Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-03-07 Support Documentation Town Council Regular SessionVAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1989 7:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Ten Year Anniversary Awards to Cathie Jarnot, Cyrus (Buck) Allen, and Brian Terrett 2. Approval of Minutes of February 7 and 21, 1989 Meetings 3. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1989, second reading, an ordinance amending various sections of Chapter 18 of the Vail Municipal Code and repealing and reenacting Section 18.58.310, Short Term Rental Accommodation Unit of the Municipal Code to provide for bed and breakfast operations under certain provisions and circumstances and to define bed and breakfast and setting forth details in regard thereto. THIS ITEM WILL BE TABLED FOR TWO MORE WEEKS, UNTIL MARCH 21. 4. Eagle County Commissioners' presentation regarding the bond election March 21, 1989 5. Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1989, second reading, an ordinance re-zoning a parcel of property legally described as Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Intermountain Subdivision, and amending the official zoning map in relation to the re-zoning of said property. (2998 South Frontage Road West) 6. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1989, first reading, an ordinance repealing and re-enacting Ordinance 5, Series of 1986, a Special Development District (known as SDD No. 14) and the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. 7. Appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission decision to approve a request for a conditional use permit for an addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center and Parking Structure 8. Request for variances to allow for the construction of a primary/secondary residence on Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing (342 Mill Creek Circle) 9. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1989, first reading, an ordinance amending Section 10 of the Town of Vail Investment Policy. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 10. Adjournment VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1989 7:30 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 1. Ten Year Anniversary Awards to Cathie Jarnot, Cyrus (Buck) Allen, and Brian Terrett 7:35 2. Approval of Minutes of February 7 and 21, 1989 Meetings 7:40 3. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1989, second reading, relating to Peter Patten bed and breakfast operations THIS ITEM WILL BE TABLED FOR TWO MORE WEEKS, UNTIL MARCH 21. 7:45 4. Eagle County Commissioners' presentation regarding bond election March 21, 1989 Action Requested of Council: Receive presentation and make comments/ask questions as needed. 8:05 5. Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1989, second reading, requesting Mike Mollica to rezone a 0.32 acre parcel of land at 2998 South Frontage Road West from the current Residential Cluster zone district to the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1989, on second reading. Background Rationale: The intent of this rezoning request is to allow the applicants to construct a small secondary, employee restricted rental unit over the existing garage. The PEC has unanimously recommended approval of this rezoning request at their 2/13/89 meeting. (Applicants: William Pierce/Lynn Fritzlen) Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1989, on second reading. 8:10 6. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1989, first reading, Special Rick Pylman Development District No. 14, Doubletree Hotel Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1989, on first reading. Background Rationale: Vail Holdings Inc., owners of the Doubletree Hotel, have applied for SDD #14 in order to add 92 accommodation units, 5 condominiums, and 3,300 square feet of meeting room facilities. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1989, on first reading. 8:50 7. An appeal of the PEC decision to approve a request for a Kristan Pritz conditional use permit for an addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center and parking structure. (Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center) Action Requested of Council: Uphold/overturn the PEC's decision to approve the request. Background Rationale: On February 27, 1989, the PEC voted to approve the conditional use request with conditions. The vote was 4-2-1. Kathy Warren and Diana Donovan voted against the proposal; Sid Schultz abstained. Staff Recommendation: Uphold the PEC's decision to approve the request. 9:50 8. A request for variances from the 20 foot front setback Mike Mollica requirement and from the 30 foot stream setback requirement, to allow for the construction of a primary/secondary residence on Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing (342 Mill Creek Circle) Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny the variance requests. . .Background Rationale: The PEC, at their February 27, 1989 public hearing, approved by a vote of 4-3 the variance requests. The Council, at their February 28 ,' 1989 work session, has requested a review of the variance requests. Staff Recommendation: Approve both variance requests. 10:10 9. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1989, first reading, amending the Steve Thompson Town of Vail investment policy Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1989, on first reading. Background Rationale: This amendment will allow us to purchase certificates of deposit marketed by brokers, at staff's discretion. We will be able to take advantage of better interest rates and still verify in-house that the bank or savings and loan meets our standard selection criteria. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1989, on first reading. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 10:40 10. Adjournment -2- .. ~, MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 7, 1989 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, February 7, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor John Slevin, Mayor Pro Tem Eric Affeldt Michael Cacioppo Merv Lapin Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal Tom Steinberg MEMBERS ABSENT: None TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first order of business was Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1989, second reading, relating to bed and breakfast operations. The full title of the ordinance was read by Mayor Rose. Mayor Rose stated he wanted to clarify that this ordinance would legalize bed and breakfasts; that it was not disallowing them. Peter Patten commented he had been asked at first reading to further investigate the discontinuance of bed and breakfasts upon lapse of operation and that Section 6 had been added to address Council's concerns over existing multi-family bed and breakfasts. He noted another of Council's concerns was bed and breakfasts in multi-family dwellings. He asked Council to look at a memorandum he had given them regarding research in various resort areas; several did not allow them in multi- family developments, but a couple did allow them in higher density areas. Peter went on to explain another issue at first reading had been about existing bed and breakfasts. He proposed a new Section 7 to the ordinance which would grandfather existing bed and breakfasts in multi-family dwellings granting approval as of the date of approval of the ordinance. He then stated existing operations would have to get a conditional use permit, and if they were located in a condominium, they would have to get the condominium association approval and prove they have been in operation, and apply by May 15, 1989. He then noted a typographical error on Section 4 where old wording had not been crossed out. Peter stated staff recommended approval with the changes noted. Joan Norris remarked she was concerned over bed and breakfasts getting too commercial. Susie Bird questioned short-term rental and bed and breakfast operation differences, to which Peter explained in detail. Larry Eskwith addressed some legal technicalities brought up by the Council. Jack Rush, speaking as a representative of a condominium association, asked for clarification of two sections of the ordinance. There was some discussion by Council and Ron Phillips as to what the ordinance would do. Joan Norris questioned the parking requirements in the ordinance. Mike Cacioppo asked if the ordinance could be redrafted to be more general in nature. Jim Lamont reviewed bed and breakfast zoning history up to this point, his perception of the ordinance and its shortcomings, and gave recommendations on what he felt Council should do. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal responded why this language was brought up by Council in the first place. There was much discussion by Council and Larry Eskwith over the language of the ordinance and if the Town really needed it. Mike Cacioppo made a motion to deny the ordinance as it was too restrictive and unenforceable. John Slevin seconded. Peter Patten explained why he felt the ordinance was good and should be approved. Mike Cacioppo withdrew his original motion and made another motion to table the ordinance for one month. Kathy Fagan remarked she was not there as a negative force. Mike then clarified his motion to table the ordinance for four weeks with direction to staff to restudy and address the multi- family dwelling issue, the appellate process, the parking issue, and the business license issue. John Slevin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. At this time, Peter asked for more clarification on the multi-family dwelling issue, to allow bed and breakfasts; short term rental regulations compared to the bed and breakfast regulations and can they be combined to a degree; work on parking issue, i.e., change wording in ordinance to be more s .. v general, like provide the necessary number of spaces totally or proposed for intended use; check into business license ordinance to reflect short-term rental rates, which are currently the lowest figure in the schedule. Mike Cacioppo also asked that home occupation Zone 1 and Zone 2 figures be looked at, and the multi- family use be by right, conditional use, or by permit. John Slevin asked that no nameplate signs be allowed, that they should be handled like short-term rentals. Joan Norris stated she was against making bed and breakfasts competitive and big business. Paul Rondho gave a few suggestions on how he felt it should be handled. The next item was a consent agenda of the following items: A. Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1989, second reading, relating to increasing the charges for impounding dogs. B. Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1989, second reading, designating signs on hot air balloons for special events be exempt from the Vail sign code. Mayor Rose read the full title of each ordinance. Tom Steinberg questioned the cap on the liability insurance for hot air balloons, to which Mike Cacioppo explained Council was told that was the maximum anyone could get. Tom requested it be taken out of the ordinance as times and costs change in the future. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve both ordinances with the change on Ordinance No. 4, which Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Mayor Rose requested that items 3 and 4 on the agenda be switched to accommodate the citizens present to discuss item 4. Council agreed. The next item for discussion was the Vail Valley Medical Center request regarding frontage road improvements. Peter Patten explained that during the process of the Medical Center's proposed addition a major issue was of access on the frontage road from the northeast corner of the Medical Center and the Doubletree Hotel. Because the land belongs to the Doubletree, they made an agreement with the Medical Center. Also, the Vail National Bank was desirous of amending their parking situation, too, so they also joined in the agreement. He stated the Colorado Department of Highways (CDOH) could deny the request, but would approve the access permit if a fourth lane was made on the frontage road for access. This would affect the accesses to the east and west of the U.S. Post Office. Ray McMahan, representing the Vail Valley Medical Center, felt they would be successful with an appeal for three lanes on the frontage road; the parking structure would work; they have an agreement with the Doubletree Hotel; and they are financing this. He stated they were working on access to the frontage road from the parking structure and were asking Council to direct the Planning Commission and Community Development to join the Doubletree Hotel, Vail National Bank, and the Medical Center in the appeal process. Ray then introduced Paul Powers, one of the new owners of the Vail National Bank. Paul commented they fully supported the Medical Center's attempt, and their new plan for the bank was to make the east access one way, parking places in the front would be angled, and they would join the Medical Center in front of the parking garage as the only access. He then reviewed the three suggestions the CDOH had given them when the request was denied. They were: 1) the Town of Vail abandon the two west accesses to the road from the Post Office; 2) the Doubletree, Vail National Bank, and Medical Center parking garage have one main road to the frontage road so there is one access point; and 3) removal of the super elevation of the banking of the frontage road westerly on the north side of the frontage road. Powers felt their plan fitted the plan codes of the CDOH and wanted the Town to support their appeal. He then answered questions of Council and showed them a map of the proposed plans. There was some discussion of what exactly CDOH wanted in order to approve the plan. Paul made the Medical Center's position clear, and that they were opposed to the fourth lane on the south side. Mayor Rose remarked to Ray McMahan that he was opposed to the appeal process, that he would rather work something out with the CDOH Grand Junction office. He complimented the property owners on arriving on a placement of the parking structure, but the frontage road issue was a part of a bigger problem than just this issue. He stated the Town had 32 people directing traffic one day during the holiday rush, and it was a community issue to redesign the frontage road from Cascade Village to Ford Park. Mayor Rose went on to suggest the Medical Center go to CDOH with this solution so they would work with the Medical Center in the Grand Junction office, and the Town would work with the CDOH on a total redesign of the frontage road from Cascade Village to Ford Park; he felt the issue needed to be addressed soon. Ray asked about the time frame this would take, to which Mayor Rose replied the CDOH could commit to study -2- the redesign and in the meantime allow you to do this without changing the frontage road until the study was done. Tom Steinberg agreed with Mayor Rose and requested the Medical Center to put money in escrow to pay for their portion of the frontage road changes. Ray McMahan felt this was getting off the subject and explained. Paul Johnston explained what Mayor Rose and Tom Steinberg had been saying. John Slevin asked the Medical Center to commit to a special district or some form of improvement of the frontage road. Ray felt he still wanted to go through the appeal process with CDOH and wanted the Town to join them. Ron Phillips clarified the Town's position. Ray clarified the Medical Center, Vail National Bank, and Doubletree Hotel's position, and if the Town was not with them, then what was their position. Eric Affeldt read a draft resolution he wrote regarding the Town Council's stand, which basically stated the Town would agree to help the other property owners with a long-term solution if the property owners would help the Town with long-term solution with their fair share of financing the road changes. Ray stated he was being prompted by some Board members to say yes. There was much discussion regarding plans for financial commitment from all parties. Peter Jamar, representing the Doubletree Hotel, felt everything was more confusing than it needed to be and explained his feelings on the project. There was then more discussion by all parties regarding planning and financial commitment. Eric read his resolution again. Ray stated the resolution was fine with him, and he would talk to Ron Phillips and staff later regarding steps to take with CDOH. Eric then made a motion to adopt the resolution, and Merv Lapin seconded. There was some discussion by Mike Cacioppo and Eric Affeldt regarding the resolution and Mike's concerns over the financial commitment by the other parties. Merv requested the resolution be approved with instructions to staff that when the project goes before the Planning and Environmental Commission for approval of a conditional use permit, that it be brought back before Council to define a dollar amount to put in escrow. Eric revised his motion to approve the resolution be approved with instructions to staff that when the project goes before the Planning and Environmental Commission for approval of a conditional use permit, that escrowing funds for future improvements be discussed. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Paul Johnston then complimented the Town staff for their work on the World Championships. Mayor Rose thanked Ray, Paul, and Peter for the work done, and the Town would try to keep it on track. The next item was action on the Vail Village Parking Structure expansion preliminary engineering contract. Stan Berryman stated the Town had negotiated a contract with Michael Barber Architecture Associates, and they were asking the Council to review and make changes they wanted to the contract so it can be signed and the project go forward. Stan reviewed the contract with the Council and answered questions. Tom Steinberg thought the architects would investigate all options, not just for approximately 400 cars. John Slevin requested a representative of Michael Barber come up to discuss the services and plans, to which Stan agreed. Eric Affeldt agreed with Tom and John, and they needed clarification on some planning and services. John wanted to know what the Town was getting for its money; designs and recommendations. Mike Cacioppo agreed the Town needed more parking, but wanted to address the issue of controlling the growth of the town; he did not like Vail Associates expanding, and felt it was not in the best interests of the residents. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal agreed that day skiers may not be in our best interests, and that Council needed to talk to Vail Associates regarding their plans, our plans, and try to curtail their efforts. Merv Lapin agreed, but did not want to let things deteriorate with Vail Associates like what happened in Aspen. He requested Council meet with Vail Associates soon before signing the agreement. Ron Phillips stated he would take care of setting it up. There was no Citizen Participation. Tom Steinberg asked what was happening regarding some complaints on the snow plowing. Ron Phillips replied that Public Works was taking care of it. Ron stated the father of Yolanda Martinez, who attends Battle Mountain High School, requested Council help sponsor Yolanda to attend CLOSE-UP, a week long government studies program for high school students, which would take place in Washington, DC. He stated he had informed Mr. Martinez Council usually did not provide those kinds of sponsorships and asked if Council agreed, which they did. Ron then noted there was a 16.3 percent sales tax increase in December, 1988 over December, 1987. Also, the Town ended the year with a 9.3 percent increase over the 1987 sales tax and 6.3 percent over what was budgeted for 1988. The real estate transfer tax for January, -3- 1989 was $331,000; the Town had budgeted approximately one million dollars for the year and took in 1/3 of the year's budget in January. At this time, Gail Wahrlich- Lowenthal wanted to second what Paul Johnston had said earlier; that for the World Championships, she wanted to thank the community as a whole, Town employees, and personally Ron Phillips and Kent Rose for their involvement. Kent Rose commented he could not say enough about Ron's total involvement with the World Championships and still taking care of his normal duties. Ron remarked he was proud to be an employee of the Town and noted what an excellent job everyone was doing, especially bus drivers, and fleet maintenance working until midnight. Stan Berryman stated there had been an exceptional amount of intercooperation between the Town, Colorado State Patrol, the Vail Valley Foundation, the volunteers, and everyone else; things were very positive. Eric Affeldt requested a resolution which would recognize the efforts of all entities be written up, signed by all Council members, and put in the paper next week. Merv Lapin announced there would be a television translator election later this year, and he wanted to get together with the lodging community to discuss plans. Mike Cacioppo announced there would be a TV Translator Committee meeting next Thursday, 12:00 p.m., at the Town of Avon. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman -4- MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 1989 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, February 21, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Uail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor John Slevin, Mayor Pro Tem Eric Affeldt Michael Cacioppo Merv Lapin Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal Tom Steinberg MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: None Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first order of business was approval of the minutes for the January 3 and 17, 1989 meetings. There was no discussion by Council or the public. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve both minutes, which was seconded by Eric Affeldt. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. The next item was Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1989, first reading, requesting to rezone a 0.32 acre parcel of land at 2998 South Frontage Road West from the current Residential Cluster zone district to the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district. Mayor Rose read the full title of the ordinance. Mike Mollica gave background information on the request, explained the criteria used in evaluating the requested zone change, and why staff recommended approval. He also noted the Planning and Environmental Commission voted unanimously to approve the zone change conditional on the Council granting the change.- Mike and Peter Patten then answered questions of Council. After some discussion, Tom Steinberg made a~.motion to approve the ordinance on first reading. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. The third item on the agenda was appointments to the Design Review Board and the Planning and Environmental Commission. Council voted Ned Gwathmey and Jamie McCluskie for two year terms and Patricia Herrington for a one year term on the Design Review Board: Council then voted Sidney Schultz, Kathy Warren, and Charles Crist for two year terms on the Planning and Environmental Commission. The next order of business was action on a vacation of utility easement for the U.S. Post Office. Larry Eskwith explained background information regarding the vacation. Peter Patten than answered questions of Council regarding the vacation. Peter stated the new Post Office bus stop had not yet been approved by the State or the U.S. Postal Service; staff had just recently submitted their third proposal and had not received a response yet. After some discussion by. Council, Larry Eskwith agreed that Council could table the easement vacation until more is known of the Postal Service position on the bus stop and the retail facility. Larry noted he had requested a representative from the Postal Service to be present but evidently they had chosen not to show. After more discussion by Council, Tom Steinberg made a motion to table the item until a representative from the U.S. Postal Service could be present to answer questions. Eric Affeldt seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. There was no Citizen Participation. At this time, Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal asked if there had been any interest by the Postal Service yet regarding retail space in town, to which Ron Phillips responded only that they said they would look into it. There was more discussion by Council, Ron, and Peter Patten on private enterprise doing the job. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman -2- ORDINANCE NO. 5 Series of 2989 AN ORDINANCE RE-ZONING A PARCEL OF PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 2, BLOCK 5, VAIL INTERMOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION, AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP IN RELATION TO THE RE-ZONING OF SAID PROPERTY. 'WHEREAS, the property .tom be re-zoned is located within the municipal limits of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, there is a~z application from the .property owner of Lot 2, Block 5,•Vail Intermountain Subdivision,_for re-zoning said parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has considered the appropriate re-zoning for the property and has unanimously recommended that the Town Council re-zone the parcel from Residential Cluster to Primary/Secondary Residential; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the public interest to re-zone said property. NOW, THEREFORE, EE IT GRDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWSc Section 1. The Town Council finds that -the procedures for the provision of re°zoning property in~-the Town of Vail have been fulfilled, and the Town Council hereby~received~the report .of recommendation of the Planning -and Environmental Commission. reconulnending •the x°e° zoning of said property. Section 2. Pursuant to Sections: 18.66.100 - 18.66.180 of the Vail Municipal Code, a parcel of property described as Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Intermountain Subdivision, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado is zoned as Primary/Secondary Residential. Section 3. As provided in the .ordinances of the Town of Vail, the zoning administrator is hereby directed to modify and amend the official-zoning map~to include the zoning specified in Section 2 above. Section 4. If any part, sectio~i, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for.any.reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect.the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and' each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 5. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 6. The repeal or the repeal and re-enactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and re-enacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS 21st of February 1989, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 21st day of February , 1989 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this 21st day of February~ 1989. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1989. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk TOo Planning and Environmental Commission FROMo Community Development Department DATEe February 27, 1989 SUBJECTa A request to re-zone Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing to Special Development District #14, in order to allow an additional 92 lodge rooms, 5 condominiums and 3,350 square feet of meeting rooms and conference space at the Doubletree Hotel. Applicants Vail Holdings, a limited partnership I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSALe In April of 1986 following a full Planning and Environmental Commission review and two hearings in front of the Town Council, Ordinance 5, Series of 1986, an ordinance approving Special Development District Number 14 was adopted by the Vail Town Council. Special Development District Number 14 was a proposal from Vail Holdings, Ltd, to allow expansion of the existing Doubletree Hotel. That expansion consisted of an additional 92 lodge rooms, 5 condominiums, 3,350 square feet of meeting room and conference space and a total of 200 structured parking spaces and 11 surface spaces. The required parking according to Town of Vail standards for the proposed development was a total of 261 spaces. The developer felt that 211 parking spaces was adequate to meet their needs. The Town Council required that the Doubletree pay into the Town of Vail parking fund the amount of $235,000.00 which was equivalent, according to the Town of Vail parking fund formula to the 50 parking space short fall that the Doubletree had proposed. Ordinance Number 5 of 1986 also contained an expiration clause that stated if no building permit was issue or construction commenced within an 18 month period that the Special Development District approval would expire. The Town Council, on the 16th of June, 1987 approved a 12 month extension to Special Development District Number 14. That approval expired on September 18th, 1988. Vail Holdings Inc., with some proposed amendments, is now requesting a re-approval for Special Development District Number 14. The requested density in the current proposal is identical to the original 1986 proposal. There are, however, two major changes in the current proposals 1 1. The Doubletree Hotel and Center wish to conduct a a parking structure that Valley Medical Center on Doubletree Hotel. This the Vail Valley Medical shared parking arrangement in will be built by the Vail property-owned by the parking arrangement allows the Doubletree exclusive use of 213 on site parking spaces and shared use of 48 parking spaces in the Vail Valley Medical Center structure. The Doubletree would be allowed to use the parking spaces from 5:30 pm until 6:00 am. Vail Valley Medical Center would use those 48 spaces plus another 20 provided by the Doubletree from the hours of 6.:00 am to 5:30 pm. 2. The Doubletree would like to utilize the transient residential unit concept that was originally defined and approved in the Cascade Village Special Development District. The Doubletree Hotel would like to construct the 92 additional lodge rooms as transient residential units. The same definition as was used in the Cascade Village Special Development District would apply. The owners agree to maintain the units under single ownership, and agree to keep the units in the short term rental pool. They have also agreed to the restriction that no fireplaces will ,be allowed in those units. The definition of a transient residential dwelling unit as found in the Cascade Development District reads as follows: "Transient residential dwelling unit or restricted dwelling unit" shall be defined as a dwelling unit. located in a multi-family dwelling that is managed as a short term rental in which all such units are operated under~a single management providing the occupants thereof customary hotel services and facilities. A short term rental shalla be deemed to be a rental for a period of time not to exceed 31 days. Each unit shall not exceed 645 square feet of GRFA which shall include a kitchen having a maximum of 35 square feet. The kitchen shall be designed so that it may be locked and separated from the rest of the unit in a closet. A transient dwelling unit shall be accessible from common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing through another accommodation unit, dwelling unit, or transient residential dwelling unit. Should such units be developed as condominiums, they shall be restricted as set forth in section 17.26.075- -17.26.120 governing condominium conversion. The unit shall not be used as a permanent residence. Fractional fee ownership shall not be allowed to be applied to transient dwelling units. For the purposes of determining allowable density per acre, transient 2 residential dwelling units shall be counted as one half of a dwelling unit. The transient residential dwelling unit parking requirement shall be 0.4 space per unit plus 0.1 space per each 100 square feet of GRFA with a maximum of 1.0 space per unit. II. BACKGROUND In the original 1986 Doubletree expansion proposal there were two major issues that the town staff felt were of great concern and which resulted in the staff recommendation of denial for the Doubletree expansion. Those two issues were the increase in density above the allowance of the HDMF Zone District and the short fall of on-site parking spaces to be provided by the Doubletree. The adoption of the Land Use Plan in November of 1986 eased the staff concerns regarding the increase in density. This position is reflected in the memo to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated June 1987 regarding the approval of the extension of Special Development District Number 14. The Land Use Plan showed the need for continued growth in guest accommodation services and identified the potential areas for that large scale hotel growth. The Doubletree site was within that area identified in the Land Use Plan as showing potential for increased densities in guest related services. The staff was never comfortable with the parking provisions that were a part of the approval of the original Special Development District Number 14. The staff has been consistent with the position that private development should meet their own parking demands on site, with the exception of course•of development within the Commercial Core I and II. We felt that the provision allowing the Doubletree to pay into the Town of Vail parking fund in lieu of meeting the on-site parking requirements was inconsistent with our planning objectives. We believe it is better to provide parking spaces on site then to provide private purpose parking in the Town of Vail structures. The parking arrangements in the current Doubletree/Nail Valley Medical Center proposals relieve a great deal of that staff concern. The Doubletree, according to studies provided by their staff, will meet their parking requirements during their peak parking demand hours. We have confirmed this conclusion with our own studies. These studies have all shown that the Doubletree parking demand is greatest when the bar and restaurant are in full operation. At these times, from 5030 pm to 6x00 am, the Doubletree is able to provide all 261 of their required parking spaces within their parking structure and the shared parking structure that will be constructed by the Vail Valley Medical Center. 3 During the daytime hours of 6:00 am to 5:30 pm the hospital when it is at its peak staffing level and parking demand will have the use of those 48 spaces plus another 20 spaces provided by the Doubletree. This shared parking arrangement leaves both the Doubletree and the Vail Valley Medical Center 48 parking spaces short of their requirement during their non peak hours. The following chart represents the parking requirements and provisions of the Doubletree and the Vail Valley Medical Center during existing, interim and build out phases. PHASE I (VVMC EXPANSION) PHASE II (DOUBLETREE EXPANSION) 6:OOAM-5:30PM 5:30PM-6:OOAM 6:OOAM-5:30PM 5:30PM-6:OOAM REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED DBLTREE 167 167 167 167 261 193 261 261 HOSP 278 279 278 279 278 299 278 231 The following table illustrates how this proposal relates the existing development on site as well as that allowed under the previously existing high density multi-family zoning. ZONING ANALYSIS OF DOUBLETREE HOTEL Site area 2.6298 acres or 114,554 square feet ALLOWED DEV. EXISTING PROPOSED UNDER EXISTING DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT HDMF ZONING Units: 65 du's 83 du's (19 condos 128 lodge rooms) 25 units/ac 31.5 units/ac GRFA: 68,732 sq ft 73,577 sq ft Meeting room space: 4,040 sq ft 51 du's 5 condos 92 lodge rooms) 19 units/ac TOTAL DEVELOPMENT 134 du's (24 condos 220 lodge rooms) 50.95/ac 42,576 sq ft 116,153 sq ft 3350 sq ft. 7350 sq ft While this table illustrates some of the more significant elements related to this proposal there are other zoning considerations to be made in evaluating a new Special Development District application. These and other aspects of this development plan will be highlighted throughout this memorandum. 4 III. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL% As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of Special Development Districts is tos 18.40.010 PURPOSE - The purpose of the Special Development District is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design, character and quality of new development within the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with a properties underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development in uses of property included in the Special Development District. The elements of the development plan shall be outlined as in Section 18.40.060 of the Vail Municipal Code. Section 18.40.080 of the Vail Municipal Code addresses the design criteria for Special Development Districts.This chapter states that BOThe following design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the marriage that the proposed Special Development District. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that y submittal material in the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them'is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. 1. Design Compatibility and Sensitivity to the Immediate Environment, Neighborhood and Adjacent Properties Relative to Architectural Design, Scale, Bulk, Building Height, Buffer Zones, Identity, Character, Visual Integrity and Orientation. Staff Responseo Staff feels that the design of the addition has been completed in such a manner as to' relate very well to the existing structure. The additions are done in a way that helps reduce the mass of the existing tower and with the help of the grade change from the Frontage Road to the site present a design that does not appear to add considerable bulk to the site. The design also serves to enhance the overall visual quality of the existing development. 