HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 BLOCK 5D LOT M O VAIL PLAZA HOTEL VARIOUS LEGAL DOCUMENTS BACKGROUND INFORMATION PART 1 LEGALlapll4-2000, 03:49pn From-T0llll 0F VAll 9I04iS2157 T-4?6 P,00r/007 F-568
I a
I0t4&rOFv,ilt7.. _ | _
75 South Frontage Road
Vail. Colorado 81657
970-74&21A6
FAX 970479-2157
To: rT. Scrrtt
COMPANY NAME:
[c^sc-+or
FAX pHoNE NUMBER' 3o3 * 13 O-Sq3c1
o DArE: ct/ lt{lof,
SENT BY: EEJiN SC,.\+q.-}-
NUMBER OF PAGES lN DoGUMENTS (NOT INCLUDING COVER SHEET): $
NOTES: lf you have any questions please call me at 970- Lllq - & lO b
TIME:.
TOV 00001
Ssp:11-?000- 03:50pm From-T0[t{ 0F VAIL 970479215f T-426 P.00?/007 F-588
lho
Oftce ofthe Tov,a Anorney
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2 I 07/Fax 970-470-2 I 57
September 14,2000
DELIVEREDVIA FAx
J. Scott Lasater
Lasater & Associates, P.C.
8122 South Park Lane
Littleton, CO 80120
RandallM. Livingston
Bailey & Peterson, P.C.
1660 Lincoln Street #3175
Denver, Co 802M
Re: Dates of Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission and Design
Review Board considerations of the Vail Plaza Hotel
Gentlemen:
Attached you willfind separate lists outlining the dates of hearings on the consideration
of the Vail Plaza Hotel before the Vail Town Council, the Vail Design Review Board and
the Vail Planning and Environmental Gommission. Eadl of these hearings is believed
to be recorded, and we will be producing the transcripts of those hearings,
After each Design Review Board and PEC consideration any action taken or the results
of such hearings is reported to the Vail Town Council at its ne)d scheduled meeting.
That would have been the following Tuesday, excluding any 5n Tuesday of the month
when there are no Town Council meetings.
On April 4, 2000, the Town Council held a public hearing on a related matter to
determine whether there was a violation of the Town Charter because of Greg Mofbfs
interest in Tiga Adveftising. That hearing was held due to the complaint of Charles
Lipcon alleging a conflict of interest.
{p *ctcttoruan
TOV 00002
Sgp:|1-?000' 03;50pn From-T0tll 0F VAIL gtlltg?tal T-126 P.003/00I F-558
It is my understanding that this completes all the information you need to meet the
requirements of the disclosure, Please feel free to contact me with any questions or
comments.
R. Thomae Moorhead
Town Attomey
Very truly yours,
TOV 00003
$rpll1-2000. 03r50pm Fron-T0llll 0F VAIL 9t04192151 T-+26 P.001/0fi F-568
Worksessions
l-27-99 WS
3-9-99 WS
12-7-99 WS
12-1,[-99 WS
12-21-99 WS
VAIL VILI,AGE PI-AZ\ HOIEL
Town CouncilMectings&
Worksessions
TC Meednge
10-20-98 TC l" meeting
1-18-99 TC
2-t649TC
+20-99rc
lr-2-99TC
1r-16-99 TC
12-7-99TC
t2-2t-99TC
l-4-00 Tc
1-r8-00 Tc
2-ls-00 Tc3r{0rc
4400rc
+t&00Tc
5-240TC
8-l-00 Tc
TOVOOO04
' 9ai-14-2000. 03:50pm From-T0ttl 0F VAIL
(
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
6/8/98
#9 request work session for amendment to SDD *flS
tabled to 6122/98
6t2U9E
#4 request work session for amendement to SDD #6
no vote memo aftached re: description of request
10/26/9E
#6 request work session for amendment to SDD #6
tabled to 11/23/98
1i,14/€,8
lA final review of amendment to SDD #6
tabled to 1111199
1/11/99
#5 request for final review of amendment to SDD #6
Epproved with 10 conditions
9l0170er57 t-1?6 P.005/007 F-568
I
O 4nztss
#10 request for final review of amendment to SDO #6
wlthdrawn
9n7,99
#4 work session re: redevelopment within SDD #6
no vote
10t11t99
#1 work session re: redevebprnent within SDD #6
no vote
10/25/99
#2 reqqest for final review
no vote
11/E/99
#4 request forfinal review
tabfed to12l13E9
TOV 00005
' Srprll-2000'03:50pn FrorrT0ltl{ 0F VAIL
,rrr\t
g70f7set5? T-126 P.006/00r F560
,
I
O rnuss# request foruork session
tabled to 12/13n99
1U13tg9
#2 request for flnal review
approved with 21 conditions
2n8/0o
#2 req.nst for final revieur
approved with major amendment recommendstion to the council
TOV 00006
. ;Srtrll-ZQ0L 03:50pr Frm-T0til 0F VAILa_st01ls2r57 T-126 P.00r/00I F-568
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
10/6/99
#13 conceptual no vote
10/20/s9
#8 conceptual novote
118te9
#12 tabled
11l17/9s
#E conceptual novote
1?iU99
#5 vote 3-0 recommendation of approvalwith condltlons
2r2toof/ tabledto ?16/00
?16/00
#9 tabledto 3/1/@
3/1/00
#11 tabled to 3/15/00
TOV 00007
Lnsnrrn & AluN
Q-"r*^to
EDWARD M. Au.Erl
SHARoN P. I(ETY
J. MATTIIEW MIRE
JoT{ATTTAN D. REPUaCI
TARA L. BT]R!oN
A tROfES6n}{Ar (:ImR :nOAl
AI'IORNEYS AT [,AW
-qP*
8122 SourHPaRK LANE
$JITE 2(F
Lrrrr,EmN, CoLonADo E0120
February 26,2001
E-MArL: L{SOFTTG@AOL. @M
TELEFIIoNE: (3o3) 73G3900
rex (303)73G3939
Re:
Ceorge Ruther
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Lipcon v. Town of Vail, et al.
GvilAction No. 0GD-779
Incured: Town of Vail
Cfaim No.: 788 tP 52577
Claimant: Charles Lipcon
Dear Mr. Ruther :
Enclosed please find a copy of MINUTE ORDE& in the above referenced matter. Should you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Thank you for your attention.
Wrtu,
O .n..
cc:
Jackie Tefertiller
Ad m i n istrative Assistant
-\
v'(-"
i) L i'- -,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FoR rHE DrsrRrcr or boronndo *-o^*TJ*o*ro
Civil Acrcn irio. CC-D-779
CHARLES R. LIPCON,
Plaintiff,
V.
eFjr,tri cillctEc
FEB ? 1 2001
JAMESR.MANSPB{KERA(_ ctEHr
o
TOWN OF VAIL, a Municipalcorporation, TO\ /N COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL,
and DAYMER CORPORATION, N.V., a Netherland Antilles corporation.
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL
Tisa M. Duckworth, Secretary
A five-day jury trial has been set in the above matter for April 1,2002, at 9:00
a.m., 1929 Stout Street, Courtroom C-200, Denver, Colorado. A finaltrialpreparation
conference is set for March 12,2002, at 4:00 p.m.
Dated: February 21,2001
Copies of this Minute Order were mailed on February 21,2001 to the following:
Charies R. Lipcon
One Biscayne Tower, #2480
2 S. Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, FL 33131
J. Scott Lasater
Sharon P. Kelly
Lasater & Associates, P.C.
8122 South Park Lane, #205
Littleton, CO 80120
James S. Bailey, Jr.
RandallM. Livingston
Bailey & Peterson, P.C.
1660 Lincoln St., #3i75
Denver. CO 80264
O Magistrate Judge Coan
z I A t4/1, t I
Secretary/Deputy Clerk
5-18-Or;1O:4OAM;;303 437 0097 # 2/ -l
FII.ED
UIIITE ETAIES OFME]OOIJRT
oErvER.colmAm
l'lAY 1 6 Z00l
o UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Wley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 00-D-779
CHARLES R. LIPCON
Plaintiff,
v.
TOWN OF VAIL, a municipalcorporation;
TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VA|L; and
DAYMER cotlPoRATloN N.v., a Netherrands Antiiles corporation,
Defendants.
JAITIESRMAI'ISPEfl(Mi 4u ctHK+
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
Based on the First Amendment of the U.S, Constitution filed March ZB,2OO1. Through
this Motion, Plaintiff argues that the Noen-Pennington doctrine immunizes him from
liability as to Defendant Daymer's counterclaims. Relevant background and pertinent
facts are set forth in my May 9, 2001, Order which is incorporated herein by reference.
LEGAL STANDARD
I
I Grantino summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of
I
mfterial fact and the moving party is entifled to judgment as a matter of law. see Fed.t-'-
I
n.lciv. P. 56(c); Ralrmond v. Mobiloilcom.,983 F.2d 1528, 1534 (1oth cir.), cert.
Idelied' 114 s.ct. 81 (1993); Ash creek Mining co, v. Lujan, 934 F.2d z4o, z4z (1oth
I
ci1' 1991);MeEv. united states,933 F,2d 802,804 (1Oth cir.), cert. denied, i12 s.ct.
41p (1 991 ), ln reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the
5-18-O1;1O:4OAM;;3O3 437 OOS 7 # 3/ 7
o evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Anava v. Crossroads
Manaqed care systems. lnc., 195 F.3d sg4 (1Oth cir. 19g9). Alldoubts must be
rTsolved in favor of the existence of triable issues of fact. ggg Boren v. Southwestern
I
EellTel. Go., 933 F.2d 891, 892 (1Oth Cir. 1991).
ANALYSIS
The First Amendment's Petition clause guarantees 'the right of the people . . .
petition the government for redress of grievances." U.s. const. amend L This right
sarily includes the right of access to the courts." protect Our Mountain
677 P.zd 1361, 1364-70 (Colo. 1984) (en
c). The Noerr-Pennington doctrine applies the petition clause in the context of
litigation to extend immunity from antitrust liability for petitions to the courts,
those petitions are objectively reasonable. see Professionaf Real Estate
508 U.S.49,60-61 (f 993). The scope
the Noen-Pennington doctrine's application to non-antitrust claims was considered
by the Colorado Supreme Court in POME, and later discussed by the Tenth Circuit in
Scott v. Hearn, 216 F.3d g9z, 91S (10'h Cir. 20OO). In pOME,
the colorado supreme court squarely addressed the question of whether
and to what extent the First Amendment limits liability for the tort of abuse
of process. After carefully considering the Noen-pennington line of
cases, the colorado supreme court articulated an objectively-reasonable-
litigation standard to strike the proper batance between the chilling effect
lawsuits based on prior judicial proceedings have on the exercise of the
dght to petition and the damage to society that results from baseless
litigation.
sqott, 216 F.3d at 915. Therafore, when a defendant counterclaims for abuse of
I
{
I
.i
'.:l'';1o:4oAM;;3O3 A37 OO97 # 4/ 7
.- {ocess, and the plaintiff seeks dismissal of the counterclaims by reason of thertl
cpnstitutional right to petition, the defendant
must make a sufficient showing to permit the court to reasonably conclude
that the [plaintiffs] petitioning activities were not immunized from tiabitity
under the First Amendment because: (1) the [plaintiffs] . . . claims were
devoid of reasonable factuat support, or, if so supportable, lacked any
cognizable basis in law for their assertion; and (2) the primary purpose of
the [plaintiffs] petitioning activity was to harass the [defendant] or to
effectuate sorne other improper objective; and (3)the [plaintiffs]petitioning activity had the capacity to adversely affect a legat interest of
the [defendant].
PO[[E at 1369. 'The right to petition government, however, is not without limits. The
Amendrnent does not grant a license to use the courts for improper purposes .
litigation is not immunized by the First Amendment right to petition." ld. at
(quotations omitted).
Defendant Dayme/s claims for Breach of covenant and Breach of contract
The standard articulated by the 10'h circuit in scott and the colorado supreme
in POME, was developed in the context of a tort abuse of process claim.
scott, 216 F.3d at 915. while it is therefore clear that the petition clause does
liability for claims that institution and/or prosecution of a lawsuit constitutes a tort, it
clear that this liability limitation extends to contract claims. plaintiff cites no
to support such extension nor have I found any such authority. Daymer
notes that its contract claims do not implicate any of the concems that courts
raised over the interface between the First Amendment right to petition and
law torts- Moreover, courts do routinely act on contracts between pdvate
by which one party agrees to limit his access to the courts. see oenerally Miller
o
5-18-01; I O : 4OAM;;303 a37 OO97 # a/ 7
v. DuPont. lnc., 120 colo. 131, 140 (1949); see atso c.R.s. S 13-s0.5-10s (recognizing
the operation of covenants not to sue). As a result, I will DENY plaintiffs Motion for
Summary Judgment as to Daymeds claims for Breach of Covenant and Breach of
Contract.
lf' Defendant DaYme/s Claims for lntentional Interference with Contractual
Relations and Abuse of process
In Scott, the 10'h Circuit recognized that the Petition Clause does not limit liability
where'there does not appear to be even a potentiai for collision between the common
law tort[s at issue] and the First Amendment." 216 F.3d at 915. Daymer argues that
this is such a case because "PlaintifFs waiver of any claim interest or right to an
unobstructed view across the Wl Propefi removes the concerns for chilling citizens'
rights to petition the government that the court announced in IPOMEI." Daymer,s April
1 3, 2001 , Response. I find merit to this argument and will therefore DENY plaintiffs
Motion for Summary Judgment as to Dayme/s claims for Intentional Interference with
Contractual Relations and Abuse of process.
It is undisputed that Plaintiff had actual and constructive knowledge of the View
Agreement between Palmer and Wl when he purchased his condominium units. lt is
undisputed that Plaintiff agreed to "waive any interest, claim or right, if any, which
I may have in an unobstructed view fiom [his] unit across the twll property."
Agreement Between Palmer and Lipcons, p.Z, fl 9. Consequenfly, Daymer,s
could have no chilling effect on plaintiffs right to petition, because he
gave up that right when he purchased Unit #3, and later unlt #5. In addition,
5- 1a-O 1 ; 1O: 4OAM;
.a
; 3O3 437 OO97 * 6/ 7
o despite Plaintiffs knowing waiver, he agreed through the Lipcon/Breyo Agreement to
expend up to $250,000 to assert rights that had been knowingly waived. As stated in
my May 9,2001 , order, there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether
Plaintiffs resulting actions do constitute intentional interference with business relations
and/or abuse of process. These issues do not implicate Plaintiffs First Amendment
right to petition nor do they present a concern about the potential chilling effect of
litigation- | therefore find that the reasoning in POME and Scott cannot be applied to
grant Ptaintiff immunity from liability on Dayme/s counterclaims.i
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for summary Judgment Based on the First
Amendment of the u.s. constitution fired March zg,2oo1, is DENTED
DATED at Denver,-Cotorado, tfris _/ftay of May, 2001.
BY THE COURT:
rDaymer also accurately notes that the facts of this case are readilydistinguishable from the facts fi POME and Scoft. Plaintiff cited no cases where thePOME reasoning was applied to a factually ailalogous (or similar) situation.
5
S
United States District Court
5-rg-or;1o:4oAM;
:
i 303 437 0097 # 7/ 7
o UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 00-D-779
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certifo that a copy of the above Order was mailed to the following on
May 16,2001:
Charles R. Lipcon
One Biscayne Tower, #2480
2 S. Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, FL 33131
J, Scott Lasater
Sharon P. Kelly
Lasater & Associates, P.C.
8122 South Park Lane, #205
Littleton, CO 80120
James S. Bailey, Jr.
RandallM. Livingston
Bailey & Peterson, P.C.
1660 Lincoln St,, #3175
Denver, CO 80264
Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Coan
FILED
uNrEq-3t^!Es_o!9!!|st couFfrrrnEP .?o(on^m
tAY - 92m1I'MTED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORTIIE DTSTRICT OF COLOMDO
JudgcWilcy Y. Daricl
Civil Action No. 0O - D - Tl9
CHARLES R I;IPCON,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOWN OF VAIL, amrmicipal corporation; TOWN COUNCTL OF TI{E TOWN OF VAIL; aod
DAYMER CORPORATION,
Dcfendants. -
ORDER
nilS MATTER is boforc thc Court on PlaintiffCharles R Lipcon's Motion to Dismiss
and/or Motionfor Sunmary Judgment With Respect to Daymer:s Countetclaims, filed February
20,2001.1 After fully considering tbe argumenb presented in thq panips' briefs and the
applicabte law, I will DENYthe lvtotion.
;
This case involves two adjoining parcels of land in Vail, Colorado. In 1989, Leo Palner .
olraed one of tbese parcels and Vail Village Inns, Inc. C'VVI) owned the othcr. WI had a hotel ..
known as the'Vail Village Inn" on its parcel. Palmer constnrclsd s Suilding known as tbe
"Gateway Plaza'l on his parcel. When Palmer constructed the Gateway Plaza he installed
fourtccNl stcel piles in the ground which pnovidcd stuctrnal int€Errty to the formdaion of the
I Also pending is Plaintif s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on the First
Amendrient ofthe U.S. Constihrtiorl filed on March 28,2001. This ffier does not address the
March 2t,2001, Motion.
FACTS
;303 837 C)097 :t g/ | €
Gaterl'f,y Plaza. Tbese steel piles trespa*sed onlo WI's property. This treryass led WI and
Palnerto enterinto anTncroachmeutandViewAgr€emeuf'(the *Vienr eseementl.
. TheYicvAgrccntctt
At the time Palmcr and \AIt etrtered irto the Viorr Agreement, lh€rc were al4roved
fevetopmert plms in existenc€ (*then-appr,oved plans) which allouad\IVl to build structucs
I
up to ttc V\4 P1operty lines which bordered Palmer's prqP€rty. Tbrougb frc Vicw Ageerostf
falmer gave up his rights to an rnobstnrted view acrcss thc WI Ro'Pertt'and \/VI t€mporarily
goa5ented to tbe presence of thc steel piles on its property. Each party benefittcd from' md uas
funtened bf, rhis agreemdt Palmer benefitted bccause tbe steel piles would renain in the
i
togna for &e time that ttrey were needed to srryport tbe Gatcway Projest, md hc was budcncd
because be (and his s1rccessors) gavc up any rigbt to an rmobsnnrctcd view acrcss th€ WI
Pmperty. WI b€mfitted because it was assrned that Palmer and his successors would.not assert
any rights to aruobstructed view, and \Ay'I wa$ burdened both-b€carse the steel piles wr;re
permitteil to reinain on its property and because it agreed to assrme thc costs of tbp cvenfual
removal of the steel pilcs to the e:rtent those costs exceedcd $3000'2
II Th" fo[owing specifis terms relevant to this dispute were included in thc View
Ageement
' Palmer prromised that if he sold any unit in the Gateway Plaza' he would
infom fre buyer in writing "of the approved dwelopment dghts beto!8ing b
VVI." View Agrcemeut I A'
, Palrner pimmised that p,rior to selling any unit in the Gateway Plazg he would
*obtain from the hrchaser a sigped waiver of anv interesl claim or right the
I Palncr apparently had already paid WI $3000 toward the costs of removing the steel
a
piles at the time the View Agreanentwas cxccutcd-
2
5- r6-0l i 2r 17PMi i svs oo. vv- '
PuchariEl' mav hav€ in an unobstuqted vicw fi'om thc Gatcwav Proiect scloss
tte W nop"rtu.' View-fureeme,ntf B (emphasis added)'
wI consentcd to the presence of tbe steel piles rmder its propcrty. view
Agreencrt!D.
The agreement was to be binding on the successors and assigns of bo6
parties. View Agreemcnt I F.
.tsach provision of this AgrE€B€Nrt. . . (i) shall be decmed incorporabd in
cach dccd of [sic] otber instrurrent by whictr 8ny riChq title or iderest in ary
of the palmeiproperty or tbc WI Prupsrty is granted" devised or conveyed"
ufiether or not set forth orrefemcdto in zuch deed or otherinstrumcd; (ii)
shall, by virtue of this acceptance of my right, titlc or int€rcst ip any of thc
Palner froperty or thc WI Property by a subseguent owner, be dcemed
acccpt€4 rameC adopted and declared as a personal covenant of such owner'.,
anq as a pcnnnar cpvcnant, shall be binding on such owner and his heirs,
personal iepresentatives, suoessrxns and assigns; a'd shall be deemed a
personaf cov€nant to, with and for the benefitofcach-sr1l oqp uf (iii)
=nun u" deemed a real covenant by Palmer and v\II, for tlrcmselves, tbeir
successont and assigns, md also an equitable s€n"ifirde, nxuring in mh case'
as a burden with -d opoo the titlc to the PalEer 8nd wI PIop€rty." view
fureement{H-
Nor did th€ vi€w Ageem€nt contain any explicit language indicsting tbat
approved plans. Plaintiffs position is tbat ttr€ intent of the trpo parties to the View Agrecmcnt
was that tlre View Agreement only applied to thc thcn'approved developmeirt plans'
The Gatawy Plaza SaIs
ln 1990, Palmer sold Unit #3 in the Gateway Pkiatn PlaintiffCharlcs Lipcon and his
wife,Irmgrd Lipcon, for $775,000. The foltowing clause was includcd in the prnchase
5-16-01i
I
I
;303 437 0097
eem€ot tbat the LiPcons siPd:
WATVERoFI'JNRESTRICTEDVIEW.PIJRSUA}ITToAI'IAGREEI\{B{TWHICII
DIRECTLY Bffi ON WHICH TIIE UNIT IS LOCATED'
PIJRCIIASER IS nEQURED TO AI.ID UPON EIECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT'
DOES HEREBy wlireaNrINIEREST, CI-AIM oRRIGIIT,IF AI{Y' wHICII
PT'RCIIASER I{AY HAVE IN AI-I UNOBSTRUSTED VIEW FROM PI('RCIIASER'S
T'MT ACROSS THE PROPERIY WHICH IS HEREBY REFERRED TO AS 'T[IE
VAILVILLAGEINNPRoPERTY'A}.IDIvHIcHGENERALLYLIESToTIIEEAST
AI,ID SOUTfi OF THE PROPERTY UPON WHICH THE IJNTT IS LOCATED . ' ' '
THTsPRovtSIoNBENEFITSTIIEVAILVILI,AGEINNPRoPERIY.
FURfiIERMORE, TTIIS PROVISION WILL SIJRVTVB THE CLOSING A}ID WIII
BEBII{DINGON TIIE PI'RCSASE& ITS IIEIRS, PERSONAL
REPRESENTATwES, SUCCESSORS AITID ASSIGNS'
i**" Agreemrent Betw'nn palncr md Lipcons, p.7,tr9. The Lipcons were rypareotly '
ioncernerl wifh this provision, so thry adiled anpther- clause in an addendum to tbe coffi-act' This
t.
2:17PM;
itional clause stated:
The views from the condominium sball b€ at a reasonable ap'pmximation-as those shown
in the photographs atac;hed as an exhibit to this contracl Thc photos reflest the visr
that worild bc availablc undcr the agrecment between Seller and the Vail Viltqge IS,
refbrred to in thc main Contast Seller makes no representation beyond wh4!:is gholm i'l
dde,ndum A to purchase Agreement Between Palner md tbe Lipcons, f 6 (emphasis 8dd€d)'
lef*;" 1990, Palmer sold Unit *15 in the Gatcway Plaza to Vail Apartment+ Inc' The pgrchasc
I
fgr.ln*t for this sale included an identical waiver md addcndgn to thosc involvcd with thc
sale to the Lipconc.
In 1998, the Lipcons sold Unit #3 to John Breyo for $2 million and pgrchased Unit #5
pm vail ApartrnenB, Inc. Breyo apparcntly objected to signing a waiver of any rigbt h€ migbt
have to an unrestricted view. hstead ofrequiring Breyo to do sign a waiver, Lipcon agreed to
4
;3U3 ar3 a (JUl, /
any and all actions m,celtsaty, including litigation, to proffithe view fio,m Unit#3 (&e
Agreement'). Tbc Lipcon/Breyo Agreement obligated Plaintifrto ocpcnd up to
to protect thc vi€rlr.
The Daelopnunt Plutsfor thc VW Property
ln 1996, Defendant Daymer Corporation, N.V. f'Defendant Daymcd), purchased the
Property. Defendant Daymer l$u applied to the Town of Vail to amend the ttren-alryrorred
plaus for thc VVt Property. In 2000, despit€ Plaintiffs efforts to prevcot the
Vail approved a change to the devetopmeot dghs.t
Plaintiff subseqrnrifiy brought sui! asserting fottt "claiths- against'Def,endanS:
) violation of the Fiff[ and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitr*ion; (2) conspiracy;
4 s[eim for injunctive rcliet and (4) a claim for a class action. Defendent Daymer ass€rted
fow counterclaims in its answpr: (l) breach ofcovenan! (2) breach ofcontracg, (3) intentional
witb'contractual relations; and (4) abruc o. f pmcegs: , '..1
Plaintitrfiled a Motion to Dismiss and/or fs1 grrmmgry Judgme,nt on Defendgt
s cormterclaims. As Dcfeodant Daymer's cormterclainrs are at issue in this motiorU only
relevant to those counterclaims were descdbed above. As the parties have submitted
which has been corsidered in deciding Plaintifs Motion, it wil be teatcd as a motion
suncmary judgm€nt . b Fed.R Civ. P. l2O).
STAI\DARD OTREVIEW
C-rranting sr:mmary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material
and the moving party is entitled to judgnent as a matter of law. See Fed- R. Civ. P. 56(c);
I The parties dispute whether the ncwly approved plaqs are a reasonable approximation to
previously approved ("theo-approved') plans.
5
5-rd-ol i 2t 1-7PMi :303 837 0097 # 7/ 13
983 F2d 152E,1534 (lOth Cir-), cert. denie4 114 S'Ct tl (1993);
g34 F 2d 240, 242 (l}:6Cir. 199 l); M€tz v. United States' 933
.2d 8O2,S04 (loth Cir.), cert. denied- I 12 S.Ct. 416 (1991). In reviewing a motion for
judgnent, the court must view the widence in the light most ftvorable to the
party. $9g Analra v. cros$oads Msnased care svst€ms. Inc., 195 F.3d 5E4 (10tb
. I 999). All doubts mrst be resolved in favor of the existence of tiable issues of fact. See
933F.2d891, 892 (10&Cir. l99l)-
AT{ALYS$
DefmdantDrynrt\Chimsfot Bteoch of Cwenanl Brcrchof Conta$ snd- iotentional Interfcrence With Contuctual Relotir,tu
Defendant Daymer contends that Plaintifrbreaehed covenants contained in the View
O1i 2. 1-TPllii ;303 437 0C,s7
b €xis1". Phintiffs Motion, p.8. In the contpxt ofthe inteirtional interfercnsc $,itb
relations claim, Plaintiffsimply applies this arguoent by sWgesting tbat it is
for hirn to harre interferedwith a contact which was not in efiect
To support his a4um€ot that the rmdisputed fac6 demons[ate tbd Palmer and WI
the View Agreernent to apply only to then-ap'proved plaos,5 Plaintiffpoints to the
widsocc: (l) both Palmer and stagfcr exesutcdafrdaviB in200l which state in
language thar the View Agreement'tn my opinion only applied to the tbcn approved
a<isting plms for tbe Vail Village Prop€trty," and (2) that the adde'ndums to Palmcr's
Mse contasts for thc Gateway Plaza units botb state, 'Tbe vie*s from the codominiuh
be at a reasonable apploximation as those shouin in the photographs attached as an e>rhibit
this Contact. The photos reflect the view that wolld be available trnder the aglcE'6ent
Sctlcr and rhe Vail Village Inn' rcfcrred to ia ftg rnnin Contrapt'"
did not'touch and conc€fin" the laod- Plsiutiffcohtcnds that.the 'ltouch and conc€f,n"
elrt is uol m4 in this casc, because a cove4ant only "touch.eF ald conccrns" the land if it
"to be,ncfit or burden the physical usc of the lmd-' I reject this argumcnt In l,ookout
867P.2d70 (Colo.ApP.
l), the Colorado Court ofAppeals stated thet tbe "toncfi'md eonceot" requirran€ot meos
the covenant "must closely relatc to the talr{ its usg or its anjoyment" !t at 74. In this
a cove,nant tbat requires ownens to waive any claim, right, or ht€rest in an unobstnrcted
ftom freir real Fop€rty closely relates to the e,njolment ofthat rcal pmperty'
of material fact. His admission that somc material frcts are in diqpute is a zufrcicnt
for denial ofPlaintiffs motion. I will nwerttreless consider the substantive agumcmfs
5 Thc pleadings revcal that Plaintiffis sornewhat confirsed as to his burden- In his
, he argues that the facts are undisputed. In his ReplyBrief, however, Plaintiffincludes a
r entitleil Disputcd Facts," wh€re he admiG that there arc disputes as to certain mate;rial
As the moving party, Plaintiffbears the brnden of demonstrating thet there ale no disputcd
7
by thc parties.
;3Og 837 OO97 tr 9/ 11
Evcn if I were to accept Plaintifs argumcnt tbat thcsc facts deinonstsale that Pahcr and
intendcd tbe vicw Agrcem€,lrt to 4ply to only then-existing plaos,6 I reject tbc legal
urhich Plaintifrdraws fiom these fastB. In confiact liaw, cvidenoe of intention is
not adrnissibls,,nl6ss tbe language of the contract is ambiguoru- E Albright v'
14 P.3d 318, 322 (Colo. 2000). Instead of pointing !o any ambigsotts language'
cites LazvDogRanchv. TelluravRanchcorP.. xisP.zd 1229(colo- 1998)'to argue
erridence of inteution is afuissiblc with rcspcct to covenaots relating to real propcrty' Thc
intentions of fte pa*i{" !d. at 1235. Even asqrming that thc View Agreement sbould be
like a dee4 however, Plaintifs algumeot fails. This is because the court ultimately
6 The widence in support of Plaintiffs view ofthc bcb is by ao means overuihclming'
afrdavits were executed lltlr years subsequent to the signing ofthc Vien' trgrcemcnt and
only the..opinions" of the sigpers. The laaguage oftre addrndrms to the purchasc
""tJ "r* does not unequivocally prove the intent of the putics to the vicw Agrcement'
&e affidavits, the addqrdums werc executea subsequeot to the view furyemelrt Furthcr,
tiffhas incompletely quoted from thesc addeirdums. Immediately afterthe statemcnts
by Plaintitr, the conftct providcs 'bor does sclla bind himsclf to the vicw bEin8 .
trA Uy ntt*" developments in which hc has no active involvernent ia" This language'
Thc partics to an erpressly creatcd servihrde generally intcnd to bind $rccessors to ar
intqFst itr thc land for *LA"fioitu period oftima The written instumeirt therefore
assurncs geat impottanco as the pdmry sourca of information to prospective Purchas€tE
of the lrod. Thus, in most cases, it is not apropriate to seek a puticular, idiosyncratio
meuing ailopted by the paties io the original itrstrlm€nt F"ath€r, 'the langrrggr nsed in
cr".tinia roUtoa" otai""tity sbould be interpretd in accord with te neaning an
ordioai purcnaser would ascribc to it in the cont€xt of thc parcels of land involved"
togdh; *ith the .Waiver of Unoffi'cted View," dcmonstates that purchascrs of Gateway
r rmits had bormd themselves io not challenge rny changes to their views across ths vvl
whethcr or not thosc changcs resulted from dwelopment consistetrt with the ttcn-
plans.
Conscqueirtly, not all evidence ofthe oarties' intent is relevant to the interprelation ofa
decd."
at 1237 (cmphasis added and internal citations omited). this language entircly defcas
if,Ps rgumcnt. Furtber, the Colorado Suprc,me coud recenfly reitcrated that, 'TIhm
arestrictive covenant, courts must 'follow thc dichates of ptain English-"' EUigb
No- 99SC810,2001 WL 37M35,at t2 (Colo.
16, 2001) (not yet released for publication) (quoting Double D Mmor- Inc. v. Evergreen
773 P 2d I 045, 1048 (Colo. 1989). If a coveirant is oler on its
courts will enforce itrs wittelr. See ig!
I find that the language of the View Agreement is cl€a aud unambiguous. Whatevcr ths
of Palmer and WI wheir thcy signed the View fureemen! the lan,guage of the Agreemeirt
no way srggests that ie application was timited on$ to tben-existing md apprord
plins. Concary to Plaintiffs argumen!.the fact that the -Yicy Agrecmenrt obligrtd
the time of a sale did not limit the application of the View Agreement to the their'appmvcd
Instca4 this langu4ge served to impose a common ssnse 'imit on tbe scopc of Palmer's
to inform buyers of what ptans were in the wodrs at the time of a sale. Palmer's obligation
inform buyers ofapproved plans does not change the fact that he was to obtain from the buycr
waivcr of "any interes! claim or right the Purchascr may have in m unobstucted visw." Vicw
{ B (emphasis added). As such, Plaintifs Motion for summary Judgn€nt as to
Daymer's fust three count€rclaims is DENIED.
5-16-0l i Z. 1-fPMi ;303 A37 0097 * 11/ 13
Delcndant Daymt's AdmlotAbase of hocess
To prove abuse of process, Defendat Daynrcrmrut sholv thd (1) Plaintitrbsd an ultcrior
prqpose for the use of a judicial proceeding; (2) willful action in the usc of that proccss n'hich i8
not proper in the regular course of the proceedings (i.e-, ue of a legal proceeding in @ iFProP€r
manner); and (3) resulting damaga See Larnen Corp. v' Century Geophvsicd Com.- 953P.2d
Defendant Dalmrer alleges &at tbc Lipcon/Bryo Agreement is Evidcnsc of an ulterior
otivc, and the $l-25 million profit that Lipcon made on the sale was tbe reason thst Lipcon
tered into to the Lipconfireyo Agreemcnt. At a deposition taken in Deccmbcr of 2000,
laintif afuitted that the Lipcor/Breyo Agreement was at least partially the reason that he was
itigating this case. Lipcon Deposition, 69:19-70:6. Plaintiff zuggests that he is entitled to
judgmeirt because Plaintiffs suit against Defendmt Da1'mer furttrers his orpl interest
i, - o.oo of a Gateway Plaza condominilrm- Fulhtr, Plaintiffpoints out that John F.rpyo .
$gned awaiver in January, 2001, which terminatcd Plaintiffs duties !o Brryo.
II I find that thene are material issues of fectwhic;h prreclude summaryiudgmat Plaintitr
I
admits -\at satis&ing his obligUions under the Lipcon/Breyo Agfeement was at least'one of his
reasons for filing t}is suit If Plaintiffwas motivated by the LipconlBreyo Agrccrnent whcn hc
brought this sui! the subsequent waiver ofBreyo's rights rurder the Lipcon/Brcyo Agreement
docs not changc the initial motivation On summaryjudgmen! I must give Defe'lrdmt Dapncr'
the non-moving party, the benefit of all rasonable infereiroes from disputcd facts. See Adans v'
Americqg -Guarmtee and Liabiliw Ins. Co.. 233 F.3d 1242,1246 (l0th Cir. 2000); Hale v' U'S'
l0
;3O3 437 OO€7 * 12/ 135-r€-o't; 2: rTPM;
Dc,g't ofAuiculture. 226F.3d12W,1203 (lOth Cir. 2000), As suclL PlaintifFs Motion fur
Suormary Judgmeirt as to Dcfen ant Dalmcds fowtb cormterclaim for abuso of procesc is
.DENIM.
CONCI,USIION
Accordingly, itis
ORDERED rhat plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment
wft Respect to Daymer's cormterclaims, fled Fcbruary }O,2OOL, is DENIED- It is
FLTRTIIER ORDERED that Defendd Daymcr's Motion for l,eave to File $upplemeotat
i...fa*land Authority in Opposition to Ptaintiffs First Motion for Summary Judgnent' filod APtil
i
23,2fu1,is CRANTED
oF*, ot%zoot'DATED at Deirver, Colorado, this O
BY TITE COI.JRT:
Utrited Stacs District CottttJudgc
l1
: '1"";303 437 c)0s7 * l3/ 13
a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR T}IE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
ivilAction No.OGDZO
9ERTIFICATE OF MAILING
,l hereby certtfy that a copy of the above Order was mailed to the following on
au$r2oo1:
-l
harles R. Lipcon
ne Biscayne Tower, f2480
S. Blscayne Bhld.
iami, FL 33131
J. Scott Lasater
Sharon P. Kelly
Lasater & Associates, P.C.
122 South Park Lane, #205
itdeton, CO 80120
amgs S. Bailey, Jr.
ta.l{"q {. Livinsston
lailey & Peterson, P.C.
660 Lincoln St. #3175
Denver, CO 80264
Mag'sffie Judge PatriciaA Coan
OFVAIL
Ofiice of the Tbwn Attorney
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2 I 07/Fax 970-179-2 I 57
April 20.200i
Charles R. Lipcon. Esqu ire
One Biscavne Torver. Suite 2480
2 South Biscavne Blvd.
Miami. Fl 3-1131
Re: Intenogatories number 20 & 2 |
Dear Mr. Lipcon.
The records of the Depanment of Communitl' Dev.-lopment are open ro lou for inspection during
normal busine:s hours upon appointment. except as provided in pan ? of Anicle 12. Title2;lC.R.S. lf you
wish to make an appointment ro review records, please contact me_
Very.truld r ours.
-l '\-lt\,/' tl - '+'
1 J l'-' _ L,.-l tr<-.----./
R. Thoma3 N4oorhead
C: Gnorge Rurher
iVlan lVlire. Esq.
Randy Livinrston. Esq.
s RECYCI,ED PAPER
Exhlbit A
SDD iio. O - Vail \ illaqe lnn parklno Summarv
Requlred Farking (per Code)
Phase I
Phasc ll
Phase lll
Phase lV
Phase lV-A'
Phaso V
February, |992
parkino Soaces Reouired= 38.12
= 17,98
= 84.45
Aa 07
= t 6.50= 39.46
Total = 260.48
_ - 13.02 (S% muttiptc use crcdit)
Gran I Totaf = 247 .46 or 249
It
' Phase lV-A is not c,.rrently const ucted
Approved Parklng plan
The Phase lV-A approval wilt prov de the following parking scheme:
44 - structured spaces - dceded to Wl owners
9t - slru_clured spaces - availabte to the general public
30 - .s.urf1ce pagcs - adjacent to the FooO g Deli. One space wi be rescrved forlhe.Food & Dcli nranager and all olhers will bc available tor shorl_tcrm pubticparking.
10 - surface spaccs - east of the Gateway
4 - valet surtace spaces - north of the pancake House
4: surface spaccs - north ot the pancake House/Lobby Building
177 - Total spaces lo bo provided
Thc vvl ls ob gated to provlde the foltovring parklng, lf and whcn the flnal phasc
lV ls constructed:
12 - surtace spaces
324 - slructured spaces
_82 - structured valet spaces
373 - Total
ilt.
(_
t
::' .
':
t:. '
..'.
I
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND OHDEFED PUBLISHED
ONCE lN FULI- lhis 4rh dayot rrcbruarv ,1992. A public hcarlng sha bc held hereon
on ths lSthday of February , 1gg2, at the regular mccung ol lhe Town Council of the
Town of Vail, Colorado, in thc Municipal Building ot ttic Town.
o
ATTES]
-'---) n<']j{utlp I $\tatu't u t,t,--t
Pamela A, Brandmcyer, 'i wn Clsrk
READ ANO APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDEBED PUBLISHED
ln full g1;s lSch day ol rebruary , 1992.1
I/n".--qnd( k-ed-
AfiEST:
t,rt1zrA/. Wt,uA,nu.u-J
Pamola A, Brandmeyer, Town Clcrk
\
t
{
No. 6 is issucd. Prior to trre Town's issuance of a buirding permit ror phasc rv, the Town sharl
rccvarualc thc necd ror pcdcstrian access along V;rir Road and i! in rhc Town's sore opinion,
somc manner of pcdcstrian access is still requkctt the applicant or his successors in intercst
shall provide for such pcdest an acccss.
13. Provide addilionar randscaping along the norlhcrn property rine of the vail vi age
Inn, as discussed in seclion lV(fr) of thc,anuary 13, 1992 community Dcveropment stafl
menlorandutr to thc Planning and Environmcntal Conlmission. Said additional landscaping shall
consist o[, al a minimum, thrce to lour clusters ol rxge aspcn (2-inch to 3-inch caliper) and
spruce (8, 10, and 12- rol ta I trccs).
14' Provide screening of the existing trash compactor located immediately to the north
ot thc Pancake House Building- said s rccning shafi bc subject to the review and approvar ot
the Dcsign Rcview Board.
Section 1 1
lf any part' section, subsection, scnlence, crause or phrass of this ordinance is for any
reason lrcld to bc invalid, suclr dccision shall not effect thc validity of thc rcmaining portions ol
lhis 'rrdinance; and the Town council hereby dectares it would have passed this ordinance, and
each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thcreot, rcgardless of the fact that any
one or more parts, scctions, subsoctions, scntenccs, clausc] or phrrses be declared invalid.
Section 1 2
The Town Councit hereby lind detc'inincs and dcclarcs thal this ordinance is necessarv
and propcr lor lhe hcalth, salety an( welfarc of tire Town ol Vail and thc inhabitants thcreol.
Section 13
The repeal or he repeal and rccnac lmcnt ot any provision ol the vail Municipal code as
provided in this ordinance shall not allect .rny right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that occurred prior lo lhe effcctive date hcreof, any prosecution commenccd, nor any
other action orproceeding as commonccd undcr of by virtue of tho provision repcaled or repealeo
and rccnacted. Tlrc repeal of an/ provision hcreby shall not revivs any provision or any
ordinancc prc''iousI repcaled or supcrsedcd unless exprcssly stated hercin.
betwcen Phases rv, rV-A and v of the vair virtage tnn, to a tuturc commerciar expansion at rc
sonnenalp Bavaria Haus site if, and whcn said commcrciar expansion is dcveropcd.
7 ' The appiicant or his succcssors in inleresl ol Phascs lV and lV-A agrcc to lranslcr
by gencrar wa'alrry decd to the Town or vair, frce and crear ot a[ riens and enoumbranccs. a
condominium unit of ap rroxi atcly 3,98G sq. fl. in sizc. Said unit shall be located as indicated
on the plans and speciticationi submittcd with thc 1 987 application. Thcrc shall bc no provisions
placcd on tlrc co donliniunr unit rcstricting said unil to Town of vail,s use of rhc unit or the
subscqucnt subdivision and/or salc ol the unit.
B. No grading pcrmit, buirding pcrrnit or dcmorition pcrmit, rorating to any phase of
special Developmcnt Lisrrict No.6, shall be issucd until such tirns as reasonable ovidence is
providcd to tlle Town ot Vail that construction financing has beon obtained lor fhe improvemcnts
to bc constructed.
9. Any units in Phases lV, lV-A or V which may bc condominiumizccl, oxcept tor the
Phase f v'A, tourth lloor dwelling unit, shall bc rcstrictod as set lor r in scction 1z.z6.o7s
(condominium conversion) of the vair Municipar codc and thereartcr amended.
10. The appricant or his succcssors in intercst of phases lv, tv-A and v sharl
reimburse the Town ot vail in lhc amount of g75,oo0 lor expenses incured in rclocating the ski
museum' ol said $75,000 relocation expenses, the amount ol 927,500 shall bc paid prior to lhe
issuance ol a building permit for thc construction ot phasc lV-A of sDD ,16, Thc balancc ol
$47,500 shall become due and payabte to the Town ol Vail at the date of closing of the phase
lv-A, lourth floor dwelling unit, or at a date not to cxceed two yoars lrom the Town's issuance of
any tcmporary rertilicales ol occupancy for thc Phase lV-A accor imoclation units, whichever
occurs earlicr in time.
11. Any remodel or redeveropmcnt of any ol the remaining portions ot sDD#6, sharl
includc an overall parking analysis as sct torlh in Section g of this ordinance.
12- The appricanr or his succcssors in intcrest of phascs lV, lV-A and V sha providc
a pedestrian easement, along the western boundary ol the VVI (the east side of vail Road) of
sulticicnt width (as determined by tho Town) to accommodate an B-foot wide sidewalk witn
integral landscaping. Said easement shall begin at the northwest corner ol the Vail Village h n
property (said corner is also the souihwest oorncr of the vail Gateway plaza proporty), a d
extend along thc westerly line ol ths vail village Inn property south to East Msactow Drive. said
easemcnl shall expirc at such time that a building permit lor lhc construction ol Phase lV of St D
\
{
(
thc Town Attomey for the bcnefit of the Town to insurc tlte rcstrictions set forth herein shall r in
with lhr) land. said declaration shafl not be amcndcd or tcrminarcd without rhe writtcn appro!,al
of thc -own or vair. subsequcnt ro rhc ctfcctivc datc of this ordinancc, no buirding permit s .rll
be issucd lor Phase lv-A ot Speclal Dcvclopmant District No. 6 until said declaration of covena lts
and rc;trictions are executcd and firod with thc Eagre county crcrk and Rccorder.
4. Thc '
teveloper is prcsently thc owner ol Unit 7-L, Pitkin Cre ek park Condom jnlums,
localc( in tlro Town )f vair. The dcvcropsr agrecs to pcrmancnfly restrict the use of this unit, in
the following manncr (employee housing rcstrictions):
A. The employee housing unit shall bs provided with a tull kitchen (rofrigcrator,
sl(/ve, rink, oven/microwave) and sha not bc reascd or rsntcd 10r any period ress than 30
consc, utive days and shal be rontcd only to tenants who are lu time ernproyccs in the upper
Eagle Valloy.
B. The Upper Eagle Va ey shall be doomed to include the Gore Valley,
N]inturn, Bed Clifl, Eagte-Vail and Avon ar i thsir surrounding areas,
c. A fufl'time emproyeo is a person who works an averagc or thirty hours per
week.
D. The applicant cr his successors in inlercsl shalt tite a declaratirn ol
covcnants and reslrictions with the clcrk and Rccorder of Eaglc county in a lorm approved by
lhe To'rn Attorney for the benefit ol llre Town lo insure the rcstriclions sct forth herein shall run
with thc land. Said declaration shall not bc amendcd or terminatsd wilhout the written approval
of the'I )wn of Vail. subscqucnt to the etfoctive datc of lhis ordinancc, no building permjtsha l
be issued for Phase lV-A of spe ial Devclopmcnl District No. 6 intil said declaration of cov rnanr ;
and rcstrictlons are executed a.d lilcd with the Eaglc county )lcrk and Recorder.
t. Thc appricant or his succcssors in interesr ot phases rv, rv-A and V shat
particip. to in, and shall not protesI or rcnronstrale against, any improvcmcnt district(s) which ma]
bs cstat lishcd by lhe Town ot vail for thc purpose of constructing improvemcnts as set lorth ir
any officially adopted rown ol vail streetscape Master plan, if and when an improvemenl district
is formed.
6. Thc applicant or his successors in interest
participals in, and shall not protesl or rcmonstrale against,
ol Phases lV. lV-A and V shall
establishing a pedestrian linkage
(
(.
t
r rdcr -ound parking spaccs, and 37 underground varer spacog ror speciar Dovoropmsnt District
I'lo. 0 .s indicated on thc developmcnt pran submitted by Gordon R. piercc, Architect, dated
''ebruary 19, 1987, as detined in Exhibit A.
B. Tho parking rcquirements for phasc rv-A shafl bo as sct forth on thc drawings
submitled by the Intratcct Dasign Group, clated June 6, 1991, and rovised scptembcr 23, 1gg1,
sheet numbor 1 , and as detincd in Exhibit A.
Section 10
The applicant or his successors in intcrest agrees to perform the tollowing:
'1. Make a minimum of 6s parking spaccs in the parking structure, rooatcd in the
Phaso lll building avaitablc lor short-lorm parking usa by ure gcnoral putJtic and/or hotel guesls
ol the vail village Inn. Thcso 65 spaccs shall not be leased to any party. provide a sign(s),
subiect to Design Review Board approval, indicating thc availability of tho pubFc parking. located
in the Phase lll parking structure.
2' Prior to lhe issuance of any Town ol Vail builtJing permits for the construction of
Phase lV-A ol sDD No. 6., thc appticant or his successors in inlorcst strall provide writtcn
cvidence to lhe Town of vail )ircctor ol community oevclopmcnl that a colorado Dopartrnent
ol Highways acccss permit h-s been oblaincd lor accoss from thc south Fronlage Road
3. The applicant or his successors in inlcresl agrce to pcrmancntly restrict two on-site
dwelline units for use by cmployecs ot thc upper Eagle vallcy (employcr, housing units) in the
following manner:
A. Tho e mployer: housing units shall be providcd wilh lull kitchcns (rekigerator,
stove, sink, oven/mi' ,wav'l) and ihall not bo loased or rcnlcd for any period lsss than 30
consecutive days an6 shall bc rentcd only to tonants who arc lull timc cmployees in the Upper
Eagle Vallcy.
B. The Upper Eaglc Vallcy shall be deemcd lo include tlre Gore Valloy,
Minturn, Flcd Clilt, Eaglo-Vail and Avon and their surrounding aroas.
week.
C. A full-time employce is a porson who w ,rks an avc.age o, thirty tours per
D. The applica rt or his successors in interest shall file a declaration ol
c. venants and restrictions with the clerk and Recorder of Eagle county in a torm approved by
o
\
(
Scction 7
Hc Ahl
A. For phascs r, I and m, the a[owabre heights shal be as found on the crovcropment
pran' spocifically lhe site pran and height pran datcd March 12, 1976, provided by Royston,
Hanamoto, Beck and Abey.
B. For Phascs rv and v, rhc maximum buirding hcight shal be as set tortlr in the
approvcd dcvelopmenr pran by Gordon R. picrce, Architcct (datcd Fcbruary 1 9, i9BZ, rovised
April 14 and April 22, 1987).
C. For P laso lV-A, c maxiqrum building hoightshall bc as sct forlll on re approvcd
developmcnt plan, submitted by the lntratcct Oesign Group/Fritzlcn piercs Brincr, as sot lorth in
Section 4 abovc.
Scction B
Density
A. The gross rcsidential lloor area (GRFA) lor lho cnlire Spccial Developrncnt District
No. 6 shall not cxcccd 124,527 squarc fcct. Thcre sllafi bc a minimurn of 148 acconrmoctatrrn
unils and 64,267 squarc tect ol GRFA a ocatcc, to accommodation units in phase lV and ph;.se
v of spec al Development District No. 6. 3,927 square teet ol GBFA shall bc allocaied
.specifically to unit No.30 0f tha vail villagc plaza condominiums. 3,100 square feet ot GRFA
rhall be specilicaliy allocated to one dwelling unit, to bc locatsd on the lourth floor ol th(, phas(
V-A Lobby Building; and
B' Condominium ljnit N0.30 of the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums sha bc subjc( I
to lhc restrictions sct lorth in ssction 17.z6.ols of the Town ot Vail Subdivision Regulations :
utilized for rcsidcntial purposes.
c. In addition to rhs afiowabre GRFA sst rorrh in section BA above, phasc rv.Ash.
be allocated 500 sq. ft. ot additional GRFA (zso sq. ft. pcr unit), which shall bc spcoilicatrr
allocated to two on-sitc, permanently rcstriclcd e mployee dwclling uniti.
Seclion I
)arking and Loading !
\. Any.rpplication for any amendment lo phaso lV of SDD No. 6, subsequent lo the
elfectivu dale of this ordinance, shall include not less lhan 12 surlace parking spacos, 324
t
A. The dcvalopmcnt plan for Phascs l, ll and lll shall consist ot lhc plans prcparcd
and submittcd by Royston, Hanamoto, Bcck and Abc , on February 12, 1926.
B. The dcveroprncnt pran for phascs rv and v shal consist of tho prans and
' environmcntal impacl rcporl preparcd and submittcd by Gordon R. picrce Architcct, datcct
February 19, 1987, and revised on April 14, and Aprit ZA, 1597.
C. The dcvelopmcnt plan for Phasc lV-A shall consisl ol the totlowing plans providcd
by the lntralect Dcsign Group/Fritzlcn picrce Brincr.
Shcct No. 1 , dalcd June 6, 1991 , and revised Scptember 23, 199i (sitc plan)
Shect No.2, dated Junc 6, 199i (tst and Znd ftoor plans)
Sheet No, 4, dated January S, 1992 (3rd floor ptan)
Shcct No.5. dated June 6, 1991 and revised June 19, 199,1 (West Elevation)
':Shccl No. 5, datcd January B, 1992 (4th floor ptan)
Shect N0.7, dated June 6, 19)1 and reviscd Junc iB, 1991 (East Elevation)
Sheet No. B, dated Janr rry B, 1992 (North Elevation)
Sheet No. 9, dated Jar,.rary B, 1992 (South Elcvation)
Section 5
Permitted Uses
The pern ilted uses in Phases l, ll, lll, lV, lV-A and V ot Speciat Developmcnt District N,).
6 shall bc as sct lorth in tha developmont plans rcfcronccd in Scction 4 of this ordinanco.
Section 6
Conditional Usc;
I
Condilional Uses for Phascs l, ll, lll, lV, lV-A and V ol Spccial Dcvelopmont District No.
6 shall bc as set forth in Section 18.22.030 of the Town ol Vail Municioal Codc with the addition
ot tho following conditional uses:
A. An outside poPcom vending wagon thal conlorms in appcarance wilh thosc existing
in Commorcid Core I and Commercid Core ll.
B. No ottice uses, except thoso clearly accessory_lo a principal use will bc allowed on lhe
Plaza lcvcl o[ Phascs lV, lV-A and V.r
\
(,'-
{
B. Speciat oevelopmont Diskict No.6 provided in section 14 that the Town council
rcserved thc right to ,brogatc or modify special Dcvclopmcnt District No. 6 lor good causc
through thc snactmcnl of an ordinance in contormity with rc zoning code of the Town of vail.
c. In 1985, thc Town councir or the Town of vair passcd ordinance No. 1, sories of
1985, providinl ceriain amendmcnls to tha development plan lor SDD No. 6.
Ll' In 1989, thc vair rown councir passcd ordinance No. 24, serics or 1g89, providing
cerlain amcndmcnts lo the devclopmcnt pran ror special Development District No. 6, such
amendments modilied and amendcd section B ol ordinance No. 14, Serics of 1 987, which rclates
to lhe allowed density ot the devctopment plan for SOD No. 6.
E. In 1 991, the Vair rown councir passed ordinance No. I 9, scries of 1 991 , providing
ccrtain amendments to the developm("rt plan lor Special Developmcnt District No. 6 which relare
to Phasc lV..
F. Application has been madc to the Town of Vail to modily and amcnd cerlain
cctions of Spccial Devclopmont District No. 6 which rclatc lo Phase IV and which make cerlain
changes in lhe development plan tor spccial Devetopmcnt Dislrict No. 6 as they relate to phase
tv,
G. The Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail lras review' dths
changos submittcd by lhe applicant and has recommencled that sDD No. 6 bo so amcnded.
H. The Vail Town Council considcrs lhal the amcndmcnts provide a Inorc unifiod and
aesthctically plcasing development ol a critical sitc within the Town and such amcndmonts are
of bcnefit to the hcalth. safely, and wcltarc of the inhabitants ot the Town ol Vait.
Section 3
Purpose
A Special Developmenl District is establishcd [o assurc comprchensive dcvclopment and
use of an arca in a manner lhat would bc harrnonious with thc gcneral character ot thc Towfr,
provide adequate open space a,rd recrcation amenitics, and promote the objectives of thc zoning
Ordinance o{ the Town.
Section 4 i
Dcvalopment Plan
Tho proposed devclopment ptan shall include:
\
\
I
r ti ) |,, tt t I Qa+scrJ, '
ORDINANCE NO. 2
Scries ot 1992
n ln/iL-l rtr ut
7i 18
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RE.ENACTING ORDINANCE NO. 19.
ro pRovrDE r." r'iE1fit=r?J*tJil o,,n
= App HovEDDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOB SPECIAL DE VELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6;ADOPTING A REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PHASE IV-AoF spEctAL DEVFIO_pMENT D|STBICT NO. 6, VA|L VtLLA,GE INN;AND SETTING FoRTH DETATLS ru nEcl\Ro THERETo.
WHLREAS, Chaptcr 18.40 0t thc vair Municipar cods authorizcs spcciar Dcveropmcnt
Districts within thc Town in ordor to encouragc llcxibility in tha dovclopment of land; and
WHEBEAS, an apprication has becn ma<Jc for the amcndmcnt or spcciar Deveropmcnt
Districr (sDD) No. 6 for a certain parccr of propcrty within lhc Town, regaly dcscribcd as Lot 0,
Block )-D' Vail Village Firsl Firing, and commonry relcrred to as lhe vair vilage Inn speciar
Dcvclopment District; and
WHEHEAS' in accordance wirh scction 18.60.140, tho pranning and Environmeirtal
commission, on January 19, 1992, herd a pubric hoaring on lho amended sDD, and has
submiltsd its rccommcndalion lo the Town Council; and
WHEFTEAS, a[ noticcs as required by seotion 18.66.080 have bcen sent ro tne
appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS, the Town councir r'ras herd a pucric hearing as rcquired by chapter.r8.66 of
the Municipal Codc of the Town o' Vail.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE II ORDAINED BY THE TOWII COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL. COLOF {DO THAT:
Section 1
The Town Council linds that all thc procedures sct forth lor Spccial Dcvelopmcnt Districts
in chapler 18.40 of the Municipal Lodc of the Town of Vail h ve bccn fu y satislied.
Section 2
Legislative lntent
A. In 1976, the Town councir of thc Town of vair passed ordinance No. 7, scrics ot
1976, establishing special Dovelopment District No. 6 to insure tho unilied and coordinated
devolopment of a criticat sile as a whote and in a manner suitablc lor the area in which it was
situatcd.
I
I
.t
t.'.' 'r Q.
ORDINANCE NO. 19
Series of '1991
ilL[ C9PY
Lq4,bd ury
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RE.ENACNNG ORDINANCE NO.14,
SERIES OF 1987 AND OBDINANCE NO.24, SERIES OF 1989;
TO PROVIDE FOB THE AMENDMENT OF THE APPROVED
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRTCT NO. 6;
ADI)PTING A REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A NEW PHASE IV.A
OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT D|STRICT NO. 6; AND SETTTNG
FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes Special Development
Districts within the Town in order lo encourage flexibility in the development of land; and
WHEREAS' an application has been made tor the amendment of Special Development
District (sDD) No. 6 for a certain parcel ol property within the Town, tegally described as Lot 0,
Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing, and commonly referred to as the Vail Village lnn Special
Development District; and
WHEREAS' in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental
Commission, on June 24, 1991, held a public hearing on the amended SDD, and has submitted
its recommendation to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the
appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter .|8.66 of
the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLOHADO THAT:
Section 1
The Town Council finds that all the procedures set forth for Special Development Districts
in chapter 18.40 of the Municipal code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied.
Section 2
Legislative lnlenl
A. In 1976, the Town Councilof the Town of Vailpassed Ordinance No. 7, Series of
1976, establishing Special Development District No.6 to insure the unified and coordinated
development of a critical site as a whole and in a manner suitable tor the area in which it was
situated.
It
B. Special Development District No. 6 provided in Section 14 that the Town Council
reserved the right to abrogate or modify Special Development Districl No. 6 for good cause
through the enactment ol an ordinance in conformity with fte zoning code of lhe Town of Vail.
C. In 1985, the Town Council of the Town of Vail passed Ordinance No. t, Series of
1985, providing certain amendments to the development plan for SDD No. 6'
D. In 1 989. the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No- 24, Series of 1989, providing
certain amendments to the development plan for Special Developmenl District No. 6' Such
amendments modilied and amended Section 8 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, which relates
to the allowed density of the development plan for SDD No. 6.
E.Application has been made to the Town of Vait to modify and amend certain O
sections of Special Development District No. 6 which relate to Phase lV and which make certain
changes in the development plan for Special Development District No. 6 as they relale to Phase
lv.
F. The Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vailhas reviewed the
changes submitled by the applicant and has recommended that SDD No. 6 be so amended.
G. The Vail Town Council considers that the amendments provide a more unified and
aesthetically pleasing development of a critical site within the Town and such amendments are
of benefit to the health, salety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Vail.
Section'3
Purpose
A Special Development District is established to assure comprehensive developmenl and O
use of an area in a manner that would be harmonious with the general character of the Town,
provide adequate open space and recreation amenilies, and promote the objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance of the Town.
Section 4
Development Plan
The proposed development plan shall include:
A. The development plan lor Phases l, ll and lll shall consist of the plans prepared
and submitted by Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey on February 12' 1976-
o !
I
B. The development plan for Phases lV and V shall consist of the plans and
snvironmential lmpact report prepared and submitted by Gordon R' Pierce Alchitect' daled
February 19, 1987, and revissd on April 14, and April22, 1987'
C. The development plan lor Phase lV-A shall consist of the fotlowing plans provided
by the Intratect Design GrouP.
Sheet No. 1, dated June 6, 1991, and revised July 15, 1991
Sheet No.2, dated June 6, 1991
Sheet No. 3, dated June 6, 1991
Sheet No.4, dated June 6, 1991 and revised June 18' 1991
Sheet No.5, dated June 6, 1991 and revised June 18' 1991
Sheet No. 6, dated June 6' 1991
heet No.7, dated June 6, 1991 and revised June 18' 1991
Sheet No. 8, dated JulY 10, 1991
Section 5
Permitted Uses
The permi1ed uses in Phases l, ll, lll, lV, lV-A and V ol Special Development District No.
6 shall be as set forth in the development plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance.
Section 6
Conditional Uses
Conditional Uses for Phases l, ll, lll, lV, lV-A and V of Special Development District No'
6 shal be as set lorth in Section 18.22.030 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code with the addition
of the fotlowing conditional uses:
A. An outside popcorn vending wagon that conforms in appearance with those existing
O in CommercialCore Iand CommercialCore ll-
B. No oflice uses, except those clearly accessory to a principal use will be allowed on the
Plaza level of Phases lV, lV-A and V.
d,'
Section 7
Height
A. For Phases l, lland lll, lhe allowable heights shallbe as found on the development
pfan, specifically the site plan and height plan dated March 12, 1976, provided by Royston,
Hanamoto, Beck and AbeY.
B- For Phases lV and V, the maximum building height shall be as set lorth in the
approved development plan by Gordon R. Pierce, Archilect (dated February 19, 1987, revised
April 14 and April 22,1987).
C. For Phase lV-A, the maximum building height shall be as set forth on the approved
development plan, submitted by the Intratect Design Group, as set forth in Section 4 above.
Section 8
Density
A. The gross residentiallloorarea (GRFA) forthe entire Special Development District
No.6 shall not exceed'124,527 square leet. There shall be a minimum of 148 accommodation
units and 67,367 square feet of GRFA allocated lo accommodation units in Phase lV and Phase
V of Special Development District No. 5. 3,927 square feet of GRFA shall be allocated
specifically to Unit No. 30 of the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums.
