HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 BLOCK 5C LOT A B C LODGE AT VAIL INTERNATIONAL WING 1995 NOVEMBER APPEAL BOOK 1 LEGALI3
This packet contains
infonnation rcIating to
the appeal and lawsuit
filed in November of
I99 5, the staff approval
of "the buffetr" and
colrespondence from
November of 1995
forward.
Jncobs
Chnse
Fnick
Klrinko
MU-S9-1995 L?.%
pf
Kr[[ry
Ltc
Alroaifyt rt Lau
hdeptrdeic Plrn
lol0 | hh Sr.
Soilt lt(X)
Dsmre, CO 80265
tor.6E 4Etn
rll ,0r.6614661
rtg-ttat-l
343+695+4869 P.@.lc:C a'yt*.--,
$^aa'.-
Novanbcr9,1995
VA FACSIMILE arrd (IS I4AIL
llayor Ostcrfoss and Town Council
Atu Towa Attomcy, Tom Moortcad
75 SotdtFroutageRoad
Vail, Colorado 81657
Rc: Appeal Lodge at Vail, Proposed lutcrnational Wiug
Gentlcrnen:
On bchalf of our client, Luannc C. Wells, an adjaccnt property owncr, wc
hcrcby rypeal to the Vail Torvn C-ouncil tbc Novcrnbcr I, 1995 .tccisiou oftbc Tonm
of Vail Ds*ip Rcvicw Board regarding thc Lodge at Vail, tnEructioDal Wing. On
bchalf of Ms. Wells, rrc objcct to the Dmip Review Board's decision based upon
the proposcd devclo4rmeat's nonconformancc with standard proccdures and
r€quhmcnts ofthe Vail villege wban desip guidelincs, applicable design revicw
ogectives adpior cooditious of appoval. On behaf of Ms. Wells, we also object
to thc proposed dwelopm.ent on tre basis that it violates rrcll-established zoning
rules, Egulations, Iavw aud policics.
It&. Wells is a Frcperty owncr at One Vail Placc and is adversely aficcbd by
this proposcd dcrrclopment.
Very truly yorrs,
Jecoes CHAsE FRIoc I(rENKopF
&KEITSYLLC
4^^ F'Ffri,,.B-
'Ann B. Frick
ABF/Kb
TOTRL P.B2
MEMORANDUM
TO: The File
FROM: Andy Knudtsen
DATE: November 1.1995
SUBJECT: Summary of DRB comments for he International Wing.
Michael Arnett
Mike initiated the discussion by outlining two concerns of the DRB ;
1. The first was to replace the proposed lights with Village lights. These applied to
all of the lixtures in the courtyard area, with the exception of the accent landscape
lighting.
2. Michael expressed the unanimous Board concern about the pillars that function as
entry elements.
Michael added one item. He suggested that the applicant expand the landscaping on the
south side of the structure around the International Wing patio if the Forest Service would
approve it.
Michael then requested input from the individual Board members:
Brent Alm
Brent stated that he believed the revised design for the Arlberg, as well as the overall
International Wing design, is of high quality. Brent stated that the pillars/gate should be
reduced.
Hans Woldrich
Hans said the project was nice. He suggested moving the pillars to the west, so that they
were west of the entry to the International wing. He suggested that fie applicant provide
a sketch to staff to verify that the entrance pillars had been reduced significantly enough.
Bob Borne
Bob said that it was a good product.
Henry Pratt
Henry stated that he had nothing to add.
F :bveryone\And grnemos\intwi ng. n02
Michael Arnen
Michael added one item. He suggested that the applicant expand the landscaping on the
south side of the structure around the International Wing patio if the Forest Service would
approve it.
Andy Knudtsen, planner for the project, read seven conditions into the record. Bob Borne made
a motion to approve the project with nine conditions. In addition to lhe seven stated by Andy
Knudtsen, he added:
1. That he lights in the courtyard be replaced with Village lights; and
2. That the applicant dramatically reduce the pillars and walls which separate the
Lodge Courtyard from the Founder's Plaza.
At that point, the Chairman of the DRB invited the members of the public to make comments,
Jim Lamont
Mr. Lamont requested three items:
1. That a subterranean access easement be provided adjacent to One Vail Place;
2. That Jeff Winston, the Town's Urban Design Consultant, review the proposal; and
3. That the staff revisit the issue concerning the amount of terrace that can be
allowed adjacent to the penthouse.
Lynn FriElen
Lynn Fritzlen distributed a letter dated November 1, 1995, which summarized her
comments about the project.
Following the public comments, the DRB voted 5-0 approving the project with the following nine
conditions:
1. Prior to application for a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate a
public access easement through the corridor between the proposed
International Wing and One Vail Place.
2. Prior to application for a building permit, the applicant shall provide
detailed drawings to the Town of Vail Fire Department which show that
the existing improvements as well as the proposed construction will be
sprinkled.
3. Prior to application for a building permit, applicant shall provide approval
F:\averyone\Andnmemos\intwing.no2 2
4.
from the Forest Service for the use of their land adjacent to the
International Wing patio. lf approval cannot be secured, the applicant
shall return to the DRB for approval of a modified design of the
landscaping, site planning and grading. DRB encourages the applicant to
expand the landscaping in the area, if acceptable to the Forest Service.
Prior to application for a building permit, the applicant shall provide
documentation to the Community Development staff to verify that the
proposed structure does not encroach into any view corridor.
Documentation shall include a surveyor's stamp of the elevations and
sections, specifying the USGS elevation of the proposed roof ridges, plate
heights, chimney caps and view corridor boundaries.
The urban design standards requiring a 60/40 split in roof height shall also
be verified. The DRB approved drawings indicate that all improvements
comply with the Town standards for height and view corridors. However,
verification of the construction documents, as described above, must be
provided at time of building permit.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall pay a parking fee for
the parking demand generated by this development. The DRB approved
plans show a parking requirement of 62.6 spaces.
Prior to application for a building permit, applicant shall provide
verification that all proposed lighting complies with the TOV standards.
Prior to application for a building permit, the applicant shall revise the
landscape lighting plan, replacing the proposed light fixture "E" with the
'Village Light," to be consistent with the rest of the Vail Village Area.
Prior to application for a building permit, the applicant shall redesign the
entry statement into the courtyard from the Founder's Plaza. The
applicant shall submit a sketch to staff, verifying that the entry statement
has been "dramatically reduced in size."
In the future, the applicant shall cooperate with the Town of Vail, Vail
Associates, and surrounding property owners to develop a master plan for
the area to integrate the International Wing with the Village area and base
of ski slopes.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Flareryone\Andy\nnmos\intwi ng.nO2
RtE COPY
TOWN OFVATT
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
97 0-47 9-2 I 3 8/479-2 I 3 9
FAX 970-479-2452
November 8. 1995
Department of Community Development
Jay Peterson, Esq.
WestStar Bank Building
108 S. Fronkge Road
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Appeal of the DRB approval of The International Wing
Dear Jay:
OnNovemberT,l995,the Town Council called up the approval of the Intemational Wing. We
have scheduled the hearing for December 5, 1995. Please call me if you would like to discuss the
matter in greater detail.
Sincereln
/1 /w
Andy Knudtsen
Senior Planner
AIVjr
cc:
fu(
Bob Mclaurin
Tom Moorhead
Susan Connelly
Pam Brandmeyer
Jim Larnont
Jim Brown
Lynn FriElcn
Greg Cristrnan
{grnnt*tu""
RLE Cnn"
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
e70-479-213V479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
Department of Communiry Development
November 7,1995
Jay Peterson, Esq.
VailNatimal Building
108 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
RE: The Intemational Wing at The Lodge at Vail
On November l, 1995, the DRB voted 5-0 to approve the plans for the Intemational Wing.
Conditions of approval are as follows:
A. Prior to application for a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate a public
access easement through the corridor between the proposed Intemational Wing
and One Vail Place.
B- Prior to applicafion for a building permit, the applicant shall provide detailed
drawings to the Town of Vail Fire Deparbnent which show that the existing
improvements, as well as 0re proposed constuction, will be sprinklered.
C. Prior to application for a building permit, applicaat shall provide approval from the
U.S. Forest Service for the use of U.S.F.S. land adjacent to the Intemational Wing
patio. If approval cannot be secure4 the applicant shall return to the DRB for
approval of a modified design of the landscaping, site planning and grading. DRB
encourages the applicant to expand the landscaping in the area, ifthat is acceptable
to the Forest Service.
D. The DRB-approved drawings indicate that all improvements comply with the
Town standards for height and view corridors. However, verification of the
construction documents must be provided at time of building permit. Prior to
application for a building permil the applicant shall provide documentafion to the
Community Development staffto verify that the proposed structure does not
encroach into any established or adopted view corridor. Documentation shall
include a surveyor's stamp of the elevations and sections, specifuing the USGS
elevation ofthe proposed roofridges, plate heights, chimney caps and view
{g *""nuoruo
.*Ai : fa
ccridor boundaries. The urban design standards requnng a 60/40 qplit in roof
height also shall be verified.
E. Priorto issuance of a building pennit applicant shall pay a parkrng fee in the
anrcunt of $8,594.40 per space for the parking demand generated by this
development. The DRB-approvedplans show a parking requirement of 62.6
spaces, so the fee would be $538,009.44.
F. Prior to application for a building permit, applicant shall provide verification that
all proposed lighting complies with TOV standards.
G. Prior to application for a building permig the applicant shall revise the landscape
lig[ting plan, replacing the proposed light fixture *E ' with the "Village Light," in
order to be consistent with the rest of the Vail Village Area.
H. Prior to application for a building permil the applicant shall redesign the entry
statement into the courtyard from the Founder's Plaza. The applicant shall submit
a sketch to stafi verifying that the entry statement has been "dramatically reduced
in size."
I. In the future, the applicant shall cooperate with the Town of Vail, Vail Associates,
and surrounding property owners to develop a master plan for thc area to integrate
the International Wing with the Village area and base of ski slopes.
Thank you for your cooperation throughout the review of this project. Please call me if you have
any questions about these conditions.
Sincerely,
/l /7
,1_r_{r /__fut,
Andv Knudtsc{r /
Senior Planner
AIUjr
cc: Greg Christman
Susan Connelly
Jim Brown
Lynn Fritzlen
JimI:mont
,/t
k5"
November 7,1995 WJay Peterson, Esq.
VailNational Building
108 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
RE: The Intemational Wing at The Lodge at Vail
On November 1, 1995, the DRB voted 5-0 to approve the plans for the International Wing.
Conditions of approval are as follows:
A. Prior to application for a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate a public
a,ccess easement through the corridor between the proposed International Wing
futuf 1?
/rtu
{"
AiA I r.'
--,. u I
C.
and One Vait Place.
B. Prior to application for a building permit, the applicant shall providg d"-de
drawings to the Town of Vail Fire Departrnent which show that the,kxi"t-Y
improvements, as well as the proposed construction, will be sprinklerEf
Prior to application for a building permit, applicant shall provide approval from the
U.S. Forest Service for the use of U.S.F.S. land adjacent to the International Wing
patio. Ifapproval cannot be secured the applicant shall return to the DRB for
approval of a modified desigu of the landscaping, site planning and grading. DRB
encourages the applicant to expand the landscaping in the area, ifthat is acceptable
to the Forest Service.
The DRB-approved drawings indicate that all improvements oomply with the
Town standards for height and view corridors. However, verification of the
construction documents must be provided at time of building permit' Prior to
application for a building permit, the applicant shall provide documentation to the
Community Development staffto verifr that the proposed stuchrre does not
encroach into any established or adopted view corridor. Documentation shall
include a surveyor's stamp of the elevations and sections, specifuing the USGS
elevation ofthe proposed roofridges, plate heights, chimney caps and view
D.
Prior to issua
amount of
developm
corridor boundaries. The urban design standards requiring a 60140 split in roof
height also shall be verified.
a building permi! applicant shall pay a parking fee in the
er space for the parking demand generated by this
-apprgyedplqs show a parking requirement of 62-6
d-l o,.^" I,
-;-/-
Prior to application for a building permit, applicant shall provide verification that
all proposed lighting complies with TOV standards.
G. Prior to application for a building permit, the applicant shall revise tbe landscape
lighting plan, replacing the proposed light fixture "E ' with the "Village Light," in
order to be consistent with the rest of the Vail Village Area'
H. Prior to application for a building permit, the applicant shall redesign the enty
statement into the courtyard from the Founder's Plaza. The applicant shall submit
a sketch to staff, verifying that the enty statement has been *dramatically reduced
in size."
I. In the future, the applicant shall cooperate with the Town of Vail, Vail Associates,
and surrounding property owners to develop a master plan for the area to integrate
the International Wing with the Village area and base of ski slopes'
Thank you for yoru cooperation throughout the review of this project. Please call me if you have
any questions about these conditions.
Sincerely,
Andy Krudtsen
Senior Planner
Greg Christman
Susan Ccnnelly
Jim Brown
Lynn FriElen
Jim Lamont
E.
F.
Ar?jr
f:\weryonehndy\etusUodge-&b
November I, 1995
Mr. Jay Peterson
Vail National Building
108 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
RE: The International Wing at The Lodge at Vail
On November l, 1995, the DRB approved the plans for the International Wing. Conditions of
approval are as follows:
A.Prior to application for a building permi! the applicant shall provide a public
access easement through the corridor between the proposed International Wing
and One Vail Place.
The applicant shall cooperate with the Town of Vail, Vail Associates, and
surrounding property owners in the future to develop a master plan for the area to
integrate the Intemational Wing, Village area, and base of ski slopes,
.g. f, Prior to application for a building permit, the applicant shall provide detailed
drawings to the Town of Vail Fire Departrnent which show that the existing
improvernents as well as the proposed construction will be sprinkled.
D. Prior to applicafion for a building permit, the applicant shall document to the
Community Development staff that the proposed structure does not encroach into
any view corridors. Documentation shall include a surveyor's stamp of the
elevations and sections, specifuing the USGS elevation of the proposed roof
ridges, plate heights, and view corridor boundaries. The urban design standards
requiring a 60140 split in roof height shall also be verified. The DRB approved
drawings indicate that all improvements comply with the Town standards for
height and view corridors. However, verification of the construction documents,
as described above, must be provided at time of building permit.
/.C Prior to application for a building permit, applicant shall provide approval from the
4
/,ft* 4
t.rr*4 ut;t4 s dn//6
,6- Ji", ,,err..
9ao..._fr: f-e_/Jl"
2
.t4 .. L
d)wr
f**,/zshr{
b,ffr'^*qf [[b"q"S ,^ {"
rational Wing patio. lf au-t) .Forest Service for the use oftheir land adjacent to the In
approval cannot be secured, applicant shall retum to the DRQ for approval ofa
modified design of the landscaping, site planning and grading.
x,E Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall pay a parking fee for the
parking demand generated by this development. -The DRB approved plans show a
parking requirement of
-
spaces.
s.i 19 LW Ya v'f< u<-Jr |{''.',"" .F.-
Prior to application for ibuiidng permit, applicant shall provide verificafion that )
b'Llp
working with you.
Sincerely,
Andy Knudtsen
Senior Planner
all proposed lighting complies with the TOV standards.
4(/" l/,,lla7z L;5t^$
*A d-rolron*d- c,""i r/rn'r,t P,:l(oo
Thank you'for your cooperationr$rougbout the re{iew of this project. As always, the staffenjoys
4- t t*P
Srdo'^ U*^".J/ft
J* 6tt*
W,.r--/*.. (ao.tgt
/k-'- v
//-iZ.=,
/tL/Y-<- P'/Gs 6
t{,,- ut-ro-f, "l-fc('
(1t
Crc 13st,4
/,//'h
dnn*.-*g. *-,oQ;;7,,ru;i:;;
Tr{h
_ ,#AL
sA y'. t'- 6
/ry"J.,J
1,ft
flr/r". /'
/" --4A
At r)^-^*/
| -rp'J -L"u-J-d,a EuJ ,€ f.S
fkohn 5612 ,u/ n j,n.- a-J,;iins,'>,t-L 4 - +/--\ B^.+
*</r^" rt'q,4
nu-4
f u"*<ts t- O ,
tt.-Jlaru La^'\4f-f,
C -hr-t{r, -.*..n 2. . -i s-> ^ if----t
@ Lr*t d.+f 1<) t-s d-*t )rr i e4 J-[,)
Urt/,"^ F-l".-.-v-
-4..-k,/-Ltr /*-t/*
oo
Fritzlen Pierce Briner
P.O. Bor 57 o Vail Colorutu E1658. 30347634 c Fc: j0j476.4N)I
November 1, 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 Desip Review Boards final review of the Lodge
at Vail lnternational Wing expansion application. The objection is based upon the failure of the
applicant to comply with pre-established application requirements . The signifrcant failure is as
follows:
- Failure to obtain authorization from owner.
- Failure to provide complete information.
- Failure to provide information on a timely basis to facilitate a complete and accruate review.
The following is a discussion of the aforementioned tbree 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 Oct I l, 1993 DRB application consists ofthree condominium associations, Lodge
Properties, Lodge Tower and the Lodge Apartnents. To date only the Lodge Properties ha,s 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 Aparfrnents Parcel of l97l 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 I 7 Subdivisions of the Vail Municipal Code ( Adopted by Ordinanc e fA of 1970).
Andy Knudtsen
Page2
November l. 1995
Therefore tle Lodge at Vail site should be treated as one site and not as three independent parcels,
therefore consent must be obtained from all three omers.
Now that survey and ownership information is available it is important for the Town to revisit the
issues brought up by Mr. Jack Reu?el's in his letter of Febnrary 23, 1994 to Mr. Tom Moorehead.
This letter questions the reliance on a condominium subdivision to establish a "site or parcel".
The precedent set by allowing two owners or associations sharing the same building envelope to
be teated as sepaxate entities for the purposes of zoning and redevelopment is contary to the Town
of Vail regulations and comnron sense.
2. Failure to provide infornation on a timely basis to facilitate a complete and accurate
review.
As of Friday October 27,1995 a completed zoning analysis was neither available from the Town of
Vail or the applicant confi.rming 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 cu:rent proposal. The aforementioned documents, which
are necessary for a complete zoning analysis, are set forth and required by Section 18.54.040 as
follows:
" B. Conceptual Design Review"
l. Submittal Requirements ...
c, Sufficient information to show that the proposal complies with the development standards of the
zone distict in which the project is to be located (i.e. square footage total, site coverage calculations,
number of parking spaces, etc.) "
"2. StafflDRB procedtre. The departnent 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
retumed to the applicant.
These materials are required to be submitted four weeks prior to a scheduled review as established
by the Town of Vail Departrnent of Community Development Policy. Sufficient time was not
provided for the staff or interested parties to review the appropriate documents.
3. Failure to provide complete infornation.
o o
Andy Knudben
Page 3
November l, 1995
We are still awaiting copies of the following information which was requested at tle 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
ptiy*y between the two buildings.
- Revised walkway planters on the east side addressing the issues brought up at the October 18,
1995 meeting.
I respectfrrlly request that the Board delay their review until the aforementioned iszues are properly
addressed.
Sincerelv.
Lynn Fritzlen Architect
cc: Luanne Wells and Paul Heeschen
Dr. and Mrs. Smead One Vail Place
Tom Moorehead TOV Attorney
Jack Reutzel Attomey
Jim Brown Attorney for Lodge at Vail Apartnents
Town of Vail Design Review Board
Town of Vail Town Council
Anita Saltz Lodge at Vail Aparfrnents
Stanley Shuman Lodge at Vail Apartrnents
David and Rhoda Narins Lodge at Vail Aparfinents
East Village Homeowner's Association, Jim Lamont Administrator
L19206\ANDYl027.W?D
On
February 23,1994
Tom Moorehea4 Esq.
Vail Town Attorney
75 South Frontagc Road
Vail, CO 81657
, Re: Lodge at Vail proposcdExiransion
Dear Tom:
This memo has been prepared to address the cectal legal issues strnounding thc Lodgc at
Vail proposed expansion. There are several planningrelatcdissues that will bc bcttcr
addrcssed through the Town's review process should the need arise. This memo
addresses the following spccific quesjtions:
1. Does the current proposal submitted by the Lodge at Vail violate the
allowable density of Commercial Core I?
Z- Did the 1983 Agreement between the Lodge at Vail andthe Town of Vail
lawfully waivc the density requirement of ttre subjectproperry?
3. Has the Lodge at vail vcstcd ib dght to build the additional units?
1. Dq"* thu *r'rent prnFn.ul *uh-ifted by th" T dg
"t v"ir "ior"t" thu
allowable density of Com,mercial Core J?
There is some coafusion as to the area contained in the Lodgc at Vail's proposed
expansion. Nonetheless, we believe that no matter how tle applicant defines the "Lot",
thc density limitation of the Commercial Core I ("CCf) district has been exceeded.
Thcrc arc 90 dwelling units existing today on the 'Lotu. No matter how the Lodge at Vail
defines thc geographic limitations ofthe "Lot", (thc 2.088 acres identified as the "Total
Remaining Parcel" ot the 2.7073 acrcs idcntificd as thc Total Rcmaining Parcel and the
'North Wing Parcel" all as defined in the applicants 1983 mcmorandum to the Town
Aftomey), the edsting densiry exceeds the maximum density pcrmittqd blr the ccl
di$isf Iftie Lodge at Vail is proposiug the additional units bn the 2.088 acre LolUre
3@36,,43,,t'=Q.'^'"=FEE 23,94
Tom Moorehcad, Esq.
February 23,1994
Page Two
density is set at 52 utrits. If the applicant is proposing tle additional units on &c 2.7073
acre Lot, the dcnsity is sct at 67 units. In either event the curre,lrt number of existing
units.excecds the total numberpermitted by thc CC I diskict
, Somc of the existing 90 dwclling units may havc bccn constructed prior to tbe adoption of
the Town's zoning regulations and therefore would be considered legally non-conforming
uscs. However, those units still cor:nt againstthe densrty cap on the Lot.
The Lodge at Vail argucd in 1983 thst withh a defned geographio space more than one
Lot could exist by virnre of sepaxate owncrship ofthc air rigtts separate fiom the real
properly. Lt tbis particular instanca, for example, the Lodge at Vail seems to argue that
the 2.088 actes is really 4.176 aoes for purposes of allocating densrg; the surface 2.088
acres and thc 2.088 acres lying'above tho surface owncd by a different entity. Instcad of
fifty-two dwelling units, thc Lodge is cntitled to 104 dwelling units on the 2.088 acre Lot.
The Code's definition of a Lot from wbich densrty is determined is defined as:
aparcel of land occupied by a use, building or stnrcfirc undcr thc provisions of
this title and mccting the minimum requiremen8 of this title. A sitc may coasist of
a single lot ofrecord....
Nothing in the definition gves any indication &at common owncrship is a rcquircmcnt of
a Lot. Yet corrunon. ownenhip was the key cle,mcnt to the Lodge's rationale iD 1983.
Sincc thcre were two separatc ownes ofthe surfacecstate and the air cstatc, thcrc had to
be two Lots, each ofwhich were entitled to 25 units to the acre.
The logioal results of this thinking is readily apparent. Densrty control has legislatively
bccn aclnowledged as a lawful exercise of a municipality's police power since it
promotes the healtlU safety and general welfare of the community (C.RS. $31,23-301
(1)) . To allow two or morc ownerships to occupy ths same Lot and allow each
ownership thc sanre density rights frusbates the purpose of density limitations recognized
by the State enabling authority and implicitly recognizd by the Town's Code.
kr any wen! I believc thc Lodge at Vail's 1983 legal ncmorandum setting forth this
double density proposal was rejected by staff. As arcsrilt, the Lodge at Vail threatened
L@:
Tom Moorehead, Esq.
Fcbruary 23,1994
Page Tbree
suit and the Town executcd an agre€mentpurporting to waivc the density requirernent. If
the Town staffagreed with the Lodge's position expresscd in a memo from its attorney to
the thm Town Attomey, there would have been no nccd to execute an agrccment
resolviag "the dispute [relatingJ to whether certain of the dwelling units of thc Lodge
Apartment Condominiums located on a parcel of air spacc above the real propcrty owned
by the Lodge, is atbibutable to thc land owned by the [Lodge],"
2. Did the 1483 Agreement between the T.odge at VaiI and the Towrr of Vail
lawfully waive the dpnsi8 rerlrirement of the suhject property,
The Agreementwaivcs the ciensity conhol section ofthe Cornmercial Corc I Distict in -
violation of state statutes and was done for no othc,r purpose but to reliwe a particular
property from the restriction of zoning rcgulations. As a resulf the 1983 Agrcement is
ultra-vines to tlie state enabling legislative and ttrc Town Code and is therefore void,
It is well scttled in Colorado that contracts executcd by municipal corporations in which
there was a failrrrc to comply with the mandatory provisious of the applicable statutes or
chartem are void. (Swedlund v. Den:aerJqint,ltocLland3ank of Denver, et al., I l8
P.2d.460, Colo. 1941.)
Colorado Revised Statutcs, $31-23-301 (l), empowers municipalities to, among otber
things, regulate and restrict heigtg number ofstories, size ofbuildings, the size ofyards,
the density ofpopulation and the use of buildings, sttrctures and land. This same section
also rcquires that such regulations "shall provide for a board of adjustment that may
determine and vary their applic*ion in hamrony with their general pu{posc and intent and
in accordance with general or specific rules contained in such regulations."
State law further mandates that Board of Adjrutue,nts hcar and decide all mattem upon
which it is required to pass under ordinance (C.RS. 931-23-307). The Tosm's Zoning
Code had inplace in 1983, andtoday, aprocedurc for grantingvariances from thc literal
interpretation of the Zoning Code, including densiry, where a hardship would result.
(Town Code Scction 18.62.010) Section 18.62.010 (13) of the Town Code vests
jurisdiction to grant varianccs from the provisions of thc Zoning Code with the
o1Dg FeB 23'94 7_@2363694393
Tom Moorehead' Esq'
Fcbruory 23, L994
Page Four
plalning commission. Applicants for a variancc must comply wit! the criteria found in
i..tioniS.e2.060 of the Town Coae. The Lodge atVail failed to-fo-llow maodated
p.""Juro for obtaining G" Jtntity variance and thcrefore, the 1983 sgreement is invalid
and uncnforceable.
The Town is not estopped ftom finding the 1983 Agreement unenforceable because of a
linc of cases sratingtbat cstoppel against a municipal corporation mal not bt "!]yjlll "
ili,Jt.ffi ilrlt"";i;i;;i;6;'t i* lnds a previouslv-executf agreement invalid"
r?- ----r-- Er-.^+-- lrr-+..,r.nrifan T'ticfrief w. N.r.mandv Fstates Liinited,534P.2d(Scc
805, Colo. APP., 1975.)
Notrvtthsandingthe ulta-vires natue ofthe Agrecment, if givcn ig literal reading the
il;#;ff"*";'^ti";io"idu'iooor€I.*-$fi shcdcaselav:!:":,$*-C'E
sf Boulder, 362P.2d 160, Colo. 1961;
Westminster. 557 P.2d 1186; Colo. 1976; and
6rno.i**ion"o nfMo"g"n Cntnty,600 P.2d 86, Colo' App'.1979') P*T":,Tt-:
pqe".tt t" -"t". tht d;iryreqdccrent within Commercial g:t:]-P-13:::1t:1
il;. N" ;,il pt;*qr witlin cct nu" been giveu relief from t!: dcnsitr requirenent
- !i rl^,---^l
lik" tlt fJgr ut VAf.'gi *ui"iog the density requiremcnt' the.Town Council, tlrough
its Town Manager, has rcieved the Lodge af Vail from the restriction of zoning
regulations, OereUy crcating for all intenu and purposes a diffcreut zone'
prior to 19g7, Colorado was one of the number of states that recoedzed a vested property
rieht only upon substaatial reliance on the issuance of a valid building permit and a
substantial step toward ;;;;1"i"" ofthe project. (See P-W InvestTent's' Inc' v' Citv of
Westminster, 655 P.2d iiOi, Cofo. 1982,
-Cline
v. dity of nou ,450 P '2d 335' Colo'
1969) These rcquirements were not an4 to dat", have sot been satisfied by the Lodge at
Vail. The l!$l planning and Environmental Commission approval of the exterior
modification in 1983 case does not vest the projcct. No building permit was cver issued
iy A. Town or relied on by the Lodge. ne{gcc on the Planning and Environmental
Comrnission approval in tiSS as u sito specific development plaa, thereby statulory
vestingthe rights must fail sinoe there was no statutory vestingpossible in 1983'
dl,nn Review Action Ftn
TOWN OF VAIL
Calegory Numbel
/.//r
Prolect Name; ,/n /'r t nf , zr>t n-.1 (J , r..
Building Name:
Project Description:
,r,., I '/S
Owner, Address and Phone:
ArchitecVContact, Address and Phone:
c. t L ,.,4 p ,,- -{, r <r' u
Legal Description: Lot / Block- Subdivision zone District r'C -T-
Project Street Address:
Comments:
.,tr tl (-
l-,/.,1 /// 7r-i
Board / Staff Action
Seconded by:
,6 Approval
! Disapproval
a Statf Approval
Conditions:
! .t, / ,- /.-. I
,r/ /1L1,,t,/' t,t
I
-
Town Planner
o^r"t ,l/ / 7 f* DRB Fee Pre-paid
a
This packet contains
inforrnation relating to
the DRB review of the
International Wing.
Application submitted in
October of 1993 and
approved in November of
1995.
{a
I
amil
DATE:
IJEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lob
-
Block
-
Subdivision
Singl-e F
ZONE CHECK
. FORy Residence, Duplex, Pr
ZONE DISTRICTS
o
imary,/Secondary
ADDRESS:
OFINER.PHONE
PI{ONEARCHITECT Z" hr.-^
N-/- ^^A'' "l' U'*
Lor srzg 4"1J. 3' ]40 i iz,4zz.4
ZONE DISTRICT
PROPOSED USE
BUIIJDABLE LOT AREAM
^/rUTt"t r !, r'* t,fo',r'=tr otto'na Existinq
,3t+ i4.!547., (30) (33)
Proposed Total
*zot'' u "4"^a€inn"
4o"u,crrF^(p/)
deubacks Front
Sides
Rear
6t" coveraqe/pz.)
tZandscaping nu rtl lchsrr
t4{etaining wall Iteights
,darking eo1-,n)"n
vd'ffaqe-€re+rb
,6tft". rld'v-)- f'' f {*- 't-
Complies with T.O.v.
6.uot coursc SeEback
tb-o Finish Grades Exceed
rLlnvi ronmcn t.a 1 /Ha z a rd s :
+ 425
1z.gt'z.te r/ *'^' --fL-/*-/ /-h-4
nt ori/""f ,t, C'Ct
-
251+z r5,fJ'_ 3'1,2't1+
f.r lec # 4.4
/oD/. E1.1L
(1200)_
t Proposed SloPe %
Yes No
rl /a.-
YES
Flood Plain n/a*
Percent Slope (< > 3Ot)
Geologic rlazards-{l snow Avalanche J/ljty1z.--'61 nockf aIlt€T Debris Flow
tz{) wetlands t--,t^'-'
4r'"0 j
reguesL?€sEl_
zl'' d,k-
+425=
20,
15',
15',
7 z fi, z.i'
3' (5,
tt2, laF* neqrd
(300)'(600) (900)
4!
eryaqaHb
PermitLcd slope
Liqhting Ordinance
(30) (s0)
2:L (50%)
,ff
-{
3)
6L
6iu, Corridor Encroachmen!: Yes
6oes Lhis requesl involve a 250 AdciiLiorr? t?o
(tow much ot [tre allowed 250 Addition is used vtit'h Lhis
adevious condiLions of approval (check property f ite) :
10
)
L'&r- t-'lf Af U hL ^^'lr*J
/{riJ L^-t 'wy-
t)v.z c"nt.
I' izl{,4 .f&-
/-)
L--
/-7
4
{
.6/f < c-
/ t
-
't
----' ,4H-J*- !4--s(22-LfrLgt----. ls l=e.€--
U
-'
"S(9r,3--
.=3z,13l(
- 3zr4?,.2-
tz
-€ic$i.
1dz4a,4
€1zE.z
a tLodge Apts
Lodge Apartments
oo
LL
.9x
[U
=
1foooo-o
(L
f fo
lltro
ooc
@
q)
coo
go
E
Eoo
bo
@oooo(
(U'6
o
E
Eoo
1 0 0 8 2670.3 125tt.0 M91.2
M5.4 105.6 4214.3
113.6
Total 5515.7 1475.2 870s.5
2 0 0 18 7055.8 2645.0
2865.5
27U.9
Total 12676.2 2645.0
3 0 0 't9 7812.2 2318
3607.5
2918.8
Total 1/(138.5 2318.0
4 I 19261.2 927
Total 19261.2
5 0 0 12 6564.3 1368.3
3956.2
4339
Total 14859.5 13fit.3
6 7589.3
Grand Total 65 7424/J,4 872f.2 8705.5
Page 1
Lodge Hotel
Lodge Hotel
oo
LL
o'x
uJ
f
Eq)oo
CLI
o-
f
:f
(U
oF fo
LLtro
o(tco
ocoo
co
E
Eoo
(5oi.- i;;co|tioEgEE
<Y.A
.gc)
o
E
Eoo
1 4 3 7 0 1275.4 (41 1430.2 288.0 1063.4
310.6 2't7.6 9118.8
310.8 6030.2 5522.6
328.6 6350.2
931.9
Total w5A 7678.0 w11.5 106it.4
2 16 9 25 0 967.1 405.7 1380.0 3899.9
411.4 1347.8 3030.9
409.8 2250.3 457.2
u7.1 188.7 2482.8
1000.8
470.3
517.8
473
1271.1
2243.2
1594.4
Total r(}2(r.0 M.7 5166.8 9870.8
3 18 0 18 0 4174.3 0 1624.0
1593.4 132.2
Total 5767.7 1756.2
4 20 I 8 0 343.6 1083.5
2489.7 2038.8
3162.3
613.7
422.3
418.5
425.7
4n.7
624.4
411.8
852.3
1058.1
Total 113m.1 91?12.3
5 0 3 3 0 3452.2 142.1
257.3
Total 3$2.2 399.4
Grand Totals 58 24 82 0 32951.4 808i1.7 32656.2 9870.8 1063.4
Page 1
PARIilNG
Rooms Conference Resteurent
I 3 1 6030.2
7 217.6 1796.4
1 6247.8
2.1
2 9 .9
.9
.8
.8
8.4
3 0
4 9 4.0
.8
.8
.8
.9
.8
8.1
5 J 5
3
6 0 tstS/2 r5/8
21.6 26.0 15.0
lllll95 - 62.6 total spaces
f :\n'eryolchndy'aomnons\parling.n02
711. b q b.4
f-',
Lodge Apts
klcv:t'
<:7 |
f A-1 C.ql
-------<Lodge Apartments
oo
LL
(t,x
Lr.J
f
E(l)
rt,o
CLe
TL,D fo
l,|.
CE,(5
q,ocq,
ocoo
co
E
Eoo
oqo(l,
C'o
(It
o
(l)
E
Eoo{1 0 (,2670.3 1256.O 4491-2
28/.5.4 105.6 4214.3
113.6
Total 5515.7 1475.2 8705.5
/."=.'/2 0 0 118 705s.8 2645.O
286s.5
2754.9
Total 126762 2645.O
./ 3 0 0 19 / 7812.2 2318
3607.5
2918.8
Total r43385 2318.0
4 /8 19261.2 4qz
Total 19261.2
5 0 0 /12 6564.3 1368.3
3956.2
,lil39 -
Total 1'1859.5 1363.3
6 7589.3
Grand Total 65 74240.4 uxt'p.8705.5
Page I
Lodge Hotel
W'-.lJor'a
?/t &
'62
Lodge Hotel
gt
Page 1
lii
,lrt
! -^r^Aoo-frtu.! /a,uf- - -
*fu-"* -g/4 -"lt&^ a
- t,-wt--f-k-
-t44b ;/- - gnn ,d/*4
,It*/- zu*-*n.*,
ao
O t/o,, A)--LL *""t &.- - .*T
.J,'r^^- Ln*,*
O /a>o.t fz"t/,l1 uV a.. {e"-
e uJ ".tJt* ,..--{ f-r6^ + lt- b"/L'l
- 1,, {i-r..*
A ? lt^' r-3 .e--! /\.<p'are.w.'<-n{ '
@ q,,{ar.A $ J'ff 4 f---/ Lt*' /"
' f/- !-'"f
hp e
az-,a/ /;L 6 o - ,'/ "&. 6--/
b*f c-4^--7,4'f /' ft"- -
rlF- !-9h :R] ]:]! P]{ ]PO VlIeHto RI{01'i tAI tio. 3038302653
_
BROWN & HARMON, P.C.
P, :
ATrul(N8lb A1 r.^w
or€ Nonx|lstcPhTErtfi uNeotN stttET. sLfiE !m
DEIWB& Cou)n^DO rf,rolttro
TEEfllOl.lE (ill)|Jf,..ffi
FACSIMil-E (toJl tx).r6tt3
,AI|ESE BXOWh'
DArfID 5. ltALtrlOf;
Olfl.-.|
JOE! D, RU$SMAN
FA)( COVER SHEET
tllE llftxxlttat Canrrtrc! tlr tlrlt FAE6|l II rE!$ArE ls alTflrly'rt I vt LEEto rtt, EarttDtxtraL trrOtrlltt'|lrte$ED tB tnr tFE or I|{E nlDlvtDtttr ot EllMr [A|Es tELaJ. lr T{t tEADEt 0t lxrs rEssrsE 18 ror l[ElrtttoE0 ttctptSlr B ttE ErDlotEE q A6Ert IE|DO|SnLE rO DtUrEt tl t0 ttrE lrttrDED tEcrprtrt. rg, ttEr.EtEsY rollflED rtlr lrY DlSlillrlndt, Dltrtnt,tto. c copt tr0 0f tits rAt( tt tr clty proutttlD. ltYdJ IIAVE rEt[lLE lllti tAt lr trts. FruSE lptiDlAtEly tofrFy ur ly lElErtott
^|D
rtrmr tilE hlElra!rEti^cf t0 U$ At lfiE Atot/E ADDtFsr vtl rff u. t. FogT^i. rErytcg.
DATE:
TELECOPIER NO-:
TO:
FROM:
NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLI-O
- If you have arry problcns i.o thc receipt of tbis uansminal, please call Liuey Broum
a! 832-6000.
PLEASE NOTE: The far number for this location is e30.?85S. lf you
have a return lax to us, please use this numbpr.
COMMENTS:
r111 1l nt Fnt r.n- tltah.'r,-1l}-Y! rr.r q.uL r}l
;
I I frtlllJel{ t Fif l}l"o tjY Nr, :niR?l.]?FRto"'
BROWN & HARMON, P.C.
P2
ATT9RNEilSATIAW
OI{E NORWBST EJ|NK CE}ITBR
TMO UXCOLNSTREBT, SUTIB 3ffX)
DEWER. COITORA.DO 8m0}1530
TET.EPHoNE (303)t32{m
FAcsrMu^E (303) 83S2653
JEB:lb
8712173:\6il-pirl0
'AMEII
E BROWN
DAVIN S.HAnI{ON
olClEt
TOBL D. RUSSNTAN
April 14, 1995
vIA FAX TO (J{lJ)479.2451
Mr. Andy Knudtsen
Town of Vqil
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO S1657
Rer The tndge at Vail, International Wing
Dear furdy:
Thanks for your letter of March 29, 1995, When we wefe previously working or tFis
project (in March-of 1994), I had obtained a copy of Vail's zoning regulations (Title 18)
whieb contained the handwritten notation "Updated 6125/92'- Can you please" advise as to
whether or not there have been any amendments to the zomng regulations since lhat date
and, if so, rhe speclflc chapters which have been amcnrled? Alsu, plealc lct ruc klow tiruo
sct for the May 3 DRB hearing.
Finally, you had previously provided me. e copy of yorrr January 7, lg94 lef ter to .Iay
Peterson listing twenry items necessary to complete the lodge's DRB application. Please
Iet me know if eaclr r.r[ thcsc iterrrs Las beeu provided by tlre applicant and, if not' what
items are still outstanding. Of coursc, if the Town has changed its position on wbat is
needed to con$titute a complete application, please provide the details of this, also.
I look forrvard to hearing from you.
4lnlqr
14,u,* # lT--,{
'fu(l 1..1 t .iu (r-^,
1.<i L,,.-^- o h;
, ,o:r l"--J t*.-\
l',LkA,
:
6l\
o
@
e)
,;/ ritr, Btt"^
Frontage Road
Colorado 81657
79-213V479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
September 19, 1995
Mr. Jay Pcterson
Vail National Building
108 S. Frontage Road
Vail. CO 81657
Department of Community D evelopment
.SS [i$ "i
RE: The International Wing at The Lodge at Vail
Dear Jay:
After a thorough revicw of your most recent submittal material for thc International Wing, and
after a comparison of thc requirements stipulatcd in the lctter dated January 7,1994,lhave
identified the following issues which must be addressed and resolvcd.
t.The surveys you havc provided do not show site arca, updated topography.
(particularly on the southeast comer of thc site) or a legal dcscription that matches
the tirle policy. Please address thesc poilits,
lv{y rccords show that you have signcd the Design Review Board application.
Please providc the documents that give you thc authority to rcpresent thc Lodge in
this manncr.
Conccrning the roofplan and the height ofthe proposal, please show the
underlying topography, vcrification that the roofridgcs do not exceed thc 33
feetl43 feet allowed by thc CCI Design Guidelincs, and that thc proposal complies
with thc 60/40 pcrcent split, as required in the Design Guidelines. Also, please
provide all hcight information in USGS figures, so that all ridge elevations can be
correlated to the view corridor analysis done by Eagle Valley Surveying. Thc
document provided regarding the view corridor lays out thc height allowances
clearly, however it is not stampul. Please have this documcnt starnped by a
registered surveyor.
2.
J.
{g*"n""*ruo
1,, .
Please provide a separate nng up;li""tion for the Arlberg Cafe. The plans
provided for expansion in this area do not show sufficient detail for the staff and
Design Review Board to undcrstand the proposal. In addition to thc cast
elevation, north and south elevations are required. A colored rendcring may clari$
marry of the questions staff has.
Staffwould likc to review the highlighted floor plans to verifo that all spaces have
been counted appropriately. In addition, wc would like an cxplanation conelating
tbe floor plans and the scctions.
The southeast corner ofthe project is an area of significant concem to staff. At
l/8 scale, pleasc providc a regrading plan, detailing how the proposal interfaces
with the gange entrancc of Onc Vail Place as well as the drivcway to this garage.
The landscaping, and retaining walls. walkways must also bc shown in this plan.
The drainage plan addresses all concerns prcviously idcntificd; howevcr Stan
Cope, with thc Lodge Torver, has asked questions regarding the legality of the usc
of the tradc parcel to address the drainage concerns of the Intemational Wing'
Please provide a response to this concern for the Town's revicw.
Please notc that a parking fec will be assesscd for the Arlbcrg, all accommodation
units that will bc created. as wcll as the conference room area.
The landscaping plan that has been provided appears to be high quality. In
addition to a conceptual plan. the Town of Vail needs a spccific plan showing
spccies. size and quantity, and a materials list that correlatcs to the plan' Identifr
any existing sitc improvcments in the courtyard arca. such as walls. Providc a
dctailcd landscapc plan, at li8 scale. which shows thc walkway betwecn the
Intcrnational Wing and One Vail Placc. Plcase addrcss issucs such as snowshcd,
liglrting, snow removal, ctc.
Staff has provided the attachcd letter to members of the public who havc
expressed intcrcst in thc projcct. For a complete list ofthe individuals, please
review thc filc with thc town staff.
Thc agrcement signcd by Edmund Drager, Jr. and Richard Caplan on August 9,
1983, stipulates that there would bc 7400 square fect ofconference room tuea
with 6000 of that being in one room. At this time, staff has measured the
proposcd drawings and finds that the total conference area is only 6678'0 square
feet with the largcst room mcasuring5927.5 squarc fcet. Plcasc modi$ drawings
to rcflect thc 1983 agrcement.
4.
6.
7.
10.
I l.
8,
9.
12. Our current DRB application requires detailed cut sheets for all lighting fxtures to
be located on the exterior of the building. Please identify where these fixtures will
be located on a site plan and reference the cut sheets to the appropriatc locations.
13. Conditions of approval at this time are as follows:
A. Prior to application for a building permit, the applicant shall provide a
public access easement through the corridor between the proposed
International Wine and One Vail Place.
B. The applicant ,ttui .orn-ir ro designing a master plan for the area
integrating the Intcmational Wing, Village area, and base of ski slopes.
C. Prior to application for a building pcrmil the applicant shall provide
dctailcd drawings to the Town of Vail Fire Dcpartmcnt which show that
the existing improvements as well as the proposed construction will be
sprinkled.
D. Prior to application for a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate a
portion ofthe right-of-way adjacent to Checkpoint Charlie in accordance
with thc nccds of thc Town of Vail Public Works Deparonent.
Most of the items listed abovc reflcct the information requested in the previous lettcr of January
7, 1994. Although much of the information requcstcd has bcen addressed, thcre arc still somc
outstanding issucs. Would you please provide the information to address the concems listcd
abovc no latcr than Monday, Scptembcr 25.1995.
Thank you very much for your coopcration.
Sincerely,
..^\(1, \\ l
y_,r ''
Andy Knudtsen
Scnior Planner
attachmcnt
I
i,,
I oo
tffi?
,# Ss3, 4-1q . s t"
FLOOR AU (PROPOSED)PARKING REQ'D
I #3 w 7.t
)8 ry -/"3
3
offi-/--:-
4 s4 FE. I
5 3 J
TOTAL ef 'zS & zo'g "z
'y'n.t/r*/,
/*c"V l. d
tEl+ u1t"t.1
bW
^51s12
oI
IIIXR AII
(Fdfig)
AII
@qma)
IU Gffi{CTI\G (II\A/IN ACESW
@\u\G&rfluD!)
Cm/fVL STIE
(II/ER,{GE
IAI{M{E
1$6 ,)
5
I %n3
ru54
tmA
3106
3X6'
' 59n5.' 3?6't"
Its748
10561136
28&0
5ln2
54176
0 4p}912
at43
An2
r063.4
725s36
959E 79[.5
62
?f.n3
E2653
RgIA
zffi8
tDtS
164fr3
trn3
IU]AL 6 t'8 Tt4l.l 6136 zlxE 0 gdtrs 1{ffii
M 8 8 A 70558
ffi55
1594..4
tnt.4
nv9
282
%96
40&0
MT
u5.4
4179
5v8
m2
%s2
4244 218953
ly18
1887
t4R.l
Adbery3899
2&.8
\Mffforlm
34309 4572
I
(*4t
4a.u-
v,&
tu!'"n'
- VLt.t'4tJ
kai
0 0
K'XAL 8 8 /22, e[3 AAA 7C)49 tubtrCffa7
\Affiwr
34E81
0 0 0
3rd l8 0 p m22
Kn5
rs93A
41743
Dl&8
0 394'n
1322
0 0 0 0
KIIAL tr 0 D n 106r 0 41742 0 0 0 0
/trt 9 9 8 192612
2Nl
31623
1057.0
u52
M2
625.1
455J
M:I
Mfi
,l{Bs
ffi2
w6
0 20105
xD49
0 0 0 0
IUIAL 9 9 8 1156&4 0 4ltEf 0 0 0 0
ft 0 J n 6ffi3
$94
395f'2
3ffi6
0 13683
120.1
x92
0 0 0 0
TOXAL 0 3 T2 18,3d9.1 0 17476 0 0 0 0
fri 0 0 0 7s893 0 0 0 0 0 0
TUIAL 4 A 6 lu,lfiu 6,678 3D,pe!)9.tr08 9,m5 74@..r
ZONE CHECK
. FOR
Residence, Duplex,
ZONE DTSTRICTS
Primary/secondarySingle Family
I,EGAL DESCRIPTION:LoL
-
Block
-
Subdivision
ADDRESS:
PIIONE
PI{ONEARCHITECT
ZONE DiSTRICT
PROPOSED USE
LOT SIZE
Height
All-owed
3.j 4+.3'
(30) (33)
Tot.al 6RFA ,ao- ,-d/-. .L J ,'- L ,,-- h-
BUILDABTE
Exis Eino
LOT AREA
Proposed Total
PrTfrAEyGRfrr
-.-Seeondanr-Grtft-
,g6-tuact s FronL
Sides
Rear
SiLe Coverage
Landscaping
Ret,aining walr tleighLs
Parking
--ee+ag€--ffii+
w-&i4ea' "<,ay,,, irt-u\ttv'. L
3'/6'.
Rcqrd f, ',J 'h l' l"'l'"t A*"i
(300) (600) (900) (1200)-
PermiLLed SloPe % ProPosed
Cornplies with T.o.v. r,iqhLing ordinance Yes
,r{aEer course Set-back (30) (s0)
Do Finish Grades Exceed 2:1 (50%)
Envi ronmen t a l,/I{azards :v{l Frood P1ain
.'7f PercenL Slope F > 30%l&--t{'-Yi
3) Geologic llazards
,,gT- Snow AvaLanche 'ze'--b) Rockfall
c) Debris Flow
,.'d weulands
View Corridor EncroachmenE: Yes-- No----
6oes Lhis requesl invoive a 250 A<i<iiLiorr? /+.t:-
,;*ow mucfr of itre allowed 250 Addition is used wiLh Ehis reguesE?1"!'D
,afevious condiLions of approval (check properLy f ile) : 'rt--' '"\ /'
+425=
+425=
20,
15',
15'
Q'rw tcI
Encl
%
fl# ,'^.r,
,4 apot (- *-'l I r,* . tD *p-o l(sc€F. yr', *11 [16 i6rt
0cI
TYPE
I 2 lstl
\ \ ! Lumidre Design & Manufacturing, Inc
IS ?l"'='#3fi:',,H: r;3 I :#ii'S!'^Y lil?, :f ,';33;
TYPE 'A' FIXTURE
Versalile low voltage architectural and
landscape lighting fixture on a 14112"
posl. Engineered to accepl the MR16
halogen lighl source ' 50 wall
maximum (By olhers). Multi-versatile
path light, accent, llood or general area
illuminator.
Mullr-use light source delivering a
comlorlable 3000 - 3400 Kelvin color
lemperature. Varied lamp availability
allows. spot. medium, and flood
lghting {20 lo 50 watts). FH203
accessory hood allows maximum
lumen outpul while minimizing visual
glare. (Lumi6re #FH203 & FH204 not
included).
Clean Professionaldesign. Fixture
virtually disappears into lhe landscape
during dayllghl hours. Recessed light
source reduces visual glare without
impairing function ol the lamp. Formed
and/or machined for crucial fil and
lunclion ol all components.
Dimensrons: H - 14.5'X L - 4.50" X W
-2.250"
Design for use as a pathway lighl,
accent/flood light, and,/or general area
illuminator. Fixture is completely
adjustable in any direction lrom all
mounting positions.
All parls are firsl chromale conversion
coated and then baked with a
lhermoplastic polyester powder for mar
resistance and specilic wealherability
in normally iniurious environmenls.
Colors ArchitecluralBronze, Black,
and Verde are standard. Olher colors
are available - consult factory.
The stem is equipped with a 1/2" NPS
male threaded stem to accept all
slandard J - Boxes, ground boxes,
conduil litlings, and 1/2" female spikes
(LunT iere spikes nol included).
(,
Cornp;rty
Lumidre Design & Manufacturing, llc. reserves the rrg',1 :r
Date.
OcT -r 2 1995
N Lumrere Desron & Manutaclunng. Inc.
31 360 Vra Cotrnas n 1 01 . Wesllake Vtllaae. CA 91 362
TELEPHONE rBlB) 991-2211 -r FAX (818) 991-7005
wPE i---l
TYPE 'B' FIXTURE
row volloge ionoscoDe
lloodlrghl usrng por 36 lomo.
),m€nSrons L- 5.m X Dio-
5.50
the oezet. lomo houstng. cnd
STerTr ore rormed ond/or
rnochlned crumrnum Mo-
cnrneo nvorourc lvoe
mountrng swtvel for o woler
rrgnl fit
Iop Bezel
)or 36 Lomo
(3v Others)
Gosxet
- @{F
LocKrnc 3ctr
l2 vott sysiem ufilizing o por
36 lomp (75 wott mox). IBG
ief lon cccneo leod wrres. l2
von remole lronstormer
reourreo. (LomD ond trons-
former not Included),
Srvrvet Sj ei:
Ihe loniD oezel. lcmo nous-
Ing, cno SIem ore ztnc
cnromoTe conversron
cooTeo ono ihen thermo-
proslrc Dolvester Dowder
pornreo. Cctors: Arcn ecrurol
bronze. o:ock. ono wnfte ore
:TOnOOrd. cther colors ono
a. /-tla^ 'rnr<nc< at16 /'1\//1 1-F -F l.rc:- : IJr rs'r !.rc; u!u,r\J(Jre-
c onsurl iocicry
{_urrere Oesroc & Manuracturrng. rnc. reserves lne lonl to maKe oesren cnanees wnnout nol|ce. tor orooucl tmorovernent.
oCT I 2 lses
TYPE
r\
I t I Lumidre Design & Manufacturing, Inc.
\ \- 31 360 Via colinas #101 , westlake Village, cA 91362
L- TELEpHoNE (818) sg1-2211 Lr FAX (818)991-7005
TYPE 'C' FIXTURE
Extremely versalile low vollage
architectural and landscape f ixture.
Engineered to accept the MR I 1
halogen light source - 35 watt
maximum (By others). Multi-
direclional pathway, accent, or
general area illuminator.
Multi-use light source delivering a
tomfortable 3000 - 3400 Kelvin color
lemperalure. Varied lamp availability
allows, spot, medium. and tlood
lighting (20 to 35 walts).
Contemporary - Prolessional design,
yel unobtrusive lo the landscape.
Formed and/or machined for crucial til
and lunction of all components.
Dimensions: H - 14.50'X W - 1.75
Various lamp choices allow for tlood
lighting, spot lighting, and accent
lighting of: pathways, slairs, trees,
shrubs, gardens, planters, flag poles,
signage, sculptures, buildings,
landscapes, and general area
illumination. Fixture is complelely
adjustable in any direction lrom all
mounting positions.
All parls are lirsl chromate
conversion coated and then baked
with a thermoplastic polyester powder
lor mar resislance and specific
weatherability in Marine (salt spray),
Landscape (alkaline soil), Moisture
(aquas chemicals) and other normally
injurious environments. Colors .
Architectural Bronze, Black, White,
and Verde are standard. Other colors
are available - consult tactory.
The stem is equipped with a l/2' NPS
male threaded stem to accept all
standard J ' Boxes, wall plates,
ground boxes. conduit fittings, and
1/2" female spikes. (Lumiere spikes
not included.)
Lumidre Design & Manuf acturing, InC. reserves the right to make design changes withoul notrce, for product improvement
70r).1
OGI I 2 19e5
1, \ ! Lumiere Design & Manufacturrng, Inc.
\\- 31360 Vra Colrnas #101. lVesllake Village. CA 91362
L- TELEPHONE (818)991-2211 J FAX (818)991'7005
TYPE 'D' FIXTURE
TYPE
r,:rri\ltj..Lii!:J ae14r.J 3: -. ..ii :*t ::_.
Extremely rugged - low vollage - cast aluminum step/brick light with optional extended lamp lile up
to 12,OOO hours'. lts unobtrusive design ensures esthelic acceplance without compromising
function.
Versatile 20-35 watt halogen light source - delivers a comfortable 2900 lo 3000 Kelvin color
temperature. 'Optional diode allows extended lamp lile up to 12,000 hours with a minimalvisual
decrease in lumen oulout.
Clean and compact style. designed to blend with most architectural surfaces, Louvered tace plate
with diffused tempered glass lens lor even - low glare illuminalion.
Engineered to ptovide illumination for pathways, walkways, hallways' and areaways. Also,
parlicularly suited for marking steps, slairs, and low planters. For use in concrele, brict, stone' or
metal aDoiicatrons.
All parls are lirst chromate conversion coaled and lhen linished with baked thermoplastic polyester
powder for mar resislance and specific weatherability in marine (salt spray), landscape (aqueous
chemicals) and olher normally color injurious environments. Colors ' Architectural Bronze, Black,
White. and Verde are slandard. Other colors and Dlated linishes available - consult factory.
Housrng mounls easily Inlo concrele Can be drilled and back mounted, available with brackets lor
mountrng In melal surlaces Fixture comes equipped with 4 knockouls lor easy through wiring'
'Diode reduce-s voltaqe to Lamp whrch In turn rncreases lanrp ile (See Pholomelric char1 )
Approved Company:
LUmidre lr,.rrrj,' !i 1.1;lr.lllit(:lurinq lnc r6.qp1rar thrt rrqltt lo nakrj desicln chanQes WithOUl nOtice {O|' prodUCt improvement.
FAUJ 683 s22s D.BEADLE *|} ++J ZEHREN
Lodge at Veil
Internationrl Wing
@
t0lz7195
Type'A' Fixture - Low voltage 50 wan gtound mountcd upJighr with 32 deg. (medium) beam
spread, 2250 lumcns. Accent landscape fixture to illuminate landscape materials' No
photometric deta evailable tom manulbcturer.
Type 'B'Fixrure - Low voltage 50 watt tre€ mounted flood light with 30 des, (m{1um) beam
siieaO, 2500 lumens, Ac,c€nt landscape lixture to illuminaie landscape materials- No
photometric data availablc from manufacturer.
Type'C' Fixture - Low voltage 20 watt path-light with 30 deg. (wide) beam sPrg4: 600 lumens'
nlcent landscape future to illuminate pedestrian pafts. No photomeric dara available ftom
manufaoturer.
Type'D'Fixn:re - Low voltage 35 watt step light w/ louvered face plate, '500lumcns. See
manutbctur€rs cut sheet for photometric data,
Type'E,Fixture - Pole mountei 100 watt metal halide pedenrian light. l0'mounting height,
ai6o tumcns. pedestrian pEthway area light. See manufacrurer$ cut sheet for photomeric data.
Type ,F,Fixture - Pedestal mounted decorative firture - (3) 40 watt chandelier bulbs. No lumen
or photometric data available,
Po2
\
Or r.., dtd Dd rcc.hjt tr[ Ps8ta' f'lc8i. cex t{o{]Xl
I I TE tr I/\ I UNE
AHEA/SITE LIGHTING
3-Rlng Rcf lcctor-
A lunclronal oesrgo lor ar6a
illuminalion and a decoratrve
design with a color lumrnated
accenl. Thi6 neY/ look in
acc€nt lighting croalas an opti-
cal color llluminatlon at tho
edge of a cleat actylrc rinq
An elumindm consirucl€d lum.
inaire that opefales a varlety
ol H.l.D, lamp6 t6 id€al ror
bolh etle or and Inl€rlor
aoDlicalions.
c77
..tr{n..,2 oO 6 ?11
.uo, 663 52:s D.BEATLE adlJa +J- ZEHRE\POJ
c28
Wll{OtOAO*Fdr6 H.PH.
FrnJugF,,.p9ndad.
crF rnd crn+y o Igorirxtrd cor(t ar|ld
o( ntrt b o9{onr. I'Lqrrj?gd.
€u
116rlllg. d.d..(,
'H.l.o edbs FdrEb
forrrltrg ttf+f .Lrlr'.r l0' 72'' ta'
:. . !{b .r8 .tr .a5
eloo r..r r.6 -n
5@ .r1 .53 .3f
85m 1.n ,s .aB
2t6 .A. ,N .a
ffi ,s7 ..€ ,L
It'
4
,68
30
g)
.17
.2n
cotrruorEr
||lrtla hr
l, .'{
a.t I t^t o 66J 622s D.BEADLE reNof+-r+ ZEEREN
Lodge at VeiI
Intemrtional Wing
@
rslz1/95
Type 'A, Fircure - Low vottage 50 watt ground mounted upJiglrt with 32 de8. (medium) beam
siread, 2250 lumcnr. Rcceailandscape fixture to illuminate landscape materials' No
photometric dete evailable from manutbcturer,
Type ts,Fixture - Low voltagc 50 watt tree mounted flood light with 30 deg- (medium) beam
spriaO, 2500 lumenr, nccem tandscape &xture to illuminate landscape marerials' No
photometric data availablc from manufacturer.
Type'C, Fixture - Low vottage 20 watt pathJight with 30 deg. (wide) bgam sprcadr 6(Xl lumcns,
nccent landScape furtUre to iltiminate peiesrian paths. No photomeiric data available ftom
manufactur€r.
Type'D' Fixnfie - Low voltage 35 watt step light w/ touvered face plate, ,600 lumcnr. See
manutbotur€rs cut sheet for photometric data'
Type'E Fixture - Pole mounte/ 100 wan metd halide pedesrian lighr. l0'mounting height,
liilO tumCnc. Pedestrian psthway area light. See msnufacturers cw sheet for photometric dua'
Type,F,Fixture - Pedestal rnourted decorative firture - (3) 40 watt chandelier bulbs. No lumen
or Photometric data available,
P02
O,*, * Dor r.cclrrc rtl Ftl+ Plcst' c'll trcl fpzsl
I lrE E rl^lunE
AREA/SITE LIGHTING
$Rlng Fcflcctor-
A tundlonal o€srgn tor ar€a
illumination and a clecorattv€
d€sign with a color luminated
accent. Thi6 new look in
ac-cent lighting crsatos en oPli-
cel color lllumlnation at th€
edge ot a clear Bcrylic ring-
An aluminum conElrucl6d lum.
inaire that oPerates a vaflely
of H.l.D. lamps is ideal for
both €xtefior and inl€raor
application3.
Ia
V)
cn
r rr/^r r?r.^rr! !r,^| ^or-^ | rr:urtNn lNc 1d2dQ Arfptt2 Botllavarrl.La Miracla. California 90638, (714) 994-2700
octiluonal
FAXJ 663 s22e D.BEADT-E *l ))J ZEHREI{P03
c28
ILllltCrIttlLclfrl.rFi|rD'
rlqrq"rrg fi ,a-larrE
{il
&i
T
I
8',I
Fnxa
nufrtru8|lent{dra rn4cGopy L I
€fEufldad COrc ftrtl
O. tr.ill b 0O00.14. I't qtdod.
OD'tll0lJtt'
^fiHyo,trobIad.drn|il
r&r
rll!1,,
bdL.;9rf
'F.l.D. €dh! F.fiobI
ildFn|g. d.atrd,
Q{lrrDfi.
ilb. cr.|oe nfiiiaa '' ' -
. foi,n{rf ltalfh . ILur..| t0' ,,2" L'
r. . l{|D .lE. . .tt ,Q. ,9soo r.er'i,6':h'5@ .r. .sit .!e
85fi) 1.4 .&l .C! .& ..e ,2tt .e
4a0 ,af ,4 ta
O?TIflALl?dg:ftr lrlia Jrrira !rcrnad tafb.t.oCtiFryH mo|,'tld n 90lr agct-3F
t.'
g
,EE
,0n
.1;l
2l
[i] ,ii:l
ii'; llr
r' .J
Lcr',.
F[!-E COPY
, TOM{OFVAIL
75 South Fronrage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
3 03-479-2 I 3 8 / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303-479-24s2
January 7,1gg4
t'v
\v'
at The Lodge at Vail
' Department of Conununiry Developrnen
gp{4
Pt. t lrz
Mr. Jay Peterson
Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
RE: ThelnternationalWino
Dear Jay:
ff
n at': tL
As we discussed on December 23, 1993, there are several outstanding issues pertaining toThe Lodge DRB application. I thought it would be helpful for me to pui tn"m in writing jo thatwe can insure that none of the details slip through lhe cracks. Please provide the req:uestedinformation listed below on one of the DRB subirittal dates, shown on ihe attached pige.
once we have the information, we will schedule you for lhe corresponding hearing tlr lnatsubmittal deadline.
r]-1.Provide-a stamped survey of the site, identifying the-g!!g_glea, boundaries, legal
description.and. topography. The tegat desciiption oilfriJiFev must ,corespqnd to the legaldesci e donebyaregisleredsurveffi
0v3.
3-2i4r
Please provide documentation pertaining to The Lodge properties' &'-condominium organization, indicating the individualwho nas the authority to 7#3],,"*t
sign applications for this project.
/Please provide a signed copy of the agreement between the Town of Vail and (,-, ,l
The Lodge concerning the thirty-four aicommodation units and conference r '
space.
I
,rr{t 5. tr.
/Please provide a special use permit for the Forest Service property, showino
^ '/,at4 X WP -"P that the proposed deck and the existing loading dock have Foiest'Service
v r\r1' I
" nTatf*fl- approval to encroach on USFS land.
01.2. ,26rc^t" provide a title commitment, schedules A and B, for the enilre parcel. g.-,'J
trF,
Frnr.ridq a rnof nlan rvirh the ,ncrerlvino lopograohy of the site- please insure
ilrcii rrir,r f.itvp r..rirr.rw ,, -r,q,,..J r,,...,!.i.ri
t''\\Considerations and the previously approved plans.ftat/t oI ({a/A I tt-L
f rl {,.r(4s
)o=El
,)l,i".i
ft,lii,*
tut
tt(
tt|l|.d rAtr
\w'f,Y\^)
r ul,'l^r[, 4 q'f.u. I /;,"
' Irir. Peterson
, January 7, 1994
' Page Two
loJY
t/t'
--V' .f^r ,,s ,,f'pr' .t f ,,i9u tJ'{ \,r'-r- ^}rt.)/' r "'\'t \)
Frovide documentation showing that the elevation for the highest point of the
proposed wing is below the elevation ol the view corridor boundary that extends
bver this porti-on of The Lodge property. This inlormation must be provided by
a licensed surveyor. All drawings and letters must be stamped by the surveyor.
^1,3./ Add the Wildflorver deck, as approved by the DRB, to the plans' ,I!,, "'::,1^: Ol^^1" the authority lo require this portion of lhe deck to be removed, if they believe it
is appropriate. As I undersiand your position, you would like to propose that
the deck remain as constructed. lt is acceptable to staff to let the DRB decide
this issue.
6i,:
e
b*[*
9.
in
concerning the Arlburg Restaurant, please submit an er{stio'tdtaratiep '16applicatioriand pay atfparking require.ments associated.with this floor area.
Please set up a time with me so that \rye can field verify the location of all
existing lodge rooms. In order for me lo complete the zone check and
determr:ne aln accurate GRFA number for the site, I will need to undersland
where all exisling hotel rooms are located. In addition, I rvill need floor plans of
the condominium wing that extends over the hotel portion of the development
as well as lloor planslor any other square footage on the site'
r-,L 1.|. / pt"^r"provide written specifications describing all elements ol the proposed U/k
n. 'n' v ' " *Jt U"ri. tt is critical thit tnese wet bars do not have facilities which could be
!)/t"*' tr*mEA*S#...Trlr; , ,.,.1;1..n
rt. /etthe Town is interested in seeing as many aicommodation units as possible
L2 -' ; ih; siie, ptease add bathrooms to the centralportion of each suite' Each
individual unit must be able to be rented separately from all others according to
thedefinitionofanaccommodationunit,sectionlS'04'030'dV-
14.,,-/t\Aeetinq rooms are not listed as a "by right" use in the basement or on
df tlii'i"in. ccrione district unless perhaps the space was considered
accessory use. Any background you may have on this issue would be
appreciaied. A conditional use.permit may.be required'
,t#s{^'F,#lil"'o"
,r^)f. '
, -[' Vail Place and
fl"t'*'Y,u{
a public pedestrian easement through.the corridor between One
the new lnternational Wing. c.-',^-a-l"-'
the first p/A,
as an
itu. Petercon
January 7, 1994
Page Three
r- 1, 1.,*n '
*rn(
fit
6
/^,*4,^'pteas"e identify the existing uses on the site south.of The |'999^t-frog:y'
.it" p[. .n",jrd be updatJd-lo shorv how the site i:,,i:t1-3.l,Y^t::1:^]ni
ilff;;ffi ;#;;;;rv h e r e t h ere are^c u1 I 1 ! 1 Pi:I'g : q?:::
:, J,lo n "'
il ; i6ru ;;Lln " "'Lil"
g parki ns spaces ? o 9 v gu-na;ft- 1'P'y'lqne flgnt [o usri rf fv EAr)Urrg par^,,'y . --:t nz_^ _ . .t& d.=, -_
propoie landscaping oftsite? ffi na. * *
17./lv
?..rJ
18.'/
The
16.Please describe hov,r the basement space will be used. Also, provide details of
thelmprovements in the area of One Vail Place perlaining to solar expgsure'
lightini, snow removal, and snow shed'
Consider the rvay thls project may impact the potential skier base facility which
r.V O. iol.i.O ih tt'. ui";hiny of t-his;dditiot .W" suggest that you discuss this
issue with sla{f and representatives lrom Vail Associates and lhe Lodge. we.
would be willing to brganize this rneeting' .1JA 4r'; < r^-rJ; h'"\ - vvtt''t t1r
I have attached a set of lhe Urban Design Guidelines, and as you can see from
the introduction, there are several items identified which are reviewed primarily
by the DRB. Thesb are the architeclural elements such as roofs, facades,
bilconies, decks ahd patios, accent elements, landscape elemenls' and,
.service. Please revlew each section lo ensure that the proposal is consistent
rvith the standards called out in the design considerations and provide.a written
ieiponse discussing the conformance. Also, please address sun/shade
impacts as ouUined on Page 10 of the document.
\,v
/.".,
) l,<-!ILc .
t/
f,{ ts./ Provide a completed utility verification form. 6,? Qr;
J -'lz (l4s
20.Provide a drainage plan.
The Public Works and Fire Departments have also reviewed the request and have ihe
following commenls. The Fire Department will require that the entile s.tructure. bpth e'
ani pro"poieO, ge spffitereO.. Fubtic.Worksls requesting lhat.tho Lodge dedicate an access
easemenr o, ngnr-on*"fG?low for the check-point-chailie relocation near the west entry of
The Lodge.
please have the site staked showing the perimeter boundary of the proposed addition one. and
one-half weeks prior to the DRB mjeting. On the day of the DRB meeting' please slake the
height of the prdposed Wing. One week-prior to the hearing, please provide a color board'
iAeitifying a1'of ihe materi;ts. The DRB will want to look ciosely at the design of the exlerior
ano m'iv?&rire changes. ( t{o'- t"'u J
sl ..- /.-r
r-i ':t uo'tD s1 {+' r\'\ t.Y-.'- "'-i '..z-.". *vv-tz \ * r/;" J
'-'-\' 22 . 1kJ-b (- (--i .rl
':,:".' fr,ir,-v_
(r(
riL.d I lryA!
\w'fl4\^)
r,ll'I
I
Id*(, 4 4'f .u. I li..
lut, rclcl lul I
.lanuary 7, 1994
Page Three
o
The staff believes it is imperative that vre have the complete application prior to scheduling
tnis tor a DRB hearing. We appreciate your cooperation'
SincerelY,W,fulv
An-(y Knuftsen ISenlffifanner L
Town Council
Bob McLaurin
Tom Moorhead
Larry Grafel
Greg Hall
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
..t
. I,EGAI. DESCNIPTION
THE LODGE APARTMENT CONDOMINIUH
A Dart of Lots a'b' and c' -BIo:l-5-c'
VaiI village'
?,,!i'irii.s, "::::ii":?)::::i"i!oie
ot colorado I rror€
particularlY desct
Beqinning at the.Southwest corner"of Lot a' Block-5-C' VaiI
-dii;;", -Firs,-Fin:*ll!xl;i;[.' :' ii"*::, il]tiilt8",3l.II9 .67 feet; tnen
i:,:,1i:li.{} tii :i;il* #l.!ff #ffi:i:'.ittq ":"':::.'i::;:;i i:';:ii;oo;n' a distanc".S'.il',linl"f;I"i"n "
::ill=1ll
"r'd:
i,rli:i,"iir*:t ;i,ir!'iiil.l* iii, iiilli,:*"^""arc rensth
"o'-,.1t ii" rili-ri rhe south Iine or :"::^1; qio . e Idistance of 3bv'{t :::: lI ,i"..".it line a distance ';:;;;; ; ;
99 "*:-?lt 3',"3:riiiin?1"'nfeet to the Polnr
I, hereby certify that-this -i1e'ot'ot"nt 'Iocation certificaEe-
:l:* :
and that lt rs lt"', iiaul. improvemenb Ilnes'
buirding, or otner ruLurs
.,n rhe above describdd
r rurrher :.i:';1":ffi:,'i;,il|;:":X:;l lt'ii;v-i6"i"'tion"'
:?:":i.:?"lli ;'tll; ii"- f ""ia; r I ::": i i::.:*iii;."i:iilrii";?:::'
i*l:"::ti;.i':"":";"il:iilii?:':R:i "
:;; I *"'pt
-
u" ^indicat
ed' and
thit chere is no nl'onoiHt u"idtn""'i'""iq^- ot'1nI-::""ttrit crossrnq
or burdenine anv ;:;;";?-'iid pu"oil "*6"pt as notod"
'
IMPROVEMEIJT LOCATION CERTIFICATE
David L.