5 The siting of the proposed additions work well with the existing tower the extension of the building helps step the building off the Frontage Road and reduces the effect of the bulk and mass. The specific considerations of materials, color, texture, signs and lighting will all be addressed at the Design Review Board level if this project is approved. 2 This proposal, although presenting a significant increase in density above the allowances of the HDMF Zone District is in harmony with the concept of the Land Use Plan and its suggestions for providing and recognizing the need for additional accommodation units within the Town of Vail. The Land Use Plan does suggest locations for these proposed expansions and this site is within that proposed area. 3. Compliance With Parking and Loading Requirements As Outlined In Section 18.52: 4. This new proposal, which includes the shared parking arrangements with the Vail Valley Medical Center represents a great leap forward from the original Special Development District approved in 1986. The shared parking arrangement allows an expansion of both the Doubletree and the Hospital while providing the required parking for both developments at their peak parking demand periods. Conformi As previously stated, this application is in harmony with the land use plan, specifically the Town policies regarding expansion of guest services and accommodation units. The proposal relates specifically to the goals number 2.1, 3.2, 4.2 and 4.4 of the Vail Land Use Plan. These goals refer to the community role as a destination resort and the fact that the Vail Village and Lionshead areas are the best locations for hotels to serve the future needs of destination skiers. There is no application of this project to the Vail Urban Design Guide Plans. 5. Identification and Mitigation of Natural and/or Geologic Hazards That Effect The Property on Which the Special Development District is Proposed. 6 Although this property does border Noddle Creek on the west side there are no flood plain encroachments or implications, nor are there any other applicable natural or geologic hazards that effect the property° 6° Site Plan, Building Design Location and Open Space Provisions Designed To Produce a Functional Development Responsive and Sensitive to Natural Features, Vegetation and The Overall Aesthetic Qual of The Community° In general the staff feels that the proposed design of the Doubletree expansion is in harmony with the requirements of this criteria° 7° Circulation System Des Pedestrians Addressing Circulation° for Both Vehicles and and Off Site Traffic Due to the consolidation of the existing Doubletree accessways into a new entrance, along with the Vail Valley Medical Center parking structure access, new State Highway Department access permits will be required° The extent of the improvements proposed by the Doubletree consist of a deceleration lane for the Doubletree main access° The approval of this request will be conditional upon receipt of the access permit° 8° Functional and Aesthetic Landscaping and Open Space i Order to Optimize and Preserve Natural Features, Recreation, Views and Function: 9° We feel that with one minor exception the design of the Doubletree is in compliance with this criteria° We would take exception to the encroachment of the new construction on the northwest portion of the site° The construction of a new pre-function area for the meeting rooms is proposed to be built right up to the property line° The staff had in the previous approval of the Special Development District requested this area to be re-evaluated to reduce this encroachment on Middle Creek° We still feel it is important to maintain some amount of setback of buildings from the property line in this area and encourage the owners of the Doubletree to review this situation during the final design phase° Phasing Plan or Subdivision Plan That Will Maintain a Workable, Functional and Efficient Relationship Throughout The Development of The Special Development District° 7 The relationship of the Doubletree and Vail Valley Medical Center expansions and their phasing does have an impact on the proposed parking. The Doubletree and the Hospital have submitted existing, interim and final build out parking scenarios which have been presented earlier in this memo nd which the staff finds acceptable. IV. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL: 1. Fire Department Issues: This concern is a carry over from the 1986 approval and as the site plan has not significantly changed, neither has this issue. The Fire Department has not signed off on this design because of inadequate access and operational widths to the additional development proposed on site. Final determinations regarding code requirements will be made at the building permit review if this project is approved. Any significant changes to the site plan that may result from this review would require Planning Commission approval if made. 2. Easements. As proposed, underground parking structures and portions of the lodge addition will encroach on existing utility easements. If approved, the design of this parking structure will allow access to these utility lines. Construction on these easements will require approvals of all utility companies prior to the issuance of any building permit for the project. 3. Restrictions Ori Lodge Rooms and Condominiums: The staff has requested and the applicant has agreed that the accomadation units proposed in this plan would be developed as lodge rooms or as transient residential units. This would mean that if a proposal to convert these units to condominiums were to be made, they would be reviewed with respect to the criteria outlined in the condominium conversion ordinance. In addition, the applicant has agareed to restrict the canversion of these units to a time share form of ownership for 20 years. The staff has also requested that the use of the 5 condominiums be limited by those restrictions outlined in the condominium conversion ordinance. This would assure the Town that these units would be in the rental pool for 48 weeks of the year. 8 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONe Staff recommendation for the proposed Special Development District Number 14 is for approval. This proposal is essentially the same in density and design as the proposal that was previously approved by the PEC and Town Council as 1986 Special Development District Number 14. The issues at that time that concerned the staff and resulted in a staff recommendation of denial have been resolved. The staff is comfortable with both the density issue and the parking solution that is proposed by the joint agreement between the Vail Valley Medical Center and Vail Holdings, Ltd. We feel that the proposal to provide parking spaces on site is a superior solution to the 1986 proposal and are pleased with the work that has been done to date between the Vail Valley Medical Center and the Doubletree. Ede would like to add to our recommendation of approval some requested conditions. Those conditions read as followse A. The development contained within SDD14 shall not be converted to any form of time share ownership for a period of 20 years from the date of building permit issuance. The applicant agrees to limit the use of any new dwelling units approved to this development plan to those restrictions outlined in Section 17.26.075A Condominium Conversion of the Vail Municipal Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the restrictions set forth in Section 17.26.075 of the Municipal Code at the Town of Vail shall not apply to the dwelling units during any period during which they are owned by any individual who is also a owner of the Doubletree Hotel. B. The 92 additional accommodation units approved with the approval of SDD14 shall be developed as lodge rooms or transient residential units under a single ownership. Any proposal to condominiumize the accommodation units or transient residential units would require approval as per the subdivision regulations of the Town of Vail. C. The applicant shall bear all cost related to the design and construction of the deceleration lane improvements required for the Doubletree access permit as submitted to the State Highway Department. These improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for any new residential units developed on this site. 9 D. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall demonstrate that all required approvals from the State Highway Department for changes to access off of the south Frontage Road have been obtained. E. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any improvement in SDD14 the owner, or owners of SDD14 shall provide to the Town of Vail documentation of the agreement between the Vail Valley Medical Center and Vail Holdings, Ltd. that allows the Doubletree Hotel its designated employees or guests the right to use a minimum of 48 parking spaces in the Vail Valley Medical Center structure from the hours of 5:30 pm to 6:00 am. This parking agreement must be in a form that may not be amended or rescinded without the approval of the Town of Vail. 10 d - ~ ;'e .. .. PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING. DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS, RESEARCH P~EMORANDUM TO: FROMo DATEo REo RICK PYLMAN, OWN OF VAIL PETER J JANUARY 10, 1989 DOUBLETREE HOTEL EXPANSION - PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS AND PROPOSED PARKING PROGRAM In support of the re-approval of Special Development District No. 14 I am providing you with the following additional information regarding the provision of parking for the proposed expansion of the Doubletree. As previously outlined and documented within the Environmental Impact Report completed for our initial application the statistics regarding parking are as followso Current Existing Parkincx Supplyo 167 Spaces Total Parking Supply required per Town of Vail for Hotel Expansions 261 Spaces Previously it was anticipated that a total of 211 spaces would be . provided on-site to meet the Doubletree projected parking demand. This meant that there was a 50 parking space difference between the amount of parking that Doubletree felt was needed and the amount required by the Town of Vail parking requirements in the Zoning Code. The provision of 211 spaces was based upon Doubletree's past experience with the operation of various resort hotels and the observation of the parking characteristics of the typical Vail guest and the characteristics of the Vail visitor in general. At the time of the approval of SDD 14 a condition was attached which in effect granted a 00variance°° to the parking requirements and required the property owners to contribute to the Town of Vail parking funds. Suite 308, Vail National Bank Building 108 South Frontage Road West . Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-7154 if i. ., x ' The construction of a joint parking structure on Doubletree and Vail Valley Medical Center property has now opened up new opportunities to provide for meeting the Doubletree parking demand. The fact that the VVMC needs to increase its parking supply to accommodate its expansion provides the opportunity for joint use of the parking between the VVMC and Doubletree. Whereas VVMC's peak parking demand is during daytime hours, the Doubletree peak demand is in the evening hours when restaurant and bar patrons utilize the facilities of the Hotel. The VVMC will be constructing a 185 space parking structure as indicated upon the plans that have been submitted to the Town. This parking structure will remove approximately 20 existing surface spaces at the Doubletree which will be replaced within the middle level of the structure and will be directly accessible from the Doubletree's surface lot. These 20 spaces will initially be designated for use exclusively by the Doubletree. Therefore, the Doubletree's current parking supply will remain at 167 spaces. Upon expansion of the Hotel the VVMC has agreed that from the hours of 5:30 p.m. - 2:3U a.m. an additional 48 spaces will be made available within the structure to accommodate our total parking requirement (per Town of Vail) during our peak demand period. The parking provided on site at the Doubletree will be increased to 193 spaces when the expansion is constructed. Therefore our total supply during peak hours will equal the required 261 spaces. It is also anticipated upon full Hotel expansion that, during the daytime hours, when the Doubletree's parking demand is low and the VVMC's at peak, 20 spaces can be allocated for the Hospital's use. The hours that this parking will be available to the Hospital will be from 7:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. We feel very confident that the arrangement described above can more than accommodate the Hotel's parking needs. Continual observation of our parking characteristics over the past several years supports our request. A recent survey of parking taken during the peak holiday period is indicative of the real parking needs of the Hotel. Copies of the survey are attached. The parking survey was conducted starting December 20 and was ended on January 3, 1989. The purpose was to analyze parking demand of hotel employees, hotel guests, other visitors to the Hotel, and unauthorized parking. Parking passes were distributed to both Hotel employees and Hotel guests in order to enable identification of each by category. Parking counts were taken three times a day: 7:00 a.m., 2:00 p.m., and 9:00 p.m. D 6, ~ The results of the survey show that daytime the Hotel employees, condominium owners, and approximately 15% to 38% of supply. During occupancy ranged from 32% to 100%. 38% of the equal to 63 parked cars. parking demand for guests ranged from this period Hotel parking supply is During the evening hours the survey indicates that a number of °°unauthorized°° cars utilize the parking supplied by the Doubletree. These are patrons of the bar and restaurant and when factored into the survey indicate a higher utilization of the parking supply. At 9x00 p.m. the 167 spaces were never full but our observation is that later in the evening the parking fills close to capacity. The survey supports very strongly that the jointly shared parking arrangement proposed by the Vail Valley Medical Center and the Doubletree is a workable and desirable solution. Even though our survey indicates peak usage during the day is roughly 38% maximum we are proposing to provide 73% of our required spaces during the day and 100% in the evening hours. The difference will more than provide a °°cushion1B for any seasonal fluctuations or special events that may occur. j - - ROSALL REM,'~IEN CARES PLANNIN(,,, 11ii11M! J11 !il(iN GNU lih`;! AIiLM w~ ", ;F ~~ OOU6lETREE 9/6 2:95 PM 52 cars and 4 trucks - surface 36 cars - garage 1/6 7:Ob AM 28 cars and 2 trucks - surface 15 ears - underground 92/30 9:00 PM 41 cars - surface 36 cars underground 92/29 90:30 PPi 67 cars - surface ~9 cars e underground 12/29 6:30 PM 39 Cars m surface 31 cars - Indoors 92/29 92:30 PM 57 Cars surface 29 cars o underground 12/29 9:95 PM 64 Cars surface 30 cars e underground ~%CEPJSE ®RE~KDOwI~ AT THE DOUBL~TREE: 29~~ - ° 30 PN Out-of-state 17 Local ~~ other Colorado gy Temporary/rental ~6, Trued 2 (98X) (95%) (33%) /1~ (32X) (2:~) 96 (96X) 97 (16X) 29 (27X) 29/99 (37X) 6 (b°5~) Tote 1 : 7'0 ~ 10~~) ~~g ( IOV a J~) ,. _ .__ ~. ~. 0 D f .~ _r O 13~b" T r s. ~ <, i e. ~n-r Imo- ~ -~. i d .~ v. ac i q L l3 ~n ~ ~C 5 ~ ' ~- 4 ~ 'a I'+_-L 75~'~ DCX.7B[..ETR~"E ANTF~ONY PELLECCHIA ARCHITECTS TEL W11L HOLDINGS ., ' VA'l, CO • ,' .o G~ cl c d1, 1/ ., J %• ~~ r".~ T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 24, 1986 SUBJECT: A request to rezone Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing from Hick Density Multiple Family to Special Development District in order to develop an additional 92 lodge rooms, 5 condominiums, and 3,350 square feet of meeting rooms/conference space at the Do::bl etree ~-iotel . Applicant: Vail Holdings, a Limited Partnership I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL A request has been made to the Town of Uail to rezone the Doubletree Hotel site from High Density Multiple Family zoning to a Special Development District. This proposal is requested in order to allow for additional development on the site. The rezoning is required because the present level of development is over that allowed under existing zoning. The development proposed with this application includes 92 lodge rooms., 5 condominiums, and 3,350 square feet of additional meeting room space. The following table illustrates how this proposal relates to the existing development on the site as well as that allowed under the existing zoning: ZCNING AF~ALYSIS OF DOUBLETREE HOTEL Site area 2.6298 acres or 114,554 square feet ALLO!,IED DEV. EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL UNDER EXISTING DEVELGPh1ENT DEVELOPMENT DEUELOPfiENT HDMF ZON?NG Units: 65 du's 83 du's 51 du's 134 du's (19 condos (5 condos (24 condos 128 lodge rooms) 92 lodge rooms) 220 lodge rooms) 25 units/ac 31.5 units/ac 19 units/ac 50.95/ac GRFA: 6E,732 sq ft 73,577 sq ft 42,576 sq ft 116,153 sq ft Parking Req'd 52 enclosed 200 enclosed 200 enclosed 198 spaces 115 surface 11 surface 11 surface - Req'd 2e1 spaces ~•;eeting room space: 4040 sq ft 3350 sq ft 730 sq ft ~ `~ ~. ( . .. A M / ~ ~ -~~hi l e thi s tabl e i l ~ ustrates s~,nre of the more s i gni ~ i cant elements related to ti~is proposal, there are ether zoning considerations to be trade when evaluating this application. These and other aspects of this development plan will be highlighted throughout this memorandum. I I . °.~CKGROUtrD Ofd REVIEW PROCESS TO DATE ollowing the acquisition of this property by Vail Holdings, Inc., a r,ajor renovation of the existing facility was completed during the summer and fall of 1985. It was at this ti.-2 that the staff first began a dialogue with the developers and their designers concerning the feasibility of additional develc~me^~ of this site.. To date, the staff has spent a considerable amount of time with the designers of this prCject resulting In a nUi'ber Of adG?ti0[iS and mOdiflCatlOnS t0 the originally proposed ce~:.lep~:~ent plans. To assist in this process, the developers agreed tc pay the bill to bring Jeff ~•:inston in as a design consultant for the Town. This is similar to the role Jeff played in the review of Pr+ase IV of the Vail Village Inn proposal last year. In addition to this review, a work session was held for the Totivn Council and Planning and Environmental Cormissicn in November to brief them on the concepts being proposed in this plan. ~s is the cGse with any rezoning recuest, final decisions concerning this application are ~.-jade by the Town Council. The Planning Commission review is advisory to the Council and any approval of this plan would involve the adoption of a new ordinance granting the rezoning request. III. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of special development districts is to: 18.40.010 .Purpose The purpose of the special de~:elopment districts is to encourage flexibility in the development of land in order to promote its appropriate use; to i;~,prove t;.e design, character and quality of new development; to facilitate the adequate and economic provisions of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural and scenic features of open areas. _. Historically, SDD's have been proposed in Vaii to allow for the development of sites that v+ould be unable to do so under conventional zoning. Examples of these projects would include vaili Hi where Density increases were alloy+ed in exchang? for restrictions on the property to er=Ure ~nelr• USe as ~'-;,10,y'22 hCU51f1^y, Or the °~'al i '.~1 t i Cca _nn l•r~CSe mitred L. r "" + SOD Use C.hdraC;.er r2uU ; . ~G' tn' C!.it,• ZOn' ^g i'i0r~ OT ~en ~rcn nOt, il0i•ieVer, zone d'.Str1CtS have ~e_n re~U?S~ed 1..v•d110Y+ for 1nCr2?5°S In denS111eS over what existing zoning on the site would allow. This is the case with this application. Thor°_ are a n:JTber Of criteria t0 v: c~dl;;at?Q when revlwing a request of this nature. rOr~mGSt a~T~ung ~~~c5c art ~ c ~~.r.e G25i'y'R c.aF.GarC'S that a 2 ~ E , , \' ~o a:"2 i ' ~ red i n tre ZOn i n0 Cede . AS sta ~~~ i n the code, "The d2'!.1 op;;,ent play for the Special Development Districts shall meet each of the foiio-•;ing standards or demonstrate that either one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved." In addition to these criteria, it is important to consider the underlying zoning as a point of reference in evaluating this request. These zoning considerations as well as other issues that have been raised during the course of this review will be addressed in this memo. IV. DESIGP; STANDARDS IN EVALUATING SDD PROPOSALS The follo-ving are staff comments concerning how this proposal relates to the design standards as outlined in the zoning code. A. A buffer zone shall be provided in any special development district that is adjacent to low density residential uses. The buffer zone must be kept free of buildings or structures, and must be landscaped, screened or protected by natural features so that adverse effects on the surrounding areas are minimized. This may require a buffer zone of sufficient size to adequately separate the proposed use from the surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy, noise, adeeuate light and air, air pollution, and other cc-~parable potentially incompatible factors. The buffer zone referred to in this design standard is specifically for SDD's prcposed adjacent to low density residential uses. Zone districts adjacent to this property include high density multi-family and the public use districts. Consequently, this standard is not directly applicable. Ho-vever, with a few exceptions, the proposal is within the existing zone district's required 20 foot setback. 6. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, taking into consideration safety, separation from living areas, convenience, access, noise, and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be permitted if they can be used by Police and Fire Department vehicles for e,~.erency purposes. Bicycle traffic may be considered and provided when the site is to be used for residentia l purposes. The prc~os~d site plan involves a nu~;~ber of chanaps to the existing VzhiCU;dr aCCeSS t0 the property'. An~OnC these are the add1t10n Of a new access point to service the leading and trash facilities, the removal of an existing read cut to the hotel entrance, and the development of a newly aliynec entry to the hotel. As a part of the environmental impact report for this project, a traffic report was done that evaluated trip Cencrati0n o.ntlClpated from both the er.istin and r the site. une conclusion or" th;s study is that bothcleftdandvrighteturnn lanes be provided as an element of this development proposal. In addition to satisfying the reco~;~;,endations of the traffic report, if 2•'v~r~b'ed, Slight graTing can.,^~, would be necessary to the main entry to t^e ia~liity aS Ncr ~Cwri 0+ Mali engir;2er's re Vest. =rat ar~~ cr^n~es to the road 'J ;.s a It should be noted requiring Stage Hign;vay approval would have ~c be o~tai^ed prior to the issuance of any building permit for this r1o~; al C.""•~^t. 3 .~ ~~ ' C. Functional open space in terms of: Optimum preservation of natural features (including trees and drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience, and function. One change proposed in this plan relative to functional open space is with respect to the Middle Creek area. At the present time this area is overgrown with vegetation with no real relationship to the existing facility. Landscape improvements are proposed in this area of the site, as well as on the Town of Vail stream tract, in order to~open the access to this stream. While a limited amount of landscape materials would be removed to allow for this develop~~ent, a preliminary landscape plan has been submitted indicating a substantial increase in plant materials on the site. T^~ \Jie1~~5/SpdClal analysis provided in the environmental impact report indicates that there are no real significant view impacts with respect to ~~antage points along the Frontage Roar and Interstate. The scale of the buildings, coupled -,~ith the grade change from the Frontage road to the site, has miticated the potential view blockage from this addition. Short range views from some units in the Vail International Condominiums would be affected by the expansion proposed to the north of the existing building. D. Variety in terms of: housing type, densities, facilities and Coen space. With the exception of the five development proposed with this facilities on site in addition Jacuzzis, an outdoor pool, a r~ commercial. also, see Section Restrictions. condominium units, the residential SDD is short term lodging. Other to the meeting room space include indoor :staurant, a nightclub, and limited VI on Lodge Rooms and Condominium E. Privacy in terms of .the needs of: Individuals, families and neighbors. Given the nature of the uses on this site, as well as the uses on adjacent sites, staff can see no factors with respect to privacy. F. Pedestrian traffic in terms of: Safety, separation, convenience, access to points of destination, and attractiver~ss. At the presen~ time, guests of the Doubletree arc pro~,ided with a pedestrian l:rkage to Meadow Drive in order to utilize the Town of Vail pus system. r; i th thi s proposed addition, an exter.si on of thi s :val karay i s included 1ink=ne the existing wai~:way with ;.he Fost G==ive/iiunicipal ouiiding area. This walkway runs along the south side of the property. x 4 ~, <: • , ,, ~_ G. 3uilc~-g c= in t_rms of: r,o;;; ^~ ~ ~ _ .~ . c ~_ _ ~~ .~vi" ~ a c.~T)c•'.S tv Lens i ty, S1 ~2 r,.la,.,_ns„ip and Sulk. It is felt t`at the designers of this project have done a commendable job in relating phis addition to the existing structure. Specifically, the additions arc done in a ~•ray that helps reduce the Tags of the existing tower. As was referred to earlier, the grade change from the Frontage Rcad to the site has allowed for a design that does not appear to add considerable bulk to the site and tivorks to enhance the overall visual quality as compared to the existing building. H. Building design in terms of: Gri~rtation, spacing, materials, color and texture, storage, signs, lighting, and solar blockage. As is the ca_e with the „-,assing of this proposal, the siting of the proposed additions work well with the existing toa;er. The extensions of the existing building help "step" the building off the Frontage Road. Consideratio^s such as materials, color/texture, signs, and lighting would all be addressed at the Design Review Board level if this project were approved. A sun/shade analysis in the environmental impact -•eport demonstrates that the proposed expansions would have a negligible effect on the Frontage Road. I. Landscaping of the total site in terms of: Purposes, types, maintenance, suitability, and effect on the neighborhood. The proposed landscape plan shows 37°~ of the site being landscaped. This does not include portions of adjacent property bet~~een the Goubletree site and the Mate Highway Department right-of-way that would also be landscaped. It should be noted, ho-,~ever, that this area is required to be landscaped. Particular attention has been paid to the leading/trash area as well as the surface parking that is on the site. A considerable amount of material is proposed in this area in order to screen this portion of the site. V. ZONING CONSIDERATIO!~S RELATIVE TO THIS PROPOSAL With the apy~oval of an SDD, the develop~~,=_nt plan submitted establishes the developr„ant standards for the prcp~rty. These would address the standard zoning cer,siderations that are outlined in other zone districts. In eval;JatlnC th15 deVelOuTient plan, It ~S iiu:.v^rtant t0 CGn51~2r the standards es~~blished in the underlying, or existing zoning. The following is an analysis of these considerations: L's es There are no changes to existing uses that would not be allo-ved under ;1;`iF zoning. 5 ,' • ~ Censity Aside fron the important site planning issues whicf~ must be discussed, the overriding issue is how to deal with the request for significar:t additional density. rJhile the To-•rn deals with requests for additional density quite frequently, se of•this ma_nitude. y ldom are requests made His~orically, the s~aff has not supported requests for densities above that allo4•:ed under existing zoning. t~lhile there have been notable exceptions, the planning Cc,~~mission and Town Council have also been quite critical of requests for density increases. The growth marae~;;:ant report of 1977 and a Central Cc-tern Of d110Vtiing addi~icnal ~~VelOr!Tlcnt in what 15 perceived by .;;any to be an overdeve loped l'al 1 e are Often cited as reasons fc^ denying additional tens- ~ .• Y' ~t~ equests. Prompted in laace part by the Sonner,alp request in 1984 the Town has been working on the Uail Uillaoe Study for over a the goals of the study is to evaluate the Year. One of density in the Village area. This ~ y potential foi additional . rotEn,,ial is evalua~ed based more on design considerations than on ;:hat is necessarily allo-,-ed under existing zoning regulations. in conjunction with this evaluation, coals and objectives are being established to outline improvements that should be cone to tie Uillaoe in ceniunction with this development. A trade Off. or b'or:uS s;stem, is to be ce~'elope that would allow for additional den,si~ies in exchanc~ for d substantial return to the community in the form of public improvemen~s or other exactions. it is i~::portant to note that this system is 5eing proposed after a comprehensive evaluation of the entire study area that has identir'ied both the improvements to be made as well as where additional density could be accommo~ated in a sensitive „!anner. It is also important that during the public process that has taken place for the Village Study, there was not a uniform response in favor of considering additional density in the Village. However, there•has been support for a system that would allow density increases in conjunction with the comprehensive study of this typ=_ combined with a substantial return by `~ the form of public improvements. ~~~e developer in Given the sc:bmittal before us, it is unfcrturate that the Doubletree inn is not located within the Vail Village Stud}~ Area. It 1S equally UnfOrtUndte that d ICrr~-:~ide land L'Se Cldn 1S Oniy In its early s=ages of development and not ;- ~ ~: ,_ar c„mple~,on as .s the case with tie Viilaee Study. The land Lye p'an would provide the staff a bet=er understanding of the imulications that this project may have re;ative to other development potentials in the Valley. 6 .~ ~_ ••• . ~' 'a- ~4~iI°_ SpeClflC analy5l;, Of the DOUbIEtrE°_ site 1•10U1d 1ndlCate that SC~~~e ~eCrEe 0 i addl tl vital d= !151 ty COUI C bE aCCGii~mv~ated, the concern of the staff is ho-v this request relates to Town--,~ide ,revel opment i ssues. For e>:a:~~pl e, the traffi c report for the Dcu,letree sug_ests that trip Generations to the site can b2 aCCCr::-lOdatEd Off Of the rronta^? Rcad. But what would a cumulative impact have on the Frontace road if similar requests for density incrEases ~:ere to be Granted in this area? Likewise, it has been s=ated that the design imcacts cn the Doubletree site are positive from a standpoint of reducing the mass of the existing tower. however, without a cc^prEhEnsive analysis, the staff is uncc:~,fortabl e e f ~,~hat i-pl i call c^s thi s proposal ...ay have on ether properties located along the frontage road. another important considEration is a system of trad_-offs that ~•~ould be established for i r.creas=~ cer,si ty i n the U i l i ace. l•1hi l e here has been a r nor:,,al disc~~ssion ~vith the dEVe':op~rs on ~:ghat public improve~~~ents could be provided in conjunction -yith this development, without a To~vn-wide aral;~sis, the staff is unable to provide recommendations as to appropriate trade-offs for this grant of additional density. Set~acks ThE proposed addition encroaches into the rewired 20 foot sEtback In four areas. ;•:hile tirEe Of t~eSe a1'?3S a1'e al'JnC the FrontaGe Road and involve only a few feet, there is a considerable encroachment alone the west End of the property adjacent to t~1iddle Creek. A portion of this encroachment involves the infill of an area underneath an existing deck. However, new construction to aCCO:T:';lOdate a pre-function area for the meeting rooms is proposed to be constructed up to the property line. The staff had requested this area to be re-evaluated in an effort to reduce this encroachment on t-;iddle Creek. It is important to maintain some amount of setback of buildings from the property line in this area. Neiaht The proposed additions do not exceed the 48 root height limitation in the HD~~F zo~;e district. Tie existing to;•rer is 72 feet in height. Site Coverace Site coverage allowed under the N~F1F zone district is 55ro. This plan includas 47ro of the site being covered by buildings. Laridscaoi no .4s hzs been mEntioned. 37~ of the site is lar.dscaced. This exceeds a 30~ requir=gent for the HGt•1F zone district. 7 .~: -'~ ~ C ~;.. ~ _ rarkina There are a nu;~~ber of approaches that can be taken in evaluating what the required parking is for this development. Regardless of h;,w the numbers are calculated, the proposed development does not m.et the parking that would be required for this level of develo~~ent. There are 167 parking spaces on the site that can be considered a arar:dfathered situation (current requirements for the existing development on the site would be 158 spaces). The new develc;,rent proposed for the site would require Q4 spaces (this includes a 5a multi-use reduction as well as a 50io reduction for the required parG;ing for the Tie*_ing room space). Considering the 167 grandfathered spaces, an additional a4 spaces are being added t0 the S i to t0 aCCG~7?TlOdat2 file neVr' devel OpTicnt proposed. Thi s results in a net ceficit of 50 parking spaces on the site. In evaluating tie parking reGUlred, the staff 1S Comfortable with d total of 261 spaces to be provided on site. It should be noted that this figure of 261 spaces gives the applicant consideration for a 50o reduction of spaces for a meeting room facility as well as an interpretation that acknowledges a 25 space shortfall that is present at this time. Without these considerations, the required parking on the site could be as high as 316 spaces. It is felt that the 261 fieure is both realistic from a planning standpoint as well as reasonable in terms of the interpretations that have been c.ade. VI. OTHER CO~JSiDERATIONS IN EVALUATING THIS RROPOSAL Fire De~artm~nt Issues At the present time, the Fire Depar design because of inadequate access additional development proposed for regarding code requirements will be review if this project is approved. site plan t~:at may result from this Commission approval if made. Easements tment has not signed off on this and operational widths for the the site. Final determinations made at the building permit Any significant changes to the review would require Planning As prep^sed, the underground parking structurE and portions of the lodge cddlti0n a~culd encr:,ach on eX'Stir.G Utility easements. If approved, the design of the underground parking structure would allow access to *_hese utility lines. Construction on these easements would require approvals of all utility companies prior to the issuanc? of any building p:.rmit for this project. E b ~ ~1 \ . -:5''-'CtiO:^•S 0^ ! C,:~C;o ~uc;r;s and CundCTln1L'mS ^e s~aff has requested and the applicant has agreed that the acct-;~lodati on units proposed i n thi s plan rroul d• be developed as lo~~e rods. This w . ould mean that if a prc~.csal to convert these un;~s to condominiums were to be :,jade, they would be reviewed with respect to the criteria outlined in the condo;;linium conversion ordinance (i.e. if approved for conversion to condos, they would be restricted to short-term rentals). In addition, the applicant has agreed^to restrict the conversion of these units to a ti.,,e share ~crm or oT•;nership for c0 years. The staff has also requested that to use of the 5 condc:,:iniums be limited by these restrictions outlined in the condc•miniu;r conversion ordinance. This Tvould aSSU^e the ! 