HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 BLOCK 5C LOT A B C LODGE AT VAIL INTERNATIONAL 1995 DRB NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT LEGALI:
i
This packet includes
neighborhood input
received during the DRB
review of the
International Wing.
Most letters were
received during 1995.
a I
Fritzlen Pierce Briner
P.O. Box 57 o VoiI Colorado 81658 . 303476-6342 . FaJ"l 3034764901
November l, 1995
Andy Knudtsen
Senior Planner
Town of Vail Community Development
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail Colorado 81657
Re: Lodge at Vail Intemational Wing
Expansion
Dear Members of the Design Review Board,
On behalf of Luanne Wells, I hereby object to the Design Review Board's final review of the Lodge
at Vail Intemational Wing expansion application. The objection is based upon the failure of the
applicant to comply with pre-established application requirements . The significant failure is as
follows:
- Failwe to obtain authorization from owner.*
- Failure to provide complete information.
- Failure to provide information on a timely basis to facilitate a complete and accurate review.
The following is a discussion of the aforementioned three points.
- Failure to obtain authorization from Owner
Division 18.54.040 of the Vail Municipal Code requires that the "owner of authorized agent of any
project.... shall submit for final design review." The Lodge at Vail Site Lot A,B, C Block 5C as
described on the O DRB application consists of three condominium associations, Lodge.
Properties, Lodge Tower and the Lodge Apartments. To date only the Lodge Properties has signed
or approved the application.
The recently submitted survey and title report are inconsistent with the site description on the DRB
application. The survey and title report rely on "excepting out" the condominium subdivisions
of the Lodge Apartments Parcel of 1971 and the Lodge South Parcel of 1972 to establish the
"Remaining Lodge Properties Parcel". These condominium subdivisions are not land subdivisions
as defined by Title 17 Subdivisions ofthe Vail Municipal Code ( Adopted by Ordinance#4 of 1970).
I
Andy Knudtsen
Page2
November l, l995
Therefore the Lodge at Vail site should be treated as one site and not as three independent parcels,
therefore consent must be obtained from all tl:ree owners.
Now that survey and ownership information is available it is important for the Town to revisit the
issues brought up by Mr. Jack Reutzel's in his letter of February 23,1994 to Mr. Tom Moorehead.
This letter questions the reliance on a condominium subdivision to establish a "site or parce|'.
The precedent set by allowing two owners or associations sharing the same building envelope to
be treated as separate entities for the purposes ofzoning and redevelopment is confiary to the Town
of Vail regulations and common sense.
2. Failure
review.
to provide information on a timely basis to facilitate a complete and accurate
As of Friday October 27, 1995 a completed zoning analysis was neither available from the Town of
Vail or the applicant confirming existing and proposed GRFA, density, site coverage, landscape
area, and height in relation to the allowable. Reliance on the 1983 PEC approval is not acceptable
due to the many changes reflected in the current proposal. The aforementioned documents, which.
are necessary for a complete zoning analysis, are set forth and required by Section 18.54.040 ast
follows:
" B. Conceptual Design Review"
l. Submittal Requirements ...
c. SufFrcient information to show that the proposal complies with the development standards of the
zone district in which the project is to be located (i.e. square footage total, site coverage calculations,
number of parking spaces, etc.) "
"2. Staff/DRB procedure. The departrnent of community development shall check all submitted
material for compliance with applicable provisions of the zoning code, subdivision regulations and
Section 18.54.040 C Section 2... If the application is found not to be in compliance with applicable
provisions of the zoning code and Section 18.54.040C, the application and materials shall be
returned to the applicant."
\
These materials are required to be submitted four weeks prior to a scheduled review as established /
by the Town of Vail Department of Community Development Policy. Suffrcient time was not
provided for the staffor interested parties to review the appropriate documents.
3. Failure to provide complete information.
Andy Knudtsen
D4dA ?
November l, 1995
We are still awaiting copies of the following information which was requested at the October 18,
1995 If this information is not available we would request that the review be tabled until it is.
- Revised east elevation addressing issues brought up at the October 18, 1995 meeting regarding
privacy between the two buildings.
- Revised walkway planters on the east side addressing the issues brought up at the October 18,
1995 meetins.
I respectfully request that the Board delay their review until the aforementioned issues are properly
addressed.
Sincerelv.
Lynn Fritden Architect
cc: Luanne Wells and Paul Heeschen
Dr. and Mrs. Smead One Vail Place
Tom Moorehead TOV Attomey
Jack Reutzel Attomey
Jim Brown Attomey for Lodge at Vail Apartments
Town of Vail Design Review Board
Town of Vail Town Council
Anita Saltz Lodge at Vail Apartments
Stanley Shuman Lodge at Vail Apartments
David and Rhoda Narins Lodge at Vail Apartments
East Village Homeowner's Association, Jim Lamont Administrator
L19206\ANDYl027.WPD
o
February 23,1994
Tom Moorehead, Esq.
Vail Town Aftorney
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Lodge at Vail Proposed Exlansion
Dear Tom:
This memo has been prepared to address the cenftri legal issues surrounding the Lodge at
Vail proposed expansion. There are several plaruring related issues that will be bettei
addressed through the Town's review process should the need arise. This memo
addresses the following specific questions:
1- Does the crurent proposal submitted by the Lodge at vail violate the
allowable density of Comrnercial Core I?
2. Did the 1983 Agreernent between the Lodge at Vail and the Town of Vail
lawfully waive the density requirement of the subject property?
3. Has the Lodge at Vail vcsted its right to build the additional units?
1. D-oes tbe current proFosel suhmitted hy the I adge at Vail violate the
allowable density of Co$mercial Core I?
There is some confusion as to the area contained in the Lodge at vail's proposed
expansion. Nonetheless, we believe that no matter how the applicant defines the "Lot",
the density limitation of the Commersial Core I ('CCI") district has been exceeded.
There are 90 dwelling units existing today on tfte "Lotu. No matber how the Lodge at Vail
defines the geographic limitations of the "Lot", (thc 2.088 acres identified as the "Total
Rcmaining Parcel" or the2.7073 acres identified as thc Total Remaining Parcel and the
"North wing Parcel" all as defined in the applicants l9g3 memorandum to the Town
Attorney).
district. Ifthe Lodge at Vail is proposing the additional units Ln the 2.088 ame Lot fte
. : 3a3ss+=e=rl= -A3 FEE 23'94 I6zt
TomMoorehead Esq.
February 23,1994
Page Two
density is set at 52 units. If thc applioant is proposing the additional r.urits on the 2,7073
acre Lot, the density is set at 67 units. In either event the current number of existine
units exceeds the total numberpermitted by the CC I disfrict.
Some of the existing 90 dwclling units may have been conshucted prior to the adoption of
the Town's zoningregulations and therefore would be considered legally non-conforming
uses. However, those units still count against the density cap on the Lot.
The Lodge at Vail argucd in 1983 that withln a defined geographic space more than one
Lot could exist by virnre of separate owncrship of the air rights separate from the real
property. In this particular instance, for example, the Lodge at Vail seenn to argue that
the 2.088 ames is rcally 4.L76 acres for purposes of allocating density; the surface 2.088
acres and the 2.088 acres lying'above the surfacc owned by a dilferent entity. Instead of
fifty-two dwelling units, thc Lodge is entitled to 104 dwelling units on the 2.088 acreLot.
The code's deffnition of a Lot from which density is detennined is defined as:
a parcel of land occupied by a use, building or stucture under the provisions of
this title and mecting the minimr:m requirements ofthis trtle. A site may consist of
a single lot ofrecord....
Nothing in the definition gives any indication that common ownership is a requirement of
a Lot. Yet courmon ownership was the key clernent to the Lodge's rationale in 1983.
Sincc thcre rsere two separatc owners ofthe surface€state and the air estate, there had to
be two Lots, each of which were entitled to 25 units to the acre.
The logical results ofthis thinking is readily apparent. Density control has legislatively
bcen acknowledged as a lawful exorcise of a municipality's police power since it
pronotes the health, safcty and general welfare of the community (C,RS. $31-23-301
(1) . To allow npo or more ownerships to occupy the same Lot and allow each
ownership the same density rights fiushates tle purpose of density limitations recognized
by the State enabling authority and implicitly recopized by tle Town,s Code.
ln any event I believc thc Lodge at Vail's 1983 legal memorandum setting forth this
double density proposal was rejected by staff. As a rcsrilt, the Lodge at Vail tbreatened
o
o-
Tom Moorehead, Esq.
February 23,1994
Page Three
suit and the Town executed an agreement purporting to waive the density requirernent. If
the Town staffagreed with the Lodge's position expressed in a memo from its attorney to
the thEn Town Attomey, there would have been no need to execute an agreement
resolving "the dispute [relating] to whether certain of the dwelling units of the Lodge
Aparhnent Condominiums located on a parcel of air space above the real properfy owned
by the Lodge, is athibutable to tbe land owned by tlre podgel,"
2. nid the 1q83 Agreement between the Lodge at Vail and the TqWn of Vail
lawfullywaive the density rerluireFent of the suhject property.
The Agrecment waivcs the <iensity contol section of the Commercial Core I Distict in -
violation of state stahrtes and was done for no other purpose but to relieve a particular
property from the restriction of zoning regulations. As a resulf the 1983 Agrcement is
ultra-vines to the state enabling legislative and the Town Code and is therefore void.
It is well settled in Colorado that conhacts executed by municipal corporations in which
there was a failurc to comply with the mandatory provisions of the applicable statutes or
charters are void. (Swedhrnd v. Denverjoint Stocklandlank of Denver. et a1., 118
P.2d.464, Colo. 1941.)
Colorado Revised Statutcs, $31-23-301 (1), empowen municipalities to, among other
things, regulate and restrict height number of stories, size of buildings, the size of yards,
the density ofpofulation and the use of buildings, stuctures and land. This same section
also requires that such regulations "shall provide for a board of adjustment that may
determine and vary their application in harmony with their general purpose and intent and
in accordance with general or specific nrles contained in such regulations."
State law furttrer mandates that Board of Adjushents hear and decide all matters upon
which it is required to pass under ordinance (C.R.S. 53l'23-307} The Town's Zoning
Code had in place in 1983, and today, a procedure for granting variances ltom the literal
int€rpretation of the Zoning Code, including densify, where a hardship would result.
(Town Code Section 18.62.010) Section 18.62.010 (13) of the Town Code vests
jurisdiction to grant variances from the provisions of the Zoning Code with the
3@3F;9'43FJ31, t o{}.'=FEB 23' 9.1 L@2 @
Tom Moorehead, Esq'
FebruarY 23,1994
Page Four
plaruring commission. Applicants for a varianco mu$l cgmply wrth the criteria found in
Section 18.62.060 ortae rown code. The Lodge at vail failed to^follow mandated
p-""Jur., for obtaining the density variance ant therefore, the 1983 agleement is invalid
and rmenforceable.
The Town is not estopped from furding the 1983 Agreement unenforceable because of a
line of cases statingthat cstoppel against a municipal corporation may not be utilized by a
pri.ru* p*ty if the nunicipuicorpotttion ftnds a previouslylxecuted agreement invalid"
---r--rt-.^+^^r.r-+rasntiianT'ticrrinJ., N.rrmandvEstatesLimited,5i4P.2d'(See Normandy x,states M€rroPottran ursu'r;rw
805, Colo. APP., 1975.)
Notudthstauding the ulta-vires nature of the Agreernent, if given its litBrat reading' the
Agreement is contract ""trt e in vio]1ti91.orfllfibfished case^!1: !?t:,$*:alcJlt
sf Boulder, 362P.2d 160, Colo. 1961; Kingq Miu Homeowne$ ^sBW".*t""a 557 P2d li86; Colo. tgZO; aua rnfonrration Please' Inc.
ffimis.io"L"s of Motgat County, 600 P.zd 86, Colo' App' 1979') Thc Agreement
p"{p"rtr t" -"ire Ue 6ity t quit...ol within Commercial Core I for th.e Lodge at
Vail. No other property *ititi" |Ct n* been given rclief from the density requirement
fite ttre Lodge at VAL'gy wui"ing the density requirement, the Town Council, through
its Town Miuager, has roiieved t6i todge at Vail from the restriction of zoning
,"g,rlutioor, thereUy creating for all intents and purposes a dificrent zone'
3.noes.the Indge at Vail have a v ?
prior to 19g?, Colorado was one of the number of states that recoglized a vested property
right only upon substantial reliance on the issuance of a vahd building permit aDd-a
substantial step toward "o*ptttion
of the project. (see P-rf\/ Tnvestnents' Tnc' v' Citv of
We.stminster, 3SS p.Zd t:Oi, Coto. 1982, Clinev. City of RQultu,4.50 P '2d 335, Colo'
116r.) Th;e rcq,rirements *"r" not and, to date, have rot been satisfied by the Lodge at
vail. The 1983 Planning and Environmental commission approval of the exterior
modification in 1983 car-e does not vest the project. No building permit was ever issued
uvm"TovmorreliedonbytheLodge.Re{gceonthePlanningandEnvironmental
Commission approval in tigf as a site specific dcvelopment plan, thereby statutory
vesting the rights must fail sincc there was no stafttory vesting possible in 1983'
o,-o
Tom Moorehead, Esq.
FebnrarY 23,1994
Page 5
' I would be happy to provide you with additional information in any of the issues
discussed abo* ityou determine it necessary. Thank you in advance for your
consideration'
Very tnrlY Yours,
DEUTSCH, SPILLANE & REUTZEL, P.C.
Jack E. Reutzef
JERji
d{'r,€LLA ;
' it,-1 t
I it-{i
It"
.- i4'+
I
it##"'i
" Siii
-f
;l'
Easr Vrr HonanowNERS Ass
ofiicers: President - Bob Galvin Secretary - Gretta Parks Treasurer - patrick Gramrn
Directors - Judith Berkowitz - Dolph Bridge*ater - Ellie Caulkins - Ron Langley - Bill Morton - Connie fudder
To:Town of Vail
Design Review Board
Town Council
From: Jim Lamont, Administrator
Date: October 17, 1995
RE: Lodge at Vail, International Wing, as proposed
DRB Application, October 18, 1995
' Please be advised of the following recommendations that are offered for your consider-
ation in review of the Lodge at Vail, International Wing, as proposed.
1. The scale of the proposed structure adjacent to the passage way between One Vail
Place and the International Wing, as proposed, should be equivalent to the passage way between
One Vail Place and the Hill Building. The International Wng, as proposed, should stair step
down towards the One Vail Place passage way and Eaton Plaza. The width of the passage-way
between One Vail Place and the International Wing, as proposed, should be the same widih as ihe
passage way between the Hill Building and the Golden Peak House. The passage way should be
a minimum of 25 feet. Design should allow for a qualitative or adequate pedestrian circulation
around the building. The building design should anticipated and be compatible with an in-filling of
the parking areas located south of the proposed building site that would provide for a plaza giv-
ing direct access between the Village and the Mountain. Should the Land Exchange site develop-
ment option not be exercised, allowable GRFA can be relocated to lower floors, thus lowering the
profile of the building. There appears to be no requirement in the zoning contract with the Town
of Vail that it must approved adjunct uses such as convention facilities.
2 A different roof style should be employed, without resort to dormers, so that view
blockages from surrounding residential units and public walkways of Vail Mountain and the Gore
Range are decreased, The cathedral ceiling roofcovering the penthouse unit is excessive, it
should be substantially reduced in order to lower the apparent building height. The proposed
roof forms increases shadowing on pedestrian walkways and public plazas. A different roof form
could cause less shadowing. The privacy of, or view from, existing residential units should not
be diminished The upper most floor should be removed as it appears to exceed the height
requirement.
3, Flat roofs are neither encourage or allowed in Vail Village, the building should con-
form to the 40%o/60%o height and sloping roof requirements of the Vail Village Urban Design
Guidelines. The architectural design attributes of the proposed structure should be reviewed for
compliance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guidelines by the Town of Vail professional de-
sign review consultant. All buildings in Vail Village and many others having lesser impacts, have
been required to be reviewed for compliance by the Town of Vail's design consultant.
4 The roofterrace should be removed in order to maintain the privacy ofadjacent resi-
dential units. The size of terrace allows for large social gatherings which are inappropriate at this
level ofthe building, given the adjacency ofresidential units and the failure ofthe applicant to
provide privacy screens.
Post Officc Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658
Telephone: (970) 827-5680 Message/FAX; (970) 827-5856
5. How will noise and odor from building exhausts and mechanical systems be handled?
Will they interfere with residential quality of adjacent residential units? Adequate protections
should be given to surround residential and commercial properties from these factors..
6. Building should conform to the design requirements of the Vail Village Master Plan,
which requires commercial uses to be located at the plaza level. Parking for the building should
be required to be located underground on the site.
The Homeowners Association requests that all substantive design standards and review re-
quirement be imposed upon this application as they have been imposed upon all other buildings
of similar size and scope that have undergone development within Vail Vifiage in recent years.
The Homeowners Association requests the foregoing within the ethical context of advocating
equal treatment and standards for all property owrers within the same zone district. Failure io
prot ide for equal treatment and standards has the potential to seriously undermine the ethical in-
tegrity and intellectual authority of the public design review process within the Town of Vail.
RNrrR SRLTZ ]r- ruo.eel4 967J14?O trr 26,ss 15 r 12 P.01
D*lgp Revlsw Borrd
TorYnCoundl
Septenber2l,l9!ll
VIAFA)(TO lg7Ot47}.?A5Z
AI{DYIAREGGUIJ\RMAIL
Me.SurrnConnelly
Comr-unity Developeinent Director
Towaof Vdl
75 South Enorrtege Roed
Vell,Colurdo 81657
Re Intemrtionalwing etThc Lodge etVeil
DerrMe. Coonclly;
My husband, frck end I hevc bcerr the ownerc of Condomlnisn ltl-S9 tt
The l-odge at Vall slnce 1986. Druing this time wc hrve enjoyed the chrrnro
and fectlldee of the Town of Vall end Vdl mounteln both in winter end
rnDDeL Thc vlew thet we enfoy fion our condoniniun io vcry lnpctant
both to our q{ruty of llfe end to the nonetery ydus 6f 6ru rnlt .
!ft-r we rccognlze lhetLodge ftoperdee heo rrequlrenent to cxprnd
theirfacilidea end thereby Increerc theirprofitr, we rtlongly feel thet Ore
neede of dl Vdl pmpcrty owtrerB end cltlz€Ds nnet be concld€lrd. We
ffnrefolr reccommend drrtthc thlrdflooretrurtute be rcrnove4 and fire
butldtng be pulled beck rt lerot 2!i feeet 6on Vell One Plece, co es to .llow
for edeqnrte pedeetrlencirculedon end vlewo fron Fouaderc plua"
Slncelely.
Anita Saltz
k^c^!!tok'al<^
15146 rnclsa* & crlMPfl'ff &rQr#lTtrtlb1r
gt*ul4 t.ttudr*
at S4.q&ut
$tSagr.$t.[.muz
rAx(970) &e-usa
octob€ 17,1995
Ivls. S\rsanConndly
Connunity Dorclopmcnt Director
TowaofVail '
T5.SouthFroutggc Rord
Vail, Coluado 81657
'' Deer lv{s. Connelly:
re: Iff€f,uetioual Wng at The Indg6 at Vait
I am the owncr of Coadominium 35.3-365 at the Lodge. l"{yq'ifc
Sydnoy, our four sons, and f speod a good dcal'of tino throughouttleyear :
cnjoyiug *o *onders of vait. we have an uneucrrnbeircd viov of tbe Village
a"l nOu"t"i" Ao. our unit which is on the upper soritheast corncr of tto
Lodge looking past wrldflowcr and ovrr wbat is crrtr'emlythe International
Wrng (Xerox picuue eos.losed)
Although I ara a direstor of The Lodgo Gondoaiuium Oqmerc
Association, I amvniting solely in my individral capacity as s unitbwnatr. AA
you koo#; the Associaioa is a mcmbcr ofthc Esst \lillage Homeowaers
essociatioD, 8od EVIIA has alrcady expreeed maoy couccrns whicb I sharg;
Although it is in the interest of Lodge Propatiee to increase thdr profitebility
Uy crca:tne additional facilitics, the locatio4 design sod scale ofthixe ftcilities
should be plaoned witb consideration for atl affected parties and thb cifizgry
as a wholc.
r; r..ii.ii.ri. .'-. : i... . ..