The obov e legol de sc rrpl I on rs recorded ln booh ?l7,9oge 5 3l Eogl e Counly Records'
Da tc-
Kunkel, R.L'S ' I4I09
oa
lt-+/tL-%--\ f -t.- /Z{c-*-
V
*"T is
7L 7J,^.-6 -(tt c- L1-"^ il,'-
4- 'ft^- v /6-/v-- 4r'1" C <-)n e,*-Vl-- ' u--/.
6 W fl- d,a6 v-/,. *--g..-- ; :t< <-.^-.v,-J.,--r4,
W /sdzr-{- /Jns\ *"+ <.{ q\- fa*
</4 i..-f ^ .
lLh-** bn [,zr.a f1' .-,t q s ta-y-* <-o----.^ ,+
i,-- l-.t^ fL l/t- .,*/ € f1"*.4;;-
/-r^"-t ^-T ^,,.fA. J.\ #",^ eV -*"fJA
@ *1A #n7,1* # J --+,x'/'Tc-n-J;A; />U A;k ,"!-.'
(,rL*j tj 4t- t* .,'4)( /vrn-;J*- L{*t / f saa -/ ','4)
/.Yf zHlz@\-
h//- fH,V
e +r-rr fl.
4 \3 a>'a-<--s '
f/* !.# /.r.. {
M-'o"-i./r.
,1. - (r^-q r'tr<
C4q-- 7-ory,,4Jp*
f 8.04.f 30 Floor area, gross residential (GRFA).*
Gross residential floor area (GRFA) means the total square
footage of all levels of a building, as measured at the inside face of
the exterior walls (i.e. not including funing, sheetrock, plaster and
other similar wall finishes). GRFA shall include, but not, be limited
to, elevator shafts and stairwblls at each level, lofu, fireplaces,
mechanical chases, vents, and storage areas. Anics, crawl spaces
and roofed or covered decK, porches, tenaces or patios shall also
be included in GRFA, unless they meet the provisions of
subsections A. or B. beiow.
A. Within buildings containing two or fewer dwelling units, lhe
following areas shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA:
1. Enclosed gruages of up to three hundred square feet per
vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of two spaces for
each allowable dwelling unit permitred by ttre zoning code.2. Anic space with a ceiling height of five feet or less, as
measured from the top side of the structural members of the
floor to the underside of rtre structural members of the roof
directly above. Attic area created by constnrction of a roof
with truss-qpe members will be excluded from calculation
as GRFA provided the tnrsses are spaced no greater than
thirry inches apart.
3. Crawl spaces accessible tfuough an opening not greater
than twelve square feet in area, with five feet or less of
ceiling height as measured from the surface of the earth to
the underside of structural floor members of the
floor/ceiiing assembly above.4. Roofed or covered deck, porches, tenaces, patios or
similar fearures or spaces with no more than three exterior
walls and a minimum opening of not less than twenty-five
percent of the lineal perimeter of the area of said deck,
porch, terrace, patio, or similar fearure or space provided
the opening is contiguous and fuIly open from floor to
tEDffOR'S NOTE: Thc provisions of rhis scaion shall nor be cffecrivc for eny
appliedon for develcpment which hes bcen submirtcd ro drc
dcpanrnent of community devclopment, and acccpted by rhe
samer on or bcfore July I, 1991, unicss rgrccd to by thc
applicurt submitting the rpplication bcforc July I, 1991.
$ail a-7-92)
3ffi-2
DEFINITIONS
ceiling, with an allowance for a railing of up to three feet in
height.
GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footageof a building as ser forrh in Section 18.04.130 above.
Excluded areas as set forrh in subsection A. shall then be
deducted from total squarc footage.
B. Within buildings containing more rhan rwo allowable dweliings
or accommodation units, the following additionat areas shall be
excluded from calculation as GRFA:l. Enciosed garages ro accommodate on-site parking
requiremenn,
2. All or part of the following spaces, provided such spaces
are cotnmon spaces and that the total square footage of all
the following spaces shall not exceed thirry-five percent of
the allowable GRFA permined on rhe lor.a. Common hallways, stairways, elevator shafts and
airiocks;
b. Common lobby areas;c. Common enclosed recreation facilities:d. Common headng, cooling or ventilatjon systems, solar
rock storage areas, or other mechanical systems.
Square footage excluded from calcularion as CRFA
shall be the minimum square footage required to allow
for the maintdnance and operation of such mechanical
systems; \e. erjinmbnlcloset and storage areas, providing access to
such areas is from common hallways only;
't
k i \. 1,. ""^ I f. ruffiErand cmvpndron faeilities;g. Office space, provided such spabe is used exclusively
6'1^I lc-- ' ^ ' {'"'d? ". I - for the management and operation of on-site faciiities.
) , , eny square footage which exceeds ttre thiny_five percent(' I . e-l ' rr ' '' '' I maximum will be included in the calcutadon of GRFA.3. All or part of an airlock within an accommodation or
drrall:-- "-io -^+ ^..^^^Jj-- ^ ----:----- -.c --- ' - ^. E'-----.-=:.-dwelling.unit not exceeding a maximum of twenty-five
squarc feet, providing such unit has direct access to the
outdooN.4. Overlapping stairways within an accommodation unit or
dwelling unit shall only be counted at the lowest level.
307
ffail a-?-92)
,
ZONING
\
5. Anic space with a ceiling height of five feet or less, as
measured from the top side of the $rucilral memben of the
floor to the undenide of the stnrcnral members of the roof
directly above. Anic area created by consmaion of a roof
with rruss-t5pe members will be excluded from calculation
1s GRFA provided the trusses are spaced no greater than
rhirry inches apan6. Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not greater
than twelve square feet in area, with five feet or less of
ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the earth othe underside of structural floor members of the
fl oor/ceiling assembly abov e.7. Roofed or covered decks, porches, teraces, patios or
similar feanrres or spaces with no more than threB exterior
walls and a minimum opening of not less than nvenry_five
percent of the lineal perimeter of the area of said deck,
porch, [errace, patio, or similar feature or space provided
the-.opening is conriguous and fully open irom-floor to
ceiling, with an arowance for a railing oiup to tt'ee feet in
height.
GRFA shall be calcularcdty measruing the lotal squarc fooageof a building as ser forth in Section lg.o+.130 auove. Excluded
areas as set forrh in subsection B. shall then be deducted from the
total square footage.
(_Ord_. 15(1991) g l: Ord.37(1990) g l: Ord. 4r(rgl2) g tA: Ord.
37(1980) g 1(pan).)
I8.04.135 Fractional fee.
"Fractional fee" means a tenancy in common interest in
improved real property. including condominiums, created or
h.el! by person, partnerships. corporations. or joint ventures or
similar entities, wherein the tenants in common have formerly
arranged by oral or-written agrecment.or understanding, either
recorded or unrecorded allowing for the use and occupancy of
the property by one or more co-tenants to the exclusion bf one or
more co-tenants during any period, whether annually reoccur-
ring or not which is binding upon any assignee or futuri owner of
308(vail a-Z-92)
September LI-, 1995
Mr. Andy KnutsenMr. Tom Moorehead
Town of Vail-
75 S. Frontage Rd.VaiI, CO. 81657
Dear Sirs:
IN VAILVILLAGE
L 0_0_ v4.r_L__ 3 !4 !
!4r! q9lor4!g q!57
PHONE )03 476 9530
A .,,.rL€{
Lft' l)';t't'"
I am writing to you on behalf of the Lodge Tower Board of Directors
as their rninaging agent. The Board has asked me to address one
specific issuJrelariing the final Design and Review Board approval
for the L,odge at Vail's International Wing.
The plans for the International Wing indicate the drainage for the
site-will be directed from the new building to the south and west
of the existing Lodge at Vail building, then joining an underground
culvert on the property currently owned by the Lodge at Vail. The
culvert will cohtinue -fron the iouthwestern corner of the Lodget
north through the access easemenL between the L,,odge and the Lodge
Tower and then west where it connects with the Town's storm sewer
by the entry gate to the L,,odge. The current plan utilizes the land
tlat the r.,odgE recently acqulred known as the "exchange- parcel'r to
make the connection in-our parking lots. Considering the exchange
parcel is still under liligation, thig plan may hlve to Femodified. If the disposition of the exchange Parcel forces the
drainage plan to be hodified and it does not connect to the
undergiounh culvert system on the Lodge's property, we feel the
culvert system must still be installed.
I have met with Jay Peterson and John Volponi and discussed the
issue of drainage through our current easement and parking aTeas.
The problem with the current situation is the water that flows
throtigh the access easement to both properties during spring run-
off. -Since there is not a culvert in place at this tirne the erater
cuts through thick layers of built up- ice, creating gullies that
can be ovei a foot de-p. Not only are these chasms unsightly but
can be dangerous and damaging to- vehicles and Pedestrians. The
addition of the International Wing and its patio areas can only
increase the run-off diversion into our parking and access areas.
Mr. Peterson and I'tr. Volponi agree with me that the probleur sltould
be corrected. My concerri is ttrit, regardless of the tinal drainage
plan, the culvert syetem indicated on-ttre current site plan-must be
maintained for the areae involving our current parking and_access
easements to alleviate our current gituation. I am requesting the
Design and Review Board to include this request as a requirement
for.final approval of the International Wing.
If you have any guestions, please feel free to contact ne directly.
ing Agent
cc: ilohn Volponi
"'ffi,"*_
WE ARE SENDING YOU pnttacneO Under separate cover via
ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
oo48 E. ,".,l;,oa,?h L?lol I ro.
AVON, COLORADO 81620
(303) 949-0257
FAX (303) 949-1080
LffiTtrIOF TRANSNflMTAL
! Samples ! Soecificationsfl Shop drawings
E Copy of letter
n
Printsx
n Change order
! Plans
a
crr g,g,1s, -'="''q+491. oo
rr*r'rrroru A" JU knuJ*=rour
RE:
fh€ t-oJqe 4_l&il_:
rn*=r'rrrefl o\ cl Wf rtr
{
the following items:
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
E For approval Approved as submitted
Approved as noted
Returned for corrections
ISk [t]Iil M,. my,"p.Fi""'
Submit
-
copies for distribution
Return
-
corrected Prints
!
tr
n
n
!
tr
!!
xI
S For your usu
As requested
For review and
FOR BIDS DUE
comment
AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
COPY TO
SIGNED-oi FECYoLED PAPER:\5d contenls: 4o7o Pr€-consumer . 1o% Posl-consum€r
lf encloaurea are not ae notad, klndly notlty, ua eI
TOWN OFVAIL
FILE COPY
Department of Community Development75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970479-213V479-21i9
FAX 970-479-2452
August 25, 1995
Ms. Lynn Fritzlen
Fritzlen Piercc Briner
P.O. Box 57
Vail, CO 81658
Re: The Intemational Wing Rcview Process
Dear Lynn:
I wanted to correct one of the sktements you madc in yow letter we received on August 22,
1995 regarding the review process for the International Wing. Once the questions of the Town
staff have been addressed, the item can proceed to Design Review Board (DRB). We will
communicate to you the status of the project; however that may not be in writing.
If you would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call me.
$un"uo'uu
08/23i56 09:06 FA.X 9704764S01 FRITZLEN PIERCE E oo2
Fri,tzlen Pierce Briner
t Fac;: 3(ld.-/i/61901
August r4,rsss /ut'/ Cf{.qtlx4'W
Andy Ituudtscn
Torrm of Vail
Deporbnent of Community Development
FAX:479-2452
RE: Lodge at Vail ExPansion
Dear Andy,
The following confirms ow phone conversation of August 14' 1995'
-Althougb tbe most recent proposal tv 4.htlfht*ts has some significant (and positivc)
architectural differenccs ;; ,;, -d tou. of rhe building is largcly the sane.
-There have bee,n no changes inthe zoning ,r"* oiiot"titetation of zoning procedures by the
Town since the original application' The Town has doJconsitlerablc rescarch since our original
discussions in 1993 and ffi;;;;1t comfortable withthe legality of the proposed expansion
:ffit;ffiffff3;..*o Develolmenr has sohedr.rled a meeting to go over Jav Peterson's
zo'ing interpretation ..;hrr;irhr ioigu. mir ioturp*t"tion in both yotu and or' opinion is
very complex.]fr
"?m"hproposedameetingonAlsgzf
,-rerji?,g:_"1",'^*]:1i:::iii":*rl#
;:ffiii}^.ffi'#il'ffiffi;''wffi ilil,**r1i-*:'ifj*:'::#f*'?
ffilfr.Tffiffi"il; ;:*"*s that no new inrorm*on in reFTcts to 3:^T:*"::5,*t *
to our letter of two which
presented. At this time we are still awaiting a[uai'"*"'@ and the ofthe Aevel At
the-propertY legal
this time it
description on the DRB application'
.ItwastheTownstaflsintcnt!ogiveMrs.wellsand,/orherreprescntativosanopportrmityio
make a final challenge ,. rrr" r".i-*"d e:<pansion prion to formal Design Review Boud
presentarion. Wc arc pf.*"JtiiJfu Town considered this option, but we do not feel tbat tbis is
necessaryprior.o,nur'"o-,"niogforthitspo{tiorronthezo'hg.Pleasedorcltakethisto
mean thai'Itlrs. Wells intends to withdraw her challenge'
- Mrs. wells is not particul-arly interested in being nelotiatetl with iniivirlually' Hcr prcftrence
is that this proposal go tbrougb the appropriate-public-process' It is her beliefthat this ploposal
shouldbe treated as a zonc chango and the appticallt is'pt"scnting a cgnfusine and incorrect legal
axgumcnt to tbeir o*" "ii*t"gZ.
rnir g*p'"r"r is unfair to surrotrnding pmperty owners like
h;.lf *tt" have to abideby curr€nt codes and sqndards'..Gr;;lV;t*n;1";d;;;r.*.
08/22i56 11:49 FAX 97047 849 0l FRITZLEN PIERCE
o
@ oo2
/ Luanne Wells
I Pao2\-w'Y
schcduling any firrthet Design Review.
One thing that we discussed earlier which I am still not clear on is the applicant's opposition to
the rc-zonilg process. If the expansion has thr support of the community and the surrounding
neighbors it may be approved which would elininate the legal issues for the Lodge. If it is
disapproved the Lodge will be in a position to rcsubmit a more acceptablo proposal. tt appears
tbat the most recent modifications refleot m inlbro'al lirst attempt to do this anyway. Please call
me if you have any corrcctions. Thank you for taking the time to review these notes.
Sincerely,
Lynn Fritden
cc: Luanne Wells - Onc Vail Place
JackReutzel - Attomey for Luanne Wells
Jim Lanont- East Village llomeowner's Association
Anita Sdtz - Lodgc at Vail Condominium Assoication
Stan Schlnann - Lodge at Vail Codominium Association
Joe Smead - One Vait Plsce
Tom Moorehead - Town of Vail Attorney
Jim Bronrn- Auomey for the Lodgc atVail Condominium Association
L:9206\08 r,l AIIDY 'WPD
o
dJ,7
gJ l** - ^YW ahwt-*F*P
ftMhr<u+z+{.,
{" 4,<**- f1,*Aa,y*l 4
a
rT-s -7fi {M
Ar-U- clt-L all ,,,nna 6- l%4
aYt L /r5-t'r-*
{, 4r.*L 6 prry""*J
/m a ;Wu.
^*p^/ 4 /VeA,,/ /
Ar/n.
{tD xd>"-,,rr--nrJ
@
EAA"E
0^r&r-*", /Ldt'/L k" Js/o
t^*1.
flrr"-, 'a N4*4 -//4 ,u k 7,^,p.*a
::lT : :ili i.:*'if,i' t ::
AVON, COLORADO 81620
(303) 949-0257
FAX (303) 949-1080
uemeloF TRANsnflffiTAL
WE ARE SENDING YoU ! nttactreo ! Under separate cover via
> I \ ^-tr Shop drawings I erintt E Plans tr Sf,mflfl t, i, , n Specifications
! copyortetter ! changeorder o i''LUlVllVr ''' ' 't, '
coPtEs DATE NO.DESCRIPTION
3 GeA;qq dJ dreinee-e
3 Wz^{&A;h"q
3 Co,"l. tEr^ot , tl fr/Vtlf ^t, s,c<.u- eV.
3 S;+r Pl?r/\w rDotr 1;,|.A a,/\d sr'.fa e)zev.
?3,12,62 i rt*fzct ^3 il!,t9.82 S:rue,t *tE.' ,
3 4,p,qg fs-ah e{attz+fi^/lv
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
For approval
For your use
As requested
For review and comment
FOR BIDS DUE
Approved as submitted
Approved as noted
Returned for corrections
n Resubmit
-copies
for approval
n Submit
-
copies for distribution
n Return
-
corrected prints
M
X
tr
tr
tr
n
n
!
D
19
-
I PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
COPY TO
RECYCLEO
Contents: 10",6 Pr+Con€umer.Post-C,onsurn€t
tl enctoaur?/8 ar? not ta nobd, klndty nodry ua at
zEH REN
^X3 iltPrgrAruNc.
0048 E. Beaver Creek Blvd. Suite 303
AVON, COLORADO 81620
LffiTT@F TRANSNNITTAL
(303) 949-0257
FAX (303) 949-1080
WE ARE SENDING YOU fi.nttacneA D
I Shop drawings I erintt
.::
separats.coverli&l
^ --JCr-'"8 erfnt D Samples ! Specifications
r- )?"l*
O Copy of letter D Change
coPtEs DATE NO.
3 GreA)qq ? J Jntnqz
3 ttq4
3 Car'r,S. I'E*ot
3 S;+€ Plzn fr-r1roI-.1>t",v,i a^A 4e e-bv:_
5 3,ru.n rr*1zttn
3 ll, ,9,82 S-tnwrt
-
w[ taPo
3 4,p,q€+tea W e,,\' ou \ z:\-1lct.-tv
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
For approval
For your use
As requested
For review and
FOR BIDS DUE
comment
Approved as submitted
Approved as noted
Returned for corrections
n Resubmit
-copies
for aPProval
n Submit
-
copies for distribution
D Return
-
corrected Prints
u
X
tr
!
tr
!
n
tr
n
19
-
! PRINTS RETURNEDAFTERLOANTOUS
COPY TO
RECYCLED
t/1
B
Cor €nls: 40% Pro-Coisumer.PostConsun6r
ll enctoaur€a are noa aa noted, ktndly notlfy ua aa
o
WING 4t'tot95INTERNATIONAL
Height Calculation
TOTALBUILDING
S.F. SITE
COVERAGE 10017
DESCRIPTION AREA/ SF
L,F. OF
WALU
PLAZA
HEICtrI
ABOVE
SOUTH
SIDE
L.F. OF
WALL/
so.
SIDE
I{EIGITT
ABOVE
PIJBLIC
ACCESS
L.F. OF
WALL/
PI.JBLIC
ACCESS
PERCENTAGE
oF 10.017 s.F.
FOOTPRINT
HEIGHT
ABOVE
PLlZA
Conference Room on
South side 2305 N/A N/A 12'o',r32'.4"N/A N/A
23o/o
Deck at 126'-0'FF 227 N/A N/A 26'4"l6'4'9'-8"33'-0"2o/o
Terrace at 135'-8"2698 22'4"53'6 35'-5',63'4'N/A 24'4"27%
Plateline of
Presidential Suite
Roof
4403 3l'-4'90'-0'44L5 70'4"46',-6"
43%
Note: Datum 113'-4" :77.7 on surrey Page 1
\.I
Distributcd to the Firc Dcpartmcnt, pubric worrts, and Landscaping on T lz ( / 4 <
t
McGEE , GFEG HALL
l-O @auanJtWs
TODD OPPENI{EIMER
Return to nndv Knudlsen
TO: MIKE
Town Planncr
INTE R-DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW
PRoJECT: -Tl...-
DATE SUBMITTED:DATE OF PUI3LIC HEARING./f
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:_ Ao,;
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TI.{E PROPOSAL:4r
-l.t'lL^ l"h*n,"1;ry-l L0 tv\d
Engineering:
Date: Aprit il tq15
L.t
/t^L'/<- -/k
*.F t/n: i {^._-f tJ,
SIEr
l4
^tr
At.lroln.,r\u mosr k€ \rrr;<r( @7Ye{J be,,k(tu 'eaclr\\rl1 {cx-l1&Jg Q\a?24 '
we n"Ad 4 <oavel 9nc'.^-,rrr1 gvr<nr15 / prcpo ted < \Ee c{n\-oJ( 5 '
Afe \N Pwv,\,ct\ on aYo(lc\i\ srvrj an\wY(,r€' c'o ttw?'
tp;ll *t l,^tt 51os,1 elu W{o.. BtJ, ?r"^"1
?ruu' L eltt / ul.*'^.,t .{-n -Tu7,n-*,i, E- e.\
ba,t<-h-.u+<- .* inlsnc4-.!ru- uJ,llo,.,u ?) ; Ur-"l
Maqk" -7?^*, p,nl.-l-',- P/u.n
' lrskr-- doo, rtu.,iF d). b,*- /J-> Z.)
/,/ Landscaping: / U
/ Reviewed by:
-..-
Darc:
-
I Commcnts: .
.a' ?*"t-A *I -uu!, * :
t>+,,'-, CI"J 7 o * gl'r'* l;'
RJ 41 eh"L'' '"t
*Jon^.. -D,r--v.. Ho' of( pr",U)
?z/,ry,-;>r,'^' o( nouC*n(,
I / /
E> U,- /Jil",,*,
rk^ wLl J. ::"1
l" ,-.o.1r<- cdA4,.L-f/t"t tht'-
'rfi
/41,o'/J L4- '+ No-t( -'
f*.* t - y'A
, -//zu/^.^. Q -/1.-^
Fire Dept.:
Reviewed by:
Commcnls:
Dalc:
l*rn Jn*;^-,re czzn,."- 1. J.-,^ +k
he{v +- t-Jcr,np/ - 2r,., Lk ro/,
-. /J{/,*,
" kF,"a#t,
P,f h *-l( o/r,e.-l 5h.*-.,- *b-4,/
Reviewed by: G.eq Hqtr
Tern Mq.ncez-
Commcnts:
d,, e pzJ eas.n-) : ff ,'/ /'s
Coa.lcJ.t.--.
o
McGEE
INTER-DEPARTM ENTAL REVI EW
PROJECT: "TV l-!p -.F t/": I In ^ "-l Lt,
DATE SUBMITTED:DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING4f s(rr
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TI{E PRoPoSAL: l4 q f
Enginecring:
Reviewed by:
Commcnts:
Reviewed bv:
Commenls: .
TO: MIKE
't
'IL lnh*n.ji,n.'-l k) rrl
GREG HALL TODD OPPENI-IEIMER
Relurn lo Anclv Knucttsen
Town Planncr
Datc:
Dalc:
Landscaping:
Reviewcd by: ' ' Datc: _ !'/ /' . ,/ -12
Commcnls: // ./-z.S'.2< Z .//2e J/Z',zteaZ yt-* 2'/ 4/224-44""//
// '/ ,/
-L/ze>4,/ l{"275';.'-f 6.rt.'1.-2 -/
z),Ts'ozzd pil//t /erazazzr ao''''Z Z-t"/744
D'6;-t Ku"e? '*'.a-24 o'|/z'7? '?V' Z'-f
Distributcd to the Firo Dcparrmcnt, pubric works, and Landscaping on l lz(/ 4 < .
TO: Mf KE
t
McGEE GREG HALL TODD OPPENHEIMER
Refurn lo Anclv Knudtscn
Town Planncr
pRSJECT: -T}* L-J,- o,{ l/n . i
DATE SUBMITTED:DATE OF PUBLIC HEARINGtlf
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRTEF DESCRIPTION OF THE pROpOSAL: l4 q f
INTE R-DEPARTMENTAL B EVI EW
^J
slE t
Landscaping:
Date:
Dale:
Date:
I
I'/L l"h*n**;ryJ L<r""...p
U
Engineering:
Reviewed by:
Comments:
Reviewed by:
Commenls:
Fire Dept.:
Reviewed by:
Comments:
Distributed to the Fire Departmcnt, pubric works, and Landscaping on 3 lz c/ 4 ( .
;p.- 4 J /J/6 ,/,u/r,
fuh &"-,,-- .
'eJ> f/2-1 lf --(yt/-<4.
J,vn t-.^ tl--^-f-
ln ",-c 4-,f{ tzs*,gf-'''. f, a- . ,11^*r*
W.v. {, t--t+ 4- Jr*" ,-*-k
>-^4/+
UM- fr ;a,,--zt /t-<244f
L
ao
/--<\SJ
f"l'^-
616 f,*""--
8-^.**f
4-o
a
Ltr.+u,t)ut ,1 G *t (Lrr>k*--^E ,n l> s/zs-
A" l./-.,
f) t'*.^-euJ_
P-k,'\*"'vf
9;tt f -^"ll
- si "u tt'Lt
L^" ( Lu)t7.
lnut*\
c --!'L -.^-l-r-d' "-.1 -
l/u ' Jo o.u,IA,
>f aU LI?.L* ).,#--^A "^
gl3 a nl
ulv las t1t1; i t^ -_ 1.,ur,lglailrs L'tf* t',"1"^
taiqt"s *kn w
l(u'lrr U rtq'
)oltr['13
rrlrlrr
WE ARE SENDING YOU )d AttacheO E Under separate cover vra> ( \ ,
,Ae'int'I Change order
ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
oo48 E.
'"r,i;P.B?'n
L?'lo? t ,0,
AVON, COLORADO 81620
(303) 949-0257
FAX (303) 949-1080
LffiTt@F TRANSnfl[TTAt
! Samples E Specificationstr PlansD Shop drawings
f,Copy of letter tr
DArE 3'21'qF l'"".o 1tEob\.a
^".'"o*;\,6 & knuJ.C>on
RE:!
TLra LoJore elr Yai | -
n*qna*to4El_ VVjl\4J
A>*c the following items:
Ine S r^arn
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:\./frFor approvalt
n For your use
E As requested
n For review and comment
tr
tr
tr
n
AFnoqs$go
npffio alioted
n"ffiofgorreggryo rq+oneclq$iilsa \,t
D Resubmit
-copies
for approval
! Submit
-
copies for distribution
E Return
-
corrected prints
D FoR BrDs our T
-f
tr PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
l-t+h
RECYCLED
Cont€ntg: 40yo Pre.Con6urn€r . I 06 Post€onsumgr
tl.,?rclo.utEa at€ not aB nod, kln tty notwt ua at
w,')
S"?.\ E t
THE LODGE AT VAIL.INTERNATIONAL WING
3tzu95
Project Description
The International Wing is an addition to an existing hotel within the core of Vail village. The addition
includes a conference center and 2l guest rooms on four levels. The project has been in the planning
stages off and on for I I years. The design received Planning and Environmental Commission
approval in 1984. Now the owners wish to pursue approval from the Design Review Board.
The following is an outline of the project for the Design Review Board:
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The International Wing is a four story structure from the mountain (South) side and three
stories from the plaza ( North ) side. The design style of the addition's exterior is a conscious
departure from the existing Lodge at Vail which was built in a 1960's version of a European
alpine village. The new structure is designed to conform to the Urban design guidelines and
also to compliment the existing Lodge and recent design trends within the village.
PEDESTRIANZATION
The addition allows pedestrian access from Founders Plaza to the slopeside via a 14 foot wide
landscaped and hardscaped conidor between the Intemational Wing and One Vail Place. The
access from Gore Creek Road will remain as well as the path from the Lodge to Founders
Plaza. Tlrcplazalandscape will be renovated to include pathways, grass berms, mature aspen
and fir trees and a focal point as an inviting activity area. The wall height of the International
Wing is approximately one halfthe width of the plaza that is creates. The plaza side will have
45 degree bays in the lower walls, patios walls, balconies and cantilevered pop-outs on the
upper floor to reduce the mass. The mountain side will also have some of these features.
}IEIGHT
The height of the International Wing will not exceed the height of One Vail Place or the
exisiting lodge at any point.
ROOFS
The main roofwill be mostly a gable roof at a4 and 12 pitch. Accent pop-outs are gable and
half hipped at a l0 and 12 pitch. The roofing material willbe cedar shakes to match the
existing Lodge. the eavwe will vary from 2 feet in depth to 4 feet in depth. At all pedestrian
access point there is either a gable roofor a balcony to protect that opening from snow sliding
and dripping. The roof will have a cold roof construction.
FACADE
The materials on the facade will be mainly stucco with wood siding and heavy wood trim at
the upper level. The windows will be deeply set into the wall with splayed trim in the stucco
walls. The color ofthe stucco will compliment the color of the existing Lodge and One Vail
Place. The walls are broken up by balconies dors and windows and shed roofs. The
conference level is a public space and the large glass wall communicates that. The guest
roomsi are private and the smaller windows and doors with balconies and patios are evidence
of that. Both sides of the additon have obvious points of entry.
SERVICE
The service and delivery to the International Wing will be by the existing means which now
serve The Lodge at Vail.
AF VAIL COM-DEV
SUBDIVISION
IDa
fhe; locatlon and awaitabiliLy of uLi]'lgles, wlreLher tl. ey be main <l"fla rLrunk Line5 or proposed llnes, muaL be approved and werifled by the Jla-\l /)
f ollowitr€l utsiliEleE for t,he accompanyl'ng sl'Le p1an.
|303-479-2452 F EB 14 '95 L2:3'/ No.OO2 P.O9TOl,!fJ
.toB
I,OT .l
('4_
()^dt
ADDRESS
u. s. wests communicaEiona1-800-922-t98''458-5860 or qjg
Publlc servlce company
- 8-*|l'.€+e+'*G1-ffiaDGary rraLL 2AZ:4O1O
Ho]-y Cross E].ectsrlc Ascroc.
949 - 5e92fed nu9ky,/M{chae1 fraverty
Herl.Lage Cab]-evlsion T.v.. 949 - 5530gt#+:t /ltst Goa-rt
Upper Eagle Val.].ey WaEe,r5i SaniUaeion DisErlcB '41 6 -7 480Fjrcd HasleeV+b Ff',E,T,+"A.
NoTE r 1. This form lE LoIoca L.lon. Tbispreparing Your.lDscallatsions.
-7-:J7-?'f,
r"n u, n n.Z ,*11
3 ^ tt-ts
A. pp^
Z{Adidror,ol'ta.p {r.e .nax 5e-\.--1,
3-t7 q5
verify aetvica avail'abilitsY and
atrourd bE u6ed in conjunctl'on wl.chublllcy plan and schedul. lngr
3-t7-?/
'ntk //af,;,
5.
t,tl
';',
v
u
!.
?
?
i'.'l
l'
I
ht'
l:h-
I
i
i
:
t
i
ir
t.?nt!
;
lti
TlIll
!
n
t
II
ftor any new conscrucglon propo6al, tshe apE llcatrEmurc provide o bompleccd rrtl'Ll,E). verlficacion fornr.
If, a uciliLy company tras concerns wl glt Lbe proposed ,
construct.ion, rhe ucLlicy repre8encaelve should nog-
direcLly on che utility werificabion f,orm tslrats tstrercj.s a problem wrtich'needs tso bo resolved. Tlte :Lsaue
should Lhen be Epelled oub in decai]- in an at'caclredleccer tso ttre lown of vall. t{oetewer, please keep ln
mlnd thaE, it is the rc8poDsibilicy of t:he ueillcy
company Eo resolve ldentlfled l)roblcrns.
rf Etre uBlliLy verificatlon form tras slgrnaEures from
each o€ tshe ugillLy companies ' and no commen t'6 are
mado direcgly on lhe f orm, che Town t^tll]. presume
ctrac gtrete are no probl,ems and Lhac tslre dewelopmengcan proceed.
Theae werlfications do not relleve ctre conEractsor of,trie responsibiliey tso obEai|r a abreee crr ts Permicfrom Lhe Town of vail, DeparEmenB of Publla workEand uo obuain ugilitv locatlons before diqqinq inany public ricrhL'of -way or easemenL in the Tow'! ofvair-. A buildinq oerm-i L ls not. a street cut Permits.;'\ streeL cub permiu musE be obgained separacely.
InsLallaclon of gerwice ].ines are aE tslre expense androsponsibilicy of Chc propergy owner.
. Pleare bring a siee plan, floor D].an, and e]'gvaLlons wl' enobbalnlng upper Eagle valley wate! e sanlLaLlon EigtraEures. Firc
flow needs musL be addressed.
2.
3.
{.
5.
FII,ING
I
t l"* rrrlE G'ARAIflTEE coMPt
cusroMER DISTRIBUTIoN O .l
V p-L
+tr-
-\. Aq\
March 28, 1995 Our Order No.: 1/T25633-2 5\l \' '-
ProperEy Address:
V BAILEY, HARRING & PETERSON SEA CONTAINERS WEST INC.
-1660
LINCOLN STREET #3175
-88
KEARNY ST. #1800
DEIiWER, CO 80264 SAII FRANCTSCO, CA 94108
Attn: WENDY HARRING Atstn: R',f. KRAKAUER
FAX 837-0097 FAX 415 398-0161
Copies: 1 via Us Postal Serwice Copies: 1 via uS Post,al Serwice
PAONE, CALLAHA.\I, MCHOI,IVI &
WINTOR
26722 PLAZA DRTVE, STE. 120 19100 VON KARMAN, 8TH FLOOR
MISSION VIE.TO, CA 9269L IRVINE, CA 927L3-96L3
AT!N: PEGGY CAROIJIJO, VICE PRESI AEEN: MR. DAN WINTOR
FAX 7L4 367-4080Copies: l- wia US Post.al Service Copies: 1 via US Postal Service
iTOHNSON & KTJNKEL
(EAGI.,,E RUNS)AIEn: .JAI\IET
Copies: 1
.a'
IIIDEPENDENCE ONE BAIIK OF
CALIFORNIA
l^' TrrLE .'ARANTEE coMPn
WENDY HARRING
BAILEY, HARRING & PETERSON
].660 LINCOLN STREET #31-75
DENVER, CO 80264
YOI'R I,AND TITLE GUARAIiITEE COMPANY COMTACTS
March 28, L995 our order No.: vT25533-2
Buyer/Borrower:
LODGE PROPERTIES INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION
Sel1er/Owner:
Property Address:
If you have any inguiries or require furEher assistance, please
contact one of tshe nunbers listed below:
For Closing AssisEance: For TiEIe AssisEance:
TRICIA KEYES
108 S. FRONTAGE RD W.
Phone: VAfIJ, CO 81658
Faxr Phone: 303 476-225L
Fax: 303 476-4534
Guides to underst,anding title insurance are available upon
reguest. Please call our Sales department at 303 33t-6299.
NoE€: Once an original commitment has been issued, any subsequents
changes will be emphasized by underlining.
TIIANK YOU FOR YOT'R ORDER!
oLD REnLrc NATT.NAL rrrlE ,*ru*.t, coMpArly
ALTA COMMIT
SCHEDUI,E A
Our
MENT
Order # VT25633-2
For Information OnIy
- - TOTAT, - - $1-1-,057.00
****WITH YOI'R REMITTANCE PLEASE REF'ER TO OIJR ORDER NO. vT25633-2****
Effective Date: January 05, 1995 at 8:00 A.M.
Policy Eo be issued, and proposed fnsured:
"ALTA" Loan Policy 10-17-92 $7,000,000.00
Proposed Insured:
TNDEPENDENCE ONE BANK OF CALIFORNIA
The est.atse or interest in the land described or
this Commitment and covered herein is:
A Fee Simple
Title to the esEaEe or interesE covered hereineffect.ive datse hereof vest.ed in:
LODGE PROPERTTES INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION
referred Eo in
is at the
in this Conunitment is described as
- Charges -
AlEa Lender Polic LL,047.OO
Tax ReDort.
1
2.
3.
4.
5. The land referred tofollows:
PARCEL 1: A PART OF LOTS 4. E- AND L BL,,OCK 5-C,r'1nstrr r r ryq@l'rv o e-sAGLE;s rArETFtomRApO,
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
VAII.,, VILLAGE,
MORE ../!
BEGTNNTNG AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT A,r BLOCK 5-C, VAII-,
VILI,,AGE, FIRST FILING,. THENCE NORTH 24 DEGREES 11 MINUTES OO
SECOIIDS EAST A DISTANCE OF l-1-9.67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 15 DEGREES
1-7 MINU:TES OO SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 143.00 FEET TO A PO]NT
OF CURVE; THENCE ALONG 4 CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF
96.00 FEET, 4 CE}TTRAL ANGLE OF 64 DEGREES OO MINUTES OO y'
PAGE 1-
or,D RECLT. NATT.NAL rrrl' ,*ru*t, coMpANy
ALTA COMMITMENT
SCHEDULE A
Our Order # W25633-2
SECOItrDS, AND AN ARC DISTANCE OF ].07.23 FEET TO A POII{'T OF
TANGE}TT; THENCE AI,ONG SAID TANGENT NORTH 79 DEGREES 1-7 MINUTES
OO SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 245. 42 FEET TO A POINT OF
CURVE; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RTGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF
SECONDS582.79 FEET, A CENTRAL AI{GLE OF 2 DEGREES 03 MINUTES 54
AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 21-.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOU:|H
DEGREES 30 MINUTES 15 SECONDS EAST 4 DISTANCE OF 359.21- FEET TO
THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT A; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 44
MINUTES OO SECONDS WEST AND ALONG SAID SOUTH I.,INE A DISTANCE OFago.e: reEr To THE
-ponflr-oF- -gEGrNNrNd;
I
'EXCE'T ,:=r i 1..5-.4i' L tw.t .-$r',i r-.lts
ALL OF THE LODGE APARTMEI{T CONDOMIN]I]M, ACCORDING AND PI]RSUAI\TT TV"'-, ,2TO THE CONDOMINIT]M MAP AIiID CONDOMINII]M DECI,ARATION THEREFORE, 5'-" I U
RECORDED rN BOOK 2L7 AT PAGE 531, COIINTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF , _. f" rcoLoRADO.- d"-.. -tc
jLl' v
r)'l l
l'/
AND EXCEPT ALL OF THE LODGE SOUTH CONDOMINIUM ACCORDING AND
PURSUANT TO THE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND CONDOMINIT]M DECLARATION
THEREOF, RECORDED IN BOOK 231
STATE OF COLORADO.
PAGE 512, COUNTY OF EAGLE,
PARCEI, 2:
coNDoMrNIIlI4 UNITS L32, t34, l_35, 138, ]-40 , L42, 144, ]-46 , L50 ,L52, L54, l_56, 159, L6O, L62, L64, L66,249, L39, AND 165 THE
LODGE APARTMENT CONDOMTNTI'M, ACCORDING TO THE MAP FILED FOR
RECORD, AND THE CONDOMINIIJM DECLARATION FOR THE LODGE APARTMENT
CONDOMINII'M RECORDED ]N BOOK 2T7 AT PAGE 53T, COI'NTY OF EAGLE,
STATE OF COLORADO.
PARCEL
LOT L TOGETHER WrTH AtiI UNDTVTDED L/ATH TNTEREST rN TRACT A!
EAGLE VAIL TOI'INHOUSE QUADPLEX LOT f_L BLOCK 1_L EAGLE VAIL,
SI'BDIVISION FII.,ING NO. ]., ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED MARCH
29. T979, IN BOOK 283 AT PAGE 553 AND AS DEFINED AIID DESCRIBED
IN THE TOViNHOUSE DECLARA'TION RECORDED APRII.,, 2, L979, IN BOOK
zesi,T- ffieNDMENT T"HERETo EE'conoEE EFRilz,fg--q-BooR-2sAEI@ oF -COLORADO.
l_0
3:
PAGE
Ar.,Tt coMMTTMENT
SCHEDULE B-1
(RequiremenEs) Our order # vT25633-2
The following are the reguiremenLs to be complied wiEh:
1. PaymenE Eo or for the account of t.he grantors or morEgagors ofthe full consideration for the estate or interesE to be
insured.
2. Proper insE.rument (s) creating the estaEe or inEerest to be
insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to-wit:
3. REIJEASE OF DEED OF TRUST DATED December 28, L984, FROM I,ODGE PROPERTIES
INC., A COLORADO CORPORATIONTO THE PI]BLIC TRUSTEE OF EAGLE COUNTY FOR THE
USE OF I'NITED BANK OF DENVER NATIONAL ASSOCIATION TO SECURE THE SI.IM OF
$4,500,000.00 RECORDED January 02, 1-985, IN BOOK 403 AT PAGE 737.
MODIFICATION AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS RECORDED
August. 12, L988, IN BOOK 489 AT PAGE 79.
MODIFICATION AGREEMEITT IN CONNECTION WITH SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS RECORDED
August. 25, 1,989, IN BOOK 5l-2 AT PAGE 352.
MODIFICATION AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS RECORDED
March 20, 1-990, IN BOOK 523 AT PAGE 856.
MODIFTCATION AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS RECORDED
May 15, 1990, IN BOOK 529 AT PAGE 321.
MODIFICAT]ON AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS RECORDED
January 02, L992, fN BOOK 559 AT PAGE 948.
MODIFICATION AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS RECORDED
September 23, L994, IN BOOK 650 AT PAGE 819.
4. REIJEASE OF DEED OF TRUST DATED SepEember 30, 1988, FROM LODGE PROPERTIES
INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF EAGI-,E COUNTY FOR THE
USE OF SEA CO}OTAINERS AS4ERICA INC. TO SECURE THE SUM OF $1O,OOO,OOO.OO
RECORDED April 18, 1989, IN BOOK 504 AT PAGE 414.
5. TERMINATION OF FINANCING STATEMEI{T WITH I]NITED BANK OF DENVER, THE SECURED
PARTY, RECORDED January 02, 1985, IN BOOK 403 AT PAGE 738.
CO}il|INUATION STATEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH SAID FINANCING STATEMENT RECORDED
NOVEMBER 1-3, 1-989 IN BOOK 5]-7 AT PAGE 575.
AMENDMEIT| IN CONNECTION WITH SAID FINANCING STATEMENT RECORDED JUNE 1, A99O
IN BOOK 530 AT PAGE 5]-5.
PAGE 3
A L T? C O M M I T M E N T
SCHEDULE B-1-
(Reguirements) Our Order # W25633-2
CONTINUATION STATEMEMT IN CONNECTION WITH SAID FINAI{CING STATEMEI\TT RECORDED
AUGUST 12, 1994 IN BOOK 647 AT PAGE 686.
5. RELEASE OF DEED OF TRUST DATED OcEober 02, t972, FRoM L,YMAN C. JOSEPHS AI.ID
MARION N. JOSEPHS TO THE PI'BLIC TRUSTEE OF EAGLE COUNTY FOR THE USE OF
WESTERN FEDERAIJ SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF DENVER TO SECIIRE THE ST]M OF
$40,000.00 RECORDED October L9, L972, IN BOOK 225 AT PAGE 826.
ASSI'MPTION AGREEMEIiilT IN CONNECTION WITH SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS RECORDED
lTanuary 24, 1983, fN BOOK 352 AT PAGE 526.
(AFFECTS I]NIT 1-39)
IF THERE IS A CHANGE IN OIINERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY TO BE INSURED HEREIN FROM
THE VESTED OWNER SET FORTH IN ITEM 4 OF SCIIEDI'LE A HEREIN, THE TERMS,
PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TRANSFER TAX MAY BE
APPLICABLE.
THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE REQUIRES RETI'RN
ADDRESSES ON DOCUME}fIS SENT FOR RECORDING! !
PAGE 4
A L rt c o M M r r M E N T
SCHEDULE B-2
(Exceptions) Our Order # W25633-2
The policy or policies E,o be issued wil-1 cont,ain exceptions Eo thefollowing unless Ehe same are disposed of Eo tshe satisfacuion of
the Company:
1. Standard Exceptions 1- through 5 printed on Ehe cover sheet.
6. Taxes and assessments not yet due or payable and special
assessments noE yet cerEified to Ehe Treasurer's office.
7. Any unpaid taxes or assessmenEs against said land.
8. Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any.
9. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE
THEREFROM SHOUIJD THE SAl,tE BE FOITND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES
AS RESERVED IN IINITED STATES PATENT RECORDED July L2, L899, IN BOOK 48 AT
PAGE 475.
10. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE
UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN I]NITED STATES PATEICf RECORDED JUIY 1-2 , 1-899,
IN BOOK 48 AT PAGE 475.
LL. RESTRICTTVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTATN A FORFETTTRE OR REVERTER
CLAUSE, BIIT OMITTING RESTRICTTONS, TF ANY, BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION,
OR NATIONAI., ORIGIN, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRI,,MENT RECORDED AuguSE ]-0, 1.962, IN
BOOK 174 AT PAGE l-79 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRI'MEIfrT RECORDED August 30, a9'7L,
IN BOOK 22L AT PAGE 492.
r,,12. THOSE PROVTSTONS, COVENAI\ITS Ar{D CONDTTTONS,dt*lrgry+* RESTRICTTONS, AS
X CoNTATNED rN TNSTRIIMENT RECoRDED MAy 5, L97i,'rN BooK 2L7 AT PAGE 531- AND'r- rN TNSTRUMENT RECoRDED ocroBER 23, 1973 rN BooK 23L AT PAGE 612.
Jkr:. urrl,rry EASEMENT TEN FEET rN wrDTH ALoNG THE souru Lor LINE oF Lor A, BLocKl' 5-c, vArIJ vrLrrAGE, FrRsr FTLTNG As sgowN oN THE RECoRDED cotlDoMrNrIIM MAP.
1-4. EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AS SHOUIN ON THE RECORDED PLAT OF
VAIL VILLAGE, FIRST FILING AND THE RECORDED MAP OF THE LODGE SOIITH
CONDOMINIIJM AND THE LODGE APARTMETfT COIIDOMINIIJM.
].5. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF DEDICATION RECORDED DECEMbET 08, L97L
IN BOOK 222 AT PAGE 517 AND IN INSTRI]MEIilT RECORDED NOVEMBER 2, ].978 IN BOOK
277 AT PAGE 979.
1-6. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF AGREEMEIflT BETWEEN VAIL ASSOCIATES,
INC. AND LODGE ASSOCIATES, LTD. RECORDED January 16, L969 IN BOOK 2L4 AT
PAGE 494.
PAGE 5
TERMS, COITDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF
ASSOCIATES, INC. AND VAIL WATER A}ID
1.966 IN BOOK 197 AT PAGE 465.
MENT
Our Order # W25633-2
EASEMET{| AGREEMEIVT BETWEEN VAIL
SANITATION DISTRICT RECORDED August 15,
A L rt c o M M r r
SCHEDULE B-2
(Exceptions)
L7.
',i/i{<
I
1_8 .
IPK
TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF RELEASE AND TERMINATION OF EXISTING
EASEME}ilT AND GRANT OF NEW EASEMENT RECORDED MaTch 03, 1979 IN BOOK 284 AT
PAGE 924.
19. EXISTING LEASES AIID TENAITCIES. RECORDED AND UNRECORDED, ASSIGNME}i:|S,
AGREEMENTS AND OTHER RELATED DOCI]ME}iTS THEREOF.
20. TERMS, AGREEMEIiI|S, PROVISIONS, CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS CONTAINED IN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN LODGE PROPERTIES INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION AND HKC
PARTNERSHIP, A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, RECORDED JUNE 19, 1986 IN BOOK
443 AT PAGE 706.
21-. RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF MANAGERS OF LODGE TOWER CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION,
INC., AND NOTICE OF EXERCISE OF OPTION RECORDED FEBRUARY 16, 1.988 TN BOOK
479 AT PAGE 51--
2. EASEMENIS AND ENCROACHMEMTS AS DISCLOSED BY IMPROVEMENT LOCATION
CERTTFTCATE NO. K-83-093 OF JOHNSON, KUNKEL & ASSOCTATES, rNC. DATED
DECEMBER 21-, L984.
(ITEMS 9 THROUGH 22 AFFECT PARCEI.,,S 1- AND 2)
23. RrGHT OF PROPRTETOR OF A VErN OR LOpE TO EXTRACT ANp REMOVE HrS ORE
THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOIJND TO PENETRATE OR IMTERSECT THE PREMISES
AS RESERVED IN I]NITED STATES PATENT RECORDED MATCh 17, 1-891-, IN
PAGE 438.
BOOK 48 AT
24. RESTRICTM COVENAIfTS, TTHICH DO NOT COIITAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER
CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED ON RACE, COLOR, REL]GION,
OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRI]MENT RECORDED SCPEEMbET.06, T972,
rN BoOK ??_l ET-FEGE 3oa--fr[D as el.l-eNoffrN rr{SrnuMs}i'T REcoRpEp April 07,
L977, rN BOOK 253 AT pAcE 901, AMENDMENT THERETO RECORDEp JI]LY L 1992 rN
BOOK 584 AT PAGE 244, AIID RESOL,,UIION RECORDED JULY 7, 1992 IN BOOK 584 AT
PAGE 243.
25. UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMEIVTS TEN (]-O) FEET IN WIDTH ARE RESERVED ALONG
EACH SIDE OF EVERY BACK LOT LINE OF EVERY LOT I,INE rN TTIE SUBpIVISTON. rN
aoorrroN, utrr.rtv eNp-pna-rNaeg nesgMENTs sEvEI.I AND ONE-rALF (7 t/2) FEET rN
WIDTH ARE RESERVED ALONG EACH SIDE OF EVERY SIDE LOT IN THE SUBDIVISION NOT
FRONTING ON A DEDICATED STREET OR ROAD AS RESERVED ON THE RECORDED PI-,4T.
25. EASEMENTS RESERVATIONS AI\TD RESTRICTIONS AS SHOIIIN OR RESERVED
PAGE
RECORDED September 06, L972 IN BOOK 225 AT PAGE 303.
ON THE PLAT
A L Tt c o M M r r M E N r
SCHEDUI,E B-2
(Exceptions) Our Order # W25633-2
27. EASEMEMIS, RESERVATIONS AI{D RESTR.ICTIONS AS SHoWN OR RESERVED ON THE PLAT
RECORDED March 29, t979 IN BOOK 283 AT PAGE 553.
28. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF TOWNHOUSE DECI.,ARATION RECORDED ApTil
02, T979 IN BOOK 283 AT PAGE 563 AND FIRST AI4EITDME}frT RECORDED APRIL 12,
L979, IN BOOK 284 AT PAGE 65.
29, PLAT RESTRICTION AS COIfIAINED ON THE PLAT RECORDED MARCH 29, 19'T9, IN BOOK
283 AT PAGE 553:
BY VIRTUE OF THIS SUBDIVfSfON, THE ITNITS OR PARCEL.,S CREATED HEREBY WILL, NOT
COMPLY WITH T,EGAL LOT REQUIREMEIVTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 4 SINGLE FAMILY
nesroplreE;AND THgREFoRE;fr Burr,prNc pERMrr SHALL eE eRANT-po ev rHE couNTv
OF EAGLE FOR SUCH A STRUCTI]RE TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SI'BJECT LOT. THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ONLY ONE FOITR-FAMIL,,Y RESIDENCE SHALL,, BE PERMITTED ON THE
COMBINED AREA OF THE FOI'R LOTS CREATED BY THIS ST'BDIVISION PLAT.
30. DEED OF TRUST DATED April 30, L979, FROM MICKY E. POAGE TO THE PITBLICrnusrgg @ eurl-,DrNc At[D
LOAN ASSOCIATION TO SECURE THE SIIM OF $75,000.00 RECORDED Mav 10, 1979, IN
BOOK 285 AT PAGE ZEC. -
ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS RECORDED
AuquSU 2L, L98L, IN BOOK 328 AT PAGE 50.
(ITEMS 23 THROUGH 30 AFFECT PARCEL 3)
rTEMS !, ?r_ AND I OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTTONS W]LL BE pELETED FROM THE
MORTGAGEES POLICY UPON RECEIPT OF A SATISFACTORY SI]RVEY. ITEM #4 WII-,L BE
DELETED UPON RECEIPT OF 4 SATISFACTORY LIEN AFFIDAVIT. ITEM #5 WILL BE
DELETED IF THE COMPAI!! RECORDS THE ITEMS REQUIRED I'NDER SCHEDULE B-1 HERE-
rN. TTPM #E-AIiDZ*Wffi qI
POLICY. ITEM #8 WILL BE DELETED UPON RECEIPT OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT
NO WATER AND SEWER CHARGES ARE OWING.
(AFFECTS PARCEIJ ].)
PAGE 7
LAND rG ",GuARANtrl coMPANY
DISCLOSI'RE STATEMENT
Reguired by senate Bitl 91--14
e) The subject real property may be located in a special Eaxingdist,rict.
B) A Cert,ificaEe of Taxes Due listing each Eaxing jurisdiction
may be obEained from the CounEy Treasurer or Ehe Countsy
Treasurer' s authorized agent.
C) The information regarding speciat districts and the boundaries
of such disE,rict.s may be obEained from the Board of CounEy
Commissioners, Ehe CounEy C1erk and Recorder, or the County
Assessor.
Reguired by SenaEe BiIl 92-143
A) A Cert.ificaEe of Taxes Due fist,ing each tsaxing jurisdiction
shaIl be obtained from the CounEy Treasurer or the County
Treasurer's authorized aqenE.
.o
FB[-E COPY
T|]IYN OFVAIL
' Department of Connnwiry Developnent75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303 -479-2 I 3 I / 479-2 I 3 9
FAX 303-479-2452
January 7,1994
Mr. Jay Peterson
Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
RE: The lnternational Wing at The Lodge at Vail
Dear Jay:
As we discussed on December 23, 1993, there are several outstanCing issues pertaining to
The Lodge DRB application. I thought it would be helpful for me.to put them in writing so that
we can insure that none of the details slip through the cracks. Please provide the requested
information listed below on one of the DRB submittal dates, shown on the attached page'
once we have the information, we will schedule you for the corresponding hearing for that
submittal deadline.
01.
w.2.
6rps.
Provide a stamped survey of the site, identitying the site area, boundaries, legal
description and topography. . The legal description 9f th.e. sury-ey musl.
.
correspond tg$g-lggal'de;d@work must be done
by a registered surveyor.
Please provide a titte commitment, schedules A and B, for the entire parcel'
Please provide documentation pertaining to Tle Lodge Properties' ..
condominium organization, indicating the indivioual who has the authority to
sign applications for this project.
Please provide a signed copy of the agreement between the Town of Vail and
The Lodge concerning tne inirty-tour accommodation units and conference
space.
Please provide a special use permit for the Forest Service property' showing
that the'proposed deck and the existing loading dock have Forest service
approval to encroach on USFS land.
Prnvirlq a roof nlan vvith the rrncJerlVino topograOhy of the site. Please inSUre
., ,<i ., r,.; yi u,pvot:-
Considerations and the previously approved plans'
E[A
Jr
#h)'
.r\
\^) "
Mr. Peteison
January 7, 1994
Page Two
^1"3
Provide documentation showing that the elevation for the highest point of the
proposed wing is below the elevation of the view corridor boundary that extends
over this porlion of The Lodge property. This information must be provided by
a licensed surveyor. All drawings and letters must be stamped by the surveyor.
Add the Wildflower deck, as approved by the DRB, to the plans. The DRB has
the authority to require this portion of the deck to be removed, if they believe it
is appropriate. As I understand your position, you would like to propose that
the deck remain as constructed. lt is acceptable to staff to let the DRB decide
this issue.
Concerning the Arlburg Restaurant, please submit an extcriora{teratie+ //13
application and pay all parking require.ments associated.with this floor area.
Please set up a time with me so that we can field verify the location of all
existing lodge rooms. ln order for me to complete the zone check and
determine an accurate GRFA number for the site, I rvill need to understand
rvhere all existing hotel rooms are located. In addition, lrvill need floor plans of
the condominium wing that extends over the hotel portion of the development
as well as tloor plans for any other square footage on the site.
Please provide written specifications describing all elements of the proposed
wet bars. lt is critical that these wet bars do not have facilities which could be
considered to be kitchens.
As the Town is interested in seeing as many accommodation units as possible
on the site, please add bathrooms to the central portion of each suite. Each
individual unit must be able to be rented separately from all others according to
the definition of an accommodation unit, Section 18.04.030.
r.l.l\
, , . , 1 JTS. Please provide a public pedestrian easement through the conidor between One
, J^ll" ..-^'r' Vail Place and the new International Wing.r
,,4 r ,1 \
F"'lnrt*\'l4.rotMeeting rooms are not listed as a "by right" use in the basement or on the first
Vl- floor in the CCI zone district unless perhaps the space rvas considered as an
accessory use. Any background you may have on this issue would be
appreciated. A conditionaluse.permit may be required.
V-,f
Iub*'
l)''*'v>'t'''
"6.
lr4r. Peterson
January 7,1994
Page Three
'tP
w /-a-s. p.lease identify the existing uses on the site south of rhe Lodge property' The
y ,,re p,"n inou'tdbe updated to shol how the site is actuallv used. The
proposed plan shows trees "n"re
itr"'" "" currently parking spaces"'Who has
the right to use the existing parking spaces? Do you have the authority to
ProPose landscaPing off-site?
,t- 16.v-i
ItJ" *'&o
fl t^'t'u'
{\"'
please describe how the basement space will be used. Also, provide details of
in"hpt-"*tents in lhe area of One Vail Place pertaining to solar exposure'
lighting, snow removal, and snow shed'
Consider the lvay this project may impact the potential skier.base fac.ility which
may be located in tne vic-i'ru:fi oi titit iJJitiol: .ryt suggest that you discuss this
issue with staff and ,"pr".Lit"tiu"s from Vail Associates and The Lodge. we
would be willing to organize this rneeting'
I have attached a set of the Urban Design Guidelines' and as you can see from
the introduction, there "r" ..u"i"f items identified which are reviewed primarily
by the DRB. These are the architectural elements such as roofs' facades'
balconies, decks and p"tioi, ,""unt elements, landscape etements' and.
seruice. Please taui"* "i.n t.ition to ensure that the proposal is consistent
rvith the standards carrei out in trre oesign considerations and provide.a written
ittponit discussing rne coniormance' Also, please address sun/shade
impacts as outlined on Page 10 of the document'
Provide a completed utility verification form'
I tt.
dfr 19.
/)ZO. Provide a drainage Plan'
'\--''
The Public Works and Fire Departments have atso reviewed the request and have the
following comments. The Fire'Department will require that the entire structure' both existing
ano pro-poseo, be sprinklered. pu'utic works is requesting..that.the Lodge dedicate an access
easement or right-of-way to allow for the check-point-cn"iti" relocation near the west entry of
The Lodge.
Please have the site staked showing the perimeter boundary of the proposed addition one and
one-half weeks prior to th; DRB melting. On the day of the D.RB meeting, please stake the
height of the proposed wing. one week prior to the hearing, please provide a color board'
identifying all of the materi;ls. The DRB will want to look cioiety at ihe design of the exterior
and may require changes'
Mr. Peterson
January 7,1994
Page Three
The staff believes it is imperative lhat vre have the complete application prior to scheduling
this for a DRB hearing. We appreciate your cooperation.
Sincerely,
xc:Town Council
Bob McLaurin
Tom Moorhead
Larry Gralel
Greg Hall
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
An{y Knu/tsen
Seniffifanner
oO
l^./. ZL,
C/n={^-n
/4J^tu,4-+
3- Lt'7r
/\, "l("L *za-
34 a - L,t.z I rz>--:
f 5c<-; k.
7f'x
?
ntg
" zO az.-t /-7
+t+,
Ja-
fq*
3=Er
74n
(y'47P 4.1w,v^,
Qotzt
+ 4tm+ cqr'ht
e7 -_-n-/ar
54 rzd\_,
4 1'u-ftt ar- ,f ,-- y'-t-
lu
I
i-t
l
:
. i tZTtt
I
I '( atr"-
'I
I
i,1
I
I
ST
*@
4yg
ffi
Vat,t7--J
rav>*3 37 J."-
tJ7
?t J-,-
//t 6.a -/
u-l*/ ^* f{-- /."-. + z-€--rf^.2 6- /.?fhJ-
'fL- r*/J r--fu k &.-u-lJ '-; tl
fI- 4r&".*l =
Andv Knudtsen
r laLf .Lrc ffl* d.*,/n -r'L/J tr,. --f- rr7art
A.-.\,./-ttv J-z- ? 4 f. il* ["^
IAw-e<_k pa_ /z=4
&tz- Es <Jr-4.a44-Jt
c.
:^'^'l-- ryP' <"u,{u
':'n,X/,
'r'14n4'i.'u'*--'z'J-
L,)-L,-.+ ,3 fl""- ^1zyr..yrn-/= Aeu;.a/Xtz-rs ?
3.
-J.?
q.. /_7_94
ai.//.h,.U ;f*5 ,t-/k^+ fa."l
4 ' t"la-'*,
^ rlt f6n,
V&dz.-,1.j
{7 uno* r rt*
ENGLUW(X)t)
TELEFAX @3) 59{-1831
March 2,1994
t\\sr
4't1i
, , r,7- "'-ll'fl"i''i'
Soa
RECEIVEOMAR - S tg$ifTom Moorehead, Esq.
Vail Town Attornev
75 South Frontage h.oad
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Lodge at Vail proposed Expansion
Dear Tom:
This memo has been orepared to address the central legal issues surrounding the Lodge atVail proposed expansion' There are ,"u"*ip1*ing related issues that will be betteraddressed through the Town's_r.uir* p.o.Jrisr,oura the need arise. This memoaddresses the following specific questions:
A' Does the current proposal submitted by the Lodge at vail violate theallowable density of Commercial Core I?
B' Did the 1gg3 Agreement between the Lodge at vail and the Town of Vairlawfully waive the densify requirement of the subject properfy?
c' Has the Lodge at va'vested its right to bu'd the additionar unitsin accordance with its l9g3 submission?
There is some confusion as to the area contained in the Lodge at vail,s proposedexpansion. Nonetheless, we berieve that n; matte-rhow the-appticant oennes the ,,Lot,,,the densiry rimitation of the comm*ri.ii:"r"'r (,,ccl,) distict has been exceeded.
There are 90 dwelrins units existing today on t,re,"Lot,,. No matter how the Lodge at vaildefines the geographi. riitglt3l, ii,rr*r"i': (the 2.0gg acres idenrified as the ,,Totar
il:ffi#f,:il::J."T: ?1!lj:::";.j;*i+, as the rotar Remaining parcer and the
;TffiHH"',f -l=lj;in:l*"t";":iii'i::"-vg,-':t'"'ffi11il:Jfr tri#,n"
I.
I '"''1Iri
I
o
Tom Moorch ead, Esq.
March2,l9g4
Page Two
District' Ifthe Lodge.l Yiilis proposing the additional units on rhe 2.0gg acre Lot thedensiry is set at 52.units. rrtrt" uppii"unt"irproporing;";;;;", units on the2.7073acre Lot, the density is set at ez unrts. in .itr,...u.ni th";;;; number of existingunits exceeds the totar number permitt"Jly the cc i oirt i"i '-^"
some of the eistine 9Q dwel]!ig-""ii, 1,""i""" o..n .ilr*o"d prior to rhe adoption ofthe Town's zoning.egdatic/s a;d;;;;ilr. wourd be .onria.r.o t.gaily non_conforminsuses' However, those units stiil count against the density
""p on rrr" ro,. J
The Lodge at vail argued in l9g3 that within.a defined geographic space more than oneLot could exist by virfue of sep*ur"o*nrrrhip of the air rights separate from the rearproperry' In this particurar instance, for exampre, the Lodje ui viil seems to argue thatthe 2'088 acres is rearly 4..17.6 u.r.r'f*p.rrposes of ailocating densify; the surface 2.0ggacres and the 2'088 acres lying above the surface owned uy ,'airr"r.nt entity. Instead offifty-trvo dwelling units, the r"oage lr ""iiir.a to 104 dwelling units on the 2.0gg acre Lot.
The code's definition of a Lot from which density is determined is defined as:
a pareelofland occupied by a use, building or structure under the provisions ofthis tirre and meeting the minimum requirements .f th;; titi;. A site may consist ofa single lot of record.... (emphasis added)
The definition does not rec-oglize air rights above a parcel of land as a Lot. Nothing inthe definition gives any indiJation ttrat Lmmon_ownership is a requirement of a Lot. yetcommon ownership was the key erement to the Lodge', ,uironut.-ilr-19g3 when it arguedthat since there were trvo separate owners ortn. ,*L.. .rru," *Jrrre air estate, there hadto be two Lots, each of which *"r" .ntiit"Jio 25 units ro the acre.
The logical results of this thinking is readily appalelt Density contor has regisrativerybeen acknowledged as a lawful eiercise oio muni"ipality,s police power since itpromotes the hearth, safery and generar werfare of the community (c.R.s. $31_23_30r(l)) ' To ailow multiple ownersh'ip .otiti; to occupy the same Lot (or air spaces abovethe Lot) and allow dl "y::ry' o#irrj** r"r',r,;;ffi. L", ilstrates the validpurpose ofdensity contlols. trthi roagel aiproach is valid I can envision a scenariowhere other parcels are introduced on ,ii" roi ty virtue of othe. uuilairg, or differentownerships on the same Lot with each new ownership allowed up to 25 dwelling units an
Tom Moorehead, Esq.' March 2,1994
Page Three
acre. The result of this "layering" effect is clearly absurd, and demonstrates the weakness
of the applicani's position.
This is the reason I believe the Lodge at Vail's i983 legal memorandum setting forth this
double density proposal was initially rejected by staff. As a result, the Lodge ut vuit
threatened suit and the Town executed an agreement purporting to waive the density
requirement. if the Town staff agreed with the Lodge's position expressed in a memo
from its aftorney to the then Town Attorney, there would have been no need to execute an
agreement resolving "the dispute [relating] to whether certain of the dwelling units of the
Lodge Apartment Condominiums located on a parcel of air space above the real properly
owned by the Lodge, is attributable to rhe land or.vned by the podgel.',
once it is acknowledged that the Lodge's 1983 proposal violated existing density
restrictions, it becomes apparent that the Agreement lvaives the density control section of
the Commercial Core I District in violation of state statutes and local ordinances, was
done for no other purpose but to relieve a particuiar properly from the restriction of
zoning reguiations. As a result, the 1983 Agreement is ultra-vires to the state enabling
legislation and the Town Code and is therefore void.
It is well settled in Colorado that contracts executed by municipal corporations in which
there was a faiiure to comply rvith the mandatory provisions of the applicable statutes or
charters are void. (Swedlund v. Denver ., 1lg
P.2d.460, Colo. 1941.)
colorado Revised statutes, $31-23-301 (l), empowers municipalities to, among other
things, regulate and restrict height, number of stories, size of buildings, the size ofyards,
the densilv of population and the use of buildings, structures and land. (emphasis added.)
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 rules contained in such
regulations."
,,
March 2, 1994
Page Four
State law fi''ther mandates that Board of Adjustment hear and decide ail matters uponwhich it is required ,o oT: under ordinan."iC.n.S. g31-23_307). The
l:*"'":*:::i"^TiJll_r""".;-6il, "ii n* in prace today, aprocedure for
tr#:""rJ"Tj1,*lgthetiteratint"{p.;;;i;;;t.";;;;rJo::j
X,*:.i*:.:1'::."":11:1y16ffi i;#!ffi ;T,?f ,'d"31;ffi ffi .*;
Colo. App., 1975).imited, 534 p.2d 805.
Y:::::::"t:X1* lh'1es ytule.of the Agreement, tte Agreement is unlawfirl
l;f :*:*":,.:1Ti.ji::try1l".^,:r"1.:ffi ffi ffi ;H"J',fi:'?#jUH*Citv of Boutder,362p.Zd lOO, Colo. 196l; KrWestminster,5ST p.zd I lg6, Colo. 1976; ani
nty, 600 P.Zd,86, Colo. App. 1979,) The Agreement
t:,r"+'",:,,:i'lj,,T:,*:y::tilemenf withinc"__"i'i,rc;;;iffi ;"ri.s"."t
ffi j,"Jj',f"T:::::T::::TTg.".:,ry,;;":.""i1t",r*i"a;.ff;1r";;1fi ,T;
:1,,.:J:* j1; i:i:y":lyl.1i11t,,n" ro*n Co;;;t;,h,;;rh X;;;; na#",1i*
;H:l,i*1i:::::1",i?:i.':lr"l:iJ'^'*"'"'."*i"'il'd;il;'"::"ffi *.,all intents and purposes a different zone wittrou--iffi;i;;r"dl;:fi:Jr;:Til1
3.
r
orthe rown code vesrs excrusive juriroi"i." to e.*;ffi;j ,il:'il:;r::i,t#:i:,the Zoning code with the prannini co-n,irrioo. Appricants for a variance must comprywith the criteria found in Section fs.oz.ooo "itt " roin coa". rrreiodge ar Va1 fa'edto follow mandated procedures for obtaining;e density variance unJth"r"fore, the l9g3agreement is invalid and unenforceable.
]le, fown is not estopped from finding the 1983 Agreement unenforceable. cases have
llii'tf;1"::';nff:1-":lf:iTj:'ll1l,':?,:r'0"" '"v '"ii'-"'iffi ov a private parrv ir
ff *;::';'*,:::fl1'-'-':lLtti:r#t;;;;;"*;#'fi ;fi "&'::
In 1987, colorado enacted a statute detailing the actions needed to establish a vestingarising from a governmentar approvar. rh"ioog.'s proposal i, not ruu;r"t to this statute,since ir predared January l, r?gg. c-R.s. tz+-oa-roo. crearry, even had the statuteapplied, the Lodge's purported vesting *outa have rapsed after three (3) years. c.R.s$24-68-104(l).
March Z;tgg4
Page Five
Prior to I987, trre concept of v".:t3g y* recognized in cororado onry upon substantial
::'#ff '::3;*:::-'^:'::l"i*lo";;"'-J;;;'#Jt"pto*-aila:':lfiflHffiffi" 55P2drvvr, vvrv. ,>oz, urrne v, urtv of Boulder, 450p.2d335, Colo. tq69J tt.ra
i*:'T,Tlf J:::::.T::" 1*,1"* 1;, i"." *i,n;;;" ffi*e at va'. rhel e 8 3 p r annin g and Environmentar'c ;;j ;;;ffi ;ilr,il'ftffi;:olfrj;,*","I983 did not vest the oroject.. N" u"ilai"g p."rit was ever issued by the Town nor didthe Lodge otherwise substantially..ry oniif'opproval to its detriment. In fact, it didnothing with respect to its r9g3 ;pp.;"uifb;ien years. Any argument that the Lodge,srights have vested is withour r**uio. i;;;i;p""
1,:^::'9 9" happyro provide you with additionar information in any of the issues
:ffiHt":j'*ve if you determine it nec"rsury. Thank you in uau*.. fo, yo*
Very truly yours,
JER:ji
cc: Luann Wells
Lynn Fritzlen
o
11;'trrd l.ru Lwcerr the
( "'l'b o CorPr-rrat 19n,,;
( t"l.ho Tc,wn,. ) .
1. 'llle partl€s agtree tlratord'lnance tor Corrunerclal Core Jtl)c Units.