01Yn ~;^ai. ~~lc$c .1 r: ~ ~ ~• r'._efa of the year. cs ;:cold ~e .r. ,.re rental pool 48 VII. STAFF RICO; i"t"JDATION AS de*1C'?5trated 1 n thl S ...2,^,10, the prCp05ed dove i cement plan satisfactorily addresses a number of design standards outlined in the SDD zone district. The Dian presented provides a nurlber of significant improve~snts to the existing site ccnditicns on the property. ;-iolvever, the plan is sicnificar:tiy short of :v%tat the staff feels to be the r2Gui1'ed paring for this level Of G2VelOpiT~pnt, In ddditl0n t0 the shortfall of ~0 parki;;g spaces, staff also questions the high percentaee of valet spaces within the structured parking area. As proposed, 76 of the 200 spaces would require valet service for utilization. Staff is also disappointed to see the proposed surface parking on the site. While the location of these surface spaces is not highly visible, it ;would be much preferred to have the parking entirely enclosed. It is the feeling of the staff that this project's inability to meet the parking requirements is an indication that the development proposed is in excess of what the site is capable of handling. The development propesed includes 13~ dwelling units. This number is over twice that allo-ved under existing zoning. To even consider supporting a project that is requesting this dramatic increase in density while not meeting its parking requirerent is inconceivable to the staff. It is the feeling of the staff that it is the burden of the applicant to demonstrate how it is satisfying the d~vel.rr,~ent standards of the Town. 4!ith an SCC rezor•ing rcgUest t0 allow for thi$ inCrCa52 In dcnSltV It 1S she feCll!lg Of the Staff that .t i11 S ap~• i 1 Cw ~1 on sh0ul d ,^,,___t 'and exceed i~'a a^n ~ Or raxl~lOm Cevelopn,ent standards of the ICV1n t0 ShoW11` ~ J~2C~1'Jc minlmum development possible. This project has not demonstrated zhateit gSality rooting th15 objective. ne Staff feel S the Nari:i ny' regL'1 r~-,=nt5 a5 ~~SCrI ~ed 1 n t..e ZCn i n CC~e for t~Ics2 types of uses on this site are valid.. Nero ac_ain, it should be =•~•r;~zsized that the recuired parking acknewied ~ - I;.eeting room space, the multi-use credjts, as gellaas0acceptancenofnthe crandfathering of the e}:istin.g situation. TFe To-•,n s ~:~~ply cannot afford to -:ake concessions with regard to g, ,. Parkin We cannot risk the creation of a ;ar,;n5 problem with respect to privae de•:eic~;m=nts as this will a^gravate the problem of providing skier arking. ~' • particuiarl true when r p^ Inis oeco~es '. nCT'aa o y d Cq. S1 der . ng a "O_:,'..'est for SOCK a Si ~7 i f i Cant s in densi~y. - 9 f /~ l.. ~ith0ut the ir~`c;-ation afforded US through the ccmpletion of a land use plan Gnd poiic.s applic;.51e to these types of density increase proposals, the sarf is not in a position to support density increases of t~~'s ;:~a,:nitude. A ppr.,val of this proposal mould ~staolish a sicni~icant pr~ce~~nt with respect to a Town policy on density increases within the To~~vn. A land use plan is an important tool in evaluating proposals of t^is naiure or ether issues such as the potential land trade at the Lodge and Spraddle Creek sites. The Planning Com;rission is strongly urged to cc~sider these ':~~plications when evaluating this request. ,~ 1V ~. • , ~. ;~ 'p:: TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 9, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to extend the approval of Special Development District No. 14 (Doubletree Hotel) Applicants Vail Holdings, Ltd. Partnership The attached memorandums and ordinance provide background pertaining to this request. A number of issues relevant to this application were discussed at the Planning Commission's review. Among these include a strong concern that the interim landscape plan for the Doubletree be completed as soon as possible. It was also suggested that the developers of the Doubletree establish contact with the Vail Valley Medical Center relative to the possibility of constructing a joint use parking structure. Additional information will be provided to the Council concerning these issues at Tuesday's meeting. The Planning Commission action was to recommend the approval of this SDD be extended for a period of 12 months. If approved as per this recommendation, the approval of the SDD would then be extended to September 18, 1988. The Planning Commission also requested the staff to pass along to the Council their concern over the existing parking requirements. It was their hope that an independent study could be done of existing parking requirements to evaluate whether Town regulations are appropriate. This issue was raised relative to the Doubletree's proposal and the present shortfall of parking as required by Town codes, `~. Q ~ Q,.~b ,l °e. CD T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 8, 1987 SUBJECTa A request to extend the approval bf Special Development District No. 14 (Doubletree Hotel). . Applicants Vail Holdings, Ltd. Partnership The approval of a special development district expires after 18 months if construction of the project is not initiated. Approval of SDD No. 14, which allows for a major expansion of the existing Doubletree Hotel, expires in July of 1987. The applicant has requested an extension of this approval for another l8 month period:=The Planning Commission's action on this-application--is advisory. Any final approval of extending ~his-zoni~ng requires the review and approval of a resolution by the Town Councils --~~ - ~. ISSUES RELATED_TO THIS PROPOSAL .The two main--issues-relative to--this redevelopment centered 'around parking and additional density (see enclosed memo to Planning Commission dated February 24, 1986.) Specifically, the staff-was uncomfortable with the-signi-ficant._amount of =additional density with the absence of an overall land use plan, and. the proposed parking that was 50 spaces short of what =is required. The applicant has requested approval for the identical project as was approved in 1986a .~ The recently adopted Land Use Plan has enabled some re- evaluation of our previous position relative to density. Given the outcome of the Land Use Plan, the staff would not present such strong concerns for the additional density as was stated in 1986. This is due to the fact that there was a preference in the community for concentrating density in the existing core areas, and more specifically, near the Frontage Road. Goals from the Land Use Plan include: 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day visitors. 3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. ,~ D A ~~. r /s! .~ 1' % / 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. The shortfall of parking spaces proposed with this development is still a major concern to the staff. We continue to hold the position that private developments should build the required parking to avoid the significant problems in the longer term. As Vail Mountain becomes more and more developed and skier numbers increase, there will not be available overflow parking in public structures to make up the short fall. For this reason, we cannot support the extension of this special development district. ~~ ~ 1° / ,. ~ ' ~ ' rQ i~' ~ V b .~ ~ • /'I' I F~• ~ ~ ' JV Y RESOLUTION NOe 20 CO Series of 1987 ~ I i A RESOLUTION EXTENDING APPROVAL OF SPECIAL _ ' DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NOa 14 (DOUBLETREE HOTEL) FOR A PERIOD OF TWELVE MONTHS WHEREAS, the owner of the Doubletree Hotel has reques ed ~ l that the approvals granted by Ordinance #5 :of 1986 be extended; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has unanimously recommended that the Town Council extend this approval; and ~6dHEREAS, the development of this property as prescribed by Ordinance #5 of 1986 will be a benefit to the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Vailo NOW, THEREFORE., ~BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TO~~TN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: ~. The approvals granted by Ordinance n5 of 1986 are herein extended for a period of twelve (12) monthso INTRODUCED, READ, AND APPROVED AND ADOPTEDithis 16th day of June, 1987e . ' • Paul ~ R ~ ~1"bhnston, Mayor ATTEST: - Pamela Aa Brandmeyer, Town Clerk t • i ~, .. P ) ORDINANCE N0.5 Series of 1986 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (KNOWN AS SDD N0. 14) AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes special development districts within the Town; and WHEREAS, Vail Holdings, a Colorado Limited Partnership, has submitted an application for special development approval for a certain parcel of property within the Town known as Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing, to be known as Special Development District 14, and commonly referred to as the Doubletree Hotel; and WHEREAS, the establishment of the requested SDD 14 will insure unified and coordinated development within the Town of Uail in a manner suitable for the area in which it is situated; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed SDD; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants and visitors to establish said Special Development District No. 14; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled, Planning Commission Report. The approval procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received the report of the Planning and Environmental Commission recommending approval of the proposed development plan for SDD 14. Section 2. Special Development District 14 Special Development District 14 (SDD 14) and the development plan therefore, are hereby approved for the development of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing, within the Town of Vail, consisting of 2.6298 acres or 114,554 square feet, more or less. r ~ ': r ~~, \ Section 3. Pur ose - Special Development District 14 is established to ensure comprehensive development and use of an area that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vail and to promote the upgrading and redevelopment of a key property in the Town. The development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council and meets all design standards as set forth in Section 18.40 of the Municipal Code. There are significant aspects of Special Development District 14 which cannot be satisfied through the imposition of the standards in the High Density Multiple Family zone district. SDD 14 is compatible with the upgrading and redevelopment of the community while maintaining its unique character. Section 4. Development Plan A. The development plan for SDD 14 is approved and shall constitute the plan for development within the special development district. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Anthony Pellechia, Architects as dated December 27, 1985, and consists of the following documents: 1. Site plan 2. Preliminary landscape plan by Berridge and Associates, Inc. 3. Typical floor plans 4. Elevations and sections 5. The Environmental Impact Report dated January, 1986 as prepared by Berridge .and Associates, Inc. B. The Development Plan shall adhere to the following: Setbacks Setbacks shall be noted as on_the site plan listed above. Height Heights of structures shall be as indicated on the elevations listed above. Coverage Site coverage shall be as indicated on the site plan listed above. Landscaping The area of-the site to be landscaped shall be as indicated on the preliminary landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for their approval. .~ Z ~, .' '~ d Parking and Loading Parking and loading shall be provided as indicated on the site plan and floor plans as listed above. In no case shall the parking provided on site be less than 211 spaces with 200 of those spaces underground and a maximum of 11 located on the surface. Parking access shall be controlled by a gate (or similar structure) or by an attendant or by other acceptable methods. Section 5. Densit Existing development on the site consists of 128 accommodation units and 19 dwelling units consisting of 73,577 square feet of gross residential floor area. The approval of this development plan shall permit an additional 92 accommodation units and 5 dwelling units, consisting of 42,576 square feet of gross residential floor area. The total density permitted with the approval of this development plan consists of 220 accommodation units and 24 dwelling units with a total of 116,153 square feet of gross residential floor area. Section 6. Uses Permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be as set forth in the High Density Multiple Family zone district. Section 7. Amendments Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance may be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060. Amendments which do change the substance of the development plan shall be required to be approved by Town Council after the above procedure has been followed. The Community Development Department shall determine what constitutes a change in the substance of the development plan. 3 ~ ~ r Section 8. Expiration The applicant must begin construction of the special development district within 18 months from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward the completion of the project. If the applicant does not begin and diligently work toward the completion of the special development district or any stage of the special development district within the time limits imposed by the preceding subsection, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the special development district. They shall recommend to the Town Council that either the approval of the special development district be extended, that the approval of the special development district be revoked, or that the special development district be amended. Section 9. Conditions of Approvals for Special Development District 14 A. The development contained within SDD 14 shall not be converted to any form of time share ownership for a period of 20 years from the date of the approval of this ordinance. The applicant agrees to limit the use of any new dwelling units approved with this development plan to those restrictions outlined in Section 17.26.075.A, Condominium Conversion, of the Vail Municipal Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the restrictions set forth in Section 17.26.075 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail shall not apply to the dwelling units during any period during which they are owned by any individual who is also an owner of the Doubletree Hotel. B. The 92 additional accommodation units permitted with the approval of SDD 14 shall be developed as lodge rooms under a single ownership. Any proposal to condominiumize the accommodation units would require approval as per the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Vail. C. The applicant shall bear all costs related to the design and construction of the right turn deceleration lane and left turn lane as recommended in the transportation element of the Environmental Impact Report. These improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for any new residential units developed on the site. 4 ;,-~' cry D. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that all required approvals from the State Highway Department for changes to access off the South Frontage Road have been obtained. E. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any improvement in SDD 14, the owner or owners of SDD 14 shall grant an easement to the Town of Vail for the use of the public,for access across SDD 14 to the Vail Valley Medical Center located on lots E and F, Vail Village Second Filing, County of Eagle and State of Colorado. F. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any improvement in SDD 14, the owner or owners thereof shall pay into the Town of Vail parking fund the sum of $235,000.00. The amount of $235,000.00 shall be firm for six months. After a six month period, the Town shall have the right to increase said sum to reflect the increased costs of building parking spaces within the Town. The owner or owners of SDD 14 shall have the option of paying the parking fee in its entirety at or before the issuance of any building permit, or in the alternative may pay the fee in five equal installments of 20°~ of the entire fee. Should the owner or owners choose to pay the parking fee in installments, they shall pay the first installment to the Town of Vail at or before the issuance of the building permit and at said time shall issue a promissory note to the Town requiring the issuer to pay the rest of the parking fee in four equal annual installments of principal and interest payable on the anniversary date of the first payment and each year thereafter at a yearly i-nterest rate of 10% until paid in full. The promissory note shall be secured by a deed of trust on the property included within SDD 14 and the form of both the promissory note and the deed of trust shall be as determined by the Town Attorney. 5 ~: V . l w Section 10. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 11. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 12. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. f~ INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS 18th DAY OF March 1986, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 18th day of March 1986 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building in Vail, Colorado. ---`i1 ., 1986 . Ordered published in full this 18th day of arc ~ ,_ ~ G~ / Mayor Paul R. Joh+~~ston, r~ T ~ Q~~ Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED in full this 1st day of A ril 1986. `, ... Kent R. Rose, Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST ~ . ~ ~'(,q„~ Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk i;~ 6 r ~i ,! >n%y ri "t'~ R i r'a ? ~~ r ~ ,-..Y~ MTF. r~r ~ 4.,1~..%.r ..aYk: ~ .' iJ .} a~ °~, .c .,~, s~ .rt: '~ r5 r•si a ti .K °~ )x ~ a s. }+a ~ ~t s ^~+'r•t .. ° 3 °~ dc, }°q ~v r1~ ( 1 1 ~~ L * _ ~ ~ ~ .•- a ~ n~ Y r t ~ M r1(r trlr i ~ ~++ i M ~ - ' f d 1 :.,y } '41 , ~•,)er }-, ~ 4`q~:a.Ao~i+" :: , 1,^,•} " ~ ~~~ +i-a.r`' ,~~ ,s ~ ~'S~'J~y'50., `/ ~ °° `~ ti s-n..~~~ ...tilt > ~!y ,mss'.' .~ '1Kr rye 5 ~e ~ p~"t'.}~,~trW,i" wk'salYt".~._ '~~a .n~(C,Y ~•/~.J`1 .~~' ~'.~~~ ~ ~,~ 7h ~p wit ~..r Y. ~v++m y it i t'~'h.7. ~~. try -r'~'~'.. Rr.•~t a #flst`~nY ~•~ '~tp~i p'Arti.A ~.c, g ~ : r~ t + t . '~- Frt SUC' a j.a.':.,+ i + 1 5 ! ~a~ rbg ~' .. x '1!Mr~ ~ ro" srv'Y er ),~+.x }.::'. ~"l.~r .y 'n. }, GS'W „y.. _. ~~~~"s ,-NS+',~"~as ~'~ k.s ^ ~, ~r'~'~. ~ vpi~ixt, ;~t~ibr~~~y .:,~~~~ r.cr.~' ` !,~#gc3~ ,~{~'~1.~-``~"~)/~~.., `~"~p7' A ~"~~ ~ }{• a y_!t )it yL - -. ,r„NM••5ir• ti ;`~ rt 1 h~ •aYr ,}' ~ • w/r W {/{ /~ .~W a 5 - ~ c 7?:~t t~ ~3 #JZ ~a q, c~+~~ - `u`' x -7~ r.. - + `' ~ ~ Yom". kr~~•rt-' ~^+F:a DY" W pti Ap 1 `.l4 ,,t1>4 -' Y, / .r~•~ ~ 1~~ µ-~` ~ rt^+ r~ , , ~'i h .~"•C ~5*. - 1e., t ~''. sr `tjy5~~r~e~ srr yR~•fianrF,. , ~t e~~41aP~•v~ 4t~t,~, .~ 'ir ~ }`,yt~ i b..r ~77~+'~iTr S ~ ~~.~V ® 4 •a, lid! ~ ~ .~ y r , )'' ,4~ * u ': ~.i J ' ~v5 r' ``~.t' r~,x r x x} ~ ! ,f~ Z~ S ~ - ~ 3{y~l 15' r ~ s ~' r~ S da ` ', tt~i. t~Wyt ;~ ~~ t r ~ fa k r.. `uf { °T p er'~irual.. , ~.. ~." "+ a 1`~. +s: lr. ...$31.tT ~r - ~ c t i„R„": :d.at.l > i - - . c"'.•Tw r ~ t i ,+ f~b , '~.1f kt J~yp ~~ 5vf Shad ~i kC ;. 5 1 Z,.r ~} ~ • r y ~!i'..~54oT Si~/ 7C"i i rJ i 9 -'G .l iRi~t„ ,.,~,y. 4 < `~J 999999 V 6 i7r+v Ii:~! 1 ... fir.` 7,~}~j~~~~~{~/r~ tS r..~>+ .'Sy e~ ',= a t y ~ ,+.. a..',~' t 4 _ e ~ i t sa-`t r .+. "'f~ __ ~ ~~, ~} X71 `, 4 ~ Y'\ iJ 6 r Y!r?f t .7`Y5t r ~^ ) "41y. © .t..r t~.yu ~+~ { ..t 'IS" s3 S r Ti 14 ><•9tmw5'~'-.y 4r-r; a~"' 'w.i 4 ' .+~~ ~ 31 k a r k ~ tk f "'+lt .#' r 3t.; - -sw.y"c ;•i'~. t~ W S J..' ~ ® `V bA~~® W~ ~ ~~LR~~~cf 'sF, . -T t:Fa'.• ,~ ~'.a~'i; °5'~ r ~ `~: `Y., ' n 'Ly s.,~F 'r ::='y .. , - .aF3 t r5t' •}+ ~'s'$ i ~• ~ _ ~4 - r i L- '' p ~~~ s5 ,£.-ia, `~-J .~. `r ~'""3ia~ r +- :v~~~^`T~^,~ T ;~,r`:.S fk t r ~~~~~~~~•~.: `.';;y~~l'Yi l ~ + ~ i ~ ~SC,~ L4 ter } r. '~• - ~'an} f ultra + s - 4 ~,.~ - t.r. - t; _.e.,. ~ y .g # r, + n h.... -. +Y'FS$_ ~" r >s ~ ey a t .a, .~~T ~ 5~ t ,) ~L51 + 2. _ ~5 Ar*ar'z.~:~ .,:.'• t. -. _ . .. 3r ~.e }} ,-}' .P~ t~ •e+ 1 J ."1,5 ~+~'ftar*. -~~ .+ vk ~•~.~ '~. ~M y. f -. ~/p~r - @~u~'rp~ '• .,a,-ia,.~c 1~ ~ 't $t ~Jai"~ !~"K11r .t :; V jrS ~'t _: '. q 5 t cI r aya r•~ +t ~ ~ 'r ''t r '~ 6 8 ~ J60 ', Jb ® V ® ~ ~. ..~ t y .. 3r vV1a~5g air r 1 .v ~ x u4?} t r `h iT r 5' ~J ••yya~~+.~t. ~..}`.+},. i , ! -Yi 1,~`~ ~.~r+~ .-mod f,:.TSx, ~S+rf r -. .•y .tS,e• j7 '..ra,~ s s hii"~}t' ~ s ~3Y7~ 5. ~~r23 j„pry~.iit~:rY%~1 ~ r dt zy a -{ ~ ~c's•2+.r•7 ~T 9r',`l.4 r 5r.w 3s. i- 1,r dun -".r ~ z 1-~~.t l'~'~.± ~ ~;S~~y 3vee~i.'J~w~~a u't,~~'^A"~ , r r± rr ~ "t ti R~ r ~' to ~• k ~ s •~, + r.. •i ~'r'tilarr r~Jvr { r c#.y r~ t K 'a4 at r - ~ t,...L ~t.~ ~+tf'~t +,~.,ad.~ at~,~ii~~`+sir.'- «:~~{ ~f~r „~.c`t~'kt L:. i/~I L C® ~ ~' Y'" ray . e -~ _ z {` kl . tr v. a - a '`~" ~r ~7a, ag, ~:.a ~ 5 ' ~y ia >< 7 j.* n r n ~ r "t r x s,. ~ e *F ~.•y~+<;'r'~ rr- I "~ ~ "U ~. ~~ 1«.y j C../°„2,F wit - i ii4'r,,y i.3~ rr ty ~""J ,! 4•,~ #« ,." -'~•~ ~5 3t.a r 5%Ca.~,~'-.-.. 3j( ti tw f: ~ ?Yf `a ILLl µ ., ,.n...., ; ~ ~ -t .t .S a~ ~ % z .,~,aar h ~~ wn ;,1-~r ~" " ~' ''ss ~•.~s " a' • c v •'f;, ~l '"~,• -~'n_.. r r ~..t;, "!"r ~`~`•["y~ ,,,~~.... .rl~, . b- r' t F r .,., r t `r'te. tiL ),ai •~ s.h F } ^ 5 r a t 9 ~- 7 rt ., p'l ~/3'Yyz sc Zr., '`L~i4.h. ~~Y.,y,~/~ F -w. *..c ~t ~ `~~d~,a~r~rr.~"~dtyr~.y~a ~-..~,' ~t .5~.~~.f~r'~ '~:iC~ -t f .~ }. ~ l Y. ' S C•, F T l~.{'s V L ,5• ! •r r a~ 5, ~ S~: ~ 4 ~X M,~>Yf Yy+.ML~~..M'~~~,4?~» ~ftiy~Jill~~Y~33f" ~i 5: 1 "ta. .~ _ .i.Yt J.C :. ~ J". 3S,aF,~yFy Vyly r}* r 5 'ise'v v 1.'t~'~tr t. ~~a^ry•,.t rw `M~~ ¢Y' ,~'~t~~r' e tiei'br' -. x - r} 5. J !Q .'S. .~.5 ^~'~. }y, .!~'••G.-'W ". ..i f !~~.N tt'r r t} 1S ,`.~ t7'= .yJ•D ~f yq t t^tA?gy ~r Y=a - ~ fi y f ~1.~, rti . r ~y.~ ;~ 3!' a~. ~`!p t ( ~t,~~,, '~F •Y ~Sr, t 5 (~ •sn~r 'rJu r t .?.., >' i ark,. r . 'f gJ,1"'rf 4~ ~~af, ~~«a"1`*~ ~ .SM r "G 1' ~ •c'yT~'p., ,!,}' r S ~ .e - i!~is.Y?~.'+~,'~.t~s' `J 'E`y'e. I.+.'s~ 7.`7 ~(.~«.t,.~`4~', _" ~ uiT 1~(.. thl ~, '.i } .!i t.t st -a ~ :.1 1 ( -. ~. ~ ' ?1'..a a fi'y ty l`irl'.~'i,3'.ir11'~~ 'l.` i. ~' ~t~' "~6'7~ ~ "'} ~ ~~~ a. l-;t: ~ ~.. ~,, T` 'r'+..r tc{~?~, 3 ,a ~ x••. v' '~' a s,;3,F•.~%•c !. - t t' -g.. .><.: 1 #~ f k r sr ~~ ~~ tPL ~d° r ..', 1 e~•° > -1i t? "'~' ., [ 1 > ~~ -f 'r~. - Sa +~ a`r,?,~ :aa ~.~ ae Chit f 1 i 7. ~ 5 6~ r. 'lyrr '' ~f.~"Gai F"a~ ,r ,F a +g • a n -~i1P r r4wir~~ s "' t s f.- t 'v .~.r~~.,,; f .~ ^ ~r#t krr,.` . ry f '~ `~ [[? ie iti~ J f.{ ~~'• : ~i ~b~, r ~,, 4,.w 'krAf/''rij ,~` 4t.i ~.r-1 S~'J;,~ 2 r r'ta 7~`i + r 3~ ~. YJ~ ~~ r }c~% r4+ri ft + it'T, r•Z +! jti' r ' y~ST + ¢~.. fi~5 y. }, a } .c. r f c ,,.f" '~, rw ~aFY . , s.~ f'ii}` ,tA (F~ ~i ~ n ! .. a ~ ~ ~.. ;'S " 5 ~ .~ ti ~ji~ • r"d' 3 ~'41~ ' w. ' 'it''~ '~ ~ i4' ~ ~1 .t: v ~r a~~' "' ~a 2 ~' a1~` j ~'`~5~ j~'T ~~F~~:{ I~"-~~C .~~*~,~.~"; >h,.+(+`f`jY~ ``~;a.~',sY~~r'S~+,~r, ~ 4, yl`>; ' ` ,:,~,, y:~} ~r... F ~hr i r ~~' 4.. ~ ,r/S Via, t h tiY '( ~. .$. c ' .r • 7 . , • •~a,T• rr,. y ~~ ~*,~ J a r ~ 4't(T lY ~~..\y , 1'}~!~ .t(. 1 A`~ ~ }' 1~L~ S~t.t A.,7 t ~4A ~t } ~ ~, ;M'ra+ j r'C~ ~~• ;V if5~ (. ~,f~rr ~{,•••,lily I '~""t - p9Fi~ .~+fsea~iC}~ ~ J.rr,1.'aua. ~.}~~ ~~-•; t, b ~ t ~ ~{{ ~ ~~. ~j~ y-~-}vapr ~ ~ - } h ~ }~'aa,.,~4~~,rr zr L~`r~t"+~~':s~7~(~i s:-~~"~'" t t° ~n ~• •~ ~5. r ,y;,~ 6 ', .7 d :.b U. 54 ~ 4"4R)i 7 A.E ~K: Yr SA~'v ,w;~ [.I'~/ ~~ 5~ a ~ 4 ~ ~•i!f" . ,f . t...: } In... i~ ! „s s5r ~L .. si ; ~ t'a • ~. &'t.~", - ~ v.a. `.J" i!'. ~!t c 4 a~f! - -~'t -.sr..'d.... ~5.a: ~ . ` ft -r ..d fT r, `. ^t: ~ } t tlG t~ti. a"F ~ ~ d ,ice. ~ r - .t n, y~~. M ~:... o.r }~ r -r,;_ < ~Sr ~` ~ S4 C ~~5_i~ Y~Cv'iK~`~~ r'~'~ ,~,.•.r• ?E':'r -5K t t1 ~1 ~ Irh ~~,•.. ~'r~.r ~i L '~ +Y .--ti ~ Y y~y~~ ~~~~~, ~r.~ >~"} x,irF'~J11'~~-7t~'krrtw ir}"`31 ~ .>h+r~Y~• to~'ayl~a~ y:,•s' ~sr~rs%..7a-f~~~~K'^,'ri •~.; e"~a~~:~ ,~ b~:~~ '~rc*r.Pm - -.v `4 5 5t -l;.~r d ~e ~ x $ 1 -t * i.t r{> '((xxt 4 ~ 7 ";;t crX 3~~..' ~ R sa ~ 1~ s%~1cei r .' t y .,»,.r a" ~ ) ~~ 5 +i.~~J k •Y. '^'4sY. .~ r~~' a4 :L h'!+Ly.r { W Y~ ~ ~ riryY~~~ c' '~''Y f'l~~ rf s"._ t t " .~'Z'f i r w-. .:- v •r ..?' - ..r' t 7~ig n'. n.,y,a.`. r: f,~- ? y~ r w. o ~ ^~r# +q~ ~1~4 . ,CIA l~ ~• ~~ ~7 1 Y r ~:., y a ra•,~•'~. aY •. Z: ~ - r^ 5 •-g r4 .r r" ti= .cast'"` 7 ~,~~g+`t 1 ~IJ`d4T ~'.. _a: ~K~S'~`'•rF~~'M1 2 e-~:i(.ap'~f ~r..~_ t /f s L•a,y~ew.. - - ~ q. + !ror :r -.Y ~ t'~,us A' ~ da. s7` 3+a•t ~ ~ 4 r aa..:l~.r.. " 7'. ~r ~l ~'" Y "" ~ ~y 5. ~ .?`"~c.i+.. ~.h~2-t~^a~'~,~x/'." .''.~ca~~.,~ "x^.- ,,' ~ ~~# i `~. ~,, ~l ~ `t, -.;.~ccmw~tt /. 1.. ~_ a7 ~..,.: L:: i'- ak'-`.`fi x`15 ~1e''i~:~?~C-..•~t°~-'rjtw»_> 1M, .,+,.,..a- r. ~~S,s_.:SXt. tt+`~._ $(:-~YS.'~?~:~•r•~. '*tl~f ~31'Mr_"~t.'~_+W.~ a a ~~ 4l y . _ a ~' «r""r - ~e =; , _ir~5-:.. x_, ,;~ t -rvvrr3 ^ + . k'? fir.- y,t y ~ erK t ~ ~ ~.~'~ .~ t :l a ~~ F'~• ~~ r {; ~.y~~.jd:~'~_,_,~n ~',~''r~3~,~,Y,~'.~ ~ ® I ~ 9 ® ~ ~ 0 V ~9 ®~ ~ I ~ ~~~~ ~lr~ `"^ ®^ • ^ Sc• a~i-V~4 r79~Ts~r,~'•.,K,.~ .. ~~~_'~_r'+4•r`~'~^s~~7t:k, 4 1 Y s .,.rl~{ ei r .t~: L>r f~f: ~ fEi `t t:~ r ~ j-+~'~~ ` +r.}~~,vy-: .Y.S}'; '' .. ~ ~ro Uir ; .. 'p ~c''~'i5^~..y~R. - .k1"-~ ~ ~-yq~"-.rte,. ' 5b°'S~ - tr.~'M~=~`}X ,,{.l,a t ~ ~`"~-.. t S. ,ss ~ -n .v Ai a` .^Y' v;v,w ~ "~t- e ~ :,~-".~'t.'.~ ..3Yi '';~~ r ~'t~ "r~_Dryt~T ~t•.i'S 'ie".~ ' ~ ~ ~1f.E 'x,~iUt IA.L ~.t;y'~ t ~ -.-4~ -- ',•nn.1 „r~e,,l; y~ ~ ~t', - .~ rr -.»qf ,~a'_e.+w fvi'.a 1 `J'<r.F'~i -j'r, ~ 'y.~* A ' i r7cr ,, .ra ~ 4 '~ Y. ,ptiti,'cin t .k-~ti?',y1 y'r ~. 3 k ` ~~r '~7 g ti~~"~ ti:,sr ~. ~ .'~ ~~~f~t ~~ Y ~,~~~~~~~€/' ~, '4t',d~a, z~a~~ c~~r~ ''Z - `~~ 1R°~~ .. r d; ~`~- Y"' -a. a~. •t 1 '~ ~ 5 ~'a r~ r > r { ~^~~^3 rbtrtlv„~ ~t w S c L :: Ji' a -s. oy ~ ,. ~`r~-t i ~ .,r v r a~rri'~.a'?t.;( trsf*~' ri- ~t~'9-~"~ p t ~ r k'a"""'pr a r~ ? !;~~ ?rri~' { aq ~: r s. r < {, t'4 '~~~ - ~ ~~, ~~f i ~ "~Q" `bi .p r ~ K r 47~ca~T4+f# w,.ra; a r M ~~,F 9S, ~'}s'y5 {., ~~ $,I,iYY + r v ~~a~rt} F'si-0~ ~ ~c~.~ ~ ~. ,3 `+~}~.+-h k. 4 a...,y ~' ~ c~ t ro ~~~~`~~-.r { ~~y~+?l 3y7~~~r ~ iT°S'7i~S r MHiR`~~~: r5 t dr' 3LYr~rr•+i.,,.Yr ~ a,.,,gi3,t`- !p~~~. ~( ~.: ~.1. .~~' .,..f : e4f Yr G"r1h l 1 ''( I t ~ ) H k~~A ''+a '-i~j !'F'+~`2Y ^'~+~~~+ N :, t _ a _ ,. .tts t Y 'i:.. ,+r N1.'Zs } J. t -r. > i4"'re ~. ~~a +'?SY~h:ire '!'r,. ~• ~°. r_~1 'r;~Fh ~5. i"•r:~+ , vt r t s ~` ~'"^ ~gy5s;i '~ fr4t ~riF.a~ a . t' 1 i : n; - l rrt. .: i. s ~ r' ~:io~+". si: .? .~ c r Y ~f- z S1 std ,' . _. Tx }be u`t';, ,~ ail ,•'!`.r ~"y~T,,it ,~~~'p~gp,',•..,r,,ty~~ni7' ts~`•~ )~ r..._ ~'~'>•.w~ r._.hc Prr ~A.:~~~i5• i,.7~~ a,;. ,-16a~5d. ~tawr,y./'i~ x - ,r,~,~.~ asti~,P. .+ ,~. ~+. ,~ .air r~ ` y ~ r E A~~`~'~ ~ Ij +er" `,`'F ' ~ +gf' r •.r ~ s ~ r a ^e r ~ t yi''SSrisk}'t5t~Y ~e~bp4T`~d{~•--.• j ~~ ~. L :,i} .r r; t4 i y ~~ ~'rT3`Y7N~'•r~*h,71 '~`~ '.rJ~.Os~ A rt-'~'+~ 'S " ~ a tf•a y. a d . ~ems'3 ~* S -y J, `07' X'-11 'ri L c - 0.1 :•a~'`v ~.we~ 5J*~~eia# ar:rb~f..9~ry ~xt 4~~~~i r,.s'~3a i c~{'Y~Y1`. y,~~i~ ~.~ _i; ~'fy~ '- e> r- wS ~'K 't+. r'!.;53:' ~Mlf~- .~:.... ~y~ ~ :1pe'te'a t~ d'b t,, vi~1~, ? "~ ~ t""~r is ~ 1j•.~3 j)cF ~ ~ . ~a f y, ~- --•. a '~ p~,~ .. ..f s ?. 5 r .>•• 'f its R r~ 'T ~, . a..a. ~ ~ j ~ a ~~ 'L ~A~.~NC'4~.?~if'. r~ .,t(~'~ji."l~?'F ~ r {re a-hY . a ~.7i:. h a r[ f-d. ? r '3' a 1\3'r rb r J'•rr '4T k'T sx~rs.:r4 ~Yr3 ". ~ ~ ~ J5~-~ } ~`.3•.'1:F -2. r a >" titer n}r.. 'cry s}S t ! r1~ - i.r.-'1 lL a to ..'-h> > ~L^Y A a :., r +.~. :r. ~ x. rry.;S ~.-J~rl- t ~ k, h,i ti .t w`~Yti'~k.Jd.. " rk + `fyS 65,r G t ~{ • S ' yr -4... .. :. .. .. :. r'°'= n '. ikrf+~L r Q p~µ~ Q A ~e } Q /y /'0 bFF.:er,~ ~ °-gi n- 1 f.* .yid ..r l-y+r ~a ~'rSS ~}'~ ni dt. - ~ ~-4 ~.~~.;<rqr .45 _. a;; a-s :I ~GO A i~9G 9'"1550Vi~1G5 IOAVo ~ r ~I.'r_ .rt ++n !~ >. ~r~~~ V ..r.'+}r5 6 fi .. S ;..sa-p f' rS, .'? t . W',{o-y ~ ( JY z. ,}(3 ~ .. .. 9 ~ y/t4 m?Ii~S"''~Lt,~` r a` t~.w~-•r - k'~~"q Q },,•T~? jRit~~'~r. ~t , - ~'~ `~f' '~ `#` ` ~ Planning e Landscape Architecture ,r ~Y ~~ r~,~ ~SF~tS r ,>• h ~, ~tti~t , ,~ ~~ .~ J a .~ 4 Y ~ .. .. ^ -n eY'4N,} ~ * "- ';teye"25 5+:. :i t..n, :!. Y,.+" ar,~5,r~' 4 Ni..G s'~'f ~K~s Y t 3 i °> Rs ~ar.,'+J~~.'' ~g,~ :.. atyr- y ..F,~ _ ....- x rxr~ ~ . t ~..r' ,j -s~^i .a +2+.,~'-fr~~yC.'ryr'~C r ' i~ xll +~ rgl~~ i t 4~ {~, ~GiJ•:t. `" ~ ~ ~'if'.s +~ ;~p~a ~ iafi~ i t~r ~p.~' Ji~•:'arc y t-.e~4•Y:_Y Y.+~~} ~~~ ' n ,~$.w ~ a'+. ~~~r ~~+e~ ~ ~^~•~es +1• ~t.vi ' .+.e '%c t'~ r,~~.~y~ • i~~a i`' r ~ r~-.. F.~e 1 ~- w9 :i 4- t s ..- >a'+ r:€- -~X' "~fi..,nt "~'4 tom.. M r~dr .r{+r dk ~, ~"t }' ~j ~F r r.'1~3- ~..., r ~ 1~ f ~'~,.rn'.ar{r t ~ r iR .~„ r, '. .,a. ~ r+(A~rrT' .4'* tr tad e3 9tP$'f ~•+. 3F91'tyrJ'~ht'.A'.e~a{i:,f e1.~~ . t-'•1~+, vsy+~h~•3'.•+ 3~,."~4, -Zf,~~,rs, a`}~r~,-,~~;3"'F~{ f .r°"^ 'a-rs'.a•-ri1~ "_-,,,°~ t~ ~ d '' ~ µ~t U~r. i r ~ `~}..~;•,.~~~- ro a .~. '+~~' ~"~ t d,: - P'dr ~kr ~' ~~f~ ~Lx.T~"5 .QS. r t .r,!.1,:7` ~.~.~ ~. ~ y.$afT'S~f•~•~{~'1'r'~(~~rl. ~Tr ~ ~ »T~~~~`~ °J: p~J~A ~i+~y~.~~Y^u-ice ~Ntiq~•s ~P~~ r¢'A~~~.Q~.,~F~ .'pi . ~: ;~ ~~ ~~ ~ 245 Vallejo St. < San Francisco, California 94111. (415) 433-24357 ~~~{ .~J,r .^a;~~ ..~'" Y Ci1'Yb°fP ~lr r.>S.r•+- : ~U• ~ V is .rF °~`"`~'~''~ t' ~1000`So ~ronta a Rd West, Suite 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 ~ (303).476-0851 ~~~ ~ `~`~ - r.~- y.,r,. `,-i, £•.yr iri?ir~Yl{,r•4 :.t N. .. .i f -. = L.sfXle'+:r...'i+~rSi:'G"~C4Z:~ 7~" - r:ut"'.. :4•~~'. s'~!^sa..~i+re +~S~a ~" °r,r.~,` ~~ r. S r ta. ' ~~ '>5 •*a • t{.>f t, raw ~rtl 'JL1 ~ du`e'tlF;~.r 1 q s~ ~r aSg ~, ~31 ~ '~ ~wF~~~ya~"iMY ~ ~~Y~.~y~l~~~~+~' Y y` '~~rcS' ~ yl c -~?A' ~~ ~~G~:7~'r~k+ `~tk"~ a lw T rya 4 l - ~~ a+K~ Y/TIK ~:' 53~ .4 ~ ~~ ,~ -~} -: - - .. ~ r~ ~~ ~ r:F ~T'~r ah+ .,5v .A,. ~.Y ti^A3}>-i~y.Te.>' ~`~~. .. 1 "?3'a, .C+~4' _`S'~ /. , . ~,y.~ti~". ~ ~ F!•1y3. s:rY7„.., _ 5. rr ~.. F, ~.~ ..,r n err"' jK3ii'~7±~irx-G+ 5~'+~ ~ - ,,prs; Mr~,.- ' - `.- 2-..- _ '~~ ..+r c.~... . t~rntl its- iF-~rrtp2~ri..ilb! 3,0-:r ~~+•!~~~t - e.•, s. ~. s 9 I I INDEX SUMMARY INTRODUCTION SECTION 1 -THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SECTION 2 -IMPACTS/MITIGATION A. Transportation B. Visual and Spatial Analysis C. Noise and Odor D. Pedestrian Circulation E, Water and Sewer F. Service and Delivery G. Surface Runoff H. Hydrology I. Economic Impact J. Design Standards K. Relationship to Vail's Community Action Plan SECTION 3 - APPENDICIES A. Letter of Service Availability B. Architectural Plans C. Transportation Impact Study 1 2 4 11 17 17 19 19 19 20 20 21 23 SUMMARY Vail Holdings proposes to develop an additional 9Z lodge rooms, 5 condominiums, and approximately 3,350 sq. ft. of meeting/conference space as Phase II of the Doubletree Hotel at Vail, located on Lot Z, Block 19 Vail LionsHead Second Filing. The land is proposed to be rezoned from High Density Multiple Family to Special Development District. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS o The site is capable of handling additional density. The majority of site development standards contained in the HDMF underl in zone° site y g n coverage, landscaping, and height are complied with under this proposal. The intended massing of the expansion helps reduce the overall scale and appearance of the existing building. . Y~ o The number of parking spaces required by the strict interpretation of the Vail ~~'~°'~ l~ cv.~ 1~ . Zoning Code are not provided. Studies and analysis by the hotel operator indicate9 however9 that adequate parking to serve the functional needs and o erations of the ~ ~~ p ~ ~! ~ hotel is being provided. o The upgrade and renovation of the hotel and site9 with the addition of lodge rooms and meeting space, helps to implement various Town of Vail goals and policies as identified in the Vail Community Action Plan and the Report of the Economic Development Commission. a Distant views from Vail International wall be affectedp and the close-in view will be enhanced. a Right turn and left turn deceleration lanes will be required to be constructed in order to comply with the Colorado Department of Highways Access Code requirements. o The economic impacts of the proposed expansion will be positive for the .Vail economy. -1- r INTRODUCTION I The purpose of this report is to present information regarding a development proposal for Lot 2, Block 1, Vail LionsHead Second Filing (see Figure 1). This lot is currently zoned High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) Zone District and is proposed to be rezoned to Special Development District. The report is divided into the following sections: • Part One -The Plan -Describes the development proposal and the existing condition of the site. • Part Two -Impacts/Mitigation -Contains estimates and evaluation of impacts which will result from the proposal as presented and summarizes specific actions that can and should be taken to minimize any adverse effects resulting from the proposed development. ~ • Part Three -Appendices -:Provides supplementary information. L -2- .\ ~ ..,~~ _ FIGURE 1 . ~ \ ~ ~. o ~, ~ -~ .~ ~ 6/ .o .n • a - ~ % Post i g 5 ~ l~ _ r~~ -~ a ~.. ~ ~~ ~ \ ~, o S~ (~...., bJ .~ ANTHONY PELLECCHIA ARCHITECTS E~iJBLETREE ~-IOrTEL VA'l. CO 27Dcx~~1985 VAII HOLDINGS SECTION 1 -THE DEVELOPA9ENT PLA1V Vail Holdings proposes to add 92 guest rooms and 5 condominiums to the existing Doubletree Hotel located on Lot 2, Block 1, Vail LionsHead Second Filing, Vail, Colorado. The Doubletree Hotel opened Thanksgiving 1985 following a major renovation and upgrading of the former Crest Resort, originally constructed in 1973. Vail Holdings is the current owner and is responsible for the renovation. As depicted on the Site/Landscape Plan, the additional development would occur as two wings, one an extension of the existing guest tower to the east, and the other a new guest area to the north of the existing restaurant wing. The proposed main entrance would consolidate the two existing drives and relocate them to a postion basically on access with the Porte Cochere. Anew service and delivery access would be created at the west end of the site along the Frontage Road. Approximately 3,350 sq. ft. of new meeting/conference space would be added to the 4,040 sq. ft. which now exists. The expansion of the meeting. facilities will allow the Doubletree to increase its maximum meeting capability from 200 to 400 delegates. The International Association of Convention and Visitor's Bureau (IACVB), which compiles data on all meeting facilities, recognizes the importance of this new market segment. Groups of ten to 200 delegates currently represent 30% of all conference/convention business nationally. Groups of 200 to 400 represent an additional 30%. In other words, the Doubletree will now be able to market to 60% of the convention/conference business; a 50% increase for the Hotel and for Vail. Accompanying the expansion is the further upgrade of the existing facility. Internally the banquet prefunction space will be relocated and reoriented toward the stream and the banquet kitchen and support areas will be made more functional. Externally the vast surface parking areas of the original building will be replaced by underground parking garages and landscaped surface. -4- r L L L A summary of the existing and proposed development upon the site is as follows: TABLE 1 -ZONING ANALYSIS OF DOUBLETREE HOTEL Site area 2.6298 acres or 114,554 square feet ALLOWED DEV. EXISTING PROPOSED UNDER EXISTING DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT HDMF ZONING Units: 65 d.u.'s 83 d u 's 50 d u 's 25 units/ac GRFA: 68,732 sq ft Parking 261 spaces (19 condos 128 lodge rooms) 31.5 units/ac ?3,577 sq ft 52 enclosed 115 surface (5 condos 92 lodge rooms) 19 units/ac 42,576 sq ft 200 enclosed 11 surface Landscaped Area TOTAL DEVELOPMENT 133 d.u.'s 24 condos 220 lodge rooms) 116,153 sq ft 200 enclosed 11 surface ~~~~q ~~ I The HDMF Zone requires that 30% of the site be landscaped Dui to the fact that a significant amount of surface parking which currently exists on the site has been moved underground as a part of this development proposal, the applicant has been able to landscape 44.2% of the site. , Site Coverage The HDMF Zone allows that a maximum of 55% of the site can be covered by building. The proposed building footprint indicates that 40.5% of the site area is covered by building. Uses Permitted uses within the HDMF Zone District are lodges, multiple family residential dwellings and accessory eating, drinking, recreation, meeting or retail spaces. Existing -5- uses upon the site include lodge rooms, condominiums, accessory eating and drinking ,, a facilities, and meeting rooms. No additional commercial space is being proposed with this development plan. Approximately 3,350 square feet of new meeting room/conference space is proposed. ~~ Height The height of the existing structure upon the site is 72 feet at its highest point. The height of the proposed addition is 48 feet at its maximum height and majority of the addition is less than 48 feet in height. Setbacks The required setback along each property line is 20 feet. The proposed addition respects these setbacks with the following exceptions: a) The northeast corner of the loading area is 15 feet from the north property line. The area of the building involved is approximately 50 sq. ft. b) The northwest corner of the banquet storage area is 10 feet from the stream side property line. The area of the building involved is approximately 150 sq. f t. c) The northwest corner of the existing dining terrace is within 5 feet of the stream side property line. The terrace will be expanded northward. The area below both the new and the existing terraces will become prefuntion space for the meeting rooms. The area of the new building involved is approximately 440 sq. ft. .~ Below ground, portions of the parking garage are built to the property line. ~ rJ~~ '~' ~ ~ a 1 The parking proposed for the total Doubletree Hotel, Phases I and II, is a total of 211 t ( spaces with 200 enclosed within the building and 11 outside. L -6- r The parking requirement as set forth in the Town of Vail Zoning Code would be as follows: Accommodation .4/unit + .1/100 80 units @ 391x(.4+.391)= 63 Unit s.f. Gross Residential 12 units @ 608x(.4+.7) = 12 Floor Area (maximum 1 per unit) Dwelling Units 2/unit 5 units x 2 = 10 500 s.f. 2,000 s.f. Meeting Rooms 1.0/8 seats 3.348 s.f. 28x.50 (50% credit) 14 15 s.f./seat 23 occupancy Sub-total 99 Less 5% multiple use credit 5 Total Required Off Street Parking for proposed expansion 94 Existing Facility spaces 67 Total parking spaces required ~61~ U~~ Total Parking Spaces provided EL + 53 = 126 / (Existing Facility & Proposed Facility) EL + 63 = 74 EL + 73 = 11 ~~ $ ~ L L L The provision of 211 spaces is based upon Doubletree's~~„~,.,eaFpe~l' c~h ehe operation of various hotels, the observat' a parking characteristics of their guests in Vail and the chara ics of the Vail visitor in general. ~~, r ~~r1v Doubletree's analysis and experience indicates that 75% of hotel guests ins a~ it will arrive at the hotel by automobile. Of those guests, 75% will park at t oe~'h tT el with the remaining 25% returning rental cars to the rental agencydrop, f for the duration of their stay. This means that approximately 55% of hotel guest' swill retain cars during their stay, which is comparable to past studies conduceled y the Vail Village Inn, Hotel Sonnenalp, The Westin Hotel, and The Marr~ott's Mark Resort. Thus, the parking requirement for guest ,ad'`3"J rooms would be 124 spa es. An additional 30 spaces are required for meeting room space ~r•J. , (?300 sq. ft. divided by 15 sq. ft. per person X 1 space per every 8 people x 50%). A 5% .~^' ,~- credit is 'allowed for mulitple use of parking facilities; therefore, the provision for lodge rooms and meeting rooms totals 147 spaces. -?- I d i l L L Since the condominiums function similar to lodge rooms the majority of the time, and no permanent residents occupy them, Doubletree believes, based upon past experience, studies, and future projections that the provision of 1 parking space per unit will be adequate to serve the parking needs of those guests. This totals 24 spaces. Total requirement based upon actual use as seen by Doubletree, then, is 171 spaces for the lodge rooms and condominiums. 40 additional spaces are being provided to accommodate the need for employee parking and restaurant and bar patronage by other than hotel guests. Parking projections are based on 100% occupancy of the hotel. 