1s346 r{F| ' ex & cr}trFFff r0 0 sts?ffi6 P.@,
Ms. Suoan ConncllY
Town of Vail
Page2
Wirh this pcrspec'tive in min{ t would hope tbat tbs DRB will look at
the proposed design in conformanco with its own'pcrbrmaaco re$tr€oqots
witt roipect to scale, roof desig!, the rcquircmcotg tbat congcrcidl usc bc
lisitcrl to plaza levelg rmderground parkiog to be located at thc sita, requirod
pessagc wsys bctwoen adjacem structures' €fc'
To the escnt poesible, views ovcr, and pivacy of, €Ndtting resideotiat
udts should a61!s,riminish.i- It would appoai ttat tte upper mos! floor
errc€€ds the het€b requiremeol, a-od the Peottroussunit itselfis a lutcry th4t
sarvoe targely to most the hubrir ofthc ow*r. It Sould be rcnovcd in ordcr
to redrce the bnrilding height.
I bave beeo'irprcsscd with the continrod:efforts ofthe DRB and ttlo
. Toqrn Council to €ncourags cnlightcoed dwdopnent in tbs rouat and I subnit '
riese comnats with tho hopo that tboy will b€ of rssistaco to you in the
': oourEpofyoursoosideratisaoftleproposedlctersaiomlwtng, .' !' : "'
Verytruly Yours,
Stairlcy S. Shdan
4/*.+
enclosr.uo
0cT, -18'95ilfEDl l5:56 on. limt-nlvls AvE TEL:el4oOooo P. 002
DavidJ. Norhs, M.D.
Rhda S. Naths, M.D.
Thc l-oilge at Vail #535
174 East Gorc Creek'Drive
VaiI, Colorufu 81657
Octobcr 2, 1995
Ms. Susau ConnellY
Commuaity DeveloPmcnl Director
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 8L657
rc: Proposed Inlernational Wing at The Lodgc at Vail
Dear Ms. ConnellY:
we havc owned coudominium 535 at the Lodge at vail since 1985- Aftcr having skied
at Vail since its opening ycar and affer looking for many years' we purchased this
condomiaium for its locaf,on and parlicllarly for its vicw of thc Gore rauge' Our family
l*s enjoyea spcnding time in Vaii in both summcr and witrler and feel thal lhe cbarm of
Vail \riinage is in irs scale ana phnned usc of spaco. As condominium owrers in the Lodge
at Vail, *-. hrlre an irtcrest inihc conrinuetl prolitability of the Lodge, but feel that there
should be a design which does nor impact so tregatively on sg mPy peoplc'
The dcsigJof thc proposed International Wing at ihe Lodge goes counler to the
planning we have Seen in offu, p^tt. of the Village- ft is a large stn
-cture,
whose height
is out of scale with the surrounrling open sPece. The " Presidential suite' to bc built oa
the roof of the structure will "e"Jtli q""iity of life iu Vail for us as wcll as markedly
decrca.se the monc{aql value of our propcify .ta thst of rhe surrounding condoaniniums in
the Lodge and adjacenl buildings. we have been shorrn photograpbs of the views fiom our
windowi which we feel arc raisleading. The architects have drewn in the outlisc of tbe
proposed buildiug, but the line d,rawings they prosctrled do trot refleA the mass of a twO
itoryt*"t rru wtricU wiU be truilt only tea yards frorO our liwing area and the faA tbat the
.oof desig-r, calls for a large terrace whjch will be used fs1 sltsrteining located only feet
from our window. An area in soch Proximity to living sPace is inappropriate for such use'
ocT. -18' 95(rT[0] r5:57 nn.lllil-nlvls lvn
-2-
lVe would have uo objecion to a design erfuigh sliminates thc 'Presidential Suite' and
any building above rhe forrrb floor of the existi4g Lodgc building, climinates the roof area
". "
pot"otiit cdertainilg site and givcs adequate dcarance lo bc building to the East' We
*ooid be happy ro *ork rowards finiliag a tlcsign which would satisfy thc economic
considerations
-of tl" Loage and would presenfe thc quality of life that so many of us have
sought by buying in Vail Village.
We ate rnernbcrs of the East Vail Home Owncrs.Arsociation end arc endosing a copy
of somc of lhe crrnccrns raised by the association with whic'h we agrec. These oonoerns
should be addressed at the dcsig1 teview public hcaring. We arc sure that a salisfacrory
solution to this problem cal bc found sincc there arc so many people who would likc to
find a way to use this important aras at the bass of the mounlain to benefit all conoerned,
TE[,e14 0IOOO P, 003
Sincerely,
Rhoda aad David Narins
OCT. -18' 95{lfED) l5:57 un.Hln;-olvrsAvt TEL:el4oOooo
-3-
Conccms of the East Vall Homeowncn Assoclatlon whlch should be consldered ln
the deslgn review public hearing
Thc ssrlc of the proposed struc'turc adjaoent to the passagewey belweel One Vail
Placs and lhe International Wing as proposed should be equivdent to lhe Pirssage
between One Vail Place and lhe HiII Building. The International wing as proposed
should stair slep down towards thc Onc Vail Place Passegeway and Eaton Plrzn-
The width of the passageway between Ole Vail Placc and thc proposed International
Wing sbould be the same width as the passageway between lhe llill Building and the
Golden Peak House- (A minimum of 25 feet)-
The roof should be Hipped with no domrers so that vicw bloclcages from sorrouudilg
rcsidcntial uuits and public walkways arc minimized-
Tbere should be no terrace spaco otr the roof of tbe second Ievel iu order lo maintain
privacy of adjacent residenrial units- The size ofthe terraoe would allow for large social
gathering.c which are inappropriate at thi$ teve, of thc buildiug.
How will the noise aad odor from building cxhaust aDd elevators be handled? Will
they iuterfere wift &e resideutial quality of the adjacent units. (This has been a
problem in the Lodgc in tbe past).
Thc buitding should conform to rtre 40Val607a heighl requirement of the Vail Villagc
Design Guidelines-
The proposed roofincreases shadowing on pedaslrian areas and public plazas. A
Hipped roof would be less shadowirg.
Building should conform to thc dcsign requircmcEts of the VaiI Village Master Plan,
which requires commercial uses to be localed at lhe plaza level, .
Desiga should allow for a qualitalive or adequate pedestrian circulation around lhc
building.
The buildittg design should be compaliblc with as iu-filling of the parking arcas
located south ofthc proposed building site.
The lwo story third lloor 'Presideutial Suite' should be removed,
Parking for thc buildiag should be required to be located underground oo the site,
P.004
JAT'IES FRANKI.- I H LAl'IONT B€BE2?E636oo
EVHA FAX TRANSMISSION
P.el
To: Judy RodriguEz
From: Jim Lamont, Administrator
Date: Tuesday, October 17,1995
Ifyou do not receive all pagcs, pleasc contact:
3 pagee including cover.
ANOV
a-
East Village Homeowners Association
Post Office Box 23E
Vail, Colorado 81658
Phone Number: 303 -827-S 680
Fax Number: 303-827-5856
Subjcct: Intcmational Wing, as proposod, DRB application, publio hearing 10118i9i
Special Instruction: Please review and respond as appropriate.
Iudy: Would you please forward this letter to the,appropriate staffmember. I wanr in included in
the official record and presented to the Dedgn Review Board as well ss the the Town Council, rvhen the
matter is brought before each entity. Thank you.
JAl'IE5 FRANKLIH LAFTONT 383A2?3856
EasrVIlu HovtpowNt R$TION INC.
Bob Galvin ffifE ?ArkS Tlerswcr - Prtnck
Judrtht€rkowltz-l)otpnbnoE€uatcr-EulecaulhinJ-RurLarrglvl-Drlllvlvttgn'connicRiddcr
P-92
utrlccrs:
Directtrr
To: Town of Vail
Dcsign Review Board
Town Council
From: Jim Lamont, Administrator
f)nte: October 17, 1995
RE: Lodge at Vail, International Wing, as proposed
DRB APPlication, October 18, 1995
please be advised of the following recomnendations rhat are offered for yuur r,uillirJvr-
ation in review of rhe Lodge at Vail, Intcmational Wing, as proposcd'
I The scale of the proDosed structrue adjacent to the passage wav between One Veit
Place and the Intemational Wing, as proposed, should be equivalent to the.passage way between
One Vail place end the llill euiiaing. The International Wng, as proposed, should starr step
down lowards the One Vail Place pissage way and Eaton Plaza. The width of the passage wa1'
between Orre Vail Placc and thc Iniemaiional Wing' a3 proposcd, should be the same width as the
p.i*gu way between the Hill Building rnd t[r GoiOen Peak House. The passage way should bc
a mrnimum of 25 ftet. Design strouldallo*'for a qualitative or adequate pedcstliarr uirculaliuu
around thc building. The building design should aniicipated and be Compatible u'ith an in-filling of
itre putclng areas licated south oTthe ploposed_ building site that would qrg"iqe tbr a plaza giv-
ing birect iccess bet*cen the Village an ihe Mountain Should the Land Exchange site dwelop-
iiifui"l,i,ii"" ""rbe
exercised, alloriable GRFA can be relocated to lower floors, thus lowering the
fron.tf tn" building. Theri appears to he no requirement in the_zoning contract with the To*n
bf Vail that it musr a-pproved adjunct uses such as convention facilities.
2 A different roof style should be employed, without resort_to dormers, so that view
blockages fiom surrounding iesidendal units and-publiu watkways uf Vail Mourttaiu and the Gore
Range'are decreased. Thicathedral ceiling roofcovering the peqllrgusg unit is excessive, it
shou-ld be substantially reduced in order to lower the apparent building heighl. I he propos-e{
roof forms increases ihadowinc on pedestrian waikways and public plazas, A different roof form
could ca-irse less shadowing, fhe privacy o{ or view from, existing residential units should not
be diminished. The rrpper nrost floor should be removed as it appears to exceed the height
requirement.
3. Flat roof$ are neither encourage or allowed in Varl Village, the building should con'
form to the 4Oo/o/6OY'o heigh and sloping roof requirementu of dte Vail Village Utbarr Dcsigu_
G:idelines. The architeoural desigrr attributes of tbe proposed sfucture should be revewed for
compliance with the Vail Villagc Urban Desigtt Guidelines by the Town oJ-Vail protesstonal de-
sign retniew consultant. All buildings in Vail Village and manyothers having lesser irnpacts, have
bien required to be reviewed tbr compliance by the Town of Vail's design consultant.
4. Thc roof tenace should bc rcmoved in order to maintain the privacy of adjacent resi-
deptial units. Thc size of teracc allows for largo social gathcrings u'hich arc inappropriatc ot this
level ofthe building, given the adjacency ofresidential units Nnd the failure ofthe applicant to
provide privacy screens.
Pust Oflist Eer 238 Vail, Colorado B16!8
Tclcphonc: (970) E27-5680 Mcssage/ltAX: (970) t27-5850
FRAHKL I Fi L AT4ONT
5. How will noise and odrrr fiom builcling exhattsts and mechanical systemg be handled?
Will rhey intErfere with residential quality of adjacent residential units? Adequale protectioug
shuuld Lrc given to sruround rcsidential and commcrcial properties from these factors..
6. tsuilding $hould conform to the design requir€ments afthe Vail Village Mastel Plan,
which requires conmercial uses lo be located at the plaza level. Parking for the building should
be required to be located underground on the $ite.
The Homeowners Association requests that all substantive design standards and review re-
quircment bc imposcd uFon thi$ application as they have bean imposed trpon all other hrrildings
of similar size and scope that have undergone development within Vail Village in rscent ,€ars
The Homeowners Associatio rc(lue$t$ the foregoing within the ethical contcxt of odwocoting
equal trertment and standards for all propefi.v owners within the same zone district. Failure to
provide for equal treatm.ent and standards has the potential to seriously undermine the etbical in-
tegrity and intellectual authority of the public design review proc€s$ within the Town of Vail
98275As6
o
3ANTIES
o
P. SE
-,---\ JAI'IES FRANKLIH LAI'lOhlT 3Bge2?5e56f[Y-)r,-il hfi' fWry,trV'1 \JII'
EVHA FAX TRANSMISSION
3 pagee including cover.
To: Judy RodriguEz
From: Jim Lamont, Administrator
Date: Tuesday, October 17, L995
Ifyou do not receive all pages, plcasc contact:
Fast Village Homeowners Association
Post Office Box 238
Vail, Colorado 81658
Phone Number: 303-827 -5680
Fax Number 303-827-5856
Subject: Intcrnational Wing, as proposcd, DRB application, public healing 10i 18i9i
Special Instruction: Please review and respond as appropriate.
Judy: Would you piease fonward this letter to the,appropriate staffmember. I u'ant in included in
the official record and pres€nted to the Design R.eview Board as '*'ell es the the Toutr Council, rvhen the
matter is brought before each entitv. Thank you.
P.At
JAI4ES FRAHKLIN LAT'IOHT 38882?s456 P -@2
EesrVu,uOE HonrowNnns TroN, lxc.
Officcrs: Fteudent - Bob Galrtr Secreta,l - Grcna Purks Ttcrsr:rer - ?atnck Gratun
Direcrofr - Judith Berko*itz - Do)ph tsrldgcuttsr - ljllrc gaul$ns - Kon Lutie\ - Dill Nlonon - Cofulle Rldder
To: Tcvn of Vail
Dcsign Rcvicw Buarrl
TiNVn Council
From: Jim Lamont, Administrator
Date: I'Jctoher l?, 1995
RE: Lodgc at Vsii, Intcrtrtltional Wing, os prooosed
DRB Application, October 18, 1995
ptrease be advised of the following recommendatlons that are otlered for your consider-
ation in revierv of the Lodge at Vail, International Wing, as propcsed.
1 The scale of the proposed stnrctrrre adjacent to the passage r,r'ay betu'een One Vail
place and the Intemational Wing, as proposed, should be eguivalent to the passage rvay between
Ono Vail Flace and the IIill Building.- Thc Intcrnotional Wing, as proposed" shou-ld stair stop
jown torards the One Vail Place passage way and Eaton Plaza. The ra'idth of the passage way
benryeen One Vail Place arld the Intematianal Wing, as proposed, sltuultl bc tltc sattts width as ths
or".er rvay betrveen the Hill Building and the Crojaen Peak Housc. fhe passage rtey should be
i min"i111*n'of 25 feet. Desigo should allorv tbr a qualrtattve or adequate pedestrian u'irculation
around the building. lire buiiding design should aniicipated and be compatible with an in-filling of
ift" p"t6og "*as
iiicated south of the prop.osed buitding site thal would qr.ovide for a plaza giv-
lng iirecr iccess bet*'.un the Village. and_the Mountain. Should the Land Exchangc site derrelop-
mEnt option not be exercised, alloriable GRFA can be relocated to lorver floors, thus lowering the
froCtc oe tlc building. Thcrc oppears to t,e no requirernent in the.zoning contract rvith the Town
btV"it that it musr approved adjunct uses such as convention tbcilities.
2- A different rocf style should be employed, qithout resort to dormers, so th4t view
blockages ftom surrounding iesidentral uruts and public walkways of Vail Mountain and the Gore
nung"-aru decreased. The cathedral ceiling roof covering the penthouse unil is excessive, it .
lfto,ia U"
"uUstantially
reduced in order to lower the appuent building height T-he propos-ed
roof foroas increases ih^rt,:t*ing on pedestrian walkwa)'s and public pl:rzas. A different roof form
could cause less shadowing. itre piivacy of, or view from. existing residential units should not
bc diminished, Thc uppcr most lloor shculd be removed os it appears to exceed the height
requiremcni.
j" Flat roofs are neither encourage or allowed in Vail Village, the building should. ccn'
form to tte 4Qo/oi6oo/o height and sloping ioof requr€ments of the Vall Village. Urban Design^
Cn idetines The architectiral designattiibutes of the proposed structure should be reviewed for
oontpfi*r* with the Vail Village Urban Design.Cruidelines b,v the To*-n of Vail professionalde'
sicn reuie.v consultan:. AJI buiicings in Vail Village and rrany others ha'ring lesse.r impacrs, have
bin reguired to be rerierred for compliance by the Toun of Vail's design consultant.
4. The roof terrase should be removed in older to nainrain the privacy of adjacent resi-
dential units. The size of terEce allows for large social gatherings which are inappropriate at this
levet ofthe building, given the adjacency ofresidentialunits and the failure ofthc applicant to
provide pdvacy screens.
Post Olfrce Box 23E Varl, Colorado Ul65t(
Jelephor:e: (970) 827-i6S0 MessagerTAX: (9?01 827-5856
ES FRAHKL t I.I LAT'IDNT 2?5956 P. s3JAf,Io E3Ao
5. llow rvill noig,e and odor from buiiding exhausts and mechanical syste;r:s be hnndled?
Will they interfere rvith residential qualiry of aijacent residential uni$? Adequate protccl,ions
should be giveu to surruuutl residential end cottulcrsiai propcrtics from thcsc factors..
6. Building shouid conrbrm to the deslgn requirements of the vail \,'illage Ma$er Plan,
which require$ c{)mmercial uses 10 be located at the plaza level. Parking for the building should
be required to be located underground c'n the site.
The Hcmeor:vners Association requests that all substantive design standuds and revierv re-
quiremcnt be imposcd upon this applicotion es they have been imposed upon all other buildinge
cf simitar size and scope that have urrdergone development rvithin Vail Village in recent years.
The Homeorvners Association rcgue$s the forcgoing wiihin the ethical context of advocating
equal treatment and standards for all propeny ouners within the same zcne district. Failure to
provide for equal treatmeDt and standards has the potential to seriously underrnine the ethical in-
iegrity and intellectuaL authority of the public design review process within the Town of \rail.
l0l16,.96 lZi36 !'4.f,
lL.
9704784901 !'RII'ZLEN PIERCE '-' T'OV rd 001
Fritzlen Pierce Briner
October 15, 1995
Andy Knudtsco
Senior Planner
Town of Vail Planning Dept.
75 S. Frontage Rd.
Vail Colorado 81657
re: Lodge at Vail
Intemational Wing Addition
P.0. f,ojr 57 o Vdit Colordo 61658 . 303476-6342 . Fax: 38476'4901
.\,v
V',s,1,-t
Dear Andy,
on behaif of LuannE \1'e11s, of One Vail Place I have the following comments.
As you are oware we have filed a forma! protest with your departrrent arguing the validity of the
zoning of this proposed pmject' Torn Moorehead has told mc th* @
ug"rryg$ thut gr*tr tn uCOitio*t O he agreement does state thal thc project requiles
compliance with the DRB application and review process.
A review oft6e Lodge Propertics proposal is scheduled this Wednesday, October 18 at the regularly
scheduled, DRts meeeting. We do not intend to debate the tecbnical aspests of tbe zoning at this
meeting but we do have the following:
l. To datc a complctc and curent surv'ey has not been submitted to the Town a.s is required by
Section 1E.54.040, Section C, rlivision A of tlre Trrwn of Vail Zontng Code' The 1982 survey
submitted by the applicant does not reflect curre$t building height, location or toglgraphy tror does
it meetthe other recluirements of Section C. Most importantly the lot area and the legal description
are not stated on the suwey. A partial survey, showing miscellaneous grade elevations is not
appropriatc given tle scope'ofthis projcct.Once this survey has been prepared tbe proposed "site
pl;" ; detined in Section C should be superimposed ovcr the surveyorrs information'
The survey and site ptan should be submitted fo'.r rveeks in advance of a scheduled review, as is
required for all applications so that all interested parties may have an adequate oppom:nity to rpvierv
the documcnts.
-t nIV
R)r, d_t--
LA/I8iS6 12:36 FAX
a.
Andy Knudtsen
Page 2
October 16, lS95
9704764901 FRITZLEN PIERCE
o
T0v qAoo2
/)t-,v,
2. The title reporr submitted does not match the legal description on the application. Since a recent
surv€y has not been submitted iX i,s not possible to correlate thcse two. Thc title report excepts out
several parcels that are not excepted out on the application or on what survey information is
available- It is my belief ihat the property stated on the applicatioq Parcels A.B and Q is o\rued by
a numkr of entiries furctuding tbe Lodge Properties aad the application should tre submitted jointly
by the Lodge Propcrties, Lodge Commercial and Rcsidential Condorninium Associations and
Lodge Tower Association. Without a survey refiecting the boundarics of these excepted parcels
or the Lodge Properties parcel it is not possible to determ.ine if title report is accurate and if the
Lodge Properties aione is the qualified applicant.