B. Condominium Unit No. 30 of the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums shall be subject
to the restrictions set forth in Section 17.26.075 of the Town ot VailSubdivision Regulations if
utilized for residential purposes.
C. In addition to the allowable GRFA set lorth in Section 8A above, Phase lV-A shall
be allocated 946 sq. ft. of additional GRFA, which shall be specilically allocated to three employee
housing units.
Section 9
Parking and Loading
A. Any application for any amendment to Phase lV of SDD No. 6, subsequent to the
effeictive date of this ordinance, shall include not less than 12 surface parking spaces, 324
underground parking spaces, and 37 underground valet spaces for Special Development District
No. 6 as indicated on the development plan submitted by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect, dated
February 19, 1987.
o
o
a
t
B. The parking requirements for Phase lV-A shall be as set forth on lhe drawings
submitted by the Intratect Design Group, dated June 6, 1991, and revised July 15, 1991, sheet
number 1.
Section 10
. The applicant or his successors in interest agreos to perform the following: .
1. Make a minimum of 65 parking spaces in the parking structure, located in lhe
Phase lll building available for short-term parking use by the general public and/or hotel guests
ol the Vail Village Inn. These 65 spaces shall not be leased to any party.
2. Prior to the issuance of any Town of Vail building permits for the construclion of
Phase lV-A of SDD No. 6., the applicant or his successors in inlerest shall provide written
evidence to the Town ol Vail Director of Community Development that a Colorado Department
Of Highways access permit has been obtained for access from the South Frontage Road
3. The applicant or his sucoessors in interest agree to permanentty restrict three
dwelling unib for use by employees ot the Upper Eagle Valley (employee housing units) in the
following manner:
A. The employee housing units shall not be leased or rented for any period
less lhan 30 consecutive days and shall be rented only to tenanls who are full time employees
in the Upper Eagle Valley.
B. The Upper Eagle Valley shall be deemed to include the Gore Valley,
Minturn, Red Clitf, Eagle-Vail and Avon and lheir surrounding areas.
C. A full-time employee is a person who works an average of thirty hours per
week.
D. The applicant or his successors in interest shall file a declaralion ol
covenants and restrictions with the Clerk and Recorder ol Eagle County in a form approved by
the Town Attorney lor the benefit of the Town to insure the restrictions set torth herein shall run
with the land. Said declaration shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval
of the Town of Vail. Subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance, no building permit shall
be issued for Phase lV-A of Special Development District No.6 untilsaid declaration of covenants
and restrictions are executed and filed with the Eagle county Glerk and Recorder.
E. Said three employee housing units shall be located as indicated on the
drawings provided by the Intratectbesign Group, Sheet No. 3, dated June 6, 1991 and Sheet No.
8, dated July 10, 1991.
4- The applicant or his successors in interest of Phases lV, lV-A and V shall
participate in, and shall not protest or remonstrate against, any improvement distric(s) which may
be established by the Town of Vail tor the purpose of consbucting improvements as set forth in
any officially adopted Town of Vail Streetscape Plan, lf and when an improvement district is
formed.
5. The applicant or his successors in interest of Phases lV, lV-A and V shall
participate in, and shall not protest or remonstrate against, establishing a pedestrian tinkage I
between Phases lV, lV-A and V ol the Vail Village Inn, lo a future commercial expansion at the
Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus site if, and when said commercial expansion is developed.
6. The applicant or his successors in interest of Phases lV and lV-A agree to transfer
by general warranty deed to the Town of Vail, free and clear of all liens and encumbrancesr a
condominium unit of approximately 3,986 sq. ft. in size. Said unit shall be located as indicated
on the plans and specifications submitted with the 1987 application. There shall be no provisions
placed on the condominium unit restricting said unit to Town of Vail's use of the unit or the
subsequent subdivision and/or sale ol the unit.
7. No grading permit, building permit or demolition permit, relating to any Phase ol
Special Development District No. 6, shall be issued until such time as reasonable evidence is
provided to the Town of Vail that construction financing has been obtained for the improvements
to be constructed.
8. Any unils in Phases lV, lV-A or V which may be condominiumized, shall be
restricted as set forth in Section 17 .26.075 (Condominium Conversion) of the Vail Municipal Code
and thereafler amended.
9. The applicant or his successors in interest of Phases lV, lV-A and V shall
reimburse the Town of Vail in the amount of $75,000 for expenses incuned in relocating the ski
museum. Of said $75,000 relocation expenses, the amount ol $27,000 shall be paid prior to the
issuance of a buibing permit lor the construction of Phase lV-A of SDD #6. The balance of
$48,000 shall become due and payable to the Town of Vail on January 1, 2005, or prior to the
issuance of any building permit lor the construction of Phase lV of SDD #6.
t
10. Any remodel or redevelopment of any of the remaining portions of SDD#6, shall
include an overall parking analysis as set forth in Section g of this ordinance.
11. provide a pedestrian easement, along the westem boundary ol the Wl (the east
side of Vail Road) of sutficienl width (as determined by the Town) lo accommodate an 8 foot wide
sidewalk with integral landscaping, Said easement shall begin at the northwest comer of the Vail
Village lnn property (said corner is also the southwest comer of lhe Vail Gateway Plaza prope.rly),
and extend along the westerly line of the Vail Village lnn property south to East Meadow Drive.
Said easement shall expire at such time that a building permlt for the construction of Phase lV
of SDD No. 6 ls issued. Prior to the Town's issuance of a building permit for Phase lV, the Town
shall reevaluate the need for pedestrian access along Vail Road and it in the Town's sole opinion,
some manner of pedestrian access is still required, the applicant or his successors in Interest
shall provide for such pedestrian access.
Section 11
lf any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall nol effect the validity of the remaining portions of
this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and
each part, section, subsection, sentence,.clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the tact that any
one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 12
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary
and proper lor the health, safety and welfare of the Town ot Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
Section 13
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision ol the Vail Municipal Code as
provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that occured prior lo lhe etfective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any
other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue ol the provision repealed or repealed
and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any
ordinance previously lepealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
!
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST HEADING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
ONCE lN FULL, this 2nd day ot JulY 1991. A public hearing shallbe held hereon
on 61 16th day of July 1991, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of lhe Town.
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
by tit)e 16thlhis re trr day of "u rJ . 1991.July
Kent R. Rose, Mayor.ATTEST:
--\ A\9dnUu l. b*,aut,ttul u,
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town-Clerk
Kent B. Rose, Mayor
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
its recommendation to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section
ORDINANCE NO. 19
Series of 1991
OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6; AND SETT|NG I t/
FORTH DETATLS tN REGARD THERETO. \ t
WHEREAS, chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal code authorizes special oJ,gtopment
Districts within the Town in order to encourage llexibility in the development of land; and
WHEREAS, an application has been made for the amendment of Speclal Development
District (SDD) No. 6 for a certain parcel of property within the Town, legalty described as Lot 0,
Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing, and commonly referred to as the Vail Village Inn Special
Development Disfict; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental
Commission, on June 24, 1991, held a public hearing on the amended SDD, and has submitted
AN ORDTNANCE REpEALING AND RE-ENACTING ORDTNANCE NO.14, ,r. | "\SERIES OF 1987 AND ORDINANCE NO.24, SERIES OF 1989; ,/ ^f-* ' \
TO PROVIDE FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE APPROVED / " ^tf' tr,.n,
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTR|CT NO. d hfl . 0 tf '
ADOPTING A REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A NEW PHASE VIA I .I I-'
()F sptrelAI nFVFI npn/|FNT nlqTnlnT Nr1 a. A tr.rrl eETTrrrra I ^{7 a tfn,tr'ot i
I
rILE COPT
18.66.080 have been sent to the
appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of
the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1
The Town Council finds that all the procedures set forth for Special Development Distdcts
in Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied.
Section 2
Legislative Intent
A. In 1976, the Town Council of the Town ol Vail passed Ordinance No. 7, Series ol
1976, establishing Special Development District No. 6 to insure the unified and coordinated
development of a critical site as a whole and in a manner suitable for the area in which it was
situated.
I
B. Special Development District No. 6 provided in Section 14 that the Town Council
reserved the right to abrogate or modify Special Development District No. 6 for good cause
through the enactment of an ordinance in conformity with the zoning code of the Town of Vail.
C. ln 1985, the Town Council ol the Town of Vail passed Ordinance No. i, Series of
1985, providing certain amendments to the development plan for SDD No. 6.
D' ln 1989, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 24, Series of 'l989, providing
certain amendments to the development plan for Special Development District No. 6. Such
amendmenb modified and amended Section I of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1 987, which relates
lo the allowed density of the development plan for SDD No. 6.
E. Application has been made to the Town of Vail to modify and amend certain
sections of Special Development District No. 6 which relate to Phase lV and which make certain
changes in the development plan for Special Development District No. 6 as they relate to phase
tv.
F' The Planning and Environmental Commlssion of the Town of Vail has reviewed the
changes submitted by lhe applicant and has recommended that SDD No. 6 be so amended.
G. The Vail Town Council considers that the amendments provide a more unified and
aesthetically pleasing development of a critical site within the Town and such amendments are
of benefit to the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of vail.
Seclion 3
Purpose
A Special Development District is established lo assure comprehensive development and
use of an area in a manner that would be harmonious with the general character of the Town,
provide adequate open space and recreation amenities, and promote the objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance of the Town.
Section 4
Development Plan
The proposed devetopment plan shall include:
A. The development plan for Phases l, ll and lll shall consist of the plans prepared
and submitted by Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey on February 12, 1976.
B. The development plan for Phases lV and V shall consist of the plans and
environmential impact report prepared and submitted by Gordon R. Pierce Architect, dated
February 19, 1987, and revised on April 14, and April22, 1987.
C. The development plan for Phase lV-A shall consist of the following plans provided
by the Iniratect Design Group.
Sheet No. 1, dated June 6, 1991, and revised July 18, 1991
Sheet No.2, dated June 6, 1991
Sheet No.3, dated June 6, 1991
,
Sheet No. 4, dated June 6, 1991 and revised June '18, 1991
Sheet No.5, dated June 6, 1991 and revised June 18, 1991
Sheet No.6, dated June 6, 1991
Sheet No.7, dated June 6, 1991 and revised June .|8, .|991
sheet No. 8, dated July 10, 1991
Section 5
Permitted Uses
The permitted uses In Phases l, ll, lll, lV, lV-A and V of Special Development District No.
6 shall be as set forth in the development plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance.
Section 6
Conditional Uses
Gonditional Uses for Phases l, ll, lll, lV, lV-A and V of Special Development District No.
6 shall be as set forth in Section 18.22.030 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code with the addition
of the followlng conditional uses:
A. An outside popcorn vending wagon that conforms in appearance with those existing
in Commerclal Core land Commercial Core ll.
B. No office uses, except those clearly accessory to a principal use will be allowed on the
Plaza level of Phases lV, lV-A and V.
o
Section 7
Height
A. For Phases l, lland lll, the allowable heights shatl be as found on the development
pfan, specifically the site plan and height plan dated March 12, 1976, provided by Royston,
Hanamoto, Beck and Abey.
B. For Phases lV and V, the maxlmum building height shall be as set forth in the
approved development plan by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect (dated February 19, 1987, revised
April 14 and April 22,1987).
C. For Phase lV-A, the maximum bullding height shall be as set forth on the approved
development plan, submitted by the Intratect Design Group, as set forth in Section 4 above.
Section I
Density
A. The gross residential floor area (GRFA) for the entire Special Development District
No. 6 shall not exceed 124,527 square feet. There shall be a minimum of .l48 accommodation
units and 67,367 square feet of GRFA allocated to accommodation units in Phase lV and phase
V of Special Development District No. 6. 3,927 square feet of GRFA shall be allocated
specifically to Unit No. 30 ol the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums.
B. Condominium Unit No. 30 of the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums shall be subject
to the restrictions set lorth in Section i.ze.OZS of the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations if
ulilized for residential purposes.
C. In addition to the allowable GRFA set forth ln Section 8A above, Phase tV-A shall
be allocated 946 sq. ft. of additional GRFA, which shall be specifically allocated to three employee
housing units.
Section I
Parking and Loading
A. Any application for any amendment to phase lV of SDD No. 6, subsequent to the
eflective date ol this ordinance, shall include not less than 12 surface parking spaces, 324
underground parking spaces, and 37 underground valet spaces for Special Development District
No. 6 as indicated on the development plan submitted by Gordon R. Pierce, Ardritect, dated
February 19, 1987.
B. The parking requirements for Phase lV-A shall be as set forth on the drawlngs
submitted by the Intratect Design Group, daled June 6, 1991, and revised Juty 15, .|991, sheet
number 1.
Section 10
The applicant or his successors in Interest agrees to perform the following:
1. Make a minimum of 65 parking spaces in the parking structure, located in the
Phase lll building available for short-term parking use by the general public and/or hotel guests
of the Vail Village Inn. These 65 spaces shall not be leased to any parly.
0K - 2. Prior to th€ issuance of any Town of Vail building permits for th€ construction of
Phase lV-A of SDD No. 6., the applicant or his successors in interest shall provide written
evidence to the Town of Vail Direclor of Community Development that a Colorado Department
Of Highways access permit has been obtained for access from the South Frontage Road
OK- g. The applicant or his suc@ssors in interest agree lo permanenfly restrict lhree
dwelling units for use by employees of the Upper Eagle Valley (employee housing units) in the
following manner:
A. The employee housing units shall not be leased or rented for any period
less than 30 consecutive days and shall be rented only to tenanb who are full time employees
in the Upper Eagle Valley.
B. The Upper Eagle Valley shall be deemed to include the Gore Valley,
Minturn, Red Cliff, Eagle-Vail and Avon and their surrounding areas.
C. A full{ime employee is a person who works an average of thirty hours per
week.
D. The applicant or his successors In Interest shall file a declaratlon of
covenants and restrictions with the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County in a form approved by
ths Town Attorney for the benefit of the Town to Insure the restrictions set forth herein shall run
with the land. Said declaration shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval
of the Town of Vail. Subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance, no building permit shatl
be issued for Phase lV-A of Special Development Dlstrict No. 6 untilsaid declaration ol covenants
and resrictions are executed and filed with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder.
o
0K-
E. Said three employee housing units shall be located as indicated on the
drawings provided by the Intratect Design Group, Sheet No. 3, dated June 6, 1991 and Sheet No.
8, dated July 10, 1991.
4. The applicant or his sucoessors in interest of Phases lV, lV-A and V shall
participate in, and shall not protest or remonstrate against, any improvement distric(s) which may
be established by the Town ol Vail for the purpose of constructing improvements as set forth in
any officially adopted Town of Vail Streetscape Plan, if and when an improvement district is
formed.
5. The applicant or his suc@ssors in interest of Phases lV, lV-A and V shall
participate in, and shall not protest or remonstrate against, establishing a pedestrian linkage
between Phases lV, lV-A and V of the Vail Village Inn, to a future commercial expansion at the
sonnenalp Bavaria Haus site if, and when said commercial expansion ls developed.
OK - 6. The applicant or his successors in interest of Phases lV and lV-A agree lo transfer
by general warranty deed to the Town of Vail, tree ind clear of all liens and encumbrances, a
condominium unit of approximately 3,986 sq. ft. in size. Said unit shall be located as indicated
on the plans and specifications submitted with the 1987 application. There shall be no provisions
placed on the condominium unit restricting said unit to Town of Vail's use of the unit or the
subsequent subdivision and/or sale of the unit.
7. No grading permit, building permit or demolition permil, relating to any Phase of
Special Development District No. 6, shall be issued until such time as reasonable evidence is
provided to the Town of Vail that construction financing has been obtained for the improvements
to be constructed.
8. Any units in Phases lV, tV-A or V which may be condominiumized, shall be
restricted as set forth In Seclion 17.26.075 (Condominium Conversion) of the Vail Municipal Code
and thereafter amended.
9. The applicant or his sucoessors In Interest of Phases lV, lV-A and V shall
reimburse the Town of Vail in the amount of $75,000 for expenses incurred In relocating the ski
museum. Of said $75,000 relocation expenses, the amount of $27,000 shall be paid prior to the
issuance of a building permit for the construction of Phase lV-4 of SDU6. The balance ol
$48,000 shall become due and payable to the Town of Vail on January 1, 2005, or prior to the
issuance of any building permit for the construction of phase lV of SDD #6.
o
10. Any remodel or redevelopment ol any of the remalning portions of SDD#6, shall
include an overall parking analysis as set forth in section 9 of this ordinance.
OK - 1 1. Provide a pedestrian easement, along the western boundary of the Wl (the east
side of Vail Road) of sufficient width (as determined by tre Town) to accommodale an I foot wide
sidewalk with integral landscaping. Said easement shall begin at the northwest corner of ths Vail
Village Inn property (said corner is also the southwest corner of the Vail Gateway plaza property),
and extend along the westerly line of the Vail Vlllage Inn property south to East Meadow Drive.
Said easement shall expire at such time that a building permit for the conslruction of phase lV
of SDD No. 6 is issued. Prior to the Town's issuance of a building permit for Phase lV, the Town
shall reevaluate the need for pedestrian access along Vail Road and il in the Town's sole opinion,
some manner ol pedestrian access ls still required, the applicant or his successors in interest
shall provide for such pedestrian access.
Section 11
lf any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of
this ordinance; and the Town Gouncil hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and
each part, section, subsection, senlence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of tre fact that any
one or mor€ parts, seclions, subsections, sentences, Clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 12
The Town Council hereby llnds, determines and declares that this ordinance ls necessary
and proper lor the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
Section 13
The repeal or the repeal and reenaclment of any provlslon of the Vall Munlclpal Code as
provided in thls ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that occurred prior to he etfective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any
other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provlsion repealed or repealed
and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any
ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
INTRODUCED, HEAD ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
ONCE lN FULL, this_day of 1991. A public hearing shaltbe held hereon
on the _ day of .1991, at the regular meeting of the Town Councit of the
Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building ot the Town.
ATTEST:
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
thls _ day of _____- '1991.
ATTEST:
Kent R. Bose, Mayor
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
t
1, lb,q (
I
lrlrb-
ryft
';
P.A f, ,/4 *r&'-Z/7
/
I
I
.*
04 tZ. tt44 / m(
(1"'*, t1 fl"tn- ' V ,trn fl^- 7'4 ""-4 */ ,gz
ry e-"J,tt"Z
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUB.JECT:
Town.ounci, ry
Community Development Depanment
July 16, 199't
Vail Village Inn - Second reading ol Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1991
Since the Town Council's initial review of the Vail Village lnn redevelopment proposal (July 2,
1991), Josef Staufer has made some modifications to the floor plans of the proposed remodel.
At the Council's request, the applicant has added three permanently restricted employee
dwelling units within the project. Two of the employee units would be located on the fourth
floor of the "east" building where the previous plan included two accommodation units in that
area ol 250 so. ft. and 307 sq. ft.
Pancake House building. To compensate for the two accommodation units in the
trasi-6ui|-ffig--TnAECftonversion into employee units, the applicant is proposing two
accommodation units on lhe third floor of the Pancake House building. These two
accommodation units will be larger han the originally-proposed accommodation units, and
would consist of an additionalT4S sq. ft. of GRFA.
The total GRFA for the Wl, including the revised Phase lV-A, would be 85,487 sq. ft. Phase
lV-A of the VVI would consist of a total of 13 accommodelion units, comprising 6,681 sq. ft. of
GRFA, and 3 employee dwelling units, comprisfg 946 fuI. of GRFA.
The additional 748 sq. tt. of accommodation unit GRFA will also require an additional 0.748
parking spaces. The three restricted employee units will have a parking requirement of 1.5
spaces per unit, tor a total of 4.5 parking spac€s.
Floor plans indicating the revised layout of the accommodation units and the employee
dwelling units will be available at the evening Council meeting. A revised south elevation for
the Pancake House building is attached to this memorandum.
\\\)lu>
x, \'s\J-
t)\\
7
[.
(7sFY
d
TU
)>
\s
\i\
t
a C-;( ry. -----) '7.2.7(
I i I s'^- '
/ln'n''' ,**. -#< a.J ) a4 /J tr /6 *rh, /4,.ii4-./"//
;''t ! bJ4 Zrt:
nn- :9..**^"J ,,-1 ,fu Ud tr/. /rJ"r-/l ,tfunq-,
;;
S"e l. :-tGl,rh; # /
/
- $opr,"^ ,."- 4 4,e /-A ) "/."4t ^ 4zu ( | -/ / / / t
,t
K"-x-tu.al&-il * fr'fur!&/.y-( /#^.
)D '6 lL /.^ /v,74; &
,W
lr",-/..i /",*."4 /t."<-_--
b.z./ ry /a%.
i /4/^',r - g*rr,*^i *-?r^l na rry /^ "*'*#. & e
,td/ n\* I =d --tg'. UJ -tu NI Sae ,- aK /^t,"y 7 fza,.- @
K ( ::"t-e*n J G"J'fu. +/l [.e *-".,e2 , ' ' \\- rT ry)
,-/nl. zn<- /r4, ..-r .* /;4 t/-'-< 4 .
+--\) tr€ .-
H,,a- - Au*.- A^l t z "t /1? / -.* ,k ?f,-*J
o /\( f ffirn+.,'- "l G.L4 t/\
\_/
//,6fr #= F #1 "t\re.a
+l- j
# t rr rru /k ?/;/ ^'zw .. ,.{n/a*< ry, a So^ .'t
| , z-oas tt cr7a6; / /.4.- g, '-./&^
LorA4 tr- g/r{ -ar4,e, L y ,x or-,-e;-Q, A/-d 5'oa { 4t
, _ //74rt4;?i
4t@
t GrzFA fr a*^ z7r2r< /r,-X .-+ ../€ jr*4 at Zp
/4 rt& e r?/'4 B-+'
.U.tAtur
o 5}D fAi
tnr,\^ t\alx: 5qrcn$QeA-
H$ sal,.o +oWoi
e) MAd&\ \\ \)P{c^^^rt^ir\t^ lu 009
DaQr.- T\aai" qt"\.u 1\
5mtnrr€ UAaq tatlryV t f faod-i
OaQ,r' - Twi" 1e,tr$ru l\Q",t\w'
o
16 ??.,bDQ q{ il.}J- bqS^,L bf \gn, \r }OoS
i-f|fo^ I Q\*zu Q $r\r''\# octuq
,/ r\ ir i,. llilo O.dvrarot
o
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM:
DATE:
Community Development Department
July 2, 1991
SUBJECT: Vail Village Inn, Special Development District No. 6
The Planning and Environmental Commission, at their June 24, 1991 public hearing,
unanimously recommended approval of the requested m4or amendment to the Vail Village
Inn Special Development District No. 6. The Planning Commission vote was 4-0. The PEC
recommendation to the Town Council for approval carried with it the following conditions:
1 . The recommended conditions, numbers 1, 2, 5,6, 7, and 8, as identified in the statf
memorandum dated June 24, 1991 be included.
2. lf and when the entire Phase lV of the Vail Village Inn is proposed for redevelopment,
the parking requirements for the entire project (Phases l, ll, lll, lV and V) shall be
required to be provided in their entirety. Additionally, any parking allowances which
were approved as a part of the June 24, 1991 PEC review would not affect the final
parking determination for the entire Phase lV.
3. This condition specifically modifies the statf's recommended condition 8, regarding the
provision of one on-site permanently deed restricted employee housing unit. The PEC
modification would allow for the developer of the VVI to provide one permanently deed
restricted employee housing unit on- or off-site, as long as said unit is within lhe
municipalboundaries of the Town of Vail. The PEC modificalion is as follows:
'The developer agree to permanently restrict the unil owned in Pitkin Creek
Park for the length of his ownership. lf the Pitkin Creek unil or the Vail Village
Inn development is sold, a unit within the Town of Vail, of the developer's
choice, shall be permanently deed restricted as an employee housing unit."
The PEC also felt the staff's recommended conditions 3 and 4 were appropriate requests.
However, the PEC, in the motion for approval, indicated these items should be
recommendations only, and not specific conditions of approval.
| {.e u r s La
ORDINANCE NO. 19
Series of 1991
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RE.ENACTING ORDINANCE NO. 14,
SER|ES OF 1987 AND ORDTNANCE NO.24, SERTES OF 1989;
TO PROVIDE FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE APPROVED
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6;
ADOPTING A REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A NEW PHASE IV.A
OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.6; AND SETflNG
FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEHEAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes Speciat Development
Districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility in the development of land; and
WHEREAS, an application has been made for the amendment of Special Development
District (SDD) No. 6 for a certain parcel of property within the Town, legally described as Lot 0,
Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing, and commonly referred to as the Vait Village Inn Special
Development District; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental
Commission, on June 24, 1991, held a public hearing on the amended SDD, and has submitted
its recommendation to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the
appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of
the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1
The Town Council finds that all the procedures set forth for Special Development Districts
in Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied.
Section 2 - Legislative lntent
A. In 1976, the Town Council of the Town ol Vail passed Ordinance No. 7, Series of
1976, establishing Special Development District No.6 to insure the unified and coordinated
development of a critical site as a whole and in a manner suitable for the area in which it was
situated.
B. Special Development District No. 6 provided in Section 14 that the Town Council
reserved the right to abrogate or modify Special Development District No. 6 for good cause
through the enactment of an ordinance in conformity with the zoning code of the Town of Vail.
C. In 1985, the Town Council of the Town of Vail passed Ordinance No. 1, Series of
1985, providing certain amendments to the development plan for SDD No. 6.
D. Application has been made to the Town of Vail to modify and amend certain
sections of Special Development District No. 6 which relate to Phase lV and which make certain
changes in the development plan for Special Development District No. 6 as they relate to Phase
lv.
E. ln 1989, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 24, Series ol 1989, providing
certain amendments to the development plan for Special Development District No. 6. Such
amendments modified and amended Section 8 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, which relales
to the allowed density of the development plan for SDD No. 6.
F. The Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has reviewed the
changes submitted by lhe applicant and has recommended that SDD No. 6 be so amended.
G. The Vail Town Council considers that the amendments orovide a more unified and
aesthetically pleasing development of a critical site within the Town and such amendments are
of benefit to the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Vail.
Section 3
Section 18.50.020 - Purpose
A Special Development District is established to assure comprehensive development and
use of an area in a manner that would be harmonious with the general character of the Town,
provide adequate open space and recreation amenities, and promote the objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance of the Town. Ordinarily, a special development district will be created only when the
development is regarded as complimentary to the Town by the Town Council, Planning and
Environmental Commission and Design Review Board, and lhere are significant aspects of the
special development which cannot be salisfied under the existing zoning.
Section 18.50.040 - Development Plan
The proposed development plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following data as
supplemented by exhibits provided by consultants Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey on
February 12, 1976 for Phases l, ll, lll, and as supplemented by the exhibits of the development
plan and the environmental impact report as prepared by Gordon R. pierce, Architect (plans dated
February 19, 1987, revised April 14 and April 22,1ggl,), and as given final approval through
passage of second reading of this ordinance by Town Council on May 19, 1987 for phase lV and
Phase V. This approval recognizes that Phase lV may be constructed in two phases with the first
phase to be referred to as Phase v and the final phase to be refened to as phase lV.
The proposed development plan for Phase lV-A includes the drawings provided by the
Intratect Design Group, dated June 6, 1991, sheet numbers 1-7.
Section 4
Section 18.50.050 - Permitted Uses in Special Development No. 6
The permitted uses in Phases l, ll, lll, lV and V of Special Development District No. 6 shall
be as set forth in the approved development plans on file in the Town of Vail Community
Development Department.
Section 5
Section 18.50.060 - Conditionat Uses
Conditional Uses for Phases l, ll, lll, lV and V of Special Development District No. 6 shall
be as set forth in Section 18.22.030 of the Town ol Vail Municipal Code and as set forth below:
A. An outside popcorn vending wagon that conforms in appearance with those existing
in Commercial Core land Commercial Core ll.
B. No office uses, except those clearly accessory to a principal use will be allowed on the
Plaza level of Phases lV and V.
Section 6
Section 18.50.110 - Distance Between Buitdings
The minimum distance between buildings on adjacent sites in Phases l, ll and lll shalt be
as indicated in the development plan, but in no case shall be less than 50 feet. In phases lV and
V, the minimum distance between buildings on adjacent sites shall be as indicated in the
development plan as submitted by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect (dated February 1 g, 1987, revised
April 14 and April 17, 1987).
Section 7
Section 18.50,120 - Height
A. For Phases l, lland lll, the allowable heights shallbe as found on the development
plan, specifically the site plan and height plan dated March 12, 1976.
B. For Phases lV and V, the maximum building height shall be as set forth in the
approved development plan by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect (dated February 19, 1987, revised
April 14 and April 17, 1987).
C. For Phase lV-A, the maximum building height shall be as set forth on the approved
development plans, submitted by the Intratect Design Group, dated June 6, 1991, sheet numbers
1-7.
Section 8
A. Section 18.50.130 - Density
The gross residential floor area (GRFA) for the entire Special Development District No.
6 shall not exceed 124,527 square feet. There shall be a minimum of 148 accommodation units
and 67,367 square feet of GRFA allocated to accommodation units in Phase lV and Phase V of
Special Development District No. 6. 3,927 square feet ol GRFA shall be allocated specifically to
Unit No. 30 of the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums.
B. Condominium Unit No. 30 of the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums shall be subject
to the restrictions of Section 17.26.075 of the Town of Vail Subdivision Flegulations if utilized for
residential purposes.
Section 9
Section 18.50.130 - Building Bulk
Building bulk, maximum dimensions for building elements, requirements for wall offsets
and vertical stepping of roof lines for Phases l, ll, and lllshall be as indicated on the development
plan submitted by consultants Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey and dated February 12,1975.
The building bulk, maximum wall lengths, maximum dimensions for building elements,
requirements for wall offsets and vertical stepping or roof lines for Phases lV and V shall be as
indicated as per the approved development plans submitted by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect (dated
February 19, 1987, revised April 14 and April 22,1987).
Section 10
Section 18.50.180 - parking and Loading
Any application lor the redevelopment of Phase lV, subsequent to the effective date of this
ordinance, shall include not less than 12 surface parking spaces, 324 underground parking
spaces' and 37 underground valet spaces for Special Development District No. 6 as indicated on
the development plan submitted by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect, dated February 19, 19g7. The
parking requirements for Phase lV-A shall be as set forth on the drawings submitted by the
Intratect Design Group, dated June 6, 1991, sheet number 1.
Section 11
The developer agrees to perform the following:
1' Open up the 65 additional parking spaces in the structured parking, in the Phase
lll building, tor short-term parking use by the generat public.
2' Flemove the existing asphalt parking area immediately south of the Gateway plaza
Building, and provide landscaping in this area. Final review of the landscape design shall be
reviewed and approved by the DRB prior to installation.
3. Secure a Colorado Department Of Highways access permit prior to the issuance
of any Town of Vail building permits for the proposat.
4- The developer is presenlly the owner of Unit 7-L, pitken creek park
Condominiums, located in the Town of Vail. The developer agrees to place the following
reslrictions on the use of this unit for the entire term of his ownership thereof (employee housing
restrictions):
A. The employee housing unit shall not be leased or rented for any period less
than 30 consecutive days and shall be rented only to tenants who are full time employees in the
Upper Eagle Valley.
B.
Minturn, Red Cliff,
c.
week.
The Upper Eagle Valley shail be deemed to inctude the Gore Vailey,
Eagle-Vail and Avon and their surrounding areas.
A full{ime employee is a person who works an average of thirty hours per
D. The applicant or his successor in interest shall file a declaration of
covenants and restrictions on the records of the Clerk and Recorder ol Eagle County in a form
approved by the Town Attorney for the benefit of the Town to insure that the restrictions set forth
herein shall run with the land and shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval
of the Town of Vail. Subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance, no building permit shall
be issued for Special Development District No. 6 until said declaration of covenants and
restrictions are executed and filed with the Eagle County Clerk and Becorder.
Should the developer sell lhe unit 7-L in the Pitken Creek Park Condominiums, or
should he sell any of his interest in the property designated as Phase lV of this Special
Development District No. 6, he shall within 6 months of such sale purchase another dwelling unit
or accommodalion unit located within the Town of Vail and subject said unit to lhe employee
housing restrictions.
5. The developers and/or owners of Phases lV and V shall participate in, and shall
not protest or remonstrate against, an improvement district for streetscape improvements to Vail
Road and East and/or West Meadow Drive, il and when an improvement district is formed.
6. The developers and/or owners of Phases lV and V shall participate in, and shall
not remonstrate against, establishing a pedestrian linkage from Phases lV and V of the Vail
Village Inn, to a future commercial expansion at the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus site if, and when
it is developed.
7. The developers andior owners ol Phase lV agree to transfer by general warranty
deed to the Town of Vail, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, a condominium unit of
approximately 3,986 sq. ft. in size and to be located as indicated on the plans and specifications
submitted with the 1987 application. There shall be no provisions placed on the condominium
unit restricting the Town ol Vail's use of the unit or the subsequent subdivision and/or sale of the
unit.
8. No grading permit, building permit or demolition permit, relating to any Phase of
Special Development District No. 6, be issued until such time that reasonable evidence is
provided to the Town of Vail that construction financing, for the improvements to be constructed,
has been obtained.
9. Any units in Phases lV or V which may be condominiumized, shall be restricted
as set forth in Section 17.26.075 (Condominium Conversion) of the Vail Municipal Code and any
amendments thereto.
10. Prior to the issuance of a buiHing permit for the construction of any phase of
SDD#6, the developer and/or owner of said phase shall reimburse the Town of Vail for expenses
incurred in tacilitating the relocation of the ski museum ol an amount not to exceed $75,000.
t
-v
11. Any remodel or redevelopment of any of lhe remaining portions of SDD#6, shall
include the parking as required In Section 10 of this ordinance.
Section 12
lf any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of
this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and
each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any
one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 13
The Town Council hereby linds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary
and proper tor the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
Section 14
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as
provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any
other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed
and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any
ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
ONCE lN FULL, this _day ot 1991. A public hearing shallbe held hereon
on the _ day of 1991, at the regular meeting of the Town Gouncil of the
Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal BuiHing of the Town.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this _ day of , 1991.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
\0tArr- VrlHcs INN
Village Inn Plaza Condominiums
mil JUN z ,i9vi
June 26, 1991
Mr. Mike MolLica, Sr. planner
Town of VaiL
75 So. Frontage Road W.Vail, C0.81657
Dear Mike:
This is to confirn Vail Village Innrs willingness to conmitthat Pltkin Creek park lJnlt llTL will be used for employee
housing .
Should the unit be sold, Vatl Village Inn will reserve theright to replace enployee housing wlth elther a hotel roomor another unit in Vall which will agaln be made availablefor long term rental.
Sincerely yours,
VAIL VILLAGE INN
100 East Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-5622
FAX (303) 476.46r
Jos e
Presi
JS: fn
Dire c tor
Present
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Ludwig Kurz
Jim Shearer
FILE COPY O
PLANMNG AND EWIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
June 24, 1991
Staff
Krisan Priu
Mike Mollica
fill Kammerer
Shelly Mello
Amber Blecker
Absent
Connie Knight
Kathy Langenwalter
Gena Whinen
The public hearing was called to order at 2:l5PM by Chairpenon Diana Donovan.
l' A reouest for a worksession for heieht. parkins and densitv (GRFA/common area\
variances for the Sonnenalo. Part of l-ots K & L. Block 5-E. Vail Villaee First Filing/
20 Vail Road.
Anplicant Sonnenalp Properties
Planner: Andv Knudtsen
Kristan Priu explained the changes in the proposal from the one submitted several months
previously. These included asking for variances for common area./accessory use, height and
parking, instead of proposing a Special Development District. Kristan explained the issues
staff believed were important to discuss, and these included the proposed parking,
landscaping, employee housing, and a stream walk.
At the conclusion of Kristan's presentation, Jay Peterson, the applicant's representative,
further explained the proposal. Regarding the parking, Jay indicated applicants were working
with the staff to reach a compromise between the number of spaces provided and interior
landscaping. The height variance was being requested in order to accommodate "chillers," a
form of cooling for tJre rooms, in an enclosed area of the roof to most effectively screen the
bulk and noise from the units.
Jay presented applicant's position that a 35Vo allowance for common area in a 100% lodge
project was not sufficient. A first-class facility would usually have a grcater demand for
common area. He indicated that the GRFA for the project was actually below that which was
permitted for the site.
Regarding stafFs stream walk recommendation, Jay pointed out that it was a study area, and
not a conoept specifically designated in the Land Use Plan. He stated it was valid, however,
to ensur that the project was not dcveloped in such a way as to prohibit futurc stream walk
development, and the proposal did not prcvent such development.
Staff s recommendations had included exploring the provision of employee housing with this
proposal. Jay pointed out that the expansion was going to only add an additional 10 sleeping
rooms, and there would be no staff additions necessary to accommodate the redevelopment.
Jay also observed that the amount of additional parking required under thc proposal was due
to the size of the rooms. Although the rooms would still only accommodate 2 people, the
size was increasing the parking space per room percentage.
Jim Wear, the attorney for the Talisman Condominiums, siated the Talisman was generally in
favor of the proposal, and reiterated that the stream walk should be looked at only as a study
item. Kristan asked if the Talisman and Sonnenalp had solved the access easemcnt question,
and Jim replied they had, and the wo generally had a good working relationship. Jim felt the
easement could be resolved-
Ludwig Kurz asked if some of the outside dining area would be lost. Kristan indicated it
would be partially infrlled. Ken O'Brien, the Sonnenalp's architect, stated the additional
space in the dining portion on the east side of King Ludwig's would make up for the loss on
the dining deck. Kristan stated approximately 350 sq. ft. of the dining deck would be
removed.
Ludwig believed the amount of commory'accessory space v/as absolutely necessary for the
project, and was important for the creation of a first class facility. He did not consider the
height variance to be much of a problem, as it was a trade off for better concealing the
chillers. He did question if the chillerc would create a sound nuisance. Ken answered they
would not, as the sound would be directed upward.
Ludwig suggested that with the efficiency of parking the Sonnenalp was able to maintain
through strict controls, the shorfall was acceptable, especially in light of staffs study finding
the actual usage of the lot to be less than l(D7o. He recommended additional landscaping be
substituted for some of the parking.
Ludwig was hopeful the project would not neglect the possibility of a compatible future
stream walk Hc believed a str€am walk would enhance the Sonnenalp's guests' experience.
He recommcndcd thc developer continue to consider the option.
Addressing the overall landscaping of the proposal, Ludwig believed some arcas of the project
could be improved. He specifically cited that the railrcad ties could be removed in existing
planter areas, particularly at the Meadow Drive bus stop.
Ludwig Kurz asked how the proposed new garage would help the use. Mr. Schofreld stated it
would eliminate one car from the driveway. Jim Shcarer questioned how many of the similar
driveways viewed in the photographs were also in the road easemenl Mr. Schofield indicated
all were. Kristan Pritz said she was not surc that was correct, as the photographs showed
many different options for a turnaround, and she believed they were not similar to the
situation at hand.
Jim stated he supported the entire proposal, with the exception of thc driveway. He thought
the additional pavement would hurt the "curb appeal" ofthe property, hated to lose the
landscaping, and would prefer a walk wall to the timber steps. Mrs. Schofield answercd they
had originally proposed stone, but the DRB had changed it to timber to better fit in with the
neighborhood. Diana Donovan also wanted to see stone. However, the DRB had the final
say.
Diana had no problem with the garage variance, but had diffrculties witlr the drive. John
Schofield asked if she had an alternativri for the drive. Diana was not surc, but she pointed
out many other homes in this area have back-out driveways. She did conclude, however, that
the Mugo pines should be moved to help sight access. Shelly Mello suggcsted cuuing back
the comer arca to increase visibility. Diana thought that perhaps an angle to widen the
access. She suggested working the details out with staff. Kristan agreed to work with the
applicant as well as the Town Engineer to determine an acceptable driveway plan.
Chuck Crist moved to approve the request for a front setback variance for the Schofield
Residence, Lot 18, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing/1448 Vail Valley Drive pcr thc staff
memo, with the findings as indicated in the memo. fim Shearer seconded the motion. It was
unanimously approved, 4-0.
3, A reouest for a side setback variance for the Heiman Residence. Lot 9. Block l. Gore
Crcek Subdivision/S 134 Grouse Lane.
Apolicant Mr. and Mrs. Paul Heiman
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Shelly Mello gave tbe staff presentation of thc request. She indicated there was one
correction, and that was the dwelling would remain a single family residence. She explained
the reason for the requested variance was to increase in the existing non-conformity with
regard to setbacks. Staff rpcommended approval of thc rcqucst, with the condition that the
utility casement be vacated beforc a building pcrmit was issued.
Sam Sterling r€presented applicants. He indicated therc appeared to be an eror in the GRFA
numbers indicated in the memos, thosc discrepancies being GRFA figures and that after
further evaluation, only 7 trecs would be removed. Staff noted the corrected figures for the
file.
4.
Ludwig Kurz suggested moving some of the trees near the utility easement instead of cutting
them down. Mr. Sterling said applicants would be agreeable to moving them to the southwest
comer of the lot. Diana Donovan asked that ncw trees be planted to help keep the building
addition hidden. Mike Mollica asked that a general range of numbers for thc trees be
indicated to gve the Design Review Board a direction. Chuck Crist suggested 3-5
evergreens. Diana expanded that suggestion to state that natural-looking trecs should be used
to replace the existing. Sam Sterling stated nanral-gown trees would be used.
Ludwig Kurz moved to approve the request fo'r a side setback variance in order to expand the
single family residence located within the 2-Family Residential Zone District, I-ot 9, Block I,
Gore Geek SuMivisiory'5l34 Grouse Lane per the staff memo, with the conditions staled in
the mcmo, and an additional condition that 3-5 lodgepolc pincs be planed in the southwest
comer of the lot. Chuck Clist seconded the motion. It passed unanimously, 4-0.
After a five minute recess, the Commission reconvened.
Mike Mollica explained the changes made to the proposal since the previous PEC
workscssion. Staff recommended approval, with the conditions listed in staffs memo.
Overall, staff found positive changes and improvement in the submittal from the previous
viewing.
The applicant, Josef Staufer, said he had come away from the worksession with fwo major
issues from the Planning Commission. The first was the architectural compatibility of the
entire project, and the second was the amount of parking provided. In rcsponse to those
concerns, he had amended the proposal to change the roof of the Pancake House to blend
with the east building, adding approximately $100,000 to the price of the project. Hc had
also ensured that 1 parking space was added for every new unit proposed. If the Planning
Comrnissioners wanted more parking, there were 16 spaces on thc bench between the Food
and Deli and the Gateway Plaza which could be converted back to parking. From the
worksession, however, Mr. Staufer had gotten the opinion that staff and the PEC would prefer
landscaping in that location. If landscaping were placed on that bench, Mr- Staufer would
request a "credit" for those lost spaces.
On the employee housing issue, Mr. Staufer stated the WI ranges from 30 to 40 employees.
To accommodate those employecs, the hotel ran a private bus from l*adville/Red Cliff. They
also purchased bus passes for those employees living in Avon/Eagle-Vail. They havc assisted
with loans for down payments of homes in certain instances, and outright own two units
locally. The WI ensures all cmployees have accommodations. If they are unable to find
housing for an employee, they have made rooms in the hotel available when necessary. The
hotel has always addressed their own housing needs, and Mr. Staufer did not feel it was fair
to spend more money to permanently restrict another unit. They have a commiunent to
providing housing to those of their employees in nee4 but wanted flexibility to address their
nceds in their own way.
Regarding the other conditions of approval in the staff memo, Mr. Staufer said there was no
moncy left to provide the sidewalk/landscaping after the roof change to thc Pancake House.
That change added 10Vo to the project costs, and if additional requirements were placed on
the project, he would withdraw his application, as it would no longer be financially viable.
Bill Pierce, the applicant's architect, snted they had looked at restrucuring the current
parking, including removing the restricted parking at the Food and Deli, in order to provide
more parking. They had decided to eliminatc the restrictions on 7 of the 9 parking spaces at
the Food and Deli, their leases with nvo of the tenants prohibited the removal of the other 2
restricted spots. In addition, the applicant had responded to the Planning Commission's
request to change the roof of the Pancake House.
As Mr. Pierce saw it, the parking remaincd the most significant issue. 75% of the rcquired
parking was being provided. In addition, 14 new parking spaces werc provided under this
redevelopment, when only I I were required- If this had been any other redevelopment
projecC they would only bc required to providc parking for the new addition. The current
parking was adequate for the needs, as illustrated in a survcy completed by the applicant
during Presidents' Week. That week is when the highest percentage of winter visitors drive
their own cars. During that week, at least 35 spaces were available at all timcs. In addition,
the applicant disagrced with the parking requirements for Phase V.
Mr. Pierce did not believe the sidewalk along the Frontage Road would benefit the WI, as
most of the pedesnian access to the project is from Meadow Drive. The cost of such a
sidewalk would be extremely high, and he felt the Town should incorporate it into their
streetscape plans, and not require an individual owner to provide a Town amenity.
Chuck Cbist asked for clarification of the parking numbers. Mike Mollica explained how the
numbers were calculated. After a general discussion of the parking rcquirements for the
project, Kristan Pritz summarized that the problem was that the structured spaces were not
available to the public. Bill Pierce stated they would open up thc structure. Diana Donovan
asked how it would be implemented? She suggested a validation system. Joe Staufer agreed
that would be the most beneficial. Mike Mollica stated staff had no problems with the
parking plan if the structue were opened to the public. Mr. Staufer joked he was going into
thc parking business. Diana did not want people to be charged if they were genuinely
shopping. Joe said he intended to have 12 hour free parting, and then requirc validations.
Mike Mollica clarified thc number of spaccs to be opened. Mr. Staufer said there were 65
spaces available and owned by the Vail Village Inn. Diana wanted it to be made clear that
this parking would not affect the bouom line rcquirement for the entire SDD when all phases
were completed. Joc Staufcr said they have only paid a part of ttreir pa*ing debt; there was
still parking outstanding. Diana clarified they were not making any deals at this point to give
credits against the otal parking requirements. Mr. Staufer agreed with that alisessment.
Chuck Clist still had concems about tfre hndscaping, but felt it was acceptable. Jim Shearer
wished the sidewalk could still be provided- Joe Staufer also cxpressed a desire to see a
sidewalk, but stated he could not do it as part of this redevelopment, and suggested the Town
build it. Jim said it was a piece-by-piece process to gain a solution to the p,roblem. Mr.
Staufer reiterated there was no pedestrian traffic along the South Frontage Road in that
location.
Jim asked if staff and applicant were comfortable with the chimney design. Bill Pierce said
they would work out the design with the DRB. Mike Mollica asked the Commissionen if the
agreed that the design should be changed. Diana said it necded to be changed as it looked
upside-down.
Jim said that, overall, the applicants had responded to the concems from the previous PEC
worksession. Ludwig Kurz stated the change to the existing buildings was positive overall.
In terms of the sidewalk and landscaping, he did not want to ovcrburden the applicant with
doing tm much. He saw very little pedestrian traffic in that location. It would be nice to
have, but it was not needed. Ludwig asked if there was a usc survey of the existing pa*ing.
Joe Staufer said it was under-utilized, but used more in the winter.
Diana Donovan commented that with no current guarantee from the developer to restrict an
employee unit, she favored setting aside a unit. Joe said his record spoke for itself. If he
wanted to have quality cmployees, he had to address their housing pmblems. It would be
counter productive to restrict housing that could be rented. That not only hurts him, but hurts
the Town by reducing the amount of people in Town, and reducing their porcntial spending.
Kristan Prie clarilied they were not necessadly advocating restricting a hotel room, but it
could even be at an off-site location. The Town did not want to promote the loss of an
accommodation unit. Joe said he addressed the problem cach time he hired someone. He
asked it be left up to the owner of the WI to address the problem. Diana said the problem
was not with him, but a general problem that units kept being sold and employee housing
reduced. She advocated a unit somewhers in the Town being resricted, and suggested that
even providing nansportation to a site outside the Town might suffice.
Joe reiterated that employee housing is an employer's problem, and asked if the
Commissioners would agree to having him resnict the Pitken Creek Park unit he currently
owned. Kristan said that was a vcry good solution. Joe asked if the unit could be restricted
for the length of ownership. If the VVI were to be sold without the Pitken CYeek Park unit as
part of the deal, one hotel room would be resricted Diana Donovan said that sounded good.
Kristan thought it was very reasonable.
.
Diana said thc parking worked fotr now, but reiteratcd that no "dcal" had been made which
would affect the frnal parking numbers. She would like to see some condition for the
eventual provision of additional landscaping. Joe said that if he were required to spend more
on this project, he would leave with his proposal at that point. He just could not do more at
this time. Krisun suggested a compromise with just a littlc more landscaping, something
similar to thc Crossroads additions. The landscaping could be located so that if the Town did
provide a sidewalk in the future, the plantings would not be tom out. The Colorado
Departrnent of Highways pretty much has acccptcd the concept of a sidewalk. Greg Hall,
Town Engineer, said that a simple utility pcrmit would be all that was rcquired from the
CDOH for the sidcwalk, and that was a fairly simple pnocess. Diana said not a lot of
landscaping was needd just frnishing off thc cxising. Joe said they kecp adding
landscaping, but it was repeatedly tont out when thc utility companies came through. Diana
told Mr. Staufer it was important for the Commission to be consistent with their
recommendations, but the Council could change the rcquircments.
Diana said she felt the parting providcd with this rcnovation was adcquate if the parking
garage were opened to the public.
Mike Mollica stated that, since this was a major amendment to a Special Development
Disrict, a formal recommendation to the council was needed.
Jim Shearer moved to recommend approval of the request for a major amendment to Special
Development Disuict No. 6, Vail Village Inn, 100 East Meadow DriveA.ot O, Block 5-D,
Vail Village Fint Filing per the staff memo, per the revised plans, and with the revised
conditions as follows:
That the applicant be required to open up the structured parking, in the Phase Itr
building, for shon-term parkins use by the gencral public. With this provision of an
additional 65 parking spaces, the staff would bc able to suppoft the project's overall
parking plan.
That the applicant temove the existing asphalt parking area immediately south of the
Gateway Plaza Building, and provide landscaping in this area. Final review of thc
landscape design shall be reviewed and approvcd by the DRB prior to installation.
That the applicant provide a pedestrian sidewa[q adjacent to South Frontage Road,
beginning on the west end of the WI prcperty (where the Gateway sidewalk now
ends), and continue the sidewalk east to the western boundary of the Crossroads
property.
That the applicant provide additional landscaping along the entire northern FoPerty
line of the WI.
That the applicant reconsider the proposed design solution for the elevator and
chimney caps. This issue shall be further reviewed and considered by the Design
Review Board.
Il.
4.
J.
3.
6.
7.
That a CDOH access permit be securcd prior to the issuance of any Town of Vail
building permits for thc proposal.
That the eight conditions of approval listed in Section 11 of Ordinance No. 14, Series
of 1987, be includcd in the ordinance required for this projccf Said conditions arc as
follows, (with the staffs recommended changes indicated by the bold qpc):
A. That the developers and/or owners of Phases IV and V participate in, and do
not r€monstrate against, an improvement district for streetscape improvements
to Vail Road and East and West Meadow Drive, if and when an improvement
district is formed.
B. That the dcvelopers and/or ownen of Phases IV and V participate in, and do
not remonstrate against, establishing a pedestrian linkage from Phascs IV and V
of the Vail Village Inn, to a future commcrcial expansion at the Sonnenalp
Bavaria Haus site if, and when it is developed.
C. That the developer receive approval from the Colorado State Highway
Department, for any change in use on the property, Prior to the issuance of a
Town of Vail building permit.
D. That the developers and/or owners of Phase IV agree to transfer by general
warranty deed to the Town of Vail, frec and clear of all liens and
encumbrances, such condominium unit of approximately 3986 sq. ft in size
and to be located as indicated on the plans and specifrcations submitted with
the application. There shall be no provisions placed on the condominium unit
restricting the Town of Vail's use of the unit or the subsequent suMivision
and/or sale of the unit.
That no grading permit, building permit or demolition permit, relating o any
Phase of Special Development Disrict No. 6, be issued until such time that
reasonable evidence is provided to the Town of Vail that construction
financing, for the improvements to be constructe{ has been obtained.
Restrictions on any units in Phases IV or V which would be condominiumized,
shall be as outlined in Section 17.26.W5 (Condominium Conversion) of the
Vail Municipal Code and any amendments thereto.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any phase of
SDD#6, the dcveloper and/or owner of said phasc shall rcimburse the Town of
Vail for expenses incurred in facilitating the relocation of the ski museum (into
Phase V) of an amount not to exceed $75,000.
E.
F.
G.
t0
I \ H. Any remodel or redevelopment of any of the remaining ponions of SDD#6,
i shall include the parking as required by Ordinance 14, Series of 1987.
The developer agrce to pemranently restrict onc unit currently owned in Pi&in Cf€ek
Park for employee housing for the length of his ownership. If the Pitkin Creek Park
unit or the Vait Villagc Inn development is sol4 a unit within the Town of Vail, of
the developer's choice, shall bc permanently dccd resrictcd as an employee housing
unit. Said employee unit shall meet the rcstrictions as follows: the employee housing
unit shall not be leased or rentcd for any period less than 30 consecutive days, and
shall be r€nted only to tenants who arc full-time cmployecs in the Upper Eagle Valley.
The Upper Eagle Valley shall be deemed to include the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red
Cliff, Gilman, Eagle-Vail and Avon and their surrounding areas. A full-time employee
is a person who worls an avcrage of thirty hours pcr wcek. The applicant c his
sucoessor in interest shall file a declaration of covenants and resnictions of record in
the office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recordcr in a form approved by the Town
Attorney for the benefit of the Town to insure that the restrictions hercin shall run
with the land and shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval of
the Town of Vail. This declaration shall be submitted to the Town Atorney for
review and approval and subsequently cxecuted and filcd with the Eagle County Clerk
and Recorder prior to Town of Vail issuance of any building permit for the Vail
Village Inn.
Any parking allowances made for ttris Phase IV-A redevelopment shall not diminish
the overall pa*ing rcquirements of the SDD.le.
Conditions 3 and 4 arc not specific conditions of approval, only recommendations, as the
Planning C-ommission found other factors to be more important.
Chuck Crist seconded the motion. Discussion took place regarding the overall parking
requirements, wittr the decision that staff would work out the specific wording to indicate the
requied parking for the entire SDD was to be provided underground, and any new units built
in the completion of Phase IV would be added to that requirement. Jim and Chuck agreed to
that amendment, and to all other amendments to the motion contained above. The vote was a
unanimous 4-0 in favor.
5. A reouest for a worksession on the establishment of a Soecial Developrnent District
for an unplatted parcel located in a oart of the SE l/4 of thc SE l/4 of Section l.
Townshio 5 South. Ranee 81 West. 6th Prime Meridian. eenerallv located north of
Sandstone Drive and west of Potato Patch Drive.
Apnlicanc Abe L. Shapiro
Planner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica explained the request. At the conclusion, Abe Shapiro, the applicant, askcd to
expound on his proposal. Hc indicated the retaining walls would exceed the maximum
ll
allowable height only in a portion of the length, and the average height would not exce€d the
maximum of 6 feet. The cut and fill aleas would be similar in character, exceeding the
maximum 2:1 slope in some areas, but the overall avcragc would be very close to 2:1. Mr.
Shapiro said the overall impacts and retaining walls would be less than those approved for the
Spraddle (}eek subdivision.
Mr. Shapiro related that when he had otigndly requested to build on this lan4 his variance
request was denied because it was believed nothing could bc builr At this point, he felt that
all the required information had becn submittcd to the United States Forest Service (USFS),
and was in the revicw process. He had been given no rEason from the USFS to believc the
access approval would not bc granted-
Addressing the accessory uses he was proposing, Mr. Shapiro said the only accessory
buildings would be a greenhouse and a barn, both of which were permitted uses in the zone
district. He believed his proposal was an appropriate use for his 7 acre site. He did not think
the mass and bulk of the buildings should be an issue, due to their low height and siting on a
plateau shelf which would prohibit view of the lower floor of the dwelling from the Valley
floor. He said the lower half of the building would not be seen by most people. He was not
planning an urban development, and in fact wanted to retain the agricultural and open space
character of the parcel.
Mr. Shapiro felt that 2,000 sq. ft. of GRFA was the old standard for sites with that zoning.
He did not tlfnk that many, f *y, people in Vail were coming through requesting single
family dwellings of 2,000 sq. ft. or less, as less than 3,0fi) sq. ft. was just not feasible with
curent land values. In addition, even though he would be entitled to build a l,?.OO sq. ft. 4-
space garage, he was only proposing a 3-space, 900 sq. ft. garage. He was not just trying to
"max out" all space available to him, simply to construct to his needs.
Mr. Shapiro tumed his attention to addressing the employee housing proposal. He felt that if
he did not build a unit for his employee needs, he would be taking an existing stmcture out
of the existing dwelling unit base in the Valley. He stated that would impact the housing
available for a ski area employec. In other zone districts, the Town was proposing to add
accessory units, and that was what he was trying to do wittr his proposal.
A concern of the staff had been hazard mitigation. Mr. Shapiro said no improvements would
be placed on a NVo or greater slope. He asked to not constmct a hazard mitigation berm, as
it would scar the hillside further, and IvIr. Shapiro preferred to build with rcinforced concrete
walls. He would prefer to rcinforce thc strucares thcmselves, and intended to use the
reinforced concr€te. He asked for the flexibility to do so-
Comparing his proposal to existing development, Mr. Shapiro stated if one looked from the
Valley floor up to the site, improvements east and west of his parcel were built at even higher
elevations with what he believed to be greater visual impacts. He was prepared to mitigate
the potential impacts of additional frll with landscaping to negate the concerns over that fill.
t2
It
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
STJBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Devclopment Departrncnt
June 24, l99l
,$
*l[
o
W'
A request for a major amendment to Special Development Distict No. 6, Vail
Village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot O, Block 5-D, Vail Village First
Filing.
Applicant Josef Staufer
Planner: Mike Mollica
I. INTRODUCTION
Josef Staufer, owner and dcveloper of the Vail Village Inn, has filed a rcquest for an
amendment to Special Development District No. 6, for his property located at 100 East
Meadow Drive. The purpose of this SDD amendment is to allow for the redevelopment of a
portion of the final phase @hase IV) of the Vail Village Inn SDD. For clarification purposes,
staff will call this redevelopment request Phase IV-A.
The Vail Village Inn has an existing approved development plan for the entirety of Phase IV.
This development plan was approved through Ordinance 14, Series of 1987 (May, 1987).
Additionally, Ordinance 24, Series of 1989 (November, 1989), modified the density section of
the 1987 ordinance by incrcasing the allowable GRFA. These two ordinances are still valid
for SDD No. 6, and have been included as Exhibits A and B attached to this memorandum.
The staff recommends that the PEC review these ordinances to fully understand the
background and prior approvals for the Vail Village Inn before proceeding further in this
memorandum. A brief summary of said ordinances is listed below in Section III of this
memorandum.
il. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOI.JEST
The applicant's redevelopment proposal includes the upgrade and renovation of the east
building which currently houses the hotel lobby, front desk area, and the Coyote Bar, as well
as the adjacent Pancake House Building to the west. Included in the redevelopment of the
"east" building would be the addition of two residential levels above the existing structure,
@allyasac a
rotal of 13 additidalm5,gtts+*ft. orGRFA. One
additional gas burning fueplace is proposed in the largest accommodation unit on the top
\I
floor. An elcvator is proposed to bc constructcd at ttre southwest comcr of the building,
which would acccss all four floon. Additionally, the existing meeting room which is located
on the second floor, would be cxpanded to thc south by infilling an existing deck, This
additional squa$ f@tage would consist of approximately 243 sq. ft. of floor area.
The proposed improvements to the Pancakc House Building includc a ncw roof structure, and
painting and/or staining the building to match the remodeled building to the east.
(/-1. ,. It is proposed that the new portions of this building be equipped with an sutomatic sprinkler
lJit/tt" slstem'
Site impnovements called for in this rcdevelopment plan would include ttre addition of 14
surface parking spsccs. Ten of these parking spaces would be considered rcgular spaces, and
thc remaining four spaces would be classified as valet-type spaces. These valet spaces would
be rcsenyed for exclusive use by employees of the Vail Village Inn, and the location of these
spaces would be to the nonhwest of the Village Inn Pancake House restaurant and
immediately east of the Gateway Plaza Building.
The proposal also calls for limiled landscaping improvements. Specifically, the applicant is
proposing one additional new planter, which would be located on the west side of the main
entrance at the South Frontage Road.
ilI. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
A. The following are the existing phases of the Vail Village Inn:
Phase I - This consists of the buildings located at the southeast corner of the
WI property, and includes one dwelling unit of approximately 4,000 sq. ft. in
size, as well as the following commercial establishments: Alpenrose
Restaurant, Ambrosia Restaurant, Village Inn Travel, Village Inn Spons,
Houston Gallery, Gold of Vail, Village Inn Plaza Liquors, Eve's, and Total
Beauty.
Phase II - This phase consists of three residential dwelling units of
approximately 3,500 sq. ft. in size, as wcll as the following commercial
establishments: Intemational Gallery, Unique Art, and Tezla.
Phase III - Phase III is located at the northeast corner of the WI property and
consists of 29 residential dwelling units, with approximately 44,830 sq. ft. of
GRFA, and the following commercial cstablishments: Driscol Gallery,
Velveteen Rabbit, Kitchenworks, Vail Antiques, Annie's and Vail Boot and
Shoe.
a
a Phase IV - This was the original Phase, and the oldcsq at the VVI, and
consists of 62 accommodation unit, with approxirnately 16,585 sq. ft. of
GRFA, and also includes thc Food and Dcli, WI Pancake House and the
Coyote Bar. Therc is also a 1,2(X) sq. fr conferenceAneeting space and
miscellaneous and ancillary offrccs for the hotcl.
Phase V - Phase V is the building located at the corner of Vail Road and East
Meadow Drive, and oonsists of 11 dwclling units (9 of which have lock-offs),
and 3 accommodation units, with 9972 sq. ft. of GRFA. Phasc V also
includes Blano's Pizza, the Vail Resort Association and approximately 3,500
sq. ft of retail, commcrcial usc.
Ordinance No. 7, Scries of 1976, originally established the Vail Village Inn
Special Development Disrict No. 6.
Ordinance No. l, Series of 1985 (March 5, 1985) granted 120,600 sq. ft. of
GRFA to SDD No. 6. This ordinance also rcquired a minimum of 175
accommodation units (AUs) and 72,400 sq. ft. of GRFA, devoted entirely to
AUs in Phase IV. This ordinance also listed six conditions of approval.