95% of the parking will be covered so that there will not be any loss of spaces due to typical winter surface parking conditions. Complete architectural plans are provided in the Appendices of this report including floor plans, elevations, the Site/Landscape Plan, and typical guest room layouts. Full scale plans are on file with the Vail Community Development Department. -8- A. TRANSPORTATION a SECTION 2 - IAAPACTS/1VIITIGATION A traffic impact study was completed for the proposed expansion (see Appendix). This traffics u t dy evaluates current and future roadway conditions, assesses the traffic operational impacts of the proposed project and recommends the improvements required to maintain adequate traffic operational conditions. Site generated traffic projections were developed using modified trip generation rates according to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication "Trip Generation9 an Informational Report" To assess the operational impact of the proposed Hotel expansion on the area's road system9 site trafi'ic was then assigned to the area roadways using two different scenarios. The first scenario (immediate impact scenario) was based upon an analysis of traffic impact on the existing road system. The second scenario (long range impact scenario) was based u on lon ran a forecasts of r p g g t avel patterns utilizing a higher projection 'of skier days (17,000) and the recommended relocation by Centennial Engineering of the east bound interchange ramps to a location west of the Doubletree Hotel. Based on these two scenarios, there is no observable change in level of service at the Hotel entrance based on either existing conditions or future conditions whether or not the Hotel is expanded. -9- The Colorado Department of Highways design guidelines and the State Access Code were reviewed regarding necessary on site considerations and right turn considerations for the driveway access to the Hotel. Based upon this review and the comparison of the CDH standards to projected volumes, a right turn deceleration lane and a left turn deceleration lane are required. Right turn acceleration lanes are not required. Considering the recommended plan from the Centennial Report, the left turn deceleration lane .can best be accommodated through the extension of the .continuous two way left turn lanes recommended in that study. These will provide for deceleration space and for left turn storage. Based on the analysis conducted and the requirements of involved agencies, the following improvements .are recommended for the accommodation of State Access Code requirements. 1. Construct a deceleration lane for the main access driveway to the expanded Doubletree Hotel, and 2. Provide for the storage of left turns through the installation of continuous two way left turn lanes. Such lanes may require some construction. The addition of hotel rooms will create a certain amount of additional bus ridership from the site to both the Vail Village and Lionshead areas. Discussions with the Town of Vail Public Works Department and surveys conducted this winter by Doubletree indicate that approximately 25 35 percent of Hotel guests in this location would ride the bus. This would mean that on any given peak day, bus ridership could possibly increase by 49 to 68 trips per day (assuming 2.05 persons per room average occupancy). ~. Since these trips would occur at different times throughout the day, it is not anticipated that the increase will have an significant impact upon current bus ridership or capacity. -10- B. VISUAL AND SPATIAL ANALYSIS A series of massing diagrams were prepared utilizing photographs from a number of locations around the site (see figures 2 through 4 ). The overall massing of the proposed addition helps reduce the scale of the existing "tower" portion of the Hotel. The "tower" is 72 feet in height while the proposed additions do not exceed 48 feet. This massing, in combination with a heavily landscaped setting for the building, will create a visually pleasing building appearance. The fact that this building is located near the entrance to Vail and highly visible from the Interstate makes the upgrade of the property a benefit to the entire community. A major improvement in the appearance of the site will result from the elimination of a large amount of existing surface parking. Currently, 115 surface parking spaces exist. With the expansion, this number will be reduced to 11 surface spaces which will allow the majority of the site to be landscaped. The surface spaces that will remain will be screened with landscaping and berming unlike the current surface parking. The proposed addition will, to a certain extent, block some distant views to the east from the property located immediately to the west (Vail International). While the distant views may be negatively affected, the new addition should enhance the close-in views of the site through the elimination of surface parking and trash dumpsters and the enhancement of the stream edge with additional landscaped area. The new addition will be a much better neighbor with regard to the improved condition along Middle n Creek. A sun/shade analysis utilizing various sun angles on a typical December 21st were prepared in order to determine whether shadows cast from the proposed building would create any negative impacts to adjacent properties. These analyses are depicted in Figures 5 and 6. As one can see, the shadows cast from the proposed addition impact the Frontage Road slightly on the east end of the building late in the day for a very short time period. -11- ,~ ~~~.~ ~. ___-~ ~~ ~ _._.gI~URE 2 -~~ ~p~~~ ANTHONY PELLECCHIA ARCHITE,~TS !/I EiN FROM F®UR- VVAV STOP ®®U~LE~ E E ~®TE L VAI L, CU. VAIL HGLDINGS • a !/BE!!i/ FR®f~ B..I®NSB~EA® PARKING ENTRANCE ANTHONY PELLECCHIA ARCHITECTS ~®U~.E~~EE ~--I®TE~ VAI~,CO. VAI L HOLDINGS ~-,- ~..~, r.°°°a I°"°"a i ~ ~ ~ ~°- ~~~ ~ ~rivnbL6il i11+i1ui~o+~; ~,,,..~ ,.,.~ 1 - . :GURE 4 VIEW FR®M LIC)NSHEA® PARKING ®ECK ANTHONY PEL1 ECCHIA ARCHITECTS ®®IJ~LETRE E I-I®TE L VAI L, CO. VAIL HOLDINGS ~, / / / ~ ~~ ~`_. ~~i ~f. ,~ ~ ., • q ~. ~- ~J.. ~~ ~~ ~~`=~ ~~~ ~a a~ :.~_-- -_.. ... . ~_ ~ ~~~r .~..~ ., o , ~. Sl~ADOV1/ STUDY ANTHONY PELLECCHIA ARCHITECTS - .~ E~JBLEI'REE ~-IOTEL VA'l, CO ~~ ~~ ~~ L.~ ~~~ ---- ~~:-1-; 3 p.m. 21, Dec. ~ 27Ck~c~,1985 VAIL HULDINGti 1 1 I 1 ~ ~ ~ rw.r~ad ~.~e~e"tll o~s.d au~.au, ~ tl i~Ywu~' We~esw~il~ !'~o-.d:~ .. I ..,. 0 ._ .. ~ .. ... ~w --_ __ ,,.d ' \ ~"" ~ ..~~ ~ FIGURE 6 `~-~' '' . ~ ,~ , VG/ ~ ~/ ,~~ - ~ ~ helipaJ ~ ~ ~ "d ~ ~ ;~ E, y ~ •~ , _~ e • ~ {...~~ C.s-_ . ' ~ -t' !,U ~ `,' • r: ~~. ~: _ ~ _ ~ ~ ~~ _ a e _ / ,~~1. \• ~~.".. ' C _ / •'. S .s'.1: Vv 1 Y ~• ~ ~~ ~ / ~ . ~._w -~K~- ~,-~..r,.j~. n a SHADOW ST~JDY ANTHONY PELLECCHIA AI:CHITECTS DOZJBLETREE HOTEL VA'l. CO ® 9 27Da•,19ti5 VAIL HULDING5 C. NOISE AND ODOR Noise and odor impacts associated with the proposed expansion will be minimal. Figure 7 indicates existing and future exhaust and vent locations. All kitchen exhausts are existing and have been designed to meet the Colorado Department of Health Standards for odor emissions. The future garage vents are not adjacent to any residential uses. The garage will be mechanical) exhausted. Du - y e to its long term storage nature, the fans will run intermittantly, only as required to maintain air quality within the garage -4 The reduction of the large number of surface parking spaces on the site should have a positive impact by reducing the number of cars starting and idling on the surface. In addition, entry and drop off oints have been confined o P t the porte-cochere. The dumpsters which currently are located within the parking lots outside the building will be consolidated into one trash compacro:~ located within the building. Phis should • reduce the negative impact of the current trash removal system. D. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION ~' ~ Pedestrian circulation to and from the site will Continue to be oriented to the south • side of the building in order to. strengthen the link .between the site and both the Vail Village and Vail Laonshead areas. As can be seen on the Site/Landsca a Plan a walkw P 9 ay connection to the Dobson Arena/Library area exists and was provided during the first phase of the Hotel renovation this past summer. This pedestrian link to West Meadow Drive will continue to be the main entry and exit for those walking to either Vail Village or LionsHead. -17- r ~~.n ,~] `\ I~ti">~/ f~ _ FIGURE 7 . ~ ~ `~.s' e LOAD ! . ~ ~~? ''` `` "-~. n '14 1~t'_ ANTHONY PELLECCHIA AI:CHITECTS ~1BLETREE I-iOTE L VA'L, CO ® 4~ 27Da',19fS.i VAIL HOLDINGS Q, , Also depicted on the Site/Landscape Plan is a new pedestrian walkway connecting the Municipal Building and Post Office area to the Dobson Arena/Libr area. This az`Y pedestrian way will be utilized primarily for pedestrians traveling through the site to and from the LionsHead area as well as hotel guests. T. i' n E. WATER AND SEWER There will be no adverse impacts upon the existing water and sewer system or supply as a result of the proposed Hotel expansion. A letter from the Upper Eagle Valley 9 Water and Sanitation District is contained in the Appendix of this report. F. SERVICE AND DELIVERY Service and delivery to the hotel will be accommodated by a new service entry and loading dock located at the northwest corner of the building. This service and delivery area will have its own access directly off of the Frontage Road and is designed such that it will not conflict with the main traffic entrance to and from the site. The loading dock area will accommodate as many as three deliveries at one time and will accommodate the functional needs of the hotel. Trash removal from the site will also occur from the loading dock area with the new trash compactor being located inside the building at this location. ~- G. SURFACE RUNOFF Surface runoff from the proposed project is projected to be less in the proposed plan than on the existing site due to the fact that the impervious material coverage will be decreased. The surface runoff will continue to utilize an underground drainage system currently in place on the site. -19- H. HYDROLOGY ~~ Adjacent to the proposed Hotel expansion on the west is the Middle Creek drainage. Analysis of 100-year flood plain information published by both Hydro-Triad and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) indicates that all proposed construction and grading activity will be outside the designated 100-year flood lain as identified. P Should any modification of the building or landscape plans occur in this area prior to construction, the appropriate approvals will be obtained by the applicant prior to the issuance of a building permit, but none is anticipated. I. ECONOMIC IMPACT The addition of lodge rooms and meeting space will have a positive impact upon the Vail economy. ' The addition of approximately 3;350 square feet of meeting space will significantly enhance the ability to attract groups in the 200-400 delegate size. This range accounts for a significant percentage of the group meeting and conference market. Many of these groups are currently turned away from Vail due to the lack of adequate facili±ies and are holding their conference/meeting business in other resorts. The additional conference attendees and tourists staying in the new accomodation units will enerate an additional $210,000 er ear in uest room sales tax n su ' g P y g a d as ming that each hotel guest spends in addition to lodging $70.00 per day* average in the business community, the expansion will generate approximately $2,800,000 in sales in the town and immediate region per year. In addition, 16-20 additional jobs will be created at the Hotel with a total payroll of approximately $200,000 paid in salaries to local Vail residents. * Source: Vail Resort Association -20- Other projected expenditures as a result of the expansion are as follows: Building Permits and Fees $100,000.00 Tap Fees $250 000.00 9 A~A Y a The April 15, 1985 Report of the Economic Development Commission, which has been adopted by the Vail Town Council, contained the following recommendation: d Meeting Space. Encourage the development of additional meeting space in condominiums and hotels. Additional quality meeting spaces will also increase utilization, increase visitor spending, create more jobs, and add to the Town's tax revenues. Be prepared to offer higher density, more units, as an inducement for including meeting space in new and remodeled projects. It is an economic reality that a quality project attracts the highest rental fees and usually the highest occupancy. The Vail Doubletree Hotel with the Phase II addition will . be designed and operated to appeal to upscale leisure guests and meeting and recreational groups. The overall marketing plan indicates that the main target will be groups of between 200-400 delegates and recreational visitors. _ J. DESIGN STANDARDS The Special Development District Section of the Vail Zoning Code contains a number of design standards which, if applicable, should be addressed as a part of any SDD proposal. The following summarizes the design considerations of the proposed expansion, where applicable, with respect to these design standards: Buffer Zone 0 The Zoning Code requires that a buffer zone shall be provided in any SDD that is adjacent to aloes-density residential use district. All sites adjacent to this site are relatively high density. Nevertheless, all perimeter areas of the project have included substantial landscaped and open space areas. The closest residential development, Vail International L -21- (30.4 dwelling units/acre), is buffered from the proposed development by the Middle Creek stream tract. Circulation System The circulation system has taken into consideration all factors identified by the Zoning Code. Vehicular access, circulation, and the pedestrian trail system have taken into account a safety, separation from living areas, convenience, access, noise, and exhaust control. Vehicular access has been designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. The trail system ~~ ~' has been laid out so that steps have been avoided in order to accommodate bicycle traffic. This addition allows the Vail bike path system to be extended to service the Post Office/Muncipal Building area. 3 Functional Open Space The aspect of functional open space is enhanced on the site with the proposed development. The Middle Creek area will be cleaned up and landscaped to provide for a more usable open space area while still preserving the natural features of the stream. The elimination of a large amount of surface parking enables the landscaping of areas which currently are asphalt and, therefore, additional landscaped open space upon the site is provided. Variety 3 ~' The expansion of the hotel enables the provision of additional meeting and conference facilities which are badly needed in Vail and contributes to the variety of lodging and meeting facilities which are available to those desiring to come to Vail for either their liesure or business activities. Privacy The site plan has taken into account the privacy of adjacent properties and has located the high activity areas -entry, parking, recreation areas -away from residences located in close proximity: Entertainment facilities within the hotel have been designed so that they do not conflict with guest rooms. Pedestrian Traffic The pedestrian circulation has been designed to provide safe, functional, pedestrian traffic both within and through the site. Anew trail is proposed for the south side of the property L to link the Municipal Building/Post Office area to the Dobson Arena/library area. -22- Building Type The pro osed a ansion of th P xp a hotel has been designed with an attempt to reduce the overall scale and massing of the existing building. This has been accomplished by "stepping down" the building at both ends and by increasing the amount of landscape surface area on the site. The combination of these design considerations should improve the relationship of the hotel to its surroundings. Since the site is close to the entrance of Vail, it is ~ important that the visual appearance of this site is a positive one. Landscaping The landscaping of the site is increased significantly as a part of the expansion proposal. The effect on the neighborhood and, to a certain extent, the entire community, will be ~. a positive one. The landscaped area of the site will be greater than any development in the vicinity and will have a very positive impact. Landscape materials selected for the landscape plan have been chosen for their proven ability to survive and thrive in the high altitude mountain environment. K. RELATIONSHIP TO VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN On February ?, 1984, the Vail Town Council ap roved the Vail Co P mmunity Action Plant Focus 1985. The plan addressed a number of different products and services, facilities, resources, and programs within the Vail community and identified overall community goals for the next several years. Those goals which are directly related to the type of expansion proposed by the Doubletree Hotel are as followst 1) New growth and revitalization are essential to the continued success of Vai 1. 2) .The summer season should be significantly developed and promoted. 3 The sh oulder seasons also should be significantly developed and promoted. 4) Vail should improve as an educational and intellectual cultural center. The expansion of the Doubletree facility and the correspondin rovision of n g P ew meeting room and conference space should have a positive impact upon all of these stated goals. -23- a SECTIOPI 3 APPENDICIES Ao LETTER OF SERVICE AVAILABILITY v UPPER EAGLE VALLEY ® WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICTS 8a6 FOREST ROnD • vniL COLORn00 41657 (303)a76~7a80 January 24, 1986 Mr. Jay Peterson P.O. Box 3149 VAil, CO 81658 RE: Ability to Serve - Double Tree Hotel Dear Jay: The Vail Valley Consolidated Plater District and the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District can provide water and sewer service to the above referenced project. Presently the Double Tree Hotel has 128 rooms and 19 condominiums. The figures will increase by 92 rooms and 5 condominiums. The District has excess capacity to process water at the present time to its constituents. Accordingly, upon compliance with the Rules and Regulations and the payment of the appropriate tap fees, the Districts will provide water service and sewer service. Con- struction of any main line extensions and any additional _ fire hydrants will be the responsibility of the developer. Sincerely, y~OW~ David L. Krenek, P.E.-~ Technical Director DLK:ls PAN TICI~ATING DISTRICTS - AFIHOWIIfCAU MFTNO WATER o AVON ME FNO WA FEH o HEAVER CF(FEK METHq WATER O F)CRMV CREEK METRO WAff.N CLEAN EA(i 1. t: VAI1. MI. I/t() WA~I.NOl.I1WAH117 MEINO W.Ii L.N OI.AKf. CH LI:K ML•.AUUWS WAII.It 011{K •1 ./t 1 A(.I.f. VALI I.V CONSOLIUATEU SAN11 ATli>N VAII VAl11.Y L11N11 II.IUAiI.I)WAFI:HO VAIL WAII.It ANI. 1ANIIA 111 )N Be ARCHITECTURAL PLANS r---..... r"~ f.'~' ('..'c'° ~ ~° .~`_'° ~ ,. ~`'as' p.,+is,o'r~ w.kk...~o I..~w+.,«i f~+~ te~n~ Lv°a~.`''1 ~~.t'',~ °' ~; - f ~- ~GAEN~ ¢~~cntie b.~.c~.us ',, ti~ f ~~ ~~ i (\ ~ ~ti /, r ~ . \ ~- ~ / `~ J ,~/C.-~ a.rM aAN r `. l~ ~~ c~ / / ~,~ ~v R ti....,......,. ~ 1 ~~i ANTHONY PELLECCHIA ARCHITECTS I~CYI'~L. ® ems- ~ 27Dec,1985 VAIL HOLDINGS dA'l, CO t ~1Tf M~-8' S ~ {' '`•••`^ " GoV~r~c~v D~.u9 6/~6 \ / . © B.GfnG ~wroRro0. ~ ~~ __" "(( n9f6rK IINN " On~A6~i L ~•~ ~y ~+ BKi9fir.b~ vL~Q1ET~a1~ .-_.__ cxr6nW coNrt+~VS, ; NKrn/E 5NRU94 ~--~~ !!eRxtA Gov}oL~! L: ^ ~ nNMinri//aRCNNutLly a ~.q.T NwMWi . _ /+C gROJNq:oNC~s vo ~..~wN ~aNr seas 0 -crt~P R°ei! n/f ~_ _ ~ MnNTbPN h°i l ..~pplMppNµyrulM,O'Yi'^-~~ ~~ .~.~~-...~.~~. ~,,. `' ._. ~.~„ ~.. „ ...~~. ~.. ~. ... 'Y11'll, ~.. ' ,~• 11 All" 1 ~ X ~;• ; .. ..,' / . r `• ~ ~ ~i ' ~ 1t' 11, ' 11!;, 1 .1:11.. ~ ,.:~.. I~ 1 I ~ 4' 1 ~ . III I -- - 1~I~ ~~ I 11 .:I, ~: 'lllf , ' . 1.r , I ..I ~ I I IIIIII~ IIII II I.I I~III III ~ 'll I II II I ~I ~ II' ~i 1. :I:,I ,.Ilil• V`~1,1i~: 1 'I~I ~I I ~II - - - • i fi ' 1 ~~ .iI ~: l :: ~ " I I I 1 ~ 1;:1 ~ II ~ 1~ I: ~ ~ 4_ ~I ~ I: I~ ~ I;II I I 1 it I~ ~ I I 11_ ~~ ` LSiWd~J ANTHONY PELLECCHIA ARCHITECTS ~~I'E~. ~~ 27[?ec,1985 VAIL HOLDINGS vnu, ~. r. ...~ `,ll~.~, ;~-- ~,bf" ~" ~J ~;;4~" 'ilil~- . ~_ CK~iJBREE ANTHONY PELLECCHIA ARCHITECTS ~'KYTEL ~ 27Dec,1985 VAIL HOLDINGS • VA k, ~/ ` ~~~~~ ~' '` i ~,' ~/• ~' '' - ._ /~ . ~ _ _. ~j. ,`._ f /~~ ^ `..1.:.11 ~ ~~1 ~ ...~. , .' ~ ~ --, ~~....ir~l.; r I ' ~~ ~ r Ii ._~' Ea~i.~r~n I~OLJB REE ANTHONY PELLECCHIA ARCHITECTS ~~L ~ 27Dec~1985 VAIL HOLDINGS ' VA'L, CO - _` - _ - - ~~_-=~ ,- r ~~ ... - - __ ~ -.- ;--r _ i ~ . .~ ~- ~ 1 ~ ~ ~' I I I+I~I'II f i I ~ ili ._~.- ~_'J ~: '. ,'r ,ray ~+~1 !- -rr .. I it LI ~ ~ ~ I 1 i 1 I~_ ~~~ ~',~,.~+-r..,ll.~'.'-1I-":=~,it~Il~i..i':.L..I. .:~i': I~ I ,I-~ ~~ ~ ~,' ~I - ~ ,I, i ~~ I i ~ v I r"1 I--'- •y° ANTHONY PELLECCHIA ARCHITECTS DOUBLEI'REE ~-iOrI'EL VAIL, CO 27Dec,1985 VAIL HOLDINGS f^°° I'°°°' I~ I~ F - ~' I~ ~.~' ,,,.,~ :~ I X11 +~ i ~, _~ _ _ . ~ - -. -~~' :~~ s,. ~,I ,• ~r,•~ r ~•. .,Tt-~~ 1 ~yv~ ~ ~~ '~ ~_ ~. a o ,, .. - ... ~ ~--- II - •-- ... _~rv-yv~ ~•I I ANTHONY PELLECCHIA ARCHITECTS I; ~7TEL VAIL, ~~ 27Dr'c,1985 VAIL HOLDINGS '~/ ~~ ,, ~ /.' ~- .; a ~, j~ ~,. V,- ~ .. I?OUB~~bTREE G ANTHONY PELLECCHIA ARCHITECTS _ ~~L. ® ~ 27Dec,198S VAIL HOLDINGS dA'L, CO e _- :;. ~ ;, ~ ~' %, %~ ;r, ; 3 l / /~ i e j %~ / ~ d ~ /, o ~' 4..e~ ,. --- -~ , \~ ~ I i 1 ~- O `01 _ ti ~ '~' - 'Wr.'. ._ .__ a o-- al --e-~~• -•- . ~ ~ `I _. ~,I__.~ ~ t . ~ ~ 1 / I /' / L b o\ ~ I ~ n,c ____ ____~ i~•u J t f' w ~ _ __o.:....d I ~ , o / ~ s---- - ~ I I i l ~ 1 e.. ~ __.__~ _. .. • - _ ~ _) J_ C~ -- ~_ - _ _. _ _. - - --~ _-_-~_ i, o ~O[JE ftEE ~~J99,, 1 ANTHONY PELLECCHIA ARCHITECTS DEL CIJ ~ as 27Dec,1985 VAIL HOLDINGS VA'L, CO r . ~~ `~.~. .; ~ 't ,.~ , . ~. ti . Yap ~:: ~:.. `r:. , . . .. .., ~.. .. ... ,_ _.: l.~ l~ DOUBLE REE /y, 2 ANTHONY PELLECCHIA ARCHITECTS MOTEL ~J ~ 27Dec,1985 VAIL HOLDINGS VAtt. CO f'°'° ~, ~, ~' f ~ Fes' ! r ,~ ANTHONY PELLECCHIA ARCHITECTS ~~ ~OiJBLETREE ~~~ 1. VA'L. CO ~/~, 3 C~/ 27Dec,1985 VAIL HOLDINGS ,: .i I ~~ r ~ , .. ~. 5 DOUBLETREE ~ ANTHONY PELLECCHIA ARCHITECTS DEL, ~ 27Dec~1985 VAIL HOLDINGS VA'L, CO `~ u•a so a-a ~~~~ °r-` ~l~> ~ ~- o~~ ~, ~~ 0g ~ ~ . ~~-~ ~ -- ~)'llll J ~ ~~'• --1 ~ -"---.'~C ~~ ~.~_. '~ ~ a' r~~``~~, ~ ~~ I~-~~ 71~ .- . ~UfnSCY CULKIfU(Ni15 l li - D IU ~~~-~-r Ii ~ ~--, LAG ~-- I, ~~~ ~,•. Conference Suite 1 ~-- ~~. R~,~~~~~1~ ~~~~{ ~` ^r ~.._~_ I ~ `~-;~ ~. = Il•6 it a Ty~NCd~ CueslfWms ANTHONY PELLECCHIA ARCHITECTS D~i1BLETREE ~-IOTE L VA'L, CO 27Dec,1985 VAII HOLDINGS Ce TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY t r r 1 L L L TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY DOUBLETRI;E HOTEL EXPANSION South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado Prepared for: Vail Holdings 250 S. Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Prepared by: ROBERT REISH CONSULTANTS, INC. 1365 S. Jackson St. Denver, Colorado 80210 s Januar 20, 1986 Y Mr. Abbas Rajabi Vail Holdings 250 S.Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Doubletree Hotel Expansion Dear Mr. Rajabi: We are pleased to submit. our traffic impact study associated with the expansion of the Doubletree Hotel in Vail, Colorado. The traffic impact study first provides a summary of the existing conditions in the area. Estimates are made of the increase in trave 1 which can be associated with the Hotel expansion. Then estimates are prepared of the travel on the local streets in the area for a short term impact scenario and for a long range scenario. For both of these scenario, capacity analysis was performed and an evaluation was made with regard to traffic operation impacts. As noted in the report it was found ghat the expansion of the Hotel will not alter level of service on the Frontage Road or at the intersection of the Frontage Road with Vail Road. However, in response to the requirements of the State Access Code a right turn deceleration lane and a left. turn deceleration lane are required. We trust that the findings of the study will assist in the planning for the Hotel expansion. Please call if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Robert: D. Reish, P.F. Colorado Registration No. 15690 ROBERT REISH CONSULTANTS,INC. L ~. T TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . 1 EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS 1 SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC 3 DISTRIBUTION OF SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC 5 FUTURE ROADWAY CONDITIONS . . . . 6 IMPACT OF SITE TRAFFIC . . . . . . . . . 7 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS . . . . 9 RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . 10 APPENDIX INTRODUCTION An expansion is proposed for the Doubletree Hotel in Vail, Colorado at its existing site, which is approximately 900 ft. west of the existing intersection of the South Frontage Road of I70 and Vail Road (See Figure 1). The development calls for the expansion of the Hotel from 128 rooms and 19 condominium units to 220 rooms and 24 condominium units. It is anticipated that expansion will take place in 1986. This traffic study evaluates current and future. roadway.cond- itions, assesses the traffic operational impacts of the proposed project, and recommends the improvements required to maintain adequate traffic operational conditions. EXISTIAIG CONDITIONS The site is bounded on the north by Frontage Road. On the north side of the Frontage Road is the U.S. Post Office for Vail. On the East side is the Holiday Inn and gasoline service stations. The west side of the Hotel is undeveloped for some distance. "~ The most: prominent: t:ransportat_ion feature in t:he general project vicinity is the Front:age Road. Presently, access to the hotel reception and parking is from two driveways located approximately 210 ft. from each other. Other. access to existing developments on the Frontage Road ,include t:he U.S. Post. Office, the Vail Municipal Building, automobile service stations and other general L 1 L r r commercial uses. Access is provided to these developments through a variety of driveway types and widths. The Frontage Road itself is approximately 30 ft. in width directly in front of the Hotel and is striped to be one lane in each direction. On the approaches to the intersection with Vail Road, the Frontage Road widens to approximately five lanes in width. Present Ianeage at this intersection is: on the Frontage Road one left turn lane in each direct:ion, one through lane and a combination right turn lane and through lane for the east bound with one through lane and an exclusive right turn lane in the west bound direction, and on Vail Road the existing laneage configuration south of the interchange with I70 is one lane each for left turns, right turns and through movements in the south bound direction, and in the north bound direction a combination lane is provided. The speed limit on the Frontage Road is 35 MPH. One of the most important features in the understanding of travel movements in Vail, as in other destina tion ski resorts, is the hi h amou t f d t d g n o ay o ay travel accomm odated on foot or by bus transit. Because of the long and na rrow development area in Vail, .most of the day to day travel is well served by a minimum of transit lines. The Doublet:ree Hotel is sit:uat:ed close to both the Transit Center and regular transit. stops. In addition, the Hotel is within eas w lki di t f h ki y a ng s ance o t e s lifts, enter- tainment an d vacation activities. As a result, much of the local travel to and from the Hotel is done by ttransit or as pedes- 2 L trians. The maximum possible area expected to be affected by the Hotel expansion is the Frontage Road driveway entrances to the Hotel and the intersection of the Frontage Road with Vail Road. In the future, the Interchange with I70 is planned to be reconstructed for the east bound movements. The plan calls for the relocation of these ramps to an area west: of the Hotel. Upon the completion of these improvements, travel patterns are expected to shift. Nevertheless, the area which will be affected will be limited to the driveway entrances and the existing intersection to the east. Existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2. .Presently the Frontage Road serves approximately 9000 vehicles per day directly west of Vail Road. Vail Road carries approximately 11000 vehicles per day. Morning and afternoon peak hour volumes are also shown in Figure 2. " SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC Y' Site generated t=raffic projections were developed using modified trip generation rates according to the Institute of Transporta- tion Engineers (ITE) publication "Trip Generation, an Informa- tional Report." The modification t:o these rates resulted because of the fact that Vail's peak hours are on the weekend rather than the typical weekday peaks. Weekend daily volumes are available 3 t for hotels based on the number of rooms, however, weekend peak period rates are not available. Out of necessity, weekend peak hour rates were estimated based on the ratio of weekday peak hour to all day traffic applied to the weekend all day rates. This analysis procedure is conservative as demonstrated in the Table 1. The table shows the existing number of hotel and condominium rooms, and the ITE AM and PM peak hour expected number of trips. In the last columns are the actual observed ~ number of trips. TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF ITE AND OBSERVED TRIP GENERATION RATES NO. OF ROOMS EXPECTED TRIPS (ITE) OBSERVED TRIPS AM PM AM P M IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT 147 58 28 36 37 17 19 33 36 ----------------------------------------------------------------- It can be observed that only the afternoon rate is in the range of the ITE derived rate. ITE rates were used for both morning and afternoon trip generation even though it -.is likely that ' actual auto grip making will be less. L ~ Table 2 shows the estimated trips for both AM and PM peak periods ` from the Hotel at ful l development One t rip rate is used `~ for the ur oses of est.i p p mating trips even though some of the rooms will be constructed as condominium units since from L 4 L d. . year to year the condominium units may be rented as hotel rooms. (Condominium trip generation rates are slightly less than hotel room rates making the analysis conservative). TABLE 2 ESTIMATED TRIP GENERATION BASED AT FULL CONSTRUCTION N0. OF ROOMS TRIP GENERATION RATES ESTIMATED TRIPS AM PM AM PM IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT ---------------------------------------------------------------- 225 0.45 0.22 0.28 0.29 101 50 63 65 ---------------------------------------------------------------- As shown in Table 2, the expansion of the hotel is expected to generate the number of trips shown for the morning and afternoon weekend peak periods. DISTRIBUTION OF SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC I( lL The directional distribution of traffic is the primary factor used in estimating turning movements and estimates of traffic on roadwa i ys. D rectional distribution of the hotel traffic is largely influenced by t:he location of the ski area base and entertainment. facilities, by the locat ion of residences for employees, and by the origins of goods and materials necessary for the operation of the hotel. In this case, the directional dist:ribut:ion is also affected by t he location of the I70 Int er- change so that. many west. bound trips will actually exit t:he Hotel parking area in an easterly direction. 5 L r r A determination of directional distribution was made in consul- tation with the City staff. Based on this, it was determined that the proper distribution of traffic for existing conditions would be that 75°s of the site traffic would originate or be destined for the east and 25$ would originate or be destined to the west. Following construction of the relocated ramps this distribution would be shifted to a 60~ and 40b pattern. This traffic will enter the roadway system by means of two driveways. The main drive will be located at the existing main drive and will carry nearly all of the hotel traffic. Because of site constraints, a second drive will be necessary. It will be limited in function to deliveries and Hotel service. During a morning and afternoon peak hour observation, only one delivery/- icku tri was observed. Hot p p p el reception and guest room entrance will be by means of the main drive. Figure 3 illu- strates this driveway arrangement. FUTURE ROADWAY CONDITIONS Upon agreement with the Cit Staff, future conditions were Y analyzed on the basis of two different. scenarios. The first: of these (immediat:e impact scenario) was based upon an analysis of the traffic impact: of the Elotel expansion on the existing road system. In this scenario existing roadway geometry (laneage) and ~-- network is assumed, since the immediate impact: will be based 6 on rapid construction of the Hotel. In the second scenario (long range impact scenario), a long term analysis was conducted in order to test impacts. Long range forecasts of travel patterns were derived from the Centennial Study of the I70 Vail Inter- changes and the recommended alternative to relocate the east bound Interchange ramps to a location west of the Doubletree Hotel. The higher projection of skier days (17,000) as described in that report, was used for background traffic volumes. Based on these two scenarios, projections of future traffic were made. Figure 4 and 5 illustrate the volumes expected in the site vicinity following opening for the AM and PM peak periods. Figure 6 and 7 illustrate the volumes projected on a lon ran e basis g g for the AM and PM periods. IP9PACT OF SITE TRAFFIC [~ To assess the operational impact of the Hotel expansion on the 1~ area's road system, site traffic was assigned to the area ~~ streets. This task was accomplished for both scenarios described above. Capacity analyses were conducted for AM and PM weekend peak periods for both the immediate impact scenario and lon ran e g g L scenario. For each of these, capacity analysis were conducted for both no hotel expansion and with hotel expansion . Leve 1 s of L service are indicated below for the driveway and for the inter- L 7 L r ~, section of the Frontage Road with Vail Road. Based on this analysis there can be no observable change in level of service at the Hotel driveway entrance based on either existing conditions or future conditions whether or not the Hotel is expanded. With or without expansion of the Hotel, there will TABLE 3 DRIVEWAY AND INTERSECTION OPERATIONS :~. LOCATION IMMEDIATE IMPACT LONG RANGE IMPACT ------------------- - -- SCENARIO ------ -------- SCENARIO -- ---------------- AM ----- PM -------- ---AM----- PM Driveway and S. -------- ---------------- -------- Frontage Road Existing Hotel Size right turn out A A A A lef t turn out C D D D left turn in A A A A Driveway and S. Frontage Road Expanded Hotel right turn out A A A A left turn out C D D D left turn in A - A A A Frontage Road at Vail Road _ unsignalized Existing Hotel C E D/E F L Size Expanded Hotel C E D/E F ~~ Front:age Road at Vail Road Signalized L Existing Hotel A E. C E Size __Expanded Hotel ---------------- A ---- E ----------------- C --------------- ----E--- L 8 L be traffic delays for vehicles exiting the Hotel in a left turn direction. Traffic volumes were not developed or level of service calculated for the service driveway since the volumes are expected to be so low. Likewise the change in volumes at the South Frontage intersection with Vail Road due to the Hotel expansion, is not: projected to result in a change in leve 1 of service. It is clear, however, t:hat. substantial delays can be expected at the intersection of the South Frontage Road and Vail Road. Definition of level of service is provided in the Appen- dix. The most dramatic shift in level of service improvement can be achieved through the installation of traffic signals at the four way stop intersection. This is a finding of the Centennial study completed in 1984. Despite the fact that the table provided above illustrates a gain in level of service for only the AM peak period as a result of signal installation, it must be pointed out ` that present haphazard movements at the intersection are unsafe and probably cause greater delay than indicated in the capacity calculation. In selected movements, queues are quite lengthy. DESIGRi COI~SIDERATIOIVS The Colorado Department of Highways design guidelines and the State Access Code were reviewed regarding necessary on site considerations and right: turn considerations for t:he driveway 9 r access to the Hotel. Based upon this review and the comparison of the CDH standards to projected volumes, a right turn deceleration lane and a left turn deceler~ition lane are required. Right turn acceleration lanes are not required. Considering the recommended plan from the Centennial Report, the left turn deceleration lane can best be accommodated through the extension of the continuous two way left turn lanes recommended in that study. These will provide for deceleration s ace and for left turn stora e. P g RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis conducted and the requirements of involved agencies, the following improvements are recommended for the accommodation of State Access Code requirements. 1. Construct a deceleration lane for the•main access driveway to the expanded Doubletree Hotel, and 2. Provide for the storage of left turns through the installation of continuous two way left turn lanes. Such lanes may require some construction. L L L L l 10 L ~. t t L L L APPENDIX FIGURES 1 THROUGH 7 DEFINITION OF LEVEL OF SERVICE ~ _. FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP I70 EASTBOUND POST OFFICE DRIVEWAY VAiL MUNICIPAL BUILDING DOUBLETREE HOTEL 1 ~ DRIVEWAYS DOI)BLE DRIVE ~J VAIL ROAD DRIVEWAY I -- r r r t s 1 i~ 1 1 l i I L L I_ FIGURE 2 EXISTING TRAFFIC N 5 (1_ ~~ 11 ;:) 8 (?.7) ,, VP,1 J, R0:1!