model depicting the final proposal.
a A written statement responding to each of the issues raised by the Planning & Environmental Commission and
the Design Review Board during the worksession and conceptual review meetings.
Again, the Town staffis committed to preparing for ihe final Planning & Environmental Commission review on
Monday, November 8. If you are unable to meet the deadlines established in this letter, please contact me so we
may discuss possible altematives. You can reach me by telephone al479-2145.
1L"
O Sincerely,
tJ -)/J+KuHu4
George Ruthei, AICP
Senior Special Projects Planner
Town of Vail
o
\
\
\
\$
-f
ir $ \
d\ E[\ xx
-ll{\ *
$\ [J\ t[gl uo
F
H
-t-
I
W
>r+t)rT
ui
uL
0
t-
N
\
\
\
luou
nolf,v
\
\
\
I
\,//
/,,ll ti
I
\
\
i
\
\
\
\
\r
\
\
\
\\
\
\\
\i
\\
\\
I
lr
jg*r I
1\
1i
\\
\\
\i
\\
\\
\\
l1
\\
\\
t\
\
1l
\\
U
o ADDEIiDTIM TO
APPTICATION FOR PI,JANN]NG AI'ID EI{VIRONMENTAI
COMMISSION APPROVAT
ADJACENT PROPERTY O|.INERS
i. Gatewey CondominiunAssociatlonc/o Stoltz Bros., Ltd.
1300 i::a-rket Street, Suite 300'vlilmington, DE 19801Attn: Keith D. Stoltz
2- Vail Village Inn Plaza Condominium Assoc. I & IIc/o S1ifer Management
143 East Meadow DriveVail, Colorado 8L657
3. Village Inn PLaza Condominium Assoc.
Phase IfI and Phase V
c,/o .Toseph Staufer
100 East Meadow DriveVail, Co.Lorado 8165?
O 4 - cclorado Department of Transportation
c/o ,f,in NaII
606 So. 9th Street
Grand Junctlon, colorado 81501
5. Alpine Standard
28 South Frontage Road West
Vail, Colorado 81557
6. FirstBank
1? Vail Road
Vai1, Colorado 8165?
7. Sonnenalp Hotel
82 East Meadow Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
8. Holiday House Condominiumsg \/::rit eOad
Vail, Colorado Bl-55?
9. Crossroads Condorninium Associationc,/o Maxine Miller143 East Meadow Drive, Suite 499AVaIl, CoLorado 9165?
10. Trevlna Ltd-. c,/o Maxine Mij.ler143 East Meadow Drive, Suite 499AVa1L, Colorado 9165?
o
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail on October 25, 1999, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
A request for an extension of a previously-granted variance and a request for a worksession to
discuss a redevelopment proposal involving a rezoning, conditional use permit revision and
development.plan approval lor Ski Club Vail, located at 598 Vail Valley Drive / Part of Tracl B,
Vail Village 7'n Filing.
Applicant: ski club Vail, represented by snowdon & Hopkins ArchitectsPlanner: Brent Wilson
A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the addition of seasonal employee housing
(one Type lll EHU) at the Vail Public Library basement, located at 292 West Meadow Drive / Lot
5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Allison Ochs
A request for a final review of the proposed redevelopment of the Vail Village lnn, Phase lV,
within Special Development District No. 6, located at 100 East Meadow Drive/Lots M, N, & O,
Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant:
Planner:
Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson
George Ruther
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Fload. Please call 479-2138 for information.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-
2356, Telephone for the Hearing lmpaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published October 8. 1999 in the Vail Trail.
ffir'r'
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: October 'l 1, 1999
SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to Special
Development District #6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment within
Phase lV, located at 100 East Meadow Drive/Lots M, N, & O, Block 5-D, Vail
Village First Filing.
Applicant: Waldir Prado, Daymer CorporationPlanner: George Ruther
[ !NIre9EI!9N
The applicant, Waldir Prado, represented by Jay Peterson, is proposing a major amendment to
Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn. The major amendment is intended to facilitate
the redevelopment of the existing Vail Village Inn, Phase lV Condominiums and allow lor the
construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel. The cunent proposal amends Phase lV of the Vail Village
lnn Plaza only. No amendments are proposed to Phases Flll or V of the Vail Village Inn.
The purpose of the worksession meeting is to:
. continue discussions on the redevelopment proposal for the Vail Plaza Hotel,. visit the development site,. present the revised proposal to the Planning & Environmental Commission and the
community,. inform the Planning & Environmental Commission of the issues discussed between the
applicant and the Design Review Board,. fon,lrard direction and input on the various aspects of the proposal to the applicant.
Based upon the information provided to date, staff recommends that the following issues be
discussed in anticipation of a final review and recommendation by the Planning & Environmental
Commission on Monday, October 25, 1999:
. Proposed development standards. Site planning
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST
The applicant is proposing a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail
Village Inn. The purpose of the major amendment is to amend the approved development plan
to allow for the construction of the vail Plaza Hotel in Phase lv of the District.
The Vail Plaza Hotel is intended to be a mixed-use development. Uses within the hotel include
residential, commercial and recreation. The applicant is proposing to construct 98
accommodation units (hotel rooms), 44 part-time fractional fee club units, and 1 free-market
condominium. The fractional fee club units are to be considered part time, as during the summer
months the hotel will retain ownership of the units to rent as short-term accommodation units,
and then during the winter months the units will be sold as fractional fee club units. The Vail
Plaza Hotel also includes two restaurants, 3,550 square feet of accessory retail located within the
hotel, a 15,338 square foot conference facility, a 20,355 square foot full service spa and health
club facility and approximately 218 new underground parking spaces.
III. BACKGROUND
The following is a summary of the existing phases and development with the Vail Village Inn
Special Development District:
Phase l-This phase consists of the buildings located at the southeast corner of the
District. Phase I includes one residential dwelling unit approximately 3,927 square feet in
size and nine commercial/retail spaces.
Phase ll - This phase consists of three residential dwelling units totaling approximately
3,492 square feet in size and three commercial/retail spaces. Phase ll is generally
located in the center of the District.
Phase lll - This Phase consists of twenty-nine residential dwelling units totaling
approximately 2t4,830 square feet in size and six commercial/retail spaces. Phase lll is
located at the northeast corner of the District.
Phase lV -This is the original and oldest Phase in the District. This Phase consists of
one residential dwelling unit approximately 5,000 square feet in size and seventy-two
accommodation units comprising approximately 16,585 square feet of floor area. Phase
lV is generally located in the northwest corner of the District.
Phase V - This Phase consists of eleven residential dwelling units and three
accommodation units totaling approximately 9,972 square feet of floor area and three
commercial/retail spaces. Phase V is located in the southwest corner of the District at
the intersection of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive.
A map illustrating the location of the various Phases has been attached for reference.
The following is a brief summary of the amendments to Special Development District No. 6 in the
original adoption:
. In 1976, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 7, Series 1976, establishing
Special Development Districts No. 6, Vail Village Inn, to ensure the unified and
coordinated development of a critical site to the Town of Vail, as a whole, and in a
manner suitable for the area in which it is situated.
. In 1985, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 1, Series 1985, providing certain
amendments to the approved development plan for Special Development District No. 6.
The amendments included a requirement for a minimum of 175 accommodation units and
72,400 square feet of GRFA devoted entirely to accommodation units in Phase lV.
In 1987, the VailTown Councilpassed Ordinance No.14, Series 1987, which amended
and modified Section 8 relating to the allowed density of the development plan for Special
Development District No. 6. This amendment broke Phase lV into two distinct phases;
Phase lV and Phase V. This amendment established the maximum allowable GRFA for
the entire District at approximately 120,000 square feet. Further, the amendment
reduced the minimum accommodation unit requirement to 148 units and 67,367 square
feet of GRFA.
In 1989, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989, amending the
density controls of the District. This amendment increased the allowable GRFA to
124,527 square feet and allowed Unit #30 lo be created in a commercial space. The
amendment maintained the previous approval requiring a minimum 148 accommodation
units and 67,367 square feet of GRFA devoted to units in Phases lV and V.
In 1991, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 9, Series 1991, providing for
certain amendments to the approved development plan for Special Development District
No. 6, which relates specifically to Phase lV.
In 1992, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 2, Series 1992, allowing for
modifications and amendments to various sections of Special Development District No. 6
which related directly to Phase lV, and which made certain changes to the approved
development plan for Special Development District No. 6 as they relate to Phase lV.
When originally considering deviations lrom the underlying zoning in 1976, the Town Council
found that such deviations were acceptable as the community was to realize a substantial
increase in the hotel bed base. An increase in short-term accommodations has been a long ,
standing objective of our resort community.
The following is a summary of the land use regulations prescribed by the Public Accommodation
Zone District:
According to the Official Town ol Vail Zoning Map, the applicant's property is zoned Public
Accommodation. Pursuant to the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Public Accommodation Zone
district is intended,
" to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together
with such public and semi-public facilities and limited professlonaloffices, medical
facilities, private recreation, and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately
be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation District is intended to
ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with
lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the District by
establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses
are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a winter and
summer recreation and vacation community, and where permltted are Intended to
function compatibly with the high density lodging character ot the District.