3. As of this date the staff has not prol.ided a zoning ruz[ysis to the publio confirming conforntonce
wrth allowed GRFA, paxking, height, site col'erage, exteriorlighting, landscaping. Also I have not
seen an analysis by a Town of Vail representative in regards to conformance rvith the Urban Design
Guildelines that are applicable for this district. We are requesting that this information be made
available to neighborlng propeily owners at least four weeks in advance ofa scheduled hearing in
order to have adequate opportunity to leview the documents.
cc: Luarure Wells
"Iim Lamont, East Village llomeow:rcr's Association
Anira Saltz
Jack Reutzel AttorneY
Frank Heeshin
Jim Brown AttonreY AttorneY
Tom Moc'relread TOV AttomcY
L r92o.i.ANDY I0!6.WPD
Sinccrcly,
0CT- 2-95 l'l0N 13:05 D nt
o
Facsimile Cover Sheet
To: DEs/G f\t rLEV{Eu Bonag
Company: .TO a.r Lt Lau A,C f (
Phone:
Fax: 411 2-<F.S L
FfOm: H. J. Smead
GornPanY: -.:' ;;'l ..ol
Phone: (970) 479-9433
Fax: (970) 476-3820
Date: tDlzl?S
Pages includlng
this cover Pagc: L
Gomments
tfE i aNtTEtrau+rtonrAL 4rtrVC -T&E LoO6E
October 2,1995 Via fa<: 479-2452
Design Review Board
Town Council
Ms. Susan Connelly
Community Development Director
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Co. 81657
Ref International Wing of The Lodge at Vail
Dear Ms. Connelly,
We are owners of Codominium nunber 2 at On€ Vdl Plarc, 2M Wall Street, and spand
a great deal of time here in the Vail Valley. We understand that change is necessary for
the growth and vitality of the Valley, but we are extremely concerned with the impact of
the proposed expansion of The Lodge.
Having reviewed the 14 concerns of the East Vail Homeowners Associatiorl we share and
support their concems and most certainly support the elimination ofthe tbird floor of the
proposod structure. It is also very important that ttre stnrcture be Fllad back at l€ast 25
feet &orn One Veil Place to allowfor adeWac pede*rian circrdation and viws from
Fqmdens Plaza.
Your eforts in reviewing projects and allowing only the projects that are compatible with
the neighborhood are appreciated.
Very truly yours,
f f A -^
+L (l A.^.4
H. J. Smead t
W
Ann Becher-Smead
ils es(THU) o8:JS DR, NARrNSdvrs AVE TEL:el4 682di6 P. OO I
t\t Srsc
fton^
,$tadrg 5.${nraunr
7lr U)itt\.Anrme
$rn Urrr,S.[.muzr
FAX (970) 479-24s2
October 17,1995
Ms. Susan Connelly
Community Development Director
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Ms. Connelly:
re: International Wing at The Lodge at Vail
I am the owner of Condominium 363-365 at the Lodge. My wife
Sydney, our four sons, and I spend a good deal oftime throughout the year
enjoying the wonders of Vail. We have an unencumbered view of the Village
and mountain from our unit which is on the upper southeast corner of the
Lodge looking past Wildflower and over what is currently the International
Wing (Xerox picture enclosed).
Although I am a director of The Lodge Condominium Owners
Association, I am writing solely in my individual capacity as a unit owner. As
you know, the Association is a member of the East Village Homeowners
Association, and EVHA has already expressed many concerns which I share.
Although it is in the interest of Lodge Properties to increase their profitability
by creating additional facilities, the location, design and scale ofthese facilities
should be planned with consideration for all affected parties and the citizenry
as a whole.
*l
!
Ms. Susan Connelly
Town of Vail
Page2
With this perspective in mind, I would hope that the DRB will look at
the proposed design in conformance with its own performance requirements
with respect to scale, roof design, the requirements that commercial use be
limited to plaza levels, underground parking to be located at the site, required
passage ways between adjacent structures, etc.
To the extent possible, views over, and privacy of, existing residential
units should not be diminished. It would appear that the upper most floor
exceeds the height requirement, and the Penthouse unit itselfis a luxury that
serves largely to meet the hubris of the owner. It should be removed in order
to reduce the building height.
I have been impressed with the continued efforts of the DRB and the
Town Council to encourage enlightened development in the town, and I submit
these comments with the hope that they will be of assistance to you in the
course of your consideration of the proposed International Wing.
Very truly yours,
-"/fu, {fu^--
Stanley S. Shuman
enclosure
0 1995
rOV'miliU1'pfy'D,qPJ"
Rhoda S. Narins, M.D.
The Indge at Vail #535
174 East Gore Creek Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
October 2.1995
Ms. Susan Connelly
Communiw Development Director
Town ot Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail. Colorado 81657
re: Proposed International Wing at The Lodge at Vail
Dear Ms. Connelly:
We have owned Condominium 535 at the Lodge at Vail since 1985. After having skied
at Vail since its opening year and after looking for many years, we purchased this
condominium for its location and particularly for its view of the Gore range. Our famity
has enjoyed spending time in Vail in both summer and winter and feel that the charm of
Vail Village is in its scale and planned use of space. As condominium owners in the Lodge
at Vail, we have an interest in the continued profitability of the Lodge, but feel that there
should be a design which does not impact so negatively on so many people.
The design of the proposed International Wing at the Lodge goes counter to the
planning we have seen in other parts of the Village. It is a large structure, whose height
is out of scale with the surrounding open space. The " Presidential Suite" to be built on
the roof of the structure will affect the quality of life in Vail for us as well as markedly
decrease the monetary value of our property and that of the surrounding condominiums in
the Lodge and adjacent buildings. We have been shown photographs of the views from our
windows which we feel are misleading. The architects have drawn in the outline of the
proposed building, but the line drawings they presented do not reflect the mass of a two
story structure which will be built only ten yards from our living area and the fact that the
roof design calls for a large terrace which will be used for entertaining located only feet
from our window. An area in such proximity to living space is inappropriate for such use.
-2-
We would have no objection to a design which eliminates the "Presidential Suite" and
any building above the fourth floor of the existing Lodge building, eliminates the roof area
as a potential entertaining site and gives adequate clearance to be building to the East. We
would be happy to work towards finding a design which would satisry the economic
considerations of the Lodge and would preserve the quality of life that so many of us have
sought by buying in Vail Village.
We are members of the East Vail Home Owners Association and are enclosing a copy
of some of the concerns raised by the association with which we agree. These concerns
should be addressed at the design review public hearing. We are sure that a satisfactory
solution to this problem can be found since there are so many people who would like to
find a way to use this important area at the base of the mountain to benefit all concerned.
and David Narins
-3-
Concerns of the East Vail Homeowners Association which should be considered in
the design review public hearing
The scale of the proposed structure adjacent to the passageway between One Vail
Place and the International Wing as proposed should be equivalent to the passage
between One Vail Place and the Hill Building. The International wing as proposed
should stair step down towards the One Vail Place passageway and Eaton Plaza.
The width of the passageway between One Vail Place and the proposed International
Wing should be the same width as the passageway between the Hill Building and the
Golden Peak House. (A minimum of 25 feet)
The rool shouid be Hipped with no tlorrnels so Lirat view bltlckages from surrounding
residential units and public walkways are minimized.
There should be no terrace space on the roof of the second level in order to maintain
privacy of adjacent residential units. The size of the terrace would allow for large social
gatherings which are inappropriate at this level of the building.
How will the noise and odor from building exhaust and elevators be handled? Will
they interfere with the residential quality of the adjacent units. (This has been a
problem in the Lodge in the past).
The building should conform to the 40%160% height requirement of the Vail Village
Design Guidelines.
The proposed roof increases shadowing on pedestrian areas and public plazas. A
Hipped roof would be less shadowing.
Building should contbrm to the design requirements of the Vail Village Master Plan,
which requires commercial uses to be located at the plaza level, .
Design should allow for a qualitative or adequate pedestrian circulation around the
building.
The building design should be compatible with an in-filling of the parking areas
located south of the proposed building site.
The two story third floor "Presidential Suite" should be removed,
Parking for the building should be required to be located underground on the site,
ANTTA SALTZ
Srx MARTTN BUTLER CouRT
RYE, NErv YoRK Iosao
Design Review Board
Town Council
September 25, L995vIA FAX TO (97O) -479-2452AND VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Ms. Susan Connelly
Community Developrnent DirectorTown of Vail75 South Frontage RoadVail, Colorado 8t657
RE: International Wing at the Lodge at
Dear Ms. Connelly:
ocl 0 2 fi95
.COMM. DEV.
- uulyltvt, uty,NY,
D
vail
My husband Jack, and I have been the owners ofCondoninium 527-529 at The Lodge at Vail since l-996.During .this tine lre have enjoyed the charms andfacilities of the town of Vail an-d Vail- rnountain bothin winter and sunmer. The view that we enjoy from ourcondominium is very important both to our quality ofIife and to the monetary value of our unit.
Whereas we recognize that Lodge Properties has arequirement to expand their faCilities and increasetheir profits, we strongly feel that the needs of allVaiI property owners and citizens must be considered.We therefore recommend that the third floor structurebe removed, a.nd the building be full@tfe-sc-Tr6rit vail one pld-edf-='o-as to affow-For iiiteqir'atepedestri.an" eirculatldn- and views from Founders p1aza.
As members of the East Vail Home Owners Association, weshare the fourteen concerns addressed by the EVHA andincluded with this rnailing.
Thank you for all your efforts in helping to developprojects that are conpatible with the surrotrndingneighborhood, ?nd in their design exhibit a spirit oigood neighborliness.
Sincerely,
,."\ O /,/ | --'1- L4/(-La,-.ltsZftlq,',a
Anita Saltz
Encl-: Photos taken by Lodge Properties of our presentview. and overlay as dbne bf Lodge properties arciritectssflowing the building envelope of the fnternational wingas presently proposed. There are several units thatare altered more than ours.
EVHA list of i.tems to consider.
9t26t95
Items that should considered in the design revierv public hearitrg:
1. The- scale of the proposed stuchtre adjacent to the passage r'vay betrveen One Vail Place and
the Internaiionaf Wing, ur proposed, shoid the equivalent to the passage r'vay betu'een One Vail-
Place a'd the Hill Buildini. ihe Intemational Wing, as proposed, should stair step dou'' torvards
the One Vail Place passage way and Eaton Plaza'
2. The l:4uo_fibg_pessage walr between one \/ail Place and the International wing, as
p.opo."iffiuta G-ttr. rio" width as the passage rva.v betr.r,'een the Hill Building and the Golden
b"ui Hout". The passage u'ay should be a minimum of 25 feet'
3. The roof should be hipped r,vith no dormers so that viervs blockages from surrounding
residential units and public walkrval's of Vail lr.{ountain are decreased.
4. Terrace on roof shogld be removed in order to maintain privacy of adjacent residential units'
Size ofterrace allous for large social gatherings rvhich are inappropriate at this level ofthe
building.
5. Horv rvill loise atrd odor from building exhaust ancl elevators be handled? Will they irtterfere
rvith residential qualitl' of adj acent residential units'
6. The Buildilg sSould cor;rfonn to the 4091/60q'i, height requireureut of the \''ail Village Design v '
Guidelines r '.
9. Roof forms increases shadou ing on pedestrian u'alkrvays and ptrblic plazas' A $ipped roof
rvould less shadorvirig.
10, Building should confbnn to the design requireureuts of the Vail Yillage Nlastet Plan' u{rich
requires cotumercial uses to be located at the plaza level'
I l. Desigl,should allorr for a qualitative or adequate pedestrian circulation arouud the btrilding'
12. The builclilg desigl slould anticipated and be cornpatible rvith an irr-filling of the parking
areas located sotrth ofthe proposed building site'
13. The privacv of or vierv frour existing residential units shotrld not be dirninished. The third
floor presidential sttit shottld be reuroved.
14. Parki[g tbr the btrilding sht'ruld tre reqtrired to be located ttudergrottnd on the site'
tl
b
.F
.olr
00 b0
.Fl'rl>o.rl $Fl f={
odp. r.l
F-
e.l
r11
Hvp
a?
.1.',..
/
.'I?
h^
f.a a-,
zH
H
NJ
EJ TiAI P.o<H. P.
0q 0a
o'o
P) t.ooat -t
Ho
€
{
r_
TOWN OFVAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Yail" Colorad.o 81657
970-479-213V479-2139
FAX970-479-2452
Department of Community Development
September 18, 1995
Ms. Anita Saltz
6 Martin Butler Court
Rye, NY 10580
Re: Intcrnational Wing Lodge at Vail
Dear Anita:
The Town of Vail has scheduled the Internadonal Wing for a final Design Hearing Board hcaring
on October 4. 1995. Interested individuals are welcome to attend the hearing which will be held
at the Town of Vail, Council Chambers, located at 75 South Frontage Road. The hearing will
bcgin at 3:00 p.m.
Ifyou have any questions, pleasc call me at (970) 479-2138.
Sincerely,
*1nJ,/ '/ t
l"4t,gtry / z'-L{ fr4
Scnior PlaMcr
fr,N.-Iv'n
uts1tJ rlYt- "ilh(
ril2ro\
@
6,y
{P'"n"uo'uo
Jim Brown
One Norwest Center, #3000
1700 Liriboln Center
Denver. CO 80203
One Vail Place Condo. Assoc.
C/O Stcve Simonett
P.O. Box 3459
Vail, CO 81658
Riva Ridge South Condo. Assoc
74 Willow Road
Vail. CO 81657-5306
SiErnark Building
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Fritch
183 Gore Creek Drive
Vail, CO 81758
Mr. Jack Reutzel
9145 E Kenyon, Suite 200
Denvcr. CO 80237
Mrs. B.C. Hill
3l I Bridge Street
Vail, CO 81657
Jared M. Drescher
I l0l3 Tara Road
Potomac. MD 20854
o
Jay Peterson
108 S. Frontage Rd. #307
Vail, CO 81657
Mr. Chris R),'man
Vail Associates
P.O. Box 7
Vail, CO 81657
Riva Ridge North Condo. Assoc.
c/o Rick Haltermann
P.O. Box 3671
Vail, CO 81758
Gore Creek Plaza
cio Vail Management Company
201 Gorc Creek Drive
Vail, CO 81758
Greg Christrnan
Zehrsn & Assoc
P.O. Box 1976
Avon, CO 81620
Mr. Randall H. Woods
55 Meade Lane
Englewood, CO 801l0
Mrs. Luanne Wells
712 N. Palm Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
v LYnn.tntzlen
frialen, Pierce, Briner
P.O. Box 57
Vail, CO 81658
U.S. Forest Service
Holy Cross Ranger District
P.O. Box 190
Minturn, CO 81645
Summers Lodge
c/o Rick Haltermann
P.O. Box 3671
Vail, CO 81657
Wall Sheet Bldg.
c/o Mr. Robcrt Lazier
386 Hanson Ranch Road
Vail. CO 81657
Jack Zehren
Zebren & Assoc.
Box 1976
Avon. CO 81620
Dr. Harold J. Smead
6 Quail Meadows Drive
Woodside, CA 94062
Ms. Anita Saltz
6 Martin Butler Court
Rye, NY 10580
:Ut-19-$5 UED 2:52 PI'{ p)0lirtFlltFr.rnN--.o -.il,i: }Ic. 353c2653
BROWN & HARMON, P.C.
OI\IB NORWEST CENIER
I?OO UNCOLN STREET. SUITESM}
DENVER. colon^oo 8020!rJ!0
TET.ETHONE (303) 832{m
FA(SlMll.F: (3m) Er*2653
F.$( COVER SHEET
,AME E BROWN
DAVID S. I{ARMON
of C.'Fl
JOEL D. RUSSI{AN
ualr(mittal, please call
is 830-2653. lf you
DATE:
TELECOPIER NO.:
TO:
EROM;
NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLT,O\f;
If you have any problems in the cf this
at 832-6000.
have a r€turn fax to us, please uee this number.
COilIMENTS:
iRj$cemwqiflH'z' JULf glgg5
IOv-c0fvl[4, DEV, il[i
/
ATIORI\.EYS AT IAW
rnE rnfo .{Allo| cox?AntE9 nf ts f^csrxrrE xEssrGE rs AtloRntv-Ft I vlLEoED Aro coilflDEl AL lrFofrfrAllol
TTIEIDED FOf,
'|{!
USE gf lllg lri9lYrlrral lx tt{llfl ra^,r€o ElLAl. lr IXE iCADEI gt llll9 l'lgtsl6t ll IOI tlll,
TExDgo RECtptErt o* lflE EltPtoyEE 0t Acfxr REgPotistglc I0 DEUVER ll To m€ lrrExoED nEctPtEfl. Yq, ttt
IEREty xOTtrtED IHAI ltry DtssEHrrATt(Il, DlslRlBullot 0R c0P I0 0r tHtg tAx t8 8IRICILY Ptofilll .D. lf
you l|AvE REGEIVE0 frlls tAr tt [Rrot. PLEASE tNftEDtAiltY roiltv Us tY rErEPltoitE Ar3 tETuRr rHE oRtclt^l
lrEBSAEg tO US At rxE A80vE AD0RESS VIA rHE rJ. g. P03T t.tetvlcl.
'ili - 1Q-Q[ uF'i] ?'F1 p]J t l01lilirl{AR!{C}io iAi: ti0,
u3c2653
BROWN & HARMON, P.C.
ATTOR}iEYS AT IAW
ONS NORWASI SAI\X CENTER
r?dpuNcol\l STREET, surrB 3m0
DErfl/ER. @LOnADO 802011330
t]Er#PHoNE (303) 832,.6ffl
FAcSrMrLe (303) 83S2653
'AME;
E" AROWN
DAVIDS. TTAR}ION
O( C{rl
}OEL D. RUSSI{AN
July 19,1995
vIA FA)( TO (970)479-2452
AT.ID YIA REGUI,AR II{AIL
Ms. Susan Connelly
Community Development Director
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, C() 8165?
Rc: International Wng at The Lodge at Vail
Dear Ms. Connelly:
As you may recall. I represent the lodge Apartments Condominium Owners
Association in connection with tbe proposed Intcrnational Wing ar The I-odge at Vai!, and
have been so engoged since late 1993. I havc been actively invohad in thc Town's
consideration of this rnatter, and have corresponded with, had discussions with, and attended
meetings witlr your staff, mo$t partiorlarly Andy lfuudtsen, Senior Planner.
lv{ost recently, I attended the NIay 3, 1995 Design Review Board meering concerning
this matter. At that rneetir.g, the DRB expressed serious concerrls regarding the project.
It was clear that the project's dcsign *'ould havc to be revised to obtain DRB approval.
However, a subsequent DRB meeting wa$ not sctreduled at tbat time. At thc conclu$ion 0f
fte rneeting. I spoke with Mr. Knudtsen. and asked that I be provided copies of any
additional subr:rissions by the applicant and that I bc advised of any subsequent DRB
mcotings to considcr thc mattcr. Mr. Knudtscn agrccd to my requcst and assured me thot
he would keep me informed as the malter prog(essed,
Under these circumstances. you can imagrne my surprise u'hen I received today a
copy of a July 5, 1995 memorandum prepared by the East Village Horneowners' Association"
Inc. which contained the following stot€ments:
I have been informed by the Town Attorney that The Lodge at
Vail International Wing, as approved, has rcccived a favorable
:ut-ig-gl vtll 2:53 t}]1 ilOliNFOUN iAi ll0. 3ijsOt,3 !. l
Ms. Susarr CnnnellY
July 19, 1995
Iagc 2
rcsponse fiom the Design Rwiew Board (DRB) at a recent
.on"rptuul iiuiJi" *rri;;. _The Town Attorncy exPects The
lndge ", V"it wilt seek final rericw at the July -12'
1995 DRB
mecting' i; ;. t.pottta [tbat], speakip. o1.$fli of The
Lodge at Vail C-ondo'minium'qssdi:iation at the DRts concep-tual
reriew bearing, its attorney stated 'The Indge .at Veil
ConaominiumTsociations (iic) supports tlre application'
Immediately on receiving a coPy of the memo I telephoncd Jim I-amont, its author
a'd rhc Adrninisratoi oi tn" b""" viiitgu Homeowners' Aisociation' Inc' to inquirc es to
thc source of his information.
Mr.LanontadvisedthattherehadbeenaDRBmeetingtorc.vicwthc-proposcd
Internationat Wing on June 21. Contrary to Mr, Knudtsen's asiurances. I had not been
rrflrvided notlce of ,itfs *e.ifng and therefbre was not afforded an opDortunity to attend on
kfraf of my clienr. Mr, larnont went on ,o "auit.