~ 9 I1 ~~~ r ( 217) 1~ r ~®~ ~ ~1~ 31 (54)) 50 ( 2.2 Q (251) 351 142\J37) 111~,~(1gR) 4 XXX AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES (XXX) PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES COUNTS TAKEN JAN. 11,1986 ~.. . t FIGURE 3 PROPOSED SITE DRIVEWAYS ~~ ----- aauaa~ua• llV 1Ll1 MAIN DRIVEWAY r r :FIGURE 4 AM VOLUMES EXPECTED AFTER EXPANSION I~ r /~ SERVIC DRIVE 1 VAIL ROAD 110 '' 361 142 12 F. 49 1.:' 38 - HOTEL ~;[~ii~ ENTRANCE 35 SO 2? L ~. , ~° { ~ -, FIGURE 5 PM VOLUMES EXPECTED AFTER EXPANSION f.. VAI ~ ROAD - 136 167 251 S. FRONTAGE ROAD 576382 337 352 a~ --~ 19R _ 217 - ---'~ A7 6 2 17 48 59 92 7 ?. 0 f FIGURE 6 FORECASTED FUTURE AM TRAFFIC VOLUMES P~ i ~\ ~~ i L L VAIL BOAC r.- r ~. 157 348 518 203 170 =~_ 70 54 3. I 72 Source: adjustments from projections made in I-70/Nail feas- ibility Study", Centennial Engineering, Inc. r_. u 6 D D I 9~ ~ ~, 3~ L L L L L FIGURE 7 FORECASTED FUTURE PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES i ~ NAIL ROAD Source: adjustments from projections made in "I-.0/Nail feas- ibility Study", Centennial En9ineering,Inc. .~. u U ~~ LEVELS OF SERVICE AT INTERSECTIONS DEFINITIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE A - describes a condition of free flow with low traffic density, where ne vehicle waits longer than one traffic light indication. LEVEL OF SERVICE B - indicates a stable flow of traffic where only rarely do drivers wait through one signal indication. Up to 10°s of signal phases are fully utilized. LEVEL OF SERVICE C - still in the zone of stable flow, but intermittently drivers must wait through more than one signal indication and backups may develop behind left turning vehicles. Up to 30~ of the signal phases are fully- . utilized. LEVEL OF SERVICE D - describes a condition approaching instabil- ity, where drivers are restricted in their freedom to change lanes and delays for approaching vehicles may be substantial during peak hours. Up t:o 70$ of the signal phases are fully ut:ilized. LEVEL OF SERVICE E - represents a condition where traffic volumes are near or at capacity and long queues of vehicles may create lengthy delays, es- pecially for turning vehicles. Up to 100$ of the signal phases are fully utilized. LEVEL OF SERVICE F - indicates flow where a congested condition of forced d , queue vehicles from downstream restrict or prevent . movement. of vehicles out: of the approach, during part or all creating a storage area of the peak hour. L i ~ \ ORDINANCE NOe 7 Series of 1989 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING ORDINANCE 5 SERIES OF 1986, A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (KNOWN AS SDD NOa 14) AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18°40 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETOe WHEREAS, Chapter 18040 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes special development districts within the Town; and WHEREAS, SDD Noa 14 for development of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing was originally approved by Ordinance 5 of 1986; and WHEREAS, The applicants wish to make extensive amendments to SDD 14; and WHEREAS, the establishment of the requested SDD 14 will ensure unified and coordinated development within the Town of Vail in a manner suitable for the area in which it is situated; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed SDD; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants and visitors to establish said Special Development District Noo 14; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THATo Section le Repeal and Re-enactmento Ordinance 5, series of 1986 is hereby repealed and re-enacted with amendments to read as set forth belowo Section 20 Amendment proceures Fulfilled, Planning Commis- Sion Reports The approval procedures prescribed in Chapter 18°40 of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received the report of the Planning and Environmental Commission recommending approval of the proposed development plan for SDD 140 1 E i Section 3. Special Development District 14 ._ Special Development District 14 (SDD 14) and the development plan therefore, are hereby approved for the development of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing, within the Town of Vail, consisting of 2.62'98 acres of 114,554 square feet, more or less. Section 4. Purpose. Special Development District 14 is established to ensure comprehensive development and use of an area that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vail and to promote the upgrading and redevelopment of a key property in the Town. The development is regarded as complimentary to the Town by the Town Council and meets all design standards as set forth in Section 18.40 of the Municipal Code. There are significant aspects of Special Development District 14 which cannot be satisfied through the imposition of the standards in the High Density Multiple Family zone district. SDD 14 is compatible with the upgrading and redevelopment of the community while maintaining its unique character. Section 5. Definitions. A. "Transient residential dwelling unit or restricted dwelling unit" shall be denied as a dwelling unit located in a multi-family dwelling that is managed as a short term rental in which all such units are operated under a single management providinq the occupants thereof customary hotel services and facilities. A short term rental shall be deemed to be a rental for a period of time not to exceed 31 days. Each unit shall not exceed 645 square feet of GRFA which shall include a kitchen having a maximum of 35 square feet. The kitchen shall be designed so that it may be locked and separated from the rest of the unit in a closet. A transient dwelling unit shall be accessible from common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing through another accommodation unit, dwelling unit, or transient 2 e residential dwelling unit. Should such units be developed as condominiums, they shall be restricted as set forth in section 17.26.075--17.262.120 governing condominium conversion. The unit shall not be used as a permanent residence. Fractional fee ownership shall not be allowed to be applied to transient dwelling units. For the purposes of determining allowable density per acre, transient residential dwelling units shall be counted as one half of a dwelling unit. The transient residential dwelling unit parking requirement shall be 0.4 space per unit plus 0.1 space per each 100 square feet of GRFA with a maximum of 1.0 space per unit. Section 6. Development Plan. A. The development plan for SDD 14 is approved and shall constitute the plan for development within the special development within the special development district. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Anthony Pellecchia, Architects as dated December 27, 1985, and consists of the following documentso 1. Site plan 2. Preliminary landscape plan by Berridge and Associates, Inc. 3. Typical floor plans 4. Elevations and sections 5. The Environmental Impact Report dated January, 1986 as prepared by Berridge and Associates, Inc. 6. Revised parking plans dated December 5, 1988 by Anthony Pellechia, Architects. B. The Development Plan shall adhere to the followingo Setbacks shall be noted as on the site plan listed above. Height Heights of structures shall be as indicated on the elevations listed above. 3 Coverage Site coverage shall be as indicated on the site plan listed above. Landscaping The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as indicated on the preliminary landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for their approval. Parking and Loading Parking and loading shall be provided as indicated on the site plan and floor plans as listed above. In no case shall the parking provided on site be less than 193 spaces, and there shall be no less than 68 spaces available to the Doubletree, its designated employees and guests in the Vail Valley Medical Center parking structure. These 68 spaces shall be available to the Doubletree from the hours of 5:30 pm to 6:00 am. Section 7. Density. Existing development on i~he site consists of 128 accommodation units and 19 dwelling units consisting of 73,577 square feet of gross residential floor area. The approval of this development plan shall permit an additional 92 accommodation units or transient residential units and 5 dwelling units, consisting of 42,576 square feet of gross residential floor area. The total density permitted with the approval of this development plan consists of 220 accommodation units (92 of which may be transient residential units) and 24 dwelling units with a total of 116,153 square feet of gross residential floor area. Section 8. Uses. Permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be as set forth in the High Density Multiple Family zone district. In addition to these uses, Transient Residential Units shall be allowed as a permitted use. Section 9. Amendments. Amendments to the approved development plan shall follow the procedures outlined in SE.ction 18.40.100 of the Vail Municipal Code. 4 .. Section loo Conditions of Approvals for Special Development District 14a Ae The development contained within SDD 14 shall not be converted to any form of time share ownership for a period of 20 years from the date of the approval of this ordinances The applicant agrees to limit the use of any new dwelling units approved with this development plan to those restrictions outlined in Section 17e26o075aA, Condominium Conversion, of the Vail Municipal Codeo ATotwithstanding the foregoing, the restrictions set forth in Section 17e26o075 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail shall not apply to the dwelling units during any period during which they are owned by any individual who is also an owner of the Doubletree Hotelo Be The 92 additional accommodation units permitted with the approval of SDD 14 shall be developed as lodge rooms under a single ownerships Any proposal to condominiumize the accommodation units would require approval in acordance with the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Vaile Ce Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the building department all required approvals from the State Highway Department for changes to access off the South Frontage Roads Prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for residential units constructed on site after the effective date of this ordinance all improvements required by the State Highway Department access permit shall be completede De Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any improvement in SDD 14 the owner, or owners of SDD 14 shall provide to the Town of Vail a copy of an agreement between the Vail Valley Medical Center and Vail Holdings, Ltde allowing the Doubletree Hotel, its designated employees or guests the right to use 5 ~ •. a minimum of 48 park:ing spaces in the Vail Valley Medical Center structure from the hours of 5:30 pm to 6:00 am. This parking agreement must be in a form that may not be amended or terminated without the approval of the Town of Vail. Section il. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the-Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 12. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 13. The repeal or the repeal and re-enactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed and reenacted.. The repeal of` any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS DAY OF 1989 at: pm in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building in Vail, Colorado. 6 ~ ~ V Ordered published in full this day of , 1989° Kent Re Rose, Mayor ATTEST Pamela Ao Brandemeyer; Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED THIS DAY OF , 19890 Kent Re Rose, Mayor ATTEST Pamela P,a Brandemeyer, Town Clerk 7 TOe Town Council FROMe Community Development Department DATEa March 7, 1989 SUBJECTe A request for a conditional use permit to construct an addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center, including a new parking structure AND FRONTAGE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN. (Revisions are indicated by capital letters.) Applicanto Vail Valley Medical Center ON FEBRUARY 13, 1989, THE PEC REVIEWED THE VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST. THE PEC VOTED TO TABLE THE PROPOSAL TO THE FEBRUARY 27TH PEC MEETING. THE MOTION WAS MADE BY DIANA DONOVAN AND SECONDED BY PEGGY OSTERFOSS. THE VOTE WAS 3-1 IN FAVOR OF TABLING. PAM HOPKINS VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION TO TABLE. JIM VIELE AND SIDNEY SCHULTZ ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. BRYAN HOBBS WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING. THE PEC ASKED THAT THE MEDICAL CENTER OBTAIN COLORADO DIVISION OF HIGHWAY'S COMMENTS ON THE REVISED FRONTAGE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN. I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE A. Hospital Expansion The proposed expansion entails construction of approximately 31,209 square feet for patient care, as well as an on-site parking structure. The project would include the completion of the second floor on the north side of the recently built west wing. Completion of the second floor will allow immediate expansion of the patient care unit (PCU) by 20 beds. The second floor is 8,150 square feet-. A small entry addition adjacent to the parking structure is proposed for the first floor (1,242 s.f.). Construction of a full third floor on top of the existing west wing adds 21,817 square feet. The new third floor will house a surgical suite comprised of four operating rooms, doctors° offices, a fourth radiology room, as well as ancillary services. B. Parking The hospital proposes to construct a 2-1/2 level parking structure at the east end of its property. The structure will provide parking for 177 vehicles, with access directly off South Frontage Road. AMBULANCE ACCESS IS PROVIDED THROUGH THE LOWEST LEVEL OF THE STRUCTURE AND OUT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE STRUCTURE TO WEST MEADOW DRIVE. A SECOND ACCESS IS PROVIDED THROUGH THE HOSPITAL°S EXISTING MAIN ENTRY. THIS ALLOWS FOR TWO ACCESSES FOR AMBULANCES. The elevation of the 1 top level of the parking structure would be slightly lower than that of the existing South Frontage Road. The north end of the structure would be constructed on land currently owned by the Doubletree Hotel. The Vail Valley Medical Center and the Doubletree Hotel have entered into an agreement to allow the structure to be built on Doubletree land in return for shared parking arrangements and other considerations. The hospital's proposed structure will be built in such a way that it can be connected to the Doubletree's underground parking at a later date to allow sharing of parking. The structure would eliminate 20 existing surface parking spaces on Doubletree property. These 20 spaces will be replaced in the proposed structure. Surface Parking will occur on the present west lot, providing for 104 vehicles with an additional 18 surface spaces on town awned Lot 10. The lot is leased from the town and will remain in its present configuration with access off West Meadow Drive for the near term. The Vail Valley Medical Center is required to provide a total of 220 parking spaces on site. The 1986 conditional use permit calculated the requirement for 220 spaces by adding the number of day shift employees, hospital beds, and exam rooms. The overall total included an obstetrics (OB) wing on the north side of the second floor, although this was never built. Thus, the number of parking spaces calculated for the unbuilt OB wing should be credited against the overall parking requirement. The following table outlines how the 220 number was derived: HOSPITAL USE SPACES REQR 1 space per bed 30 1 space per emergency exam bed 9 1 space per employee (maximum on day shift) 55 94 94 DOCTORS OFFICES 1 space per doctor 32 1 space per employee 38 1 space per exam room 44 AMBULANCE GARAGE 114 114 1 space per transport vehicle 4 l space per employee (on duty) 2 meeting room space 6 12 12 Total spaces required for entire facility 220 2 If the parking spaces for the obstetrics wing are deducted from the total requirement of 220, 203 spaces are needed to service the building actually constructed in 1986-87, based upon the formula agreed to by the Town and Hospitals The obstetrics wing called for the following parkinge USE Patient beds-OB Exam room - OB Day shift employees- OB Total PARKING SPACES 10 1 6 17 spaces The incremental parking requirements that the proposed expansion will generate are computed as followso USE Patient beds-General Exam rooms-General Day shift employees-general Total PARKING SPACES 20 6 49 75 spaces Therefore, new parking requirements are computed as follows: USE PARKING SPACES Base figure 86-87 expansion 203 Incremental increase, 89-90 expansion 75 Total Required 278 Parking will be located on the property in the following areas: Parking structure Surface parking Lot 10 Total Available parking Doubletree parking in northeast structure - Total Required 177 spaces 104 spaces 18 spaces 299 spaces 299 spaces 20 spaces 279 spaces 278 1 space above required 3 * It should be noted that no valet parking is proposed with this expansion. Due to the fact that the hospital is proposing to construct a portion of the parking structure on Doubletree property, 20 parking spaces for the Doubletree will be lost. The Hospital has agreed to provide 20 spaces within the northeast parking structure for full time use by the Doubletree. If and when the Doubletree expands, the Hospital will permit the hotel to use up to 48 additional spaces between the hours of 5:30 PM and 6:00 AM. The 20 spaces previously assigned to the Doubletree on a full time basis would revert to Hospital use between 6:00 AM and 5:30 PM. The following chart indicates how the parking will be utilized by the Hospital and Doubletree when the Doubletree expansion occurs. PHASE I PHASE II (VVMC EXPANSION (DOUBLETREE EXPANSION 6:OOAM-5:30PM 5:30PM-6:OOAM 6:OOAM-5:30PM 5:30PM-6:OOAM REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED DBLTREE 167 167 167 167 261 193 261 261 HOSPITAL 278 279 278 279 278 299 278 231 It should be noted that the Hospital lans to provide all of its parking on site for the current expansion. The Hospital will gain an additional 20 parking spaces during the day once the Doubletree expands. The Hospital will have a deficit of 48 spaces in the even.inq hours between 5:30 PM and 6:00 AM after the Doubletree expansion. * The Hospital has provided parking counts indicating a drastic reduction in the number of cars on site after 5:30 pm (Please see parking counts memo, attached). C. South Frontage Road Improvements THE STAFF HAS SUMMARISED BELOW THE SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD IMPROVEMENT REQUEST AS OUTLINED IN DAN FEENEY'S LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 24TH, 1989: OUR PREPARED PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WILL BE PRESENTED TO MR. ROBERT MOSTEN, DISTRICT ENGINEER FOR THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, AT 11 AM ON TUESDAY, 28 FEBRUARY, WHEN HE VISITS THE SITE. THE ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF THE PLAN ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. WE WILL WIDEN THE ROAD TO PROVIDE THREE FULL LANES FROM THE POST OFFICE/MUNICIPAL DRIVE TO A POINT' WEST OF THE DOUBLETREE'S WESTERN ACCESS. THIS WILL INCLUDE A WEST-BOUND THRU 4 LANE, CENTER LEFT-TURN LANE, AND AN EAST-BOUND THRU LANE. IN ADDITION, THE DOUBLETREE IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT ITS ACCELERATION/DE- CELERATION LANE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOSPITAL'S IMPROVEMENTS, RATHER THAN DEFERRING IT UNTIL THE HOTEL EXPANDS. 2. THE BANK BUILDING WILL RELOCATE EACH OF ITS TWO ACCESS DRIVES IN A WAY THAT PROVIDES MORE HORIZONTAL SEPARATION, BETTER ALIGNMENT WITH THE EXISTING POST OFFICE/MUNICIPAL DRIVE, AND JOINT USE OF THE WESTERN-MOST ACCESS FOR THE BANK BUILDING AND THE HOSPITAL'S PARKING STRUCTURE. 3. THE DOUBLETREE WILL REALIGN ITS EXISTING EAST ACCESS SO THAT IT MEETS SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD AT A RIGHT ANGLE, RATHER THAN ITS PRESENT SKEWED ORIENTATION. 4. OUR ENGINEERS ARE ALIGNING THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS SO THAT THEY WILL HAVE VIRTUALLY NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE GRADES OF EXISTING ACCESS DRIVES ON EITHER THE NORTH OR SOUTH SHOULDER, WITH ONE EXCEPTION. WIDENING ON THE NORTH SHOULDER WILL MAKE THE GRADE FOR THE WESTERN ACCESS TO THE POST OFFICE UNACCEPTABLY STEEP (14%, IN LIEU OF THE EXISTING 6-7%). THE HOSPITAL WILL AGREE TO RELOCATE THIS DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET TO THE WEST. BY EXPLOITING THE EXISTING RISE IN SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD TO THE WEST, THIS WILL ALLOW THE GRADE OF THE NEW DRIVE TO BE KEPT TO A GRADE NO STEEPER THAN THAT OF THE EXISTING ACCESS.' 5. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM TURNING RADIUS INTO THE HOSPITAL'S PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE, ALL FUTURE WIDENING OF THE ROAD WILL HAVE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED ON THE NORTH SHOULDER. THE ELONGATED PLANTER PROPOSED BY THE BANK BUILDING TO SEPARATE ITS SHORT-TERM PARKING FROM SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD TRAFFIC WILL ALSO PRECLUDE FURTHER WIDENING ON THE SOUTH SHOULDER. AS EXHIBIT A TO HIS LETTER (COPY ATTACHED), DAVID LEAHY HAS INDICTED CONCEPTUALLY HOW A FOURTH LANE MIGHT BE ADDED AT THE NORTH SHOULDER. WHETHER OR NOT THE SUPERELEVATION (BANKED CURVES) IS REMOVED WILL DEPEND IN LARGE MEASURE ON FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO THE EAST AND WEST OF THE ONE-EIGHTH MILE OF ROAD OUR PROPOSED PLAN AFFECTS. 5 6. FOR AN EXCELLENT SUMMARY OF THE SCOPE, RATIONALE AND ADVANTAGES OF OUR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT PLAN, PLEASE SEE DAVID LEAHY'S LETTER OF 24 FEBRUARY 1989, COPY ATTACHED. TDA also states that traffic through the four-way stop shall be decreased by the access plan: "Based on observed turning movements at the bank and Doubletree Inn, between 1/3 and 1/4 of the Hospital's peak hour trips will be oriented to the west. Hence, the proposed access plan will lessen the percentage of Hospital trips passing through the 4-way stop intersection by 25 to 33%. This reduction of 25 to 30 p.m. peak hour trips using Vail Road should be noticeable in peak hour traffic operations. Specifically, the single-lane northbound Vail Road approach at the 4-way stop will experience reduced length of vehicle queue by virture of the proposed access plan." (TDA Report, p.9, January 3, 1989) * Please note that the plan assumes that the configuration of the four-way stop remains the same. D. Hospital Master Plan The Hospital has developed a long range master plan which envisions future expansions and also coincides with the Doubletree's master plan. The plan calls for redevelopment of the east end of the Hospital property including demolition of the original clinic built during the late 60's. The emergency room and the ambulance garage would be relocated to the east end (South side of the parking structure) with direct access to the South Frontage Road. Demolition of the ambulance garage would allow construction of an access connecting the east structure with a parking structure at the west end. Thus, the master plan provides for moving virtually all Hospital traffic from West Meadow Drive. The Hospital submitted a plan which shows maximum build-out heights of 4 stories on the west wing, 2 stories on the center wing, and 4 stories on the east wing. This massing is restricted through agreements with the Doubletree. A future northwest parking structure is also proposed. The west parking structure would be limited to 2-1/2 stories with one floor being underground. The total build-out square footage for the Hospital is estimated to be 231,940 square feet. II. ZONING ANALYSIS The site is located in the Public Use Zone District. There are no specific development standards for this district. Instead the zoning code states: 6 °°The public use district is intended to provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special characteristics cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 18.02.020 and to provide for the public welfare.°° A. B. Site Areas 3.811 acres or 166,007 square feet Floor Areae Existing New Total Basement 12,490 0 12,490 First Floor 48,752 1,242 49,994 Second Floor 35,239 8,150 43,389 Third Floor 0 21,817 21,817 96,481 31,209 127,690 C. Site Coverages Square Feet $ Building 49,994 30.2 Ambulance Storage 2,320 1 Parking Structure 13,850 8.3 Paving 51,000 30.7 Open Space 48,845 29.4 Landscaping Site Area 166,009 +100% D. Setbacks: Front/Souths Side/Easts Rear/Norths Side/Wests E. Heights 25 ft. (no change) 0 ft. (no change) 0 ft. (no change) 52 ft. 10 inches maximum height. The proposed expansion will have a total of three stories. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors 7 Consideration of Factors. A. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. Staff believes that 'the Hospital is in an acceptable location provided that proper site and land use planning is coordinated with surrounding properties. We are comfortable that if the master plan is followed the hospital can continue to expand in an orderly manner that will be positive for the community. However, we do feel that the site could benefit in the long-term by relocating the doctors' offices and pharmacy to another site. This would free up additional square footage for necessary hospital uses and also decrease traffic. The Vail Valley Medic:al Center provides vital services for both permanent residents of Vail as well as our guests. The medical center is an important facility which will meet the present and future medical needs of the Town of Vail. The purpose section of the Public Use District states that public and quasi-public uses must provide for the public welfare and also meet the general purposes as prescribed in Section 18.02.020 of the zoning code. Section 18.02.020: 1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities; 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions; 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicu.l"ar traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets; 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off street parking and loading facilities; 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values; 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, and workab]_e relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives; 7. To prevent excessive population densities and over crowding of the land with structures; 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the Town; 8 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides and other desirable natural features; 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters; 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. The staff feels that the proposed hospital expansion reinforces these objectives of the zoning code. B. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The height of 52ft. 10 inches proposed with this expansion should not have major impacts on light and air. Height limitations as outlined in the master plan have been designed by considering impacts on adjacent properties, particularly West Meadow Drive. In respect to utilities, major utilities are located in the area of the proposed parking structure. The applicant is in the process of determining how the relocation could be accomplished. The hospital is a significant public facility which meets community health needs. The project definitely satisfies a major public facility need. C. The effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. 1. Frontage Road Access PERMIT REQUESTe The proposed northeast parking structure was designed with the intent of removing traffic from the West Meadow Drive area. The approach to parking and vehicular access supports the goals listed in the Land Use Plan for this area. In the preliminary stages of review, both the Planning Commission and Staff indicated to the hospital that it was important to remove traffic from the West Meadow Drive area. The Land Use Plan has designated the West Meadow Drive area as a transition area between the Lionshead and Vail Village Commercial Cores. Section 4.4 the Land Use Plan stateso 9 The connection between the Village Core and Lionshead should be enhanced through: A. Installation of a new type of people mover. B. Improving the pedestrian system with a creatively designed connection, oriented toward a nature walk, alpine garden, and/or sculpture plaza. C. New development should be controlled to limit commercial uses. A high percentage of the vehicular trips on West Meadow Drive are due to the hospital. The applicants submitted information for total trips on West Meadow Drive for October 15th and October 18th. They state that: "Total trips on West Meadow Drive between 7:00 am and 5:00 pm range from a low of 1,018 trips on Saturday, 15th of October to a high of 1,618 on Thursday, September 29th. The percentage of vehicles on West Meadow Drive using the hospital varies from approximately 34% on October 15th to 53% on October 18th." (Letter from Dan Feeney to Kristan Pritz October 21, 1988.) The peak number of all vehicles using West Meadow Drive during a 60-minute interval on each date is as follows: DATE TIME INTERVAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES 29 Sept. 11 am - noon 185 15 Oct. 11 am - noon 158 18 Oct. 1 - 2 pm 156 By providing the structure and new access on the Northeast corner of the property, these trip numbers should be substantially decreased. The decrease in hospital traffic using West Meadow Drive supports the long term community goal to develop West Meadow Drive as a pedestrian link between the two villages. In respect to the road improvements proposed in the Access PERMIT REQUEST prepared by TDA Colorado Inc., the staff believes that the plan provides for much needed improvements to the South Frontage Road. The key issue related to the Access Control Plan i:s whether or not the Colorado Division of Highways will find the plan acceptable. In a preliminary review session on January 31, 1989 in Grand Junction, the hospital, Vail National Bank, Doubletree Hotel, and representatives from the Town of Vail met with the Highway Department Access Control Committee to review the plan. The Highway Department wrote a letter summarizing their concerns with the Access Control Plan. 10 Instead of denying the proposal by strict application of the State Access Code, the Colorado Division of Highways agreed that access to the parking structure would be possible provided that "continuous acceleration, deceleration, and left turn lanes are provided". They stated that they felt that it was possible to provide a positive access design that will meet the requirements of the property owners without compromising public safety. The highway department recommended that the property owners consider the following design optionse 1. Provide one access to the parking structure which in turn provides access to the Doubletree and Vail National Bank. 2. Close the two westerly approaches to the old Post Office and provide a road to the easterly approach along the Interstate right of way and connect parking lots around the Post Office, This would allow for movement to the Frontage Road more to the North. 3. Removal of the super elevation (bank of the road) and center line spirals to gain more room. (Please see letter from Mr. Chuck Dunn, District Right of Way Engineer, February 1, 1989.) The Highway Department also indicated that it would be helpful if the Town of Vail would determine what uses would be located in the Post Office building once it is vacated. The effects of a fourth lane in the northern area of the highway right-of-way should also be studied by the Town of Vail to determine how a potential for future fourth lane might effect access onto the Town of Vail property, In light of these comments, the hospital requested to meet with the council on February 7,. to discuss how the proposed Frontage Road improvements affect the Town of Vail and to ask for Town of Vail support in resolving the conflict. At that meeting the council passed a resolution addressing the hospital request. (Copies of the resolution will be available on Monday.) The staff also agrees with the resolution in the respect that we are supportive of the property owners efforts to work out an acceptable Frontage Road improvement plan with the Colorado Department of Highways. Instead of prohibiting the project from proceeding through the planning process, the staff believes that it is acceptable to proceed with planning commission review of the proposal with the condition that an access permit be 11 approved by the Colorado Division of Highways before a building permit is released for the hospital expansion. The proposal is extremely complex and involves three private property owners plus the Town of Vail. To their credit, the three property owners have reached agreement on a myriad of issues which allow for the completion of the Frontage Road improvements. 2. Shared Parking. The hospital has submitted information which indicates that the required parking drastically decreases after 5:00 pm. The parking information provided by the hospital below indicates this pattern: OF 0 TO'.PAL NUMBER OF EXCESS SPACES DATE TIME CAPACITY VEHICLES PARKED CAPACITY UNUSED Dec 30 3:30pm 20!5 158 47 23% Dec 30 8:OOpm 20'5 39 166 81% Jan 4 3:30pm 205 165 40 19.5% Jan 4 8:OOpm 205 36 169 82% Jan 11 5:30pm 205 113 92 45% Jan 12 5:30pm 205 101 104 51% When the parking structure is complete, our total capacity will bE~ increased to 279 spaces. Because the mix of hospital services is not expected to change with our proposed expansion, it seems a reasonable assumption that the percentage of total spaces unused at 5:30 pm will remain appZ-oximately 45-51%, as it was on January 11 and 12. Thus, the number of unused parking spaces at 5:50 pm will increase to the range of 126-142 when the parking structure is constructed. This is almost three times the number- of spaces we have made available to the Doubletree Hotel_ during evening hours. Employees who fill day-time only jobs, such as business office personnel., normally leave the hospital between 4:30 pm and 5:00 pm. Shift changes for positions that are staffed round-the-clock, such as nursing and EMT jobs, occur variously between 3:00 pm and 4:00 pm. Thus, the overlap that occurs while one shift is finishing and ar~other is coming on duty is finished long before the space's would have to be available to the Doubletree. In addition, most evening shifts have 25- 30% fewer persor.~nel than the day shifts they replace. (Letter from Dan Feeney January 13, 1989) The Doubletree has submitted the following information concerning their parking utilization: 12 The results of the survey show that daytime parking demand for the Hotel employees, condominium owners, and guests ranged from approximately 15% to 38% of supply. During this period Hotel occupancy ranged from 32% to 100%. 38% of the parking supply is equal to 63 parked cars. During the evening hours the survey indicates that a number of 00unauthorized" cars utilize the parking supplied by the Doubletree. These are patrons of the bar and restaurant and when factored into the survey indicate a higher utilization of the parking supply. At 9%00 p.m. the 167 spaces were never full but our observation is that later in the evening the parking fills close to capacity. The survey supports very strongly that the jointly shared parking arrangement proposed by the Vail Valley Medical Center and the Doubletree is a workable and desirable solution. Even though our survey indicates peak usage during the day is roughly 38% maximum we are proposing to provide 73% of our required spaces during the day and 100% in the evening hours. The difference will more than provide a 01cushion10 for any seasonal fluctuations or special events that may occur. (Memo from Peter Jamar dated January 10, 1989.) The Staff approves of the shared parking concept for these two projects. We believe that the shared parking will provide for a more efficient use of parking between both projects. 3. Delivery Servicee The existing driveway at the east end of the hospital will be maintained as a fire lane to facilitate snow removal from the upper deck of the parking structure and as an access to the service door at the southeast corner of the parking structures lower level. The service door at the south will be used only by maintenance vehicles and not by the public. Deliveries will continue to be received at the materials management department in the southeast corner of the building via West Meadow Drive. At this time, the hospital does not feel that it is practical to have truck deliveries drive through the proposed parking structure at the east side. 4. Snow Removal° Snow on the top level of the parking structure will be pushed off the southeast corner into the service corridor. Because of extremely limited space the hospital anticipates trucking snow off the site after every major snow storm and after second or third moderately sized snow storm. Staff concern 13 on this issue is that the hospital agrees that all snow removal and drainage must be handled on their site. Drainage and snow may not be pushed onto the Frontage Road or to other adjacent properties. 5. Pedestrian Connection With The Bank: The hospital is providing a sidewalk connection from the Vail National Bank property to the top level of the parking structure. Although the design and location of the sidewalk may need to be refined at the request of CDOH and at the Design Review Board level, the staff believes that the sidewalk connection between the Vail National Bank and hospital parking structure is important. Staff Summary: The Staff feels that the proposal is a vast improvement over existing conditions on the Frontage Road and will provide a sound solution for parking and access to the site. The most significant benefit Hof the plan is obviously for West Meadow Drive. It is estimated by the hospital that because 85 fewer parking spaces will have access off West Meadow Drive, they anticipate that an immediate reduction of 500 trips per day during peak periods will be achieved. This is based on the hospital's observation that each parking space generates 5-6 trips on West Meadow Drive between lam and 5pm. (See letter from Dan Feeney, December 9, 1988). Vehicular traffic will be drastically reduced, safety will be improved and the door will be opened to make the necessary improvements to make this an attractive and safe pedestrian connection between the Village and Lionshead. D. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The hospital expansion does effect the character of the area due to the increased bulk and mass of the proposed expansion. However, even though the hospital has somewhat of an institutional appearance, the third floor expansion on West Meadow Drive has been designed to break up the bulk and mass of the expansion as much as possible. The third floor is not one solid building w<~11 extending above the second floor. Instead, the architects have broken up the mass by the use of two deck areas and one recessed area. The hospital has also used as much glass as possible along the west and south e:Levations. The glass also helps to decrease the perception of the bulk of the building. 14 The parking structure has minimal impacts on West Meadow Drive. Most of the structure is hidden from view by the existing eastern wing of the hospital. From the South Frontage Road, the parking structure will actually be slightly below the grade of the road so visual impacts of the structure on the Frontage Road should be minimal. It will be important that as much landscaping as is possible (given CDOH requirements) be located in the planting areas along the South Frontage Road. Even though the structure itself will not be visible it will be positive to screen the view of cars parked on the top of the structure. IV. The hospital is proposing to decrease the amount of asphalt on the east side of the Medical Center. Access will still need to be provided for fire, AMBULANCE and maintenance vehicles along the east side of the hospital. However, the hospital has proposed to landscape between the access road and the adjacent Skall Hus property. Staff believes that this will be a positive improvement for both projects. Access to the trash facility will still be maintained for the Skall Hus. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. Vail Valley Medical Center Master Plane The Staff is looking at the Master Plan as a conceptual guide for future development on the site. Below is a summary of our comments on the proposal: 1. The parking structures should be connected by a ramp that will allow for direct access between the two structures. We realize that the connection is not feasible until the ambulance building is relocated to the eastern portion of the site. However, we do not feel that it would be acceptable to build the western parking structure without this connection. Even if a west parking structure is not built, we continue to recommend that access from the northeast parking structure to the west surface parking lot be provided once the ambulance building is relocated. 2. Staff would prefer to see future parking located under the east wing of the hospital when it is rebuilt. It would benefit the site if the western parking structure could be avoided. 3. We feel strongly that the fourth floor for the east and west wing should be pulled f Drive side of the expansion. the mass of the building to to the adjacent residences. ck from the West Meadow Terraci the users g back will reduce of the street and 15 4. The Staff does not feel that the hospital should rely on Lot 10 to meet parking needs in the future. Eventually, once the West Meadow Drive pedestrian mall is created, Lot 10 will most likely be used for landscaping and a pocket park. 5. Staff could not support an expanded service delivery area off of Meadow Drive on the southeast corner of the property. Instead, we would strongly encourage loading and delivery to be relocated to an area that could access off of t:he South Frontage Road. Master Land Use Plan: The Vail Valley Medical Center lies in the Transition Area. This land use designation is described as follows: The transition designation applies to the area between Lionshead and the Vail Village. The activities and site design of this area are aimed at encouraging pedestrian flow through the area and strengthening the connection between the two commercial cores. Appropriate activities include hotels, lodging and other tourist oriented residential units, ancillary retail and restaurant uses, museums, areas of public art, nature exhibits, gardens, pedestrian plazas, and other types of civic and culturally oriented uses, and the adjacent properties to the north. This designation would include the right-of-wa:y of West Meadow Drive and the adjacent properties to the north. (Land Use Plan, page 33) Also, as previously :noted, policy 4.4 refers to possible future improvements 'to the West Meadow Drive area. The staff finds that the proposal is in concert with the Land Use Plan. The key element is reducing traffic on West Meadow Drive to facilitate implementation of policy 4.4. We feel the Vail Valley Medical Center, Doubletree and Bank deserve credit for working out an agreement to allow access for the Vail Valley Medical Center from the Frontage Road. V. FINDINGS The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be approved based on the following f. findings That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 16 6 That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Staff recommends approval of the conditional use request and adoption of the development standards per the proposed plans with the following conditions 1. An access permit for the South Frontage Road improvement plan shall be obtained by the Vail Valley Medical Center as well as Vail National Bank before a building permit will be released for the proposed hospital expansion. 2. The Frontage Road improvement plan will include a minimum of three lanes as proposed in the Access PERMIT REQUEST OUTLINED IN THIS MEMO. 3. The proposed Special Development District 14 for the Doubletree Hotel is AMENDED TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PORTION OF THE PARKING STRUCTURE TO BE BUILT ON DOUBLETREE PROPERTY. 4. Snow removal and drainage from the proposed expansion and parking structure shall not be handled on the South Frontage Road right of way. 5. Access through the southeast corner of the parking structure shall be limited to fire, AMBULANCE and maintenance vehicles. The general public and hospital employees shall not utilize this access. 6. THE HOSPITAL CONCURS THAT THE RELOCATED ACCESS DRIVE TO THE HELIPADo * SHALL NOT EXCEED A 7% GRADE (THIS ASSUMES THAT THE EXISTING ACCESS DRIVE GRADE DOES NOT EXCEED 7%) * SHALL ALLOW FOR SAFE SEMI-TRUCK ACCESS AND LOADING FOR THE POST OFFICE. * SHALL NOT COMPROMISE THE EXISTING CDOH PERMIT FOR THE HELIPAD. * ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AFFECTED BY THE ACCESS SHALL BE RELOCATED IN, THE SAME GENERAL AREA. 17 2 Peggy Osterfoss moved for approval and Jim Viele seconded the motion with the ]'ollowing conditions added to those recommended by the staff: 7. In the event the CDOH deems the helipad must be moved, the hospital must bear the expenses of the relocation of the helipad. 8. The mature evergreens to be transplanted due to the new access drive shall be guaranteed to live for a period of 3 years or be replaced with trees of comparable size. 9. The PEC puts the Hospital on notice that as part of any future building plans, the ambulance garage must be relocated to a11_ow for, a. direct access from the ambulance garage to the Sough Frontage Road and b. for direct access fi°om the South Frontage Road via the parking structure to the west parking lot. 10. Directions shall be given to DRB that they make certain that maximum substantial landscaping be placed on either side of the entz-ance to the parking structure, even if this will requiz-e regrading, filling and retention. 11. Suggestion to the Town Council that the TOV assume responsibility for the cost of a 4th lane along the Town of Vail site on the Frontage Road and associated modifications to the TOV site if a 4th lane addition is required by the CDOH. NOTE: The Town Counci]L has asked that the PEC discuss with the applicants how an assessment district could be structured whicYi would commit the Vail Valley Medical Center, Bank anti Doubletree Hotel owners to helping fund necessary future road widening improvements in the area directly in front of these properties. The Council feels that the proposed improvements would push future widening to the north side of the right of way and they do not feel that the town should be responsible for the total cost of these improvements. 18 ,_ c .~, ADDITIONAL HOSPITAL PARKING STATISTICS TRAFFIC SURVEY Septem_ ber 21, 1988 ~~ 1 ;~ TIME PERIOD 7-8 am 8-9 am 9-10 am 10-11 am 11-12 noon 12-1 pm 1-2 pm 2-3 pm 3-4 pm 4-5 pm TOTAL NUMBER VEHICLE TRIPS* a LL, r- z 0 U ~- 0 z TOTAL NUMBER VEHICLE TRIPS - HOSPITAL** 72 74 70 73 66 67 49 79 87 89 726 ~*** NUMBER CARS IN HOSPITAL LOTS**** 67 115 147 ~ 150 Q 146 117 a 126 a ~ 141 ~- 140 °z 89 *Total count of vehicles on W, Meadow Orive passing checkpoint at First Bank of Vail **Total count of vehicles using W, Meadow Drive to arrive at or depart from Hospital ***Percentage of vehicles on W, Meadow Drive using hospital ****Total count of vehicles parked in both Hospital lots at end of time period TRAFFIC SURVEY September+~{p29, 1988 TOTAL NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER VEHICLE %*** NUMBER CARS IN TIME PERIOD VEHICLE TRIPS* TRIPS - HOSPITAL** HOSPITAL LOTS**** 7-8 am 103 56 54% 71 8-9 am 152 84 ; ~a 55 119 9-10 am 160 71 '; 44 134 10-11 am 170 86 S1 126 11-12 noon 185 72 39 118 12-1 pm 155 55 35 113 1-2 pm 162 69 43 116 2-3 pm 178 63 35 ~ 125. 3-4 pm 177 83 47 112 4-5 pm 176 99 56 97 1618 73~ ~ 46% *Total count of vehicles on W. MeadoHr Drive passing checkpoint at First Bank of Vail **Total count of vehicles using W. Meadow Drive to arrive at or depart from Hospital ***Percentage of vehicles on W. Meadow Drive using hospital ****Total count of vehicles parked in both Hospital lots at end of time period ' a TOTAL NUMBER TIME PERIOD VEHICLE TRIPS* 7-8 am 8-9 am 9-10 am 10-11 am 11-12 noon 12-1 pm 1-2 pm 2-3 pm 3-4 pm 4-5 pm TRAFFIC SURVEY Octob r 5, 1988 TOTAL NUMBER VEHICLE TRIPS - HOSPITAL** **~ NUMBER CARS IN HOSPITAL LOTS**** 62 26 42 36 59 28 ~~'~~;; 47 48 67 25 37 51 133 ~ 57 43 66 158 55 35 55 110 32 29 63 108 43 40 ~ 52 128 38 30 44 108 22 20 38 85 20 24 32 1018: 346 34% *Total count of vehicles on W. Meadow Drive passing checkpoint at First Bank of Vail **Total count of vehicles using W. Meadow Drive to arrive at or depart from Hospital ***Percentage of vehicles on W. Meadow Drive using hospital ****Total count of vehicles parked in both Hospital lots at end of time period ~~ TOTAL NUMBER TIME PERIOD VEHICLE TRIPS* TRAFFIC SURVEY October 18, 1988 n I:":~i~'~. ~;~ . TOTAL NUMBER VEHICLE TRIPS - HOSPITAL** *** NUMBER CARS IN HOSPITAL LOTS**** 7-8 am 118 67 57 83 8-9 am 141 72 ;;~?~':i; 51 126 9-10 am 153 89 58 130 10-11 am 135 66 49 i28 11-12 noon 128 55 43 131 12-1 pm 140 53 38 106 1-2 pm 2-3 pm 156 149 72 46 125 3-4 pm 145 99 89 66 61 136 4-5 pm 150 8?_ 55 124 85 X15. 74~ _ 53% *Total count of vehicles on W. Meadow Drive passing checkpoint at First Bank of Vail **Total count of vehicles using W. Meadow Drive to arrive at or depart from Hospital ***Percentage of vehicles on W. Meadow Drive using hospital ****Total count of vehicles parked in both Hospital lots at end of time period ~1C91~ bCBIIE~Y ®v. BYledical center a October 3, 1988 Ms, Kristan Pritz Senior Planner Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. W, Vail, CO 81657 Dear Kristan: i~ 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 (303)476-2451 Attached are summary sheets of two traffic surveys we conducted on West Meadow Drive. The first survey, conducted on 21 Sep 88, includes vehicles arriving and departing the hospital, between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Arrivals and departures, as well as hourly counts of vehicles parked on-site, were tabulated for both the west and east lots. We conducted a~second survey on 29 Sep 88 in the same manner, except that we also counted the total number of vehicles passing our checkpoint at the First Bank of Vail. On this day, 46°6 of the vehicles traveling 4Jest Meadow Drive between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m, were on hospital-related business. Lyn Morgan, manager of the Eagle County Ambulance District.~~~has rovid the following information on numbers of emergency calls for a 12-month period: SEP 87 47 calls OCT 87 ~ 42 NOV 87 45 -_ DEC 87 140 JAN 88 153 FEB 88 122 MAR 88 178 APR 88 gg MAY 88 36 JUN 88 54 JUL 88 104 AUG 88 84 Please call if you need any further information. Sincerely Da e ~ Project n er / 1 rp enclosure - F Ray McMahan Administrator ~s o ,( 'til Yy ,, ~~ vai@dal~ey medical cente~- February 24, 1989 Ms. Kristan Pritz Senior Planner Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. W. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Kristan: Reference your letter of 17 February 1989: 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-2451 1. Our prepared plan for improvements to South Frontage Road will be presented to Mr. Robert Mosten, District Engineer for the Colorado Department of Highways, at 11 AM on Tuesday, 28 February, when he visits the site. The essential features of the plan are as follows: A. We will widen the road to provide three full lanes from the Post Office/Municipal drive to a point west of the Doubletree's western access. This will include a west-bound thru lane, center left- turn lane, and an east-bound thru lane. In addition, the Double- tree is proposing to construct its acceleration/deceleration lane in conjunction with the hospital's improvements, rather than de- ferring it until the hotel expands. 6. The Bank Building will relocate each of its two access drives in a way that provides more horizontal separation, better alignment with the existing Post Office/Municipal drive, and joint use of the western-most access for the Bank Building and the hospital's parking structure. C'. The Doubletree will realign its existing east access so that it meets South Frontage Road at a right angle, rather than its pre- sent skewed orientation. D. Our engineers are aligning the road improvements so that they will have virtually no negative impact on the grades of existing access drives on either the north or south shoulder, with one exception. Widening on the north shoulder will make the grade for the western .access to the Post Office unacceptably steep (14%, in lieu of the existing 6-7%). The hospital will agree to relocate this drive approximately 30 feet to the west. By exploiting the existing rise in South Frontage Road to the west, this will allow the grade of the new drive to be kept to a grade no steeper than that of the existing access. Ray McMahan Administrator <tr Ms. Kristan Pritz February 24, 1989 Page two E. In order to maintain a minimum turning radius into the hospital's proposed parking structure, all future widening of the road will have to be accomplished on the north shoulder. The elongated planter proposed by the Bank Building to separate its short-term parking from South Frontage road traffic will also preclude fur- ther widening on the south shoulder. As Exhibit A to his letter (copy attached), David Leahy has indicated conceptually how a fourth lane might be added at the north shoulder. Whether or not the superelevation (banked curves) is removed will depend in large measure on future improvements made to the east and west of the one-eighth mile of road our proposed plan affects. F. For an excellent summary of the scope, rationale and advantages of our proposed improvement plan, please see David Leahy's letter of 24 February 1989, copy attached. 2. Our proposed improvements will have either positive or neutral impacts on adjacent properties, with the exception of the west drive into the Post Office. Please see Paragraph 1D above. 3. The Administration feels that an engineering study of South Frontage Road from Cascade Village to Ford Park is indeed warranted, regardless of whether the hospital expands. We are prepared to recommend hospi- tal support for an Area-wide Special Improvement District at our next Governing Board meeting, scheduled for 6 March. We cannot, however, recommend support for a Vicinity Special Improvement District, which would presumably entail improvements only to the one-eighth mile of road which fronts property belonging to the Doubletree Hotel and Vail National Bank Building. A limited approach to this extensive problem will not result in the sound and cost-effective engineering solution needed to correct the many long-standing deficiencies on South Frontage Road. 4. We understand that Sydney Schultz, architect for the Vail National Bank Building, will present preliminary plans for realignment of the two existing access drives at the 27 February work session. Please see Paragraph 1B above, as well as David Leahy's letter, for additional information. 5. The parking structure we have proposed could be constructed another one and one-half levels down, without encountering ground water. We have had preliminary discussions with the new owners of the Bank Building, regarding constructing a larger (deeper) parking structure, in increments .of one-half level, in return for payment of incremental construction costs. An underground pedestrian tunnel linking this lower level with the Bank Building's existing structured parking is feasible. 0 44 d~ Ms. Kristan Pritz February 24, 1989 Page three 6. Master Plan A. The Master Plan envisions that the Emergency Room and Ambulance Garage will be relocated to the east end of our property whenever the original building is demolished and re-constructed. It is not possible to forecast if this will occur during the next expansion. Whether the next expansion entails a new fourth floor at the west end or a re-development of the east end depends on the types of additional services our Governing Board feels are needed to meet the community's health care needs. B. Delivery will continue to be handled at the present service loca- tion at the southeast corner, with access off West Meadow Drive. Accepting truck deliveries through our proposed parking structure, with its 24-foot wide aisles and sharp turning radii, is not prac- tical. That would result in a situation where neither deliveries nor patient circulation through the parking structure is effi- ciently served. Presently, we accept an average of only ten truck deliveries each day during the week (Monday thru Friday), and even fewer on the weekends. Future growth of the hospital is more likely to result in larger deliveries (of slightly longer dura- tion), rather than more frequent use of West Meadow Drive. C. A connection between the proposed parking structure and the west lot is predicated on relocation of the Ambulance Garage, which in turn is predicated on re-development of the east wing. While re- development of the east end seems likely, we are unable to predict a date. D, We understand the general need for some terracing of a future fourth floor. However, until we determine which specific func- tions will occupy this space, we cannot intelligently discuss the specific form a fourth floor might assume. E. Our proposed widening of South Frontage Road will not affect the present manner of helicopter take-offs and landings at the heli- pad. The hospital has no definite plans to re-locate the existing helipad. 7. We understand the concerns of the PEC and DRB regarding the mass of our building, and are actively investigating alternatives. In the meantime, we plan to bring a scale model of the proposed expansion to the work session on 27 February. r ,a A' Ms. Kristan Pritz February 24, 1989 Page four 8. The Ambulance District will have a secondary egress through the lower level of the parking structure. The western drive will once again become the primary egress, as it was several years ago. The Ambulance District Board understands that our proposed parking structure will decrease trips by private passenger vehicles on West Meadow Drive by as many as 500 a day. This is an advantage ambulance drivers will realize every time they make a call during daylight hours. In addition, the Ambulance Board understands that the Master Plan envisions relocation of the Ambulance Garage to the east end of a re-developed hospital, with dedicated access to South Frontage Road. In short, the plan is currently safe, and will be further improved by continued growth of the Medical Center. 9. The CDOH is aware that the northeast side of our proposed structure must essentially coincide with the highway right-of-way line. Personnel from the District Engineer's office have advised us that only minimal landscaping, involving native grasses and low-lying shrubs, will be permitted. Larger plantings would obviously interfere with line-of-sight viewing of traffic, as well as windrows created during snowplowing of the road. Please bear in mind, however, that the Bank Building is proposing an enlarged planter/island as a component of its portions of our coordinated access plan for South Frontage Road. 10. In response to your verbal inquiry, we will continue to incinerate pathological wastes, as well as combustible materials contaminated with body fluids, on site. We are currently breaking in a new incinerator which has a larger burning chamber than the old model, and will utilize improved technology for cleaner burning. We have scheduled a stack test next month to ensure that this model meets all Colorado emission standards. The unit is adequate to service the pro- posed expansion, as well as some subsequent growth of demand. cerel D . Project Man er /lrp enclosure nQ ~~ r .~+ ~ lowo 0 75 south ironiage road sail, Colorado 89657 (303) 478-7000 February 17, 1989 Mr. Dan Feeney, P.Eo Project Manager Vail Valley Medical Center 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 office of communi4y developmenQ References Hospital work session, PEC meeting February 27, 1989 Dear Dan,- You requested that the staff summarize the issues that the hospital should address at the PEC work session on February 27th, The following list of issues should be covered at the meeting: 1e Frontage Road improvement plane * What is the final plan? * Who will construct the improvements and at what time? * What is the Colorado Division of Highways position on the preliminary plan? * How is the Vail ATational Bank Building involved? * How is the Doubletree Hotel involved? 2. What are the effects of the plan on adjacent properties, including the Town of Vail site? (General impacts - from the Frontage Road improvement plan on adjacent properties?) 3. Will the hospital agree to not remonstrate against a Special Improvement District, if improvements beyond the three lane preliminary design are necessary in the future? * Area wide Special Improvement District? * Vicinity Special Improvement District? -e Mr. Dan Feeney 2/17/89 - Page 2 4. Vail National Bank: * How are they involved in the project? * A plan showing the requested improvements to their property should be submitted by the bank. This will require coordination with Sydney Schultz, Architect for Vail National Bank. Peter Patten has already discussed with Sid the possibility of preparing a plan in time for the February 27th meeting. 5. Is it possible to connect the Vail National Bank parking structure to the hospital parking structure? 6. Master Plan: * When will the emergency room and ambulance building be moved to the east building? Will this occur in the next phase? * How will service and delivery be handled in the future? Our understanding is that deliveries will continue to occur on West Meadow Drive with this expansion. You should explain why this is necessary r and what type of .screening from the delivery area could be provided. * What is the timeline for the construction of a connection between the northeast parking structure and the west surface parking lot? Will this connection occur even if the hospital does not expand in the near future? * Will it be acceptable to the hospital to terrace the fourth floor so that the fourth floor is not visible from the pedestrian areas on West Meadow Drive? * How will the Frontage Road expansion effect the heli- copter landing pad. Where will the long-term location of the heli pad be? 7. Architecture: The Planning and Environmental Commission as well as Design Review Board requested that the hospital make an effort to soften the institutional appearance of the structure. They stated that window groupings could be more residential. The DRB suggested that the hospital provide a massing model for the PEC meeting. 8. Ambulance Ingress/Egress: * Is the proposed plan acceptable to the Ambulance District? * Is the proposed plan safe? ., ° ~ >eY +~ 9e Landscapingz ~ What is the landscape plan in front of the structure? ~ Is the landscaping possible given CDOH concerns? Please submit a landscape plan showing materials that are possiblea This is the staff°s best effort at listing issues raised by the Planning Commission at the meeting on February 13tho You may wish to call several of the planning commissioners to go over this list just to make sure that all the issues are addresseda We have scheduled the hospital for a work session with the PEC at 12030 - 2015 on February 27the Our understanding is that you would also like to have a public hearing on the projects We have scheduled the hospital as the first item for the public hearings The hearing will begin at 3°00 pemo in the Town Council Chamberse %f you have any further questions please feel free to call me at 479-2138° Sincerely, r~ ~ n ~~ Kristan Pritz Senior Planner KPosm BAR'C~AY~ TEL No . 303c^s936553 Fe b 24 , 89 14:49 P . 01 ~Y ~ .~~ . a . February 24, 1989 _ COLORAnp ING Mr° C°I° Dunn, Jr° District ROW Hngineer Colorado Department of %iighways _~ Transportation ~ ~ 2 S ° 6th Street o ~, ~ , Spx ~ 107 Consultants Grand Junction, Colorado 81502-2107 Res Vail Malley Hospital, Vail National Dank, Doubletree Ynn, SH 70 S° F'rantage Road Dear Pqr ° Dunn, ~s discussed with you and Rich Penske recently, we are herewith transmitting four applications for re-pex-mitting four existing access drives along the south side of South Frontage Road ire Vail, These permit requests were originally to be part of an access Control Plan for a.l/8-mile stretch of South Frontage Road, Preliminary plans far the access control plan were sent to Rich Penske on January ~, 1989 by the Town of Vail and were subsequently discussed with the District°s access committee on January 31st in Grand Junction, In consideration of your letter of February 1st and the Town°s subsequent position that the applicants should proceed independently with the State Highway Department, we are submitting two of these permit requests at this time, This action reflects a cooperative agreement between Vail Valley Hospital and the two existing adjacent accesses The Doubletree Inn and the Vail National Bank° e To restate th® current situation regarding this access requeste g° Vail Valley Hospital°s proposed parking structure is to access South Frontage Road rather than West Meadow Drive in conformance with the Town°s %and Use Plan° 2° The new owners of Vail National Bank have agreed to share one of their. two access drives w$th the Hospital gn the interest of gaining greater separation between existing access drives and, in so doing, create an ®PPortunity to add several short®term parking spaces • along the Bank°s frontage, ~° The Doubletree %nn wi1T agree to slightly reorient their existing east access to be radial to the South Frontag® Road curv® rather than the unsafe skew intersection that now exists, The Doubletree Inn will _ continue to us® this reshaped access drive until a s~~~eax, futur® expansion program relocates access to underm ozn„~r,co~noz round a (]l!3)fl7571Q7 g P rking and the existing parking ramp can be rebuilt ~.n the interior .of their site, With this future expansion their two existing full movement .:~ BHRCLAY TEL hJo.303~9365~~ ~~.~ Mr. C.I. Dunn, Jr. February 24, 1989 Page 3 Feb 2!1,8~~ 1451 x.03 south sides of South Frontage Road to the maximum extent possible without prematurely affecting existing Doubletree or Town of Vail access drives. This translates to holding the existing south edge of paving at the easterly Doubletree access drive and in front of the Bank, and, not starting widening on the north side until after passing west of the existing access drive to the Post Office/Town Hall. This project achieves the following safety and operational improvements as compared to existing conditions: ,, 1. Introduces 5p0 feet of new, two-way center left turn lane for use by ~ abutting properties. All four of the two-car accidents recorded in the last two years could be attributed to substandard left turn provisions. Z. Introduces at the west end of the project 350 feet of widening of what eventually can become a future continuous eastbound accel/decel lane for all three abutters (Doubletree, Hospital, Bank). 3. Removes the current unfavorable offset between the Town/Post Office drive and the Bank's east access drive. The ourrent offset results in overlapping left turns. The Bank's proposed one-way flow along their frontage reduces the number of turning Conflicts at _ this driveway intersection. Vail Valley Hospital and Doubletree Inn have agreed to fund the Phase One widening of South Frontage Raad as part of the permit approvals. Vail National Bank would be responsible for relocating their east aGGess drive and for coordinating landscaping and parking modification agreements along their frontage with you. Doubletree Inn will fund the cost of the realignment of their existing east driveway and will participate in the improvements shown on the south side of the road. Future Construction Depending on the future disposition of the Town's central access drive, some future widening could occur on the north side of the road to effect the full four-lane crossection (two eastbound, two-way left turn, one westbound) west of the Town's central access drive. If the Town's central access remains open, the right hand westbound lane would become a "Must Turn Lane" into the Town's parking lot. These matters would be negotiated between the Town and the Highway Department as part of the Town's permitting process in the future. r si-.4 3"r 71:' 4f, .,A ~.4`r .T ,~ - , .. l' .TIr' -- ~ ...!R.. I'9 ~ Y/. ~ w '~~~ .:j'..~ - "`S ~'.YO •I ,,. _ _ ~ _ ~ +y ~~~g®_o4Can~ Pb+'amen4'` ...... - '-~ -- -. a .. ~ _ -.. .. ~• _ . , ~ D - -- - .. . .. ~... , . - . - w .. n.. ... r. .... .. - _1~ p ~. ._...a~'s~watF~-~--•.... ~ s°°'~`•. ~ ~~ m -. CotOr¢do /kG - - ~ `~ ~~ -, ~ ~.. ~;'~~,~~s~ ` .;~•~•~``°. pELr. ~~ __ - 68'36'80°E p gv°~tig9 ~'~e .; ~, -~ - .~ .. B '~.. ~ 8 - p r ... - ~JE4u~ce' oQwE - -'. ~~; '~ ~~~` -' ~. ~, ~~ :. ~ STATES .. -.-~ ,~ ` PAST 4FF1CE `" .. ~ m ~t \ .~ .~ J~ - cg . ,. `. ~ .~9, , z ~~ ~ ~~ 4~ ~ ~ ~ ~ q ~~ ~ ~ i5'` e~~ r ~ ~ t _. f~3 1 Ta~rN w _ ~ .~. ~~! ~i~ ~..,/ ~~~~ ~`~.~Y~3 t> sQ _ HAIL ~ ' ': • ~~ n - ~ c of ~ ~ `` ~ .~- ~ ~~~ . ~ _. ~ ~ o'ea^~~ ~~~i ~'e,~ `-.r_ ~ ~~ ~ .t ~ ~''~~ /~ -fir `®So~ I~ ~ (!1 - ~~' ~, o,~' ~ . ~, ~ ~~~ Kra af'3s ~ 46_3.~a J.e.~~' w `qty, ~.' \` `'`' __ °,. 'I g . ...... 9'p ~'~,~ ~',~~`p•~4,[~~Q ~ ~p~.e~~~ / ''yam ~ a ~..I ~ , • .. ' ~~ ~~ ' ~ +~~ '~ ~p = ~~`, ~1~ .=+ ~~ -~ .car}! ~ - $~QT~~ ~ .. ~ _ ,'~~ ,;,.. . • , ~ .. ; ~ ~p'~"5-~ ~ Rid . ~ ~ ~' i • "~ , • N . AEA ,- ~ ~ _-~.~ ~ p ~,~~. .a i ~ ~~ a A .•, , . .. - ~ . .. ~~ all ESS ,~.r- d,,'3'~~~y ~ ~ , ' ~~ ~ : ~: Il ~~ +' f S: _. ~ ~ a d +... yr ',~ ... .. I~ ~. ~ ~~ \a. ~ 0 _ .. :1 p@q~ (~~ ~7~1b `` .1 ,• ~ . o t, `s ~ : S • ..- . ~ . ~.~ ` ~- ~;:~. ' ~ ~ :E ~eaa .Za ~ ~ ~ - - _ - ROPE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ '-- ~.. J PROPOSED ACCESS CONTROL PLAN for a Portion of SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD Vail, Colorado Prepared for Town of Vail and Doubletree Inn Vail Valley Medical Center Vail National Bank Prepared by TDA Colorado, Ince 1675 Larimer Street, #600 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 825-7107 January 3, 1989 `h~ CONTENTS Introduction ...................................................1 Existing Conditions ............................................3 Planned Development ............................................6 Doubletree Inn ............................................6 Vail Valley Medical Center ................................6 Vail National Bank ........................................7 Access Control Plan ............................................7 Area-wide Impacts .........................................9 Figures 1. Location Plan, Project Limits .............................2 2. Existing Access & C.irculation .............................4 3. P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................5 4. Proposed Access Control Plan ..............................8 ~~ PROPOSED ACCESS COPJTROL PLAN FOR A PORTION OF SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD Vail, Colorado Introduction This report discusses the traffic operation elements of a proposed access control plan for a one eighth-mile section of S. Frontage Road in Vail, Colorado. S. Frontage Road is essentially a two-lane paved road with graded shoulders serving property frontages and public roadway intersections along the south side of Interstate 70 through the Town of Vail. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. The road widens to five lanes (two through lanes in each direction, plus left turn lane) beginning 600 feet east of the 4-way stop intersection at Vail Road, see Figure 1. The need for an access management plan is dictated by several development planso 1. Planned expansion and on-site circulation changes for the existing Doubletree Inn at the west portion of the project. 2. Construction of a 185-space multilevel parking structure at the center of the project to serve Vail Valley Medical Center's planned expansion. This structure will be used primarily by physicians, employees and outpatients to hospital and medical offices. 3. Planned reconstruction along the frontage of Vail National Bank to gain additional short-term parking spaces and to relieve current safety and capacity deficiencies. The resulting access changes along S. Frontage Road to accommodate each of these projects are being evaluated collectively in the interest of providing the maximum compliance possible with the State Department of Highways Access Code. S. Frontage Road is under the administrative jurisdiction of the State Highway Department and any changes to existing access provisions require concurrence by the Highway Department. This report describes existing and anticipated future traffic conditions and depicts the suggested access control plan for the effected section of S. Frontage Road. -1- N i 10 / 1 .Y V c ~ ` u"" ~ -"°`~° ~~ Y. T Y[IDOM / ~ ~, ~ , FUTURE RAMPS ~'~~' co~r ~l~~I f V a 1 1 ,4`: ~ ~~, ® ~o-~ OAY ~ V i 1 a 0 lONLSI C'~C~ ~~0• ~ e ~u _ i ~ ~~~.. ,; «°~~ .. _, .,.y Y rr w~'rrrrwi ~.~~ rYr "~ O ::: M~Y~ 'O I; ~.~ ~I~ ~ i °~i ~~ I L: (iL { (/s L';t ~'''~ VICINITY PLAN 1'v ~~ S. FROATAGE RD. STUDY I ': I,~s ~'<f FIGURE 1 ~ ~ T11w_ . ~,,, ;,.•Y. ,.~ CasC i `j0,,s 211 a ge l~ Existing Conditions Within the project area there are currently four full- movement access drives along the south side of the road and two full-movement access drives along the north side of the road, see Figure 2. Following the natural topography, access drives on the north side ramp down to join S. Frontage Road. Driveways along the south side ramp u,p to join the roadway elevation. Through the curve opposite the Post Office, the Frontage Road is super elevated (banked) opposite to the natural slope of the land. Driveways leading up to the Post Office/Town Hall and down to the Doubletree Hotel are quite steep--approximately 10 percent grades. Both drives are skewed from a normal radial alignment to favor movements to and from the east. About 80 feet east of the Doubletree Main access drive is located the first of two access drives for the Vail National Bank Building. The second access drive is about 60 feet to the east. Six short term parking spaces are provided along a portion of the bank frontage for bank patrons. Visitor parking is along the west side of the building. Long term parking for tenant use is accessed from the rear via the driveway along the west side of the building. During afternoon peak traffic periods motorists often park illegally along the eastbound frontage road shoulder if parking spaces are not available along the front of the building. Traffic counts taken on the afternoon of Thursday, December 22, 1988 from 4 to 6000 p.m. indicate bank traffic is oriented 65% to the east and 35% to the west. As shown in Figure 3, total volume in the peak 4-5x00 p.m. hour was 109 vehicles of .which 40% were inbound and 60% outbound. .:The shortage of parking and close access drive spacing results in noticeable internal congestionx and delay within the Bank°s parking and circulation area during peak periods. Traffic counts taken in January 1986 at the Doubletree main access drive show a total of 36 outbound and 33 inbound vehicles during the p.m. peak hour. Trips were oriented 70% to the east, 30o to the west. Volume on the frontage road was 567 vehicles eastbound, 382 westbound. Vehicles entering and exiting the Post Office/Town Hall access drive were not counted in either count since the Post Office is relocating to a North Frontage Road location in 1989. Future reuse of the Post Office building is anticipated to be a town or joint town/county public use. In any event, the future use will likely be accompanied by noticeable reduction in site generated traffic as compared to the short-term, high turnover demand exhibited by the Post Office. The principal deficiencies with current S. Frontage Road operation in the project area are: -3- s `~~o ~~ ~a9~~ 567 ~ '~d X382 12~ ~ 1 2~ DOUBLETREE HOTEL (1/].1/86) V I. 2 1 ~ X48 15 ~ " 1748 DOUBLETREE HOTEL No Scale EXISTI~~G X18 1 ~ ~ ~' 14 11 18 2 0 >, 0 6 22 BANK BUILDING (12/22/88) ~` 31 14~ 36 f- 4~ ~D 72 ..