O !'trt:; Aa onLcrcjd irrr.rr trr.t:r 35oo, .t ?. r - 4-_, l'agd'
n(ill lil.ilrl l.:N'.r
ert a,J.n
Lodgo propor.tl.os. f nc. ,. a Crrl.orado CorporAul.on,
and the Town of
1. Thc corporarton 1s tlre orrrr:"n::t::::"r"real property end lm1>rove_'men.s l0catod tbereon rvhich are collectlvely known as the Lodge at va.ll("Tbi Lodse")' Being moro parr,r.cur^rrv o;"".t;;; on the a.tt&chcdand eonta1nlng z.o9o rlcre€
., th"z'r";:".:";:r]"
loca"ted wlthln ttre cornmerclo.r core r zone Dl'trlct
3. A dl.Gputo hD,E a.ri
Va1l, a Colorodo Munlcjp:rl CorporatJ on,
to
3{
a.a
sen betlveeD the Corporat1on .and tfre Town ab-.rvhether tho zonlnE or..r{ a"r' Lne 'r'own ab''1g or.dlnanc,es o,tl|e Town would allow the additlon ofn Grtv a c:c.onrmodrr_ {:;";",;T;:::.:'".trunl.tst. ) to the f ,orrnarrun1.tst. ) to tbe Lodge.
,e . ?be diapute lelatos to l/hetber ci
@tt " 1oo*" o'partmeDt6 Condomlnlums Loca,ted onabov.e the real property orvnecl by ttro Lodge , .16ownGd by tlre Corporatl.on ttselr.
5. The pa.rtle6 now wrsh torclnal-n bctween them.
NOlf THEnE I.ORD, rhe parttea
A,ll dlffercnceE wh1ch
sectlon of !hc. zon l.g
tbe LodFc trom.but ld j De
of ths dweltlng
a pArCel of air
&ttrlbutable to
unl,t6
spacc
the L and
comI)romlse and 6ett fe
IT AGREEMENT
aBree ag follows:
the . dcnsl.ty contro}
shall n cirt prohIbJ r
2. Bot'orc the Lod.go shall proceed rvlth the "orrarr.,."1on of tlc U'its;1t shatl be r-equlled to comply wlth a,lL thc rlppioprlate ordlna,nc.cs o1. tlreTorvp 4n4 obtal.n per.rniss.lon f rora llr€ api)rop.rl.ate bthe Tos,n ald furttter obtal.n all regul'..a ora n..ce,---F\\ ltrer obta:.n arr ".""r;-;;-:";"-::"^'ds
:tn<l cornmissrons .r
@zAu .,uld rhe Lodgq go fo*v
66&ry pertnl ts.
srraiuc fu,.trrer ."";;:^; :: :::::.d
wlrh..rrro con.rructro' of the u'lLs rrrequired to conBtnrct cxpanded conl,ercncL-r. ar)d rneetI'ng }ooralif Xt:.es ln rlr€ L()ds.e so ttrat wl
-
err4r, w.lcn sucb expanslon l-s colrl:lete thc ,..cr()tio
J tr r-r,Lr. I .t.,r, f .*.-.rr. r(, ;rrtd
J'<r(: t. I r, t9 !.r1<>, nlcrr(t crr I crir{ a),
6(Juqro fcet mo).c or lcs8.
Ir.'1rr.;rr[.
wh 1<;h
,'a r(r||t !j lr t^ (.:g wlt
(rne room 6hal L
I <,:lt i ,i u1.. lc|:rrr I
.CdD La I n trf loi('r'!
th6 partle6 l" ave slgned t,h1r; Agreernent tlrj's 7lt
THI'
by
LODGD PNOP.ERTIIIS, INC.
resi.denC
TOIgN O]r VAILA Colorado Munl'clpal Corporatlon
t-l':.
I
IN. }f ITNT'SS WUENEOIT,
day o{ ( al', 19a3.
@
Edmq
RlchEfdiE-fn own ManCEEF
TOTWOFYAIL F II-E COPY
75 South Fronnge Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
"ril;,'_;;;t|I:-'r3,January 7, 1gg4
Mr. Jay peterson
Vajl Nationat Bank Buitding
Jff,:"J'ii;?Tase Road
RE: The lnternationalWing at The Lodge at Vail
k^W
-[j.A4<
Dear Jay:
As we discussed on December23, 1993, lhereare.severar outstancing issues perraining rorne Lodse DRB apprication r tnoushi;;ffi o" n"rprriroi;; ffi;y rhem in rvr'ins so rhar){/9 can insure that none-of rne oeri'i; rijo',"nr"lrnn ,n"'"i".rr. Fr""ie-provioe rhe requesredrntormarion risted below on.one or
'ne
oda's,iim'tar.oates: ;ilffi i,n"
",,".nr0 0"n"..o,i.i,,i"i il::,,ti;. information, *";;tr;;;r,l ,o, for rhe correspondins hearing for rhat
a1.
flt2.
01L3.
Af4.
ErA
J'
N#:"'
rilt
5J::1,90:,3"'ffi:ir'r1lr" or the site, identirvins the.site area, boundaries, resal
""oonu
Please provide a ti,e commitrnent, schedures A and B, for the entire parcer.
Please provide documentation.per.taining to The Lodge properties,condominium organization, inoiiating- irrE inoi'ulou"r who has the authority tosrgn applications for this project.
Please provide a sioned copyof the agreement.between lhe Town of Vair andThe Lodge conc"rni-no tn" ir,irty-ror,.
"Z.#r"o"tion units and conferencespace.
Please provide a speciar use.permit for the Forest Service property, showingthat the proposed ileck ano the
"riiting
j.iiirg dock have Forest serviceapproval to encroach on USFS land."'"
' Deparunent of Connnuniry O"urtopil,
,... I
:.:J:: :,:::::.1"" rvirh rhe rrnderlvino toposraphy of rhe sire. prease insure
dd)uL ou"o
,661 '/ AnnueP
uosJolod 'Jf!
Mr. Peteison
January7, 1994
Page Two
Y#*f
Provide documentation showing that the.elevation for the highest point of the
oroposed vring is uuro* ino'ur"'uation o{ tL9."i:t1 corridor oounOary that extends
over this portion .t tn' ii"dnu it"i"ttv' in"in{ormation must be provided bv
;ii;;;;i-r;*.v0,. All d"':"i":'6;:;i'r"il"t must be stamped bv the survevor'
Add the Wildllower dect<, as approved by the.DRB' to the plans' The'DRB has
the authority lo require tn'li"lT""'"nn6 oecx to-oe removed' if they believe it
is appropriale. ns r unoer'sffiiy;; position'1ou would like to propose that
the deck remain "' "on'l"J"J"
lt it'utt"ptaotejo-statt to let the DRB decide
this issue.
concerning the Arlburg Resraurant, prease. submit an exteriordteratie1.!f'3
application and pay
'lrp"ift'inJt"q'ifements
associated'with this floor area'
Please set up a lime with me so that tl? :iil:]d verify the location of alt
existing lodge rooms' rn orOer for me lo "9mpl:1"
the zone checK ano
determine an accurate ;;;;'";;;;; r"t1n9i1"' I rvill need to understand
rvhere all exisling not"f ilom.'"re iocateO. f n "ilition,
lrvill need. floor plans of
the condominium wing ,n"t "rt".o, "ver
the not"r portion ol the development
as well as floor prant tor'ln''otrtuitq"tt footage on the site'
Please provide wrilten specifications describing all elements of the' proposed
wet bars. lt is critical dil;h;"t;;"t bars do nbinau" ra"lrities which could be
considered to be kitchens'
As the Town is interested in seeing as. many aicommodation u'nits 'as
possible
on the site, pr."t" "oj-oliii'"tt'"t"
tne centraiportion ot each suite' Each
individual unit must b" ;;; i;;; rented 1tp"t"iiy rtom3ll others accordins to
the definition or an accJriiiroi"tion unit' Section 18'04'030'
oedestrian easement through the corridor between One
international Wing'
^1l
.oe"
.,\-111.
fu*'
10.
rt
"' Y{5t.
,'|fi..' ,'-''
Please Provide a Public
Vait Place and the new
.,lra\rX,Meeting rooms are not.listed as a "by right" use in the basement or on-
floor in the CCI ,on. o'tiJ'ti'in'tl'it'd"p" the soace was ccnsidered
accessory use. Any o""k;;;;t;L may n'ave on tnis issue would be
;;;;ili"J. a .onoitionti use.permit mav.be required'
the {irst
as an
r
A,ir. Pelerson
January 7, 1994
Page Three
Fu,**
//
Please identify the existing uses on the site south of The Lodge property' The
;itr ;il;h;r1o ue upoaiio to ihorv horv the site is actuallv used' The
proposed plan shorvs trees rvhere lhere are currently parking spaces'."W^ho has
the rioht to use lhe "*istii!
p"*ing spaces? Do you have the authority to
propo-se landscaPing of l-site?
Please describe how the basement space will be used' Also' provide details of
in.ltpi.*tents in the area ot One Vail Place pertaining to solar exposure'
lighting, snow removal, and snow shed'
Considerthervaythisprojectmayimpactthepotentia|skierbasefaci|itywhich
may be localed in m" ui"i'nif, oi-ti'it iJoitiol; .Y" suggest that you discuss this
issuewithslaffandr"p,,,enr"tiuesfromVai|AssociatesandTheLodge.We
would be willing to organize this rneeting'
I have attached a set of the Urban Design Guidelines' and as you can see from
theintroduction,theretr"reue,.atitemsidentifiedwhicharereviewedprimarily
by the DRB. These are the architectural elements such as rools' facades'
balconies, decks and puflo., ".l"nt elemenls, landscape elements' and.
service. Please reuie* eicn iection to ensure that the proposal is consistent
rvith the standards carreol-ui in in. o".ign considerations and provide.a written
,"rponru discussing fre ctntormance' Also, please address sun/shade
impacts as outlined on Page 10 of the document'
Provide a completed utility verification form'
Provide a drainage Plan.
6t''
18.
far ts.
20.
.r;._:.:it;,el,V
T
il,P
...i. fis'
{
w5|'
til ,roti. works and Fire Departments have also reviewed the request and have the
following comments. Th; Fit;"Dd;ttt ..i *ilr require.that^th-e :I]i1"^:tii"j'^t"-?:::ti:i::::
;#ilf,o-,-.;,"J",prirr.[t"d. pubric works is requesting..that.the Lodg-e dedicate an access
easement or right-of-way-to allorv for the check-point-cnaTtie relocation near the west entry of
The Lodge.
Please have the site staked showing the perimeter boundary of the proposed addition one and
one-half weeks prior to the DRB meeting. On the day of .the D.RB m::Ji?S' pleas.e slake the
heightoftheproposedwing.oneweekpriortothehearing,pleaseprovideacolorboard'
identifying all of the materi;ls. The DRB will \ryant to look cioiely at the design ot the exterior
and may require changes'
-az 7-[\ O
, xltl.ts
I s 5 t-el'
6lau - Lp-r.',rc,. t ny-11,)
LArr.,: l, "2,t, , ,./ )t't.' L-.
l, Jl, , 1r,".,, t), ". i o(
Mr. Peterson
January 7,1994
Page Three
The staff believes it is imperative lhat vre have the complete application prior to scheduling
this for a DRB hearing. We appreciate your cooperation.
Sincerely,
.., / ) ./'
AnQy Knultsen ISeni#anner (
xc: Town Council
Bob fr4cLaurin
Tom Moorhead
Larry Grafel
Greg Hall
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
.. . .- - -lll*-*;;*:.-l:r:r
L)
tZ)
I J-,
Ff !- [ cflfr i'
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
The Lodge File
Andy Knudtsen
January 27,1995
MEMORANDUM
'
Meeting with Jay Peterson discussing land trade
Today, Tom Moorhead, Mike Mollica and I presented the Design Workshop drawings to Jay
Peterson. We reviewed the alternative concepts shown in the drawings and discussed the
options. Jay's reaction was positive and he said he would present this to The Lodge owners
lor their response. The initial concerns of Jay include:
1. Primary goal is to provide as many accommodation units as possible. This is
critical to The Lodge, and beneficial to the community of Vail.
2. To be able to sell one or two condominiums within the project would make the
project more attractive.
3. Having on-site parking potential is good.
4. Loading Traffic--what kind of buffer will be provided lor all the semis that will be
driving past The Lodge Tower?
5. A concern raised by the group was to provide some pool access, or an
alternative, for Lodge Tower guests.
6. Jay said that land cost was a minimal factor lor The Lodge.
7. The room count is q.
xc: Mike Mollica
Tom Moorhead
F[" I
MEMORANDUM
Bob McLaurin, Tom Moorhead, Larry Grafel, Greg Hall, Mike Mollica and
Russ Forrest
It/
Andy KnudtsenffiG
December 14, 1994
lnternational Wing
*{IPY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
After checking with each of you, I would like to confirm that we will be meeting on:
Thursday, January 5, 1995
3:00 P.m'
Community Development Large Conference Room
Bob has requested that we get together and review the work Bill Kane did for the International
Wing/loading facilityA/A base facility. As The Lodge has recently expressed interest in
reactivating their application for the International Wing, the opportunity for other facilities in the
area may be precluded. The purpose of the meeting will be to update each other on the
issues and opportunities.
kL ;{ {-L,- ,*.t-L
^.1-/
D . J,* r,*t _J,..r 4A z 3a
L-^&*L --,,r- ('.-. I E-r,_-_,
t-
Fll fl L;tl I
TO:
FFIOM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Bob McLaurin
Andy Knudtset N,P
December 12. 1994
The Lodge Expansion (lnternational Wing)
On December 8th, Mike Mollica and I met with the architects for The Lodge. They are
reactivating their proposal to construct the International Wing. They have hired Jack Zehren
to do the design work and will continue to have Jay Peterson represent them. During the
meeting, we talked generally about the work Bill Kane, with Design Workshop, has done. As I
recall, his plan included a base facility for VA, a loading and delivery area for the Town, and a
revised location for the International Wing. These developments would be located on "Parcel
C", which is annexed within the Town, zoned Greenbelt Natural Open Space (GNOS)' and
owned by the Forest Service. I suggested that Bill Kane come to Vail in January and present
the drawings to Jack Zehren and Jay Peterson. lt might also be appropriate to include some
of our Council members, some of the VA people, and our open lands consultants.
ll the International Wing goes forward as designed, a signilicant opportunity will be lost for a
loading facility for the Town and a base facility for VA. But in order to preserve this
opportunity, there are a number of significant players and issues which require resolution (the
Foresl Service, the land exchange process, the lawsuits betvveen The Lodge and Lodge
Tower, Vail Associates, the Town, One Vail Place and last but not least, a rezoning). A can of
worms would be an understalement to describe this; however' I think we should forge ahead'
Any thoughts?
xc: Mike Mollica
Russ Forrest
Zzu,0.. It^l c<),,-'b A, d). 7.y fLu;l tt I| (r-,. Al fvr p < , ,Z<- lw,ZIt
( ,u,.. f k.i c<, -<t.,t
I s <,-r-a .Za,wA Ct y')D')
"2.*'t-t *. J
,/A
{
lVr -i -! f,:r1
'I atr.r.^ w
n;,-J i >
,r J.. tl J. vA
,J. /.v,*.^** , f
/-t"t^-.-A L
-J
I a-.,"-, lt
F - ii .S-* o-
,l-"'u ' I
i/ t\ .,''tl I L.{/".i'( )o",.n-
,r-r.-\ k".t L
';,,-.;' -: ,. ^''J'trD^"" />"*7 (,i-(-
I.Lv .t <-l< c k*^ gn-
rl".*.'o.:\,..'a 1",,). 7[sg,,. _1:
0*t r)ro; r p!.r r. 1.<-u s,. : /
..ir.,
J'IIA ZJ JJ L-t - JJ r'{t-l - |\JZ-\J | .vz
K,\,4;a -
O rrr* AclruuNil
' A(it( lit.;111.:N'.t
Loclga Propo!'t1os, Inc. ,, I C(rlor&do Corp(rrtrtlon,
and the Town of Vr!'l, a colorodo Munlc5p:rl Corporo'tlon,
I NECITALS
the.OwD€r of certaln real property and lmlrrovc-
are collectlvely known aG the Lodge at V&l1
part,l.cul.arly descrlb€d on the attactrcd Exlrlblt '1Ar'
hy rrnd butwcen thg
( "'l'h o Csr1>crratl'oa'r )
( tt'fhg Tcrwn " ) .
1. The Corporation ls
.mengs located tboreon rvhioh
( "Tbe Loctgs"; . Being more
a,nd <rontal'ning 2.O9O o.c,res -
2. Tbo Lodge 1r located \^'lthln ttie
oJ the Town ol Va'.l.
3. A d16put6 has arlsen betl-een th€ Corporatlon and tlre Town aE'
to rdhether tho zoDlng ordl,nances of, ttre Town would alfow the additl.on of
34 nsrv acconrmoda.ti.on unl,ts and one dwell'''DB unlt (coll'ect'.vel'y ret€tred to
aB 'runl'ts") to tbe Lodg:e
{. Tlre diepute relatos to whcttror certrln of thg dwelltng
Lthe Lodge Apartment6 Condorllnlums loc&ted on a pD.rcel of air
-atrove the real property orvnerl by thg Lodge , .18 ettrlbutabf e tg
ownerd by th(' Corporatl.on Ltselt
5. Tlre Partles now wlslr to comprorDlse a.nd settl€ a]'l ctltfercnceE whlch
re|nain between them.
IT AGREEMENT
NOI.HERE FORD. the pa,rt1e6 &grge as f ol.].ows:
1. 'l.llc partlesi agrea that the densl-ty contro]. sec'tion of thc- zont trg
ordlnance for Comtaerclal Core f shall Dcit prohibjt ttre Lodga trom.bui l<lj rr i;,
tlrc Units
2- IloJ'orc the Lodgo sha1l proceed rvlth the construc,tl.on ot ttlc UDite
lt shall be required to comply wlttr r1I-the approj)rlEte ordlna,ncc|s ot tlre
Torvn and obtain pel.missJ on fror! tlr€ 4l:propri:rte boar.ds and cgtnrnisslons of
the Torvn and fuftlrer obtaLn all regulred and nd'ceosary pernlte.
tr()uld the Lodge go f orrvrri wl.ttr' t.tro c'onstru.tl'o., of the UDlts tt
shitlf be f,u!.ther required to con6trrrct cxp'anded c,onI'erence and rneetlng roora
f^ .ilitlea l.n tlr€ Lodg:e so that when suctr expanslon 1s coDrPlete the l.crdlic
-
Comm(lrclo'I Core I Zone Dl'strict
unl.tt
apace
tho l and
-|
l,ooo Equuro fcet mor.o or lcss.
4' The corporation shall not in6tltute any legal actlon ogaJ.nsf l.tr(,
Town concernlngi any of the dlsl:utod 1s6ue(5 set forth trer(Jln. rbe Lodg{, by
cnterlntg 1nLo thla Agireement does not walve lts rlgbts to rcguoEt an addltlona:
a1x &ccomrnodatl.n unlts nor does ttre t'own walve 1ts Flgr)t to oppose suclr
I
f '-gs-'
/,lJ (i.rtr t.:r i 11
foo r'.,,,,. in
:a
lrLl
t.zt
l.r
:5:
Ltr
v.c
I <: trtl f (..t.(.tt
, Dlorc ()r
v
r:(' lrlld lltri(tl. I|ll, ,..r(rtn !Jlrtlcc Wlr I c:lr jr; llt- lCi{rit
lcrtr{ ('f which (rn(, room ehat I .crrD t.n I n of la:rrt L
requ,oat.
tho partle6 have s1gnecl th16 Agreement tfrisIN. I9TTNDSS WHERIEOT...7d
day of (' ,
n, 1ea3.
c
THE LODGD PROPERTIES, INC,
by
TOIgN OF VAIIJA Colorado Munlcl.pa1 Corporatl'on
//H - DXager .re6ident
BichEFif:caFr,Eli
il"r.", SpnmNr & Rrurzsu l.
ATTORMYS AND COUNSEI,LORS AT I,AW
7RO EAST BELLEI'IEW AVENUE
STJIIE 206
ENCLEW@O, COLORADOS(nIT
603) 59{,1982
IEtpnx c6l0*grl
March 2,1994
Tom Moorehead, Esq.
Vail Town Attomey
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Lodge at Vail Proposed Expansion
Dear Tom:
at,
I A,r -.r fll
/.' nj r
a
RECEIVEDI1AR-SIS . \
FIARVEY E. DEUISGI
IOHNI{. SPILIANE
'ACK
E REUTZEL
: .l l-!i , i. i
A(alc rl'l
'- it.
This memo has been prepared to address the central legal issues sunounding the Lodge at
Vail proposed expansion. There are several planning related issues that will be better
addressed through the Town's review process should the need arise. This memo
addresses the following specific questions:
A. Does the current proposal submitted by the Lodge at Vail violate the
allowable density of Commercial Core I?
B. Did the 1983 Agreement between the Lodge at Vail and the Town of Vail
lawfully waive the density requirement ofthe subject propefty?
C. Has the Lodge at Vail vested its right to build the additional units
in accordance with its 1983 submission?
1. Does the current proposal submitted by the Lodge at Vail violaie the
allowable density of Commercial 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 Commercial Core I ("CCI') district has been exceeded.
There are 90 dwelling units existing today on the "Lot". No matter how the Lodge at Vail
defines the geographic limitations of the "Lot", (the 2.088 acres identified as the "Total
Remaining Parcel" or the 2.7073 acres identified as the Total Remaining Parcel and the
"North Wing Parcel" all as defined in the applicants May, 1983 legal memorandum to the
Town Attomey), the existing density exceeds the maximum density permitted by the CCI
Dnrrdcu, Spnuun & Rrgrr., n.c.
Tom Moorehead, Esq.
March 2,1994
Page Two
District. If the Lodge at Vail is proposing the additional units on the 2.088 acre Lot the
density is set at 52 unie. If the applicant is proposing the additional units on the 2.7073
acre Lot, the density is set at 67 units. In either event the cunent number of existing
units exceeds the total number permitted by the CC I district.
Some of the existing 9Q dwelling units may have been constructed prior to the adoption of
the Town's zoning reguMons 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 argued in 1983 that within a defined geographic space more than one
Lot could exist by virtue of separate ownership of the air righa sepaxate from the real
property. In this particular instance, for example, the Lodge at Vail seems to argue that
the 2.088 acres is really 4.176 acres forpurposes of allocating density; the surface 2.088
acres and the 2,088 acres lying above the surface owned by a different entity. Instead of
fifty-two dwelling units, the Lodge is entitled to 104 dwelling units on the 2.088 acre Lot.
The Code's definition of a Lot from which density is determined is defined as:
a parcelglland occupied by a use, building or structure under the provisions of
this title and meeting the minimum requirements of this title. A site may consist of
a single lot of record.... (emphasis added)
The definition does not recognize air rights above a parcel of land as a Lot. Nothing in
the definition gives any indication that common ownership is a requirement of a Lot. Yet
common ownership was the key element to the Lodge's rationale in 1983 when it argued
that since there were two separate owners of,the surface estate and the air estate, there had
to be two Lots, each of which were entitled to 25 units to the acre.
The logical results of this thinking is readily apparent. Density control has legislatively
been acknowledged as a lawful exercise of a municipality's police power since it
promotes the health, safety and general welfare of the community (C.R.S. $31-23-301
(l)) . To allow multiple ownership entities to occupy the same Lot (or air spaces above
the Lot) and allow each ownership density rights for the entire Lot frustrates the valid
puipose ofdensity controls. Ifthe Lodge's approach is valid I can envision a scenario
where other parcels are introduced on the Lot by virtue of other buildings or different
ownerships on the same Lot with each new ownership allowed up to 25 dwelling units an
DrurscH, Spnraxr & Rrrler, r.c.
' Tom Moorehead, Esq.
March 2,1994
Page Three
acre. The result of this "layering" effect is clearly absurd, and demonstrates the weakness
of the applicant's position.
This is the reason I believe the Lodge at Vail's 1983 legal memorandum setting forth this
double density proposal was initially rejected by staff. As a result, the Lodge at Vail
tlreatened suit and the Town executed an agreement purporting to waive the density
requirement. If the Town staffagreed with the Lodge's position expressed in a memo
from its attorney to the then Town Attorney, there would have been no need to execute an
agreement resolving "the dispute [relating] to whether certain of the dwelling units of the
Lodge Apartment Condominiums located on a parcel of air space above the real property
owned by the Lodge, is attributable to the land owned by the [Lodge]."
2, Did the 1q83 Agreement between the Lodge at Vail and the Town of Vail
Iawfully waive the density requirement of the subiect properfy.
Once it is acknowledged that the Lodge's 1983 proposal violated existing density
restrictions, it becomes apparent that the Agreement waives the density control section of
the Commercial Core I District in violation of state statutes and local ordinances, was
done for no other purpose but to relieve a particular property from the restriction of
zoning regulations. As a result, the 1983 Agreement is ultra-vires to the state enabling
legislation and the Town Code and is therefore void.
It is well settled in Colorado that contracts executed by municipal corporations in which
there was a failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of the applicable statutes or
charters are void. (Swedlund v. Denver J ., 118
P.2d.460, Colo. 1941.)
Colorado Revised Statutes, $31-23-301 (l), empowers municipalities to, among other
things, regulate and restrict height, number of stories, size of buildings, the size of yards,
the density ofpopulation and the use of buildings, structures and land. (emphasis added.)
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
pu{pose and intent and in accordance with general or specific rules contained in such
rezulations."
Drurscn, SenL.aNr & REtlrl, e.c.
Tom Moorehead, Esq.
March 2,1994
Page Four
State law further mandates that Board of Adjustment hear and decide all matters upon
which it is required to pass under ordinance (C.R.S. $31-23-307). The
Town's Zonng Code had in place in 1983, and has in place today, a procedure for
granting variances from the literal interpretation of the Zoning Code, including density,
where a hardship would result. (Town Code Section 18.62.010). Section 18.62.010 (13)
of the Town Code vests exclusive jurisdiction to grant variances from the provisions of
the Zoning Code with the Planning Commission. Applicants for a variance must comply
with the criteria found in Section 18.62.060 of the Town Code. The Lodge at Vail failed
to follow mandated procedures for obtaining the density variance and therefore, the 1983
agreement is invalid and unenforceable.
The Town is not estopped from finding the 1983 Agreement unenforceable. Cases have
held that estoppel against a municipal corporation may not be utilized by a private party if
the municipal corporation finds a previously executed agreement invalid.. (See
Normandy Estates Metropolitan District v. Normandy Estates Limited, 534 P.2d 805,
Colo. App., 1975).
Moreover, beyond the ultra-vires nature of the Agreement, the Agreement is unlawful
because it effects contract zoning in violation of well established case law. (See Clark v.
City of Boulder,362P.2d 160, Colo. l96l; Kings Mill Homeowners Assoc. v. Citv of
Westminster,55T P.2d 1186, Colo. 1976; and Information Please. Inc. v. Board of Counfy
Commissioners of Morgan County , 600 P .2d 86, Colo. App. 1979.) The Agreement
purports to waive the density requirement within Commercial Core I for the Lodge at
Vail. To our knowledge, no other property owner within CCI has been given relief from
the density requirement through a simple contract like the Lodge at Vail. Finally, by
waiving the density requirement, the Town Council, through its Town Manager, has
relieved the Lodge at Vail from the restriction of zoning regulations, thereby creating for
all intents and purposes a different zone without following proper procedures therefor.
3. Does the Lodge at Vail have a vested right to build the additional units?
In 1987, Colorado enacted a statute detailing the actions needed to establish a vesting
arising from a governmental approval. The Lodge's proposal is not subject to this statute,
since it predated January l, 1988. C.R.S. $24-68-106. Clearly, even had the statute
applied, the Lodge's purported vesting would have lapsed after three (3) years. C.R.S
s24-68-104(l).
6nrrscH, SpnleNe & \Jn, r.c.
Tom Moorehead, Esq.
March 2,1994
Page Five
Prior to 1987, the concept ofvesting was recognized in Colorado only upon substantial
reliance on the issuance of a valid building permit and a substantial step toward
completion of the project. (See P-W Investrnents. lnc. v. City of Westminster, 65 5 P.2d
1365, Colo. 1982, Cline v. CitIof Boulder,450P.2d 335, Colo. 1969.) These
requirements were not and, to date, have not been satisfied by the Lodge at Vail. The
1983 Planning and Environmental Commission approval of the exterior modification in
1983 did not vest the project. No building permit was ever issued by the Town nor did
the Lodge othenvise substantially rely on any approval to its detriment. In fact, it did
nothing with respect to its 1983 approval for ten years. Any argument that the Lodge's
rights have vested is without fachral or legal support.
I would be happy to provide you with additional information in any of the issues
discussed above if you determine it necessary. Thank you in advance for your
consideration.
Very truly yours,
JERji
cc: Luann Wells
Lynn Fritzlen
DEUTSCH, SPILLANE & REUTZEL, P.C.
Fil!-E C$PV
TOWNOFVAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2 I 3 I / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303-479-2452
February 10, 1994
Departmenr of Comnuniry Deve lopment
Mr. Jack ReuEel
Duetsch, Spillane & Reutzel
7/30 East Belleview Avenue, Suite 206
Englewood, CO 80'l 11
RE: lnternational Wing at The Lodge of Vail
Dear Jack:
I wanted to respond to your letter, listing the seven areas ol concern you identified with the
proposal currently under review for the International Wing at The Lodge of Vail. I will respond
to your concerns as you listed them in your letter.
1. The Town staff is continuing to meet with you and your clients as well as Jay
Pelerson. Onee we have met with each party and understand the rationales
used for the various positions on the review process, we will be able to make
an informed decision regarding the appropriate process for this project.
2. We have requested that Jay Peterson provide survey inlormation verifying that
the proposal does not encroach into any adopted view corridor-
3. Staff has requested that Mr. Peterson document exacUy what kind of kitchen
facilities will be installed in each of the accommodation units. The past
approvals and current proposal are for accommodation units which cannot be
converted into condominiums in the future. We are also requesting a Title
Report to clarify the extent of the Lodge Propertie's ownership.
4. Though the land exchange issue is not directly related to the International Wing,
we have requested that Jay Peterson come to a meeting with Vail Associates
representatives and the Town of Vail so that all of the various parties involved
in the land exchange will be up to speed on the latest proposal from The
Lodge.
5. The Design Review Board (DRB) will be addressing the design concerns you
have raised.
6. and 7. We have asked Jay Peterson to address the issues involving uses and
functions within the building and surrounding the site.
Mr. Jack ReuEel
February 10, 1994
Page Two
lf you have any questions about this information or would like to meet with us again, please
do not hesilate to call me at 479-2138.
Sincergly,
i^4 g*L{*n
Andy KnrlctCen
Senior Planner
cc: Town Council
Planning and Environmental Commission
Design Review Board
Jay Peterson
Lynn Fritzlen
Tom Moorhead
Kristan PriE
Bob McLaurin
?t
L,,L,11& r,\
B"( wtL*,',,"*
Ta* rkLou, LJ
wkr
h.^ f'-;hL-v
YJ,'^. B-
=Jn.L /'*[tt*
l,-z'7- q 4
b,[],'^+ hr I r-;6 i .j4 &'te 'o{ (L h""- (,n r zrs)
,v,,1^) /4* 4r< 41 , *,n " z4 A.ot.t.
/--L*I C-tu-da'2J^ 4'."1
Jl,x
i)ffn
l*r- ",* tk
ftFvtL
W
fh,"-
w
.D.J u) n<.an /4. e- rz-=s/2--.r0,
l{7
a 1ouu,aJ tw_ tq & S '.
It ?
4lY-rr '
..Jr"L
P&rt'il
tntr,^o "ll ffi*:s - Lo 7p,\ ^^,/<ro
ttL)YvD tui b,^ tu1 ,uL,*. -
lltl'lOn T .lrTLel ,wlz 6^ .LJ6ff4 .G*
0.
a/G<?a'-'+t
,
u* J= ,@.4
,lpdL Jcrvtt<- fr*#'4
vrLf+ C rv-ay<- 4.nt5.
4-t-/'/./..
Q,! tt i /" "- ,Jbr- V-.y /7 ,fo;5,t-
/r f '//,-. Z/^)a . L( .,U. ,-,_,1.. -'r
1/X:l .^-2r-x.--....-f, /lon,
/- /,, n f - (""r., J-;s (j1, ,.F I
a-,7,,,. * I ,/" "rr$ ,A /1,
latc' i"tu^V/,^"/ "f,/"41
- zr. y'r o /2,.,,,(
t@l
tt'r/ -''.-
("2.-. / /t"-
Iu u'--*-
/ C/'Ao., az4
6 /L.-
'
j^froL''-
'hrrrfnhb--
.fa.lL e,ftdt
&f Wtau,^v.
"
{au*{V*looo| 3Lt >h r^i5-\^B^ .-,t t\q o.c-
qru"6*\d ir. $q r\"tU\-t L^I[S
\Nr-rA
N+l- 'LV t*J'rsr'-
-^ '' {\ f\lHmbnr
ffiffi-\rdM^,^rrwidg{d? &Tto---" Or-
'\r brrN,'ili?-{+t 15*q srr^,fr-,t
f, X {\,"t- o.,e W \0,, rno.,f^\ ar.r{+oAtl, W- il ryt" bo-k-
,b Y€L.
(^ m,Rqq o
ao
From the desk of. . .Anily Knudtsen
t/rr/e z
%.qfuF,,/>-4
O #t/ /.-(ilr tr ,+y'r
6 T"r^ ,4t.>,-L^^t
satl W./ aw
t^.rza-U 'n--',
:
b>t:€{"-
/,,*, *x fu,t
J.z r & *qa
tVc r qr< A^.-r ,\c+,-tl-:z / aur"_/a--ar\
.
@ ()a aq4 ( r 7 ^.) aasl*r{-
If, ,,r^../.
A & L*f,a vJua -n ^r,//s_l*/ fi_f)_B //zz/r/
tt
CIOP VFI!.E
Departntent of Connnuniry Developnent
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303 -479-2 I 3 8 / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303-479-2452
January 7,1994
Mr. Jay Peterson
Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Fload
Vail, CO 81657
RE: The International Wing at The Lodge at Vail
Dear Jay:
As we discussed on December 23, 1993, there are several outstanding issues pertaining to
The Lodge DRB applicaiion. I tnougnt it would be helpful for me.to put them in writing so that
we can insure that none ol the details slip through thecracks' Please p,rovide the requested
information listed below on one of the DRB suUilittat dates, shown on the attached page'
Once we have the intorraiion, *e will schedule you for the corresponding hearing for that
submittal deadline.
1. Provide a stamped survey of the site, identifying the.site area, boundaries, |ega|
description and tofography. The legal description of the.survey musl
correspond to tneiedaibescription i-n ttre titte'report. This work must be done
by a registered surveYor.
2. P|ease provide a title commitment' schedules A and B, for the entire parcel'
3. Please provide documentation pertaining to The Lodge Properties'
condominium orginit"tion, indicating th; individual who has the authority to
sign applications lor this project.
4. Please provide a signed copy of the agreement between the Town of Vail and
The Lodge "on..ininj
tn" inirty-torr aicommodation units and conference
space.
5. P|ease provide a special use permit for the Forest Service property, showing
that the proposeOteckand the existing loading dock have Forest Service
aPProvalto encroach on USFS land'
A Prnrrirra : rnnf nlan ''vith the rrncferlving topography of the site' Please insure
ii r.1( liru l.l, '.?iJ.rJ{-r-' ',1/rJr "J
Consideiations and the prdviously approved plans'
Mr. Peterson
January 7, 1994
Page Two
7. Provide documentation showing that the elevation for the highest point of the
proposed wing is below the elevation of the view corridor boundary that extends
over this portion of The Lodge property. This informaiion must be provided by
a licensed surveyor. All drawings and letters must be stamped by the surveyor.
8. Add the Wildflower deck, as approved by the DRB, to the plans. The DRB has
the authority to require this portion of the deck to be removed, if they believe it
is appropriate. As I understand your posilion, you would like to propose that
the deck remain as constructed. lt is acceptable to staff to let the DRB decide
this issue.
L Concerning the Arlburg Restaurant, please submit an exterior alteration
application and pay all parking requirements associated with this floor area.
10. Please set up a time with me so that we can field verify the location of all
existing lodge rooms. In order for me lo complete the zone check and
determine an accurate GRFA number for the site, I will need to undersland
where all existing hotel rooms are located. In addition, I will need floor plans of
the condominium wing that extends over the hotel portion of the development
as well as floor plans for any other square footage on the site.
11. Please provide wriiten specificalions describing all elements of the proposed
wet bars. lt is critical that these wet bars do not have facilities which could be
considered to be kitchens.
12. As the Town is interested in seeing as many accommodation units as possible
on the site, please add bathrooms to the central portion of each suite. Each
individual unit must be able to be rented separately from all others according to
the definition of an accommodation unit, Section 18.04.030.
13. Please provide a public pedestrian easement through the corridor between One
Vail Place and the new lnternational Wing.
14. Meeting rooms are not listed as a "by right" use in the basement or on the first
floor in the CCI zone district unless perhaps the space was considered as an
accessory use. Any background you may have on this issue would be
appreciated. A conditional use permit may be required.
Mr. Peterson
January 7, 1994
Page Three
15.P|easeidentifytheexistingusesonthesitesouthofTheLodgeproperty.The
site plan ,no'jfOo" updatJd to show how the site is actually used' The
proposed|lanshowstreesrvherein"'."'"current|yparkingSpaces.Whohas
the right to ,t"ln" "'i'ting
parking spaces? Do you have the authority to
ProPose landscaPing of f-site?
l6.PleasedescribehowthebasementSpacewil|beused..A|so,providedetai|sof
the improv#.ntrln the area of one Vail Place pertaining to solar exposure'
lighting, snow removal, and snow shed'
17- consider the rvay this project may impact the potential skier base facility which
may be ,o""tJlh tn" ut"inity ot tnis Jooiiion. we suggest that you discuss this
issue with staff and representatives tiom vair Associates and The Lodge' we
would be willing to organize this rneeting'
18.IhaveattachedasetoftheUrbanDesignGuide|ines.,andasyoucanseefrom
tne introOuction, in"t" are several ilems"identitied which are reviewed primarily
ny tne ona. ihese are the architeclural elements such as roofs, facades,
balconies, decks and patios, accent elements' landscape elements' and
seruice. please review each section lo ensure that the prooosal is consistent
with the standards called out in fie jerign ronsiderations and provide.a written
response oiicussing the conformanc"' Also' please address sunishade
impacts as outlined on Page 10 of the document'
19. Provide a completed utility verification form'
20. Provide a drainage Plan.
The Public works and Fire Departments have also reviewed the request and have the
tollowing comments. fne fire'Oepartment will require that the entire slructure' both existing
anJ p.,-po."O, be sprinklereO. pu'Otic Works is requesting.that.the Lodge dedicate an access
easement or right-of-way to allow for the check-po-int "n"if
i" relocation near the west entry of
The Lodge.
Please have the site staked showing the perimeter boundary of the proposed addition one and
one-half weeks prior to tn" OiA me"eting. On tne day of .the D.RB meeting, please slake the
height of the proposect *,ing. Onr weg!"Rrior to the hearing, please provide a color board'
identifying all of the materiils. The DRB will *"nt io foof cioiery at ihe design of the exterior
and maY require changes.
I
Mr. Peterson
January 7,1994
Page Three
The staff believes it is imperative that we have the complete application prior to scheduling
this for a DBB hearing. We appreciate your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Town Council
Bob Mclaurin
Tom Moorhead
Larry Grafel
Greg Hall
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
AnQy Knu/tsen
SeniH{anner
\
January 6, 1994
Mr. Jay Peterson
Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Road
Vail. CO 81657
RE: The International Wing at The Lodge at Vail
Dear Jay:
As we discussed on December 23, 1 outstanding issues Pertaining to
The Lodge DRB application. I would be pful for me to put them in& writing so
that we can insure that none of thq ls slip the cracks. Please Provide the
requested information listed
have the information, we will schedule you for the correspqnding heari.W
4 r'l' D
.-u "l '
Mlt.b ldt,, sbt*,'
ful,tr" u
, - oril.- b'
. .t r'-
ntovlr"
W'l
lui (PrLu''' '
NT\
1Y$)"ln't1 '[,#l;*
p,< !,l.f.t
\\^w'i'!l
Once we
2.
3.
1.
fq^d-- <r7{ f
provide aftfampeO survey of the site, identifying the site areai boundaries,legal
description and topography. The legal description of the survey musl
cqrrespond to the'legal,description in me titte reporl. p"r' 's"( *'-'o-/' L'',Orr€SPOnd tO tne legal,OesCrlpllon I
d".. bJ ^ '.\a j / tl, ,t t /-.4../ 1.'J '{ '
Please provide a title commitment for the-entire parcel.
7f,i",l,rh-n:g
Please provide documentation pertaining to The Lodge Properties' . ..
condominium organization, indicating the individual who has the authority to
sign applications for this proiect.
Please provide a signed copy of the agreement between the Town of Vail and
The Lodge concerning the thirty-four accommodation units and conference
space.
Please provide a special use permit for the Forest service property, showing
that the proposed deck and the existing loading dock have Forest service
approval to encroacha" Ul't-f /,'"d'
Provide a roof plan with the underlying topography of the site. Please insure
that the proposed heights conform-with the standards of the Vail Village Design
Consideiationsar,d ]/a p, ?v c.kly r:ff.tvAc/ f /n ",1
4.
5.
6.
Mr. Peterson
January 6, 1994
Page Two
7.
8.
11.
12.
9.
10.
Please provide documentation showing that the elevation for the highest point
of the proposed wing is below the elevation of the view.conidor boundary that
extend's over this poition of The Lodge property. rt'6 t''ln'4'/ '7 a'ru'( ia 7* l,lr!.,J1Ui."run,
Add the Wildflower deck, as approved by the DRB, to the plans. The DRB n^" f,,fl,!,^*
the authority to require this portion of the deck to be removed, if they believe il 411,,'
is appropriate. As I understand your position, you would like to propose that /,,rry!
the deck remain as constructed. lt is acceptable to staff to let the DRB decide b-i -
/
this issue' 'r'@ di'llt';i'I Hffff'
concerning m"@ Restaulant, please submit an exterior.alteration )ir-ryn'
application and pay all parking requirements associated with this floor area.
Please sel up a time with me so that we can field verify the location of all
existing lodge rooms. In order for me to complete the zone check and
determine an accurate GRFA number for the site, I will need to understand
where all existing hotel rooms are located. In addition, I will need floor plans of .,/),j ..,,
the condominium wing that extends over the hotel portion of the develoOnente {ff,.gir,",
Please provide written specifications describing all elements of the proposed +:'rfl
wet bars. lt is critical that these wet bars do not have facilities which could be ,il;if "considered a kitchens. 'i; fJrtilf
4D tt. 'rt",#.4
As the Town is interested in seeing as many accommodation units as possible | 111.: '
on the site, please add restrooms to the central portion of each suite. Each | , .
individual unit must be able to be rented separately from all othercqcitrllr,: 1t .' '! | -J tlt/'ltui r -
Please provide a public pedestrian easement through the corridor between Ond t,,ffJrU n
Vail Place and the new International Wing. ' L4;j
J(t''ii1,\.,---..=--
Meeting rooms are not listed as a "by right" use in the basemenl or on the first -W-
..-- -^--:r -^.,1^^ -^^"ir^A --_floor in the CCI zone diglrict. A conditional use permit may be required.
(, ,., ^. , - .-)). ^- ^ . i^ -; -. ...
13.
14.
-:'
f,uU'+,pa-it'pr4t (trzd pa^,,rr:t.._irr/ .'tr ((.^ L:((JL,Tl t!. /"ylp,L.,t-r,/
Please identity the exjs'Utgdses_9ilIe-5lesqu$--slllq L-ollgqgqP?U;The 'y:, r-,1,,i"'
proposed-plan=nofrs trees where there are currently parking spaces- Who has l.',,( {-,
Lh l,'+, al'it',
r'iIi\ir.[,lhe-right to use the existing parking spaces? Oo you'have t-he'autnority to lk^Ttt
propose landscaping off-site? t.^z''tt't t)t
'ff ,2'd-e,
.Ae-
Please describe how"-basement space will be used. Please provide details of )
the improvements in the area ol One Vail Place pertaining lo solar exposure' j
lighting, snow removal, and snow shed.
ruf;ffi*"o'W,
;#lit
6:^rhnor A't
\u^^l? /btri
c.trs A ln-"
Mr. Peterson
January 6, 1994
Page Three
In addition to responding to all of the issues listed above, I am identifying the issues we have
already discussed. I think it will be helpful lor all parties involved to know that the issues
listed below have been analyzed and are acceptable.
1. The proposal meets the minimum square footage required per the agreement
2
2.
4.
for conference area.
No signage is proposed.
4n oa(rng rates will be calculated based on the updated parking fees of
Q8sg@rnless the code is changed prior to issuance of a building permit.
There are currently two loading docks. Based on the multi-use credit (Section
18.52.150)the building can be up to 150,000 square feet and fulfill the Town's
requirements s il ,.rl a'Jat\; rt',"r/t'''S t factJU
5. The cantilevered portion of the master suite, making the area between the One
--- Vail Place and the International Wing less than 14 feet, is shown on the Warren
.,,,,^ ry\",.,, I Platner drawings dated 1983. As a result, the amount of separation proposed
iif *,i:b!.,. between One Vail Place and the International Wing is acceptable.' -tr) -\hi,.1t,-,
Please have the site staked showing the perimeter boundary of the proposed addition one and
one-half weeks prior to the DRB meeting. On the day ol the DRB meeting, please stake the
height of the proposed wing. One week prior to the hearing, please provide a color board,
identifying all of the materials. The DRB rncy*rrtt* look closely at the design of the exterior
and maylequire changes. rltt ll
The stall believes it is imperative that we have the complete application prior to scheduling
this for a DRB hearing. We appreciate your cooperation. Tacn (rL,t.r,_p
irL * /'tt't"',,sincerefY' (L lel'r^ l'ilrlt-IQQN
r1
Andy Knudtsen
Senior Planner
/tiiLz,noit,ra
KP, please see Greg Hall's comments. How should we include these?
ooo:9y*
Fr it= | +n P i erc. Er insr 934'?A49At
O*or.*"*"""irr"tl
AiCHITECTURE PLANNIN6 INTTRIORS
January 5, 1994
Krlstsn Fritz
Andy Knudtsen
Town of Vail
ConmuniLy Development Department
75 S. Frontage RoadVail Colorado 81658
Rer Lodge ar Vall
Expaneion
Dear Kriatan and Andy,
Thank you for meeting with us Tuesday. Thep€ar to be outEtanding application iternsthat, we would llke uo review at least twoto any Echeduled meetlng:
- Prel-ininary Tltle Report- Property Survey- Staff Zoning Analysia including parklng'
density compliance
We are also reguestlng a written responEe toof D€cenber 13, 1993.
PleasG feel free to contact nyself or Jack
594-1982 l-f you have any guestions.
ccr Luanne Wells
Jack Reutzl
F*,1
k",,;,i
following ap-for the DRBweeks prior
GRFA,
our letter
Reutzl at
LP J"
,t')P
,,il'
vl
\l V'
'l(
\
AJ
Pg. I
010419 94 . DOC
J^.L
T,**'"ra(At
f--,rr.--n-
Sl.ncereIy,
Fritzletzlen P
ro5r orFrcE 80x 57 1o0o L|oNSRTDGE LooP vAlt a0r0pAD0 81658 303 476 6342 FAX 303 476 4901
t
T,*J1
J".n 4,"t-1q,a
. k)a. t'.t/, *r^* {
Pec
r,z L-aca=
-f/t'-.,J ,enzr 6 t4-"
s/x/t=.r_-
19aa:s- -u"n-/* a7- Av& 4rr=
D\^^ .sr.kLv* ,--.,- .z\r t>s .-- :. ___:_"_"'7:'-',-? ,tu-r:?.,,r'-- '
U
F^rl
@/-
-- -/U.- -
oo
I do^!, R4\.
i.l
s\i (,, \1K3, tt $Wt"h tollaa"
Pel \yaroQ
0MtS,m
5\fubd u I
f*$ffi.W^iM;I\,
Vfro.rg+ a*\. "t^nt*-X
'tr$,ffiffi.?
tT'iil,tr. u^r **t*F d(uert\h0\t@t't'
],*
Jim Brown
One Nonrest Center
Suite 3000
1700 Lincoln Center
Denver, CO 80203
One Vail Place Condo, Assoc.
c/o Steve Simonett
P.O. Box 3459
Vail, GO 81658
Rive Ridge South Condo. Assoc.
c/o Marijke Brofos
P.O. Box 759
Vail, CO 81658
Sitzmark Building
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Fritch
183 Gore Creek Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Mr. Jack ReuEel
7730 E. Belleview Ave, #206
Englewood, CO 80111
Jay Peterson
108 S. Frontage Rd, #307
Vail. GO 81657
VailAssociates
P.O. Box 7
Vail. CO 81658
Riva Ridge North Condo. Assoc.
c/o Rick Haltermann
P.O. Box 3671
Vail, CO 81658
Gore Creek Plaza
c/o Vail Management Company
20'l Gore Creek Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Lynn Fritzlen
Fritzlen, Pierce, Briner
P.O. Box 57
Vail, CO 81658
U.S. Forest Service
Holy Gross Ranger District
P.O. Box 190
Minturn, CO 81645
Summers Lodge
c/o Rick Haltermann
P.O. Box 3671
Vail, CO 81658
WallStreet Bldg.
c/o Mr. Robert Lazier
386 Hanson Ranch Road
Vail. CO 81657
T{AR,VEY E. DETJTSCH
IOHN M. SPILLANE
IACK E REUTZEL
I
-uDgutscH, Spn-raNB & Rrurzer-, n.b.
ATIORNEIS AND COUNSELLORS AT I"C.W
7ZO EAST BELLEVIEW AVENTJE
SUIIE 206
ENGLEW@D COLORADOEOTI
(300) 69{-1 982
TELEFAX: 003) 69+38i]1
December 13. 1993
Mr. Andy Knudsen, Director
Vail Community Development Department
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Proposed Expansion of the Lodge at Vail
Dear Mr. Knudsen:
This firm represents Mr. and Mrs. Frank Wells, adjacent property owners to the
Lodge at Vail. We have been advised that the orvners ofthe Lodge at Vail are intending
to seek approval to build additional units on the property. Our clients have concems
about the proposal from a legal and design perspective.
As we now understand the proposal, the applicant will be relying on a 1983
agreement executed by the Town Manager as authority that the additional units proposed
are permitted without the necessity of a rezoning. We believe the reliance on the
agreement is misplaced as it is our position that the agreement could not have created
additional zoning rights in excess of the provisions of the Town's own zoning ordinances.
The agteement is premised on an interpretation of "buildable site atea" that would allow
every owner of a condominium the right to build at a density of 25 dwelling units to the
acre, regardless ofthe size ofthe parcel. Adherence to such an interpretation leads to
absurd densities that far exceed the intent of the Code.
In addition to our concern regarding the legality of the proposal, Ms. Lynn Fritzlen
of Fritzlen Pierce Briner of Vail has reviewed the proposal and has advised us of several
planning and desigr deficiencies that require furttrer analysis and resolution from the
Town staff. Her findings are summarized as follows:
nL\. tr uLU ' ! ltD,
'DEutscn, SpnreruE c n",rt, u.c.
Mr. Andy Knudsen, Director
Vail Community Development Department
December 13,1993
Page Two
1.
2.
A complete review of a proposal of this size and the impacts to the
surrounding properties should be undertaken under the requirements of a
rezoning or SDD process that would incorporate structured public input and
decisions by the Town Council.
The Vail Village Master Plan calls for "minimum impact ofviews of the
mountain from Eaton Plaza." The building is shown as two and three
stories from the plazalevel It appears that the lowered ridge height at the
two story portion is more for view protection of the existing Lodge at Vail
residential condominiums than for enhancing a view corridor from the
adjacent public space.
A stated goal of the Town of Vail is to expand the Village bed base. The
development proposed is clearly condominiums. Is there any assurance that
these units will stay rented and not become "vacant" second homes other
than the word of the applicant? What future control will the Lodge at Vail
have over this development? At this time there are three separate
ownership entities for the total Lodge at Vail development that are not
accountable to each other. Will this development constitute a fourth entity?
The Lodge at Vail is cunently in litigation with the town of Vail over the
proposed land exchange that would further expand their facility. Has the
applicant addressed how the currently proposed expansion would interface
with any future development?
The uniformity of the facade, including fenestration, balcony rails, fascia,
landscaping, is generally inconsistent with current development in Vail
Village.
The pedestrian corridor that connects EatonPlaza and the lifts between One
Vail Place and the expansion will be compromised by this development.
Solar expostre, lighting, snow removal and snow shed should be addressed
for this area.
4.
5.
6.
-DELnscn, SrnreruE & R"t,tr, o.c.
Mr. Andy Knudsen, Director
Vail Community Development Department
December 13,1993
Page Three
7. The purpose of the service af,ea on the basement floor is undefined. What
type of activity will this area generate? Noise, truck access, employee
access, visual and acoustic screening of mechanical equipment and trash
should be addressed.
We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with your staffto firther discuss our
concerns. It is our client's intent to make every effort to resolve this matter amicably;
however, they are prepared to take whatever steps are necessary to protect their property.
Very truly yours,
DEUTSCH. SP & REUTZEL. P.C.
By
Jac
JERji
cc:Mr. and Mrs. Frank Wells
Members of Town Council
Members of Town Planning Commission
Members of Town Desien Review Board
Lynn Fritzlen
1.4 e
R6tum to
PROJECT:
DATE SUBMITTED:
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PBOPOSAL:D R.ts
U ar^)
PUBLIC WORKS
l^ [*n,.L*J u ,rT
r ,l,' lo'
Reviewed by:
Comments:
Date:
ddc.,i(' QfcQr{ t\\ itx prqx- ( tef (-gr'\i-'t cf'xf ie \rj( t\.Jrf-ltr(c\
\ord gLrci:,; eyinI 'i,(',{..l a,1\ t31E' reg;<i <crr'j'trd
lccx Li$(r\e. uc ittt vAr-rndo r\'e!', g rn dr'rrr:Q ':16 b a*x i \'fi {--{"(rg''i\il r'v-\
c,. .Jr-ri\ ri'rraryg \r, r. area *i',olt r,t-'n t rxt$E nuc4 ru'rr\l'rr5 {ar'tt'1t19)' to'-l
. ^,,,,,-a
oi*l, ,nr'rr?,t in.1,-.,,'iot-1 \r*u-g oc|rri] r"-irT?. €f( , acLt"5
'it'9;g1-t'tt"'11
"r3Ei
rn..r.^\'1i'rr\/
.rq4t-. (\i,,'J o a tr.,",u*"t-tY io ln {rtrr'' i rJi:a r t:( Va;t lla1n;irin
,tr ,
,*: ff
,i:, *
?.' "
114+
La
U['+
b4
ttri.d t t/tea
*pl,t aJ
, t)bqj' \\b\
\"
l^r{, 4 f u. 4 l;,,
77* +,t/2/23/ ? 3
19s.<-.'4
L)'// //t1..- J"./
/
/,"-V4-1.fz.<iz-4- -a-f{/,
J-- <s+/* r/
/*, /--l'.t*a 7
f"M,vrv,ca ?
..n{ .v 4ol *",n7
/4er/ gr7*,/ t"fT
a-S.f-ee a,'-.tL
t<e--J- ia- -u | ,
t E aaa4 sr/>\.
t' /22 A{rc 3
Fol"4&4.
t / tt
/,4.-J / //e c-.t''-rr-;//n-..'*,f..
,,/ aZ yr.'La r4*4 /,4.t- 14
drr"-- ;r= z4/ 4a rza-..
/a/7-..-ltt/.a.-t4
Hr a.t ) a-4
Ca,(h'L1'4
6{rw f*'*-
anr/a<ts & .n-{, -
1'ruZ/r'r7ta .Lt qti.- /a.t.z-"
Jdr at'n'1"'7
/tftc,;td.3 Clr.Zd /.-_ /l-a. claz)
-*/z<a<< &./ t L. df.
I '{;TrT i1or
a
/"."/ /'/l- -z-zf-rr6. rct-
^/ 4 o(z.o*-k
l/n. t 74.. a,fu/.7
14+ ''/
tr -" t d-/v
F-Zo, ^ /o /7_-
4'Fn4'
1-.,f"^
T4
,,*(.-"-
l/,'rt- cor.; /a,- , J-7 z<, )r /
hro.- O.-,".-j 7r* ,' L
z-ts4 s e 6> f/. €
Zl zc.,-zZ1 z.o P-trLa"''^-r-l'
/1 IPtnV-, -<--/o ta-Z.s /<---t
z,; "el'r<-J /n,U /wt
-4 y'a, <
lu",- J---t rar",vr'J*-
rtn '-zV /->rzu-,<. --)
v5 A. ..4 f2...-fr-k oo.5
!" t cah4-,aa,.v. a-G--\- 1t d6 ,'nt
.
IH "4/'or/'-l
za'/1 2.4-.
ecs
tLtu/
(ar^; /fr*)//r1-
*r-rf 6.<f
,(r-^ '/,,rry 7/1^ *'*Z*1
?v
lt
314
&Jr* z.\i'c -L"-L.
F77'6+ {z?'vr' . S/a-.<.-J a/l1r
fa.-,*tl 4-14t4)-.rd 2z-.4+ /--1.
L --r-Lt ad" "r,+ t
/ 7. Ze-4.4.s
A sdl
tuEr
/kf.-- h L
'f
,*-- Ay /zz>1/1 ..
& rtt- o-4/ .*--rl>r,- 4 stf
Lr** w,-$ ryzw
lst-Ca*--.zorJ
lrly FTt
n-t-,Ab rrT.'',
Itl-* r7tut
l-.r"",,*,n,t
1k.74. dzet
It.z4. ala
t't."4-d 3a
1
l8?4 p36 6.1
l?.2f .osv k t
Bd
C-1
f3l,z
.83
c o.(urLk 4*,4 €, ,-.--t k ..
/v-zz /", /.r/U--/.r>,w //L"r- L^,J
M fu'Lo".-.--\
/ z/zS/ rrs
/2.;, ".;Lru &-a. f
/#.hJ 4 o4r-,-"1
//ru/
l/// I "-ty^ 4 -, /J,.-n
Ok/sl'a^LJ /ss,n <
/3/v-2z3 \
,/a.L> ,rt/?,'/^
=J*^/ s--u . /t-- '/
fzo 4*'
r ,/4
,l,tzi<z.re I 6'/*
/,
7LD ('<no c (
"'t"at'-'1 af
-JT
'r-!)-
. gQNrc.UEe,E
l*, R, R p/:olo*, orrr*r.O
DATE:tz/zz/A3
LEGAI DESCRIPTION: tot Block _ Filing
ADDRE55'- T. L"J.y"_
I
OWNER
ARCHITECT /+).xqr *,.-. y'?l, tta,.'
ZONE DISIRICT (or
PHONE
PTIONE
C A.),v-a,v<-a-\1
I:JHeight
Prin+Elr-€8JtA--
Seeonffi$A
,/.A-eEbacks
Total 6ggA/4tc+t:)1 rc\
+ 425 =,
Front
Sides
Rear
201
15'
15t
t1{ofir--5-
,4o1r"t course Setbach
/Qt,'tc)l to)
, zdite Coverage
Landscaping r.r6
rhr<
.-+6t.ining Wall
srL{arking
-€{:.^n" cred.it
Drive:
(300) (6OO) (9OO) (1200 | it /"*
Perrnitted Slope .jg3- Actua1 Slope
Date approved by Town Engineer:
3tr.soo[a+
'
n. 1 ,.. ii "1. q-..''- |
t-a zz+-.. k 1 ,.t< .
Heights 3'/6'
blJZ*eqrd
l-fView Corridor Encroachment :
d"-..."t ,..t / /Jt>'.';; ? t'3zrJ
,-E-,nvi ronmerlt a 1 ./ ft a z a rds :
YesH No L
1)
2l
3)
Flood Plain
Percent Slope
Geologic Hazardsa) Snow AvaLanche_r,t .,,* ,2 { z r
b) RockfaLl n,.t<.x- tz 12. . -
c) Debris Flow r.!,,,- t?,t z,L4) Wetlands
'{.evLoue conditions of approval (check property file): >.- h1,.-
'foes thie reguest invoLve a 250 Addition? r4:t
dfow much of the allowed 250 Addition is used with this reguest? < ",u
**Note: under sections 18.L2.090(B) and 18.13.080(B) of the MunicipalCoder lots zoned Two Family and Primary/Secondary which are less than15r000 sq. ft. in area may not construct a second dwelling unit. TheConrnunity Development Departmenl may grant an exception to thisrestriction provided the applicant meets tbe criteria set forth underSections L8.t2.090(B) and 18.13.090(B) of the Municipal Code inctuding
Permanently restricting the unit as a long-term rental unit for full-time enployees of the Upper Eagle Val1ey.
lr-rf lf 4 nra 'h'
t"'1t'
*"' (,'/'"^^ ( /' € 1' / Lo
1 ,.J /"'., t.j --ir " , -'
cn,t:,t'ttS /l/..v2t,.,f 4 Z tf^t:\J
a.r./r.
^/
PROPOSED IJSE L/ .t " <, , ,-, / a. t-tn,, ,.,-. , ... I
**tor stzn 7 , c10 'l t, o+o
&.tz-ct- lt z,g-lz )( t')
lsri 1ti ou7/ 9orn"a
+ &-=,
2.54q tAllowed
(30) (33)
7z,tJz
-S /, 9 ?./w-Existinq Proposed
/z/ ts-/
t z , 6ts /r /"ss
227 a-,-,1 km."
1..,- t'k..-.^ \c:1'
rl'fD)-E ' 19.,h!"tt
C' Sr, f to. l.4
-l-
n/-
(30) (s0)
)2,832
(--lIzt E zl
i{ fo":/,/,',0
/ /lz'L /A"t""r.^-/
Itt
2^''
J .'I
1
/ c:>>'< 5
tt/'t /";rt- f -"--,1
It"4 az/)
BL z.rCl
/t24p36 A3
lhzs-usa i/
/
l1^-'C ft^l
J
,/t'-
(ttu
( lr d j:1_
('./.
7
tt''
^ " o"o a ^,.- b /^.,r,444 )
'#/,
Lo/
4az
'' I./rtuz.d n<t ft.q< (Zr,- { ( J, s .A,lr/2 t,--/
(
(
I
I
I
t.
t
''
I
I
{
t
#
'?_la
z?o
)2t
3a4ge
s)
: 4\r
3
,. .w d',{fl'rt /' :fl : ./3st''.-'.\<-24 /*r'-"4 :
k*l f ;
,,'-/ 6",,t
/e./
nnt
arya el
."'<'<- f /r# itt--farc-""^.^+t
-4rr4, 4t^;
OlL"l/")-l O-L,-A' ? ?
v Art-/ *,'// u. ,.-^/ ao
c"--ol z'L-l 2) z'-/
r12/{j* d-.'/
v)
^/'Jr/,-t L,(a J ,t'ida--a h,e.-f a"t t.C- r-
, o. Y .-Ir,,r z- h {l^u u
@;/r/ &-- /-J sl-A-rt</,r.-*-.-^,-Z' ? u'
,.re.n -v-1 t'f- eX. -.2* v-'
mrllz #-,t{' P ,k d tL'('-t( 14't"'Jt
t f* (" oic'S " " r'J
"/ l*, J a,Sr..-J ""yJt/ 74
,{, sttn
/ ^.-l /"
.</t4&..?a1 - (4-Vl-tzr.^-" -
/
74a7 .7 ,/
BaU, w *_,1_tHvn+' N t Fryf,.lrt4uj dl-t!4r+*q l"ere
nsN'
d. -t cv\ k.-, I ?+ y'iz r ,/., ,, J "/
DkJ /r.-' ,, t,
,rt/ ) {; crJl /l/[tv , .-,:,Ah //) d* lkqr L *J 4-e,.-< ..e : s/..f., / /" .h /, -- ? ,z
A at-/'^l /a l/n''o' s l't't X 14* fr'-l
hu- /> vtn o.frn *.ts c.aw (* ' d
94fttJ*.rt
,^,lu l7v1 fut,n l:*
/rrJ,* o'r?n- f v(",tA +.r,,./t
' utoo/in K tv a.t,t,JaxJJ
tu,// {/,u,n. J*-t oylo'*J'
t-/ //L ,Lr,o?rt
L..?.
\
-<-x;sl3 /t' Jy
/*- r,r,3,|kJ
,o-/-- / .u--.- /
-4,a4 L. ,Y e'"t--'f3
,{-i /oJ,ry.7 -"t /tv
""fib uJi, ,,-1 L,9o
ffi"f,
,d.- v f,z'u'
r'rZ^-/h
a
t
l/-/? -?s.
5;6&4 a/rQ,r4/-^7
f,.r--t . s/ 1./A*- fq,,*4 u ?
tf/,--4- h ^/ .7 /-ter,--.--"1<r<'.n- J*/aZR 4ta4
I^/.*. a;L-rL'*\ffu -72' d*-, n"V-2.1s Z
/t/L.//a/ s/e. z. a?a a.o,=4
A*-*h /-^-1 p{ ru-l^-4-^/ ."-L ,6.T
+ /".-t--/1'z- -- 4 arrJ J. o-,*
c.4r.*1. hdf ,,"*,j
?a.<- eenrz,
/L4>t.\
f*-r'/J ?r'd?/ /
{ /J'LJ-",/, *'".,--'} k
o
/o/2//A / 4' *7"-,-J: Lh-,-o
J*1. k);,d f. )--- tzu'/ P/'.n-
", aYtPctrcL 4- Z e
t/rz/s fnk utlu
o-U S**T sr/- /5 /., /*Z
lvl 2 , 6l o -sr'k ac{-c'<. *
(L--t ,o f t n ,4.-L /./or kA o
4.t-..- L , r-'x-/.x. /H.A- ;l^D
/>1 Zan;"1 a-^JV z,s.
Zrw't sl.A t,^ t/,2/ts
(l" g /=-/ s>ft *.;r",,*,f , orL*7i.'
s)k ,rv 72,?"y' st-, ia-y
fd^- -7 z-,'7Q4 ta. rq 2
/l'U
Cd>u--n4,/< /4, Ej1 /?t t/S
y&-F 4!-t yV ;
L,N'/;h*f2
. 14( L"E --" (rl3- I I t.o./ ,lXa-.- -^t
lXX p-n /=? tA^
^ec,) ,;r,l / {/"r.-n ,/.,A
'^V*r---",-,4 /" f, /6/7
From the desk of. . ,Andy Knuiltsen
L,rn^ nU'
4r* t
/=1---zp,/a,
C-r--r| a,-kJ?\-
I]TTE R.DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW
PROJECT:?"- Lu
DATE SUBMITTED:
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
l,J c^)l^ bn,-l^J d,r'{
PUBLIC WORKS
Reviewed by:Date:
Comments:
tL*+ \ t,l'' lo'f u. 4 '1",
t ur{rL"oW,
Betum to
PROJECT:
DATE SUBMIfiED:
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
lJ e.,)l^ bn *l-*J u,,T
PUBLIC WORKS
Reviewed by:
Comments:
ZZci---/Date:
,,,/ r,or.a ./ r ' '";5'-J ""'' ''-2 d-t7 'zZ)-rr""'"/
2Z' tttt' ''z r-- .,''1 z'2': ?- '?('t " '-'t tze' - "
:.'zi'' ' ' t' ';- 7(
,. f' -.':1 L-7 . . .r''u'/
t i )1..-, ' * ,v ''= ;7- '<;2 ' -7'"'a- "i9
1' 4
/ .\./!< /<
//_- )-)z- 4 ,
.wnd l ltlYgl
| 'l'' lo'l^tt, 4 *L-!;/,*'ta tF2)
PROJECT:
DATE SUBMITTED]
l).)
PUBLIC WORKS
Reviared by:
Comments:
Post-lt'- brand Jax transmittal memo 7671 # ot pagr8 > ,
't*, P-hnu,,Frcm, l ,, , T--
A-^ 4* E tu- I 'l yu
Co.'Tbv
Dept.Phone #
7'u 41 , r4'.,1 '(11'z'+sz-
c-1-:-Tl
0l'fi.t W'ff
Relum to
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
l^ (-n *]r*J U '''f
4<i-:/
"l ,2"zl a/t..-<LJ'-J "-- ''4 dnoT /4'zz'a"y'
/r'
. r-7 z.4e;"?o.'<. )-/Lza
aY>'z4,/'a""2 Z-'1-/
/
,.' f -4? ?.:- //a/.->--"
/.4,'t)
lL t)
LJ 4,f
2 r7."n "-' '-' lc' 'r 't'7-- gl>t 7/''ze- 'g /'-14
.,.,r<./ ''l -/c./, ;-l"J zt; ''1^ -n'* " '''o'"t1 z>-t'/7
/'S -s L '<-"1.l
/. .. r<. -r^ ' ( ,r\
,Lr< itlt/ttSa''
t|,v< /1',-, t!,
i ,-" Jt u'
I
\--=+,--
,LIal,*J
1[ ttt ; f/on 1 4lzcr )
ocr-13-1ee3 t1t42 FRDt4fnt{ - LEGAL - JrL r0
l1)rt=t34?sa46?
p.az
w
I,ODCE PROPERTIES TNC.
L74 E. core Creelr DriveVail, colorado At6E7
The undereigrned, ae Fresi.dent of Lodge properties Inc.,
hereby authorizes Jay K, peterson to execute any Design Review
Board Application for the expansion of the rJodge propertl.es
connonly known as the rnternational wing. rf t[r, Feterson has
already exeeuted the Application please conFlder this
authorization to be a ratification of his authority to execute
tbe Design Review Board Application,
IJODGE PROPERTIES TNC.
.nl tt|
.trvJ-l ,L'-Jl
Erik P. Woit
President
v/' +
/, *t'""'w^'**
r/^/" i A,t*ttd* /-1./'*
\ ,n':./ ? \
N "* l"t7'
wJ,,',r ry',
By:
I-1
!*-q
" ^7*'J"
/d*
I'
22.IFt Lfft.l tlFFti-F.S SIE.:EZ Ui{E - ?83 5A? 453r'
DATE APPLICATTON IITICd'IVED :
I)ATF. OT DRB I.'EIITING:
tii.l. r'!il
e/ 4/eLoorsvi$6d
DRB Alpllee,tloN - Towrl'oE' 1rAIr,, col.ollADo. . , 1,,.,!
Rtt'.r{,rLl i 1 IYYJ
. ******t*t*
TIIS APPI.IE.ASION }IILL NOT BE trCCEPIED
. IrNTrt n'.l, BEQuTFJED tlrFoB,l'1I\TroN Is SuBMrrTED
***Jt****r*
I.PRO.IEIT INFORMATION:
A. DESCRIPTIQN:7r'/E4/uAfla/u'"L.' W tna- 4Oe47N
/8 ,+oo /n oiaa- r#a->tt tti) efrav aY/73
t -A'uEtcrye Ulv/T
B.TYPB OF REVIEW:
New construction (9200.00)
>( __Addttion (950 .00)
Minor Alteration {$20.CC)
concept-ual Ravicrw ('l0i
E, @/18 4.ceiryt-,,DR.,C. ANDRESS:
ff proporUy ls described bY
desiript!on, Please Provlde
a rneetg and bounds leEal
on a sepsrate slreet anc
E.
F
a!\t.
T
IrOt AREA: If rcquired,
stamped curvey showln
NAMR OF APPI.TCAI,IT:
MatJ inq ^Ad€lFess :
Plrc'lre
NN4E OT AP?LICA}.:T,Mailipg fdclresp;.-
RESEiITAT'I!'
Plio-r1e
NT\},II' OF OIIINERS :
rSIGN]\IURE (S)
MaiIin t'l t OII e
*T+*
VALUITTIO)l$ 0 - I 1o'0'lo
$ 10,001 - I 50, Coo
$50;oo1 -$ lso,oco
$150,00L - I 500,coo
$500r 001 - $1,000,000
$ . Over $1' 000, 000
r DESIGN REVIEW BO}RD A.PPRO!:AT' E)(9XRES
erinovna uNLEss A Borr,DrNc PERI'tltr rs
STI\RTED.