,f,ti a "senior Viit staff person" (whom
Mr. tamonr dectined ii'ioi"iity t itirttO rtoo Gro r,i. "t
the June 21 DRB meeting that the
Conclominium ownerJ Associition's attorney (th,at is, Ee) h.ad said that the r\ssociation
supported the Wing.
-Thit ;*,"tent is falsc. 'My client.irad specifically authorized and
iusrrur,lcrl me nor ,u uUi"", io tt" Wing ffiropoled at the MCy 3 DRB meeting)' ba'rcd
on the proponent s "g;;;;;;tftui **irtlni dAgi "i"uatots
not b; uscd for transport cf the
Intcrnational Win$s laundry, etc. I was not uuinolizeO to state my elient's suppgrt for rhe
\Uing, and have Pevgg done so'
Morcuvcr, I uudcrstand that the wing may have been redesigned between tbe May
3 and June 21 DRB mceting. unles_s ano ,iniiti have bad an oppittrnitv to review this
ffig; ;'J Jii*r, it;ii ",; "*t, I cannot srate the Associatiorrls position with respect
to sarne. Fundamental fairness and due Process req-uired thst I be provided timcly noticc
of any redesign of *r" facitity and uo opp6rtffiioiu pttt.ol_?l_d i," heard at the DRB's
cuusiderafun ur rrtn".'i *otlfO appiiciai" your wrirten ixplanation as to why \{t' Yrnudtsen,
did not advise me of the June-21 DBP ;;;'iil-;;d l:ot l" aia not provide tt *(!
information " to ni ,*oeiign of thc wing, contrary to his priar commitment.
In light of the foregoing, I respectfully tequest llr.1t t ui p-rovided (ai copies of anY"
rcviserl r.tesign u, ,p""in."1iooi'a, to itte rnr"rnurional wlng sublnitted to the'l'own of vail
on or after May 3, iigiil-6) .opies.of *y *iout"t oriranscripts of the June 21, t99p-
DRB mecting "nA
uny qth*iiiig meeting tu6Jquint 1o MraY 3, 1t95 concerning the Win$
(don,r hesitate to uii'iri.'i.i-v iiiir;e";"'i.i1 Also, I iequett ths't vou provide each
member of the DRB a copy ot rhis leuer so thiitl,.t tr,"y may b, "d"i;;d
if itre toregoing@
circulnstancc$.
.UL-19-95 T/ED 2:51 ll'{Bl0VrNt-HLRtr[']fi IAI I{0,303tl302653
Ms. Susan Connelly
July 19, 1995
Page 3
Tha* you for your anticipated attcntion to thi.s.
s E. Broun
JEB:lbt 2l?J.bot-rry.lo2cc: Tom Moorhead (vla fax to (970)479.2l$n
Jim l-a.mont, Adrninistrator, East
Mllage flomeowners Association, Inc. (via fax ro (970)827.5856)
Ms. Anita Saltz (vla fax to (914)9C1.0147)
Mr. Jorgc Bosch, Prcrident, Iadgc Apartmcnts Condominium Ormcrs
Association (via fax)
DA
<rw4_i
XCi S*-*
4,.& -7o,'.i
4 I'tk*
pL*
' 4 s^l+e
ANITA SALTZ
SIx MARTIN BUTLER CoURT
RYE, NEtf YoRK 3o5ao
JuIy 10, L995("f ^7^;izll,*, lt-'^'*'r'
Town Council
Mayor Peggy Osterfoss75 South Frontaqe Roadvait, colorado Srosz
PIease addparties whothe DesignBoard, andthis issue
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely ,,''__-
- L-r'- .- L..!
Anita Sa1tz
T\v . 0}illtlvi, uLv,,tEi, ,
frff-w
Dear lls. Osterfoss,
ily husband Jack and f are the ohrners of acondoninium at The Lodge at Vail.
We wish to go on record as beinq very stronqlvopposed to the expansion of the In€ernational win&at- The Lodge at Vail as presently proposed, W6berleve .this_ proposal to be illegat in that itj.gnores the density regulations.
We also wish to state that we, as condoniniumowners and members of the Lodge Condorniniurn OwnersAssociation, never voted for this proposal. As weIitere present at every neeting, f do not understandwhen or by whon this-vote wai-taken.
our names to the list of interestedwish to be informed of aII rneetings ofReview Board, the Architectural R5view
.any. otirer -agency ot ToV before whomls cllscussed.
APR-06-9E THU 11:48 REI{AX VAIL INC. FAX ttO. :O:AZO00S24\0 ,* t^tlo d.cPost-it- Fax Notc 7621 lp€ngi
l'" tfutoq Hrjupr *p 1"" figt+ tnnJr:x4 Y d
l*eil' *A/ 1"" qr)e vh.- l/Lrara- | ^,$)t/lPho]e. Ir**rt*_n*o I F,'/,".
IH
oNE vArL pLAcE coF{DoilrrNruM ASsocrATIoN owr*nns \n
I 7,4=\r
\
$l
.UfX I.*/' 'J I
rsV /
Po ,L,/s
ECTORY
1+:i:.: aj r1;ii..:r: i:,i.:r::;:, iii::; ,.: l::l ffi
c-01 Mrs, B. C. Hill
311 Bridge Street
Vail, CO 81657
r
i-5542
c-02 Mrs. B. C. Hiil
3ll Bridg€ Street
Vail. CO. 81657
c-03 Mrs. B. C. HiU
311 Bridge Street
Vail, CO. 81657
c-04 Mrs, B. C. Hill
311 Bridge Street
Vail, CO 81657
c-05 Mrs. B. C. Hill
311 Bridge Street
Vail, CO 81657
c-06 Mrs, B. C. HiU
3ll Bridge Street
Vail, CO 81657
M-01 VAIL ASSOCIATES. iNC.
C/O Accounts Payable
P. O. Box ?
Vail, CO 81658
(303) 476-5601
Ted Ryczek
479-3fl7
R-01 Mr. Randall H. Woods
55 Meade Lane
En$ewaod, CO 80110
H:(303) 'l6L:tzLE
Karen Ron Byrna & Assoc.
476"L987
Parker - lvlaintenance
Fov
APR-08-SE THU 11:49 REI{AX VAIL INc. FAX N0. 3034766652 f . ut
tr
I
R-02 Dr. Harold J. Smead (Joe)
6 Quail Meadows Drive
Woodside, CA 94062
(303) 479-9433
Ann tsob & Karen Weedens
R-03 Jared M. Drcschcr
[1013 Tara Road
Potomac, MD 20854
(301) 983-1516(h)
(703) s2s-ll0l(o)
(303) 476-1410
$/estficld Rcalty
1000 Wilson Road
Ste. 800
Arlington, VA 22209
Irene M.
Bob & Karcn Weedens
524-7466
R-r.)4 SIig R.O5 FOR INFO
476,6E92
R-05 Mrs. Lu'a:rne Wells
712 N, Palm Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
II:(310) 271-1606
Richard Stamp
94q-4886
\ri
tl
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303 -479-2 I 3 I / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303-479-2452
March 29.1995
Departrnent of Comntuniry Developtnent
44u-lkl
Andy Knudtsen
Senior Planner
CC: Bob Mclauren
Tom Moorhead
Mike Mollica
"J"F!!_E CSFY
Mr. Chris Ryman
Vail Associates
P.O. Box 7
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Chris:
RE: The Indge at Vail, International Wing
This letter is to inform you that revised architectural drawings for the International Wing at the
Lodge at Vail have been submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Dcparfinent. A
conceptual Design Review Board hearing has been tentatively scheduled for May 3, 1995. A final
Design Review Board hearing will be scheduled later once all zoning issues have been resolved.
If you would like to review the proposed development, please stop by my office. If you have any
questions, you can reach me at (303) 479-2138.
Sinqerely,
f:\rndy\lener\lodge.329
,/
(\
March 29,1995 I l\
, B4l'\ FF.X *") I ^U \$Fffi;.it " -..tf 1.\ffin(uaa'"'s1 ?"' th,'*frIffifldcsz} 1'''\nr_rvr'
?'-
(l
RE: The Lodge at Vail, Intemational Wing
This letter is to inform you that revised architectural drawings forthe International Wing at thc
Lodge at Vail have been submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Deparhnent. A
conceptual Desip Review Board hearing has been tentatively scheduled for May lleeS. A final
Desip Review Board hearing will be scheduled laGr once all zoning issues have bfen resolved.
If you would like to review the proposed development, please stop by my ofTice. If you have any
questions, you can reach me at (303) 479-2138.
Sinccrd,
Andy Knudtsen
Senior Planner
CC: Bob Mclauren
Tom Moorhead
Mike Mollica
f:\andy\*te odge-329
a
fi dname;name2;address;csz;de*t l
rim erownBllti i
One Nonvest Center, #3000 ,
1700 Lincoln C*t"t€
Denvrc1,CO 80203 ffiHi.JimffifiF, .,.
i
Jay Pe19rso4Pfi,,{ffiffi,
H'l
108 S. Frontagend. #307ffi[iii
Vail, CO 8l657$ri iJay $D,8,,
One Vail Place Condo. nssoc.ENUfilffiPi'
C/O Steve SimonettENffi
P.O. Box 3aS9H'f,$DFIELfi:
Vail, co 8 tssE$tuFlEffii;
St"u*S. .
t
Mr. Chris nvma"ftNufrlfiffi ii
Vail Associate"g$$ffi
P.O. Box ZF g'pj;
Vait,C_O 816SZ,* itChtitg' ,ist
U. S. Fore st S ervic edN$"F;l#fi fii,
Holy Cross Rqnggr-Dlstrict$". fti
P.O. Box l90EfiffiH#:,
Minturn, CO 8l645P i
Forest Service ffiP,i
:
Fl \ a^# rL,de*\ a'h"'""hl
Fritzlen, Pierce,
P.O. Box 5
Vail, CO 8165
c/o Marijke Brofi
P.O. Box 75
Vail, CO 8165
Riva Ridge North Condo. Assoc
P.O. Box 367
Vail, CO 817
Summers
P.O. Box 3671
Vail. CO 8165
SiErnark Buildin gffiDFfBfjD'
Mr. and Mrs. Robert nritchE- N'DFIELE
183 Gore Creek Drivel
Vail, CO S1758Su, ffi
Mr. and Mrs. fritc l ii
Wall SteetB
c/o Mr. Robert
386 Hanson Ranch
Vail. CO 8165
c/oVail Management
201 Gore CReek Dri
Vail. CO 8fl7
l*t
Mr. Jack Reutzel#,#ffif{fi*ffiffi
Zebtq,&
P.O. Box 197
Avon,CO 81
Zehren&
Boi 197
Avon,CO 81
iilo ri. slir.viewAve', #206ffi#iffi
Enelewood, Co 8011Lffiffi
Greg
*rrke
TOWN OFVAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303 -479-2 I 3 8 / 479-2 I 39
FAX s03-479-2452
March 29, 1995
Deparnnent of Comntuniry Deve loprnent
April 11, 1995
Mr. Jack Reutzel
9145 E Kenyon" Suite 200
Denver, CO 80237
RE: The Lodge at Vail, International Wing
This letter is to inform you that revised architectural drawings for the International Wing at the
Lodge at Vail have been submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department' A
conceptual Design Review Board hearing has been tentatively scheduled for May 3, 1995. A final
Design Review Board hearing will be scheduled later once all zoning issues have been resolved.
If you would like to review the proposed development, please stop by my offrce. If you have any
questions, you can reach me at (303) 479'2138.
Sincerely,
/4u,,.Jh1
Andy Knudtsen
Senior Planner
CC: Bob Mclaurin
TomMoorhead
Mike Mollica
r
1
I
f:VndyVettedlodgc.329
DESIGN REVIEIV BOARD !,TEETIIIG TAPESUay 3, 1995
BRUNO & CARPENTER, rNC.
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
2
3
4
6
I
9
Lo
11
L2
1.3
t4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 29?-OO2O
2
fLoor plans here?
MR. CHAIRT'{AN: We donr
floor plan really. we just deal with
MR. CTIAIRMAN:
at VaiI International wing.
ne speak.
Item Number 'l , the Lodge
Here he is right now as
thi s
about
isa
the
MR. PETERSON! Sorry, I apologize.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MR. PETERSON: Can you see okay, the
t care about the
exteriors here.
MR. PETERSON: Okay.
MR . CHAIRT'{AN: I f we can start lrith a
brief overview of where this project stands in terms
of planning and zoning, et ceEera.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Righr. At
tine today is the conceptual review just to talk
the architecture. we will scheduLe this item for
finaL . review once it has been deterrnined that it
planning and zoning and al. l of the townrs zoning
processes and (inaudible) procedures. Until then
disc-ussions shoutd be conceptual (inaudible) the
background at this tine (inaudible).
In 1982 the Environmental Commission
made an exterior arteration approval for this project.
At this time the architects have rinited the erterior
of the drawings, however, (inaudible) renains the
1
2
3
4
J
5
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPEIITER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
3
same, and I am now presenting the exterior of the
building.
MR . CHAI RI'{AN : f rm sorry , did you say
the building as presented in I 82 isthe exterior of
the same as it r
different style
The progran and
BOARD
you're bringing it to
premise that whaE vras
speak?
s presented today?
UNIDENTTFIED SPEAKER: No. It
. The 1982 drawings s/ere more
the density remains the same.
BOARD IIEMBER: The bulk and the
isa
sirnple.
mass
has remained the sane?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The
architecture, the detail is somewhat different, but
the bulk and the mass is the same, the heights, the
ridge l-ines, theyrre all the same (inaudible). I
dontt know if you have it here. we can certainry have
it at the next meeting just to show you what was
approved before that planning Commission; but alt the
heights, we have sotne (inaudibre) where there werenrt
(inaudible) things r.ike thati but the roof line, the
ridge line, aLl that stuff is the same, al_l the floor
e l evations .
MEMBER: This application as
us today, Jay, is based on the
approved in L9BZ is valid as we
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
L4
15
16
L7
t8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 297-O020
4
MR. PETERSON: yes. The exterior
alteration (inaudibre) the planning conmission there
is no -- there is not a finite period of tine that
that is good. DRB is good for one year. The pJ.anning
Connission is not. What we have done during this
1O-year period actually was (inaudible) is to since
the village has changed, and what the village has
become' vrerve changed the exterior detail somewhat
fron the other ones. Rather than naking it exactry
like the Lodge, we have deviated a littre bit fron it.
we like this idea better. If need be, we would go
back to the old sty1e, but in dealing with, I think,
larger parties and with some other people, looking at
it from a (inaudible) standpoint, I feel this
architecture detair is (inaudibre) than the other
plans show; but (inaudible) the planning commission,
what they will be looking at wilL be the sane thing
( inaudible ) .
BOARD MEMBER: Did you just say you did
recejve final design approval on this?
MR. PETERSON: No. We received final
PJ'anning commission approval for exterior alteration;
otherwise, our approval would have gone avray and then
we would have started over again.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Who is presenting
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
I
9
10
11
L2
13
T4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, rNC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
5
thi-s?
MR. PETERSON: Jack is here. Let me
say one other thing too. When we went through the
Planning Connission process before the exterior
alteration process before., what happened was we went
to the Planning Comrnission, we dealt vrith all of the
neighbors, we made various changes. ft was called up
at Town Council, agreed to with all the neighbors as
far as what wourd be done. Town councir sent it back
with one modificati.on as far as the separation between
the buildings. We made that nodification. The
Planning Commission approved that change finally.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hour can you remember
this?
MR. PETERSON: It r s
trust [8, because I r ve been dealing
every six rnonths. It is true. wer
many, nany tirnes f or this one. But
minutes.
MR. .CHAI RMAN
aga j-n, sir?
MR. CHRISTEN
MR. CHAIRMAN
if you would.
I.IR. CHRI STEN
like yesterday,
with this thing
ve geared up a lot,
(inaudible) in the
AtI right. WeLl, what
creg Christen.
Gregr proc€ed with your
This (inaudible) here is
was your name
presentation,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
t2
13
14
15
1A
t7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
6
what you \rould see from the plaza side. Comnonerrs
Plaza is over here. This is One vail place right
here. This is the corridor between one vair p.race and
the rest of the new facade. This is an entry into the
International wing, which goes up two floors or down
to the conference reve1, which opens on that side.
These are planters here. The guest rooms are right
here. These are all guest rooms that have decks, and
this is the presidential suite and then the terrace
that's separating the existing lodge right here so
they still have views through this corridor here on
that side.
Then this side is r^rhat you can see from
the mountain- This is our conference space down here
for public space. Then these are guest rooms here
(inaudible) separation on the other side.
BOARD MEMBER: If we were to look at
the end elevation of this, those upper floors, how
deep is that building? frm just trying to pj.cture it.
rs i-t about a hundred feet across from tape to tape as
we sar.r it todav?
MR. CHRISTEN: Well, theyrre the
off-site. This is the conference rever here, which is
down below. This is the line of the conference rever
there.
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
I
9
10
11
L2
13
BOARD MEMBER: So itrs pretty much
the
BOARD MEMBER: Sets back to the
MR. CHRISTEN: This dashed line, the
deck that's up there is this dashed line that you see
right here, so \,verre going out this f ar ( inaudj.ble )
about that far on that side.
MR. PETERSON: This elevation here, you
can't really see it, but this next to One Vail place
is cut back. This is part of the change that we made
when we lrent right there. That is cut back. That
is cut back at an angle, so it then opens up.
MR. CHRISTEN: This point here is 14
feet avray. Here is a window of one vail place that
angles (inaudible).
MR. PETERSON: Itrs on the second and
third floors, Greg.
BOARD MEMBER: ft appears from the old
plan to the nevr erevation, particularly you can see it
in the north'erevatj-on, that the nassing is a rittre
bit different on the -- you know, on the west end on
the top. It l_ooks as though therers.more mass there.
The end of t\is third floor, just visually it appears
to be about two-thirds of the way down the building,
and on that it seems much closer than the old
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
L4
15
1,6
t7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
2s
al-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
l-5
16
l7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO20
8
building. Is that right?
MR. CHRISTEN: ft hasn't changed as far
as the old --
BOARD IIEMBER: This gap is definitely
bigger than that gap.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ( Inaudible ) .
MR. CHRISTEN: ftrs the same
(inaudibte) that we used to (inaudible).
BOARD MEI'{BER: ftIs c}early not the
same as these drawings. I donrt know what these
drawings represent.
MR. PETERSON: rtrs (inaudible) if you
can provide floor plans at the same scale as the
drawings (inaudibIel.
BOARD MEMBER: These must not be the
finaL plans.
HR. PETERSON: The set they were
working frorn was finally approved. Werve gone over
this, we'11 just verify, because the (inaudible) will
be Lhe same.
BOARD MEMBER: That string up there, is
that about approxirnateJ,y the ( inaudibJ.e ) ?
MR. CHRISTEN: That would be this
( inaudible ) right here.
BOARD MEMBER: I wonder where the
I
2
3
4
5
6
7.
8
9
10
11
T2
t-3
I4
15
16
17
t_8
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 29?-OO20
9
artist stood when he drew that
still see the background'of the
have been a very tall ladder.
deceiving.
MR.
you can catch what.
International wing.
MR.
vantage point wouLd
accurate rendi_tion
Therers a lot more
that rendition.
north elevation to
rnountains. f t nust
Thatts extremely
CHRISTEN: We stood right there .and
wouLd be the top of Huey frorn the
PETERSON: Yourre looking at the
be. I wouLd not call that an
of the view towards the mountain.
blocked off than what appears in
tops of those aspen trees from what I assume that
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other general
comments to present to uS r Greg?
MR. PETERSON: The only thing I have is
that the rnternational wing has arways been a part of
the naster pIan. It shows this (inaudible) that
location. Itrs always been there as far as what was
going to be built. views wilt be blocked in that
area, depending on where you stand in the plaza.
Therets no guestion about it. Ide have found the
(inaudible) as far as any view corridors are
concerned. We meet all those. That one, that view
was listed as one of , r think, 3 9 views that the Tor,rn
10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
72
13
15
16
1,7
Iooked at wayr way back and lrere discarded when they
finally came up with them. But it was looked at at
great length, and the master plan has been updated
since we have done this project. rt has stayed as far
as a nodification to the virlage. r think we conpried
with that.