~ 104 HOSPITAL PARKING STRUCTURE FUTURE BUILDOUT ~"' 30 BANK BUILDING P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES (4:00 to 5:00 p.m.) FIGURE 3 _T~I~_ 5 ' rsa~ 1. The rather abrupt cross section to turning motorists deceleration and travel lanes. transition from a five-lane a two-lane section leaves left uncertain about their proper storage position relative to thru 2. Closely spaced, full-movement access drives at Vail National Bank result in noticeable on-site maneuvering and circulation delays as well as hesitation by motorists turning off S. Frontage Road to enter either of the Bank°s access drives. 3. The skewed Post Office high entry using these approaches and steep drives for the and Doubletree result in hazardously and exit speeds for some motorists drives. These current deficiencies are considered in the development of the preferred access control plan. Planned Development This section of the report describes planned land use changes in the project area and the access implications associated with these changes. Doubletree Inn has prepared plans for. extending the north and east wings. Underground parking would be expanded as part of this project. Anew single access entryway is planned and access to underground parking will be revised. A traffic study prepared in 1986 projects a future Doubletree p.m. peak hour volume of 72 outbound and 67 inbound vehicles using the future access drive. Vail Valley Medical Center is planning a 185-space parking structure in conjunction with vertical expansion of the existing hospital footprint. Hospital physicians, employees and staff, many of whom now park in valet stalls 3 and 4-cars deep in a surface lot, will instead use the parking structure. All access to VVMC parking is currently via Vail Road to West Meadow Drive. Hence, virtually all hospital traffic passes through the 4-way stop sign at the Vail Road/S. Frontage Road intersection. Town of Vail staff have .indicated that consistent with the Town°s adopted Land Use Plan (1), any traffic growth associated with hospital expansion will not be permitted on West Meadow Drive. West Meadow Drive is identified as predominately a pedestrian link between the Village Core and Lionshead Village in the Land Use Plan and local traffic use is discouraged. Hence, parking 1. Adopted November 18, 1986 -6- structure access will be exclusively to S. Frontage Road. Based on the size of the facility, intended use, and the hospital's demonstrated work day and shift patterns, we estimate 108 p.m. peak hour trips (72 outbound 36 inbound) will access S. Frontage Road to and from the planned parking structure. VVMC..is;;;; requesting a setback variance from the Town of Vail~to~allow the structure to be built up to the north property~line.~ This is to allow normal ramp gradients within the structure. Vail National Bank is undergoing a change of ownership. The new owners wish to remedy the current short term parking deficiencies and on-site circulation problems by expanding the parking row in front of the building and gaining greater separation between access drives. We estimate the improved parking and circulation plan will result in a 15% increase in access drive volume for site generated trips. Accordingly, we anticipate the future p.m. peak hour volume for bank building trips will be 125 vehicles (76 outbound, 49 inbound). Access Control Plan With encouragement from Town of Vail staff, and in accordance with guidelines contained in the State Highway Access Code (Section 2.12), representatives of each effected abutting land use have met jointly to develop a mutually acceptable access plan for the project area. On December 22, 1988 representatives from the Town of Vail, Vail National Bank, Vail Valley Medical Center and, the Doubletree Hotel met in Vail to review three conceptual access control alternatives prepared by TDA Colorado Inc. A basic plan was agreed upon in concept for subsequent refinement and review. Figure 4 depicts the access control plan that has been agreed upon by the effected abutting property owner representatives for buildout of each property. Features of the plan are: 1. The existing six, full-movement access drives in the study area will be consolidated into four full-movement and one partial-movement (inbound only) accf~ss drives. A restricted use (delivery truck only access drive) is anticipated at the west end of the project for the future Doubletree Inn loading dock location. 2. The existing center left turn lane on S. Frontage Road that extends from the 4-way stop sign to the Town Hall/Post Office access drive will be ~`~~`' ~ ~~~ extended west as a continuous 2-way left turn '"~`~ lane for 500 feet. This will provide left-turn storage for each future access drive. Center-to- center spacing for competing access drive left -7- turns will be approximately 150 feet. This spacing falls between the limiting 100-foot spacing and the preferable minimum 185-foot spacing for successive right turns as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. (2) 3. Subject to final engineering plan and profile .investigations, a right turn deceleration lane will be constructed along eastbound S. Frontage Road in conjunction with Doubletree Inn expansion. Per the Access Code, the lane will be 150 feet long plus a 90 foot taper section. 4. The Medical Center will share its full-movement access drive with the adjacent bank property. All parking structure entering and exiting movements will use this access drive. Vehicles exiting the' bank will also use this drive.- Vehicles '~"~ approaching the bank from the west may also use; this as an entrance to the bank .property. "~ -"~`~ " 5. The bank will have an entrance-only drive located opposite the existing Post Office/Town Hall access drive for patror~~ approaching from the east. The geometry of the entrance and the orientation of parking stalls will force one-way clockwise circulation in front of the bank. This improvement will eliminate the overlapping opposing left turn storage problem that now exists at this intersection. Area-wide Impacts - The proposed access control plan shifts some Hospital turning movement volumes from West Meadow Drive to S. Frontage Road. This is done in compliance with the Town°s Land Use Plan, as previously discussed. Based on observed turning movements at the bank and Doubletree Inn, between 1/3 and 1/4 of the Hospital°s peak hour trips will be oriented to the west. Hence, the proposed access plan will lessen the percentage of~'-,:,.,,~ Hospital trips passing through the 4-way stop intersection by 25 to 33$. This reduction of 25 to 30 p.m. peak hour trips using Vail Road should be noticeable in peak hour traffic operations. Specifically, the single-lane northbound Vail Road approach at the 4-way stop will experience reduced length o_f vehicle :.queue by virtue of the proposed access plan.- ~~~ 2. Transportation and Land Development, Table 4-6 30 mph, ITE, 1988. -9- .... 1 ~_! - ~;~ .~ .. A A veil valley ® medical center October 21, 1988 Ms. Kristan Pritz Senior Planner Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. W. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Kristan: 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-2451 The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the additional parking and traffic flow information you requested in your letter of 3 October 1988. o Reference Item 6: We have conducted two additional surveys of traffic on West Meadow Drive. We conducted the first on Saturday, 15 October, and the second on Tuesday, 18 October, copies of which are attached. (For the sake of completeness, I have also attached copies of the two previous surveys, which you have already seen.) Total trips on West Meadow Drive between 7 am and 5 pm ranged from a low of 1018 trips on Saturday, 15 October, to a high of 1618 on Thursday, 29 September. The percentage of vehicles on West Meadow Drive using the hospital varied from 34% on 15 October to 53% on 18 October. The peak number of all vehicles using West Meadow Drive during a 60-minute interval on each date is as follows: DATE TIME INTERVAL 21 Sept not counted 29 Sept 11 am - noon 15 Oct 11 am - noon 18 Oct 1 - 2 pm NUMBER OF VEHICLES 185 158 156 Statistics on ambulance calls between September 87 and August 88 were provided i n my . 1 etter of 3 October 1988, a copy of which i s attached for your convenience. o Reference Item 8 The Conditional Use Permit issued in 1986 requires the hospital to provide 220 spaces for patients and staff during the ski season. The permit allows the hospital to achieve the total of 220 spaces by augmenting on-site parking with up to 30 spaces off-site, for use by employees. During the 1987-88 ski season, we maintained 205 spaces on-site, and leased 15 spaces at Manor Vail Lodge. Ray McMahan Administrator Ms. Kristan Pritz Town of Vail Page two The 205 spaces on-site consisted of 102 self-park spaces, and 103 valet spaces. Only staff used the valet spaces. During the summer months, we maintain 151 spaces on-site. We do not valet park, nor do we lease spaces off-site. We do, however, have a rotating list where 15-20 day-shift employees park at the Lionshead parking structure Monday thru Friday. Plans submitted previously for a 3-level parking structure at the northwest corner of our property would enable us to park 290 vehicles, as follows: PARKING STRUCTURE 220 SURFACE PARKING-WEST 36 SURFACE PARKING-EAST 34 VALET 0 290 These 290 parking spaces will be available year-round. o Reference Item 9: Although we have reems of parking surveys on hand, we conducted them before the new wing was opened last summer, and felt that they were irrelevant to the current configuration of the hospital. Therefore, we conducted a new survey on Tuesday, 11 October, between the hours of 8 am and 5 pm. Results are as follows: DEPARTMENT Emergency Room X-Ray Pharmacy .- Patient Care Unit Sports Medicine Center Business Office Employees Miscellaneous Dr. Chow Dr. Gerner Drs. Eck/Zeitlin Vail Mountain Medical Jimmy Heuga Center NUMBER OF PARKED VEHICLES 15 3 6 14 55 10 94 13 19 2 16 82 8 • Reference Item 10: Experience has shown that a large number of our employees drive smaller cars. Such cars, if properly segregated, can be parked four deep in the valet section, rather than the three deep originally envisioned. This will enable us to park 214 vehicles on-site during the 1988-89 ski season. If we lease the full thirty spaces available to us at Manor Vail Lodge, we will have a total of 244 spaces this winter. '. -~ a' Ms. Kristan Pritz Town of Vail Page three Ray McMahan's 16 May 88 letter to Ron Phillips was meant merely to document that we have more parking available both on- and off-site, using present resources, than either the Town or the hospital originally thought possible. He did not mean to imply that he felt that the 220 spaces agreed to during the 1986 approval process was inadequate. In fact, we have had several discussions that this additional on-site parking might allow us to ask fewer of our employees to park off-site at Manor Vail, at least on certain days. ® Reference Item 11: The 1986 permit calculated the requirement for 220 spaces by adding the number of day-shift employees, hospital beds and exam rooms. The overall total included an Obstetrics (OB) wing on the north side of the second floor, although this was never built. Thus, the number of parking spaces calculated for this department should be "credited" against our new overall requirements. (The 1986 Conditional Use Permit makes provisions for this.) USE PARKING Patient beds - OB 10 spaces Exam room - OB '.1 Day-shift employees - OB '6 TOTAL 17 spaces Subtracting this from 220 shows that 203 spaces are needed to service the building actually constructed in 1986-87, based upon the formula agreed to by the Town and the hospital. Incremental parking requirements that our new expansion will generate are computed as follows: USE PARKING Patient beds - general 20 spaces Exam rooms - general 6 Day-shift employees - general 49 TOTAL 75 spaces Therefore, new parking requirements are computed as follows: USE PARKING Base figure 86-87 expansion 203 spaces Incremental increase 89-90 expansion 75 TOTAL REQUIRED 278 spaces Thus, we propose to construct 12 more spaces than the calculated peak demand, based on the agreed-to formula. ® Reference Item 12: None of the 290 spaces to be provided will be valet-parked. ® Reference Item 15: It was our understanding that the Town would provide a new bus stop at the southwest corner of our new wing. We concur in the need for this. Ms. Kristan Pritz Town of Vail Page four Questions on the ultimate traffic-conveying capacity of West Meadow Drive have been asked. We feel that a study of this sort, which must of necessity include Vail Road as well as the 4-way stop, is beyond the purview of any individual owner. We do, however, feel that West Meadow Drive could safely handle additional vehicular traffic if pedestrians were provided with a separate, attractively landscaped mall. Conversely, if pedestrians continue to walk 4 or 5 abreast down the middle of West Meadow Drive, it is difficult to argue that a-,Y amount of vehicular traffic can be safely handled by the road. Our architect is currently working on a revised package of plans which will, we hope, address the other issues raised in your letter. This effort has been somewhat delayed by my requests that he study alternate proposals for resolving the access issue, such as various schemes for constructing a parking structure jointly on hospital and Doubletree land, at the east end of our property. Nevertheless, I expect to have a revised set of drawings to you not later that 28 October. Sincerely, Project ager /lrp enclosures 4 cc: Ray McMahan John Reece k ,,,b -r ®EP.4RTMEPdT OF HIGHIR/B,VS 222 South Sixth Street, P.O. Box 2107 ~+~'t °F ti _ ~~,`~~=~_''~""' Grand Junction, Colorado 81502-2107 ~ (303) 248-7208 - ~ ~ = :.;`i~ ~a - a~ February 1, 1989 ~J~°F ~°~°"~ Mr. Peter Patten Director of Community Development Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Pattene The Colorado Department of Highways (CDOH) has completed our analysis of the information provided to us during our meeting on January 31, 1989 regarding the Vail Valley Medical Center. We have the following commentse The south frontage road is a category five roadway, The State Highway Access Code 2 CCR 601-1. Par 3.8.2 states, °°One direct access will be provided to each individual parcel or to contiguous parcels under the same ownership or control." Par 3.8.3 continues, °1Additional access may be permitted to a parcel when (a) there will not be any significant safety or operational problems and (b) the spacing meets the access spacing requirements of the code, subsection 4.9.2 and (c) additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property." Par 1.3.2 of The State Highway Access Code states in part, 1°In no event shall an access be allowed or permitted if it is detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety. Section 43-2-147 (b) Colorado Revised Statutes states in part, 0°After June 21, 1979, no person may submit an application for subdivision approval to a~local authority unless the subdivision plan or plat provides that all lots and parcels created by the subdivision will have access to the state highway system in conformance with the state highway access code." In light of the above, CDOH could deny any access from the frontage road to the parking structure for the following reasons: The Vail Valley Medical Center is not currently an abutting property owner to the frontage road. Subdivision after June 21, 1979 would require internal circulation with one approach .providing access to the subdivision. The owners on either side of the proposed access indicated and the Vail Valley Medical Center design engineer agreed that some hardships (driveway approach grades) would result from the access. / 3 1.~. ~. ~ !~ _ ~' ~t The increased traffic volume would create operational problems on the frontage road which has been identified in the I-70/Main Vail interchange improvements Environmental Assessment as already having operation problems. The addition of the access without all of the necessary channelization would be detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety. Recognizing the needs of the Town of Vail, CDOH will agree to an access to the parking structure provided that continuous acceleration, deceleration and left turn lanes are provided. We believe that it is possible to provide a positive access design that will meet the requirements of the property owners without compromising public safety. In reviewing the plans provided it was noted that when both proposals were drawn on one sheet that the continuous acceleration/deceleration design utilized a more restrictive turning radius near the bank parcel. In addition the three-lane proposal indicated that some channelization was being provided. However, the area shown was actually the through lane and not channelization. We suggest consideration of the following possible design options: (1) Provide one access to the parking structure which in turn provides access to the Double Tree and Bank of Vail. (2) Close the two westerly approaches to the old Post Office and provide a road from the easterly approach along the interstate right of way and connect the parking lots around the post office. This would allow for movement of the frontage road more to the north. (3) Removal of the superelevation and centerline spirals to gain more room. We recognize that this access design problems; however, we not compromised. Our design design details and will work discuss design solutions. proposal presents some difficult must assure that highway safety is engineers are available to discuss with the project designers to R. P. MOSTON DISTRICT ENGINEER CID:rb cc: Demosthenes Moston Sanburg Perske file ~--- C. I. Dunn, Jam'. District ROW Engineer 3 s~ ~.~ veil valley ~• medical center January 13, 1989 Ms. Kristan Pritz Senior Planner Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. W. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Kristan: Reference your letter of 10 January 1989. sponses: 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-2451 Following are specific re- A. SHARED PARKING WITH THE DOUBLETREE. We took counts of vehicles parked at the hospital at 5:30 pm on two consecutive days: TOTAL N0. OF VEHICLES EXCESS % OF DATE CAPACITY PARKED CAPACITY SPACES UNUSED Jan 11 205 113 92 45% Jan 12 205 101 104 51% When the parking structure is complete, our total capacity will be increased to 279 spaces. Because the mix of hospital services is not expected to change with our proposed expansion, it seems a reasonable assumption that the percentage of total spaces unused at 5:30 pm wil] remain approximately 45-51%, as it was on January 11 and 12. Thus, the number of unused parking spaces at 5:50 pm will increase to the range of 126-142 when the parking structure is constructed. This is almost three times the number of spaces we have made available to the Doubletree Hotel during evening hours. Employees who fill day-time only jobs, such as business office personnel, normally leave the hospital between 4:30 pm and 5:00 pm. Shift changes for positions that are staffed round-the-clock, such as nursing and EMT jobs, occur variously between 3:00 pm and 4:00 pm. Thus, the overlap that occurs while one shift is finishing and another is coming on duty is finished long before the spaces would have to be available to the Doubletree. In addi- tion, most evening shifts have 25-30% fewer personal then the day shifts they replace. B< PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION WITH BANK. Sheet 1 was revised on 11 January 89, to show a separate pedestrian access (sidewalk) from the Vail National Bank property to the top level of the parking structure. Ray McMahan Administrator ~~ Ms. Kristan Pritz Town of Vail January 13, 1989 -- Page two C. SNOW REMOVAL FROM TOP LEVEL OF PARKING STRUCTURE. Snow on the top level of the parking structure will be pushed off the southeast corner, into the service corridor. Because of extremely limited space here, we anticipate that we will have to truck snow off site after every major snowstorm, and after every second or third moderately-sized snowstorm. D. AIR SPACE AT EAST SIDE OF STRUCTURE. Construction will create an open air space between the east side of the parking structure and the existing retaining wall at the west side of bank parking. However, this air space will be essentially the same minimal depth as the present retaining wall. In addition, the opening will be as much as 25 feet across. Design of a steel grate would reouire a rather substantial structure to support its own dead weight, as well as live loads due to snow and persons who might venture on top. We propose to leave this area open, and protect it with safety rails. E. SERVICE AND DELIVERY. The existing driveway at the east end of the hos- pital will be maintained as a fire lane, to facilitate snow removal from the upper deck (see Paragraph "C" above), and as an access to the service door at the southeast corner of the parking structure's lower level. The service door at the southeast corner will be used only by maintenance ve- hicles; certainly, we cannot envision it ever being used by the public. De- liveries will continue to be received at our Materials Management Depart- ment, in the southeast corner of the building, via West Meadow Drive. We do not see any practical way of taking truck deliveries through the pro- posed parking structure at the east side. F. STAKE CORNERS OF PARKING STRUCTURE. We will do this by noon on Monday, as requested. G. REVISE PLANS. See Sheet 1, revised 11 January 89, four copies of which are attached. We will have a service entrance to the lower level of the parking structure at the west side. However, until the emergency room and ambulance garage are eventually moved, this access will be blocked fre- quently by ambulances and skier transport vehicles off-loading patients. Thus, another service access in the southeast corner is essential. Please call if you need any further information. Si erely, __ ~~ a.n >> Dan money., P.E Pro j ec~t'M /lrp .~ - ~. - ., PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS, RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TOe RICK PYLMAN, OWN OF VAIL FROMa PETER JAMA DATEe JANUARY 10, 1989 REe DOUBLETREE HOTEL EXPANSION - PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS AND PROPOSED PARKING PROGRAM In support of the re-approval of Special Development District Noo 14 I am providing you with the following additional information regarding the provision of parking for the proposed expansion of the Doubletreeo As previously outlined and documented within the Environmental Impact Report completed for our initial application the statistics regarding parking are as followse Current Existing Parkins Supplve 167 Spaces Total_ Parkins Supply required per Town of Vail for Hotel Expansions 261 Spaces Previously it was anticipated that a total of 211 spaces would be provided on-site to meet the Doubletree projected parking demando This meant that there was a 50 parking space difference between the amount of parking that Doubletree felt was needed and the amount required by the Town of Vail parking requirements in the Zoning Codeo The provision of 211 spaces was based upon Doubletree s past experience with the operation of various resort hotels and the observation of the parking characteristics of the typical Vail guest and the characteristics of the Vail visitor in generals At the time of the approval of"SDD 14 a condition was attached --t„ which in effect granted a °°variance°° to the parking requirements and required the property owners to contribute to the Town of Vail parking fundso r The construction of a joint parking structure on Doubletree and Vail Valley Medical Center property has now opened up new opportunities to provide for meeting the Doubletree parking demand. The fact that the VVMC needs to increase its parking supply to accommodate its expansion provides the opportunity for joint use of the parking between the VVMC and Doubletree. Whereas VVMC's peak parking demand is during daytime hours, the Doubletree peak demand is in the evening hours when restaurant and bar patrons utilize the facilities of the Hotel. The VVMC will be constructing a 185 space parking structure as indicated upon the plans that have been submitted to the Town. This parking structure will remove approximately 20 existing surface spaces at the Doubletree which will be replaced within the middle level of the structure and will be directly accessible from the Doubletree's surface lot. These 20 spaces will initially be designated for use exclusively by the Doubletree. Therefore, the Doubletree's current parking supply will remain at 167 spaces. Upon expansion of the Hotel the VVMC has agreed that from the hours of 5:30 p.m. - 2:30 a.m. an additional 48 spaces will be made available within the structure to accommodate our total parking requirement (per Town of Vail) during our peak demand period. The parking provided on site at the Doubletree will be increased to 193 spaces when the expansion is constructed. Therefore our total supply during peak hours will equal the required 261 spaces. It is also anticipated upon full Hotel expansion that, during the daytime hours, when the Doubletree's parking demand is low and the VVMC's at peak, 20 spaces can be allocated for the Hospital's use. The hours that this parking will be available to the Hospital will be from 7:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. We feel very confident that the arrangement .described above can more than accommodate the Hotel's parking needs. Continual observation of our parking characteristics over the past several years supports our request. A recent survey of parking taken during the peak holiday period is indicative of the real parking needs of the Hotel. Copies of the survey are attached. The parking survey was conducted starting December 20 and was ended on January 3, 1989. The purpose was to analyze parking demand of hotel employees, hotel guests,. other visitors to the Hotel, and unauthorized parking. Parking passes were distributed to both Hotel employees and Hotel guests in order to enable identification of each by category. Parking counts were taken three times a day: 7:00 a.m., 2:00 p.m., and 9:00 p.m. ~' ~ ~' a.. The results of the survey show that daytime parking demand for the Hotel employees, condominium owners, and guests ranged from approximately 15% to 38% of supplyo During this period Hotel occupancy ranged from 32% to 100%0 38% of the parking supply is equal to 63 parked carse During the evening hours the survey indicates that a number of °Bunauthorized°° cars utilize the parking supplied by the Doubletreea These are patrons of the bar and restaurant and when factored into the survey indicate a higher utilization of the parking supplyo At 9x00 peme the 167 spaces were never full but our observation is that later in the evening the parking fills close to capacityo The survey supports very strongly that the jointly shared parking arrangement proposed by the Vail Valley Medical Center and the Doubletree is a workable and desirable solution< Even though our survey indicates peak usage during the day is roughly 38% maximum we are proposing to provide 73% of our required spaces during the day and 100% in the evening hourse The difference will more than provide a "cushion11 for any seasonal fluctuations or special events that may occure 0 ° veil valley ~~ r~edicc~l center December 9, 1988 Ms. Kristan Pritz Senior Planner Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. W. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Kristan: 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 (303)476-2451 In cooperation with the Doubletree Hotel, we have developed an expansion plan which we believe satisfies the objectives of the planning staff and the PEC. Major features of this plan are as follows: ~ The hospital proposes to construct a 22 level parking structure at the east end of its property. The structure would provide parking for 180-185 vehicles, with access directly off South Frontage Road. The elevation of the top level would be slightly lower than that of the existing South Frontage Road. e The north end of the structure would be constructed on land current- ly owned by the Doubletree, and would be situated such that it would not interfere with previously-approved expansion plans for that fa- cility. The hospital's proposed structure could be connected to the Doubletree's underground parking at a lower level, to allow sharing of parking. o The structure would eliminate 10-12 existing surface parking spaces on Doubletree property. These spaces would be_replaced in full with spaces in the proposed structure. ® The present west lot, providing parking for 118 vehicles, will re- main in its present configuration, with access off West Meadow Drive for the near term. However, because 85 fewer parking spaces will have access off West Meadow Drive, we estimate that this plan will achieve an immediate reduction of 500 trips per day during peak per- iods. This is based on our observation that each parking space gen- erates 5-6 trips on West Meadow Drive between 7 am and 5 pm. ® The proposed structure, together with the existing west lot, will provide on-site parking for 298-303 vehicles on a year-round basis, with no valet parking contemplated. Based on the formula agreed-to during the approval process for the last expansion, we calculate that the proposed expansion will increase our parking requirement to Ray McMahan Administrator Ms. Kristan Pritz Town of Vail December 9, 1988 Page two 285 vehicles. Please note that the hospital intends to provide suf- ficient parking to ,meet its current needs, without the need for shared parking with t;he Doubletree. Both properties, however, wish to arrive at a reasonable formula for shared parking during subse- quent expansions. • The hospital is developing a master plan which will dovetail with the Doubletree's master plan. Our master plan envisions redevelop- ment of the east end of our property, including demolition of the original clinic, built during the late sixties. The emergency room and the ambulance garage would be relocated to the east end, with direct access to South Frontage Road. Demolition of the ambulance garage would allow construction of a short, level road connecting the east structure with parking at the west end. Thus, future expan- sion of the hospital will enable us to remove virtually all hospital traffic from West Meadow Drive. ~ We recognize that existing problems with traffic flow on South Front- age Road could be aggrevated by our proposed east parking structure. We have hired a consultant to advise us and you on possible solu- tions, and to assist us in any discussions with the State .Highway Department. o We have developed some architectural revisions to address the PEC's concerns with the mass of the building. The extent of the expansion to the hospital building itself, however, remains as described in our Application of September, 1988. Sincerel , ~.~JI2Q an Feeney, P ana~er /lrp cc: Peter Jamar LAW OFFICES COSGRIFF, DUNK & ABPLANALP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION PETER COSGRIFF JOHN W. DUNN ARTHUR A.ABPLANALP, JR. TIMOTHY H. BERRY ALLEN C.CHRISTENSEN TER RI S. DIEM TELEPHONE: (303) 476-7552 TELECOPIER: (303) 476-4765 VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SUITE 300 P. O. Box 2299 VAI L,COLORADO 81658 February 17, 1989 Ms. Kristan Pritz Town of Vail 75 S, Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Kristan: IN LEADVILLE: COSGRIFF, DUNN 6 BERRY a o. Box I I LEADVILLE, COLORADO 80461 (7191 486-1885 As you are aware, I represent Vail Inn, Inc., the association of owners of the nineteen condominiums located on the fifth and sixth floors of the Doubletree Inn. This letter is written on behalf of Vail Inn, Inc. to object to the master plan presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission by the Vail Valley Medical Center. It is the view of Vail Inn that addition of a fourth floor to the Medical Center would create a building having a scale and bulk entirely inconsistent with the character of the area, We note that recommendations have been made by staff to mitigate the impact of the building on its southern aspect by terracing or setting back the fourth floor. It seems to us. that the concerns of Vail Inn owners, who look at the building from the north, have not been similarly considered, While a master plan is probably not binding on future development, approval of it certainly suggests a disposition on the part of the Commission to allow future use of the property in accordance with its guidelines. We therefore urge its disapproval by the Commission. Yours very truly, COSGRIFF, DUNN & ABPLANALP Jo n W. Dunn JWD:kem cc: Mr. Petracca Mr, Jamar Mr, Peterson THE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION IS DUNN 6 ABPLANALP, P.C.IN VAIL. ,~ JA1~9~.5 ~. HOR9~AN 5230 ~,a~Ces~orerive ~.itt~eton, Co~orado 80123 (303 795-6718 November 149 1988 Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Vail 9C0, 81658 REo Proposal to Further Enlarge the Vail Medical Facility Dear gZembers of the Planning Commission o The undersigned are owners of property interests at 252 W, :Meadow Drive o As such0 we strongly object to the current proposal to further expand the Vail hosnitalo Indeed9 the recently completed expansion was of itself' a serious mistake and there ~ should be no effort to only aggravate the situationo ~dest Meadow Drive is already a bottlenecked dead° end from a. traffic and congestion standpoint with an almost endless parade of ped~strians9 cyclists9 and automobileso It is9 in fact9 a place where many accicents may be expected to happen9 particula#rly if the situation is allowed to worseno The hospital expansion proposal would certainly be most detrimental to the health9 safety9 and welf~~~ f Vail Village a~ a mountain ski and resort area/conr~~tions of this nature are not to be expected much less tolerateclo Even if Vail were a Boston or Manhattan9 it is unlikely that a proposal of this nature would be acceptable to zoning and traffic planners o City planners would no doubt be hoarified with the thought that 9 within a small one or two block radius9 there would be an expanding hospital in such close proximity to a. public library9 a fire station9 a sports/ entertainment public arena9 two~ma~or hotels9 office and other buildings9 private residences9 etco®©®all accessed by a street that serves a combination of footpath, cyclg trail9 and roadway for all kinds of vehicular traffico It would seem to be the responsibilty of town p l~.nners to create and maintain a safer and more pleasant environment in keening with the concepts of the original town plannerso V~e].ry Truly Youra, e c o Va i l T nwr~ r! n. ~Y, ., -0 , vv QQ~-a~ , 'Y l,.i, . : _ ~~ ,~~~~ ~~ Mr. Peter Patten Planning Director Town of Vail Vail, CO 81658 Dear Mr. Patten: ~~~~ , ~~ This letter is to protest the proposed expansion of the Vail Hospital on West Meadow Drive and the construction of a 55,000 square foot parking garage. 1. Traffic on West Meadow Drive where we live is already creating a major hazard to pedestrians who naturally like to stroll on the board roadway. All we need is more ambulances and sirens to add to the excitement. 2. Recent newspapers and periodicals are filled with stories about the glut of empty hospital beds, and the closing of medical facilities in small rural towns. Has the need for more hospital beds in Vail really been proven? Why should everyone from the region need to drive all the way to Vail. Why not a branch facility in another town in Eagle or Summit County? 3. At a recent meeting it was suggested that Vail hospital could become the Mayo Clinic of the Rockies. I suggest that expansion of the hospital could further erode our swiss village atmosphere by becoming the Denver General Hospital of Vail. The original clinic was designed to assist the full-time residents of Vail and treat the injuries of our visiting skiers. It does the job admirably. Do we really need a research center or is this just item #1 on someone's "medical wish list"? Let's stop this project before it gets out of control. Yours truly, CC: Vail Town Council Vail Trail Vail Daily y ~~ C~~~~ ~/~ Charles and Jane Martz 252 West Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81658 HARRISON F. KEP1\ER 8181 JUNIPER ROAD LITTLETON, COLORADO 80123 October 1, 1988 Town of Vail Town Planning Director Vail Colorado, 81658 Attention: Mr. Peter Patten Dear Mr. Patten, This is to protest any further hospital expansion or increased traffic along ;Jest i;ieadow Drive. I have lived on this street for twenty-five years (Skaal Hus Condominiums and private home on 252 LJ. Meadow drive), which means starting there before there were any other buildings on the street. As you know, the hospital land was originally zoned residential, and we helped re-zone it to allow a Small hospital/clinic for the good of the Town of Vail• Additions since have gone way beyond the original scope and "promises" to the then property owners nearby. Traffic is now such that tourists walking between main Vail and Lionshead are severely bothered, This is the only stretch between these Town centers that is open for general traffic, and is certainly a negative tourist attraction for our beautiful Town. A seperate entrance for current hospital traffic would be in our best interest to promote Vail as a "walking" village. Your kindness is considering these concerns will be most appreciated. Sincerely, Hal Kev r CC: Vail Town Council September 23, 1988 Town of Vail Town Planning Director Vail, Colorado, 81658 Attention: Mr. Peter Patten: Dear Ir . Patten This letter is in regard to an article in the Vail Trail concerning a proposal by Dan Feeney to increase the size of the Vail Hospital on West Meadow Drive. We live at 252 taest Meadow Drive which is directly across from the hospital and we oppose any expansion of the present building. When the original. Vail Clinic (as it was once known) was proposed, the home owners on West rieadow Drive were asked to approve a zoning change in order to construct a small clinic and everyone cooperated when told that it was going to remain small and local. We opposed the recently completed expansion which Baas bat3 enough, but this new proposal is ridiculous: The building is becoming a monster without giving any consideration to the neighbors on West Meadow Drive. The street has historically been a walking, jogging, & bicycle environment and.we have already witnessed a great deal more traffic since the recent addition and we think it is time to stop any further expansion of the hospital. Vail is not the only location available in Summit and Eagle counties to construct a hospital-and we protest any plan to expand the present facility in Vail. I suggest that the Planning Commission spend more time on beautification and establishing more green belts than trying to make a Denver out of Vail. Yours very truly, 6Venc3e11 ~ Arlene aley 252 West Meadow Drive cc: Vail Trail Vail, Colorado 81658 Diana Donovan Vail Town Council Merv Lapin ;~ . WE THE UNDERSIGNED. REPRESENTING THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ON WEST o~ . MEADOW DRIVE FROM THE FIRE STATION TO THE LIBRARY REQUEST THE FOLLOWING FROM THE TOWN COUNCIL: TO HAVE THE HOSPITAL CHANGE IT'S ENTRANCE FROM WEST MEADOW TO THE SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD. THERE PRESENTLY EXIST A DANGEROUS SITUATION WHICH WILL ONLY WORSEN WITH THE HOSPITAL EXPANSION. AS THE DEMAND FOR THE HOSPITAL HAS AND WILL INCREASE THERE IS A GREATER CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PEDESTRIAN AND CAR TKAFFIC. THIS IS PARTICULARY' DANGERIOUS BECAUSE OF THE INCREASE~7UTILIZATION OF THE LIBRARY AND ICE ARENA BY CHILDREN. NAME ADDRESS ~%~ ~. .w~:_..._~ _ ~..