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987 (May, 1987), amended Phase IV of SDD No'
6. This amendment allowcd Phase IV to be broken into two distinct and
separate phases, which were callcd Phase IV and Phase V. This ordinance also
set the maximum GRFA for the SDD at 120,600 sq. ft. Additionally, the
ordinance required a minimum of 148 AUs and 67,367 sq. ft. of GRFA
devoted to AUs in Phases fV and V. Thc ordinancc also listed eight conditions
of approval.
Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989 (Novembca 1989) amended the density
section of SDD No. 6. This ordinance modiEed the SDD by increasing the
allowable GRFA to a total of 124,527 sq. ft. This allowed Unit No. 30
(originally Good's retail) in the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums to be
convened from commercial use to residential use. This space consists of 3,927
sq. ft. of GRFA, and the conversion to residential use has since been
completed. This ordinance also maintained the previous approval for "a
minimum of 148 AUs and 67,367 sq. fr of GRFA, devoted to AUs, in Phases
IV and V of SDD No. 6."
ry. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The following table outlines the applicant's redevelopment proposal with refercncc to the
underlying Public Accommodation zoning, the cxisting project, thc previously approved Phase
IV, and the currcnt proposal. To maintain simplicity, only those development standards
5voJ.5
B.
c.
D.
which are specifically applicable to this project are listed.
€ruqe.ou4o.
,=-= -> - -- .: ---
Underlylng Zoning -'\r.er rJrutt @utx6 '\
blic Accommodatis-f
Site fuea
Setbacks
Building Height
GRFA
Unis
Site Coverage
Parking
3.455 acres u
150500 sq. ft-
20 ft" on all side.s
45 ft" - Flat Roof
48 ft - Sloping Roof
120,400 sq. ft.
25 dwelling units per acre
or 86 DUs for he site
82,775 sq. ft.
Exbting
Esissg
Same
N = &ottugp Rd: 41 fr
to pqtc cocherq 72 fr
o frce of building
3l fr
78,806 sq. ft.
?6.5 DUs
(see below)
N/A
Previously
Aooroved SDD
Same
20 fL to fac€ d
bndlding; I ft- to
porte cocherc
Varhs - wilh a
73 ft- maximum
1?/.527 q.tL
120.5 DUs
Per the approved
development
plan
Same
Proposed
SDD
Same
No change from existing
58 fu o top of ridge
6l fL to ridge over
clevator
8{J39 Phase IV-A
12/.527 Enwe Phase IV
83 DUs
245 sq. ft. of additional
site coverage
Same
a
Per lhe cunent
development standards
(See Appendix A)
Same
Phase I
Phase tr
Phase III
Phase IV
Phase V
Totals
Existine DUs
I
3
29
0
I l't
M
Existine AUs
0
0
0
62
3
+65** = 76.5 DUs
Phase [V-A is proposed to have 0 DUs and 13 AUs = 6.5 DUs
* (9 of the I I DUs have attached lock-offs)
*:* 2AUs=lDU
o
V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA
The criteria to be used to evaluate the Vail Villagc Inn redevelopmcnt, Phase IV-A, are &c 9
Spocial Dcvelopment Disuict (SDD) dcvclopnent standads sct forth in the qpecial
development disuict chapter of the Zoning Code. Thc criteria are as follows:
A. Design compatibility end sensitivity !o the immediate envirunment,
neighborhmd and rQjaoent properties rdative to architectural desigl'
scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual
integrity and orientation.
Architecturally, the key issue is to mainain conprtibitity and work with the character
of the existing sructur€s in the vicinity. Staff acknowlcdges that this is a very
difficult task to perform, given the varied archircctural styles of adjacent buildings.
Staff suppons the design direction the applicant has proposed for the projcct. We
believe that the additional npo floors and the new roof strusturc would be compatible
with the character of the adjaccnt structur€s. Additionally, the applicant has proposed
to install all new siding materials on the existing lower levels of the structure, which
would match the new upper levels. The applicant has also proposed to install a stucce
finish on the north and west clevations of thc porte cocherc (around the arched
openings).
Given the close proximity of the VVI Pancake House building immediately to the
west, the applicant has also proposcd improvements to this structure so that it blends
architecturally with the adjoining "east" building. The proposed improvements to this
structure include upgrading the enthe roof area of the building, to architecturally tie it
in with the proposed remodel of the stnrcture to the east. No GRFA would be added
to the enlarged roof area" howcver, Orc applicant would propose to install a new boiler
in this attic area to service the Food and Deli Building. Additionally, the applicant
has proposed to paint and/or stain thc Pancake Horsc Building to match the 'bast"
building and to further ensure srchitectual compatibility among the structurcs. We
believe it is positive that the applicant is making an effort to upgrade the materials and
the style of the Pancake House Building, as well as the east building.
The staff would recommend that the applicant rtevaluate the proposed roof form over
the clcvator tower, as well as thc roof form over the ccntral chimney caps. We
believe that these clemcnts should be of an architectural style which would be more in
line with the caps on the adjacent structur€s.
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and
workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
The staff is very supportivc of thc applicant's tdcvelopment plan with rcgard to uses,
activity and dcnsity, givcn the fact that thc proposal includes the addition of 13
accommodation (hotel) rmms and an cxpuded conference space.
The existing cornmercial square footagc Qross arca), which includes rctail commcrcial
and restaurant "senricc arca" space, at thc VVI is approximately 33,557 square feet.
No additional commercial squarc fmtage is ruguestcd as a part of this proposal.
With the adoption of the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study on November 20,
1990, employee housing is no longer a porcntial ooncern, but it is an issuc which must
be addressed formally. The Affordablc Housing Study has bcen adopted and provides
guidelines for new development. Currently, the report's recommendations are being
incorporated into the Znning Code. kr addition, thc Land Use Plan calls for employee
housing by stating:
Goal 5.3 - "Affordable employee housing should bc madc available through
private efforts, assisted by lfunited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail,
with appropriate restrictions."
Although the Vail Village Inn does provide sornc employee housing, both on site and
off site, there is currently no permanently resricted employee units on site. No
additional employee housing is proposed by the Vail Village Inn for this
redevelopment. It should also be mentioned that most Special Developrnent Districts
in the past have provided some number of cmployee housing units within the proposal.
Given the scale of this project, with an approved GRFA of 124,527 sq. ft., the staff
believes a redevclopmcnt of this magnitude should have some p€nnanent employee
housing. Staff recommends one rcstricted employee dwelling unit be provided on site,
cithcr in the existing dcvelopment or in trc proposcd rcdevclopment, Phase IV-A.
C. Compliance with the parking and loading requirements 8s outlined in
Chapter 18.52.
The Vail Village Inn parking analysis, as indicated in Appendix A, shows a total
parking requirement for the Vail Village Inn pnoject, which includes Phases I, II, III,
IV and the proposed [V-A, as tr;ng?A3 parting spaces. The existing parking
sulrcture, located at the lowcr levels of the Phase Itr building, currently provides 109
parking spaces. Additionally, therc are currently 45 regular surface-parking spaces (9
of which arc privately reserved and arc not available to the general public), and 16
6
F
jI,4b ffi
'*
W/f{213
ffila rt ?'Gqo 4 ^"*u
valet parking spaccs on-sirc, for a total of 6l parking tp#r. thc appllcant is
proposing to add 14 surfaoe.parking spooes as a port of this prrpocal. Thc total
parking which would be provided wonld be 184 spaccs, whlch equals 1SJ% .1
the rcquircd parking.
The staff believes that the rcquired parking for Phase V, as wcll as for the new
proposal (Phase IV-A) must be addresscd- It rhould bc nocd that whcn tbe Phase V
building was approved, the parking requiremcnt was dcfcrred until thc final phasc of
thc WI was constructed (the rcdevelopment of Phase IV). Ordinance No. 14, Series
of 1987, under Section 11, lists 8 conditions of approval for the develqment plan for
Phases tV and V. Condition No. I rcads as follows:
"Any remodel or redevclopmcnt of the remaining portion of SDD 6, commonly
referred to as Phase V, shall include pa*ing as required by Ordinance 1, Series
of 1985.'
It is the staffs opinion that this current redevelopment proposal riggers condition
number 8, and that the required parking for Phase V must now be addrcsscd.
According to the staff s calculations of the Phase V building, the parking requirement
for Phase V shall be as follows: (See Appendix B for the specific breakdown)
l.
2.
3.
4.
Retail =
Restaurant =
Residcntial =
11.77 spaccs
4.25 spaces
23.44 spaces
Total Requirement = 39.46 spaccs
The parking requirement for the proposed Phase fV-A is ff.B spaces. The
cpmbined parking requirement for Phase W.A and Phase V is 48 parking spaces
(39.46 spaces + 11.13 spaces = 50.59 - 5% multi-use credit = 48).
The parking issue is two-fold. First, the suff is of the opinion tlrat condition number
8, listed in Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987 (as stated above) is applicable to this
redevelopment proposal. The Planning Commission, at their June l0th public
worksession, concurred with this opinion. Bascd upon this PEC dccision, thc applicant
must now provide, or address the issuc of parking for Phase V. The sccond issue is
thc applicant's proposal to p'rovide an additional 14 surface parking spaccs, when a
re4uirement of 48 spaces is stipulated by the code. The applicant has prcsented a
parking utilization study that analyzed parking during peak times ofoccupancy. This
study is included as Appendix C.
It should bs undentood that the 109 space parking structurc, located in the Phase III
building, is currently not open and available for use by the gcneral public. ln addition,
a
9 surface pa*ing spaces, which arc adjaccnt to the Food and Deli Building, are
currently rcsened and ale also not available for use by the general public. Of the
total 109 prking spaces in tbc stnrcturr, 44 of those spaces are currcntly deeded to
condominium owners of the Vail Villagc Inn (15 of thosc 44 dccded spaoes are
decded to condominium owners within Phase V).
Since the Junc lOth wo'rksession, 6c applicant has agrccd to rcmove the parking
rusricdons on 7 of the 9 parking spaces in front of thc Food and Deli Building.
Thesc sevcn spaces would be available fm short-tcrm parking by the general public, in
addition to thc 14 new spaces on the nofth sids of ttre project. The staff believes that
this is a positive step towards rneeting the Town's parking rcquircments. However,
* the staff maintains that the applicant should be rcquired to open up the sructured
Dope -{ parking (in thc Phasc III Builiing) and to allow the general iublii the use of the 65
undceded spaces in the sructurc. If the structured parking spaces wcrc available to
the general public, the staff be able to thg gverall parking plan at thewI.
D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan,
Town policies and Urban Design Plans.
This redevelopment plan was analyzed according to the recently adopted Vail Village
Master Plan. The specific goals, objectives and subarea plans of the Vail Village
Master Plan which pertain to the Vail Village Inn project are listed below:
1.2 Obiective:
Encourage the upgrading and rcdevelopment of residential and commercial
facilities.
1.2.1 Policv:
Additional development may be allowed as identified by the Action Plan and
as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide
Plan.
1.3 Obiective:
Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvernents
done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town.
1.3.1 Ps!!gy:
Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private
scctor working with the Town.
o
2.3 Obiective:
Incrcase thc numbcr of rcsidcntial units availablc for short rcrm overnight
accommodations.
2.3.r 3s!isx;
The development of shon torm aocommodation units is srongly encouraged.
Residential units that art dcvct@ aborrc existing dcnsity levels are required
to bc dcsigncd or muragcd in a manner that makes them available for short
term overnight rental.
2.5 9$ective:
Encourage thc continued upgrading, rtnovation and maintenance of existing
lodglng and commcrcial facilities to bctter scrvc the nccds of our guests'
3.1 9biecllve:
Physically improve the existing pedesuian ways by landscaping and other
improvements.
3.1.1 Policv:
Private development projccts shall incorpcarc sgtetscape improvements (such
as paver treatrnents, landscaping, lighting and seating arcas), along adjacent
pedestrian ways.
3.r.3 Ps!!sJ:
Flowers, utes, water features, utd other landscaping shall be encouraged
throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas.
3.4 Obiectives:
Develop additional sidewalks, pcdestian-only walkways and accessible green
space areas, including pocket parks and stream access.
3.4.2 Psligy:
Private development projects shall be rcqufued 19 incorporate new sidewalks
along streets adjacent to ttre project as designated in the Vail Village Master
Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan.
s.l.l Eq$sy:
For new development that is locarcd outside of the Commercial Core lZane
District, on-site parking shall be provided (rathcr than paying into the parking
fund) to me€t any additional parking dcmand as required by thc zoning code.
5.1.5 Eslisy:
Redevelopment projccts shall be strongly cncornaged to provide underground
or visually concealed parking.
5.4.2 Pdlsy:
t'tcdians and right-of'ways shdl be landscapcd-
Thc Vail Villagc Master Plan has i&ntificd trc Vail Villagc Inn as subarca concept
number l-1, which is copicd in its cndrcty bclow:
ffi'lagernnpro1cct to bc couPlated as
I;a$irth;a ly ae.'"toPuent Pran
for SDD 16. connercial
iivefopulnt at ground level to
irale interlor plaza riUr
oi-.ntp.... uals of buildings
lniti istep up" froa lxisting
iiacstrtari rcilc alonE lteadow-oiivc to {-5 rtories elonE t}re
iiintase Road- DesiEm lust be
censitivc to lalntaLnlng vt'cw . -corridor troD a-way 3+-oP to valr
Uountain. Special lEPlrasls-on- -i.i, i.2,2.i,2.6, J.2, 1'1' 5'1,
6.1.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural snd/or geotogic-hazards that affect
thepropertyonwhictr-thespecia|deve|opmentdistrictisproposed.
Therc are no narural and/or gcologic hazards which would affcct this property and/or
rcdevelopment proposal.
F. site ptan, building design and location and open space provisions designed
to proOuce a funJtionat-development rcsponsive nn-d_sensitive to natural
f*tu"es, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
There is essentially no changc to thc cxisting building fooprint with this proposed
rrdevclopment. As indicati in Scction fV of this memorandum, thc setbackS for the
10
o
underlying PA zonc distict are 20 feet ftom all prcperty lines. This proposal will
certainly mcct thc 20 fmt rrquiremcng as thc minimum distance from the porte
cochcrc to thc ncarcst propcrty linc would bc 41 feet.
Thcre will bc no significant chmgcs mads to tbs Vail Villagc Inn opcn space
provisions, as only AS sq. fr of additbnal arca will bc covercd by buildings.
C. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing
on and off-slte traflic circulrtion.
Vehicular Circulation: After rcview of thc p'roposcd surfae-parking layout, the staff
believes that the gcneral vehicular circulation systsm appcars adcquate. Thc Town of
Vail Fire Departncnt has rcviewed 0ris proposal, and docs not take issue with the
project. The Public Works Dcpartncnt also has no problcms with the general
vehicular circulation plan. However, they are concemcd about some cxisting drainage
problems in thc surface-parking alea just nonh of the Pancake House, which would
need to be corrected and addrrcsscd ttrough the building permit process.
Duc to the change in use on the site, a Colorado Departrnent of Highways access
permit will need to bc sccured, prior to the Town issuing a building pcrmit for the
project.
Pedesnian Circulation: Pedestrian circulation is a key issue the staff would like to
address. It is well known that a long-standing goal for Vail is to improve upon the
pedestrian experience through the development of a continuous network ofpaths and
walkways. Specific to the Vail Village Inn project, the Vail Village Master Plan, as
well as the Town of Vail Recreation Trails Master Plan and the Master Transportation
Plan, specifically call for bicycleficdcsrian ways along bo0r sides of the South
Frontage Road. Through the redevelopment process at the adjacent Gateway Plaza
site, thc developer was rcquired to provide a pedcstrian sidcwalk along the cntire
length of the Gateway propcrty along Vail Road and South Frontage Road. At this
time, staff believes it appropriate to rcquest that the developer of the Vail Village Inn
cxtcnd the sidcwalk wherp the Gateway cnded it, and continue thc walk for the ftll
length of the WI Foperty cast to thc Gossroads site. Staff acknowledges that there
are some grade difficulties through this uca, and also that cooperation fiom the
Colorado Department of Highways (CDOH) will be n€ccssary. The Town staff is
willing to assist the applicant in securing the nccessary CDOH permits to install the
pedesrian connection.
The current Vail Village Inn SDD Amendment proposal, does not include any
improvemcnts to the pedesuian circulation syslem as dcsctibed above.
ll
Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open spacu in order to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
The proposal has provided limitcd additional landscaping, specffically in the form of
one new planter, which would bc locarcd on the west sidc of thc access drive off of
South Frontage Road. Thc proposed landscaping includes 2 Aspen and 1 Blue Spruce.
Again, with cooperation from the CDOH, staff bclievcs that additional landscaping
added along the entire nonhern pmpcrty line of thc Vail Village Inn would be
bencficial. We believc additional landscaping and scrrcning in this area would not
only benefit the general public, by assisting in the buffering of the structuries from the
Frontage Road and I-70, but will also bcnefrt the propcrty owner and guests of the
WI in the same manner.
The staff would also recommend that ttre applicant rrmove the existing asphalt area
south of the Gatcway Building. This arca has been used as surface parking, however,
we believe that it would be a benefit to both projccts (VVI and Gateway) to add
landscaping in this area.
The proposal will not encroach into any of the Town's adopted view corridors.
I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional
and ellicient relationship throughout the development of the special
development district.
The applicant has proposed that the redevelopment plan @hase IV-A) be completed at
one time. No phasing plan is proposed.
It is the staff s position that the redevelopment plans for the entire Phase IV, which
are addressed in Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, are still valid. Should the
developer with to proceed with this previously approved plan at some futurc date,
which would necessitate the demolition of Phase IV-A, final DRB approval will be
required. If there are changes or modifications to the plans, then a major SDD
amendment will be requircd.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation for the proposed major amendmcnt to Special Development
Disrict No. 6, the Vail Village Inn, is for approval with conditions. The staff believes
that the proposed upgrade and remodel would be a very positive change at the VVI.
We suppon the project, with the following condidons of approval:
That the applicant be required to open up thc sructured parking, in the Phase
III building, for short-term parkins use by the general public. With this
l2
|';
_3)
-4)
provision of an additiond 65 par*ing spaces, thc staff would be able to support
thc project's ovErall parting plan.
That the applicant Emovc ttre cxisting asphalt parting area immediately south
of the Gateway Plaza Building, and provide landscaping in this area. Final
revicw of the landscapc desigr shall be rwicwed and approvcd by the DRB
prior to installation.
That the applicant provide a pedcsuian sidewalk, adjacent to South Frontage
Road, beginning on thc west cnd of the WI proPcrty (whcre the Gateway
sidewalk now ends), and continuc ttrc sidswalk cast to tltc westem boundary of
the Ctossroads property.
That the applicant provide additional landscaping along the entire northern
propefty line of the WI.
That the applicant reconsider ttre proposed design solution for the elevator and
chimney caps. This issue shall bc further reviewcd and considcred by the
Design Review Board.
That a CDOH access permit be secured prior to the issuancc of any Town of
Vail building permits for the proposal.
That the eight conditions of approval listcd in Section ll of Ordinance No. 14,
Series of 1987, be included in the ordinance required for this proje* Said
conditions are as follows, (with the sraffs recommended changes indicated by
the bold type):
A. That the developers and/or owners of Phases IV and V participate in'
and do not r€monstrate against, an improvcmcnt district for streetscape
improvements to Vail Road and East and TVest Meadow Drive, if and
when an improvement district is formed.
B. That the developers and/or owners ofPhases IV and V participate in'
and do not t€monstrab against, establishing a pedesuian linkage from
Phases IV and V of the Vail Vitlage Inn, to a future commercial
expansion at the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus site if, and whcn it is
developed.
C. That thc devcloper rpccive approval from the Colorado State Highway
Departrnent, for any change in use on the property, prior to the
issuance of a Town of Vail building pcrmit.
@
@)
13
D.That the dcvelopers and/or ownen ofPhase IV agrec to ransfer by
general waranty deed to thc Town of Vail, free and clear of all liens
and encumbrances, such condominium unit of approximately 3,986 sq.
ft. in size and to be located as indicated on the plans and specifications
submined with thc application. Ihcrc shall be no provisions placcd on
thc condominium unit resriaing the Town of Vail's use of thc unit or
the subscquent subdivision and/or sde of thc unit
That no grading permit, building permit or dcmolition permit, relating
to any Phase of Special Devclopment Disrict No. 6, be issued until
such timc that rcasonablc evidence is provided to the Town of Vail that
construction financing, for the improvements to be consmtcted, has been
obtained.
Restrictions on any units in Phases IV m V which would be
condominiumized, shall be as outlined in Section 17.26.075
(Condominium Convercion) of the Vail Municipal Code and any
amendments thercto.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the consmtcdon of any
phase of SDD#6, the developer and/or owner of said phase shall
reimburse the Town of Vail for expenses incurred in facilitating the
relocation of the ski museum (into Phase V) of an amount not to exceed
$?5,000.
Any remodel or redevelopment of any of the rcmaining portions of
SDD#6, shall include the parking as requircd by Ordinance 14, Series
of 1987.
The developer must provide one permanently deed restricted employee housing
unit on site at the Vail Village Inn. Said employee unit shall meet the
restictions listed in Section 18.13.080(BXl0) of the Town of Vail Municipal
Code.
E.
F.
G.
H.
,n,ry|,{o1a@
+?PCM
l4
APPENDD( A
Vail Vlllage Inn Parking Analysis*
l.
2.
3.
4.
).
6.
Phase I
A. Retail
B. Restaurants
C. Rcsidential
Phase II
A. Retail
B. Residential
Phase III
A. Retail
B. Residential
Phase fV
A. Food & Deli
B. Restaurant and Bar
C. Residential
D. Conferencenr4eeting Area
Phase V
A. Retail
B. Restaurant
C. Residential
Phase fV-A
A. Residential
Parkine Soaces Requircd
19.t2
16.50
2.50
38.r2 38.12Subotal
Subotal
Subtotal
r2.99
4.9
17.98 17.98
84.45
25.r2
59.33
84.45
6.00
11.@
41.30
5.07
Subtotal 63.97
Subtotal
Parking requirements were determined by using thc Town
time of construction.
Grand 7o1r1. 242ffi = 243
standards in effect at the
tr.77
4.25
23.44
39.46 39.46
lt.l3 = 11.13
Total: 255.11
-5% Multiple
Usc Credi* -12.75
l5
'1
APPENDIX B
WI. Phase V Parking Analysis
A.
B.
Basement Lcvel (Vail Reson Association)
Ground Irvel
l. Retail: 2,865 + 668 = 3533/300
2. Restauranu 510/15/8
Second Lcvel
Parking Spaces Reoufu€d
0
1T.77
4.25
c.
l.
2.
3.
4.
).
6.
7.
Unit #l = 402 + 398 = 800
Unit #2 = 343 + 461 = 804
AU =229
Unit #3 = 232 + 376 = 608
Unit #4 = 475 + 317 = 792
Unit #5 = 445 + 219 = 724
AU = 224
2
2
0.63
2
2
2
0.63
D.Third L,evel
l. Unit #6 = 396 + 224 = 620
2. Unit #7 = 397 + 318 = 715
3. Units #8 & #9 are combined into one unit
=454+ 314+35 +712=1515
4, Unit #10 = 445 + 777 = 722
Fourth Level
l. AU =2792. Unit #l I = 388
3. Unit #12 (with loft)
= 598 + 244 + 36 + 273 + 4L0 = 1552
2
2
2
2
E.
0.67
1.5
2
39.46
16
al
tJ;! U&4 \^-). 24.
,1(
>LqA- Rq rro- /r-'*A lfw ht^ o -#/aq, avet."s
f aO - 40 o7a7*z -l - ,'eu) -€')" y a''\'e /''-"*1 fu 1"'ar4 4
vvr {'5",--4:^ 4h-? i,-ta,"4
Tt"r{t' Z- PA e*'/ } tt ; t ,.r..i-t
-€<
tn.{-*l
/Uzar.'r '. ?Qy/ \=' fuO, Ofa)
(#zo-t6-r": / t#)o
c. c^,*fr,$ /44.a
o
jA.*--fr2,od # 1 r-z o\ ^rz4^rreJ-74.-t
*r4
e./r--.rf,tr A, tl , a\-
4.>&,
/rv't # P/-.4
@D /,4 a4"l dtl4ta/./ dr
,//< 6 -.t-i J
\_
./r-La.ubl !t44 41,, .fu .7g-,t"t //-48 - A 4O 4.ft u^4,
Vo{- : 4 -o
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
ii:J( ". ./-l,' \l.4,t-tx!ur
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Oommission
Community Development Department
June 24, 1991
F[[.8 fiilFT
SLIBJECT: A request for a major amendment to Special Dcvelopment Distict No. 6, Vail
Village Inn, 1(X) East Meadow Drivcfl-ot O, Block 5-D, Vail Village First
Filing.
Applicanr Josef StauferPlanner: Mike Mollica
I. INTRODUCTION
Josef Staufer, owner and developer of the Vail Village Inn, has filed a rcquest for an
amendment to Special Development District No. 6, for his property located at 100 East
Meadow Drive. The purpose of this SDD amendment is o allow for the redevelopment of a
portion of the final phase @hase IV) of the Vail Village Inn SDD. For clarification purposes,
staff will call this redevelopment request Phase IV-A.
The Vail Village Inn has an existing approved development plan for the entirety of Phase IV.
This development plan was approved through Ordinance 14, Series of 1987 (May, 1987).
Additionally, Ordinance 24, Series of 1989 (November, 1989), modified the density scction of
the 1987 ordinance by increasing the allowable GRFA. These two ordinances arc still valid
for SDD No. 6, and have been included as Exhibits A and B attached to this memorandum.
The staff recommends that the PEC review these ordinances to fully understand the
background and prior approvals for the Vail Village Inn before proceeding funher in this
memorandum. A brief summary of said ordinances is listed below in Section III of tltis
memorandum.
II. DESCRIPTION OF TI{E REOIJEST
The applicant's redevelopment proposal includes the upgrade and rcnovation of the east
building which currently houses the hoel lobby, front desk area, and the C.oyote Bar, as well
as the adjacent Pancake House Building to the west. Included in the redevelopment of the
"east" building would be the addition of nvo residential levels abovc the cxisting structure,
which would be used specifically as accommodation units (hotel rooms). There would be a
total of 13 additional accommodation units, comprising 5,933 sq. ft. of GRFA. One
additional gas burning fireplace is proposed in the largest accommodation unit on the top
floor. An elevator is proposed to be constnrctcd at the southwest corner of the building,
which would access all four floon. Additionally, the existing meeting room which is located
on the second floor, would be expanded to the south by infilling an existing deck. This
additional square footage would consist of approximately 24:3 sq. ft. of floor area.
The proposed improvements to the Pancake House Building include a new roof structure, and
painting and/or staining the building to mabh the rcmodeled building to the east.
It is Foposed that the new portions of this building be cqurpped with an automatic sprinkler
system.
Site improvements called for in this redevelopment plan would include the addition of 14
surface parking spaces. Ten of these parking spaces would be considered regular spaces, and
the remaining four spaces would be classified as valet-type spaces. Thcse valet spaces would
bc resewed for exclusive use by employees of the Vail Village Inn, and the location of these
spaces would be to the northwest of the Village Inn Pancake House restaurant and
immediately east of the Gateway Plaza Building.
The proposal also calls for limited landscaping improvements. Specifically, the applicant is
proposing one additional new planter, which would be located on the west side of the main
entrance at the South Frontage Road.
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
A. The following are the existing phases of the Vail Village Inn:
Phase I - This consists of the buildings located at the southeast corner of the
WI property, and includes onc dwelling unit of approximately 4,000 sq. ft. in
size, as well as the following commercial establishments: Alpenrose
Restaurant, Ambrosia Restaurant, Village Inn Travel, Village Inn Sports,
Houston Gallery, Gold of Vail, Village Inn Plaza Liquors, Eve's, and Total
Beauty.
Phase II - This phase consists of three residential dwelling units of
approximately 3,500 sq. ft. in size, as wcll as the following commercial
establishments: International Gallery, Unique Art, and Teda.
Phase III - Phase Itr is located at the northeast comer of the WI property and
consists of 29 residential dwelling units, with approximately M,830 sq. ft. of
GRFA, and the following commercial establishments: Driscol Gallery,
Velveteen Rabbit, Kirchenworks, Vail Antiques, Annie's and Vail Boot and
Shoe.
ilI.
o
Phase IV - This was the odginal Phase, and the oldest, at the WI, and
consists of 62 accommodation units, with alryroximately 16,585 sq. ft. of
GRFA, and also includes the Food and Dcli, WI Pancake House and the
Coyote Bar. There is also a 1,200 sq. fr conference/mecting space and
miscellaneous and ancillary offices for the hotel.
Phase V - Phase V is ttre building located at the comer of Vail Road and East
Meadow Drive, and consists of ll dwelling units (9 of which have lock-offs),
and 3 accommodation units, with 9,972 sq,. fr of GRFA. Phase V also
includes Blano's Piz"a, the Vail Resort Association and approximately 3,5fi)
sq. fr of retail, commercial use.
Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1976, orignally established the Vail Village Inn
Special Development Disrict No. 6.
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1985 (March 5, 1985) granted 120,600 sq. ft. of
GRFA to SDD No. 6. This ordinance also required a minimum of 175
accommodation units (AUs) and 72,4N sq. ft. of GRFA, devoted entirely to
AUs in Phase IV. This ordinance also listed six conditions of approval.
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987 (May, 1987), amended Phase IV of SDD No.
6. This amendment allowed Phase IV to be broken into two distinct and
separate phases, which were called Phase IV and Phase V. This ordinance also
set the maximum GRFA for the SDD at 120,6fi) sq. ft. Additionally, the
ordinance required a minimum of 148 AUs and 67,367 sq. ft. of GRFA
devoted to AUs in Phases IV and V. The ordinance also listed eight conditions
of approval.
Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989 (November, 1989) amended the density
section of SDD No. 6. This ordinance modified the SDD by increasing the
allowable GnfA to a total of IM,527 sq. ft. This allowed Unit No. 30
(originally Good's retail) in the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums to be
converted from commercial use to residential use. This space consists of 3,977
sq. ft. of CRFA, and the conversion to rcsidential use has since been
completed. This ordinance also maintained the previous approval for "a
minimum of 148 AUs and 67,367 sq. fr of GRFA, devoted to AUs, in Phases
IV and V of SDD No. 6."
ry. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The following table outlines the applicant's redevelopment proposal with reference to the
underlying Public Accommodation zoning, the cxisting project, the previously approved Phase
IV, and the curent proposal. To maintain simplicity, only those development standards
which are specifically applicable to this project are listed.
B.
c.
D.
E.
Prevlously Proposed
Approved SDD SDD
O
Sitc Arca 3.455 acre.s o Samc Same Same
150J(X) sq. ft.
Setbacks 20 fr on all sides N = Frcntage Rd: 4l fr 20 ft to face of No change from existing
b pdte cochere; 72 ft- buitding; I ft" o
b frc of building porte cochere
Building Height 45 fr - Flat Roof 3l ft Varies - with a 5E fr ro top of ridge
48 ft . Sloping Roof 73 fr maximum 6l fr ro ridge over
elevator
Site Coverage 82,775 sq. ft.
Parking
Underlying Zoning Existing
Public Accommodation Proicct
120,400 sq. ft.78,806 sq. ft"
25 dwelling units per acre 76.5 DUs
or 86 DUs for rhe sire (see below)
N/A
Per fte cunent Same
development slandards
(See Appendix A)
1U527 q. tt. E4,739 Phase IV-A
124,527 Entire Phase IV
120.5 DUs 83 DUs
Per he approved U5 sq. ft. of additionaldevelopment site coverage
plan
Same Same
GRFA
UniB
Phase I
Phase tr
Phase III
Phase fV
Phase V
Totals
Existine DUs
I
3
29
0
l1,r
M
Existine AUs
0
0
0
62
3
+65** = 76.5 DUs
Phase fV-A is proposed to have 0 DUs and 13 AUs = 6.5 DUs
* (9 of the I I DUs have attached lockoffs)
** 2AUs=1DU
o V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERJA
The criteria to be used to cvaluate the Vail Village Inn redevelopment, Phase IV-A, are the 9
Special Development Disrict (SDD) developmcnt standards set forth in the special
development district chapter of the Zoning Code. The criteria are as follows:
A. Design compatibility and sercitivity to the immediate environment,
neighborhood and a{iacent properties relative to architectural design,
scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identitn character, visual
integrity and orientation.
Architecturally, the key issue is to maintain compatibility and work with the character
of the existing structur€s in the vicinity. Stalf aclnowledges that this is a very
difficult task to perform, given the varied architectural styles of adjacent buildings.
Staff suppons the design direction the applicant has proposed for the project. We
believe that the additional two floors and the new roof structure would be compatible
with the character of the adjacent structures. Additionally, the applicant has proposed
to install all new siding materials on the existing lowcr levels of the structure, which
would match the new upper levcls. The applicant has also proposed to install a stucco
finish on the north and west elevations of the pore cochere (around the arched
openings).
Given the close proximity of the WI Pancake House building immediately to the
west, the applicant has also proposed improvcments to this structure so that it blends
architecturally with the adjoining "east" building. The proposed improvements to this
stnrcture include upgrading the entire roof area of the building, to architecturally tie it
in with the proposed rernodel of the structure to the east. No GRFA would be added
to the enlarged roof area, however, the applicant would propose to install a new boiler
in this attic area to service the Food and Deli Building. Additionally, the applicant
has proposed to paint and/or stain the Pancake House Building to match the "east"
building and to fur0rer ensure architectnral compatibility among the structures. We
believe it is positive that the applicant is making an effort to upgrade the materials and
the style of the Pancake House Building, as well as the east building.
The staff would recommend that the applicant rcevaluate the proposed roof form over
the elevator tower, as well as thc roof form over the central chimncy caps. We
believe that these elements should be of an architectural style which would be more in
line with the caps on the adjacent structurcs.
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, eflicient and
workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
The staff is very supportive ofthe applicant's redevelopment plan with regard to uses,
activity and density, given the fact that the proposal includes the addition of 13
accommodation (hotel) rooms and an expanded confercnce space.
The existing commercial squarc footage (gross area), which includes retail commercial
and restaurant "service area" space, at the VVI is approximately 33,557 square feet.
No additional commercial square footagc is rcquested as a part of this proposal.
With the adoption of the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study on November 20,
1990, employee housing is no longer a potential concern, but it is an issue which must
be addressed formally. The Affordable Housing Study has been adopted and provides
guidelines for new development. Currently, the report's recommendations are being
incorporated into the Zoning Code. In addition, the Land Use Plan calls for employee
housing by stating:
Goal 5.3 - "Affordable employee housing should be made available through
private efforts, assisted by limited incendves, provided by the Town of Vail,
with appropriate restrictions."
Although the Vail Village Inn does provide some employee housing, both on site and
off site, there is currently no permanently resnicted employee units on site. No
additional employee housing is proposed by the Vail Village Inn for this
redevelopment. It should also be mentioned that most Special Development Districts
in the past have provided some number of employee housing units within the proposal.
Given the scale of this pdect, with an approved GPSA of 124,527 sq. ft., the staff
believes a redevelopment of this magnitude should have some permanent employee
housing. Staff recommends one restricted employee dwelling unit be provided on site,
either in the existing development or in the proposed redevelopment, Phase IV-A.
C. Compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined in
Chapter 18.52.
The Vail Village Inn parking analysis, as indicated in Appendix A, shows a total
parking requirement for the Vail Village Inn project, which includes Phases I, II, I[,
IV and the proposed IV-A, as being 243 parking spaces. The existing parking
structure, located at the lower levels of the Phase Itr building, currcntly provides 109
parking spaces. Additionally, there are currently 45 regular surface-parking spaces (9
of which arc privately reserved and are not available to the general public), and 16
valet pa*ing spaccs on-site, for a total of 61 parking spaces. The applicant is
proposing to add 14 surface-parking spaoes as a part ofthis proposal. The total
parking which would be provided would be 184 spaccs, which equals 75.7% ol
the required parking.
The staff believes that the required parking for Phase V, as well as for the new
proposal (Phase IV-A) must be addrcssed. It should be noted that when the Phase V
building was approved, the parking requirement was defcrred until the final phase of
the WI was constructed (the redevelopment of Phase IV). Ordinance No. 14, Series
of 1987, under Scction 11, lists 8 conditions of approval for the development plan for
Phases IV and V. C-ondition No. 8 rcads as follows:
"Any rcmodel or rcdevelopment of the remaining portion of SDD 6, commonly
referred to as Phase V, shall include parking as required by Ordinance l, Series
of 1985."
It is the staff's opinion that this current redevelopment proposal triggers condition
number 8, and that the required parking for Phase V must now be addressed.
Accorrding to the staffls calculations of the Phase V building, the parking requirement
for Phase V shall be as follows: (See Appendix B for the specific breakdown)
t.
2.
3,
4.
Retail =
Restaurant =
11.77 spaces
4.25 spaces
Residential = 23.44 spaces
Total Requirement = 39.46 spaces
The parking requirement for the proposed Phase IV-A is 11.13 spaces. The
combined parking requirement for Phase IV-A and Phase V is 48 parking spaces
(39.46 spaces + 11.13 spaces = 50.59 - 5% multi-use credit = 48).
The parking issue is two.fold. First, the staff is of the opinion that condition number
8, listed in Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987 (as stated above) is applicable to this
redevelopment proposal. The Planning Commission, at their June l0th public
worksession, concurred with this opinion. Based upon this PEC decision, the applicant
must now provide, or address the issue ofparking for Phase V. The second issue is
the applicant's proposal to pmvide an additional 14 surface parking spaces, when a
requirement of 48 spaces is stipulated by the code. The applicant has presented a
parking utilization study that analyzed parking during peak times of occupancy. This
study is included as Appendix C.
It should be understood that the 109 space pa*ing suucture, located in the Phase III
building, is currently not open and available for use by the general public. In addition,
9 surface parking spaces, which are adjacent to the Food and Deli Building, are
currenily reserved and are also not availablc for use by the general public. Of the
total 109 parking spaces in the structurt,44 of those spaces arc cunently deeded to
condominium owners of the Vail Village Inn (15 of those 44 deeded spaces are
deeded to condominium owncrs within Phasc V).
Since the June l0th worksession, &e applicant has agreed to remove the parking
restrictions on 8 of the 9 parking spaccs in front of the Food and Deli Building.
These eight spaces would be available for short-term pa*ing by the general public' in
addition to the 14 new spaces on the north side of the pdect. The staff believes that
this is a positive step towards mecting the Town's parking requirements. However,
the staff maintains that the applicant should bc requircd to opcn up the structured
parking (in the Phase trI Buitding) and to allow the general public the use of the 65
undeeded spaces in the structure. If the structured parking sPaces werc available to
the general public, the staff would be able to support the overall parking plan at the
VVI.
D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan'
Town policies and Urban Design Plans.
This redevelopment plan was analyzed according to the recently adopted Vail Village
Master Plan. The specific goals, objectives and subarea plans of the Vail Village
Master Plan which pertain to the Vail Village Inn project are listed below:
1.2 Obiective :
Encourage the upgrading and redevelopmcnt of residential and commercial
facilities.
1.2.1 Policv:
Additional development may be allowed as identified by the Action Plan and
as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide
Plan.
1.3 Obiective:
Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements
done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town.
1.3.1 Policv:
Public improvements shall be dcveloped with the participation of the private
sector working with the Town.
2.3 Obiective:
Incrcase the number of residential units available for short term overnight
accommodations.
2.3.1 Policy:
The development of shon term accommodation units is strongly encouraged.
Residential units that are developed above existing density levels arc required
to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short
term overnight rental.
2.5 Obiective:
Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing
lodging and commercial facilities to bettsr serve the needs of our guests.
3.1 Obiective:
Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other
improvements.
3.1.1 Policy:
Private development prcjects shall incorporate str€etscape improvements (such
as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating arcas), along adjacent
pedestrian ways.
3.1.3 PelicJ:
Flowers, tre€s, water featurps, and othcr landscaping shall be encouraged
throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas.
3.4 Obiectives:
Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible grcen
space areas, including pocket parks and stream access.
3.4.2 Es!!sy:
Private development pmjects shall be requircd to incorporate new sidewalks
along streets adjacent to ttre project as designated in the vail village Master
Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master plan.
5.1.1 Policy:
For new development ttrat is locarcd outside of the commercial core r zane
Disrict, on-site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking
fund) to meet any additional parking demand as rcquired by the zoning code.
5.1.5 Policv:
Redevelopment prcjects shall be stnongly encouraged to provide underground
or visually concealcd parking.
5.4.2 Eg!!g:
Mcaians and right-of-ways shall bc ludscapei'
The Vail Village Master Plan has identified thc Vail Village Inn as subarea concept
number l-1, which is copied in its cntirety below:
.J ffi+*rasernnoroiect to be conPletcd as
istirltistred by developEent plan
for SDD f6. Connercial
developuent at grorurd lcvel to
traue interior Plaza rltlr
sieenspace. t{ass of buildings
irrau istep uP" frou existlng
oedestrlaJsclle alonE lleados-orive to ,l-5 etories along the
iiontae" Road- Desigrn !us-' be
sensitive to uaLntalninE vtet" .-corridor fron {-waY 3toP to var'L
trtountain. Special euphasls-on- -i.z, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6' 3-2, 4.1' 5'1,
6. 1.
,Q)
d$
rl,el rl rr,rtr
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologc hazards that affect
the property on which the special development district is proposed.
There arc no natural and/or geologic hazards which would affect this property and/or
redevelopment proposal.
F. site plan, building desigr and locstion and open space provisions designed
to produce a funclonaidevelopment responsive and sensitive to natural
feaiures, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
There is essentially no change to the cxisting building footprint with this proposed
redevelopment. As indicated in Section IV of this memorandum, the setbacks for the
10
underlying PA zone disuict are 20 feet ftom all properry lines. This proposal will
certainly meet the 20 foot requirement, as thc minimum distance from the porte
cocherc to the nearcst Foperty line would be 41 fcet.
There will be no signifrcant changes made to thc VaiI Village Inn open space
provisions, as only 245 sq. ft. of additional area will be covered by buildings.
G. A circulation systern designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing
on and off.site traflic circulation.
Vehicular Circulation: After review of the proposed surface-parking layout, the staff
believes that the general vehicular sirculation system appears adequate. The Town of
Vail Fire Deparrnent has reviewed this proposal, and does not takc issue with the
project. The Public Works Deparunent also has no problems with the gencral
vehicular circulation plan. However, they are concemed about some existing drainage
problems in the surface-parking area just north of the Pancake House, which would
need to be corrected and addressed tlrough the building permit process.
Due to the change in use on the site, a Colorado Department of Highways access
permit will need to be secured prior to the Town issuing a building permit for the
project.
Pedestrian Circulation: Pedestrian circulation is a key issue the staff would like to
address. It is well known that a long-standing goal for Vail is to improve upon the
pedestrian experience through the development of a continuous network of paths and
walkways. Specific to the Vail Village Inn project, the Vail Village Master Plan, as
well as the Town of Vail Reqeation Trails Master Plan and the Master Transponation
Plan, specifically call for bicycle/pedesuian ways along both sides of the South
Frontage Road. Through the redevelopment process at the adjacent Gateway Plaza
site, the developer was required to provide a pedestrian sidewalk along the entire
length of the Gateway prcperty along Vail Road and South Frontage Road. At this
time, staff believes it appropriate to request that the developer of the Vail Village Inn
extend the sidewalk where ttre Gateway ended it, and continue the walk for the full
length of the WI property east to the Ctossroads site. Staff acknowledges that there
are some grade diffrculties through this area, and also that cooperation from the
Colorado Department of Highways (CDOH) will be necessary. The Town staff is
willing to assist the applicant in securing the necessary CDOH permits to install the
pedestrian connection.
The current Vail Village Inn SDD Amendment proposal, does not include any
improvements to the pedcstrian circulation system as described above.
il
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
The proposal has provided limited additional landscaping, specifically in the form of
one new plantcr, which would be located on the west side of the access drive off of
South Frontage Road. The proposed landscaping includes 2 Aspen and 1 Blue Spruce.
Again, with cooperation from the CDOH, staff believes that additional landscaping
added along the entirc northern property line of the Vail Village Inn would be
beneficial. We believe additional landscaping and screening in this area would not
only benefit the general public, by assisting in the buffering of the structures from the
Frontagc Road and I-70, but will also benefit the property owner and guests of the
WI in the same manner.
The staff would also recommend that the applicant l€move the existing asphalt area
south of the Gateway Building. This area has been used as surface parking, however,
we believe that it would be a benefit to both projects (WI and Gateway) to add
landscaping in this area.
The proposal will not encroach into any of the Town's adopted view corridors.
I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional
and eflicient relationship throughout the development of the special
development district.
The applicant has proposed that the redevelopment plan (Phase IV-A) be completed at
one time. No phasing plan is proposed.
It is the staff s position that the redevelopment plans for the ggire Phase IV, which
are addressed in Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, are still valid. Should the
developer with to proceed with this previously approved plan at some future date,
which would necessitate the demolition of Phase IV-A, final DRB approval will be
required. If there are changes or modifications to the plans, then a major SDD
amendment will be required.
VI. STAFtr'RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation for the proposed major amendment to Special Development
District No. 6, the Vail Village Inn, is for approval with conditions. The staff believes
that the proposed upgrade and remodel would be a very positive change at the VVI.
We suppon the project, with the following conditions of approval:
l) That the applicant be required to opcn up the structured parking, in the Phase
III building, for short-term parking use by the general public. With this
12
o
provision of an additional 65 parking spaces, the staff would be able to support
the project's overall parking plan.
2) That the applicant remove thc existing asphalt parking area immediately south
of the Gateway Plaa Building, and providc landscaping in this arca. Final
review of the landscape design shall be reviewed and approved by the DRB
prior to installation.
3) That the applicant Fovide a pedcsuian sidewalk, adjacent to South Frontage
Road, beginning on the wcst cnd of the WI property (where the Gateway
sidewalk now ends), and continue the sidcwalk east to thc westem boundary of
the Crossroads property.
4, That the applicant provide additional landscaping along the entire northern
propefty line of the WI.
5) That the applicant reconsidcr ttre proposed design solution for the elevator and
chimney caps. This issue shall be frrther reviewed and considered by the
Design Review Board.
6) That a CDOH access permit be secured prior to the issuance of any Town of
Vail building permits for the proposal.
7) That the eight conditions of approval listed in Section ll of Ordinance No. 14,
Series of 1987, be included in the ordinance rcquircd for this project. Said
conditions are as follows, (with the staff's recommended changes indicated by
the bold type):
A. That the developers and/or ownen of Phases IV and V participate in,
and do not remonstrate against, an improvement district for streetscape
improvements to Vail Road and East and l{est Meadow Drive, if and
when an improvement district is formed.
B. That the developers and/or owners of Phases IV and V participate in,
and do not remonstrate against, establishing a pedestrian linkage from
Phases IV and V of the Vail Yillage Inn, to a future commercial
expansion at the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus site rf, and when it is
developed.
C. That the developer receive appmval from the Colorado State Highway
Department, for any change in use on the property' prior to the
issuance of a Town of Vail building permit.
13
D.That the developers and/or owners of Phase IV agree to ransfer by
general wananty deed to the Town of Vail, free and clear of all liens
and encumbrances, such condominium unit of approximately 3,986 sq.
fr in size and to bc locatcd as indicated on the plans and specifications
submitted with the application. There shall be no provisions placed on
the condominium unit rcstricting the Town of Vail's use of the unit or
the subsequent suMivision and/or sale of the unir
That no grading permit, building permit or dcmolition permit, relating
to any Phasc of Spccial Develo'pment Disuict No. 6, be issued until
such tirne that rcasonable cvidcnce is provided to the Town of Vail that
construction financing, for the improvements to bc oonstructed, has been
obtained.
Restrictions on any units in Phases IV or V which would be
condominiumized, shall be as outlined in Section 17.26.075
(Condominium Conversion) of the Vail Municipal Code and any
amendments ther€to.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any
phase of SDD#6, the developer and/or owner of said phase shall
reimburse the Town of Vail for expenses incurred in facilitating the
relocation of the ski museum (into Phase V) of an amount not to exceed
$75,000.
Any remodel or redevelopment of any of the remaining portions of
SDD#6, shall include the parking as required by Ordinance 14, Series
of 1987.
The developer must provide one permanently deed restricted employee housing
unit on site at the Vail Village Inn. Said employee unit shall meet the
restrictions listed in Section 18.13.080(BXl0) of the Town of Vail Municipal
Code.
E.
F.
G.
H.
8.
t4
APPENDIX A O
Vail Village Inn Parking Analysisr
Parking Spaces Rcouir€d
19.r2
16.50
2.50
Subtotal 38.12 = 38.12
t2.99
4.99
Subtotal 17.98 = 17.98
25.12
s9.33
Subtotal 84.45 = 84.45
6.00
11.@
41.30
5.47
Subtotal 63.97 = 63.97
tr.77
4.25
23.44
Subtotal 39.46 = 39.46
O i. pirase I
A. Retail
B. Restaurants
C. Residential
2. Phase II
A. Rctail
B. Residential
3. Phase III
A. Retail
B. Residential
4. Phase IV
A. Food & Deli
B. Restaurant and Bar
C. Residential
D. ConferenceMeeting Area
5. Phase V
A. Retail
B. Restaurant
C. Residential
6. Phase IV-A
A. Residential 11.13 = 11.13
Total: 255.11
-5% Multiple
Use Credit -12.75
Grand Totalz 242.K = 243* Parking requirements werc determined by using the Town standards in effect at the
time of construction.
t5
APPENDIX B
WI . Phase V Parking Analysis
A.
B.
Bascment Irvel (Vail Reson Association)
Ground l-evel
Parkine Soaces Reouired
0
tt.77
4.25
0.67
1.5
2
39.46
1.
2.
Retail: 2,865 + 668 = 3533R00
Restauranu 510/15/8
c.Second Level
1.
2.
3,
4.
).
6.
7.
Unit #l = 402 + 398 = 800
Unit #2 = 343 + 461 = 804
AU =229
Unit #3 = 232 + 376 = 608
Unit #4 = 475 + 317 = 792
Unit #5 = 445 + Tl9 = 724
AU =224
2
2
0.63
2
2
2
0.63
D.Third Level
Unit #6 = 396 + 224 = 620
Unit #7 = 397 + 318 = 715
Units #8 & #9 are combined into one unit
= 454 + 314 + 35 +712= l5l5
Unit #10 = M5 + 277 =722
Fourth Level
1. AU =2792. Unit #ll = 388
3. Unit #12 (with loft)
= 598 + 2M + 36 + 273 + 410 = 1552
2
2
2
2
t.
2.
3.
4.
E.
t6
l.
2.
APPENDfr B
WI. Phase V Parking Analysis
(Vail Reson Association)
2,865+668=3533/300
5rc115ft
+ 398 = 800
3+461 =804
Unit #3 = 232 376 = 608
C.
1.
)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Unit #2 =
AU =229
Unit #4 = 475 +
Unit #5 = 445 +
AU =224
J=
2
1
0.63
2
z
I
0.63
D.Third Level
7
a
,,
2
1.
2.
4.
Unit #6 = 396 + 224 = 620
Unit #7 =+ 318 = 715
Units #8,& #9 are combined
= 45Y+ 314 + 35 + 712 = l5l
Unit#l0 = 445 +277 =722
AU = ?i79
Unit #ll = 388
Unit #12 (with lof$
= 598 + 2M + 36 + n3 +410 = 1552
0.67
1.5
2
39.46
l5
!{ay 9, 1991
Farking Analysis for the VaiL Vittage Inn Addit,ion
As cln be seen by the acconpanying document, - the _re- _--=_--_
-'. - -- guired n'rnber of parking spac6s ior-the entire wr com-----J------':---,--:-- -P]"* h'i.th the proposed iaait:.on included is 238 _spaiei* --- _:-
The anount that can be provided without i much': recircufation and creation of cornpact spaces and/or cre:----_':- ation of -valet parking is 177 spales. itrat woul.d repie-ll=I-
Due to the nature of hotel/nixe'd use development, even'-----...._- during the pgak tj-nes of the year when arl tire rooms aier-.-.--l'..occupied'.theparkingIotsintheparkingstluctureareused to about 65t of capacity. rlis is-due in large.-__-' -_.._:---- Part to the tlpical vai.I-visitor arriving in a transpo;-._--- -- ration shuttLe vehicle rather than in an-lndividuaf ve-hicle.-- The proxj.rnity of the WI to the ski nountain,-_ __.-: _the vi]-Iage shops and restaurants, nake it convenienL to --. -,--be a- pedestrian while staying in the hotel . ALso asseen by the chart, the retliL and restaurant businesses -
require 90 total spaces and d5 spaces are irnnediately . __available on the surface parking lots. It should aLso -----.-be noted that as a function of the hoteL business, the .l_:__-- _restaurants and bars are typicalry frequented by trre ho-___---.. -..tel guests and nay justj.fy a larg6r thjn 5t rediction in -.overaLl parking requj.rements. Further, alL but 2 park-____ .-:--- _ |ing spaces as shown on rhe site plan and in the sl;;-:.: __:__ I
ture are fuLl-size spaces and the-allowance in the-ing code is 25t of the spaces nay be conpact, whiEh-. __ :would - potentj.ally increaie the nimber of ipu.6" that- -- .
:l:ld b:^pT3ti-o:o:_ rhere.are 4:paces on.tha sire plin--_-_*I_that couLd be considered as valEt _parking, .howeverr_-___:._-._--_ __.these spaces would be reser'ed for enpioyeeJl
:: :- the proposed addition and, renovation would require 10;6_*---:-:-_
' *--+-' new Epaces wir-r be provided to-accornioiate the new con='struction.\J.q us 9ltti tlt=w {-;trtt- iThese additional spaces are derived - frorn Il__*. __':.'lr-. *:f ' . changes in the circu:.aiio" piir.i"-ii i-""""il-i;r -ii" t:-*-'--.---,
-.--_*:*::}:t'"1:9f'theGateway!arceIandthesubsequentr9:#
.-____-___,-__ 'r:l:.ProPoseo addition and renovation would require I0;6_' _:__-1.-.*--------.i-:- (1r) spaces and the submitted parking plan shdws that l5-r-._i__.- -
... *-.-- I new nnel.eq r.r i l I l-ra nra,,i ^^,.r -^ -^^^--^-r^!- !r-- -- -- --i--:-.--: ,-----
:--I---'--:--:---- sEvErJrurPurelrL tJI Ene (iaE eway pafcel anct the Subsequent f€----.:-]-- duction of a large arnounl 6f circulation that l;;; ;;! {ru(.;rren or a rarge amount Of CirCUIati:'-- ,-,T---quired of the old serrice station use.-. note related to the parking iggue is the way ah; Totdn
?h?""":_!?, !I:.:. existing,
-
-nonconf or.ning' a'""" i"pr."i;__i.e-. ._ provided the propoied addirion ."J€" fie-;#;;parking_standards for Lhe addition, ttre renaining P9-r-:.!._i91 -ot the. pro1ecr may remain nonconfornfis-;i;i :i_.gard.to.parking.. - necog-nizing that this p;;jEd'is non.i-: conforrnllg,.if the addiiion w6re a[owed, iy ine-existiniJect is non-
::l??1. .additional parking would only be-r"qiir.a i".addi-tion al.one.
I
.gage _,tr ... .
-9034PKG.doc
i_ ,*-* F* !
._-*--!*F i .
--.-. --L*.
er -of --reg-
e -'-rnn '--i
^----*
..--..__-_, ,,ilt---- Week one. Dec 2G-Jan 2, 1991-- 50 spaces or"". .GA:---- "consistantly during the week leaving at least 59 . _9pa_ses-l-_-:'- -----available iir the pirking structure ilone. - .- -i----t-i:'
lieek two: Feb 15-Feb 22, 1991 (presidenrs Day) -- -+4
_:_ -- -spaces were used consj.stantJ.y during"the'week lqavi!g:q_!: ,
-.-.
- minirnum, 35 spaces available in the parkrng struitui-e];---....---- -- -alone. (Worst Case Exanple)
___ - Week three: Jan Zl-Jan 27, 1991-weeK tnree: Jan ZO-Jan 27, 1991-- 53 spaces xrere useif-------'----:----- :---. consistantly d.uring the reei, leaving at least 5d spaces--available in the parking Etructure alone-' ---"-:-- -Week four: {.1y 3-July 10, 1990-- 23 spaces were used--.---_--::__-_---(on average) dur-ing the'weei, reaving at-reast g6 spaces* :----...---available in the parking structure alone . -----.-- - -Week five: JuIy 13- JuLy 22, 1990-- 18 spaces were used -::_---_ -__(on average; during the week, leaving at Least 91 spaces .-__* _available in t.he parking structure alone.
_:__:", Week six: Oct l7-Ocr 24, 1990-- 5 spaces wereaverage) during the week, leaving 104 spacesin the parking structure al_one.
used ( on-
available
__._,_:_.- -,_,As can be seen by these nunbers,the wors: case situa---..-- tion leaves a surplus of 35 spaces, not a shortfall -of.- .
-.1__-_. parking. Thus, the existing mixed-use.deveLopment can.'., --_-
------.- . be demonstrated to function quite welr wi:h the amount_^- -" of parking that is currently provided. -With t,he addi-
,f-.--- -tional parking that wiLl be provided - for the snall-_-,--_ : -___, r -.-- .-renovation, the.projecc would likely func=ion as weII..-
i--:. -.or better than th6- existing conditionl
-For clarificat,ion, the amount of deeded parking spaces_...-
------;---- for Phase v that are in the parking struclure ii f S- . and.-- --------e.^sr- ri.!s 41r LIll- yqJ.l\rlr9 -, t-!ttly Ll]LE' ID IJ Allll
___,_ , -: the hunDer that are deeded to phase-Ill._-i.d_29.-_The ndtrr:_:...__'---.---i---.*--;.-,- ber of required employee spaces is g
I
.9 0 34PKG. doc
oRDIl{AirCE 1{0. 14
Serles of 1987
|l{ ORDtilAilCE ll'lEltolilG oRolllAl{cE t{0. I, sgRlEs 0F 1985
rO PROVTDE FOR THE A}IENDII.IEIIT OF THE APPROVEO DEVELOPI'IEI{r PLAI,I
FOR SPECTAL DEVELoPIIENT DISTRICT N0' 6l AD0PTIIIG ll{ At'lEl{DED
OEVELOPI{TI{T PLAII FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAT DTVTLOPI'IEIIT OISTRICT
ilo. 5, ELltttilATtt{G CERTAIN REQUIREIIENTS nEUTING T0 THE
DTSTAI{CE BIIIJEEN EUILDINGS FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL
DEVEtopl,tEtlT DISTRICT tlo. 6; CHAflGING THE HEIGHT
REQUTREHEI{TS FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAT DEVELOPI.IEIIT
DTSTRICT tiO. S; CXeHellG THE ALLo}|AELE DEi{SITY AllD l'loolFYING
THE SUIIDIIiG BULK STANDARDS FOR PHAST IV OF SPECIAL
DEVEL0PI'|8I{T DISTRICT [0. 6; PRoUIDItIG 0IFFEREI{T
PARKIIIG AIIID LOADII{G REQUIREI'IEI{TS TOR PHASE IV A]{D V
OF SPECIAL DEVELOPIIIENT DISTRICT ilO. 5; ffiO StTTltlG
FORTH DETAILS 11{ REGARD THERETO.
ilOY, THEREFORE, BE lT ORoAtl'lEO 8Y tllE TOlJtl COUNCTL of thc Torn of Vall 13
fol lows:
Srctlon l. L.glslrtlv. Int.nt ls
rard rs fol |ows:
Scctlon I. Legl sl rtlve lntsnt
hcrrby rrprelcd rnd rrnectrd |rlth |tt|ondmnt3 to
A. tn 1976, thc Town Council of the Town of Vall pessed ordlnrnco No' 7'
series of l9?6, establlshlng speclal Developnent Dlstrict llo. 6 to Insure the
unlfied and coordlnated d.velopment of a Grltlcal slte rs r wholr and In I nrnn€r
sultable for the area In lhlch lt as sltuated.
8. Soecial Development Dlstrict No.6 pnovlded ln Sectlon 14 that thc Town
council.resenved the rlght to abrogate or modl fy speclal Developrncnt Dlstrlct l{o' 6
for good cause through the enactment of an ordinance ln confonnlty rlth th! ronlng
code of th€ Town of Uail'
c.tnlgS5,theTownCounclloftheTownofUr|lpassed0rdlnencctl'Slrles
of 1985, provlding certaln amendnents to the dlve'loPm€nt p'lan for SDD N0' 6'
D. Appllcatlon has bren nade to th' Town of Vrll to mdlfy rnd unlnd c'rtrln
sactions of spcclel Dcvelopmcnt oi3trlct l{0. 6 whlch r.l.t. to Phrsc IV end rhlch
mkr srrtrln chrngca In thr drv.lopnent Plan for sP.clal DavrloPn.nt Dlstrlct llo' 6
r' thGy rellt! to Phrcr lU.
E. Tho Plrnnlng rnd Envlrornrntrl Gomr{sslon of th' ?orr'n of Vrll hrs rrvlrt$d
thc chrngcs rubmlticd by thc rppllcent and hes recorrnended that splclrl Devrlopncnt
Olstrlct No. 6 br so rncndcd.
F. The Town Councll consldlr! that th' u'ndn'nts Pnovldt rn 'v'n !|or3
unlflcd rnd nore rrsthlticrlly plraslng drvrloDnrent of r crltlcrl 3lt! rlthln th!
Town rnd that such ucndncnts rrr of benefit to th' h'rlth, srfrty rnd rclferr of
th. Inhrblt.nts of th. Town of Uall.
-;',0;
C
Sectlon 2. S.ctlon 18.50.020 Purpost ls htrby rnendad to rced ls follols:
A Sprclal D.v.lopo.nt Dlstrtct l3 .strbl lsh.d to .ssut. colDr.henslY.
devrlopnrnt rnd u3. of an |raa ln a lrnnlr thrt nould be hemonlous rlth thc
generrl chrrectsr of the Torn, provldr edrqurtt open tptc. rnd racrsatlon
rnenltl.3, rnd profiots the obJectlver of the Zonl ng'0rdl nance of the Town.
0rdlnerlly, r rpcclal drvrlopncnt dlltrlct rlll bc cr..t.d only rlten th.
devclopncnt ls rrgerdrd rs coorpl cnentrry to thr Tovn by thc Torm Councll, Plrnnlng
Comlsslon rnd Dssign Rcvlrw Boerd, rnd thrrc .r! 3lgnlflcrnt r$ects of th€
speclel dcvclopncnt nlrlch crnnot be 3atlsfl!d under the .xlstlng roning.