/-+ ap;B
9n
ro, I \ iq'i
*rNO AIPI'ICATION ?fIlL BE I'ROCnSSED ?IITHOUT OWNER'S SIGNAaUA'E
1"
D. LEGAL DESCRTPTTON: rct &EzQ-' tslock *51-'--
Subdivlslon
actacli to thlE aPPIieatlorr.act,aelr to gnls apPrrcalrolt.
zoNrNG!
--.
l2rrnm^e'Act'++- - 4t<4 z
ltPrican*. mus! t:Y7+. urw;"t
Iot, ar€a . -*?-:-
J. Con<tominium Approv.rl if applicabie '
K. DRB FEE! DRB fees, as shovrn abcver are !e be pald ag'
Ehe tlme of submltCal of DFB applicdlion'. .LaLerl wl'tetr
iiiprviiii ior-i building parmlt, piease. iaSltlfv the
aceurat.e u"iuition ot i'nb p"opbs'n: ' the Town of VaiI
wili adJu"t,-iti'-iJe-aeeo,:cting .to t,he tal''l.e belor+, to
en$urc fhe correcL fee is peid
E'q,*.ry_Lf_-r299_
t'l: li
$ ?0. u0
5 50.00
$100.00
$200.00
9600.00
9500.00
ONT YEAR A}.IER FII{AI'
iCsoio AllD cox.srRucrroN rs
uto
tf-89
o
. *l********
SUIS APPI.IEAIION WILL NOT BE ACCEFIED
. SNTI'. ALt, REQUIFIED IMFORI'II\TION IS SUBMITTED
***L****t*
I.PROJECT INFORMATION:
A. DESCRTPTION,:'///Ei4//Aflan//ft-. t'v truA 492mq
/8 ,+oo/rroifrL ftcdmtaD +f,ut/ u/v/7s
LAt,l r:FF
DRB ADPLICAtION - ltOffiI'OF 1fAIL, COI'OIIADO
DA'fE APPLICATION I{F:CdTVED :
I)ATT, OT DRB I.'DIITING:
TXPE OF REVIEW:
New Construction (5200.00)Minor Alteratlon {$20.CC)
5E? .r5g:r I n l. 3':fi
U,-rovi$6d 914/91
lE/Bt/9-\
B.
>(-Addtrion ($50.00)conceptual Raviow ($0i
C, ADDRESS:Et @/48 e&ffi<. Dr<,
D. LEGAL, DESCRIPTI'JN:tot &Et a ?-Bloci( *o- o -
Subdivlslon
a neeig and bo\rnds legal
on e seperate slreet anc
agt,ach to this aPPIieatlorr.agtach Eo Enlg aPPrrsaE.roll .
zOr,rrNG: ---" . lid7a fi &'A./tU--"- 4I4 r
anol j eant mtlg! provide a -cttt:'en!j'o[- a"ea . -*fu:-7-?J-.--ffi-----
MatJ.lng Adclress:
[,lr()lre
AP?LICA}!T, S REPRESE}ITATIVI] :
If property Ls descrJbed bY
deoiript,ion, Please Provl.de
l.
F.
(i.
L,OT AR"EAI Xf requlre<|,
stsamped curvey showlng
NAI'IR OF APPI.TCAI{T :- -.-,.-
tt.NAI4E Oil
Mal Ii ng Address:
Pfiorte
I . N'\}4IJ OF OI.II'IERS :
*SIGNAIURE (S) :Mailing Address:!'li oIl e
J. Condorninlum Applov.el if a1':plicabie '
K. -DRB FEEr DRB feegr as shovtn abover are !c be paid ae.
the ttrne of-suUmii,g;f of DF.B.applicdsion'. . LaLerr whetr
iijprvitifi iot-"-nuildin9. perinl't, f ieas:e. ident lt'v the
accurEte vaiuation of f'h; prop;sil.' thS.Town ot' Vail'
wlii-iijurt,-iftn -f"e aeeorcting .to the tal-',1.e lrclot'l' f'o
engurc [,he corrcct- fee is Pe'id gEI--SIgi-[-*-**t*TS*
VALUATIO}I3 0 - s 10,0il0
910,001 -9 so,Coo
. $ 50, oo1 - $ 150, oc()
$150,001 - I 500,c00
$500;001 * $1, ooo' 0oo
$ . over $1,000, C00
* DESIGN REVIEH BO}RD A9PRO!?'. E)@IRES
AIiiOrrAI. UNLESS A EUIIDING PERI'III IS
F.!:NRTED.
F l'li:
I ?0.00
$ 50.00
$rc0.00
$200.00
$400.00
$500.00
OI{E YEAR AT1ER FIII.[]I
issuro AltD cousrRucrrolr rs
**No APPlIe.trTIoN I|IIJIJ BE l,RocEssED wI.rHouT ow}tER' s siGNAtuF.E
.'.
1
t.Fltl r.lFF IaES .J8? i,r'lF - i4l 5E? 45:jn rl '. :qq D,-';
o1.,I Si'l' Ob' IIIAThlliIALl':
LEGAL UEs(.:krprrON2 1,044a, P'|'OCK 53?- SUirDrvrgrClN
STF,EET ADDRNIJ$:
DESCRTI,'l'1.Olt O!'tJRO.JEC'I':
( see Ee6*4
The following lnforrnat-l.on 1s
Review Board before a final
BUILDING I',IAIERIALS :
Ii.oof
Sidi r,g
Otl'rer Wa.l. l Mat:er:ials
Iri,l sc j a
$offiLe
9ili nClOwS
llindow ?rim
Doot s
Door'lrinr
l{irrCl O!: l)r:ck tt,iils
!'Iues
slashings
Clilrnneys
Trash Fnclogrrreg
Grr:er rhOttseg
Other
reqrrlred fcr subm:.[ta1 to t,he L]esi':J!',
approval can be gi\ren:
TYPE OI' M.ITER'I'AI.,(.i , ti{ i\
57va %:-.??5r-q.az 275'0/
--@e._JffieE -.__12lgQztfau
/@r7.aL *a& __::y&ffip. aFs&v'
3.LANDSCAPING:llame of Designer;
Pirorre:
t<t,4ti*Ftr| PL.aWEr<- /1 sSaC
-;----@:22:-4lz/-
PLANT MATERIALIi:
PROPO.SED I'REEI'
Botanieail. Narae corilmon IJB:(ie
&,P€il
Or:airt. lt v Siz,r'
7 3',:',
EXIS.IING IREES TO
B!.J REMOVED
Reua'4v@ ElHzGr?eGAl /5'
*indicate caliper for cjaciduous t rees - !:inirnut-ca'L'LFtq :I:ininuli eaIi.n.:r.' f i3
decidueUs t.reel -ls 2 -rosbe-g-,- lndicaEe height for ccnif eror:g
?2t22 t.Al.r
5':EE
srE.36? t'r{}r 'r ?83
PIAl.iT ILqTERIALS: Botatiical Name
PROPOSIJD SHRUIJ$
EXISTII.IG SHRUBS
TO BE REI'I,JVSI)
*fndlcata sll€t5 <raIJ.on.
CF(OUND COVAR$
-fttgy-urto
I lri. .:'qFJ
$gg-.lgE -:r E.L/g-
tgo/<oe4s
=oru o-'*-
a.
$e.cEPa-$eoe
of proposed shrubs.
lPe ljqttql'g-gg5;t1;rt
/ao SpGAttts
SEUD
TYPE.
Olr IRP.ICJT'I'iON
rvgE OR l,lETl{oo cr'
Encsloll collrRol
b**_-....r._!.-.._
c. tAl.lDSCAPE LIGHTIIIG: If. exterlcr J.ighting is prcposecr p'l':e'';''
showt}renumberoffixturesand}ceatiorrgcnagepsra?.o!inhtr.^.,'r in. Identify each fjjl''t'Jre f.ram lhe Iiqhti:''g Pi:1tr' ;;'il;;"itIi-ii":.nr+ anct plovl<ie the wetcase, hej sht: abc've
gr arie atrcl tylrt' crt' liglrr' prol''crseC'
D.O?HER I.ANDSCAPF; I F:Ail'uRf:S (retaining walIsr i:nce:' swinn'lng
;;;i;,- eie.i prea**-siec-irv.-rndiiate heights os reiain:'ns
waIIs. Maxinum riiilg!ti'-i;i-niifs wlrhin the fronE setback 1e
3 f eet . Maxlmum he{ghr of '*alls elsewnere cI: t'}.e Froperby
is 6 feet .
-,m.arrgi
SUBDrVr 510t{
LAt,l OFFI|EB g:TE'..:i!:J'i t4iFl '' :":f 5T2
1
I I-j. .'-n ta Ltl
,.J(rB
LOT
NAi.t!i;
&BO
U. S . West Comrnunlcat i.orrs
1-ii00*123-1987
45E-6860 or 94?-453A
Publig Serv ice ComlranY
9:1 9*5't 81
Gary llall
lloly Cross Electric Assoc.
949-5A92
Ted Hr.rshy/t'li c'lrare j. Lavt'' rL y
Herlt;rge Cablevisloll l.V.
9r19-5530
SLeve lliatt'
Upper Eag1e VaIlel' Water".'i saniiat ion Disur-lct. *
416-1480
!'rr-d Has I ee
IIOTE: 1 .
* Pl.easo br:l.nqt
obtalnlng UPPer
flow rrgeclei ltills!
&Palr/a4--
!'rLrNi; ___reJ--.-
Arrtit-oEiec.+-$.Lsrinlll-Ee ll3t'e
The locaEion and ava j l abilicy of ut-iLit;es, whetfrer t-he5'-be .n'aiti
trunk llnes o" ptipo""J irn"i, 'usi ut approved and verifred ily
ir,"-toiiowf ng ui.iiities for the accomPaniripg site Fl'an'
Thisfsrmtstover:fyservice-ava:IabiIitv:irlcli"iitii.. -rrtis ;;;;Ia i" "s*a .irr corr juncr'ion wj'th
;;;;;;i;g your ut.lJicv prarr and gr:her:criiis
lnstal Iat iotis .
E.or any new eonstruct.icn proi:osll ' Ll..!e. app,licarl:
must provicie .a .nnpi et'ect utii:'Ey veri i j c<rt i ctr
f,ornr.
If a ugilit-y conrpalry has cclil(lernsj t'ritli
"lieproposed ".,r',"ttuIf Ii,"l -[f't*
"t iI Ir'y rnp'rBs('nr"'at-'i!'t:
shouLd not cilreca it ;; che utr'r j ty veri.t-i?at:on
f orm that thclre is'a prof'Lern whir'h nnecis t'D b€l
r€gotved. tne rssue'snouta then bc spellet'i c",-'"1t''.irl
detei l in an arcacyiaa }er'Ler f,c the I'ovin ef r'rai l '
ioor.t'*t, pLease ieep in mitrd lhaL it i s chc
rrsp"^trlii i itv ni-ih* \ltitity conrran'/ tc reiiolve
iderrt i.iied Proirlettls.
If the rrt-ilicy veri f icat'ion fortn !ras sign'rtu!'es
Ito*'-""J[-ot Lho uti'rir:y conpaliel' and no
;;il*;i;- aie macie-ttrtttirv oi ttre forrn' the l'owti
;iti']";;;*nne th.rt there are rro Fr'Jkjlein'<: ari<l Lhet'
iire ul"e.roprnent catr Proceed'
These verif ications 'Jo not rel:eve l-lie cclr'f;racdtr
;;";';"'iesponsiu j"I j.tv to obcai n .
a strecc ctiL
;;;i; ;;;;;-;h.'i;;;'oi-t'"i], Depart'mens. c'r r":Lrrc
ilorks and Lo ontairy rrriit'ly'-ke'u'l-clil?9-t-sr9' -gio"i n" In anfF6-Ii[aTijirt'-ct--wav or' e6$Grrrer)i f,::
the Town of valj. A..bli.idltrs-re4qg-jg-ir'll-g'" -street eut per'flii- -f;;i:Iet cut perrn:t "nu$t
be
ffiilIr,cd ,eFarert.elY '
5.
s slte plan, floor planl 1;l^e]lvations whert-n;;i; tii.i!,v vfaiar' a sinicat:cn sisnalures' tr':rr':r
be actclrgssed.
1i.. i- :..hr ;-l i L\a6/lj1 /'13
a
i?:r3'T:,':.,"'
F",:*"1
DNTI::
L!lGA.r-, DESCRIPTI ott, t'ot4;f€, Block ;f" orrr,ln
ADDRrss : /74 E, @4e a4eeF DR '
O'r.lNER prfoi.iri 3?2:176 - {a//
ARCHr,rucr lr/ */4L4 _.ffic_-fr 9s c,c- puc'nu _?-.?:7J! :!LZZ
?,Oi.tE DI ST'r<tC't - U rn mfu/ tAu- ME--f
TIROPOSED USU rr_Fm, , FA*n-
'"LOT Sf ?,8 .+cere)
.E!::.-i.eq!.-ne t'rQH-Q_gSi_{, .ir.i,La:I
2*- ?6
t/,< sr
lieighL
Tot aI GRI'rr
Prj.nrary GR!'A
(30) (33)
z!.z3 5 7585 +
N/A
Secorr'iary GRFA -{L-
+ 125
+ 425
Setbacks t'rorrL
sldes
Rear
l';ater Crrur'se $etb.rck
Slte C(1verA9e
LarrclscaPing
Rer.a j rrS.rrg WaIl Heights
Darli j rrg
Garage Creclil
Drive:
Viev Corrido:' E:rcroachrnellt :
Envi roninent,a L./Hazarcs :
3, /6'40"
n4,{.-.tieqt'(l
(3C0) (600) (9t0) (i!00,
)fit
1|: ,
n at
_lY'"
4A zAd 5e - t!.9:e
.)\
l)
*t5:oce: Undor Seetlons 1g.12.090(P,) and I'9.13.080(Bi et t.he llunicii::-
Code, t.-.Ls zonea"i*o"i;aif ii- anO Prinary/Sacondary wnich are I'ess E:,al
iSrO6O-"i. ii.-fn area may not construir e seconC dwelJ'i'trg unii' f i''''
cornmr:nii;; Devoiopr,r€nt Dep;rt,men[ lnay grant. an ex':epllon cc sliis
restJiiciicn ploviaeO tf.e'aFnl iear,t- ineets f-i:e criteria 5el fsr6h u:'!le:'
Sections 1B,tt.OS0tet anA i'g.i3.080(B) of rhe I'iu;,icrpaI C.;Crr-:;:c.l';iii;i
piimaitntiy.testtldling itre unlt as a lcng*ter;r. rerrtal r.ttt!L to: fuli-
tlrne emptoyees of the Upper Ergle Valley
(30) (50)
L)
PernilLed Siope ;p!- lrctrr{''-t $r'r-roe II
proved by I'o*ri Er;girteer:
't )'t
L'] ocd P I ai tt
Fer ceriu 5 I c1.,c --_-.-ry/i----
Geoi 0g !.,'j !lar:tiJ:.'iit
al Snow Ava l ar.che
b)) Rock f a.l 1
.1 ) F;cL Isnds
Pre.llous condiLio:rs of approval (check proPerty file) I
Does chle request jnvoive a 2lirJ Adciitir-rn?
Ho'ir nuch of tlhe alloweri 250 eddltlon ls used with this lequelii'?
RECEIVED HAR { lgs
200
of the trialplus copies
to
LL
L2
1_3
L4
15
15
L7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
CANDACE STUTSON REPORTING
Post Office Box 5521
Vail, CO 8l-658
(970) 949-4920
March 4, L996
R. Thomas Moorhead, Esg.
75 South Frontage Road
vail, co 8L657
Re! Sa1tz vs. Lodge Properties, Inc., et al .
Deposition of: ANDREW ITiARIUS KNUDTSEN
Date of Deposition: February 22, L996
Enclosed is the original signature page of the abovedeposition. It was agreed that you would arrange forsignature for the above deposition by neans of your copytranscript and the enclosed signature page.
AIso enclosed is a form of amendment for changes, ifnecessary. After having the signature page and amendrnentforn signed, please have thero notarized and return forfiling. . .
_X_ to this office within 30 days to courply with thestatute.
_ to within
days with copies of amendments to this office.
_ to this office by
is set for
since trial in this matter
_ to the Clerk of the Court,County of
Division/Courtroom , on the datewith copies of amendments to other counsel ,to this office.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Candace Stutson, CSR, RPR
Ann B. Frick, Esg.
Lia A. Woodall, Esq.
John W. Dunn, Esg.
James S. Bailey, Esg.
Jay K. Peterson, Esq.
.1
\ 0f\,
\hrt ftnc\"'1 5c1n
ffd- lur.e n/+c""'zcct
l-luse
25
Candace Stutson Reporting Va
c S Cr'dL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Lo
Ll_
L2
13
L4
l-5
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
t97
WHEREUPON, the above proceedings were
concluded at the approxinate hour of 3:1O p.n., on the
22nd day of February, 1996.
f , ANDREI{ MARIUS KNUD{ISEN, do hereby certify
that I have read the foregoing deposition and that the
same is a true and accurate transcript of uy testimony,
except for attached anendments, if any.
ANDREW IiI,ARIUS KNUDTSEN
( ) No changes ( ) Anendnents attached
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before ne this
day of , L996.
NOTARY PUBLIC
Address
My conmission expires
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, colorado (970) 949-4s2O
198
AI.{ENDI'IENT TO DEPOSfTfON
The deponent, ANDREI{ MARIUS KNUDTSEN, requests thatTthe
following changes be noted relating to thls deposition.
PAGE LINE SHOULD READ REASON
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
11
1,2
13
L4
l_5
16
L7
L8
1_9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
The signature
day of
Notary Fublic Signature
Notary Public Address:
Conmission Expires on:
candace Stutson Reporting
Deponent Signature
above was subscribed and sworn to before ne this
t19
Vail, Colorado (970) 949-4e20
COPY
1 DrSTRrqr CouRT, coItNEy oF EAGTJE, STATE OF COIORADO
2 Caae No. 95 C\r 362
N{ITA SALTZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
6
IODGE PROPERTfES, INC. t TOWN Otr' VAIL, a nunlcipal7 corporationi TO?IN COTNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAfLr and BoB
ARUOUR, SYBILL NAVAS, PAUL R. JOHNSTON, I'IARGARET A.I osrERFoss, KEvrN R. ForJEY, IitrcHAEL D. JEI{ETT and RoB FORD,as the Town Council of the Town of Vail ,
9
Defendants,
10
and
L1
LUANNE WELI,S,
L2
Plaintlff,
13
vs.
14
L,ODGE PROPERTIES, INC., and THE TOWN OF VAIL, COIj)RADO,L5 and its agents, in their official capacities, namely, iAS
TOI{N COIINCIL, TOWN IIANAGER, TOWN ATTORNEY, PIANNING At{D16 ENVIRONMENTAL COMLSSION, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, ANDY
KNUDTSEN' in his official capacity as senior pranner andL7 Zoning Adninistrator, and DAN SPANECK, in his officialeapacity as THE BUILDING ADI{INTSTRATOR,
18
Defendants.
19
20
2L February 22, Lgg6
22 Pursuant to Notice taken on behalf of the praintiff at75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado BL6S7, at to:1023 a.m., before Candace Stutson, Registered professional
Reporter and Notary Rrblic within Colorado.
24
25
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (97O, g4g-4g2|
1 APPE.ARANCES:
2 Al{N B. FRICK and LIA A. WOODALL, Attorneysat Law, fron the Iaw Firm of Jacobe Chase Frick Kleinkopf3 & Kelley, IJ,C, 1050 17th Street, Suite 1500, Denver,
Colorado 80265, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff
4 Luanne tlells.
5 ,IOHN W. DI'NN, Attorney at Law, froi the IawFirm of Dunn, Abplanalp & Christensen, p.C., 108 South6 Frontage Road West, Suite 300, VaLI, Colorado gL6S7,
appearing on behalf of the plal.ntiff Anita Saltz.
7
JAIIES S. BAIIJY, JR., and iIAy K. PETERSON,I Attoraeys at Law, fron the Law Fim of Bailey, Harring &Peterson, P.C., 1660 Lincoln Street, Suite 3LZS, Denver,9 Colorado 80254, appearing on behalf of the DefendantIodge Properties, fnc.
10
R. TllOllAS UOORIIEAD, Attorney at Iaw,11 75 South Frontage Road, Vail , Colorado gL6S7, appearing
on betralf of the Defendant Town of Vail .
L2
13
L4
t5
L5
L7
18
L9
20 --
2L
22
23
24
25.
Candace Stutson Reporting VaiI, Colorado (9ZO) g4g-492}
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
L1
L2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
1.9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
5
rr3
ITI2O
rIr11
III5
ITIS
IrI10
III13
IIIl6
rII14
III19
rrr17
III18
IIT2l
ITI23
INDEX
E)(AUTNATION OF A}IDRTW I{ARTUS NNUDtrSEN:
February 22, L996
By Us. Frick
By l,tr. Dunn
DEPOSITTON EXHIBITS:
PAGE
7, Lg3
189
INITIAL
REFERENCE
5
4L
46
46
date) 52
90
92
97
97
101
109
110
111
115
L23
Notice of Deposition and subpoena
Duces Tecum
6-13-83 PEC lleeting
2-LO-94 I€tter fron A. Knudtsen toJ. Reutzel
12-13-93 Letter from J. Reutzel toA. Knudtsen
Miscellaneous unsign€d degrrnents (no
10-11-93 DRB Application
11-L7-93 Handwritten Notes
L2-23-93 Handwritten Notes
L-6-94 Letter from A. I(nudtsen toJ. Peterson with Notes
L-4-94 Handwritten Notes
L-27-94 Handwritten Notes
L-7-94 Letter fron A. I(nudtsen toJ. Peterson
L-7-94 Letter from A. Ihudtsen toJ. Peterson vith Notes
3-2-94 Letter from J. Reutzel toT. lloorhead with Notes
L2-L2-94 lttemorandum fron A. Knudtsento B. l,lclaurin
candace stutson Reporting vail , colorado (970) g4g-4g2o
INDEX
(continued)
III34 5-2-95 Letter fron iI. Reutzel toA. KnudtEen
4 III35 5-3-95 DRB Ueeting
5 11136 Handwritten Notes
5 IIf 37 (c) 6-2L-95 DRB l{eeting Transcript
7 llI42 8-25-95 Letter from A. lorudtsento IJ. Fritzlen
8 IIf l 8-14-95 Ictter from L. Fritzlen to L649 A. Knudtgen
10 11156 10-16-95 Letter fron L. Fritzlen to L82A. Knudtsen
11 2 Three-Dimensional Drawing of Lodge Property 184
L2
3 Four Pages of Architectural Drawings 190
13 4 Ttro Pages of Architectural Drawings 191
L4
II1 epplication for Exterior Alterationa or 19315 Modifications in CCI
15 III55 10-16-95 Letter fron A. Knudtsen to
L. Fritzlen
L7
(Enclosed under separate cover.)
18
19
20 :-
L32
155
155
L57
163
2L
22
23
24
25
Candace StutEon Reporting Vail , Colorado (970) 949-4920
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
5
WIIEREUPON, the following proceedings nere
taken pursuant to the Colorado Rules of Civil procedure:
l,tR. UOORHEAD: We are appearing today by
agreenent. Dlr. IGrudtEen had been senred a notice of
deposition. That deposition llas to occur on t{ednesday,
February 21, L996, at the conclusLon of the deposition of
hrry Eskrrith or approxinately 3 p.n. Mr. IGrudtsen was
present at 3 p.n., and we have agreed to appear today.
US. FRICK: f will make a record on that as
well. Notice of the deposition, complete notice of the
deposition -- and f,lI nark it and enter it as an exhibit
to the record. We,ll have to copy lt later. Let ne find
it -- reads that the deposition of Andy Knudtsen in his
official capacity as senLor planning and zoning
adninistrator wilt be taken on Wednesday, February, 2L,
L996, at the conclusion of the deposition of Lawrence
A. Eskwith or approxinately 3 p.n., and continuing'
thereafter until completed, includLng the following day,
February 22, if necessary, which is today. Everyone
knows that Vail PaEs was closed yesterday naking it
inpossible for Counsel Jin Bailey as well as nyself to
appear in Vail and begin lrtr. EslcwLth,s deposition until
3:13 p.m, yesterday. The notice of deposition clearly
covers taking the deposition of Mr. Knudtsen today. I
also appreciate the fact that l,tr. Knudtsen is here. Are
Candace Stutson Reporting Vall, Colorado (97O1 e49-492O
6
1 you ready to begin?
2 MR. UOORIIEAD: yes. And we do believe we
3 are appearing by agreenent today. Thank you.
4 IitS. FRfCK: fncluding giving back the
5 witness check?
' 6 TIIE COIJRT REPORTER: Irm sorr-y. Coutd you
7 repeat that? frm sorry. I didnrt hear that.
I !lS. FRICK: Thatrs all right. I don,t care.
9 l.tR. UooRHEAD: No, no, no.
10 Tt{E COURT REPORTER: WeIl, I didn,t hear
11 what she said. So shers going to have to restate it.
L2 l.ls. FRICK: f donrt want it on the record.
13
L4
UR. UOORfiEAD: No, we want it on the record.
US. FRICK: I donrt care if itrs on the
l-5 record. Do you want it on the record?
15 UR. I.IOORHE,AD: I want it on the record.
L7 US. FRICK: All right. Make a record.
l-8 l.tR. UOORHEAD: please repeat your last
19 statement that you nade that the court,reporter indicated
20 that she could not understand.
2L Ms. FRfcK: you said that you are appearing
22 pursuant to agreenent. I said I appreclated that, that
23 Dlr. Ihudtsen was here, and you repeated you were
24 appearing by agreernent and r asked if you were returning
25 the witness check and thatrs my question.
candace stutson Reportlng VaJ.l, Colorado (97O, g4g-492}
7
1 liR. UOORBEAD: yes, ye are returning the
2 witness check.
3 US. FRfCK: Thank you.
4 I{IIEREUPoN, the followl_ng proceedings were
5 taken pursuant to the colorado Rules of civil pnocedure:
6 AIIDREI{ ITTARIUS KNUDTSEN,
7 having been first duly snorn to Etate the shole truth,
8 teEtLfied as follows:
E)iAUTNATTON
10 BY IIS. FRICK:
11 a. Would you state your name and spell your
L2 last name for the record.
13
L4
15 vaiL?
16
L7
l-8 entail?
A. Andrew Knudtsen, K-n-u-d-t-s-e-n.
A. What is your official title with the Towri of
A. At this tine, senior housing policy planner.
a. Okay. What do your general job duties
19 A. At this time, working with the town councJ.l ,
20 the Tolrrn staff on employee housing projects and issues.
2L O. Wtren did you become senior housing --
22 A. policy planner.
23 A. -- policy planner?
24 A. January L of L996.
25 O. What was your job title before ttrat?
Candace Stutson Reporting VaiI, Colorado (970) 94g-4g2}
1
2
3 Vail?
A. Senior planner.
A. And how long were you the senior planner of
4 A. f donrt recall when I got the promotion, to
5 tell you the truth. So f donrt know how nany months f
6 was the eenior planner.
7 Q. Fair to say that you were the senLor planner
8 of the Town of Vail for most of the year 1993 to ,95?
9 A. Yeah. I donrt renenber when I got the
10 promotion. It was --
11 A. Sonetine Ln that tine frane?
L2 A. Approxinately, yes.
13 O. tlhat was your position before you were
14 pronoted to senior planner?
15 A. Planner 2.
15 A. I{hen did you begin your Job as planner 2?
L7 A. June 5th, approxinately, 1990.
18 O. And vhat uas your Job previous to that?
19 A. I was vith the City of Boulder as a planner
20 there.
2L
22
23
24
25
A. And hos long were you a Boulder planner?
A. l\lo and a half years.
a. So fron about nid ,87?
A. Yes.
a. Okay. And what was your job before being a
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (9701 g4g-4g}O
1 planner in Boulder?
A. Iwasaetudent.
3 Q. And where were you a Etudent?
4 A. University of Colorado in Boulder.
5 Q. And what kind of degrees do you have?
6 A. Bachelors of Environnental Design.
7 e. Dtat you have a concentration in land use
8 planning?
9
10
11
A. Yes.
a. Do you lrave any other fomal education?
A. No.
L2 a. Okay. What did you review in preparation
13 for this deposition?
L4 A. The file that I put memos and various
15 infornation in as I reviewed the project.
16 O. And is that fite part of the certified
. L7 record of this case?
18 A. f believe so, yes.
19 a. Do you believe your entire file, indeed, has
20 been nade a part of the certified record of this case?
2L A. I believe so.
22 a. Okay. Did your file Lnclude the record of
23 town council consideration of the 1993 agreenent with
24 Lodge properties Inb.?
25 A. Irm sorry?
candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (97O, g4g-4g2}
10
1 Q, Did your file include the record of the town
2 council ,s consideration of the 1983 agreenent with Iodge
3 Properties Inc.? And frll tell you that that included
4 transcript of the town council work session in July of
5 ,83, transcript of the town council neeting in Augrust of
6 '83, and a copy of the 1983 agreenent.
7 A. Okay. I know that the file does include a
8 town council review of the proJect in sonetime of
9 December of 1995 becauEe thatrs when I presented to town
LO council the actionE of the design review board. They had
11 been appealed. Other than tlrat, lrm not very faniliar
L2 with the town council involvenent in the project.
13 A. Did your -- okay. Did your file include a
L4 copy of the 1983 agreement with Iodge properties Inc.,
15 and the Towrt of VaiI?
16 A. yes.
L7 A. I{tratrs the origination of your file? I{as it
l-8 that you started anassing the naterials as you started to
19 nork on this issue?
20 - A. I think the very first thing in there is the
2L application. That,s the first botton part of the file.
22 a. Okay. A couple of instructions. I can tell
23 that you know my guestion before Irve conpleted it and
24 you are almost ready to start answering before frve
25 completed lt and the court reporter canrt take down both
Candace Stutson Reportlng Vail , Colorado (970) g4g-492}
11
1 of us.
2 A. Okay.
3 e. We havenrt gotten to tbat point yet, but I
4 think werre getting close.
5 A. Okay.
6 e. Atl right? so if you would, just try to
7 vait until frm --
I A. Okay.
9 e complete with ny guestion. lly question
10 was, thougrh, Did you begin to put your file together as
11 you began to work on thLs matter?
L2 A. When the -- after the application was made,
L3 the file, f started working on the project.
L4 a. AII right. And the application that you are
15 talking about is the application for exterior
16 aLterations?
L7 A. No.
18 a. No. Itrs the application to the DRB for DRB
19 approval .
20 ;- A. The DRB application, yes.
2L A. Okay. Now, did your file also contain the
22 record of planning and environrnental conmission, pEC
23 consideration of the rodge's application for exterior
24 alterations?
A. As a reference, yes.
candace stutson Reporting vail , colorado (9zo) g4g-4g2o
25
L2
1 Q. you Eot those materlals for your reference
2 and put them in your file?
3 A. Yes.
4 A. Okay. And dtal your fLle then contaln all
5 the naterials that are deslgnated in the index of the
' 6 certified record aE record of desigm review board
? consideration of the Iodgers application submitted? Did
8 your file, then, include all of the materials that are
9 deslgmated in this certified record in this case as the
10 record of the deslgm revLew board --
11 A. Okay.
L2 O. -- coneideratl.on of the Lodgers appllcation?
13 A. And are you talking about --
L4 a. Right.
15 A. -- this infomation here?
16 o. Right.
. L7 A. Page for pa9e, Irm not sure that every page
18 got copied, but the substance of the DRB action got
19 copied into the certified record.
20 -- A. Okay. .Did your file contain sone of the
2L supplenental docunents that becane a part of the
22 certified record in this case at the reguest of the
23 plaintiffs? For exanple, did your file include a Uay 17,
24 1983, analysis of potential for additional hotel roons?
25 ltR. UOORI|EAD: f rn going to instruct the
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (97O, g4g-4g2}
13
I witness if you are not clear about the description, ask
2 Xo see the document.
3 A. That would be very helpful to see It, see
4 the document.
5 Q. (BY tls. FRfCK) Okay. Ict,s see. Do you
6 recall if your file contained that docunent?
7 ltR. UOORnEAD: Does that have an
8 identification nunber on lt?
9 !tS. FRICK: In the certified record itrs
10 identified as v2
11
,L2
MR. IIoORHE,AD: Thank you.
A. This does not look faniliar.
13 a. (By I{S. FRfCK) Okay. Did your file contain
L4 any of the clocrrrnents from the 1993 planning and
L5 environmental cornrnissLon review of this issue?
16 A. Do you have then handy, the ones that you
L7 have in nind?
O. lfell, there is -- I think it,s the
19 nemorandum fron Jay peterson to Mr. Eskwith, which is I
20 think lrai a document maybe marked yesterday.
2L ' lrtR. UoORHEAD: What did you describe that
22 as?
23 !!S. FRrCK: Itrs designated in the certified
24 record index as something of the record of the pEC
25 consideration.
18
Candace Stutson Reporting VaiI, Colorado (9ZO) g4g-4g2}
.14
r. UR. UOORIIEAD: Okay.
2 US. FRICK: Okay.
3 llR. UOORflEAD: I thought you had said desigm
4 review board.
5 us. FRfCKs Oh, I thought I said pbc.
6 Q. (BY US. FRICK) Diat your file contain this,
7 for exanple, this nemorandum?
8 l,lR. UOORHEADs l{hatrs the desigmation on
9 that?
10 !lS. ERICK: It's rI2.
11 A. Yes.
L2 O. (BY ilS. FRICK) Okay. you brought your fite
13 with you?
L4 A. Yes.
15 a. Okay. So at the break you will 1et me have
1-5 an opportunity to look through it?
L7 A. (The deponent nodded head affirnatively.)
1.8 O. Okay. So, in sum, it sounds like you
L9 believe that your flle contained a large part, if not all
20 of the docunents put in the certified record with respect
2L to what the DRB revl,ewed and for your reference a large
22 part of what the PEC reviewed?
23 A. Let ne just rephrase that to make sure werre
24 clear. It includes my -- now, I havenrt -- let me just
25 tell you that my file includes aLl the details with
Candace Stutson Reporting VaiI, Colorado (9ZO) 949-4920
15
1 respect to the DRB review that waE started r believe in
2 L993 and finished in 1998.
3 e. okay.
4 A. So ny flle lncludes everlrthing on that.
5 What references to the earlier pEC review, frn not sure
' 6 how thorough that is. lfe did bring out sone of the
7 docunents fron the previous file just to verify to
8 interested neighbors, things like ttrat, that, yes, there
9 was -- they had made the previous -- they had been
1.0 through the process and that it was appropriate for then
11 to go to DRB. So we had pulled out sone of the
L2 information fron the previous record. How thorough that
l-3 is, thatrs sonething frm not sure about.
L4 a. Okay.
l-5 A. And again, f nant to make sure that that
l-6 references whatrs in ny file.
L7 O. I understand.
t-g A. Okay.
l-9 a. There lras, then, a previous file on this
20 matter of the International Wing development?
2L A. WeIl, we have a drawer in cornmunity
22 development and r would say the rodge takes up about 30
23 inches, approxinately 3O inches of file drawer space,
24 including r know for a fact that when the l{ildfrower
25 restaurant wanted to expand its deck area fron
candace Stutson Repofr,ing Vail, Co,lorado (970) g4g-4g}O
, 16,
1 approxinately 12 tables to 24 tables, f took that through
2 the process and put the record in that flle. So we have
3 everryrthing, the sigms, decks, patios, restaurant tables
4 Ln that file.
5 Q. Everyrthing concernlng the Iodge, and it
6 could be things like you gave the exanple that are in
7 addition to the International Wing?
8 A, Right, rLght, rlght.
9 Q. Okay. Did you sork sith Tom lrloorhead in
10 pulling the documents frou that flle that would be part
11 of the certified record in this case?
L2 A. f allal not work with Ton Moorhead when I
L3 pulled the documents out of the file drawer in comnunity
L4 development and nade them part of ny flle.
l-s O. f understand. In terms of naking the file
1.6 for the certified record ln this lawsuit --
L7 A. Right.
18 a did you assist Ton Moorhead in any uay or
19 anybody else?
20 . A. No, no.
2L O. Do you know who did?
22 A. Ton and I believe our town clerk were very
23 \l-nvolved in putting that together.
24 O. Okay. Do you know who was the senior
25 planner in the Town of Vall in 1983, specifically the
Candace Stutson Reporting VaiI , Colorado (9ZO) g4g-492}
L7
1 spring and sunmer of 1983?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Is there a record kept of the Town employees
4 such as that?
5 A. I would assune personnel keeps records of
6 forner employees.
7 Q. Okay. Do you know sho was the director of
8 conmunity developnent Ln that tine frane, the spring and
9 summer of 1983?
LO A. No.
11 A. Now, in preparation for your deposition you
L2 reviewed your filer iE that right?
13 A. Un-hun.
1,4 O. That you brought today?
L5 A. Yes, yes.
L6 O. Okay. Did you review any other documents?
L7 A. No.
18 A. Did you neet with anybody?
L9 A. No.
20 - O. Did you neet with Ur. Uoorhead?
2L A. t{e talked, but we dLdnrt review the
22 infornation or anlthing.
23 A. Okay. And did you discuss lt with anybody
24 else?
25 A. No.
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (97O) 949-4g2O
18
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
A. Okay. Since this laweuit has been filed,
have you discussed the fnternatlonal l{ing with anybody?
I will. Eive you the date. I€trs aay Decenber 29, 1995.
A. Decenber 29, L995? Have I discussed this
project wLth anyone?
a. Yes.
A. Yea.
O. With whon?
A. You and you and Ton and --
O. Anybody else?
A. -- Susan Connelly. Thatrs really about it.
A. What did you -- what was the substance of
your conversation wLth Susan Connelly?
A. Scheduling, tine constraints, my abllity to
work on housing relative to ny abtlity to work on thLs.
O. At any tine before the lawsuit was filed did
you.discuss with anybody outside of formal pEc or DRB
neetings or town council meetings -- excluding those for
the moment. We,lI get to those -- dld. you have
discussions with anybody regarding the issue of the
International lfing developnent?
A. Are you asking who f talked to as part of
the DRB review?
O. Right.
A. Yes.
Candace Stutson neportlng Vail , Colorado (9ZO) g4g-4920
19
l_
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
l_3
L4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
A. Several people?
A. Yes.
A. I{ho did you talk to?
A. Well, I know -- frn trying to think of the
most helpfut way to talk about or help you with. the
answer to the question. Any significant conversation
tbat I held is in the file. I nean, certainty, I mean, f
talked to -- and I donrt know that I could give you a
conplete list of everyone I talked to about the project.
A. Why donrt you tell me who you recall tatking
to.
A. Lynn Fritzlen would be one person.
a. Anybody else?
A. Irlike llollica.
A. Who is Uike uollica?
A. He is one of the planners in conmunity
developnent.
A. Was he the staff planner prinarily in charge
of the work for deslgn review board on the International
Wing developnent?
A. No.
a. Was that you?
A. Yes.
a. Okay. Mike Mollica assisted you?
A. Yes. Aseisted wouldnrt be exactly the rigtrt
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (e7o, e4e-4e2o
20
1 word. He is the assiEtant director of connunity
2 development and oversees staff as they work on their DRB
3 applications.
4 Q. fe he your boss?
5 A. No: Susan iE who I report to.
6 Q. Did you talk wlth her?
7 A. About the InternatLonal t{ing? f canrt -- I
8 don't renenber convereatl.onE wLth Su6an, to tell you the
9 truth.
10 A. Okay. l{ho else besides Lynn Fritzlen and
11 Mike Mollica that you can recall?
L2 A. f Dean, f can,t even really recall any
13 converaations, to tell you the truth.
14 O. Okay. l{hen you were the senior planner
15 beginning -- wait. lfhen did you tell me that? Beginning
16 1990?
. L7 A. I was a Planner 2 hired by the Town cif ValI
1.8 in June of 1990.
19 a. ,fune of 1990.
20 - A. Right.
2L O. And you donrt --
22 A. See, I donrt renenber when --
23 TttE COURT REPORTER: Irn sorry. Can you
24 speak one at a tirne, please? I didnrt get your question,
25 Ann.
Candace Stutson Reporting VaLl, colorado (9701 949-4920
..-
2L
I Q. (BY US. FRfCK) You don,t recall exactly
2 your date of your pronotion?
3 A. That,s correct.
4 Q. Well , when you were a planner or perhaps the
5 senior planner in 1993, ,94, ,95, what were your job
5 duties?
7 A. current planning and special projects.
I Q. What did that entail when you say current
9 planning?
10 A. current plannl-ng? Current planning is
11 taking applications through the public review process.
L2 a. What kinds of applications?
13 A. Design review, for example.
L4 A. Any others?
15 A. PEC would be the other type.
L6 a. When you take a PEC application through the
L7 public process, what do you do?
18 A. Public review process? Actually, public
19 review process is -- an overvl-ew of it is that an
20 alplication is subriitted, we review the file, and then we
2L present it to the applicable board, and it just depends
22 on the conplexity of the project which board it is that
23 we're presenting it to.
24 O. Okay. So ltrs fair to say, then, that when
25 you say rrwer tr yourre talking about the staff?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (920) 949-4920
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
14
15
L5
L7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
A. Yes.
a. The plannlng staff?
A. Yes.
A. The planning staff reviews an applicatl-on?
A. Um-hun.
a. And nakeg a reconnendatl.on to the applicable
board; is that right?
A. Right, nakes presentation to the applicable
board.
A. okay. I{hat is the revien that en(ai$thFt
the planning staff goes through with respect to a pEC
application?
A. PEC apptication? PEC appll-cations vary. I
mean, there's a nultitude of tlpes of PEC applications.
For example, a Eetback, front setback variance, that
would be subuitted, we would review it, we uould evaluate
it, we would dake a.reponnendati.on in ttrat case, and lre
would present it to the board with a recornnendation.
A. Okay. If someone, if a property owner was
planning to expand their existing developnent, would they
subnit a PEC apptication for that?
A. It would depend on the
were located in.
O. Let,s assume CCI .
A. CCl? They nould nake,
zone district they
if they wanted to do
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (970) 949-4920
23
1 a conmercial ocpansion Ln Ccl, they would subnit an
2 exterior alteration reviev, exterior alteration
3 application.
4 O. What about a resLdentiat project?
5 A. That would be a desigm review application
6 because ve regulate floor area and it has to be Eubnltted
7 and se take reeldentl-al apptlcations to the design review
I board.
O. For floor area asseaanent?
10 A. No, for aesthetic review.
11 A. Okay. l{hat do you call the International
L2 Wing developnent? Do you call that coumercial or
13 residential?
A. It's a rnixed use proJect.
A. And where would an -- yhat sould be the
l-6 review process for a nixed use developnent like that?
L7 A. Pardon ne?
18 UR. MOORHEAD: f'n going to object to the
19 extent that the International Wing has al.ready gone
20 through the process, and f think that any other
2L discussion other than what process it has gone through
22 and what approvals it has received could involve
23 speculation. And for that reason I will object and
24 advise the witness not to speculate but to answer from
25 your knowledge
L4
15
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (970) 949-4920
,24
1 IrtS. FRICK: Okay. And I uould like to nake
2 a record on this broadly and excessively used speculation
3 objection. Can you find for ne where in the Colorado
4 RuleE of Civil Procedure or the local rules regarding
5 discovery that an objection to speculation is a proper
6 objection?
UR. IIOORIIE.AD: I think that the wLtness is
I here to testify as to his knowledge, and itrs
9 inappropriate to lngulre of any witnesE on any area of
l-o speculation or giueas. You,re not suggesting that a
L1 witness is to swear under oath as to guesstimates or
L2 speculation or antrthing of that nature, are you?
13 l{S. FRICK: I an certainly suggesting that
L4 sometines speculation often leads to discoverable
15 infornation. The Federal Ru1es nake it explicit that in
16 Federal District Court of Colorado you are not entitled
L7 to .instruct a witness not to speculate. frm not asking
L8 the witness to speculate. frm asking the witness about
L9 the procedures and policies that are tlpically followed
20 and in place within his departnent. Thatrs a very
2L appropriate line of discovery guestioning, and thatrs the
22 question.
23 I'tR. IIOORHEAD: I think the guestion was
24 directed to a particular proJect, the International Wing.
25 The guestions up to thiE were in general . And this
Candace Stutson Reporting VaiI , Colorado (970) 949-4920
25
1 questLon, ar I recollect the guestion, was in regard to
2 the International I{1n9.
3 l,ts. FRfCK: Okay. I uas --
4 ltR. I|OORHEAD: The International l{ing has
5 gone through a partLcular procedure.. I think {t's very
6 appropriate for you to lnguire ag to thie witness's
7 knowledge aE to that procedure. I think Lt's very
8 inappropriate to ask this witness to speculate as to shat
9 other procesaes could or should have gone into or thinqs
10 of that nature.
11 !tS. FRICK: I'n not asking hin to speculate.
L2 lflry don't you listen to the guestion and then you can
13 make your deternlnatlon whether you are instructing the
L4 witness not to ansuer or not. AIl right?
15 UR. MOORHEAD: That'e what f did.
16 US. FRfCK: You are instructing hin not to
L7 answer ny question?
18 UR. HOORfiEAD: No, no. I instructed the
1.9 witness to answer fron hls own knowledge and not to
20 speculate.
l,ts. FRICK: I'n not asking hin to speculate.
tlR. UOORHEAD: Okay.
O. (BY I'tS. FRICK) glith respect to a nixed use --
21
22
23
24 liR. MOORHEAD: So you would agree that he
25 shouldn't answer --
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (970) 949-4920
26
1 D!S. FRICK: No.
2 l{R. UOORHEAD: -- a gueation that is
3 speculation?
4 lls. FRICK: No, Irm not agreeing with that.
s UR. UOORIIEAD: Okay.
6 US. FRICK: ThatrE not an appropriate
7 obJection, and Irn happy to take that up with the judge
I if I determine that itrs neceasary to take it up slth the
9 judge.
10 A. (BY US. FRICK) t{ith respeet to a nixed use
11 proJect such as the International Wing, sonething like
L2 that where you have nixed conmercial and residential ," you
l-3 define that as a mixed use project, what would be the.
L4 process for public review that the developer would go
L5 through in the Town of Vail?
16 UR. BAILEY: I,n going to object because the
. L'7 question does not have any tine defined, unless you are
Lg relating to the tine when it went through, and then I
19 think you need to establish a foundation that this
20 witness had sone involvenent or knowledge of what the
2L process was in 1983.
22 ltS. FRICK: Okay.
23 a. (BY !,tS. FRICK) I,n asking you for the time
24 period that you were a planner in Vail .
25 A. For 1995 an addition of 1OO square feet, for
Candace Stutson neporting Vail , Colorado (97O, 949-4920
27
1 example, reguirea a board review.
2 Q. Wtrat board?
3 A. It depends on -- I'u trying to think. I
4 dott': -- I would need to look at the code --
5 Q. okay.
6 A. -- to figrure out what the 1995 or 1996
7 atandardE are for dl.fferent slze additions and different
I tlpes of additions.
9 Q. Tlpically, though, the process is that, as
10 you etated earlier, that etaff reviews an application
11 whether Lt's an appll,cation for a PEC approval or an
L2 applicatlon for DRB approval , and then the staff nakes
13 the presentation to the appropriate board, correct?
L4 ltR. l.looRHEN): f rm going to object to use of
15 the term tlpically. I think it is vagrue and I thtnk it
16 can be nisleading.
L7 O. (BY l.ls. FRICK) You may anEwer the question.
18 Is that correct?
19 A. The staff -- the staff makes presentations
20 tb boards to make eure they understand projects.
2L A. A11 right. So lf I was a developer and Ln
22 1995 I wanted to come fonard with a development, I would
23 subnit an application and lf it was residential it would
24 be DRB and I would subnit it to the planning staff; is
25 that right?
Candace Stutson neporting Vail , Colorado (920) 949-4920
2A
1 llR. I.IOORIIEAD: Objectlon as to the
2 vagueneEa. If you were a developer and if you were
3 presenting a project, I believe he would have an
4 application in front of hin that would allow for proper
5 evaluation. I think it,s vague and the answer would be
6 misleading.
7 ItS. FRICK: Your objection is noted.
I Q. (BY US. rRICK) You may answer.
9 A. VaiI obviously is Vail and we regulate
10 everything. For example, a cappuccino cart takes a
11 certain regrulation, painting the trin on your windows
L2 takes a certain application and review procesEt, signs or
13 anything, graphics, painting, on down the line, and each
L4 one is taLlored to different review process and different
15 boards and different analysis by staff. So it really --
15 O. In each one there is an analysis by the
L7 planning staff?
1.8 A. Yes.
19 A. Yes?
20 - A. Yes.
2L a. Okay. And then it goes fron the planning
22 staff to the appropriate board?
23 A. Not necessarily. Again --
24 O. Where would it go?
25 A. Sometimes the planning staff makes the
Candace stutaon neporting Vail , colorado (9ZO) 949-4920
29
1 decision.
2 O. Okay. Iloes the planning staff -- when you
3 say sometiues the planning staff nakes the decision, does
4 tlre planning staff review, with respect to a proposed
5 residential ocpansion, does ttte planning staff revLew the
6 conpliance wlth the existing zonlng ordinances at th€
7 tLne?
8
,9
ItR. IIOORHEAD: ObJection. At what tine?
l.ls. ERICK: At the time of the -- f will
10 rephrase the question.
11 a. (By l.lSl. FRICK) At the tiue that an
L2 application for a residential orpansion is submitted,
13 does the staff revLew that application for conpliance
L4 with the then existing zonLng ordinances?
15 A. lfhen an application is subnitted to the Town
15 of VaiI , the staff reviews the application for conpliance
' L7 with zoning.
O. And what does the review for compliance with18
L9 zoning entail? t{hat doeE it cover?
20 A. Againr' it depends on the application. For
2L example, a color change is one of our most basic
22 reguests. Signs are slightly more conplicated.
23 a. How about a residential expansion, adding
24 units?
25 A. Okay. Residential expansion? Residentl-al
'candace Stutson neporting Vail, Colorado (970) 949-4920
30
I floor area?
O. Right.
A. We would refer to our zone cheek sheet.
4 Q. okay. And what does your zone check sheet
5 include?
6 A. It night be easiest to just nake a reference
'7 to it. I know that it ie in the certified record.
I Q. Okay. One of the things that a zone check
9 covers is an analysis of compJ.iance with GRFAT is that
10 right?
11 A. That is correct.
L2 O. And it includes an analysis of conpliance
13 with density; is that right?
L4 A. Yes.
15 a. okay.
l-5 A. It,s one and the same really.
L7 A. Wel.l, why don,t you define for De what GRFA
18 is.
19 A. GRFA is gross residential floor area.
20 - a. And how is it measured?
2L A. I would definitely refer you back to the
22 zoning code on that because that,s how the Town defines
23 GRFA.
24 A. Okay. Ancl once you,ve measured the GRFA, do
25 you compare it to anything?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (9ZO) 949-4920
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
l3
14
15
16
L7
18
1.9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
A. No.
O. Do you Dake --
A. I'rn not sure I understand your guestion.
A. WeIl, once you have neasured what the GRFA
iE of a proposed developnent, then do you also neasure
what the existing GRFA is on the site on shich the
proposed developnent Ls to be added?
ItR. UOORHEAD: ObJection as to tlre vagueness
of the question. Anawer if you understand it.
A. L€t ne Just try to answer your
saying tbat the staff Deasurea the GRFA of
A. (BY US. FRICK) Okay. Assume
proposal to add 12 residential condoniniums
say, the Christiania. Ilhat would staff do?
neasuring when you are Deasuring the GnfA?
A. I could show you on the naterial
of the record.
guestion by
a proposal .
I have a
to, let's
I{trat are you
that's part
}lR. BAfLEY: Ann, I want to enter an
objection insofar as these questions are about the
application of the loalge Properties Inc., tt the onn,
because f think that there is no appropriate discovery
unless you are attacking the conpleteness of the record
on a 105A4 revlew and that is the only revJ.ew that your
compliant is entitled to of the DRB action.
lits. FRICK: Your objection iE noted. I
Candace Stutson neporting Vail, Colorado (970) 949-4920
32
1 disagree sith it. This is relevant to that issue. Itrs
2 also relevant to the issues of the prelininary
3 injunction.
4 l[R. BAIL,,EY: Well, I have --
5 Q. (By US. FRICK) fsnrt the neasurement of the
. 6 GRFA --
7 IrlR. BAIIJEY: Just a nonent. I will also
8 object that it has no relevance to her prelininary
9 injunction notion since that is siuply a pretextural
10 filing in an attenpt to get around the linitations on
LL zoning reviews and doesnrt state a clain upon which
L2 relief in this case is entitled to be granted.
13 l.tS. FRICK: Ur. Bailey, Irm sure you will
L4 take that up in a brief with the Court. An objection on
15 relevance is not an appropriate objection in a discovery
16 deposition. f will continue.
- L7 uR. BAII,EY: Irls. Frick, f rD trying very hard
18 to be courteous to you and Irm trying very hard to
19 accomnodate you on this deposition without having sought
20 a- protective order .and I worked very hard to try to agree
2L to some linited discovery, but if you think I,n goLng to
22 sit here and listen to you roan all over the place on a
23 case where I donrt think you are entitled to any
24 discovery, you are aadly mistaken.
25 uS. FRICK: I will continue with ny
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9ZO) 949-4920
.33
1 ateposition, Ur. Bailey.
2 lm. BAU,EYs Well, thank you, !ls. Frick. I
3 hope you do.
4 Q. (By US. FRICK) Does GRFA neasure the ratio
5 of the existlng and propoEed floor area, proposed for ttre
6 development, to shat is the allowable GRFA for that
7 existing site?
8 uR. IiIOORHEAD: f ,n going to object. I
9 believe that the queetl.on has previously been asked and
10 the witness referred you to the code.
11 Irts. FRICK: I believe he said he could show
L2 ne, and f'n asking hin before I try to have him show me
13 if he can answer that gueetion.
L4 A. (By l{S. FRICK) If you can't answer that,
15 Andy, fine.
15 A. Okay. It would be best --
L7 A. If you can answer it, answer it.
L8 A. It would really be best to just -- I could
19 show you in the zoning code all of the standards and that
20 wbuld be the clearest.
2L A. Okay.
22 US. FRfCK: Do we have the zoning code?
23 Let's do that.
24 I'Is. WOODALL: I think we do.
25 A. (BY MS. FRICK) I mean, yourre naking it a
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (970) g4g-4g2}
34
1 lot more difficult for yourself.
l.lR. PETERSON: You don,t understand GRFA.
Us. FRICK: f'n asking hin what it is.
4 I.lR. PETERSON: I{ell , look at the code,
5 because it,s going to take hin four hours to explain it
6 to you. I,ve been trylng to learn it for 23 years.
7 lqs. FRICK: I{hile shers looking for it, f rll
8 go on.
9 Q. (BY US. FRICK) You sald that the zone check
L0 alEo analyzed density. $lhatrs the difference between
11 density and GRFA?
L2 A. Density ls dwelling units. GRFA Ls floor
13 area. Ann, if I could just point sonething out. cRFA l-s
L4 really conplicated, and I hrould hate to overlook a
15 certain aspect of the code on GRFA. I nean, f regrularly
16 refer back to the code as I do zone checks because, you
know, you have'like five hiqhliqhters and, you knori, each
18 room has a different color.
L9 A. WelJ., naybe we,Il get it explained later.
20 That,s okay.
2L A. Okay.
22 O. Nos, after the staff has gone through the
23 zone check, which includes among other itens the GRFA and
24 the density, I take it then the staff presents its
25 evaluation of that zone check to the appropriate board;
candace Stutson Reporting VaiI , Colorado (9ZO) g4g-492}
,35
1 is that right?
2 A. The DRB revlews aeathetlcs, and once a
3 proJect is scheduled for a final DRB, the DRB then Doves
4 into the way lt's golng to look. Itre DRB does not look
5 at nunbers.
6 Q. l{hat board, then, after you have done a zone
7 check, what board do you take the zone check to?
8 A. No board reviews nunbers.
9 Q. Okay. If you've done your zone check and
10 deter:mined that a proposed project, my example of my
11 proposed e:qransion at the Christiania, does not comply
L2 wLth the exiatlng denslty and/or GRFA ordinances, vhat do
13 you do?
L4 A. For exanple, if the DRB, if we had a DRB
15 application for an expansion and it did not conplyr rr€
16 would not schedule it for the hearing.
L7 O. So the staff would not schedule it?
18 A. Right.
19 a. After you've made this evaluation that it
20 did not conply with density or GRFA, what, do you inform
2l the proposed developer of the noncompliance?
22 A. Yes, yes.
23 A. And then ls the proposed developer, if he
24 wants to continue with the development, forced to go
25 through some other avenue?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (97O, 949-4920
36
1 l[R. l{ooRHEAD: Objectlon. Speculative. Go
2 ahead, if you can answer fron your own knowledge.
3 A. From a -- in the case of an applicant who
4 upon receiving the letter or phone call, one or the other
5 fron us -- ne try to work with the people -- they would
6 nodify theLr proposal .
7 O. (BY US. FRICK) Now, you said DRB, a
I nonconpliance with GRFA or the density, the staff sould
9 tell the developer and it would not go fotsrard, the
10 application would not be presented to DRB. t{trat about
11 with respect to PEC? If the application waEi a PEC
L2 application, a connercl-al one, and it did not conply with
L3 the densLty or the GRFA, does staff also then not present
L4 it forward to the PEC?
15 A. When an application is Echeduled at a
16 hearing, it is in confornance.
L7 A. .It,s already in conformance? The analysis
L8 has been done?
19 A. Um-hum.
20 '- O. In your review of the previous file that was
2L done on the International Wing -- when f say previous
22 file, previous to your involvenent -- did you ever see in
23 that file any analysis of density for the proposed
24 International l{ing development, any zone check?
25 A. I saw -- I mean, I donrt know that they were
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (9ZO) 949-4920
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
L6
L7
t8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
,37
using the same fornat we use. And f would like to point
out that in the record there,s a legal sheet with single
spaces on down the llne indicatinE the various aspects of
the zoning code, and I don't Xnow if they used that
format at the tine.
A. You don't -- okay. So you didn't -- but you
don't recall having seen the zone check fomat that you
had been using in the previous International l{ing
developnent, correct?
A. The zone check fomat that we used, ve used
in 1995, was not in the records that I looked through.
a. Okay. In the records that you looked for of
the previouE file of the Internationat lling, did you see
any notation, any meuorandu.ur any documentation at all
that would reference that a density analysis or a GRFA
analysis had been nade?
A. I saw. discussion, but I don,t know.
a. No cal.culations?
A. In soDe instances, y€S.
A, AII right. I{trat did you see? What
l-nstances?
A. f can't recall specifically and I don,t
think it was information ultinately. I think I just
skinmed it and left it in the file and didnrt bother with
it.
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (970) e4e-4e20
38
1 Q. Well, did you see -- do you recall actually
2 seeing an analysie of what the proposed density was and
3 what the existing density ras?
4 A. For?
5 Q. For the International l{ing developnent.
6 A. For the International l{ing? A discussion of
7 that.
I Q. Okay. l{tren you say dLscussLon of that, what
9 in addition to tlre Jay Peterson neno do you recaLl having
10 any discussion of the density?
l-1 A. I{ell --
L2 UR. UooRHEAD: Excuse me. Are you assuning
L3 that he saw the Jay Peterson memo?
L4
15
t_5
US. FRfCK: He told ne he did.
ItR. UOORHEAD: okay.
Us. ERICK: I established that.
' L7 ilR. UoORHEAD: Okay, fine.
L8 A. The specific nunbers that Irn thinking of,
19 I'm not sure they apply to the International Wing.
20 - a. (BY MS. FRICK) What nunbers are you
2L thinking of?
22 A. The zone check and analysis relating to
23 various other expansions in the lodge.
24 a. Oh, like the --
25 A. And Irn talking about the t{ildfLower
candace Stutson Reporting Vail, colorado (920) 949-4920
39
1 restaurant.
2 Q l{ild Rose restaurant? l{ildflower
3 restaurant. Excuse me. A11 right. So you don't recall
4 seeing in that file a zone elreck tlpe of analysis done
5 for the proposed InternatLonal Wlng prior to your
5 involvement?
7 A. l{hat I -- f did not -- I did not see
8 sonething that reflects the work we do today Ln the file.
9 Q. Okay. Again --
10 A. And if I could ehow it to you, I think it
11 would clearly shor how clean and concise and sr"nrnarizing
L2 the work we do today ls, and I did not see that.
13 O. All right. In addition to not seeing the
L4 clean and concise work you do today, my question waE, You
15 didn't see any other actual nunbered analysis, nunberE
l-6 analysis of density of the proposed International !{ing in
L7 that previous file, correct?
1.8 A. I didn,t see anything similar to that we use
19 today.
20 1- a. AIt right. Thank you. How did you first
2L becone aware of the International Wing?
22 A. I believe we sere sitting in a staff neeting
23 after a DRB application had been submitted.
24 a. what did you do upon becoming aware of the
25 DRB application?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9?0) 949-4920
40
A. Started to reviev the file.
2 Q. This is this previous file that you are
3 talking about?
4 A. No. Stafted to.review the application that
5 was nade in 1993, I believe.
6 Q. All right. Thatrs ttre October 1993 DRB
7 application?
I A. (The deponent nodded head affirmatively. )
9 TI|E COURT REPORTER: Is that yes?
10 THE DEPONENT: Yes.
11 A. (BY US. FRICK) She canrt take down nods.
L2 And were you the person designated to be prinarily
13 responsible on behalf of the planning staff for the
14 review of that application?
L5 A. Yes.
16 a. What did you understand were the issues and
L7 concerns regarding the International Wing developn€nt at
18 that tine?
19 A. we needed to have a conplete application in
20 order to schedule it for DRB.
2L a. And uhat was not included in the application
22 at the tine? What sas inconplete about it?
23 A. I believe therers a letter dated
24 approximately;Ianuary 4, flrst part of January of 1994,
25 that delineates all of the various aspects of the
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9?0) 949-4920
41
1 applicatlon that needed to be augmented.
2 llR. BAU.EY: itanuary vhat?
3 TIrE DEPOI|ENT: Early itanuary 1994.
4 Q. (By l.tS. FRICK) l{hen dld you first become
5 aware of the 1983 contraet?
6 A. 1983 contract?
7 Q. Betreen the Clty and the Toun of Vail
8 regarding the International l{lng.
9 ltR. llOORllEN): If you are referring to a
10 specific docnnent and if you want to make certain that
11 you underetand vhat docunent Ls beJ.ng aslced for, it,s
L2 appropriate for you to aek to eee it.
13 THE DEPONENT: Tlrank you.
14 A. I would like to Just verify.
l-s A. (BY us. rRIcK) okay.
16 (Discussion off the record.)
L'l (Exhibit II3 was narked. )
18 O. (BY I.tS. FRICK) Do you want ue to call you
19 Andy or ltr. Knudtsen?
20 - A. Andy i's fine.
2L A. Okay. hdy, you,re looking at an exhibit
22 narked to be consistent with the nonenclature used in the
23 certified record as II3, and that ls a copy of the
24 Augrust 9, 1983, agreenent between the Town of Vail and
25 Lodge Properties Inc., correct?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (970) 949-4920
42
A. Correct.
2 Q. I{hen did you first become aware of that
3 contract?
4 A. I saw this document after Jay Peterson
5 subnitted it.
O. To you for your review?
A. Yes.
I
9 correct?
10
O. You had, in fact, asked ilay Peterson for it,
A. I believe that,s in one of those itens in
11 tbat letter dated early January 1994.
L2 a. It is.
13 A. Okay.
L4 A. In fact, you asked for a signed copy of it.
15 Had you seen an unsigned copy of it in this previous file
16 that the conmunity developnent office had on the
L7 International Wing?
18 A. I don,t recall. I know that in my files
19 right now I have an unsigned and a signed version.
20 - a. Where did you get the unsigned version?
2L A. f rn not sure. Irn not sure.
22 O. So you got the signed version from Jay
23 Peterson at your request?
24 A. (The deponent nodded head affirnatively.)
25 THE COI'RT REPORTER: IS thAt YES?
Candace Stutson neporting Vail , Colorado (9ZO) g4g-492'
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
t9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
TITE DEP('NENT: YES.
A. (BY uti. FRrcK) okay.
ask for lt?
ttos did you knor to
A. we were -- we had received questions from
the neighbors as to verLfylng tlrat this was ready to go,
that the Internatl.onal wing was ready to go to DRB.
a. Did this --
A. And we Just wanted to show theu that, yes,
in fact, thig was ready to go.
O. And the neighbors that had questioned the
compliance with zoning to nake it ready to go to DRB, did
that include the connunicatione you had with an attorney
in Denver naned Jack Reutzel , R-e-u-t-z-e-1 , who
represented Luanne t{ells, ny client?
A. l{y conversations were primarily with Lynn
Fritzlen but I think Jack and Lynn were working together
and, in fact, tre were at a meeting together at one point.
O. And they, ln fact, questioned compliance
with the density zonlng ordinance on the International
I{lng developnent; le that right?
A. Yee.
A. And you felt that the 1983 contract was
necessary to be included with the application because
that was the only evidence of conpliance sith the
density?
Candace Stutson Reportlng Vail , Colorado (970) 949-4920
44
1 A. Well, I think Lt ansyered the questions fron
2 the neighbors.
3 Q. It answered the density issues?
4 A. Un-hun, y€s.
5 Q. Because the 1983 contract is what granted
5 the denEity conpliance to the International l{ing
7 developnent, didn,t it?
I t{R. BATLEY: I will object.
9
10 itself.
UR. UOORIIEAD: Ttre docunent speaks for
11 UR. BAIL,EY: Irm going to object because you
L2 are characterizing it as a grant and thatrs nisleading.
L3 A. (BY l{S. FRfCK) you can answer.
L4 A. I really donrt know what went on in 1983.
15 O. Did you review that statement in the
16 contract to answer Us. Wells, attorney, ltr. Reutzel , and
' L7 Ms. Fritzlen the statement that -- and Irm looking at
18 No. 1 on the agreement part of the contract -- that the
19 parties, neaning the Town of Vail and trodge properties,
20 altree that the density control section of the zoning
2L ordinance for Commercial Core 1 shall not prohibit the
22 IJodge fron building the units?
23 A. Coutd we pull out a letter I wrote in
24 February, because I put into writing our response to ,fack
25 Reutzel ,s and Lynn Fritzlenrs guestions and I think that
Candace Stutson neporting Vail, Colorado (9701 949-4920
o,
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
14
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
tl5
would be the noet accurate.
Okay. I willo.
that thLe Ietter gave your
and concerns on compliance
right?
A.
submitted.
neeting.
get there. so you believe
responee of their questions
wLth the density; is that
It responded to thelr letter that they had
I belleve they brought it with then to the
a. Well, you've told ne that tbey questioned
the conpll-ance with the densLty.
A. Okay.
O. You've told ne that Jack Reutzel and Lynn
Fritzlen questioned the conpliance with density. The
letter you're referring to fron you, is that your
response to their concerns about the coupliance wl
density?
A.
this ready
I
r think
to go to
Right.
Lynn'a
DRB.,? \
o.
A. And that'E guestion that f was trying to
answer throughout the year of 1995.
O. Okay. And you've testified that the issues
about ready to go to DRB included the issue of compliance
with the density?
A. Right. And the zone check ie vhat shows it
Iiding guestionS"i i"
\,,
Candace Stutson neporting Vail , Colorado (970) 94e-4e2O
46
1 was ready to go to DRB.
2 Q. You said you had a February letter you
3 wanted to look at?
4 A. t{ell, f think that would answer the
5 questions that you raised.
6 Q. And this was your letter in February. Okay.
7 T will find that. Let,s see.
8 litR. BAILEY: f think lt would be 3-l7, 3-18.
9 US. FRICK: I think it,s -- no, itrs the
10 letter not to your client --
11 .UR. BAfL,,EY3 Excuse me..
L2 US. FRICK: -- but to ny client.
13 (Exhibit IrI20 was marked. )
1,4 A. (BY l.lS. FRICK) You are looking at
L5 Deposition Exhibit IIf20. Is thLs the letter you wanted
16 to refer to?
L7
l_8
A. Um-huD, yea.
O. This is a letter you drafted?
19 A. Yes.
20
2L Reutzel?
22 A. Yes.
23 O. It's in response to lilr. Reutzel ,s letter,
24 and I wiIJ. get it for you.
25 (Exhibit III11 was.marked.)
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (97O, 949-4920
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
I4
15
16
L7
t8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
A. I,tr. Reutzel wrote you a letter in Decenber
of 19931 Is that rlEht?
A. Un-hun, yes.
O. Okay. And your letter, Exhibit IIf20, is
your response that that letteri is that right?
A. YeB, I believe so.
A. Okay. There are things in the record that
went on in between. So we'lI get that. But my question
where you wanted to refer to Extribit 20 was you believed
you reaponded to the concerns about the conpliance with
density in E*ribit fU20. Can you show me shere you did
thal, where on that docunent?
A. Ict ne Just review this real guick. Ann,
could you repeat your question, please?
O. Yes. You told ne that your letter to
ltr. Reutzel responded to litr. Reutzel and I'ls. Fritzlenrs
concerns about and guestions regarding the InternatLonal
Wing's compliance or lack thereof of the density. Where
in your letter dld you respond to those concerns?
:' A. I think what we wanted to do was becone
educated. The Town staff that was present on
February 10, 1994, obviously was not present in 1993. We
santed to }earn as nuch as we cou1d. We said that we
would listen to the original applicants for the Lodge, we
would also listen to Jack Reutzel in greater detail, and
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (e7o) e49-4920
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11.
L2
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
48
se said that we sould set up those neetings to be held in
the future to gain a better understanding. From ny
recoLlection, when Lynn Fritzlen was offered the
opportunity to set up the tine, Ehe declined.
O. lfasn't there a meeting that you were present
at nhere Jack Reutzel did attend?
A. Well, I think that ,rack and Lynn and I net
in early January and we said that we would set up
neetings when we had a block of tlne down the ll-ne in a
couple of months to understand both points of view, and
Lynn denied. l{hen I called her on the phone and said,
rrl,ynn we're ready to gorrr she said she didnrt want to
meet.
a. Okay. In your letter of February 1O, then,
what you are saying here is, lllerre continuing to review
these issues.rr So you don't really have a definltive
response to the concerns about density; is that right?
A. What we did --
l,lR. ITIOORflEAD: Excuse me. Where was that
cbnnent in the letter, rrWe are continuing to review itr?
Just shere are you looking in the document?
US. FRfCK: I think it says, rrThe Town staff
is continuing to neet with you and your clients as well
as Jay Peterson. Once ne have met with each party and
understand the rationales used for the various positions
Candace Stutson Reporting VaiI , Colorado (e7o, e4e-4920
49
1 on the review procesari et cetera.
2 UR. ITIOORIIEAD: Okay. Thank you.
3 A. Okay. Agaln, shat ue had done is -- and f
4 was making a note. will you aek me the guestion?
5 Q. (BY l.ls. FRICK) okay. I think all I,m
5 trying to say is you earlier told ue that you thought
7 your l-etter back to ilack Reutzel responded to the
8 density. Then you have looked at your letter and you
t have told me in sunnarT -- I,n trying to move along here --
10 that you-all were continuing to review the issues and you
11 were offering to ueet further, and so you really dldn,t
L2 at thie point ln the letter give a definitive ansner
13 becauEe you were continuing the look at the Lssues,
L4 correct?
15 A. Right. With the help of looking at this
L6 letter, I now recall that we had decided as far as a way
L7 of gaining understanding that we would set up these tirires
18 Later ln the future to hear both sides and then that
19 would be a definitive -- that would help us make a
20 definitive call.