The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodging units with
densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre. The Public Accommodation Zone District,
prior to January 21 , 1997 , did not permit interval ownership. On January 21 , 1997 , the town
?
Council adopted regulations allowing interval ownership subject to the issuance of a conditional
use permit. Previously, interval ownership was only allowed as a conditional use in the High
density Multi-family Zone District.
On October 5, 1999, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1 999,
amending the development standards prescribed in the Public Accommodation Zone District.
The amendments included an increase in allowable GRFA up to 150%, an increase in site
coverage, the elimination of AU's and FFU's in the calculation of density, revised setback
requirements, and other various aspects in the development of properties zoned Public
Accommodation. The allowable building height, landscape area and limitation on commercial
square footage remained unchanged.
IV. ZONING ANALYSIS
The development standards for a Special Development District shall be proposed by the
applicant. Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density
control, site coverage, landscaping and parking and loading shall be determined by the Town
Council as part of the approved development plan, with consideration of the recommendations of
the Planning and Environmental Commission. Before the Town Council approves development
standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it shall be determined that such
deviations provide benefits to the Town that outweigh the effects of such deviations. This
determination is to be made based upon the evaluation of the proposed Special Development
District's compliance with the Review Criteria outlined in the following section.
The Community Development Department statf has prepared a Zoning Analysis for the proposed
Vail Plaza Hotel. The Zoning Analysis compares the development standards outlined by the
underlying zoning of Public Accommodation (revised), to the existing development, the
applicant's proposed 1998 major amendment and the 1999 major amendment. lt is important to
note that the comparison is based on the entire area of the Special Development District.
A copy of the analysis has been attached for reference.
For comparative purposes, the Community Development Department has also completed an
analysis comparing the 1998 proposal lo the current 1999 proposal. The purpose ol the analysis
is to provide a direct comparison of the 1998 proposal that was rejected by the Vail Town Council
to the applicant's revised proposal.
A copy of the analysis has been attached lor reference.
V. THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAJOR AMENDMENT PROCESS
Chapter 12-9 of the Town Code provides for the amendment of existing Special Development
Districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 12-9A-1, the purpose of a Special
Development District is,
'To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land, in order to
promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of
ths new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economlcal
provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scsnic featurss of open
space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail
Comprehensive Plan. An approved dovolopment plan for a Special Devslopment
District, In conjunction with the properties underlying zone distrlct, shall establish
the requlrements for guiding development and uses of property Included in the
Special Development District."
According to Section 12-9A-2, a major amendment to a Special Development District is defined
as,
"Any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the
number of dwelling or accommodation units; modify, enlarge or expand any
approved speclaldevelopment district (other than "minor amendments" as definsd
in this Section), except as provided under Sections 12-15-4, "lnterior Conversions",
or 12-15-5, "Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordlnance)" of this Title."
The Town Code provides a framework for the amendment of a Special Development District.
According to the Town Code, prior to site preparation, building construction, or other
improvements to land within a Special Development District, there shall be an approved
development plan for the Special Development District. The approved development plan
establishes requirements regulating development, uses and activity within the Special
Development District.
Upon final review of a proposed major amendment of an existing Special Development District, a
report from the Planning and Environmental Commission stating its findings and
recommendations and a statf report shall be fonrarded to the Town Council, in accordance with
the provisions listed in Section 12-16-6 of the Town Code. The Town Council's consideration of
the Special Development District shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Town Code
and approved by two readings of an ordinance.
An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses, and
activities of the Special Development District. The development plan shall contain all relevant
material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the Special
Development District shall adhere. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to:
the approved site plan; floor plans, building sections, and elevations: vicinity plan; parking plan;
preliminary open space/landscape plan; densities; and permitted, conditional, and accessory
uses,
The determination ol permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by the Planning
and Environmental Commission and Town Council as part of the formal review of the proposed
development plan. Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed Special
Development District, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those
permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the property's underlying zone district.
The Town Code provides nine design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria in
evaluating the merits of the proposed major amendment to a Special Development District. lt
shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed
development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more
of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been
achieved. The nine SDD review criteria below:
A.Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood
and adiacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height,
buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
Gompliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined In Chapter 12-10 of
the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town
policies and Urban Design Plan.
ldentlflcation and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the
property on which the special developmsnt district is proposed.
Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to
produce a functional development responsive and sensitlve to natural featurgs,
vegetation and ovsrall aesthetic quality ot the communlty.
A circulation system designed for both vehlcles and psdestrians addressing on and
off-site trafflc circulation.
Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space In order to optimize and
presenre natural features, recreation, views and functions.
Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and
efficient relationship throughout the development of ths special development
dastrict.
vt. ptscussroN rssuEs
The Town of Vail staff has completed a preliminary review of the plans submitted for the
redevelopment of the Vail Village lnn. Upon the completion of our review, which included input
and analysis from Jeff Winston of Winston & Associates, the Town's urban design consultant, a
number of issues with regard to the proposal have been identified. The Community Development
Department would recommend that the Planning & Environmental Commission, the statf and the
applicant engage in a dialogue on the issues that have been identified. The purpose of the
discussion is not to resolve each of the issues at the meeting. Instead, the purpose of the
discussion is to continue the dialogue and provide an opportunity for all interested parties to have
their issues and concerns heard.
Prooosed Development Standards/Site Plannino
The development standards for lhe redevelopment of Phase lV, Vail Village Inn are prescribed
and outlined in existing development plans and the underlying zoning of Public Accommodation.
The most recent redevelopment application proposes deviations from the existing development
plan and the underlying zoning. Areas of deviations include buibing height, setbacks, parking,
and accommodation unit requirements. As outlined in Section 12-9A of the Town Code, it shall
be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that any deviation from the development standards
c.
D.
F.
G.
H.
of the underlying zoning provide public benefits that outweigh the adverse eftect of said
deviation.
Upon review of the proposed plans, an inspection of the development site, and the guidelines
and recommendations outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan, the staff would suggest that the
following changes be considered:
1. Vail Road Setback:
The western portion of the hotel to be located along Vail Road should be revised to
comply with the twenty{oot setback requirement. As currently designed there is only a
six-foot setback for a thirty-seven to forty-two foot tall building fagade along Vail Road.
The six-foot setback allows lor only twenty to twenty-five feet of landscape area between
the back ol curb and the face of the building. The Vail Village Master Plan specifically
addresses the heights of building facades and their relationship to the street edge. In the
case of Vail Plaza Hotel it appears desirable to either reduce the height of the building
faqade along Vail Road and/or increase the buibing setback. Staff suggests that both
alternatives be explored by the applicant for future review and consideration.
Heiqht:
The maximum overall height of the hotel, excluding the architectural projection atop the
elevator tower is seventy-three feet. The maximum height permitted by the recently
amended development standards for the Public Accommodation zone district remained at
forty-eight feet. The Vail Village Master recommends a maximum building height for the
Vail Village Inn development site of four to five stories with the building stepping-down at
the street. The applicant is proposing six stories (one of which is located in the roof).
While staff believes the development site can accommodate the proposed maximum
building height, staff does not leel that the current design with the maximum height along
the north edge of the site adjacent to the Gateway Building is appropriate. Staff would
recommend that the greatest vertical mass of the building be located more towards the
center ol the site and that the proposed easVwest orientation of the "lobby' building be re-
oriented in a north/south direction. A re-orientation of the building would locate the
greatest vertical building mass in the center of the development where it is perceived less
and open up additional opportunities for light and air to reach into the space between the
hotel and the Gateway Building.
Greensoace/Pedestrian Courtvard :
The Vail Village Master Plan recommends a greenspace wrapped with groundlevel
commercial space be created within the District. Through the development of Phases l-lll
and V this concept has been developed. The hotel proposal furthers this concept,
however, staff believes that this opportunity is not fully captured. The proposed pool and
pool deck area compromises much of the site which could otheruise be developed into
greenspace and pedestrian area. The current pool deck design leaves only marginal
pedestrian sidewalks around the north side of the commercial spaces in Phases I & ll.
Further, the pool deck is proposed to be twenty feet below the plaza and sidewalk above.
Given the heights and orientation of the commercial buildings to the south of the pool
area, depth of the pool below grade and the sizes of the landscaping proposed around
the south side of the pool, staff has questioned the desirability and viability of the outdoor
pool itself. Staff feels the poolwill receive only marginal amounts of direct sunlight, that
the depth of the pool below grade will create a very noisy sound chamber lacking privacy
3.
4.
and views and that the size of the pool deck area significantly impacts the pedestrian
circulation throughout the development site. Staff would suggest that the pool deck size
and elevation be explored in hopes of creating a more desirable pool deck and improved
pedestrian circulation throughout the site.