Architectural detail is different than
what we had before. Irrn going to ask Jack to say a
few words about that, vrhy r,re went to that and why we
didnrt stick with basicarly ord architecturar details
rerated to the Lodge itserf because he and r had rong
discussions (inaudible) discussions about that, why
not match the lodge.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ( Inaudible ) we
feel that this direction gives us a little bit of a
break, stil1 (inaudiblel compatible to the color and
materials. If we donrt use as dark of wood
( inaudible ) instead of on the side. The notion was to
create a scale in the village (inaudible) a large
lodg.e becomes even.Iarger, but this project becomes
you know, the scale is nrore consistent $rith one vail
Pl'ace and sone of the other buirdings within that area
so that erelre taking a cornprementary but dif f erent
approach to the detail and colors, and I like the
idea, and werd like you to consider it. And the
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 297-0020
18
19
20
2I
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
14
15
15
L7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
11
alternative, of course, is just to nrinic exactly
whatrs at the Lodge, and as tine goes on (inaudible).
The Lodge cannot stay the sane forever, and we feel
that this offers some colors and some detail that
(inaudible) detairing updates, and makes it look more
( inaudible ) .
llR. CHAfRMAN: Before we go to design,
board member comnents? r assume we have someone here
representing anot!rer point of view.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: IIn the general
manager for the Lodge at Vail.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Not -- is there anvone
frorn the public here who has a comment to make?
MS. FRITZLEN: I rrn here representing
LuAnn We11s, who is an owner at One Vail place.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Lynn Fritzlen.
MS. FRITZLEN: And the reason I came
today is Andy called rne and that this was being
(inaudible) for design review and that if we had any
ques_tions about the. validity of the granting of the
(inaudible) for this project, that we should bring it
up at this tine.
MR. PETERSON: To the extent that all
the players are present at hearings and issues are
laid out on the table, rrm not sure that any answers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
I4
16
L?
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO20
t2
to your points r.ritl_ be available at this time, but I
think it's good just to get everyone alrare of what the
concerns are.
MS. FRITZLEN: Mrs. Wells has retained
an attorney, Jack Royce, i-n Denverr. and rnaybe it woul.d
be best if I could just read one or trro paragraphs
from the letter he sent up today to update the fite
(inaudible), and fim not going to be tedious.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Make it quick.
MS. FRITZLEN: Okay. Thank you for
(inaudible) Design Review Board consideration of the
Lodge at vairrs reguest for expa.nsion. r cannot have
the opportunity to speak with you in person regarding
our continued involvement on behalf of Mrs. IJuAnn
WeLLs.
Now, Ire spoke about this natter in
March of L994. we,raised several professional.issues
to be resolved prior to the applicant rnoving forward.
These issues are Listed in a letter to Tom Moorhead,
date-d March 2, 1994, and attached hereto for your
convenience. rn fact, lre had earlier raised our legal
and planning issues to you in a letter of December !3,
of ,.9.3 , also attached f or your review.
If this rnatter is now being considered
at the May 30, 1995, DRB meeting, vre are then to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
L1
t2
13
L4
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
13
assume that the issues raised have been addressed. rf
sor please advise me as to the resorution so r may be
better able to advise my client of her options. If
the issues presented at earlier neetings have not been
resolved, f renerd our concern about utilizing the
DRBrs tine for a proposal that per his letter is not
adnitted under the present noncategory.
I think it is important to note that
during the last 13 rnonths,.the applicant has not
attempted to contact us regarding a resoLution of
these issues.
And essentially the issues that we
brought up and have been made a part of Tom Moorheadrs
file and the Town,s file as well, is the density was
(inaudible), as Jay stated, granted in 19 in Lgg2,
so it's been about 15 years, and it at least the
way I understand it, it was granted through
contractual arrangenent and not through a rezoning of
the property.
I would say Jack and Jay are probably
more capabJ.e of addressing, you know, how those issues
were addressed, but r think Mrs. vtellsrs concern is
that this is a 15-year-old approval, and that it would
be nore appropriate for people like herself to have
(inaudible) neighboring properties through more
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
I
9
10
11
t2
t3
14
1.5
conventional zoning and STE process, and that itrs
guestionable in her mind and in Jack Roycers mind,
whether the L992 allotment density is stirl varid.
That's it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: IS thAt it? IN thAt
case we go to comments from the board. Hans.
legalities.
BoARD MEMBER: Well (inaudible) the
frm not certain where we stand with this
whole thing. The architecture defined Iots of gables
and (inaudible) and things. Basically rny thought is
itrs an outrage to do this, absorutery. you have now
frorn down in the viltage a beautiful view of this.
Itrs narrow but you 1ook past the Wildflower
Restaurant and you see the mountain, and then you look
up at that (inaudiblel and therers nothing left. It,s
like the big wa]1 of china. From here arl the vray to
Serrano's Iet,s block off the mountain, letts close
out the village
I think the concept of it is just so
contrary to what anybody's trying to do, but now letrs
keep open spaces, views and do things nice, and then
we go and build this propose this massive block,
which (inaudiblel on into the buildings you have. No
more distance, no more pleasant vistas, no more
(inaudible; and I think it's just wrong. And perhaps
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-0O20
16
I7
18
L9
20
2T
22
23
24
z5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
t2
13
t4
15
16
I?
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 2e7-OO20
15
itrs just a romanticist's approach to this whole thing
and totally beside the point because the legalj_ties
are all in your favor; but I can assure you one thing,
as long as Irrn on this board, this will never receive
my approval, never, no matter what you do.
UNIDENTIFTED SPEAKER: ( Inaudible ) .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Why donrt you wait until
werre aII done comnenting, theD you can have a little
tine for your (inaudible). This is just a conceptual
review.
BOARD MEMBER: There's a big part of me
that agrees with Hans, it wiII -- if it does come
about that our hands are tied, rrrerve had to vote on a
Iot of things that we didn,t necessarily agree with
the zoning on, so thatrs not our issue. I think that
the, you know, the general atrnosphere of the
architecture is verv nice.
I do if this ever occurred, is there
some way of naking more of a contact with :the
mountain? You know, right now at least you can
walk -- rde drove up, you know, underneath the vista
( inaudibJ.e ) . Vte could at Ieast walk up into the plaza
directly. It woul,d be nice if there erere more
interaction visually certainly, but at Least on a
(inaudible; basis. If a pedestrian can walk from one
16
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
I2
13
L4
15
15
I7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 3O3 ) 2s7-OO20
side to the other vrithout being confronted by a waLl
of grass on the mountainside. And the onry exception
to my appreciation of the architecture is that
conference room waII. I donrt think thatrs
particularly appropriate. Itrs a little bit
commercial, shaII we say.
BOARD IIEMBER: I agree with the
comments regarding the architecture, especially
sallyrs- r think that the conference room as proposed
looks a bit like a branch bank, and that tied in with
the otherwise alpine rooking structures is kind of a
departure. But I also agree with Hans in that I
consider this a huge visuar interruption, and r cite
the design review guidelines, 19.54.010 Section E
where it says that our duty here as a board is to
protect neighboring property owners and its users __
not just the people you represent, Lynn, but I think .
everyone who comes and visits this community _- to
protect neighboring property owners and users by
making sure that a reasonable provision has been rnade
for such matters as pedestrian and vehicular traffic,
surface water drainage, sound, and sight buffers.
I think that the nassing of this
building, whether it has been approved in Lgg2 or not,
departs fron the intent of the Design Review Board25
1
2
3
4
5
5
?
8
9
10
11
t2
13
74
15
16
I7
t-8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
t7
guidelines, and as nuch as it totally seems to
di-sregard the intent inasrnuch as the sight buffers and
in terms of its nassing. rn other words, rrm tarking
about specificarly (inaudibre) if a buirding of this
height srere to step do$rn more signif icantr.y tovrards
One VaiI Place, so that if you're at all faniliar
with the walkway that goes up between the Hong Kong
and the Lodge property there, that Iittle view
corridor, although legally itrs not an accepted view
corridor, f think it's one of those guaint little
glinpses of the rnountain you get in Vail that appear
f rom time to time, and yo.u. people are talking about
virtually eliminating that view corridor.
And if you showed a 1ittle sensitivity
in terms of taking this basically acceptable
architecture and stepped it down to a more pedestrian
level towards the Vail one building, f think I could
be in favor of it; but as f see it personally, there
is enough here that r would consider in vior.ation of
DesJ-gn Review Board guidelines that I personally
wouldnrt vote for it. Because, as it says on page
54 5 -- 454 B, that if the project is found to
conflict vrith design guidelines, the board shall
disapprove the design of the project. That,s enough
of that paragraph to read.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8.
9
10
11
L2
13
14
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-0020
18
MR. PETERSON: euick comrnents .
l-{R. CHAIRMAN: co ahead .
MR. PETERSON: you know, thereIs a Lot
of buildings in town that frd rather see not there.
You go over to the Golden peak, it would be wonderful
if that buiJ.ding werenrt there. That building goes
back up. The Serranors building when that goe6 down,
once again, that building is going to go back up
bigger than h'hat it is.
BOARD I.IEMBER: There is a di.fference.
These are buirdings that were, as Judge Jones would
sdy, the ultirnate remodel .
MR. PETERSON: True. One Vail place
building, the same way. A1l these buildings have
built property line to property line; and in one Vail
Placers case, itrs built over the property line on two
sides. Itts built on our side over the property line,
and it,s built on the Forest Service line over the
property Line.
BOARD MEMBER: All this went through
proper processr lou know, in this decade, and all this
was set apart with -- you know the whole story behind
aII those places.
MR. PETERSON: Sure.
BOARD UEMBER: Irm just saying at this
1
2
3
4
5
5
?
I
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-O020
19
point in time since we have no current pEc notions or
opinions on this project, werre relyj.ng on events that
occurred in the last decade, early in the last decade.
Irm sinply referring to what f read in these design
guidelines, and frm just letting you know my
inpressions of how they relate in this project. frm
not saying the building shouldn,t be buiIt, I,n saying
it should be built with a sguinted eye towards
economi-cs and a kinder view towards the esthetics of
this community.
But we have the opportunity nord to look
at this as a brand-new project for the Design Review
Board. Let's be kind enough to let us see the
mountain frorn that plaza, fron that little walkway r
spoke of, you know, letrs deal with it sensitively.
MR. PETERSON: Once again, I plan to
solve the problem with the exterior'alteration.
(inaudible) the planning Commission and what you
showed thern, and we have to go through that process
fi-rst, no matter when we do it; and that process has
been gone through and, in ny opinion, I think in the
Townrs opinion, that approval is still valid. The
Town will render its opinion on it. But hre did go
through that approval process.
Also the view qorridor through there
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
t2
L3
L4
15
16
T7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, IN'C
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
20
talks about the massive -- the higher masses being
towards one vail place and not towards the other way
where itts a three-story building on that side, which
is exactly what we have.
BOARD MEI'IBER: WeII, that's your
opinion. Jfm speaking in ny opinion as a rnember of
the Design Review Board. r think the mass should frow
from the South Lodge building down towards the
pedestrian scale I spoke of, that bringing it down,
scal.ing it down towards One vail pLace would
accomplish two things. It would agree lrith the
pedestrian scale, andr you know, the lower floors of
the building. It would also preserve a beautiful,
existing view, as r mentioned before that it's part of
our intent to preserve,
You know, when we have these
s j-tuations, you know, they,re not
.
o.n1y used by your
neighbors but by aII the users of this community, that
means Local-s and tourists and the rike. so r disagree
with.that interpretation. r think the massing shourd
extend frorn your own property down toward the terninus
of your own properEy.
Any other comrnents? I think thatrs
enough for today.
BOARD MEMBER: I rm sorry ( inaudible )
1
2
3
4
5
6
7.
8
9
10
1L
T2
13
L4
15
anytine it t s scheduled for?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Not for final
review.
BOARD MEMBER: Not for final review but
for deternining the status of the zoning
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: T think weII]-
want to meet erith the attorney that werre working with
as well- as with Jay and flush out the details.
BOARD MEMBER: Okay. So and do you
think that will be within the next three nonths?
MR. PETERSON: Oh, certainly. It will
be within the next coupre weeks. Just so the board
knows to.o, hre have worked with various attorneys.
Jack is just the latest one that we,ve hired. We did
work with Ton (inaudible) I worked on it before, and I
took the tirne to go to Denver to meet with him and go
through everything and try to work something out. So
it's not Like we have not been cooperative. This is
another attorney throughout the process.
Likewise, when we did the original one,
we met vrith al l the unit o$rDers , went through aI l
kinds of scenarios and made'various nodifications, and
when rire nent through we had (inaudible) everywhere,
Pranning commission, to Tolrrn councir, back to planning
commission, and no objection from one VaiL place. The
BRUNO & CARPENTER, rNC.
( 303 ) 297-OO20
16
T7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
t4
15
16
l7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 2e7-OO20
I{ells were part of that negotiation. so it's not }ike
vre haven't I don r t want anybody to think that we
haventt tried.
BOARD MEMBER: I am not personalJ.y
concerned vrith the views of the wells. r am concerned
with the views and the welfare of the nany here, and r
think you know that since this pEC approval was given,
J"y, heck, that was l.4 years ago .
MR. PETERSON: Ten and a half. It lras
in r 84.
BOARD MEMBERz 182, I thought you said.
MR. PETERSON: No, thatrs what Andy
said, but it was rg4.
BOARD MEMBER: Regardless, I think the
mental. climate of the community has changed. r think
the look of the community has changed. I think werve
seen more mass and bulk invade the core of Vail, .rd .r-
personally think that, you know, we have to start
preserving a portion of this or else, as Hans has
said, lre I re basical'Iy creating, you know, a
(inaudible) to the city; and the waII, you know, faces
the core and deprives us of the view of what we all
came here for in the first place.
And I think, as I said -- frm not
saying that the building should not be built. frm
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1L
L2
13
l4
15
16
l7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
23
saying it should be considered, you know, to preserve
that corridor between One Vail place and the Lodge,
and that's my opinion.
gentlemen.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Bhank you very much,
BOARD MEMBER: Ird just like to agree
with that and clarify ny position. Irm not
anti-building. r am anti let I s rnax out everything ere
can everywhere in this town, the helI with what we
see, the people who come to visit us. At the same
time this town has a phirosophy retrs be the greatest
in the world, Ietrs do the nicest things in the worJ.d,
and we are slowly screwing it up by maxing out
everything just for greed.
werve got to draw the line somewhere,
you know, and this is (inaudible) therers no buirding
there now, and there ought to be not one of these
which says the bigger the better. There ought to be a
building there that speaks to the people who come to
visit this tolun, come to see the mountain. (rnaudible)
I nean, houses and buildings alI over, Chicago,
wherever they come from. They vrant to see the
mountain. what you guys are doing is eliminating __
MR. PETERSON: No, I rve asked everyotre
ta chip in, and one Vail place (inaudible).
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
24
IrlR. CHAIRIiAN: I think we I ve heard
enough. Thank you, gentlenen.
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
2.5
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
L2
13
I4
15
16
l7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
2s
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 2e7-OO20
25
STATE OF
CERTIF
COLORADO
ICATE
ssCITY & COUNTY OF DENVER
I, Laurie Heckrnan, Notary public of theState of Colorado, do hereby certiiy that theforegoing is a true and correct transcription of ther3fglenced tapes transcribed to the best of rnyabi l ity
rNhand and seal
WITNESS WHEREoF, f have hereunto set mythis 8th day of February 199G.
Notary Public
999 - l,8th Street, Suite 2lg}Denver, . CO BO202
My Connission expires:Septenber 1, 1996
DESIGN REVI.EW BOARD UEETING TAPESJune 2l , 1gg5
BRUNo & CARPEIITER, rNC.
( 303 ) 297-O.O2O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
ItlR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. The next thing
will be Iten L2, the Lodge at Vail. See you, KyIe.
See you guys.
Gentlemen, as you come up here, frd ask
you to identify yourselves because some of us __ we
have a new member, and f believe f was array at the
I ast
MR. MOORHEAD: Irm Tom Moorhead and Irm
(inaudible; the Lodge at Vail.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MR. BROWN: Charlie Brown, nanager
( inaudible. )
MR. ZEHREN: Jack Zehren, Irm an
architect
MR. CHRISTEN: Greg Christen
( inaudible ) .
MR . CHAI RMAN.: oKay
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The Iast tine we
hrere here, we presented sorne ideas f or the
International wing (inaudible) wall between the
buildings to all.ow for some visual opportunity to see
up to the mountain. Those views were (inaudible).
Wetve done a couple things since that neeting, and we
hope they hetp. The basic concept falls back to the
configuration of the buirding which takes the basic
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 29?-OO2O
13
I4
15
T6
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
t3
L4
t5
15
17
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
3
plan and the basic massing and form that we srere given
from the previous work done by another architect,
Warren Clapner, back in 1993, which was taken through
Planning and Zoning, and Jay peterson is not here
today to go through aI1 the (inaudible).
MR. MOORHEAD: Tom Moorhead, if I could
just state for the record that I did receive a call
from Jalr. Jay explained that hers having a back
problen, but explained he couLdnrt be here and he
issued his regrets. But he did understand -- also one
thing that he and I talked about are where there are
some issues that he and r and Andy need to tark about
that are outside of the parameters of the discussion
thatrs going to occur today concerning the design
revi-ew considerations.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So in that
respect, we have tried to remain as true to the
previous plan as we can.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Jackr. can I interrupt
for -one second. Just do me one favor, because again I
wasnrt here and Brett rdasnrt here. This may sound
stupid. Are you tearing anything down and building
something up? f donrt know where yourre __ you know,
I am totally disoriented at this minute so
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: LetIs get the
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
I
9
10
t_1
T2
13
14
l-5
16
l7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 29?-OO2O
4
site p1an.We can start rdith that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That would really heIp.
UNTDENEIFIED SPEAKER: This is the
existing lodge, and the conference neeting space
be in this area, but itrs (inaudible). And then
existing One Vail place is right here. So what
talking about doing is in essence rebuilding the
conference meeting space, droppinS it down a little
bit and then on top of that building lodging rooms and
one single residence on top.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
UNTDENTTFIED SPEAKER: So sone of the
concerns and by the way, lverve also gone back and
did the master plan (inaudibJ.e) essentiarry this kind
of thing thatrs represented and a]rows for this to be
a three-story structure in more or l_ess this
conf iguration. What !,re I re trying to do, and what
i"re r re trying to work with then, is a scheme f or this
area that puts a meeting space about t\do levels up,
rodge rooms, and one residential condominiun on top;
but actualty that unit would be part of the hotel
( inaudible ) circulation ( inaudible. ) Then therers
aLso a courtyard area created by the (inaudible) in
this area whi-ch adjoins to the Founderrs plaza area
here and creates kind of a softer, lrreener planted
wi l1
the
werre
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
17
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 2e7-OO20
5
area here as a complement to the more urban
metropol itan area here . so that ' s the overar r. scherne .
Nol{, one of the things we did rel-ative
to concerns with you is we started way back here on
Bear creek Drive, and we .took.a series of photos f rorn
there (inaudible). We have those, we can pass those
out, we have those photos (inaudible), the profiles as
currently designed; and in order to ;irovide those to
you (inaudibley originally.
BOARD MEMBER: We saw that today.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And so from the
photos fron that (inaudible) we \rere able ro construct
the profile of the buitding as it will be seen. So
those are again taken from back here ( inaudible; back
on Bear creek Drive, then the base of the stairs right
here, then out to the plaza (inaudible) the
restaurant. So thatrs the sense of this (inaudible).
BOARD MEMBER: And essentially the
present view corridor that some of ny associates here
were- talking about is the space between the Hat prace
and the building, is that the one thatrs sort of
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That Iittle
space. This is the space right here that will go all
the way back down the street, so it starts way down
here and works it ' s $ray up.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
t3
L4
15
16
L7
18
L9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 29?-OO20
6
BOARD MEMBER: Right.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ItIS not a
fornal view corridor.
BOARD MEMBER: No, I know that. We
know that.
UNIDENTIFTED SPEAKER: But it obviously
is a view (inaudible).
BOARD MEMBER: yeah. Again, I was just
working on orientation.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Right. Now,
what hrerre showing here in this elevation is this is a
view rooking from the mountain back down. This wourd
be the neeting space, and this will be the prof,ile
building. That was previously approved by Clapman way
back in 1983' so werve just taken his drawings and put
then on these sheets, and this one shows that, same
scheme from the other direction J.ooking towards the
rnountains.
BOARD MEMBER: And what does that red
line indicate? Is that
UNIDENTIFIED SpEAKER: Where our
buiJ.ding is now designed.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The red Iine is
where our current (inaudible) is. And one of the
things vre r ve done since the rast meeting is next to
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
15
1?
18
19
20
2\
22
23
24
z5
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
7
One VaiI place where previously it had come
this (inaudible) $rerve taken this space out
floor (inaudible) flows this direction, and
for a softer (inaudible).