2L
22
23
24
25
a. All right.
A. And then Lynn didnrt respond
O. okay.
A. She didnrt want to neet with us.
a. I understand. So, in other words, your
candace Stutson Reporting VaiI , Colorado (9ZO) 949-4920
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
L2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
letter of Febmary 1994 did not make a definitive
response? It talked about continuing to explore the
issue?
A. That's correct.
O. All right. Now, after the PEC approval of
the Lodge,s application for exterior alterations which
was in 1983 before you got here, after that approval and
excluding the town council neeting of Decernber 5, 1995,
the only public body to address thls proposed
A. I took the DRB application to the design
review board, I believe, four times in 1995.
O. All right. I don,t think that was directly
responsive.
A. Okay.
A. I,n trying to nike sure I understand.
A. AII right.
O. After the PEC approval in October of 1983
ahd excluding the toun council neeting of December S,
1995, the only publlc body that revLewed the proposed
International t{ing developnent waa the DRB; Ls that
right?
A. I{eIl, I donrt know what happened before I
got to the lown of Vail. So I canrt speak for anything
Vail, ColoradoCandace Stutson Reporting (970) e49-4e20
51
I that occurred prior to 1993 when this appllcation was
2 subnitted by Jay.
3 Q. lfell, when you looked at the previous file
4 on this fnternational l{l.ng development, did you see any
5 reviews in that time frame betceen October 1983 and about
6 October 1993 that evidenced a review by a public body of
'7 the International Wlng?
8 A. From my review of the records, I couldnrt
9 find anything, and I would say 1984 just because the ,82
10 dates. I did not find anything on the Internationat Wing
11 from 1984 to 1993.
L2 A. Until October 1993. Okay. Are you aware of
13 any acti.on that L,odge Properties took between October of
L4 ,83 and October of 1993 on the International. Wing
15 developnent? Are you aware of any action in that tine
L5 frame?
L7 A. No.
18 O. Are you arrare of any action that Iodge
L9 Properties took betneen October of 1993 and October of
20 1993 on the 1983 agreenent?
2L A. I know that it did not go to a board neeting
22 as far as there was no minutes in the fLle or anlrthing
23 like that between 1984 and 1993.
24
25
O. AII right. So you saw no evidence of any?
A. On the --
Candace Stutson neportJ.ng Vail , Colorado (920) 949-4920
.52
1 liR. BAU.,EY: Any what?
2 A. I Dean, there were other applicati.ons.
3 Q. (By USt. rRICK) lou saw no evidence of any
4 actions taken on the 1983 agrreenent which is Extribit Ir3
'5 in that tiue fr.ane?
6 A. I would say that f did not -- I saw
7 appllcations l-n the flle that related to various other
8 aspects of the Iodge lLke we've talked about before.
g O. Llke the WLldflower reEtaurant?
10 A. Yeah.
11
L2 Wing?
13
l_4
15
O. But nothlng witlr respect to International
A. Right.
O. okay.
A. clarify that it was tbe International WLng
16 that I was interested in.
L7 a. Right. Okay. Now, you told rne that you
18 would like to show me how you conpute your zone checks.
L9 A. Un-hun.
20 A. That that'E easler for you than trying to
2L describe it. So let ne try to get you to do that for ne.
22 A. All right.
23 A. Okay.
24 (Exhibit IIfs was narked.)
2s a. Okay. I have aEked you to look at
Candace Stutson Reportlng VaiI, Colorado (97O, 949-4920
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
T7
l_8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Exbibit fff5 because you told ne that you did do a zone
check for the International tflng developnent, and I think
this is the docunent where it,E contained. Non, see the
page you're on right now
A. Un-hun.
O. -- where it,s a chart that says nFloor, All
(Existlng), All (Proposed), DU, GRFA,, €t cetera?
A. Um-hun.
O. AII right. Did you prepare this chart?
A. Yes.
A. Okay. And you prepared this soon after you
working on the International !{ing DRB application?
A. This chart, Irn not sure this is the final
A. Well, se,Il go through them, but letrs just
kind of do then in the order in which theyrre nade a part
of the certified record.
A. Okay.
a. You prepared this chart?
' A. yea.
O. okay.
l.ts. FRfCK: And for
No.
the reiord, this is Page
UR. BAIL,EY: I{hat exhibit nrunher is this?
l{hat exhibit nunber is this?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (97O) 94e-4e2o
54
1 THE COT'RT REPORTER: IIT5.
2 Q. (By l.ls. FRICK) Okay. This ie the tenth
3 pagre of Exhibit III5. I uant to nunber it Just for the
4 clarity of the deposition transcrl.pt.
5 A. Yes, tenth.
6 Q. okay. At some point in your review of the
7 lnternational l{ing DRB appllcation you prepared this
8 chart on Page 10 of Exhibit III5?
9 A. Yes.
10 O. Okay. And iE this considered something you
11 would do as part of the, guote, zone check?
L2 A. Yes, a conponent of it.
13 a. A component of Lt. Ttrank you. And as I
14 understand thiE chart, you took -- let's go through it.
15 It says nFloor, first floor. i
16 A. Un-hun.
17 O. And the nunber of AUs, thatrs acconnodation
18 units, you Eay 5?
19 A. Un-hum.
20 ' Q. Tlrere that were existing.
2L A. Un-hun.
22 O. As of when you prepared this was probably
23 roughly the end of 1993, early L994?
24 A. I,m not sure what the date was. It was
25 later in the review than that, though.
Candace Stutson Reporting VaLI, Colorado (920) 949-4920
55
0. Alt right. So sonetine in 1994?
2 A. No, 1994 was a dornant year.
3 Q. okay. 1995.
4 A. I mean, we sent the letter in the first part
5 of 1994 and didn't hear anything back for nany, many,
6 many months.
7 O. You didnrt hear anlthing fron Iodge
8 Properties?
A. That's correct.
10 O. They rere dornanQ --
11 A. Right.
L2 a. -- in the sense of pursuing the project?
13 A. They were addressing ny tettgr, 1 assume, of
L4 of January L994, yeah, L994, addressing those various
15 issues trying to corne up with a conplete application.
16 a. Okay. Okay. I understand the chronolog.y.
L7 You sent your letter to Jay Peterson in January of L994?
18 A. Right.
19 a. You said you need to do all these things to
20 have a complete application?
2L A. Right"
22 O. And that you didnrt hear back fron the Iodge
23 for many, many months?
24 A. Right, right.
25 A. so it was probably not until 1995 that you
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9ZO) g4g-492}
56
1 prepared this chart --
2 A. Yea.
3 Q on Page 10 --
4 A. lllrat's correct.
5 A. -- of Exhibit III5?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Don't anawer during the niddle of the
8 question.
9 A. Oh, f 'n sorry.
10 O. okay. So sonetLne in 1995 you are preparing
11 this chart for the zone check. A11 right. Now, let's
L2 keep going. ft says nAU (Proposed).tr
13 A. Un-hun.
L4 O. And nunber 1 is marked out and then there's
15 a nunber 3.
L6 A. Urn-hun.
L7 A. Alt right. so this is the proposed for the
18 first floor of the proposed additional accomnodation
19 unLts?
20 - A. Right, yes. And that's why f think this is
2L not the final chart that I generated.
22 a. Okay. tlell, we'll get there.
23 A. Okay. Specifically in regards to your
24 guestion about the 1 and the 3, I understood that they
25 would be converting some existing office spaces back to
Candace Stutson Reporting VaiI, Colorado (97O, 949-4920
57
1 AUs on the first floor. So thatrs why it went fron one
2 to three.
3 Q. And is that current today or did they change
4 back and say, nNo, we'll keep then as officesr.?
5 A. The intention to convert then to AUs is what
' 6 the approved DRB set of drawings shows.
7 Q. Okay. Then it says DUs. Those are dwelling
I units?
A. Un-huu.
10 A. 8, does that mean existing or proposed? I
11 think itrs existing because they are not proposing except
L2 one dwelling unLt, right?
13 A. Right.
L4 UR. I.IOORflEAD: IE that two questions? If
15 you would, just ask one question at a time, give hin,an
16 opportunity to answer the first one.
L7 S. FRICK: Okay.
18 a. (BY US. FRICK) Is the I for dwelling units
L9 the existing dwelling units on the bul-ldable sLte at the
20 tine that you nade'this chart?
2L A. You know, Irn trying to renenber back to --
22 Irn trying to picture it on the floor plans where those
23 eight are and I canrt.
24
25
O. Okay. Non you have GRFA.
A. Right.
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (gZO, g4g-492}
1
2 there.
3
,58
A. All right. So tell ne what you're measuring
A. Okay. If you can Bee, across the top we've
a. Et cetera?
A. Um-hun.
4 got GRFA, conference, connon, acceasory, and conmon, and
5 those are all different ways of counting floor area.
5 cnfA is residential floor area.
O. Thank you. That's why the R is there?
I A. Yes.
9 Q. cross residential floor area?
10 A. Yes.
11 A. So this colunn that says GRFA, the first
L2 nunber, 2670, I think lt's supposed to be a .3, and the
13 next nunber is 2a45.4?
L4 A. Un-hun.
15
16
L7 a. Those are measuring the gross floor area of
L8 residentLal space on the first floor at the Iodge?
19 A. They rneasured the residential floor area,
20 yes.
2L A. Okay. Now, you told ue that -- I asked you
22 how do you measure J.t, and you said you could ehow ne.
23 How do you measure it? You,re neasuring gross area,
24 length tirues width, right, square footage?
25 A. Wtrat we do is we lay out the floor plans.
Candace StutEon Reporting Vail, Colorado (970) 949-4920
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
t_5
L7
L8
L9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
59
We highlight then. We uae a different color for each
designation of use or each conponent of the GRFA
definition, and then we put lt on what we call a
digitizer computer. l{e take crosshairs and go around the
perineter of the area and it catculates the area for us.
a. Oh, all right. So the conputer does the
nath?
A. Um-hun.
O. Okay.
A. Otherrrise,
O. And you do
A. Yeah.
would take
by floor?
it
it
A. Alt right. Now, letrs go to the next line.
Then you totaled then up for the first floor, correct?
A. Um-hun.
A. The next llne is the second floor, correct?
A. Um_hrrtt!, yes.
A. Okay. And you did the sane thing?
A. Un-hun.
' a. A11 right. And et cetera. All right. The
third floor -- well, Iet me take that back on the Eecond
floor. On the second floor, you show DUs, you ahow 21,
sorrect?
A. Second floor DUs, 21, yes.
a. A11 right. And those were located in what
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (970) 949-4920
60
1 they have referred to as the north slng?
2 A. Part of what's disconcerting about this is
3 it's not the final form, and obviously as you look
4 through the record there'e geveral different zoning
5 checke tbat I did as tlre --
5 Q. was this the firet zone check you did?
7 A. Thie wasn't the firEt, but it sas in the
8 interin.
9 Q. It sas in the interim?
10 A. Un-hun.
11 A. AII rlght. So at one point did you this
L2 zone check in 1995 and you counted the 21 DUs on this
13 chart included the dwelll-ng unlts ln the north wing,
14 correct?
15 A. You know, and I bave a pretty good nemory as
15 far as graphics, you know, where things are located on a
L7 plan, and r cannot recall where these 21 are located.
L8 A. okay. They're not part of the hotel
19 acconnodations units, are they?
20
2L wouldn't have been accornnodation units.
22
23
24
A. Next one. Third floor.
A. Un-hun.
A. L9 DUs.
25 A. Um-hun.
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (970) 949-4920
6t
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
a.Do you recall that those are in the north
wing?
A. I don't.
A. Okay. Next one, fourth fl-oor, eight DUs.
Do you recall tbat those are in the south wing?-
A. No. I can,t remenber their location.
O. okay. You did the gross residential floor
area for the fourth floori ls that right?
A. Un-hum.
A. Okay. Ifhat to your infomation is built on
the fourth floor at the lodge? I take it therers nine
acconmodation units, according to your chart?
A. Yeah.
a. Okay. And therers eight dwelling units; is
that right?
A. Yeah. It would be acconmodation, dwelling
unit, and common area.
m,. BAfLEY! Let ne ask, Ann, because Irn
confused and because it appears to ne what you are asking
hin le when you use the term Iodge that you are referring
to everything that is considered to be in the way yourve
defined it the Lodge, which means all three of the
separate ownerships. Is that what yourre -- is that what
we're -- rrhen you asked hin this last question, is that
what you neant when you said, rrWell, what is at the
Candace Stutson neporting Vail, colorado (970) e4e-492O
,62
1 lodge,t all three ownerships?
2 l{S. FRICK3 I an takinq the witness through
3 the chart that he prepared.
4 ttR. BAU.,EY: I'm asking your questlon. your
5 question uas --
ttS. FRICK: And rny question concerned the
7 nine exLsting acconnodation units at the Iodge Hotel .
I l{R. BAfLEy: l{hat is the Iodge Hotel?
9 That's what I'n asking. Are you talking about the
Lo property owned by LPI?
11 ltsi. FRICK: lfell, Jin, you and I have a
L2 disagreenent whl.ch the Court wlll decide about
13 definLtions here. f'u asking for an explanation of this
14 chart.
15 UR. BAILEY: l{ell, that's true, but I'm not --
15 I'n asking you to define for the witness what you nean
17 when you eay the Lodge. All right? Otherwise, lrou,re
18 Just attenpting to confuse the witness.
19 l.lS. FRICK: f ,n not atternpting to confuse
20 the witness.
2L llR. BAfLEY: You are attempting to confuse
22 the wl-tness. So tell hin what you mean by Iodge.
23 US. FRICK: Okay.
24 UR. BAILEY: TeIl ne what you nean by lodge.
25 US. FRICK: I am asking the questions,
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (9701 949-4920
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I2
13
L4
15
L6
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Iitr. Bailey. The wltneEs
him to explain the chart
because --
UR. BAU,EY:
to mislead the vl.tness.
, I{S. FRICK:
prepared this chart.
to me. We got into
63
I'n asking
the chart
You are deliberately attenFting
Would you please stop
interrupting me?
UR. BAII.EY:
to have fal.ropportunity
!ls. Frick?
US. FRICK: The questions are fal-r.
llr. Knudtsen told ne that he could not e:<plain hos he
calculates density and GRFA, that it would be easier for
hln to take ne through a zone check. I am taking hin
through the zone checks that he did on this project.
O. (BY ffs. FRfCK) Now, llr. Knudtsen, can you
explain to ne nhere it says fourth floor, it appears to
ne that you counted up at the tine you prepared this
Page 10 of Exhibit III5, you counted up what you put in
the colunn of existing accornmodation units, you counted
proposed acconnodation units for the fourth floor, and
you counted up existing DUs, and your computer then
calculated the GRFA for thoEe units, correct?
A. I don,t knos how inportant this is, but I
would just like to verify that earlier I didnrt say I
lfould you please give uE an
questions put on the record,
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (e7ol 949-4920
64
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
could not e:<plaLn GRFA. It's Just that I thought an
exanple like this would be helpful to delineate the
different tlpes of floor area and how it all gets
conbined into the definitlon.
O. A11 rlght. But GRFA is linited, you've told
me, to resLdential floor area, correct?
A. ttetl --
O. ft doesh't lnclude the common floor area?
A. There'E a lot of overlap. For exanple, it
really -- GRFA -- in common ter:ms GRFA is what ve Just
use ae the title for regrulating floor area. However,
when you get into GRFA, tbough the R in GRFA pertains to
residential , ttre definitions and how you caII out these
dlfferent areas are lald wlthin that definl.tion.
A. fn the zoning ordinance?
A. (The deponent nodded head affimatively. )
a. All rlght. But let's just talk about how
you used the tetm GRFA in the colurnn on this Page 10 of
Exhibit IIrs.
' A. okay.
O. For this colunn for this chart, GRFA is only
referring to the grosa residential floor area of the
corresponding aUs and DUs in that chart, correct?
A. Correct, yes.
A. Thank you. All rlght. Now, in thiE chart
candace Stutson neporting VaiI , Colorado (9701 e49-492O
65
1 the eight DUs that you have for the fourth floor, those
2 are the condominiuns that are on the south wing; is that
3 correct?
4 A. I don't recall shere they are located within
5 ttre bullding.
6 Q. Okay. The charts that you said you had, you
7 used floor plans?
I A. Un-hun.
9 Q. And you have different color overlays; is
10 that right?
11 A. We use different colored highlighters to
L2 delineate the different tlpes of uses. For exanple, blue
13 for conmon, and I donrt renember shat color, but a
L4 different color.
15
15
L7 on --
O. What color is residential?
A. oh, it -- f mean, it just -- it just depends
l-8 a. Do your charts separate out by color whatrs
19 the existing residential versus the proposed?
20 - A. No.
2L
22
23
24
25
O. No. Do they show it by floor?
A. Yes.
O. Do they show it unit by unit?
A. No, blocks of unit.
O. Blocks of units. Is that a part of the
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (970) g4g-492}
66
1 certified'record that you uay have here Ln this case?
2 A. rNhich part?
3 Q. The drawl.ngs that ahos the blocks of unlts
4 that were used and highlighted to conpute this chart
5 we're looking at.
6 A. f do not knov.
7 Q. Are they a part of your file that you
8 brought today?
9 A. No, no.
10 A. Where would they be?
11 A. ftrey are drawings. so they are on 24 by 36
L2 rollE.
13
14
a. There are they?
A. .In connunlty developnent in.our filing
15 system.
16 a. If I uaa going to ask to review those
L7 specific drawings that were used to conpute fron which
18 this chart that we're looking at was made, what would I
19 ask for?
20 :' A. You would ask for the drawings for the
2L fnternational l{ing.
22 a. And there would only be one set of drawings
23 that would be given to ne for this chart?
24 A. No. To clarify the situation, there is a
25 roll of -- there,s the aesttretl.c, therers a roll of
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (97O, 949-4920
67
1 aesthetic issues that the DRB focused on and all the
2 drawings pertaining to that, therers a roll of zone ctreck
3 infornation, and therers a ro11 of background
4 Lnfornation. so you uould want to look for three.
5 Q. Hov would I know wtten f had gotten the
5 drawing that vas used to prepare thiE chart?
A. All the colors on it, for example.
A. Is there nore than one draning that has a
9 lot of colors on it?
l-O A. Not one set, no. f mean, ny set for
11 aesthetics is just the architectrs --
L2 A. A11 right. So therers a zone check set of
13 drawings?
L4 A. Yeah.
l-5 O. And I could review those and then get to
L6 this chart?
L7 A. Un-hum.
18 A. And would the zone check set of drawings
L9 show the location, I believe you told me, of nhere these
20 uhits, for exarnple, the eight DUs on the fourth floor,
2L they would show actually fron a floor plan the locationi
22 is that right?
23 I,{R. BAILEy: Can I object just for a moment?
24 You asked hin -- he previously has testified that No. 10,
25 the one that you are referring to, LEnrt lris final , and
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9ZO) g4g-492}
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
all I want to do is nake sure the record is clear that
the map that's in his file, whether it relates to Chart
No. 10 or shether Lt relates to one of the other many
chartE that he did, just go the record l-s clear.
O. (BY ttsi. FRICK) .!ty understanding of ny
previous guestion was that you have a drawing that
relates to thls chart, Page 10.
A. l{e11, the drawinge relate to the final zone
check.
O. Do they alEo relate to thls Page 10?
A. For example, on first floor, you would see
three separate AUs hlghlighted in f think an orange
color, though, I nean -- is it inportant that we get the
colors right?
a. No.
A. BecauBe I don't remenber exactly and we
don't have a set forilat. And this chart obvious).y sho!'tE
a handwritten three. So it's not lOO percent consistent.
a. There uaa a set of drawings from which this
chart was nade?
A. Ur-hun.
O. And thoae are still in existence?
A. No. The drawings that f used during the
course of the project to review, I nean, it changed quite
a bit. For example, when the project first went to DRB
candace Stutson neportlng Vail , Colorado (97O, 949-4920
69
1 for a sork session, the DRB gave gulte a bit of dlrection
2 to the appllcant on how to nake the project better, and
3 so I didn,t keep the previous drawings. I thought it
4 would confuse the issue. So both on the outside and the
5 inside of the building, forner drawings are no longer
6 part of the record
7 Q. A11 rJ.ght. Are you saylng that the drawings
8 do or do not exist fron which this chart was made?
9 A. This chart, as it refleets an interim step
10 and not the final zone check, there sould not be a set of
11 drawings that correlate. The final set of drawings does
L2 correlate to the final zone check.
13 MR. BAILEY: Ann, for the sake of clarity,
L4 can you identify if the final zone check is in this
15 exhibit?
16 US. FRICK: WeII , werll get there, Jin, and
' L7 if I don,t get there and you want to get there, you can
18 ask hinr.
1-9 MR. BAILEY: Thank you, Ann. Thatrs very
20 polite of you.
2L A. (BY I'tS. FRICK) Then on this chart you
22 totaled up the number of DUs existing; is that right?
23 A. Un-hun.
24 a. Yes?
25 A. Yea.
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9ZO) 949-4920
.70
1 Q. Alt right. And what you were neasuring was
2 the nunber of DUs that were in existence on the -- you
3 tell ne -- the large parcel?
4 A. Ifell, actually, this is very helpful,
5 because if you.look on Page U, L2, L3, you can see ny
5 sunnary here.
7 Q. Aha. Now, is 11, 12, and 13 the backup for
I Page 10?
9 A. No, not at all. Page 13 is the one I wanted
10 to go to, and that is the final .
11 A. That's your final one?
L2 A. Yes.
13 a. All right. 9lell , se,II get there.
14 A. And let me just say, the Lodge Hotetr you
15 can see what the allowed GRFA is, shat the allowed connon
16 area isr'which is 35 percent of GRFA, which shows you
L7 that interrelationship between -- I nean, GRFA is --
18 there's a lot of critics of GRFA and you probably are not
19 alone in trying to understand how GRFA norks.
20 ' Q. Okay.
2L A. And you can Bee in the sunnary there all the
22 different intricacies. But the allosed GRFA, the allowed
23 conmon area, the allowed density, the allowed
24 acconmodation units, the proposed total --
25 THE COURT REPORTEB: Irn sorry. The allowed --
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (9ZO) 949-4920
7L
1 Q. (By US. FRICK) You,re going to fast, and
2 ve'I1 get there. Okay, Andy?
3 A. Okay.
4 IrtR. BATLEY: Well, let hin finish his
5 answer.
6 A. And thie iE the key, and just so that you
7 bave the -- I was saying the allowed denslty, allowed
I acconnodation units, proposed total GRFA, proposed total
9 common area, proposed total accornmodation units, and ttren
10 another note that these figures include both the existing
11 Ipdge Hotel and the InternatLonal t{ing. Thatrs the
L2 bottorn line infor:mation to focus on.
13
I4
15
A. (BY l.ts. FRICK) Okay. Thatrs Page 13?
A. Right.
A. That was your fl-nal zone check?
A. Okay. But as far as Dy own --
llR. BAIL,EY: I{e11, sait a ninute.
15 A. Yes.
L7 a. That caDe after page 1O?
18 A. Yes. And Irn not sure that Page lO
19 continues to be relevant.
20
2L Okay?
22
23
24 UR. UOORfiEAD: I think the record should
25 reflect that he has the opportunity to say what is
candace Stutson Reporting Vail , colorado (9zo) 949-4920
72
1 relevant as to his Job, what he does, and this particular
2 . proJect.
3 tts. FRICK: f'n asklng hlu questions --
4 uR. I|ooRIIEAD: Relevance has nore neanings
5 in the world than your argrulng with attorneys and going
6 to Judges as to shat'e relevant.
l.lS. FRICK: That's fine.
I UR. UOORHEAD: He's talking about within the
9 course and scope of his enplolment. t{ould you please
10 glve hin the credLt for that. Thank you.
11 O. (BY US. FRICK) llr. lGrudtsen, would you
L2 please try to listen to ny queetlons and answer my
13 questions. AII right? And anlthing that you would like
14 to clarify, I'n sure your attorney will give you the
15 opportunity to clarify. I'n trying to understand the
15 docunents that were presented to ne as part of the
L7 certified record.
18 You've testified that Page 1O is a docunent
19 you prepared, correct?
20 - A. As an interim docunent.
2L O. I understand. You eaid it was not the first
22 zone check that you dld on the property?
23 A. That's correct.
24 A. Where iE the first zone check that you did
25 on the property in this exhibit?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (970) 949-4920
73
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
14
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
A. Let,s find it. Irm not finding it in this
exhibit, but I remenber how it looks and f know it,s part
of the file and I believe lt ls part of the record too.
O. Okay. Well, I don,t believe f have it, but
maybe we'lI fincl it at a break. Okay? I don't, believe f
have it, because thl-s waE all presented to ne from the
Court as a part of the certified record and f have
presented to you ttre entire document that vas listed at
the court as III5. Okay?
A. Okay. And I think ny --
UR. BArIJEY: lilell, just a minute. Therers
been no representation by this witnese that the document
he's talking about is part of Extribit III5. You gave him
Exhibit III5. He didnrt produce E)dribit III5.
l,lS. FRfCK: I understand. Irm naking it
clear that I didn't take anything out fron Exhibit III5
as.it's presented in the court as the certified record
Exhibit III5.
HR. BAILEY: That,s fine.
US. FRICK: I have also told hin, if you
were listening, that if he -- he says he has an earlier
zone check that,s not a part of Exhibit III5. I{erll look
for it.
A. Okay.
a. (BY !{S. FRrCK)So Page 10 was anOkay.
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9ZO) 949-L920
74
1 interim zone check, correct?
2 ltR. BAILEY: Dts. Frick, I was listening.
3 l.ls. FRICK: llhank you.
4 UR. BAILEY: And your connentE lndl-cated
5 that you thought he took eonethlng out of III5
6 lds. FRICK: I dLdn't -- Dor I did not nean
7 to inply that at all.
8 Q. (BY l{s. FRICK) okaY?
9 A. Okay.
10 A. wtry don't go to Page 14 of tlris exhlbit.
11 A. Um-hun.
L2 O. This is a --
13 UR. BAILEy: Are these pages nunbered?
L4 Us. FRICK: No. lfe're nunbering then
L5 starting -- this J.s Page 10. The one he read fron was
L6 13. The one after it sas 14.
L7 A. (BY l.lS. FRICK) Is this your handwriting on
18 Page 14?
19 MR. BAILEY: Can we get the -- are you going
20 to number the pagee In this exhibit?
2L THE COttRT REPORTER: I think Andy has been
22 numbering actualty the copy that is going to be attached
23 to the deposition, if that,s sufficient.
24 Ms. FRICK: Thatrs fine with ne. Is that
25 fine with you, Counsel?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (97O, 949-4920
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
ItR. BAIL'EY: Yes.
O. (BY l,lsi. rRICK) Okay.
that your handwriting?
A. Yes.
A. Did you fi1l this out?
A. Yes.
O. Did you fill Page 14
the chart on Page 10?
Andy, Page 14, is
out Ln connection with
A. No.
a. Wtren did you fill out Page 14?
A. I guess ny overall poi.nt that f would like
to nalce is that as the project went through the process,
at different tines I did different zone checks, obvJ.ously
with the goal of getting a conplete zone check and having
the project ready to go to the board. Page 10 is an
interin check. That you can tell by the chicken
scratchings, the checks, the variouE handwrlting on it
that it's not final . However, Page 15 and 16 are clean
charts, as well as 17, that are the final , and this is
what sas the finat'conclusLon of the staff analysis in
preparation for it to go to the board.
O. Page 17 is the parking?
A. Yes, yes.
a. okay.
A. So Page 10 tras not relevant to the flnal
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (970) 94e-4920
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
l_5
15
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
.76
zone check.
A. Do you tlpically when you are doing zone
checks for a proposed development nake a serLes of
different zone checks over the couree of the project?
A. llhat I t1plcally do, if you can see this on
Page 14, I check off at certain points when something ie
in conpliance. Tlris ls ny style. I fold the botton page
up, nake a crease in it, and Etart naking notes as to the
outstanding issues. Then all those are taken care of,
then I do a clean copy.
A. okay. Is 14 your clean copy?
A. Yes.
O. Now, when you are dolng GRFA, shen f asked
you to try to e:rplain lt before, Iet's just assume as in
Page 10 it is the gross residential floor area, doesn't
include the connon elements or other aspects that are
'under ordinance.
A. Right.
O. You take it and you get a total; is that
rlght? Like you have at the botton of Pags 10 107,L82.4.
You take a total?
A. You know, if tt would be okay, I would
prefer to explain GRFA using tbe final zone check rather
than an interim zone check. ff we could use Pages 15 and
16, I think it nould be Dore helpful .
Candace Stutson neporting Vail , colorado (97O' e4e-4e20
77
1 Q. Well, I will acconnodate you in that
2 respect. I'n just trying to get the concept right now,
3 not the numbers.
4 A. Okay.
5 Q. So on Page 15, you took the total GRFA of
6 the Lodge Apartnents, correct?
7 A. Right.
I A. Those are the "on66atnfrrns?
e A. Right.
10 A. That exist at the Iodge, correct?
11 A. Yes.
L2
L3
14 them.
15
16
A. AII right.
A. The Lodge Apartnents is what I have calted
A. That exist?
A. Yes.
L7 a. Theyrre not the proposed International Wing,
18 correct?
19 A. ThatrE correct.
20
2L GRFA, correct?
22 A. YeE.
23 A. Norr, once you have gotten that nunber of the
24 GRFA that,s on the existing condoniniums, you compare
25 that to what the allowable GRFA is for that buildable
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9ZO) g4g-492}.
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
14
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
site, correct?
A. WelI, ln this cage I did that on Page 16
with the Iodge Hotel.
. A. All rlght. Before re get there, f'n Just
asking you aB a general how you prepare zone checks.
A. Right.
O. For example, on Page 15 you use the total
GRFA and you compare Lt to the buildable site; is that
right?
liR. ITIOOREAAD: I,m goirig to instruct the
witness that lf you need to refer to a clocunent, you have
the right to do so, and lf you cannot answer a question
in general , you are not reguired to do so.
l.lS. FRICK: llhat,s fine.
O. (BY US. fRfCK) Can you answer that question
without referring to a docunent as to what you
custonarily do, the process of conputing and evaluating
GRFA?
A. That ultinately was not a concern of nine on
Page 15. I focused in on the Iodge Hotel on Page 16.
O. AII right. you want to use the Lodge,
Page 16, we'll use Page 16.
Okay. Thank you.
You take the GRFA that you have got as the
A.
o.
total?
Candace Stutson neporting Vail, colorado (970) 949-4920
79
A. Yes.
2 Q. And you conpare it to the buildable site on
3 which those units are built; is that right?
4 A. Yes. And to ex;rand on that, what we do is
5 ve take the total anount allowed as a ratio of the lot
6 area and sompare allosed to proposed, vhLch ie I think on
' 'l Page 13.
I Q. All right. I think I understand. you take
9 the lot area?
10 A. Un-hum.
11 a. Total square footage area, correct?
L2 A. RLght, right, yes.
13 O. And that,s a number?
L4 A. Right.
15 A. It,s a number of sguare foot area of land,
L6 correct?
L'7
L8
A. Right.
O. And it's the land underneath the units that
19 are being built on top of it, correct?
20 - A. ft,s what is on the survey. The planning
2L staff always uses the number on the aur:\rey.
22 a. The number on the sunrey of land, the site
23 of land on which the buildings are being placed?
24 A. l{ell, we take it fron the sunreyor.
25 a. AII right. And itrs a sunreyor vith a
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (97O) 949-4920
80
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
survey of tand on which the bulldings are being placed'
correct?
A. I{e Just look at the nunber on a stamped and
signed survey.
A. I understand. And lt is a sunrrey of land on
which the proposed buildings are being placed? You're
not going to go take a nunber of a site on which the
building is not going to be placed?
ItR. UOORHEAD: That's two guestions. You
have asked and answered the guestion three times, and
he's ocplained three tiues. I Xnow you want hin to say
land. He's explalning to you what tbey do.
A. (BY tts. FRICK) Have you ever taken, with
respect to determining the ratio of GRFA for a proposed
new development, have you ever taken it and conpared it
to square footage of air?
UR. UOORflEAD: Objection. Vagrue.
O. (BY tls. FRICK) You can answer.
l{R. I{OORHEAD: Objection. ft's valtue.
'- l{s. FRICK: lfell, are you instructing hin
not to answer?
ItR. UOORHEAD: I'm saying the question is
valtue, and that's ny objection.
!tS. FRICK: That's a forn objection. Your
objection is noted.
Candace Stutson neporting VaiI , Colorado (e70) 949-4920
81
1 Q. (BY l,tS. FRICK) You can ansser the question.
2 A. Could you clarify it?
3 Q. Have you ever taken, with respect to
4 proposed developnent and calculating and comparing the
5 GRFA, have you ever taken the GRFA of a proposed
6 developnent and conpared it to the square foot area of
7 aLr?
A. Square foot area of air?
a. Yes.
A. I'n not sure what you mean by that.
A. Okay. You have never done such a
9
10
11
L2 calculation?
13 ltR. UOORHEAD: Objection. HerB not saying
L4 he has never done such a calculation. Hers saying he l
L5 doesn,t understand your question, Counselor.
15 lIS. FRICK! f understand. I wiII nove on.
L7 a. (BY US. FRICK) Letrs go back.
18 A. Okay.
19 a. you are taking the GRFA on page -- you
20 wanted to use Page'16 of the Iodge Hotel .
2t A. Yes.
22 a. You take the total?
23 A. Um-hum.
24 O. And you said you compared it to whatrs
25 allowable on the existing site, correct?
Candace Stutaon neportlng Vail, Colorado (97O) g4g-4g}O
a2
A. Yes, and that's --
O. Iet'e break it down.
3 A. Ies, and that'e shown on Page 13.
4 Q. Okay. And rhat's allosable by ordlnance Ls
5 80 percent of ttre sguare foot area of the exlsting sLte?
6 Ehat's the ordinance allowed, right?
7 A. Yes, which Ls shown Ln the noteE on Page 13.
I Q. Okay. And where you get what's existing on
9 the eite is based on a aurney of land, correct?
10 A. The existlng -- I,D sorry. The existing
11 inprovements wae my work.
L2 O. No. l{here you get the square footage of the
13 site --
L4 A. Yes, is fron the sur:\zey.
15 A. -- to then take 80 percent of is fron the
16 surrrey?
L7 A. Right, rLght, right.
L8 A. And it,s a aureey of the land site on which
19 this proposed developnent slll be a part of?
20
2L application which was signed and stanped showed
22 911040.735 square feet of land area. frn Just reading ny
23 notes on 13.
24 A. All right. Thatrs on page 13. Thatrs the
25 total square foot area of the Iodge slte?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (9ZO) 949-4920
1
2
3 that?
83
A. The Iodge Hotel , yes.
A. Okay. And the allowed GRFA is 8O percent of
4 A. Right.
5 A. And then on Page 13 shat you did was take
6 the GRFA total from Page X6, which sas the GRFA of the
7 botel unl-tsi is that rlght?
I A. Yeah. Ict me just double-check ny nunbers.
9 Yes. And the numbers, they natch.
10 A. And you did not include the GRFA total of
1l- the Iodge Apartments on Page 15 as part of your
L2 calculation on Page 13, did you?
13 A. That,s correct.
14 O. Okay. You did include the Lodge Apartments
15 GRFA on your interin zone check in the total of GRFA on
L6 Page 10, correct?
L7 A. Yes. t{e had a sunner intern do sone bf the
18 initial highlighting and he highlighted the entire
19 building and ultinately we realized that was not helpful
20 for our review of the project.
2L O. And uho did you have discussions with
22 betseen doing the interim zone check on page 10 and your
23 final one on Page 13 regarding what units sere to be
24 excluded?
25 A. lfell, I talked with Ton lrtoorhead about the
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (9ZO) 949-4920
84
1 proJect. f'n not sure I would agr€e sith the way you
2 phrased the queetion.
3 Q. And did Ton lloorhead talk to you about the
4 condoniniun unl.ts, the apartnents, that are reflected on
5 Page tZ and on Page 10 were not to be a part of your zohe
6 check Ln calculatlng denelty or GRFA?
7 A. f{hat was detemined waE that our focus was
I the Iodge llotel.
9 Q. And you nade that determLnatLon Ln
10 connection sith discussions you had with Ton lrtoorhead?
11 A. Yes.
l.tS. FRICK: Iat'a take a five-ninute
13 bathroon break.
14 (A break was taken.)
15 A. Let's keep going wlth this Er&ibit IIr5. I
16 just want to get eone ideas about vlren thin€ta were
L7 prepared. Page 11r'was Page 11 done before or after
18 Page 10?
19 A. I don't know, to be sure.
20 ' Q. How about Page L2? Was this done before or
2L after Page 10?
22 A. f would say Pages 10 anal 12 were done at the
23 sane time.
24
25
O. And did you prepare Page 12 as well?
A. Un-hum, yes.
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (97o, 949-4920
85
O. Yes?
A. Yes.
A. And there are handwritten notations on it.
4 Are those your handwritten notations?
5 A. The text?
9
10
O. Yes.
A. Yea.
O. And there,s a written number, I think 927?
A. Yes.
A. And there,s a nev nunber rrLtten at the
11 total for conmon area GRFA?
L2 A. Yes.
t_3
L4
15
l-6 A. Yes.
A. f guess it's not GRFA.
A. No. The ongoing confusion.
A. FA?
L7
18
O. .That's your handwrtting?
A. Yes.
19 A. Page 13 is all your handwriting?
20 ' A.. yes.
2L O. You prepared page 13, I think you told ne,
22 after you prepared Pages 10 and 12; is that right?
23 A. Page 13, L4, 15, and 16 are the final zone
24 check, and 17.
O. Okay. Let me go back. page 14 through 1?,
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (9zo) g4g-4g2}
25
86
1 did you prepare then at the same tiue? I{ait. Did you
2 Eell me 13 through 17 Ls the final zone check?
3 A. Ies.
4 Q. Okay. And they vere prepared at the same
5 tine?
5 A. Yes.
7 Q. By you?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And approxlnately when did you prepare that?
10 Was that sometine after ilune of L995?
11 A. YeE.
L2 A. Was it shortly before the DRB neeting of
13 Novenber 1, 1995?
L4 A. I would say it was in october of 1995.
15 O. ostober of 1995?
16 A. (The deponent nodded head affirmatively. )
L7 TIIE COURI REPORTER: rs that yes?
18 TEE DEPONEIIT: Yes. I{ell, ny statenent
L9 wasn't exactly a yes to her question.
20
2L October of 1995.
22 a. (By lt{S. FRICK) Okay. And Page LO and 12
23 sere prepared before the final zone check. Do you
24 believe they were prepared sonetine in 1995 before
25 October of 1995?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (97O, 949-4920
a7
I A. 11 and 12 sere prepared at the sane time.
2 L0 was prepared at a different tine.
3 Q. Oh, I thought you told ne 10 and 12 sere
4 prepared at the same time.
5 A. No. 11 and 12 were prepared at the same
6 tine. I'm sorry if I nisspoke.
7 Q. Okay. Were 11 and 12 were before or after
8 Page 1O?
9
l_o
11
A. After Page 10.
a. And before Pages 13 through 17?
A. Yea.
L2 O. And vere Pages 11 and 12 prepared sometime
13 in lttay, June, July of 1995?
L4 A. I donrt know exactly when they were
L5 prepared. It would be after those dates, though.
16 O. It would be after July?
' L7 A. (The deponent nodded head affirmatively.)
l-8 O. How about Page 1O? Was it prepared after
19 July of 1995 or before?
20 ' A. I donr't recall.
21 a. There was a June 1995 DRB neeting. Do you
22 believe that you prepared page 10 before that neeting?
23 A. June. Can we review the dates of the four
24 DRB neetings?
25 A. Yes. June 21, 19951 10-18-19951 11-1-199St
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (970) 949-4920
88
13
L4
1 and May 3, 1995.
2 A. Ttre work sessions that this vent to in l,iay
3 and ilune, the prinary purpose waa to get sone feedback
4 aesthetl.cally about the proJect, and ao whether or not
5 there was a final zone check fof a work session ie
6 lrrelevant or is not something we -- we don't have a
7 problen witb ttrat.
8 Q. You don't do zone checks for sork sessions
g on aesthetics?
10 A. Yes.
11 a. okay. And you said that llay was basically
L2 aesthetic neetings?
A. llay and June.
A. l.tay and ilune. So Page 10 nas probably
15 prepared after June of 1995?
16 A. Yes.
t7 O. Okay. And you said Pages 11 and 12 were
18 prepared after July of '95. Do you think Page 10 was
19 prepared after JuIy of '95 aB well , closer in tine to the
20 October neetlng?
A. I don't recall.
A. okay. Sonetine between June and october?
A. Right.
a. Who was the intern that was working with you
25 on this natter?
2L
22
23
24
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (97O, 949-4920
89
A. Chris, and I don,t lrave a last name for you.
O. Do you know where he went to schoot?
A. Pardon ne?
4 Q. Do you know where he vent to school?
5 A. No.
6 Q. You said earlier that you had looked for the
7 L983 contract and asked Jay Peterson for a copy of it,
I right?
9 A. Yes. We asked ,lay in that letter for the
10 agreenent.
11 O. Right. Did you ever chesk to see if the
L2 1983 contract was filed sith the Town clerk?
13 A. No.
16 a. And who told you it was fiLed with the Town
L7 clerk?
LB A. Ton Moorhead.
14
15
L9
20-
2L
22
23
a. You don't know shether it was or not?
A. I have heard that it was.
O. And do you know when it was filed?
A. Do I know shen it was filed? No.
a. Would the Town clerk know that?
A. f don't know how she keeps her records.
a. How did Ton ltoorhead know that it was filed
24 with the Town clerk?
25 A. No idea. I donrt know Tonrs thought
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (970) 949-4920
L7
18
.19
,90
1 process.
2 Q. Okay. You sald wlth respect to your final
3 zone check that you ercluded the counte for the
4 apartments and condoninluns based on discussions nith Ton
5 Uoorhead. wtrat did Tom lloorhead tell you was the reason
6 for excluding those?
7 A. ActuaUy, I don't think I eald excluded. I
8 aaid I focused on the Iodge Hotel .
9 Q. Well, the final zone check doesn't have any
10 of the calculatl.ons for the apartnents, correct?
11 A. It's semantLcs, but f thlnk it'E an
L2 inportant difference.
13 A. Okay. t{ell, did you focus only on the Lodge
L4 Hotel using your terminologryz? l{hat did Tom }toorhead tell
15 you rras the reason to focus only on the Lodge Hotel for
16 the zone check?
A. BecauEe the Iodge Hotel was the applicant.
A. Did he tell you any other reason?
A. Not that I recall.
20 ' Q. Okay.
2L (Exhtbtt fIIS was narked.)
22 O. You have Exhibit ffIS in front of you. It's
23 entitled rrDRB Application.n It says nDate Application
24 Receivedrtr it's hard to read, but it appears to me to be
25 October of 1995.
Candace Stutson Reporting VaiI , Colorado (970) 949-4920
91
1
2
3
4
5 you?
A. Nor '93.
A. Excuse me, '93. Excuse ne, right.
A. Okay.
O. Does that seen -- is that what it says to
6 A. Our secretary took in $5o.
7 . O. Okay. And ehe put the date .at the bottom,
8 10-11-93?
9 A. Right.
LO A. Okay. ThiE is an application for DRB for
11 the International Wing?
L2 A. Yes.
13 O. Is this the application that you started to
L4 work from?
15 A. Yes.
16 O. Do you know who filled out this application?
L7 Is this filled out by the applicant?
18 A. It,s subnitted by the applicant. Irm not
19 sure who fills it out.
20 '- A. Itrs signed by Jay peterson in script?
2l A. Un-hun.
22 A. The name of the applicant is in script,
23 correct?
24
25
A. Yes.
O. Okay. The other part of the appllcation on
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9ZO) 949-4920
92
1 the front page iE in printing. Do you know who did that?
2 A. No. I don't knos. ft's subnitted like
3 this.
4 Q. ft'E subnitted like thls by the applicant?
5 A. Un-hum, right.
6 Q. so the application is the applicant's
7 Eepresentations of the pertinent facts?
I A. YeE.
9 Q. Yes?
10 A. Yes.
11 O. she can't take ua-huns. And based on the
L2 applicant's representations in the applicatlon, your
13 group, your staff, goes frou there?
L4 A. Yes.
15 (Exhibit III1O was narked.)
15 A. Thig ls b&ibtt III1o. Is this your
'L7 handwriting?
Lg A. Yes.
L9 a. Tbeee are notes you made on Novernber L7 |
20 1993?
2L A. Um-hun.
22
23
a. ft aaya nReview of Filerr?
A. Un-hun.
24 a. This is the -- what flle are you reviewing
25 in addition to the application?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (97O) 949-4920
93
I A. Revies of flle. gfho sigms the application.
2 I'u reading fron ny notes.
3 Q. You know, the whole exlriblt, to save tirne,
4 Andy, is a part of the record. Can you Just tell fron
5 reviewing -- take a nlnute if you need to -- the exlribit --
6 it,g a two-page extrLbLt -- vhat fLle you nere reviewing
7 and naking these notes fron?
8 A. Tlrls first part ls certainly the application
9 subnitted in October of 1993.
10
11
13
14
L2 infomation tlratrs dated rlght next to it.
O. okay.
A. The other parts of the exhibit reflect
O. That you went back and got --
A. Un-hun.
15 A. -- fron the existing Iodge file that ls --
16 A. In the drawer.
L7
18
a. -- in the drawer?
A. Yes.
19 O. Yes. Okay. Nos letrs talk about on the
20 front page. You reviewed the application and had sone
2L questions about who signs it?
22 A. Un-hun.
23 A. Correct?
24 A. Un-hun.
25 O. No. 2 guestion, trlfhat are the assumptions
Candace Stutson neporting Vail, Colorado (9ZO) g4g-4g}O
94
1 regarding development rights?i
2 A. Uu-hun.
O. tftrat were you asking yourself there?
A. I don't recall. I don't recall .
5 Q. okay. Then going on down it says,
6 rrAgreement: Total lot size 2.09 acres. Used only to
7 generate density for the Iodge Properties -- Iodge
8 Apartnents do not count- Lodge nust build 7,4OO sguare
9 feet of sonference Bpace, 61000 of shich must be in one
10 room.rr Did I read that correctly?
11 A. Yea.
L2 A. Okay. These are the ter:rns of the 1983
13 agreement?
L4 A. Yes.
15 a. I{ho had you discuesed the terms of the 1983
16 agreement with at the tine that you nade these notes? Do
L7 you believe you discussed it with Jay Peterson?
18 A. I don,t recall.
l-9 O. You don,t recall how you knew the terns of
20 the 1983 agreement?
2L A. This is -- f donrt -- f donrt -- f don,t
22 recall how.
23 O. I{ho told you that Iodge Apartments do not
24 count?
25 A. I donrt renenber.
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (9ZO) 949-4920
l lqlq
d 95
1 Q. The next page says n8l12/B'.n f canrt read
2 what that word is.
A. porte cochere. // ,-kp [tr'
a. what does that mean, ,Z
)t"l
5 A. Itrs the entrance to a hotel . A porte
6 cochere is an entrance to a hotel where you can park your
7 car. It,s usually covered.
I a. Okay. It,s already an exhibit. Itr6 IIII_1.
9 lt,s the letter to you from ilack Reutzel .
A. Okay.
a. Did you when you got this letter from ilack
L2 Reutzel dated Decenber 13, 1993, did you share that
13 letter with anybody else?
L4 A. I don't recall.
15 a. Did you diEcuss the contents of it or the
16 issues raised in this letter nith Ton Uoorhead?
L7 A. You know, I donrt renenber one way or'
LB another.
19 a. You didnrt respond to it until February. Do
20 you recall what you did? I Dean, when you got this
2L letter did you think, nOh, what do I do with this now?rl
22 A. No.
23 O. No?
24 A. No.
25 O. What-, reaction did you have to it?
Candase Stutson neporting Vail, Colorado (9ZO) 949-4920
10
11
1
2
3
,96
A. f started working on anauering it.
a. What dld you do to work on answering tt?
A. Reviewed the letter and tlren started writing
A. what else did you do besides writing your
4 ny letter.
A. Your letter that sasn't sent until Februarlr?
A. Yes.
7
8 letter?
9 A. I don't remenber.
10 A. Did you look at documents to prepare in
11 writing your letter of February?
L2 A. f don't renenber the specific actions f took
L3 between-
L4 A. Why wasn't your response letter sent out for
15 another two nonths?
L6 A. I nean, I don't know how much you want to
L7 hear about our workload here, but a two-nonth turnaround
18 time on a letter is not, I mean, souetimes that,s the
19 turnaround tine we have to operate on because of the
20 workload independent of this application.
2L A. Do you recall ever giving Ton l{oorhead a
22 copy of this letter fron Jack Reutzel?
23 A. I don't recall one uay or another.
24 A. Do you recall ever talking about your
25 responae to the letter wlth Ton l,toorhead?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (97O, 949-4920
97
1 A. I don't recall one way.or another.
2 Q. Okay. Let ne hand you two docunents that f
3 think that will help go together. Do you recall after
4 you received the letter fron,fack Reutzel that you are
5 tooking at, Extribit III11, that you had a neeting with
6 Tom ltloorhead and Jay Peterson regarding these issues that
7 are raised in ,tack Reutzel ,e letter?
8 A. f canrt remenber having a neeting. If
9 there,s notes in the file, then obviously we did. But,
10 you know, given that itrs, what, over two years ago, I
11 just don't renember.
L2 O. All right. You don,t recall uhether or not
13 had you a meeting with Jay Peterson about the letter?
1,4 A. f mean, no, not off the top of my head, no.
15 A. Okay. Now, why donrt you look at
16 Exhibit rII13.
L7 ltR. BAIIJEY: Have you handed that out
l-8 already?
L9 !.IS. FRICK: No, I have not handed out fII13.
20 ' (Exhibits fff13 and IIfl6 were marked. )
2L a. (By !,tS. FRICK) Are you looking at these two
22 exhibits?
23 A. Un-hun.
24 a. Okay. Exhibit III13 is handwritten notes of
25 yoursi is that right?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (9ZO) g4g-492}
98
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
A. Yes.
O. They reflect notes that you took at a
neeting you attended regardlng the Iodge on Decenber 23,
1993?
A. tlhether f,D at a neeting on Decenber 23 or
not, I can't telI.
A. Okay. Iooklng at the first llne of the
letter that you wrote to Jay dated January 6, L994,
Exhibit 16, it says, rrAs we discussed on Decenber 23,
L993, there are aeveral outstanding iEsues pertaining to
the lodge Ona application.n Does that appear that you
had a meeting either in person or on the telephone with
Jay Peterson on DeceDber 23?
A. YeE.
A. So would it be faLr to assume that your
notes in Exhibit III13 are from your conversation or
neeting with Jay Peterson on these issues?
A. I don't know. They could have been my own
preparation in advance of that neeting as referenced in
the January 6 letter. I canrt teIl.
O. Okay. They, nevertheless, were issues that
you-all discussed, you and Jay Peterson, on the 23rd of
Decenber, L993?
A. I Dean, I couldnrt verify that for a fact
because f usually write the members of the people present
Vail, ColoradoCandace Stutaon Reportlng (97O' 94e-4e20
99
1 at a neeting at the top of ny sheet, and why that's not
2 present on Exhibit UI13, f don't knon.
3 Q. Olcay. Now, the last page of Exhibit IIf13,
4 maybe this should have been the front pa9e, says nl.feetLng
5 with Ton Moorhead, Bob ltclaurin, L2-23-93'r?
6 A. Right.
7 Q. Okay. l{ho is Bob ttclaurin?
I A. Bob tlclaurin is the Tonn nanager.
9 Q. l{claurln, excuse ne. Okay. nReview
10 contractrrr does that nean review the 1983 agreenent?
11 A. I don,t know. I think I would have used the
L2 word rragreementrr if I were talking about that.
13 A. Do you know of any other contract thatrs
L4 involved in this --
15 A. No.
L6 A. -- fnternational Wing?
' 17 A. (The deponent shook head negatively.)
18 a. No. Okay. Dtade a note to review the
19 history of the approval; is that right?
20 ' A. Um-hum, yes.
2L A. Does that mean history of the approval of
22 compliance with zoning?
23 A. Again, Irm not sure rrhat ny thoughts were
24 behind these phrases that I jotted down.
25 a. You knew that the pEC had approved the
Candace stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9701 949-4920
100
1 International lflng back in october of 1983?
2 A. Yes. I mean, f don't know -- f don't know
3 what I knew on Decenber 23, 1993.
4 Q. Okay, Your last thlng states that no
5 conclusions at this tine. No concluEions regarding the
6 application for the Interrrational tfing developnent?
7 A. And I think what that references l-s in ny
8 letter to l{r. Reutzel, lf we can just go back to that,
9 the February 10 letter, I atart out and saLd that we
10 would like additional infornation. SpecLfically what I
11 say ie ttrat, xThe Town staff ie continuing to neet with
L2 you and your cll.ente ae well ae atay Peterson.r lge go on
13 to say that, nWe wl.ll be able to nake an lnforned
14 decision regarding the appropriate process for the
15 project once we have gathered more infornation.,,
L5 O. Okay. So chronologically, you had gotten
L7 .your letter in Decenber, the Decenber 13 letter fron Jack
L8 Reutzel , raising all kinds of issues regarding density
l-9 and zoning conpliance and the 1983 agreenent, right?
20 - A. Yes.
2L a. Then you had a meeting sith Ton Moorhead and
22 Bob Mcl,aurin on Decenber 23?
23 A. Yes.
A. And you discussed these matters?
A. (The deponent nodded head affirmatively. )
Candace Stutgon Reporting Vail , Colorado (9701 949-4920
24
25
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I2
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
l_9
20
21
22
23
24
25
101
O. Yes?
A. Yes.
a. And you eLther discussed then on the
telephong or in a neeting with Jay Peterson, correct?
A. Yes.
A. On Decenber 23? And you nade no conchisions
at that tine regardlng these issues and so infomed Jack
Reutzel that you and your etaff had not yet nade
conclusions regarding the issues Jack Reutzel nade?
A. Yes. We were gathering infornation.
O. I underatand. Okay.
(Exhibit III14 was narked. )
A. Now, in this sane time frame between the
December 13 letter fron Jack Reutzel and responding to
hirn in February, you had in that interin tine period on
Tuesday, January 4, L994, a meeting that you attended
with Jack Reutzel , Lynn Fritzlen, and Kristen Pritz; is
that right?
A. That,s correct.
' e. And Exhibit III14 are your notes of that
neeting?
A. Yea.
UR. BAILEY: t{ho is EK?
THE DEPONENT: AK, Andy Knudtsen.
A. (BY li{S. FRICK) Now, your first thing you
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (970) 949-4920
102
1 say ls that, rrWe will cone to a concluslon regrarding the
2 L983 PEc approval prLor to thie going to DRBtr?
3 A. Un-hum.
a. Yes?
A. les.
6 Q. And you nean that you will cone to a
7 conclugion regarding the ieeues raleed by Reutzel before
8 staff subnits it to DRB for a final tevi"r, right?
9 A. That's correct.
10 O. And f thtnk you told ne earlier this norning
11 that it didn't go to DRB for flnal revLew until
L2 Novenber 1 of 1995?
13 A. llhat's correct.
L4 O. Okay. Aluost tso years after the date of
15 this neeting, correct?
16 A. That's correct.
L7 A. Okay. And, in fact, I have seen in the
l8 record ln the transcrJ.pt of the June 1995 DRB neeting
L9 you're telling the DRB that this is just a conceptual
20 meeting?
2L A. Uru-hun.
22 O. And that there are still legal issues to be
23 resolved? Do you recall that?
24 A. Is that what the transcript says?
25 o' Yes.
Candace StutEon neporting Vail , Colorado (9ZO) 949-4920
103
1 A. Then I don't reueuber shat I was saying two
2 yeara ago approxinately, but if thatrs what the
3 transcript says, then that's what it says.
4 Q. Olcay. You recall tbat at least as of June
5 of 1995 DRB was just having conceptual meetings?
6 A. we were looking at aesthetics.
7 Q. Okay. And does that nean just conceptual
8 meeting?
9 A. Work sessl.ons.
A. Yes? The ansyer ls yes?
A. The tern that we use is work sessions where
10
11
L2 ve go to discuss issues but itrs not a final decision.
13 O. Okay. Okay. You make note of the isEues
L4 raised by ,fack Reutzel , correct?
15 A. Could you point -- Irn sorry. Irm not sure --
16 A. on the front page of Exhibit III14r you
L7 start out xJack Reutzel ,s opinionrr and you have --
18 A. yes, I aee where you are pointing to.
L9 O. Okay. And you nade note of what he was
20 stating to you?
2L A. Yes.
22 O. Correct? Okay. The next page says
23 rrReconmendation, should go through SDD or density
24 variance and an exterior alterations.tr Is that your
25 reconnendation?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (920) 949-4920
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
t1
L2
13
L4
l_5
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
. 104.
A. ftre way this ls uritten, f break down ilack
Reutzel's suggeetions A through H, f believe, and the
recounendation ia part of thoee letters.
.0. You bell.eve thie is Jack Reutzel's
reconnendation to you?
A. I believe letters A through H togtether are
what ilack Reutzel ,e oplnlon J.s. As f Etated, the capital
Ietters are Jack Reutzel's opinion, and I,m sure because
I have written that within those paragraphs A through H
that I am sunmarizing his vierrpoints.
A. Okay. lfhe reason I ask is that it,s set out
and it's not indented along slth the same line as the
letters. But you believe that this was Jack Reutzel ,s
reconmendationi is that rlght?
A. Yea.
a. Did you make these notes
the tine of the neeting or afteryards
A. I don't remenber.
a. Do you recall on letter D
four lines there it says rrTom'n"
A. Un-hun.
O. Do you see that? IE that
Moorhead raised?
contenporaneous at
as like a summary?
you have the last
a question Tom
A. I think I was sunmarizing a question of ilack
Reutzel's.
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (97O) e49-492O
105
A. What's the reference to rTom:tr there for?
2 A. Probably that I wanted to get bacl< with Ton
3 l,Ioorhead about that guestion.
4 Q. On that guestion?
5 A. Un:hum.
5 Q. Okay. Did you ask Tom liloorhead that
7 question? It,s a question regarding subdivision
I regulations.
9 A. I donrt remenber whether I asked Tom that or
10 not.
11 A. rs it your belief that if the Town had, in
L2 fact, subdivision regulationE in 1970, then the 1983
13 agreement would be invalid?
14 MR. MOORIIEAD: Objection.
15 A. I don,t know.
16 O. (BY US. FRICK) okay.
L7 A. I mean, I donrt know anything about that
1.8 kind of detail frou, what is that, 26 years ago.
19 uR. BAfLEY: Were you born then?
20 - UR. DITNN: 16 years ago, Lg7O.
2L a. (BY !rS. FRICK) Jack Reutzel raised to you
22 the guestion, rrfs PEC approval still valid if rights are
23 not vested?rr Do you see that in your handwritten notes?
24 A. Um-hun.
O. Do you recall ever responding to Jack
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9ZO) 949-4920
25
106
1 Reutzel's guestion on that?
2 A. lfe did respond to ilack Reutzel and L,ynn
3 Fritzlen on all of ttreir questLons.
4 Q. okay. Ttre only wrltten reaponse to ,fack
5 Reutzel is the letter Exhtbtt I'Ir2o.
A. And -- I'm sorry.
O. Do you have an additional written response
I to Jack Reutzel?
9 A. f wrote a letter to Lynn Frltzlen stating
10 that -- and I'm sure it's part of the record, and it
t-r. night be heJ.pful to bring that out to Just get this
L2 guestion answered once and for all. I believe itrs dated
13 Augrust of 1995.
L4 O. Okay. An Augrust 1995 letter to Lynn
L5 Fritzlen. I'u not sure I brought it. Was it addressed
16 to Jack Reutzel?
1-7 A. Llmn -- Llmn waa the contact and Lynn was
18 working -- Lynn uaB JacIc'B -- Lynn was the contact that I
19 was using.
20 -- A. Well , Jack Reutzel connunicated directly
2L with you, did he not?
22 A. Jack Reutzel ,s involvement is sonewhat
23 cloudy in ny nind, and I would like to refer back to
24 notes that Lynn provided in response to our invitation to
25 have Jack corne and provide us with his understanding of
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9ZO) 949-4920
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Lo
11
L2
13
L4
15
t6
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
107
the situation. He dld not show up. Lynn dld not short
up. They dld not want to neet with us. They did not
want to puraue their issues.
O. $lhen was that?
A. We need to pull these notes and letters out,
but we followed up on my February 10 letter saying once
rre have net with each party. 9le extended the inVltation
to both parties. Llmn dldn,t show. ilack didnrt show.
A. Where in your letter do you have a suggested
date for the neeting?
A. It,E not in the letter. The suggested dates
are not in the letter. Hosever, we did follow up and, in
fact, we met with Jay Peterson and had a meeting
tentatively established for the next day. 9le wanted to
neet with each party as I describe in ny February 10
letter, and then Lynn did not show up and Jack did not
show up.
O. Okay. tfhen was that set for?
A. I don't recall, but I know we had the
neeting and I know --
A. With Jay PeterEon?
A. And extended the invitation to Irynn and
Jack, and neither one of then wanted to meet.
A. But you don,t know when that was?
A. Well, I,n aure it would be easy to
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (97O, g4g-4ga}
. 108
1 determine.
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. But I can't recall off the top of ny head.
4 Q. All right.
5 A. And f gruesa there'F another letter in the
6 record wlrere f teII Llmn, I correct her on sone
7 misunderstandings and sone nisstatenents of fact and tell
8 her that and respond to her questions. I guess in
9 between that letter and Just the fact that they no longer
10 wanted to pursue our questl.ons, I nould assune that their
11 questions vere anEwered.
L2 O. Well, I don't know when you are talking
13 about. I will show you another letter from Jack Reutzel
14 to you. you've got a December 13 letter fro[ Jack
15 Reutzel and a Januarlt '94 meeting with Jack Reutzel ,
15 correct?
L7 A. Let ne just find then. Decenber 13 letter
18 to Jack?
19 a. Fron Jack.
20 - A. Fron Jack, fron Jack.
2L A. A January 4 neeting with Jack.
22 A. Yes, right here, these two exhibits.
23 A. okay. And your notes of that neeting are --
24 well, hang on a minute. And your notes of the ilanuary 4
25 neeting are III14, right?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (97O, 949-4920
109
I A. tanuary 4, 1994, is UI14.
2 Q. Olcay. And that,s a neeting witlr you and
3 Jack Reutzel, Lynn Fritzlen, Krlsten Pritz, correct?
A. lhat's correct.
s O. Okay.
6 (DLscuEEion off the record.)
7 (Exhibit flllg was narked.)
8 Q. Okay. You had another meet'ing where Jack
9 Reutzel attended as well as ToD lloorhead and other people
10 on January 27, L994. Do you see that?
LL A. Yes.
a2 a. Okay. And those issues all preceded your
L3 letter in response ln February where you rrere saying
L4 you're still exanining the situation?
15 A. That's correct.
L6 a. Okay. The last page of this Exhibit 19 is
L7 different handwriting. Do you know whose handwriting
LB that is?
19 A. Both Page 1 and page 2 are my handwriting.
20 - A. Okay. And how about the last page?
2L A. Page 3 is Kristen pritzrs handwriting.
22 A. Okay. Now, nhen you were first beginning to
23 work on this project, you wanted to look at the location
24 of arr the condoniniun unite and hotel units on the site,
25 correct?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (970) g4g-4g?O
, 110
1 A. I don't renenber etating that and f don't
2 remenber looking at that in ny notes.
3 (Exlrtblt IU17 was narked. )
4 Q. Tltls is your Janua4i 7, L994, letter to ilay
5 Peterson referring again to the December 23 neeting and
6 the outstanding issues regarding the application, right?
7 A. Uu-humr y€s.
I Q. Okay. And then at the top of it it says
rfilotes taken 3/28/95a?
10 A. Yes.
11 A. Wae Lt your practice to go back as you were
L2 completing various aspects of the required parts of the
13 application and check off shat was done?
L4 A. Yes.
15 A. Okay. Does a square nean it stilt needed to
16 be done?
L7 A. Yes.
18 A. And an okay meant it had been done?
19 A. Yes.
20 ' Q. Okay. And handwritten noteE would say more
2L dpecifically whatrs going on?
22 A. Yes.
23
24
25
a. And N/A would nean not applicable?
A. yes.
. O. Do you see Iten No. 1O? As of January 7,
Candace Stutson ReportLng VaiI , Colorado (9?O) 949-4920
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
111
Lgg4, you thought it inportant to get the flooi plans of
the condominLum wing that extended over the hotel portion
as well as floor plans for any other square footage on
the site. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
O. Okay. Did you ever get those floor plans or
did Jay Peterson tell you not to count then?
UR. BAU,EY: f'n goLng to object. Itrs a
compound question.
A. (BY US. fRfCK) Did you ever get the floor
plans for the condoniniun wing that extended over the
hotel portion and the other square footage on the site?
A. Let ne just read No. 10, if you donrt rnind.
O. Sure.
A. Yea, f did get the plans. And let me point
out that I wasn,t familiar with the property and in ny
nind I needed clarification as to what the Lodge HoteL
was.
(Exhibit III18 was narked. )
- O. Okay. I have handed you E:dribit III18. Are
the handsritten notes on this extribit your notes?
A. Yes.
A. okay. okay. Now 90 to Exhibit III19, the
notes of the January 27 neeting with L,1mn Frltzlen and
.tack Reutzel . It,s III19. Itrs already been narked.
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (970) e4e-4920
112
1 ilack Reutzel asks you a question. It says IPEC ueuo of
2 Patton's. No zoning analysis.t Do you know what neuo
3 he's referring to?
4 A. ft waB -- I belLeve he was referencing the
5 19 -- the PEC approval of tlre International l{ing.
O. And he Bays nNo zonl.ng analyeiei?
7 A. That's what ny notes say that he eaid.
8 Q. Next pa9e, trQuestion for ilay Peterson,n is
9 that a question that you raLeed?
10 A. I think that was the question surnrnarizing
11 JLu Brown, Lynn Fritzlen, Jack Reutzel , and ,firn Brown
L2 again. That wae the overriding guestion that they were
13 asking.
L4 a. They were asking that question about if you
15 adopt this 1983 agreement and its rationale on an air
l-5 estate, then can't the Iodge condominiums go up and have
17 unlimited density? That,s their question?
Lg A. That's their question, yes.
19 a. Okay. Hoy did you respond to that question?
20 -- A. l{ell, as ue referred, not to beat a dead
2L horse, but going back again to the February, what is it,
22 11 letter where I Eay that werre setting up tirnes to
23 discuss the details with each side, ultinately we did
24 neet with Jay Peterson, ultiuately Lynn didnrt shos and
25 Jack Reutzel didnrt shorr.
Candace Stutson Reporting VaiI, Colorado (970) 949-4920
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
O. Okay. I{hat
shown up at that neeting?
then?
113
sould you telI theu if they had
lftrat were you going to tell
liR. IiIOORIIEAD: Objection.
A. We were -- we -- let ue go back to the
Ietter to be clear. February 10, 1994, sOnce we have net
with each party and understand the rationaleE used for
the various positionsrtr if we had net with then, we would
have wanted to follow up on the Febnrary 10 statenent in
Paragraph No. 1 that se wanted to understand the
rationales used for the various posLtions.
a. Okay. So ilack Reutzel had told you his
rationales in his letter in Decenber, correct?
A. We needed to follow up on that.
O. Okay. And ny question for you was, If they
had cone to the meeting, what would you have told then in
response to this question set forth on January 27, L994?
MR. UOORHEAD: Objection. co ahead, if you
can, if you know.
: A. The meeting didnrt occur. frm not sure wtrat
I nean, there,s no record of it occurring.
O. (BY l{S. FRfCK) I understand that, but you
were preparing to have the neeting to respond to them.
A. We nere preparing to have the neeting to
understand the rationales used for the various positions.
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , colorado (970) 949-4920
. 114
1 Q. I underetand that. The question presented
2 Ln your handyritten notea on Exttibit IIf19 was a guestion
3 for ilay Peterson, yes?
4 A. ft was a summary of Llmn Frl-tzlen, Jin
5 Brown, and Jack Reutzel'e collegtive guestLons.
6 Q. AII right. Anal you Dade a note to ask that
7 questl.on of itay Peterson?
8 A. Rtght.
9 Q. Iou net sl-th Jay Peterson, correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 A. You aaked hfun that question, correct?
L2 A. f don't renenber exactly what occurred in
13 that neeting.
L4 O. Dld Jay Peterson ever ansrder this guestion
15 for you?
15 A. I don't reneuber.
L7 A. Now, you said that after your February
18 letter you wanted nore follow-up from Jack Reutzel; is
19 that right?
20 :' A. Yes. We wanted to understand the rationale
2L lre rras using for his position.
22 A. And Jack Reutzel did follow up, didnrt he?
23 A. He did not Ehow up for the neeting.
24 O. I understand that. He follorred up with a
25 written follow-up; is that right?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (920) 949-4920
11s
A. If you've got an exhibit ve could review.
O. You don't recall?
3 A. Tlrat's right.
4 (Exhibit fII21 vas marked.)
5 A. Andy, on this Exhtbit Iff21, on the
6 rigtrt-hand side therers handwritten notes that look to me
7 to be in your handwriting that say nRead 3/L4 ANt?
A. Yes.
9 Q. lhat,s your lrandwriting?
10 A. Yes.
11 A. That means you read thie letter on March 14?
12 A. Yes.
13
L4
15
L7
L8
O. It,s date-stanped as received March 8, L994?
A. Yes.
O. It's in a letter addresEed to Tom Moorhead?
16 A. Yes.
O. ft'a a letter fron Jack Reutzel?
A. Yes.
19 O. It,s a five-page letter from Jack Reutzel?
20 - A. Yes.
2L O. Did you discuss the contents of this letter
22 from Tom Moorhead?
A. I donrt recall.
O. Did you consider a response to this tetter?
A. I donrt recall.
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9?O) g4g-492}
23
24
25
, 116
I Q. Are you aware of shether or not Ton uoorhead
2 Eesponded in vrlting to this letter?
3 A. I'n sure the record -- J don't knos.
4 O. Okay. Are you avare of anyone reepondlng in
5 writing to thie letter?
6 A. I don't recall.
7 Q. The last page of tlris exhibit are notes on a
I meno pad that says rAndy Knudtsen.i
9 A. Is that a cruestlon?
10 A. Is that trnna,
11 A. Ies, that's correct.
L2 O. Are thoae your handrritten notes?
13 A. Yes.
14 O. TheEe are notes you took based on your
15 review of the items designated in those notes?
16 A. I'n sorry. Coutd you repeat your question?
L7 O. yeE. It was a bad question. I wiII
18 rephrase it. Iooking at the notes, Roman Numeral I says,
19 rrlftrat are the development rightsrrr and you list three
20 things underneath then, rra. 3-2-94 letter fron Jack
2L Reutzeli b. 8-9-83 agreenenti and c. Zoning - FAR -
22 condqminiumized air rights.n
23 A. Right.
24 a. Those were the three things that you thought
25 you needed to review and analyze and consider in order to
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9701 949-4920
117
1 detemine the allowable density and development for the
2 International l{ing?
3 A. I'n not -- I don't -- f don,t know if this
4 is a sumnary of meetings f had had. I donrt know if it
5 was a sunmary of positions of Llmn Fritzlen and Jack
6 Reutzel . f don,t recall the background behind these
7 statements.
8 O. Second isEue that you nade a note of is,
9 nl{hat is the appropriate revieu processr; is that rtght?
10 A. Yes.
11 a. Do you recall that that issue of whether or
L2 not Lodge Properties had gone through the approprlate
L3 review process before getting their 1983 approval_ was an
L4 issue that you-all were looking into?
15 A. Well, certainly it was an issue that .fack
L6 Reutzel and Lynn Fritzlen had brought up.
L7 a. Had brought up?