Buildino Entrance on Vail Road:
The Vail Village Master Plan encourages identifiable entrances to buildings and
properties to acknowledge entrances and welcome guests. staff feels that this has not
been done with the current design. The current design proposes that the building
significantly encroaches upon the street and that the entrance to the hotel be side loaded
off a corridor between the hotel and the Phase V condominiums. The entrance appears
to be hidden and out of the way. The actual front door to the lobby is tucked in more than
fifty-five feet from the face of the building. The lack of adequate landscape area and an
identifiable architectural feature at the front entrance further hinders the sense of arrival.
Staff would suggest that along wilh maintaining the twenty-foot setback along Vail Road,
the current design be explored for opportunities to redesign the front driveway and drop-
off area. The redesign should to improve the streetscape of Vail Road and create a
greater sense of arrival.
Accommodation Unit Reouirement:
The existing development plan for the Vail Village Inn Special Development District
requires a minimum of one-hundred and forty-eight accommodation units. The
redevelopment proposal anticipates a total of one-hundred and one (101 ) accommodation
units and fortyJour (44) part-time fractional fee club units. The lractional fee units are
considered part-time as the hotel will retain ownership of the units during the summer
months to rent as short-term accommodations for guest and visitors. Statf believes that
the spirit and intent of the minimum accommodation unit requirement is being met with
the current proposal. The hotel will operate with a 24-hour front desk having reservation
and registration capabilities. To further insure availability and occupancy of the lractional
fee club units during the winter months, staff would recommend that the applicant be
required to make the units available for short-term occupancy when not in use by club
members. Statf suggests that the applicant and Commission discuss the minimum
accommodation unit requirement and the opportunities for short-term use of the club units
when unoccupied by club members.
Desion Review Board lssues:
On Wednesday, October 6, 1999, the Town of Vail Design Review Board conceptually
reviewed the proposed plans for the Vail Plaza Hotel. The following is a list of the
comments expressed by the Board members:
. Where is the front entry?. The proposed parking at the front entry conflicts with the flow and circulation of the
area.. A more pedestrian-oriented and more inviting design should be proposed for the front
entrance.
. The proposed corner element located on the southeast comer of the hotel is confining
and restricts pedestrian flow and circulation.. The proposed corner element should be redesigned to be incorporated into the hotel.
5.
6.
. The spaces between the existing buildings (Phase lll, Phase V, Gateway) should be
addressed. The current design results in unattractive and unpleasant alleyways.. More pedestrian-scale needs to be introduced around the lower two or three floors of
the hotel.. The traffic flow in the area between the hotel and Phase V is awl<ward.. The pedestrian circulation through the District is constricted by the pool area design.. The pool looks like it will be an unpleasant space due to noise, shade, dirt, lack of
privacy, etc.. Break up the north elevation along the South Frontage Road.. The building should step down more along Vail Road.. The roof form atop the two towers should match the form and steepness of the
existing towers in the District.
VII. STAFFRECOMMENDATION
As this is only a worl<session, the Community Development Department will not be fonrarding a
recommendation at this time. A formal recommendation will be provided at the time of a final
review.
Date ReceiverTIIMOUNTAINAIRE PROPERTIES, INC.
0150 East Beaver Creek Blvd.
P.O. Box 19000-157
Avon, CO 81620 ocT 15 899
January 25,1999
Mr. George G. Ruther, AICP
Seirior Planner, Dspt. of Cormmity Dev.
75 S. Frontage Rd.
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Vail Plaza Hotel
Deer Genrge:
This letter is a follow up to our prwious phone eonversations relative to the above
reference proposed dwelopment and its impact on the Vail Gateway Plaza. We are the
owners of the 17,644 sqft. of cnmmercial oondo spaca. Afthough the oumers of the
residentill condo units have ryecific issres relwant to the proposed hotel that sre not
necessarity the conrmercial ryaee's top priority, it is not our intpotion to downplay
their conceins but rather focus on the issres that we feel mo$ directly iqact the
commercial spflaes.
Pede*rian trafrc flowhas ahrays bee,n a prohlem with the Gateway and as a re$rt the
cornm€rcial qace has had a reputation for c.onstant turuover. While we csnnot e&e.ct
oue dwelopment to sohe thrt problem entirely it would be extremely he$firl for
Grteway if the facility for easy and inviting pede*rian traffic flow exis*ed between the
properties vften the hotel is caryleted. It is $ill the reqonsibility of the landlord rnd
merchants of Gateway to take advantage of any e,nhanced means of pede*rian flow
but having that iryroved facility oould have a significnnt positive perception for the
Gateway location; and $ould offer qnergistic opportunities for the hotel and spa as
well
I have discussed with the hotel dweloper vnrious means by r&ieh pede*rian trrffic
flow c.ould be frcittated between the properties. We erylored werything from slry
walks from building to building to covered walkways. There rre a atrmt'er of physicd
and eoonomic issres that inffue,nced ow evaluation ofthe various e,nhancements. What
seemed to be mog practiaal md potentially betreficial is an attractive and inviting
walkway/stairway betweqr the properties in the approximate location uihe,re the
crureNrt ac,cess betwa€Nr the properties exis. That would offer at lea$ some physicd
linkage betruee,n the properties to enc,ourage pedeshian trafrc flow in both direstions.
Phone: (970) 8454693 Fax (970) 845-073E
PrgaZ
We appreciate yonr involvemt md ineere* ia rhis matt€r md for keeping us-apprised
ofthe meetinge. We will phn to ettend the next wor* session on October 25'. Pleas€
do not hesitate to contlct mc if you hrve rny que$ions or wrnt to discuss ftrther any
properties.
R Weslw
Mormtainrire
D09'rtE
Gateway Gondominium Assoc.
Stoltz Bros., Ltd.
Market St., Suate 3(xl
ington, DE 198{11
: Keith D. Stoltr
Golorado Dept. ot Tnnsponaton
c/o Jim Nall
606 So.9h Street
G|and Junctlon, OO 81501
Sonnenalp Hotel
82 E. Meadow Drive
Vall, GO 81657
Trevina Ltd.
C/o Marine Miller
1tl3 E. Meadow Drive, Sulte 4994
Vail, GO 8165-/
Vail Village Inn Plaza Gondo Assoc.
t&tl
C/o Sliter Management
1'$ E. Meadow Dilve
Vail, CO 81657
Alpine Standard
28 South Frontage Rd. West
Vail, CO 81657
Holiday House Condominiums
9 Vail Road
Vail, CO 81657
:;.ri:*l "*Js:1;Pi or"u=i;lv$$i;
Village Inn Plaza Gondo Assoc.
Phase lll and Phase V
C/o Joseph Staufer
100 East lleadow Drive
Vail, CO 8165/
FirstBank
17 Vail Road
Vail, CO 81657
Crossroads Condo Assoc.
C/o Maxlne Miller
1€ E. Meadow Drive, Suite 499A
Vall, CO 81657
iass'l
s09IS :o{ a19!6ual asfi u:slae{$ peag tj]otli,.lj g
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vailon November 8, 1999, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
A request for a final review of a major amendment, to allow for the proposed redevelopment ot
the Vail Village Inn, Phase lV, within Special Development District No. 6, and a conditional use
permit, to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club in the Public Accommodation Zone
District, located at 100 East Meadow Drive/Lots M, N, & O, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant:
Planner:
Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson
George Ruther
A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a Type ll employee
housing unit, located at 3847 Lupine Drive / LotT, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision First Addition.
Applicant: Randy Nichols, represented by the Mulhern GroupPlanner: Allison Ochs
A request for a minor subdivision, to vacate common lot lines to create a new lot, located at
2477,2485,2487,2497 Garmisch Drive/ Lots 1-4, Block H, Vail Das Schone #2.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Nina TimmPlanner: Allison Ochs
A request for a minor suMivision, to allow for the establishment of a new parcel and the
vacation of platted easements, located on a Portion of Lot 1, Sunburst Filing #3 (Golf Terrace).
Applicant: FallridgeCondominiumAssociationPlanner: Brent Wilson
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's otfice located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-
2356, Telephone for the Hearing lmpaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Pubf ished October 22, 1999 in the Vail Trail.
ruffit
FttE cuPy
(bomt
OFVAIL
Department of Community Deve lopment
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2 r 38
MX 970-479-2452
October2l, 1999.
Tim Losa
Project Manager
Zehren & Associates, Inc.
48 East Beaver Creek Boulevard
Avon, Colorado 81620
Rc: Vail Plaza Hotel
Dear Tim,
Thank you for appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board on Wednesday, October 20,l999,for a
second conceptual revicw of the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel.
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a written summary of the Board's comments. The following is a list
of the comments:
The redesiped tower at the southeast comer of the hotel still does not provide adequate pedestrian circulation.
The tower design needs to be incorporated and integrated into the design of the hotel. Thc goal of the redesign
is to significantly open up the space and reduce the restrictive natuc of the current design.