Sectlon 18.50.010 o.yrl opn.nt Plrn -- Cont.nts ls hrr.by rnendsd to rlrd rs
fol I ows;
Th. propo3.d davrlopncnt plrn 3hrll lnclud!, but lr not llnltad to' the
followlng date rs 3upglco.ntcd by cxhlblts provlded by consultants Roy3ton'
Hanamoto, Eeck rnd Abey on February 12, 1976 for Phases I, lI' lll' and es
supplemented by the exhlblts of the development plan and the .nvlro nental lnpact
report a5 preprred by Gordon i. Pierce, Archltect, {plans datad Februrry 19' 1987'
revls€d Apfll 14 and Aprll 22, 19871, rnd r3 glven flnal rpproval. through prtr.g.
of second rrading of thls ordinrnce by the ToHn councll on tlay 19' 1987 for Phlse
IV and Phase V. Thls epproval rccognlzes thrt Phase IV nrry br constructod In txo
phases irith the fir3t ph.s. to be raferred to as Phase Iv .nd thr flnal phas. to De
rcferred to rs Phase V.
Sectlon 3, Srctlon 18.50.040 E ls hereby rncndrd to rred ts follows:
E. For Phases t, tI, rnd tII. e vol urnctrlc rodel rs emendrd by consultuts
Royston, Hlnrmoto, Beck rnd Abey on February 12' 1975 of the sltr and proPored
develogmrntdocunentedbyphotogrephsltrscrlaofllnch.gu.ls16f.etor
largcr, portrrylng thr lcell md rrlatlonrhlp of thosc phrs* of thc drvrlopnrnt to
th. llta rnd lllustrrtlng th. fonr lnd ltss of structur'3 ln nld ph$'s of th!
dev.lopment. For Phasls tV end U, e voluptrlc nodcl rr urndrd by eordon Pl'rc"
Archit ct, of th. sltc .nd th! proposrd drvrlopmcnt .t r scrlr of I Inch rqulll 2o
f..t, portrrylng dho rcrlr rnd rclatlonshlp of thr dcvel ogncnt on Ph.3.s lv rnd u'
to tha 3ltc rnd lllustrrtlng thr forn of nasr of rtructur'3 In nld phasc'
Sectlon rl. S.ctlon 18.50.050 P.ntltt.d Urcs ln Spcclrl Drvrlopnent llo' 6 lr hrrrby
rrperlrd rnd re-rnrctrd rlth unrndnlnts to r'rd rs follots:
18.50.050 Prrnl ttod Uros
Th. p.mlttld uscl ln Phrcrs t, tt, ttl, tU rnd U of Sprclll Devrlopnnt
Olstrlc! 6 shrll be In lccordrnca rlth thc rPProved devrlopnent p'lans on fllo In
CI
. tha Toun of Vrll Colrlunl ty DrvrloFnent O.P8rtmant.
Sectlon 5, S.ction lE.tO.O60 Condltlonel Urcs In Spec{rl Drvtloprncnt Dlstrlct ilo. 6 a
It hcrlby rrparlcd .nd ta-anrct.d t{lth .D.ndmnts to rcad u follors: !'
18.50,060 Condltlonrl Usts
Condltionrl Us.3 for Phas:s t, tI, ltl, IV lnd V of Sprclrl Dlvelopnant
Dlrtrlct llo. 6 rhrll bo es found ln s.ctlon 18.22.030 of thr vrll Zonlng codc end
rs below: A. I popcorn outrldr vcndlng frgon thrt confonrs In rPPrerenec llth
those crlstlng ln Comerclel Core I end Connerclel Corc Il.
Excrpt, no office uscs, rxcapt tftose clcarly eccessory to r Princlprl use wlll
bc al l.owed on the Plaze lrval of Phesss
lU rnd V'
s.c on 6. Srctlon 18.50.110 Dlstancr Bctwmn Eulldlngr ls hrrrby ranndrd to rred
as fol I ows:
1S.50. U0 Dlstance Eetneen 8ul'ldlngs
For Phasrs t, tI and ltt the 'llnlmum
dl3tance between bulld|ngs on rdjacent
sltes shall be as Indlcated ln the development plan, but ln no clse shall be less
than 50 feet. For Phase MND V, tha nlnlmum dlstance b.tnlrn bulldlngs on
adJacent s,ltes shall be es lndlcated ln the devel opnrent plrn as subrnitted by Gordon
Pierce, Archltect, (dated February 19, 1987, revised Aprll l4 and April t7' 1987)'
O
Section 7. Sectlon '18.50.120 Height ls hereby atnended to rGld rs folloBs:
A. For Phases t. II, rnd III the r'llow'blc helghts shall bc es found on th€
development plan, speclflc.lly the slte Plan rnd height plen dated 3/72/76'
8. for'Phrscs'lV end V, th. naxlnum bulldtng height'shall bt rs s't forthiin
:th. rpprovrd drvelopment plrn by Gordon Pl.rc., Archlt.ct (drt.d Frbrurry 19'' tgaz;n"
rgyls€d Aprll 14 rnd Aprll 17 !9871.i
&ctron E. Scctlon 18.50.130 oenslty It h'r'by 'n'nd'd to rred es follows:
Tho Grocs Resldentlal Floor Arcr (GRFA) of ell dlstrlcts In thl sPcclal
DrveloPnentDlstrictshrllnotgxc..d120'600squarrfrrt.Thrreshallbrr
rlnlnrun of 148 rccbrrrcdatl on unlts rnd 57,367 rquerl fort of GnFA devotsd to
rccorrnodetlon unlts In Phese IV rnd v of s9!cl.l D.v.lo0.nt Dl3trlct 6'
lp-g$-S!-!. Sectlon 18.50.130 Bulldlng Bulk ls hareby rll'ndld to r'rd 13 follows:
18,50.130 Bulldlng Bul k
Eulldlng bull, rerlnan well lcngths, rexlnurn dlncnrlonr for bulldlng rlmrnts'
requi rencnts for wall otfs.ts md vertlcrl 3taPPlng of roof llncs for Phas33 I' II
rnd III sha'll be Indlcrted on thc devclopnent plan 3ubnl tt.d by consultants
I r
Royston, l{umoto, Srck rnd Abry on Frbrurw 12, L973. For Phrses lU rnd V'
bulldlng bulk, rarlnrm wrll hngths, rulmn dhcnslons for bulldlng rlam.nts'
rrqulrrncnts for rrll offrrtc rnd vrrtlcrl 3t.PPlng of roof llnos shall br er
Indtcrt.d rs p.r th. rpprovrd drvclogncnt plrn! rubnltt.d by Gordon R. Pl.rcr,
Archlt.ct (drled Frbruary 19, 1987, rrvlsrd Aprll ltl rnd lprll 22, 1987).
Sectlon 10. S.ctlon 18.50.180 Prrklng rnd Lordlng lr hcrcby rrpcrlrd rnd rrcnrctrd
llth mrndncntr u fol lor::
18.50.t80 Perklng rnd Lordl ng
Followlng the c Phrsas IV md V, thsrr thrll b. not l.st thrn tz
rground perklng splces, tnd 37 undrrground vrlat3urfacc p.rhlng sp
parking spaccs rs ei ing rnd rs provldcd on th. d.vllopnsnt Pl.n rubnl ttrd by
Gordon R. Pl.rce, Archlt.ct (detcd F.bru$y f9, f987). Tho proposcd lltr plrn
dated Frbruery 19, 1987.r.fl.cts th. lntlrln parklnE plrns bctwlen thG d.v.lop0|lnt
of Phases IV end v.
Section lt 13 hereby rrpcrled rnd reenactcd rith arnendrnanB to read rs
fol I ows :
lg!!g!-ff. Condltlonr of rPprovrl for the dcvalopnrrnt plln of Phrccs lV lnd V of
SDDS rs subnltted by Gordon Plcrce (dated February 9, 1985, r.vl3ed Aprll l4 |nd
Aprll 22, 1987), shall be as follows:
t. Thrt thc deveioperr end/or owners of Phrscs Iv .nd v partlclPate In rnd do not
rimonstrrte rgainst an lnprovenent dlsttlct for lmprovGnlnts to the
lntersrction of Vell Rord and lleadow Drive lf end flhen one is fomad'
2. Th.t tha dtvelopcrr rnd/or owncrs of Phrses tU end U Prrtlclgate In |nd do not
renonstrlte lgalnst rrtabllshing r pcdrstrlan linkage fron Phasrs lV d v to
e future connerclal upanslon at thc sonncnelp Lodg. 3ltc lf end rhan lt ls
devcl opcd.
3. Thr drvrloPlr rrcrlvr epprovel fron thr Strt' Hlghmy Drprrbrnt for
rcconflguratlon of th. pull-off tr.r fror th. Front g. Boed to thr antPrnc. to
th. hot.l prlor to tftr lrurncr of r bulldlng prrnlt for Pheso U'
4. Thc dtveloprrc lnd/or orm.r3 of Phlsr tV rgrco to trrntf'r by grnrrrl rrlnty
drgdtotheTomofUr|lfrlrrndclrerofelll|enrrndrncuDrrnc.3.tuch
condomlnlun unlt of rpproxlmt.ly 3,985 3q. ft. ln tlta atld to b. locrt d |s
|nd|c.t.donthcPl.n|rndtpcclflclt|onstubn|tt.dt,|thth!pllcltlon.
lhcreshrllbrnoprov|rlonrplrcdonth.condofiln|@un|tr'strlct|ngthc
Torn of veli,r usr of thc unlt or th. rubsrqu3nt rubdlvlslon endlor 3|lr of
th. unl t.
-4-
c"i'r 0
5. f,o grrdlng pcrnit, bulldlng permlt or dcnolltlon
or V of Speclal Dcvelopnent Dlstrlct No, 6 shall
thrt rcrsonable cvldence ls provlded the Torm of
flnrnclng for the lnprovcment3 to be constructed
a\
permlt rtletlng to Phasrg IV
b. l3surd untll such tlne
v.ll 3trff that constructlon
13 prrt of Phases IV or V has
been obtrl ned.
6. Rostrlctlons on eny unlts In Phrse3 IV or U rhlch rould br condornl nl unl zcd
ghall bc es outllnod ln Sectlon 17,26,075 of the Vrll l'lunlclpal Code rnd rny
ulndnents thereto. '
7. Upon the lssuancc of r bulldlng pernlt for thr constructlon of rny phase of
SDD#6 subs.quent to Phlse IV, the devclopcr and/or orn.' of rald phese shall
relmburse the Town of Vell for rxpenses incurrrd ln frcllltatlng the
relocatlon of the skl museum (lnto Phase IV) of an anount not to oxceed
175,000.
8. Any renodel or redevclopnent of the rcmalnlng portlon of SoDG comonly
referred to es Phase V shall include parking as requlred by 0rdinance I'
Series of 1985.
lect l on 12.
If any part, seclion, subsection, sentence, cleuse or phrase of this ordlnenc. 13
for any reason held to be lnvalid, such declslon shall not aff€ct thc valildlty of
the rema'lning portions of thls ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declarcs lt
would have passed this ordlnance, and each part, sectlon, rubscction' sent€nc!'
clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fac! that any onr or nore parts'
sectlons, 3!bsectlons, 3entences, clausss or phrues be declarcd lnvalld'
Section 13.
The reperl or the reperl lnd recnactlon of rny provislons of thr vail l'lunlclpal
code ts provldsd In thls ordlnance shall not rffsct .ny rlght rhlch has rccru.d,
any dutJ larposed, rny vlolatlon that occurr.d prlor to th. affactlv. dat. hamof,
uy prosecutlon comenccd, nor rny othrr .ctlon or procr.dlng a3 cofln.nc.d Undlr or
by vlrtut of tha pfovlslon rcpsrled or n€p.rl.d rnd rrlnacted. Th: repeal of rny
provlslon hereby shell not rlvlvc rny provl3lon or .ny ordln.ncr Prlvlously
rlpcal.d or suparsedad unllss crpressly rtltcd herein.
o
r' .r: '1 't C,(,
lllrRooucED' RE D Afo pAssED ot FlRsr nEADIilc Tltts .....!L dry ot lhv. l9B7
-i
.nd r publ lc h.rrlng shal I br lcld on thl3 ordlnrnc. on thr tgth
-
d.y of ihv 1987 rt 7:30 p.t{. In thc Counclt Chrnblrr of the llrl I
llunlclprl Bulldlng, Uell, Colorado.
ll Jhlr 8th dry of _[a_, 198t.
Paul R., fhlror
II{TRODUCED, READ AtlD APPROVED Ott SECOI{O REtOrr{c AilD ORDERED pUBLISHED tn
thls -!9!!_ day of i4av , 1987.
Panelr A. Brandnryo, Tonn Cl*k
Panrlr' A. Brlndmryrr, Tom Clrk
ORDINANCE NO. 24Serles of 19119
AN ORDINIII{CE
'II.TENDIIIG
SEETIOH 8 OF
ORDINANCE NO. 14 SERIES OF 198? TO PROVIDE
FOR T1IE AI|ENDI4ENT OF DENSII'Y OF AIIE
APPITOVED DEVELOP}IEI.I'I PINN FOR
SPECIAIJ DSVEIOPI.TEIIT DISTRIC'I NO. 6
NOW, TttEREroRE, AE IT ORDAINED By tttE tonN couNcllr oF rnE Tor,{N oF
VAIL, cotpRADO, AS TOLLOWS:
secCion 1. t,.glel,alive Intent
A. In 1976, th€ vail Toult Counell paesed Ordinance No. ?.
Serl,es of 19?6, establlehlng Special Developn€nt DIsbrIc! lro. 6 to
Lneure the unified and eoordinated develpr0eDL, of a crilical aite as a
whol€ and in I aanner cultable lor lhe area in rhlch lt was aituated.
E. Speclal Dev€loprnent DiEUrict No. 6 provlded in SectLon 14
that the Town Council r€serve the riglrt to abrogate or Dodlfy SpeciaL
Developnent Dlslrict No. 6 for good cause through th€ enactnent of an
ord|rance Ln confornity rrith the zoning code o! tlre Tolrn of Vail .
C. In 1985, the vail Town council passed Ordinance No. t,
Series of 1985 provldlrrg cert,airr a eldrn€nts to the developnetrt plall
for Special Developnent District No- 6.
D. In 198?, the VaiI Town Council passed Orrlinance No. 14,
Series of 1987 provldlng certain anendnents to the developnen! plan
for Speclal DevelopnenE DlstrlcB No. 6.
E. Appllcatlon has been nade to th€ Tolrn of vall to nodify and
amend Sectlon I of Ordl,nance No. 14, Serlee of 1987 shich relateg to
th! allowed density o! thc developlrent plan for Special Developnent
District No. 6.
'f' The Planning and Envlronhenlal CoDniBaion of the fown of
v6l,l, ha6 r€viaued ttre changes .
G. The Vall Toun councll consldere thaE tlre llB.ndnatrts provld€
a lrore unlfl,cd rnd a.ithetlcally pleaalng dev€i,opnent ol a crltlcal
alte wlthln the Torrn lnd such aD€ndnents are ol beneflt to the health,
safety, t elfar€ o.[ thc lnhabltante of gh. lo$n ol Vai1.
seatlon 2.
A. Srctlon 18.50.130 D.nslty tr horeby anlndcd to read ae
follotrs:
Th€ groBs resid.ntlal floor area (cRfA) of. rfl dlstrlctE in thB
Special Dev€Iopnent Dlstrict ahall not €xceed LZl .52? aquare feet.
Th.r€ ahall be a nLnlrul of 14g lccoruodation unlts and 62,362 Equ.re
feet of GRPA d€voted to accoDrrodation unlts ln phaee rv and pha6€ v of
speclal Developtrent Dlstrlct No, 6. 3,92? squara teet o! cRFA.shaLlcbe allocated to unlt 30 of tlte 'vall v1tl.9€ plrza condon$-fqqr. qnfyd
D. sectro' 11 of ordirotrco 14, gerle' ot t98z .r,s h€acby onrolrded
by th€ addltlon of Eub6ection 9 uhich slrall reacl as follo!.a:
9. 'condonlnlun unlt 30 of, the vall vrrlige plaza condonlnl.uns elrarl
b€ subject to the reetrlctione of gectl.on L?.26.O75 of the To$n o!
Vall SubdlvlBlon negulrtlong lf utl,lized for rssldentlal. purpoees.
The Toen council hereby flnds, deternlncs and declares that this
ordirtance J,e ueeessary and proper for ure health, Eafety atrd uelfare
of the tohrn of vai1. and the lnhabitants thereof.
sectiotr 3.
If any part, rection. aubsectlon, sentence, clauac or phrase oE thls
ordinance Ls for any reason hekl to be irrvalid, euch decleion rhall
not affect the valldlty of ttre renalning portiorrs of, ttrls or.-cllnance i
and tlre Tonn Council hereby declares it' would havq passed this
ordlnance, and each part, secLion. subsectJ.on, sentence,
clauEe or phrase th€reof, r€gardless ol the fact that any one or nore
part6, Eectlons, eubEectJ.ons, eentencea, cl,aus€a or phragee be
declared lnvalid.
Section 4. The repeal or the repeal and re-enrctnent o! any
provisLons ol ghe vall Uunicipal code ae provided ln thlE ordLnance
Bhall not affect any rlght rlrlch hae accrued, any duty lnposed, any
vlolatlon that occurred prior to the eff€clLve date hereof, any
proaecutl,on connenc€d, nor any other rctlon or proceedlng ar comanced
und€r or by vlrtue of the provlsion repaaled or r.pealc.l and re-
enacted. Thc regeal of any provleion hcrcby ehal,l not rcvtve any
provl,sl,on or any ordlnance prevlously rrpealed or ruperacdcd unlaaa
exprcsely strted trerel.n.
INARoDUGED, REI\D AND PAA8ED Olr FIIIAT READIttc THIS ?th day o!
llovenrber , 1999. lnd a pulrl,la trearlng Blralr b. held on thls
ordlnanc€ on the 7th day of lloveuber , 1989 at ?!3o p.r, ," aheo
councl] chaDbers of the vail uuniclpal Bulldlng, V!LI, colorsdo.
order€d publlahed ln tull thie' 7th day of _!9!@_, lgeg.
AITEST:
n
IllTRoDucED, REI\D AND APPROVED oN sEcollD REITDI{G llfD oRDERE|J PuBlIartED
passcd by tltle oqly tlrl E 218 t day
ATTEST l
PaneLa i\.
a
I
tf.
lEttl'
zi<f
sl
I
l-t,lt IlL-- - ---
iri;
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
Il-l
di
| .!r It-ll
|..(r
\rlnrL
U
o
o
{*^
"tI
vr;'\,
.f.
II
o
o
Zotr
K)tl].]
Lrl
t-
trJ
I.il-1 o
EXISTING BOUTH
lor{t. t " lTat
o
o
\0tArl VrLr,qcE Ixx
Village Inn Plaza Condominiums
June 21, 1991
Mr. Mlke Mollica, Sr. Planner
Town of Val1
75 So. Frontage Rd. W.
Vai1, CO.81557
Dear Mlke:
Just a letter confirming that the Vail Village Inn is vlIling to
lncrease the short tern free parking spaces by uoving most of
the reserved spaces into the structure.
We do have contractual agreements wlth some tenants that requl-re
us to have reserved spaces for them near their leased premlses.
In additlon, \se are wllllng to increase the l5-ninute parklng
llnitations to 30 ninutes .
I feel that this will address aome of the concerns expressed
by the Planning Conmlsslon members. However, I would llke to
point out that if sonebody plans to be in the vl1lage fot any
length of tirne other than the 30-nlnute parklng we are vl11Ing
to provi-de free, lt would behoove them to utillze the Town of
Vail parking structure.
Should we have additional call for our under-utillzed sPaces'
we w111 be happy to make them available to the general public
for a fee.
Sincerely yours,
Director
Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476'5622
FAX (303) 4764651
t
100 East Meadow
R'tl1 JUN ? 11991
\0-\An Vu-LqcE NN
Village lnn Plaza Condominiums
June 21, 1991
Mr. Mike Mollica, Sr. Planner
Tor.rn of Vail
75 So. Frontage Rd. W.
Vall , CO. 81657
Dear Mike:
Just a letter conflrming that the Vail Village Inn is willlng to
increase the short term free parkl-ng spaces by moving most of
the reserved spaces into the structure.
I,Ie do have contractual agreements with some tenants that require
us Eo have reserved spaces for them near their leased premlses.
In additionr w€ :rr€ willing to increase the l5-mlnute parking
lirnitatLons to 30 minutes.
I feel that this wilL address aone of the concerns expressed
by the Planning Cornmisslon members. Ilowever, I would like to
point out that if somebody plans to be in the vlllage for any
length of time other than the 30-ninute parking we are willing
to provide free, it would behoove them to utilize the Town of
Vail parking structure.
Should we have additional call for our under-utllized spaces,
we ro111 be happy to make then available to the general pub1lc
for a fee.
Sincerely yours,
o
Dire c t or
100 East Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-5622
FAX (303) 4764661
e
o
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
June 10, 1991 FIL E COPY
A request for a worksession on a major amendment to Special Development
Disrict No. 6, Vail Village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot O, Block 5-D,
Vail Village Fint Filing.
Applicant Josef Staufer
Planner: Mike Mollica
I. INTRODUCTION
Josef Staufer, owner and developer of the Vail Village Inn, has filed a request for an
amendment to Special Development District No. 6, for his property located at 100 East
Meadow Drive. The purpose of this SDD amendment is to allow for the redevelopment of a
portion of the final phase @hase IV) of the Vail Village Inn SDD. For clarification purposes,
staff will call this redevelopment request Phase fV-A.
The Vail Village Inn has an existing approved development plan for the entirety of Phase IV.
This development plan was approved through Ordinance 14, Series of 1987 (lvlay, 1987).
Additionally, Ordinance 24, Series of 1989 (November, 1989), modified the density section of
the 1987 ordinance by increasing the allowable GRFA. These two ordinances are still valid
for SDD No. 6, and have been included as Exhibits A and B attached to this memorandum.
The staff recommends that the PEC review these ordinances to fully understand the
background and prior approvals for the Vail Village Inn before proceeding further in this
memorandum. A brief summary of said ordinances is listed below in Section II of this
memorandum.
II. DESCzuPTION OF REOUEST
The applicant's redevelopment proposal includes the upgrade and renovation of the building
which currently houses the hotel lobby and front desk area, as well as the Coyote Bar.
Included in the redevelopment would be the addition of two residential levels above the
existing structure, which would be used specif,rcally as accommodation units (hotel rooms).
There would be a total of 13 additional accommodation units, comprising 5,933 sq. ft. of
GRFA. One additional gas burning fireplace is pmposed in the largest accommodatiol uit
on the top floor- An
"I"-nutot
is proposJA to be ionstructed at the southwest comer of the
building, which would access all-four floon. Additionally, the existing meeting room which
is located on the second floor, would be expanded to the south by infitling an existing deck'
'r' ' e 165r adtfitidrhl'tquare footage would consist of approximateLy 243 sq. ft. of floor area'
It is proposed that the new portions of the building be equipped with an automatic sprinkler
system.
Site improvements called for in this redevelopment plan would j1tuae the addition of a total
of 14 surface parking spaces. Ten of these parking spaces would be considered regular
spaces, and thl remaining four spaces would be ctissifred as valet-type spaces' These valet
spaces'would be reserved for exilusive use by employees of ,the Vail Village Inn, and the
location of these spaces would be to the west of the Village Inn Pancake House restaurant
and immediately east of the Gateway Plaza Building'
The proposal also calls for limited landscaping improvements, specifically on the east and
west-sidls of the main entrance off of the South Frontage Road'
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
A. The following are the existing phases of the Vail Village Inn:
Phase I - This consists of the buildings located at the southeast corner of the
VVI propeny, and includes one dwelling unit of approximately 4'000 sq' ft' in
size, as well as the following commercial establishments: Alpenrose
Restaurant, Ambrosia Restaurant, Village Inn Travel, Village Inn Sports'
Houston Gallery, Gold of Vail, Liquor Storc, Eve's, and Total Beauty'
Phase II - This phase consists of three residential dwelling units of
approximately f"SOO sq. ft. in size, as well as the following commercial
eitablishments: International Gallery, Unique Art, and Tezla'
phase III - phase Itr is located at the northeast comer of the WI property and
consists of 29 residential dwelling units, with approximately 44,830 sq. ft. of
GRFA, and the following commercial establishments: Driscol Gallery'
Velveteen Rabbit, KitchJnworks, Vail Antiques, Annie's and Vail Boot and
Shoe.
Phase rv - This was the original Phase, and the oldest, of the wI, and
consists of 62 accommodation units, with approximately 16,585 sq. ft. of
GRFA, and also includes the Food and Deli, wI Pancake House and the
2
o
o Coyote Bar. There is also a 1,200 sq. ft. conference/meeting space and
miscellaneous and ancillary offices for the hotel.
Phase V - Phase V is the building located at the corner of Vail Road and East
Meadow Drive, and consists of 11 dwelling units (9 of which have lock-offs),
and 3 accommodation units, with 9,972 sq. ft. of GRFA. Phase V also
includes Blano's Pizza, as well as approximately 3,500 sq. ft. of retail,
commercial use.
Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1976, originally established ttre Vail Village Inn
Special Development Disrict No. 6.
Ordinance No. l, Series of 1985 (March 5, 1985) granted 120,600 sq. ft. of
GRFA to SDD No. 6. This ordinance also required a minimum of 175
accommodation units (AUs) and 72,4N sq. ft. of GRFA, devoted entirely to
AUs in Phase fV. This ordinancc also listed six conditions of approval.
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987 (May, 1987), amended Phase IV of SDD No.
6. This amendment allowed Phase IV to be broken into two distinct and
separate phases, which were called Phase IV and Phase V. This ordinance also
set the maximum GRFA for the SDD at 120,600 sq. ft. Additionally, the
ordinance required a minimum of 148 AUs and 67,367 sq. ft. of GRFA
devoted to AUs in Phases IV and V. The ordinance also listed eight conditions
of approval.
Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989 (November, 1989) amended the density
section of SDD No. 6. This ordinance modified the SDD by increasing the
allowable GRFA to a total of 124,527 sq. ft. This allowed Unit No. 30
(originally Good's retail) in the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums to be
converted from commercial use to residential use. This space consists of 3,927
sq. fr of GRFA, and the conversion to residential use has since been
completed. This ordinance also maintained the previous approval for "a
minimum of 148 AUs and 67,367 sq. ft. of GRFA, devoted to AUs, in Phases
IV and V of SDD No. 6."
IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The following table outlines the applicant's redevelopment proposal with reference to the
underlying Public Accommodation zoning, the existing project, the previously approved Phase
IV, and the current proposal. To maintain simpliciry, only those development standards
which are specifically applicable to this project are listed-
B.
c.
D.
E.
I
Site Area 3.455 acres or Same Same Same
150500 sq. ft.
Setbacks 20 fr on all sides N = Fmntage Rd: 4l fr 20 fr o face of No change from existing
to porte cochere; 72 fL building; I ft. to
to face of building porte cochere
Building Height 45 fL - FIat Roof 3l fL Varies - widr a 58 fL to top of ridge
48 ft- - Sloping Roof 73 fL maximum 6l fL to ridge over
elevator
GRFA
Units
Site Coverage 82,775 sq. ft.
Parking
Underlying Zoning Existing
Public Accommodation Proiecl
120;400 sq. ft.78,806 sq. ft.
25 dwelling units per acre 76.5 DUs
or 86 DUs for the site (see below)
Per the current Same
development standards
(See Appendix A)
N/A
Previously Proposed q
Approved SDD SDp
O
124,527 sq. ft. 84J39 Phase IV-A
124,527 Enthe Phase IV
120.5 DUs 83 DUs (see below)
Per the approved 245 sq. ft. of addidonal
development sitc coverage
plan
Same Same
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Phase fV
Phase V
Totals
Existine DUs
I
J
29
0
11*
M
Existing AUs
0
0
0
62
3
+65** = 76.5 DUs
Phase IV-A is proposed to have 0 DUs and 13 AUs = 6.5 DUs
* (9 of the 11 DUs have attached lock-offs)
x(r( 2AUs=1DU
4
V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA
The following nine crieria shall be used for the review of the Vail Village Inn
redevelopment, Phase IV-A. Because today's review is considered a worksession, staff will
not go into a very detailed analysis of the nine SDD criteria, but will identify the major issues
and concems regarding each of the criteria.
A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment,
neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design,
scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual
integrity and orientation.
Architecturally, the key issue is to maintain compatibility and work with the character
of the existing structures in the vicinity. Staff acknowledges that this is a very
difficult task to perform, given the varied architectural styles of adjacent buildings.
Staff believes there are several design modifications the applicant should look into,
which would include reevaluating the roof form over the elevalor as well as the roof
form over the central chimney cap. Additionally, we would sress that the proposed
siding materials on the new upper levels also be used on the first two levels of the
existing sffucture. We also recommend wrapping the proposed stucco finish on the
first floor west elevation around to the nonh elevation of the porte cochere.
It is the staffs opinion that, given the close proximity of the VVI Pancake House
building immediately to the west, the applicant should propose improvements to this
structure so that it blends architecturally with the adjoining building. Suggested
improvements would be the addition of rooftop dormers, as proposed in the remodel,
modifications to the windows to match the remodeled structurer or simply upgrading
the siding of the structure and painting it to ensure compatibility.
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible' efficient and
workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
Staff is very supportive of the applicant's redevelopment plan with regard to uses,
activity and density, given the fact the proposal includes the addition of 13
accommodation (hotel) rooms and an expanded conference space.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter
18.52.
The parking requirements for the Vail Village Inn will, undoubtedly, be-the more
complex issue regarding this redevelopment proposal. The Vail Village hn parking
analysis, as indicated in Appendix A, shows a total parking requirement for the Vail
Village Inn project, which includes Phases I, tr, III, IV and the proposed IV-A, as
being2t43 parking spaces. The existing parking structure, located at the lower levels
of the Phase Itr building, currently provides 109 parking spaces. Additionally, there
are currently 53 surface parking spaces on-site, and the applicant is proposing to add
14 surface parking spaces as a part of this proposal. The total parking which would
be provided would be 176 spaces, which equals 72.4Vo of the required parking.
It is the staffs position that the existing parking for Phases I, II, trI and IV is
considered a lcgal, non-conforming use. In other wotds, the Town will not assess an
additional parking requircment to bring the first four phases into compliance with the
current parking code. This is because changes to the Town's parking standards have
occurred since construction of the early phases of the WL However, the staff
believes that the required parking for Phase V, as well as for the new proposal (Phase
IV-A) must be addressed. It should be noted that when the Phase V building was
approved, the parking requirement was deferred until the final phase of the VVI was
constructed (the redevelopment of Phase IV). Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987,
under Section 11, lists 8 conditions of approval for the development plan for Phases
IV and V. Condition No. 8 reads as follows:
"Any remodel or redevelopment of the remaining pofiion of SDD 6, commonly
referred to as Phase V, shall include parking as required by Ordinance l, Series
of 1985."
It is the staffs opinion that this current redevelopment proposal triggers condition
number 8, and that the required parking for Phase V must now be addressed.
According to the staff's calculations of the Phase V building, the parking requirement
for Phase V shall be as follows: (See Appendix B for the specific breakdown)
1.
2.
J.
4.
Retail =
Restaurant =
Residential =
11.77 spaces
4.25 spaces
23.44 soaces
Total Requirement =39.46 spaces
The parking requirement for the proposed Phase IV-A is 11.13 spaces. The combined
parking requirement for Phase IV-A and Phase V is 39.46 spaces + 11.13 spaces =
50.59 - 5% multi-use credit = 48 parking spaces.
The parking issues before the PEC today are two-fold. First, the staff would like a
reading from the Planning Commission regarding the applicability of condition number
8, listed in Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987. If the Planning Commission agrees
with the staff that the applicant must now provide, or address the issue of parking for
Phase V, then the second issue becomes more pronounced. The second issue is the
applicant's proposal to provide an additional 14 surface parking spaces, when a
requirement of 48 spaces is stipulated by the code. The applicant has presented a
parking utilization study that analyzed parking during peak times of occupancy. This
study is included as Appendix C.
It should also be understood that the 109 space parking structurc, in the Phase trI
building, is currently not open and available for use by the general public. Of the
totd 109 spaces in the structurc, 44 of those E aces are currently deeded to
condominium owners of the Vail Village Inn (15 of those 44 deeded spaces are
deeded to condominium owners within Phase V). The issue here is whether the
applicant should be required to open up the structured parking and to allow the general
public the use of the 65 undeeded spaces in the strucnrre.
D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan,
Town policies and Urban Design Plans.
This redevelopment plan was analyzed according to the recently adopted Vail Village
Master Plan. The specific goals, objectives and subarea plans of the Vail Village
Master Plan which pertain to the Vail Village Inn project are listed below:
1.2 Obiective:
Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial
facilities.
1.2.1 Policv:
Additional development may be allowed as identified by the Action Plan and
as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide
Plan.
1.3 Obiective:
Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements
done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town.
1.3.1 PollsJ:
Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private
sector working with the Town.
2.3 Obiective:
Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight
accommodations.
2.3.r Ps!!sJ,:
The development of short tenn accommodation units is strongly encouraged.
Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required
to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short
term ovcrnight rental.
2.5 Obiective:
Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing
lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests.
3.1 Obiective:
Physically improve the existing pedesuian ways by landscaping and other
improvements.
3.1.1 Pplisy:
Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such
as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent
pedestrian ways.
3.1.3 Policv:
Flowers, trees, water features, and other landscaping shall be encouraged
throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas.
3.4 Obiectives:
Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible gteen
space areas, including pocket parks and stream access.
3.4.2 Polisy:
Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks
along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master
Plan and,/or Recreation Trails Master Plan.
5.1.1 Eqlisy:
For new development that is located outside of the Commercial Core lZone
Disrict, on-site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking
fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the zoning code.
5.1.5 Polgy:
Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide undergtound
or visually concealed parking.
5.4.2 Policy;
Medians and right-of-ways shall be landscaped.
The Vail Village lvtast€r Plan has idsntifred the Vail Village Inn as subarea concept
number 1-1, which is copied in its entirety below:
il1-l Vail Villaqe InnFinal phase of Vail Village rnnproject to be conpleted aiestabllshed by developnent planfor SDD #6. Connercial
developuent at Eround level tofrane interior plaza withgreenspace. ![ass of, buildingsshall rqtep uptr fron existingpedestrlan scale along MeadowDrive to 4-5 stories along theFrontage Road. Design uust besensitive to naintaining viewcorridor fron 4-way stop to VailMountain. Special enphasis onL.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 3.2, 4.L, 5.L,
5. 1.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect
the property on which the special development district is proposed.
There are no natural and/or geologic hazards which would affect this propeny and/or
redevelopment proposal.
F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed
to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural
features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
Thcre is essentially no change to the existing building fooprint with this proposed
redevclopment As indicated in Section IV of this memorandum, the setbacks for the
underlying PA zone distict are 20 feet from all property lines. This proposal will
ceftainly meet the 20 foot requirement, as the minimum distance from the porte
cochen to the nearest property line would be 41 feet.
Therc will be no significant changes made to tlp Vail Village Inn open space
provisions, as only 245 sq,. fe of additional arca will be covered by buildings.
*ng=+JJ
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing
on and off-site traffic circulation.
Vehicular Circulation: Given the revised surface parking layout, the general vehicular
circulation system appears adequate. The Town of Vail Fire Department has reviewed
this proposal, and at this time does not take issue with the project. The Public Works
Department also has no problems with the general vehicular circulation plan.
However, they are concerncd about some existing drainage problems, in the surface
parking area, which would need to be corrected and addressed through the building
permit prccess.
Due to the change in use on the site, a Colorado Department of Highways access
permit will need to be secured" prior to the Town issuing a building permit for the
project.
Pedestrian Circulation: Pedesrian circulation is a key issue the staff would like to
address. It is well known that a long-standing goal for Vail is to improve upon the
pedestrian cxperience through the development of a continuous network of paths and
walkways. Specific to the Vail Village Inn project, the Vail Village Master PIan, as
well as the Town of Vail Recreation Trails Master Plan and the Master Transportation
Plan, specifically call for bicycle/pedesuian ways along both sides of the South
Frontage Road. Through the redevelopment process at the adjacent Gateway Plaza
site, the developer was required to provide a pedestrian sidewalk along the entire
length of the Gateway property along Vail Road and South Frontage Road. At this
time, staff believes it appropriate to rcquest that the developer of the Vail Village Inn
extend the sidewalk where the Gateway ended it and continue the walk for the full
length of the WI property east to the Crossroads site. Staff acknowledges that there
are some grade difficulties through this area, and also that cooperation from the
Colorado Depanment of Highways (CDOH) will be necessary. The Town staff is
willing to assist the applicant in securing the necessary CDOH permits to install the
pedestrian connection.
The current Vail Village Inn proposal, as presented, does not include any
improvements to the pedestrian circulation system as described above.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
The proposal has provided limited additional landscaping, in the form of two planters
located on the east and west sides of the access drive off of South Frontage Road.
Again, with cooperation from the CDOH, staff believes that additional landscaping
added along the entire nofihern property line of the Vail Village Inn would be
benehcial. We believe additional landscaping and screening in this area would not
o
10
only benefit the general public, by assisting in the buffering of the structures from the
Frontage Road and I-70, but will also benefit the property owner and guests of the
WI in the same manner.
The proposal will not encroach into any of the Town's adopted view corridors.
I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional
and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special
development district.
The applicant has proposed that the ledevelopment plan (Phase IV-A) be completed at
one time. No phasing plan is proposed.
It is the staffs position that the redevelopment plans for the entire Phase IV, which
are addressed in Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, are still valid. Should the
developer with to proceed with this previously approved plan at some future date,
which would necessitate the demolition of Phase IV-A, final DRB approval will be
required. If there are changes or modifications to the plans, then a major SDD
amendment will be required.
VI. STAIIF RECOMMEN'DATION
Because the PEC review is a worksession, there is no staff recommendation at this time. The
intent of the worksession is to give the applicant, and the staff, further direction on the issues
which have been identified in Section V of this memorandum. A summary of the issues is as
follows:
* Architectural compatibiliry* Parking requirements* Pedestian circulation* Landscaping
It should also be noted that the eight conditions of approval listed in Section I I of Ordinance
No. 14, Series of 1987, will also be included in the ordinance required for this project (see
attached ordinance).
ll
APPENDIX A
Vail Village Inn Parking Analysis*
l.Phase I
A. Retail
B. Restaurants
C. Residential
Phase II
A. Retail
B. Residential
Phase III
Retail
Residential
Phase IV
A. Food & Deli
B. Restaurant and Bar
C. Residential
D. ConferenceMeeting Area
Phase V
A. Retail
B. Restaurant
C. Residential
Phase IV-A
A. Residential
Parkins Snaces Reouircd
2.
3.
A
6.
A.
B.
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
19.12
16.50
2.50
38.r2
t2.99
4.99
17.98
6.00
11.60
4t.30
5.07
63.97
25.r2
59.33
84.45
38.12
r7.98
84.45
63.97
lt.77
4.25
23.44
39.46Subtotal 39.46
11.13 I1.13
Total:255.11
-57o Multiple
Use Crcdit: -12.75
Grand Total: 242.36 = 243
Parking requirements were determined by using the Town standards in effect at the
time of construction.
t2
APPENDD( B
WI - Phase V Farking Analysis
A.
B.
Basement lrvel (Vail Resort Association)
Ground Itvel
l. Retail: 2,865 + 668 = 3533/300
2. Restauran[ 510/15/8
Second Level
Parkine Spaces Reouired
0
11.78
4.25
2
2
0.63
2
2)
0.63
0.67
1.5
7
39.46
c.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Unit #1 = 402 + 398 = 800
Unit #2 = 343 + 461 = 804
AU =229
Unit #3 = 232 + 376 = 608
Unit #4 = 475 + 317 = 792
Unit #5 = 445 + 279 = 7?/l
AU =224
D.Third l,evel
1. Unit #6 = 396 + 224 = 6202. Unit #7 = 397 + 318 = 715
3. Units #8 & #9 are combined into one unit
= 454 + 314 + 35 + 712 = L5l54. Unit #10 = M5 + 277 =722
Fourth kvel
1. AU =2792. Unit #11 = 3883. Unit #12 (with loft)
= 598 + 244 + 36 + 273 + 410 = 1552
,
2
2
2
E.
13
-i=E:r
. --:": . Parking Analysis for the Vail Village Inn addition -.
*-:I=:-
--. t
quired number of parking spaces ior-the entiri wr sen---r:-*--''-
--, . :- * prex wirh rhe proiosed iaaition incruded-i"-zja--rp"aa;:---- :.-.The amount that can be provided without L much -_. , ____ _ ,
tation shuttl-e vehicle rather than in an-individual ve_
recircu].atj.onandcreationofcornpactsPacesand/orcle:--i_:*
.-. --.;-. ation of -valet parking is 1?7 spales. itrat would repib:--::,....- -sent a figure of 74\ of the reguired nurnber of epaies. . : :
--_--'-" Due to the nature of hoter/mix6d use deveroprnentl- even_-_ :_. -.- .--- during the peak tirnes of the year when arl tire rooms aie.,,.*,_.-...occupied, - the parking rots in tne parking structure are - -.used to about G5t of capacity. Tlris is-due in large ____- .--.*.-- part to the tlpical vail visilor arriving in a transpoi-.
----
.
-hicle:.. Th" proxinity of the Wf to the ski mountainr-. - . -.. .- ... -. !h" village shops and restaurants, nake it convenient t;be a pedestrian while staying in the hotel . AIso as :
seen by the chart, the retail and restaurant businesses '
:,_ _--._._ require. 90 total spaces and E5 spaces are ifimediately _ _availabl-e on the surface parking 1ots. rt shourd also --,-' be noted that as a functl-on of-the hotel business, irr" _*_,-_.. restaurants and bars are tlT)ically frequented by tne ho-.ter guests 3nd nay justify i rargEr ttrJn 5t redirction in- - -'
overaLl parking reguirements. Furtherr.all but 2 park-_ _---,- |.-- --.-- ing spaces as shown on the site plan and in the struc-turea!efu1]-.sizespacesandthe-a].1owanceinthezon:'-
.__ ^ .- ing,,code i-s.Z-S!of thespacesmay be compact, whiCh--___....-
,--,-:-'-. The.proposed addition and renovation woul.d require 10:6 -_==-l -(11) spaces and the submi.tted parking plan sho:ws that.15-------;-.---
" struction. These additional spaces are derived iiOni----i ,
-1 . -J-r-- ,changes in the circulation pattein as a resul.r from the -l:ljl--,;--------.- development of the Gateway larcel and the subseguent.re;cruction of a rarge amounl of clrcuration that 'was .,"-_: . :-:. g:il"d of . the old- ""-'i9" ;i"iG;-;;;:- en inportanrl-:--i- f::-=*__Y:,:'j=-Yt:. rservrc€t sEaEron use- AII imPortant- --i-'--- not'e reLated to the parking igeue is the way th6 "Town, --:-*- chooses to treat exisiing, -nonconfoming 'd6ver6pr*c3;'
-------, woul-d . potentiarry increaie the nimber of ipaci" iili- ,:.--:-*:--.-*,could be provided. There are 4 'paces on thE site pran- - - :--:----*---' ' that courd be considered ag valit p..ii"g, -[or"i.;],.,=*:: -_...
__ -_:* _ theee spaces wouLd be rese:lred for empioy""" .- _____: ,
__ J_ . i.e-.. provided the propoiia aaaition ,""i" ah"-;#;;;;-- parking_standards for the addition, .the remai;iil-il;:t " tion of the project may remain nonconfo:ming with _re_..----gard.to parking. - Recoq-nizinq that this oro.ticr is non;qT:.o.ParJ<ing.. Recognizing that this proJect is pen-i--L*J-]-,-conlorlningr lf the addition srere all.owed Uy lne existinq--A+-: ii :--sDD' additional parking would onry be r"qirir"a ioi-.iiiE :-.i_i-lji-ll-_addition alone ;'.--l----*-...-
r :of '-.- reg-'Inn
peak-:'---* --. of occupancy are indicated, as well as one off-seago
week.
Week one! Dec 25-Jan 2, 199I-- 50 spaces'consistantly during the week leaving at least,-: *- .- . available iir tne pirking structure itone.
Week two: Feb 15-Feb 22, 1991 (president,s
,. _ _- - - , spaces were used consistantly.during.the weekminirnum, 35 spaces available in the parkingalone. (Worst Case Example)
Week three: Jan 20-Jat 27, 199I-- 53 spaces lvere useo
55 spacesl: l- --,. consistantly during the week, leaving at leastavailable in the park5-ng structure alone.
Week four: JuIy 3-July 10, 1990-- 23 spaces:--. -r - '(on average) during the-weeli, leaving at-least. . :-.'- -availabLe in the parking structure al.one.'*------:--- lleek fiver JuIy 13- July 22, 1990-- 18 spaces
hlere used
85 spaces
were used(on average; during the week, leaving at Ieastavailable in the parkinq structure alone.
Week six: Oct 17-Oct 24, 1990-- 5 spaces wereaverage) during the week, J-eaving 104 spaces
91 spaces.
used (on
availabLein the parking structure aLone.
As can be seen by t,hese numbers, the worst case situa---. - ---tion leaves a surplus of 35 spaces, not a shortfall ofparking. Thus, t,he existing mixed-use development can'.'. -"---l -
be demonstrated to function suite well with the amountof parking that is currently provided. With the addi-tional parking that will be provided for the small -
- - _ _:-'----.-- lenovation, the proJect would likely function as well
t-- -- '_-- or better than the-existing conditionl
For cfarification, the amount of deeded parkingfor Phase v that are in the parking structure is sPaqes- - ,-. -.-..--,-- -15 and : ' --r- -
the nunber that are deeded to Phase III is 29.'The'nrim:ber of required employee spaces is g
*.: -. ..-r-.
r
oRDtNAilCE t{0. 14
Serlca of 1987
AN ORDINANCE AI'EilDING OROII'IANCE I'IO. I, SERIES OF 1985
To PRoVIDE FoR THE A}|ENDI'IENT 0F THE APPRoVED DEVELoPIIENT PLAf'l
FOR SPECIAL DEVEL0PltlEl,lT DISTRICT t{0. 6; ADOPTll'lG AN Al'lEflOEO
DEVELOPI.IEI'IT PLAIT FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL DEVEIOPI'IINT OISTRICT
1{0. 6, ELlllll{ATlllc CERTAIN REQUIREHENTS RELATII{G T0 THE
DtSTAI{CE 8ETl{EEN BUILDINGS FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL
DEvELoPflEl'lT DISTRICI H0. 6; CHANGING THE HEIGHT
REQUIREHEIiITS FOR PHASE IV OF SPECTAL DEVELOPI'IEI{T
DISTRICT O. 6; CHA GI G THE ALIoI,,ABLE DEI{SITY AND }loolFYll{G
THE BUILDtiIG EULK STANDARDS FON PHASE IV OF SPECIAL
DEVELoPIINT DISTRICT ilo. 6; PRoVlotilG DIFFERENT
PARKING AiID LOADING REQUIREI'IENTS FOR PHASS IV AND V
0F SPECIAL DEVEL0PHEIiI DISTRICT N0. 6; AND SETTIIIG
FORTH DETAILS II{ REGARD THERETO.
l{ol,l, THEREFoRE' 8E lT onDAtNED 8Y THE Tot{l{ CouNCtt of thc Town of Vrll es
fol I ors:
Sectlon l, Lcgls'latlve tntcnt ls hcreby rcpeelcd tnd ra.nrctod Hlth.r|t!ndm!nt3 to
read as fol I ows:
Sectlon'l , Leglsl ativ€ lntent
A. In 1976, the Torm Council of the Town of Vrll passsd Ordlnrnce No' 7'
Serles of '1976, establlshlng speclal Development Dlstrlct No. 6 to lnsure the
unlfled .nd coordinated development of a crltlcal lltr 13 a lhole rnd ln r nanner
sultable for the area ln whlsh lt was sltuated.
8'SpecialDeve.|opnrentDlstrictNo.6provlded|nsectlonltlthattheTown
council reserved th3 right to abrogate or modify speclrl Davelopment 0lstrlct No. 6
for good cause through Lhe snactment of an ordlnance In conformlty t{lth the zoning
code of the Town of Vail.
C. tn 1985, the Town Councll of tha Torln of Vail passed Ordlnrnc' ll' Serles
of 1985, providlng certaln amcndments to the development plan for SDD t{0' 6'
D. Appltcation has bcen mado to th€ Town of Vall to nodlfy rnd mend cartaln
sectlons of special Developnent 0lstrlct No, 6 whlch relet3 to Phesa IV rnd },hlch
nrka cftaln changes In thc drvel opnrent plan for SPrclal DcvaloFEnt Dlstrlct l{o. 6
rs th.y relrte to Ph.se lV.
E. The Plrnnlng end Envlrormental connls3lon of th3 Tonn of v.ll hlt r.vl.ned
the changes subnltied by thr rppllcrnt d has rlcom.nded that Spcclrl Davolopncnt
Dlstrlct No. 6 be 30 mlnded.
F.TheTownCouncllconsidargthattheanondnentsFrovlde|n.vcnnol.
unlflcd lnd more arsthetlcally pleaslng developnent of r crltlcal rlte 1{lthln th.
Town end that such amcndnents re of beneflt to tha hellth, 3rfety lnd welfarG of
th! Inhrbltsnts of the Town of Vril.I
t,.
-=t't
0
- Sectlon 2, Sectlon 18.50.020 Purpose ls h.raby mrnded to r.rd rs follors:
A Spcclal llevelopnent Dl3trlct ls estrbllrhrd to rssur. coaprohrnllvr
. devolopmnt end use of ln rrar In a nanner that would be harflonlous llth the
generll charactar of the Town, provlde rdequate opcn space Nnd racroatlon
enenltlrs, rnd pronote the obJectlves of the Zonlng ordlnance of thc Town.
0rdlnerlly, e speclal drvclopnent dlstrict will br cr.ated only rhcn the
devslopn nt ls ragarded as conplamntary to tha Town by the Town Councllr Plannlng
Conmlsslon rnd Osslgn Rcvlcw Boerd, and therc arc rl gnl fl cant .3p!cts of the
speclal developmrnt whlch crnnot be satlsflad under the exlstlng :onlng.
Sertlon 18.50.040 Developnrent Plen -- Contents ls hereby rmondcd to read as
fol lows;
Th. propor.d devclopnnnt ptrn 3h.ll Includc, but ls not llnltcd to, the
followlng dete es supplernanted by.xhlb{ts provlded by consultants Roy3ton'
Hanamoto, Beck rnd Abey on February 12, 1976 for Phases I, Il' lll, lnd as
supplemented by the exhlblts of the devel opnrent plan and the envlronmentrl impact
report 13 prepared by Gordon R, Plerce, Archltect, (plans dated Fobrurry 19, 1987'
revlsed Aprll 14 and Aprll 22, 1987't, end as glven flnal aPProval_ through Prgsage
of second reading of this ofdlnance by the Town councll on ilay 19' 1987 for Phase
IV end Phase V. This approvrl recognizes that Phrs! lv may be con3tructed ln two
phases wlth thE fifst phasa to be referred to ar Phas. IV end thr flnrl phase to bs
rcferrad to .s Phase v.
Sectlon 3. Srctlon I8.5O.O4O E ls hereby anrndad to read es follotll:
E. For Phases I, tt, rnd tlt, a volurnelrlc model es ancndod by consultants
Royston' Hanamoto, Beck end Abey on February 12' 1975 of th€ sltt rnd proposed
development docurnented by photographs at a scalr of I lnch equals 16 frrt or
lerger, portnylng the scrll and rclatlonshlp of tho33 phasee of th' divoloPncnt to
th. 3lt. tnd lllustratlng th. fom rnd nrss of 3tructurcs ln $ld phrsrs of the
develogmnt. For Phagrs tU rnd U, e volumctrlc oodcl es rmndcd by Gordon Plarcc'
Archltsct, of the sltc rnd th. proposed devllopncnt lt t scalr of I Inch .qu.ls 20
fegt, portr.ylng the scrlc ud re.|atlonsh|p of th. developncnt on Phr3ca IU rnd V,
to th. ilts and lllustratlng the form of nrrc of 3tructur€! ln rald phe:e'
Sectlon 4. Sectlon lg.50.O5O Pornltted Uses In Speclrl Dsvcl opocnt llo. 6 13 hlneby
repealrd rnd r.-!nict.d rlth mcndncnts to r'ed rr follows:
18.50.050 Penelttrd U3.s
The p.rmlttld uscg ln Phrses t, tI, ttt, tU rnd U of Sprclrl DavrloPment
Dlstrlct 6 shrll be ln rccordrncs },lth the lpproved dovelopncnt p'lrns on ftlc In
C
o
:.':
:: '" at rC
tho Tom of Vrll Comunlty Dcvrl oprncnt oepartnent,
Sectlon 5. Section 18.50.060 Condltlonal Uses ln Spaclrl llcvel opnent Dlstrlct llo. 6
ls hrrcby rcpealed end rc-rnactcd wlth amendnents to raad rs follows:
18.50.050 Condltlonal Usss
Condltlonal Uses for Phases l, ll, III, lU rnd V of Spcclel Develogment
Dlstrlct No. 6 shall be rs found ln Section 18.22.030 of th6 Vall Zonlng Codc rnd
es below: A. A popcorn out3lde vendlng wrgon thrt conforns In.ppemncc wlth
thogs oxlstlng ln Cormenclrl Core I and Cormercl.I Core II.
Excrpt, no office uses, axcapt those cleeriy acccssory to r prlnclpal use wlll
be rllowed on the Plaza lcvel of Phrses
IV .nd V.
Sectlon 5. Sectlon l8.5o.ll0 Dlstrnce Between Eulldlngs ls horcby anrndcd to
as fol I ows:
rard
18.50.110 Dlstance Between 8ul ldings
For Phases I, Il rnd IIt the mlnlmunr dlstance between bulldlngs on rdJacent
sltcs shall be as lndlcrted In the developarent plan, but ln no case rhrll be less
thrn 50 feet. For Phese lV AND V, the nlnlmum dlstancr between bulldlngs on
adJacent sltes shall be es lndlcated in the development plan as subnltted by Gordon
Plerce. Archltect, (dated Febru y 19, 1987, revlsad Aprll 14 .nd Aprll 17, 1987).
sectlon 7. Sec on 18.50,120 Helght ls hereby lmend.d to read rs follows:
A.ForPhasesI'II,|ndtlltheallowablehelghtsshellbeasfoundonthe
development plan, speciflcr'lly the site plan lnd helght Plrn dated 3/L?/76.
B. tor-Phascs IU rnd U, the naxlnum bulldlng helght shall br r3 ltt forthdn
'thc rpprovod developmenL pltn by Gordon Plgrcc, Archltect (drted F.brurry 19,'1987;r"
rsvlsed Aprll 14 rnd Aprll l7' 1987).{
sectlon 8. ssctlon r8.5o.l3o D.nslty ls hereby rnondcd to r€.d 13 follois:
ThoGfossResldent|rlFloorArea(GRFA)ofalldlgtr|ctglnthaSpeclal
Devclopnent Dlstrict shrll not exceed 120,600 square fcet. Thcrr shrll bg r
nlnlmun of 118 rcc.omodatlon unlts ud 67,367 lqu.ra f.et of GRFA dcvoted to
rcconmodatlon unlts ln Phr3e tv lnd v of sPeclal ocveloment Dlstrlct 5.
lg-S!p!-g. Sectlon 18.50.130 Bulldlng Eulk ls hcreby amended to r'rd 13 follors:
18,50.130 Bulldtng Bulk
Sulldlng bulk, nexIntun rrrll lrngths, nrxlnum dIngnsIons for bulldIng Gl.Dgnts,
?eaulrenents for wa'l I offsets and verticrl stcPplng of roof llncs for Phases l, ll
rnd III shall be lndlcrted on thc development plan suhnltted by consultrnt3
co
Royston, llenrnoto, Beck end Abry on fobnurry le, 1975. For Phrrcs lU end V,
bulldlng bulk, nrxlmrm rrrl I l.ngths, nrxlmun dlmrnslons for bulldlng clenlnts,
r.qulrlmrnts for rull offr.ts end vortlcrl rtepplng of roof lln.s shall b! r!
Indlcetrd rs plr thc rpprovcd dcvelopnent plrns rubnlttsd by Gordon R. pl.rc.,
Archltost (datcd Fcbrury 19, tgS7, rrvlred Aprll 14 and Aprl'l 22, 1987).
sectlon 10. Sactlon 18.50.180 Parklng rnd Loadlng ls horeby reperled lnd t..nacted
wlth rnendnents eg fol l0r3:
18.50.180 Prrklng rnd Lordlng
Followlng tho completlon of Phases tU and V, thrrr shall bo not llss thrn 12
gurflcc parklng spaces, 324 underground prrklng spacrs, and 37 undcrground vllet
parklng spaces !s are exlrtlng rnd rs Provlded on thl dcvaloPncnt plrn 3ubnltted bJ
cordon R. Plerce, Archlt.ct (dsted Fcbruary f9, 1987). The proPossd slta plan
dated February 19, 1987-rrfl.cts the lntcrln parklng plans bctrccn the davcloPnent
of Phases lv .nd v.
Sectlon 1l ls horoby rop.rled rnd r€onacted trlth enendments to rlad !s
fol lows:
sectlon 11. condltlons of rpproval for the dev.lopm.nt plen of Phescs IV rnd u of
sDD6 es submltted by Gordon Plercs (dat.d February 9, 1985, rcvlccd Aprll t4 rnd
Aprll 22, 1987), shall be as follows:
1. ThNt the developers and/or owners of Phases tv lnd v partlclpate ln rnd do not
rcmonstrrtc rgainst ln lmprovement dlstrlct for lnprovement3 to ths
lntersectionofvailRo.dendl.|eadowDrivclfrnd|rhanonelsforncd.
2.Thatthadcvcloperslnd/orornersofPhasestVrndUprrtlc|prtelnanddonot
r€monstr|t.rgainstrstebllshlngrpedestrlanllnkagefronPhaseslVrndvto
afuturecomierclalGxPlnslonltthesonnen|lpLodgas|t.|frndwhen|t|s
devrl oped.
3.Thadevrlopcrf.cc|v.rpprovalfronthcstrt.H|ghfryD3plrtn.ntfor
rcconflgurrt|onofth.pull.off|r.afroth.FrontageRordtoth..ntrrnc.to
the hot.l Prlor to th. lltultlc. of r bulldlng P'rnlt for Phrs' v'
4. The developcr.s end/or own$s of Phr3e tV rgrGa to tranrfcr by genrrrl lrrrnty
derdtothcTormofUrllfreerndGlsrrofrlll|ensrnd.ncu'Dr|nc.3,tuch
condornlnlun unlt of .pproxlnat.ly 3,986 sq' ft' In slzc lnd to bc locrtld as
Indlceted on the plrn3 rnd speclflcrtlons rubnltted wlth ths eppllcatlon'
There shrll bc no provlrlons pleced on thG Gondonlnlurn unlt rsstrlctlnt th'
Town of Vrli's usc of tht unlt or the subscqucnt subdivlrlon rndlor 3rl. of
the unl t.
C
-4-
C"t.'cl
5. llo gradlng pcrmlt, bulldlnt permlt or demolltlon prrmlt rrlrtlng to Phisss tV
or V of Speclal Developnent Dlstrlct 1lo. 6 shall br lssued untll such tlne
that rersonable evldence ls provlded the Town of Vrll rteff thrt constructlon
flnanclng for the lnprovements to b! constructed rs plrt of Phases tV or V has
been obtrlned.
6. Rcstrlctlonr on eny unltr ln Phase3 IV or V whlch rould b. condonlnlurlzad
shall be rs outllned ln Sectlon 17.26,075 of the Vall l,lunlclpal Codc and any
mendments thareto.'
7. Upon the lrsuance of r bulldlng permlt for the conctructlon of tny phase of
SDD#6 subsequent to Phri€ IV, the developer and/or onntr of srld phase shall
relnburse thc Town of Vell for.xpenses lncurred ln frcllltatlng the
relocatlon of the skl nuseurn (into Phase IV) of !n rmount not to .xceed
f75.000.
8. Any remodel or redevelopment of the rcmalnlng Portlon of SDDS comonly
refemed to as Phase V shall lnclude parklng as requlred by Ordlnrnce I'
Series of 1985.
Sectl on 12.
tf rny part, sectlon, subsection, sentencr, clauss or phrase of this ordlnancr ls
for any reason he'ld to be Invalid, such declslon shall not affsct the valildlty of
the remalnlng portlons of thls ordlnancel and the Town Council herlby declares lt
would have passed this ordinance, and each part, sectlon' tubscctlon, srntencs'
clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that rny one or ore parts'
rcct{ons, subsectlons, 3entlnces, clauses or phrases be dcclarrd lnvrlld'
Sectlon 13.
Thc repeal or the repeal tnd reenactlon of any provlslons of thl uall llunlciprl
code rs provlded In thls ordlnance shall not affect rny rlght whlch hrs accrued,
rny duty lnposad, rny vlolrtlon th.t occurrrd Prlor to the eff.ctlva drte hcroof,
rny prosecutlon cormenced, nor rny othrr actlon or procrcdlng 13 com€nccd und.r or
by vlrtue of thr provlslon rcpcaled or rcporled end rocnacted. Thr rcpeal of rny
provlslon hereby shall not revlvc rny provlslon or rny ordlnancr provlously
rcFrled or supcrrcded unlrss lxprcssly stated hor.ln.
,l
C.
II{TRODU.ED' READ At{D pAssE0 ot{ FIRsr READI]{G rHIs 5th day of ihv. r9B7
-'
and e.publlc hcrrlng shall be held on thls ordlnancc on the tgth
-
dal of ilav lg87 !t 7:30 p.lt. ln th. Counct.l Chrmbcrs of the Vrll
llunlclpal Eulldlng, Uell, Colorrdo.
ll9li 8th dry of -l!by , lgs?.
Prul R.ton, lhyor
II{TRODUCED, NIAD AI{D APPNOVED O'{ SECOiID NEADING Al{D ORDEREO PUSLISHED IN
thls -,!4[_ day of _[rv . t987.
(t oC,
Pmelr A. Brandmryar, Town Clerk
Panela A. Srlndmeyer, Town Clcrk
ORDITIANCE NO. 24
Serl.es of 19t19
AN ORDINANCE NiIENDI}IG SECIIOI.I 8 OF
ORDINANCE NO. 14 SERIES| OF 1987 TO PROVIDE
FOR TIIE AMENDI.IENI' OF DENSII'Y OF TIIE
API'IIOVED DBVEI-oPMSI.IT PINI{ FOR
SPECIAL DEVEI,oPI.IENT DISTRIC'II NO. 6
NOW, TIIEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AY TITE TOWN COUIICIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COIOR DO, AS FOIJTOWS:
section 1. Leglglatl.v€ Int€nt
A. In 1976r the Vall Towtr councll passed OrdLnance No. 7,
Series of 1976, establlshlng Special Developnent Dist.rlct No. 6 to
lnsure the unified and coordinated develpnenL of a crlbical sib€ as a
rdlrole and ln a nanner sultable for the area in whlch lt was eituated.
