Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-07-17 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session ~CJ~ VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JULY 17, 1990 1:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. Site Visit 141 East Meadow Drive - Crossroads Condominiums (Applicant: Sid Schultz for H. William Smith) 2. Design Review Board Report 3. Discussion with State Representative Danny Williams 4. Update Presentation on Northwest Colorado Council of Governments 5. Discussion of Business License Ordinance I 6. Discussion of Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1990 7. Discussion of County-wide Bus System 8. Discussion of a Request by the Owners of the Covered Bridge Building to Proceed through the Planning Process involving Improvements to the Town's Pocket Park, which is located immediately north of the Covered Bridge Building (227 Bridge Street - Lot C and Lot D, and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, all in Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing) (Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass and Bruce Amm & Associates) 9. Discussion of Lease Memorandum Agreement for Employee Housing (Applicant: Professional Development Corporation - Tom Campbell) 10. Information Update 11. Other 12. Executive Session - Land Negotiations VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JULY 17, 1990 1:30 P.M. EXPANDED AGENDA 1:30 1. Site Visit Mike Mollica 141 East Meadow Drive - Crossroads Condominiums (For the PEC appeal to be acted on at the Evening Meeting tonight.) (Applicant: Sid Schultz for H. William Smith) 2:00 2. Design Review Board Report Mike Mollica Shelly Mello 2:05 3. Discussion with State Representative Danny Williams 2:30 4. Update Presentation on Northwest Colorado Council of Sandy Blaha Governments 2:40 5. Discussion of Business License Ordinance Steve Barwick Sally Lorton Action Requested of Council: Please see enclosed memo. Background Rationale: Several local bed and breakfast operators have recently complained to the Town that the Town's business license ordinance unfairly exempts operators of short term rental units. Staff recommends a change in the business license ordinance in order to correct this problem. 2:55 6. Discussion of Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance No. 24, Steve Barwick Series of 1990 Action Requested of Council: Ask questions and give direction as desired. Background Rationale: A supplemental appropriation for the 1990 Town of Vail budget is necessary in order to fund additional items approved by Council. 3:15 7. Discussion of County-wide Bus System 3:35 8. Discussion of a request by the owners of the Covered Bridge Mike Mollica Building to proceed through the planning process involving improvements to the Town's pocket park, which is located immediately north of the Covered Bridge Building (227 Bridge Street - Lot C and Lot D, and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, all in Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing) (Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass and Bruce Amm & Associates) Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny the request. Background Rationale: The owners of the Covered Bridge Building have made applications for an exterior alteration and a height variance. A major remodel of the building is proposed and the applicants are also proposing to upgrade the adjacent TOV pocket park. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the request. 3:40 9. Discussion of lease memorandum agreement for employee Steve Barwick housing (Applicant: Professional Development Corporation - Tom Campbell) Action Requested of Council: Consider the proposed agreement and make changes as desired. Background Rationale: The Town of Vail is considering entering into a lease memorandum agreement with Professional Development Corporation for the purpose of constructing employee housing on several parcels of Town owned land. 4:10 10. Information Update Ron Phillips 4:15 11. Other 4:25 12. Executive Session - Land Negotiations Fred Green -2- DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA JULY 11, 1990 3:00 P.M. REVISED 7/10/90 SITE VISITS 1:00 p.m. 1. Forey - Garage & Secondary Unit Addition MM Lot 6, V. V. West Filing #2 / 1755 W. Gore Crk Dr. MOTION: George L. SECOND: Jim S. VOTE: 4-0 Approved as amended. 4 2. Cascade Crossing Retail Center MM 1031 South Frontage Road West Relocation of trash enclosure/fence storage yard/free standing project sign. MOTION: George L. SECOND: Pat H. VOTE: 4-0 Consent approval. 7 3. Robert P. Smith - Addition of 86 Sq. Ft. of GRFA Lot P, Block 5D, V. V. 1st / 141 E. Meadow Dr. MM (Crossroads Unit #E-5) MOTION: George L. SECOND: Pat H. VOTE: 4-0 Consent approval. 9 4. Town of Vail - Phase 1, Landscape Improvement Plan East Vail I-70 Interchange MM MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO JULY 18TH MEETING. 2 5. C.J. Capers - New Awning & Sign BR Days Inn / 2211 North Frontage Road MOTION: Pat H. SECOND: Jim S. VOTE: 4-0 Approved with yellow changed to white and lighting only through white. 6 6. Kitchen Works Pennants BR Village Inn Plaza / 100 East Meadow Drive MOTION: George L. SECOND: Pat H. VOTE: 4-0 Consent approval. 7. Vergera Re-Roof BR Lot 16A, Vail Das Schone / 2389 Chamonix MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: WITHDRAWN 8. Spruce Park - 8 Unit Cluster BR Lots 6 & 7, Blk 1, Bighorn 3rd MOTION: Jim S. SECOND: Pat H. VOTE: 4-0 Approved pending new submittal on colors. Recommend narrower fascia board sanded. 11 9. Johnson Residence - Addition AK Lot 10, Block 3, Bighorn 5th / 5187 Gore Circle MOTION: George L. SECOND: Jim S. VOTE: 4-0 Approved with conditions. 5 10. Holiday House - Swimming Pool Improvements & Entry Landscape. 13 Vail Road SM MOTION: George L. SECOND: Pat H. VOTE: 4-0 Swimming pool improvements tabled. Entry landscaping approved and relocation of existing sign approved as submitted. 1 11. Testwuide - Garage & Entry Addition SM Lot 7, Block 3, V.V. / 898 Red Sandstone Circle MOTION: George L. SECOND: Pat H. VOTE: 4-0 Approved as submitted with recommendations to landscape asphalt area to west. 2 12. Daly Residence - New Single Family SM Lot 16, Blk 1, V. Potato Patch / 782 Potato Patch MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO JULY 18TH MEETING. 13. Red Lion - Remodel minor changes to Design Details 304 Bridge St. / Lot E,F,G,H, Block 5A, V.V. 1st MOTION: Pat H. SECOND: Jim S. VOTE: 3-0 KP Approved as submitted. George Lamb abstained. r 8 14. Village Center Remodel I - Roof Fan & Flue Chase Window Changes. 122 East Meadow Drive SM Block 5E, Vail Village 1st MOTION: George L. SECOND: Pat H. VOTE: 4-0 Consent approval. 15. Caulkins - New Residence SM Lot 4, Blk 3, Vail Village / 3010 Booth Creek MOTION: Pat H. SECOND: George L. VOTE: 3-0 Approved with conditions: 1. Color Red Cedar 2. Lighter colors to use on shudders 3. Center south facing deck *Jim Shearer no present for item. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: George Lamb Jamie McCluskie Ned Gwathmey Pat Herrington Jim Shearer (PEC) STAFF APPROVALS: Alfonso Packchez - Change awning from "David's Deli" to "Alfonso Packchez", 536 West Lionshead Mall. Christopher Res. - Replace Siding 2550 Bald Mountain Road / Lot 34, Blk 2, Vail Village 13th Cook Residence - Changes to Landscape Plan 2309 Chamonix Lane / Lot 8, Blk A, Vail Das Schone #2 Landmark Condo - Townhouses exterior painting. 