The spaces between the buildings (Phasc III, Phase V & Gateway) are not acccptable. The walkway along the
northside of the hotel lcading to the Gateway Building must be provided. The design of thc walkway shall be
intercsting and inviting. The drivcway ramp leading down into tbc parking structue should be increased in
slope to the maximum allowed lo increase thc size of the plaza area above. The proposal to incorporate
archways and gates in the arcas between the buildings is good. The archways and gates should varying in size
and uppearance, yct maintain an overall reco.qnizable theme.
The rvalkway betwecn the pool area and the Phase I buildings must be increased in width. The goal of the
chango is to improve the feel and flow of pedestrian traffic throughor.rt the District. The proposed open rail
design is good. Plcase providc section drawings of the pool deck retaining walls to illusfatc liurdscape planter
design and sizes. Overall, the pool deck design with thc cascading pools is very attractlve.
Greiltel'iuticuliltion must be introduced along the Soutlr Frontage Road. .A,s desigred the strect-cdge is to<r
straight and linear iurd does not confbrm rvith the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations. A minimum of a
10-foot offset shall be provided.
The Vail Road and South Frontage Road property line discrepancies must be resolved prior to the Board
commenting on the proposed Vail Road setback. The Board is interested in ensuring that the sfeetscape along
Vail Road is attractive, welllandscaped and inviting.
{g on"uoro"r*
.r.'rt^ -
ri:.I.! { - '.i, '..' -1 u
'. to -'
the Vail Plaza Hotel is tentatively scheduled for a third cmceptual rcview by tbe Design Review Board o
Wednesday, Novernber 3, 1999. Io cder to rernain on the Board's agBoda yotr will n€ed to submit rcvisios by no
later tba" noon, Tbursday, Octobo 28, 1999 to the Cqnmunity Developrnent Departrmt.
I h@€ tbis let€r is hclpful in clari$ing thc Board's commmls. Should yor bave any questionE or concems, pleasp
ftcl fre€ to call. You cm reach me by tclcphme at 479-2143.
Sincsett,
fi^'^*- R,n*'l
Cxuge Rutbcf,AICP
Senior Special ftojects Plmn€r
To$m.ofVail
Xc: VailTwrCoucil
Town of Vail Planning & Enviromaul Comnission
Waldir Prado
a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and EnvironmentalCommission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: October25, 1999
SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to Special
Development District #6, Vail village lnn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment within
Phase lV, located at 100 East Meadow Drive/Lots M, N, & O, Block 5-D' Vail
Village First Filing.
Applicant: Waldir Prado, Daymer CorporationPlanner: George Ruther
L !NIreWI!9N
The applicant, Waldir Prado, represented by Jay Peterson, is proposing a major amendment to
Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn. The major amendment is intended to facilitate
the redevelopment of the existing Vail Village Inn, Phase lV Gondominiums and allow for the
construction of the vail Plaza Hotel. The current proposal amends Phase lV of the vail village
Inn Plaza only. No amendments are proposed to Phases l-lll 0r V of the Vail Village Inn.
The purpose of the worksession meeting is to:
. continue discussions on the redevelopment proposal for the Vail Plaza Hotel,
r pr€sent the revised parking plan, off-site improvements plan, loading/delivery proposal
and the vehicle circulation plan to the Planning & Environmental Commission and the
community,. inform the Planning & Environmental Commission of the issues discussed between the
applicant and the Design Review Board on October 20, 1999, andr forward direction and input on the various aspects of the proposal to the applicant.
During the previous two worksession meetings, the applicant and the Commission have
discussed employee housing requirements, the proposed development standards and deviations
and site planning issues. Staff recommends that the following issues be discussed in
anticipation of a final review and recommendation by the Planning & Environmental Commission
on Monday, NovemberS, 1999:
. Parking Plan. Loading/Delivery Planr Off-site lmprovements Plano Traffic Circulation
- II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUESTv
The applicant is proposing a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail
Village Inn. The pupose of the major amendment is to amend the approved development plan
to allow for the construction of the vail Plaza Hotel in Phase lv of the District.
The Vail Plaza Hotel is intended to be a mixed-use development. Uses within the hotel include
residential, commercial and recreation. The applicant is proposing to construct 97
accommodation units (hotel rooms), 47 part-time fractional fee club units, and 1 free-market
condominium. The fractional fee club units are to be considered part time, as during the summer
months the hotel will retain ownership of the units to rent as short-term accommodation units,
and then during the winter months the units will be sold as fractional fee club units. The Vail
Plaza Hotel also includes two restaurants, 3,820 square feet ot accessory retail located within the
hotel, a 15,338 square foot conference facility, a 20,355 square foot full service spa and health
club facility and approximalely 247 new underground parking spaces.
III. BACKGROUND
The following is a summary of the existing phases and development with the vail Village lnn
Special Development District:
Phase l-This phase consists of the buildings located at the southeast corner of the
District. Phase I includes one residential dwelling unit approximately 3,927 square feet in
size and nine commercial/retail spaces.
Phase ll-This phase consists of three residential dwelling units totaling approximately
3,492 square feet in size and three commercial/retail spaces. Phase ll is generally
located in the center of the District.
Phase lll - This Phase consists of twenty-nine residential dwelling units totaling
approximately 44,830 square feet in size and six commercial/retail spaces. Phase lll is
located at the northeast corner of the District.
Phase lV -This is the original and oldest Phase in the District. This Phase consists of
one residential dwelling unit approximately 5,000 square feet in size and seventy-two
accommodation units comprising approximately 16,585 square feet of floor area. Phase
lV is generally located in the northwest corner of the District.
Phase V - This Phase consists of eleven residential dwelling units and three
accommodation units totaling approximately 9,972 square feet ol tloor area and four
commercial/retail spaces. Phase V is located in the southwest corner of the District at
the intersection of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive.
A map illustrating the location of the various Phases has been attached for reference.
The following is a brief summary of the amendments to Special Development District No. 6 since
the original adoption:
. ln 1 976, the Vail Town council passed ordinance No. 7, series 1976, establishing
Special Development Districts No. 6, Vail Village Inn, to ensure the unified and
coordinated development ol a critical site to the Town of Vail, as a whole, and in a
manner suitable for the area in which it is situated,
ln 1 985, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 1 , Series 1985, providing certain
amendments to the approved development plan for Special Development District No. 6.
The amendments included a requirement for a minimum of 175 accommodation units and
72,400 square feet of GRFA devoted entirely to accommodation units in Phase lV.
In 1987, the VailTown Councilpassed Ordinance No.14, Series 1987, which amended
and modified Section 8 relating to the allowed density of the development plan for Special
Development District No. 6. This amendment broke Phase lV into two distinct phases;
Phase lV and Phase V. This amendment established the maximum allowable GRFA for
the entire District at approximately 120,000 square feet. Further, the amendment
reduced the minimum accommodation unit requirement to 148 units and 67,367 square
feet of GRFA.
In 1989, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 24, Series of '1989, amending the
density controls of the District, This amendment increased the allowable GRFA to
124,527 square feet and allowed Unit #30 to be created in a commercial space. The
amendment maintained the previous approval requiring a minimum 148 accommodation
units and 67,367 square feet of GRFA devoted to units in Phases lV and V.
In 1991, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 9, Series 199'1, providing for
certain amendments to the approved development plan for Special Development District
No. 6, which relates specifically to Phase lV.
. In 1992, the VailTown Councilpassed Ordinance No. 2, Series 1992, allowing for
modifications and amendments to various sections of Special Development District No. 6
which related directly to Phase lV, and which made certain changes to the approved
development plan for Special Development District No. 6 as they relate to Phase lV.
When originally considering deviations from the underlying zoning in 1976, the Town Council
found that such deviations were acceptable as the community was to realize a substantial
increase in the hotel bed base. An increase in short-term accommodations has been a long
standing objective of our resort community.
According to the OfficialTown of Vail Zoning Map, the applicant's property is zoned Public
Accommodation. Pursuant to the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Public Accommodation Zone
district is intended,
" to provide sites for lodges and residentlal accommodations for visitors, together
wlth such public and semi-public facilities and limited professional officqs, medical
facilities, pravate recreation, and related visitor orlented uses as may appropriatsly
be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation District is intended to
ensure adequate laght, air, opsn space, and other amenities commensurate with
lodge uses, and to maintain the deslrable resort qualities of the District by
establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses
are permitted as conditaonal uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a winter and
summer recreation and vacation community, and where permitted are intended to
functlon compatibly with the hlgh density lodglng character ot the Distrlct.
The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodging units with
densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre. The Public Accommodation Zone District,
prior to January 21,1997, did not permit interval ownership. On January 21,1997, the Town
Council adopted regulations allowing interval ownership subject to the issuance of a conditional
use permit. Previously, interval ownership was only allowed as a conditional use in the High
density Multi-family Zone District.
On October 5, 1999, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1 999,
amending the development standards prescribed in the Public Accommodation Zone District.