B. Speclal Development DiBLrict l,to. 6 provided in secLlon 1,4
thaL the Tolrn Councll reserve the riglrt to abrogate or nodify Special
Developnent DistrLct No. 6 for good cause through the enactnrent of an
ordilrance Ln conforrnity with tlre zoning qode of the Town of Vail.
C. In 19S5, tha VaiI To$n Councll passed Ordl.nalrce No. 1,
Series of 1985 provlditrg certairr arretrdtnerrbs to the devel.optnent plan
for Special Development District No. 6.
D. In 1987, the Vail I'own council passed ordlnance No. 14.
Series of 1987 provldlng certaln amendments to the developnrent plan
for SpeclaL DevelopnenC Dletrict No. 6.
E. Appl ication has been made to the Town of Vall to nodify and
amend Section I of OrdLnance No. 14, Serl.es of, 1987 rahich relates to
tlre allowed derrsity of the developnent plan for spaclal Developnent
District No. 6.
F. The Plannlng and Environnental cornnieel,on of the Totn of
Vall has reviewed the changes.
G. l'h€ vall Toun council coneldere that tlrc rncndn€nta provlde
a tnore unified and aesthetl,cal]y pLearing dev€loprnetrt of a crltical
eite withln the Toun and Euch anendneDts are of benEflt to the health,
safety, Helfare of thE inhabltante of the To$n of Vail.
Section 2.
A. Bcctloh 18.50.130 Denslty la hereby aninded to read as
follous:
o
Th€ groEs r€'ld€ntrar froor area (cRrA) of all dr.trtcts rn the
Special Developnent Dlstrlct ehal,I not exceetl !24.527 Eguare feet.
There Ehalr be a ur.nr.mun of 148 accommodatron urrr.ts and 6?,367 squar€
feet of GRFA devot€d to accomnodatlon unrts rn phaee rv and pha6e v of
Special Developnent Di.trict N6. 6. 3,92? aquare f€€! of GRFA sballIbe allocated to unlt 30 of the.vall vlltage plazE condonfrlfung. qpty,
D. sect,lon 11 of ordiDansc 14, gerleg of, 19a7 le lreroby oncllded
by the additiotr of, subsectiol 9 wlrich shall read as follows:
9. 'condonlnlun unLt 30 of the vall virrige plaza condonLnt una arrarl
be subJect to the restrLctl.ons of sectlon r7.26.073 of the Town of
Vall subdlvlsion RegulatLons lf utlllzed for resLclentlat purpoees.
The Town Councll hereby fl,nds. deterrninee and declarea that. tlris
ordirrance is necessary and proper for the health, eafety and uelfare
of the tolrn of VaIl and the intlabitants thereof.
Sectiotr 3.
If any part, sectlon, subsecllon, sentence, clause or phraEe of thls
ordinance is for any reason held to be irrvall,d, such <lecislon ahall
not affect the vatldlty of llle renalnlrrg portiorrs of tlrls ot.dlnancei
atrd the Town Council hereby declares lt vould have passed this
ordinance, and each part, secLion, subsection, Ber)t€nce,
clause or phraae thereof, regardless of the fact that any ono or notre
parts, Eectiohs, subsections, sentenc€s, clausee gr phrasea be
declared invalld.
Sectlon 4. The repeal or the repeal and re-enactnent of any
provislons of the ValI llunielpal code as provided ln thie ordinance
6haII not affect any rlght rrltlch ha6 accrued, any duty irnpoeed, any
vlolatlon that occurred prlor to th€ €ffective date hereof, any
proeeeutlon connenced, nor any other acelon or proceedlng aE codnenced
undler or by vlrtue of the proviElon repealed or repealed and re-
enasted. Th€ r€peal of, any provislon hereby shall not revl,v€ any
provJ,elon or any ordlnance prevlously repealed or Eupersed€d unleEs
expressly Etatcd lrereln.
INTRODUCED, REID AND PASSED Orr FIRST nAt|DIr|c IHIS _l!!- day of _
llovenber , 1989, and a pubtic trearlng Bhall be held on th.ts
ordlnanc€ on tlre 7th day of Noven$er , 1989 at z!30 p.n. ln ure
councll chamb€rs of th€ VaIl Municlpal Bulldlng, Vall, Colorado.
ordered publlshed ln full thts _l[ day of, _!g!9![l!,L_, tese.
ATTEST I
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOTID
passed by tltle onlv thla Ztet day
ATTEST:
READING AIID ORDEREU PUDT,ISIIEI)
, 1989.
U
Panela A. Brandtneybr, Town Clerk
l:.:i
;l'it?:
': i',!;.i
'*i:t
4- :i \i
?':ii.;*
!'r..'i i
..,',;'a1,J
l,'-j'J::l
'i':i;-.r,'
-+rtti
o
a
o
ff-^*ilI
{t
4tlal?
t;
J
€xlsnNo 30urH
l',rl,Lt t " l'O'
ot
Ual u;GJ,ZI
t't7/b-*& - fu$ ? 4 i b"a ;^ # n'"tv
17 A"{-(
i.-"No .^"J -h --'di o;,lo*'4,",/
',O+b /' e44.*-iit -Tre?
f: /*-;a f;*.A (*,-.- a9 &.*t .
br-- - t lW "* r/rx * A /e& //-4LX I
-,
-,--\f/r't
,\r\ill \r P n44 +
II
*/4
rtt
i
l;i
l
ll
[A\.0-:
!
rt
l
l
j
,
i
@hrt
Ir
.:
l,
li
I
.'
i
v \Dr \qq\
Pq'^CI1*-\oi1ot-tt\1il"
\ilruId- \i\ulp jcu \o\lJr&ld\i\slP,!cL
i,)o"^p go6ib!-r-
dolthjlL-'
axyunai abd+ li*'kil oorb^q bl f-Ui Jop,
MrU \'\_o_\u J0!_ N"t \o,r@co$rryp tV {rd%Xd
" ND\ bia" A f\doiJo-tk \ C t
E r\o,r? e,r^i.ilw-"Flr.r, ii(td,+. rt on flia.-
b,$h,, s{ f6kab \\atrt{,ryte !t .,r r{,
-'\ury1t4u u:d_y U'ffi fivAniy
,Cdr.Qrnd 054"\ D.o^cak!- horuq
'Hguffi,fu^ffii#d*.\\h'oo
zu, ddjrU -!0pl^il Wri\ u UUr*Ua
ffi;a\il'btuWr$ffi
totnU gK \0l0iuAd, gort-'iw brr '[qp{" U,a{4,U
ig".frS r,; f)"vastO -^.'.r1C. ,pr.,bl c-\oco4e$ rx fh*a-UtO - ',qpks ,pub\ic-
11fr00 6'r6!{dfi!. ^ 11,lN, Puntil '
,, (iilula\L olryt[l,d*\l \oilz4- \d\dio?r\^a"
ilkD/ - iroUd- lu L\tA+Q, o- bruUw0.S 4
+'-e!, ftcte-
'
-ruN\i\-lr.ut
wm?lrlq..' d, pet'^a 0rrl q-
\-r bA4r$A1i - ete&"l \o^Mca+\nd ob$rud,ta
h^A \orLdldbb rud, ' \) U
I
I r- /
lpoL--rc run\vlUnn*1\ (\
l"
N f'\ --k-) f nr\Al I t t\\vx'i<- qq lwu{ -
, dJMqNa uJd),, /,rndl\ro.v NE
lq\nincrur,t,r {l0,'ri
fido'.r,taiu, oS \
nD.tf@'+,',\
)e4 ,6r'. p- ) ' _'*/p4td i ry*)c4{)\+v"QJJ0,u\d
Uda\dL$ ruur-derc
irctflno@ -uvw
\lV
h {v'* 4 Do0r
mt{ai.-!a:[.r,u*a \ru'80d, )
$o n*H.[. \lo.]rkU
o
.i
,JE*'"139$F rm PlBKrltc AltAlvBxa
. crl4|el|llog oE rlnx e rcQUInBxEnrs
PnsB I nE[LrtJ (1)
ED;ur oe ps
lro, oF 8PACE8 nEq.
rcUA$Otr CAIiIARI
COIJD OR VAI''
8\rEg
TC!}& BBAI'TI
LrQrroB E!!oRE
VACANT
vrliltcB IxH apotss
VIIiLAE INX |INAVBIJ
REIAIII Q. rD.
l,!5,00
905.00
t, 100.00
500.00
905. O0
375.00
1,205.O0
aoz - oo
SlORrdE 8Q. FrI.
0.00
300- 00
i129.00
410.00
1,350.00
{4.00
305.00
155.00
!orn'. 8Q, rr.
3'16. O0
1,205.00
1, 529.00
910.00
2.256.OO
419,00
1, 511,00
55?.00
3.02
1.66
3.OZ
L.25
{. 02
1.34
1ATAII
PIASG I RES:IAURII{$I
5, ?41.00
ABRVICB .TFEA
sQ. Pr (1)
1,275.00
1,200.00
NO. OF S,Aeg ( 1)
85.00
80.o0
NO. OF SPACAA AEQ.
2, 99 3. oo 8,73j1.00 ,".r" /
NN.|B
AIPEHROAE
A}IBROSIA
lotEAt
PEIAE I RBAIDEI'IIAI,
8.5 (8)
8.0 (8)
$o. oa D.u.
2,475.00
sQ, Fr.
tszt tz, t/
NO. OF SPACEa nEg.
s.so \/
,.uo /
38.12
155,00
FEISS I IUII.L
lFunf,rtrIonel GlLtERy
lrsrQUE rRr
EALA
!1E4AL
PUIE II REAII'EIITIII,
PEAAT II REAAIL (1)
ro, oF D,u.
n8!!aMQ. P!r.
1,900.00
900.00
1,100,0o
sToaA@ sQ. Ft.
2?'0.00
210.00
a30.00
IOIA,! 8Q. er.
2,77 4 -OO
1,530-00
NO. @ SPACES nEQ.
91i|.00 4,014.00
NO. OP SPACBS 8EQ.
5.33
3.00
3,55
r2.ss t/
r.ee (s) /
^/1?-9A v
,,roo.oo /
8Q, m.
39a2.oo (z) ,r/
PSAAE II IEEIII
"*l:
ori
Df,ls rrr RBtAr! (5)
DnIaOOIL CAIiLEmT
VE .I'IT8E[ NAEEIT
EnrcBmcnxs
M$nIQUEA
llNIsA
WI & EEOB
r3T8A III NESIDEFITA! (5)
RE!!f,r! 8Q. Fn.
1,875.00
575.00
tr 88O.O0
575.00
1,415.00
11025.O0
grotAca sQ. et.
{90.00
320.00
210.00
100.00
aro.o0
2t0.00
tcrA! EQ. Ftx.
2,355.00
995. O0
2,090.00
7?5.00
1.825.00
1, ?65.00
NO. @ APACES tBQ.
6.25
2.25
6.25
2.25
4.71
3.ar
7,5r5.oo /L.77O.OO
sg. E!,
a/'.'',o.oo (.1 /
9,3t 5.00
NO. OF sPACEtt REQ.
25.L2 v
5s31 $' y'
;;::; ,/
rc. @ D.U.
PSAAB III IqTAII
EHISE V nErN! (5)
ulsc,
PlASg V nEgranRN|r (5)
REItIr, 8Q. t't!.
s,533.oo y'
8mRffts sQ. Pt.
535.00
f,o. oF 8B,rE8 ( 5 )
34.(xt
TqraJ, sQ. Fa.
t, 169.0O
NO. OF SPICES BBQ.
LL.77
NO. OF gplcBg ntsQ.NrlllE
Bt Atro, s
Eglaa v tB8rD8lrllArr (5)
---*---\--l-rc. oFx.tj,,/ -\/ 22 -oo
8EAIECE lnEI
89. rE (5)
510.00
PEASE V IFIIAI
2i,14
pI,1r
1.25
NO. OF APTCAS REQ.
9972 a7'X
X
PACts 2 ('r 5
U'ta4 4* fr
/@,* f .t.L,t r",--\
o o' t ontcunl aurr,Dr[o RErArJ,
RBII,I'J SQ. r1[. SlOnAcB EQ, FE. rqrtrJ sQ. Flf.NO. OF 5PAC88 889.
NXD & DELT
e&rl tt suIIllx6 nEE Df,uBltrl
NII,IE
ITTCAI(B EOUSE
COTOB BAB
L,SOO.OO /1,800.00 5.oo ,/
lqIAr
oRlolltAr. nBsDEf,lltAr (5)
xo. oP A.u.
62 1267.5 8Q. Er. BA)
I'tsEIItrO IIP'CE ItI ORICINAIj EUII,DINO
sEl[rIcB IREA xo. oF SEIls (5)
89. E (1)
1,200.00
540.00
1, ?t0.00 116.00
89. Fr.
xo. oF SEAeBg iBQ.
80.00
36.00
I (8)
3.6 (8)
NO. OF SPACBA RB9.
,r."o /
1t.30 \/
NO. OF 8PACES 8BQ.
tztt/oftf z -l-ll-/
ORI€INAIJ BLDO.
rqIAL Pf,€, nBQ. 53,9? ,/
,",r"u.oo / (E)
IREA
ut19 89. EI. (Ircr.. 212 SQ. Et. pnoposED rDDrtlof,)
!oul. oP DEtaa I, rr, Irr, v,
IfD AIOIXI'. EUT'.DINO
RBDT'ICIIOT FACTOR OI 5T
Slf, TIIKIIS RBQUIND
IAIq |[D IDDIIIOf,
)< 243.?s
,b1r- ra't?
fu zsr.t1
PAGE 3 O' 5
6l5l9L
o
sroDos@ rDDIlIOr. (5)
xo. oP t.u.8Q.
'T.
5,933.00
NO. 0P 8PACES nag.
11.13
Iq!AI. PANKING
REQUINBD TOR
PROFOEBD
ADDITION
-.55 y'
Lo.56t /
ItsDUelIg PrcllR oP 5t
tmD !d[ra Pltxtf,o _X zaz,s,t
NEQUINBD
nLI! llMncB IEt ptRKI C .tX}I,ySrg
CIICU ]llof, OF PINXINO PNOVrDBD
PETAI III BANKIIIC STRUCEI'RB
Er(IsErNe (3)
gnFtc8 PlEIro
lRIqR 10 {IIEHTY BUIIJDIITO @N8!RUC!EIO'
TDDTAIO III EPTCES ACEIBVED TIIB
CEIIIG Il[ CIRC{'IAEION TOITOI{INO
GrElsltr clr$mucllol
!mol,r, rrGlls Dno\xrDE
* fl *< ^r4r^^,*l *,1 l\ 'o"'oo
y'
\c^r ^ntLt )
\*ot, ;4,/
lt.oo
ttf >q
rc, or Ye!t8 aPtcBs
no. @ couPAcP aPACES
DEE PINI( TC tO EAASE V WUB$!
{.oo
2.OO
15.00
-2?PIGA a Or 5I'isJul fr frb\ owi.b
7Zt(.r^&l =41
1. Dn[A SP?I.IED IX iTOE EEAUFTR,
3. SAIC oolrE Br tots slluPBR t\ ^ TOI)
r. r'n ltr t tcro DitLE rrrurlgl / t{w -
.. 3DC IA 3 D(CBET TODIrIID BI IPPI,ICIF
3. SIIIEIEX, PIENCE, BRIf,EA CIICU! trIOtr
,,.,{,'d \.
6. ?F||,!o\t clrcur.arlox (ErilD r,Br[BrDl, roa DrtE
?. rRou u t t{oLLIcA
8. P88 PrEXI&t q. l! lllt|E oB cof,5E. (pRIG m m. 25 ( 1982))
PACE 5 (r 5
6t6l9t Qrt" r") \^'**o;= ty,*f rct.r?
: o.s7z-t + o.t/tof {6kFA
t/,... t
/1"^ g-^
37.1L
ll, t3
-e.-
50,57
-"' i r, G.tr\
,1tr,6'l
o
). u,
=l
A,LJ.
o
af/"*- L
T
.TTT-
T
-e-
-a-
-e-
b2_
-7
t3
- ,F]---g
,,*-tl
- tlZ
r-+7-C-
* 7 'tr d-e b,4;- olu " ^(J'61 o
o
Zoning Analysis:
units:
Phase V:
Proposed:
o
O
May 9, Lssl
t-- : :parking Analysis for the Vail Village_Inn Addition , , : , .,
' -'' I ; I l': ' ', .As. c?n be seen by the accompanying document, the .re! , l: quired number of parking spaces ior-the entire wr c'om- -
Week one: Dec 26-Jan 2, 1991-- 50 spaces were used:
, :?l:+:tantly during the week leaving at ]east !! spaqeFavailable in the parking structure alone
Week two: Feb 15-Feb 22, L991 (president,s Day)-- 74,
Spaces were used consistantly during' the week leavilg at :minimum,35spacesavaiIabfeintheparkingstructure
Week one: Dec 26-Jan 2, 1991-- 50 spaces were used
' al-one. (Worst Case Example)
Week three: Jan 20-Ja^ 27, 1991-- 53 spaces were use! , i . , . :. . r consistantly during the week, Ieaving at least 56 spaces: i : :available in the parking structure alone , : :
Week four: JuIy 3-JuIy 10, L990-- 23 spaces rrere usedweer< Iour. JuIy J-JuIy IU, '1990-- 23 spaces itere used(on average; during the-weei, Ieaving at l-east 86 spacesavailable in the parkinq structure al_oneavailable in the parking structure alone" .. week five: .ruly i3- Juiy 22, 1990-- 18 spaces were used . ' l, ,.,r (on.average) during the week, Ieaving at least 91 spaces . i . ', :-- available in the parkinq structure al-one.r-ra^r- -.:--- Z ^,- X"
, :-- available in the parkinq structure al,one.
Week sj-x: Oct ti-Oct iS, 1990-- 5 spaces were used (onaverage) ciuring the week, Ieaving 104 spaces avaiLabl-e-- _ -r. in the parking structure al-one
As can be seen by these numbers, the worst case situa-tion l-eaves a surplus of 35 spaces, -not a shortfa]l of, : , , i-''pafkinq. Thus, the existino mi xed-use rterwel iroment can . ' '
r". ;tion leaves a surplus of 35 spaces, not a shortfa]l of, :parking. Thus, the existing rnixed:use development can.. be demonstrat,ed to function quit,e well with the amounL
. ^f *a-l-i -- r-lr-{- .l^ ^.,----!1-- --^--: r^r;;;i; ;;;;iali.- -fiiir'"ii" ."iil: ,' ,
.. " tional parking that wil_l be providgd foq lbe small '' , . , , ,
' .r',orbetterthantheexisting.conditj-on- . , I.1,,
parking.l. be demc
For cLarification, bhe amount of deeded parking spaces'- : r for Phase v that are in the parking st.uclure ii 15- and ' , :', , l , .!he nurnler that are deeded t6 ptrase fItr is,29. .The nurn-_, L ',', .',']'''-.'....-1berof..'.requiredempIoyeespacesisB.
l ;i,
rl,t
mcf p,i 2 i) illf i
PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
PLANNING . DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS . RESEARCH
May l-7 , t99L
Mr. chuck Dunn
Colorado Department of Higbways
Box 2L07
Grand Junction, CO 81502
Dear Mr. Dunn:
The Vail Village Inn located in Vail proposes to add 1l- new
acconmodation units (hotel rooms) to thei.r existing facility. Thered asterisk on the attached plan indicates their current accessfrom the South Frontage Road in Vail. Currently the SouthFrontage Road. has a five }ane cross section in this area.
Please advise me as to:
l-. Whether any additional irnprovernents beyond what currentlyexists would be required for the change in use?
2. What procedures need to be followed?
3. Yihether you would like to meet next time you are in Vail toreview the project?
I think it is iurportant to keep in mind that this access point
used to serve not only the VaiL Village Inn but a gas stationIocated to the east of the Vail Village Inn. Since that stationhas been rernoved and replaced by a retail shopping complex (VaiI
Gateway) , this acceers point services only the vail ViIIage Inh.
Thank you for your consideration and f look forward to yourreply.
Sincerel
Suite 204, Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Fload west . Vail, Colorado 81657 . (303) 476-7154
cc: Mike Mollica, Town of VailBill Pierce
PJ: ne
EFr r
s,'d oi
^ ..
c
?3 1
€i
)
)
)
gJ
@,l!trfH/l\ts
i-v1.li-' Gl'.t
-> -l**jf
\'Fr\ . A\ {-L
n=\iil ;,- :if \\,:"fil --I \\\rL't \bfil dr***O
o1l*.
EtLo
zo
0t-I
--
SE
5
;.'P I
,ir
H
F
CL
E
Uuc
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
a
1356
." ll53
luE -7.1a& _rc
ARIA
tI 2+'loft
973 2+l oft nlpyrty
1464 2
?B
2C
2D
2E
2F,
2G
80
80
60
60
80
80
r-,/1 'l
4ef' E:/e*#ffi
.;:: '.i
-": i
...'T
/i,;C
461
3rd-G.R.F.A.'=
'"\
204 7 -i'^h,
5B
5C
A
,a)lf
4th-G.R.F.A.
lLoft Uni t
'!."i',
Lof t uni t
TaTa*:**.?
2nd-G.R. F.A.
4__-
o?
PROJECT:
ll-ITEF - OEPARTMENT,AL FtElr.tEW'
1,,'AlL,rllLA,rjE lNl.l
DA.IE SUBI,IITTED:
COMMENTS NEEDTD BY:
BRIEF tlESCRlPI0ll CIF
50,)l.l
THE PROPOSAL:
PLIBLIC WT'EI{S
BUtLOrf{G ADD|lIoil
TIIKE BRA}{EReviewed bte Dote:JUNE 6, -ISSI
Cornrrreflts:
1)
7)
ENGltlEEF,lt{C 0EFARndEt{T WOULD L|KE T0 HA.VE ,A S|D[,{VALK: ONIHE N,3P.:IHERLT S:ITIE OF THE SIIE.
THt DRAII.I,i.GE II'ILET ANTI OLITLTT PIPE LOCA,IET' JUST NI]RTH OFIHE EXISTIN{ CUIITPSIER:] tr'r'tll NEED .lT0- BE tt{pR0\,€D. tHE
IXISIING OUTLET PIPE I5 CRUSHEO TEtrh SURFACES ON THf
SC'LIIHEASTTRLT CC'F|NEFI OF THE I]AIEWAT BLDC. 'IVE WOULI' LIKE
TO HA\E THE TII]IRE LENGTH OF DRA.IHALTE STSTIM BE PLADED
LINDERGRTILII'Iu lNTo A srLrRM sEvr'ER srsrEM. THE LoctcAL ourLET
WOJ-D BE THt EXISTING INLET LOCATED Ol,t yAtL R,}AD AT IHE
NORTH SIDE OF EI-]TRA$.ICE AT END OF TXISTIHC IVALX,
FIRE DEPARTME}IT
Reviewed b;rr
c'3nl men ts:
Dote:
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental
Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in
accordance with Section L8.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail on.tune 10, 1991 at 2:00 p.m. in the Town of VaiI
Municipal Building. Consideration of:
A request for a major amendment to Special DevelopmentDistrict No. 5, VaiI Village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive, T,ot
O, Block 5-D, Vai-l Village 1st Filing.Applicant: Josef Staufer
A reguest for a review of a minor subdivision, Lots 1 and 2,
Block 1, Intermountai.n/2694 and 2684 Larkspur Court.Applicant: Atwell Development Company/Robin E. Hernreich
A request for a condit.ional use pernit to allow for an 18-
hole miniature gol-f course on property zoned Commercial CoreII, grenerally J-ocated south and west of Chair 8 (Born Free
Express), Tracts C and D, Vail Lionshead First Filing.Applicant: Vail Associates,/Charlie Alexander
A request for a site coverage variance for the Stanfey
Residence, Lot 1, vail valley 3rd Filing, a Resubdivision ofPart of Sunburst/1816 Sunburst Drive-Applicant: Jack Stanley
Forest Service on
o
,C-.t s'-l/,-?t
-F d,lla .L.t/-r,y,- ln.n'1jg4.^-r- 4oL(A yr*F-qn lt fl v u
A presentation and discussion by the U.Sthe Land Ownership Adjustment Analysls.
Ri.ch Phelps/Mike Mollica
An appeal of a staff decision concerning a density variance
granted to Treetops Condominiums, Lot 6, Block 1, Vail
Lionshead Firsl Filing/452 East Lionshead Circle.Appellant.: Treetops Condominium Association
An appeal of a st.aff decj-sion noL to allow subdivision of a
triplex-type building on a lot less than 15,000 sq. ft. in
size, Lot 5, Vail Village West, Filing I/1762 Alpine Drive.
AppelIant: 81l1 PostOwners: Howard Bass, Michel-e Bodner, Harris Chan and David
M. Sweetwood
A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct
a snow dump on the property generally located west of the
Town of Vail Shops. The property is more specifically
described as follows:
That part of the North L/2 of Section 8, Townshi-p 5 South,
Range 80 west of the 5th Principal Meridian, Eagle County'
Colorado, 1yi-ng north of fnterstate Highway No. ?0 and being
more particularly described as folLows:
4a
Beginning at the NE corner of said Section 8; thence along
the northerly line of said Section 8, S89 46'271t\l a distance
-.of 1500.00 ft; thence departing the northerly line of said tSection 8, S00 23'03"W a distance of 529.86 ft to a point on
the northerly ROW line of I-70; thence along the northerly
ROW line of I-70 followinq two courses:
1) 575 28' 18"8 a distance of 180 .82 fE to a point of
curvature;
2) 1327.90 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having
a radius of 5580.00 ft' a central angle of 13 38'04"
and a chord which bears N89 35' 34"8 1324.?0 ft distance
to a poinL on the easterly line of said Section 8i
Thence departing said ROw line of I-70 N00 23' 03"8 along the
easterly lj-ne of said Section 8, a distance of 512.10 ft to
the point of beginning, containing 20 -480 acres more or
less.
The above description is based on the Town of Vail
annexation plats for the property described and is not based
on a field survey. The basis of bearing for the aboveparcel is the northerly line of Section 8 being 589 46t27'.w
as shown on said annexation plats.
AppJ-icant.s: Town of vail/Vail Associates
Any items tabled frorn the May 28, 1991 PEC meeting agenda.
The applications and information about t.he proposals are
available for public review in the Community Development
Department office.
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
Published in the Vail Trail on May 24, L99l .
Colorado Division of Highways
P.O. Box 2107
Grand Junclion, CO 81502
lln P. smnh
P.O. Box 700
Evergreen, CO 80€9
Johannes Faessler
Swiss Chalet and Sonnenalp
20 Vail Road
Vail, CO 81657
Talisman Condominium Association
62 Easl Meadow Drive
vail, co 81657
Leo Palmer
Galeway Plaza
2735 lris Avenue
Boulder, CO 80304
Cecil Dodson
President, Wl Condo Association
100 East Meadow Drlve
Vail, CO 81657
0K-\"/rX, ,a;-4/,
7 W.L /.:t ^b
t ra4 t !-4 ^4,4,
V,;( ll . .,1c,^.lZ 4 il | >e4. 4t ,r- tf4Jbl
Fa4.*4/ E'(,
/-A /a--t n .t^\/-
Fft* tl. <bo{ o,u!-1- f /4,,'*/,a*.t*t \ b,.q, 4 ft ".+/",-{ - *;*1 a 4
Zr.*- ":* z"*..-A^^p E /A.1 frr4a-.1e-J
oK- @M*l /*/"-1t- fto,a- C,'t ,tu;Rn @ f Nr!fuuau,%/ttt"'aA.
AK- (9', Z^4 "-"J-//4 - 'o*Z'* 4 tfr^'""*;- * at"ae,*-./ /',r.. z/t<,-t+a,
Cg n^*.; -J"4
e AU^"L Tuu ^&fr^ 6 7 s4..-.- . .Lil F-4. zz, /??t.
Jb - @ 4/"14/& .A /o*,-/. fb'^'z ^"'J'l
* l/'-( -Tj h lrtV ntL .* ,"J".fl+ C-"- /09 TEc
ae
F;<.
)
4
)
D
,l
tl
:
.l
lt)/
:-.n
:i
il
'i
l'
,l
fllen, pierce, briner
architecture, planning, interiors
p.o. box 57
1OOO lionsridge loop suite l/d
vail, colorado 81658
3O3- 47 6-6,342 fax 303-476-490 t
Page 5
9034.doc
5-10-9 r_
I4ike lvloll-ica
Planner
Town of VaiI Cornmunity Developnent Dept.
Dear Mike:
Attached you wil-I find documents related to the VVIproposed SDD amendment. For clarification, please dis-card the previous letter written to the planning Comrnis-sion dated May 2, 1991 and replace it with the letterdated 5-9-91. ALso, the sheet 3 of the drawinqs shouldbe - replaced with the new sheet 3 ( dated 5-9:91) at-tached. Itodifications to the fourth floor have' beenmade since we originally submitted plans. The Site plan
(sheet 1 dated 5-9-91) has been modified to reflect GregHall's co(u[ents and should also be p]aced into the draw-ings instead of the site plan that you presently have.
We have also supptied the requested ioning analylis, theLand-scape planr- commitment to sprinkle the new portionof the proposed addition, parking study related to thenumber of guests that utilize their own vehicles, topog-r?plty and rj-dge heights of the proposed addition. Wewi.l-l submit additional parking documentat,ion that ad-dress the concerns that you have. (which we discussedin our telephone conversation of 5-2-91.) If you haveany questions or any of the information is inldequate,please contact Bill pierce as soon as possible.
Than\rou,
Ray A. NielsenArchitectcc JS FiIe
pier:ce, fritzlen, architects, inc. d,b,a, fritzlen, pierce, briner
formerly intralect design group
To:
fQlen, pierce, briner
architecture, planning, interiors
p.o. box 57
IOOO llonsridge loop suite L/d
vail. colorado 81658
303-476-63 42 fax 303-476-490 I
s /9 /91
Re:
Planning Commission
Conrnunity Development StaffTown of VaiI
Proposed Addition to the Vail Village InnSDD No. 5
Statement of purpose
Cornmissioners,Dear
The -purpose of tll:_application to amend the existingSDD for the Vail viffage Inn is to allow the "uf"Uifitfto construct a smaller, temporary phase of const.ructionin the Phase IV portion ot itre Sbp. Since the devel_opment of the Gateway complex, and the replacement ofthe service station, it is logical to continue to im_prove upon the other development adJacent to the mainentry to the Town of VaiI. -In evaLiating the existingdevelopment, the entry/lobby buj_lding is-the """ mostcJ-early out of context with -the othei, newer bui.J.dingsthat have been constructed. A measure that enhances thequarity of the development in this area and ilk;" thegreatest visual irnprovement is re-developing thebuilding thar is con-stantly viewed by rhe pdii; fromthe frontage road and I-20.
As a part of this SDD amendment, this building would berernoved prior to the construction of the l;;;e;- phaserV, thus this wggld b9 a .temporary (essentially a
?:!:th"-::) renovarion thar wiII -serve ro accomplish anamage upgrade. It would be more in keeping ioith theTown's objectives of enhanclng the guali-ty 5t tfre vil_lage as.werl as provide desiraSte addit:-onit ac;ommooa-Eron units .
The existing entry building and canopy will serve as thestructure for the addition of I_L/2 -stories on top of
llt" .existing roof location. (as can be better seen inrne qrawl_ngs accompanying -this application) . The ad.di_tion will have r-3 accomrn5aation iririts that'wirr ir"r".".the building by 51889 sguare feer of space. -i; iO-Oitio'to the accommodation units, there wiit ue "o*.- smallnodifications to the second.'floor, an elevator, appro_priate circulation space and balconies.
Page 1
9034.doc pierce. fritzlen, architects, inc, d.b.a. ftitzlen, pierce, briner
f<rrrnerly intratect design group
INTER-DE PART}TENTAL REVI EI
pRor'er: V^,/ UlA"a w*
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
A/J,h; /""4",1/
,l I
Date: 4|zalll
l*t+ *t on v.J^,kJ fv.rve-1 L4?s- t't nli$Lb*"lL(l -l t , rr4' L.";l ta.- ;7 ,! 1-' ,**,-+ A", lJ,Ts
z\ t",:"1 d,r-!\ 1t^..-, l.,1= , 3o ;{ is h"^J {- J.tls-h,- -lg -t eq-.*._,u.*, :oho_ [J ; S..,_- +l;e 1i]1, npt
f).,^g*c..r lr,:, j. t A
:"Y:'-'5r^,::T' tr r-r:l *^JJ
DATE SUBI,TITTED:
COI.{IIENTS NEEDED BY: ASDP
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
conments:
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING 6,/O.?I
Date:
LJ",IJ l;L 4- 5tz-a55;51+'*'g '*t;'4h s; J.ru,*lL i
la+;bb-luli *,-,rn /o,,.-^t ot\ /^-.( QoJ t. r.,'orL
l^t',"1f,b..
54.--s ;l;ryu7-.,."-l "l 4--
P @a J r,.*+ eL<zss a*uL
V{rsu> , exL.,}.rV l/_{.+
ouerJ( b.J"f'.*+
Lr:4- L;, Lft
4*^ l.^.- .1,**t .
s/,ou /J L e-" L,ra"l d'^.^ "il,-
Reviewed by:
Conments: .
Date3
'.t+l k
C-o," /l
+ .*- eet4 f*trh tr*'
*L^ -frr- S,.Lur-(4
Date:
L
Cto "s ro.*.J J n-lL
7"*-/t7 s+*[-*s ,-JL.
Ll ;n *Lk d. a,"._
RECREATION DIPARTUEN1I
Reviewed by:
Conments:
L,, 4* zr-sJ P +
-y'/-z ,,-'6u lJ J,". ;+Jarevised 3/LL/9L
Llr" decea+
lo,'l 3z-.-7za
h_
,lL
/"^'-"*/
h..z Jr*--.
RevJ-ewed by:
-forn /*-
jru*L.
b" ,1't*-
,IPrcv;a-
--*-'7tJ.,--71
4, Cos> rz,o-Js
A s; Jc<,^'^-[ L
POLICE DEPARTMBNT
t"--t s...r,t- he o-J:-
a)e 61,u /J 2'-/ -Lt' J-
;\,^- {-*-t- (r:ue-)
o
Ta'o/w11o f*"lp tnV-6 -lal
'T.ue)
--y'7-r/ 'r% ,-771 ? <-,'4 q4
uaf e --7v o ? f^/f 4n.-t <Tt -r-2 ..' at4h ,rly
/
- '/ oo/ ,# 1? vf-os 7+ T A-,orug
Pu;v-"1/, Lrc, tFvq : 'rn?L /1 *f
' wtntn2 /-U - sz;1n-:f?/i cJ *ld %-ao
+,-1na
""rd
{4,
o
INTER.DEPARTUENTAL REVIEI{
PROJECT:V;0^--
DATE SUBUITTED:
COI.{MENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAI,:
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING 6'/O'11
R//^;t*/^r*rd
PUBLTC WORKS
Reviewed by:
Comnents:
Date:
Date:/.2t7.'
, /16
c:&./zx>-P'-'
ctt(t,
e!
C\.1
eo-
cI
LU
lr.J()
l!
E,
Date:
Reviewed by:
Counents:
/flJs;- ,d/o -/,42ot///'r'ut-/ ot'/Z /"* y*>a*'*a Ut'j*:
2.'\) 's1t srxz'z+< - 4'7''-' ;2224 x'z-/'ta'a' s 6'zt1ti*7 t'"-
ga.-/4e..tss ^ ^-//vJs S1 &/* 'a"ta/s/5
POLICE DEPART!'ENT
Reviewed by:
Conments:
RECREATION DEPARTI.{ENT
revised 3/LL/9L
Date:
o
PEc + 6.t6.q I
DATE APPI,ICATION RECEMD 4: t1, 1 1
APPI,ICATION FORM FOR SPECIAL DEVEIOPMENT
DISTRICT DEVEIOPMENT PLAN
I.This procedure is required for any project that would gothrough the Special Developnent oistrict procedure.
The application wil1 not be accepted until all infornationis submitted.
(PLEASE PRINT
A. APPLTCANT
OR TYPE)?o*F S7NA,
MAILING ADDRESS
PHONE
c.
E.
r.
D.
E.
B. ApprrcANT's REPRESEIj"T,ATTV}. l,t/l1J/4/74 p/6%
ADDRESS Fo,ffi a7 //4/L h frll5fr p:ftovr"_!76.6342__
PROPERTY
OWNERI g SIGNATURE PHONE
MAILTNG ADDRESS
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
STREET ADDRESS
Itr,T O BT,ocR?L suBDIvI s I ox -A.A L-!!)'&€F:,'LTNGJTT
-ApplrcArroN FEE6Alo ,rlArD v:- DATE3..Z?.ZL cHEcK # ?r11
\__,---l
A list of the names of owners of all property adJacent tothe subject property and their nailing addresses.
II. Four (4) copies of the following inforrnation:
A. Detailed written/graphic description of proposal;
B. An environmental inpact report shall be submitted o thezoning adrninistrator in accordance with Chapter L9.56hereof unless waived by Section L8.56.03O, exemptproj ects;
C. An open space and recreational plan sufficient to rneetthe demands generated by the developrnent without undueburden on available or proposed public facilities;
Existing contours having contour intervals of not morethan five feet if the average slope of the site istwenty percent or less, or with contour intervals ofnot more than ten feet if the average slope of the siteis greater than twenty percent.
A proposed site plan, at a scale not smaller than oneinch equals fifty feet, showing the approxinatelocations and dimensions of all buildings andstructures, uses therein, and alI principal sitedevelopment features, such as landscaped areas,recreational facilities, pedestrian plazas andwalkways, service entries, driveways, and off-streetparking and loading areas with proposed contours aftergrading and site development;
l.. A prelininary landscape plan, at a scate not smallerthan one inch equals flfty feet, showing existingIandscape features to be retained or removed, andshowing proposed landscaplng and landscaped sitedevelopment features, such as outdoor recreationalfacilities, bicycte paths, trails, pedestrian plazas
and walkways, water features and other elementsi
G. Preliminary building elevations, sections, and floorpJ.ans, at a scale not smaller than one-eighth equalsone foot, l-n sufficient detail to determine floor area,gross residential floor area, interior circulation,locations of uses within buildings, and the generalscale and appearance of the proposed developnent.
IIf . Tirne Reguirernents
The Planning and Environmental Commission meets on the 2ndand 4th Mondays of each month. An application with thenecessary accompanying material must be subnitted four weeksprior to the date of the rneeting.
It is recommended that before a Special DevelopmentDistrict application is subnittedl a review anh commentmeeting should be set up with the Departrnent ofComnunity Development.
NOTE:
t.,
DEFHFTMENT @F
.E@MMUNITV DEVELEFMENT
XXXXXXX sALEs AcTroN FoRM
lccouNT t
1 0c00 41330 CCM. DF/. AFFUCA]ION FE=S
r 0c00 41540 ZONINO AIID ADDR:SS SAPS
1588 UNtFoRlt guttDtNc coDE
: 0c00 424:5 1983 UNIF0RU PLU[rElNo CoDE
't 0c00 12+iS 19E8 UNIFORII UE':IANICAL CODS
01 0cc0 42+15 ISEE UNIFOR}I RRg CODE
I 0000 42+13 1S87 l{A'ilCNAL EC]RICAL CODE
10000 42115 oiiial coDE BOOKS
1 0000 4:54E PRJNTS (Urtus;
01.0000 421i2 0x coFtEs / sruoEs
BrlrTY B / RE-INSFECTION
10000 41322 oFF HouRs trspicaou ti=
CON]:TACTORS UCENSES ?EES
0l 0000 4t413
VAIL VILLAGE INN, INC.DETACH AND RETAIN THIS STATEMENTTHE ATIACIIED CHECK IE IN PAYMENI OF IT€MS DEECRIEEO BET.Ov\l,.
IF NOT CORRECI PLEA5E NOTIFV U5 PROMPTLY. NO RECEIPT OE5IFIED.
DELUXE - FORU r/VC.s V-2
DESCRIPTION
3/26/eL Planning Corrm.+L92 $500. 00
loan Policy
American Land litle Association -'1970 Bev
PolicyNumber B 3026616
MINNESOTA
TITLEA
SUBJECT TO THE TXCLUSIONS FBOM COVERAGE, THT EXCEPTIONS CONIAINED N SCHEDULE B AND THE
PFOVISIONS OF THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS HEREOE
IITLE INSURANCE C0MPANY 0F MINNESOTA, herein called the Company. insures. as of Date of Policy
shown in Schedule A, against loss or damage, nor exceeding the amount ol insurance stated in Schedule A. and costs, anorneys' fees and expenses which
the Company may become obligated t0 pay hereunder, sustarned or incuned by the insured by reason of:
1. litle t0 the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested olherwrse than as stated therein;
2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on such trtle;
3. Lack of a right of access to and {rom rhe land;
Unmarketability of such title;
The invalidity or unentorceability oi the lien of the insured mortgage upon said estate or interest except to the extent that such rnvalidity or
unenforceability, or claim thereof, arises out of the transafiion evidenced by the lnsured mortgage and is based upon
a. usury 0r
b. any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law;
6. The priority ol any lien or encumbrance over the lien of the insured mortgage;
7 Any statumry lien tor labor or material which now has gained or hereafter may gain priority over the lien of the rnsured mongage. except any such lien
arising from an improvement on the land contracted ior and commenced subsequent to Oate oi Policy not financed in whole or in part by proceeds of
the indebtedness secured by the insured mortgage which at Date of Policy the insured has advanced or is obligated t0 advance; or
B. The invalidity or unenforceability of any assignment, shown in Schedule A, of the insured mortgage 0r the failure of said assignment t0 vest tille t0 the
insured mongage in the named insured assignee free and clear of all liens.
lN WITNESS WHEREoE the said litle Insurance Company of Minnesota has caused its corporate name and
seal to be hereunto affixed by is duly authorized officers as ol the date shown in Schedule A, the policy to be valid when countersigned by an authorized
officer or agent of the Company.
TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA
A Stock Canpany
400 Se@nd Avenue Soutn.
8y
TIM fonn #mg U86
TIl4 Mortg age 2/73 fott z:--O
l_.
2.
File No, v15397
SCHEDUI.,,E A
Policy Date:November 06, 1990 at 8:00 A.M.
ec-f No. 83026616
Amount $1,188, 146.50
Loan #
Address
VILI.AGE INN
Narne of fnsured:
FIRSTBANK OF VAIL
3. The estate or interest in the land described in this schedule-itra tnitn is encumbered by the insured mortgage is:
A Fee SimPle
4. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy
vested i-n:
VAIL VILI,AGE INN. INC. ' A COIORADO CORPORATION
5. The mortgage, herein referred to as the insured mortgage, and-lrt" ."=iginints ttrereof, if any, are described as follows:
SDEED OF TRUST DATED October 29, 1990, FROM VArL VILLAGE INN' INC.I A
cOLoRADo coRPoRATIoN To TI{E PUi}LIc TiUSTEE oF EAGLE coUNTY FoR THE UsE OF
FIRSTBANK oF VAIL TO SECURE Tl{E Slll'l OF $1,1-88'L46'50 RECoRDED Novenber 05'
1990, rN BOOK 541- AT PAGE 516.
6. The land referred to in this poticy is situated in EAGLE county' colorado,
and is described as follows:
PARCEL 1:
THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS M, N, AND O, BLOCK 5-D, VAIL VILLAGE' FIRST FILING'
ACcORDINc TO THE UAP THEREoF RECoRbED UNDER REcEPTIoN No. s6382 IN THE
oFFICE OF THE EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO' CLERK AND RECORDER (CLERKS RECORDS)
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT O WHICH IS THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF A PARCEL DESCRIBED IN BOOK 230 AT PAGE 556 OF THE
CI.,,ERKIS RECORDS, WHENCE THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT N BEARS N 79
DEGREES 45 }4INUTES OO SECONDS W 1?5.00 I'EET DISTANT' THENCE ALONG SAID
NORTHERLY LINE S 79 DEGREES 45 MINUTES OO SECONDS E ].?8'40 FEET TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF VILISGE INN PIAZA, A CONDOMINIUM, ACCORDING To THE MAP
THEREoF REcoRDED UNDER REcEIItIoN No. i45351 oF THE cLERK's REcoRDS; THENcE
T}tE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES ALONE THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SA]D VILLAGE
INN:(1)sogDEGREES30MINUTESooSEcoNDswlgo.44FEET(190.73FEET
CALCULATED); (2) S 80 DEGREES 30 !{INUTES OO SECONDS E 56'60 FEETT (3) S 09
DEGREES 30 MINUTES OO SECONDS W 7.46 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF VILI''AGE
INN PLAZA PIIASES I AND II ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 388
Page 1 This Policy valid only if Schedule B is attached'
iIi4 Moitgage 2/73
AT PAGE 855 oF THE CLERK'S RECORDS; THENCE THE FOLLOWING FrVE COURSES ALONG
THE NORTHERLY AND WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID VILI,AGE INN PI,,AZA PHASES T AND
II: (1) N 80 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 22 SECONDS W 125.59 FEET; (2) S 42 DEGREES
32 MINUTES 2L sEcoNDs w 46.0L FEET, (3) S 82 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 46 SECoNDS
w 49.48 FEET, (4) S 10 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 02 SECONDS I^l 81.63 FEET; (5) S 00
DEGREES 23 MINUTES OO SECONDS W 15.83 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
LOT Mr THENCE THE FoLLOwINc FOUR COURSES ALONG THE SoUTHERLY AND WESTERLY
BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT M: (1) 51.03 FEET ALONG THE ARC oF A CURVE TO THE
LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 545,88 FEET. A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05 DEGREES 20
MINUTES 21 SECONDS, AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S 78 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 42
SECONDS W 51.01 FEET (CALCUI,ATED) , (2) S 75 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 00 SECONDS W
7"7'39 FEET; (3) 36.2I FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A
RADIUS OF 2O.OO FEET A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 103 DEGREES 44 MINUTES OO SECONDS,
AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N 52 DEGREES 15 MINUTES OO SECONDS I,'I 31.46
FEET; (4) N OO DEGRAES 23 MINUTES OO SECONDS W 193.21 FEET (T93.15 FEET
CALCULATED) TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT M; THENCE ALONG THE WEST
LINE OF SAID LOT N, N OO DEGREES 23 MINUTES OO SECONDS W 5O.OO FEET (50.05
FEET CALCULATED) TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER Or THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN BOOK
230 AT PAGE 556 OF THE CLERK'S RECORDS' THENCE THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES
ALONG THE SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL: (1) S 79 DEGREES
46 MINUTES 00 SECoNDS E 147.36 FEETT (2) N 10 DEGREES 14 MINUTES 00 SECONDS
E 147.43 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ro* zt-!
File No. V]-5397
SCHEDULE A
p.,-O uo. ts3o266L6
Amount 91,188,l-46.50Loan #
Address
vrLr,AGE rNN
TO JAMM LTD., A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP IN
],979 IN BOOK 296 AT PAGE 301.
e,""" THAT pRoPERTy coNVEyED
DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 20,
EXCEPTING THEREFROM VILI,AGE INN PIJ\ZA-PHASE V CONDOMINIUMS, ACCORDING TO
THE CONDOMINIUM MAP THEREOF RECORDED FEBRUARY 4, 1988 IN BOOK 478 AT PAGE
379 AND FIRST A}.,IENDMENT THERETO RECORDED SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 TN BOOK 491. AT
PAGE 4OO AND AS DESCRTBED IN THE CONDOMINIUM DECI,ARATION THEREOT' RECORDED
FEBRUARY 4, }988 IN BOOK 478 AT PAGE 378 AND FIRST A]VIENDMENT THERETO
RECORDED SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 IN BOOK 491 AT PAGE 399, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE
OF COLORADO.
PARCEL 2:
coNDoMINrUl,t uNrTs 60L, 602 AND 603, VrLrSGE rNN PLAZA, ACCORDTNG TO THE
CONDOMINIUM MAP THEREOF RECORDED NOVEMBER 19, 1982 IN BOOK 349 AT PAGE 11,
AND AS DEFINED IN THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION RECORDED NOVEMBER 19, 1982 IN
BOOK 349 AT PAGE 12, COUNTY OF EAGLE. STATE OF COLORADO.
Page This Policy valid onl-y if schedule B is attached"
TIM Moltgage Forn 233t-",_l
File No. V15397
SCHEDULE B-I
p,--Qv uo. 83026616
This policy does not j.nsure against loss or damage by reason of the following:
r. Rlghts or cLaims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easernents, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage j-n area,encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of thepremises wouLd disclose and which are not shown by the public records.
4. Any lien' or right to a Lien, for services, labor, or material theretoforeor hereafter furnished, inposed by law and not shown by the public records.
5. TAXES FOR THE YEAR 1989 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND ANY AND ALL ASSESSMENTS.
6. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVS HIS ORE
THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREI'IISES
AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED July 12, L999, IN BOOK 48 AT
PAGE 475.
7. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THEITNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED July 12 | ISgg,
-tN BOOK 48 AT PAGE 475.
8. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHICH DO NOT CONTATN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CI,AUSE,
BUT OMITTING RESTRICTIONS, TF ANY, BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGTON, OR
NATIONAL ORIGIN, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED August 10, Lg62t rN
BOOK 174 AT PAGE ].79.
9. EASEMENT TEN FEET IN WIDTH ALONG THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF LOTS O AND P,
BLOCK 5-D AS SHOWN ON THE PI"AT OF VAIL VILI,,AGE, FIRST FILING.
10. RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT BETI,{EEN VAIL VILI,AGE INN, A COLORADO
CORPORATION, JAMM LTD., A COIJORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHTP AND VAIL VILI,AGE INNASSOCIATES, A COLORADO GENERAL PARBNERSHTP RECORDED JANUARY 3, ]-983 TN BOOK35]. AT PAGE 324.
11' UTILITY EASEMENT AS GRANTED TO HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. IN
INSTRUMENT RECORDED JANUARY 2L, t-983, IN BOOK 352 AT PAGE 396.
12. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT RECORDED September 09, l-983IN BOOK 367 AT PAGE 833.
Page
q.rM Mortgage Form 2331 cr'-Q n,Q.y *o. 83026616
File No. V3_5397
SCHEDULE B.I
13. TERMS, CONDTTTONS AND PROVTSTONS OF AGREEMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 9, 1983 TNBOOK 367 AT PAGE 833.
L4. ENCROACHMENT OF BASEMENT AREA OF VILIJAGE TNN PLAZA PHASES I AND II ONTO
SUBJECT PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE BY EAGLEVALLEY ENGINEERTNG & SURVEYING, INC. JOB NO. 854.2 DATED AUGUST 6, 1984.
15. ENCROACHMENT AND ROOF OVERHANG OF VILLAGE INN PI,AZA PHASES I AND II ONTOSUBJECT PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON TMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE BY EAGLEVALLEY ENGINEERTNG & suRVEyrNc, rNc., JoB. NO. 854.2 DATED AUGUST 6, t_984.
NOTE: EASEMENT AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH SAID ENCROACHMENT WAS RECORDEDJULY 10, 1984 IN BOOK 388 AT PAGE 861.
16' TERMS, CONDITTONS AND PROVISIONS OF LEASE BETWEEN VAIL VILI,AGE INN, INC., A
COLORADO CORPORATION AND VILLAGE INN PANCAKE HOUSE, INC. RECORDED June 20,].985 IN BOOK 443 AT PAGE 786 AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED AUGUST 6,].986 IN BOOK 446 AT PAGE 347.
17. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OT ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES BETWEEN VAILVILLAGE fNN, INC., AND CHARTERHOUSE FINANCIAL LTD., rNC. RECORDED July 01,]-986 IN BOOK 444 AT PAGE 504.
rOonvnvANcE oF EA'EMENTS BET*EEN vArL vrLr,AGE rNN, rNc. , A coLoRADo
CORPORATION AND F&L VAIL VILI.AGE TNN PARTNERSHIP, A COLORADO GENERAL
PARTNERSHTP RECORDED JULY 10, 1984 rN BooK 388 AT PAGE 861.
DECLARATION OF PARTIAL VACATION OF EASEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH SAIDEASEMENT RECORDED JULY 25, L985 rN BooK 420 AT PAGE 741.
19. EXISTING LEASES AND TENANCTES AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO.
20. ANY IOSS OR DAMAGE THE INSURED SHALL SUSTAIN IF CHARTERHOUSE VAIL HOTELASSOCIATES LTD., A TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP WAS NOT CAPABLE OF HOLDTNGTITLE TO SUBJECT PROPERTY.
2I. LEASE AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER ]-979 BY AND BETWEEN ERNEST I,ARESE AND SWISSHOT DOG COMPANY AND VArL vrLr,AGE rNN, A COT.,oRADO CORPORATTON AND LrSPENDENS FILED IN CONNECTION WITH SAME IN DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THECOUNTY OF EAGLE CTVIL ACTION NO. 84 CV 5]-2 ENTITLED ERNEST I"ARESE AND SWISSHoT Doc coMPANy' PIiINTTFF(S), vS. VArL VILL,AGE INN, rNc., A coIroRADoCoRPoRATION AND ANTHONY GENTH, DETENDANT(S) NOTTCE OF LrS PENDENS RECORDEDFEBRUARY 1-9, ].985 IN BOOK 406 AT PAGE 762 AND LTS PENDENS FTLED IN COLORADOcouRT OF APPEALS CML ACTTON NO. 86 CA 1303 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 9, 1_9S6 rNBOOK 448 AT PAGE 339.
Page
Tfl4 Mortgage Forn 233L e.ly Ho. B3o266r-G
File No. VL5397
SCIIEDULE B-I
22. FTNANCTNG STATEMENT VtrTH l,lETRO NATTONAL BANK, THE SECURED pARTy, RECORDEDJuIy 22t L987, IN BOOK 466 AT PAGE 543.
23. A DEED oF TRusr DATED June 18, L987 FRoM FAMTLY RESTAURANTS, rNc., A
COIOR,ADO CORPORATION TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF XXX COUNTY FOR THE USE OF
METRO NATIONAL BANK, N.A. TO SECURE THE SIJM OF $464,000.00, AND ANY OTHER
AMOUNTS PAYABLE UNDER THE TERMS THEREOF, RECORDED JuIy 22 | 1987, fN BOOK466 AT PAGE 544.
SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS FURTHER SECURED BY ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES RECORDEDJVLY 22, L987, rN BOOK 466 AT pAcE 545.
(ITEMS 22 AND 23 AFFECT THE LEASE REFERRED TO IN ITEM ].9 HEREIN)
24. TERMS. CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF ENCROACHMENT AND VTEW AGREEMENT
RECORDED December 22, l_989 IN BOOK 52O AT PAGE 167.
(ITEMS 6 THROUGH 24 AFFECT PARCEL 1)
(ITEMS 6 THROUGH ]-O AFTECT PARCEL 2)
25. EASEMENT AND RTGHT OF WAY AS GRANTED TO HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION,
-ryc.,
rN TNSTRUMENT RECORDED NOVEMBER 19 , r97r rN BOOK 222 AT PAGE 321 , AND!trs sHowN oN THE CONDOMINIW MAp RECORDED NOVEMBER 19, 1982 rN BOOK 349 AT
PAGE 11.
25. EASEMENT GRANTED TO HOLY CROSS ELECTRTC ASSOCIATION, INC., IN INSTRWENT
RECORDED JANUARY 21, 1983 IN BOOK 352 AT PAGE 397.
27. THOSE PROVISIONS/ COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS, EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS,
WHICH ARE A BURDEN TO THE CONDOMINIUM UNIT DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE A, ASCONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED November 19, 1982, IN BOOK 349 AT PAGE 12.
28. ENCROACHMENT OF PARKING GARAGE INTO TEN FOOT EASEMENT AS SHOWN ON MERRICKAND COMPANY suRvEy DATED NOVEMBER 1.3, 1981., JOB NO. 322-42]-9.
29. EASEMENT BETWEEN VILLAGE INN PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, A COLORADO
NON.PROFIT CORPORATION, VAIL VILI,AGE INN, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION, ANDF & L VAIL VILINGE PARTNERSHIP, A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP IN DOCUMENT
RECORDED JULY l_0, 1984 IN BOOK 388 AT PAGE 862.
30. EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AS SHOWN AND RESERVED ON THE
RECORDED CONDOMINIUM MAP OT VILI,AGE INN PI.AZA.
a
Page
lIl,X Mortgage Forn 2331 CL t p. l, ruo. 83026616
File No. V15397
SCHEDULE B-I
lI. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS Ol'LEASE AGREEMENT RECORDED November !7,l-987 rN BOOK 474 AT PAGE 287 AND RENEWAL THERETO RECORDED NOVEMBER 17, 1987IN BOOK 474 AT PAGE 288 AND FIRST AMENDMENT THERETO RECORDED NOVEMBER 17,1987 IN BOOK 474 AT PAGE 289 AND OTHER MATTERS AFFECTTNG SATD LEASE.
NOTE: ASSIGNMENT IN CONNECTION WITH SAID LEASE TO KATHERINE A. DAVIS
RECORDED NOVEMBER 17, t-987 IN BOOK 474 AT PAGE 290.
]2. EXTSTING LEASES AND TENANCIES.
]3. A DEED OF TRUST DATED Novenber OI, 1987 FROM KATHERTNE A. DAVIS TO THE
PUBLTC TRUSTEE OF EAGLE COUNTY FOR THE USE OF WTLLIAM L. HANLON TO SECURE
THE SUM OF $].5O,OOO.OO, AND ANY OTHER AMOUNTS PAYABLE UNDER THE TERMS
THEREOF, RECORDED Novernber L7, L997, IN BOOK 474 Al PAGE 291.
(AFFECTS LEASE REFERRED TO IN ITEM 3]. HEREIN)
J4. A DEED oF TRUST DATED November 15, l-989 FROM VAIL VILI"AGE INN, INc., A
COLORADO CORPORATION TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF EAGLE COUNTY FOR THE USE OFFIRSTBANK OF VAIL TO SECURE THE SUM OF S93s,450.53, AND ANy OTHER AMOUNTS
PAYABLE UNDER THE TERMS THEREOF, RECORDED November 17, 1989, IN BOOK sLg AT
PAGE 20.
IAFFECTS PARCEL 2)
(ITEMS 25 THROUGH 34 AFFECT PARCEL 2)
SCHEDULE B-II
:n addition to the matters set forth in Part I of this Schedule, the title tothe estate or interest in the land described or referred to in Schedule A is;ubject to the following rnatters, if any be shown, but the company insures that:he I'ien or charge of the insured nortglge upon said estate or- inlerest isgrior to sush natters.
ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS AND OTHER RTGHTS RECORDED November 05, 1990 IN BOOK 541AT PAGE 517.
?age 6
EXCTUSiONS FFOl\,4 suant t0 a tontrafi 0i e 0| ouaraniy Insuflng 0r guaranteelng fie
indebtedness secured by ine insirred mongage; provtoed that the amounr
of insurance nereunoer ailer sucn acqursitron. exciusive of costs, attorneys
fees and exoenses whtch the Company mav oecome obltgated to pay, shall
not exceed lhe least of.lrl the amount 0i tnsurance stated in Schedule A:
{ir) the amolnr oi the unpard principal of tne indebt-
edness as defined in paragraoh I hereoi, 0lus interest thereon, expenses
oi loreclosure and am0unrs aovance0 to 0r0recr rhe ljen of the insured
qortg9ge ano secured 0v sar0 Insureo monqage at the rime of acquisirion
,1 SUCn eStste 0i nrcrest ln lne lan0i 0f
{iri) tne amount oa d oV anv governmental agency 0r
instrumenlaiii'r, if such aqency or rnsvumentelttV rs tne Insured claimant,
in the acqursrion ot such estate or rrterest in satisfaclron of r$ rnsurance
convacl 0f 0uaranv
(b) Ccn nuaion af lnsurance aller Conveyance of litle
The coverage 0i this 0olicy shall contrnue In iorce as of Date of Policy rn
favor of an rnsured so tong as sur insurgg ,9131", an esrate 0r Interest in
the land. or holds an indebtedness secured by a purchase money mortgage
given by a purchaser from such LnsureC, or sc long as sucn insured shall
have liability by reason 0i covenants 0f wanani/ rnade 0y such insured rn
any transter or conveyance 0t such estate 0r interesl; provided, howevet
this pol cy snall n0t continue rn iorce rn favor i.ii any purcnaser from such
insured cf eitner saic esiate or irterest 0r the irdebtedness secured bv
a OUrcnase T0neV lllCngage qlve0 Il s(lc'l r;rl:ed.
:.1 Delense utti Prasecuuon oi Actnns-Notice rLi
C,iaint to t:e orven ov an lnsweo Clahnnt(al Thrr 00m0an1, ar rls own cosr and without undue
delay, shall provide for the detense ot an insured rn al lit;gation consisring
of actions or oroceedrnqs coinrTrefceo aqains: such tnsured. or defenses,
restraining 0r0ers 0r nluncli0ns icterpose0 agernst a f0recl0sure 0i the
rnsureo mortgage or a defense Inrerposeu aqainsr an rnsured in an actton
to enlorce a cortract tor a sale of rne ndebrecness secured bv the insured
mongage, ur a sale ol ine esrate 0r riterflsl in sarcj iand, t0 the extent that
sucn lit,gatron rs tcunded uoor an;iiegeo rleiect. ien. encumbrance, or
Otner mader lrsuTed agarnst t)'v t.rs t0lic\/
lb) ifre nsureC shlll not fy thit Company promptiy rn
writing (i) in case any act 0n 0r [iroceedrng Ls Deg,.]n or defense or restrarn-
ing order or inlunction is interooseo as set fonh in ia) above, (ii) in case
knowledge shali c0me t0 af insured hereurder ol iiny cla m 0f title 0r
inlerest which is adverse to the t l e i0 the esiare or interest or the lien oi
the insured mongage. as rnsured ano whtcit m,Qnt cause loss or damage
ior which tne Companv mav 0e liabie bv vinue of rhis policy, or (iiil if title
t0 the estate or nterest 0r rhe lien of the Insured mofigage, as rnsured. rs
relected as unmarketable f sucn orompr notrce shali not be grven to tl,e
Company. tnen as to such rnsireo arl iianiliry oi rhe Oompany shall cease
and termtnate rn regard to tnc rnaner 0r rnaflers for wnrch such prompt
n0tice rs fequired; provided, howevet that failure to notify shall in no case
prejudice the rights 0f any such insured under thLs policy unless the
Company snall be prejudiced by such faiiure ano then only to the enent
0I sucn preJU0rce.