610 West Lionshead Circle ~~i town of nail 75 south frontage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 479-2120 MEMORANDUM T0: Ron Phillips FROM: Steve Barwick Sally Lorton DATE: July 5, 1990 RE: Business Licenses Several local Bed and Breakfast operators have recently complair~ec tc the Town that the Town's business license ordinance unfairly exempts operators of short term rental units. The following discussion summarizes the situation and staff's proposed solution. ISSUE: Short term rental operators are currently exempt from purchasing a business license if they short term no more than two units. This exemption does not apply to other similar business categories such as Bed and Breakfast operators. DEFINITION OF A UNIT: Accommodation Unit means any room or group of rooms without kitchen facilities designed for or adapted to occupancy by guests and accessible from com-non corridors, walks, or balconies without necessarily passing through another accommodation unit or dwelling unit. Dwelling Unit :Weans any room or group of rooms with kitchen facilities designed for or used as ar: independent housekeeping unit. DISCUSSION: The Vail Town Council has previously decided that Bed and Breakfast operators are subject to purchase of a home occupation business license. The Town's business license ordinance gives an exemption to short term rental operators for no more than two units. Staff recalls that this exemption was given in order to allow homeowners to rent their property duping certain times of the year without purchasing a business license. This ordinance language has inadvertently expanded the exemption to include short term operators who rent units for the whole year. Page 2 July 5, 1990 Memorandum STAFF OPINION: For the purpose of taxation equalization and fairness, operators of Bed and Breakfasts and Short Term Rentals should be treated the same. SIIRVEY RESIILTS:,Seven Colorado resort towns have been surveyed and all treat short term rental operations and bed and breakfast operations the same. STAFF RECOI~NDATIONS: Change the exemption for short term rental operators from "two units" to "less than fifteen days". This would enable the homeowner that rents out their unit for two weeks while on vacation to be exempt from purchasing a business license and ensures that operators of short term rental businesses pay their fair share of the Town's marketing efforts. 7 ORDINANCE N0. 24 Series of 1990 AN ORDINANCE MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE TOWN OF VAIL GENERAL FUND, CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND, COMMUNITIES FOR DRUG-FREE EAGLE VALLEY FUND, SPECIAL PARKING ASSESSMENT FUND, VAIL MARKETING FUND AND THE REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX FUND, OF THE 1990 BUDGET AND THE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURES OF SAID APPROPIATIONS AS SET FORTH HEREIN. WHEREAS, contingencies have arisen during the fiscal year 1990 which could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated by the Town Council at the time it enacted Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1989, adopting the 1990 Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Town has received certain revenues not budgeted for previously; and, WHEREAS, The Town Manager has certified to the Town Council that sufficient funds are available to discharge the appropriations referred to herein, not otherwise reflected in the Budget, in accordance with Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail; and, WHEREAS, in order to accomplish the foregoing, the Town Council finds that it should make certain supplemental appropriations as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, that: Pursuant to Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado, the Town Council hereby makes the following supplemental appropriations for the 1990 Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado, and authorizes the expenditure of said appropriations as follows: FUND AMOUNT General Fund $ 2,346,440 Capital Projects Fund 10,410,326 Special Parking Assessment Fund 167,110 Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund 269,567 Vail Marketing Fund 80,059 Communities for Drug-free Eagle County Fund 29.500 TOTAL $13,303,002 -1- 4 INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING THIS day of , 1990, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of 1990. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ ON SECOND READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of 1990. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk -2- SUPLMNTL 7/13/90 TOWN OF VAIL ~ Supplemental Appropriations 1990 Budget GENERAL FUND PROPOSED ACCOUNT ITEM SUPPLEMENTAL 01-4100-51210 Master Transportation Plan roll-forward 80,000 O1-0400-51210 Forest Serv. Case Legal Fees roll-forward 20,000 O1-0100-51210 Edwards Land Planning/Design roll-forward 10,000 O1-2100-51210 Zoning Code Rewrite roll-forward 55,000 O1-2300-51210 Environmental Comp. Plan roll-forward 10,000 O1-0100-52858 Berry Creek 5th Filing Purchase 1,876,000 O1-2100-51210 Eagle Co. Housing NeedB Assessment 1,000 O1-8300-52848 TOV Clean-Up Day 7,500 01-1500-XXXXX Survey Non-resident Property Owners 7,500 O1-8500-XXXXX Employee Housing 52,750 O1-8300-52831 Eagle County Election Info Distribution 4,000 01-8600-XXXXX Child Care Task Force 25,000 O1-3310-56100 Wildland Fire Fighting Equipment 910 01-8300-52833 Contribution to We Recycle 12,300 01-8300-52831 Contribution to Vail Village Criterium 7,500 O1-3160-XXXXX Summer Parking Plan Expenses 25,000 01-51XX-XXXXX Expanded Summer Bus Service 86,880 O1-1500-52304 Postage for Tennenbaum Land Exchange 4,000 01-0300-51210 Cultural Arts Facility Expenses 30,000 01-0100-52210 TV Translator Licenses 3,000 O1-4500-52702 Compost Program 600 O1-8300-52831 Limon Clean-up 1,000 O1-0100-52703 Jeff Campbell Dinner 25,000 O1-0100-52858 VRA/ABCRA Focus Group Research 1,500 GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2,346,440 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND PROPOSED ACCOUNT ITEM SUPPLEMENTAL 904 Communications Equipment roll-forward 358,000 916 VVI Interior Finishing roll-forward 3,000 905 Signage Program roll-forward 74,000 917 Underground Electrical Lines roll-forward 10,000 405 Design/Ene Pulis Bridge roll-forward 9,800 '?05 Village Streetscape Design roll-forward 25,000 521 Arena Heat Exchanger roll-forward 9,000 406 W Gore Creek Bridge Design roll-forward 3,900 918 W Meadow Drive Survey roll-forward 1,100 912 Bus Interior Refurbishment roll-forward 8,500 519 Fire Station Kitchen Remodel roll-forward 700 913 Bus Wash/Fueling Facility roll-forward 5,000 919 Computer Pro3ect roll-forward 107,000 Transfer to Debt Service 417,884 Parking Structure Construction 9,787,842 Decrease in Original Projects (410,400) CAPITAL PROJECTS TOTAL 10,410,326 r L REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX FUND PROPOSED ACCOUNT ITEM ~ SUPPLEMENTAL 30-9056-XXXXX East Vail Recreation Path roll-forward 90,000 30-9339-XXXXX Ford Park Construction roll-forward 33,000 30-9058-XXXXX Vail Trail Safety roll-forward 2,200 30-9060-XXXXX Ford Park Entry roll-forward 55,000 30-9064-56100 W. Vail Park Land Purchase roll-forward 44,000 30-9065-XXXXX Stevens Park Improvements roll-forward 30,000 30-9066-XXXXX Intermountain Pool Site roll-forward 41,000 30-9062-XXXXX Gore Creek Promenade roll-forward 5,000 30-9338-XXXXX Landscape Improvements roll-forwards 50,000 30-9330-55100 Transfer to Debt Service (599,538) 30-9330-57131 Loan Repayment 509,156 Increase in 1990 Open Space Pro3ects 9,749 RETT FUND TOTAL 269,567 VAIL MARKETING FUND PROPOSED ACCOUNT ITEM SUPPLEMENTAL 32-XXXX-XXXXX Marketing Expenditures 80,059 SPECIAL PARKING ASSESSMENT FUND PROPOSED ACCOUNT ITEM SUPPLEMENTAL 31-9010-55101 Transfer to Capital Pro3ects Fund 167,110 COMMUNITIES FOR A DRUG FREE EAGLE COUNTY PROPOSED ACCOUNT ITEM SUPPLEMENTAL 88-9553-XXXXX Operating Expenses 29,500 .,~o ~ 3 ~41.1~ ~~~~~E sN o~ 5.