The amendments included an increase in allowable GRFA up to 150o/", an increase in site
coverage, the elimination of AU's and FFU's in the calculation of density, revised setback
requirements, and other various aspects in the development of properties zoned Public
Accommodation. The allowable building height, landscape area and limitation on commercial
square footage remained unchanged.
IV. ZONING ANALYSIS
The development standards for a Special Development District shall be proposed by the
applicant. Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density
control, site coverage, landscaping and parking and loading shall be determined by the Town
Gouncil as part of the approved development plan, with consideration ol the recommendations of
the Planning and Environmental Commission. Before the Town Council approves development
standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it shall be determined that such
deviations provide benefits to the Town that outweigh the etfects of such deviations. This
determination is to be made based upon the evaluation ol the proposed Special Development
District's compliance with the Review Criteria outlined in the lollowing section.
The Community Development Department staff has prepared a Zoning Analysis for the proposed
Vail Plaza Hotel. The Zoning Analysis compares the development standards outlined by the
underlying zoning of Public Accommodation (revised), to the existing development, the
applicant's proposed 1998 major amendment and the 1999 major amendment. lt is important to
note that th6 comparison is based on the entire area of the Special Development District.
A copy of the analysis has been aftached for reference.
For comparative purposes, the Community Development Department has also completed an
analysis comparing the 1998 proposalto the current 1999 proposal. The purpose of the analysis
is to provide a direct comparison of the 1998 proposal that was rejected by the Vail Town Council
to the applicant's revised proposal.
A copy of the analysis has been attached for reference.
V. THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAJOR AMENDMENT PROCESS
Chapter 12-9 of the Town Code provides for the amendment of existing Special Development
Districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 12-9A-1, the purpose of a Special
Development District is,
{To encourage flexibillty and creatlvlty In the development of land, in order to
promots ats most appropriate use; to improve the design character and qualaty of
the new dsvelopment within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical
provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open
space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail
Gomprehenslve Plan. An approved development plan for a Special Development
District, In conlunction wlth the properties underlying zone district, shall establish
the requiremsnts for guldlng development and uses of property included in the
Specaal Development District."
According to Section 12-gA-2, a major amendment to a Special Development District is defined
as,
"Any proposal to change usgs; increase gross residential tloor area; change the
number of dwelling or accommodation unlts; modify, snlarge or expand any
approved special development district (other than "minor amendments" as defined
in this Section), except as provided under Sections 12-15-4, "lnterior Gonversions",
or 12-15-5, "Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance)" of this Title."
The Town Code provides a framework for the amendment of a Special Development District.
According to the Town Code, prior to site preparation, building construction, or other
improvements to land within a Special Development District, there shall be an approved
development plan for the Special Development District. The approved development plan
establishes requirements regulating development, uses and activity within the Special
Development District.
Upon final review of a proposed major amendment of an existing Special Development District, a
report from the Planning and Environmental Commission stating its findings and
recommendations and a staff report shall be forwarded to the Town Council, in accordance with
the provisions listed in Section 12-16-6 of the Town Code. The Town Council's consideration of
the Special Development District shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Town Code
and approved by two readings of an ordinance.
An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses, and
activities of the Special Development District. The development plan shall contain all relevant
material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the Special
Development District shall adhere. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to:
the approved site plan; floor plans, building sections, and elevations: vicinity plan; parking plan;
preliminary open space/landscape plan; densities; and permitted, conditional, and accessory
uses,
The determination ol permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by the Planning
and Environmental Commission and Town Council as part of the formal review of the proposed
development plan. Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed Special
Development District, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those
permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the property's underlying zone district.
The Town Code provides nine design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria in
evaluating the merits of the proposed major amendment to a Special Development District. lt
shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed
development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more
of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been
achieved. The nine SDD review criteria below:
A. D,esign compatibility and sensitivity to the immsdiate environment, neighborhood
and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height,
butfer zones, idsntity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable
relatlonshlp wlth surroundlng uses and actlvlty.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined ln Chapter 12-10 of
the Town of Vail Municipal Gode.
D. Gonformlty with the applicable elements of the Vall Gomprehensive Plan, Town
pollcles and Urban Deslgn Plan.
E. ldentitication and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that aftect the
property on which the special development distrlct is proposed.
F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to
produce a tunctlonal development responslve and sensltlve to natural teaturss,
vegetation and overall aesthetlc quallty of the community.
G. A circulatlon system deslgned for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and
otf-slte trafflc clrculatlon.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optlmlze 8nd
preserve natural features, recreation, views and functlons.
l. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, lunctlonal and
efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development
dlstrlct.
vr. prscussroN rssuEs
The Town of Vail staff has completed a preliminary review of the plans submitted for the
redevelopment of the Vail Village lnn. Upon the completion of our review, which included input
and analysis from Jeff Winston of Winston & Associates, the Town's urban design consultant, a
number of issues with regard to the proposal have been identified. The Community Development
Department would recommend that the Planning & Environmental Commission, the staff and the
applicant engage in a dialogue on the issues that have been identified. The purpose of the
discussion is not to resolve each of the issues at the meeting. Instead, the purpose of the
discussion is to continue the dialogue and provide an opportunity for all interested parties to have
their issues and concerns heard.
Parkino Plan
The parking requirements for the redevelopment of Phase lV, Vail Village Inn are prescribed the
Zoning Regulations. Section 12-10-10 of the Zoning Regulations outlines the off-street parking
requirement based upon the differing tlDes of uses proposed. For example, an accommodation
units requires 0.4 spaces per units, plus 0.1 space per 1 00 square feet of gross residential floor
area, with a maximum of 1 space per unit.
In addition to the parking requirement outlined in the regulations, there is an additional
requirement for parking in Special Development District No. 6. Pursuant to the approved
development plan, the redevelopment of Phase lV shall be required to provide 75 parking spaces
to meet a deficit parking situation within the District.
The Town of Vail is currently in the process of studying parking generation within the Town's two
commsrcial core areas. The purpose of the study is to determine the appropriateness of the
existing parking requirements for the various types of uses and to propose amendments if
necessary to the parking schedule if necessary.
For comparative purposes, the staff has evaluated the parking requirement for the Vail Plaza
Hotel based upon the current regulations and the recommended rates proposed as a result 0f the
parking study.
Parking Requirement (existing regulations)
Use
Dwelling Unit 1
Accommodation Unit 97
Fractional Fee Club Unit 47
Conference
Restaurant
Retail
Existing Deficit
Existing Spaces
Use
Dwelling Unit
Accommodation Unit
Fractional Fee Club Unit
Conference
Restaurant
Retail
Existing Deficit
Existing Spaces
Parklng Requirsment (recommended changes)
Parkino Spaces
2.5
74.9
95
43.2
23.2
12.7
254 (x 5% reduction for mulitple use (12) )
-12
- 42 (existing spaces to remain)
200
75
70
345 parking spaces
Parkino Soaces
1.1
97
47
86
31
6
269 (no multiple use credit applies)
- 42 (existing spaces to remain)
227
75
70
372 parking spaces
Quantitv
10,368 sq.ft.
5,678 sq.ft.
3,820 sq.ft.
Subtotal
Grand Total
Quantitv
1
97
47
10,368 sq.ft.
5,678 sq.ft.
3,820 sq.ft.
Subtotal
Grand Total
The applicant is proposing a total of 289 parking spaces. Two hundred, forty-seven parking
spaces are provided in two levels of an underground parking structure accessed off Vail Road.
Forty-two spaces are existing in the structure underneath the Phase lll Condominium Building
and they are accessed off the South Frontage Road. Of the 289 parking spaces, 106 are valet
spaces, 7 are compact spaces and the remaining 176 are full-sized spaces. The applicant has
proposed short-term temporary spaces located at the front entrance to the hotel. Since these
spaces are temporary in nature, and not intended for long-term parking, they can not count
towards meeting the overall parking requirement.
Due to the multi-use nature ot the hotel, the multiple use credit permitted by Section 12-10-12 ot
the Zoning Regulations shall apply. In the case of the Vail Plaza Hotel, a 57" reduction shall be
applied to the overall parking requirement for the hotel. The 5% reduction shall not be applied to
the 75 required spaces nor the 112 existing spaces, pursuant to the approved development plan.
Loadino/Deliverv
The Zoning Regulations outline the requirements for loading/delivery facilities. Pursuant to the
regulations, the applicant shall be required to provide a minimum ol live loading and delivery
berths. The five berth requirement takes into account the multiple use credit since the proposed
facility shall serve as the sole off-street loading and delivery areator the entire District.
Upon review of the proposed loading/delivery plan, the staff has identified a number of issues
that must be resolved in order for the facility to function properly.