18 A. Un-hum.
19 O. And was it an issue that you were looking at
20 responding to?
2L A. Again, Irn not sure if this is a sunmary of
22 the Lynn and Jack phone calls and meetings. I donrt
23 recall the background behind these staternents.
24 A. Okay. Devoid of these notes, was that an
25 issue of whether the approprlate review process had been
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , colorado (g7O, g4g-4g2}
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
14
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
, 118
followed? Wae that an iseue that you uere considering
and contenplatlng in response to ilack Reutzel's --
A. Well , at a nlnimum, in order to get back to
Llmn and ilack.
O. okay. In additlon to getting back to L'ynn
and Jack, was it an issue you rere contenplating?
A. I don't recall .
O. Okay. You eaid tlrat after your Febnrary
letter of 1994 to Jack Reutzel that you then net with Jay
Peterson to discuss those guestions that were ralsed by
Reutzel , among other thl-ngs; is that rlght?
A. yeah. Basically the intent was to get I
think it tras a Thureday and a Friday, back to back,
er<plain their rationale.
A. okay. Now, and you believe that those were
scheduled for shortly after your February letter?
A. You knou, tr really don't know.
O. withln a natter of at least four to six
weeks, you thlnk?
- A. That I,n not sure about either.
A. okay.
A. It could have been uay.
A, It could have been !lay? Okay. lf'ay of ,94?
The chronology is you wrote the letter back to Reutzel in
February ot '94, he wrote a letter to Moorhead, whl.ch you
Vail, coloradoCandace Stutson neporting (970) 949-4920
119
1 got a copy of and made notes of Uarch 2 of 1994. Okay?
2 A. In the ensuing 12 nonths --
3 Q. Nothing happened?
4 A. Yeah. And so I donrt knon --
5 Q. And nothing happened because the Iodge
6 nasn't really pursuing it actively?
7 A. I think the Iodge was addressing the points
8 that I raised in my ilanuary 4, L994, letter.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. l{e set up those neetings for April, April
11 plus or minus, but to tell you the truth, the year, f
1,2 don,t know if it was t94 or '95.
13 A. Now, therers nothing in the certified record
L4 that I can see about setting up Eome neetings for April
15 of '94. Is this sometbing you are Just renenrl'erl.ng on
1.5 your own?
L7 A. We probably did it over the phone.
L8 A. And you just remenber it?
19 A. Un-hum. I{elI, and I remenber what triggered
20 it was the first statenent in ny letter to Jack that we
2L vanted to hear both rationalee.
22 A. okay. And he presented his rationales in
23 his letters?
24
25
A. Did he not show up.
a. I understand that.
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (970) 949-4920
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
. 120
A. Llmn did not show up. Jack did not shov up.
O. I understand that, Is it your position that
in reading Jack Reutzel's letters that he did not present
his position in hls letters?
A. They raised questlons. They were certainly
interesting questions. I{e became more educated.
obviously Tom waE not working for the Town say back when,
f didn't work for the Town way back when, and we needed a
better understandLng. Jack,s questions certainly
inforned us of one point of vLew, but until you are
brought up to epeed, oftentLnee you don't even knos what
guestions to ask. so se definitety had -- we needed to
hear bottr sideg.
O. I understand that.
A. And when Jack didn't show up and Lynn didn't
to understandshow
their
view,
up, you know, it was
rationale.
a. But Jack's letter's did present his point of
correct?
A. WelI, in ny opinlon --
ItR. UOORIIEAD: obJectlon. That's been asked
very difficult
and answered three times.
a. (BY IrlS. FRICK) Yes or no?
A. They helped l-nforn us of the issues.
A. Yes or no, they presented his point of view?
Candace Stutson neporting VaiI , Colorado (97O1 949-4920
L2L
1 lm,. UOORHEAD: ff you canrt answer it with a
2 yes or no, you don,t have to ansuer it with a yes or no.
3 lfHE DEPONENI: Okay.
4 A. The answer I have given is the nost accurate
5 ansner f can think of to your questlon.
6 Q. (By US. !'RICK) You canrt answer that
7 question yes or no?
A. lfhat's correct.
9 Q. Okay. ltow, then you said you had a meeting
LO with Jay Peterson. I{hat did you and Jay peterson
l-1 discuss? What did Jay Peterson teII you?
L2 A. Jay Petersonrs rationale for his view of the
13 International l{ing.
14 A. And what was his rationale that he gave you?
15 A. If we donrt have notes that are part of the
16 record, I canrt recollect off the top of my head.
L7 A. Do you believe you took irotes of that
18 neeting?
19 A. If I did, they are part of the record.
20
2L A. Okay. Then no.
22 O. So you donrt recall what Jay petersonrs
23 rationale was?
24 A. No.
a. Okay. And then things lay dormant fron
candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (970) g4g-492}
25
L22
1 about April or so of 'g4 untlt the end ot 'g4; is that
2 rlght?
3 A. I can't recall the specific nonths, but it
4 saa nany, nany, nany nonths.
5 a. Okay. WaE it your underetanding that the
5 L,odge sas not at that tLne period pursuing thelr DRB
7 application to constnrct the Internatlonal Wing?
I A. It was !y understanding that they were
9 responding to the pointe I had raiEed in ny iranuar? 4,
10 L994, letter.
11 A. So lt vas your understandlng that, in fact,
L2 they were actively pursuing their DRB application?
13 A. tfell, I Just assuned that they were
14 responding to ny letter.
15 O. You assuned that? You didn,t know whether
l-6 or not they were actively pursuing it?
L7 A. I did not know ttrat.
18 O. In fact, weren't they pursuing or talking
L9 about a possibility of building over on what has been
20 temed the Exchange Parcel?
2L A. I don't know what they were considering
22 doing.
23 A. okay.
24 A. I nean, I know what I did in relation to the
25 DRB review of the proJect, but I canrt speak for the
candace Stutson Reporting Vall , Colorado (9701 949-4920
. 123
1 Iodge.
2 Q. And what you did in this interim tine period
3 between Uarch of 1994 and Decenber of 1994 was you really
4 did nothing on the International t{ing in that tine
5 period; is that rigtrt?
6 A. yeah. To the best of my recollection, f
7 cannot renember going to neetings, makLng phone calls.
I Q. okay. And, in fact, didnrt you think,
9 personally think, that it woutd be a good idea to build
10 the International l{l-ng over on the Exchange parcel?
Ll- MR. UOORHEAD: Objection.
L2 ltR. BAILEY: I witl object as based on
l-3 relevancy. Hers not the applicant.
L4 A. I Dean, I think you are referring to a meno
15 that,s in the record and I think it night be helpful for
16 our discussion if we both were looking at the sane memo.
L7 a. (BY US. FRICK) you can,t answer the
18 question vithout looking at the memo?
L9 A. That,s correct.
20 (Exhibit IIf23 was marked.)
2L A. Have you read the memo?
22 A. Yes.
23 O. This is Exhibit rrr23.
24 A. Can you refresh my Demory, just so that I
25 have the right frauework in nind? The applicatLon --
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (970) 949-4920
L24
O. Don't write on the exhibit.
2 A. oh, I'm sorry.
3 Q. can you write on sonetlring else?
4 A. The appll,catLon was subnltted Ln 10 of '93.
5 O. The DRB applLcation?
6 A. Yeah, the DR8. And then -- okay. f'm Just
7 trying to get all theee nunbers.
8 ltR. BAU-,EY: Thank you, Ann. I'm going to
9 thank you.
10 l{s. FRICK: You're going to use this in the
11 Tenth CLrcuit?
L2 l,lR. EAfLEY: I'u going to use this in the
13 Tenth Circuit.
L4
15
16 focused
llS. FRICK: I'u not part of that lawsuit.
UR. BAIISY: f know. I hadn't really
on what was being diecuseed here before.
l,lS. FRICK: I'm glad to help you out, Jin.
MR. BAILEY: I appreciate it.
O. (BY l.ls. FRICK) Okay, Andy, you ready?
L7
18
L9
20 - A. Uu-hun.
2L A. Exhibit III23 is a nemo from you to Bob
22 Uclaurin, the Town Danager, right?
23 A. Yes.
24 A. Dated Decenber 12, L994?
25 A. Yes.
Candace Stutson Reporting VaiI, Colorado (97O, 949-4920
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
125
A. You drafted this, correct?
A. Yes.
A. You initialed it?
A. Yes.
O. You reviewed it before you initialed it?
A. Yes.
A. Before you sent it out?
A. Yes.
O. And you nade handwritten noteE on the
10 botton?
11 A. Yes.
L2 A. lhe handwrltten notes are based on a
13 discussion you had with Bob Uclaurl-n on ttrese issues?
L4 A. Irm not aure. I canrt tell fron ny notes
15 who I was speaking with.
16 O. Okay. Do you see that you state that the
L7 lJodge was, quote, rtreactivating their proposal to
18 construct the International l,ilingr?
19 A. Yes, I see that in the text.
20 ' Q. Okay. Does that refresh your memory that in
2L this tine period they were not actively pursuing it until
22 around Decenber 12, L994?
23 A. Well, I think another way to say
24 reactivating is that they had addressed the guestions
25 that I had asked.
Candace Stutson Reporting VaiI , Colorado (gZOl g4g-4920
L26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1t_
L2
13
14
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
A. But they hadn't cone back ln the interln
with their responses? fs that.what you are saying?
A. Yes,
O. okay. And to your uind that was a
reactivation?
A.
a.
A.
the guestions
forvard.
Yes.
Not Just a delayed response?
I gruess I believe that they had addressed
that I had asked and were ready to nove
A. You dLdn't hear fron the lodge about the
International l{ing in thls Lnterin nine-nonth tLne
period, did you?
A. I don't recall lf there were occasional
calls or not.
A. You don't have any notes of any?
A. I don't recall if I nade any notes of any.
A. There are none in the record. Now, you talk
about potentially putting the International tling on the
Exchange Parcel . Is that what you were referring to when
you aay na revised location for the International Wlngr'?
A. Okay, I see where you are referring to.
Could you please repeat the question?
A. Yeah. f sill nake it a better reference.
In your memo you talk about how the Iodge has hired sone
candace Stutson Reporting Val-l , col.orado .(970) 949-4920
L27
1 people to do design work.
A. Un-hun.
3 Q. fncluding a Bill Xane fron Design Workshop;
4 is that right?
5 A. Right, right.
5 Q. And that Blll Kane,s plan included
7 relocating the International Wing, correct?
I A. A revised location for the International
9 lfing, yes.
t0 O. And it says, xThese developments would be
11 located on ,parcel Cr, which is annexed wlthin the Town,
L2 zoned Greenbelt Natural Open Space, and osned by the
L3 Forest Serlrice. rl
14 A. Yes.
15 O. As I understand it, the local coumon
16 reference to what that parcel is is everybody calls it
L7 the Exchange Parce1; ls that right?
18 A. Or the Trade Parcel .
19 A. Or the trade parcel?
20 -- A. Right.
2L A. Okay. So what you are saying here in your
22 nerno is that BiIl Kane for Iodge properties has come up
23 with a plan where in the plan -- frm not saying this is
24 definite -- but in the plan they suggest putting the
25 International Wing on the Exchange parcel , correct?
candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (970) g4g-492}
128
1 UR. BAIL,EY: ObJectlon. Didn't you say that
2 BiII Kane working for Iodge Properties?
3 l,lSl. trRICK: Yeah. I thought he told me
4 that.
TllE DEPONENT: No. It's Bill Kane with
6 Desigm l{orkshop.
7 ltR. BAfLEY: 'ftris Is the firEt tine I have
8 been asare of BiIl Kane.
UR. PErERSON: He,a not ours.
10 TEE DEPONENI: Bl.Il Kane vorks for Desigm
11 tlorkshop.
L2 A. (By !rS. fRfCK) And Desigm l{orkshop was
13 engaged by Iodge Propertles for this plan?
14 A. I'rn not sure who they were engaged by.
15 O. lfhoever BiII Kane was engaged by, lre's
16 talking about potentially putting the International Wing
L7 en the Exchange Parcel?
18 A. Yes.
19 A. And that,s what you are referencingr in your
20 n-emo to the Town manager?
2L A. Yes.
22 O. And you go on to say that at least we should
23 pursue this potential opportunity, correct?
24 A. I suggested that Bill Kane cone to VaiI in
25 January and present the drawings to itack Zehren and ilay
Candace Stutson Reporting VaiI, Colorado (9701 949-4920
L29
1 Peterson.
2 Q. Yeah. You thought it was a good idea to at
3 least explore thls potential opportunity?
4 A. Yeah, it was worthwhile sitting down and
5 looking at the drawings, yes.
5 Q. Okay, And one of the reasons that you
7 Xhought it night be fruitful to pursue that potential
8 relocation of the InternatLonal Wing was because of the
9 lawsuits, you say, n...and last but not least a
10 rezoningrt?
LL A. Wtrat was the first part of your qluestion?
L2 I,n not sure I understand that part.
13 A. That, in part, one of the reasons that you
L4 thought it vas a good idea to at least pursue the
15 potential relocation of the International Vting was
16 because of the existing lawsuits. Do you see that?
L7 A. No, I donrt. I think you are connecting --
18 I think you are reading into the memo. I thought at a
19 ninimum it was good to review the infornation, and then I
20 llsted the hurdles, if you wil1, or the significant
2L players and issues whi.ch would require resolution that
22 would trave to come to the table and buy into the concept.
23 a. Okay. What,s the lawsuit fron One Vail
24 Place that you are referring to?
25 A. I donrt recall.
candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9ZO) 949-4920
. 130
1 Q. I{as it because the plan for the
2 International t{ing to go on the Iodge site vas too close
3 to one Vail Place and reel.dents there had been obJecting
4 to that?
5 A. r think what r have Etated here is all of
6 the players. As you can see, iBut in order to preserrre
7 this opportunity, there are a nunber of sigmificant
8 players and Issues which requLre resolution.i One VaiI
9 Place would be a player.
10 A. Okay. Not necessarily a lawEuit?
11 A. Yeah. The lavsuits between the Lodge and
L2 Lodge Tower are wlthin two connaE.
13 O. I gotcha. And one Vail Place is a player
L4 because people ll.ke Luanne Wells, who are residents of
15 one Vail Place, had been raising obJections to the
16 International Wing being built.
L7 A. tlell, I think whenever we propose anything
18 we take into conelderation the context.
L9 a. And that'a part of the context, right?
20 ' A. Um-hun, ul-hun, certainly.
2L O. And It yas at that tine part of the context?
22 A. One Vail Place was --
23 MR. BAILEY: At what tine?
24 O. (BY l{S. FRICK) At the tine of this nemo,
25 One Vail Place and the objections of its property ownera
Candace Stutson Reporting VaiI , Colorado (970) 949-4920
131
I to the International l{ing was part of the context yourre
2 Eeferring to?
A. No, not at all.
4 Q. Not at all?
5 A. One Vail Place is parE of the context
5 because of where it,s located.
7 Q. Okay. The fact that Luanne Wells, who is a
I resident of One Vail Place, had raised objection through
t her lawyer, Jack Reutzel , to the International lfing had
10 nothing to do wJ.th your conments in this neno?
11 A. We try to be as inclusive aE we can. Irn
L2 referencing the Forest Sellrice, the Iodge Tower, Vail-
13 Associates, the Town, One VaiI place. f rm trying to be
L4 inclusive in this memo here.
l-5 A. I understand, but you are not responding to
l-5 ny question.
L7 A. okay.
l-8 A. Was the fact that Luanne ltells, a resident
19 at One Vail Place, had raised objectJ-ons to the
20 International Wing, was that part of the context that you
2L are referring to in your neno here?
22 A. I,m referring to physicat locatLons, not
23 people or issues that they night have.
24 O. Okay. So the fact of Luanne Wells,
25 objections was not a part of your consideration at this
Candace Stutson Reporting VaLl, Colorado (9ZO) 949-4920
L32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
14
15
16
L'l
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
tine?
A.
o.
No.
Now,you heard fron tack Reutzel again, did
you not?
A. I'n not aure. Are. you referring to a
specLfic letter?
A. I think f have one here.
(Exhibit III34 was narked.)
A. l{lrenever you are ready.
O. Are you ready? Okay. This is
E:(htbtt Iu34. ThLe ls a letter directed to you fron
Jaek Reutzel dated tlay 2, L995, correct?
A. Yes.
A. Are those your handwritten notes that say
rrFile in International Wing. Thanksrr?
A. No.
O. Do you know shose those are?
A. They are not rny handwriting, I know that.
a. In this letter directed to you from Jack
Reutzel , he states, trThank you for advising ne of the
pending Deslgn Review Board consideration of the Lodge at
Vail's proposed expansLon.tr I donrt see a letter in the
certified record. Do you recall calling hin or what?
A. well, out of courteay we notified interested
people of the DRB. IrD aure fron your review of the code
candace Stutson Reporting Vail , colorado (970) e4e-4e20
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
14
15
15
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
you understand
not necessary.
may have been
which.
133
that adjacent property notifications is
So, as a courtesy, I let hin know. ft
through letter or phone call. f'n not sure
And he then goes on to say that the
he spoke wittr this natter was in March
O. okay.
Iast tine you and
of 1994.
A. Um-hum.
a. Okay. And he says that he raised several
issues and again attaches his letter to lon Moorhead
dated March 2 and references also his Decenber 13 letter,
which we have already looked at both of those, correct?
A. Yes.
a. And he attaches then to this letter of
Dtay 2.
A. Sonethlng is Just coning back to ne. I{hen
we set up the neetings with Jay Peterson and Lynn
Fritzlen and whoever ehe wanted to bring, we assuned it
would be Jack Reutzel , Susan Connelly lras an employee of
the Town at the tiue and Susan did not start work -- she
has been working for the Town for approxinately ten
months now.
A. we're February ,96. Okay. So like April or
May?
A. Or later.
Candace StutEon Reporting Vail, colorado (9ZO) 949-4920
134
O. Or after that?
A. Yeah.
3 l.lR. BAILEY3 Of what year?
4 TltE DEPONENE: I,! Borry. Of 1995.
5 Q. (BY l.ts. FRICK) Oh. So you think that the
6 meetJ.ng that you were trying to talk about earlier was
7 potentially scheduled after thLs l.etter of Uay 2, ,95?
I A. Un-hun, un-hun.
9 Q. okay.
10 A. I know Sugan was an enployee of the Town at
11 the tine that ye set up the neetings.
L2 A. Okay. llhat would fit with what !tr. Reutzel
13 is saying whlch Ls, Ln thls letter hers saying, nI
l-4 haven,t talked to anybody or heard fron anybody since
15 ltarch of '94.11
15 A. Un-hun.
L7
18
A. Now it'E a full 14 nonths later?
A. Um-hum.
19 a' Yes?
20 - A. Yes.
2L O. And that fits now your memory of the
22 chronolog'y?
23 A. Yes.
24 a. I appreciate that. A11 right. In that
25 interin l4-nonth period, did you have any dlscussl_ons
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (9701 949-4920
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
l-5
15
L7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
135
internallyr you irlth Ton lloorhead, you with anybody else
on your staff, you with leisten Pritz about the issues
that had been raised in ilack Reutzel ,s letters?
A. Other than the Decenber 12 memo I wrote to
Bob litclaurin, I. don't recall having discussions on the
project.
O. At all?
A. In the interin.
a. Okay. And the neno we just looked at to Bob
l{claurin of Decenber didn,t reference the Jack Reutzel
issues?
A. No.
A. okay. Now, he asks, at the botton of the
Page 1, Jack Reutzel asks for a meeting to discuss these
issues with you, with the Town and the applicant,
correct?
A. Yes, and thatrs what I donrt understand. I
mean, Jack ReutzeItE involvenent in this project is
sonething that I,n very unclear about and would love to
have laid out on the table. I donrt know why Jack didn't
show and Lynn didn,t show.
A. I don,t see -- f have never seen any mention
in the record of any proposed neeting, so f donrt know.
A. Even so, it would Just be sonething that f
would be interested in understanding why that sas the
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (97O) 949-4920
136
1 case.
2 Q. okay. Nos, did you nake a written response
3 to Jack Reutzel'e letter of llay 2, L995?
4 A. ltell, you see, and this gets back to uy
5 guestion. alack'a -- and f don't want to speculate -- but
6 itaclc's involvenent in the proJect is something that f
7 don't understand and I started working excluslvely with
8 Lynn Fritzlen on the issues.
9 Q. olcay. I understand what you are saying. so
10 I take Lt, then, you don't recall responding back to Jack
11 Reutzel?
L2 A. 9lell , f needed to respond to Lynn because I
13 asked Llmn and Jack to coue to the neeting, Jack didn,t
14 show, Lynn didn't show, I etarted working with Lynn, and
15 then ttrere ie a pretty clear series of letters between
16 Lynn and nyself addregsing all of these isgues.
L7 A. Yes. I see that you have had correspondence
18 with Lynn Fritzlen?
19 A. Rlght, right.
20 . '- A. I'n not necessarily agreeing that you
2L addressed aII the ieeues, but you lrad correspondence with
22 Lynn.
23
24
25 Jaclc?
A. Right.
O. And you didn't have correspondence with
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (970) 949-4920
L37
1 A. And it was ny understanding that that was
2 not necessary from Lynn.
3 Q. Okay. I,m not asking the reasons. frn Just
4 trying to make sure I have all the docunents.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. You don't recall having any then
7 correspondence back with Jack Reutzel?
8 A. After he dld not show up to the neeting we
9 invited hirn to, no.
10 A. Okay. so you believe you called Jack
11 Reutzel to invite hLn to a neeting?
L2 A. I was working with L1mn.
13 a. AII right. So you night have made that
L4 request only through Lynn? fs tbat your testinony?
15 A. I don,t recall exactly who I nade the phone
16 calls to.
L7 A. okay.
18 A. But it nlght be worth looking at the record
19 as far as the correspondence between Lynn and nyself.
20 '- O. Okay. I appreciate that. I will do that.
2L UR. BAILEY: hdy, please donrt suggest that
22 we look at any nore of the record.
23 TtlE DEPONET{T: Okay.
24 MR. BAILEY: I would like to finish today.
25 O. (By !{S. FRICK) Now, do you recall whether
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9701 949-4920
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
t1
L2
13
L4
1.5
15
L7
L8
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
, 138
or not you attended the design review board neeting of
uay 3, L995, that lE referenced ln Jack Reutzel's letter
of uay 2?
A. f don't recall whether I was there or not.
A. Was it your pattern and practice to
regularly attend desigrn review board meetings of projects
that you were sorking on?
A. YeE.
O. okay. A11 rlght. Ttris is part of the
certified record. I don't have extra copies. It's
lengrthy. rt's the transcript of tlre DRB 5-2-95 meeting,
and it's --
o.
is III35 of
speaker, and
person says
UR. BAILEY: 5-2 or 5-3?
us. FRfCK: 5-3. Excuse me. Thank you.
(By us. FRrcK) 5-3-95 DRB meeting, and it
the record. There ie an unidentified
I will read you at the beginning what this
and tell ne if you think it's you. okay?
trAt this tine today is the conceptual revies
just to talk about the architecture. I{e wltl schedule
this lten for final revlew once lt has been detemined
that it is a planning and zoning and all of the town's
zoning processes and (inaudible) procedures. Until then
the discussion should be conceptual (inaudible) the
background at thls tlne (inaudlble)."
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (970) 949-4920
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
t0
11
L2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
139
I neglected to say that the very first line
of this transcript is, nliR. CIIAIRI,IAN: Iten Number 7, the
Iodge at Vail International wingrn and Dtr. Peterson says
he's there and the chaiman says if se can have a brief
overrriew and then the part I read, unidentlfied speaker.
l,lS. FRICK: Do you have a copy of it wlth
you, Ton?
ItR. UOORHEAD: Urn-hun.
US. FRICK: Oh, all right. If you don,t
mind, could you share it with the witness?
UR. UOORHE.AD: Un-hun. I donrt know if
others in the room need to look at it at the sane tl-ne.
O. (BY r,rs. FRICK) Is that you, Andy,
unidentified speaker speaking?
A. I don't know for sure.
O. Okay. Page 3, the chairman is asking if the
exterior of the Uuilding as presented in '82 is the sane
as it's presented today. This is aesthetic architectural
discussion; is that right?
' A. Yes. If it involves the exterior of the
building, it would pertain to the aesthetics.
a. And then unidentified speaker says, rNo. It
is a different stylerr?
A. Yes.
A. ilThe l-982 drawings were more sinple. The
Vail, ColoradoCandace Stutson Reporting (970) e4e-492O
140
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
progran and the density reuains the
unidentified speaker?
sa[e.i Are you the
A. f would think f would be.
A. okay. I thought so too. Now, the bottom of
that page, the board nenber is asking Jay, I take it Jay
Peterson, if the -- tt says, nThis application as you're
bringing it to ua today, Jay, ie based on the prenLse
that what was approved in 1982 is valid as se speak?tr
Itr. Peterson goeE on and aays, rYegri and states, trThe
exterior alteratlon (lnaudlble) the Planning Connission
there iE no -- there ie not a flnite period of tine that
that is good. DRB is good for one year. The Planning
Conmission is not.i
Now, as of the date of this meeting, 5-3-95,
in fact, planning conmission approval is not good for an
indefinite period, is it?
A. I'n aorry? tlhat was your question?
A. As of ltlay 3 , Lggs, planning cornmission
is not good for an indefinite period of tine?
lilR. UOORHEAD: You're talking about in a
sense? Are you talking about the status of a
code section right now as opposed to this
back in 1993?
I'n talking about in general .
representation nade by
vail, colorado (97o) 949-4920
approval
general
specific
approval
I.IS. FRICK:
I'n following up on the
Candace Stutson Reporting
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
!lr. Peteraon to the DRB.
A. tle changed the code go ttrat there sas an
expiration period for approvals. We had that for other
tlpes of approvals in our code, DRB as nell as
conditional uses, and we extended that standard to
include exterior alterations. However, we recognized
that any exterior alteration that was valid at the tine
would continue to be valld.
a. (BY US. rRrCK)
recognition?
And where did you nake that
A. It,a a very standard Town of Vail policy
that once we change the code it is not retroactive. That
applies to gas fireplaces, for example. It applies to
the 25o, which is the -- if you want to get into a GRFA
nightnare, that,s the 250. But se donrt -- itrs a
standard Town of Vail policy to acknowledge existing
situations as valid and change the code to apply to
situations in the future.
A. So any PEC approval , no natter how old it
was as of the tine you roade the ordinance, which is 1993,
no matter how old it was, lt would still go foruard as
valid? That,s your understanding?
A. Yes. And another example --
A. What's that understanding based on?
A. Another exanple is the parking changes. l{e
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, colorado (9701 949-4920
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
14
L5
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
increased the
. L42
ne nade it clear
to ttre council at the existing applicatlons
that were in ttre process, that vere in the proceas, would
be recogmized under the exlsting fees. For that there
were several dlfferent proJecte and I llsted all of then
ttrat were active at the tLme and council acknowtedged
that.
A. I{hen was that, the parking issue you
discussed?
A. f can't renenber.
O. was lt before 1993?
A. I can't reneuber on parking. tle changed the
parking section quite a few tirnes, but we increased the
fees significantly and nade sure that the council
naintained our standard policy of grandfathering in the
existing applications.
A. Okay. Now, when you say with respect to
parking you grandfathered then in, was that with respect
to applicants uho already had a building pemit?
A.
a.
A.
we allowed a
pipeline to
sure if you
Candace Stutson Vail , colorado
No.
It vae Just for anybody in the pipeline?
Yes. And, in fact, for our gas fireplaces,
window for people who weren,t even in the
cone in and subnit. And air quality, Irn
lrave a condo here, you can appreciate how bad
(9701 949-4920
pay-only fee,
Reporting
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
143
air quality was a few years back. Ttrie Ls the Town of
Vail standard practice. We had people designing hones in
like a very short period of tine in order to neet the
deadline, I Dean, architects Just slanming together.
.4. Have you reviewed the legality of this isEue
sith Ton tiloorhead of whether or not a PEC approval before
a building permit is issued is still vatid nore than two
years after the effectl.ve date of your ordinance?
A. I have not talked to Ton l,loorhead about
this.
A. Okay. Now, the discussion here about the
aesthetics is that as of 1995, at thl-s ltay 3, 1995, DRB
meeting, the International l{ing,s exterior style is very
different in design frorn what it was set forth and
approved in 1983 by th.e PEC; is that right?
A.
o.
A.
a.
it's -- you
A.
shutters and
Sorry. l{here are you reading?
I'n reading the whole pa9e, Page 4.
Page 4. IE this sonething f said?
No. Pages 3 and 4 kind of talk about how
say on Page 3 it is a different style.
The drawings had nore detail such as
a.
ctrange of the
A.
vindow trin.
Didn't the entire architectural design
exterior?
No.
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9701 g4g-4g}O
. L44
1 Q. Okay. f thought that the exterioi went from
2 being stucco and not being of the eane style as the
3 existing Iodge Hotel --
4 A. WelI, there's --
5 O. -- to now bel.ng the eane style as the
6 exterior of the exlsttnE Iodge ttotel.
7 A. l{ell, there'e nany dlfferent ways to look at
I an architectural style of a building. l{hen you look at
9 uasg and bulk, that's your overridLng concern. l{hen you
10 look at color, textures of roof shingle, shutter desi.gn,
11 those are some of the finer poLnts, finer details.
L2
13
14
O. Did those things change?
A. The detalls changed.
a. Did the color change?
15 A. I don,t know.
16 a. Did the overall exterior appearance to the
L7 viEual eye change fron being kind of a stucco Dore modern
18 look to now being one that looks nore like ttre Iodge
19 Hotel?
20 ' A. When it cones to aesthetics, the language is
2L very, you know, fuzzy and it night be helpful to look at
22 the -- I,ve got the Jack --
23 O. You,ve got the --
24 A. I mean, you can look at the Jack Zehren
25 dra3rings, if you want.
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (97O) 949-4920
145
1 Q. llow, Page 11 of that transcript, Lynn
2 Fritzlen is present. Do you see that?
3 A. Yes.
4
5 15?
O. She's repreEenting Luanne Wells, LLne 14 and
6 A. Okay.
7 Q. Okay. And you called L,1mn and told her
8 about design review and that if they had any questions
9 about the validly of the granting of this project they
10 should bring it up at this tine. Thatrs what Lynn is
11 testifying to. Do you see that?
L2 A. Yes.
13 a. Do you recall calling Lynn Fritzlen and
14 telling her of the upcoming meeting?
15 A. No, I don,t recall whether I did that or
16 not.
L7 O. okay.
18 ltR. BAILEY: Is this the l{ay 3 neeting werre
19 still on?
20 ' us. FRICK: yes, yes.
2L A. But I vould like to point out that her
22 srunmary, what she says there, Day or may not be rhat f
23 told her.
24 O. (BY US. FRICK) Because you donrt recall
25 calling her?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (920) 949-4920
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
14
15
15
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
. 146
A. Yeah. I nean, I assune I did, if this is
what the record aaya, but she has a way of paraphrasing
thl-ngs that nay or Day not be ny words.
A. WeIl, let's get straight here. Do you
reca1l calling her or not?
A. l{hat I dtd tn ltlay of 1995, I can't tell you.
A. Okay. so if you don't recall calling her,
you also don't recall what yorr night have eaid to her?
A. (The deponent nodded head affimatively. )
A. Yes?
A. That's corect.
A. okay.
l,tR. BAU.EY: l{ell, but f think he's entitled
to gLve his opinion that she doesn't often teII the
truth.
US. FRICK: You want to ask hin that
question when it's your turn, you can.
uR. BAILEY: Well, I thlnk you Just asked
hin and I think he Just answered it.
l{ay 3, L995, }ts. Fritzlen starting at Page 12 reads to
the design review board the letter from Jack Reutzel to
Ton Moorhead dated March 2, 1994 -' excuse ne -- the
letter to Jack Reutzel dated in Uay of 1995, the
preceding day, and he attached the March and December
Candace Stutaon Reportlng Vail , Colorado (97O) 949-4920
L47
1 letters. Do you see that on Page 12 beglnning Line 4?
2 she says, i...maybe it would be best if f could just read
3 one or two paragraphs frou the letter he sent up
4 today... i?
A. Um-hun.
O. Do you see that?
A. Um-hun.
8 Q. Do you recall that Lynn attended the ltay 3,
9 L995, DRB neeting and read fron ilack Reutzel ,a ltlay 2,
10 L995| letter?
1l- uR. I'tooRHEiD: obJection. f think the
L2 record speaks for itself.
13 A. The record is clear here.
14 a. (BY l,ls. FRICK) That thatrs what happened?
15 A. Um-hum, yes.
16 O. Okay. f Just want to make sure that we aII
L7 understand the record the same. Okay. I{ho is Hans on
L8 the DRB? Hers mentioned on page 14, LJ.ne 6.
19 A. He's a member of the DRB.
20 ' e. Whatrs his last name?
2L A. I{oldrich.
22 a. Could you spell it?
23 A. I donrt know how to spell it. I mean, f
24 don,t know exactly how.
25 A. Starts with a t{?
candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (97o) 949-4920
. 148
1 A. okay.
2 Q. Do you recall that at this DRB neeting that
3 Hans Woldrich obJected to the International l{ing?
4 A. f vould Juet refer back to tlre record for
5 statenents fron Hans
6 Q. okay. Do you reball that neubers of the DRB
7 felt that their hands were tied uith respect to the
8 approval of the International tling?
9 A. Again, if re have a transcript, f'n sure
10 that their statenents would dell.neate clearly their --
11 A. Well, do you just recall from having
L2 attended the overall expressed inpression of the DRB
13 members at this l{ay 3, L995, neeting?
L4 ltR. 8AII.,EY: I object.
L5 l{R. I{OORHEAD: I object.
16 !tR. BAU.,EY: This is the record. You've got
L7 it before you.
18 A. f uoulal say that the record is clear as to
19 what the DRB said.
20 - A. (By l,ts. FRICK) okay. I nant to nake ny
2L record on this deposition clear. Do you recall? Yes or
22 no? Do you Just recall, yes or no, the overall
23 impression of the DRB menbers at the uay 3, 1995,
24 meeting?
25 A. l{hat happened in May of 1995 I donrt have a
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9?0) 949-4920
149
1 clear recollection of.
2
3
4
a. Do you have a general recollection?
UR. UOORHEAD: Objection.
. A. I would refer back to the document as to
I'lR. UooRltEAD: Objection.
A. I would refer you back to the record for the
5 what the board said.
a. (BY US. FRICK) Are you refusLng to ariswer
7 ny guestion?
9
10
UR. BAILEY: Oh, come on.
A. f think the information is right here.
O. (BY US. FRICK) For clarity of ny record, I
11 will ask it to you again. Do you recalt the general
L2 irnpression of the DRB board nenbers at the May 3, 1995,
13 meeting to the International I{5.n9 developnent?
L4
15
16 DRB information.
L7 a. (BY US. I'RICK) You don,t independently
18 recall their general impression that they extrlressed?
19 A. Again, the record is clear as to what the
20 tlRg said.
2L O. Does the DRB today feel the same rray, whlch
22 sas as the record reflects, strongly against the
23 Internationat l{ing development?
24 MR. BAILEY: Objection.
25 A. I cannot speak for the DRB members.
candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9ZO) 949-4920
. 150
1 Q. (By tts. FRICK) Have you talked to any of
2 then?
3 A. f'n eorry?
4 Q. Eave you epoken to any of the DRB nenbers
5 regardtng theLr. own personal vlers wLth respect to the
5 Interrrational l{ing development?
7 A. No.
I Q. No?
9 A. Are you asking -- no.
10 O. Okay. Are you aware that menbersr on the DRB
11 today, to thls day, obJect to the International Wing
L2 development?
13 A. I'm not aware of the DRB opinions on thl-s.
14 A. Are you aware that nenbers of the planning
15 staff today object to the International l{ing developnent?
l-6 l{R. BAILEY: Can you repeat that guestion?
L7 I rnisEed it. Can you read it back?
18 tls. FRICK: f will repeat it.
19 A. (BY MS. FRICK) Are you alrare today that
20 mEnbers of the planning staff obJect to the International
2L tling developnent?
22 A. No.
23 O. Page 19 of this transcript, Line 21, it says
24 statement by Mr. Peterson.
25 A. I'm aorry? l{hat page?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , colorado (970, 949-4920
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
t3
L4
15
15
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
a. Page 19.
A. Okay.
O. Jay Peterson is stating that, f,...in ny
opinion, I think in the Town,s opinlon, that approval is
stLll valid.i He's referring to the PEC approval of
1983, correct?
A. ttell, I would like to let l{r. Petersonrs
statements stand as they are guoted.
O. You don,t understand what he was referring
to? This is not a trick question, Andy. f think hers
referring to the PEC approval Ln ,83 because thatrs the
only approval as of this neeting that was out there on
it; but if you don,t understand that, then you tell ne.
A. Well, and Irn just -- Irn trying to put the
text together and I just -- I just feel awlcward trying to
interpret sonething that was said by another person.
a. A11 right. So you donrt understand looking
at this transcript what Jay Peterson was referring to?
A. I would not rrant to put words in another
person,s nouth when'itrs transcribed on the record.
A. Okay. Jay PeterBon goes on to say, rThe
Town will render its opinion on it.rr Do you know whether
or not the Town has ever rendered.an opinion as to
whether or not the 1983 PEC approval of the Internatlonal
Wing is still valid today?
candace stutEon Reporting Vail, Colorado (e7ol 949-4920
L52
1 A. The fact that the project conplied with
2 zonLng and we scheduled it for a final design review
3 board for final approval l-s the Tounrs statenent.
4 Q. Horl did the project conply with zoning?
5 A. We can refer back to the zone check, if you
6 would like, but that,s clearly part of the record and
7 lhat's all of my notes regarding atl of the zoning
I issues.
9 Q, And as I recall, the final zone check that
10 you -- you're talking about the final zone check,. is that
11 right?
L2
l_3
A. YeS.
a. And that's the one that did not have
A. (The deponent nodded head affirmatively. )
O. AlI right.
THE COURT REPORTER: Is that yes?
THE DEPONENT: Yes.
L4 included in it the condoninium apartnents, correct?
l-5 A. I focused on the Lodge Hotel .
L6 a. Sane difference in semantics we discussed
L7 earlier, correct?
18
19
20-
2L
22 O. (By t{S. FRICK) At the botton of page 2L,
23 beginning Line 2o through Line 3 of page 22, could you
24 just read that to yourself?
25 A. The bottorn of page 20, starting --
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9ZO) g4g-492l
153
1 A. The botton of Page 2I , Lj-Ire 20.
2 A. OkaY.
3 Q. ft's quotes of -- it's a statenent of
4 l|tr. Peterson. It etarts, trLikeviserf, yes, to Line 3 of
5 P.age 22. Would you Just read that?
6 A. Okay.
7 llR. BAIIJY: Give ne the nunbers agaS-n.
I lits. FRfCK: YeE. It's Page 21, Line 20 to
9 Page 22, Llne 3 of the transcript of the uay 3, 1995, DRB
10 meeting, Exhibit III35.
11 O. (BY t{s. FRICr) In this statement Jay
L2 Peterson is stating that he met with unit owners of
13 neighboring properties to the fnternational tling
L4 including one VaiI Placei is that right?
15 A. Again, I would not like to put words in
l-6 ltr. Peterson's rnouth fron the transcripts from uay of
L7 1995. The record is clear as to what he said.
18 O. Okay. well, I sill go from there. He says
19 here, guote, I'the Wells were part of that negotiation.rr
20 That's a statenent by Mr. Peterson.
2L A. Okay.
22 a. Do you see that?
23 A. It's in the tranecript, yes.
24 a. Did you attend any such alleged negotiations
25 with the l{ells?
Candace Stutson Reporting VaiI , Colorado (97O) 949-4920
154
1 IrlR. BAfrcI: There,s nothing alleged about
2 the negotiations. Quit nischaracterizing the record.
3 tts. FRICK: lfell, he has stated that --
4 llR. BAU,EY: The record says that
5 l{r. Peterson said there were negotiatLons. It doesn,t
6 say there were any alleged negotiations. It says
7 negotiations.
8 A. (BY US. FRICK) Did you personally attend
9 any negotiations with the Wells regarding the
10 International Wing developnent?
11 A. I would --
L2 a. Prior to --
13 A. -- ask you --
L4 O. -- the 1983 PEC approval?
15 A. I vas in high school in 1983.
16 A. Okay. So the answer is no, correct? The
L7 answer is no?
18 A. That is correct.
l-9 a. When you reviewed the file on this natter in
20 the drawer at conmunity development, did you see any
2L documentation of any neetings of any kind with the l{ells
22 prior to the October 1983 PEC approval?
23 A. Negotiations with whon present?
24 a. With the Wells, Frank and Luanne Wells.
25 A. No.
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (920) 949-4920
155
1 Q. Okay. So you don't have any lnfotmation to
2 either corroborate or refute itay Peterson's statenent on
3 thiE point?
4 A. That'e correct.
5 Q. okay.
6 l.ts. FRICK: lfe'll nake thLs transcript,
7 which is certified record IU35' for clarity of this
I deposition we'll get a copyr a clean coPY, provided to
9 you and make it a part of the record of this deposition.
10 (Exhibit 11136 was narked.)
11 a. (Bv US. ERICK) okay. E:dtibit 11136, these
L2 are your handwrltten notesi iE that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 a. These are your notes of the Uay 3, 1995, DRB
15 neeting?
16 A. Yes.
L7 O. You call this here a conceptual DRB review?
L8 A. Yes.
19 a. That's why I used that tem at the beginning
20 of this deposition.
2L A. Work session and conceptual are
22 interchangeable.
23 a. Okay. Thank you. These are your onn
24 handwritten notes that you took at the tine of the DRB
25 neeting?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (9701 949-4920
1s6
A. Yes.
2 Q. And you noted obJectlona by Hans l{oldrich,
3 Sally Brainerd, tltike Arnett to the International l{ing
4 proposed developnent, dld you not?
5 A. Yes, but r would llke to indicate that the
6 applicant took this into conEideratl-on and nodified the
7 design.
8 Q. He nodified the desigm Eo that there is now
9 a view of the nountain from town?
Lo
11
L2 town?
13
2L
22
23
24
25
A. He did reduce the nass and bulk.
O. Is there now a view of the mountain fron
UR. BAfLEY: There sasn,t a view of the
14 mountain fron town to begLn wLth. There,s a five-story
15 building called Lodge Apartnents Ln front of it.
16 A. (BY MS. fRfCK) You can answer the question.
L7 A. I would defer to the DRB menberE to talk
L8 specifically about the aesthetic pros and cons.
19 O. your last line of your notes say rrHansrtr
20 arron, rrGive the town a viewrr?
A. l{hat page?
a. Page 2 right before the stop.
A. Oh, oh, oh, yes.
O. You want ne to go contact Hans about that?
A. Hans could speak for hinself better than I
Candace Stutson Reporting Vait, Colorado (9ZO) 949-4929
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
14
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
. L57
could.
A. OkaY. OkaY.
l,ts. FRICK: Nou, Ton, if you could help ne
out. I didn't copy it. It's lengthy. The transcript of
the next DRB ueeting, rhich uas itune 2L, L995. l{e'll
nake this a part of the record as well. rt's
Exhibit ur37 (c) .
l,tR. BAILEY: Are you going to go through,
just out of curiosity, are you going to go through each
and every exhibit and ask hin what he neant when he said
things?
us. FRICK: No. I have a felt that I an
golng to go through, probably maybe a handful nore, and
that's it.
THE DEPONENT: For the depositlon?
uS. FRfCK: Um-hun.
THE DEPONEIf,T: Great.
A. (BY us. FRICK) t{hy don't you just look at
the first page and tell ne if you think you are ttre
rinidentified speaker at this roeeting. You know, I nLtl
tell you, Andy, I don't have then here, but the record
indicates, the index of the certlfled record indicates
ttrat there are handwritten notes of yours of this
neeting. I think it's Record No. 38. So maybe Tom has
it here. would that refresh -- are those your notes?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (970) 949-4920
158
A. 6-2L?
O. Yes.
A. Yes.
4 Q. All right. Does that refresh your
5 recollection you attended the 6-21-X995 DRB neeting?
A. Yes.
7 Q. Thank you. That nakes that faeter.
I A. Good. Thank you.
9 Q. okay. Page 3, Ur. l,toorhead Ls talking to
10 the design review board. t{lry don't you Just read that
11 entire --
L2 A. 6 through 15?
13 O. 6 througtr 15, right.
14 t{R. BAfLEY: On Page 3, LLnes 6 through 15?
15 uS. FRICK: Right.
16 O. (BY US. FRICK) Just read it to yourself.
L7 A. Okay.
18 A. Okay. l{hat are the iEsues that Torn and you
19 need to talk about that are outside of the parameters of
20 the June 2L, Lggs, discussion that the DRB is havlng?
2L A. I think ltrs the -- I will refer back to the
22 February 11, 1994, letter, and itrs probably follow-up on
23 that.
24
25
A. Those isEues that Jack Reutzel raised?
A. Um-hun, yes.
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9701 g4g-4g}O
, 159
1 O. The Lssues about densl.ty and buildable site
2 area defl.nitions?
3 A. The Lssues raised in hie letter.
4 Q. okay. You dLd discusE those with Ton
5 lrtoorhead outsLde of the context of the DRB rneeting?
6 A. YeB.
7 Q. And those were aone of the discugsions that
I you had sitb Ton Uoorhead before you did your final zone
9 check?
10 A. Yes.
11 O. Nou, Page 10, you're speaking, Line 22. l{hy
L2 don,t you start with tine 2L, a question to you fron a
13 board nenber, nAndy, iE this a final?n
14 A. Page 10, Llne 22?
15 O. Um-hun, Line 21 through the bottom, Line 21
L6 through Line 25.
L7 A. Okay.
1.8 O. okay. A board nember asked you if this was
19 a final , meaning what you talked about earlier, a
20 presentation for final DRB review, correct?
2L A. Yes.
22 O. And you said no, it's not final , it's Just
23 conceptual?
24 A. Yea.
O. rrThere are many legal issues that we need to
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9701 949-4920
25
160
I resolve prior to scheduling this itenn?
A. Yes.
3 Q. And those legal issues concern the saue
4 Lssues raised by Jack Reutzel?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Thank you. A11 right. And thit,s because
7 your staff is charged with evaluating, as you told us
8 earlier, the conpliance yith zoning before subnitting it
9 to DRB for final approval , correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 a. AJ.l right. And how were those legal issues
L2 finally resolved by you and your staff before going to
13 DRB?
l-4 A. What,s your question exactly?
15 a. How were those legal issues, the ones raised
16 by Jack Reutzel referred to by you in the DRB, how were
L7 they finally resolved by you and your staff before going
L8 for*rard to a final DRB approval?
l-9 A. As f recall, we evaluated both positions as
20 we nere requested and believed that the PEC approval ,
2L that the project was ready for DRB glven that the pEC had
22 already approved it.
23 A. So are you saying that you never really
24 resolved the Jack Reutzel lega). issues, you Just relled
25 on the fact that PEC had previously approved it?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (97O) 949-4920
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
161
ltR. IrtooRHEN): obJection.
ItR. BAU,EY: ObJection. That's a
uisstatement of what he testlfied to. He said that...
.A. Could you rephrase your guestion, please?
O. (By I.rS. FRfCK) Yeah. Are you saying, then,
that you and your staff never finally resolved the Jack
Reutzel legal issues because you relied on the 1983 PEc
approval?
UR. BAII.,EY: ObJection. That's a
misstatenent of what he Just said. lte said that -- read
back his last answer so ttrat I don't offend Ms. Frick.
(Ttre last answer was read back.)
l.ls. FRICK: Reread ny guestion, because I
don't think it's a misstatenent, asking for further
clarification.
(The last question was read back.)
ItR. BAII,EY: That is a nischaracterizatl-on
of prior testinony. He said that they evaluated both
parties' positions and reached the conclusion that the
datter was ready for DRB approval because it had been
approved by the PEC.
A. (By US. FRICK) Do you understand my
question? I'n asking for a clarification of your
statement.
A. Okay. We evaluated both parties, we
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (97O, 949-4920
L62
1 anssered the questions, ve got back to Llmn Fritzlen, and
2 that's in the record, and we scheduled the iteu for flnal
3 DRB.
4 Q. So you believe that you finally resolved the
5 Jack Reutzel legal l-EsueE?
A. Yes.
A. okay. And you believe you resolved then
8 where?
9 A. We scheduled the iten for DRB after gettlng
10 back with Llmn and telling her that since the PEC had
11 approved the project, it was ready for DRB.
L2 O. Okay. This iE what I don't understand,
13 Andy. You're saying that, quote, rr...since the PEC had
L4 approved the proJectrrr that,s back in 1983, right?
15 A. (The deponent nodded head affirnatively.)
t6
L7
THE COITRT REPORBER: Is that yes?
THE DEPONENT: Yes.
18 a. (By US. FRICK) It was ready for DRB
L9 approval , correct?
20 -- A. Rigttt.
2L A. At1 right. Where and how did you finally
22 resolve the legal issues?
23 liR. UOORHEAD: Objection. It,s been asked
24 and ansvered two tines. Answer one more tine, Andy.
25 A. I would just refer back to -- I,ve got my
candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (97O) 949-4920
, 163
notes here. lfe evaluated both parties, we answered the
questions, we got back to Lynn, ve scheduled the lten for
DRB sl.nce the PEc had approved lt.
O. (By l{S. FRICK) Okay. You say, number two,
you answered the questtons. I{lrere did you answer the
guestions?
A. we answered the guestions.
O. To yourEelves?
A. And we got back to Lynn.
A. So you believe that your response to Lynn
articulated a resolution of the legal iseuesi is that
correct?
A. Yes.
O. Yes?
A. Yes.
A. okay.
(Exhibtt III42 was narked. )
A. Okay. hdy, the neeting you're referring to
that we just referred to as the June 21 DRB neeting, the
next conmunication fron you to Lynn Fritzlen,s after that
1
2
3
4
.5
6
7
I
9
l_o
11
L2
l_3
L4
15
16
L7
l-8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
neeting according to the certifl-ed record ie
August 25, 1995, letter. I will let you look
Exhibit III42, is this your response to Lynn
the resolution of the legal issues?
an
at it. Is
Fritzlen of
A. tn addltion to written correspondence and
VaiI, ColoradoCandace stutson neporting (9701 949-4920
164
1 phone callr. So we comnunicated with Lynn both verbally
2 and on paper.
3 Q. okay. My question is, tlhls Exhlblt fU42,
4 is that your response to Lynn Fritzlen of the resolutLon
5 of the legal issues?
6 A. In additlon to this, there uere phone calls
7 that we conmunicated.
I Q. so this, in part, was your response --
9 A. In part, yes.
10 O. It states here that the Town staff still has
11 questions to be addressed
L2 A. Um-hum, yea, it does.
13 a. That inplies to me -- tell ne where I am
L4 r,rong -- that you had not resolved the legaL issueE.
15 A. I,m not Eure if it was lega1 issues or if lt
15 nas view corridor questions, for example.
17 a. Okay. Okay. Now, this particular letter,
18 Exhibit 42, is in response to a letter to you fron Lynn
19 Fritzlen dated Augruat 14, 1995.
20 -- (Exhibit 1114L was narked.)
2L a. Okay. L€t,s go back, Andy. you said that
22 as of the June 21, 1995, DRB meeting, we read out of the
23 transcript that there was still lega} issues that needed
24 to be resolved. I,n just trying to get the chronology
25 right. Correct?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, colorado (9ZO) 949-4920
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
165
A. Un-hun.
a. Yes?
A. Yes.
O. And that you stated that you did resolve
those legal issues and respondeC to Llmn Fritzlen,
conmunicated to her that resolution, correct?
A. l{le conrtrunlcated to Llrnn the status of the
proJect and that It had fulfitled the zone check and it
was going to be scheduled for DRB.
A. I{elI, did you or did you not conmunicate to
Llmn Fritzlen the reeolutl.on of those legal issues?
A. f followed up with Lynn on her guestions,
yes.
a. The answer is yes?
A. (The deponent nodded head affimatlvely. )
A. Okay. And you've told me you coununicated
with her both by phone orally and in writing, correct?
A. Yes.
a. okay. Now, Exhiblt III41 Ls a letter to you
fron Lynn. It starts out, rrThe following confirna our
phone conversation of Augrust 14, 1995.rr Do you see that?
A. Yes.
O. Okay. She continues to raiee iseues and
concerns with her second bullet point, the zonLng statuE
or interpretation of zoning procedures by the Town. Do
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9701 94e-4e20
166
1 you see that?
A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. And she's confirmlng what you have
4 told her, as I understand it; Is that right?
5 A. WelI, she has qulte a uay of -- and this is
6 a follow-up on the pol-nt f made earlier. What Lynn says
7 may or nay not be an accurate reflection of what I say.
8 Q. Okay. Well, did you or Aia you not tell her
9 that the Town is, quote, trgenerally comfortable wlth the
10 legality of the proposed expansion based on this
11 researchr?
L2 A. The specifics of the phone call I had with
L3 her f can,t bring up to you this very moment, but I do
L4 know that we did schedule the iten for final DRB hearing.
15 A. Okay. Did you or did you not tell Lynn that
1.5 the departnent of cornmunity developnent has scheduled a
t7 meeting to go over Jay Petersonrs zoning interpretation
1.8 on behalf of the Lodge?
19 MR. BAILEY: At this stage of the
20 proceedings?
2L MR. MOORIIEAD: Do you want to read the whole
22 letter before you pieceneal shotgun to the questJ-on?
23 THE DEPONENT3 Yeah.
24
25
O. (BY US. FRICK) Yeah, go ahead, feel free.
(A break was taken. )
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (9701 949-4920
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
Have you had a
Yes.
okay. Ttris Ls
, L67
E:drlbtt IU41?
a letter to you from Llmn
A. Yes.
O. Okay. She's saying it,e a letter that
confirns a phone conversatlon that you and Llmn Frl-tzlen
had on August 14, 1995?
A. That,g the way she starts the letter, yes.
A. I think I started to read to you a statenent
she nakes that she,s confl.ming that you have told her,
quote, second bullet point, trThere have been no changes
in the zoning status or Lnterpretation of zoning
procedures by the Town since the original application.
The Town has done conEiderable research since our
original discussions in 1993 and is generally confortable
with the legality of the proposed expansion based on this
research. n Do you see that bullet point?
A. I see the bullet point.
' Q. Okay. Ie it true that you dia report that
to L1mn, what I Just read?
A. I nould say Lynnrs writing here is her
posLtion, not necessarily nine, and she has a way of --
how do I say? -- her perspective, which may or nay not be
accurate and may or may not reflect what I said.
a.
A.
a.
Fritzlen?
chance to read
Candace Stutson Reporting Vall, Colorado (97O) s4e-4e20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
L3
L4
L5
16
L7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
168
O. WelI, did you or did you not tell Lynn
anything along the lines of, guote, nThe Town is
comfortable with the legality of the proposed expansionf,?
A. WelI, I don't remenber the specifics of that
phone conversation, but I do know that Lynn has a way of
hearing what she wants to hear.
A. I understand that. l{y question is, Did you
or did you not tell L,ynn anything along the lines that
the Town was comfortable with the legality of the
proposed expansion?
uR. BAfIJEY: Now frm going to object. He,s
just answered the question he does not remember the
specifics of the phone conversation. Thatrs an answer to
your question, and to repeat it is sinply to reask and
ask and ask a question.
I.ls. FRICK: It,s not an answer to ny
question.
l{R. BAILEY: Itrs an ansser to your
question.
' Q. (By lrs. FRICK) Did you or did you not say
that to L,ynn?
A. I don,t recall the specifics of the phone
conversation, and I know that Lynn has a way of hearl_ng
what she wants to hear.
A. Did you or did you not generally say this to
Candace stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (97Ol- 94e-4e20
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
14
15
16
T7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
. 169
her? And if you don't recall even generally saylng that,
you can answer that vay.
A. But tlrere's two very irnportant points to uy
answer.
A. I understand.
A. One ls that I don't recalI, and the other is
that tynn has a way of hearing wbat Ehe wante to hear.
A. Well, dld L,1mn nl.sstate this? IE thiE a
nisstatment by l,ynn Fritzlen?
A. Iet ne eay that Lynn has a way of hearing
what she wantB to hear. I would not accuse l-,ynn of
tying, but I would also eay that Llmn's perspective and
Llmn's human nature to hear what she wants to hear is
very apparent.
a. Is this a nistake in statement by Lynn? Is
it a nistake in statenent by Llmn?
DtR. BAILEY: Objection. objection. object
on two reaaons. There's no reason, Ms. Frick, for you to
berate the witness. There's no reason for you to let
ybur face contort and to yell at the witness, and there's
absolutely no reaEon for you to nisstate what he'E
already done vhen he'e asked and answered your question.
!ls. FRICK: I'n not yelling at the witneEs.
O. (BY l,ls. FRICK) Andy, is this a nisstatenent
!tR. BAILEY: You are yelling at the witness.
VaiI, Colorado (e7o) 949-4920Candace Stutson Reporting
170
1 I€t the record reflect Ms. Frick was yelling at the
2 vitness.
3 lis. E:RICK: I was not yelling at the
4 yitness. I.et the record,refLect my view that I was not
5 yelling at the witnesE.
6 Q. (BY us. FRICK) Andy, is this a mistaken
7 Etatenent on the part of Lynn FritzLen?
8 A. The only reason lrn laughing l-s that this is
9 a perfect exanple of the way two people have two
10 different perspectives on something, and I cannot answer
1L your qluestion in any more specificity than that.
L2 a. Are you telling me you donrt recall?
13 A. No. Irm saying that Llmn has a way of
L4 hearing what she wants to hear and the specifics of a
15 phone conversation held August L4, L995, are eight, nine
16 months ago.
L7 O. You donrt recall the phohe conversation?
18 A. I think that Lynn,6 -- we certainly had a
19 phone conversation and the details of it I cannot
20 f€collect at this tiue.
2L A. Do you want me to be left with the
22 impression that Lynn nade a misstatement where she stated
23 that you told her the fown rras generally confortable with
24 the legality of the proposed e:cpansion?
2s ttR. UOORHE,AD: r,n going to object. I think
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (970) 949-4920
171
1 the witnesa has stated three or four tines that he cannot
2 eay whether or not thls ls a nisstatenent or not. He has
3 said speciftcally t-bat he does not know the speciflcs of
4 th€ phone converEatl.on.
5 lts. FRICK: Well , if he sould answer it
6 exactly wlrat you Just answered, I would nove on. He Just
7 eaid that he doeen't know whether or not it's a
8 misstatement.
g A. (BY tls. FRICK) Is that your statenent, you
10 don't know wlrether or not it'E a nisstatenent? Is that
11 your testinony?
Lz MR. I{OORI|E,AD: Andy, if you believe you have
13 answered that question, you don't have to answer it
14 again.
L5 A. I think we've -- I cannot think of a better
15 way to answer your question. I don't have anything
L7 additional material to tetl you that would shed anything
1.8 more on this topic.
19 a. (BY Us. rRIcK) well, all the talkinq around
20 that I have heard, I don't know whether or not you
2L believe that this is a misstatenent on the part of L,ynn.
22 MR. uooRflE,AD: Andy, you don't have to
23 answer that question.
24 t{s. FRICK: Are you instructing him not to
25 answer?
Candace Stutson ReportLng Vai-I, Colorado (9701 949-4920
L72
1 I{R. I.IOORHEAD: Irn telling Andy that if he
2 believes that he has answered that question he need not
3 answer it again.
4 Q. (By US. FRICK) I personally donrt believe
5 you've answered the guestion. fs thls a rniEstatenent on
6 the part of Lynn?
7 A. Lynn --
8 t{R. }IOORHEAD: If you betieve you }rave
9 answered that question, you can refer to your prior
10 angwer.
11 a. (BY US. FRfCK) You have nothing to add to
L2 that answer?
L3 A. Exactly.
L4 a. The next bullet polnt that Lynn raises is
15 that, rrThe Department of Conmunity Oevelopnent has
16 scheduled a neeting to go over Jay petersonrs zoning
L7 interpretation on behalf of the Lodge.rr Is this the
1.8 neeting you rdere referring to with Jay peterson?
L9 A. Yes.
20 '- a. Okay. Did that neeting take place?
2L A. Yes.
O. Did you attend that meeting?
A. Yes.
a. Who else attended that rneeting?
A. Ton Moorhead, Susan ConnelLy.
Candace Stutson Reporting VaiI , Colorado (970) 949-4gZO
22
23
24
25
L73
1
2
3
O. Ilhere are the notes of that neeting?
A. I dontt knos.
A. Do you lrave notes of that neetlng in the
A. I can't renember.
A. You night have?
l.lR. BAII-,EY: I object. He said he can,t
candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (97O, 949-4920
4 file you brought today?
5 A. f -- nor no.
6 Q. There are no notes that are of that neeting
7 that are a part of the certLfied record, I will represent
I to you.
9 A. Okay.
10 O. Do you have any -- cere notes taken at that
11 neeting?
L2 A. I don't believe so.
13 O. Did you ever do a follos-uP memorandun or
14 letter regarding that neeting?
15 A. I don't believe so.
15 A. It's been your practice, as we have seen
L7 throughout the record, that you typlcally do take notes
18 of neetings. can you tell ne why you didn't take notes
L9 of this neeting?
20 :- A. No. I don't knotr why.
2L a. Is it your recall that, in fact, you did not
22 take notes of this neeting?
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l_L
L2
13
L4
15
16
L7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
reneDber.
TIIE DEPONENT: Yeatr.
US. FRICK: That's different.
.4. (BY lilS. FRICK) rs it possible that
noteE of this neeting?
L74
you took
UR. BAfLEY: Can we go on past the Alice in
Wonderland?
A. I can't remenber if I took notes or not.
a. (By l,ls. FRICK) AII right. So you miglrt
have and you night not have? Is that your testinony?
A. No, no. That,s a misstatement fron what Irn
trying to say. one, I don't know shether I did or I did
not, but if you are inferring that I nay have taken notes
and then destroyed then, that,s conpletely false.
O. I'm not trying to infer that. What you are
saying is --
UR. BA.IIJY: l{ell, what are you inferring?
O. (BY ttS. FRfCK) -- that you donrt know
whether you took notes or did not take notes? Is that
your Etaternent?
A. Yes.
O. Okay. And yourve told ne that you
seen any such notes of that neeting?
A. That,s correct.
O. AII right. The last part of this page of
haven't
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (970) e49-4920
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
,L75
Erchtbit III41, the front pager Llmn states, xThe Town of
vail witl be sending us a letter stating their posltLon
on the zoning prior to echedullng any further design
revlew.il lfhere ls such a letter to Lynn stating the
Town's position on the zoning prior to final design
revl,ew board?
A. I would refer you to Exhibit [ll42, which
saE mailed out three days folloving, dated August 25.
Page 2 of the Exhibit IIf41 is dated August 22, 1995.
O. The flrst page of Exhibit flf4l is dated
Augrust 14.
ltR. PETERSON: That was dated when it was
received, I think.
that the
Exhibit
Extribit
l.ls. FRICK: No. It's tlped veird.
A. (BY l,LS. FRICK) Okay. You're telling ne
Town's position on the zoning referenced in
41 is the letter sent to Lynn which is
42?
A. Can you rephrase the first part of that
question?
O. Un-hun. Tbe Town's letter stating its
position on the zoning prior to scheduling any further
design review, that letter is Exhibit IT.I42.
A. Exhibit III42 states that f wanted to
correct one of the statements she had nade in her letter.
Vail, ColoradoCandace Stutson Reporting (9701 e4e-4920
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
t76
rronce the questions of the Town have been addressed, the
iten can go to DRB. We wlll connunlcate the status of
the projecti horrever, that nay not be in wrLting.tr
A. ily question about to you about two questions
ago was shere is the letter referenced at the botton of
III41, and you told ne that it was letter Exhibit 42.
A. Right.
A. Is that your testinony?
A. Well, and you,ve got to go back to the fact
that L'ynn is hoping for a letter when, in fact, that may
not be what she and I agreed on.
A. Well, then let,s talk about that. Thatrs
what I'm asking for. f'n asking here where is the letter
she's referencing in 41, and you have previously told ne
it was Exhibit 42.
MR. MOORHEAD: No, he didn,t. He told you
that was in response to it. She,s miStaken. Itrs very
clear. What this witness is saying is very clear. You
refuse to -- you refuse to follow his answers.
' us. FRICK: WeII, that waa what the record
said, but we will clarify this.
O. (BY lls. FRICK) fs Lynn naking a
misstatement here when she represents that the Town of
vail iE intending to send her a letter statlng the Townrs
position on the zoning prior to scheduling any further
candace Stutson Reporting Vail, colorado (97O) 949-4920
L77
1 desigrn revlew? Is I{mn niataken in stating that?
2 ^. Well, let me respond sith a reference to the
3 record in saying that r opened uy Augrust 25 letter with
4 the statement, rrl wanted to correct one of the staternents
5 you made. 'l
6 Q. Okay. f would llke to knos the answer of
7 that. lfhich statenent are you correcting?
I A. I go on ln ny letter of Augrust 25 to say,
9 rrWe will conmunicate to you the status of the project;
10 however, that nay not be ln writing.n
11 a. Okay. f'n totally confused, Andy. Let's
L2 start over. The first line that you just quoted from
13 Exhibtt 42 its, nI santed to correct one of the statements
L4 you nade.rr l{hat statement in Lynn's letter of August L4
t-5 are you correcting?
15 A. Seventh bullet.
L7 A. The one that says where the Town of Vail
19 will be sending us a letter?
19 A. Yes.
20 O. Okay. So you're saying that the Town of
2L Vail nay not be sending a letter, they nay conmunicate
22 orally?
23 A. Yes.
24 a. AtI right. so then nxhibit 42 is not, in
25 fact, the response of the Town that sete forth its
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (97O, 949-4920
178
1 position on the zoning?
2 A. That l-s correct.
3 Q. Okay. ft,s a connunication where you are
4 saylng it's still to come in the future?
A. Yes.
6 l{R. ITIOORIIEAD: Ttell , I object to that. I
7 mean, the letter says once the questionE of the Town have
8 been addressed, the item can proceed to design review
9 board. I believe that that states the posltion of the
10 Town in regard to zonLng very clearly.
11 DlS. FRfCK: Thank you for your testimony,
L2 Mr. Moorhead.
13 m.. ilOORHEAD: WeIl, I can read. I can
L4 read, !Is. Frick.
15 !lR. BAIIJEYs Are you about done?
1-6 MS. FRICK: Getting close.
L7 . BAIEY: Yourve been saying that for an
L8 hour and a half.
L9 A. (By t{S. FRICK) Does your staff as a general
20 rrrle receive letters from neighbors of proposed
2L developnents objecting to a proposed developnent?
22 A. Interested neighbors make conmentE.
23 sonetines they show up to hearings. sometimes they write
24 letters.
25 a. Is it pretty comnonplace that they nake
Candace Stutson Reporting VaiI, colorado (9ZO) 949-4920
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
14
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
L79
thelr obJectLons to you ln writlng?
llR. UOORHEAD: ObJection. ft's vagrue.
A. f nean, lt depende on what you are talking
about. .If you are talklng about a repaint, no.
are talking about a large proJect, yes.
If you
O. (8y l.fs. FRICK) A propoged expansion.
A. A large proJect, yee.
A. Okay. Now, by October of 1995 you had been
vorking on tlrie Interrrational ttJ.ng proJect for quite
sonetl.ne, hadn't you?
A. October of '95, yes.
ttR. I.IOORHEAD: f 'n gol.ng to obJect to that.
I Dean, the record Le very clear exactly how long he had
been sorking on the proJect. He's testified as to the
day he started, and nov you've referenced hin another
day. I think the record speaks for itseLf Ln that
regard.
ttS. FRICK: I don't think I referenceal
another date, but the record will be clear.
O. (BY lrs. FRICK) And I think you've told ne
that the presentation by your staff to DRB for final DRB
review was Novenber I of 1995, right?
A. Yes.
O. Okay. And by that tine, by October of 1995,
you had already been present and spoken at three previous
Candace Stutson Reporting Vall , Colorado (970) 949-4920
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
I4
15
L6
17
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
180
DRB meetingsi is that rlght?
A. There sere a total of four DRB neetings.
third one uas held October 18.The
a. The third one lras October 18?
A. Yes.
O. Okay. And the fourth one was Novenber 1?
A. Yes.
O. What did you say J.t was, October 18?
A. Yee.
A. And by October of 1995, you had read this
1983 agreenent that you had fron alnost fron the very
beginning asked Ur. Peterson for a copy of?
A. Yes.
a. You didn,t believe, personally believe, that
the International Wing was in conpliance with the Townrs
density zoning ordinances, dl-d you?
ItR. UOORHEAD: Objection.
A. I think all ny correspondence thatrs in the
records show that we were trying to find out information.
- A. (BY I.rS. FRICK) And after you gathered all
your information, you did not believe that, in fact, the
International l{ing was in compliance with the density
ordinances, did you?
A. I{elI, I scheduled it for DRB.
A. So you did believe it was in conpliancei iE
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9701 e49-492O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
14
15
l_6
L7
18
l9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
181
that right?
A. Ies. It fulfilled the zone check.
O. And you liked the fnternational lling
project?
!tR. MOORHEAD: Objection.
ltR. BAII,EY: You know, lts. Frick, not
everybody that le in this case other than your cllent is
either connivlng or diehonest. You're doing nothing but
badger the ritness.
us. FRICK: I'n not badgering the wLtness.
t{R. BAILEY: You're badgerl.ng the witness.
You're asking hin things that are totally irrelevant, his
personal opinions, this and that and the other thing,
You know, ue've been very patient sitting here since 1o
o'clock thls nornlng lletening to you prattle on about
this record and read hin parts of the record and ask hin
whether that'e what he said. You don't have to badger
hin.
lls. FRICK: Are you instructing hin not to
answer?
HR. BAIEY:
I'm just registering Dy
badgering the witness.
A. I can tell
nake the decisions, the
Candace Stutson Reporting
He's not ny witness, lls. Frick.
obJection to your conduct in
you that the board punriew is to
staff punriew ie to evaluate the
Vail, Colorado (970) 949-4920
LA2
1 project and make sure it conforns with the zone check.
O. (BY ttS. FRICK) l{hether or not you like it?
A. It's not our decision. Tlrat'e not what we
4 are hired to do.
5 (Exhibit IIf56 was marked.)
6 Q. This is Exfribit 11156. Is that your
7 handwriting on the right-hand nargin?
A. No.
9 Q. Wtrose handwrlting is it?
10 A. I'm not sure.
11 a. Do you believe it's Mr. Moorheadrs
L2 handwriting?
13 t{R. I{OORHEAD: Objection.
L4 A. l.Iy handwriting is the oReceived 4:25 p.n.,
15 LO/L6/95.n
15 O. (BY !rS. FRICK) So you did receive this?
L7 A. Yes.
LB t{R. BAIIJY: Itrs probably L,ynn Fritzlen,s
L9 handwriting.
20 - US. FRICK: I{eIt, this was produced as a
2l part of the certified record.
22 HR, BAIIJEY: She could write on it before
23 she sends the letter.
24 a. (By US. rRrCK) Did you receive it with this
25 marginal notation?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (9?O) 949-4920
2
3
.183
1 A. I don't recall.
2 Q. Do you believe that lt ls ur. uoorhead's
3 handwriting? He's on the cc.
4 A. I really don't know shoae handwriting it ie.
5 O. okay. l{as there a. tine when the surney was
6 not available for review on thl.s project?
A. No.
A. It vas alwaye avaLlable?
A. YeE.
10 A. Where ls it naintained?
11 A. At this tine it'e part of the record. We
L2 talked about those three different rolls. One Ls GRFA
13 analysis, one is aesthetics, the third iE the surrreys and
14 that inforoation, and it ls part of that roll.
15 O. The roll of drawings?
16 A. Yes.
L7 O. okay.
18 t{s. FRICK: Uay we have about three ninutes?
19 l{e'Il walk outEide since we're only two.