~i~~~~~~ ~ 1~ ~~~ro ~ U - co~~'-' 1~ 1 -T " ~ 1 ~ Q ~ ~t - ~ , ~ :a i it 1 ~ 1 ~M~~~ ~ ~ , . , ,A I - , . ~ t ~ . ~ ; + tt ~ 1., ~~tN~ 't ~ 3 ~ ~ h i d~c~~ ~ t 1~~ 1<<~ ~ !.il - 1 . ~ = ~ 1i o S~ ~ . ,~,2, 9 ` ~ pgt@ PLp,,N Revised . ~D S~T~ p`'° PRpP4S ~ . gUiLD~~ • D gRIDG . D~v~RE It~'D JUL 131990 Please have copies of these letters given to all members of the down Council before the duly 17th Council Meeting. Thank You ANDREW D. FRANKLIN OTdt MOFFIT COURT • SOULDHR, COLORADO Wi04 July 1, 1990 To Mayor Kent Rose and the Vail Town Council: As a property owner in the Vail metropolitan area and one who has skied at Vail every year since its innagural season in 1962, I would like to express my deep concern over the - proposed re-zoning for the Mariott-Mark Resort. I feel generally that the town of Vail ie in serious jeopardy of . becoming over developed and losing the special charm that has attracted people from all over the world to Vail for nearly 30 years now. I believe that the current zoning laws are appropriate and exceptions should not be made for the Marriott or any other project in the village core from Gold Peak to Lionshead. Respectfully submitted, ~r-~- ' Andrew D. Franklin 0160 Stone Creek Rd. Eagle-Vail, CO ~ ~ ~ ~ i 1 • . .MRS. DONALD D. DODGE. JR. ~ \ ' ` 8188 BRIDGER CANYON ROAD i 1 . ~ 'I BOZEMAN. MONTANA 89718 ~ ~r~ `'vUK-, i . ~ ~ . ~ 40 ~ oar c.~.Qad~, nc ate. ~ . ~ -G~ • ors ~ i ~ ~ ' r I S' t G~.u~ ~ cP,~ . P ~t , ; • + ~ • ~ , a~° ~ B o . t ~ . ~ ~°o~sv~?, cp ~ ~ r ~R ~ ~o~ m ~ iN~ ~ ~I,G~' ~ ~ ~ ~~Z~~ ~j ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ . ~ °u ~ . ~~,,~,1 u~ ~ . ~ ~ ~d ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ mac. ~ rt ~ ~ , . L an.~ ~~r. \ L. ~:u to Judy Oli~nek 3520 W. 32nd St. Minneapolis, Minn. 55416 July 3, 1990 Mayor Kent Rose Vail Town Council Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mayor Rose and Council Members, I'm writing to encourage you to maintain the present zoning laws of Vail and not grant an exception to the Marriott for further development beyond that allowed by the present law. Although further development is probably inevitable I think you should do everything in your power to keep it from occuring in downtown Vail and Lionshead beyond the present rather saturated state. I visit Vail several times a year and would hate to see this' beautiful area be ruined by over development. A Concerned Visitor, Judy Olijnek s~, ~ a» / btu' ` q~,f.~. Y i9~a 0 ~ 6 ~p9°'" ` ~ v,r~ N'" /.rte, ~ ~ ~ v ?or a,..~ i/ "~7~e~..t~.~-..- `7~ - ~.E~ ~ .cam' R.~.~,[~C.I'?a.1_- Q..~L~' ~D`+~.~ /~-ter _..~.l~ C~o~ru-~,c.c.~.~c.~ ~~c,.~. t~c.q. _ ` ~ ~ ~7C.G.G~l _ _ ~~e-r) i eke-.~.~ - FELIX A. MCPARLAND, M.D. JOHN F. WALDRON, M.D. STACY A. ROBACK, M.D. PEDIATRIC SURGICAL ASSOCIATES, LTD. GLEN F. ANDERSON, M.D. R. HAMPTON RICH, M.D. DAVID G. RUSTAD, M.D. TAGUE C. CHISHOLM, M.D., Retlred BERNARD J. SPENCER, M.D., Retlred MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE ST. PAUL OFFICE SOUTHDALE OFFICE OAKDALE OFFICE RIDGEVIEW OFFICE (612)871-4551 (612)228-0401 (612)927-5688 (812)588-0533 (812)135-2999 2515 Chicago Avenue SouM 280 Smith Avenue North 8545 Frenoe Avenue South 3388 Oakdab Avenue North 303 East Nk~lbt Boulevard Suite 104 Suite 810 Suite 322 Suite 409 Suke 215 Minneapolis, MN 55404 St. Paul, MN 55102 Edina, MN 55435 RobWnedab, MN 55422 Burnsville, MN 55337 July 2, 1990 Mayor Rent Rose Vail Town Council Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mayor Rose, As a skier who has been coming to Vail two to four times yearly since Vail opened I'm concerned that what I consider to be the best ski area available will deteriorate with continuing intense development. I realize that everyone would like to develop his own property to the maximun extent allowed by law. This is the reason I feel that you should do everything that you can to prevent over development. I would see no logical way to prevent other relaxations of the zoning laws if the Marriott is given an exception to the present law. I think you have an obligation to preserve the unique character of Vail, not only for we who enjoy it now but for future generations so that they can enjoy the premier area that we have all been able to appreciate so much. Sincerely, F.A. McFarland, M.D. T EL No . - _ Jul 11 90 6:11 i ANTC3Ntq RUIZ f3ALiNpQ Jf2. ViRREYES ~ 120 1.000 M~xICO, DEF. i a JULY 11TH„ 1990 i t MAYOR KENT ROSE j TOwN COUNG I l VAIL, CO. $1657 ~ i I DEAR MAYOR R05E I AM SURT` YOU Do NOT REMEMBER, BUT wE MET ON ONE OF 7HE LIFTS LAST FEBRUARY WHEN MY WIFE ANA I WERE SKIING IN VAIL. WHEN VICTOR DE LA LAMA SUGGESTED THAT WE MOVED OUR SKIING VACATIONS TO VAiL THE YEAR THAT VAIL ~ WAS OPENED, MANY OF US AGREED BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THAI VAIL. WOULD BECOME A UNIaUE RESORT THIS HAS I HAPPENED AND WE HAVE ENJOYED THE WONDERFUL AT MaSPHERE OF VAIL ALL THESE YEARS EVEN IF I AM aNLY a RESIDENT OF VAIL IN THE SKIING SEASON IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT THE MARRIOT MARK RESORT INTENDS TO HAVE YOU CHANGE THE XONING REGULATIONS ANA INCREASE THEIR DENSITY BY ~3x~ AS AN OLD FRIEND OF VAIL AND EVEN THOUGH MY GPI' NION IS PERHAPS ONE OF THE LEAST IMPORTANT, I WOULD APPEAL TO YOUR GOOD JUDGEMENT AND THOSE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL, TO KEEP THE IMAGE OF VAIL AS IT IS TODAY, A UN20UE tOWN WHERE WE LOV£ TO SPEND OUR YACATIONS. I HAVE TALKED TO OTHER OWNERS OF PINGS DEL NORTE AND THEY CONCUR. N E ELY, U n l v~ r s a l S c h c d u l i ct g C o m p a n y JOHN P. 1NILSON ' Pres~d~++t July ~sso Mayor Kent Rose THETOWN COUNCIL Vail, Colorado 81557 Oear Mayor Rose and Council Members: As a properly owner in Vail Village (Talisman Apt. X190 since 1974) I want you to know of my deep concern regarding our quality of life in Vail as pertains to the zorltng/density issues. now before you. The zoning now in afrtect was estab('ished to protect the openness and guard us frflm over development. In founding and running my own business for many years one of the hardest things to do is say no, particularly when proposals by seemingly we11-intended parties are wett~repared and weft-presented and thus are very persuasive. It is however the responsi'bitity of leadership to antiapate, and consider the side effects, and precedents of decisions that sound in the short term would be un-sound and even destructive Long- term. Suggestion: Lets keep Vail QtiAUTY -Just say No to re•-zoning. Don't open the door to overdevelopment. My best to strong leadership by members of the Town Council. I Ott,.... One Bela Pere. 9ola Gynwyc, PA t900~ ~-r-ss%~t070 0?i10i90 09:54 CORMAN CONSTRUCTION 001 A1t'fHUR G.'Gbx • / It WiRb:L PAIIIC~i'AY ' . , . ~ CNAbE, IIAllYL4PfD >>illb . July 9, 1990 I?ear Tom & Cindy : . I have already sent "Active Vail" $1,000 in connection with the Tannenbaum Case. As you are, i am deeply concerned with the encroachment by various parties on Vail open space. If this continual ,expansion is not halted Vail will become an over developed distasteful ski. city. I have been caminq to Vail aince1963, became a condo owner in 1970 and have been coming every year since then and for at least two month for the past ten years. I have a svn who has been skiing with us on an off for lvw these many years. tie is now at ~ stage in life where he is planning to buy a second ski home Eor himself and family, but he is not going to buy'in Vail. He considers