The loading/delivery plan contemplates access to the site off the South Frontage Road. In order
to gain access and provide maneuvering capabilities without interrupting the traffic flow on the
South Frontage Road the applicant is proposing to construct an additional lane parallel to the
South Frontage Road. A portion of the additional lane will be constructed on the applicant's
property and a portion will be constructed in the CDOT right-of-way. During a recent Town
Council update on the status of the development review process for the hotel, several Council
members expressed concerns with the current proposal. Of greatest concern was that the
parallel access road scheme was inconsistent with the improvements on adjacent properties
along the South Frontage Road. The Town is currently considering South Frontage Road
improvements to lessen the negative visual impacts of the vast amount of asphalt in the area.
The applicant's current proposal increases the amount of asphalt. Additionally, safety concerns
were raised regarding large delivery vehicles attempting to cross multiple lanes of traffic to head
westbound on the South Frontage Road (left-turn). Staff anticipates that a right-turn only from
the loading/delivery area will be required. Staff fufther anticipates the need to construct a
landscape median east of the roundabout to prohibit left turns from the hotel site.
The access to and from the loading/delivery area does not comply with the Town's adopted
driveway standards for commercial developments. The entrance and exit driveway angles do not
meet minimum standards. Failure to meet minimum standards results in unsafe situations and
the possible need to implement restrictions on turning movements. This issue must be
addressed.
The loading/delivery facility must be designed to MSHTO standards. The current configuration
does not permit adequate maneuvering for the types of vehicles delivering goods to the District.
The final design shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer and shall be granted a
revised access permit by CDOT.
The applicant is proposing to use the loading/delivery area to accommodate the occasional
passenger coach bus arriving at the hotel. In order to determine if the area can accommodate
the maneuvering requirements of the coach bus, the site plan needs to show the turning
requirements ol a 40 foot bus. The front drop-off area on Vail Road can not accommodate a bus
as designed.
A copy of a memorandum from Greg Hall to George Ruther, dated October 19, 1999, has been
attached for reference.
Off-site lmorovements
fn accordance with Section 12-7A-14 of the Zoning Regulations, the applicant is required to
mitigate substantial off-site impacts resulting from the proposed redevelopment. Pursuant to
Section 12-74-14,
"Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts
of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a
reasonable relation to the development impacts. lmpacts may be determined based
on reports prepared by qualitied consultants. The extent of mitigation and public
amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and wlll
be determined by the Planning and Envlronmental Commission in review of
development proiects and conditional use permits. Substantial off-site impacts may
Include, but are not limited to, the following: deed restricted employee housing,
roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape
improvements, stream tracubank rgstoration, loading/delivery, publac art
lmprovements, and simalar improvements. The Intent of this sectlon Is to only
require matigataon for large scale redevelopmenudevelopment proiects whlch
produce substantial off-site impacts."
Attached for reference is a copy of a letter to George Ruther, from Tim Losa, dated October 19,
1999, outlining the off-site improvements proposed by the applicant. Staff agrees in concept with
the improvements proposed. However, further discussion and greater detail will be required to
fully understand the extent and financial responsibilities ol the proposed off-site improvements.
Since this is a proposal to amend an existing special development district, detailed drawings are
required to be made part of the public record. The drawings shall completely illustrate the
improvements to be constructed. Additionally, a Developer lmprovement Agreement identlfylng
the improvements and the financial responsibilities shall be required prior to second reading of
an amending ordinance.
Traffic Circulation
The applicant has submitted a revised Traffic Report. The report was prepared by Felsburg, Holt
& Ullevig as a supplement to the earlier Traffic lmpact Study. The following is summary of the
report:
. The current proposal will generate approximatelyl ,457 trips per day with a total of 85 trips
during the am peak and 127 trips during the pm peak. The current proposal will generate
approximately 50% fewer trips than the previous 1998 major amendment proposal.
. The north driveway, adjacent to the Gateway Plaza Building should be an exit only to
maximize safety and reduce vehicles from stacking up into the roundabout.. The south driveway, adjacent to Phase V should be entrance only and should not require a
dedicated left turn lane on Vail Road.
. Adequate sight distances need to be maintained along Vail Road to minimize potential
turning conflicts.o The in-bound left turn lane at the South Frontage Road access to the loading/delivery area
will operate at or above Level of Service "C" (expected delays of 15 - 25 seconds) during
peak traffic periods.
. The outbound traffic at the South Frontage Road exit driveway will operate at Level of
Service "E" (expected delap of 35 - 50 seconds. A relatively low volume of vehicles (<15/h0
will be subject to these delays.. No otf-site conflicts are expected between the parallel loading/delivery lane and the through
tratfic on the South Frontage Road.. Neither acceleration nor deceleration lanes are required pursuant to the State Highway
Access Code.
Staff would recommend that the applicant describe the on-site tratfic flow of vehicles. Most
importantly, the applicant should describe a guest arival scenario and how the vehicles flow
throughout the site.
VII. STAFFRECOMMENDATION
As this is only a worksession, the Community Development Department will not be forwarding a
recommendation at this time. A formal recommendation will be provided at the time of a final
review.
10
Vail Plaza Hotel
Attachments
(revise d 10125199)
o
A.
ZEIIREN
ANI) A5S(-)(.tAl[5, rNl
Tuesday, October 19, 1999
Mr. George Ruther
Senior Special Projects Planner
Town of Vail
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Vail Plaza Hotel
George:
This is a written description of off-site impacts and theil proposed mitigation as requested by your letter
dated l0/13/99.
Pedestrian Impacts -Vail Road. We will be providing streetscape improvements in accordance
with the steetscape master plan for the eastem side of Vail Road from the corner of East Meadow
Drive to the northem most propedy line of our site. These improvements include new "Village"
light fixtures and standards, curb and gutter, and a six-foot wide brick paver sidewalk to match the
color, pattem, and size of the existing sidewalk at East Meadow Drive. Additional landscape
improvements and final sidewalk configuration will be provided in accordance with design review
zoning regulations.
Pedestrian rmpacts - East Meadow Drive. The Y atl Plaza Hotel is proposing to provide
streetscape improvements in accordance with the streetscape master plan for the northem side of
East Meadow Drive Aom the comer of Vail Road to the westemmost of the Vail Village Inn Phase
IA structure to mitigate pedestrian impacts in this area. The proposed improvements include
replacement of the existing cube fixtures with new "Village" light fixtures and standards and a six-
foot wide brick paver sidewalk to match the color, pattem, and size of the existing sidewalk at the
comer of East Meadow Drive and Vail Road. Additional landscape improvements and final
sidewalk configuration will be provided in accordance with design revidw zoning regulations.
Pedestrian Impacts - South Frontage Road. The Vail Plaza Hotel is proposing to provide
sheetscape tmprovements in accordance with the master plan for the southem side of the South
Frontage Road from the comer of Vail Road to the westemmost curb of the Vail Village lnn Phase
V driveway to mitigate pedestriarr impacts in this area. The proposed improvements include new
"Village" light fixtures and standards. curb and gutter, and a six-foot wide brick paver sidewalk to
rnatch the color. paftem. and size of the existing sidewalk at along the South Frontage Road.
Additional landscape improvements and tinal sidervalk coniiguration will be provided in
accordance with design review and other applicable zoning regulations as rvell as Colorado
Department of Transportation.
Pedestrian Impacts - South Frontage Road. The Vail Plaza Hotel is proposing to provide
streetscape improvements in accordance rvith the master plan for the southem side of the South
Frontage Road from the eastemmost curb of the Vail Village Inn Phase V driveway to the
westemmost corner of East Meadow Drive (Crossroads) to mitigate pedestrian impacts in this area.
The proposed improvements include white concrete standard curb and gutter, and a six-foot wide,
four-inch thick, reinforced. white concrete sidewalk. These improvements specifically exclude
utility relocation, engineered strucfures for retaining earth or support of the sidewalk, handrails,
ARt lrlll:{ li;ltl rl'l .,\Ni'ili\(,.li"rlljRl(JliI.t_Ai.il)5(.A}rt:Aiit:Hn{:r:Tt_jtti
ts.
C.
o
l).
l).(J. l3r,,r. lr:t.'{t . \',r,,| (.r:i,rr,!1o ltirr")(r r !.}i0r !,{!t-{rj:r: . !:.1.).. t{,!;r()r it.i'l-lflii(i
Vail Plaza Hotel
961070.00
Zehren and Associates, Inc.
t0/19/99
guardrails, or walls meant to provide for the safety of pedestrians on the sidewalk, and/or drainage
systems meant to control surface water runoff. It is assumed that the items specifically excluded
will be provided by another entity to be coordinated with the proposed sidewalk. Additionally it is
assumed that all improvements along the South Frontage Road will be at the discretion of the
Colorado Department of Transportation.
E. Public Transpofration Impacts - East Meadow Drive. The Vail Plaza Hotel is proposing to
provide public hansportation infrashlcture improvements in accordance with the streetscape
master plan for a new bus stop adjacent to the westemmost portion of the Vail Village Inn Phase
IA strucfure to mitigate impacts in this area. The prooosed improvements relocation of fixed bus
signage and fxtures, and a bus stop similar in size, materials and character to the existing bus stop
located on the south side of the roadway. Additional landscape improvements and final
configuration will be provided in accordance with design review and oiher applicable zoning
regulations.