(ci The 0ornpany shall have the right at its own cosi
t0 instrtute and wrthout unduc 0eley Dr0secure any action or proceeding or
to d0 any 0fier act which in rrs opririon rnay be necessary or oesirable to
establish the title to the estate or interest or tl.e iien 0f the insured mort-
gage. as insured, and the Company may take any appropriate action under
the terms oi rhrs policy. whether or not rt shall be liable rhereunder and
shali not thereoy concede iiability or waive any provision of this policy.
ld) Whenever rhe Company shall have brought any
action or in{erp0sed a defense as requtred or permitted by the provisions
of this poiicy, tne Company may pursue any such litigation to final determr-
nation by a coun oi competent lurisdrction and expressly reserves the right,
n its sole discret on, to appeal trom any adverse ludgment or order.
{e) In all cases where this policy permirs or requires
the Company to prosecute or provide for the defense of any actron 0r pro-
ceeding, the insured hereunder snall secure t0 the Company the right to so
prosecute or provide delense in such actron or proceeding, and all appeais
therein, and permit the Comparry to use, at its option, the name of such
insured for sucn purpose. Whenever reouesled by the Liompany. such
insured shail give the Company ail reasonable ard in any such action or
proceeding, rn effectrng setlemenr, secunng evidence, obtaining wit-
nesses. 0r prosecuri' i deferd,ng sucn acrron or proceeding, and tne
Company shatl rermu,J such rnsured lo'any expense so incurred
(Ca nued on nside back flap)
The iollowing marers are expressly excluded from rhe
coverage of this poiicy:1. Any law oroinance or qovernmenlal reoulation
Offi ru *';3i lffi il"1l? ?1il[i.:l',"'#glisixll;;1 ,;:l :l'ru'
'egutaltng me cnaractet dtmensrons 0r locatron of anv imorovement now
or hereafter erected on the lano, 0r prohibiting a separati6n in ownership
0r a reductton in the dimensions or area of the land. or the effecr of any
vrolation of any such law, ordinance 0r qovernmental reoulaticn.2. Rights ot errrn6nr domarn or go'vernmental rights
0l pottce 00wer unless nottce 0l the exercrse oi such rronts aooears in the
publrc recoros at Date of Policy3. Defects, iens, encumorances, adverse ciarms, or
other rnatters (a) created, sufrered, assumed or aqreed t0 bv the insured
claimant; {b) not known to the Company and not shown bv ihe oublic rec-
ords but known to the insured claimant either at Date of Policv br at the
date such.clajmant acquired an estate 0r lnterest tnsured by this poltcy or
acquired the,insured mortgage and not discloseo in wnting by the insureo
ctatmanl t0 tne uompany pnor I0 the date sucn insured claimant oecame
an insured hereunder, lc) resulttng in no loss or damage to rhe insured
ciatmant, {d) ataching or crearert subsequent t0 Datebl policv (excepr ro
the exten{ insurance is afiorded herein as Io anv starutory iten ior labor or
material or rrght therero).4 Uneniorceaoiltv of rne ien of the insured
moftgage because oi fai ure ot the nsured at Dare of policy or oi arry
subsequenr 0wner 0t the indebledness ro compty wrth applrcable "doing
business" laws 0t the state in which the lanO ii iituared.
'
CONDIIIONS AND STiPUIATIONS
l. Definition of Terms
ihe following lerms when used in this policv mean.lal "insured": ihe insltreo named in Schedule A The
ierm "insureo" aiso inciudes 0 the owner 0f the Inde0tedness secureo 0v
the Insured mongage and eacn sucucssor .n ownersnip oi such rnoebteoi
ls lreservrng. nowever. ail rionts and oefenses as tc any such successorUno acqutres lhe indebtedness by operatron of taw as distinouished lrom
purchase including, but not lrmited to, heirs. oistributees, devisees, sur-
vlvors, personal representattves, next of kin or corporate or fiduciary
successors that the company would have had against the successors
transferorl, and further includes liil any governmental agency or instrumen-
tality which is an insurer or guarantor under an insuranie contract or
guaranty Insuring or guaranteeing said indebtedness.0r any part thereof,
whether named as an insured herern or nor, and (iii) the parttes designated
in paragraph 2(al of these Conditions and Stipulations.{bl "insured clarmanl '. an insureo clarrninq ross or
damage nereundet.(cl "knowledge't actual knowledqe, not construcrive
knowledge or notice which may be imputed to an insured by reason of any
DU0lc recot0s.
{di "land": rhe land descnbed, specriically or by
reterence in Schedule A, and improvements affixed thereto whjcn by law
conslrtute real property; proviOed. however, the term ',land,, does not
Include any property beyond the lines of the area soecificallv described or
re{erred to in Schedule A, nor any right, title. interes, esmtd or easemenr
in abuttrng streels, roads,_avenues, alleys. lanes, ways or waterways, but
nothing herein shall modify or limir the enent to whii:h a nqht of access to
and from the land is insured by tnis policy.
{e) "mongage". rnoftgage, deed 0f trusr. tfusl deed,
0r otner secuflty tnsirument.(f) "public records". rhose records which by law
rmpan constructtve notrce 0t mauers relattng to said land.
2. (a) Cortinuation of lnsurane after Acouisition
of htle
lp Oolicy shall continue in force as of Date of Policy in favor of an insured
f acqurres all or any part of fie estate 0r interest rn the land described
ITbcneoule A by f0recl0sure, trustees sale, Conveyance in lieu of foreclo_
sure, or other legal manner which discharges the lien of the insured
mongage, and if the insured is a corporation. its lransferee of the esrate or
rntere$ so acqutred, provided the transferee is the parent or whollv owned
subsrdiary of the insuredj and in favor of any , \nmental aqencv 0r
instrumeniality which acquires ail or anv part Je estate oiinteiest pur-
lcontirlue4frcn inside l@t llap)
4. fuotioe oi loss-Linnatian of Actiort
In addition t0 the nodces required under paragraph 3lbloi mese Condrtions
and Stipulations, a statement in wrhrng of any loss or damage for which it
r*imed the Company is liable under this policy shall be turnished to the
#;g*ll*lif Jlilxlfiii: i::,1'i.';x'fl1i,'J,f I'i,x{:,fl 1',ll i 5b''
davs after such itatement shall have been furnished. Failure to fumish
suih statement of loss or damage shall terminate any liability of the
Company under this polic'y as to such loss or damage.
5. ?ptions t0 Pay ar 1fieMise Sefle C/arrns
The Company shall have the option to pay or othenrvise senle tor or in the
name o1 an insured claimant any clalm insureo against or t0 lemlnate all
liability and obligarrons of the Company nereunoe' bv paying or tendering
oavment of the amount of insurance under lhls 00llcy together wltn any
co$s, attomeys' fees and expenses incurred up t0 the time oi such pav-
ment or tender 0f payment by the insured claimant and authorued by the
Company. In case loss or damage is claimed under this policy by an
insured, the Company shall have the funher opti0n t0 purchase such
indebtedness for the amount owing thereon together with all costs, attor-
nevs'fees and expenses which the Company is obligated hereunder to pay.
ii the Company offers to purchase said indebtedness as herein provided,
the owner of such indebtedness shall transfer and assign said indebted-
ness and the mortgage and any collateral securing the same to the
Company upon payment lherefor as herein provideC
6 Detennnattori and Paynen! oi Loss
{a) Tne iiabiiity- oi the Company under tnis policv shall
In no case exceed the least of:{il the actual loss of the insured claimant: or(iil the amount 0{ insurance stated in Schedule A, ol
if applrcable, the amount of insurance as defrneo in paragraph 2(a) hereoi;
0r
{iiil the amount of the indebtedness secured by the
tl;:r*?m*s;:'Jlff i:ii;;J,1'BB:i',i?,,:'."'#f fll,f :,ls&I"
tnereon: 0r (b) The Company wiii pay. ,rr adrlttron l0 anv loss
insured against by this policy. all costs rmposed upon an insured In litiga
rion carried on by the Company for such insured. and all costs, anorneys'
iees and expensbs in lhigatron canied on by such insured with the wrinen
authorization of the Company,(c) When liability has been deftnitely fixed in accord-
ance with the conditions of this policy, the loss or damage shall be payable
within 30 days therealtet
/ Linitation oi trabilrry
No ciaim shall arise or be marntainable under tnis polrcy lai il tne
Company, after having received nottce of an aileged deiect, lien or
encumbrance rnsured against hereunder, by lrttgation or otheruvise,
removes such deiect, lten or encumbrance or establishes the title, or the
lien oi the insured mongage, as insured, within a reasonable time after
receipt of such noilce, (b)in the event of litigatron until there has been a
final 'determination by a court of competent Jurisdiction, and disposition
of all appeals therefrom, adverse to the title or t0 the lien of the insured
mongage, as insured, as provrded rn oaragraph 3 hereof; or icl tor liability
voluntarily assumed by an rnsured in settllng an\/ clalm 0r sult wltnout prlol
written consent of the company.
6. Bedunion ol LiabilitY
(a) AII payments under mls poilcy, except paymenls
made ior costs, anorneys' fees and expenses, shall reduce the amount ot
the Insurance 0r0 tant0; provided, however, sucn payments' pll0r t0 tne
acquisition of iitle to sard estate or interest as provided in paragraph 2{a)
r4these Conditrons and Sti0ulations. shall not reduce plo tanto the amount
le insurance afforded hereunder except to the extent that such pay-
#ts reduce the amount of the indebtedness secured by the insured
m0n0a0e.
Payment rn full bv any oerson or voluntary satisfaction
or release of the insurbd mongage shallierminate all liability 0f the
Company except as provided in paragraph 2{a) hereof
ca
(o) The liabiiity ot the Company shall not De Increased
bv additrona' pnncrpai indebtedness created subsequent t0 Date of Policy,
except as to amounts advanced t0 protect the iien of the insured mortgage
and secured therebY.
i',lo oavment shall be made without producing this
oolicv for endorsement of such paymenl Lnrcss tne po icv be lost 0r
bestroved. 'n wh ch case pr00f o' oss or destruction shall be ir,rn shed
to the iatisfactron ol the CompanV.
9. LiabilitYNoncunulartve
lf the insured acquires tllle to the estate 0r lnterest in satisfaction ol the
indebledness secured by the insured mongage, 3r any part thereol' rt,ls
ex0ressl\/ understood th;t the atnount of insurance under this policy shall
be reouc'ed by any amount the Comparv nay pay under any polrry,insuring
a mortqaqe nereafler executed by ar rnsuted whtch ls a charge 0r llen 0n
tne esfttd or Interest describeo or referred to ln Schedule A and the
amount s0 paid shall be deemed a paytnent under tnls pollcy
10. Subrogation Ug:n Paynent or Seftlemen.t
Whenever the Company shall iave settied a claim under this policy. al'
riohi ot subroqatron shall vest rn the Company unafiected by any act of the
rniured clarmant. except tnat the owner of rne indebtedness secured by
the insured mortgage may release or substitute tne personal liability of any
debtor of guarantor, or extend or otherwrse modify the terms 0t payment
or releasei ponron of the estate or interest irom the lien 0f the insured
monoaqe, 0r release anv collateral securrt'7 tor tne ndebtedness, provlded
suchici occurs 0r0f Io recetpt by the rnsured ot notrce of anv clalm 0t tltle
or inrerest adverse t0 lne title l0 tne eslale 0i inlel€sl cr tre orroritv of the
lren of the Insure0 mongage ano dces ncl res'rll n anY toss ot prtottty oi
the lren 0f lhe insured mo-gage The f,ompany shall ce suorogated to anc
be entitled to alL righa andlemedres which such insured claimant would
have had against any person 0r propemv rn fespect t0 such ciaim had thls
policv not b;en issued., and if request""d 0v the Company' such insured
claimant shall transier to the Comoany all rignts and remedles agalnst anY
oerson 0r properry necessarv in ordet lo oerleci such right 0f subrogation
and shall permit the Comoany to use the name 01 sucn Insured clalmanl In
anv transad on or itigatlon involvtn.tl slch rlqnls 0r remed e^s lf the pay'
ment does not cover ihe ioss oi slcn tnsurei clatmanl, lhe Company shall
be subroqated to such rrghts and remeoies rn tne proportron which said
oavment'.bears to the am0unt 0l sard loss, bul such subrogation shall be tn
lu6ordination to the insureo mongage Ii Loss oi pr'orrry shoulo result from
anv act 0i such insuteo ciatrnant. sucn a-t snatt rot voiC this DOlicy, but tne
Companv. in thal evenr shal' oe teou rec to Pav otlu tnat oan 0t anv
losses insured aoa nst hereunoer wh cn snait exceed tne amcunt, rt anY
lost t0 the Comoany ov teasott oi the rr'rpatrment of tne rlght c,i
suorogation
l l Ltabilny Ltnttec n tns PottcY
This instrument togetner with all enoorsernenls and otner lnslrumenls
ii anv attacned hereto ny the Llompanv is tne enllre poilcv ano convact
betlveen the lnsured and the compan!'
Anv claim of loss 0r oamage, vihetner 0r not 0ased 0n
neolioence. and wntcn arrses out oi tne stalus ot tne iten cf tne lnsured
mo-no'aoe or of the title t0 lhe estate or interesl covered hereoY or an'
actio'n a'sseninq such clatm, shall be restricted to the provisions ano
conditions and stipulations ol this policy
No amendmenl oi or endorsemenl t0 thls polrcy can be
made except by writing endorsed nereon 0-f attacned hereto signoll bv
either the Presibent, a-Vice Presroent, tne Secretary' an Assistant Secre'
tary. or validaung ofircer or autnorized srgnatorv oi lhe Company
12 Nu,ces Wnuc Sertt
All not ce r'equired ro oe -oivcn I0 the iomoa"! aT0 a-v staiemenl n wril
rno reourred io be Iurnished the Company shall oe addressed to its Home
Ofrrce. Minneapolis, lMinnesota 55401
Note: fhis plicy valio only if Scheriules A and B are artached
fo
!r
o
j. tz. 1!
La
#zs"7f f #r* rr
E?ynt "> k- /a?o f * f;-^8("7,-,ZVz\
Ka^
/"1"^-
5.
VV f fu,A ,r^r"/
fr?f nv "> k- /a?o f
w,:4 Ca,,*,X ry q l+ A;.t* fr,ry
L,+ tl.zz^_+--e",/,h^.t */ F4Zc-t fua, {7*L
a.-r atz:-"t */ a /.fu u.a.a; A, .A/a-4 * .k /.4.(/(//
AL( /*^47
we ,lt^re /t4"r-l d4 ,^.-X(hu s-/,4 d'"r4 wz T
nvAP\ azr- f/,.-4 @ ,hrr&{,Mz F+ .k "@ /yti.v ^,/ //ft^ */ ffi oe F n'*',,
lw lnlp- o.4,'-f-l /r*"- .& a"*"* ,* Ze*- Jo.r* & ,"A "*-,^
"*4 h4-.t-2. A
".J
X! "*r-/lr'
' frz'?.orn .A fe^ &.^- ry /* -ra.6rv,-,\
fu#6rroo fiv,4' Br,/i,*z- /^'4- ;* i r- y/;b-.iQ"\f/
u,l4 /r>o* avA * }^f
o^,
K"-*
hrt'- a,+l Hi*-
/4/.*< * -& P
7/,r^ ;,e^s-t (
W
-t
" t-
'i'
Jt r'.r':
;r, ,t
.:A
I
t.-
I
I
-'(.!;l:..r:,:qr-.}''*.
.'l " t j.;
aa?'+
T*/ rAry-
7oor.fu ?,r lr/lrtl -
Kr*
"f/"* @ /** .'r?\t'','+.\
QrrE/ /rt,r.t\ /r.f^ .
G**d)
- tf-.4 +"+ /r.>t rriu. { llo ry*
% */ {*>6
fr-.64 l,-try *H P /^,'/rl4
1-z
3:45
Shelly Mello
3:50
Mi ke Mo]'l i ca
4: 10
4) Are there any easements that
area of the deck?5) How does the deck impact the
cross thjs parcel in the
pocket park?
ltaff Recommendation,: Community Development staff
ffiroposa'l be allowed to proceed through
the review process, with the understanding that
the app'l icant address all of the questions listed above.
Vacation and Abandonment of Easement located between
Hanson Ranch Road and Gore Creek Drive and Villa Valhala
and Garden of the Gods
Action Requested of Council: Approve request.
Background Rationale: All utility companies involved inthis easement have relinquished any right to use. It
appears that the util ities were vacated in 1967, but the
Town never 'l egally vacated the easement.
Staff Recormendation: Approve the request.
Vail Village Inn - Special Development Djstrict #6
Di scussi on
Actjon Requested of Councj'l : Josef Staufer, President and
Managing Director of the Vail Vi'l lage Inn, has requested to
appear before the Council to djscuss the possibility of
modifying Condition No. 7, as listed jn Ordinance No. 14,
Series of 1987, Section 11 (See attached).
Background Rationale: Staff has informed Mr. Staufer that
the B conditions listed in Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987,
are still valid and would apply to any redevelopment at theVVI. Before proceeding through the SDD-Major Amendment
process, Mr. Staufer would like some direction from Council
regarding the conditions, specifical 1y Condition No. 7.
Joint Town of Vail/Avon Town Council Marketing Board
Presentati on
Information Update
0ther
Executive Session - Legal Matters
5.
6.
9.
7.
8.
a
-2-
1:00
Kristan Pritz
1:05
She11y Me11o
1:10
Greg Ha11
3:00
Steve Earwick
3:30
Andy Knudtsen
z-
J.
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
lllORK SESSION
1.
TUESOAY, MARCH 12, 1991
1:00 p . M.
EXPANDED AGENDA
Planning and Envi ronmental Commissjon Report
Design Review Board Report,
Town Councjl/Planning and Environmental Conrmjssion Joint
Meeting Regarding Comprehensive Master T.ransportation Study
Acti on Requested of Council: Have Council brought up to
speed on the study and make recommendations to it before it
goes to PEC and Town Council for adoptions.
Background Rationale: The Parking and Transportation
Advisory Committee has worked wjth the consulting firm of
Feldsburg, Holt and Ullevig over the last year on the Townof Vai 1 's Comprehensi ve Master Transportati on Study. The
Committee has recommended that the plan is complete up tothis point, and would like to update the Council and
Planning Commission on the report and a'l so receive feedback
from the CounciI and Commission. The report covers fiveareas, which include: L) Vai l Village Goods Delivery; Z)
Public Parking FaciIities and 0perations; 3) Trans.i t Systems
0perations; 4) I-70 Access/Frontage Road Improvements; and5) Recreation Trails Interface
2. Sales Tax Exempt Group Po1 icy
Aqtion Requested of Council:
additional direction from thequalifications for tax exempt
procedures.
Town Staff would like
Town Councjl regarding
status and enforcement
3.
Background Rationale: Certain charjtable organizations
are granted tax exempt status when conducting business inVail. It is estimated that $45,000-$50,000 of sales tax
revenue is lost annually due to these exemptions. Thjs jtem
is being brought before Town Council in order to furtherclarify certain pol icies and procedures.
Deck Expansion onto Town Property for Russell's Restaurant
: Give preliminary approval/
proceed through the planning
conceptual approval is given,
with the request, providing
additional survey information.
B?qkground Rationale: The deck would extend off the northside of Russell's Restaurant onto Town of Vai'l property
adjacent to Gore Creek. At this time, staff has severalquestions about this proposal . Questions include:
1) hlill the expansion encroach into the floodplain or the50-foot Gore Creek stream setback?2) What are the other Town Departmentst Concerns?3) What landscaping should be added? Should the streamtract be left open? Should be deck be reduced in size?
Action Requested of Council
denial to the appTicant to
phase for this project. If
the appl i cant wi 1 | proceed
floodplain information and
a"\r-
Varl VtLLqca IxN
Village Inn Plaza Condominiums
The Mayor and Town Council
Val1 Municipal Buildlng
Vail 81657
March 5, 1991
Dear Mr. Mayor, GentLemen and Ladles of the CounclL:
Thls letter is to request an addition to the Councll Work Session Agendafor Tuesday, March 12, I99I, in order to discuss the following:
1. The proposed face-lift for the existing tobby building of theVail Village Inn.
2. How such a proposed face-l-if t rould relate, 1f at all, to re-
qulrement 7, Section 11, SDD 6. More specifl-ca1_ly, the require-
ment that Vail Village Inn, Inc. shall reinburse the Town ofVail for expenses incurred ln facilitating the relocatlon of
the ski uuseum of an anount not to exceed $75,000.00.
Thank you very much for your time.
Managing Director
rfljJ s-gc
100 East Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476.5622
FAX (303) 4?6466r
P
F
I
r
d
e
n
(lo
&2- er'-^ , KP
7l*X,
I
-lf< t",-.- f{a.
,(F+- tulRM t \a,'r
"'T/rn- ft ^ry./4 *
S J"J^/4 (o,;J utJ fu ex2.- ,fl,/a*q @*o)
U-<-g a.,,,ha/ d/, A.L!'n fru/u.E( ^rr^A<-h; 7
W*-
.21
lo
-? Sac l4 , Q&*"- th./6 ,' AT N,)an
"A ,n-u"^ -{f7an
fr"4 - ar*-t cel^*--4t /A-e E /.:4 /?yo.,,,- Jf tr b"n.t ,k "4J^.t"*,1
5,5.A* f (/'-t W > 2? eiA ,-/ tzt
l( &e";ft
rt
.+ ' r .:.9.r
.5'
.t..;\.\,1'}\
'| -i
IJ l.€- -'- t.I -\-'.:r I/ i-" .r lJ- *-._ _
:,I-. '
', ::'
..1
t.,t ' - n}'}\'\.ri.-:- ' idjr-
iF"+"
*t, r'.:
a
'i
,: :-.1\ .rr,. t'.-.,n:-,,.'r-
-'-1- --.*.\.\ *JJ.-1
r'?
"-r.' ir-r.,. J. ... - .'\*i!.'1- ::,'..'.'
,ii
. . .itr.r :.: :it . !i;,\
':
li ---- a ,-
a
FILE COPT
lnwn
t5 routh honbge rcad
YdL colorado 81657
(303) {7e2138
(303) 47$2139
February 22, L99L
office ol communlty devdopnenl
li!r. Peter JamarPeter ilamar Associates, Inc.
lOB S. Frontage Roadvail , co 81657
Re: VaLl Vill,ag€ IaD
Dear Peter:
In response to your inquiry regarding future development at thevail village Inn (sDD No. 6), the planning staff has compiled thefolloving infornation with regard to the development process theproject must follow:
1. Given the extent of the redevelopnent project, and the
proposed alteration of the approved phasing plan for the
WI , the staff has determlned that the deveLopment process
should follow the Special Development Distrlct najor
amendment review process. Please refer to Section 18.40 ofthe Town of Vail zoning code for the specific reviewcriteria.
2. It should be clearly indicated how thls phase of the proJectsill tie-in with the existing Village Inn Pancake House, andwith the future, final phase-of the WI . specifically,parking, GRFA and the regulrement for accomnodation units
must all be deternined. lrhe staff has sone concerns aboutthe relationship between your proposed redevelopment and theexisting Village Inn Pancake House. Architecturally, wefeel the two buildings must be compatible. Conpatibility
could possibly be achieved by sinply tying in the colors anddetails, or it nay need to go beyond that to includespecific architectural elenents.
3.
4.
5.
Mr. Peter Jamar
February 22, 1991
Page 2
The general mass and bulk of your proposed redevelopment
shouLd be clearly indicated, as well as the mass and bulk ofthe future, final phase of tlre \ II. Again, staff believesthat the interface between the two phases l-s extremelyinportant, and conpatibillty nust be proven.
on-site parking: A parking analysLs sill be reguired,indicating the existing on-site parklng for the entire WI ,and an explanation of the allocation of said parking. Asite plan shall also be required, whlch shall indicate howyou intend to neet the parking requirements for thisproposed redevelopnent. Staff is concerned that the parkingfor Phase V was not constructed as was indicated in the paststaff nemos. In addition, a specific landscapJ.ng plan shallbe required for this area of the WI .
There has been some discussion with regard to a possible
dedicated fire lane in'nediately east of the Vail Gatewaybuilding. If surface parking is to be acconmodated in thisarea, then this issue of fire access will need to beresolved wlth the Town of Vait Fire Departnent.
6. Pedestrian access from and along East Meadow Drive, and Vail
Road, will need to be clearly identified. There has been
nuch discussion with the vail caterray orrner regarding a newpedestrian walkway on the eastern side of Vail Road. Yourplans should clearly indicate how your redevelopment wouldinterface with the pedestrian areas.
7. Colorado Department of Highway approval (i.e., amended
access pernit) may be required during the review process.
This reguirement is based upon the change in the use on thesite. The CDOH will need to deternine if they will requirea new or anended access pernit. We will need documentationthat their concerns are addressed.
8. It should also be noted that the final phase of the WI will
be reguired to follow the rnaJor SDD amendment process at
such tine as redevelopruent occurs in that area.
Enclosed for your convenience is a copy of Ordinance No. L4,
Serl-es of 1987, which we believe to be in full force and effect.This ordinance specifically requires that a ninirnum of 148
accommodation units and 67 1367 sq. ft. of GRFA, devoted for said
AUs, be provided in phases IV and V of the WI . Further analysiswill be needed to detemine the GRFA and nunbers of AUs providedin the existing Phase V of the V\rI . The ordinance also lists g
conditions of approval, which $re believe to still be valid.
Ur. Peter Janar
February 22, 1991
Page 3
l.ty estlnate of the tining of the revLew process iE that one ortuo PEC worksessions wLll be needed, one PEC public hearing, twopubllc hearings before the Town CouncLl , and one or two Design
Review Board hearings.
Peter, I hope the above infor:matlon anssers aome of the questions
you raJ.sed regarding the revLew process for redevelopnent on the
WI , Phase IV. If you should have any guestions on the above,
please do not hesitate to contact me at 479-2L38.
Slncerely,
h* /'4/L
Mike Mollica
Senior Planner
/abEnclosure
'''..'....'1 {"
..J - '.' .t ((,
ORDINANCE NO. 14
Series of 1987
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1, SERIES OF 1985
TO PROVIDE FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6; ADOPTING AN AMENDED
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
NO. 6, ELI}IINATING CERTAIN REqUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE
DISTANCE BE]I.IEEN BUILDINGS FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL
DEVEL0PMENT DISTRICT lrl0. 6; CHANGING THE HEIGHT
REQUIBEMENTS FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT
0lSTRlcT No. 6; CHANGII,IG THE ALLOI,IABLE DENSITY AND M0DIFYING
THE BUILDING BULK STANDARDS FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT N0. 6; PROVIDING DIFFERENT
PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS FOR PHASE IV AND V
0F SPECIAL DEVEL0PIIENT DISTRICT N0. 6; AND SETTING
FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
Nol{, THEREFoRE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE Tol'tN CoUNCIL of the Town of VaiI as
fol I ows:
Sectlon l, Legislative Intent is hereby repealed and reenacted with anendments to
read as fo] I ows:
I Sectlon l. Legis'lative Intent
A. In 1976, the Town Councl] of the Town of Vail passed 0rdinance No. 7,
Series of 1976, establishing Special Development District l'10.6 to insure the
unified and coordinated development of a crltlca'l site as a whole and in a manner
sultable for the area in which it was sltuated.
8. Specia'l Development District No.6 provided in Section 14 that the Town
Counci'l reserved the right to abrogate or modify Special Development District No. 6
for good cause through the enactment of an ordinance in conformity with the zoning
code of the Town of Vail.
C. In 1985, the Town Council of the Town of Vail passed 0rdinance #1 , Series
of 1995, providing certain amendments to the development plan for SDQ N0. 6.
D. Application has been made to the Town of Vai'l to nrodify and amend certain
sections of Special Deve'lopment District No. 6 which rel ate to Phase IV and which
I r"t. certain changes in the development p'lan for Special Development District No. 6
as they re'late to Phase IV.
E. The Plannjng and Environmental Commisslon of the Town of Vail has reviewed
the changes submitied by the app]icant and has recomnended that Special Oevelopment
Dlstrict No. 6 be so amended.
F. The Town Council considers that the anendments provide an even more
unlfied and more aesthetically pleaslng development of a critical site withln the
' 't'own and that such amendments are of benefit to the health, safety and welfare of
-i ".:.i-i',rnts of th^ Tovrn of Vall.
(;
I Section 2. Section 18.50.020 Purpose is hereby amended to read as follows:
A Speclal Development District is established to a.ssulq. comprehensive
deve'lopment and use of an area in a manner that would be harmonious with the
general character of the Town, provlde adequate open space and recreation
amenities, and promote the obiectives of the Zoning'Ordinance of the Town.
Ordinarily, a special development district will be created only when the
development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council, Planning
Corrnission and Design Revlew Board, and there are slgnificant aspects of the
special deve'lopment which cannot be satisfied under the exlsting zonlng.
Sectjon 18.50.040 Development Plan -- Contents is hereby amended to read as
fol I ows;
The proposed development plan shall lnclude, but is not llmited to, the
following data as supplemented by exhibits provided by consultants Royston'
I H"natoto, Beck and Abey on February 12, 1976 for Phases I, II, III, and as
supp'lemented by the exhibits of the development plan and the environmental impact
report as prepared by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect, (p'l ans dated February 19' 1987'
revised April 14 and April 22, lg87), and as given final approval through passage
of second reading of this ordinance by the Town Council on May 19, 1987 for Phase
IV and phase V. Thls approval recognizes that Phase IV may be constructed in two
phases with the first phase to be referred to as Phase IV and the final phase to be
referred to as Phase V.
Sectlon 3. Section 18.50.040 E is hereby amended to read as fo1 lows:
E. For Phases I, II, and III, a volumetriC model as amended by consu'ltants
Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey on February lz, 7976 of the site and proposed
development documented by photographs at a scale of 'l inch equals 16 feet or
larger, portrayjng the scale and relatjonsh'ip of those phases of the development to
the site and illustrating the form and mass of structures in said phases of the
developrnent. For Phases IV and V, a volumetric model as amended by Gordon Pierce,
Architect, of the site and the proposed development at a scale of 1 inch equals 20
feet, portraying the sca'le and relationship of the development on Phases IV and V'
to the site and illustrating the form of nass of structures in sajd phase'
Section 4. Section 18.50.050 Permitted Uses in Special Development l{o. 6 is hereby
repealed and re-enacted with amendments to read as fol'l ows:
18.50,050 Permitted Uses
^. Th: na-rmitted uses ln Phases I, II, IIl, IV and v of speclal Deve'lopment
Dlstrlct 6 shall be in accordance with the approved development plans on file tn
o r
Itn. Town of Vail Connunlty Development Department.
--"-Section 5. Section 18.50.060 Conditlonal Uses in Special Developmelt nr,.+rir+ {o. 6
is hereby repealed and re-enacted with amendments to read as follows:
18.50.050 Conditional Uses
Conditiona'l Uses for Phases I, II, III, IV and V of Special Development
Dlstrlct No. 6 shal'l be as found in Section 18.22.030 of the Vail Zoning Code and
as below: A. A popcorn outside vending wagon that confolms ln appearance wlth
those exlsting ln Cormercial Core I and Comercial Core II.
Except, no office uses, except those clear'ly accessory to a principa'l use will
be allowed on the Plaza level of Phases
IV and V.
Section 6. Section 18.50.110 Distance Between Buildings ls hereby amended to read
as fol'lows:
O 18.50.110 Distance Between Buildings
For phases I, II and III the minimum dtstance between buildings on adiacent
s.l tes shall be as indicated in the developnent plan, but ln no case shall be less
than 50 feet. For Phase IV AND V, the minimum distance between bulldings on
adjacent sites sha'l 'l be as indicated in the development plan as submitted by Gordon
pierce, Architect, (dated February 19, 1987, revised Apri'l 14 and April 17, 1987).
section 7. Section]8.50.120 Height ls hereby amended to read as follows:
A. For Phases I, II, and III the allowable heights sha'll be as found on the
development plan, specifically the site p'lan and height p'lan dated 317?/76.
B. For Phases IV and V, the maximum bui'lding height sha'l I be as set forth in
the approved development plan by Gordon Plerce, Architect (dated February 19' 1987'
revlsed April 14 and April 17' 1987).
O Sectton a. Sectlon 18.50.130 Denslty ls hereby amended to read as follows:
The Gross Residential F'loor Area (GRFA) of al'l districts ln the specia'l
Development District sha]] not exceed 120,600 square feet' There shall be a
nlnlmum of 148 accbrmodation units and 67,367 square feet of GRFA devoted to
accormodation units in Phase IV and v of specla] Develoment Dlstrict 6'
section 9. Section 18.50.]30 Buildtng Bulk ls hereby amended to read as follows:
18.50.130 Building Bulk
Bullding bulk, naximum wall lengths, maximum dimensions for bul'lding e'lements'
requireme";: i-, r,al: -::'-:- -;.j vertical l:pplng of roof llnes for Phases I' II
and III shal'l be indicated on the development plan submitted by consultants
(I
Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey on February 12, L975. For Phases lV and V'
building bulk, maximum wal I lengths, naximum dimenslons for building e'lements,
requirements for wa'l I offsets and vertical stepping of roof lines shal'l be as
lndicated as per the approved development plans submltted by Gordon R. Pierce,
Archltect (dated February 19, 1987, revised April 14 and April 22, 1987).
Sectlon 10. Section 18.50.180 Parking and Loading is hereby repealed and reenacted
wlth amendments as follows:
18.50.180 Parklng and Loading
Following the completion of Phases IV and V, there sha'll be not less than 12
surface parklng spaces, 324 underground parking spaces, and 37 underground valet
parklng spaces as are existing and as provided on the deve'lopment plan submltted by
Gordon R. Pierce, Architect (dated February 19, 1987). The proposed slte plan
dated February 19, 1987'reflects the interim parking plans between the development
repealed and reenacted with amendments to read as
do not
Vto
is
2.
fs.
O "t Phases IV and V.
Section 11 is hereby
fol I ows:
Sectlon 11. Condltlons of approva'l for the development plan of Phases IV and V of
SpD6 as submltted by Gordon Pierce (dated February 9, 1985, revised April 14 and
April 22, 1987), shall be as fo'l'lows:
l. That the developers and/or owners of Phases IV and V participate in and do not
remonstrate against an improvement district for lmprovements to the
intersection of Vai'l Road and Meadow Drive if and when one is formed'
That the developers and/or owners of Phases IV and v particlpate ln and
remonstrate against estab'l ishing a pedestrian linkage from Phases IV and
a future comnercia'l expansion at the Sonnenalp Lodge site if and when it
devel oped.
The deve]oper receive apProva'l from the State Hjghway Department for
reconflguration of the pu1 'l -off area fnom the Frontage Road to the entrance to
the hotel prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase v.
4. The deve'lopers and/or owners of Phase IV agree to transfer by general warranty
deed to the Town of Vai'l free and c'lear of a'l 'l 'l lens and encunbrances' such
condomlnlum unlt of approximately 3,986 sq. ft. ln size and to be located as
indlcated on the plans and speclficatlons submitted rlth the application.
There shall be no provlsions placed on the condominium unlt restricting the
Town of Vail's use of the unit or the subsequent subdivislon and/or sa'le of
the unit.
-4-
C,
1|s.l{o grading pernit, building permit or demo'l ltlon permit relating to Phases IV
or V of Special Development District No. 6 shall be issued untjl such time
that reasonable evidence is provided the Town of Vai'l staff that constructlon
financing for the improvements to be constructed as part of Phases IV or V has
been obtained.
Restrictions on any units in Phases IV or V which would be condomlniumlzed
sha'll be as outlined in Section 17.26.075 of the Vail l'lunicipal Code and any
amendments thereto.
Upon the issuance of a building permlt for the construction of any phase of
SDD#6 subsequent to Phase IV, the developer andlor owner of said phase shall
reimburse the Town of Vai'l for expenses incurred in facilitating the
relocation of the ski museum (into Phase IV) of an amount not to exceed
$75 , 000.
! 8. Any remode'l or redevelopment of the renralnlng portion of SDD6 commonly
referred to as Phase V shall inc'l ude parklng as required by 0rdinance l,
Series of 1985.
Section 12.
tf any part, section, subsection, sentence, cl ause or phrase of this ordinance is
for any reason held to be inval id, such decision sha'l I not affect the vali'l dity of
the remalnlng portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it
would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence,
clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts'
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared inva'l id.
Section 13.
The repeal or the repeal and reenaction of any provisions of the Vail Municipal
Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued,
O "n, duty imposed, any violation that occurred prlor to the effectlve date hereof,
any prosecution comenced, nor any other actlon or proceeding as cormenced under or
by virtue of the provjsion repea'led or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any
provision hereby sha'l I not revive any provision or any ordinance previously
repea'led or superseded unless express'ly stated herein.
6.
7.
. t'
-''"..'r!'Cr C,
O'
C.,
av INTRODUCED, READ ANO PASSED 0N FIRST READING THIS Sth day of trtay. 1987
and a public hearing shal'l be held on this ordinance on
_ day of May 1987 at 7:30
Itlunicipal Building, Vall, Colorado.
NTRODUCED,READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND
this 19th day
P.M. in the Council Chanbers
the 19th
of the Vai I
of May , 1987.
READING AND ORDERED PUELISHED In
of lvlay , 1987.
utl lhis 8th day
ton, Mayor
Pamela A. Brandrneyer, Town Clerk
ton, Mayor
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR TIIE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 00-D-779
CHARLES R. UrcON,
v.
TOWN OF VAII- a municipal corporation;
TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL; and
DAYMER CORPORATION N-V.,
a Netherlands Antilles corporation
Defendants.
o
DAYMER CORPORATION'S FIRST SET OF INTERROCATORIES AND
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTTON OF DOCUMENTS TO PI_ATNTTFF
Defendant" Daymer corporation N.v., a Netherlands Antilles corporation
('Daymef), by and tbrough counsel, Bailey & peterson, A professional corporation,
submits its Interrogatories and Requests for hoduction of Documents to plaintiff-
Documents requested herein shall be produced 3O days following the date ofthe
documents request$ at the offices of counsel for Daymer, Bailey & peterson, A
Professicnal corporation, 1660 Lincoln Street, surte 3125, Denver, colorado g(D64.
DEFINITIONS
A. The term "you," "yourg" or "Lipcon" refers to plaint'rff herein, charles R.
Lipcon, unless otherwise indicaed.
B. The '1fown" or 'Vail" means Defendants Town of Vail, a municipal
COrporation.
C. The term "Council" means the Defendant, Town Council of the Town of
Vail.
D. The term '\ul Plazd' means that development project known as the Vail
Plaza Hotel which Plaintiff describes as a "hotel, sp4 time-share condominium projecf in
paragrqh 7 of his complainr
E. The term "document" is used in its broadest s€nse and includes any "writing"
or "recording" as those terms ar€ defined in Rule l00l of fhe Federal Rules of Evidence, and
without limitation, apply to any court orders, photographs, drawings, magnetic recordinp,
microfilm" microfiche, oomputer data bascs, correE ondence, reoords, inter-offioe
memoranda, diagrams, chats, books, pamphlets, rq)orts, statements, and other means by
which information can be compiled or stored.
F- If you claim that any document which is required to be produced by you in
rcsponse to any of these requests is privileged:
Identiry its title and general subject matt€r:
b. State its date:
c- Identifyitsauthor(s);
d. Identi$ the person(s) for whom it was prepared or to whom, it was
sent;
e. State the nature of the privilege claimed; and
f. State in detail each and every fact upon which you base your claim or
privilegq.
G. "Identify'' when used in reference to an individual means to state that
individual's name, last-known address, and telephone numb€r. 'Tdentify''when used in
ref€rence to a corporation, limited liability company, partnership, limit€d partnership, or
other such entity means to state the entit5l's name, ad&ess, telephone number, officers,
director$ and errployees, "Identifyt'when used in referene to a dosunent meatrs to state
thc date of the document, the author of the doctment, the recipient of the docuurent,
including the recipients of all copies of the document and the place where the doctment is
kept *Identify'' when used in reference to a conversation means to stat€ the date of fte
conversation, the identity of the persons wbo participated in t|e conversation (either actively
or passively), tbe means that the conversation bok plae, e.g,. ftrr-ta'fre, by telephone,
and the content of the conversation.
H. "Representative," when used in relation to Lipcon m€ans any attonrcy,
aftqney-in-fact, agenl employeq relative, or other person who attended any planning
session or meeting related to tbe Plaza Hotel proposal and (excluding any Defendant or
agent of a Defendant) who informed Lipcon of what transpired at such planning session or
meeting.
I. These discovery requests are continuing in nature and require further and
supplemental production until the trial date.
INTERROGATORIFS
The foregoing definitions are incorporated into the following inlerrogatories and
r€quesB for production of documents.
l. Identiff each and every work session and rneeting involving members of the
Town's Planning Deparuneng Planning and Environmental Commission, Desigr Review
Boarrd, or Council related to the Vail Plaza that you or any rcpresentative of yours attended.
2. Identi$ each and every work session and meeting involving members of the
Town's Planning Deparuneng Planning and Environmental commission, Desigrr Review
Board, or Council related to the Vail Plaza that you or any representative of yours did not
attend.
3. For each and every work session or nreeting involving members of the
Town's Planning Departneng Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review
Board or corncil related to the vail Plaza that )lou, or any reprcsentative of yours, did not
aftend describe in full the reasons for not attending.
4. Identify each and every conversation or communication that you had with a
person who represented the Town or Daymer which was related to a request by you or by
someone else to change the date or time of a work session or meeting in which the Vail
Plaza would be discrrssed o,r considered-
5. Identify each and every conversation or communication that you had with a
person who represented the Town or Daymer in which you requested that notices of work
sessions or meetings related to the Vail Plazabe sent directly to you.
6. Identify each and every conversation or communication known to you in
which the owner of a condominiwn unit in a condominium development on property
adjacent to ttre property that is the subject of the Vail Plaza proposal, or a person acting on
behalf of such owner, requested that notices of work sessions or meeting related to the Vait
Plaza be provided by a means other than that provided in the Town Code of Vail.
7. Identify each and every conversation or communjcation tlrat you had with an
owner of a condominium unit, residential or commercial, in the building described in your
complaint as the Vail Gateway Plaza, or aperson who represeirted such an owner, regarding
the Vail Plaza Da)4ner, or Daymer's application for a special development district related to
theVail Plaza.
8. Describe in full each and every power Daymer exercised by virtue of stete
law in mnjunction with tbe matters alleged in yourcomplaint
9. Identify each and every conversation, communicatiorl and document tbat
support the allegation that Daymer acted with the authuity of state law.
10. Identify each and ev€ry person who participated in the conspiracy that you
have alleged-
ll. Identify each and every conversation, communication, and document that
support the existence ofthe conspiracy that you bave alleged-
12. Describe each and every illegal acq including the date of tbe acq tbe location
of the act, and the identity of each person performing the acg committed in furtherance of
the conspiracy alleged in your complainr
13. Describe in full each and every fact that supports your assertion that Daymer
conspired either to damage L!rcon or to violate Lipcon's constitutional rights.
14. Describe in full each and every right in property that acts of Daymer
dep,rived you of.
15. Describe in full the way in which each act of Daymer deprived you of the
rights in properfy described in response to the preceding interrogatory.
16. Describe in full, including the identity of all persons who participated, each
and every act by which the Town, Daymer, or anyone else manipulated meetings to prevent
Lipcon from attending or to allow Daymer to attend as alleged in paragrapb l6(K) (page 9)
of your complaint.
17- Describe in firll your claimed damages, including the methodology you use
to calculate all such damages.
18. Identify each and ev€ry statement, whether urinen or verbal, upon which
you relied relative to the zoning in effect, the master plan, and the Town,s prior conduct in
purchasing unit 5 in the vail Gateway as alleged in paragraph 14 of your complaint
19. Identify each and every managing agent of the condominium association
with jurisdiction over your condominium or condominiums in the Vail Gatcway durfuE t1€
period that the Town considered the Vail plaza applic*ion.
20. Describe in firll the extent to which the Vail Plaza witl block the view ftom
each window in your condominium-
REOI]ESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCT.JMENTS
Produce a copy of the ordinance by which Vail adopted a master plan.
Produce each and every document you received from the Town or Daymer
related to planning sessions or meetings involving the Town's Planning Staff, the ptanning
and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board, or the Council relating to the Vail
Plua-
3- Produce each and every document you received from yonn condominium
association or it$ agents related to planning sessions or meetings involving the Town's
Planning staff, the Planning and Environurental commission, Design Review Board, or the
Council relating to the Vail Plaza.
4. hoduce each and every notice of a planning session or meeting involving
the Town's Planning Departrnent, Planning and Environmentat commission" Desigrr
t.
2-
Review Board, or Council rclated to the Vail Plaza that you received from any source before
you instituted this titigation.
5. Produce each and every document that you identifid refen'ed to, orrelied
upon in answering the foregoing interrogaOries.
6 - Produce each and every docrrment identifi ed in your Rule 26 disclosures.
7 . Produce each and every document related to your sale of Unit 3 of the Vail
Gateway, including all documents related to the "penalty clause," as alleged in paragraph 13
of your conrplaint
8. Produce each and wery document ftat led you to rely on'.the zoning in
effect " "the master plan," and 'the Town's prior conduct'' when you purchased unit 5 in
the Vail Gateway as alleged in paragraph 14 of your complainr
9. hoduoe eacb and every document tlre sup'ports your allegation that one or
more members of the Council had a conflict of interest in regards to the Vail plaza
development application.
l0- hoduce all Registrations by owner of Maiting Addars thu you provided to
the vail Gateway Plaza condominiums Association pursuant to paragraph 3l of the
Condominium Declaration of the Vail Gateway plaza Condominiums.
I l. Pnoduce each and every certificate of identity recorded by the Vait Gateway
Plaza Condominiums Association Board of Directors related to the identity of those persons
comprising the Board and the identity of the Managing Agent if any, pursuant to paragraph
l5(i) of the condominiums Declararion of the vail Gateway pl"za condominiums.
12- hoduce all rules and regulatiors promulgated by the vail Gateway plaza
Condominiums Association pursuant to paragraph l5() of the Condominium Declaration ofI
the Vail Gateway Plaza Condominiums that were in effect at any time during the period that
theTown considered the Vail Plazaproposal.
13. hoduce each and every document that suppofts your allegation contained in
paragraph 9 of your complaint that tlre Town required the Vail Gateway to lower its
proposed height and a notch in the Vail Gateway roof line.
Daymer reseryes the right to serve follow-up written discovery rcquests, including
requests for admissions, after receiving PlaintifPs responses to these discovery requests.
DATED UMry otSepteinber, 200O.
Respectfr rlly submitte4
BAILEY & PETERSON.
A Professional Corporation
James S. Bailey, Jr.
Randal.l M. Livingston
Cynthia J. Jones
1660 Lincoln Street, Suite 3175
Denver, Colorado 802@
Telephone: (303) 837-1660
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
DAYMER CORPORATION
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hercby certify that on Arduyof September, zU)O, I deposited true and
con€ct copies of the foregoing DAYMER CORFORATION'S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORJES AND REQLJESTS FOR PRODUCTTON OF DOCIJMEI{TS TO
PIAINTIFF in the United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed to:
€harles'iFeon
One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2480
2 South BiscayneBlvd.
Miami FL 33131.
J. Scott Iasater
8122 Southpark l,lt. Suite 205
Littleton CO 80120
R. Thomas Moorhead
Town of Vail City Attorney's Office
75 South Frontage Road trr
Yail, Colorado 81657
o
t
-.i
IN IHE I'NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DTSTRICI OF COIORADO
Civil Action No. 00-D-779
C}IARIJES R. ],IPCON,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOI$[ OF \fAIl, a municipal corporation,
TOUTN COUNCIT OF THE TOTTN OF \TAIL,
and DAYI'IER CORPORAIION, N.V. a NetherlandsAntilles corporation.
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF', S REQITESTS FOR ADMISSSIONS,
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTTON AND TNTERROGATORTES
TOEACIIDEFENDA}TT.
f HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of this discovery has
been emailed and hand detivered on September LL, 2000 to .f. SCO?T
I'ASATER, Lasater&AssociategP.C- 8L22 South Park f.,ane # 2O5,
Littleton, Colorado 80120; RAlfDAlIr M. I,MNGSION, Bailey c
Peterson, P.C., 1660 linco].n Street # 31"75, Denver, Colorado
80264 and Tom Moorehead ?5 S. Frontage Road West, Vail-, Colorado
8L657.
].,4W OFFICES OF CHARLES R. IIPCON
Attorney for P1aj-ntiff
One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2480
2 South Biscalme Boulevard
Miami, Florida 3313L
Ielephone: (305) 373-301-6
* (:"),WL
CHARLES R. LIPCON
,i
PLATNTtrryS REQUEST FOR ADMTSSTONS
Plaintiffrequests each defendant to adtnrt the followbg for purposes offiis astior:
l. During 1999 and 2000, the Tonm of Vail had in effect a master plan for Vail Village that had
been irylemented by an ordinmceuihich included the area uihere the Vail Gateway and the Vail
Village Im property were located-
2.. The Vail Village master plm for tle Tonm of Vail reflects that the area urtere the Vail Ptazs
Hotel is proposed that a height limitation of 3, 4 and 5 $ories is Soqnr
3. The Vail Plaza Hotel proposal as apprwed by the Toum of Vail would violate the height
requirements shoum in tle Vail Village Master Plan.
4. The Vail Plaza Hotel proposal as approved by the Toum ofVail would block in u&ole or in
part views of Gold Peak from tie area ofthe round about, (fornerly 4 way stop).
5. The Vail Village master plan for the Toum of Vail states that in the area uAere the Vail Plaza
Hotel is proposed tlat viws towards Gold Peak Sould be preserved.
6. Thst there has been no material chrnge in the character ofthe neiglrborhood ufrere the Vail
Pllza hotel has been proposed to be built since the Master Plm for the Vail Village was
irylemmed by the Toum of Vail.
7.That Vail Resorts or a related entity had Soum an interest in buying the Vail Village Inn
prop€rty from Joseph Stauffq and/or Da;aner Corporation or related entr'tites..
8. That Rod Slifer, Greg Moffet, and/or Ludwig Kurz or related entity or relative in 1999 and/or
2000 had a direct or indirect business relationship with Vail Resorts or a related e,ntity.
15. That the Tolrm Counsil of Vail had meetings and or work sessions in 1999 md/m 2000 with
Dalmer Corporation about ttre Vail Plaza Hotel project for nfuich no notice was smt to Cbarles
R Lrycon or other adjacenr prcp€rty ouners including condominium olvnsrs.
16. Thrt the Tonm of Vail turned over to Dayner Corporation the reryonsrlility to provide
notices to adjacent propsfy oum€rs to the Vail Village Inn property of neetings of the Toqm of
Vail PEC and/or Town Couacil dealing with Dayner Corporations proposed Vail Plaza Hotel in
1999 md/or 2000.
17. Tllrrt Vail Resorts or a related entity, and/or Rod Slifer, and/or Gregg Moffett, md/or Ludwig
Kurz had an oumer$ip intere$ in Dayner Corporation or a related errttry in 1999 and/or 2000.
18. That Jay Peterseir represeirted Daymer Corporatiom et its attorney in frct with respect to the
.-, Vail Plaza Hotel proposal to the Toum of Vail.
It
o 19. Thtt Jay Petersen had represe,nted Leo Palmer or a related elrtity with rcspect to the Vail
Gateway Plaza proje,cl.
20. That Jay Petersen had represented Stohz or a related ent'ty with reryect to purchases of
condominium units in the Vail Gateway Plaza.
21. Ihrt Rod Slifer or a related enniry was a broker with reryeot to the listing of rmit 4 in the Vail
Gateway in 1999 and/or 2000.
22. tlaan Ctarles R Lipcon zued Creg Moffett m 1999 and/or 2000 alleging violation of the
Toun ofVail charter.
23. That Crreg Moffett, Ludwig Kur4 md Rod Slifer refuseal to answer uritten questions in 1999
aod/or 2000 sent by Charles R Lipcon deeling with conflicts ofinterest.
24.1\8, Da;mer Corporation purchased a condominium oumed by Vail Resorts and/or Leon
Blaok or relrted entities, located in the Vail Village Inn Hotel propert;r, prior to srbmiring its
Vail Plaza llotel proposal to the Tonm of VaiL
25. That Rod Slifer, Ludwig Kura and Crreg Mofiett failed to rweal any conflists of intere$ or
possible conflicts ofinteres prior to voting on the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal.
26. That there are in er<cess of 50 adjacent prop€,rty oramers including condominium oumers to the
property rvhere the Vail Plaza Hotel project was pro'posed-
27. \\fr, each of the adjacat condominium oumers to the Vail Plaza Hotel property were not
given separate notices of each hearing in front of the Toum of Vail PEC md/u Toum Council
md/or Design Rwiew Board dsnling with the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal
28. Thst Charles Lipoon had a right to rely on the Vail Village master plm in etreot ufren he
purchased unit 5 in the Vail Gateway.
29. T\^t Ludwig Kurz md/or Rod Slifer md/or Greg Moffett had a direst or indirect financial
intsest in bringing more tourists to Vail Village each time they voted on the Vail Plaza Hotel
project.
3O That the Vail Plaza Hotel Project as approved" if hflL would cause the value ofPlaintiffs
condominium to be decreased.
o
PL{INTIIIF' S REQIJEST FOR PRODUCTION
Plaintiffrequests each defendant to produce the following:
f . Any md all documents that support each of defendants affrmative defenses in this action-
2. Any and all docurnents that reflect the name and address of each oumer or beneficial oramer of
Daymer Corporation m 1999 and 2000 including but not limited to shareg corporate recordg and
State, Federal, md Netherlands Antilles tax retums. (Any foanoial information in these records
may be redacted.)
3. Any and all documents reflecting the date and time for each meeting or work sessions ofthe
Toum of Vail PEC, Design Rwiew Board, and Toum Cormcil dealing with the Vail Plaza Hotel
Proposal.
4. My and all docum€ots reflecting individual notices given to each adjacent property oumer
including condominium owners of each meeting or work session ofthe Toqm of Vail PEC,
Desip Rwiew Boar4 and Toum Council meetings dealing with the Vail Plaza Hotel Proposal as
well as each proof ofnotice or atteryted proof of notioe, such as a rstuflr receipt card.
5. Any and all documents reflecting the oumership of property and/or businesses in 1999 md
2000 by Vail Resortg and/or Rod Slifer, md./or Ludwig Kur4 and"/or Greg Moffet or related
atities or relativesin Vail.
6. Any and all documents reflecting rwelations of conflicts of interest or possible oonflicts of
intercst by any or all oftle members ofthe PEC and Vail Toum Councilpertainingto the Vail
Plaza Hotel proposal
7. My and all docume,nts that reflect that a material change in the character of the neigfoborfiood
ofthe proposed Vail Plaza Hotel had occurred prior to the approval of the Vail Plaza Hotel
proposal by the PEC and the Vail Toum Council from the t'me ofthe passage ofthe ma$er plan.
8. Any and all documents lised in defendmts' rule 26 disclosres.
9. Any and all documents reflecting efforts by the Toqn of Vail to detemrine any possible
conflicts of interests on the part of me,mbers of the PEC and Toum Cormcil with respec't to the
Vail Plaza Hotel proposal.
l0,Any and all documents reflecting the zoning in effect for tle Vail Village Inn property in 1999
and 2000 prior to the approval of the Vail,Plaza Hotel proposal.
I l- Any and all documents tl.at reflect the differ€nces (srch as heiglt, *orieq density, p$king)
betweeir the zoning in effect for the Vail Village Inn property in 1999 and 2000 and the Vail
Plaza Hotel proposal as approved by the Toum Cormcil.
L2. Aoy and all dosuments that reflect the Toum of Vail's investigation into the finmcial harm
done to plaintiffand other adiacmt prop€rty onmers including condominium oumers by the Vail
Plaza Itrotel Proposal.
13. Any and all documents tlat reflect that the Torlm of Vail had a requirement that Daymer
submit an economic irrTact study with respect to the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal as well as the
purpose for srbmission ofthe economic iryact $udy.
14. Any nd all docun€tils reflecting the co$ to Dayrr.er for the purchase of the Vail Village Inn
property including but not limited 1s plrchase agre€rnat, appraisalg bank loang title insumce,
etc..
15. Aty md all documents reflecting the value ofthe Vail Village Inn property after approval of
the Vail Plaza Hotel project, including but not limited to lir*ings for sale, sales agre€rn€rts,
documeots $bmitted for potential loans or financing appraisalg etc.
16. Any and all acoounting records for Daymsr Corporation that deal with the Vail Village Inn
prop€rty from the time it was prnchased by Dalmer to the preserrt.
17. Aay and all doqrments that srpport the position that the approval of the Vail Plaza Hotel
proposal was not ryot zoning.
18. Any md all docum€Nils that indicste the percatage ofproperty o,wrrers and condomininm
oumers in Vail Village that are firll time residents versus part time residents such as second home
olvners.
19. Any and all agreEnents for legal services obtainerl by al€fendants in defending this action.
20. Any and all agreements betwecn the defendmts in this action including but not limited to the
defense of this action, the approval ofthe Vail Plaza Hotel proposat ctc.
2l- Any and all claims made or lawsrits filed against the Toram of Vail and/or the Toum Cormcil
claiming that no notice or iryroper notice was given to adjacent property ovmers witl rcq)ect to
the passing of Tollm of Vail ordinances druing the last frve years including but not limited to open
ryace issres.
22. Any and all documents dealing with the Toum of Vail requirement that the height ofthe Vail
Gateway be lowered and that a notoh be placed into the top so as to preserve views ofthe Vail
mouatain.
23. Any and all documsfs dealing with the proposed height versrs the final approved heights of
the Sonnenalp Hotel and Auslria House in the Toum of Vail.
24. Any md all documents dealing with the purchase oftle condominium onmed by Leon Black
or related entif located in the Vail Village Inn properfy.
PLAINTtrTIS INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS
Plaintiffpropounds the following interrogatories to be mswered by each deferdant in this action.
1. Please state with particulariry the basis for each affinutive defense pled in this action.
Z.Please state the name and address of each adjace,lrt property oumer including condomiuium
oum€rs to the Vail Village Inn hotel property.
3. Please state the date and place of each meeting and work session of the PEC, Desip Rwiew
Boad and Toum Council dealing with the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal.
4. For each meeting and work session li$ed in answer to number 3, please $ate the manner in
rrytich each adjacent property oumer including condominium owners were informed about each of
the meetings.
5. Please state wheth€r or not defendants investigated the financial iryact on the value sfunit 5
ofthe Vail Gateway as well as other adjacent property onmers and condominium oumers by the
construction ofthe Vail Plaza Hotel as approved and if so state the dates of the investigtioo,
methods utilized, persons or coryanies involved and the conclusions reached either in dollars or
by percentage ofvalue.
O 6. For Rod Slifer, Ludwig Kur4 and Greg Moffett, as well as related entities and relatives,
O
please *ate their relationship to Vail Resorts or related entries in 1999 md 2000.
7. For Rod Slifer, Ludrrig Kur4 md Greg Mofeft please stete whether or not they would beneft
finmcially, either ilirectly or indirectly, in the building ofthe Vail Plaza Hotel as apprroved and if
so, erylain..
E. For the Toum of Vail plase *ate uihether or not they would benefit finmcially, eithc directly
or indirectly, in the building ofthe Vail Plaza Hotel as approved and if so, explain.
9. Please list out and orylain in detail eech aryect ofthe Vail Plaza Hotel that does not conply
withthe Vail Village I\fasterPlan
l0,Please state in aletail !\iilat investigatim was done by defendants and conclusions reached after
plaintiffbrougfut to the Toum Council his objections to voting on the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal
by Rod Slifer, Lurlwig Kur4 Greg Moffett mdthe entire Toum Cormcil dneto conflict of
interest.
11. Please state the name, addresg eryloyer, md telephone number for each olrmer or beneficial
oumer of Dalm.er Corporation in 1999 and 2000.
o
12. Please sgte wh€th€r the Torrn of Vail had Daymer give notices to adjacent landoumers of my
meetings ofthe PEC, Desip Rwiew Board, or Tortn Council pertaining to the Vail Plaza Hotel
proposal md if so, lis* or* the meetings by datg type and purpose as well as the reasons for
havingDaluer do the notices for each srch meeting
13. Please state ufrether or not the Toum of Vail PEC, md/or Design Rwierv Board c,hanged the
date of my meetings pertaining to the Vail Plaza Hotel Proposal and if so list out the meetings by
dde, qpe md purpose as well as the reasons for cl'anglng the date for eflc,h meeting.
14. Please describe each property and business owaer and/or operated by Vail Resorts or related
entities in Vail in 1999 and 2000.
15. Please *ate whether or not Plaintiffrequested the date of a Toum Cormcil ming to be
chonged so he could attendthe meeting dcalhgwith the VailPlaza Hotelproposal andif so for
each request state the circuostances srrounding the request md the action taken by defendants
to either grant or denythe reque*.
16. Please state eac,h time the Toum of Vail has been put on notice that ils notifioation procedures
in the Toum of Vail ordinances for adjacent propcrty owners was not giving notice or property
workiag &uingthe la* 5 years
17. Please $ate rryhet.her there had been a material ohange in the oharacter ofthe neighborhood
for the Vail Village Inn property from the time it was purchrsed by Daymer Corporation to the
time the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal was zubmitted to the Tovrm of Vail and if so please state with
particularity the material changes.
lE. Please state whether or not the approval of the Vail Plaza proposal was in the public intere$
and if so, please state wittr particularity each ofthe public interests.
19. With reryect to the Sonnenalp Hotd please state the height and number of stories applied for
and the heiglt and number of stories finally approved by the Toum of Vail.
20. With reryect to the Austria House, please $ate the height and number of $ories applied for
md the heigfut and number of stories ffnrlbr approred by the Tovrm of Vail.
21. Please state uihether there have bem any meetings or other oommunications betwe€Nr
defendmts or their ag€Nrts, servants, eryloyees or representatives with reryect to this fuvvguit an6
if so set out the date ofthe meeting or oonuunication, the purpose ofthe meeting or
cornrnmication, what was discusse4 and snrbstmce of any agreements reached.
G-
U
22. Pt€sse stse wheths thene had bea a maerhl chmge in the claract€r ofthe neig[borhood
frr ihe Veil Villrge hn property from the tine the Voil Village Itflecer Plan was apprwed to &e
tirc the Vail Plaza Hotd proposal was srbnittcd to fhe Tonm of Vail and if so please st$e with
prtimdrdty the material c,hmgss.