Vail already overdeveloped and too cosmopolitan for his liking. How many of his age group do you thin are having the same misgiving. •Remember he'has been skiing in Vail for most of his adult life. ' Tom, T join with you and Cindy in opposing any further "zone bust" encroachment on open;spaoe ox forest land. Please pass my sentiments along i:v.the Mayor Kent Rose and the Town Council. The current coning codes should be adhered to: I wish you success in you fight to preserve the finest ski area in the world, Vail. ~ ` Yours Truly, • R f Arthur C. Cox Owner Apt B Golden Peak House Vail Colorado . ACC6.842 STE'IJART TILGHMAN ET AL TEL No. 305 3584707 Jul 13.90 1114 P:02 LARRY S. STEWABT F 9V~TE 1000 ' 4i W[ST FLAp4ER STQ[Et M~AKI, FLORIDA J7100-~608 Juiy 13, 1990 i i To The Town Council of Vail, Colorado: My family and I have been going to Vail for the past 20 years. What caused us to return year after pear was the realization that Vail afforded a unique and charming . experience that was unmatched anywhere else. A good part• of our enjoyment has been due to the special ambiance of Vail Village. It, therefore, came as a great shock to learn of Marriott's request to upzone its property. While this is only a single request, it has alI the ' earmarks of disaster. Once the seed is planted, it will be very difficult to turn back and reject other similar requests which will inevitably come. You are at a critical fork in the road for Vail's future. A quick look at what is happening in Aspen should prove the folly of high density development. The beauty and charm of Yail Valley will ultimately be lost. Unfortunately, when that occurs, no one will be able to undo the harm. I implore you to vote for Vail Valley and reject I Marriott's re-zoning request. ' ' Ver truly your i I rry .Stewart ' ISS : ~ c UJS 7•r1~1'fo ~ ~ a~ NORTHWEST COLORADO C COUNCIL •F GOVERNMENTS Post Office Box 739 ~ Frisco, Colorado 80443 Frisco 303 668-5445 Denver Direct 303 573-7611 ANALYSIS OF AGING Ec NUTRITION SERVICES FOR EAGLE COUNTY Prepared by: Skyline Six Area Agency on Aging Date: February 5, 1990 Purpose of Analysis: Currently, Skyline Six Area Agency on Aging (SSAAA) administers nutrition and supportive services for senior citizens in the six county area which includes Eagle County. The question for the purpose of this analysis is: "What would it cost Eagle County to administer these grog-rams without SSAAA? 1. Nutrition Services: SSAAA provides congregate and hame- delivered meals at ten different nutrition sites in the region. Ordering, menu analysis, inventory, payroll, personnel management, training, insurance, accounting and reporting are all managed centrally by SSAAA. Revenues to SSAAA for this program include the following: Federal/State Funds $ 67,216 Froject Income $ 57,329 U.S.D.A. $ 13,433 NWCCOG $ 2.000 TOTAL $139,978 a. The SSAAA Nutrition Project served 42,581 meals in 1989,. Total cost per meal ($139,978/42,581) _ $3.29 b. The Project collected $57,328.83 in contributions for meals served. . Average contribution per meal ($57,328.83/92,581) _ $1.35 Eagle County: Avon, Basalt, Eagle, Gypsum, Minturn, Red Cliff, Vail, Grand County: Fraser, Granby, Grand Loke, Hot Sulphur Springs, Kremmling, Winter Park, Jackson County: Walden, Pltkln County: Aspen, Snowmass Village, Routt County: Hoyden, Oak Creek, Steamboat Springs, Yampa, Summit County: Blue River, Breckenridge, Dillon, Frisco, Montezuma, Silverthorne c. SSAAA also receives $.5676 from U.S.D.A. for each eligible meal. This can be valued in either cash or commodities. $3.29 meal - $1.35 donation - $ .32 USDA (cash only) $1.62 SSAAA subsidy/meal d. Eagle County Costs Per Meal $1.62 SSAAA subsidy/meal + $ .32 USDA (cash only) + $ .28 USDA (commodities) + $ .30 USDA (bonus foods) + ~ .25 loss of regional buying power $2.77 Eagle County subsidy/meal # meals served 1989 Basalt 2,721 Eagle 5,563 Minturn 2.508 10,792 x $2.77/meal = $29,894 e. Other Costs: Accounting: Payroll, Accounts Payable $ 1,655 Insurance: Three Sites 785 Equipment 6,175 Food Ordering 1,000 Menu Planning 1,000 Training 300 Safety (training, analysis, inspection) 500 Education 200 Other Costs = $11,615 Total Eagle County Nutrition Costs ($29,899 + $11,615) $41,509 2. SuADOrtive Services: SSAAA provides direct grants to counties for provision of transportation, outreach, information and referral and in-home services. a. Eagle County 1989 Grant $10,374 Total Nutrition $91,509 Total Supportive Services $10.374 GRAND TOTAL $51,883 2 Future Considerations: If Eagle County decided to administer these programs with county funding the funds they are currently receiving from SSAAA would be redistributed to other counties. They would be used to increase meal service days at the other nutrition sites and to provide additional in-home and transportation services. If at some future date Eagle County decided to re-apply for this funding it would be difficult to justify cutting back nutrition service days and in-home and transportation services already in use at other locations. 3 ll1S 7.17.90 l,(,Yv,~u * ~ ~ . . 1989 Annual Report The Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) sponsors Skyline Six Area' Agency on Aging (SSAAA) as the regional focal point for services to senior citizens in the six county area. SSAAA has been designated by Aging and Adult Services, Colorado Department of Social Services to receive Federal Older Americans Act Funds (Title III). These funds are used in conjunction with state, county and local funds to develop and implement a comprehensive and coordinated system of services for the elderly in Region XII. • • •SSAAA REGIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL • • • Each of the six County Councils on Aging recommends two members and one alternate to serve on the Regional Advisory Council (RAC). Appointments to the RAC must be authorized by the appropriate Board of County Commissioners. There is also a position for an elected official representative. RAC members meet monthly to discuss issues of concern to the elderly, monitor service delivery of the SSAAA subgrantees, and exchange information on elderly programs and opportu- nities. The RAC makes recommendations to the NWCCOG Board of Directors for grant awards, budget decisions and legislative support. • • •SSAAA Regional Advisory Council Members • • • COUNTY 1ST REPRESENTATIVE 2ND REPRESENTATIVE ALTERNATE Eagle Gerald Rose Almeda Duroux Eloise Schmidt Grand Howard Cohen Lillian Carpenter Francis Gray Jackson Francis Hanson Frank Soto Ethel Howard Pitkin Budge Bingham Mona Frost Robert Kopp Routt Pearl Weber Nancy Yurich Eleanor Dunckley Summit Jim Robertson Elnora Porter Duane Eix Elected Official: Marsha Osborn • • •SSAAA 1989 Budget • • • REVENUES EXPENSES Federal /State $142,146 Administration $ 18,895 Carryover $ 9,391 Coordination $ 4,725 Project Income $ 56,000 Information & Ref. $ 9,475 USDA $ 14,000 Grants $ 56,121 NWCCOG (match) $ 7,395 Nutrition $139,000 Long Term Care $ 500 Total $228,932 Total $228,932 • ~ • SENIOR NUTRITION PROGRAM • • • SSAAA is a direct provider of nutrition servicers in Region XII. All nutrition site personnel are NWCCOG employees and all food purchasing, menu planning and analysis, use of USDA commodities, ordering and budgeting are done centrally Senior Citizens eating at the meal sites contribute toward the actual cost of providing the meal. In 1989 the suggested donation was $1.50. All contributions are voluntary and confidential. Guests (persons under 60 years of age) were charged $3.25 per meal. The project income collected in 1989 came in above the amount budgeted. The total $57,863 collected is the greatest amount ever received and actually covers just over forty percent (40%) of the expenses of the nutritional program. The total number of meals served was 42,581 which is a slight decrease from the 1988 total of 43,200. The number of different individuals attending the nutrition sites was 1,134 or about 30% of the 60+ population in the region. The ten meal sites in the Senior Nutrition Program all serve both congregate and home - delivered meals. In the following chart, the nutrition site locations (Basalt, Eagle, Minturn, Granby, Kremmling, Aspen, Hayden, Steamboat, South Routt, and Frisco) are represented by their county area. County Senior Number of Persons Number Home Total Population Served Congregate & of Meals Delivered Home-Delivered Congregate Eagle 764 251 10,245 547 10,792 Grand 745 213 6,838 1,091 7,929 Jackson 239 Pitkin 695 142 5,194 431 5,625 Routt 996 349 11,083 1,793 12,876 Summit 371 236 5,139 220 5,359 Total 3,810 1,134 38,499 4,082 42,581 The Project Income for 1989 was $57,863 • • • TRANSPORTATION • • • Transportation for the elderly has always been an important concern in an area as rural in nature as Region XII. The senior vans are used to transport seniors to medical appointments, nutrition sites and for shopping and recreational pursuits. 519 different persons used the transportation services in 1989 representing about 14% of the total 60+ population of the region. County Senior Number Number of Population Served Trips Eagle 764 122 9,117 Grand 745 176 6,243 Jackson 239 32 1,288 Pitkin 695 n/a 5,259 Routt 996 125 9,331 Summit 371 64 2,546 Total 3,810 519 33,784 The Project Income for 1989 was $12,156 2 • • • IN HOME SERVICES • • • In some ways the In-Home Services are the most important services provided by SSAAA. The Older Americans Act stresses the importance of providing community based services to the elderly which enable them to remain in their own homes and avoid institutionalization. The statistics on these services (Personal Care, Homemaker and Chore) tend to reflect smaller numbers of individuals using greater units of service. In 1989, 294 different persons (about 8% of the region's 60+ population) used a total of 4109 hours of service. County Senior Number Homemaker Personal Care Chore Population of Persons Number of Number of Number of Served Hours Hours Hours Eagle 764 96 570 0* 364 Grand 745 0* 0* 0* 0* Jackson 239 40 255 59 132 Pitkin 695 21 78 1,353 0* Routt 996 109 0* 591 0* Summit 371 28 299 0* 408 Total 3,810 204 1,202 2,003 904 The Project Income for 1989 was $1,747 * Please note that zeros indicate that the service was not provided with SSAAA funds, not that the service was unavailable in the county. If the service was funded with other state or local dollars it would not have been reported to SSAAA. • • • INFORMATION AND REFERRAL /OUTREACH • • • Outreach - SSAAA keeps track of the number of different persons who use any services provided through the regional network. A person is counted once and only once no matter how many different services they receive. The 71 % regional outreach figure represents an outstanding accomplishment by the County Senior Coordinators (see list on page 4). Information & Referral -This very important function makes senior citizens aware of programs, services, activities, benefits and opportunities which may be available to them. The service is provided through newsletters, telephone calls, group presentations and direct one-on- one contacts. In 1989, there were 48,887 contacts reported. County Senior Number of Number of Population Person Outreach % Contacts I/R Eagle 764 423 55 7,962 Grand 745 398 53 7,401 Jackson 239 163 68 1,922 Pitkin 695 773 111 * 9,563 Routt 996 488 49 5,541 Summit 371 455 120* 16,498 Total 3,810 2,690 71 % 48,887 * In two of our counties we are reaching over 100% of the number which the State Demographer's Office has projected. These projections are based on the 1980 census which we believe severely undercounted the 60+ population in areas of our region. 3 ~ • • • REGIONAL SERVICES • SSAAA also provides the following additional services: Legal = Through a contract with the Northwest Colorado~Legal Services Project the ekferly can receive Legal Services in the form of direct client representation and/or legal .informational workshops. Repair/ Renovation -Minor changes that serve to enhance the ability of a frail, elderly person to remain in their home (owned or rented) can be paid for up to a maximum of $150 for each unit. - Old Age Pension Dental Program -Pensioners can receive assistance in the payment of dental bills for allowable costs. The program can cover 80% of the cost of service. SSAAA Ombudsman -The Ombudsman protects the rights of nursing home and personal care boarding home residents through investigation and resolution of complaints. • • • SENIOR COORDINATORS • • • SSAAA is fortunate to have senior coordinator positions in each of the six counties. The positions are supported with County and/or Council on Aging funding and range from part-time to full time status. The Senior Coordinators perform a wide variety of job functions including the following: outreach grants administration, reporting, composition and distribution of newsletters, planning activities, coordination with other community programs and services, and advocating for the rights of elderly citizens. County Name Phone Number County Name Phone Number Eagle Marge Gates/ 328-7311 X 252 Pitkin Marty Ames 920-5432 Pat McCollum Routt Shelley Orrell 879-0633 Grand Betty Wray 627-8237 Summit Beth Koran 668-5486 Jackson Joan Follett 723-4503 • • •SSAAA SUBGRANTEES • • • SSAAA grants Older Americans Act funds to subgrantees who provide the services and report the statistics on service utilization to the SSAAA offices. SSAAA 1989 subgrantees included the following agencies: Eagle County Routt County Council on Aging Grand County Council on Aging NW Colorado Visiting Nurses Assoc. Jackson County Council on Aging. Summit County Pitkin County Summit County Nursing Services Pitkin County Community Health Services NW Colorado Legal Services Project • • •SSAAA STAFF • • • Director -Linda Venturoni Administrative Assistant -Pat Wakley Registered Dietician -Florence Gruchy 4 JUL 17 '9~J 1~~c~ ~~0'~,~ ~~FF X12-46~-124'3 P.c:~c rte: ~~i~~ ~c~u~~~~ra~i~~ 1~~~uyrv • raTO~ July 17, 1990 The Honorable Kent Rosa The City of Vail Vail, Colorado Dear Mayor Rose: As condominium owners at Vail, we are deeply concerned about protecting the beautiful town of Vail Pram overdevelopment. Governor Clements and Z feel strongly that the current zoning codes should be strictly enforced with ~ no exceptions. These zoning laws were ! established far the purpose of preserving that distinct quality of life all have come to enjoy and expect in Vail. We hope you will support the continuation of thESe established zoning laws that protect the beauty and charm of Vail. Sincerely, ' ~~~iti~vrr~ Mrs. William P. Clements, Jr. First Lady of Texas KAYE OAVIS-~ 3034765857# 2 SENT BY~CHILTON INVESTMENTS 7-17-50 ~ 3~27PM ' 1. E. R CkIITpN fN • p. p, BO% 2od9 • DOLL45, TEXAS 7522! July 17, 1990 Mayor Kent Rase and The 'Vail Town Council Vail CD . Dear Mayor and Town Council: I would like to express my deep concern over the pxoblems we are facing due to "overbuilding" and the effect thereof on the future of our lovely city of Vail. As an owner at Lodge Towers, my family and I look forward to "getting away" from the big city, big traffic and the commerci8lism of Dallas. That is why we chose Vail for our second home; the mountains, the skiing, fr®sh air and quietness, and, the