20 - (A break was taken.)
2L A. (By trs. FRICK) The neeting that the
22 departnent of connunity developnent had with Jay Peterson
23 to go over Ur. Peterson's zoning interpretation on behalf
24 of the Lodge, the one that took place sometime after
25 August L4, L995, do you recall what ras said at that
candace stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (9701 949-4920
184
1 meeting?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Nothing at all? You don,t recall anything
4 at all?
5 A. From Augiust of ,95? I ean only assune that
6 we reviewed the infornation in the file and dl.scussed Lt.
7 Q. As you sLt here today, can you articulate
I ,fay Peterson,s zoning interpretation on behalf of the
9 Lodge?
10 A. No. I Dean, I think it sould be beyond ny
11 role.
L2 A. Does that nean that you are capable of
13 articulating it but don,t think it would be appropriate
14 for you to articulate it?
15 UR. HOORHEAD: Objection. Answer it, if you
16 can.
L7 A. I would just say -- I would Just go back to
1.8 ny earlier statement that, nor'I donrt recall what we
19 talked about in that neeting.
20
2L developer would build on an air estate site?
22 A. No, I couldnrt.
23 (Exhibit 2 was narked. )
24 a. Okay. Irve handed you Exhibit 2, Deposition
25 Exhibit 2. Have you seen this drawing before of kind of
Candace Stutson Reporting VaiI , Colorado (9ZO) 949-4920
,185
1 a three-dinensional drawing of the Iodge property? It's
2 tltled trIodge Propertlea Inc.ri and lt Lncludes a
3 three-dinensl.onal drawlng of the propertles at Iodge and
4 the proposed area of o<pansion of the International Wing?
5 ltR. UooRHEAD: If it'E fron the certifled
6 record, would you please identlfy the certified record
7 nunber?
I lls. FRICK: I belleve it is attached to the
9 Jay Peterson neno aa you attactred it to or presented it
10 to the town council neeting on Decenber 5.
11 ltR. DITNNs It saE in the town attorney file.
L2 ttS. FRICK: And Lt's in the town attorney
l-3 file. So it is part of the record.
14 TIIE DEPoNENI: This drawing?
15 l.ts. FRICK: Yes.
L6 THE DEPONENT: Are you sure?
L7 l[R. BAILEY: Are we narking it?
18 MS. FRICK: Yeah. It's narked as Exhibit 2.
19 l.ts. WOODALL: There are three that are like
20 that, a series of then.
2L THE DEPONENT: Rtght.
22 D[R. BAII-,EY: What's the question? Maybe we
23 will get past this really guick.
24 a. (BY lrS. FRICK) Okay. l{y question is, Based
25 on this drawing of Exhibit 2, can you take ne through
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (9701 949-4920
186
1 your understanding of where the conference facility and
2 each floor of the proposed International Wing is?
3 A. Uy focus was on the Iodge property. We did
4 not go into this kind of an axonometric and, in fact, I
5 have not seen that drawing untll very recently.
6 Q. You have seen it before this deposition?
7 A. As an attachuent to a letter fron Art
8 Abplanalp and possibly you within the very current, very
9 recent past.
10 UR. BAU,EY: This ls sonething you gruys uade
11 up.
L2 I{S. FRICK: No, itrs not.
13 t{R. BAILEy: WelI, itrs nothing that came
L4 out of ours.
15 US. FRICK: ftrs not something I made up.
16 It's attached to Jay's meno.
L7 l[R. PETERSON: No, it,s not.
18 liR. BAILEY: No, itrs not. Unfortunately,
1-9 it's not. Let the record reflect that Exhibit 2 is not a
20 6psrrrnsnt that cane fron the Lodge file.
2L
22
23 Thatrs a fact.
24
25 the record.
US. FRICK: I{e11, that,s your testinony.
UR. BArI,EY: No, thatrs not my testimony.
ttR. UOORIIEAD: f don,t believe that is in
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (97O, 949-4920
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
.187
l,tR. BAU,EY: lfhere is nothing in the record
attached to the nemo that contains sonething called area
of e:<pansion that has a drawing of one Vail P1ace on Lt
that has various things srossed out on lt and narked.
fhis ie a handed-out, marked-up copy that you have
concocted apparently.
US. FRfCK: I wiII strenuously object to
that, llr. Bailey. f have not srltten on or concocted
Exhibit 2.
UR. BAfLEY: lfe1l, your associate just said
it cane from the attorney's fl-Ie and said it cane fron
the record.
US. FRICK: No, she did not. l.lr. Dunn said
he thought it came fron the attorney's file. It is
attached to --
l,IR. PETERSON: It,s sinilar.
!lR. EIILEI: Sinilar, yes. Sinilar may be
accurate. It is nothing like it.
UR. DttNN: If that's the one I thought it
wis, Jay, then give ue a break, witl you?
m,. BAfLEY: I'n trying to give you a break,
but I've been putting up with this all day long, John.
l.ts. FRfCK: Well, obviously I wLll represent
on the record that Exhibit 2 cane to our office attached
to Jay Peterson's neno of Uay 1983. It appears, based on
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (970) 949-4920
188
1 the testinony of l{r. Bailey, that --
2 UR. BAILEY: f have not been testifying,
3 lrls. Frick. I am an attorney appearing here, and frm
4 objecting to you putting exhibits in that are not and
5 representing they are sonething that were produced by the
6 l.odge or given to somebody by the Ipdge when they are, in
7 fact, not.
a UR. PETERSON: $lhere did you get your nemo?
9 l[R. BAtrIJY: Who gave you your memo, Lynn
10 Fritzlen or Jack Reutzel?
L1 l,ts. FRICK: I don,t know. f donrt know.
L2 The files just came over.
l_3
L4
l,lR. BAILEy: lYhere did they cone over fron?
US. FRICK: I don,t know.
15 UR. BAfLEy: Irn curious, because this is a
16 false document and I would like to see where it cane
L7 fron.
L8 US. FRICK: I,n telling you everything I
19 know about nhere ue got this docrrnent.
20 '- l{R. BAIIJy: Where did you get the files
2l fron?
22 l,ts. FRfCK: From rny client.
23 MR. BAII..EY: Ms. I{ells delivered then to you
24 personally?
l{S. FRICK: I think so. I think she sent
candace Stutson Reporting Vail , colorado (9?O) g4g-4g}O
25
189
1 thinge over.
2 llR. BAILEI: UnllkelY.
3 Q. (BY !lli. FRICK) You, l{r. Knudtsen, believe
4 you aaw Exhtblt 2 attached to a letter fron Art
5 Abplanalp; ls that rlght?
6 A. Ies.
7 Q. okay.
8 A. In the very recent Past.
9 A. Okay.
10 A. For the fl.rgt tfune.
11 a. For the first tlue. okay.
L2 t{s. FRICK: l,tr. Bailey, naybe you could
13 educate me. lfhat, if anlthLng, ie falee or inaccurate
L4 about Exhibit 2?
15 !lR. BAfLEY: If you want to know thatr You
16 can go ahead and look at the record and look at the neno
L7 that is in the record and nake your oIJn conparison.
18 us. FRICK: okay. lle will. okay. We don't
19 have any further guestions.
20 - EXNIINATION
2L BY MR. DI'NN:
22 O. Andy, can you teII us what the present
23 status of this project is?
24 A. It has been approved by DRB. The town
25 council reviewed the DRB decision, upheld it, and added
candace Stutson neporting Vall , Colorado (970) 949-4920
190
1 one condition to the list of conditions that the DRB had
2 put on the project.
3 Q. And that condition was for buffering; is
4 that correct?
A. lltrat's correct.
6 Q. And did you then receive plans responsive to
7 that condition?
A. Yes.
9 ltR. DINN: l{hy don,t we nark this.
10 (Exhibit 3 was rnarked. )
11 MR. BAILEY: Yourre going to have them
L2 narked collectively.
13 UR. DtNNs Yeah. If we could have them
14 marked collectively, that would be great.
L5 a. (BY l{R. DITNN) Are there four pages there?
16 A. Yes.
L7 a. A11 right. Are those the drasings that you
18 received which hrere responsive to the buffering?
19 A. We are currently working wittr the applicant
20 wLth the conditions of council. f believe thLs is one
2l . set that was subnitted. However, we are continuing to
22 resolve the issue.
23 a. okay.
24 MR. DUNN: t{hy donrt se mark those aa 4,
25 then.
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (9701 g4g-492}
. 191
1 (Exhibit 4 sas narked.)
2 Q. (By ltR. U!NN) And can you tell' ue what
3 Exhibit 4 ls?
4 A. Another iteration of the same effort.
5 A. Arrd are you saying -- and I don't nean to '
6 put words in your mouth. I'rn Just trying to move ttiings
7 along trere. Are you saying tlrat thls is a part of the
8 working with ttre appllcant to resolve lssuee?
9 A. Ies, worklng vith the applicant to fuIfiII
10 the condition that the tosn council had on their
11 decieion.
L2 A. And can you give ne sone more detail as to
L3 what it is you're doing in ter:ms of working with the
14 applicant to fulfill the condition?
15 A. we are looking for a buffer that addresses
16 the needs of the parlles or the individuals on both sides
L7 of the buffer. That's all.
18 Q. And at this time are you wal.ting for further
19 drawings or are you coneidering what you have? tJhat
20 exactly is the situation?
2L A. lfe are looking for another revision.
22 a. And has there been any indication to you as
23 to rrhen you will receive that revision?
24 A. I think the nost recent design that I got
25 tras Tuesday of this week and we've conmunicated and I'n
Candace stutson Reporting Vail , Colorado (97O) 949-4920
L92
1 looking for a revision to that design.
2 Q. Do you have any understanding as to whether
3 a part of that has to do with the decks wlrich are
4 existent on Condo Units 527 and 533?
A. The most recent iterations leave the
6 existing lmprovenents as is.
7 Q. But at this tine you are waiting for further
8 drawings?
9
10
11
L2
A. Yes.
O. All right. Thatre all I have. Thank you.
lls. FRICK: Do you have anything, Jin?
MR. BAfLEY: No.
L3 l,ts. FRrCK: f have a question. f think itrs
L4 been already marked as an exhibit. ftrs II1. ItrB
15 arising out of drawings.
16 liR. EAILEY: So you are going back into
L7 additional examination? can we quit, Ann?
18 lts. FRICK: yes. I want to ask hiu to
L9 identify the part of the drawings that are on the
20 application for PEC approvat. yfe donrt know where
2L Exhibit 2 canne from. I thought I would ask hin if he can
22 tell ne where the ones that are a part of the certified
23 record cane from
24 ltR. BAILEys t{ell, they are attached to the
25 application. They obviously cane from the applicant.
Candace Stutson Reporting VaiI , Colorado (97O, 949-4920
193
(Exhtbit II1 waE narked.)
2
3 BY I.IS. FRICK:
EI(AI.IINATION
a. Andy, thie is Extrlblt II1.
5 A. okay.
5 Q. It's the applLcatlon for PEC apProval .
7 I,lR. BAILEY: 1983 applicatlon?
8 l,ls. FRICK3 1983, yes.
9 ltR. BAfLEy: You're going to ask trin where
10 the things cane fron?
11 A. (BY l.ts. FRICK) Attactred to it are drawingrs
L2 that are similar but not the Eane as Deposition
13 Exhibit 2.
l4
15
16
MR. BAILEY: Not even sinilar.
A. (BY l,lSi. FRICK) Do you see that?
A. I see the three final pages at the end of
L7 the application.
l-8 O. Do you knos who prepared the drawings that
L9 are attached to the PEC appllcation?
20 - A. No.
2L O. on the eecond page of the drawings in the
22 boldface part it aayB, rrExhibit A.3(1).tt Does that have
23 a reference, a cross reference to anything, the Exhibit
24 A.3 (1) ?
A. To tell you the truth, I focused from 1993,
Candace Stutaon neportJ.ng Vail, Colorado (g7ll g4g-4g2}
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l_ l_
L2
13
L4
L5
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
194
that DRB application on, and this information I,n not
faniliar with.
A. You,re not fanlllar rlth. okay. The last
page of the drawinlt, can you tell ne what the part thatrs
in boldface is supposed to represent?
A. Again, f,n not faniliar with this
application.
o.okay. A11 right.
llR. ITIOORHE,AD: Are you finished with Andy?
tts.
(Mr. Knudtsen leaves the deposition
(Discusalon off the record.)
Just a second. Guess what,
the record. Exhibtt 2 is, in
record, Iten fI2, a memo from
us. FRrcK:
guys. We will go back on
fact, from the certified
Jay Peterson.
UR. BAIL,EY: Thatrs sinply not accurate.
You're going to have to talk to the Town because there
ltas never any drawings by Jay Peterson of the current
project on the nemo that was done in tgg:. I have the
memo. I mean, I vas in the project in 1983. So if the
Town lrants to nake a correction to its record, thatrs
fine.
(Discussion off the record. )
t{R. I.IOORIIEAD: My copy of the record,
Candace Stutson Reporting VaiI , Colorado (9ZO) 949-4920
195
I lten II2 does not have that drawlng attached.
2 US. FRICK: ft does not?
UR. UoORltE.AD: It does not.
I.lS. FRICK: OurB does. Okay.
uR. BAILEY: f wlll repreaent on the record
6 that that is not the drawing that sas attached to the
7 original 1983 memo. llhe reason I know tbat Ls because I
8 saw the neno in 1983 and Jay wrote the meuo in 1983.
9 US. FRICK: Okay. WelI, just to clarify any
10 confusion, could you Just produce to us, then, a copy of
11 the original 1983 meno with all the appropriate
L2 attachnents to it so that I'rn vorking fron the exact same
13 set that you-all are working fron?
L4 l{s. FRICK: He doesn't have any exhibits.
15 tts. FRICK: You don't have exhLblts to
15 yours, correct? Is that what you are saying?
L7 ltR. BAILEY: He doesn't have a nap attached
18 to his.
1.9
20
2T
22
23 to it.
US. FRICK: You don't have any nap attached?
ItR. UOORHEAD: In here, no.
l,IS. FRICK: Yeah, okay.
UR. UOORHEAD: No, there's no map attached
24 l,ts. FRICK: Was there a map attached to the
25 original meno?
Candace Stutson Reporting Vail, Colorado (97O, 949-4920
196
UR. PETERSONS It,s those drawinge that you
2 have in your book, rthatever, thoge other drawings. You
3 have drawings of it.
THE COttRT REPORTER: Okay. This is getting
5 real hardr lluys.
us. FRICK3 Go off the record.
THE COttRT REPORTER: Okay. Thanks.
20
2L
22
23
24
25
candace Stutson Reporting Vall, Colorado (9?0) 949-4920
7
8
9
10
t_L
L2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
19
199
lc
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
15
t7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
CERTTFICATION
I, C,AIIDACE STUTSON, Registered Profeselonal
Reporter, appointed to take the deposLtion of
aworn by ne to testify to the truthr that the deposition
was taken by ne at 75 South Frontage Road, Vail , colorado
81657, on February 22, 1995t then reduced to tlpewritten
forn by neans of computer-aided transcription, consisting
of 2ol pages herein; that the foregoing is a true
transcript of the questions aeked, testLnony given, and
proceedings had.
certify
any parEy
the result
AI{DRET| I.IARIUS EII'DTSEN,
that before the deposition the deponent was duly
I further certify that I an not related to
herein or ttreir counsel and have no Lnterest in
of this litigation.
IN Wf.TNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set ny
4th day of llarch, 1996.hand this
Registered Professional Reporter
Candace Stutson neporting VaiI , Colorado (e7o) e4e-492O
DESIGN REVTEW BOARD MEETING TAPSSNovenber L, 1995
BRUNO & CARPEI{TER, INC.(303) 297-0O2O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
2
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item
Lodge at Vail International wing.
to the ( inaudible ) . That rs German.
COMMISSION MEMBER:
for us the changes in the alley?
Number
We saw
1is the
the changes
COMMISSION MEMBER: No, it's not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Come on, nosr. I always
thought it was. There are some outstanding questions.
Werre a little bit unclear about the patio on the
nountainside. What exactly is going on with that
thing? Have you approached the Forest Service for
being able to landscape or pave on their property?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There is a snalI
portion, actuaJ.ry (inaudible) a tittre bit of a walr
(inaudible) hre have to come back in and show you
different plans. Itrs a condition that Andy will
bring up (inaudiblel we have done those things in the
past rr'ith then behind one Vail prace ( inaudible ) this
is rni-nor. rt wourd rook a rot better if you erininate
that 90-degree angle jog.
COMMISSION MEMBER: We would encourage
your pursuit of that through the proper channels.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: what if we
a plan and go to thern erith sornething specific and
can we do this.
have
say
lVould you run by
1
2
3
4
5
5
7.
I
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 297-0O20
3
UNIDENTIPIED SPEAKER: Sure. What
hrerve done is taken away the steps down here, and itrs
all ramp. So it ramps from here down. There's a flat
spot, then it ramps back down. Therers a 30-inch
elevatj.on change. ( Inaudible ) so it's all Tanp. These
areas here are flat spots to put planters. werre just
going to put pots with (inaudible), and in the winter
we | 11 have evergreen ( inaudible ) .
COMMISSION MEMBER: And yourve got
permission to do this on the back of one vail place?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: This is our
property through here, the flat spot.
COMMISSION MEI'{BER: So it is, that I s
right. I forgot about that. So yourre not actually
attaching them to One VaiI place.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Theyrre not flat
spots (inaudible).
COMMISSION MEMBER: Terra cotta pots,
is that what weIre talking about?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible) 36
inches in dianeter.
COMMISSION MEMBER: Generally less
fornal looking than the planters you originally
presented.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. Then these
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1L
L2
13
t4
t5
16
L?
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
are some (inaudible) lrhat it wourd 100k like. This
would be coming from the plaza on the north side in
front of one vail place. (fnaudible) drew what you
see. This is the view from above rooking down on one
Vail Place and our building showing how our buirding
is cut back as of the second revel and then cut back
even further at the top level. And this is the view
from eye rever standing up in front of the conference
area (inaudible) showing you how itrs cut back here,
and one vair prace. Alr these barconies are further
out south of our building.
COMMI SS IoN MEI-|BER: Okay.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: WE
different stance. f think everybody told
rid of the planters and nake that as wide
but I think this is a great solution. It
( inaudible ) .
COMMISSIoN MEI',IBER: yes, makes it nore
intere st ing
CoMMISSION MEMBER: They found a toy
gavel here, so what can we do.
COMMISSION MEI'IBER: Other outstanding
items. one, the lights you have proposed are kind of
contempo, whereas the ones that you have that are
already existing in the courtyard are more like the
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 2e7-OO2O
took a little
us to get
as possible,
provide s
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
72
13
t4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
5
Vail Village streetscape lighting. Are you aware of
what rtn tarking about? yourve got those Avon rooking
lights, and Itm wondering if we can replace those with
sonethj-ng sinilar or exactly Iike what you currently
have going up between the Sptash Blossorn. you know,
those lights are the ones you al.ready have in the
courtyard, more like the streetscape pIan.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: suTe.
COI-{}|I SS ION MEMBER: There was also some
concern expressed about the tnassiveness and the
general look of the walls and pilasters at the entry
to the courtyard there, in the courtyard itself.
Theyrre right across from Christy Sports there.
UNIDENTfFfED SpEAKER: ( Inaudible ) .
COMMISSION MEMBER: If you look at your
rendering, those things are huge, huge.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (rnaudible).
COMMTSSfON MEMBER: There is a
rendering sonewhere. can we see that rendering? Andy
has one here on the elevation.
COMMISSION MEMBER: It sort of looks
yourre trying to block out that area, you know,
( inaudible ) .
COMMISSION MEMBER:Where eras that
e I evation ?
I ike
from
6
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ( Inaudible ) .
COMMfSSION MEMBER: But r mean, if this
rendering of the personrs body is accurate, you know,
it looks like yourre walking, f donrt know, naybe the
white House or something. Theyrre a rittre bit out of
scaler lou know. They just look massive
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Do you srant them
shorter and narrower?
COMMISSION MEMBER: Reduced in all
$rays.
COMMISSION MEMBER: And then reducing
the walls. I mean, it's one thing to have pilasters,
but then to have them connected to walls that then
connect back to the building really starts to
( inaudible; .
COMMISSION MEMBER: you couldnrt
accomplish the walls with landscaping or hedges or a
hedge ?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We can Ieave the
wall- but just bring it up to nake it thiee feet and
narrolver (inaudible) you donrt just want to end the
wall with six inches.
COMMISSION MEMBER: f understand.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: These walls are
also to retain some of the earth that vrerre backing up
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
I7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 2e?-OO20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8,
9
10
11
L2
13
I4
15
16
L7
t-8
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
7
here, to seen like
COMMISSION MEMBER:So they do serve as
UNIDENTfFIED SPEAKER: yeah..
COI,IMISSION MEIT|BER: Is there any way to
soften them? f mean to incorporate landscaping with
then? ,I mean, f realize itrs private property, but
itts an awfully public spacer you know, the area
adjacent to Christy Sports, the Hong Kong, popcorn
Wagon, whatnot.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The grade at the
back of the walls in this area are right on top of the
walls, the J.andscape is filling holes on the top of
the walls.
against the
they're at
retainage.
get to them.
building,
grade.
these patios
COMMISSION }IEMBER:How tall are the
walls?
a guardrail?
UNIDENTIFIED SPSAKER: Thirty inches.
COMMISSION MEMBER: So donrt they need
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. Nobody can
There's no pedestrian behind then.
I
COMI,!ISSION MEI'{BER: Is that true? I
mean, I can see the way the (inaudibte) rdrap around
here that your grade rnight be high right up against
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
t2
13
I4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, TNC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
8
this part of the building, but it just doesnrt appear
that up here next to Founderrs plaza --
NfDENTIFfED SPEAKER: WeII, our
existing -- we're trying to provide enough coverage
also at the corner of the building to get a tree in
that corner also, so the walls (inaudible).
COMMISSION t{E!.tBER: So you propose --
Jim, and therers 24 inches available (inaudible).
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And thatls just
a continuation of the walls that are there. Therers
an existing wa}I that kind of wraps around the plaza
thatrs supposed to carry on back. The pillarrs acting
as a (inaudible.)
CoMMISSION MEMBER: r think if you just
cut down the pill.ars
COMMfSSION MEMBER: Gradually bringing
up like a smalLer
COMMISSION MEMBER: Right, Iike it
would be the end of the wall_ rather than a separate
mass- by itself. I think that night
COMMISSION MEMBER: We can probably
rely on your working with Andy on that issue.
UNIDENTIFTED SPEAKER: ( Inaudible )
people sitting on there. It would be nice to have
sonething like that in there.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7.
I
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2I
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 297-O020
9
MR. CHAIR!.IAN: Al l right . Let I s have
some comments fron the board here. Brett.
COMMISSION t[E]tBER: I think the
irnprovenents or changes you nade to the Arberg are
great. Theyrre rearry much nore consistent with th.e
architecture of the Lodge itser.f. r think the changes
to the pedestrian access area along the east side is
good' and r would just rearly rike to see the scale of
that feature reduced a lot. Other than that, I tbink
itrs going to be a wonderful project.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hans.
COMMISSION MEIi{BER: Very nice. One
thing I don r t -- this is the only access no!v. Ho!,
wide is this?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
actually is here.
The access
COMMISSION MEII{BER:
COMMISSION MEMBER:
( Inaudible ) .
(Inaudible) not be
intinidating having what you carl a sense of arrival
and-still invites the public to go through it. I
mean, if this rdere located here, then I note, okay,
this is private but f am quite welconie to ( inaudible )
down here. where if this (inaudible), you know, this
trenendous waIl up here, and this is crowded, an I
allowed to walk through there?
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
I4
L5
15
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 2e7-OO20
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: WCIlI CUt thAt
down.
COMUfSSION MEMBER: (Inaudible) come
.down and be less rnonumental or less intirnidating.
UNIDENTIFfED SPEAKER: The only thing I
would like to do is come up a little bit here.
COIi{MISSION MEUBER: Oh, yeah.
UNIDENTIF'IED SPEAKER:' Because aII this
doesn t t match.
COI.{MISSION MEIIBER: Exactly, sure.
COMMI SS ION I|EMBER: ( Inaudible )
fortress type thing. cour,d we see a sketch of that
then, the ne$r --
COMMISSION MEMBER: I think we have a
pretty crear und.erstanding of what vre rve discussed, if
you could provide that to staff. Andy rnight not
inrnediately approve it. He night giive Hans a caII or
sonething.
COMMISSION MEMBER: In the alley, as
you -caIIed it, these platforns (inaudible) these
platforns where these pots wilr be on, are they strong
in there?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The pots?
COMMISSION l,lEtlBER: yeah. Because the
( inaudible ) slope down.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7-
8
9
10
11
L2
UNIDENTTFTED SPEAKER: There wi].I be
chunks of sandstone.
COMMf SSION MEI'|BER: It looks very nice.
COI'IUISSfON MEMBER: Actually, what we
asked you to do are some pretty drarnatic changes, and
I mean, usually we have
some clear-cut ideas and people like to give them to
us in little piecee so it takes six rneetings to get
sornething, and I appreciate it. I think it,s
excellent.
COMMISSION MEMBER:
anything to add.
f donrt have
COMMISSION MEMBER: r have nothing to
add. f would just once again, for the record, mention
that it wourd be very ni-ce if the Forest service wourd
al, low amendment to the proposed landscape plan along
that southern el.evati.on. It just Iooks a little it
Iooks like it was done by a survey pointer. We have
sorne points to read in with this, our notion. werrl
get -a motion and a .second, then discussion.
MR. KNUDTSEN: Werve got some
conditions and approval (inaudible). I'll just
summarize it here. public access needs to be
dedicated in this area prior to buitding permit.
Appricant will (inaudible) with Town vail and vail
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 2e7-OO2O
f appreciate your doing then.
13
t4
15
15
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
L2
Associates in the fu.ture master planning linaudible;.
Appricant shall (inaudible) the entire structure or
the existing proposed -- both the Lodqe hoters as well
as the Lodge apartments in accordance with the fire
departnent standards. Applicant sharl at the tirne of
the buirding pernit provide surveyed detair.s with uscs
elevation response on the er.evations and sections
verifying that aLl the inprovements (inaudible)
corridor standards. plans that we have to date do
cornply, hov/ever, we 1 inaudible ) verif ication. Forest
Service (inaudible). Applicant (inaudible) for the
perrnit and ( inaudible; .
COMMISSION MEttBER: Mr. Chairrnan, I
move we approve the Lodge at Vail International wing
subject to a few conditions. One is that the
applicant cut down dranaticalry the size of the two
pilasters that werve discussed; two, that the
applicant change the Iights that are proposed to those
more fitting and
COMMISSION MEMBER: Uatch the existing.
COMMISSION MEI.IBER: yeah, matching the
vail village Iights
UNIDENTIFIED SpEAKER: I think we can
match the ones that are on the Wildflower, which I
bel.ieve natch the ( inaudible ) .
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
1,6
L7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 2e7-OO2O
1
2
3
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
T4
I5
15
17
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 29?-OO2O
13
COMMISSION MEMBER: Therers a couple
right there in your own plaza.
COMMISSION MEMBER: And I woul_d also
add the typed list of conditions that Andy has been
kind enough to read as par:t of this motion. And
1ast1y, that the applicant continue diligent work with
the Forest service with regard to the area discussed.
have a second?
l,lR. CHAIR!.IAN: We have a motion. Do we
COMMISSION ME}IBER: Second.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Second by Brett.
further discussion? Jin Lamont.
Any
MR. LAMONT: East VaiL Homeohrners
Association. In terms of the easenent between tvro
buildings, is that already in existence or __
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I donlt know, to
be honest with you. werve agreed if itrs not,
we I ve agreed to provide a pedestrian easement. some
of the documents r r ve seen show there r s a pedestrian
easenent that goes down to the rower level at one vail
Place, then crosses this property. Therers arso what
appears to be a very narrow (inaudible) that runs on
the side of One Vait place we want to expand.
MR. LAMONT: what's underneath the
easement area? Is that building or is that just dirt?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1t
L2
13
t4
t5
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENIER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
14
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: BuiIding.
MR. LAMONT: One of the things that we
would suggest is that easernent be reserved for
subterranean use at some future point in time.
UNIDENTIFTED SPEAKER: By who?
l4R. LAMONT: The public
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ( Inaudible ) .
MR. LAMONT: Itrs just ny suggestion.
COMMf SSION MEMBER: Run that by rne
again, Jirn. What are you asking then for now?
MR. LAMONT: An easernent for public
access at the lower Level.
COI.{MfSSION MEMBER: you meaD through
the International area?
MR. LAMONT: fn that 14-foot area, that
that be reserved for public access.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ThatIS paTt of
our. agreement to provide (inaudible). I nean our
building goes right to the property line.
COHMISSION MEMBER: f coul_d see asking
that a bona fide easerflent be granted for the warkway
that $rilL exist per these Lands, but asking them to go
subterranean into what is already developed space
would seem to be just a bit extreme.
MR. LAMONT: That r s our reguest. That
1
2
3
4
5
6
7.
8
9
1 0
11
t2
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2T
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
1s
would be a consideration rre wourd like to put on the
record. The other reguest is that this be reviewed by
the Townrs design qonsultant, as alI other projects
have.
COMMISSION ttEMBER: By !{inston
MR. LAUONT: Relative to the Urban
Design Guidelines. I{e believe that this has
substantially ehanged since the original review in
t83, and that these guidelines should be reviewed
relative to this building, as aII others have.
Third is that the roof garden issue
again be addressed by the design consultant. To our
knowledge this is the only building in town which is
allowed that degree of so-called rooftop terrace.
other buildings have not been allowed a sinilar
special priviJ_ege.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Noted. Lynn
MS. FRITZLEN: The survey (inaudible)
two weeks ago, and we have a letter that werd like to
introduce for the record, copies of which Ird like to
distribute to the DRB members. We have the same
concerns that ererve had previousry, and we think that
the current inforrnation thatrs avairable corroborates
our concerns.
MR. CHAIRMAN: .These are very good
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
gue st io ns
MS. FRITZLEN: Therers two letters in
there, one addressed to Tom Moorhead and one addressed
to Andy Knudtsen with DRB.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, f have a feeling
this is going to crirnb the radder to Town councir
anyvray, but I respect. Mr. Lamont and Ms. Fritzlenrs
position- Did you rdant me to actuar'Iy read this aloud
into the record?
MS. FRITZLEN: No. f just would __
MR. CHAIRI'{AN: It rs on f ile. And f
truly synpathize with the fact that this is __ was an
approval given by the planning comrnission L2 years
ago. How it remains valid is a mystery to ne, but we
have been inforned that it is valid; and not being a
legal body, we stirL have to look at it, as vrerve been
given direction from staff and from the Tovrnr
attorney that this is sinply a project to be reviewed.
we have to dissolve ourseLves or separate ourselves
front these legal. issues and sinply look at the design
of this project nosr. And although my sympathies, I
must say honestly, lie with the preservation of that
view corridor, even though itrs not one of our
established view corridors, right on down the line,
and f do guestion the sense of allowing a l2-year-old
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC
( 303 ) 297-OO2O
9
10
11
L2
r.3
T4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1,1
L2
13
L4
15
16
L7
t8
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
BRUNO & CARPENTER, TNC
( 303 ) 2e7-OO2O
L7
approval to remain, in fact, in force, we still have
to look at it just as five guys looking at the design
of a building. And with Mr. Lamont and Miss
Fritzlenrs comments entered into the record, and of
course these letters, we have a motion on the table,
and f think we should put it to a vote.
So all in favor of approving -- rde have
a second also. All in favor of approving the Lodge
International wing, signify by saying aye.
(Aye responses rrere given).
MR. CHAIRMAN: All opposed? The notion
passes five, zero.
1
2
CERTIFICA TESTATE OF COLORADO
CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER
))ss
)
I, Laurie Heckman, Notary public of theState of Colorado, do hereby certiiy that theforegoing is a true and coriect transcriptlon of ther.efgrenced tapes transcribed to the best of nyability.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
IN WTTNESS WHEREOF,hand and sea.L this 8th day oi
f have hereunto set myFebruary 1996.
Notary public
999 - lSth Street, Suite 2180Denver, CO gO2O2
My Comnrission expires:September 1, 1996
L2
13
74
15
16
I7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
BRUNO & CARPENTER, INC.
( 303 ) 2e7-OO2O
25
q\'\1(
DEVELOPER IMPROVEMET{T AGREEMENT
h.ts:lkTHIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this / 4r r day of
amono the Lodoe Prooerties. lnc. {hereinafter called the "Develby and among the Lodge Properties. lnc. (hereinafter called the "Develope/), and the TOWN OF
VAIL (hereinafter called lhe "Town") and WestStar Bank (hereinafter called the "Bank").
WHEREAS, the Developer, as a condition of approval of the Construction staging plan of
the International Wing building permit plans, dated September 3, 1996, wishes to enter into a
Developer lmprovement Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Developer is obligated to provide security or collateral sufficient in the
judgment of the Town to make reasonable provisions for completion of certain improvements set
forth below; and
WHEREAS, the Developer wishes to provide collateralto guarantee performance of this
Agreement, including construction of the above-referenced improvements by means ol the
following:
Developer aqree€ to establish a letter of credit with a Bank in Eagle County in a dollar
amouni ot $3379. cb(125h ot the total cost of the work shown below) to provide
security for the following:
IMPROVEMENT
Repair and replace disturbed pavers in the Founders Plaza, adjacent to the Lodge Properties
parcel.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the following mutual covenants and agreements,
the Developer and the Town agree as follows:
1. The Developer agrees, at the sole cost and expenses, to furnish all equipment
and material necessary to perform and complete all improvements, on or betore
Julv 1 . 1997, The Developer shall complete, in a good workmanlike manner, all improvements
as listed above, in accordance with all plans and specifications filed in the office of the
Community Development Department, the Town of Vail, and to do all work incidental thereto
according to and in compliance with the following:
a. Such other designs, drawings, maps, specifications, sketches, and other matter
submitted by the Developer to be approved by any of the above-referenced
governmental entities. All said work shall be done under the inspection of, and to
the satisfaction of, the Town Engineer, the Town Building Official, or other official
from the Town of Vail, as affected by special districts or service districts, as their
respective interest may appear, and shall not be deemed complete until approved
and accepted as completed by the Town of Vail Community Development
Department and Public Works Department.
2. To secure and guarantee performance of its obligations as set forth herein, the
Developer agrees to provide security and collateral as follows:
#-A,5O-in the amount ot $9if5,p-()-
(name of bank in Eagle County) as
the security for the improvements set forth above if there is a default under the
Agreement by Developer.
lrrer
with
f:\everyonehndy\96-adminVntwing.dia
3. The Developer may at any time substitute the collateral originally set forth above
for another form of collateral acceptable to the Town to guarantee the faithful completion ol those
improvements referred to herein and the performance of the terms of Sris Agreement. Such
acceptance by the Town of alternative collateral shall be at the Town's sole discretion.
4. The Town shall not, nor shall any officer or employee thereof, be liable or
responsible for any accident, loss or damage fuppening or occurring to the work specified in this
Agreement prior to the completion and acceptance of the same, nor shall the Town, nor any
officer or employee thereol, be liable for any persons or property injured by reason of the nature
of said work, but all of said liabilities shall and are hereby assumed by the Developer.
The Developer hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Town, and nay of its
officers, agents and employees against any losses, claims, damages, or liabilities to which the
Town or any of its officers, agents or employees may become subject to, insofar as any such
losses, claims, damages or liabilities (or actions in respect thereof) that arise out of or are based
upon any performance by the Developer hereunder; and the Developer shall reimburse the Town
for any and all legal or other expenses reasonably incurred by the Town in connection with
investigating or defending any such loss, claim, damage, liability or action. This indemnity
provision shall be in addition to any other liability which the Developer may have.
5. lt is mutually agreed that the Developer may apply to the Town and the Town shall
authorize for partial release ol the collateral deposited with the Town for each category of
improvement at such time as such improvemenls are constructed in compliance with all plans
and specifications as referenced hereunder and accepted by the Town. Under no condition will
the amount of the collateral that is being held be reduced below the amount necessary to
complete such improvements.
6. lf the Town determines, at its sole discretion, that any of the improvements
contemplated hereunder are not conslrucled in compliance with the plans and specifications set
forth in this Agreement on or before the date set forth in Paragraph 2, the Town may, but shall
not be required to, redeem the letter of credit as necessary to complete the unfinished
improvements. The Bank shall release such funds upon wriften request from the Town stating
that the improvements have not been completed as required by this agreement. The Bank shall
not require the concurrence of the developer prior to release of the funds to the Town nor shall
the Bank be required to verify independently that such improvements have not been completed
as required by this agreement, but shall release such funds solely upon the Town's written
request.
lf the costs of completing the work exceed the amount of the deposit, the excess,
together with interest at twelve percent per annum, shall be a lien against the property and may
be collected by civil suit or may be certified to the treasurer ol Eagle County to be collected in the
same manner as delinquent ad valorem taxes levied against such property. lf the permit holder
fails or reluses to complete the cleanup and landscaping, ad defined in this chapter, such failure
or refusal shall be considered a violation of the Zoning Code.
7. The Developer warrants all work and material for a period of one year after
acceptance of all work referred to in this Agreement by the Town if such work is located on Town
ol Vail propefi or within Town of Vail right-of-way pursuant to Section 17.16.250.
8. The parties hereto mutually agree that this Agreement may be amended trom time
to time, provided that such amendments be in writing and executed by all parties hereto.
Dated the day and year first above written.
f:\everyonehndy96-admin\ntwing.dia
LODGE PROPERTIES, INC.,
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
12rh
SS.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
s/7 /98
lmprovement Agreement
luAb_by:
ss.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: ,,!r,),L/ '1, to'r s
fl6.-\
t'|)l.t:/t
SS.
. I The foregoing. Developer lmprovement Agreem(l[zaryaW{O/.-
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: My Commbslon ErCIlres 120798
i narucvl.i ESTES
.'-0
,Yvl
Community
f:\weryonehndy\96-adrnin\intwing.dia
DATE OF ISSUE:
PLACE OF ISSUE:
EXPIRATION DATE:
ACCOUNT PARTY:
BENEFICIARY:
AUGUST 29, 1996
VAIL, COLORADO
APRIL 1, 1998
LODGE PROPERTIES, INC.
TOWN OF VAIL
tu*eststar
tanil
IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT
IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT #250
WestStar Bank hereby issues this lrrevocable Letter of Credit in your favor for the
amount of Nine thousand three hundred seventy-five and no/lO0 Dollars which is
available by drafts at sight for payment accompanied by the following document:
1. Written certification signed by an authorized ofjc+al-with{e Town of
Vail that the account party has failed to replac{rick paverg;rio perform
necessary grading in Founders Plaza area. r----
This letter of credit shall not be transferable and it shall be governed by the laws of the
State of Colorado. This letter of credit may be extended or otherwise renewed with
the consent of the Beneficiary and WestStar Bank.
WestStar Bank hereby agrees to honor each draft for payment made in compliance
with the terms of this credit if duly presented, together with any documents specified
herein, on or before the expiration date of this letter.
President and Chief Executive Officer
Sincerely,
VAIL.AVON ' DENVEF . SUMMIT COUNry
6le:1ffie-^tv-t I
LETTER OF CREDIT FORM
Legal Oescriplion:
SubdMsron l,/.i * pt<.
Address_oa".tr.a*arton@
OEVELOPER IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered tnto tnis I 6 day of n9.-7
by and among and the
TOWN OF VAIL (hereinafter called the "Town") ano
called the "Bank").
WHEREAS, the Developer, as a condition of approval ol the Loo.€ At vAtL.INtearrqt,e,t+L
plans, dated 2? iApuARy ' .1g ?6 .riisnes to enter@
lmprovement Ag reement; and
WHEREAS, the Developer is obligated to provide security or collateral
judgment of the Town to make reasonable provisions for completion of certain
sufficient in the
tmprovements set
torth below; and
WHEREAS, the Developer wishes to provide collateral to guarantee performance of this
Agreement, including construction of the above-referenced improvements by means of the
followino:
Developer agrees to establish a letter of credit with a @*s€eu*ty in a dollar
amount oI $jDF32_fi25% ot the total cost of the work shown below) to provide
security for the following:
IMPROVEMENT
Item Cost Completion(l l) Timber Bollards along ttre
IVP Drive
$4 t80 Spring 98
Landscaping s62,874 Spring 98
Patio at South Side of BuildG $2776 Spring 98
Pat"h Pauers at FouilFs pha $1362 Spring 98
CIP Stairs at Door l2i $1235 Spring 98
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the following mutual covenants and agreements,
the Developer and the Town agree as follows:
1. The Developer agrees, at the sole cost and expenses, to lurnish all equipment
and m4terial necessary to perform and complete all improvements, on or before30 Ju^te / ? ? g' . The.Developer si-rall complete, in a good workmanlike manner, all
improvements as listed above, in accordance with all plans and specilications filed in the office of
lhe Community Development Department, the Town of Vail, and to do all work incidental thereto
according to and in compliance with the following:
a. Such other designs, drawings, maps, specifications, sketches, and other matter
submitted by the Developer to be approved by any ol the above-referenced
governmental entities. All said work shall be done under the inspection of, and to
the satisfaction of, the Town Engineer, the Town Building Official, or other otficial
from the Town of Vail, as affected by special districts or service districts, as their
respective interest may appear, and shall not be deemed complete until approved
and accepted as completed by the Town of Vail Community Development
Department and Public Works Department.
2. To secure and guarantee performance of its obligations as set forth herein,the
T9Developer agrees to provide security and collateral as follows:gr.5 3]-
lrrevocable letter of credit #in the amount of $
with /i/inarv,tArrzl,< (name of bank intagli:€r +f) as
the security for the improvements set forth above if there is a default under the
Agreement by Developer.
Pagc I of J
3. The Developer may at any time substitute the collateral originally set forth above
for another form of collateral acceptable to the Town to guarantee the taithtul completion of those
improvements referred to herein and the performance of the terms of this Agreement. Such
acceptance by the Town of alternative collateral shall be at the Town's sole discretion.
4. The Town shall not, nor shall any officer or ernployee thereof, be liable or
responsible for any accident, loss or damage happening or occurflng to the work specified in this
Agreement prior to the completion and acceptance of the same, nor shall the Town, nor any
officer or employee thereof, be liable for any persons or property injured by reason of the nature
of said work, but all of said liabilities shall and are hereby assumed by the Developer.
The Developer hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Town, and nay of its
officers, agents and employees against any losses, claims, damages, or liabilities to which the
Town or any of its officers, agents or employees may become subject to, insofar as any such
losses, claims, damages or liabilities (or actions in respect thereof) that arise out of or are based
upon any performance by the Developer hereunder; and the Developer shall reimburse the Town
for any and all legal or other expenses reasonably incurred by the Town in connection with
Investigating or defending any such loss, claim, damage, liability or action. This indemnity
provision shall be in addition to any other liability which the Developer may have.
5. lt is mutually agreed that the Developer may apply to the-Town and the Town shall
authorize for partial release of the collaleral deposited with the Town for each category of
improvement at such time as such improvements are constructed in compliance with all plans
and specifications as referenced hereunder and accepted by the Town. Under no condition will
the amount of the collateral that is being held be reduced below the amount necessary to
complete such improvements.
6. ll the Town determines, at its sole discretion, that any of the improvements
contemplated hereunder are not constructed in compliance with the plans and specifications set
forth in this Agreement on or before the date set forth in Paragraph 2, the Town may, but shall
not be required to, redeem the letter of credit as necessary to complete the unfinished
improvements. The Bank shall release such funds upon written request from the Town stating
that the improvements have not been completed as required by this agreement. The Bank shall
not require the concurrence of the developer prior to release of the funds to the Town nor shall
the Bank be required to verify independently that such improvements have not been completed
as required by this agreement, but shall release such funds solely upon the Town's written
request.
lf the costs of completing the work exceed the amount of the deposit, the excess,
together with interest at twelve percent per annum, shall be a lien against the property and may
be collected by civil suit or may be certilied to the treasurer of Eagle County to be collected in the
same manner as delinquent ad valorem taxes levied against such property. lf the permit holder
fails or refuses to complete the cleanup and landscaping, ad defined in this chapter, such failure
or refusal shall be considered a violation of the Zoning Code.
7. The Developer warrants all work and material for a period of one year after
acceptance of all work referred to in this Agreement by the Town if such work is located on Town
of Vail property or within Town of Vail rightotway pursuant to Section 17.16.250.
L The parties hereto mutually agree that this Agreement may be amended from time
to time, provided that such amendments be in writing and executed by all parties hereto.
Dated the day and year first above written.
Pagc 2 of 3
b/ft *i Z'/
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
Wilness my hand and official seal.
ss.
rr,ltot"lr'"'i't?':niff P1''0""""',1nJU?'i;5:T*l'v:oP'3:111""*''
ss.
1L The foregojpg Develgpel lmprovement Agree4ent
[9': day or - Sco-ixtPt R- . r-S:1UV
Witness my hand and official seal.
Mycommissionexpires: o/rt-{li8
The foregoing Developer lmproveme
day of
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission
was acknowledged before me this
Notary Public
Pagc 3 of 3
Planner, Comft unity Development
f :\owryone\lorms\devimpaq.ltr
DEC Ls 's7 ae:szFil't v
uF|{
cstsr
Tail [omrts llevelopnent ConpUy
aa.a.
l/ail r Bleckenridga r Keptone . Seiwr CIeGks o Eachelor Gulcho e Arrcwhead
Deoeobcr 19,Lgn
Mr. Doubic Meuicllo
To*l Plrner
Dept Of Oonnuuity Dwelopoeot
TosrOf Veil
75 SorthFlotrScRd,Wert
vatlCO
t1657
RE: TbcLodgcAtYril-IrtcmrtiuslWiry
Oufftrrdtrg Wort At Buildht nt0trlor
DcatDorinic:
fhe luFortiond WiDg Projcct Tsan ir rcquatiry I Terryoruy Ccrtificrb of Occuprrcy m
Dcccorbcr 19, 1997 fot potiionr of thc Inernrtimd WinS projeot Coin wort rt thc crtsrid of thc
building ffindil rufidfrcd owr md rbwc tte wrk covcrcd in thc crrrtlnt $90,533.75 lctttr of qsdit
Itrt wrr siprc$ meilcd b pu. Vril Auocirtcq Inc. ruthorizos 6c Town of Vail to urs tts lbovc
nfaoncod lctcr of qcdit fq wuk ibms lisbd below $ if thore itsor wem r prt of lhrt lettr of
credit Thc work itery (rnd frcir €stbrted vrluc) in quertioo includc:
l. AppcovedCioeyWnp-$4,4782. MirccllueoruExrriotTfin-t900
3, Harg E:ftsritr Doqr - f200a. Rrdiur RdlfiU lutrllrtim- tl,l00
5. Mtscellrrcoru Timberlurfflhdu - t5,7006. Rmfing atLs*trRoof- $1,7007. Irubllrtim of Remriat4 Watc4roofiug - 1r,800
8. Iubllation of Shicr Bridge Reilingr - S9509. Mircellracour EIFS work - t2,@0
Tobl Currcrt Eifmrtd Vduc ot ADovr Ilrhd TVorL l0cnr - JIE'82E
Ibo projecf frn vr.ill diligentty pursue wrpletion of tDc wort o thc rst'ufrstior of Tha To*l Of Vdl
rt Oi cirlicrt pooriblc drG. Picare cmbct loho Volpod of Thc Lodge At Vril md Derek Coottcflc of
ArchitsafiErl Rclolucc Comilmtl rcguding +hir Eltts.
o
P-2/2
o.
ldfrtarrlHb3b
t'l.btfi
!r&uga, Pre-Coutuctioo
C@rtuctimDop|rb.ot
Fih:
LAv l0?.1
JbM$dcl
IobnVolpoi
CbftSqqdrl-ARc
Dcrck Cmverrc - ARC
Scot Lo*r)' - Staw Conrtnstio[
TioLon -ZcDrcq & Agosirtcc
ttt ltnd:n|rlr Bod r Po lor 9t9 r Arnccolmdo . t1620.0959 . pbn 970.ll5l5l5 o fs 9t0l$ 1355
tationsBonk'O
SSitJIl.'l() lrAhil(::
AT:[Ot.tE;t{At.tK oF TEXAs. t..t .A"
,/C l'-10:: 9?09115
D]'lEl.lT NfJ:: OL
Dt'fENT DATE: L9DEC97
EFICIARY:
Ob,N OF VAIL
5 Si" FRONTAGE ROAD
AII_, C0LoRADO A1657
TTN: TOFI F1OORHEAD
HEREETY AFIEHD THE ATTOVE REFERENCED STANDBY
Rf:DrT A$ F0L-l...CltrJ!i::
I-IE L.ETTEK OF CREDIT AFIOUNT IS INCREASED EtY0 A t.,tEut AGottEGATE TOTAT_ 0F USD ?O,ii3:5.75
AF.F.LICANT:
TI{E VAIL COT{FORATION
F'. O. E|OX ?4?
1.57 BENCT{I'|ARK ttD.
AVON. CO 81620
I-ETTER OF
usD 18 ,, 106.7s
t..L OTHER TK-RFIS UNCFIANGED. THIS
tJt'Fl0R:t s:tGr{A'rlohrs K OF TEXA$. I',I . A "
OFERATIVF IhISTRUFIENT
OF CREDIT NO. 9209?5
IS THE
I.-ETTER ANDICH FORI'IS AH IHTEGRAL PART OI:
IjOIJLD E{E ATTACFIED THEF€TO.
AS$]STAI.'I(:E FLEASE CALL CR:ISTTNA F{IJSSELI- AT T14_:iOA_36O6
ORIGINAL
ilofionsBonk" O
1. $$t., I l'l[i l:ttrrl.ll( r:
At':t;ilt.t1:irlAl.ll< {lf:' 'rtixAs , ht . A "
tl1...1...4ti,, fl:::XAlii
L$$t.ft:: I)A'T'[:. 1 ]. 1. D[:l:[if'lI][::fi,,'.1.9.9'7
lltltL::VOCAf't-,E Ij'IAhIDFY 1...H1'"1'Hlt Ol::' (*RFD'tT hlU,, ?;::O91:lli
Ii.l''ll:i.l::']. t.).1. Al:tY ::
(ll^Jl'l ill:: VA1:1...
|i lii ,. [rl:tOFl'f A(:il::. l:l0AD
A:l:1..,,' {.:tl {:}l.C,li7'I'Tl'l:r'I(l)l'l l'l(l(:)l:tl-ll::AD
1::,1::,1... t.f)AFIT ::
vA l: t... l)t.)l:il:r0l:lA'l' 1: c)l.l
,.0,, Ir(:)X 949
1..:i7 Ir[::l'l0l-ll'lAl:tl( l:tD,,
V0l'l ,, (.)(:) llll.Cr1:)o
t::: l-l[: Ilt::IJY [::ti1 AIi[..]:siFl lJt.JIi :[ri[t[::v|:luA]11..t:: $l Al.lDIiY l. E:'T"T'[::l:l t)r:' cft-D]T Fl0 "
ji:10?1lll:i .il1 Iil:::l.ll::.1:;'1.(:IAl:(Y'{} FAV(ll:l l:r{l11 l'l ll:i A(l(:l(lt.Jl'l l (lF T l'll::. VA:1.1...
ol:i|:l0[iAl.:l.t)N., Fl ,.o,, IJox g4y. 1..:.i7 f::[:.t.tut.lHAftK tiD...( .,rrnrlt . r.rt f:]11-,:1o., t.JF:'
0 1't-tH AG(:it:il:::(:iA1'[i: lilJl't L']t:: t.J{jD 7.,t "4;:'7,.oo ({Srjvtit{'ry TUJ[] Il..totJ$At.tI) [:(]l.il:i
t,Jl.lD[tli D llrj[::hl1'Y $[::V[:l.l tl .$- D01...1...A[tIi Al'lD hlf]./J.OO) [::X[1:l.R.ttlL:i t]hl
(::l:::ltIJl:;:[:: 1. 1. ., ].9?ti A'f Tl'll:; (:)Ot.Jl-l f l:-11!:i l::' l.lAl'l: (.)l.l$IJAI'll( (ll:r l'[i:XAl:i Fl - 4 .. !
VA'.l.l..AiJt..[: nY FAYI'l[::tlT Af.iAl.l'lli'I lJ[::hll;:.FIC].nnY'{:i DRAf:'1 ($) DRAhll'l Ohl
1 1. Ui'|1]IJAl.ll( (ll:: f l;:XAfi l'l ,, 4 ,, A f f:i I Ol-lT ,, A{;(:)(ll'll:tAl'l .l.l:lD IitY ::
,, A tdftl:1'I'[:l'l Sil'A1 [:.ltll::'Nf l:![.,]:ll::'(][t1'[.D1...Y !iIt'il-l[::l) FY 1'l"lE IiE:l-l[:.t ]:CIAttY
r Tl{ 'ft{|: t::'ot...l ..0uJ 1.l'l(i uJt.)t:tD .t.l.]0 I
"1l-ll:.|:iti. l"lA!) 0Or::Llfil:{l::.D A Dl:::t:At.,1...'l' t.JtlD[:.|:i Tl-lAl' C[::fi'TA:[hl F'tt[::|...]:1'l:thlAFiY
])|.:.1,t|:'|...t)|;:.it|l:i|.|.fAnR|:i|:i|'||:i|'|1DA1.H.D|'|Art(:]|'.|;jo''1'(}(lc)IJl::1.tl
t"lAI'|'.A|.'lI)].|'||i::VA1|''.c)t)Rf:.(}f(A.I.:|:(]l.|Af'|Dr:Ll|.|D{;|..ll:r.T.C]l.Fl|i:F|AX]:1'|t.]|'lAF|0t.J|'|.I.
(ll::' l..l{:iD 72 "tl}7, OO AftH l.l{:)(d Dt.Jti " "
'.1:,, (:)t)l:rY (.)F DA'rl:::D l{Ft1:l'l'[::t'l 1.101']:F'.tCAl'l:Oi.l F ttC]f'l Ilf:.Fl[::fr]:CIARY COURIE.I:i
IU APlll-ICAI{'r (lF Bl:hll:-F:t(l.l-AllY'li :th'll'lil!'f T0 DltAtJ tJl.lDlilt l'lA'I'i:Ul'l$ttAl'll{ (ll:r
f [:.XA$,, l.l ,. A,. $] AhlOFY 1..H.'t l [:R Of'' Cfi[::D].T h|0,, ?;;:O9;l:r tdIl'l"ll:hl I'El'l ( 1.O )
l)AY$,,
f'(|l:1Y {lF DA'I[:.D fiOLJRI[::tt tlf:.fi[:IF'1' A!:i [tf:.f:'[::Ftt::t'lilE.D AI'JilV[:: ,',i ,,
t:il:rl:il) I: A1... (.)(.ll'lD.l. I .1. {.) l'l !:i :r
Ii-l:1.$ {:i1'AF{DftY L.[::ll'H.R {]f:'CttE.D:t1':t:i ISSiLJE:D Ali A GUAnAt{TY l-'Uri
l:il:i:(:tJlt:t]'Y FUlt Il'lF RnVEf'lliFll'li tJl'lDtill 1'llE Dl'i:VH:1...(ll:'L-ft IFll:'l:tnVEHtiN r
Atil{U:[:.1'lt::hl]'Ilt::'Il,{[::[:l.l 'fFtE: 1'ONl.l 0[: Vdr1.L.. AhlD ]'l-lt:. VA1L.. COI'tfr0[tA'l'I0l'{ DfJA
Tl ll::: 1...$Dtit:: Al' VA:il...-
l;:'Al:tJ' 1' A[.. D[iAN ]: l'.lL:i9i ARE: l':'ttOt l l: $ l: l tiD .
.tRRt::v{l{:AIlt._H $'rA}.|DIJY |-ETTHR 0l:: (:)l:(F-Dl:T 1.10" ?;lo9:l:i" FA(;l::
ORIGINAL
tctionsBonk O
t:r{)t:l 1'l\ll:; (rlil'tAl l:01.1 (.)l.ll...Y I
t;1'hlA[.. t...Al'lDftuA[r]:F.lci 1'c)F[: ]:1..1 l:r[..AC[. $FrR]:tlti J.9?{3 [::X[]Atlgi:lilf'l tt,Il''lt.i ilf:
l"l[:: 1...ilD(iiH: A1 VAl:1..."
FIY C;illi1'!:i ftE:l-.ATIhlCi 1'0 I)ftAUJl.Ntj LJND[:;t 1'llIS t..OC:Af{[: f:'OFt 1']'l[:: AC]CClt.Jl'lT
0l:r 1l..ll:. Al:.l:]1...1:(.:At\lI',.
Al'.lY Dl:lAI:'1'DRAklh.l t.Jl.tDt::tt 1'lll:ti C[t[:.DI1'Flt.JS'f ]1[i. FlirFtKED "D[tAt{l'l t.JFll)[:.[t
It:(ltt:.VO(:AfJl...[:: $'fANI)IlY 1...t:T'fl::l;: (]l; (.:l:tl;DIl l'lll '. (t1':09;1li l:{5{it,HD HY
Flf-r'f l.Ohl!:illAhll( nf: T[::XAS,, l"l .it" "
1t.l t1; t..[::1'1'l::t:{ (]f: (lli:l::'1):tT' :!.S fjt.!RJIi.fiT 'fn 'fHl:.- 1.?o:J l:{11.t",1111.1:)l'l l-lF 1'l ll,'-
t.ll\11'l:; l illfl CLJfil'OPlli Ah.lI) t,'ttAf)Tl:fi[:: frOf( DOCl.lFlE:N1'ARY CF{[iD]:Tfi Or:"'f l ll::.
.il'll'l:::l:tHn 'l'I(ll.'lAl.. (:ll lAl'lHli:lt (]l: t:Ol'll'tH:l:((ll:: ( l::'L.JIll...l.(:AT':[{]l"l lqO. 5OO ) ,,
lrJl:i l'lt::l:tl:::1lY Ht'l$Ati[:: l,ij]:1'l-l YC]t.l 1'l"lAl'l)l:tA[;"T'!i DftAldl*'l L,t'lDf::fl ANI) ].1'l
c0Fil::'t...I:At'tcl,:: h,'rTl.t 'r'l{l:- r'Hltf'l{:i ol:: l'1..t:t$ clrEDrr,, ulil-.1... IJ[: Dt.Jl.-Y l'JL]l.l0l:tli:D
(:)l'l [:'[t[::1]t::tt'f'ATIt)l'l 1'0 l{n'f l:Of.lSiBAFll( (}l:: Tt:XA!;, hl - A. '. AT'It'l; L-F T"I't:[ic; f![;'
(ll:t[::D]:'T' t)U:l:"f . ?1'l l Fl.-ilUR" (tOl. FlAl:l.l {:;'t-t(t::l::T. DAI.I..AS', IUXA$ 7l|i',ll0i:l Ol'l
rll:l Ir[: l;: ('ll:t[:' 1'l lt:: f::X[:'IfitA'I IClhl DATE: SiHOtt,l.l A11ilVli:: ..
r'rA1' t. 0t'Hifi At''t t(
(:rfi A{:i{i:l:g;1Al'lc)f:. rrl...l:::A$u. clAL..L.. ctil:$Tl:hlA Rt.J$$E:1..1.. A1' 1111.4*'iiOt}-'i560c:
T[::XAtli,'
li l. fit''l
Vail Resorts llevelopment Conpany
tuUtqtha
$ondedtq
WbtldClott
Npln R6otttl
Vail . Breckenridge . Keystone . Beaver Creeko . Bachelor Gulcho . Arrowhead
December 19, 1997
Mr. Dominic Mauriello
Town Planner
Dept. Of Community Development
Town Of Vail
75 South Frontage Rd. West
Vail, CO
81657
RE: The Lodge At Vail - International Wing
Outstanding Work At Building Exterior
Dear Dominic:
The Intemational Wing Project Team is requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy on
December 19, 199-l for portions of the Intemational Wing project. Certain work at the exterior of the
building remains unfinished over and above the work covered in the current $90,533.75 letter ofcredit
that was express mailed to you. Vail Associates, Inc. authorizes the Town of Vail to use the above
referenced letter of credit for work items listed below as if those items were a part ofthat letter of
credit. The work items (and their estrmated value) in question include:
1. Approved Chimney Wrap - $4,478
2. Miscellaneous Exterior Tnm - $900
3. Hang Exterior Doors - $200
4, Radius Railing Installation - $ 1,100
5. Miscellaneous Timber Installation - $5,700
6. Roofing at Lower Roof - $ 1,700
7 . Installation of Remaining Waterproofing - $ 1 ,8008. Installation of Skier Bridge Railings - $950
9. Miscellaneous EIFS work - $2.000
Total Current Estimated Value of Above Listed Work ltems - $18,828
The project team will diligentty pursue completion of the work to the satisfaction of The Town Of Vail
at the earliest possible date. Please contact John Volponi of The Lodge At Vail and Derek Converse of
Architectural Resource Consultants regarding this matter.
Manager, Pre-Construction
Construction Department
File:
LAV 107.1
Jim Mandel
John Volponi
Chris Squadra - ARC
Derek Converse - ARC
Scot Lowry - Shaw Constmction
Tim Losa - Zehren & Associates
vid E. Thorpe
137 Benchmark Road . PO Box 959 . Avon, Colorado . 81620-0959 . phone 970.845 2535 . fax 970.845 2555 tt
Fl[.H Cn'"'-ttl MTNUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
May 7, 1996' 7:30 P.M.
Kevin Foley
Mike Jewett, .. Paul Johnston
. Ludwig Kurz
SybillNavas
Rob Ford
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager
Tom Moorhead, Town Aftorney
[:il]"i-: fi;BliiflT"?i;*Tistant
rown Manaser . ; ,, ,
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none.
ttem number two on the agenda was the Consent Agenda which consisted of the approval of the Minutes for the
meetings of April 2 and 16, 1996. A motion was made by Kevin Foley to approve the Consent Agenda, and Ludwig
Kurz seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0.
Third on the agenda was Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance amending
Title 1B Zoning, Chapters 18.12 (Two-Family Residential (R) Diskict), 18.13 (Primary/Secondary Residential District,
1 8.54 (Design Review), 1 8.56 (Environmental lmpact Reports), 1 B.5B (Supplemental Regulations), 18.60 (Conditional
Use Permits), 1 8.62 (Variances), and 18.66 (Administration) with respect to Administration and Appeals Procedure
of the Vail Municipal Code.
Mayor Armour read the title in full. Town Planner, Dominic Mauriello, presented the item and gave the following
background: On March 5, '1996, the Council reviewed a proposal to consolidate and amend the appeals process for
the Zoning Code. 'Council recommended that the proposal be reworked in order lo preserve an applicant's ability to
qppeal to the Town Council and to preserve Council's ability to call-up a decision of staff or one of the boards. The
prbposal had been revised to comply with Council's concerns. The revised poliry consolidates the appeals process
into one chapter of the Zoning Code, Dominic then referred to a memo dated May 7 to Council detailing the proposed
code changes and processes, and further stated the staffs recommendation was for approval of Ordinance No. 7.
Series of 1996, on first reading. Town Aftorney, Tom Moorhead restated that the primary objective of the ordinance
was to put the appeals process into one seclion, alleviating inconsistencies which currently existed. He continued,
stating that Dominic had put a lot of time into writing the ordinance and had thoroughly researched regulations in place
in other states. Ludwig moved to approve Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1996 on first reading, and Paul Johnston
seconded the motion. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, $0. Michael Jewett commended Qominic
for a job well done. I
Agenda item number four was Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance repealing
and reenacting Ordinance No.7, Series of 1994, to amend the development plans and allowforflexibility in the
outdoor lighting reqdirement for Special Development District No. 32, in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Town
of Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Mayor Armour read the title in full. Town Planner, George Ruther, presented the item and provided the following
background: On Tuesday, March 5, 1996, Tom Braun, representing David Smith, appeared before the Vail Town
Council for first reading of an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994, to allow for the construction of
a Type lll employee housing unit within the Cornice Building and to allow for greater flexibility in the outdoor lighting
requirement for the Cornice Building. The applicant has since withdrawn his request for a Type lll employee housing
unit within the Cornice Building, however, continued to request the flexibility in the outdoor lighting requirement for
the Cornice Building. Ordinance No. B, Series of 1996, had been amended to reflect the current request. George
reminded council members that the applicant was requesting approval of a MajorAmendment to Special Development
District No. 32, to allow for twelve outdoor light fixtures on the Cornice Building, and that according to existing Town
of Vail Design Guidelines, only three outdoor lights would be allowed on the property (one per 1,000 sq. ft. of lot area).
George continued, stating the applicant had indicated that the abnormally small lot size of the Comice Building lot did
not adequately address the lrue outdoor lighting needs of a residential property. The proposed lighting plan had.been
illustrated on amended development plans. Council was informed that Staffls recommendation, in accordance with
the 02/02/96 memorandum prepared by staff for the Planning and Environmental Commission, (PEC), was for
approval of the proposed Major Amendment to Special Development District No. 32, the Cornice Building.
I
A motioh was made by Paul Johnston to approve Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1996, with a second by Ludwig. A vote'
was takeiri and passeid unanimously, 5-0. Mayor Armour then congratulated George on his recent maniage
engagement.
V.ll Torin Co|ndl E$dnO Mc.h0 tillruLt lrat t. le6
Fifth on the agenda was Resolution No. 6, Series of 1996 to adopt the 208 Region Xll Water Quality
Management Plan. Environmental Health Officer, Russell Forrest, requested the Council review and consider
adoption of the 208 Plan for the Town of Vail, as recommended by staff, and provided the following information: The
208 plan is a required plan for coordinated regional water quality management under Section 2oB oithe Federal Clean
Water Act. There are two volumes of the 208 plan. Volume 1 identifies six broad policies for water quality
management. Volume 2 contaihs specific watershed plans. One of these Watershed plans is for the Eagle'River
Watershed which includes Gore Creek. This plan addresses specific actions to protect and improve water quality inthe Eagle River and Gore Creek. lssues and recommendations in the plan address point sources of polluubn,
nonpoint sources, and stream flow. The recommendations in this Plan can be used to modifu state water qualig
standards and to provide direction for local waler resource management. Russell informed Ciluncil members thjt
the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG), of which lhe Town of Vail is a member, had been
designated by the Governor as the area wide waste treatment management planning authority under Section 208 of
the Clean WaterAct and was asking its members to adopt the plan. He continued, stating the plan did not identify any
new issues and that the Town was already addressing the issues outlined in the plan. Kevin moved to approve
Resolution No.6, Series of 1996, and the motion was seconded by Ludwig. Mike Jewett, clarifying an'earlier
discussion with Russell, stated he was not "bashing" him, but was only expressing his concern thit stream tract
property values could be adversely effected by adoption of the plan. A vote was then taken and approved 5-0.
Item number six on the agenda was an appeal by Carroll Orrison, owner of Lot 10, Block 2, Lions Ridge Filing #4
(1464 AspenGrove Lane) of the PEC's decision to deny both a front yard setback variance and a request to utilize
the 250 Ordinance. The request would have allowed for a garage pnd a Type I employee housing unit to be
constructed on the property within the front setback.
Town Planner, Mike Mollica summarized the staffs memo of April I, and stated the applicant's request was for a 19'
setback variance to encroach into the front selback of the property and utilization of the 250 ordinance in building an
additional two-car garage and an. upper level caretaker's unit on top of an existing underground garage. Mike
continued, explaining that the PEC's motion to deny the requested variance and 250 utilization included the staffs
findings as discussed in the memorandum, as well as the additional f nding that the approval of the variance and 250
utilization would be a grant of special privilege, and that the PEC's vote was unanimous (6-0) for denial. Further, Mike
stated that the Department of Community Development recommended denial of the applicant's appeal of the pEC's
decision regarding a front yard setback variance, as well the PEC's decision regarding the utilization of the 2S0
Ordinance. The staff believed that the review criteria had not been met, as specified in the staff memorandum to the
PEC.
Rick Rosen, legal council for the applicant, introduced himself and the applicant's land use planner, Tom Braun. Mr.
Rosen explained the reason for his client s appeal and said he did not think the PEC followed the necessary criteda
as outlined in the Town Code's variance chapter. Tom Braun then explained why he felt the requgsl was vatia, clii!!
physical hardship, that the lot was difficult, and presented diagrams of the proposed addition. : :
At that time RC Stevenson of Dunn, Abplanalp & Christensen, addressed the Council, stating he represented lhe
Kullers, owners of adjacent Lot 7. He then introduced the Kullers' architect, John Gunson. Mr. Gunson stated hewas
involved with the selection of Lot 7, and that the Kullers chose the lot because of the proximity to the town and the
views. He provided information regarding a site analysis that was used in determining sun angles, wind directions,
topography, setbacks and most importantly, the views from the lot, and distributed a sheet detailing the potential
negative views. He called the proposed addition obtrusive and suggested other alternatives.
Propgrty owner, Judy Kuller, informed Council of the impact on her property, requesting the setbacks be ad,hered to,
and lle variance be denied.
Greg Moflit, Chairman of PEC informed Council that the minutes adequately expressed the findings, and said he was
available to address any questions : :
Applicant, Caroll Onison spoke briefly, reviewing his request. ,,, . t
'' ''',:
Kevin Fotey asked Mrs. Kuller if they had plans to build an employee housing unit on their prgperty and was told, not
at the,present time.
Paul moved to uphold the decision of the PEC and Ludwig seconded the motion. Mayor Armor stated that although
there were no regulations in place to protect private view corridors, setbacks were a means to create a view corridor,
and that a one story garage was the only thing which has been allowed in the front setback. A vote was then taken
pnd approved, 4-1, Kevin voting in opposition because, he said, of the loss of an employee housing unit.
Seventh on the agenda was an update on the Vail Commons lottery applications and process.
Town Planner, Andy Knudtsen communicated that 76 applicants had tumed in applications and that the Town had
received good exposure on the news and in the paper. Andy continued, stating the drawing woutd be held on May
20 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, and that tiers would be published in the Vail Trail on May 17. He then
informed Council members that a survey would be going out to individuals who expressed interest in the project to
determine in detail what people were looking for and why more applications weren't tumed in. Two home owners will
be deed restricting their units, he said. Mayor Armor stated he felt the survey would be important and would reveal
some useful information.
Va[ Iown Coudl Evlnl'lg Mo.tine MhuLr Mry 7, 1000
.,,..- + . -.s-o
t,' Council then adjoumed for a short S-minute break at B:35 p.m, and the meeting was reconvened at approximately 8:40' p,m.
Item number eight was an appeal of Design Review Board (DRB) upholding of zoning administrator's
decision to approve a buffer to be built between the lnternational Wing proposed addition and the existing
condominiums. Appellant Anita Saltz.
Andy Knudtsen presented the item and gave the following background: On March 7, 1996, Andy Knudtsen with staff
consultation, approved the submifted plans for the buffer to be constructed between the penthouse on lhe International
Wing and the existing condominium dwelling units. The staff decision was appealed to the DRB. The DRB upheld
the staff decision on April 3, 1996 unanimously. And the DRB decision was appealed.
Bob Armour acknowledged receipt of letters from Art Abplanalp, East Village Homeowners, Ann Frick and stated that
certain issues raised did not address the buffer and that such issues were to be resolved in District Court. ln
December the project was approved with the condition that additional buffering be placed to improve the visual
impacts from the adjacent property owners. Andy reviewed the drawings of the proposed buffer.
Jay Peterson, attomey representing the Lodge at Vail, addressed council members, stating that his client was unable
to determine what specifically the objection was, as far as the landscaping plan was concemed.
Anita SalE, owner Unit #527 , told Council that she bought her unit in 1 986, and said they were totd at that time there
was a possibility, albeit slim, that an additional building would be built. Ms. Saltz then showed council members
photographs of the model she was shown at the time she bought her unit.