It is our understanding that the existing surface water runoff from the existing structures and the proposed
stuctures on the site is would be in the same quantities and would drain to the same locations as curently
exist. Additionally, we would assume no increase in surface water on our site would occur from the design
of proposed drainage shuctures on the South Frontage Road. Therefore would assume that no major
drainage infrastructure improvements would be necessary to accommodate the proposed skuctures.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Tim Losa
Proj ect Manager
Zeken and Associates, Inc.
t-i--
ZTI_I REN
ANlr ASS(](.1,\II:5, ll.j(
T'uesday, October 19, 1999
Mr. George Ruther
Senior Special Projects Planner
Town of Vail
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re:Vail Plaza Hotel
George:
This a final written statement as requested by your letter dated l0ll3/99 to address design criteria A
through I as outlined in section 18.40.080 of the town code. It is our understanding that these nine (9)
criteria are to be used in evaluating the merits of the Vail Plaza Hotel, the final phase of the Vail Village
Inri Special Development District.
Design Compatibility. We believe that the hotel is designed in such a way that is both compatible and
sensitive to the environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties.
Setbacks are consistent with the underlying zoning in that they maintain an average of twenty feet
(20') from most adjacent properties to the primary building walls. Additionally, the structure maintains
setbacks consistent with adjacent properties along both the Frontage Road and Vail Road.
Mass and bulk are sensitive to adjacent structures in that the hotel is designed to step up in height
and bulk from both the street and adjacent smaller structures in order to maintain a comfoftable
pedestrian scale while maintaining consistent heights with adjacent struchres roof lines and ridges.
Additionally, we have purposefplly hipped most of the roof forms at or along public streets and plazas
to provide a consistent bulk plane at sheet level. The stepping and broken ridge lines, along with
variations in materials and wall planes act to break down the overall mass and bulk of the project and
relate the hotel to the surrounding neighborhood.
'Ihe architectural design is meant to be both compatible with both th€ Gateway building and the
remainder of the special development district while providing some identity to the hotel as both a
recognizable and viable commercial structure within the conmunity.
Uses, Densitv, and Activity. The Vail Plaza Hotel is the last phase of the Vail Village Inn Special
Development District and as such was always meant to be the anchor or most densely developed
portion of the disfict. As a full service hotel. which includes conference. spa. restaurant, and
commercial activities, the hotel meant to act as a "magnet" that drar.vs people tlrough the other
smaller, commercial based structures in the special development district, (inciuding the Gatervay
building). Additionally, the hotel is legally required to provide loading and delivery sewices,
autornobile access, and parking for the remainder ofthe special developmerrt district.
Parking and Loading. We believe our parkrng and loading facilities are in compliance with the
requirements of chapter 18.52.
We are providing six (6), 12' x 25'x 14' undergr ound loading berths. The maximum required is
five (5) 12' x 25' berths in accordance with I 8.52.150. We believe our parking facilities meet required
number of spaces required by zoning chapter 18.52.
.\lir-illllr li,ii.l:.1.,t .\i.J\tl.r(-,.li.lilRl()t<1..,t.\Nt_)!1 ..\l,l /\K{-.tiliL(_[]11!
Ii.U. lJrl' 1it 1 n r,.r.r , ( r)i(ril,l,) ill{}l{.J, i'J;(;j il.1ii-r,}lt!' . L.\\ ir.!-{) t,',i,1.1(tl1(l
B.
(-
Vail Plaza Hotel
961070.00
Zeluen and Associates, Inc.
t0,l.9/99
D. Conformity with lVlaster Plan, We believe our development substantially complies with the goals
expressed in the various plans contained within the adopted Vail Village Master Plan.
Tlrc Land Use Plan indicates our site as Medium,lHigh Densify Residential and as such
recommends a lodging orientation with a limited amount of accessory retail.
We are proposing to provide an increased amount of "urban open space" or public plaza and
buffering geenspace in the areas indicated as such in The Open Space Plan.
We beiieve that our project complies with the recommendations in The Parking and Circulatiotr
Plan. We are proposing an intemal connection to the Vail Gateway shared pedestrian/auto area as
indicated, an improved pedestrian connection to East Meadow Drive including new bus facilities as
indicated, and a secondary extemal pedestrian connection to Vail Road between phase five and our
project. Additionally we would be providing sidewalk improvements from the new bus stop on East
Meadow Drive to the Gateway on Vail Road, and BikelPedestrian sidewalk improvements from the
Vail Gateway to the Vail Transportation Center on the Frontage Road.
We believe that our design substantially complies with Building Height Plan in that the plan
indicates buildings offive stories both to the east and west ofour site along the frontage road and north
and south of our site on Vail Road. Our design maintains this four to five story relationship with our
neighbors. We feel as though the three to four story designation is inconsistent with current conditions
and are not applicable as they relate to our site. It is our understanding that these heights indicated in
the plan were bascd on preserving views to Vail Mountain from the four way stop at the Intersection of
Vail Road and the Frontage Road prior to development of the Vail Gatervay and the Roundabouts.
Because these views no longer exist with the development of the Vail Gateway as acknowledged in the
plan, and because stopping to view the mountain is actually discouraged by the movement of traftlc in
the roundabout, we feel that these standards may no longer apply.
The Action P/an indicates our site as an area for potential residential/lodging infill in accordance
with previous town approvals with which our proposed project is consistent.
The Vail Village Sub-At'eas 1-l of the Vail lrillage Master P/arr indicates our site as the final
phase of SDD #6. In doing so, it identifies a series of goals, which we believe we comply with.
Item 1.2 encourages "the upgrading and redevelopment ofresidential and commercial facilities."
Iten 2.3 "strongly encourages the development short term accornmodation units" and recognizes that
when units are "developed above the existing density levels, they should be managed in such a way
that allows for short term overnight rental". r
Item 2.4 encourages the development of new commercial infill compatible with existing land uses.
Item 2.6 encourages the development of affordable housing units and may be required as part of any
redevelopment project requesting a density over levels allowed by existing zoning.
Iten i.2 recognizes the will to "reduce vehrcular tralfic in tlie village to the greatest extent possible".
Itent 4.1 encourages the improvement of existing open space to create new plazas with greenspace.
Iten 5.I recognizes the neecl and desire to provide for parkin-u demands on site and rvith underground
and visually concealed parking.
Itent 6.1 recognizes the need to provide serv'ice and delivery t-acilities for existing and new
develoument.
E. Natural Hazards. We believe there are no natural hazards that may affect development of this site.
F. Site and Building Design. We believe we have addressed this issue by compliance with the Vail
Villase Master Plan.
Vail Plaza Hotel
961070.00
Zehren and Associates, Inc.
t0/19/99
G. Pedestrian/Vehicular Circulation. We believe we have addressed this issue by compliance with the
Vail Village Master Plan. Additionally, traffic studies indicate that vehicular circulation pattems are
considered safe and have relatively little impact on existing vehicular circulation systems.
H. Functional and Aesthetic Landscaping. We believe we have addressed this issue by compliance
with the Vail Village Master Plan. Additionally, we believe we have substantially improved on the
amount and quality of publicly accessible plazas, greenspaces, and pedestrian circulation systems.
L Phasing Plan. The development will be constructed in one phase with completion anticipated for late
fall of 2001.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concems regarding the information presented.
Additionally, if you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Tim Losa
Project Manager
Zehren and Associates, Inc.
It-Ht{t_[]
.,\Nl-) A:t5()(. tAf [5, I t']r
Tuesday, October 19, 1999
Mr. George Ruther
Senior Special Projects Planner
Town of Vail
Department of Comrnunity Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re:Vail Plaza Hotel
PEC/DRB Comments
George:
This is a written description responding to each of the issues raised by both the Design Review Board and
the Planning and Environmental Commission as outlined in you letter. dated |0ll3l99.
Vail Road Setback.
It is our intention that the proposed structures along Vail Road both be consistent with other structures
located along Vail Road and neets the "spirit" of the zoning requirements specifying setbacks. The
existing streetscape is otre in which the majority of structures along Vail Road.maintain an east-west
orientation along their primary roof ridges with their street frontage at a maintaining a north-south
orientation creating a non-uniform setback along Vail Road. Additionally, the buildings step up in height
from south to north as they approach the Frontage Road. In the desiga of the Vail Plaza Hotel we have
tried to maintain a similar orientation, setbacks, and height relationships along vail Road.
In order to maintain the "spirit" of the zoning we have attempted to rnaintain an average setback of rwenty
feet to the primary building walls at Vail Road exclusive of one story architech.rral projections. ln
examining our setbacks fiom Vail Road, we have calculated the tbllowins:
The one-story portions of the shucture are non-habitable, non-enclosed, architectural projections adcled for
visual interest and meant to enhance the pedestnan streetscape. For this reason they were excluded liom
the average setback calculation. Chapter 18.58 addresses similar architectural projections that may extend
into the required setbacks.