So that whole upper
gable is gone
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ThatIs aIl 9,one.
But I think it's helpful to see the evolution of this.
The previous (inaudible) came over and had a piece of
flat roof right here, and then it dropped down and
over, and our goal (inaudible) the roof over, and this
is actually next to the stair (inaudible). Also at
the last neeting we had incorrectly shown the edge of
the Lodge right here. It is actually over here. So
thatrs another part ( inaudible ) .
UNIDENTIFTED SPEAKER: ( Inaudible )
Iower the pitch of the roof (inaudible) cut back the
third floor to pulI away fron One VaiI place. This is
where we are today. Comrnents not related to
linaudibrey had to do with the character of the warr
in the neeting roon, and last tine we came in it was
more ( inaudibJ.e ) so $rerve introduced some heavier
columns in the core and kind of a French door system
where we could open up the meeting room and get some
wind volune (inaudible) set up a littte pattern thatrs
up with
at the top
al l owed
BOARD MEMBER:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
L4
l-5
16
t7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
8
more consistent with some of the rest of the buirding.
So that was one of the changes
(inaudibre) fron Last time. Then you see here the new
profile on this corner of the buirding, and that of
course vras ( inaudible; right here. The nunber of
units, the rooms and keys and that type of thing
remains consistent with where lve were rast tirne. rt,s
aIl within the planning and Zoning agreement hre
reached back in rg3.
We also discussed last tine our
reasoning and our approach'here and rnateriars and
colors, and what we wanted to do was have sonething
that was compatible wj.th the existing lodge but uses
some of the color a IittIe differently (inaudible)
green thatrs on the siding of the 10dge, we wanted to
use on sone shutters (inaudible) and go to a more
naturaL color wbod for (inaudibre) using the sane j
stucco cor-or as the Lodge but letting just (inaudible)
by the transitional building from one.vail prace to
this- building, the International wing of the Lodge so
that it does help break the scale a little bit. It
doesnrt just becone a big wing at the Lodge in the
exact same (inaudible) and color. so thatrs where hre
are with it, and
BOARD MBMBER: .Do you have the site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
15
!?
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
e l evat ions ?I know those are less inportant.
UNIDENTfFIED SPEAKER: No, we donrt.
BOARD MEMBER: How deep is the building
approxinately?
UNTDENTIFIED SPEAKER: This is the
plaza I'evel, eighth inch scale. About 6o feet deep
looking on this here, which is. the connection frorn
this plaza out to where the ticket windows are.
BOARD MEMBER: fs there any flat
portion of the roof or just the erevation (inaudibre).
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ( Inaudible. )
BOARD MEMBER: Jack, one of the things
that we always get surprises with buildings of this
type and I think this building is wonderful, and I
appreciate what yourve done, you know, in cutting back
the building, and it was certainly something you
didntt have to do, but we always get surprises on
rnechanicaJ,s, rnetering. TelI ne about, do you plan to
have air conditioning? Do you plan to have anything
on Lhe roof ? Do yo.u pl an to have I mean r 1rou
should have seen just before Serranors, before we
finished serranors, they had this absolutely wonderful
buil.ding with four or five huge meters right in the
front.
UNIDENTIFTED SPEAKER: It WiII bE
BRUNO & CARPENTER, rNc
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
t4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, rNc
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
10
controlled by the existing boiler room in the Lodge.
They're going to upgrade their equiprnent to
acconrnodate this new addition, but there vronrt be any
equipnent on the roof.
BOARD MEIIBER: Hor{ about A.C. Are you
going to air condition anything?
UNIDENTIFTED SPEAKER: ( Inaudible ) this
space in this area, werll put some eguipment, and f
donrt know exactr.y how thatrs alr going to fit, but we
can enclose this behind the wall in this area
BOARD MEMBER: Think about that. yeah,
that has to be really great looking to hide sonething
that I s --
UNIDENTTFIED SPEAKER: ItIs a faiTly
large neeting room (inaudible) 56OO sguare feet, and
that I s where we are.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 5, OOO .
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: O, OOO square
feet. So given the south ( inaudible ) interior space
that- will have to be air conditioned (inaudible).
BOARD MEMBER: Andy, is this a final?
MR. KNUDTSEN: No, not at al I . In
fact, this is just a conceptual. There are many legal
issues that we need to resolve prior to scheduling
this item.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
t2
13
1,4
l-5
16
t7
L8
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 297-0020
11
BOARD MEMBER: Okay. WeIl., Iet's talk
about the architecture- we have two architects here,
so I rn going to keep guiet
BOARD l.tEl.tBER: We -- early in the work
session, hre reviewed Clapner drawings, and Ird say, of
course, your architecture is in Ieaps and bounds in a
positive direction from where it was before? When __
those plans were approved in 'g4.
UNIDENTIFTED SPEAKER: I83.
BOARD MEI'|BER: r83. And I think
generally the architecture is, I think, very nice; and
r think the improvements you nade to the neeting space
on the lower level are also a positive aspect. I
think that wilL be very nice on the lower level. I
wonder if you night consider on the upper level, on
the left-hand side or the east side there, r wonder if
that roof could also be gabled -- f mean or hipped
rather, to reduce the nass a rittre bit nore there,
and maybe that fireprace could -- r have no idea what
it does on the inside, but rnaybe that fireplace either
just reduces in its mass or frips to another side of
the room.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ( Inaudible) .
BOARD MEMBER: And maybe reduce the
height of the fireplace a little bit. other than that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
1.5
I7
18
19
20
2T
22
23
24
25
I think it looks very nice.
UNIDENTIFTED SPEAKER: That will
probably balance up the (inaudible).
BOARD MEMBER: And what is the stone
along the botton?
UNIDENTTFIED SPEAKER: HeTe?
BOARD MEMBER: Yeah.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (rnaudible). we
really haven,t gotten into the final detail yet. Irm
not sure if we wouLd do that (inaudible) formalize
this a little bit. It is a public neeting room
( inaudible ) .
BOARD MEMBER: Great, Iooks good.
BOARD MEMBER: f remember last tine f
vtas very outspoken. I apparently caught sornebodyrs
attention. I think it's very (inaudible) you stepping
this back there and opening and softening the height.
One thing to me that would be interesting to see,
there is so much fenestration, so many ins and outs,
cant,ilevers, delightful business. What happens on
this side, is that a blank wall that you (inaudible)
in there or could it possibly recall or repeat.?
UNIDENTIFIED SpEAKER: (Jnaudible).
BOARD MEMBER: frm talking about this
60 feet here, is this going to be a straight atucco
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-0O2O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T2
13
14
15
16
T7
18
19
20
2I
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 2e7-OO2O
13
wall. with nothing in it?
UNIDENTIFIED sPEAKER: There,s a couple
windows. No, I rm wronlJ, there aren r t any windows.
BOARD !,!EMBER: This side wall, when you
look up in this nelv corridor, and then you see a
30-foot taLl fixture with a J.ong stucco walI with
absolutely nothing of refinement opposing the
wonderful design on both sides.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ThatIs a
tremendous opposition. Adrnittedly, we have not
studied that.
BOARD MEMBER: Maybe there could be an
offset, perhaps even off a foot or sor which enables
you to put a gable over it or bring some of __
BOARD MEMBER: To the front, to the
side?
BOARD MEMBER: whatever.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: we do have one
thing (inaudible) right in here. If we can ger a
coup-le things happening along here.
BOARD MEMBER: And the side there.
Maybe some fake gable, something to make it
(inaudible) and not be a foreign object bet$reen
( inaudible ) .
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I was just going
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
to emphasize a point that this is (inaudibley even if
you have a two-story developnent, focusing
( inaudible ) .
BOARD !,!EMBER: ( f naudible. )
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Right. I agree
with you. Itrs a very important area. Itrs sonething
that we have not addressed.
BOARD MEMBER: But I think over on the
step back here and over here, as Brett says, bring
that side further over (inaudible) clear (inaudj_bte).
one thing, perhaps to me personally, still Iooks a
little cold is the conference room, this area. you
have a gable on the left and on the right, the entry
doors, and in between compared to the upper, I,m
looking at a shopping center lower part and a
residentiaL upper part. Is there any way to somehow
unite these a r-ittr,e more, perhaps introduce a third
gable in the niddle somewhere or sornething a little __
you know what f mean?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ( Inaudibte. )
BOARD MEMBER: yeah. Maybe a
( inaudible ) . ft ' s so horizontaL r so bang across, and
the other part of the building is so articuLated, that
f would try and vary those two a bit more.
UNTDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ( Inaudible. )
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 2s7-OO20
72
13
L4
l-5
16
t7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1. 1
L2
13
T4
15
16
I7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
15
BOARD MEMBER: you just look at that,
you know, that rong f ace al.ong that roof line betvreen
the two gables
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ( Inaudible. )
BOARD MEMBER: That's really it. I
think Irn delighted to say (inaudibJ.e). f donrt know
the legal situation. ft obviously lcill be nicely
sJ.oped ( inaudible ) take that part and put it
( inaudible ) .
BOARD IT|EMBER: Itrs a wonderful
bui l ding.
(The tape ended and was continued on
the following tape. )
BOARD MEMBER: -- could not find a
solution, so they came back a few weeks later, and
said we donrt need air conditioning, but the tenants
said we donrt. So, okay, so this, thing was going
fine. Then a month Later, hre come back again, oh, by
the way, werre going to have air conditioning
(inaudible) the windows. you know, of course
(inaudible) two out of three inches (inaudible) and
that didn't go and some buildings (inaudible) and I
just want to prevent some of those things that we know
about nechanical stuff now and not Iater.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: we wouldn'I want
1
2
3
4
5
6
7.
8
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
16
I7
18
19
20
2I
22
23
24
25
that kind of arrangement.
BOARD MEMBER:
because case in point.
just brought that up
BoARD MEMBER: (Inaudible) I only
wanted for window units sticking out on, so ri-ght into
the street or below the windows. lr{y comments arer }ou
know, obviously itrs a wonderful buitding. This
gentleman just said thatr |ou know, one of the reasons
for alr that grass is because he wants everyone to be
able to see the mountainl therefore, everyone on the
rnountain is going to see that. So as somebody said,
Hans said, r reaLly think that that conference room,
the roof really, really needs some work, that whole
area. f donrt think just the dome or __ f .meanr you
have a wonderful J.ooking building from the front, a
wonderful looking building fronr the back, and then,
you know, as you were explaining the project to me, I
nudged Ton, and I said whatrs that thing on the
bottom. Okay, now, that's what sonebody is going to
sayr- theyrre going to be on the ski Lift or sonewhere
and say whatts that thing on the botton, and r really
would rike it to capture the wonderfur architecture
that you have on the top. Thatts the only comments I
have. Itts great.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ( Inaudible )
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 297 -OO2O
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
L1
L2
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
t9
20
2T
22
23
24
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
L7
Certainly we'll work on that.
BOARD MEMBER: Jack, do you have a
section showing how that roof of the conference room
( inaudible ) .
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ( Inaudible. )
BOARD MEMBER: Right there.
UNTDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So the terrace
of the deck from each unit, each roorir wiII sit rj-ght
here (inaudible)- so there are some things we need to
do.
BOARD MEHBER: SuTe.
UNIDENTfFIED SPEAKER: Certainly.
BOARD MEMBER: WeJ. l, that I s great. you
know we donrt vote on this thing, butr lou knowr you
know we Love it.
UNIDENTTFIED SPEAKER: WeJ. I, Iast tine
there was sone.legitinate concern, and we went back
and did a lot (inaudible; and I'n pleased that at
Least we see the corrections (inaudible).
BOARD MEMBER: Okay.
UNIDENTIFIED sPEAKER: So our next step
would be to come in for approval.
BOARD MEMBER: The next step will be
wetll have to sit down, staff, and our attorney and
fi-gure up where (inaudible). we'll be in touch with25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1.0
Ll.
L2
13
L4
15
IO
77
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO20
18
you on that (
need to bring
you guys, all
inaudible ) .
BOARD MEMBER: For us you know what you
us, you know, the same thing lre bring to
right, details and alI of that stuff.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ANd I thiNK thAt
the vrestern elevation -- Irm sorry, the eastern
elevation (inaudibre; if you'd rike we courd schedure
another conceptual if you want to pursue that a
Iittle, because particularly the (inaudible) windows
design with that (inaudible).
BOARD MEMBER: !{hen is
f mean, is this a year away?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
this going to
90?
I think if we
. start in | 96.
a year auray.
If we could
we want to start
BOARD UEMBER: No, thatr
thatts wonderful.
S fine. Okay,
can get the approval, we would like to
isBOARD lilE!!BER: So it
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
start sooner we would. f donrt think
and stop ( inaudible ) .
CERTIFI
STATE OF COLORADO
CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER
)
)
)
CATE
ss
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 3O3 ) 29?-OO2O
2
3
4
T, Laurie Heckman, Notary public of theState of Colorado, do hereby certiiy that theforegoing is a true and coriect transcription of thergtgyenced tapes transcribed to the best of myability
IN I{ITNESS }IHEREOF, I have hereunto set nyhand and seal this 8th day of February 1996.
,,/ ,//h_%laurle Heckman, RPRNotary Public
999 - 18th Street, Suite ZLBODenver, CO 80202
My Connission expires:Septenber !, 1996
5
5
?
I
9
10
11
t2
13
I4
I5
15
t7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
DESIGN REvIEI{ BoARD IITEETING TAPEsOctober 18, 1995
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 297-OO20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1. 1
L2
13
T4
L5
16
.I7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, TNC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
2
Ir{R. CHAIRMAN: AII right. Item Nurnber
10, the Lodge at VaiI International wing. f assume
this is the finar. review of the addition to the Lodge
there. And who is representing the Lodge?
MR . PETERSON : i{e aI1 are .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Everybody?
MR. PETERSON: Jack Zehren, Jack Zehren
is here and Mi-ke Gregg is here from Jackrs office and
John Valponi, and Irm Jay peterson representing the
Lodge.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And we also have
Jay Field frorn our office and Tim Loveset frorn our
office.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Can we do this
one more time . Ide got J"y, r^re have this gentleman
is
MR . BROITN : No, f ' [t not with them. My
name1s Jim Brown, I represent the Lodge at Vail
Condominiurn Homeowners Association.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And if you guys would
introduce yourselves.
MR. ZEHREN: Jack Zehren $rith the
architectural firrn.
MR. CHRISTEN: f rm creg Christen. Irm
with Zehren & Associates.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1L
L2
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2T
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 2s7-OO2O
3
MR. VEEHLAN: frn Dave Veehlan
landscape architect with Zehren & Associates.
MR. LOVESET: Tim Loveset, architect
MS. FRITZLEN: And
and Irm representing LuAnn WelIs.
MR. CHAIRMAN
MS, FRITZLEN
MR. CHAIRMAN
someone t s here to present.
MR. PETERSON
with Zehren & Associates.
MR. BROWN:
Lodge at Vail.
MR. VALPONT:
manager Lodge at Vail.
Charlie Brown vrith the
And John Valponi, general
frm Lynn Fritzlen,
And One vail place?
And one Vail place.
All right. I assume
WeII, the Last time that
just a second,
, is that L4
r^re talked about our bui lding the Lodge and the
existing spot where the International wing (inaudible)
and I assune you al1 (inaudible). We have a
conference room at the botton and we have then three
I'eve-l-s of rooms up above that, and it goes f ron this
part of the lodge to 14 feet from one vail place, and
therers a corridor that goes down between thern. This
is the conference level.
BOARD MEMBER: Excuse me
when you say 14 feet frorn one Vail place
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
!2
13
)_4
15
16
17
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
4
feet from the wall or frorn the projections?
MR. PETERSON: From the wall, which is
the satne as the property line.
Ievel.
BOARD MEMBER: Thatrs anazing.
Ii{R. PETERSON: This is the bottom
It has a 6r000-sguare-foot conference area
with adjacent bathroonrs and preconvene area, and it
also has a banguet service area and then a service
eLevator as well as the guest elevator that goes up to
the rooms. This is a nerd storage area over here and
its access from the lobby is over here, come down
existing -- whatrs now car.red the Golden ski Room, and
we come down this corridor down a ramp down to this
level, which is lower than the lobby, then the Golden
ski Room. And this rooks out to the mountains. This
is sornewhat of a glass wall, this wall right here, and
it's approxinately -- this is the existing
rnternational Room right here, this dashed rine, so vre
were pushing it that far.
BOARD MEMBER: Excuse me, if I nay
interrupt - r{e don't do f r.oor plans. r rearize that
in some cases it's critical to the appearance of a
buirding, but werre prinariry interested in exterior
architecture- Site pIans, landscaping, that sort of
thing.
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
I
9
10
11
1,2
13
T4
15
16
I7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-0020
5
MR. PETERSON: This is the south
elevation. This is what you see fron the mountain.
This is the conference area down below.
BOARD I{EMBER: Now, how has that
changed frorn the drawing that f saw this norning?
MR. PETERSON: What r have here is the
elevation as it was presented approxinatery in June,
and f can show it to you if yould lilie to compare the
tlro.
BOARD II{EMBER: yeah.
MR. PETERSON: Based on the earlier
( inaudible ) there was a request to make the conference
area (inaudible).
BOARD MEMBER: Right, I recal.L that.
rt seems to rne r was looking at another change in that
direction that Iooked -- yeah, there it is.
MR. PETERSON: Instead of this kind of
glass f rontage, it becarne rnore of a barance bet$reen
stucco and the mass (inaudible). The enc]osure is the
same, the space tha.t is enclosed.
BOARD MEMBER: Okay. Right, that was
kind of on one clairn bef ore, vrasn r t it.
MR. PETERSON: yeah. ( Inaudibte ) . So
that qras ( inaudible ) .
BOARD MEMBER: oKqy.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
7
8
9
0
L1
L2
13
t4
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
z)
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
6
MR. PETERSON: Behind this roof here is
a (inaudible) guest room on this rever. And above
that is another lever of guest roorns that guests can
go out on their own private balconies, and on top is
the presidential suite. And then it. has a terrace
from here and around. Therers no one on the back
side. So this part here is set back fronr this space.
I believe it's about 15 feet. So this face here is
about on the sane plane as this, so it has some retief
in there (inaudible) and this one is ar.so set back.
Therers another balcony right here.
This is one Vail place here. This is
the corridor between the thro. Therers some landscape
and some roof s to heJ.p buf f er this walr- so it doesnrt
create a canyon walking down that corridor. And this
is the existing end of the Lodge at Vail. This is
their loading dock,. this is the condo end. on this
one, this i.s the (inaudible) wirdfrower Resraurant.
werre creating a new landscape inside of the plaza.
Ther-e's an entrance into the building which leads to
the guest elevator, and which goes down to the
conference leve] down here or to the three reveLs of
guest rooms.
Here on this side
balconies off the second level .
also, we have
On the fi.rst Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
t3
I4
15
16
I?
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
7
there are terraces down close to grade with 1g-inch
high basket wa1rs. They'rl have cor.orado Rose cut
stone around the terrace walls. Out here is the
presidential suite again, and herers the terrace on
the other side; and the t.errace, therers also another
one right here, and this is a stairwerr that goes dolrn
for a fire exit. Herers one vail place. Here again
is One Vail place. This is a section of the existing
Iodge and how it will attach to it.
This is the landscape plan, how rrre I re
going to landscape the (inaudible). The existing
wildf rower Restaurant !,rerre not changing at all other
than having hedges- This is the approximate rocation
of the existing (inaudible) addition. Werre changing
it just slightly in the Iocation, then vre're
( inaudible ) . t{e ' 1l have a patio on the outsi,de of it
for outdoor din.ing, and thererl. I be an 1B-inch high
warr and a landscaped bern to soften the view from
here over towards the linaudible; the other randscape
in here in front of guest roons, which are down to the
last level, the stairs going into the north side.
Then therets a wal.kway that comes
around between (inaudible) and One vail pIace. The
landscape plannerrs here natching the grades to One
Vail Place. Therers an existing door right here werre
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l-0
LL
L2
13
T4
15
16
l7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
8
bringing about to the sane height. we had to add a
couple of steps in there and then step back down. out
front our property line runs like this. There,s
we also have a property Line which runs like this,
which this line belongls to the Lodge also.
we have a (inaudible) patio out here
for the people that are in the conference room, and
therers arso access up to the parking area here. This
is an existing -- there r s three or four parking spaces
right here. WerIl be turning that back to the way it
is. The only change werre making is werre putting a
snaLl bourder waLL to hold that grade, but it's in the
same exact location that it is now. This is Forest
Service property there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that it?