Rick Rosen, legal council to Dr. James and Mrs. Cavenaugh, owners of unit 533, said that his clients also understood
there would be a structure built, and stated that Jay Peterson and the Lodge Properties, Inc. architects had gone out
of their way to address his clients' concems. He agreed that the buffer zone approved by DRB should continue to
be apprdved, and stated, 'Let's move forward andlo what needs to be done. "
Jim Brown, aftorney representing the Lodge Apartment Condominium Association said he was directed to be keep
a neutral position, and wanted to clarify for the record that the Association did not have an objection to the design of
the buffer.
Architect representing Anita Saltz, Lynn Fritzlen, questioned Andy Knudtsen and asked if the Town had taken the
position lhat no trespassing would occur. Tom Moorhead stated Ms. Fritzlen's question was inappropriate, and that
the issue of trespdss had been filed in District Court.
,,1
Mibhael Amett spoke on behalf of the DRB and staffs decision and stated that staff had done "a smashing job' He
then reiterated that the issue before the Council related lo the buffer.
Ludwig moved to uphold the DRB's decision and that of the zoning administrator and to deny the appeal. The motion
was seconded by Paul. A vote was taken and approved, 4-1 , Mike Jewett voting in opposition.
Item number nine on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin updated Council members
on a request from the Art In Public Places board (AIPP) for a $77,390 contributiori to centis piece for a transparent
sculpture at Seibert Circle. Pam stated that the staff recommendation was for $50,000 and that $60,000 had already
been budgeted for a fountain in connection with the reconstruction of Seibert Circle. Council members agreed to
discuss it at the May 14 work session, giving Kevin an opportunity to aftend the AIPP meeting.
Bob then informed that $300,000 in state funds had been granted for design work on the West Vail Interchange
project. Bob said the Town was currenlly interviewing three engineering firms to help determine what solutions might
work for the designing of a new West Vail Interchange.
Pam stated that the water supply to parks and fountains would be turned on May '17, with the exception of the
Childrens Fountain, which would come on after the Creekside Condominium water line construction was complete.
There being no further business a motion was made for adjoumment and the meeting was adjoumed at approximately
9:25 p.m.
Minutes taken bV flotty Xccutcheon
(rNanes of certatn indlvlduals rlho gave publlc lmut nay be Inrccurite,)
V6ll lown Coll'dl Evodng M.oho Mln .. M.t 7, le6
!IGHolly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
!
Int
LAWL, I
D'ec,ut>s'tvt
f|\ry1,4't 0
7:30 P.M.
7:35 P.M.
7:40 P.M. 3.
Dominic Maurello
Tom Moorhead
8:10 P.M. 4.
George Ruther
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
EVENING MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1996
1.
2.
7:30 P.M, lN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS t t I t.
ExpANpEp AGEN'A lhrl,no ) *; r
clrlzEN PARrcrpAroN. 29 W '=
consent Asenda: **eL'$" A|LS
Approval of the Minutes for the meetings 9f AOril 2 and t6, 1996.
.. .fuc,-5.itut $ n'ht$Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinanie amending
Ttle 18 Zoning, Chapters 18.12 (Two-Family Residential (R) Districtl, f a.f S {-{^a(Primary/Secondary Residential District, 18.54 (Design Review), 18.56
(Environmental lmpact Reports), 1 8.58 (Supplemental Regulations), 1 8.60
(Conditional Use Permits), 18.62 (Variances), and 18.66 (Administration)
with respect to Administration and Appeals Procedure of the Vail Municipalcode'
Q au*t 4- t- o
ACTION REOUESTED OF COUNCI L: Approve/deny/nlodify Ordinance No.
7, Series of 1996, on first reading. ,Jr_.W affie. J
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On March 5, 1996, the Council reviewSd a
proposal to consolidate and amend the appeals process for the Zoning
Code. Council recommended that the proposal be reworked in order to
preserve an applicant's ability to appeal to the Town Council and to preserve
Council's ability to call-up a decision of staff or one of the boards. The
proposal has been revised to comply with Council's concerns. The revised
policy consolidates the appeals process in one chapter of the Zoning Code.
A memo in the Council packet, dated May 7, 1996 details the proposed cooe
changes and process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No.
7, Series of 1996, on first reading.
Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance repealing
and reenacting Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994, to amend the development
plans and allow for flexibility in the outdoor lighting requirement for Special
Development District No. 32, in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Town
of Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto.
ACTION REOUESTED OF COUNCI L: Approve, approve with modifi cations,
or deny Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1996.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On Tuesday, March 5, 1996, Tom Braun,
representing David Smith, appeared before the Vail Town council for first
reading of an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994, to allow '
for the construction of a Type lll employee housing unit within the Cornice
Building and to allow for greater flexibility in the outdoor lighting requirement
for the Comice Building. The applicant has since withdrawn his request for
3 T.ype ll! emplcycc hc;cing unit l',i'ririn tire Cotrriue Buiirling, however,
continues to request the flexibility in the outdoor lighting requirement for the
Comice Building. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1996, has been amended to
reflect the current request.
As you will recall, the applicant is requesting approval of a Major
Amendment to Special Development District No. 32, to allow for twelve
outdoor light fixtures on the Cornice Building. According to existing Town
of Vail Design Guidelines, only three outdoor lights would be allowed on the
property (one per 1,000 sq. ft. of lot area) . The applicant has indicated that
the abnormally small lot size of the Cornice Building lot does not adequately
l6fts
qlzr.':,,.--
I
8:30 P.M. 5.
Russell Forrest
8:40 P.M. 6.
Mike Mollica
9:10 P.M. 7.
Andy Knudtsen
address the true outdoor lighting needs of a residential property. The
proposed lighting plan his been illustrated on amended development plans.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In accordance with the memorandum
prepared by staff forthe Planning and Environmental Commission (2/12196),
the Community Development Department recommends approval of the
proposed Major Amendment to Special Development District No. 32, the
Comice Building.
Resolution No. 6, Series of 1996 to adopt the 208 Region Xll Water euality
Management Plan.
ACTION REOUESTED OF COUNCTL: Review the 208 Ptan and consider
adoption of this plan for the Town of Vail.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The 208 plan is a required plan for coordinated
regional water qualig management under Section 208 of the Federal Clean Water
Act. There are two volumes of the 208 plan. Volume 1 identifies six broad policies
for water quality management. Volume 2 contains specific watershed plans. One
of these Watershed plans is for the Eagle River Watershed which includes Gore
Creek. This plan addresses specific actions to protect and improve water quality in
the Eagle River and Gore creek. lssues and recommendations in the plan address
point sources of pollution, nonpoint sources, and stream flow. The
recommendations in this Plan can be used to modifo state water quality standaros
and to provide direction for local water resource management.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve Resolution No.6, Series of 1996
adopting the 208 Region Xll Water Quality Management plan.
Carol Onison, owner of Lot 10, Block 2, Lions Ridge Filing #4 (1464 Aspen
Grove Lane) has appealed the Planning and Environmental Commission's
decision to deny both a front yard setback variance and a request to utilize
the 250 Ordinance. The request would have allowed for a garage and a
Type I employee housing unit to be constructed on the property within the
front setback. Representative: Tom Braun.
ACTION REOUESTED OF COUNCIL: Uphotd/modify/overturn the pEG's
decision to deny the applicant's requests for a front yard setback variance
and to utilize the 250 Ordinance.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Please see staffs memorandum to the pEC
dated April 8, 1996, included in your Council packet.
The PEC's motion to deny the requested variance and 250 utilization
included the staffs findings as discussed in the memorandum, as well as the
additional finding that the approval of the variance and 250 utilization would
be a grant of special privilege. The PEC's vote was unanimous (6-0) for
denial.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Department of Community Development
recommends denial of the applicant's appeal of the pEC,s decision
regarding a front yard setback variance, as well the pEC's decision
regarding the utilization of the 250 ordinance. The staff believes that the
review criteria have not been met, as specified in the staff memorandum to'the PEC.
Update on Vail Commons Lottery Applications and process.
f
9:20 P.M. 8. Appeal of Design Review Board (DRB) upholding of zoning administrator's {
Tom Moorhead decision to approve a buffer to be built between the International Wing
Andy Knudtsen proposed addition and the existing condominiums. Appellant: nnita Slttz.
ACTION REOUESTED OF COUNCIL: Considerappeal of adjacent property
owner.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On March 7, 1996, Andy Knudtsen with staff
consultation, approve the submitted plans for the buffer to be constructed
between the penthouse on the International Wng and the existing
condominium dwelling units. The staff decision was appealed to the DRB.
The DRB upheld the staff decision on April 3, 1996 unanimously. The DRB
decision was appealed by letter from Art Abplanalp, attorney, on April 10,
1996.
9:50 P.M. 9. Town Manage/s Report.
10:00 P.M. 10. Adjournment.
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(ALL rMEs ARE AppR"iTl=
iT irr*rro
CHANGE)
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCTL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY,5114196, BEG|NN|NG AT 2:00 P.M. tN TOV COUNCTL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
wlLL BE oN TUESDAY, 5121/95, BEG|NN|NG AT 2:00 p.M. tN Tov couNctl CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
wfLL BE oN TUESDAY,5l21t96, BEGINN|NG AT z:30 p.M. tN Tov couNctl GHAMBERS.
||||l
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2332voice or
479-2356 TDD for information.
C:!{GENDA.TCE
)
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2 I O7/Fax 970-479-2 I 5 7
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Offtce of the Town Attorney
MEMOMNDUM
Vail Town Council
R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Attorney
May 3,.1996
Appeal of DRB's upholding the staff decision approving a buffer to be built
between the International Wing proposed addition and the existing
condominiums to the west, Lodge Apartment Condominium Association
On November 1, 1995, the Design Review Board approved the plans as submitted by Lodge
Properties, Inc. for the International Wing. That decision of approval was appealed to the Town
Council and considered on December 5, 1995. After presentation by the applicant, objections of
adjoining property owners including Luanne Wells and Anita SalE, and comments from ihe public,
a motion was made for approval of the design plan of the lntemational Wing as presented with the '
condition that some additional buffering be worked out with regard to the tenace area located
between the proposed presidential suite and the existing condominiums. lt was explained in the
motion that the additional buffering, landscaping, or whatever that would be in place should be
worked out between the staff and the applicant to improve the visual impacts from the adjacentproperty. Staff was to work with the developer in determining what that additional buffering would
be' That motion was approved by the Town Council by a 6-1 vote. The intention of the buffering
was to mitigate the impact on the Lodge Apartment Condominiums.
On Jvlarch 7, 1996, Andy Knudtsen, with staff consultation, approved the submitted plans for the
buffer to be constructed between the penthouse on the International Wing and the existing
condominium dwelling units. (Aftachment A) That staff decision was appealed on behalf of Aniti
Saltz by letter date March 14, 1996. (Attachment B) In the letter appealing the staff decision, Mr.
Abplanalp states three reasons for the appeal, none of which address the quantig or qual1y of the
buffer which was the subject of the staff decision. That objection was considered by thebesign
Review Board on April 3, 1996. A transcript of that proceeding has been prepared. (Attachmentc)
In a review of that transcript you will note that there is no discussion conceming the quality orquantity of the buffer prior to page 12. The objections that were presented on behalf of Anita Sa[z
concem the status of the record or plans that were being considered by the staff in approving the
buffering, and whether or not those plans had been made available to the representatives of Mrs.
Saltz.
{p*"n"uo'uo
The transcript does include some discussion of the buffering, which was the focus of the DRB, nearthe end of the hearing. Andy Knudtsen stated that he had worked with the architects on five
different design iterations, each one an improvement over the earlier version.
The buffering that was approved, a diagram of which is attached to Andy's staff approval, includesground cover, juniper, saponaria bushes, and seven pinon pines a minimum of 6, in height. lt is
sunounded by a sandstone ledgg which will carry weight for maintenance of the buffering 6ut does
not provide a deck or patio surface. The buffer screens the addition without blockinglhe viewsfrom the existing condominiums. The description of the quantity and species of the buffer is
contained on pages 18, 19, 20 and 2i ofthe transcript.
It should be noted that Rick Rosen, attomey, representing Dr. and Mrs. Cavanaugh, ownerc of Unit
533 in the Lodge Apartment Condominiums spoke in favor of the design. lpagl 12 of transcript)
Jim Brown, attomey, representing the Lodge Apartment Condominium Association, also spoke in
favor of the approval. (Pages 13 and 14 of the transcript)
The extent of Council's decision at this time is to consider the staff decision as upheld by Design
Review Board and determine whether it fulfills the objective as specified by Town Couhcil as-a
condition of its approval of the application on December S, 1gg5.
There remains pending in the Eagle County District Court the cause of action brought by Anita
SalE, the Appellant herein, and Luanne Wells. Judge Jones of the Eagte County District Court nas
in written opinion denied the Plaintiffs'application for a preliminary injunction. (Attachment D)
l'll be happy to answer any questions you may have in regard to this item.
Thank you.
RTM/aw
Attachments
t o
FILE COP
TUN'IOFVAIL
75 South Frontage Rood
VaiL Colorado arc57
970479-213V479-2139
FAX 970-479-?452
lr{arch 7,1996
Mr. Jay Feterson
WeststarBank Building
108 S. Frontage Road West
Vail. Colorado 81657
BobMcburin
Tom lvloorhcsd
Susan Cornclly
Pam Bnndcmcl,cr
Jirn l:rnont
Jim Broun
Lyrm Frialcn
GqCrimnur
Jact Zchrcn
Art Alplanalp
Arm Frick
Miciael Amctr
Ricl. Roscn
De pannre nt of Community D eve lopmen,
Re: The Lodge Ioternational Wing
DearJap
On Decernber 5, I 995, the Toun of Vail Toun Council considered upon appeal the Design Revierv
board approval of November I . I 995. The Town Council voted 6- I (Jeurctt opposed) to uphold the
DRB approval with the condition that additional buffering be added betwen tbc terraces adjaceot to
Units 527, 533 and 535 and the proposed Penthouse Suite of tbe Intcmational Wing. Tbe Council
dircctcd you to generate architectural designs for this bufferto be reviewed and approved by staff.
As the allached approval form indicates, staff has.approved the desigu forthe buffer. '
Thank you for your cooperatioD. Please call me a 479-2140 if you u'ould like to discuss this issue in
any greater detail.
Sincerely, | ; ,r..r / t,/ //H?*J_ f_"''.-.ffTk_^,\'\J{ l' ' \
Andyl@dtsen
Scnior Planner
F:cvetyonc\udy\96Jilcrtpacr:crJ{Il
Attachnent A
{S ^t.,.uorut,
o o
Design Revievu Action Form
TOWN OF VAIL
Category Numbel
Project Name:
Building Name:Lal.-
Project Description:
Owner, Address and Phone:
ArchilecVContact, Address and Phone:
Project Str€et Address:
Commenls:
Board / Staff Action
Motion by:
Seconded by:_
B Appro\,"a|
g Disapproval
! statf Approvat
Conditions:
oare: ?/7f 4t.
;V,
IJ
- {an
i c?&lr
5z-1
=t ILlr-l
SLBI
H sHt
Elfr r
H?a"g
EPfio
\ oQ
i$i
; g,P
,ig3
Efz
E,obA€6du osolL6noi6-
ES9
9ts
fEe t-t14r-ll! llI'a rlli- :lti I
d
t-x
u
3r
ii
iEilxo
\, -:,3+\5=g>1'
zg
tlt
4
t!
83
IJ6SE i'?06o=" ill
€5 3:"Q U(,)ct
F-Exa
t.*5T(lra tz\-
!IJ
TE
ivsB! g,
cr51l3!
:H$g;.!
E:r'
ai
5d
lss
li$
H+{s
i!'iit
ffi.r
=r-^\ J((rio-
b3
o_5
{$3
E I'sg(t;
6;d*fi}6!-\'bb:tr6rri
3!t'T
El
z
Eoozo
U
lt
';IJill{lcJ 0-
6.E I
EJ C,
rF (Ilc
-t o
96 E;0gu
'3
*ip
5'ePr*!!E,.r 6d
Ne
n\
Efzt-
Flf;lLIIztlo
U
\ cQ
i$i
; g,r
F"t3
E
=z
EobAT6du
f:l
z
Eoo
6u
)ili [-
FEe =lt't t,l
ffHJ
$jH ffi
s
.Lo
roto{E
c-!o
E!,
ii$
qde
i
9I
r$x
EIi
i€.ei!-s
Ffic
u
'3
fu=F
5gg5isiEru
_ils
';
fu=F
fffEni8
t!
o
o
o
3o
Io
JJttl
(ll
oo
6-
t_-
s
EJ
0.o
E
I
aq
9o
6$t
lN
![ri5'lem
^-F=
r$;fs ilt{ flE$i f ;,nE a=Fi-i!$;Et
tNt
Fffi
ruE
II
EI;t
l$ri
6"7gP-Tt
5p
brt
\,
ooIt
3$:6_e9r9qo
-{-{Ori'o
o
3o.r.F€:i$qig'
:'tro
=
l\,
\t+
(,|
g
ooII
J
u1t
FO*oolI
J
Eg
o
{
0o
=3to
'n
o|lt
llo
oob
0-
s
c'3.
o.
0E
g
o
tl
c
6
Io
l$
IiftEI
F$1F{q
ru
rq
tuall
6"l,g'-
t'
=
${,FBFisTtr;r
IF$
F $n_\Fo l['gilr
]to3
6',
F
aTaoo
toI
-lo'u
o
g)
go
c
9
t)
o
uooT
1Qgo
E{'5
\t
o!It$$a:el;t
3€tsis-o=ft;ro
=
lr,
I
I
q|
9.
UoIJt
oooooor
'ooooooooooool,oooooooooooo(roooooooooooo(,OOOOOOoooooo(roooooooooooo(,oooOOOoooooo(oooooo000000(o00000000000(oooooo)o0000(oooooo)ooooocoooooo)00000(oooooo)oooo0coo0000)oooodoooooo)oooooa
FREI4 :NBfl-ANA.P
I"TCIAI COUNTEL'
JSiiY W. HANNAH
DUNN,
PHoNE NO. : 3043433648
LAw OFFlcEo
ABPI.aNALP & CHRtsrENgENl
l'lar. 14 1996 12:S5pr't paz
P.C,
JOHN W, OUXN
RIT{UR A. A!FLAN LI. JI.
ALLGT{ C. Cl{etalglrlCB
O]ANE L HERYAN
cAlrol E. D^yto
VAIL BANi BUILDTNO
SutTE 300
t oE gouTH Fiot{TACC iOAD WEIT
v^tr- coLoiADO 8t65?
14 March 1995
. ?ELtFHOr{gr
ta?ot a?a€t6?
TELtGOtIEi!
tD?or a7t.a7Ct
(AnBN l., ouilN
gcl?tFrED |-toa|. aaatttaflt
Town Council
Town of VaiI
75 South Frontage Road l{estvail CO
VIA.TEIIECOPIER A.\'D VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
lown of Vail Plannlng andEnvironnental Cosr$iaelon
?5 South Frontago Road WestVall CO
VIA TELECOPIER AND VIA FEDENATJ EXPRBSS
Re: Lodge at Vail Internatlonal Wlng
Dear Sir or Madarl:
!!r_is !!rm repreBente Ms. Anita saltzr the owner of condoninium$it lzz, The t,odge at Vair Apartneut corrcicr&lrriurns,-on wrroee behaltthiE letter is being directed to you.
By thts retter, Me. Anita saltz appeals the actlon of the Townof vall DeparLrue'L o!_coru*u.ity Deveroinent, and, iotr,e extent anclrr Enr action wag tahen, the Town of vair Dsiign Review soaid,apprcrvirrg r:e!LalI rcvise_d plans of rhe l.,odge at vair rnternationJitdinE. Despite repeated regueBtB tor inforgratton ana notice Jiuerrsideratiorr'of proceedLngs, notlce was not provided of elther6taff consideratlon or of any conslderati.on by ths'besign ne"ie"Board. ror the rtasons noted,bslorr, there te uicertaintlitrot.tnirocord regarding the nature of the action whtch purpoite io approrr"t'he plan. whlch apparentry have, sonehow, beerf gi'ven approvit uythe Town of Vail
The Town councll coneldered anat grve condltlonal approval tothe. Lodge rnrernarionar ll|tng-rn ear-ty pecCmlei, rggi, -oeJpii"
objections by adjacent ownerB baeed upgn both aeeign and treeiiisinto rhe copJnon erements ot the Lodge Apartnen{ Coittouriniusr. -Tha
counclr wag agsured- by the deveroper ltrat no .treepaee occurredunder th6 orrereo plan, and lnposed onry the condiiion itiat-i[el-l,an be redeeigned to increaee the buffer -between tiie rnternationalHrnE pentnousB structure and ths af,fected Lodga AtJ;fiiltcoodoniniuns. The..de_veloper then eubnltted a revleeE proiogai-iJthe Depaftment of commrnity Development rhich contri-nrla--ttreexletence of thg _t-respass prevlously identlfled 1n the planpEesente(l to, c9nsidered and condtti9nally approved by the Town
Attachnent B
FRT]I.I : AEPLAFNLP PHO.TE Nil. : 3A43433618 llar. 14 i996 12:56Ft',1 PA3
council. That reviged pran war disapproved by the Dcpartncnt ofcon$unitv_Deveropnent ataff , at which-tirne intdreeted pirtl$ rre;;sffrctivnly eut off fron n.gotlatlone whioh occ"iiiE uct$cen rtatfand the developer,
On the 12th of March, 1996, thlcreviscd plrn for tbe Lodge et Vall
aXrprovgd by the Torm of VaiI. It tetubjcct of thle egpeel .
Flrm received notice that aInternattonal Wing had becnthat approvat whlch ie the
rnrtralry, there ls unqortolnty regardlng the aource of theaDqroval, and therafore the natura of ttrdappeii. --itre lown counciirrferred the plan ooneiderqd by it ln'brceinber bach to trreDepartnent of connunltJ oevElopnenl Etatf. tlowever, the 'approyed;plan- provided_by the lorzr of vatl tndlcates thai, it wae ,,liproved
by the Torm of Vall Daelgm Revlew Board - I'{arctr ?, 1996;, ;e-;i;;lncll'cates that it-was- nApprovcd by gtaff - andy xniroteen - 3/7/g6tr-.Therefore, the Townt B record tndrlcates .tha[ approval riv ' iriveoccubred cithar by t-hc Derlgn Revlew Boerd or by e-€a!f, o" Ui Uoin.we ghall rely upon the Toun to deterntne who to6r trre action-and tollrgct thlr aB-pcal to tb. approprJ.etr body, tn accoiaance wlth theVaIl Uunlcipal Code.
l'llth reference to the reagsna for thls appear, they arenrrlttplc;.
1. Tlrs plan nhlch was provlded and identifled aE thatreeeiving Town of vail approval lE vlrtualry unlntelligible, bu[,-!o Lh|| errsrrt tt 18 lntel_rlglble, lt clearly-nrs no reraiionihip a6that which was approved by the lown corincir, rncretore,--th;applicution muat bc lnltlated as q nc! proeegg, ratheilir-an'l.iiigeubJect to whoresale redeelgn at the dtecrition ot connunrtiDevelopslBnt etall .
2. The new plan has an erea whlch ig between condouiniumunlt 52? and 533, ol thq w-eglr and the panthoual stiucture, on theeast, whtch lE lol labsled, d-lagrarned, or the Eubjeei' of invelevation, and whlch was not incruded on the Drior pran. rt nay bL'an erevator EDart, an9-r! may have a eloptng-rootbi a frat rioi.It _ nay be two fcct high,_ 9r - tt_ may U6 twelve feet hifh. Nolnfornatlon has been provided which glveE arry inforn-a-t-lon--iiiiratiigthesr que:tions.
.3. NeLther the "Roof plan" nor the rrnoof/planter Sectl,onIldentlf leg the location of the rJiici--aecdion'.- --iil- c-in -o"iy
specurate even aB to whether the Lodge Apart$ent conttoniniurn ts oithe reft or rtght of tbat section, but lt ir crear thrt thtli[teidoea not represent a section indlcatlng the size or irnpsct of thaatructure which apparentry te planned-adJaccnt to unftC 1af ana533.
FRCF'! : ABPLft.H-P +0{E t{o. I 3943433648 I'trr. t4 1996 12:56P1'l PW \
tdhen, ertd it, our elient -aad tho otber obtccton arc providedwlth any addtttonal plan€' whlch arE neceaEary fo Dake'undefstandable thoee tno nipa which wero pro'nldcd to ue, lt urey'bsable to tdEnttfy rdith specltlcity other problans wlth thc deitgnwhlch are not now. ldsntifiable. Dy tbto lettcr, ln uddltlon tolnlttating tha afrpEal as set forth abover.we agatn r€guest coplesof all eubnittale; ElBpBl plana, correrpondeuce nnd othar naterialpreeented to the Toh:n of Vail in aEsoclatlon with thtg nattetr oEexchaagod between the lown of, Vail and ths allplicaat,
xc{ MB. t|nlta 8altz
Mr. Tom Mooalrcacl
Us. Ann FrlchMr. itay PuteEson
truly
O
2.
DESIGN REVIEWBOARD
APRIL 3, 1996
MINUTES
ITEM # 2 - INTERNATIONAL WING
Transcribed by Judy Rodriguca April 16' 1996
International Wiug - Appeal of the Zoning Adninistrator's decision to approve a AK
buffer to be built baween a proposed addition and the existing coudorniniums.
174 E. Gore Creek Drivdportims of Ints Ao B, and C, Block 5C, Vail Village lst Filing
Appellant Ms. Anita Saltz
Planna AndyKnudtsen
Mike Amett- Item No. 2, Intqnatimal triling Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decisim to
approve a buffer to be built betweern a proposed addition and the existing
condominiums.
I assume we have a lot of folks here today for this particularitein. I would just
like to apprise you all of the format for this patticular it€m h€re. We are going to
start out with an overview from Mr. Moortead, the Town Attorney, and then a
synopsis by Mr. Ifuudtsen here, the Town Plaoner. W: will then here from the
applicant and then we are going to have public inpt.t and let me forewarn you tbat
the public input will be limited to 5 minutes per
',€rson.
We don't have all day. I
would also like to rcmind you on behalf of the Bcand tt.ot this is not I corut of law.
We are here to review designs; that's our p^'mary fimcfcn ard then lastly the DRB
will look at the actual :ssue of the staffapproved buffer between the units there at
the Lodge.
Art Abplanalp- Excuse me Mr. Chairman..
Mike Amett- Mr. Abplanalp
Art Abplanalp- for the record, yes Arthur Abplanalp, representing the appellant. Are we
cr"nsidered a member of the public and only linited to 5 minutes for cur
- ' presedation? We are after all the person who is seeking the appeal.
Mike Amett-Let me ask my legal side.
Tom Moortead- Tbat is within your purview to set the pcriod of time and if you considcr
thein as public input it is appro'priate to limit therr to 5 minutes. That's
within your discretion to allow as much presentation as you feel is
appropriate.
Desigr Revicw Boed
Tranccription of Tape, Intcmatimal Wing
April 3, 1996f:bvcryoocwb\iatwingtO3
Alla.A,.-"j-<
Mike Amett-
ArtAbplanalp-
Mike Arnett-
ArtAbplanalp
Susan Cmnelly-
Mike Amett-
TomMoo'rhead-
Well Art's point is that he himself re,prese'nts the opplicant. Am I right?
The appellant. Typically, wc are the people who would speak fint and
who would make ...statements.
Well, this is diffcrent.
I uderstandthat.
Mr. Chairman, ahousekeeping mater; ev€rythingmust be spoken into
nicrophones and people have to identifr thanselves for the reco,rd.
Alright, and so as I said geting back to ourfmnal we ane going to hear
ftom Tom Mooftead now, Toum of Vail Attorney.
Tbank you Mr. Ctairnan. On Noverrbcr l, 1995, the Desip Revicw
Board approved the plans as sub'rniued by the Lodge Prroperties, Inc. for
the approval of the Intcrnational Wing. That was appealed to the Town
Council and it was heard by the Town Comcil on December 5, 1995. At
that time, on motion by Peggy Ostafoss, for approval of the design plan of
the Intsaationcl Wing as prcsc, td with thc provision that some
additional buffering be wo'rked out with rcgnrd to the terrace a,rea .
Additiond buffering, landscaping; orufratever that wouldbe, that the staff
could work out with the applicantto impnove the visual impacts frorn the
adjacent prrorperty. Staffwas to dccide by wofting with the developer, on
what that additional buffering would be. That motion was seconded by
Kevin Foley and it was approved 6-1. Peggr had stated that her intention
on the motion was just on the west side, to mitigate the impact on the
Lodge Condominiums.
On March 7,1996, Andy Knudeen with the stafrconsultation, ap'proved
the submitted plans fc the buffer to be cmstnrcted between the penthouse
on tb€ lnt€rnati@al Wing and the existing condominiur dwelling uniS.
That saffdecision was appealed on behalf of Anita Saltz by lett€r dated
March 14,,1996. It was statcd in a letter fton Mr. Abplanalp that the
reasons for appeal were:
l. The plan which was provided and id€ntifid as tbat receiving Toum
of Vail approval was virtually unintelligible, but to the exe,nt it is
intelligible, it clearly has no relationship to thst which was ryroved
by the Town Council. Therefore, the application must be initistEd
as a new process, rather than being subjected to wholesale redcsip
at the discretion of the Ccnrnmity Developrnrent staff.
Dcsign Rovicn, Bood
Tranccription of TNp€, Intcmdiond Wing
April 3, 196f:\cvcryoocWbtntwiryr()3
Mike Amett-
Andy lfuudtsen-
2. The new plan has an area which is between condominium tmit 527
and 533 on the west and the penthouse stnrcture on the east, which
is not labeled, diagramed or the subject of any elevation and which
was not included on the prior plan and may be an elevats shaft and
it may have a sloping roof or flat roof. It may be rwo foot high or it
may be rwelvs fool high. No infomratio'n has been provided which
gives any information regarding these questions and finally
3. . The roof plan or the roof section identifies the location of the outer
section. One can only speculate ever as to whetha the I-odge
Apartrrent Condominium is on the left or the rigbt of that section"
but it is clear that the latler does not r€preseot a. section indicating
the size or the impact of the stnrcture, which apparently is planned
adjacent to units 527 and 533.
I would also point out that this matter is subject of an action presently
pendrng in the Eagle County Distict Court, of which the pcrson who has
appealed this saffdecision, Anita Saltz, is a plaintiffin that ac+ion.
Thank you Mr. Moorhead. Andy?
Thank you. Andy lfuudtsen, I'm the staffplanner on the project. Wbat I
thought I l.'uuld do initially is just bring everyone up to speed m the
context. This is the Iodge here. The existi^rg condominiums, the proposed
International Wing, the buffer, which the Cormcil voted on in Decenrber of
1995, is right in this aree and further sho*n rn this board right here. This
is the one condition that the Council put on the project and it is the only
iszue which we are focusing on today. Whct we have here is in sections,
the existiug lrdge Condominiums at this point, and terraces that staok up
to a planter with evergreens m this side and the Presidential Suite ofthe
Intemational Wing over here. In plan D, you can see that there are tbree
rows oflandscaping, separated by sandstone ledges, the highest planter
area is up against the Presidential Suite with the evergree,ns right in the
center where the mass of the building is, We, uh, Zehren and Associates,
the archirccq worked quite had on this. Staffand Zehra sent back and
forth approximately four to five different design iterations and each one
was an improvementoverthe prcvious. This lastone sufficienfly addresses
the buffer, in staffs opinion.
I would like to add one other poiut. We got this letter just a few minutes
befce the DRB convened earlier today, from the East Village
Hom@wner's Association, and if I can pass it out to the Boar( as well as
the audience. The one point I'd like to put on the record is that the
Dcsign Rcvicw Board
Tranecription of Tape, Int€rndional Wing
April 3, 196f:\avrryonc!&b\idvil8.,O3
dimensims of the ryproved &awings have bccn vcry clear, not oly wcre
they drawn to scale-and the scrle could be used to rmitcrsund them, brut
thcy are also shown on the rccotd as to the layoulboth in height and
length,of the proposed planting matcrials.
? I heve a question. In Mr. Apblan...Art's letter, werc you referring to the
plans that we approved, or are you referringto the buffer area; when you
are tatking abort the rmintclligiblc plans.
An Abplanalp These 8r€ not the plans that wcre approvd fint of all.
2 I egree with that I'm just "ski"g you cfiat you were refeiring to.
Art AbplmaF I was refening to these tiat was actually on the table at thc table at the
time.
Andy Ihudtsar- And just that I can clarifr, the file has these drawings in them.
Art Ab,planalp- Mr. Chairman, fte approved plans did not bave the elerratim of that roof' which was one s;thg things ftat we wcre conPlaining about. The
approved plans, that we werc prrovidcd heq no elevation, has no indicatim
and that's an illustratim of fre wholc problesr here, they were inconrplete.
Mike Arnett- Are yor satisfied that you are seeing it now?
Art Abplanalp That particular.. We don't know what it is. We'll get into that if we could.
Mike Anett- Whe,n we do get to review thesc designs, we will covcr that roof form.
Andy Knrdtsen- If I can just close, Andy Ifuudtsen again. The decisions that are before fte
Board today are eithcr to uphold the staffdecisiom, overhrn the staff
decision, or modi& the staffdecision and tbat's all I have to say.
Mike Amett- Alright. At this time we'll hear from Jay are you representing the Lodge?
Jay Petcrson- Yes, we're here and the manager of the Lodge is here; Greg from Jack
Zehrgn's offrce is here; Tim's here from Jack Zehren's office to answ€r any
questions. We have been ovcr this a thousand times with the gtaff. You've
seen the full presentation of the full Inteinational Wing, obviously smre of
you bav€n't, but we're only here discussing a mitigatim of a buffer arpa
between the International Wing Prcsidential Suite and the Lodgc
Dccigt Rcvicw Board
Trurscription of Tryc, lntanuional Wing
f:brq/oc\drtniflwilg4{B April3, 196 4
!
J
Mike Amett-
Art Abplanalp-
Mike Amett-
ArtAbplanalp
Mike Amett-
Art Abplanalp-
Mike Amett-
A't Abplanalp-
Condominiums, the top floor oondominium units. We think we have
addressed that. Ifthere's anything that is unclear, I don't see it, but I
reqpond certainly to anything that Art has a question on as far as any
heights, massing of anything, the type of vegetation, the height of the
vegetation, but I think the drawings are pretty clear. Iu Peggy's motion
when she made it, all she wanted was do something to buffer it a little bit
more and so we worked with the ownus as much as we oould, with the
owner of the middle unit, which is next to the SdE's rmit, we worked with
than, they did not have a problem with it. Thcy are here represented
today. So, tnrly just ldrs. Saltz that has a continuing question about it.
We will respond to any of their concems.
Aldght Yes, then we will bave public input at this time. Art, if you'd like
to start.
This may be two stages, Mr. Ctainnan, first I would request the Design
Review Board to do trno things. First of all, continue this hearing rmtil a
time when we are able to have an oppornmity to review the file. We've
bee,u ryiug since the fourteenth of lvlarch to look at the file in this case and
wc have not been able to do that. First Andy has not...
You have not been permitted to see it?
Pardon rne?
You have not been pernritted to see it?
Csrect. That is absolutely correct. Andy was very coo'perative and their
when this decision was made, he refered me to Tom Moorhead and Tout
indicated that we would be permitted to see iL Finally, on the twenty
second of May, he provided copies of the materials.
Twenty second ofMay?
Twenty second of March, I stand corrected, pardon me. The twenty
second of March we told him we wanted to see the file, because we knew
it was incomplete. We have other documents that were in the file earlier,
copies, so we knew that things had bee,n taken finnn the file. We tied since
the twenty second of March to ty to find this file. Tom said go down to
the Distiot Court; everything's there. We didn't do that, because that
wasn't the information we had. The last itesr on this packet, urhich I give
you, establishes that that was not the tuth. The material which was senl
pardm me, which was in the file is called the fourth supplemental
Dcsigr Rcvicw Board
Tnnsciption of Tpe, Intemuioul Wing
April 3, 195f:bnceooc\dbwrriog..O3
..'-
i
Mike Amett-
ArtAbplanalp
MikeAmctt-
ArtAbplmalp
Mike Amett-
ArtAbplmalp-
Mike Arnfi-
Jay Petemol-
Mike Arnett-
Jay Peterson-
MikeAmett-
Jay Peterson-
Mike Arnett-
certification of the designated record.
I, really, you just lost me there.
This is the cover sheet for the material, which we wel'e requesting to see.
ok.
That material wasnot scnt to the Disfiict Cou+ rmtil the day before
yesterday. If we had gone down to the Distist Court, as he sai4 to look
at this material, it would have bee,n a wild goose chase. He misrepresented
to us what was in the court file; we were dcnied the opportuity to see
what was across the street ftom us; we prepared for the hearings as best we
can based upo'n what we had seeo, but it's an injustice. The Tovm of Vail
wonders whry people are moving fionn the Tocn of VEiL this is an exarnple.
You can't, this is rupposcd to bc a fairly infcnral hearing. Andy and fte
staffare geaq as far as availability of mataials.
I've got to agree with you.
When we cdre acrioss the street, it's a stone wall and this is an example.
Fc that reason, in odo for any intelligcnt revicw to be done on this, we
have to have an opportuity to see the file. And so we ask for6ry6 rhings.
First of all a cmtinuancc, and secondly, a direction to the Town Attomey
to tum the matcrial, to peirnit us to look at the file. Additionally, we see
additional diagrams here. We rmderstand that Jay has additional diagrams
that we have not seen and it may be possible some of these things can be
resolved.
There are additimal diagrans that he has not seen?
We have difrerent renditio'ns of what we w€r€ proposing to do with...
This is a staffapproved?
This is a staffapproval.
This is the relevant document?
This is the relevant documcnt.
Art so cmtinue, this is what w.e're dealing with today.
Dceigt Rcvicn, Board
Tranrcriptiur of Tpe, Intcrntional Wing
Atril3, 1995nbrclyoocWb\i*wiog,O3
Andy Ituudtsen-
ArtAbplanalp
?
Art Abplanalp-
Mike Amett-
Art Abplanalp-
Mike Arnett-
You're talking about the first or sccond iteration?
No, no I'm talking about, for instance, the drawings you sent to Mr.
Brown, the Condominirmr Association, which answ€rcd some of the
questions. There are drawings out there, Mr. Brown faxed that to me, he
was kind enough to do that, and what he does what Jay and he do is ...
thein. But there are questims related to these plans and the plans they
have these. The plans that the Departnent of Commuity Development
relied upm on incmrplete and conflicting. As an example, the elevations
of this project, which were approved, were approved back in October'
before any ofthis happened. The only firll elevations ofthe building, I
don't think that they were ever approvd they werre submiued in March of
1995 according to the material that was provided to L1mn Fritrlen.
I'm sorrl/, I bave to disagree with you.
Ok, we're not going, as an example, this staffapproval of this structure,
which goes back to October, and we'll get into that in a moment, is a hip
roof, five feet high. That is the last approval of that stnrcture. So, limiting
it to this now, the question of whether there should be a continuance, if,you
choose not to, then we'll go ahead, but oth€rwise, this is the first order of
business.
If I may a4dress that, the first ordcr of business, just briefly. To be honest
with you, sir, you'rc not the one reviewing this application, we are and we
penonally do not need another week, or two weeks, or whatcvcr, to lmk
at this staffapproval and decide upon it. We've not made up our minds, let
me guamntee you that. We will be reviewing this and ve do respect your
opinion, but that would be conftry to precedent for thls Board to set back
an application. We oftentimes especially iterns of this minimal conplexigr,
oftentimes see them and either approve or deny them in a meeting. So this
is nothiug, in no way unique forus.
Is there someone else from the public sectorthat would like to be heard
here.
That was ouly a question, we obviously have more as far as the .. of this.
However you want to handle it, but that's only the question of having a
continuance.
Does anyone have comments along that line? Itilr. Ros'n would you.
Dcsigr Rcvicw Board
Trmscriptior of Tp€, Intcrndional Wing
April 3, 196f:\rrcr;oac\&bV*rirytO3
Mr. Rosen-
MikeAmett-
Mr. Rosen-
Mike Amett-
Art Abplanalp
Mike Amett-
ArtAbplmslp
Mike, what I'd like to do. I represeot the ownen of Unit 533, Dr. and
Mrs. Cavanaugh, which is a rmit right hcre in the middle. We have a
couple of comments, but for sake of this discussion, I would like to just
make my comments afterthe presenotim made by the appellant, if that's
possible.
All right.
If nol I mean I don't want to cause some poblenrs here'
Ok, well I suppose we'll continue with public input theo regading
specifically thc a,rchitectue ofthis buffcr. This is all we're dcaling with
today; is ftis buffer.
Well, if we're back to thst If we're offfte question of a continuance, tte,n
we do have some additional prescntation.
Go ahead. We're going to stafi his five minutes fimt rigbt here.
Thank you vcry much. I'm going to do my very best to wort my way
through this stack of exhibits' which illustrate a mrmbcr of problems with
the presentatim and specifically the division behveen the two stuctur€s.
First of all let me say, that although ftis is in litigation, we're trying to pw
this on this. Whcn we became involved in rhis, it was apparent that and of
thc last design the Toum Desigp Rwicw Bood ha4 involvcd an elerrator
which peiretrated the limitcd common elements. That was denied at the
Town hearing. It was recognized in the first sa of drawings that Andy
ha{ that J8nu8ry as a rcsult of which this elcvator stuctrrre has they have
had to move that, which has cffcctcd wcrything vertically below it. That
particulanproblerr has creatcd internal problerrs within the building. No
plan, pardm me, no approval should have been granted on this, because of
the fact thst the bufferon the upper story resultd in problems onthe floqs
belou,. We have a list of various problcms and the relicf that we have
requested. You can take them under advisement, check them off, do what
you would like with them as we go along. But, they grve an indication of
the problems with the prognm as it stands now. Because of the limited
time, I'm going to try to zip tbrough these exhibits, as best I c8n.
The fint qrhibit is the staffapproval back m the first of Novenrber. This is
in the final. It does cross-reference a latcrto Jay dated I l/l/95. Actually,
the letter follows. I think Andy will agrce with that it was acurally
November the seventh. None of those provisio'ns relate to buffering to
protectim of anyone, although they are all legitimate concems. It is
Dcign Rovicw Bord
Tranccription of Trye, Intcrncional Wing
April 3, 1995f:bvqnoc\drb\iotwiryl03
Jay Peterson-
Mike Amstt-
Art Ab,planalp-
?
Art Abplanalp-
Mike Amett-
Jay Peterson-
.
Mike Arnett-
Art Abplanalp-
interesting to note, that for whatever reason this particular project is
gefting offfor what is apparently the eigbty tbree parking fee rate, which is
about half of what it is now, for a Town which is ia dils finnnsial sFaits.
I object. This has nothing to do with the Design Review Board and what
we are here for.
You know Jay, you've got a point there. We are here to review this
design, sir. I don't really care about the parking rate. It's not our purview
to decide parking rates here. All we want to know, all we want to review
here, and all I want your input on is what do you think of this particular
buffer. That's it. Confine your comments to this particular situation, if you
would.
I will do my best. Exhibit two is the last cmss-sectim u,hich was approved
by the Town of Vail and that is in conflict with what you have befole you'
but there's nothing to supersede it. It says that the roof, and I'm speaking
of this now, Exhibit 2.1, the roof of this stnrcture is five feet above the
terrace wall. There is nothing in the Town's file to supersede that,
including this elevation of ? whioh does not appear oa the approved'cnpies
you'll see, as we go tbrough here. Now, thetE's been some questions to
whether that's a hip roof. The ipproved plans on the next two pages
establish that it's a hip roofand it is not a flat roofas indicated in January
and I still can't tell whether that's flat or oot.
That would be a gable roof.
That's what I read it, but I don't see a gable roof on here. It doesn't
indicate that because of course this was agarn not on the plan approved by
the Towu. All of this is new. Now, thenextpage also establ :hes
When are these plans dated here?
First ofall, I'd like to say that I think this is the plan that he is referring to.
This is not our drawiug.
Thst's a cross-sgction that we never saw. That's an interior drawing that
the DRB never looked even looked at. We don't do insides, we do
outsides.
It's the mly thing tlat was provided to our architect as a drawing
illushating the diagram of this. Now, again, if you can't see the file, yotr
don't what the Town's working with.
Desigt Rcvicw Board
Transcription of Tapc, lntrmatioml WiDg
April 3, 1996
o
f:\cveqrcacU6\otwing403
Andy Knudtsen- Art, it might help just to point something out here. The ridge of the roof
aoo-ve the elevator shaft is running on an east west axis, which the section
is an east west section, so this ridge that you see hcre is the top ofthe roof.
You can also tell that this ridge is at the saure height as the sandstone
ledges separating the plantas and also the ume height as the railing of the
condffiiinfum o\ilners.
Art Abplanalp Ok, ifyou look over at Exhibit 26
Mike Arnett- What time you got there?
Brent Altn- Tbirty seconds.
Art Abplanalp- If you lmk at Exhibit 26, yor will sec fte plan that was approvcd by the
Tol^
MikeAmett- 36?
An Abplanalp 26. Thutis the cross-scction and as you will note, there is uothing on this
having anything to do with that roof.
Mike Amett- I canrt find 26.
Gemge Ruther- Mr. Chaimun, it's bccn timc.
Mike Arnett- 26, Why don't you just show me yours. Has anybody found it yet. Going
a little slow when it comes to page flrp,ping. What was your coocern about
page 26.
Art Abplanalp- It's not the same drawing. That is the staffapp'roved drawing. That is
cfrat we are appealing from. It has nothing to do about the roof here.
Mike Amett- Andy, could you respond to that? Is this 6e staffapproved drawing.
Andy Knudtsen- Yes, it is.
Mike Amett- Why do you ttrink it is so drastically differcnt ftom that? This is a cr)ss-
sectim that clearly shows the same featres displayed inthatdtawingthcrc
sir.
Art Abplanalp- That cross-section is here, not at the roof. This has been added to the
drawing
Dccigt Rovicw Bord
Transcriptiqr of Tape, lntcmalional Wing
April 3, 1996f:bwpm\dt\idrirgt$3 l0
Mike Amett- What'sYourPoint?
Art Abplmalp The point is that this doesn't put any limit on fte roof. Neither does the
other half of the aPProval which is
Mike Arnett- If I'm not mistaken that rmf is the sarne as that roof.
Art Abplanalp- No, you're pointing to the middle of the two terraces. According to this...
Andy Knudtsen- a4 if I could just interject here. It's clear that the roof of the elevator, the
tef,races, everything is below the height of the railings ofthe balcony with
the exception of vegetation which will obviously grow up above the heigbt
of the planters. If your point is a concern obout blocking the views or
sorrething like that maybe you could talk about the oonccms of your
applicants, or yorn clients in relation to using the bufrer.
Art Abplanalp- That's what I'm trying to do. Well, as you will see, this again is fte
approved drawing. They are saying that this limits the height. That height
is not on the city approved drawings, They are not the same documeirts.
Mike Amett- It's not alpical, sir, to say that the height of the ridge will not excecd the
heiglt of the railing. We use those sorts of conditims on a bi-weekly basis.
Art Ab,planalp- But it doesu't say that. It doesn't say that anyrhere.
Mike Amett- It explains it here. It displays it here.
Art Abplanalp- When you say the fint here, that's what they are rendering you to today,
that is not the approved drawing.
Mike Amett- What is not the approved drawing?
Art Abplanalp- What you have been presented to today.
Mike Amett- Yes it is.
Art Abplanalp- It isn't, I beg your pardon. The drawing that you are being shoum today
has been modified by the addition of the roof featre, by the addition of
langrrage which was not on the city approved drawing. It's a matter of
what record you have to come back on.
Mike Amett- I regret to inform you that ycur time is up. Greg would you like to
Dccigp Rcvicw Board
Transcription of Tpe, lntcdtational Wing
f:brrcqoncwb\irtwiogao3 April 3, 1996 ll
Greg Cristman-
Andy lbudtsen-
Mike Amett-
RickRosEn-
Mike Amett-
Rick Rosen-
Mike Amett-
RickRose,n-
respond to that please.
This part here shows the roof beyond. He's right, the section is cut
throogh here and we're looking this way. I just put this roof m here for
clarifiiation, but it's beyond and it's showing that it's level with these
ledges. Same with these clevation numbss. They are on there just for
clarification. Andy lnew all the elevatioms at the time qthen he approved it.
That's correct. In conversations with Grcg we developed the various
altematives; each me improving ovcr the last one. It was clear that the
elevator roof would not be exceeding the height of the railing.
Alright, Rick, Mr. Rosen would you like to comment on the architecture,
please.
Just for the record, my name is Rick Rosen. I represent Dr. and Mrs.
Cavanaugb" who are the owners ofUnit 533 and as the Board can see, 533
is the middle of the condominium rmits. I really just want to go on record
and oplain thatthe Cavanaughshavc notbccome involved inthe
controv€rsy, quite frankly because wc uderstood that there was going to
be a building built there at some point. They responded to thst fact and
what we did was we decided to wor* with the architects and the owners of
the Intcrnational Wingto comc W with sone solutions thatmight help
mitipte the impact that was going to happen with thst. We have worted
with ftem very closely. They have answered our questions, provided us a
nurrber oftaken care ofa couple ofconcerns that we had. I think those
ooncems olso were sc,nt in a letter to Andy when this whole review p(rcess
rvas going on of which were includcd hcre in this particular design. We
have no objection with this design. We're achrally quite happy with what
they've dure. They've listened to our zuggestions; liste,ned to our
complaints; have worked with us. We've got a couple of minc things that
the owners are worfting with right now and we would just like to go on
record thanking thern for their support and helping us.
Thank you Rick. Could you point out again who you represent.
We are Unit 533, which is right here.
The one dead center.
Right snack in the middle. And just real quick for clarification, I had a
question and I think Jay would get up and say the salns rhing. We had a
question on the height of tbst particular elevator shaft. Jay cleared it up by
Dcsigr Rcvicw Board
Trurcripfion of Tryo, lntcrndional Wing
April 3, 1996f:\arc4nm\&tniotwi4.t{)3 t2
Mike Amett-
Jirn Brown-
Mike Arnett-
JimBrown-
Jay Peterson-
Jim Brown-
taking me through the plans, as well as Greg Cristnan and it was quite
olear to us it was definitely below the railing. Thank you.
Thank you much for yoru input. Is there anyone else from the public that
would like to comment. Mr. Brown?
Thank you Mr. Chairrun.
Identify yourself.
Yes, my uame is Jim Brown, I'm a lawya and I represent the Lodge
Apartnent Condominium Associatioo. My client is the owner of the
general and limited common elements that are established according to the
declaration. The limited comnm eleinents specifically include the decks
adjacent to Units 533 and 527 owned by Rick's and Art's clients
respectively. We were concerned that the earlier design, proposed by Jay's
client, impinged on those limitcd cqnmon elements md in parg I believe,
this drawing was addressed to that concem and I believe it is clearnow
that these designs, the desigp before the Board today does not irupinge on
the limited common elements, in particular the decks of 533 and Unit 527.
The second concem that we had was thatthe applicant's design not
impinge on the general csmmon elernents, specifically beams, girders,
supports of the building. And there wul some concem thrt that might be
the case. I received today from Jay, late this morning, just \efore I had to
leave to come up here, a fan which speaks to that issue. And interestingly
enough, according to the condominium declaration here, the condominitmr
regime, if you will, begins at a specific cl.vation. That eleration is
8204.89' above sea level. So ever5r'hing that is above that elevation is g"rt
of the cmdominium regime; everything that is below that elevatirn is not
part of that regime. Jay showed me today a diagram that was attoched to
the decks that I did not have a copy of, which esiablished that the floor
level of these condominiums is at 8304.89'. Is that correct, Jay?
That's correct.
And as a result of that, it appears that the support beams belov the decks
are not part of the condominium regime and therefore, do not appear to be
part of the oommon elernents, which my client owns. Now I want to stress
I'm saying appearc to be the case, as I mentioned, we just got that
information today, and we're getting that infonnation to our architect to
review, but at this point iu time, we do not have an objection to this design.
It appears the intnrsion on thc decks thcmselves has becn resolved and it
appeas that the concem for general common elerrents has bee,n resolved
Dcsign Review Board
Tranecription of T4e, lntcmuional Wing
April 3, 1996f:brrryonc\&tr\intwiogr03 13
Mike Amett-
LymFriElen-
Mike Arnett-
Lynn Frialen-
Mike Anett-
Lynn Fritzlen-
JimBrorvl-
Mike Amett-
Lvnn Frialen-
also. Thankyou.
Thank yor for yorn comments. Anyone else? Lpn Frialen' Will you pull
your microphone down.
I'm Lynn Friclen, I'm an architect and lvlrs. Saltz address€d a couple of
qucstions to me in regards to the plans.
Are thesc included in her leter of Lfarch 14th?
No, there is no corespondeuce forme in that.
Oh, this is for Art. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
In that package, she was under 6e impression that her deck was a limited
common ele,rnent that required for access. And I said as a
practical m8fictr, I could not understand howftcy could leave the deck in
place and constuct a roofdeck structure underneath it. And so far, she or
Art h8s not received any information that does address that. I guess the
interpretatim at this point is that the it is owned by fte assooiation, Jir& is
that correct. or how does that work?
LFn, the information I got frmrJay lare this moning, I fured immediately
to Art and that did include the c,ross-gectims and the supports that Mrs.
SalE bad becn looking fs. And the infsnration ftat I got from Jay
indicatcs that the deck itself is rigbt at 8204.89'which is wherc the
condominium regime begins and goes up. It does not appear that the
supports to the decks are part of the condominiurn regime and Jay noted in
his l€tter to me, which I provirted to Arq th8t Lodge Pro,pcrties has a duty
of support to the condominiun regime. So although the condominiun
regime begins X feet up in the airover the ground, it's Lodge Properties
obligationtosupport the cmdominiun regime and Jay noted inhismemo
to me that there was no specific requirement in howthey do it and no
specific requirement that they seek the association's consent before they
shangs those support elemc,nts.
Excuse me, if I may inte{ect here, nowhere under Itein No. 2 do I see the
co'ndominium rcgime or the supports for this deck. What we're here to do
today as a Design Review Board, is focus on this particular issue, which is
the buffer between those units and this unit and I'd like to get back to that.
I'm sorry it was such a lengthy answer, it was just a matter of
understanding and I just wanted to clari$ it since Mr. Brown. I guess the
Ilesign Rwicw Board
Trmscription of Tape, lntemational Wing
April 3, 196f:\cvcpnc\drbv*wiryt|{}3 t4
Mike Amett-
Lynn Fritzlen-
MikeAmet-
Jay Peterson-
Mike Amett-
JimLamont:
Mike Amett-
Jim Lamont-
otherthing that Mn. Sale asked me specifically about is the location of
any mechanical equipment and the height of the elwator, which in the
section there is the shaft indicated at two different heights, 2'6" and 3'6".
Typically, the clearance above an elevatordoes not rary in height and for
this type of clevator it would require about 123" in clearance, so that
would bring the roof of the elevator up to a minimum of 3'6" above the
deck and that is not entirely consistent with what is shown. Although we
do not have a section through the elevator so those were her concerus.
The other thing that she questioned was it appears that there 8re some
ducting from the kitcheu that is ooming up arom the kitchen to the roof and
being vented to the side. And she said that the ducting and the equipment
is not addressed m these drawingt. you lmsrv rhis has been continuing
concem with DRB; these plans get through the Board and then we e,nd up
with aroofthat's full ofmechanioal equipment.
I beg to differ. We cover
I'm just stating her concems, that's all.
We cover that when it originally went through the DRB. 1!s1'3 sas thing
we always ty to pay close attention to on downtocm projects in particular
is roof top mechanical. And we've been througb the rooftop mechanical
and we've already approved the rooftop mechanical where it exists. And I
think what you see is what you get here. And rest assured if we make a
motion in favor of this, we will mdify it to stipulate that the height of ftis
elevator shaft, the ridge peak, not exceed 42" or 3'6" offthe tetrace, so that
it be no higher than the guard rail height.
Michael, Greg's here to verifu this, therc is no mechanical on the roof.
I'm aware of that. We've been through that. That's always one of our big
concerns and it's been addressed. Anyone else from the public? How
could I forget.
East Village Homeowner's Association. Because this is an appeal to a
public hearing, is there any prohibition agaiust the public speaking on this?
No. five minutes.
Ok, five minutes. I would yield whatevuadditionaltime I may have after
my oomments to Art. The Homeowner's Association is specified in the
Desigr Review Board
Transcription of Tape, lntcrnational WiDg
April 3, 196f:\nqrooBb\hnriry"r|()3 l5
Mike Anett-
ArtAbplmshF
Mike Amett-
ArtAbplmalp
MikeAmctt-
ArtAb,planalp
Mike Amett-
Art Abplanalp-'
Mike Amett-
vniting I think. Our questions are what you see is what you gct and to
make sure that those are clearly defined, so that all parties have ar
erpectation is rret. You should note tbat we are under zubpoena by the
plaintitrs in the litigation. I regesent a neighbotood association that I
havebeeo dircctcdby the Boardto aucndall mcctings and tomake
cmrm€nts itr terms of olarification with r€g8td to rhis mattcr. So our letter
is written in the spirit of making sure thst we bsve srfficient informstio so
that all parties can know what their e:pectuions are. As far as the
aeghaics of thfu mafier, that's left to you 8ll 8nd I would hope that you
would make yoru best efforts to meet the needs of all parties. Thank you.
Thank you Jim. Have we left anyone ort?
Could I b'riefly respond to yor suggestion of conditions?
Certainly, let me gct my Pen ready.
Well, actually I was simply going to refcr the Board to the one page that I
provided earlier.
Which o'ne was that?
Which was the list of possible conditims for
Is this m the l4th letcd
No, it was handed out to you with my packet. Many of those can be
handld as conditions modifiing the staffs action. Since we haveo't been
privy to see the file, we don't know whd's there or whether any of these
conditions are in fact satisfied intetra[y. Ifthe Board is in agreeme'nt, and
I think if you look at Andy's first lettcr back in Decenrber, he oertainly was
in agreement that sorne of these were, in fact, eoncems. He requested
elevations, with this one exceptio, they were not included in the plan
Many of these are logically inoluded in the conditions which might be
placed on the staffapproval and can be handled that way. But since we
haven't seen anything, we just don't know. And I would just suggest trat
the Board take a look at those one by one and see whether these would be
logioal fu your inchsion.
I'm doing so now and for exarrple, Pcnthorse away frorr apartnent
condominium units. It is away from the apartrn€nt condominium uits.
Decrease the height of the penthouse level of the roof and the pitch. Now
these are iterns that have already been approved. We a,re not here today to
Dccip Revicw Board
Tranecription of Tpc, lntantional Wing
April 3, 1996f:\evsyoocldtbtltwilg"{r3 l6
Art Abplanalp-
MikeAmett-
Jay Petenon-
Mike Amett-
Art Abplanalp-
Mike Amett-
Art Abplanalp
Mike Arneft-
Tom Moorhead-
Mike Arnett-
TomMoorhead-
discuss these items.
Well, I'll not argue with you and I give one by one. The first six iterns
related to change in design. 7-l2really rclated to incomplerc items- So,
such things as getting the elevations. The las elevation that we were
provided is an elerration which is about tbrce stages back. We don't lnow
what the Town is relying on, but if the Town is going to go out and
measure if this is built in confonnity with its design review approval, the
Town respectively needs to know what the desip review appmval could
be.
Those would be the drawings dated on what, Decenrber something of '95'
Or is he talking about these plans.
I'm not sure.
Well, certainly these would be among them Jay, but the las elevations that
were provided to Llmn were March, I believe, 1995 and as an example,
they contemplate a stair stnrcture.
But srr, I'm sorry, I must reiterate and I'm not trying to be nrde, we're just
bumped into review desips here and this is a design we're here to review
today. That's it. Finito. We're not here to look overthe previous
approval. We're here to look over this particular staffapproval. This is
what has been appealed. This is what has been brought back to the DRB
for us to look at and for heaven's sake, I'd sure like to get to looking at it.
Mr. Chairman, if you will look at thc plans which were zubmitted prnsr:ant
to Andy's request on the 5th ofJanuary this year, in response to the
Town's directioa, they included elevations of both ends of the unir They
were beautifully done. The architect did a great job. Another set was
submitted in mid Febnrary. We haven't been pernitted to see those. There
were six plans and now there are two.
I don't understand this. Is this something to do with the legal shrffthat's
going on.
If I could say something.
Please, to clariff it.
Art believes tbst if he c/rit€s in a letter enougb and if he says it enougb, that
Dcsign Rcvicw Boord
Tnnscriptior of Tape, Intcm*ional Wing
April 3, 196
o
f:bv€ryunc\drb\iilwiq.to3 l7
Mike Arnett-
TomMoorhead-
ArtAbplanalp-
Tom Moorhead-
ArtAbplanalp
Mike Arnett-
Jav Peterson-
it becornes fact, that he has not had an oepdunity to review this file. That
is absolutely untnre.
Thank you.
He bas reviewed this file. This file has been ccrtified with the Disfiict
Court.
Two days ago.
He looked at it last week. He has bcen provided copies. He bad asked for
co,pies at that time. He was provided copies. He asked to look at the file
again. He was told that the file was in use, which it was, because we
certiffing additional masers to the Distict Court. He believes that he has
some ide,ntity o166 then his clieirl His client has be€n served this. Andy
Knudtsen has aprpeared and testified at a deposition for five hours. He
produced the entire rccord at that deposition. Andy Knudtsen was
subpoenaed b!, Mrs. Saltz o the hearing. He produced the eotire record at
thathearing and for Art Abplanalp to say he has not had an opputmity to
review this file is absolutely rmtnre. He chooses to make issues that don't
exist and I take issue with that position and that is not a fact, because his
client has had continued access to this file. Mr. Abplanalp chooses to
c,ontinue to harass and ovsburden the staffwith mcaningless requests over
andoveragain. Thankyou.
Mr. Chaimran, this is thc tlpc of elevatim which Andy requestcd in
Decenrber; which Jay provided in January and which we agreedthis is
appropriate and it hasn't been done to this.
Mr. Abplanalp, I would have to say that perhaps this sort of rhetoric will be
useful in your court case. Bul once again, we're here to look at this
design and at this point I think we're going to go on with what's on the
age,nda hcre, which is the appeal of the Zming Administratm's decision to
approve a buffer to be built between a proposed addition and the existing
condominiums. That's it. That's wbat orujob is today. I appreoiate your
opinion and I do have your items here and we are going to address those. I
think the ones that are relevant, however, not the mes to pertain to a
previously ganted approval. trignf now if we could once more and
briefly have a briefpresentatim that describes the quantities and species of
the buffer by whoever is most qualified to give said. Thank you.
As far as species, we've got ground cover here, junipc h€re, this is spirea
Dccigr Rcview Bocd
Transcription of Tape Intcrndional Wing
April 3, 1995f:\a|!rFoc\drtr\i*wiag./O3 l8
Mike Amett-
Jay Peterson-
Mike Amett-
Jay Peterson-
Mfte Amett-
Jay Peterson-
MikeAmett-
Jay Peterson-
Mike Amett-
Jay Peterson-
Mike Arnctt-
Jay Peterson-
Mike Amett-
TedHingst-
bushes here and over here, additional ground cover here and these are
pinion pines here, seveu of them, a minimun of six feet in height.
Ok, and describe the, this srrface is sandstone.
This is a sandstone ledge.
The surface ofthe roofis.
Uh, copper.
Treated copper?
Yes.
Muriatic acid?
Yes
Olq g€,rtlqnen, comments regarding this particular ap,plication and I don't
lnow if you've all had a chance to look over this, the first item on Mr.
Abplana$'s list was regarding the relocation of the elevatm away from the
apartnent condominiums. I'll start by asking ifthat is a possibility of
relocating that any closer to this.
No, we have moved it out of their limitcd common elements and so we've
moved it 2 ll2 feet from where it was to take it firther away, but we had
to rearrange everything down in our building to do that We cannot move
it anymore. It's obviously a firnction of the interior desip of the building
and this is not possible to move it anymore. But we have kept it as low as
possible, which is below their railing.
And in all cases, you do avoid the commm elerrents.
Yes sir.
Between these two buildings. Ted, do you want to start.
First, I'd like to say it's wonderful to see so much interest in these projects.
Personally, I feel this is an cnormous improvement for positive grovah. I
think, considering what alternatives might be out there, this is a definite
plus. The gound cover, what wereyouproposing. In tqms of the glormd
cover that you were proposing to put in, what type plants are yor planning
on using.
Deeign Review Bord
Transcription of Trye, Intcmcional Mng
April 3, 1996f:Evcryom\drb\rtwiry4(13 l9
Greg Christian- It's detaild on thcre'
Mike Arnett- It's kind of hard to read from this side'
? 2? andj'niFers'
Grcg Christian- Soapwort' it's likc 6" tall
Ted Hingst- Ok, so ufiat we're seeing is thcn E stair set of green'
' andy Knudts€o- Yes, they vary from 6" to 18" and then the tees are going to be 6'to 8't8ll.
Greg Christian- The gound cover will start to grcw over otr top of the ledges with a
cascading effect.
Mike Arnett- Any othercorrnrents.
Ted Hingst- Not from me.
Mike Amett- Gene?
Gene Useltm- Well, it appears to me that the viern, frrmr 527 ztd533 is going to be
zubstantially improved over wbat we have right now. I like the banier.
MikeAmett- Alricht,cla*.
Clad( Brittain- I think that this whole discussion, we should probably just get back to this
butr€r thing and I think there's a lot of foresieht aod planning ctftibited
here. I think they bave gone to a lot of bouble. I think that the decision
shouldbeuphcld. I
Mike Arnett- Bre'nt?
Brent Alm- I have a question about the sandstone. Is thae any concem about sorneone
wanting to get out therc and walk on the sandstone? Is it a safety issre?
Greg Christian- ' No, it'll be 2" thick and mortar set, so if somebody does walk on it, it wi[
. be able to support the load.
Brcnt Alm- But, would somebody be able to walk out there?
Crreg Christian- Yeab" people would be able to walk on it just in terms of mainteirance.
Deeign Rcviow Board
Traucriptioa of T.pe, Ifi€rn{iond Wing
f:buryroo\druri*wir9,{t3 Aprii3, 1996 20
Mike Amett-
Jay Peterson-
Mike Amett-
Rick Roseo-
Ivlike Amett-
Jay Peterson-
hlike Arntt-
Rick Rosen-
Mike Amett-
John Valpmi-
BrmtAlm-
T.here was initially a concern for the benefit of the other members that this
would become a party area for the penthorse located on this floor and I
think this basically, garden concept sddr€sses that coucem quite well and
that it more or less, precludes the eventuality of there being a party in this
area between the existing units and the proposed preurier suite.
And there is an irrigation systeln up there, so the only time mybody has to
go out there for maintenance, for weeding and things like that.
Mr. RosEn do you have a quick comment?
Just a quick question on the maintenance, since it's been brought up. Let
me just have the applicant just give us a quick cmrment bow that's going
to be maintained, as far as the weeding and that type of .qing.
Cenainly, who's in charge of the landscaping he're?
John can probably address it being the same tlpe of qfrat we do all over
the Lodge. We have maintenance people on site, Obviously, it doesn't
have to be sprinkled by hand. The tlpe of gound cover and the $pe of
plantings that we have, it's certainly aminimal tlpe of a maint€nance
systern. Whatever necessary to ke€p them nice, we obviously do. You can
tell by the gpunds at the Lodge.
Does that answeryour question?
I just have one other quiok question. As in most projects, is there going to
be a bond as far as replacement of the dtibt landscapiag, that tlpe of thing
'ruring the period of the first year.
We generally don't ask for a bon4 we geneially put it as a condition of
approval that ifany species die, they be replaced, as per the original
approval.
It's to our advantage to keep that in goc I shape. ffith a prefiier suite on
the other side, they will be lmking at parts of it "s well.
I would just add that I think the buffer as proposed does provide good
screening, but still seems to allow vicws fron those adjaceut rmits. It's
rmfortunate that they have this little problem, a building being built right
outside their existiug units, but it seems to be the way it is.
Ilesip Rcvicw Board
Tranecription of TT€, lntcmdional Wing
April 3, 196ft bvc4orcWtii*nriogt|{l3 2l
ArtAbplanalp
Mik€.Amett-
ArtAbplanalp-
Mike Arnett-
ArtAbplmalp
Jay Peterson-
Mike Amett-
?
Mike Amett-
?
Mike Amett-
For clarification, since the Board is going to spprove perhaps the
conditios, there is additional infonnation on the two maps that bave been
presentd today. I would simply requesl and that's part of our pnoblern,
ihat it wasnl on what Andy had available, I would ask that any motion
refer to these two plans, rather rhan what Andy had, which did not have all
of fris informatim on it.
Let's date those plans.
Those are actually dated the same date as the other, but the difficulty is that
they can chmge.
Well, let's date them and initial them today, Andy'
Thankyou.
I disagree with Art's perception ofthese.
I agree with you Jay. I pretty much s€€ that as the same drawing I saw
displayed earlier, but it's harmless. My questims arre the elevation I don't
see on the elevatc roof would be the wcst elevation. The part that if you
look doqnr between the balcony rail of Mr. Roscn's clients, the
Cavanaughs, if you look directly down, standing at the rail, what do you
see. flo we have anything there, or do you plan to make that grow into the
railing.
Yes, there will be a sandstone wdl.
Ok, greal Does the Board fecl that the quantities of landscaping as
displayed are sufficient? Anyone not feel that they are sufficic' t And the
railing details arc 8s we initially approvd right, as per the origiml
approval, the handrail details, the guardrail details?
That's correct.
I think this has gone a long ways towards satisffing the concerns of the
neighborhood. I would echo Bre,nt's cmrnent that it's tmfortunate whc'n
large buildings are developed that do impact people's views, views that
people have become accustomed to, but in as much as this is not in a
designated view c.orridor, I thiDk that it has been the case in the past, and
will continue to be so, tbat nome's rigbt to a pcnoaal vicw is guarantecd.
I think ftat these people have gone out of their way to do a nice pmoject
here. I'm sure the landscaping, for their benefit, as wcll as the owners of
Dcsign Rcvicw Board
Trarcriptior of Tryo,In&mdimal Wing
April 3, 1996f:\cvc4orcWb\dwiry4O3 22
this unit and the ones adjaceol wil be sufficient and well maintained. That
I hope you would know that if for some reasm these quantities as listed do
not appear suffioienl they will be uppe{ as I'm sure they will be. I have
nothing to add. I think it was a finejob. I think ststrhsd every right to
staffapprove this. I understand why it came back, but at this point I think
we're ready for a motion.
Brent Alm- Mr. Ctainnan, I'd like to make a motion to uphold the Zoning
Adsrinistator's decision to approve a buffer to be built between a
proposed addition and the existing cmdominirmrs at the Intcmatimal Wing
with the following conditim:
That the height ofthe elevator roofnot exceed the height ofthe
railing or 3'6".
MikeAmett- Wchaveamotion. Dowehaveasecond?
G'ene Uselton- Second.
Mike Amett- Second by Gene. All in favor. It is unanimous. Thank you.
Art Abplanalp- Reference to this referenced set of plans.
Mike .A,mett- And also would you add that.
Brent Abn- And that the plans that we're looking at are dater 4i3l96. That's it.
Mike Amett- Gene, would you amend your second.
Gene Uselton- Second.
MikeAmett- Allinfavor.
2. Intematioual Wing .Appeal of the Zoning Administator's decision to approve a AK
buffer to be built between a proposed addition and the existing condoniniuns., 174 E. Gore Creek Drive./portions of Lots A, B, and C, Bloc,k 5C, Vail Village lst filing
Appellant Ms. Anita Saltz
MOTION: Alm SECOND: Uselton VOTE: 5-0
UPIIELD - with the clarification that the elevator shaft uot extend above the height of the
deck railing.
Dcsigr Rcvicw Board
Trrucription of Tpe, Inamational Wing
f:\cvcrprc\db\intrriogt03 April 3, 1996 23
,l
Dceigr Rcvicw Board
Transcriptior of Trye, Intcdrdional Witrg
f:bwryom\drb\iotwin94{t3 April 3, 1996 24