people,i I would hate to see all that be annihilated by auto exhaust, noise •pollution, air pollutants and the loss of trees and wide-open-spaces that go with "expansion and so-called development". Please, Mr. Mayor and Town Council, do whatever you can to keep our city the sanct~,on we have always known it to be. BIGGER, for the future of Vail, zS NOT $ETTLRi Sincerely yours, E. R. Chilton Lodge Towers i~l Vail ZOO nail Road Vail, Co. 81658 JERC/jah Action Yai~ Inc. FRIENDS OF OPEN-SPACE T P.O. Box 1426 Vail, Colorado 81658 JUL 1 71990 Town of Vail Town Council 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 July 17, 1990 Dear Mayor Rose and Town Council Members: Action Vail, Inc. Friends of Open Space would like to express the concerns of its members with regards to the unresolved issues associated with the amendments being proposed to Special Development District Seven, The Marriott Mark Resort. Because of the need for greater detailed research, several of our concerns which have been left unresolved by The Marriott Nlark Resort application, staff review, and PEC recommendations, are still under study. Among our concerns are the following: 1. It appears to us that there are no unique and specific conditions which sets the proposed expansion of The Marriott Mark Resort apart from other properties having similar conditions in the community. 2. It is clear that there are several other properties in the community that would be eligible for rezoning and density increases, .through the variance or Special Development District approval procedures, based upon the conditions identified by the staff as~favorable reasons for granting The Marriott Mark Resort application. 3. Undoubtedly the specific conditions that exist for The Marriott Mark application demonstrate, if approved, that the method of approval and the degree of density increase granted will establish a precedent that could be emulated by other properties throughout the community. 4. The unprecedented amount of the square footage being requested, beyond the limitation of density and unit restrictions for standard zone district, is unacceptable under any circumstances and in our opinion is a grant of special privilege that would be denied other property owners with similar conditions and circumstances. 5. TIo extraordinary contributions to the community, other than those that would be expected of any similar development application in the community or which would not be considered as normal and expected maintenance, have been made in the Marriott Mark application. Town of Vail Town Council The Marriott Mark Resort Amendment Application July 17, 1990 Page Two 6. We believe that insufficient actions have been taken to preserve, protect, and correct the maintenance deficiencies of the public and private open space which occurs in association with The Marriott Mark Resort. 7. The master planning documents which have been used to evaluate the merits of the proposed Marriott Mark Resort infill site are not of comparable and sufficient detail to the master planning documents used to make similar evaluation for Vail Village and the Golden Peak infill sites. 8. There are circumstances or extraordinary conditions that we can see that would not allow the changing of underlying zone districts in other similar Special Development Districts or standard zone districts. 9. 6~e believe that the changing of the underlying zone district to HDMF would allow for the timesharing of both proposed and existing buildings which will more than likely result in the abandonment of on-site convention facilities which are critical to the Lionshead short term rental bed base and the community-at-large. Prior to making an informed evaluation with regards to the scope and implications of The Marriott Mark Resort application we believe that it is essential to have the following planning information available. 1. The number of additional timesharing and hotel rooms that could be constructed in the community, assuming a comparable increase in density being requested by The Marriott Mark Resort application were granted to properties with similar circumstances. 2. Identify the specific amounts of increased public funds that would be required to finance necessary improvements to the community"s infrastructure, including roadway and transportation improvements, that would result from community wide increases in short term timesharing and hotel units. 3. Provide specific planning reports based upon credible statistical and demographic data that substantiates or refutes the assertion that timesharing units have significantly better annual occupancy rates than hotel rooms. F r Town of Vail Town Council The Marriott Mark Resort Amendment Application ' July 17, 1990 Page Three 4. Provide specific planning reports based upon credible statistical and demographic data that substantiates or refutes that the occupants of timesharing units have an equal or significantly higher expenditure level while visiting the community as compared with the occupants of hotel rooms. 5. Provide specific planning reports which substantiate or refute the consequences that timesharing will have upon the availability and operations of The Marriott Mark Resort on-site convention facilities. 6. The 1986 Land Use Plan should be updated according to the review provisions of these planning documents, prior to making a determination with regards to The Marriott Mark Resort application. 7. A Lionshead Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan should be completed to a similar level of detail as the Vail Village Master Plan before a determination of infill sites is made for the Lionshead area. It is the position of our organization that until sufficient independent investigation and information is available from the Town of Vail with regards to the foregoing unresolved concerns, it is inappropriate and impossible to adequately evaluated the merits of The Marriott Mark Resort application. We firmly believe no exceptional conditions exist or that extraordinary community benefits are acquired within the scope of the present application. Approval of The Marriott Mark Resort applications is premature and unwarranted at this time. Sin rel Gordon G. itt~~~_ Executive Committee ion V '1 Inc. 'ends of Open-Space Wa en Mi er J ck Rush James Franklin Lamont ~ JUL 1 71990 Town of Vail Town Council 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 July 17, 1990 Dear Mayor Rose and Town Council Members: Subsequent to a query from Kristan Pritz, Director of Community Development, I have made the following review of the historical record concerning my recall of zoning matters associated with the creation of Special Development District 7. Please be advised I have been retained by Action Vail, Inc. Friends of Open Space to review and report upon the pending zoning action concerning changes and modification to Special Development District 7. I . Summary The zoning standards prescribed for Special Development District 7 are inconsistent and conflict with the requests in the pending application. The chances permitted by the application are inconsistent and conflict with existing conditions on the site of Special Development District 7. 1. Allowing HDMF as the sole underlying zone. district, based upon the alleged lack of sufficient documentation, will cause the approval of timesharing as a conditional use to be technically defective in Special Development District 7. a. Sufficient information exists to determine the underlying zone districts are High Density Multiple Family and Public Accommodations. b. There are adequate reasons and acceptable practices to demonstrate the purpose and intent for the lack of boundary line location for the zone districts that predated the creation of any Special Development District. 