MR. PETERSON: WeI I , ere have
( inaudibJ.e ) this would be rhe roof ing obviously. .This
is the coLorado Rose stone thatrs going around the
base that you see here, here. This is the window
(inaudibi"e) this is the color of the stucco, color of
the wood siding up on top, and the color of the
shutters where we have the -- and the reasons for
these colors here are to try to complernent the
existing color of the rodge, which is something crose
to this. It's kind of a blue. gray. And the stucco
1
2
3
4
5
6
7.
8
9
10
11
L2
13
T4
15
15
17
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
9
rr'ilI also match the existing lodge.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
BOARD MEMBER: Excuse me, do you have
the east elevation?
MR. PETERSON: This is the elevation, as
youtre walking down this corridor here between vail
Place and the International wing. This is the plaza
here and you walk down the double steps, and imagine
the door height about here. This is a snall roof
structure to help bring the scale of that wall down,
and thatrs aLso serving as a mechanical vent so any
(inaudible) wirr be hidden up in the eaves and in the
small gables here, so r{e donrt have a large volume of
(inaudiblel. These are alL landscape planters
throughout here, and this ties back to the plaza where
the restrooms are outside of one vail place there.
that shows
show on the
BOARD MEMBER: Wherers the elevation
the f ront of the AIberg? I,foul_dn't that
eastern elevation?
MR. PETERSON: That shows -- well,
yeah. It would be right here, but frve got another
drawing.
BOARD MEMBER: Woul_d you put it in
front of that other one? yeah, that wourd be -- thank
you.
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T2
13
L4
15
16
1,7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
BOARD MEMBER: Can you briefly describe
the materials on the AIberg ShelI nentioned.
MR. PETERSON: What werre trying to do
is create a transition between the nelr rnternational
wj-ng and the existing Wildflower, whiqh is a lot of
white painted wood. so this area here is arr white
painted rafters, gutters and columns. The stone is
the same stone that vrerre using on the rnternational
wing. so srerve got the stone base and wood hording up
the roof. These are skylights up in that roof here
that if yourre standing in this space would be a
skylight (inaudible) and then it's sor,id. And over
that soLid area is the top of the roof, copper
(inaudible) roof. And you also have a copper rain
gutter and downspout. These doors here are bi-folding
doors that open up to allow dining inside and out on
the patio, which is on the Iandscape linaudible).
BOARD MEMBER: (Inaudible) kind of
garden (inaudible) existing restaurant but put it into
a perrnanent structure but not lose sone of that kind
of openness and sun and airiness, so it becomes kind
of a garden room (inaudible).
elevation -- as
the lodge that'
MR. PETERSON: This is what the north
you I r'e corning out of the one door of
s what that el_evation will look like,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
I4
15
16
L?
18
19
20
2T
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 297-0O20
11
the existing lodge above it
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Comnents
fron the board first, then werll have sotne comments
fron the public. Dan, did you have sonethi.ng to add?
BOARD MEMBER: A couple things here,
Michael. werve gotten significant public input.
Werve got a fax from the Eagle Vail East Village
Homeowners Association
MR. CHAIRMAN: f have that right here.
Werve got some copies here. As f lras going to sdy,
Itn going to ask for board comments about the
architecture and whatnot, and then werl. 1 get into the
public point of view, but hre are just reviewing this
application right nobr. So, Brett.
elevation,
BOARD MEMBER: yes. On the south
I think the changes yourve nade to the
Iower Level are much more consistent with the
architecture up above, which is very positive from rny
point of view; and correct me if Irm wrong, but.I
bel-i.eve yourve made. sone ad justments to the ridge line
on the top as well, which I think has reduced even
further the arnount of blocking of anyoners views
looking towards the mountain, which is a good thing.
The corridor that goes between our --
tbe east side of the building, I have some concern. I
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
1.5
15
t7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
t2
know we talked about it out on the site, some of the
other members, and they feel the same way about the
planters that are proposed there may be constricting
that circuration space too much because once you add
those projections into your plans, therers some areas
there that r think would feer really tight with such a
substantial planter being proposed, and Irm not sure
how to solve that problen.
And briefly, the Alberg elevation, I
think itts unfortunate. I understand that yourre
trying to create a transition from the Lodge over to
the I{irdfrower, but r think itrs unfortunate that
youtve had to depart so nuch from the really nice
quality of architecture that yourre doing at the
Lodge- rtts such a departure, that it seems rike itts
not working in harmony with the whole pJ-aza there, and
you night consider.rnaybe I know you want to keep i.t
light, but naybe it's just a matter of the nateriars
and the colors being more in keeping with the Lodge.
And _that was it.
BOARD MEMBER: Well, Brett stole
everybodyrs thunder,- but actually talking about the
Alberg thingr 1rou know, f think -- well, first, I
think yourve done a wonderful job on the south
elevation. You did exactJ,y what we asked you to do.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
f mean, thatrs an inportant view fron the mountain,
and I think nirnicking with the Alberg, minicking the
older thing is really a mistake. frd rnuch prefer to
see you, you knoiv, producing the really good new
rather than just trying to transition from something
thatts so oLd. Okay, that|s nunber one.
Number tno, absoLutely yourve got to
remove all those planters and yourve got to put some
fenestration to the wall. .werve had peopre ask for a
2S-foot walkway. Well, you know, lre canrt tell you to
nake a bigger walkway, cut down your building, but,
strange as it rnay seem, years ago all of those
projections that project over the property Iine, I
canrt figure it out; but theyrre there, and you have
to recognize that. you have to renove the pranters.
I dontt think much will grow there anyhow, and you
have to develop some different fenestration so that it
doesn t t just r.ook rike a hoJ.e, but you realry have to
nake that as wide looking as you possibly can. Sone
of those projections are five, six feet. I meanr you
know, they looked at least that, and if we have only
15 feet, L4, yourve got five, six feet projectionr you
get a planter five, six feet, or whatever, then where
are we.
So, f nean, f think thatrs really the
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
13
t4
16
1'7
18
19
20
21,
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
1,4
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPBNTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
14
problen. people are going to walk through there, and
we should rnake it a nice space or as nice as you guys
can make it. Maybe you should get pernission to put
some planters under those projections on the other
p1ace. There it night work, you know, get sone plants
if they would agree with you, get some green there;
but as long as you I re losing the space with these
poking out, I mean, I would think thatrs the place to
put some stone and plants and not on the other side of
it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Henry.
BOARD MEMBER: This is the first tine
ftve seen this, and lrve got a few nore questions. I
guess f '11 start wi,th the AJ.berg. Is the south
elevation of the Al.berg the same as the north?
MR. PETERSON: yes. It has Less glass
because it I s in this therers a snarl fire rearry
the fire (inaudible) exit, so it has less qlass
BOARD MEMBER: Okay. Because I vras
going to ask you if that was a unit there that was
going to be looking right into the side of the
restaurant.
MR. PETERSON: No, it's a small board
room.
BOARD MEMBER: . Okay. I guess I agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
t_3
t4
t5
16
1,'l
18
l-9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
15
vrith the others. I think the Alberg room -- I
understand the intent. r think it just looks a rittre
foreign, especially when yourve got the Wildflower on
one side, which has its .own character and charn, and
your new facade on the other, which f think is
fantastic. r don't like the use of copper because alr
of a sudden that seems rike a foreign material in this
courtyard.
Moving on to One VaiI place, f donrt
r^rant to address the legality of the overhangs, but I
do have a big coDcern, and maybe you can help ne.
rtts rny understanding in this type of construction,
that any opening within five feet of the property line
has to be protected. Nor.r, if these overhangs are on
the order of five feet, and I donrt know what they
are, yourve got a 14-foot separation, yourve got 1O
feet, therefore, both your openings and their openings
have to be protected, which neans rolJ--up shutters or
fire glass or whatever the code requires, and I just
wonder if your drawings donrt show the overhangs
Therers a bay window in one case. That could have a
rna jor irnpact on your elevation, and r wonder if you r ve
addressed that -
MR. PETERSON: Well, it depends on how
you interpret the code. The property line is at their
t6
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
building face. WeII, the balconies are over the
property line, and how that happened, f don,t know.
According to the code itrs right, plus the five feet
rnust be protected with tvro-hour construction. And
greater than that we didn I t have openings.
BOARD MEMBER: My experience with the
building departrnent here was that when you had a
building built right to the property line and then
when you built another one nett to it, the property
line was assumed to be halfway betvreen the two
MR. PETERSON: Right. So it would be
seven feet. Werre seven feet away.
BOARD MEMBER: From the face, but not
from the overhangs.
MR. PETERSON: Frorn the assurned
property line, thatrs right. It all depends on how
it's interpreted in the building department.
BOARD MEMBER:. frm just raising an
issue because it has a major inpact on them and has a
najo-r impact on you if you've got to come back and put
shutters on alL these windows, which we obviously
dontt r.rant to see, and I think you donrt want to see
either.
BoARD MEMBER: Are you talking about
the windows on One Vail place?
1
2
3
4
.5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
L3
74
15
L6
t7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO20
L7
BOARD l'lEl'tBER: yes. Also these windows
on their building.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: These
(inaudible). These five windows, and itrs a question
of whether or not that property line is in the rniddre
of the space or on their buiJ.ding line.
BOARD MEMBER: Obviously, itrs all
rnoved but the overhangs are four feet, but you donrt
show them on your drawing so lre have no way of
knowing -- at least I have no way of knowing what they
are.
MR. PETERSON: This is the overhang on
One Vail Place here. This is not our overhang here.
BOARD MEMBER: So yourre saying nothing
projects further than the eave line.
BOARD MEMBER: It doesnrt matter. It I s
an assumed property line.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ANd thEiT
building is more than five feet avray frorn the assumed
property line (inaudible).
BOARD MEMBER: It's not the center
between two buildings, though.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If you take the
center line between our wall here, Chuck, we have our
w.indows in and their warl or any of the projections on
1
2
3
'4
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
rt)
t'1
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
18
their wall, it,s --
BOARD MEI,'BER: yourre not saying the
actual property line. yourre saying the distance
between the two walls.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: yeah, itrs at
seven feet.
BOARD I.IEMBER: The code allows you to
have a public way. It could be a street or a publicly
defined easement of some sort to go to the nriddle of
that space, so that i s why r.re rre saying.
BOARD MEMBER: Like I say, if the
projections at one vaiL pl-ace are less than four feet,
if yourve got a l4-foot separation, itrs moved. I do
have another guestion on the section through the
wal.kway. Right behind you, Jack, the walk is going up
and down. Is that existing?
MR. PETERSON: YeS.
UNIDENTTFIED SPEAKER: ThatIs an
existing fire exit frorn One vail place.
MR. pETERSON: (Inaudible) the
building, the way I understand it, vras built on grade,
and then they rebuilt it in i-gTg to become One Vail
Pl'ace rdith the condos, and they put a basement in. At
that tine the rnternational wing was already there, so
they had to build over the top of the International
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
t-0
11
!2
13
14
1,5
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO20
19
wing, and then they matched the lever-s of which that
is (inaudibte) right here.
BOARD MEI,IBER: I s it aD unreasonable
reguest to make that sloping instead of stairs? The
stairs becone an obstruction.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ft may not be a
slope, but it could be a slope (inaudible) 1O percent
or something.
MR. PETERSON.: Itrs half of this is
sloped. f don't believe it r s ( inaudible ) other than
half a step (inaudible) steps down.
BOARD MEMBER: f think if werre going
to treat this corridor as an access frorn the south
side to the north, whether it complies to the retter
of the ADA or not, f'd like to see slopes instead of
steps. Ird also like to see it snow melted, if thatr
a practicality,. because otherwise I think it r s. goi.ng
to be a pretty miserable space. I agree hrith Brett,
think I guestion the planters and the side that the
plan_ters are on. f donrt know what yourve got
scheduled to pJ,ant in there, and I don,t know if it
would !lrow, but I ' n skeptical. .
UNIDENTIFIED SpEAKER: AII the planters
in the building are scheduled to have (inaudibre) the
north side, seni-sunny conditions we have on that
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
16
17
18
19
20
2!
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
20
side.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. r guess
the guestion would be whether maybe this fall to put
planters, if it nakes sense, or Do planters at aII.
(Inaudible) standpoint we would respond to naking it
interesting going through. We could just make it
(inaudible) rather to the wa]l and then perhaps hang
sornething off the wall or do sonething with the
windows and fenestration. So werre open to
suggestj-ons. Itrs not anything particularly critical
to know ( inaudible ) .
UNTDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I don't know
(inaudible) enough room here to get (inaudible)
against this six or eight feet over.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: They do have a
natural jog or two in tbere before you get to the
narrowest point of the corridor, which would be a
logicar prace to have a planter. The corridor as itrs
designed (inaudible) the Line which is existing, the
existing Iine (inaudible) One VaiL place srerre
actual-ry getting an extra two and a har.f to three feet
(inaudible). This rine here is the existing one vail
Place. ftts a post tension slab. Our structural
engineer is sitting here (inaudibJ-e) so welre holding
'this (inaudiblel overhang over the barance and you'll
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1t
t2
13
L4
have access to some other things from underneath
there. So (inaudible) which is the existing walI, and
it I s also a legal easement. That r s another reason why
we didnrt put planters up against One Vail place,
because there is a legal easement that vre r re also
(inaudible) so qre're actually stepping in these spots
to give more room, like where theyrre. exiting.
Therets an exit door here, and these projections are
ttvo, t!'ro and a half feet taIl, as yourll see.
BOARD MEMBER: I think what the board
seems to be saying, though, in regards to those
pranters is to either decrease them or erininate the
projecting feature conpletely.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We v,ere Iooking
at something to try to break up this scale.
BOARD MEMBER: Sure. Henry, anything
else?
BOARD MEMBER: yes, sir. In reading
through Mr. Lamontrs Ietter, I would l_ike to just
briug up one issue, and that is this terrace, which he
calls a fl.at roof, I donrt necessarily agree with
that, but he does raise a good issue, and that is it
is very cLose to both -- r assune thatrs the private
condo as weLl as above hotel rooms. And what is the
intended use? Is that part of the condo? Is that
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 2e7-OO2O
15
1F,
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2T
22
23
24
2s
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 2e?-OO2O
22
part of the hotel?
UNIDENTIFTED SPEAKER: (Inaudible) what
we intend to do is there I s an area here that this
condo is going to llet (inaudible). As a matter of
fact, itts only (inaudible) this one here. werre
goj-ng to give then another one on this side, and
therets a planter waLl between the two, and therers a
terrace for this unit here, which goes up to about
here and then back in here, and also there wilt be a
higher flat roof for elevated (inaudible).
terrace is
condo ?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Right.
BOARD MEMBER: Okay, that , s it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. I have a couple
of comments. I agree with everyone on the AJ.berg, the.
sidewalk, right down to it being heated, thatrs got to
be a real I think that will be a real inhospitable
plac-e in the wintertine without sornething to -- you r re
not going to get the snow out basically. Itrs not
going to see the sun very nuch.
BOARD MEMBER: So the function of this
essentially that it's a party deck for the
On your south elevation site plan
col-or concrete that so obviously fol-lows
of the National Forest land, f think a
there, that
the border
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
I
9
10
1L
L2
13
I4
15
16
I7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
23
Little more imagination in terms of perhaps a curb
(inaudibre) situation that doesnrt exactly forrow that
90-degree corner where you, you know, round off the
round off one corner, round in another corner. That
looks hokey, it reaIly does.
And there I s another point thatls in Jirn
Lamontrs letter that rrve always agreed hrith, and that
is that even though you have made efforts with the
pent house level, that the buirding should still step
back further between one vail place and on that third
Ievel, and I think itrs easily acconplished. I know
nothingts easy, butr 1rou know, you could shift that
entire pent house to the west, decrease some of the
deck on the erest, perhaps have a rittte bit of deck on
the east, but give a little bit more transparency to
that corridor, let a little more light in and just
break up that, you know, what still appears to be a
fairJ-y sheer warl between the rnternational wing and
One Vail PIace
This has been a concern of mine from
the get-go on this project, and Irm still terribly
concerned with it, and it seems to ne fron what r see
of thj.s roof planr lourve got basically just a flat
there, and this is a problen that could easily be
addressed sinpry by shifting this outer mass in that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
I6
t7
18
19
20
27
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 29?-OO2O
24
direction, so in rnaking a step above the second floor
the west end of the pent house. And thatls about ar]
I have to say. I think we should --
BOARD MEMBER: Mike, I have one more
comment, f tm sorry
MR. CHAIRMAN: What r s that?
BOARD MEMBER: On the stain color for
the wood siding, is that a solid body or a
semitransparent ?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Senitransparent.
BOARD MEMBER: uy only concern is that
that so-called redwood stain has a very comnon
tendency to turn very orange when it r s actually
applied, and f would encourage you to do \dhatever you
can not to let that happen and to naintain a wood
appearance.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Do vre have some
comments from the public here now? Jin. Keep it
brief, though.
MR. LAMONT: IrlI try. Andy, in the
record my letterrs been included. Do you have letters
from the sartz' the shuman retter and Lynnrs retter
that have also been put in?
BOARD MEMBER: No. IIve got these
here. I vras going t,o put then into the record and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
L1
T2
13
t4
15
16
1'1
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
za
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
25
summarize r.rrhat they said.
MR. CHAIRMAN:Okay.Do you want to
stick to your osrn comments?
MR. LAMONT: yeah. These are people
that are mernbers of the homeowners association who
sent letters, and I want to nake sure that you.all
MR. CHAIRMAN: I didnrt get then, but
Andy will include them. The only one I have is yours,
Jirn, and itts a wonderf ul l.etter.
MR. LAMONT: f hrant to just nake sone
opening comments because this is the first time I
think frve had the opportunity to deal with you all.
And itts been a whir.e since rrve even visited with
you, but I think all of us -- the only one I really
havenrt had any direct contact with at the upper
levels of thj-s project is Jay. John, Charlie, and I
have been in comnunication, and Jim Brown and .severar
other people. So I think therers been a pretty open
dialogue about various aspects, not only this
prop-osal, but other things that we aIl ire trying to
work on.
And frm very syrnpathetic, particularly
the homeordners association is synpathetic, with the
need for Lodge at Vail to get more hotel rooms,
because I think that is going to be a rnajor
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
I
9
10
L1
I2
13
L4
15
t-6
77
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 297-OO20
26
irnprovement in the vilrage in terms of an econonic
benefit. Also, we see the convention facility as
being a rnajor advantage for the community. I think
where the problem is is sort of a history of this
pro j ect , which I
,vron
r t visit in terms of my. personal
hi-story $rith it, because r \das dealing with it back in
the early 19?0s and visited lrith the Town attorney on
it. What we woul.d like to see is a scaled down
version, a remanipulation of the mass in anticipation
of Eome key factors that we think will happen in the
near future. And that has to do with the change in
reality but real,J,y affects the entire village and that
is the Court decision on the Land exchange site.
As many of you may be aware, the
homeowners association is activery pursuing the notion
that that portion of the land exchange site should be
developed, and if they are developed, that this
buiJ.ding needs to be put, at least in this stage, in
the context of that potential. rt doesnrt mean that
werre opposed necessarily to erements of this buirding
and even the rocation of sorne of these erernents, but
in anticipation that other developnents could occur
south of this site, we feel that there are some
changes and rnodifications to the massing of this
building and some of the spatial relationships that25
1
2
3
4
C
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
I5
l-b
could arlovr this buirding to proceed if it meets. rf
it doesnrt neet, then those uses, we feel, are very
acceptabre out on the land exchange site. And r think
just briefly, what our feeling is, that the scale of
the overall structure l_s better with this gone and
this moved over. No\r --
f l oor?
BOARD MEMBER: Which gone, Jirn?
MR. LAMONT: If this drops down.
BOARD MEMBER: Oh, the entire upper
MR. LAMONT: The upper floor. And if
this moves over, now (inaudible) to keep the hotel
rooms, which I think are a community asset. The pent
house, frm not sure is really that much of an asset,
even to the neighborhood, and r think itrs a use and a
rnass that can be rel,ocated at some f uture date.
somewhat curious about whatever -- what our
interpretation iS, if this is a cerrace.
Irm
t7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BOARD MEMBER: ft would be a terrace
that would qualify as not being a flat roof.
MR. LAMONT: And is there some magical
definition that we arrived at that puts
BOARD MEMBER: The difference between a
terrace and a roof?
MR. LAMONT: Yes.