~._......._..._._...,____. i ~al~.....~..c~ ~. _~..T....~..~..1~~.._..... ~~~~ _~ s- .~ REC~o SEP 2 6 1988 oN(zs., d~ioZgarz ~. ~o~.yLas, az. 13ox 476 ~/ai~, eo~ouu~o 81658 September 23, 1988 Mr. Ron Phi l l ips Town Manager Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Ron: As long time residents of Vail, residing at 142 West Meadow Drive, we are aware that the Town of Vail is concerned with the amount of traffic that uses this street. May we please bring two matters to your attention. 1. The Dead End sign is not visible until the driver has committed himself to making the turn on Jest Meadow Drive, so he continues on and turns around wither in our circular driveway,°or at the cul-de-sac. 2. A driver may be trying to get to the Lions- head parking structure. Two signs are needed at the stop signs, pointing to West Meadow Drive: NO OUTLET and NO PUBLIC PARKING) ors HOSPITAL PARKING ONLY. Another suggestion is to put a traffic counter on the south side of the cul-de-sac and one going into the hospital to determine how many people are lost, sight- y~ .~ 7 lr •.3': -. '~' .. ~, Q~ ~~ ~~ lawn u 75 south frontage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303)476-7000 office of the town manager VAIL 1989 October 3, 1988 Mr. and Mrs. Morgan D. Douglas, Jr. P. 0. Box 476 Vail, Colorado 81658 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Douglas: Thank you for your letter concerning traffic on West Meadow Drive. We appreciate your observations and suggestions and will be studying those to see how we can best implement change. You may be aware that the Town has been undergoing extensive study and recommendations for a new signage program, both vehicular and pedestrian, and we will take your suggestions into consideration as this program is being implemented. Your interest in the community is much appreciated, and we would be glad to hear from you at any time concerning problems or suggestions you may have. RUP/bsc TM ~ ~~ "'' ,. Sincerely,. :~ ~ ~~ -~ ~,/' Rondall V. Phillips Town Manager cc: Peter Patten Stan Berryman 'n/ ' ~" ~~ i ~.. l Do you care that the orthopedic surgeons at Vail Sports Medicine may be forced to leave Vail as a result of the hospital brim in Dick Steadman, the U.S. Ski Team physician? Do you care that Steadman is not coming alone but is bringing a partner and that together they will be assisted by three resident orthopedic surgeons at all times? There are three orthopedic surgeons now in Vail. When Steadman comes that number will be increased to eight. Bye-bye Gottlieb, Chipman, and Janes< But that°s the free enterprise system, right? Competition and all that? Wrong! Our hospital is non-profit, partially supported by fundraisers and contributions from locals. Physicians pay rent and receive no salaries from the hospital. The hospital has offered a contract to Dick Steadman stating that they will pay him an annual salary of $300.,000.00. He will be paid $150,000.00 out right and $1,500.00 for each surgery case he doe: over 500 cases. He says he does 600 each year which will add the additio~ial $150,000.00. If you question this, ask the hospital administration for a copy of his contract. Chipman and Gottlieb have been caring, responsible surgeons in Vail for many yearso Their new partner, Janes, seems to be of the same calliber. They stay at the forefront of every new break- through in Sports Medicine and arthroscopic surgery. Do we really need Dick Steadman at the expense of the current orthopedic surgeons who""have provided wonderful care to so many of us (including me) for many years? Please reconsider your support for this situation, P, Loyal Patient, 1 ~" riiarty Swenson P,O. Box 4566 Vail, CO 81658 TOo Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATES March 7, 1989 SUBJECTt A request for variances from the 20' front setback requirement and from the 30' stream setback requirement, to allow for the construction of a primary/secondary residence. Applicants Robert and Francis Gunn I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES RE UESTED The applicants are the owners of Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing, which is located at 342 Mill Creek Circle. The property has an existing single family residence located upon it, with a building footprint of 1040 square feet. The owner is proposing to demolish and remove the existing structure, and to construct a new primary/secondary residence with a footprint size of 2,111 square feet. The applicant has requested the use of Ordinance #36/1988 for an additional 250 square feet of GRFA. The proposed building would require the following varianceso 1) Front Setback - The request is to allow an encroachment of 14 feet into the required 20 foot setback. 2) Stream Setback - The request is to allow an encroachment of 8 feet into the required 30 foot setback (measured from the center of the stream). It should be noted that the existing residence on this lot currently encroaches 10'-61° into the front setback. II. CHRONOLOGY The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the above named variance requests on February 27, 1989, and by a vote of 4-3 approved of the requests with the following condition: That the northeast section of the lot be deed restricted to prohibit any future development. The three dissenting votes were cast primarily due to the applicant's request for an additional 250 square feet of GRFA. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation requests. The applicant unique physical hardship corridor on the lot and that a hardship would be strict interpretation of is for approval of both variance has shown that this site possesses a with the location of the stream the mature trees. Staff believes imposed upon the applicant if the the zoning code were to be enforced. ~ V. TO: Town Council FROMe Community Development Department DATE: March 7, 1989 SUBJECTa A request for variances from the 20' front setback requirement and from the 30' stream setback requirement, to allow for the construction of a primary/secondary residence. Applicants Robert and Francis Gunn I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED The applicants are the owners of Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing, which is located at 342 Mill Creek Circle. The property has an existing single family residence located upon it, with a building footprint of 1040 square feet. The owner is proposing to demolish and remove the existing structure, and to construct a new primary/secondary residence with a footprint size of 2,111 square feet. The applicant has requested the use of Ordinance #36/1988 for an additional 250 square feet of GRFA. The proposed building would require the following variances: 1) Front Setback - The request is to allow an encroachment of 14 feet into the required 20 foot setback. 2) Stream Setback - The request is to allow an encroachment of 8 feet into the required 30 foot setback (measured from the center of the stream). It should be noted that the existing residence on this lot currently encroaches 10'-6" into the front setback. II. CHRONOLOGY The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the above named variance requests on February 27, 1989, and by a vote of 4-3 approved of the requests with the following condition: That the northeast section of the lot be deed restricted to prohibit any future development. The three dissenting votes were cast primarily due to the applicant's request for an additional 250 square feet of GRFA. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation requests. The applicant unique physical hardship corridor on the lot and that a hardship would be strict interpretation of is for approval of both variance has shown that this site possesses a with the location of the stream the mature trees. Staff believes imposed upon the applicant if the the zoning code were to be enforced. .~t.. ~ .a TOo Planning and Environmental Commission FROMo Community Development Department DATEe February 27, 1989 SUBJECT: A request for variances from the 20' front setback requirement and from the 30° stream setback requirement, to allow for the construction of a primary/secondary residence. Applicants Robert and Francis Gunn I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES RE UESTED The applicants are the owners of Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing, which is located at 342 Mill Creek Circle. The property has an existing single family residence located upon it, with a building footprint of 1040 square feet. The owner is proposing to demolish and remove the existing structure, and to construct a new primary/secondary residence with a footprint size of 2,111 square feet. The proposed building would require the following variances: 1) Front Setback - The request is to allow an encroachment of 14 feet into the required 20 foot setback. 2) Stream Setback - The request is to allow an encroachment of 8 feet into the required 30 foot setback (measured from the center of the stream). It should be noted that the existing residence on this lot currently encroaches 10'-6" into the front setback. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zone Districts Primary/Secondary Residential Lot Sizes 0.4052 acres/17,651 square feet Maximum GRFAo 4015 sq ft (+250 sf; Ord #36/1988 = 4265 sf) Proposed GRFAo 4188 sq ft III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factorso r A. Front Setback Variance Residences along the interior of Mill Creek Circle have historically been located in close proximity to their front property lines which are nearest the road. Many of the existing homes in this area encroach into their respective froni~ setbacks and a few structures are even located across property lines. The effect of maintaining these structures on the outer edge of the Circle is the creation of a large "open space" area on the interior of the Circle. This "open space1° area is utilized as a view corridor toward the Gore Range by some of the property owners. The Department of Community Development believes that the requested front setback variance would not adversely affect the privacy of use of any adjacent properties. The majority of the existing trees along Mill Creek Circle will be maintained in their present location and a few will be slightly relocated, thereby preserving the strong landscape buffer along the south property line. Allowance of a front setback encroachment on this site would also ensure the preservation of the mature evergreen and aspen trees located immediately north of the existing residence. Stream Setback Variance The Department of Community Development agrees that this site exhibits some very difficult development restrictions, given the location of Mill Creek as it bisects the lot. The encroachment into the 30 foot stream setback has been reviewed closely by the staff, and it is our opinion that the proposed encroachment, which will maintain a distance of 12 feet from the 100 - year floodplain, would still allow for the development of a healthy stream tract. The applicant has agreed to complete extensive landscape improvements along both stream banks thraughout the length of this lot. Consideration of Factors: ~~ B. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation 1s necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The 30 foot stream setback has reduced the buildable area of this lot by approximately 52%, and has certainly created a physical hardship upon redevelopment of the site. Staff believes that approval of the requested variances would not be a grant of special privilege due to the unique development restrictions on this lot and the historical building sitings on the circle. C. The effect of th distribution of facilities, publ safety. requested variance on pulation, trans facilities and ortation utilities ht and air, and traffic and public This variance request, if approved, would not block any light or air on adjacent properties and its overall effect would be to preserve the '°open space" view corridor area, immediately north of the residence. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasonso The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. r. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation requests. The applicant unique physical hardship corridor on the lot and that a hardship would be strict interpretation of is for approval of both variance has shown that this site possesses a with the location of the stream the mature trees. Staff believes imposed upon the applicant if the the zoning code were to be enforced. a'te' ~ .:~ e~ .~ ' ORDINANCE N0. 36 ` Series of 1988 •e f AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.71 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE • _ TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE THAT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WHICH ARE TOTALLY REMOVED AND REPLACED SHALL BE ENTITLED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF SAID CHAPTER; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. • WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to specify that Single Family Dwellings that .. have been completely removed and replaced shall be entitled to be considered for additional GRFA pursuant to the terms of Chapter 18.71 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: 1. Section 18.71.010 is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.71.010 Purpose The purpose of this Chapter is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of single family dwellings and dwelling units which have been in existence within the Town of Vail for a period of at least five (5) years by permitting the addition of up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area ("GRFA") to such single family dwellings and dwelling units, provided the criteria set forth in this Chapter are met. This Chapter does not assure each single family dwelling or dwelling unit located within the Town of Vail an additional two hundred fifty (250) square feet, and proposals for any additions hereunder shall be reviewed closely with respect to site planning, impact on adjacent properties, and applicable Town of Vail development standards. The 250 square feet of additional GRFA may be granted to single family dwellings, two family and multi-family dwelling units only once, but may be requested and granted in more than one increment of less than 250 square feet. Upgrading of a single family dwelling or a dwelling unit under this Chapter shall include additions thereto or renovations thereof, and in regard to single family dwellings, the complete removal of the building and its foundation and the replacement thereof with a new foundation and building. 2. Section 18.11.020 is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.71.020 Single Family Dwellings and Two Family Dwellings Any single family dwelling or dwelling unit in a two family dwelling not restricted by the Town of Vail to housing for full time employees of the Upper Eagle Valley shall be eligible for additional GRFA not to exceed a maximum of 250 square feet of GRFA per single family dwelling or two family dwelling unit 1n addition to sip .,' ~ ,xistin9 GRFA or the allowable GRFA for the site. Before such additional GRFA ~~n be granted, the single family dwelling or dwelling unit shall meet the following ~• criteria: A. At least five years must have passed from the date the single family dwelling or two family dwelling unit was issued a temporary certificate of occupancy or a minimum of six years must have passed from the date the original building permit was issued for the construction of the dwelling unit. . B. The single family dwelling or dwelling unit shall have received its final certificate of occupancy. C. Proposals for the utilization of the additional GRFA under this provision shall comply with all Town of Vail zoning requirements and applicable development standards. If a variance is required for a proposal, it shall be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission pursuant to Chapter 18.62 before an application is made in accordance with this Chapter. Any single family dwelling or two family dwelling which is totally removed shall: 1) be replaced with any prior existing nonconforming uses or development standards totally eliminated; 2) obtain a building permit within one year of final Oesign Review Board approval or the approval for additional GRFA shall be voided; 3) be allowed a maximum of the GRFA allowable by zoning plus a maximum of 250 additional square feet. D. Adjacent property owners and owners of dwelling units on the same lot as the applicant shall be notified of any application under this Chapter that involves any external alterations to an existing structure. Notification procedures shall be as outlined in Section 18.66.080 of the zoning code. E. If any proposal provides for the conversion of a garage or enclosed parking area to GRFA, such conversion will not be allowed unless anew garage or enclosed parking area is also proposed. Plans for a new garage or enclosed parking area shall accompany the application under this Chapter, and shall be constructed concurrently with the conversion. F. Any increase in parking requirements as set forth in Chapter 18.52 due to any GRFA addition pursuant to this Chapter shall be met by the applicant. G. All proposals under this Section shall be required to conform to the Design Review Guidelines set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. Any single family dwelling or dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed shall be required to meet the minimum Town of Vail landscaping standards as set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. Before any additional GRFA may be permitted in accordance with this Chapter, the staff shall review the maintenance -2- C o ~® - nand upkeep of the existing single family dwelling or dwelling unit and site. including landscaping to determine whether they comply with the Design Review Guidelines. No temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any expansion of GRFA pursuant to this Chapter until all required improvements to the site and structure have been completed as required. H. The provisions of this Section are applicable only to GRFA additions to single dwelling units. No pooling of gross residential floor area shall be allowed in single family dwelling or two family residential dwellings units. No application for additional GRFA shall request more than 250 square feet of gross residential floor area per single family dwelling or dwelling unit. 3. Section 18.71.030 of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.71.030 Multi-Family Dwellings Any dwelling unit in a multifamily dwelling shall be eligible for additional GRFA not to exceed a maximum of 250 square feet of GRFA in addition to the existing GRFA or the allowable GRFA for the site. Any application for such additional GRFA must meet the following criteria: A. At least five years must have passed form the date the building was issued a temporary certificate of occupancy or a minimum of six years must have passed from the date the original building permit was issued for the construction of the building. B. Proposals for the utilization of the additional GRFA shall comply with all Town of Vail zoning requirements and applicable development standards. If a variance is required for the additional GRFA, it shall be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission pursuant to Chapter 18.62 before an application is made 1n accordance with this Chapter. C. The building has received its final certificate of occupancy. D. Portions of existing enclosed parking areas may be converted to GRFA under this ordinance if there is no loss of existing enclosed parking spaces in said enclosed parking area. E. Any increase in parking requirements due to any GRFA addition pursuant to this Chapter shall be met by the applicant. F. All proposals under this Section shall be reviewed for compliance with the Design Review Guidelines as set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. Existing properties for which additional GRFA is proposed shall be required to meet minimum Town of Vail landscaping standards as set forth in Section 18.54 of -3- • ~s~ a ,rte ~ li 1/ `°' she Vail Municipal Code. General maintenance and upkeep of existing buildings and ;s= sites, including the multi-family dwellings, landscaping or site improvements (i.e., trash facilities, berming to screen surface parking, etc.) shall be reviewed by the staff after the application is made for conformance to said Design Review Guidelines. This review shall take place at the time of the first application for additional GRFA in any multi-family dwelling. This review shall not be required for any subsequent application for a period of five (5) years from the date of the initial application and review, but shall be required for the first application filed after each subsequent five (5) year anniversary date of the initial review. No temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any expansion of GRFA pursuant to this Chapter until all required improvements to the multi-family dwelling site and building have been completed as required. G. If the proposed addition of GRFA is for a dwelling unit located in a condominium project, a letter approving such addition from the condominium association shall be required at the time the application is submitted. H. No deck or balcony enclosures, or any exterior additions or alterations to multi-family dwellings with the exception of windows, skylights, or other similar modifications shall be allowed under this Chapter. I. The provisions of this Section are applicable only to GRFA additions to individual dwelling units. No "pooling" of GRFA shall be allowed in multi-family dwellings. No application for additional GRFA shall request mare than 250 square feet of gross residential floor area per dwelling unit. 4. Paragraph 18.71.040c is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.71.040 Procedure C. If the Community Development Department staff determines that the site for which the application was submitted is in compliance with Town of Vail landscaping and site improvement standards, the applicant shall proceed as follows: 1) Application for GRFA additions which involve no change to the exterior of a building shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department staff. 2) Applications for GRFA additions involving exterior changes to a building shall be reviewed by the staff and the Design Review Board in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.54. 5. Chapter 18.71 is hereby amended with the addition of Section 18.71.050 to read as follows: ~- ,. ,,, ... . ,@ cd .. ~~ ~® 1 18.71.050 Application ., In the event the owner of any single family dwelling made application for / additional GRFA and was denied under prior Ordinance 4, Series of 1985, because the ~ existing foundation of the single family dwelling was not being retained, such single family dwelling shall be deemed to be in existence and the owner thereof shall be entitled to apply for additional GRFA hereunder for such single family dwelling regardless of whether or not such single family dwelling and its foundation were destroyed or voluntarily demolished prior to the owner thereof making application for and/or receiving additional GRFA for such structure hereunder. 6. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 1. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 8. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this Ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING this 6th day of December , 1988, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 6th day of December 1988, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this 6th day of December 1988. . ~~ v C~~. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, T wn Clerk ~- _- ORDINANCE N0. 6 Series of 1989 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10 OF THE TOWN OF VAIL INVESTMENT POLICY. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: 1. Section 10 Portfolio Diversification is hereby amended to read as follows: The Town will diversify use of investment instruments to avoid incurring unreasonable risks inherent in overinvesting in specific instruments, individual financial institutions. Maximum Percent of Portfolio Diversification by Instrument: Money Market & Interest Bearing Checking Accounts with Commercial Banks 50% Money Market Accounts 50% U.S. Treasury Obligations (Bills, Notes & Bonds) 100% U.S. Government Agency Securities (per Section VI.4) 100% Repurchase Agreements 75% Certificate of Deposit Commercial Banks 100% Certificate of Deposit Savings & Loan Association 25% Local Government Investment Pool 100% Diversification by Financial Institution: Repurchase Agreements No more than 50% of the total investment portfolio shall be secured in Repos with any one institution. Certificates of Deposit - Commercial Banks No more than 20% of the total investment portfolio shall be secured in any one commercial bank's CDs. -;;,=eaFe-~e d -sue} fa sates ^ { -' • } If the amount of any of the above investments are in excess of the percentage allowed, it is not considered a violation of this Policy if the amount is corrected within thirty (30) days. 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this Ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING this day of , 1989, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the day of 1989, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of . 1989. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this ~~ day of 1989. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk -2- Updated: 3/01/89 TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS Name Spouse/Bus/Res Term Term Mailing Address Home Address Begin Expire Kent R. Rose, Mayor _ Rayma/476-6340/3375 11/83 11/91 P. 0. Box 2101 1476 Westhaven Drive #14 Vail, CO 81658 John C. Slevin, Mayor Pro Tem Diane/476-2482/3311 11/86 11/89 1538 Springhill Lane Same Vail, CO 81657 Eric L. Affeldt Fawn/476-0508/0185 11/85 11/89 P. 0. Box 1915 4595 Bighorn Road #3 Vail, CO 81658 Micha el J. Cacioppo Cindy/476-7368/4910 9/88 11/89 P. 0. Drawer 3300 2329 Chamonix Lane Vail, CO 81658 Merv Lapin 476-5483/5483 11/87 11/91 232 W est Meadow Drive 232 West Meadow Drive Vail, CO 81657 Gail B. Wahrlich-Lowenthal 476-2251/6880 11/81 11/89 P. 0. Box 357 1448 Vail Valley Drive Vail, CO 81658 East Unit Thoma s I. Steinberg Florence/476-5695/5427 11/87 11/91 P. 0. Box 13 1022 Eagles Nest Circle Vail, CO 81658 Ron V. Phillips, Town Manager Karen/476-7000/6656 P. 0. Box 1322 2507 Arosa Drive Vail, CO 81658 DEPARTMENT HEADS Stan Berryman, Public Works/Transportation Director Pamela Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Dick Duran, Fire Chief Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Annie Fox, Library Director Ken Hughey, Chief of Police Peter Patten, Community Development Director Charlie Wick, Administrative Services Director Updated: 3/1/89 Name Business Address PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Bus Phone Res Phone Chuck Crist 476-2421 P. 0. Box 2819 476-7578 Vail, CO 81658 Diana Donovan P. 0. Box 601 Vail, CO 81658 Pam Hopkins c/o Snowdon Hopkins Architects 201 Gore Creek Drive Vail, CO 81657 Peggy Osterfoss c/o Columbine Creations 143 E. Meadow Drive Vail, CO 81657 Sid Schultz P. 0. Box 3186 Vail, CO 81658 Jim Viele 1000 So. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Kathy Warren P. 0. Box 3370 Vail, CO 81658 Name Business Address Ned Gwathmey 3226 Katsos Ranch Road Vail, CO 81657 Patricia Herrington 950 Red Sandstone Road #35 Vail, CO 81657 Jamie McCluskie 2665 A Larkspur Lane Vail, CO 81657 Roy Sante P. 0. Box 473 Vail, CO 81658 476-3511 476-2201 476-0757 476-1730 476-0503 476-7890 476-0518 476-3082 476-3064 476-4506 476-2585 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Bus Phone Res Phone 476-1147 476-5898 476-1708 476-7579 476-1881 476-5601 ext. 4401 or 4589 476-1053 Term Expire 2/91 2/90 2/90 2/90 2/91 2/90 2/91 Term Expire 2/91 2/90 2/91 2/90 VAIL VALLEY MARKETING BOARD SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS March through May, 1989 DATE LOCATION March 9 Avon Municipal Building March 16 Avon Municipal Building March 23 Vail Municipal Building March 30 Avon Municipal Building April 6 Uail Municipal Building April 13 Avon Municipal Building April 20 Vail Municipal Building April 27 Avon Municipal Building May 4 May 11 May 18 May 25 All meetings start at 7:30 A.M Vail Municipal Building Avon Municipal Building Vail Municipal Building Avon Municipal Building Meetings are open to the public. Copies of meeting minutes and, in case of cancellation or rescheduling, confirmation of the next meeting can be made by calling Brenda Chesman or Charles Wick at the Town of Vail (479-2100). 3/3/89 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA MARCH 1, 1989 3000 P.M. SITE VISITS 1x00 p.m. 4 1. Vista Bahn Ski Rentals Awning (Final) Golden Peak House Motion-Sante Second-Herrington Approval 5-0 6 2. Vail Golfcourse Signage for the Nordic Center (Final) Consent approval 7 3. Vail Mountain School Gymnasium Addition and Parking Lot Expansion. Lot 12, Block 2, Bail Village 12th, 3160 Frontage Road East (Final) Motion-Sante Second-McCluskie Approved 4-0 labstention with conditions. 2 4. Erickson Residence (Final) Lot 51, Glen Lyon Subdivision Motion-Sante Second-Hopkins 5-0 TABLED TILL MARCH 15TH MEETING 1 5. Boyer Duplex (Final) Lot 5, Block 1, Potato Patch Motion-Hopkins Second-Sante Approved with conditions 5-0. 5 6. Holiday Inn Satellite Dish (Final) Vail Village Motion-Hopkins Second-Sante 5-0 Approve as.pPr discussion. 3 7. Vail Gateway Building, a part of Lot N, and a Portion of Lot 0,_ Block 5D, Vail Village lst TABLED FOR TWO WEEKS. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jamie McCluskie Pam Hopkins Ned Gwathmey Roy Sante Pat Herrington STAFF APPROVALS: MEMBERS ABSENT• Villa Cortina Window Change, Unit #135 Northwoods Remodel - Pinos Del Norte Unit M, Bldg. C c a t. MAR - 2 1989 1® - C~® University February 24, 1989 To: City/Town Council Colorado Transportation Information Center Department of Ci~•il EnKineerinft Room ;1307 ERC Fort Collins. Colorado RU523 In Colorado 1-R(M)-262-ROAD (303) 491-ltb48 The development of transportation technology transfer centers to serve rural communities was initiated in 1982, under the Federal Highway Administration Rural Technical Assistance Program. The concept of these centers is to provide technical information and training at a minimum cost to rural counties, cities, and towns that have a limited technical staff. Currently, there are 44 such centers throughout the country. The Colorado Transportation Information Center has been in existence since June of 1986. To date, the Center has been funded by the Federal Highway Administration, Colorado Department of Highways, and Colorado State University; with FHWA providing 50 percent of the funds. To date, we have published 10 newsletters, 8 special bulletins, provided videos/software/technical information to 8,000 people, and trained 2,100 people at minimal or no cost. Since the primary goal of transportation technology transfer centers is to serve rural transportation organizations, the Federal Highway Administration, State Highway Departments and Centers would like to see rural transportation agencies participate in funding support for the centers. In the last few years, Centers across the country have used different approaches to provide local funding support. The most common approach is to use enabling legislation which provides funding from a portion of the gas tax or other tax revenues. The Colorado Transportation Information Center needs to generate some local funding support if we are to continue to improve operations in 1990. We have discussed the situation with our Advisory Committee; and, decided that, currently, an enabling legislation approach is not feasible in Colorado. We also discussed a subscription fee for services, and feel that such an approach would discriminate against organizations with extremely limited funding. We have decided to try a voluntary contribution program to provide local support for our Center. We are asking for contributions that will help us in 1990. Any contribution you make will be matched with Federal funds. We have worked with many of you in the past and look forward to providing additional service to you in the future, whether or not you make a contribution. Thank you for your support of the Center. Sincerely, ~~~ Darrell G. Fontane Director DGF:seh c c o ~~'~ ~ ~-V V~-~(MM~. ~: ~c~~L®RAI~~ ~I'R~NI~~R~'A°~'I®N INF'~RII~IAT~°I®N CE~1"TER C~~T'I'ItI~iJ'I'I~l~ ZIEe ~~e~,~e ~~~ tie ~.~°or~a.te fox ~elo~ve ~ o ~~ s~~~ort tIl~e Center ~~t e~.~~ot ~,~e ~, cor~tr~$~~xtio~ teas ~~~.~° °ooee~ ~ ~ ~~ ~Il~,~ t® ~u~~et f orr° ~, eoa-ntr~l~ut~oa~n for tf~e Center an 19 9 ® ~~ tine ~,~no~n~-nt of o. ~~.pproac~~rnate ~,rriou~t)o ~o ~c~ wnflIl eo~n~g~er ~,~ ~.ffn~~~,Il co~-ntr~~utio~-n for tie Center's ®j~eII°~,tfl®~'n IlII'Il t~~ ~,iilt'fl®U_IlH'llt ®f o00 ~~A~r®X7~9a,t~ ~.8't1®ua-nt)o I~c~tu.r ~~~ ~®~° ~c~ee1~ ~.c1e aya.~le to Colora,~.o St~.te ~JY~e~°~~ty), ~bef ore ~ir~1 ~ ~ 0 19 ~ ~s toe c~®Il®~°~.~® '~'~°~.r~sg~ort~.t~on Inform~,tio~ Center cCoflo~°a~o ~t~,te iJ~~ver°saty cCn~nIl IErrn~~~neer~rn~ e ERA A~®'7 ~'to c~oflIlg~sq Color~,~o ~ ®5 2 3 Il =~ ~~_~ ~ ~ ~ft~Ai) (yn~st~,te~ Il~~®3~491m864~ \l ~~~~x~~ ~~K~~~~~«~~ ° 2 X89 REC'o MAR - ~ ~9~9 f~lATURAL EfVERGY RESOURCES COIV1PAf~lY February 24, 1989 B/General Robert H. Ryan Commander, rtissouri Kiver Division U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 12565 best Center Road Omaha, Nebraska 68144 Dear General Ryan: This is an urgent request for the Corps to consider Union Park's Gunnison water- supply in your imminent Two Forks permitting decision. This advanced water conservation project was recently conceived by our cortlpany and I3basco Services. This New York based firm is one of the world's leading construction and consulting companies specializing in major water, power, and environmental projects. Metro Denver's Arapahoe County now owns Union Park, and the City of Gunnison, Town of Parker, and Castlewood ~Jater District are the initial subscribers. Other Metro Denver water providers are expected to follow as soon as Union Park's multiple benefits become better known. The federal F1;RC Permit for Union Park was issued with a projected 1999 date for the project to start delivering water to Metro Denver. This is several years ahead of Two Forks. The Union Park concept involves the use of high tech reversible pump generators to pump unallocated Gunnison flood waters into high altitude storage at the off river, sage covered, Union Park site, on the Gunnison side of the Continental Divide. The stored water is only released by gravity conduit/siphon to the Gunnison, South Platte, and Arkansas rivers during multi-year drought periods. This dry year capability can enhance irrigation and the river environments of Colorado and Nebraska, while meeting Metro Denver's needs without destroying the nationally important South Platte Canyon. Union Park is truly unique because the Corps' hydrologists have confirmed that an average annual 80,000 acre feet can increase the safe yield efficiency of Denver's existing reservoirs by approxirtlately 140,000 acre feet (40°o more than Two Forks). Because of this surprising multiplier effect, the annualized cost of Union Park's safe yield is only $305 per acre foot. This is approximately }calf the current estimated unit cost of the major Two Forks, Green Mountain, or City - Farm Recycling alternatives. Union Park was improperly excluded from your I;IS Study Groups's water supply calculations for "institutional constraint" reasons. However, the numerous highly qualified engineering and legal consultants, who have thoroughly evaluated {'/1 ~••• r,R7 n..i,. i.i:r 1~ ~~K.~~~~i`::l, i"~ (~I~11~ 1^1 ^1~1~'{ a the institutional and technical details of Union Park, have no doubts that the above timing, yields, costs, and environmental benefits are reasonably accurate and attainable. Because of this Gunnison oversight, the entire federal review process is fatally L-laved and should be corrected before approval of any permits. iJe can provide a detailed briefing at your earliest convenience. Please advise. Sincerely., ~~> ~ ~.~~ -Allen D. (Dave) Miller President ADM/bm cc: President Bush; I3PA Administrators Reilly and Scherer; Secretaries Lujan, Yeutter, and Marsh; Governors Romer and Orr; Colorado and Nebraska Legislators.