2. Allowing a change of existing underlying zone districts and designating HDMF as the sole underlying zone district for Special Development District 7, based upon provision of section 18.40.070 USES, will cause the subsequent approval o~ timesharing as a conditional use to be technically defective. a. Section 18.40.070 in part states, "Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed special Town of Vail Town Council Marriott Mark Resort Application ' July 17, 1990 Page Two development district, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in a property"s underlying zone district." The request to allow timesharing, now prohibited, would be a lessening not an additional restriction. b. Special Development District 7 was created from two zone districts using the principle of "the most restrictive development standard" to determine GRFA and conflicting uses. Timesharing would not be permitted using the foregoing principle, since it is prohibited in Public Accomodations, one of the underlying zone districts. c. The creation of a Special Development District 7 removed all rights and privileges granted by preexisting zone districts. d. The applicant has exercised benefits and privileges granted by the creation of Special Development District 7. Economic advantages have been exercised and taken. 3. The Town Council may further restrict permitted, conditional and accessory uses in special development districts according to section 18.40.070; providing their actions cannot be construed to limit, replace or diminish the requirement,responsibilities, and specifications of special development districts 2 through 21. The changing of the underlying zone district to HDMF so that tir~lesharing will be allowed as a conditional use will cause the approval to be technically defective. a. Allowing timesharing as a conditional use can be construed to limit, replace or diminish the requirements, responsibilities, and specifications of Special Development District 7. b. Allowing timesharing as a conditional use can be construed to limit, replace or diminish the requirements, responsibilities, and specifications for special development districts 2 through 21.. 4. Amending Special Development District 7 to provided for increases in GRFA and dwelling units, exceeds the limitations imposed upon Special Development District 7. Amending for purposes of increasing development density specifically for Special Development District 7 will cause the approval to be technically defective. Town of Vail Town Council Marriott Mark Resort Application July 17, 1990 Page Three a. Granting density increases can be construed to limit, replace or diminish the requirements, responsibilities, and specification of Special Development District 7. 5. In section 18.40.140, "The Town Council finds that said special development districts 2 through 21 shall remain in full force and effect, and the terms, conditions, and agreements contained therein shall continue to be binding upon the applicants thereof and the Town of Vail. Amending to allow density increases or changing underlying zoning to allow timesharing as a conditional use will cause the approval to be technically defective. a. The amendment to allow density increases or change underlying zoning to allow timesharing will overturn a binding agreement. II. Review of Historical Record: The following review of the historical record is based upon my previous employment with the Town of Vail, as the Director of Community Development, during the period of discussions which resulted in the authorization by the Town Council of Special Development District 7. Further, I have reviewed the Community Development Department records concerning subsequent activities associated with this zoning matter. 1. 1969 Origins of Zone Districts and Development Standards: In 1969, zone districts were established for all parcels of land within the Town of Vail in conjunction with the adoption of the community"s first zoning ordinance. Zone districts were applied to all newly subdivided or annexed land. An official zoning map was prepared and adopted. All parcels of land subdivided by Vail Associates INC. that comprise the LionsHead area were zoned under the provisions of this ordinance, including the parcels which are now incorporated in Special Development District 7. The zone district for each parcel was indicated on the official zoning map. Town of Vail Town Council Marriott A1ark Resort Application July 17, 1990 Page Four 2. 1973 Revision and Expansion of Zoning Powers: In 1973, the original zoning ordinance and its ensuing amendments were repealed. Anew zoning ordinance was adopted that combined the essential elements of the original zoning ordinance with expanded powers of review as well as revisions to preexisting development standards. The preexisting zoning map was readopted with no changes in zone district boundaries. The 1973 zoning ordinance allowed for the first time the creation of Special Development Districts. A Special Development District could be imposed over a preexisting zone district. Further, a Special Development District could be imposed upon newly annexed territory without having a standard zone district as its genesis. However, at the time of annexation, development standards were imposed that were consistent with requirements found in comparable zone districts. 3. 1976 Special Development District 7: In 1976, Special Development District 7 was created from two separate zone districts, Public Accommodation and High Density Multiple Family. (See copy of rezoning Public Notice attached.) Lengthy consideration was given to the most equitable means of incorporating the conflicting development standards required by each zone district into a set of unifying development standards for the Special Development District. Particular emphasis was placed upon the calculation of density, number of units, and the interpretation of permitted, conditional, and accessory uses. As a result of this conflict, a principle was accepted which concluded that the development standards for Special Development District 7 would be determined, unless otherwise provided for in the adopting ordinance, by applying the most restrictive development standard from either zone district to the entire Special Development District. By example, GRFA .calculations were based upon HDMF density standards; HDMF GRFA multiple being .60 as opposed to PA which is .80. Special Development District 7, allowable GRFA for a 5.17 acre site is 134,000 square feet. (See memorandum dated December 9, 1976 concerning Preliminary Assessment of the Mark Special Development District.) t Town of Vail Town Council Marriott Mark Resort Application July 17, 1990 Page Five The necessity to identify or apply the development standards of each zone district (HDMF or PA) to each separate lot that composed the original site was not considered, at the time, a matter of importance. During public hearings associated with the creation of Special Development District 7, it was sufficient that the determination had been made that the "most restrictive development standard" would apply, in matters that required interpretation such as permitted, conditional, and accessory uses. For example, in the present circumstance, timesharing is allowed as a conditional use in the HDMF zone district but prohibited in PA therefore, due to the most restrictive use principle, timesharing could not be allowed as a conditional use in Special Development District 7. It was accepted that with the application of the "most restrictive development standard" premise there was no need to continue documentation of zone district boundaries. Consequently, there was no need to retain official records that illustrated preexisting zone district boundaries. All subsequent zoning maps were amended to reflect the appropriate designation of each Special Development District and any reference to the original zone district or districts were removed. It was determined that once a property received and exercised advantages granted in a Special Development District, all rights and privileges of the original zone district were given up. It was also resolved that specific limitation on density and numbers of units would be imposed so that subsequent amendments could only be allowed for aesthetic and functional considerations such as parkins, and circulation. 