23. Flilse st te ifthere we my finrncid rcasms for the Towl of Vd to 4prwe tho Vril nrzr
Hotel proposcl rnd if so describe the franciel noasons rnd thc e*imsted finechl otr dollar
bae&s,
o
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
O R IGINAL
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Department of Community Development
January 1 1, 1999
A request lor a final review of a major amendment to Special Development District
#6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment to Phase lV, located at 100
East Meadow Drive/Lots M, N, & O, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay PetersonPlanner; George Ruther
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS
The applicant, Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson, is proposing a major
amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn. The major amendment is
intended to lacilitate the redevelopment of the existing Vail Village Inn, Phase lV Condominiums
and allow for the construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel. The current proposal proposes to
amendments to Phase lV ol the Vail Village Inn Plaza only. No changes are proposed to Phases
l-lll or V.
The Vail Plaza Hotel provides a substantial increase in the total number of short-term
accommodation units in the Town of Vail. The applicant is proposing to construct 276
accommodation units (hotel rooms), 15 part-time fractional fee club units, and 1 condominium.
The Vail Plaza Hotel also includes 2 restaurants; each with outdoor dining areas, 8,600 square
feet of retail space along Vail Fload and along an internal pedestrian mall, and a conference
facility totaling 21 ,000 square feet in size, a 28,000 square foot full seruice spa and health club
facility and approximately 394 underground parking spaces.
According to the Town of Vail Municipal Code, it shall be the burden of the applicant to
demonstrate that any deviation from the development standards of the underlying zoning provide
public benefits that outweigh the adverse effect of said deviation. The applicant has identified the
public benefits the community will realize as a result of the redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn
site. The public benelits identilied by the applicant include:
1. An increase in the annual hotel occupancy rate through the redevelopment of an older,
existing hotel.
2. A significant increase in the Town's supply of short-term, overnight accommodations to serve
our guests and visitors.
3. The creation of a commercial/retail space link connecting the Vail Gateway Building and the
Vail Village Inn Plaza commercial spaces to the pedestrian traffic along East Meadow Drive.
4.
5.
b.
7.
8.
[.
The implementation of the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan along the South Frontage
Fload, Vail Road and East Meadow Drive.
The construction of a world-class "anchor" hotel providing a high{evel of guest service.
The creation of a major conference and convention center providing accommodations for
upwards of 1,000 attendees and their families.
The construction of employee housing to off-set the demand resulting from the
redevelopment of the hotel project.
A sizeable annual contribution to the Town's sales tax revenue
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 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.
In 1987, the Vail Town Council passed 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.
. In 1991 , the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 9, Series 1991 , providing for
certain amendments to the approved development plan for Special Development Disilict
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. An
analysis of the 1992 approval is provided in Section lll ol this memorandum.
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.
The existing Vail Village Inn Phase lV is a mixed use development. The current uses on the site
include 78 hotel rooms, a restaurant and bar comprising approximately 5,400 square feet, 1,950
square feet of commercial/retail area (Craig's Market), a surface parking lot and one residential
condominium. The total square footage of the existing building is approximately 44,150 square
leet.
According to the Official town 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 residential accommodations for visitors, together
with such public and semi-public facilities and limiled professional offices, medical
lacilities, private reicrealion, and relatecl visitor oriented uses as may appropriately
be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation District is intended to
ensule adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with
lodge uses, and lo maintain the desirable resort qualities ol the District by
establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidenlial uses
are permitted as conditional uses which enhance lhe nature of Vail as a winler and
summer recreation and vacation community, and where permilted are intended to
function compatibly with lhe high density lodging character of the District. The
Public Accommodation District is intended to provide sites for lodging units at
densities not to exceed hilenty five (25) dwelling units per acre. (Ord. 30(1977) $ 7:
Ord. 8(1e73) S 7.100)."
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{amily Zone District.
III, 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 ol Public Accommodation to the applicant's proposed major amendment. lt is
important to note that the comparison is based on lhe area of Phase lV only, and the area of the
Special Development District.
VailPlaza Hotel
Lot size: 1.467 acres or 63,902.5 sq. tt. (Phase lV only)
Buildable area: 63,902.5 sq. ft.
Dwelopment Underlying Zoning 1999 Major SDDStandard ol Public Accommodation Amendment proposal
GRFA: 80% or 51.122 so. ft. 2021o or 124.527 so. ft.
Dwelling
units per acre: 25 du/acre 105 du/acre
Site coverage: 55% or 35,146 sq. ft. 91% or 58,335 sq. ft.
Selbacks:
front: 20' 12'sides: 20' 0',8'& 6'rear: 20' I'
Height: 48'sloping 85.75'sloping
87.5' (arch.proi.)
Parking: per T.O.V. Code Section 394 parking spaces
Loading: per T.O.V. Code Section six berlhs
12-10-13
Commercial
sq. footage: 10% of allowabl€ GRFA 60l" or 8,265 sq. ft.
or 5,1 1 2 sq. ft.
IV- THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAJOR AMENDMENT PROCESS
Chapter 12-9 of the Town of Vail Municipal 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 tlexibility and creativity in the development of land, in order to
promole its most appropriate use; lo improve the design character and quality of
the new development within the Town; to lacilitate the adequate and economical
plovision ol streels and utilities; lo preserve the natural and scenic features of open
space areas; and lo furlher the overall goals of the community as slated in the Vail
Comprehensive Plan. An approved developmenl plan for a Special Development
District, in conjunclion with the properties underlying zone distlict, shall establish
the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the
Special Development District."
o
According to Section 12-9A-2, a major amendment to a Special Development District is defined
OS'
"Any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential flool area; change the
number of dwelling or accommodation units; modity, enlarge or expand any
approved special development district (other than "minor amendments" as defined
in this Section), except as provided under Sections 12-15-4, "lnteriot Conversions",
or 12-15-5, "Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance)" of this Title."
The Municipal Code provides a framework for the amendment of a Special Development District.
According to the Municipal 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
Develooment District.
Upon linal review of a proposed major amendment ol an existing Special Development District, a
report from the Planning and Environmental Commission stating its lindings 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 Municipal Code. The Town Council's
consideration of the Special Development District shall be in accordance with the provisions of
the Municipal 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 inlormation 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 of 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
permitled, conditional and accessory uses in the properties underlying zone district.
The Municipal 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 ol 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 staff has addressed each of the nine SDD review criteria below:
A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood
and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height,
buffer zones, identity, chatacter, visual integrity and orientation.
Staff believes the applicant has designed a structure which relates well to the site and the
surrounding neighborhood. The mass of the Vail Plaza Hotel is significantly greater than
that of the existing building on the site. However, staff believes the increased mass is
appropriate for the site and takes into consideration the massing of the buildings on the
adjoining properties, though the removal of the eight floor of the building would further
increase the building's compliance. The applicant has modified the building mass by
reducing the overall height of the structure and by lowering the roof eave lines, since first
reviewed by the Town Council. However, statf believes that additional height and mass
can be removed from the building. The lowered roof eave lines match more closely to the
eave lines of the adjoining buildings to the east, west and south, insuring a smooth
transition between properties. The retail shops proposed on the east side of the Vail
Plaza Hotel along Vail Road create a commercial connection between the pedestrian
traffic on East Meadow Drive and the retail shops and restaurants in the Vail Gateway
plaza. Staff believes that the commercial connection will result in increased street activity
along Vail Road and greater pedestrian traffic to the commercial spaces in the Vail
Gateway Plaza. Staff would suggest that the applicant and the Town of Vail Design
Review Board re-examine the street fagade along Vail Road. Staff believes that
additional architectural design measures could be taken to reduce the height ol the
proposed six story fagade. Staff would suggest that the fagade be redesigned to create a
maximum of a three-story tall fagade with a step back in the building. The stepping of the
buibing along Vail Road would create a more pedestrian-friendly street edge and help to
reduce the perceived mass of the hotel.
The exterior building materials of the Vail Plaza Hotel are a mixlure of stone, stucco and
wood. The roof material is proposed to be a greenish concrete tile with copper tlashing.
The applicant has proposed to incorporate irrigated flower boxes and copper chimney
caps into the design of the structure to serve as accent elements. A grayish-brown
granite stone will be used around the base of the building. The use of non-reflective
glazed windows all around the building reduces the potential of glare. The applicant has
proposed that the exterior stucco color be an off-white or cream color to blend in with the
exteriors of the buildings on the adjoining properties. Staff believes that the combination
of building materials proposed has been well incorporated into the design of the Vail
Plaza Hotel. The Town ol Vail Design Review Board will have the opportunity to review
the building exterior prior to final approval of the hotel.
The height of the Vail Plaza Hotel exceeds the allowable building height of the Public
Accommodation Zone District by approximately 39 feet. The development standards for
the underlying zone district indicate that the maximum height for buildings with sloping
roofs shall be 48 feet. The applicant is requesting that the maximum building height for
the Vail Plaza Hotel be approximately 87 feet tall. lf the eighth floor were removed from
the building, the overall height would be reduced to 78 feet tall. The building height is
based on an interpolated topography of the Vail Village Inn property, and not the original
topography of the site (pre-development). Originaltopography of the site is not available,
as the site was originally developed prior to zoning (and prior to the requirement that a
topographic survey be submitted prior to development). Statl believes, based upon the
topography in the vicinity of the development site, that the interpolated topography is
reasonable and appropriate to use to determine building height.
F
G
H
I
poinr Buirdins r",-,'Xl"JJi'"i#t"l3illli?-':|i|T'r,n*n"o Buirdins
Elevation Elevation HeightA 228.3 173 55.3 165 63.3B 243.6 173 70.6c 257 171.25 85.75D 257 169.5 ..*87.5
E 244.3 168.5 75.8
247 169 78G 218.3 170.5 47.8 171 47.3247 166.5 80.5237 165 72J 208.3 162.75 45.55K 224 162.5 61.5L 213.6 157 56.6M 227 156 71N 224.3 158 66.3o 237 159.75 77.25
*t'" (height of the architectural projection)
According to the Vail Village Master Plan Conceptual Building Height Plan (attached), the
site of Phase lV ol the Vail Village Inn is in an area with conceptual building heights of 3-
4 stories, with a buibing story being approximately nine feet, excluding the roof. The
applicant is proposing to construct an 8-story tall hotel. The Building Height Plan element
of the Vail Village Master Plan, states in part,
"Generally speaking, it is lhe goal of this plan to mainlain the concentration
of low-scale buildings in the core are while positioning larger buildings along
the northern periphery (along the Frontage Road), as depicted In the Building
Heighl Profile Plan (attached). The Building Height Plan also strives, in some
areas, to preserve major views trom public rights-of-way.
The building heights expressed on the lllustrative Plan are intended to
provide general guidelines. Additional study should be made during specific
review processes relative to a building's height impact on the streetscape
and the relationshlp to surrounding structures."
ln response to the general guidelines provided in the Vail Village Master Plan relative to
building height, staff has requested that the applicant prepare a view analysis from eight
ditferent locations from the public rights-of-way (attached). This analysis provides a
"before & after" depiction of the proposed building. In addition, a sun/shade analysis was
prepared to illustrate the building's height impact on the surrounding streetscape
(attached). The sun/shade analysis compares the height impact of the existing structures
to the height impact of the proposed structures. The result of the comparison shows that
substantially more of the streetscape along the South Frontage Road east of the
roundabout will be shaded. The increase in shading results from the increase in building
height, the increased encroachment into the front setback and the additional building
mass proposed. To offset the impacts of the increase in shading during the winter
months, the applicant has proposed to improve the pedestrian streetscape along the
South Frontage Road by installing heated sidewalks and drive aisles. To help mitigate
the building's mass, the applicant has proposed to construct exterior decks and balconies
along with providing horizontal stepping of the building along the South Frontage Road.
Wjth respect to the relationship to surrounding structures on adjoining properties, and at
the request of the Planning & Environmental Commission, the applicant has removed 1 to
1 72 stories from the building and increased the vertical stepping of the building. The net
effect of these changes results in the maximum height of the building being located in the
center portions of the building away from the adjoining property lines and structures and
the lowering of the roof eave lines to more closely match the roof eave lines of the
adjoining buildings.
Again, statf believes that the applicant has designed a building which relates well to the
site and the surrounding neighborhood. Further, staff believes that the proposed building
complies with the general guidelines and intent of the Conceptual Building Height Plan
and the Building Height Profile contained in the Vail Village Master Plan.
Much has been said regarding the potential "loss" of the "established view corridor" from
the intersection of the South Frontage Road and Vail Road, as a result of the construction
of the Vail Plaza Hotel. Staff believes that the true loss of the view occuned when the
Vail Gateway Plaza was constructed. Through the construction of the five-story tall Vail
Gateway Plaza, the view from the intersection was substantially lost. Staff believes
additional development and building height behind the Vail Gateway Plaza will have
minimal impacts on the remaining view. Additionally, while the Vail Village Master Plan
discusses the importance of maintaining views from public rights-of-way, it did not
establish a view corridor in the vicinity ol the proposed development site, nor did intend to
protect views from private property. The Town of Vail has six established view corridors
and is proposing five additional view corridors in Lionshead, to be protected by ordinance.
These protected view corridors are generally located in Vail Village and Lionshead.
Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
The Vail Plaza Hotel is located within the mixed-use develooment of the Vail Villaoe Inn
Plaza. The Vail Village Inn Plaza is a mixture of retail, restaurant, office, residential and
lodging uses. The Vail Plaza Hotel is bound on the east by Vail Village Tower
Condominiums and the Vail Village Inn commercial buildings, on the west by the Vail
Gateway Plaza and Vail Road, and on the south by the Phase V Building of the Vail
Village Inn. Each of these buildings is a mixed-use development incorporating
commercial/retail space with residential andior accommodation units.
The applicant is proposing a mixed-use development that is in compliance with the uses
allowed in the underlying zone district. The underlying zoning ol Public Accommodation
encourages the development of lodges (accommodation units) and accessory eating,
drinking and retail establishments at a density ol twenty-five dwelling units per acre. The
applicant is proposing to redevelopment the Vail Plaza at a density of 105 dwelling units
per acre, with 8,265 sq. ft of commercial/retail space, 21 ,000 sq. ft. of conference and
convention space, one condominium, 276 hotel rooms, 15 part-time fractional lee units,
and 394 underground, structured parking spaces.
The applicant's proposal differs greatly from the existing density of the property.
Currently, the Vail Village Inn includes only 78 accommodation units, and one dwelling
unit, equaling 27.3 dwelling units per acre, a restaurant and a limited amount of
commercialiretail space. Parking at the Vail Village Inn is accommodated by two surface
parking lots. An informal loading/delivery/trash area exists on the property.
Emplovee Housino Requirements
As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives of 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. In reviewing
the proposal for employee housing needs, staff relied on the Town of Vail Employee
Housing Report. This report has been used by the staff in the past to evaluate employee
housing needs. The guidelines contained within the report were used most recently in
the review of the Austria Haus development proposal.
The Employee Housing Report, was prepared for the Town by the consulting lirm Rosall,
Remmen and Cares. The report provides the recommended ranges of employee housing
units needed based on the type of use and the amount of floor area dedicated to each
use. Utilizing the guidelines prescribed in the Employee Housing Report, the staff
analyzed the incremental increase of employees (square footage per use), that result
from the redevelopment. A copy of the Suqqested Emolovment Cateqories and Ranqes
for Vail Expressed as Emplovees oer 1000 Square Feet has been attached for reference.
The figures identitied in the Housing Report are based on surveys of commercial-use
employment needs of the Town of Vail and other mounlain resort communities. For
comparison purposes, Telluride, Aspen and Whistler B.C. all have "employment
generation" ordinances requiring developers to provide aflordable housing tor a
percentage ol the "new" employees resulting from commercial development. "New"
employees are defined as the incremental increase in employment needs resulting lrom
commercial redevelopment. Each ol 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 lor 40o/" (0.40) of the "new" employees,
Aspen requires that 60% (0.60) of the "new" employees are provided housing and
Whistler 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 15/" (0.15) or 30% (0.30) of the "new" employees resulting from
commercial development, When a project is proposed lo exceed the density allowed by
the underlying zone district, the 30o/" (0.30) figure is used in the calculation. lf a p@ect is
proposed at, or below, the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 15% (0.15)
figure is 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.
The applicant has provided proposed employment figures for the operation of the
redeveloped Vail Plaza Hotel. The applicant estimates a need lor approximately 21 3
employees, plus an unknown retail need. A copy of the "Vail Villaoe Inn Staffino Rostef'
has been attached for reference.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
0
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
0
EMPLOYEE HOUSING GENERATION ANALYSIS
The staff 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 staff
recommended figure which was used in determining the employee housing needs of the
Vail Plaza Hotel. A summary of the Employee Housing Generation Analysis is as lollows:
Bottom of Range Calculations:
RetaiUservice Commercial =8,265 sq. ft. @(5/1000 sq. ft.) =41.3 employees
Health Club =27 ,800 sq. ft. @(1/1 000 sq. ft.) =27.8 employees
RestauranVLounge/Kitchen =19,596 sq. ft. @(5/1000 sq. ft.) =98.1 employees
Conference Center
Lodging
=21,208 sq. ft. @(1/1000 sq. ft.) =21.2 employees
=276 unirs @(.25/unit)=69 employees
=6 employeesMulti Family (Club Units) =15 units @(.4iunit)
Total Employees =263.4 employees
(-60 existing employees) =2O3.4 employees
(X 0.30 muhiplier)=51.02 new employees
Middle ot Range Calculations:
Retail/Service Commercial = 8,265 sq. ft. @(6.5/1000 sq. ft.) =53.7 employees
Health Club =27,800 sq. ft. @(1 .2511000 sq. ft.) =34.8 employees
RestauranVlounge/Kitchen =19,596 sq. ft. @(6.5/1000 sq. ft.) =127.4 employees
Conference Center
Lodging
=21,208 sq. ft. @(1/1000 sq. ft.) =21.2 employees
=276 units @(.75lunit)=207 employees
=6 employeesMulti Family (Club Units) =15 units @(.4iunit)
Total Employees =450.1 employees
(-60 existing employees) =390.1 employees
(X 0.30 multiplier)=117.03 new employees
10
O
Top of Range Galculations:
a) Retail/Service Commercial =8,265 sq. lt. @(8/1000 sq. ft.) =66.1 employees
b) HealthClub =27,800sq.ft.@(1.5/1000sq.ft.) =41.7 employees
c) RestauranvLoungeiKitchen =19,596 sq. ft. @(8/1000 sq. ft.) =157.1 employees
d) Conference Center =21,208 sq. ft. @(1i1000 sq. ft.) =21.2 employees
e) Lodging =276 units @(1.2slunit) =345 employees
f) Multi Family (Club Units) =15 units @(.4/unit) =6 employees
TotalEmployees =637.1 employees
(-60 existing employees) =577.1 employees
(X 0.30 multiplier) =173.1 new employees
Staff Recommended Ranqe Calculations:
The staff believes that the Vail Plaza redevelopment will create a need for 535 additional
employees. Of the 535 additional employees, at least 160.5 employees (30%) will need to be
provided deed-restricted housing by the developers of the Vail Plaza Hotel. The staff
recommended range is based on:
1. the type of retail and commercial use proposed in the commercial space
within the Vail Plaza Hotel:
2. the size of 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 stalf of similar hotel operations in
the Vail Valley.
a) Retail/Service Commercial =8,265 sq. ft. @(6.5/1000 sq. ft.) =53.2 employees
(middle of range)b) HealthClub =27,800sq.ft.@(1.5/1000sq.ft.) =41.7 employees
(top of range)c) BestauranULounge/Kitchen =19,596 sq. fi. @(6.5/1000 sq. tl.) =127.0 employees
(middle ol range)d) Conference Center =21 ,208 sq. ft. @(1 /1 000 sq. ft.) =21 .2 employees
(range does not vary)e) Lodging =276 units @(1.25iunit) =345 employees
(top of range)f) Multi Family (Club Units) =15 units @(.a/unit) =6 employees
(range does not vary)
Total =595 employees
(-60 existing employees) =535 employees
(X 0.30 multiplier) =160.5 new employees
'Lodging ha6 a padicularly largevaflailon ot employees per room, dependlng upon lactors 6uch a6 6ize ollacilily and level ol s€ryice/support
6ervices and amenitlss provided.
r-1
c.
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 450 - 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.
The applicant has indicated a potential need to provide 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. Staff would further 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.
Overall, staff believes that the density and uses proposed by the applicant lor the Vail
Plaza Hotel do not conflict with the compatibility, efficiency or workability of the
surrounding uses and/or activities. In fact, staff feels that the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel
redevelopment will substantially enhance the existing uses and activities in the
community.
Gompliance with parking and loading requlrements as outlined in Chapter 12-10 of
the Town of Vail Munlcipal Code.
Parking and loading requiremenls for development are established in Chapter 12-10 of
the Municipal Code. The parking and loading requirements are based on the square
footage of the uses proposed within a buiHing. Additionally, the applicant is required via
previous ordinances to provide the existing deficit in parking for the all of Special
Development District #6. Over the years a deficit in parking spaces has been passed
along pending the redevelopment of the site in question. The deficit in parking that the
applicant will need to make up is a total of 75 parking spaces. Based on the square
footage of the uses proposed by the applicant, 395 parking spaces are required on-site.
The applicant is proposing an underground parking structure designed to accommodate
394 parking spaces.
The applicant is proposing a total of six loading/delivery berths in two locations. One
loading/delivery area is located on the east side of the building in an enclosed area and is
designed to accommodate three trucks. This area can handle trucK up to 65jeet in
length. The other loading/delivery area is located on the south side of the property
between the proposed hotel and the Phase V Building. This area will accommodate three
trucks parked in tandem. Both areas are designed to be loading/delivery sites for the
entire Vail Village Inn Plaza development.
Conlormity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town
policies and Urban Design Plan.
Vail land Use Plan
The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy
guidelines during the review process for a major amendment to an existing special
D.
L2
development district. Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the
following policies are relevant to the review of this proposal:
1. GeneralGrowth/DeveloDment
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a
balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve
both the visitor and the permanent resident.
1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water, and other natural
resources should be protected as the Town grows.
1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgrade whenever
possible.
1.4 The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new
development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the
Urlcan Design Guide Plan.
1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing
developed areas (inf ill).
3. Commercial
3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently.
3.2 The Village and Lionshead are the best location lor hotels to serve the
future needs of the destination skier.
3.3 Holels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail,
therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged.
3.4 Commercial growth should be concenlrated in existing commercial areas
to accommodate both local and visitor needs.
4. Villaqe Core/Lionshead
4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in
existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core
areas needs to be carefully controlled to lacilitate access and delivery.
4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing
character of each area is preserved through the implementation of the
Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan.
5. Residential
5.1 Quality timeshare units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy
rates up.
5.2 Aftordable employee housing should be made available through private
efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with
13
appropriate restrictions.
The Vail Land Use Plan projects a need for additional lodging units in the Town ol Vail.
While the statistical information used to project need is most likely, outdated, statf
believes there continues to be a need for additional lodging units in the Town of Vail. The
Plan projected a need for a total of 395 additional lodging units by the year 2000. The
Plan further suggests that increased density for commercial, residential and lodging uses
in the VillageiLionshead Core areas would be acceptable so long as the existing
character of each area is being preserved.
Statf believes the proposed malor amendment of Special Development District (#6) is in
concert with the goals and policies of the Vail Land Use Plan as outlined above.
Vail Villaoe Master PIan
The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide to the staff, review boards
and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in
legislating effective ordinances to deal with the such development. The most significant
elemenls of the Master Plan are the goals, objectives, policies and action steps. They
are the working tools of the Master Plan. They establish the broad framework and vision,
but also layout the specific policies and action steps that will be used to implement the
Plan.
As noted on page 35 of the Master Plan,
"lt is important to note that the likelihood of project approval will be greatest for those
proposals that can fully comply with the Vail Village Master Plan;'
Stalf believes this statement re-emphasizes that the Master Plan is a general document
providing advisory guidelines to aid the Town in analyzing development proposals.
The staff has identified the following goals, objectives and policies as being relevant to
this proposal:
Goal#1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique
archilectural scale of the Village in ordet lo suslain its sense ol
community and identity.
1.1 Obiective: lmplement a consistent Development Review Process to
reinforce the character of the Village.
1.1 .1 Policv: Development and improvement projects approved in
the Village shall be consistent with the goals,
objectives, policies and design considerations as
outlined in the VailVillage Master Plan and Urban
Design Guide Plan.
1.2 Obiective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential
and commercial facilities.
1.2.1 Policv: Additional development may be allowed as
identified by the action plan as is consistent with the
L4
Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide
Plan.
1.3 Obiective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through
public improvements done by private developers working in
cooperation with the Town.
1.3.1 Policv: Public improvements shall be developed with the
participation of the private sector working with the
Town.
Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promole year-round economic
health and viability tor the Village and for the community as a whole.
2.1 Obiective:Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub-
areas throughout the Village and allow for development that
is compatible with these established land use patterns.
2.3 Obiective: Increase the number of residential units available for short-
term, overnight accommodations.
2.3,1 Policy; The development of short-term accommodation
units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that
are developed above existing density levels are
required to be designed or managed in a manner
that makes them available for short-term overnight
rental.
2.4 Obiective:Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial
activity where compatible with existing land uses.
2.5 Obiective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and
maintenance of existing lodging and commercial lacilities to
better serve the needs of our guests.
2.5.1 Policv: Recreation amenities, common areas, meeting
facilities and other amenities shall be preserved and
enhanced as a part of any redevelopment ol lodging
properties.
2.6 Obiective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units
through the efforts of the private sector.
2.6.1 Policv: Employee housing units may be required as part of
3ll,.T'l,"J:"'ffJff :Xi,fi ioJ?'irequestinsdensitv
Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement ol the walking
experience throughout the village.
Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by
landscaping and other improvements.
3.1 Obiective:
L5
3.1 .1 Policv: Private development prolects shall incorporate
streetscape improvements (such as paver
treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating
areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways.
3.1 .3 Policv: Flowers, trees, water features and other
landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the
Town in locations adjacent lo, or visible from, public
areas.
3.2 Obiective: Minimize the amount of vehicular tralfic in the Village to the
greatest extent possible.
3.2.1 Policv: Vehicular tratfic will be eliminated or reduced to
absolutely minimal necessary levels in the
pedestrianized areas of the Village.
3.4Obiective: Developadditionalsidewalks,pedestrian-onlywallarays
and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks
and stream access.
3.4.2 Policv: Private development projects shall be required to
incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to
the project as designated in the Vail Village Master
Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan.
Goal #4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space
opportunities.
4.1 Obiective: lmprove existing open space areas and create new plazas
with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the
different roles of each type of open space in forming the
overall fabric of the Village.
4.1 .4 Policv: Open space improvements, including the addition of
accessible green space as described or graphically
shown in the Vail Village Master Plan andior Urban
Design Guide Plan, will be required in conjunction
with private infill or redevelopment projects.
Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, etliciency and aeslhelics of the
transportation and circulation system throughout the village.
5.1 Obiective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking
facilities.
5.1 .'l Policv: For new development that is located outside ol the
Commercial Core '1 Zone District, on-site parking
shall be provided (rather than paying into the
parking fund) to meet any additional parking
demand as required by the Zoning Code.
l_b
5.1.5 Policv: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly
encouraged to provide underground or visually
concealed parking.
Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements
ol the village.
6.1 Obiective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new
development.
Vail Villaoe Master Plan Buildino Heiqht Plan
Generally speaking, it is the goal ol the Building Height Plan to maintain the concentration
of low-scale buildings in the Core area, while positioning larger buildings along the
northern periphery. According to the Conceptual Building Height Plan contained within
the Vail Village Master Plan, the Vail Plaza Hotel is located within an area proposed to
have building heights with a maximum range of three to four stories. A building story is
delined as 9'of height, not including the roof.
Vail Villaoe Master Plan Action Plan
The Action Plan graphically expresses a summary of possible development which would
be consistent with the elements of the Vail Village Master Plan. lt is not an all-inclusive
list, nor is it intended to restrict proposals that are not identified on the Action Plan. lt is
intended to provide suggestions and to act as a guide lor implementing the Master Plan.
The Vail Plaza Hotel is located in sub-area #1 of the Action Plan. Sub-area #1 is the
mixed use activity center for Vail Village. lt is distinguished from lhe Village core by the
larger scale buildings. The area is further distinguished by the mixture of
residential/lodging and commercial activity. According to the Plan, a significant increase
in the Village's overnight bed base will occur within the area.
According to the Action Plan, the Vail Plaza Hotel property is located within the mixed-use
sub-area concept area #1-1 . This concept area is,
"an area intended for the completion of the final phase of the Vail Village Inn as
established by the development plan Special Development District #6. Commercial
development at ground level to frame the interior plaza with greenspace. The mass of
buildings shall "step-up" from the existing pedestrian scale along East Meadow Drive to 4-
5 stories along the south Frontage Road. The design of the development must be
sensitive to maintaining a view to Vail Mountain from the 4-way stop (aka roundabout).
Special emphasis should be placed on the following objectives:
Vail Villaqe Desiqn Conslderations
The Town of Vail adopted the Vail Village Design Considerations in 1980. The Design
Considerations were revised in 1993. The Design Considerations are considered an
integral part of the Vail Village Urban Design Plan. The Design Considerations are
intended to:
O ' guide growth and change in ways that will enhance and preserve the essential
qualities of the Village; and
t7
serve as design guidelines instead ot rigid rules of development; and
' help influence the form and design of buildings.
The Vail Village Design Considerations are divided into two categories (urlcan design
considerations and architectural/landscape considerations):
1. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
These considerations relate to general, large-scale land use planning issues, as well as form
considerations which affect more than one property or even whole areas. These considerations
are primarily the purview of the Planning and Environmental Commission.
A. PEDESTRIANIZATION
A major objective for Vail Village is to encourage pedestrian circulation through an
interconnecled network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways. Many of the improvements
recognized in the Urban Design Guide Plans, and accompanying Design Considerations,
are to reinforce and expand the quality of pedestrian walkways throughout the Village.
Since vehicular traffic cannot be removed from certain streets (bus routes, delivery
access), a totally care-free pedestrian system is not achievable throughout the entire
Village. Therefore, several levels of pedestrianization have been identified. The level of
pedestrianization most appropriate for the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel redevelopment is
separated use and joint vehicle/pedestrian use of the roadway.
. Staff Response:
The applicant has met with the Town staff to discuss pedestrian improvements. The staff
has concluded that the improvements recommended for the South Frontage Boad, Vail
Road and East Meadow Drive in the 1991 Town of Vail Streetscaoe Master Plan should
be implemented. This includes constructing a heated brick paver sidewalk with
landscape planters along Vail Road; a partially heated decorative paver sidewalk from the
western property line of Phase lV to the eastern property line of Phase lll with the
remainder of the sidewalk continuing to Village Center Road unheated; landscaping along
the South Frontage Road adjacent to Phases lll & lV; and streetscape improvements on
public property along East Meadow Drive from the western corner of the Base Mountain
Sports retail space to the intersection of at Vail Road. The final materials used in the
construction of the improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review
Board.
B. VEHICLE PENETRATION
To maximize to the extent possible, all non-resident traffic should be routed along the
Frontage Road to Vail Village/Lionshead Parking Structures.
In conjunction with pedestrianization objectives, major emphasis is focused upon
reducing auto penetration into the center of the Village. Vail Road and Vail Valley Drive
will continue to serve as major routes lor service and resident access to the Village.
Road constrictions, traffic circles, signage, and other measures are indicated in the Guide
Plans to visually and physically discourage all but essential vehicle penetration upon the
Frontage Road. Alternative access points and private parking relocation, where feasible,
should be considered to further reduce traffic conflicts in the Vi[age.
I6
Staff Resoonse:
The redevelopment of the Vail Plaza Hotel will increase vehicular traffic in the Main Vail
Roundabout and on the South Frontage Road. According to the "Conclusion and
Recommendations" contained in the Tratfic lmpact Analysis -Vail Plaza Hotel
Redevelopment, prepared by Felsberg, Holt & Ullevig:
The total projected trips consist ot subtracting the existing 1042 trips from the proposed
3082 site generated trips.
Two roadway improvements will be necessary at the main access onto the Frontage
Road. The lirst includes modilication to the center median to provide a storage area for
vehicles turning left out of the site. This will allow for a two-step lelt turn with less delay.
The second is an exclusive right turn lane into the site for eastbound tralfic. This
exclusive right turn lane will remove turning traffic from the through traffic lanes thereby
improving safety characteristics.
The roundabout will not be adversely affected by the proposed site traffic. The site traffic
will consist of approximately one percent of the total traffic in the roundabout in the year
2015.
The auxiliary lane east of the site for right turning vehicles needs to be extended west to
the second access. This lane will be used for delivery trucks backing into the site. This
lane and the delivery driveway in which it will serve should be designed to allow backing
activity without impacting the eastbound through traffic. Physical separation should be
considered between the through lane and the auxiliary lane where backing would be
taking place."
A complete copy of the report has been attached for relerence.
Staff agrees with the traffic engineer's assessment of the potential traffic impacts. While
there will likely be an increase in traffic on the South Frontage Road, there will not be an
increase in traffic on the pedestrian portion of East Meadow Drive. The applicant will be
required to implement the mitigation measures recommended by the Traffic Engineer
should the major amendment be approved. Staff feels the applicant has addressed traffic
issues to lhe extent possible.
C. STREETSCAPE FRAMEWORK
To improve the quality of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrian
ways, as a continuous system, two general types of improvements adjacent to the
walkways are considered:
1. Open space and landscaping, berms, grass, flowers and tree planting as a
soft, colorful framework linkage along pedestrian routes; and plazas and
park greenspaces as open nodes and focal points along those routes.
2. Infill commercial storefronts, expansion of existing buildings, or new infill
development to create new commercial activity generators to give
streetlile and visual interest, as attractions at key locations along
pedestrian routes.
It is not intended to enclose all Village slreets with buildings as in the core areas. Nor is it
L'
desirable to leave pedestrian streets in the open in a somewhat undefined condition
evident in many other areas of Vail. Rather, it is desired to have a variety of open and
enclosed spaces, both built and landscaped, which create a strong framework for
pedestrian walks, as well as visual interest and activity.
. Staff Resoonse:
The Vail Plaza Hotel redevelopment improves the streetscape framework through the
creation of new commercial activity and enhanced visual interest along Vail Road. As
stated previously, stalf believes the proposed redevelopment creates the critical
commercial connection between Vail Gateway Plaza and East Meadow Drive and
provides new street life where very little currently exists.
D. STREET ENCLOSURE
While building facade heights should not be uniform from building to building, they should
provide a "comlortable" enclosure for the street.
Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms, whose walls are formed by the buildings. The
shape and feel of these "rooms" are created by the variety of heights and massing (3-
dimensional variations), which give much of the visual interest and pedestrian scale
unique to Vail. Very general rules, about the perception of exterior spaces have been
developed by designers, based on the characteristics of human vision. They suggest
that:
"an external enclosure is most comfortable when its walls are approximately 1/2
as high as the width of the space enclosed; it the ratio falls to 1/4 or less, the
space seems unenclosed; and if the height is greater than the width it comes to
resemble a canyon'.
In actual application, facades are seldom uniform in height on both sides of the street, nor
is this desired. Thus, some latitude is appropriate in the application ol this 112 to 1 ratio.
Using the average facade height on both sides willgenerally still be a guide to the
comfortableness of the enclosure being created.
In some instances, the "canyon" etfect is acceptable and even desirable. For example,
as a short connecting linkage between larger spaces, to give variety to the walking
experience. For sun/shade reasons it is often advantageous to orient any longer
segments in a north/south direction. Long canyon streets in an easUwest direction should
generally be discouraged.
When exceptions to the general height criteria occur, special consideration should be
given to create a well-defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis to overcome the
"canyon" effect.
Canopies, awnings, arcades and building extensions can all create a pedestrian focus
and divert attention from the upper building heights and "canyon" effect.
. fullllgs@
Vail Road and the sidewalks on either side, ad.jacent to the Vail Plaza Hotel, averages
approximately 70 feet in width. The Vail Plaza Hotel (eaveline) along Vail Road is
approximately 44 feet in height. Given that the Nine Vail Road Condominiums are not
constructed parallel with Vail Road and proposed landscaping at the ground level of the
zu
proposed building, staff believes the Vail Plaza Hotel creates a "comfortable" enclosure of
the street and does not create an undesirable "canyon" effect. However, staff does
believe there is an opportunity to reduce the apparent height of the eaveline along Vail
Road. Stalf would suggest that the applicant create an eleven foot step back in the
building at Level 3 on the south wing and at Level 4 on the north wing. The result of
creating the step back in the building will reduce the apparent height of the building along
Vail Road and provide additional visual interest to the west elevation.
E. STREET EDGE
Buildings in the Village core should form a strong but irregular edge to the street.
Unlike many American towns, there are no standard setback requirements for buildings in
Vail Village. Consistent with the desire for intimate pedestrian scale, placement of
portions of a building at or near the property line is allowed and encouraged to give strong
definition to the Dedestrian streets.
This is not to imply continuous building frontage along the property line. A strong street
edge is important lor continuity, but perfectly aligned lacades over too long a distance
tends to be monotonous. With only a few exceptions in the Village, slightly iregular
facade lines, building jogs, and landscaped areas, give the life to the street and visual
interest for pedestrian travel.
Where buildings ,og to create activity pockets, other elements can be used to continue
the street edge: low planter walls, tree planting, raised sidewalks, texture changes in
ground surface, arcades, raised decks.
Plazas, patios, and green areas are important focal points for gathering, resting, orienting
and should be distributed throughout the Village with due consideration to spacing, sun
access, opportunities for views and pedestrian activity.
. Staff Response:
The Vail Plaza Hotel has street frontage along Vail Road and the South Frontage Road.
The remainder of the building has building fronts internal to the development. The edge
of the building has been designed at the street level to be varied and irregular through
the use ol recessed entries, arched arcades at the store fronts and horizontal steps in the
building foot print. Staff believes that at the street level the design of the building
conforms with the intent of the street edge design consideralion. However, staff feels
that more could be done above the street level to reduce the tallvertical mass. As
discussed in the previous design consideration, a step in the building could be created
around the building's mid-point to continue the irregular mass vertically up the building.
F. BUILDING HEIGHT
Vail Village is perceived as a mix of two and three story facades, although there are also
four and five story buildings. The mix of building heights gives variety to the street, which
is desirable. The height criteria are intended to encourage height in massing variety and
to discourage unilorm building heights along the street.
. Staff Response:
As discussed previously, the Vail Plaza Hotel exceeds the allowable building height
prescribed for the Public Accommodation Zone District. However, staff does not feel that
2L
the proposed height of the Vail Plaza Hotel is excessive, given the location of the building
at the northern periphery of the Village core, the removal of the eighth floor and the height
of the buildings on the adjoining properties. Again, as stated earlier, the overall height of
the building could be reduced by removing the portion of the condominium on the
uppermost level.
The applicant has submitted a scale model of the Vail Plaza Hotel in its Village context
and this model will be available for use by the Planning & Environmental Commission
during the final review process.
G. VIEWS AND FOCAL POINTS
Vail's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the
mountains, ski slopes, creeks and other natural features are reminders to our visitors of
the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, are orientation reference points.
Certain building features also provide important orientation references and visual focal
points. The most significant view corridors in the Village have been adopted as part of
Chapter 12-22 ol the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The view corridors adopted should
not be considered exhausted. When evaluating a development proposal, priority should
be given to an analysis of the impacted project on public views. Views that should be
preserved originate from either major pedestrian areas or public spaces, and include
views of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, the Clock Tower, the Rucksack Tower and
other important man-made and natural elements that contribute to the sense of place
associated with Vail. These views, which have been adopted by ordinance, were chosen
due to their signilicance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation
reference points for pedestrians. Development in Vail Village shall not encroach into any
adopted view corridor, unless approved under Chapter 12-22. Adopled corridors are
listed in Chapter 12-22 ot the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Whether atfecting adopted
view corridors or not, the impact of proposed development on views from public ways and
public spaces must be identified and considered where appropriate.
. Staff Response:
Although not directly impacting one of the five adopted view corridors, as listed in Chapter
12-22 ot the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the height of the building will have impacts on
the view from various locations near the roundabout. Public views of Vail Mountain will
be partially blocked from these areas. Again, a view analysis has been completed
depicting "before and after" conditions. Overall, given the building's location, staff leels
that the vail Plaza Hotel complies with the intent of the Vail village Urban Design
Considerations.
H. SERVICE AND DELIVERY
Any building expansion should preserve the functions of existing service alleys. The few
service alleys that exist in the Village are extremely important to minimizing vehicle
congestion on pedestrian ways. The use of, and vehicular access to, those alleys should
not be eliminated except where functional alternatives are not provided.
In all new and remodeled construction, delivery which avoids or reduces impacts on
pedestrian ways should be explored; and adopted whenever practical, for immediate or
future use. Rear access, basement and below ground delivery corridors reduce
congestion. Weather protection increases delivery efficiency substantially.
Below grade delivery corridors are lound in a few buildings in Vail Village (Sitzmark/Gore
zz
Creek Plaza, Village Center, Vail Village Inn). Consideration should be given to extending
these corridors, where feasible, and the creation of new ones. As buildings are
constructed or remodeled, the opportunity may exist to develop segments of a future
system.
. Staff Response:
Through the course of staff's review ol the Vail Plaza Hotel redevelopment proposal,
several loading and delivery options were explored.
The applicant had originally proposed to provide far fewer berths than what the current
design proposes. However, the applicant has amended the plans to provide a total of six
berths on the property. These six berths will be able to be utilized by the entire Vail
Village Inn Plaza and are connected via a series of elevators and below grade areas.
The service areas are located away from areas of major pedestrian activity. The main
service area is adjacent to the South Frontage Road in an enclosed facility.
I. SUN / SHADE
Due to Vail's alpine climate, sun is an important comfort factor, especially in winter, fall
and spring. Shade areas have ambient temperatures substantially below those of
adjacent direct sunlight areas. On all but the warmest of summer days, shade can easily
lower temperatures below comfortable levels and thereby, negatively impact use of lhose
areas.
All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the spring and lall
shadow line (March 21 - September 23) on adjacent properties or the public right-of-way.
ln all building construction, shade shall be considered in massing and overall height
consideration. Notwithstanding, sun/shade considerations are not intended to restrict
building height allowances, but rather to influence the massing of buildings. Limited
height exceptions may be granted to meet this criteria.
. Staff Response:
Although the proposed height ol the building will diminish the amount of sun, and likewise
increase shading, along the South Frontage Road (north side of the project), the provision
of heated public walkways effectively mitigates this consideration, thus providing iceJree
and snow-free sidewalks. Overall, staff believes the applicant's proposal complies with
the above-described considerations.
2. ARCHITECTURE/LANDSCAPECONSIDERATIONS
ROOFS
Where visible, roofs are often one of the most dominant architectural elements in any built
environment, ln the Village, roof form, color and texture are visibly dominant, and generally
consistent, which tends to unify the building diversity to a great degree.
The current expression, and objective, for roofs in the Village is to form a consistently unifying
ZJ
backdrop for the architecture and pedestrian streetscape, and to avoid roofs which tend to stand
out individually or distract visually from the overall character.
Roof Forms
Roofs within the Village are typically gable in form and of moderate-to-low pitch. Shed roofs are
frequently used for small additions to larger buildings. Free-standing shed roofs, butterfly roofs
and flat roofs, can be lound in the Village, but they are generally considered to be out of
character and inappropriate. Hip roofs likewise, are rare and generally inconsistent with the
character of the Core Area. Towers are exceptions, in both form and pitch, to the general
criteria, but do have an established local vernacular-style which should be respected.
. Staff Response
The roof form of the Vail Plaza Hotel is a mixture of gables, barrel vaults and clipped hips. While
a hip roof is generally considered inconsistent with the character of the Village, the applicant
believes this rool form helps to reduce the mass of the buiHing and blends well with the roof
forms of the surrounding buildings
Pilch
Rool slopes in the Village typically range from 3112to 6i12, with slightly steeper pitches in limited
applications, Again, for visual consistency this general 3112-6112 range should be preserved.
. Staff Response
The pitch of the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel roof is7/12 and is generally in compliance with this
guideline.
Overhanqs
Generous roof overhangs are also an established architectural feature in the Village - a
traditional expression ol shelter in alpine environments. Roof overhangs typically range from 3 to
6 feet on all edges. Specific design consideration should be given to protection of pedestrian
ways adjacent to buildings. Snow slides and runoff hazards can be reduced by roof orientation,
gutters, arcades, etc.
Overhang details are treated with varying degrees of ornamentation. Structural elements such
as roof beams are expressed beneath the overhangs, simply or decoratively carved. The roof
fascia is thick and wide, giving a substantial edge to the roof.
. Staff Response
The overhangs on the Vail Plaza Hotel varying, depending on location, and are generally four feet
in depth. The overhangs are supported by timber bracing which adds character and visual
interest to the overall appearance of the buibing. Staff believes that the proposal complies with
the above-described criteria.
24
Compositions
The intricate roofscape of the Village as a whole is the result of many individual simple roof
configurations. For any single building a varied, but simple composition of roof planes is
prefened to either a single or a complex arrangement of many roofs. As individual roofs become
more complex, the roof atlracts visual attention away from the streetscape and the total
roofscape tends toward "busyness" rather than a backdrop composition.
. Stafl Response
The roof lorm on the Vail Plaza Hotel would be considered a simple composition of roof planes.
Stalf believes the roof composition proposed by the applicant is consistent with the intent of this
architectural consideration.
Stepoed Roofs
As buildings are stepped to reflect existing grade changes, resulting roof steps should be made
where the height change will be visually significant. Variations which are too subtle appear to be
more stylistic than functional, and out of character with the more straight{orward roof design
typical in the Village.
. Sf-Egsre
The Vail Plaza Hotel site is relatively flat (by Vail standards). While the building does not need to
step to follow the topography, vertical and horizontal steps and dormers have been incorporated
into the roof design. The vertical and horizontal steps and dormers provide a reduction in the
overall mass of the building and adds to the architectural and visual interest ot the building. Staff
believes that the stepped roofs of the Vail Plaza Hotel comply with the intent of the above-
described criteria.
Materials
Wood shakes, wood shingles, and built-up tar and gravel are almost exclusively used as roof
materials in the Village. For visual consistency, any other materials should have the appearance
of the above.
. Staff Response
Most recently, wood shakes and wood shingles are being discouraged for use as a roofing
material due to fire safety concerns. At the recommendation of the Town of Vail Fire
Department, the staff has been encouraging developers to use gravel, asphalt, tile, metal and
other more fire-resistant roofing materials on new buildings.
The applicant is proposing to use green concrete tiles on the roof of the hotel. The tiles will be
similar in appearance to those used on the recent redevelopment of the Austria Haus. The staff
believes this is an appropriate roof material to use on this project.
Construction
Common roof problems and design considerations in this climate include:
- snowslides onto pedestrian walks - roof dams and water infiltration
- heavy snow loads
25
- gutters freezing
Careful attention to these functional details is recommended, as well as familiarity with the local
building code, proven construction details, and Town ordinances.
For built-up roofs, pitches ot 4112 or steeper do not hold gravel well. For shingle roofs, pitches of
4112 or shallower often result in ice dams and backflow leakage under the shingles.
Cold-roof construction is strongly prelerred, unless warm-roof benefits for a specific application
can be demonstrated. Cold-roofs are double-roofs which insulate and prevent snow melt from
intemal building heat. By retaining snow on the roof, many of the problems listed can be
reduced. Periodic snow removal will be required and should be anticipated in the design.
Roof gutter tend to ice-in completely and become inelfective in the Vail climate, especially in
shaded north-side locations. Heating the interior circumference with heat-tape elements or other
devices is generally necessary to assure adequate run-off control in colder months.
. Staff Resoonse:
The applicant is proposing a cold-roof construction atop the Vail Plaza Hotel. Through the review
of a building permit, staft will ensure the roof construction complies with the standards prescribed
for the vail climate.
FACADES
Materials
Stucco, brick, wood (and glass) are the primary building materials found in the Village. While not
wishing to restrict design freedom, existing conditions show that within this small range of
materials much variation and individuality are possible while preserving a basic harmony. Too
many diverse materials weaken the continuity and repetition which unifies the streetscape.
Ol the above materials, stucco is the most consistently used material. Most of the buildings in
the Village exhibit some stucco, and there are virtually no areas where stucco is entirely absent.
It is intended to preserve the dominance of stucco by its use in portions, at least, of all new
facades, and by assuring that other materials are not used to the exclusion of stucco in any sub-
area within the Village.
. glaf!8csre
The exterior materials proposed by the applicant are a combination of stone, stucco and wood.
No one material is proposed to dominate the exterior of the hotel. Stalf believes the applicant
has complied with this particular architectural consideration.
Color
There is greater latitude in the use of color in the Village, but still a discernible consistency within
a general range of colors.
For wood surfaces, trim or siding, darker color tones are preferred - browns, greys, blue-greys,
dark olive, slate-greens, etc. Stucco colors are generally light - white, beige, pale-gold, or other
light pastels. Other light colors could be appropriate, as considered on a case-by-case basis.
Bright colors (red, orange, blues, maroon, etc.) should be avoided lor major wall planes, but can
be used eflectively (with restraint) for decorative trim, wall graphics, and other accent elements.
Generally, to avoid both "busy-ness," and weak visual interest, the variety of major wall colors
should not exceed four, nor be less than two.
A color/material change between the ground floor and upper floors is a common and effective
reinforcement of the pedestrian scale of the street.
. Staff Response
The applicant has proposed an exterior building color that is compatible with the color of the
existing buildings in the vicinity of the hotel. Stafl would like to point out that the applicant is
required to obtain Design Review Board (DRB) approval prior to construction and that any
concerns 0f the PEC on this topic will be brought to the attention of the DRB.
Transparencv
Pedestrian scale is created in many ways, but a major factor is the openness, attractiveness, and
generally public character ol the ground lloor lacade of adjacent buildings. Transparent store
fronts are "people attractors," opaque or solid walls are more private, and imply "do not
approach."
On pedestrian-oriented streets such as in the Village, ground floor commercial lacades are
proportionately more transparent than upper floors. Upper floors are typically more residential,
private and thus less open.
As a measure of transparency, the most characteristic and successful ground lloor facades
range from 55% to 70o/" ot the total length ol the commercial facade. Upper floors are often the
converse, 30o/"- 45o/" transparent.
Examples of transparency (lineal feet of glass to lineal feet of facade) on ground level.
- Covered Bridge Building 58o/"- Pepi's Sports 71o/"- Gasthof Gramshammer 48o/"- The Lodge 66%- Golden Peak House 620/"- Casino Building 30o/"- Gorsuch Building 51%
. Stalf Response
Transparency of the Vail Plaza Hotel is really only an issue along the retail space fronting on Vail
Road. A measure of transparency of the Vail Plaza Hotel (west elevation) indicates that 48%
(64 lineal feet of glass exists along the 132 lineal feet of building) of the ground floor facade is
transparent. Staff believes that the ground level is transparent enough to provide the street
appearance encouraged by the design considerations.
Windows
ln addition to the general degree of transparency, window details are an important source of
pedestrian scale-giving elements. The size and shape of windows are often a response to the
function of the adjacent street. For close-up, casual, pedestrian viewing windows are typically
sized to human dimensions and characteristics of human vision. (Large glass-wall store-fronts
27
/,-" '
suggest uninterrupted viewing, as lrom a moving car. The sense of intimate pedestrian scale is
diminished). Ground floor display windows are typically raised slightly '18 inches t and do not
extend much over 8 feet above the walkway level. Ground lloors, which are noticeably above or
below grade, are exceptions.
The articulation of the window itself is still another element in giving pedestrian scale (human-
related dimensions). Glass areas are usually subdivided to express individual window elements -
and are further subdivided by mullions into small panes - which is responsible for much of the
old-world charm of the Village. Similarly, windows are most olten clustered in banks, juxtaposed
with plain wall surfaces to give a pleasing rhythm. Horizontal repetition of single window
elements, especially over long distances, should be avoided.
Large single pane windows occur in the Village, and provide some contrast, as long as they are
generally consistent in lorm with other windows. Long continuous glass is out of character. Bay,
bow and box windows are common window details, which further variety and massing to facades
- and are encouraged.
Reflective glass, plastic panes, and aluminum or olher metal trames are not consistent in the
Village and should be avoided. Metal-clad or plastic-clad wood frames, having the appearance
of painted wood have been used successfully and are acceptable.
. Staff Response
The Vail Plaza Hotel proposal is in compliance with the above-described design consideration.
Statf believes the use of dormers with windows, bay windows and windows with mullions adds to
the architectural charm and visual integrity of the hotel. Staff recommends that the use
ol mullions in the windows at the ground level be a condition of approval.
Doors
Like windows, doors are important to character and scale-giving architectural elements. They
should also be somewhat transparent (on retail commercial facades) and consistent in detailing
with windows and other facade elements.
Doors with glass contribute to overall lacade transparency. Due to the visibility of people and
merchandise inside, windowed doors are somewhat more effective in drawing people inside to
retaif commercial facades. Although great variations exist, 25-30% r transparency is felt to be a
minimum transparency objective. Private residences, lodges, restaurants, and other non-retail
establishments have different visibility and character needs, and doors should be designed
accordingly. Sidelight windows are also a means of introducing door-transparency as a
complement or substitute for door windows.
Articulated doors have the decorative quality desired for Vail. Flush doors, light aluminum
frames, plastic applique elements all are considered inappropriate. As an expression of entry,
and sheltered welcome, protected entry-ways are encouraged. Doorways may be recessed,
extended, or covered.
. Slafl-.,lBes@
Statf believes the applicant's proposal complies with the above-described criteria.
28
Trim
Prominent wood trim is also a unifying feature in the Village. Particularly at ground floor levels,
doors and windows have strong, contrasting framing elements, which tie the various elements
together in one composition. Windows and doors are treated as strong visual features. Glass-
wall detailing for either is typically avoided.
. Staff Response:
Stalf believes the applicant's proposal complies with the above-described criteria.
DECKSAND PATIOS
Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited, bring people to the streets,
opportunities to look and be looked at, and generally contribute to the liveliness of a busy street
making a richer pedestrian experience than if those streets were empty.
A review of successful decks/patios in Vail reveals several common characteristics:
- direct sunlight from 11:00 - 3:00 increases use by many dayJyear and protects lrom
wind.
- elevated to give views j4!g the pedestrian walk (and not the reverse).
- physical separation from pedestrian walk.
- overhang gives pedestrian scale/shelter.
O
Decks and patios should be sited and designed with due consideration to:
- sun
- wind
- views
- pedestrian activity
. Sla!!!es@
The majority o{ the decks and patios on the Vail Plaza Hotel are located on the south side of the
building, facing Vail Mountain. With the exception of the two outdoor dining decks on the plaza,
these decks and patios are for the use of the guests of the hotel and not the general public. Staff
believes that the proposal complies with this design consideration.
BALCONIES
Balconies occur on almost all buildings in the Village which have at least a second level facade
wall. As strong repetitive features they:
- give scale to buildings.
- give life to the street (when used).
- add variety to building forms.
- provide shelter to pathways below.
zt
. Staff Response
Again, the majority of the balconies on the Vail Plaza Hotel are located on the south side of the
building facing Vail Mountain and away from the l-70 traffic noise. Staff believes that the
proposal complies with this design consideration.
Color
Balconies contrast in color (dark) with the building, typically matching the trim colors.
. Staff Response
Like the exterior color of the building, the Design Review Board will be reviewing this aspect of
the proposal.
Size
Balconies extend far enough from the building to cast a prominent shadow pattern. Balconies in
Vail are lunctional as will as decorative. As such, they should be of useable size and located to
encourage use. Balconies less than six leet deep are seldom used, nor are those always in
shade, not oriented to views or street life.
. Staff Response
Staff believes this criteria has been met.
Mass
Balconies are commonly massive, yet semi-transparent, distinctive from the building, yet allowing
the building to be somewhat visible behind. Solid balconies are found occasionally, and tend to
be too dominant obscuring the building architecture. Light balconies lack the visual impact which
ties the Village together.
. S!a[E!sw
The balconies on the Vail Plaza Hotel are proposed to be semi-transparent in appearance.
Materials
Wood balconies are by far the most common. Vertical structural members are the most
dominant visually, often decoratively sculpted. Decorative wrought iron balconies are also
consistent visually where the vertical members are close enough to create semi-transparency.
Pipe rails, and plastic, canvas or glass panels should be avoided.
. &tlBcsre
The material to be used in the construction of the balconies on the hotel is wood, with vertical
structural members. A detail of the railing will be reviewed by the DRB.
ACCENT ELEMENTS
O The life, and festive guality of the Village is given by judicious use of accent elements which give
30
o color, movemenl and contrast to the Village.
Colorful accent elements consistent with existing character are encouraged, such as:
Awnings and canopies - canvas, bright color or stripes of two colors.
Flags, banners - hanging from buildings, poles, and even across streets for special
occasrons.
Umbrellas - over tables on outdoor patios.
Annual color flowers - in beds or in planters.
Accent lighting- buildings, plazas, windows, trees (even Ghristmas lights all winter).
Painted wall graphics - coats of arms, symbols, accent compositions, etc.
Fountains - sculptural, with both winter and summer character.
. Staff Response:
Accent lighting on the building, annual flowers in containers and in the planting beds, potted trees
decorated with Christmas lights and irrigated flower boxes are proposed to provide colorful
accent elements on the Vail Plaza Hotel. Staff would suggest that the applicant provide an
additional accent symbol (clock, crest, etc.) on the main elevator tower. The tower is visible from
a distance as illustrated in the view analysis and would serve as focal point to guests and
visitors.
LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS
Landscape considerations include, but go beyond, the placement ol appropriate plant materials.
- plant materials
- Paving
- retaining walls
- street furniture (benches, kiosks, trash, etc.)
- lighting
- signage
Plant Materials
Opportunities for planting are not e)densive in the Village, which places a premium on the plant
selection and design ol the sites that do exist. Framework planting of trees and shrubs should
include. both deciduous and evergreen species for year round continuity and interest.
Native plants are somewhat limited in variety, but are clearly best able to withstand the harsh
winter climate, and to tie the Village visually with its mountain setting.
Trees Shrubs
Nanow-leaf cottonwood Willow
Balsam poplar DogwoodAspen Serviceberry
Lodgepole pine Alpine currant
Colorado spruce Chokecherry
Subalpine fir Mugho pine
Potentilla
Buffaloberry
31
O ' StaffResPonse
A landscape plan has been submitted by the applicant. The landscape plan has been developed
with some assistance of Town staff, since a majority of the landscape improvements are
proposed on Town property. The proposed landscape design takes into consideration factors
such as the location of the plantings (sun/shade), maintenance, climate, etc. Staff would
suggest that the final landscape plan be reviewed by the DRB along with the final streetscape
improvements.
Pavino
The freeze/thaw cycle al this altitude virtually eliminates common site-cast concrete as a paving
surface (concrete spall). High-strength concrete may work in selected conditions. Asphalt, brick
(on concrete or on sand), and concrete block appear to be best suited to the area.
In general, paving treatments should be coordinated with that of the adjacent public right-otway.
The Town uses the following materials for all new construction:
- asphalt: general use pedestrian streets
- brick on concrete: feature areas (plazas, intersections, lountains, etc.)
. Staff Response
The paving material used in the public areas around the Vail Plaza Hotel has yet to be
determined and finalized. Again, the staff would suggest that the final paving treatment be
determined with the assistance of the DRB.
Retaininq Walls
Retaining walls, to raise planting areas, often protects the landscape from pedestrians and
snowplows, and should provide seating opportunities:
Two types of material are already well established in the Village and should be utilized for
continuity:
- split-face moss rock veneer - Village Core pedestrian streets (typical).
- rounded cobble hidden mortar - in open space areas if above type not already
established nearby.
. Stalf Response
Landscape retaining walls are proposed on the north, west and south sides of the building. The
retaining walls are needed to provide proper grading and drainage around the building. The
surface material of the new landscape retaining will match the stone on the exterior of the
building.
Liohtinq
Light standards should be coordinated with those used by the Town in the public right-of-way.
32
. Staff Response
As part of the streetscape improvements along Vail Road, East Meadow Drive and the South
Frontage Road, the applicant will be installing new Village light fixtures. The number and
locations of lhe new lights was determined through consultation with Town staff.
Siqnaoe
Refer to Town of Vail Signage Ordinance
. Staff Resoonse:
Given the staging of the application, signage has not yet been considered by the staff or the
applicant. The staff has requested that the applicant prepare a comprehensive sign program for
the Vail Plaza Hotel for review at a luture dale. The comprehensive sign program will be
reviewed by the DRB.
SERVICE
Trash handling is extremely sensitive in a pedestrian environment. Trash collection is primarily
made in off-peak hours. lt is the building owners responsibility to assure that existing trash
storage problems are corrected and future ones avoided.
Trash, especially from food service establishments, must be carefully considered; including the
following:
O - quantities generated
- pick-up frequency/access
- container sizes
- enclosure location/design
- visual odor impacts
Garbage collection boxes or dumpsters must be readily accessible for collection at all times yet
fully screened from public view - pedestrians, as well as upper level windows in the vicinity.
Materials
Exterior materials for garbage enclosures should be consistent with that of adjacent buildings.
Construction
Durability of the structure and operability of doors in all weather are prime concerns. Metal
frames and posts behind the prelerred exterior materials should be considered to withstand the
inevitable abuse these structures suffer.
. Staff Response:
The applicant is proposing to incorporate a trash dumpster into the design of the main
loading/delivery area. The trash dumpster will be completely enclosed and accessible from
inside the building. The driveway is designed to accommodate trash trucks. Staff believes the
applicant's proposal complies the above-described criteria.
33
F.
ldenlificalion and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that alfect the
property on which the special development dislrict is proposed.
There are no natural and/or geologic hazards that effect the Vail Plaza Hotel property.
Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to
produce a functional development responsive and sensitive lo natural features,
vegetation and overall aeslhetic quality of lhe community.
The applicant has proposed to deviate trom the setbacks prescribed by the underlying
zoning. The underlying zoning prescribes 20{oot setbacks at the exterior lot lines. The
applicant is proposing a 12 foot setback from the north property line (31 leet lrom the
edge o{ asphalt), zero setbacks at the ground level on the east and west property lines,
adjacent to the Vail Gateway Plaza and Tower Condominiums, with an increase to 20 feet
above the first floor, an eight foot setback from the property line south of the Vail
Gateway Plaza, and a 6 foot setback trom the west property (18 feet from the edge of
asphalt) adjacent to Vail Road. The proposed setbacks allow for a landscape buffer to be
planted around the perimeter ol the building, with the exception of the east and west
sides where it is necessary to accommodate vehicular access. The applicant has
maintained a 20 foot building separation between all the buildings on the interior ol the
development. The building setbacks allow for the required building separation and
provide adequate pedestrian-traff ic circulation.
A citculation system designed tor both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and
otf-site traflic ci rcu lation.