The public benefit most specifically associated with this deviation from the underlying zorring is an
enhanced pedestrian streetscape along Vail Road. Additionally, public receives an increased number of
short-term ovemight accommodation units associated with the redevelopment of this site.
'\1.:( illlr(.liiiil .lrl ,,i!i!li,i "iiJil.l.ill lliirrt.i\f.,il)!{ !,,1,i ,.\Ri,rI|||i li,!ti
Average Property
Line Setback
Average Curb Setback 'Total Length of Walls
One Story Frontage 9'-9"11t A"66',-6"
'fhree Story Frontage t 8'-9"32'.-4"74',-0"
Four Storv Frontace 21'-0"3 l'-8"47',-6"
Average Setback (3 & 4 sbry
arcas only)
1 9'-8"32'-0"l2l '-6"
Vail Plaza Hotel
961070.00
Zeiren and Associates. Inc.
t0t19/99
Building Height
Great care was given to ensure the residential units and commercial entries located within the Gateway
plaza receive direct sunlight. This was the primary concem at the time when the side setback was
increased the burlding height lowered from the previous proposal to the current proposal. The lowest level
of residential units located on level three of the Gateway Plaza receive direct sunlight at 12:00 noon on
December 21, the day at which the sun is at the lowest point in the sky. The ground floor commercial
entries adjacent to Vail Road also receive direct sunlight from 12:00 noon on December 21 due to the fact
that the proposed struchrre steps down and to the east at Vail Road. Additionally, because the opening
between the existing Gateway Plaza and the proposed hotel face west, the amount of direct sunlight
increases on the Gateway Plaza as the sun sets in the day.
Any negative impacts due to the length of the proposed ridge would not substantially benefit the Cateway.
Breaks in the ridge would provide only a narrow slots of direct sunlight to pass to the Gateway that would
move across the fagade as the sun moves across the sky. These slots of light, intense differences between
light and dark areas would induce glare and may be an undesired effect on lower portions of the Gateway.
'I'he perceived building height adj acent to the Gateway Plaza will be forty-five feet, the same unintemrpted
wall height as allowed by underlying zoning for flat roofed structures. 'Ihis is due to the fact that the eave
is located at an elevation of210' and the adjacent grade is located at an elevation of 165'. The distance
between the structures does not allow enough distance to perceive the proposed hotel ridge from any point
between the two structures at ground level. Additionally, projections from the primary building wall,
planters and lower floors step to break up the perceived mass of the wall.
Circulation
The holel entrance at East Meadow Drive has been re-oriented to address some of the commissioner's
comnents regarding the width and nature of the hotel entry. Tiris area will continue to be shldied for
additional resolutions to the issues raised.
The circulation path berween the proposed hotel and Vail Village Inn Phase V has been redesigned to
provide for an improved pedestrian experience.
The space between Vail Village lnn Phase III has been redesigned to create a linear "finger" park between
the structures that will connect proposed pedestrian circulation systems located at the north and south
portions of the site.
The pool area adjacent to the southem plaza has been redesi-ened to incorporate a series of stepped
retaining rvalls. pools and seating areas. No continuous walls over tlve fbet in height exist except at the
cxtreme uofthtvest corner of the pool. Rariings have been reduced to slone bollards and more transparent
steel railings and balusters to reduce the apparent height of walls. Pools cascade liom one level to another
providing "white noise" that may alleviate any concems over noise. Sun/shade studies have been provided
to help alleviate any concems over sunlight in the area.
the plaza south of Building B has been redesigned to increase the restaurant frontage, architecturally
identifo the entry area through both plaza configuration and building elevation, and identiff clear
circulation paths.
ZEHREN
/\NIJ 455(j("tArF5, il']l
Tuesday, October 19, 1999
Mr. George Ruther
Senior Special Projects Planner
Town of Vail
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re:Vail Plaza Hotel
PEC/DRB Comments
George:
This is a written description responding to each of the issues raised by both the Design Review Board and
the Planning and Environmental commission as outlined in you letter. dated l0/13/99.
Vail Road Setback.
It is our intention that the proposed structures along Vail Road both be consistent with other structures
located along Vail Road and meets the "spirit" of the zoning requirements speciflng setbacks. The
existing streetscape is one in which the majority of strucfures along Vail Road maintain an east-west
orientation along their prirnary roof ridges with their street frontage at a maintaining a north-south
orientation creating a non-uniform setback along Vail Road. Additionally, the buildings step up in height
from south to north as they approach the Frontage Road. In the desiga of the Vail Plaza Hotel we have
tried to maintain a similar orientation, setbacks, and height relationships along vail Road.
ln order to maintain the "spirit" of the zoning we have attempted to maintain an average setback of twenty
feet to the primary building walls at Vail Road exclusive of one story architectural projections. ln
examining our setbaoks fiom Vail Road, we have calculated the followins:
The one-story portions of the structure are non-habitable, non-enclosed, architectural projections added for
visual interest and meant to enhance the pedestrian streetscape. For this reason they were excluded liom
the average setback calculation. Chapter 18.58 addresses similar architectural projections that may extend
into the required setbacks.
The public benefit most specifically associated with this deviation from the underlying zoning is an
enhanced pedestrian streetscape along Vail Road. Additionally, public receives an increased number of
srrort{erm o'emisht *"",T,T,i1,?lfl ri'::T:::i:j lil:::.::i::::",r,,::il,:liii'""
Average Property
Line Setback
Averaqe Curb Setback'Total Leneth of Walls
One Story Frontage 9',-9"tl1, A"66',-6"
'fhree Story Frontage i 8'-9"32',-4"7 4'-0"
Four Story Frontage 2t'-0"31',-8"47'-6"
Average Setback (3 & 4 story
areas only)
I 9'-8"32'-0"l2l '-6"
l'.i.-l tju;, lIl.:{, ..\i,,r). t,rrit,,r,rIjI, i)ltr:ti I L(r.-{lr !}.+!J ilj,,- n l^) !r):{) '4.!,l,li}ljl.l
Vail Plaza Hotel
961070.00
Zeluen and Associates, Inc.
10/19/99
Building tleieht
Great care was given to ensure the residential units and commercial entries located wrthin the Gateway
plaza receive direct sunlight. This was the primary concem at the time when the side setback was
rncreased the building height lowered from the previous proposal to the current proposal. The lowest level
of residential units located on level three of the Gateway Plaza receive direct sunlight at 12:00 noon on
December 21, the day at which the sun is at the lowest point in the sky. The ground floor commercial
entries adjacent to Vail Road also receive direct sunlight from 12:00 noon on December 21 due to the lhct
that the proposed structure steps down and to the east at Vail Road. Additionally, because the opening
between the existing Gateway Plaza and the proposed hotel face west, the amount of direct sunlight
increases on the Gateway Plaza as the sun sets in the day.
Any negative impacts due to the length of the proposed ridge would not substantially benefit the Gateway.
Breaks in the ridge would provide only a nanow slots of direct sunlight to pass to the Gateway that would
move across the fagade as the sun moves across the slcy. These slots of light, intense differences between
light and dark areas would induce glare and may be an undesired effect on lower portions of the Gateway.
The perceived building height adjacent to the Gateway Plaza will be forty-five feet, the same unintemrpted
wall height as allowed by underlying zoning for flat roofed stuctures. This is due to the fact that the eave
is located at an elevation of 2 i0' and the adjacent grade is located at an elevation of 165'. 'I'he distance
between the structures does not allow enough distance to perceive the proposed hotel ridge from any point
between the two structures at ground level. Additionally, projections from the primary building wall,
planters and lower floors step to break up the perceived mass of the wall.
Circulation
The hotel entrance at East Meadow Drive has been re-oriented to address some of the commissioner's
conxrents regarding the width and nature of the hotel entry. This area will continue to be shrdied for
additional resolutions to the issues raised.
The circulation path between the proposed hotel and Vail Village Inn Phase V has been redesigned to
provide for an improved pedestrian experience.
'fhe space between Vail Village Inn Phase III has been redesigned to create a linear "finger" park between
the structures that wiil connect proposed pedestrian circulation systems located at the north and south
portions of the site.
The pool area adjacent to the southem plaza has been redesigned to incorporate a series of stepped
retaining rvalls. pools and seating areas. No continuous walis over five feet in height exist except at the
extreme nofthwest comer ol the pool. Railings have been reduced to stone bollards and more ransparent
steel railings and balusters to reduce the apparent height of walls. Pools cascade from one level to another
providing "white noise" that may alleviate any concerns over noise. Sun/shade studies have been provided
to help alleviate any concems over sunlight in the area.
The plaza south of Building B has been redesigned to increase the restaurant frontage, architecturally
identifu the entry area through both plaza configuration and building elevation, and identifu clear
circulation paths.