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO20
28
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
T2
13
1,4
15
15
11
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 2e7-OO2O
BOARD MEMBER: Corne on novr. A roof has
roofing naterials on it. They have smoke stacks
coming out of then. It generally has projections. It
generally isnrt brockable. rt generalry doesnrt have
a guardrail around it. This is a deck.
llR. LAMONT: So hre could then Look at
all buirdings in town as having a rooftop terrace with
this kind of interpretation?
BOARD MEMBER: frm sorry, Jim. What
are you referring to?
MR. LAMONT: WeIl, r think part of the
aim of the Urban DeveJ_opnent Guidelines is that we
donrt have flat surface areas on the upper floors.
BOARD MEMBER: Like the Red Lion?
MR. LAMONT: WeLl --
BOARD MEMBER: Like which building?
MR. LAMONT: I think what we need to
understand is if it's the upper floor, is it a roof or
is it a terrace? And if itrs on the upper floor, is
it t-he roofing of the building and, therefore, it
accounts for and falls under (inaudible).
BOARD MEMBER: Okay. Jirnr lou can go
round and round with that. Letrs not bother. Thatrs
a staff interpretation r believe staff wilr interpret.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I donrt think
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
'J,4
15
16
I7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 29?-0020
29
itrs a terracer but itrs standard in its evaruati_on
( inaudible ) .
MR. CHAIRMAN: So letrs move on.
MR. LAMONT: AI1 right. I think that
then our concern is that the building be shorter,
(inaudible) the .east end, the building be lowered by a
floor, and that the (inaudibre) be protected from the
nass of the buirdingi and r think also that the varue
of that will protect the units on the upper floor in
terms of views, and I think also if dormers are
removed, because f think theyrve done a good job with
dealing with the hipped roof, that the dorrners be
removed so it further improves the views from the
public spaces as well as the upper floors.
Also, I think the noise exhaust privacy
issue' particularly with the so-carled interpreted
roof terrace, realJ_y is an infringement on the
privacy. It is a najor affront to the adjacent
residential property and f think also has a
subqtantive devaluqtion of that property, and I would
assume the adjacent property wants to address that
issue themseLves.
Also, I think in anti-cipation of what
could happen (inaudible) this property is that the
p.assageway betvreen the two buildings is extrenely
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
r'1
18
t9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 2e7-OO2O
30
crj-tical, and f think itts pretty well outlined in my
Ietter that the scale of this face needs to be
replicated similar to the space between the Hirr and
Golden Peak house as well as --
BOARD MEMBE,R: What is that distance?
UNIDENTIFIED SpEAKER: I think it's
about 25 feet.
MR. LAMONT: Because f think what wefre
dealing with in this space is the potential for
another portal to access the mountain which then gives
us the opportunity to have nore access up through Wall
street, which f realty think it would be a major
irnprovement, and, you knorar, I know that therers a lot
of gray probl,ens in there, but r.rhatever design
solutions, Jack, can be made so that thatrs fairly
accessibLe for skiers, because r think urtinately
erer.re going to see that as a na jor connecting link;
and the feeling that f'm getting from that space is
the space betvreen the orDonovan Bar and the casino
buit ding, it's just. too narrow.
f happen to like what theyrve done, not
necessarily with the architecture, but r rearry think
if this building (inaudibre) this idea of coning down,
opening up a building area that then wouLd $rrap around
the building has some real merit; and whatever is done
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
11
L2
t3
L4
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, rNC
( 303 ) 297-0020
31
here, you pursue that before you pursue this part of
the building, I think if you (inaudible) if you can
create sornething like this that wrapped around the
bottorn of the building, it would realIy enhance that
whole space.
You know, Irm being told one !ray.or
another this building may not be built and may be
built. I think if it is built, then werve got to make
sure that at least this building here is protected in
the public interest, and if it has to lose the botton
floor so that perhaps therers an (inaudible) and keep
it upstairs, that night be a fair tradeoff.
But f realty think that the whole mass
of the building in trying to keep a major corridor
open (inaudible) really allows very exciting
possibilities (inaudible) .
So those arg about the sum and
substance of ny comnents. We will deal with other
issues (inaudible).
MR. CHAIRMAN:
with public comments. Lynn,
next ?
Okay. Continuing on
would you like to go
f have been to a rneetingMS. FRITZLEN:
before and, as I
the basis of the
stated before, we had questions about.
zoning, the granting of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
T4
15
l-6
L7
18
19
20
2T
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
32
development rights, which we do not intend to address
at this neeting. !{erve kept our comments to that in
the past.
Certainly the comments about the
treatment of the side of the building as adjacent to
one Vail Prace is very inportant to ldrs. I{erls and Dr.
Speak, who are o\.rners in that building. Regardless of
the building code restrictions, which r am certainly
sympathetic with, it should be treated as essentiarly
a zero lot line situation. There really is not an
opportunity to look out, to use those windows
(inaudible) and the plans should reflect that.
I realize that One Vail pLace has
openings onto that wall. The history of development
at One Vail Place and the granting of developnent
rights for this wing is very nuddy and often difficurt
to track, but I think at the time One Vail place was
developed, they were under the assurnption that this
building would not corne that close to their properry
line- (inaudible).
reconsidered.
I thi.nk the whole site needs to be
In generaJ., I
rather than the originat 198
has a little interest on the
softer, there is the kind of
guess I Like the building
3 proposal. Certainly it
roof, the colors are
relief that makes the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7.
I
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
t-6
I'1
18
19
20
2I
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
33
building ( inaudible ) to look at. On the other
itrs very inconsistent with the existing 1odge.
not that Irm very synpathetic to the esthetics
lodge, but none of these (inaudible) to pit the
buildings together. And given the anount of
technology that's available today with photographic
imaging and just a simple rendering showing, you know,
how the two buildings are going to interface in terms
of this really new building type of a different sca.Le
(inaudible) the floor heights rdere different, some of
the roof lines are different. r think it's necessary
to ap least have an opportunity to see hoh, the tvro
mesh.
MR. CHAIRMAN:Thatrs a good point,
ma I am.
hand,
WelI,
of this
two
that
keep
sone
t hat
study
light
that I
MS. FRITZLEN: Okay. Do I stop here?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Nor Dor keep going.
MS. FRITZLEN: Lastly, the corridor
is proposed, I respect the architectsr attenpt to
the same intimacy of scale, to give it keep
of the same gualitj.es that are going on now in
corridor. Unfortunately, if there was a shadow
done on that corridor (inaudible) never see the
of day for three months of the year. I mean,
s realJ-ty, given the current height of this
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
building. And $rerve all seen it, you know. lge know
what itts like, and what happens is you have to put
plants in there that need no light, all paving needs
to be heated. In fact, through the corridor thatrs
proposed now, which is going to become a very public
corridor once these two buildings are squeezed
together, itts going to have to be heated. It's going
to al-nost have to be treated as an indoor space
because snoer eguipment isn r t even going to -- or snoe,
removar eguipnent isnrt even going to be accessible to
ir.
Lastly -- and Mrs. Wells really has not
been able to review this most current set, and I rnet
vtith Mandy a coupre weeks ago and asked her some other
technical inforrnationr particularly the survey
inforrnation and title work. We have not had an
opportunj-ty to go over that, and I know some of that
infornation is very helpful and (inaudible) architect
is going to provide it in more detail, a more detail.ed
grad-e solut j-on.
we would like to have an opportunity to
revi-ew those drawings f or at least tvro hreeks, and not
necessarily to criticize then, but just as a
neighboring property have the tirne to see that they
are consistent with the other topo information thatrs
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
L4
t5
16
L7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 2e7-0020
35
available on One Vail place.
I'lR. CHAIRMAN:
empowered to postpone anything
provide you with plan approval
certainly appreciate
MS. FRfTZLEN: I think most
applications are reguired to have this four weeks in
advance. r know this has certainly been inrposed on my
clients, and, frankly, I think itrs a good
reguirement.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I agree with you. frn
just saying I dontt know that vrerre empowered to do
it. Is there anyone else fron the public that wanted
to say something? Go ahead, sir. And you are again?
MR. BROWN: I rrn Jin Brown.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Jirn Brown.
MR. BROI{N: I represent the condominium.
homeowners association and we find this plan to be an
irnprovenent over the prior plans. The onry reason r
would rnake any comm.ent is that we would be very
concerned about the shift of the presidentiar suite
over closer to the Lodge if thatrs what you vrere
suggesting.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
BOARD MEMBER:
I don t t know that we, re
for two weeks so we can
; but anyway, I
That is.
Thatrs exactly what f
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
t3
t4
15
16
I7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
36
nas suggesting.
problen.
MR. BROWN: l{ell, we rdould have a ma jor
BOARD MEMBER: And what would that
concern be?
MR. BROWN: ft would be the further
( inaudible ) from the existing ( inaudible ) . We I re
right at a very, very delicate balance lrith this
distance now, and werve qot folks all along here
looking here towards the nountain. we move this over
further, and, weII, theyrve got a rnajor problem, and
frm not aware of anyone behind this whose views are
not going to be
BOARD MEMBER: The entire tonn, sir.
MR. BROWN: We1l, again, (inaudiblel
for a year and a half, a year and a half now, reaching
a delicate balance that we have.
BOARD MEMBER: Well, I guess the option
then would be to reduce the size of the house. other
people have suggested to elininate it.
MR. BROWN : Yeah . I mean, that I s -- lre
are right on the edge with it the way it is. If the
deveroper wanted to reduce the size further or do a\day
with it, we would not have an objection.
BOARD MEMBER: Certainly.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2I
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 297-OO20
37
UNIDENTIFIED SPBAKER: As a matter of
clarification, as it is, itrs actually two (inaudible)
units that are operated through the hotel. frm sorry,
three that are operated through the hotel. ftrs not a
for-sa1e. condorninium or separate ownership.. Itrs
actually operated as hotel rooms, but it is a larger
suite.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And we have
scaled it back to (inaudible).
MR. BROWN: Right, I understand.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You realize that
that corner is cut off there.
MR. BRowN: Right, I realize that too,
but visual. ly looking at it frorn the Hong Kong side or
the mountainside yourre still looking on this side.
This elevation particuJ.arJ_y yourre stilI Iooking at a
substantiaJ. mas.s rJ-sing virtually straight up .for .four
f Ioors. I rnean, that's what f r n Iooking at. I don r t
know what you see, but thatrs vrhat I see, on the south
elevation particularly.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ( Inaudible ) .
UNfDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ( Inaudibte )
probably something vre can do to shift the (inaudible)
any more.
MR. BROWN: I realize -- I agree with
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
1R
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 297-O020
38
everyone's comments that this (inaudible) what we
originally saw. Irm just still concerned,
particularly with the (inaudible) section that says
that this board is here to protect neighboring
property olvners and users by making sure that
reasonable provision has been made for such matters as
pedestrian and vehicular traffic, surface water
drainage, sound and site buffers, preservation of
light and air and those aspects of design not
adequately covered by other regulations, which rnay
have. substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
MR. PETERSON: Irn going to disagree
lrith that. I think when you look at one VaiI place,
when the building is built from property line to
property Iine, then you have another four feet of
overhang on to our property, certainly I think they
share some responsibility as far as what their
protdction is also (inaudibre) over the rast 12 years.
BOARD MEMBER: That's an existing
condition, and therers nothing we can do about it.
There is sonething we have to say about this. I
personally agree lrith Mr. Lanont as far as the
separation between the two buildings. I know itrs a
hardship for you all, and with a pain in rny chest I
can sdy, okay, 14 feet by 2, but itrs got to at least
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I2
13
14
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 291-OO20
39
visually step back some more to let some more air into
that canyon. It is going to becone more and rnore a
focus point of -- you know, it,s going to be used a
lot more than it ever ha.s been sinply because it,s
visualty directing people, at least right now
(inaudible) - rtrs going to be a werr trafficked area.
MR. PETERSON: But I think this was a
long, Iong discussion (inaudible) planning Cornmission
Ievel (inaudible) 14 feet, back and forth with the
Town Council and planning Conmission, and this is a
number that everybody arrived at that srerre
comfortable with. One Vail place is (inaudible).
Likewise, the third floor was kept over towards the
eastern portion to keep the buffer with Lodge
Apartrnent condoniniuns . That cras al so going back and
forth.
BOARD MEMBER: I realize yourve got a
Lot of people tel, ling you how to design your building.
Itts a prominent place, Ird salr as far as the
architecture goes. Irn satisfied with the
architecture of the International wing as it I s
proposed. I just personally still have problens. Irm
just one member of the board, Jay.
MR. PETERSON: yeah. I think what we
need to be looking at at this point is really the
40
1
2
3
4
t
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
t4
15
16
I7
t8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
z5
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
design because the bulk of the mass ( inaudible ).
Planning Conmission. I know there is a --
BOARD MEMBER: Jay, coul_d you explain
that to us, how the bulk of the nass is designed and
how this buirding (inaudibre). r think alr that would
be very helpful to hear. Itrs very hard to
understand -
BOARD MEI.IBER: Jay, let me interrupt
for a second. I think thatrs really not our purview.
What f see here is a couple of issues that everybody
on the board has brought up, that we would like to see
addressed architecturally.
MR. PETERSON: I'd like to hear them.
BOARD MEMBER: Okay. None of us like
the face of the Alberg, and, number two, none of us
like the planters, and we -- you need to show us I
accept the t4 feet. If itrs gone through compromise,
we canrt compromise the conprornise, okay. And if that
is accepted, you need to do some erork and show us
$rhat-ts the fenestration, where are the planters going
to go. And with that in mind -- and it night even
solve Lynn's probJ,ern, is I think we ought to table
this for two weeks, because r think you have to cone
back to us with those two new drawings, those two neer
elevations, and thatrs a1l. werre looking at, you know,
1
2
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
t2
13
t4
15
16
t?
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-0020
41
and we really need to look at them. f donrt think
anybody likes the Rlberg face. Or maybe j_trs not a
question of not liking it, werre just concerned how
does it work with the new building.
Lynn brings a really good point up.
why dontt you show us -- you know, just superimpose
the old building on it so we see how all of that
works, and what r would like to do is see arl of that
in two weeks taking our suggestions, you know, the
probrem areas architecturaLry that we have, and thatrs
alL l want to work on. f donrt need to work on the
legalities because I donrt understand it anyhow.
MR. PETERSON: I certainly can do that
(inaudible) and we can do that, but I would like to
add that therers a finite list because I canrt do
anything about the L4 feet.
BOARD MEMBER: I agree. The couple of
things that we have are the Arberg face and what the
aIIey is going to look Iike, i.e., planters, removal
of p-lanters, heated., you know, and thatrs, I think,
where -- thatrs where f arn, I donrt know about anyone
eIse.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else on the
board have a concern with the height adjacent to the
canyon srith the building not stepping back there?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, rNC
( 303 ) 2e?-OO2o
42
BOARD MEMBER: I \dish we could find a
vehicre that wouldnrt penarize the developer to see it
step back on the top floor, but Irn new to this. Irve
never seen it before, and I donrt know the history,
and I dontt know i.f we have room to make a move.
BOARD MEMBER: you said naybe a. foot or
two, you know, I don't know. We could see that
MR. PETERSON: We did set it back on
the first go round.
BOARD MEI.IBER: yeah, f understand.
There is a snall --
MR. PETERSON: (rnaudible) but the
other thing is the piece of that project (inaudible)
smaller segment. There is an angle.
BOARD MEMBER: How is the height being
j.nterpreted? I mean, what is the (inaudible) height
designed to and wha.t grade ( inaudible ) ?
MR. PETERSON: ( Inaudibte. )
BOARD MEMBER: IIrn sure the
arch-itect --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We have a set of
drawings that was a whoLe sheet full of probably a
half hour discussion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If you wouldnrt nind
discussing that vrith staf f . I rnean, it r s not a DRB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
t-0
11
T2
13
t4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
43
issue. We have to assume that the height is legal.
At this time r I d like to have the pubtic comments read
into the record by Andy.
MR. KNUDTSEN: We do you have copies of
all but one of the letters we received on this
( inaudible ) rnade copies f or you. I 've got col.ored
xeroxes that illustrate most of your concerns, and in
general people have their views (inaudibLe) this
photograph, for example, fron Anita Saltz with a
letter dated September 2Sth says that they recognize
the right for the Lodge to expand and think that in
general it's a good idea. Her concern is with the
third floor structure, the building be put back at
least 25 feet from one vair prace, and then reference
to the t4 ( inaudible I .
The second letter I have is from
Stanley Shuman dated october !7, concerning sinilar
issues, as well as the patio adjacent to One VaiL
Place. we have a ]etter fron Lynn Fritzlen concerning
the-application materials dated October 10. We have a
Ietter from H. J. Sweeten ( inaudible ) , .and I donrt
believe it's in the packet. Theyrre o\^rners of
Condoninium Nurnber 2 at One Vail pl.ace, and they
berieve that there should be a 45-foot setback between
buildings.
2
3
4
5
5
7
a
9
10
11
L2
13
14
T5
16
L7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
44
(Inaudible) werve got a letter from Jin
Lamont, which he's covered thoroughly in his
presentation today, and srerve also got one fron David
Naehrens that talked about use of their units and the
elinination of the presidentiar suite on the fourth
floor. I think that covers the public input that we
received fron the mail.
BOARD MEMBER: frve got -- one of the
common threads in all these letters and r thought r
heard the anssrer, but one of the common threads is the
use of that deck for being a party deck. Okay, noerr
if they really have plans to use it as a party deck,
and thatrs their right, thatrs fine. But if they
dontt, naybe we courd put sone sort of a rinitation on
it. I mean, if that's not what itrs going to be,
maybe we can put sone sort of restriction.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thatrs not our purview.
BOARD MEMBER: frm just talking about
it. I didnrt say
UNIDENTIFTED SPEAKER: I think what it
is is a nice terrace area that people can go out on,
walk down the center. I mean, letrs face it, therers
not a whole lot of use for terraces up here because it
gets cold at night. During the summertime you have
some usage, obviousry in the wintertirne you have none.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
14
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO &
(3
CARPENTER, INC
o3 ) 297-0020
45
BOARD MEMBER: Oh, come on now,
springtirne in the Rockies.
UNIDENTIFIED SpEAKER: Every March for
a couple of days (inaudible). During the sunmertime,
they have some activity (inaudible). This is the
corridor and there needs to be nore outside activity.
I find that ( inaudible ) .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Jay, where are rde at
here? Any other conments frorn the public? Jirn.
MR. LAMONT: What Jay was talking
about, I just came from a meeting with the police
department and bar operators doxrntown dealing with our
problem of hooters, late night hooters. The only
question f have people naking noise.
hooters.
BOARD MEMBER: Werve been rnissing that,
MR. LAMONT: Anyway, I had a question I
forgot to raise. Has Jeff looked at this?
MR. KNUDTSEN: No-
MR. LAMONT: Okay, thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. In that case
r suggest vre move to tabre this for two weeks. That
will give Lynn,s people an opportunity to look over
the p1ans.
BOARD MEMBER: And we need some stuff
46
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
t_3
t4
l5
15
l7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
back.
BOARD MEMBER: May I rnake a couple
comments that r would 10ve to see what Lynn suggested,
how the two interface. I mean, it doesn,rt -- I guess
a rendering would be wonderful , just to see how the.
two forms of architecture blend.
BOARD MEI{BER: Can I also ask f or a
letter that they met rdith the Town buirding officiar
and that the separation and the so-carled assumed
property tine issue has been discussed and --
MR. CHAIRMAN: you certainly can.
BOARD MEMBER: -- and that zoning issue
will be resolved before the next meeting.
BOARD MEMBER: Mr. Cha j-rman, I move we
postpone the Lodge at Vai l_ I nternationa.L wing.
BOARD MEMBER: Table it.
BoARD MEMBER: Tab1e it, for two weeks,
the next neetino.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we have a second?
BOARD MEMBER: Second.
MR . CHAI RI'{AN : Second by Brett . AI I in
favor.
( Aye responses r.rere given. )
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you all very much.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
I4
15
15
t7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 2e7-OO2O
47
CERTIFICATE
STATE OF COLORADO
CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER
ss
I, Laurie Heckman, Notary public of theState of Colorado, do hereby certify that theforegoing i-s a true and correct transcripti.on of thereferenced tapes transcribed to the best of nyabi l ity
IN WITNESS !{HEREOF, I have.hereunto set myhand and seal this 8th day of February 1996.
aur.t_e Heckman, RPR
PublicNotary
999
Denver
18th Street, Su.ite 2180
, co 80202
My Conmission expires:Septenber t-, 1996