Staff believes that the proposal complies with the circulation system criteria described
above. The applicant has worked closely with the Town Engineer to design a circulation
system that is both functional and efficient. As stated previously, with the exception of
the front entry drop-off spaces under the porte cochere, all of the parking will be in an
underground structure. Similarly, the main loading/delivery area will be enclosed and
screened from public view. The applicant will also provide a much needed sidewalk
along the South Frontage Road.
The entrances on the south side of the building have been located with pedestrian
circulation in mind. The entrance on the east side of the plaza will help to circulation
pedestrians through the existing plaza while the entrance to the south will provide easy
and convenient access to East Meadow Drive and the bus stop. All of the pedestrian
areas around the building will have a snow melt system installed.
Funclional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and
pleserve natural features, recreiation, views and functions.
The streetscape improvements recommended in the Town of Vail Streetscape Master
Plan will be implemented. The improvements will enhance the pedestrian experience
along Vail Road, the South Frontage Road and East Meadow Drive through the
construction of a wider and more attractive heated walkways.
The staff would suggest that the final landscape plan be reviewed and approved by the
Town of Vail Design Review Board.
G.
54
O l. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and
etficienl relationship throughout the development of the special development
district.
Phasing of development is nol proposed. The applicant is required to submit a
construction phasing and staging plan to the Town prior to receiving a building permit.
The plan will be used to ensure an efficient and workable relationship with surrounding
uses during the development of the Vail Plaza Hotel.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department is recommending approval of the applicant's request
for a major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for
redevelopment of Phase lV of the Vail Village Inn. Staff's recommendation for approval is based
upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section lV of this memorandum. The staff believes that
the proposal is in generally complies with the nine design criteria, as identified in this
memorandum.
Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the
requested major amendment to the Vail Town Council, staff would recommend that the
Commission make the following finding:
That the proposed major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn,
complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12-9A-8 of the Town of Vail Municipal
Code. Additionally, the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that
any adverse eflects ot the requested deviation from the development standards of the underlying
zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided.
Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the
requested major amendment, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following
conditions:
1. That the applicant submit the following plans lo the Department of Community
Development, for review and approval, as a part of the building permit application for the
hotel:a. An Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan;b. A Construction Staging and Phasing Plan;c. A Stormwater Management Plan;d. A Site Dewatering Plan; ande. A Traffic Control Plan.
2. That the applicant provide deed-restricted housing, which complies with the Town of Vail
Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-1 3), for a minimum of 160 employees, and
that said deed-restricted housing be made available for occupancy, and the deed
restrictions recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, prior to requesting a
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail Plaza Hotel.
3. That the applicant receive a conditional use permit to allow tor the operation of a
fractional fee club, in accordance with Chapter 12-1 6, prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
4. That the applicant remove the eighth lloor of the building in an effort to lower the overall
height of the building, prior to appearing before the Town Of Vail Design Review Board.
5. That the applicant revise the building plans to create a step back in the building on Level
3 and Level 4 along Vail Road to provide additional articulation in the fagade, prior to
appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board.
6. That the applicant receive final Design Review Board approval for the proposed otf-site
improvement, prior to application for a building permit.
7. That the applicant submit a complete set of civil engineer drawings of all the off-site
improvements, including improvements to the South Frontage Road, for review and Town
approval, prior to application for a building permit.
8. That the applicant submit complete set of plans to the Colorado Department of
Transportation for review and approval of an access permit, prior to application for a
building permit.
9. That the applicant decrease the depth of the enclosed main loading/delivery area to
reduce the impact of the Vail Plaza Hotel at the ground level of the building on the
adjoining property to the east.
10. That the applicant meet with the Town Staff to prepare a letter of agreement outlining the
requirements of the off-site improvements, prior to second reading of an ordinance
approving the major amendment.
36
ORIG NAL
TRAFFIG IMPACT ANALYSIS
Vail Plaza Hotel
Prepared for:
Zehren & Associates. Inc.
P.O. Box 1976' Avon, CO 81620
Client Contact: Mr. Timothy R. Losa
Dtprepared by:
. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
Greenwood Corporate plaza
. 7951 E. Maplewood Avenue, Suite 2OO
Englewood, CO 8O111
303t721-1440
Engineer: Holly A. Hefner
Proiect Engineer: Chris J. Fasching, p.E.
FHU Reference No. 98-174
September, 1998
o
o
TABLE OF CONTENTS
il.
ilt.
Paqe O
INTRODUCTTON... ........1A. LandUse,'SiteandStudyareaBoundaries ....t......1B. ExistingConditions ....1
PROJECTEDTRAFFICCONDITIONS .........7A. Trip Generation and Design Hourly Volumes . . . .73 l::,TT'$ll,l";;;i,"tir"v;il;. :::::::::::: ::.: :::: : ::::3
YEAR 2015 TRAFFIC OPERATIONSA. Background Traffic
B. Total Traffic
IV. CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS ..14
APPENDIX A - TRAFFIC COUNTS
APPENDIX B - EXISTING CONDITIONS LOS
APPENDIX C . YEAR 2015 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS LOS
APPENDIX D . YEAR 2015 TOTAL CONDITIONS LOS
12
12
12
LIST OF FIGURES
Vicinity Map .
Site Pian
Estimated Existing Winter Conditions
Trip Distribution
Year 2015 Background Traffic Conditions
,Year 2O15 Total Traffic Conditions
2
3
4
6
10
11
UST,OF TABLES
Existing Trip Generation Estimates . . . .7ProposedTripGenerationEstimates .........9
.
A.
l.INTRODUCTION
Land Use, Site and Study area Boundaries
Zehren and Associates, lnc. is proposing the Vail Plaza Hotel development to be located on the
southeast corner of Vail Road and the South Frontage Road in Vail, Colorado. This
development will be replacing three existing buildings with one building. The site location is
shown in Figure 'l . The existing three buildings consist of a total of 41 ,643 square feet. The
proposed development will consist of a total of approximately 150,0O0 square feet of various
uses including accommodation units, a restaurant, a lounge, a spa. and retail space.
The proposed development will have one main access onto the South Frontage Road. The
main access will serve as the entrance to the four level parking garage. A second access east
of the main access, will be used for most deliveries. The site plan is shown in Figure 2. The
impacts of the project traffic at the site access points and the roundabout south of l-70 are
presented in this repon.
The purpose of this repon is to address the projected traffic impacts associated with the Vail
Plaza Hotel development proposal, and to identify any roadway ortraffic control improvements
required as a result of these impacts.
B. Existing Conditions
The existing conditions in the vicinity of the project site are illustrated in Figure 3. Currently
there are two accesses to Vail Plaza Hotel site. The main access is on the South Frontage ^l.Road and the second access is on Vail Road. The South Frontage Road runs east/west t
through Vail with a posted speed limit of 25 MPH adjacent to the site. Vail Road runs
north/south from the roundabout intersection with the Frontage Road providing access to
several hotels. Vail Road is primarily used for local access south of Vail Plaza Hotel.
The roundabout is located approximately 115 feet west of the main entrance to Vail Plaza
Hotel. Most of the site traffic currently uses the roundabout as does traffic oriented to/from
t-70.
Since Vail is a ski 'resort, winter traffic volumes have typically been higher than summer
volumes. Traffic counts were collected during the week of August 17, 1998. and these
counts were used to estimate winter numbers based on 'l 990 data collected during the winter
and summer. The estimated existing winter traffic volumes for the study area are shown in
Figure 3 (the raw count data are shown in Appendix A). As indicated, the South Frontage
Road east of the roundabout carries approximately 30OO vehicles during the winter PM peak
hour' The volumes at the two accesses were calculated by estimating trip generation for the
existing buildings.
Fo-o(E
=>.9 >..
'6
5
K<!
odo&Ir->
*-t!'!
=vJN.
o
j
(\lc
@(E5o-'flE
U)
tL
(I)
t-
ll
rt lt I i-- \
ii ti i .lri Irr f' :. -_.: t-: , .'i l_{;l
I
i'
t'i
I,J
lri
t;:lr!
lllt:
t;;
ii:
t,i
t:
I
r\
J
.Z\. .' _i \ ..__._-.i::=__-_) :i \\ - ______--z=!=''-- PeoH llen
o4o
lf- >
;'ivJE=f t
o
=N-
!
o
a.
6
!.
E
(o I aqEH
.E==
It-bFO6
hr&l
=c')
.g
o'x
IJJ
Eo
(U
E
o
UJ
I
lrl
<\l
^-- g
o
u)
apF
Iv 20
l
I
rDoN
t(q
r!
ts
IJ i-t
:-695
530'---->
|o
c)
Q
I
o/,;/
ozlrlo
UJJ
(t)oI
ao
o
L.,
o
Sogs
122s-i
{{-
o!lo.=c>
t0'Z) U)?!*9goFJ
==oo
4!*r.E,
^o .ro o
=>9o.A-(/)
[[[
r>F
ir
I
I
T-.\
a
oz
X xlro
o
o,zQd,3F>l!- r rrlrlI,.r-i\.rJil=fN.
The total peak hour traffic volumes were used as the basis for subsequent LOS (levels of
service) computations, the results of which are summarized in Figure 3 (worksheets are shown
in Appendix Cl as is the intersection lane geometrics. Level of service is a qualitative measure
which describes traffic operations. A letter designation ranging from A to F is used as the
measure. A LOS A is indicative of excellent traffic operations with very little delay and no
congestion, while a LOS F represents extreme delay and significant congestion.
As shown in Figure 4 the left turn onto the South Frontage Road from the main site access
currently operates at a LOS F during the PM peak hour. The left turn into the site from the
South Frontage Road currently operates at a LOS C during the PM peak hour. All other
movements operate at a LOS B or better during the PM peak hour. -
The minor movements to/from the second
B or better during the PM peak hour. The
access along Vail Road currently operate at a LOS
roundabout currently operates at an overall LOS A.
i
o
tcp.9
lor=['=
-9oa
t-
-l
d
.e
4ca
b'o
o {----}
5%
<'+
30Vo
fn
K<!
il.
A.
PROJECTED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Trip Generation and Design Hourly Volumes
Trip generation equations, as documented in Trio Generation, lnstitute of Transportation
Engineers {lTE}, Sixth Edition, 1997 were used to estimate the vehicle-trips generated by the
existing and proposed development. lt was assumed that 5O percent of the traffic to/from the
restaurant, lounge, and specialty retail comes from outside while the other 50 percent is
internal (as such. the trip generation associated with these uses was reduced 50 percent).
Tab|e1summarizesthetripgenerationresu|tswithexistingconditions.
Table 1
Existing Trip Generation Estimates
As shown in Table 1 , the site currently generates approximately 1050 trips per day. The AM
and PM peak hour trip generation is estimated to be approximately 75 and 9O trips,
respectively.
Table 2 summarizes the trip generation results for the proposed development.
As shown, the proposed development is estimated to generate approximately 31O0 trips per
day. The AM and PM peak hour trip generation is estimated to be approximately 175 and 26O
trips respectively. Approximately three times as many trips are projected for the proposed
development as compared to the existing uses on the site.
Land Usa AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekday
Building
Tvoe
ITE
Code Size Unit In Out Total ln Out Total In Out Total
Condo/
Townhouse
zJv 22 Rooms 5 12 o+o+tt6
Hotel 310 Rooms 20 32 19 11 JO Z.J Y 239 474
Restaurant e?1 1,000's 1 o 1 z .,43 43 t'0
Drinking *t'Jb I 'i ,oo0's o 1 13 13 2b
Market lJ52 2 1,O00's lo Itt 15 JI l0z 162 st+
Totals 39 to 50 40 90 521 Ftl 1042
Daily Drinking Total from 15% oi PM Rares
-l
-.J
fabh 2
Proposed Trip Generation Estimates
B.Trip Distribution
The trip distribution estimates used in this analysis are shown in Figure 4. These percentages
are based upon the existing traffic data previously presented (Figure 3). As shown,
approximately 70 percent of the total site traffic is expected to be oriented to and from the
west through the roundabout. Site generated traffic was assigned to the adjacent roadway
network per these distribution Datterns and are shown in Fiqure 5.
C. Year 2015 Projected Traffic Volumes
Background Traffic
Analysis of traffic impacts for a year 2015 scenario requires projecting background traffic
volumes. The projected background traffic was a result of exponentially increasing the
volumes by two percent per year. Year 2015 background traffic volumes and operational
conditions are shown in Figure 6.
Total Traffic
The total year 2O15 traffic volumes are shown in Figure 7. These volumes were determined
by first removing existing site traffic then adding rhe site generated traffic to the year 2015
background traffic volumes. As shown, the Frontage Road is projected to carry approximately
4600 vehicles during the PM peak hour in 2015. Trips attributable to the proposed VaiLPlaza
Hotel would comprise approximately 6 percent of the total.
J
;o
't
Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekday
Building
Tvoe
ITE
. Code Stze 'Uni ln Out Total In Out Total ln Out Total
Condo/
Townhouse
230 It)Rooms 2 3 7 E 9 47 94
Hotel 310 ztb Rooms 95 60 155 89
'J
168 1 136 I t5r|2272
Restaurant o 1,000's
Qa trt
1 4 22 tz 34 20'l 201 402
Drinking *a2a 4 'I ,OOO's
Sq. Ft.
o o o 14 21 69 69 138
Specialty
Retail
Center
814 I 1,000's
Sc. ft.
E 6 1l 14 14 28 a7 87 174
Totals 'l04 IJ I tb 144 I t3 259 1541 1541 3081
Dailv Drinking Total from 1 5% of PM Rates
tr,=
_sPo)=
lJ- E',
_o
(E
o'=
U)
t
I
Ioo
t- 35
83
6
t
(o.
@
@
Sz
43-)
oo
E
3
.9
Gt:
o-J
@0'
=q
ll
xxx
ozulo
IIJJ
O,ZQ
lF>fi::;; \.,, J
N.
e
i
i.t
!
(oroo
'ri .r- c;oo
dnt =iiLE*.s
5-o
O
GL.F
E
=o.\-'cD.L (,
(E
c]
(>
to(\J
\
\tn\ro
Sszs,ft;
oro
oPo.Ytr>:o7 (1,>to-'FO?goFJ
oo-r
qt(loo
o-o.
ll ll
ct)
J
=ol!(u
(!
@
o
o
Ix
K<;
o,J o
f,F>4-rrd
;ir"Ji:- f .1
G.
A=\ rl
o
_o
o
O()
(E
E
,o
E
oz
r- tO
6c\r
ll <E
(I)
€
F
(\l
I
t- 35.- a?
Ioo
'l
Ioo)F
a
\
tOo\-<
ot-
co E.gEEJ@zoi!*9troFJ
ooI-*i.5et?
o-o-(,)
u u-u
Xlx xt)<l
oz
LU(9
utJ
aoJ
=o
(!
Jo
6
o
o
1]4 J
fr->4_rr!U?; J
ii'J J;---rN.
ilt.
A.
YEAR 2015 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
Background Traflic
The peak hour traffic volumes shown in Figure 6 were used as the basis for subsequent levels
of service computations, and the results are also summarized in Figure 6 (worksheets are
shown in Appendix C). The roundabout will operate at an overall LOS D. However, the only
movements that are lower than LOS B would be'the south approach and right lane east
approach. These movements are projected to operate at LOS C and F respectively. The LOS
F f rom the east movement is a result of the high amounr of volume turning to the north.toward
l-70 and the North Frontage- Boad.
B.Total Traffic
The total peak hour traffic volumes shown in Figure 7 were used as the basis for subsequent
levels of service cbmputations, and the results are also summarized in Figure 7 (worksheets
are shown in Appendix D). All movements on the roundabout will operate at the same LOS
as the background traffic showed previously with the exception of the south approach which
will operate at a LOS D. The left turning movement into the site (at the main entrance) will
operate at a LOS E and the left turning movement out of the site will operate at a LOS F.
Site generated traffic consists of approximately 1 .2 percent of the total traffic entering the
roundabout. Of the right lane east approach the contribution from site generated traffic is
approximately 2 percent. No improvements were used on the roundabout for this analyses.
The main access onto the South Frontage Road included two roadway improvements in the
analyses;
Provide a "storage" area in the existing median for site outbound leit turning vehicles
to safely pass eastbound traffic. A raised island already exists in the median from the
roundabout to the site access pioviding separation between eastbound and westbound
traffic. Minor modifications would need to be made to the island to provide for a
storage area. With this "safe harbor." left turning vehicles could cross eastbound
traffic in one maneuver and wait in the storage area prior to merging into westbound
traffic. With the addition of the storage area the left turn movements out of the site
would still remain at a Los F, however, the delay time for this movement is improved
significantly (more than 25%).
Construct a right turn deceleration lane into the site for eastbound traffic. This lane is
needed to remove right turns from thru traffic lanes. This is of importance here
because vehicles coming out of the roundabout do not have sufficient reaction time in
the 1 1 5 foot distance to slow or stop for a right turning vehicle.
o
12
Limiting movements to right in/right out or three-quarter movement was considered for the
site's main access. This would require that vehicles exiting the site desiring to use the Vail
Road intersection whh l-70 (which is most of the site traffic) make a U-turn somewhere along
the South Frontage Road. However, there is not a safe place for vehicles to make a U-turn
within a reasonable distance. Therefore, it is recommended to improve the main access so as
to accommodate full movement as safely as possible which includes a center "harbor" area
and a right turn deceleration lane.
The second access onto the site from the South Frontage Road will be used for deliveries. .Due
to space limitations on site, t-rucks will need to back up onto the site from the Frontage Road.
This should be done from a separaie lane along the south side of the road. The existing rigitrt
turn lane east of the site should be extended west to the site's delivery access. The design
of the lane and driveway should accommodate backing trucks to allow no interference with
eastboundthoughtraffic. Physical orbarrierseparationshouldbeincorporatedintothedesign.
\l
$tu
\tl'to\
13
tv.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following highlight the significant findings and recommendations as a result of this traffic
analysis:
' The total projected trips consist of Subtracting the existing 1042 trips from the
proposed 3082 site generated trips.
Two roadway improvements will be necessary at the main access onto the Frontage
Road. The first includes modification to the center median to provide a storage area
for vehicles turning lett out of the site. This will allow for a two-step left turn with less,
delay. The second is an exclusive right turn lane into the site for eastbound traffic.
This exclusive right turn lane will remove turning traffic from the though traffic lanes
thereby improving safety characteristics.
The roundabout will not be adversely affected by the proposed site traffic. The site
traffic will consist of approximately one percent of the total traffic in the roundabout
in year 20 1 5.
The auxiliary lane east of the site for right turning vehicles needs to be extended west
to the second access. This lane will be used for delivery trucks backing into the site.
This lane and the delivery driveway in which it will serve should be designed to allow
backing activity without impacting the eastbound through traffic. Physical separation
should be considered between the through lane and the auxiliary lane where backing
would be taking place.
o 14
Postlt Fax Note 7672
CsrT-rt
l€toa'
7.rt
Ot!|rJ
Dg|Gir(t|
P. (JL
7/ Iq'e] - lg '"' lt:c:O
f | .nnUouu{el l\lqA\soL?s
!**
O.!. Cir.F
l*otpr r
l*-Ic.rrcrla,c
_ rb,ot PTtr
homTo
C.lrprt
L&Ist
Chs;, fns.n1
frl t.'O*'
Cfirnic
Tat€9aura I
r0ltt ll@lt I700n 170
NTSSTTIIO SLIP RDTSI OFT
touilIER il€rsuREs, Urc.
0ircction: 0ir I
VAILX YAILII tlAII.S VAIt5 EFROI{ EfROI{ TFf,SI TIROI{
0t{ 0i; oil oFF 0t{ otF 0N oFF
?t6t: I
TITE: TAIL
DlIt: t/ltl98
liltt
EEGltl
{'t,a (v ,.Al I
\
tzz 57a2 79
I JJ !J
106 68
1{3 261
103 68
toa 66
92 t8
9{ 68
393 ?80
62 18 r03 rt3 10 73 117 tS552 33 103 !53 85 8. l{5 15168 38 93 :56 t03 t05 1t9 li569 r{ 9t :57 88 67 139 120
?61 t53 391 sre 316 32r 520 5t2
17 19 89 !s9 7l 72 l5t ltl50 {0 t2 i29 65 {2 t10 11659 17 l0? :3{ 68 6E I1t ilo61 {0 86 lag 8t 86 152 t13
230 176 3t9 571 293 268 565 t80
l{
!(
6l
951
995
t009
970
3928
l:00 Plt
r.t(
t .tA
t:15
HR TOIAI,
?:00 pt 928
?;15 S192:30 9t5
2:45 959
ltR toltt 3651
3
t3
E
t8
a6
DAY IOIAT 15?9
PfiCilr of I0iAt
107
L{
{91 339 7t6 lt70
9.8 t5.{{.5b.)
597 t085 1022
8.4 7.9 11.3 r3.5 11.0 t,a
o
1
t
c,-#
fn
H
t
-lo
H
I
-lo
FRGE.@343 33 11m
s
#/#H
o
G-
/ri t L*il
\({\e\
oL
.tl77
nLE.18 '98 11:A5
t) \'o\
c
co
-y'1
{
DIsc1
- \_l
HCS: Unsignalized Inierseccions Reiease 2.1-q ACC2.HCO pag3 l
" Ce&Eer Fo:' Microcor,pu:ers In T:ansportaEic:l
Universiry of Flcrida
512 weil Hal1
I Gainesvilie, FI, 32 511- 2 06 3
-- Ph: (904) 392_03?8
Streets: (N-S) Vail Road (E-W) Access 2
Main- (rraot' n'i ?a..i i.\rr l\rc
l,engrh of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst ....- ltAii
Dace of Analysis .. . g/2s/99
Other fnforrnation.........Peak Hour Existinq. Tvo-way Stop-concrolleo Incerseccion
NorEhbound
lJIll.
----.---.---
0 I <0
N
SouEhbound Eastbound
LTR
westbound
T, T '
. No. lanes
SEop/Yield
volumes
tall!
Grade
MC,s (t)
. sU/Rv's (?)
qv's (?)
PCE's
0 >1 0
N
11 530
. >f . >f,
n
1 1n
000 0 >0 <0
1 11
1 1n 1 ln
AdjusEment. Factors
Maneuver
f-riFi^:l
cap ( cg)
Fo11oi4r - up
Tima ft-f1
Lef- T\rrn Maj nr ft66d
_ RighE. Turn Minor RoaC' Through Trar-f ib Mincr Road.
LefE Turn Minol Road
5.50 2 .60
< nn
J. UU z. Lv
J.5U
1 dn
I
HCS: Unsignalized I:l:erseciions Release 2.1,9 ACC2.HC0 Page 2
!===+======
Worksil-:: ior T'I.ISC Inrers:ction
qiF:.) 1 . PT f rnrr, Mr -ra- qt--a5l'
Conf IicEing. Flows: (v-ph)
Potential Capacity: (pcphi
Movemenc CapaciEy: (pcph)
Prob. of Queue-Free SEace:
'732
5Uv
)6>
0.98
Step 2: LT from Major Stree!
ConfLicting Plows: (vph) ?33
PoEenEial Capacity: (pcph) 161
Movemenr Capacicy: (pcph) i51
Prob. of Queue-Free Scate: 0.98
TH Saturat.ion Flovr RaCe: (pcphpJ. ) 17OO
RT Saturation FLow RaEe: (pcphpl)
M^i.rr T,T CheraA T.^!'r. Dr /\h
.)f ahrcrrF-Frpa Q:-=:-=. n o?
NB
S'.ep 4 : L? f rom Mj-nc:' StreeE WB
Conflicring Flows: (wph) 13 Od
Pocential Capaciry: (pcph) 196
Mei^- T.T Mi r,'!^r 'r:i
ImD3dance Fac:o:': 0 .97
Adjusced Impedance !'accor: O .91
Capacity Adjusrment Faetor
due co lmDedlng Mcvsments 0-91
MovemenE Capaciry: (pcph) t_80
. r-nierseciion performance summary
Avg. 95?
FIow Mcve Shared Total eueue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Leng-,_h LOS Delay
MovemenE (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
wB L 1 180 >
507 7 .3 0.0 B ?.3wB R 13 589 >
ea T 1'7 -.4I tO I 4.8 0.0 A 0.1
In--ersecE.ion Delay = 0. 1 sec/veh
LE
HCS: Unsignalizeci InEe:secrions Release 2.1g ACC2.HCO page 1
' Center For MicrocomDule:s In TranspotEaEion
Unj.versi!], of Fiorida
512 weil Hal1
Gainesville, FI, 325L!-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets.: (N-S) Main Access (E-W) South FronE.age Road
Major Street Direction. .. . Ew' Length oi Time .Analyzeci. . . r5 (mj.n)
Analyst ..... ltAti
Dat.e of Analysis ... g/25/98
OEher Informat.io:1. ..peai< Hcur Exiscinq
Trro-utay Stop-conirolled Intersection
Eas Ebound.
---- ---.: ----
vz<u
I\T
L205 25
!'lestbound Northbound southbound
IrIl(
No. lanes
SE.op,/Yield
volumes
v}tr
Grade
MC' S (?)
SU/RV's (t)
cv's (?)
PCE' s
130
\t
I. J.U
.tn
4V6
qq o(
000
1.10 1.10
o
Maneuver
Adjustment Fact.ors
Cri-" ical
Gap (tg)
Fo11ow-up
F.i -^ /-t\J, lll|E: ( LJ-,i
teft Ilrrn Major Road
Right Turn Minor Road
Through Traffic Minor' Road
. Lefc Turn Minor Road
:
3. f,U
6.. 50
7.00
2.60
3.30
3.40
:o
iiCS: Unsignafized fn:::seciions Release 2.19 -ACC2-HCo Pag= 2
workshee: :3: TwS C IliersecEion
C-5r.\ 1 . P? 1-- r.rfi Mi ?'1.r- qi!.'.Fr-SB
Conf Iiccing Flows : (Wl'r)
Dn-Ent- i r'l Fanaairr-.. innnhlvFt/gv|!Jt\-vl!,r./
Mcvemen!. Capacicy: (-l=ph)
D-i.h nf i)rrarre- Fra. q-:!-a.
. A 4'1
otr
of,l
^
qq
St.ep 2: LT from Majo: Screet
Conflicting Flows: (rpl]) l.294
Po:encial Capacity; (-Dcph) 345
Movemen! Capacity: (pcph) 345
D!-.\h a€ /lrrarre-Fr-aa q-Ft-5. n o?
Siep 4: LT from Mi-nor Street
Conf lict.ing Flows: (r_'ch) 3171
Po:eniial Capacity: (pcph) 10
M: i.ri T T Mi n.rr Tt{
Impedance FacEor: 0.97
Adjusi'ed impedance FacEor: 0.97
Capaci:y Adjustment' ;'ac!.or
oue co impeding Movemen!.s 0.97
Mcvemenr Capacicy: (p:ph) 10
Intersection Performance Summarv
Avg. 95?
Flor+ Move Shared ?oEal eueue Approach
RaEe Cap Cap Delay Lengr.h tOS Delay
Mcvement. (pcph) (pc_oh) (pcph) (sec,/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
N3 L 23 10 * 2.4 F
95-.2
NB R 9 551 5.5 0.0 B
tI3 L 12 345 10.8 0.0 c 0.1
Incerseccion Delay = 8.8 sec/veh
* The calculated value was greater Ehan 999.9.
515
Fe)-sburg HoIt & U11evi9
13 Regis tered User No. 123d- Time and Dace o: Analysis 9:12 .LM, Aug 26,1999
r/aiJ. Plaza Hote1 * RoUND i
,- ExisLingr Conditions
Jtt"t.""tion No.:
SIDRA US liighway Capaclty Maaual (1994) version. Roundabout
RUN INFOR}.TAT f ON
* Basic ParaEeters :
.. Iatersection \pe: Roundabout
- Driving on the. right-hand side of the road
SIDRA US Highway Capacity Manual (1994) version
Input data specified in US units
Defau1t Values l.ile No. 11- P6ak f.].ow period (for perfo::aance): 30 oinutesUnj,t tine (for volumes) :120 uinutes (Total Fl"ow period)
Delay definition: Overa1l delay,
Geometrj-c <ielay ineluded
Delay fo:.oula: Highlray Capacity l.4anualIeve1 of Servj.ce based on: Delay (HGI)
Q:eue definition: Back of queue, 95th percen-.iLe
r'aiJ. Plaza HoteL
Existing Conditions
Intersection No. :
Roundabout
Iable S.3 - TNTERSECTION PARAI,IETERS
Degree of saturation (highest) = 0.656PracticaL Spa=e Capacity (lowest) = 30 t
Tota.l- vehicLe fLow (veh/h) = 3134Total, vehicle capaeity, all lanes (veh/h) = 9503Average intersection delay (s) = 4.1Lalgest average Dovstent delay (s) = 8.3. Largest baek of queue / 95t (ft) = 162Performance Irrdex = 14g.5gTotal fuel (galh) : 102.0total cost ($) = L237.29Tntersection Level of Service = AWolst EoverEent Level of Service = A
VaiI PLaza Hotel
Existing Conditions
:ntersection No.:
RorDdabout
lab].e S. 5 - INTERSECTTON PE3-EOR!,tANCE
* ROUND *
r ROUND f
hgal Total Aver. prop. Eff. perf. Aver.
-*
Delay Delay Queued Stop fndex Speedj.\Ehlh) (veh-h/h) (sec) Rare (&pb)
3134 3.51 4.1 0.578 0.61 148.58 14.6
Itai]. PJ-aza lloEe]'
Exj,sting Conditiolts
InEersecE-on No.:
RoundaSout
r"Uf" S.1O - MO\EUENT CAPACIrY AND PERFORI-IANCE SIJI.!!4ARY
Mov Mov. Arv Total lane Deg. Ave! - Eff. 95* Perf.
No. Typ FJ-ow Cap. Utj-l Satn Delay Stop Back of tndex
(veh (veh Rate Queue
/hl /h') (t) x (sec) (veh)
* l.laxj.Er:D degree of saturation
Vai.L Plaza Hotel
ixistj.ng Conditions
. lntersection No. :
Rounda-bout
' aable S. 15 - CAPACTTY AND LEIIE! OF SERVICE ( HC}d STYLE)
Mov Mov Total Tota1 Deg_ Aver. LOS
.No. Typ FIow Cap. of De)-ay
(veh (veh Satn
/".') /h, (v / c) ( sec )
' rJest: West Approaeh
12 L 355 1016 0.349 2.9 A
11 T 304 1280 0 .231 3.4 A13 R '74 3!2 0.237 3.5 A
__________________]:' 2608 0 ' 34e 3.2 A
iouth: South Approach
32 L 8l 25L 0.323 6.2 A31 T 203 629 0.323 5.1 A
* ROttND i
{est: West Approach
. 72 r, 355 1016 100 0.349 2.9 0.52 2.L 15.93
. 11 T 304 1280 58 0-.237 3.4 0.52 t.2 14.2t
13 R 74 372 68 0.237 3.5 0.56 t.2 3.34
South: Souttr Approach
32 L 81 251 . 100 0.323 6.2 0.69 1.7 4.10- 31 T 203 629 100 0.323 5.1 0.58 !.1 9.78
33 R LO2 316 100 0.323 5.9 0.70 7,1 4.81
East: East Approach
22 L 107 383 43 0.219 4. 9 0.65 1.4 5.18
2r r 254 908 43 0.280 4.5 0.59 1.4 11.9?
23 R 634 955 100 0.656* 5.3 0.98 5.5 31 .{9
.Iorth: North Approach
42 L 314 1034 100 0.362 1.6 0,28 1.8 17.r1
41 T 91 283 89 0.322 2.0 0.30 1.5 4. 04
43 R 216 613 89 0.321 2.O 0.37 1.5 9.33
Northl{est: North West Approach
a2 L 146 625 100 0.234 3. 6 0.57 1 . I 1 .r1
81 T 72L 518 100 0.234 4.0 0.5? 1.1 5.73- 83 R 12 308 100 0.234 4.r 0.62 1.1 3.32
* ROUND *
386 1195 0.323 5.0
East: Eest Approach22L
21 T
o tt'254
634
383
908
vbb
0.279 4.9
0.280 4 .5
0 . 655* 5.3
995 2257 0.656 5.7 A
North: North Approach
42l"-
{3R
82L
81 T
83R
. 374 1034
91 283
zL6 0 /J
0.352
o.322
0.321
1.6 A
2.O A
681 1990 o.352 1.8 A
--Nortlrl{est: Nort}r West AIT)loaCr
146 625
1t1 ql A
72 .308
o.234
o.234
o.234
4.0 A
??o 14 51 o.23A 3.8 A
AI.L VEHICX,ES :3134 9503 0. 556
IIiIITERSECTION:3134 oEn?0. 655 4.1 A
Level of Service caLculaSons are based on
average overall delay (E$! criteria),
independent of the curreBt delay definiLion used.For the criteria, refe= --o the r'lervel of Service" topic inthe SfDRA Output Gui.de o: the Output section of the on-l5.ne help.
J
ldaxian:a v/c, EaLj-o, or c=:tj.ca1 green periods
--- lnd of SIDRA o|rtDut ---
io
Fel sburg Holt E Ullevig13 Regfistered User No. 123{
. Tise and Date of Anal!.si s 9;10 AM, Aug 25,1998
/aiL P1aza Hotel r BACK r
E\rture Conditions
^tersection
No. :U
SIDRA US. Highray Capacity Ma.nual (1994) Version
Roundabout
RUN INSOR!''AT TON
t Basic Parameters :
. Intelsection \T)e: Roundabout
_ Drj,ving on the right-hanC side of the road
S fDRA US Highway Capacity Manual (1994) Version
Input data specified in US units
Default va].ues File No. 11
Peak flow period (for ferforaance) : 3O ninutes
Unit tioe (for voluoes):120 oinutes (Total FJ.ow period)
Delay definition: OveraLL del.ay,
GeoD.etri c delay inc1uded
De].ay formula: Highway Capacity ManuaL
Level of Service based on: Delay (HClf)
_ _T:::_ i:::::::::_ _::::_::_ T:::: _ :::::::::::::1:. _ __ _
/ai-1 PLaza Hotel
Future Conditi,ons
Tnlersection No. :
Rounda-bout
Le S.3 - IMTERSECTION PARAME TERS
Degree of saturation (higfhest) = 1.181Practical- Spare Capacity (lowest) = -Zg \Total vehicfe flow (veh/h) = 4391' Total vehicle capacity, all lanes (veh/h) = ?313
Average j-ntersection delay (s) = 45.1- Largest average Bove:rreit deLay (s) = 183.1
Largest back of queue, 95t (ft) = 2d30- Perforaance Index = 366.41Total fuel (galh) = !17.7Total cost ($) = 2267.31
- 'Intersection Level of, Service - DWorst movenent i,eweL of Service = F
fail, Plaza Hotel
Future Conditions
[ntersection No.:
. Roundabout
rable S.5 - INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE
------------
Totsa1 TotaL Aver. Prop, Eff. perf. Aver.
rtnr ,"ff1ii",?::aY sueuld i::: rndex :f;l
* BACK *
U
la.b
* BACK i
4391 55.04 45.1 0.164 3.02 366.41 11.5
I
\tail, Plaza HoteL
Future Cond:.tiolrs
:ntersec'-ion No. :
Roundabout
:able S. 10 - MO\IEMENT CAPACITY AIID PERFORT-TANCE SIJMMARY
* BACK i
' Hov Mov A.Ev Tota]. i.ane Deg. Aver. Eff. 95t Perf.'No. tl|I) Flow Catr). Utjl Satn De]'ay Stop Back of Index
(veh (veh Rate 'Queue
/h, /h') (*) x (see) (veh)
iest: West Aptr)roach
L2 L 497 822 100 0.505 7.6 1.04 6.0 26.81
11 r 426 1016 59 0.419 6.7 0.80 2.7 2L.45''.'13 R 104 248 69 0.419 6.8 0.82 2.7 5.06
south: South Approaeh
32 L 114 137' 100 0.832 31.4 1.95 70,4 8.68
31 r 284 341 100 0.833 30.1 2.01 11.5 20-82
33 R 143 L12 100 0.831 29.0 2.05 11.6 LO.27
last: East Approach
22 L 150 307 41 0.489 9.4 0.96 3.3 7.97. 2! T 356 '129 4! 0.488 9.0 0.92 3.3 18.50
23 R 888 152 100 1.181* 183.110.95 105.2 :-75.94
iorth: North Approaeh
42 L 524 916 100 0.572 3.3 0.54 3.9 25.85
41 T 128 25t 89 0.510 3.6 0.61 3.1 6.05
43 R 303 594 89 0.510 3.5 0.54 3.1 13.90
Nort]'r.J,i7es t: North l{est Approach
82 L 204 443 100 0.460 8.0 0.90 2.9 10.99
81 r 169 367 100 0.450 8.9 0.90 2.9 8.86
83 R 101 2r9 100 0.461 9.3 0.93 2.8 5.18
l'{axisluE degf ree of saturation
\.7ail Plaza Hote1
lture Conditions
' intersection No. :
Ror.:ndabout
ialte S.15 - CAPACTTY AIID rE\rtr OF SERVICE (HCM STyI;E )
i BACK *
Mov Mov TotaL Total Deg. Aver. LOS
'No. Typ Flow Cap. of Delay(veh (veh Satrr
/hl /h, (v/c) (sec)
-r.Ies t : West ADDroach
491 822 0.505 1.6 B
426 1015 0.419 6.7. B
104 248 0.419 6. I B
12L
11 T
-- lJ lK
7021 2086 0.605 7 .2 B
:South: South Approach
32 L 114 13? 0.832 31.4 Cr 31 r 2aa 34i- 0.833 30.1 c
't
541 650 0.833 30.1
' faat:
22L
2tr
,-, z5 t<
-
East Approach
150
55 tt
888
0.489 9.4
0.488 9. 0
1. 181* 183. 1
?n?
129
752
B
1394 I '6U 1.181 119 - 9
r.{ort}r: North Approach
42 L 524 916
41 I t28 25L
43 R 303 594
o.512
0.510
0.510
??
J.b
J.O
A
A
955 1751 u.Jtz
Northllest: North West Aporoacl-
82 L 2o4 -ia: 0.460
81 I 169 367 0.460
83 R 101 .2t9 0.461
3.4 A
8.0 B8.9 B9.3 B
474 1029 0.461 8.6 B
AI,I, 1TEHICLES :4391 1.181 45.1
INXERSECTION:{ J:'J,1.181 {5. 1
L,eve1 of Service calculations ale based on
average overaLl delay (HG1 criteria),
independent of, the cu.rlent delay definition used.For the cliteria, refer to the 'rl,evel of Servj-ce" topic inthe SIDRA Output Guide or the Output section of the on-line he1p.
^*
Maxian:o v/c ratio, or crilical- green periods
---- End of SIDRA OutDut ---
APPENDIX D
YEAR 2015 TOTAL CONDITIONS LOS
-i
I o
HCS: Unsigrralized Intersecrions Release 2.19 A:a.!:Co page 1
CenEer For Microcomputers In Transoorca:j.on
Universicy of Florida
512 Weil Ha1I
Gai.nesville, FL 32 611- -2 08 3
Ph: (904) 392-0378
. St.reets: (N-S) Main Access (E-wi Souch FronEage Road
Mai.!r: SirFFJ- nirection.... EW
Lengt.h of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Anal.ysr ...... HAH
Dare of Analysis -.. g/25/99
Other hformation. . : . . . . . . Peak Hour year 2015. Two-way SEop-controlled fntersectj.on
EastboundlWesrboundlNorthboundlsourhbound
L T R IL T R IL T R IL T R
No. IJanes | 0 2 < o I r 3 o I r 0 1 | 0 0 o
Stop/vield I Nl Nvolumes I 1?90 1001 41 2570 I 83 35PHF | .es .9s| .9s .es | .gs .9sGradelolol0
Mc's (k) | | |SU,/Rv's (?)J
Icv's (?) i I IPCE'S | | r .:.0 lr. ro 1.10
Adjustmenc Faclors
Maneuver
arifi/.r'l
Gap (cg)
Fol low-up
Time (rf )
LefE. Turn Major Road
Right T\.lrn .Mj-nor Road' Through Traffic Mj.nor Road
teft Tuin Minor Road
f,. tu
q qn 4.OV
3 .30
1 4n
:o
HCS: Unsignalrzed In!.e=seciions Release 2.tq ACC.HC0 paq: 2
=-=-===s-== ===-============= ========--
W3:ksheei ic: TWSC In:e=sec: ion
St-Fn -' PT f r11- Mi nirr Q--oar-
Conilicting Ficws: (wpr)
P.1!-.h-irl r-rn=-ir',. t^^^Xilqver4 rI . \-v!-vrr /
Mnrrant5rr F f-ane-i !-rr. Jt't.'-!- lr \!r'vY':/
Pr6:-\ .\f .1rrprra-Fraa Qi-rr-o.
>>s
434
431n or
SEep 2: LT fron Major S:reeE ED
--.--:' Conf l j.ct,ing Fl.hrs: (wph)
P^1- air: i -a1 a:n:-i r-r'. /nnrl.r\!u!,__:Lll . \!/e-v:r/
M.rrtAms',ri f'rn=n j :rr. /-^rh \sgu-e _ s I . \t,eP-t/
Pr.)ti ^f nrrar ra- Frcc C1-^-...
r17
u. bf
SEep 4: LT f ro:r, Minor S--reeE 5t5
Conf iicci.ng Ff cws: (rFh)
P.rt- a:.:- i = l f':r=-i rrr, /h-^h I
Majo: tT, Min.: TH
Tmno4:r.c F. ^-^r.
Ad'i r r c - ad Tmna; = n n.a Er= nr rr .
Capacity Adjus:menc Fac:or
due :o ImpeCi::g Movement s
MoveRent Capec::y: (pcph)
4588
1
u. b3
u. btr
u. b:
1
Inte:section p3rformance Summarv
Avg . 95.6Fics Move Shareci Total eueue Approach
Ra:e Cap Cap Delay Lengrh LOS Del-ay
Movemenc (pcpr) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec,/veh)
. NB L 93 1 * 11.g F
NB R 4: 431 g.2 0.2 B
wB L 51 :-17 3?.0 1.3 E 0.6
InEersecEion Delay = 993.3 sec,/veh
* The calculaied value was greaEer than 999.9.
t
HCS: Unsignalized Inrerseciions Release 2.1g ACCA. tico page I
' Center For Microcompuc.ers In TransDoriation
Univers j.cy of Florida
512 Wsil HaIl
Gainesville. FL 326L1-2083
Ph:. (904) 392-0378
Streels: (N-S) Main Access (E-W) South Froniage Rcad' Major StreeE Direccion.... Sw
Lengch of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst,
Date of Analysis .-. B/25/gB. Other Information ..peak Hour year 2OI5' . Tno-r,ray Scop-ccntrolled Int.ersect j.on
Eas tbound
T. T P
westbounci Northbound
LTR
SouEhbound
NO . Iranes
Stop,/Yie1d
Volumes
rnr
Grade
MC's (?)
SU/RV's {?)
CV's (?)
PCE's
uzI
N
1?qn r nn
100
N
44
. >=
0
'lnl
83 35
0
000
r.r\J t.ru
o Adjustment Factors
' vehicle
Maneuver
Cri r i na l
Gap (t.g)
Fol1ow-up
Tima Irf I
Left Turn Major Road
RighE Tlrn Minor Road- Through Traffic Minor Road
l,,ef -' ?urn Mino= Road
f .:u
l - f,u
o . f,u
z. oo
1.LV
z -6u
I . .'U
3.40
jo
j
H3S: Unsignal j.zec In:ersecEio:ls R?Lease 2.19 -A3C;. lico Page 2
Works::eet for T'WSC lrcerseccion
S:ep 1: RT from f::no: Streec
---:---
Conf ).icting Flows: (lph)' Pccential Capaci:1': (pcph)
Movemenru CapaciE:'; (pcph)
D-6i'l nf 1)rrarra-F-as q!-:Fa -
55
>+z
.:O-L
n Or
Srep 2: Ll from lqajor Streer
. Confliccing Flows: (rph)
Pctential Capaci:y: (pcph)
Mcvement Capaci t-v: (pcph)
P-.1i.\ ^f nr l ar r. - ?-a.a Qi-rt-a.
L>A>
q: Fn 4 . i.T f 1.^m Mi rr.r7 QF ri6F
Con:-licE. j-ng Flows: (lph) 1.930
PctenEia1 Capaci:y: (pcph) 62
M.2 i rrr T.T M i 71,'\r -J
Im.o=oance Facto:: O.85
Adjusted Impecian:e FacEor; 0.65
capacity Aojustm::lE FacEor
due co Impeding Movements 0.G5
MovemenE Capac ic;;: (pcph) 40
Intersection ?erformance Summarv
Awg. 95"<
Flow Move Shared Tot.al eueue Approach
Rare Cap Cap Delay LengEh l,OS Delay
Mcvemen: (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
Nts L 96 40 848.2 8.4 F
599.2Nts R 41 461 6-.6 A.2 B
;WBL 51 L47 37.O 1.3 E 37.0
::rcersection DeLay = 35.2 sec/veh
<R
HCS: UnsignalizeC Intersec:ions Ref=ase 2.1g ACCts.HCO pag3 1
a Cenlea For Microcompuceis In TranspcrE.acion
Uniwersicy of florida
512 lieil Hal1
GainesvilIe, FL 3251L-2063
Ph: (904) 392-0378
. Streeis: (N-S) Main Access (E-W) SouEh Fronlage Road
Major Street Direction.... gw
LengEh of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
AnalysE ....... HAH
. Date of Analysis ... 8/25/98
. Other Information -..?eak Hour year 2015.. TwO-way Stop-controLled Intersect ion
Eas Ebound
LTR
Westbound
JrLl(
Northbound Southbound
r,rrlt.
No. Ianes
Scop/yie1d
volumes
rtilE
llra da
MC's (*)
su/RV,s (?)
CV's (?)
PCE,s
000 030
257 0
. >)
0
000 001
83
. >3
0
1 1n
o
Adjustmen!. Facrors
vehicle
Maneuver
ari r i .'r 'l
cap (ig)
Fo11ow - up
.Fi
-^ /!alrr.lug tL!,
' Left Turn Majo: Road
RighE Turn Minor Road
Through Traffic Minor Road' Left Tlrn Minor Road
5.50
f .5u
6 qn
7.00
2 .10
z -Ev
1 ln
3.40
liCS: Unsignalized InEerseciions Release 2.Ig ACCts.HCO Page 2
worksheet fcr TWSC In:-erseciion
SEep 1: RT from Minor StreeE st5NB
. Conf licring Flows: ('rph)
PoEenEial. Capacity: (pcphI
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
Drr-rh r'rf nrtF! rF - FrE- Qi-ar-a.
902
483
483
U. dU
fnlersecticin Performance srrmmarv
Avg. 952
Flow Move Shared TotaL eueue Approacil
Rate Cap Cap Delay Lengrh LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/weh)
a2
sB R 95 483 9.3 0.8 B
Incerseciion Delay = 0.3 sec,/veh
o
FeJ.sburg ltoLt 6 UJ.J-ewig13 Registered Use! No. 1234
. Tiae and Date of Arralysis 9:11 AI,{, Aug 26,199g
Vai]- Plaza Hotel
c:5:"::tf i:::
S fDRA US Highway Capacity Manual (1994) Version
Roundabout
:
RI'N INFOR},'AT ION
* F'I'T *
r Basic Paraueters ;
Intersection Pl'tr)e: Rounda.bout
Driving on the right-hand side of the road
SIDRA US Highway Capacity l.tanuaL (1994) VersionInput data specified in US unitsDefault values FiLe No. 11
Peak fJ-orl period (for perforaance): 30 Dinutes- Unit tiBe (for volr:nes):120 minutes (Total FIow period)
De].ay definition: Orrerall, delay.
G€onetlic delay 5.nc1uded
De].ay fornula: Hj-ghway Capacity Manua.}
Level, of Service based.on: Delay (HG{)
Queue definition: Back of qlueue, 95th percentile
vai I Plaza Hotel
Future Condi-tions
Intersection No. :
Roundebout
fab].e S.3 - INIERSECTION PARAME TERS
Degree of satura:ion (highest) = 1.205PracticaL Spare Capacity (Lowest) : -30 tTotal vehicle flow (veh/h) = 4463lotaL wehicJ.e capaciry, all lanes (veh/h) = 7199
- Average interseclion delay (s) = 50.9.Largest.average Eovement delay (s) = 205.4Largest back of gueue, 95* (ft) 2gt-6PerforEance Index = 392.L6Total- fue] (galh) = 195.3Tota1 cost ($) = 2379.22Intersection Level of Service = DWorst Eovenent Level of Service = F
Vail Plaza Hotel
!\: ture Condi-tions
Intelsection No. :
Roundabout
_8ab1e S. 6 - TNTERSECTION PERFORT{ANCE
*FUT*
* Eltr r
,rl[al Total Aver. prop. Eff. perf. Ave!.
,|!* Delay Delay Queued Stop fndex Speed
'(veh/h) (weh-h/h) (sec) Rare (nph)
i4463 63.r2 50.9 0.'772 3.29 392-15 11 .1
I
/aiL Plaza Hotel
tr\:eule Conditions
:nterseclion No.:
Routrdabout
.'ab1e S. 10 - MO\ZEMENT CAPACTTY AND PERpORlrilCCE SU!0{ARY
Mov Mov Arv Total I,ane Deg. Aver. Eff. 95t Perf.-No. E}'p Ffow Cap. Util- Satn De1ay Slop Back of Index(veh (veh Rate -eueue
/h, lhl (t) x (sec) (veh)
* fTJtrr
iest: West Approach
12 r. 496 805 100 0.61s 8.1 1.08 6.3 21 .OAi1 r 438 1003 17 0 .437 ?. 1 o. 83 2 .9 ',22.26
13 R. 104 238 7t 0.437 7.2 0.85 2.9 5.11
iouth: South Approach
32 L 114 130. 100 0.811 38.4 2.25 r2.4 9.43- 31 r 283 322 1oO 0.8?9 36.9 2.31 14.0 22.59
33 R 148 168 100 0.881 35.6 2.37 14.O 11.59
qast: East Approach
22 L 153 305 42 0.500 9.5 0.98 3.4 8.16
2L T 366 13L 42 0.501 9.1 0.94 3.4 19.08
23 R 908 753 100 1.2051 205.411 .95 116.6 L94.20
lorth: North Approach
42 L 539 905 100 0.595 3.5 0.58 4.3 26.1941 T r?8 246 88 0.520 3.? 0.63 3-2 5.08
43 R 304 584 88 0.521 3.? 0.65 3-2 14.02
Northwes--: North West Appsoach
82 L 204 422 1,00 0.483 8.6 0.94 3.2 11.12
81 r 714 360 100 0.483 9:5 0.94 3.2 9.24
__::_i_________t:1___:1t___113__l_it1____l_l_t_31_____t_3__--l_1!_
* llaxi-mun degree of saturation
vail- F1aza liotel,
\ture Condi--ions
- -ntersec5on No. :
Roundabout
_1'able S.15 - CAPACI TY AND LE\ZEL OF SERVICE (HCII STYLE )
Mov Mov To--a!- Total Deg. Aver. I,OSNo. TyI) F1ow Cap. of Delay(veh (veh Satn
/hl /}:.') (v / el (sec)
West: West Approach
495 805 0.615 8.1 B
438 1003 0.437 ?.1 B104 238 0.431 7 .2 B
1038 204'7 0. 515 7 .6 B
South: South Apploach
32 L 114 130 0.871 38.4 D
' 31 T 293 322 o.a7g 3d.9 D
* Flrr *
i2L
11 r
_ tJ !(
O R IC INAL
VAIL PLA7LAHOTEL
TO1VN OF VAIL INCREMENTAL REVEI\IIIE IMPACTS
September 9, 1998
Prepared By:
STA}.I BERNSTEIN A}.ID ASSOCIATES, INC.
o
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTIONA: E"XECUTMSIIMMARYAI.IDKEYASSUMPTIONS
SECfiONB: REVENUE IMPACTMODEL - ALL SUPPORTING SCHEDULES
o
SECTIONA
HGCUTTVE SLIMMARY A}.ID KEY ASSUMPTIONS
o
"-,
-
VAILPLAZAHOTEL
TOWN OF VAIL INCREMENTAL RE\|ENUE IMPACTS
I. INTRODUCTION
Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc. was retained by the dwelopers of the proposed Vail
Plaza Hotel Project (the "Hotel") to analpe the incrernental municipal revenues that could ascrue
to the Town of Vail (the "Town") as a direct resrlt of the construction and completion of the
Hotel.
The incrernental Town rweuues that could be generated from the Hotel are based upon
the assumption that buildings 3, 4, and 5 of the existing Vail Village Inn are replaced with the
Hotel as s€t forth in the following chart.
PROGRAM ANALYSB (PER ZNHREN AIYD ASSOCIATES. INC.. SEPTEIT{BIR
COMPONENT
VAIL
PI.NIA
EOTEL
PROJECT
EXISITINGWI
TO BE
REPII\CED
INCREMENTAL
ROOMS UMTS,
so. FT.
GROSS SQUAREFOOTAGE 428,782 44.143 384.639
DWELLINGT]NITS 1 I 0
FRACTIONAL FEE CLIJB UNITS l5 0 15
ACCOMMODATION (IIOTEL) UNIT S 276 78 198
BESTAIJRA}IT SQUARE FOOTAGE E.959 4.2t7 4.742
LOI.'NGE SQUARE FOOTAGE 3.590 1.196 2,394
CoMMERCTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 8,596 t.932 6.6e
IIEALTII CLUB/SPAIRELAIED SQ. FT.29.47 0 29,47
CqNFERENCE CENTER SQ. FT.21.208 1.074 20.134
-l-
VAILPLAZAHOTEL
TOWN OF VAIL INCREMENTAL RE\IENUE IMPACTS
tr. E)(ECUTIVE SUMI\dARY
Exhibit I which appears on the following page, pr€sents a sunmary of the incresrenal
revenue impacts to the Town generated from the Hotel. Exhibit I presents (i) a summary of the
sienificant recurring incremental Town revenues upon completion of the Hotel; (ii) a zummary of
non-recurring incremental Town building permit related revenu€s generated during the
construction period and real estate transfer tal( rev€nr€s generated from the initial sales of
Fractional Club units; and 0u) other significant information zuch as incremental skier dayg taxable
sales and assessed valuation. Exhibit I relates all revenue impacts to the 1998 Town budget so
that readers of this report will be better able to understand the relative magnitude of the
forecasted incrernental reverues. A concise narrative summary of Bdribit I is presented in the
following paragraphs:
o Recurring incremental Town revenues generated from the Hotel are forecasted to be
$1,404,69'6 and represent approximately 6.21/o ofthe Town's 1998 budgeted r€x/enues.
o Recrrrring incremfftal Town sales tax revemres g€o€rated from the Hotel are forecasted to
b€ $1,163,213 and represent approximately 8.S/o ofthe Town's 1998 budgeted revelntes.
o Real estate transfertax revenues generated from initial incerrral sales are forecasted to be
approxinately $2%, 000.
o Constnrction related permit rwenues are forecasted to be approximately $483,750.
o Incremental anrnnl skier days are forecasted to be 31,119 which represents approximately
1.9/o of 1996197 Vail Mountain skier days.
o Incremental assessed valuation is forecasted to be approximately $15.0 million which
repres€nts approximately 3.4% ofthe Town's most curr€Nrt c€rtified assessed valuation
o Incremental enmrel taxable sales are forecasted to be approximately $29.1 million which
represents approximately 7.9Yo of tbe Town's 1997 sales tax base.
o Incrernental annual guest nights are forecasted to be 143,599.
EXHIBIT I
VAIL PI.AZA HOTEL
TOWN OF VAIL INCREMENTAL REVENUE IMPACTS
.FINAL DRAFT DATED 9-9-98\t
RECURRING REVENUES AT PRoJECT COMPLETION
$68,175
1,163,213
46,679
11,760
'l1,632
43,620
388
15,026
44,202
$1.404.696
6.2%
BUDGET
$2,054,140
14,557,735
2,164,28
1,700,000
341,500
465,619
128,393
539,799
557,255
$22.508.72A
PROPERW & S.O. TAXES
4% SALES JAXES
.I% SKI UFTTA)GS
1% REAL ESTATE TAXES
BUSINESS UCENSES
COUNTY SALES TAXES
GIGAREfiE TA)(ES
ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND
FRANCHISE FEES
TOTAL INCREMENTAL REVS
% OF TOWN'S 1998 BUDGET
-REGURRING REVENUESGENERATED BUDqET
% REAL ESTATE TAXES $294,000 $1,7OO,OOO
GoNSTRUCT. RELATED PERM|TS lggJgg 55O,OOO
TOTAL REVENUES $7771W $2.250-000
% oF TOWN'S 1998 BUDGET 34.6%
SKIER DAYS
% oF 1997-98 ACTUAL
ASSESSED VALUATION
% OF 1997 AGTUAL
TN(ABLE SALES
% OF 1997 TOWN ACTUAL
GUEST NIGHTS
31 ,119
1:g%
$15,026,202
3.3%
$29,080,333
7.9%
143,599
1997 ACTUAL
1,597,932
$448,552,540
$367,525,500
Not Available
-3-
VAILPLAZAHOTEL
TOWN OF VAIL INCREMENTAL REVENTIE IMPACTS
Iu. SUMil,IARY OF SIGNIFICAI{T PLAI{NING ASSU}IPTIONS
A GENERALASSUMPTIONS
1. The incremental revenue impacts are based upon the Hotel Program Analysis
as developed by Zehren and fusociates, Ing September 8, 1998.
2. All incremental revenue impacts are based upon 1998 uninflated dollars (i.e.,
inflationary impacts have been ignored for financial planning purposes).
3. Fifteen Fractional Club Units will be developed as I part of the Hotel.
Approximately 28 weeks of each Fractional Club Unit will be sold as intennls
and the remaining 24 weeks will be retained by the dwelopers of the Hotet and
r€nted to guests.
B. ASSESSED VALUAfiON AI{D PROPERTY TAX REVENUES
l. Hotel rooms (including hotel amenities and parking spaces) will have an actud
value of$150,000 per room-
2. R€tail, r€staurant and lounge space will have an actual value of $275 per
square foot.
3. Fractional Club Units (each containing approximately three bedrooms and
1,9O0 square feet) and the 5,542 square foot condominium will have an actual
value of$1,000 per square foot.
4. The commercial assessment rate will remain xt 2g/o of actual value and the
rcsidential assessrnent ra;te will remain *,9.74o/oof actual value.
5. The current assessed wluation of Vail Vrtlage trn buildings 3,4 and 5 totd
approximately $2.0 million and have been deducted from the forecasted
assessed valuation associatd with the Hotel.
6. The Town's 1998 certified mill lery of 4.321 mills is assumed to remain
constant.
4-
VAILPLAZAHOTEL
TOWN OF VAIL INCREMENTAL RE\IENUE IMPACTS
SUMMARY OF STGNTFTCANT pLAl.rNrNG ASSUMPTTONS (CONTTNIJED)
C. SALESTAXREVENUES
l. It is assumed that an av€rage of 1.75 persoru will ocorpy each hotel room 8flo
ofthe year, and that the average hotel room rate will be $190.
2. It is aszumed that an average of six persons will occupy the Fractional Club
Units retained by the developers of the Hotel for rental purposes (i.e., the
portion of each Fractional Club Unit expected to bc rented for 24 weeks during
the "shoulder s€asons" ofthe year). An 80plo occupancy rate and an average
nightly rate of $500 is orpected.
3. It is assumed that an average of six persons will occupy the Fractional Ch$
Units expected to be sold as weekly intervds. A 9U/o occupancy rate is
assrmed and these units are expected to be used by the owners or their guests
(i.e., no sales taxable rental income has b€en ass,rmed although it is likely th*
some owners will rent their respective weeHy imervals).
4. It is assumed that each hotel and Fractional Club guest will spend an average
of$100 per day for sales taxable foo4 beveragg and retail related items. This
asslmed daily spending rate is nrpported by I survey conducted by RRC in
1996 and 199E.
5. The forecasted incremental sales tax rev€nues and guest nights generated from
the Hotel have been reduced by sales tax revenues and guest nights estimated
to be generated from tle existing Vail Village Inn operations.
D. LIFTTAXREVENTJES
1. According to ur,alyses dweloped by Design WorkSop, annual skia days
generatcd per Fractional Club Unit are asstrmed to & 252 and anrnral skier
days generated per hotel room are assrmed to be 138.
2. Effective taxable ski lift rwenues per skier day are assumed to be $37.50.
-5-
VAILPLAZAHOTEL
TOWN OF VAIL INCREMENTAL REVENUE IMPACTS
ru. suMt{ARyoF STGNIFICANTPLANNTNGASSUMPTTONS (CONTINIJED)
E. REALESTATETRA}.ISFERTAXREVENT.'ES
l. It is assumed that approxim,ate$ 276 interval weelcs will be sold for an average
price of$70,000.
2. T"he annual rate for secondary sales of interv"al weeks is assumed to be 4% of
total inventory.
F. The Town's portion of the Eagle County road and bridge firnd revenues are
calflrlated based on a continuation of the 2.00 mill Eagle County road and bridge
fund mill lerry.
G. Conshuction permits were estimated bas€d upon discussions with the Town's
building department ofr cials.
Il The Eagle County sales tor rebate to the Town is calcutated by applying a factor O
of .O275 to tle Town's forecasted incremental annual sales to( revenues.
I. Cigarette to( revenues are calculated by applying a factor of .0089 to the Town's
incremental annual sales ta:( forecasts.
J. Franchise fee rwenues are calculated by applying a factor of .038 to the Town's
increurental annual sales ta:r foreca*s.
K. Business license revenues are calculated by applying a factor of .01 to the Town,s
incremental annual sales tax forecasts.
-6-
SECTIONB
REVENUE IMPACT MODEL - ALL SIJPPORTING SCHEDI'LES
VAIL PI.AZA HOTEL
TOWN OF VAIL INCREMENTAL REVENUE IMPACTS
FINAL DRAFT DATED 9-9_98
COMPONENT
VAIL PI.AZA
HOTEL
PROJEGT
EXISTING vv|
TO BE
REPLACED
INCREMENTAL
ROOMS,
UNITS. SQ. FT.
GROSS SOUARE FOOTAGE 428,7e2 4,143 384,639
DWELLING UNITS 1 1 0
FRACTIONAL FEE CLUB UNITS 15 0 15
ACCOMODATTON (HOTEL) UNTTS 276 78 198
RESTAUHANT SQUARE FOOTAGE 8,959 4,217 4,742
LOUNGE SQUARE FOOTAGE 3,590 1,196 2.394
COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 8,596 1,932 6,664
HEALTH CLUB/SPA/RELATED SQ. FT.29,447 0 29,447
CONFERENCE CENTER SQ. FT.21,208 1,O74 20,134
SOURGE: ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROGRAM ANALYSIS DATED SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
B-1