4. 1977 Resubdivision of Special Development District 7: In early 1977 a resubdivision of the Special Development District 7 was completed. Lot 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8,'Block 1, Vail LionsHead Third Filing were subdivided. (See public notice dated: December 17, 1976.) The purpose of the resubdivision was to created revised lot boundaries between land owned by Vail Associates Inc. zoned for parking and Special development District 7 so that more efficient parking lots and structures could be laid out for each development site. Town of Vail Town Council Marriott Mark Resort Application July 17, 1990 Page Six The boundaries of .zone districts which predated the creation of Special Development District 7 were not redrawn to conform with the new lot line boundaries. It was determined that changing original zone district boundaries within Special Development District 7 was not necessary. It was concluded that the original boundaries of the zone districts were dissolved with the creation of the Special Development District 7. Once uniform zoning standards had been imposed over the entire Special Development District 7, lot lines could be moved within the special development district without consideration of preexisting zone district boundaries. The development standards from each zone district were incorporated, using the principle of the most restrictive development standard, into the development standards for Special Development District 7. Consequently, there was no need to maintain zone district boundaries in order to determine the specific location of uses or the primacy of development standards. It should be noted that portions of the site identified in the pending application, as the location of additional timesharing units, has an underlying zone district of Parking. These areas are the former location of the Vail Associates site zoned for Parking that existed prior to the 1977 resubdivision of Block 1, Vail LionsHead Third Filing. 5. 1980-81 Timesharing Related Ordinances: In mid-1980 the Town Council approved Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1980. This ordinance approved timesharing as a conditional use in the HDMF, PA, CCI, and CCII zone districts. This ordinance was accompanied by a series of other ordinances which imposed regulatory control over timesharing activities. Within six months of approval the Town Council reversed it approval, repealed Ordinance No. 26, replacing it with Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1981 which permitted timesharing only in the HDMF zone district. Such a significant and rapid turnabout in Town Council attitudes is worthy of note. The Town Council acted to establish intent and regulate the inclusion of timesharing as a conditional use within an existing project or building. According to Ordinance No. 36, Series of 1980, Town of Vail Town Council Marriott Mark Resort Application July 17, 1990 Page Seven "7.) Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit for a Time-Share Estate, Fractional Fee or Time-Share license proposal, the applicant shall submit to the Town a list of all owners of existing units within the project or building; and written statements from 100$ of the owners of existing units indicating their approval, without condition, of the proposed Time-Share, r'ractional Fee or Time-Share license." 6. 1984 Request for Conversion from Accommodation Units to Condominium Units: In 1984 a request by the MK Corporation (Kaiser 1lorcus) was made for the conversion of 67 accommodation units and 27 dwelling units to condominium units. The CDD staff recommended that owner occupancy would be restricted to two weeks in the summer and two weeks in the winter. The proposal was tabled by the PEC at the request of the applicant. 7. 1985 Request for Conversion from Accommodation Units to Timesharing Units: A request by the MK Corporation (Kaiser Morcus) in 1985 sought to convert 121 rooms (27 existing kitchens) to a time sharing use. The Community Development Department recommended denial. The PEC, after lengthy debate, tabled the application at the request of the applicant. (See CDD Staff Memorandum Dated April 22, 1985; PEC Minutes riay 28, 1985.) Four of the same people who served on the PEC which drafted the 1986 Land Use Plan, (adopted November 18, 1986) rejected the Marriott Mark Resort application (May 28, 1985) to convert accommodation units to timesharing units. The Community Development Department recommended against an amendment to the conditional use section of Special Development District 7 (Marriott Mark Hotel) to add time sharing on a fractional fee ownership basis. As quoted from staff memorandum to the PEC and Town Council date April 22 1985, "Allowing this conversion would be a precedent setting decision toward a general direction of dilution of the short term hotel bed base in the Town of Vail. Removal of accommodation units, especially from an organization such as the Marriott can only be viewed as a significant negative impact upon the Town of Vail." Town of Vail Town Council Marriott Mark Resort Application ' July 17, 1990 Page Eight "Negative effect upon group business. It is noted in the applicant"s memorandum that approximately a one year lead time will be required to include an individual week into the Marriott rental pool. It is unlikely that an owner will have made the decision of whether or not he will utilize the unit himself one year in advance. This could result in the unit being vacant for that week because the owner decided within a shorter time frame not to use the unit and the Marriott was subsequently unable to rent it. The impact upon the Marriott"s ability to conduct the larger group business meetings would be very negative with this uncertainty over unit availability." 8. 1986 Land Use Plan: The 1986 Land Use Plan is an policy advisory document and does not circumvent zoning and other regulatory documents. It was prepared with the assistance of an advisory task force working in conjunction with the Town of Vail staff and PEC. The planning document set forth goals and objectives to used as a general policy guidelines to evaluate the merits of proposed development. The framers of the 1986 Land Use Plan took precautionary steps to clearly distinguish between quality time share projects as being appropriate for residential development rather than commercial. This perspective mirrors the 1981 decision of the Town Council to limit timesharing to HDMF zone districts. It is apparent from the goals statements for Vail Village/LionsHead and Commercial, the retention and development of hotel rooms and facilities is of paramount importance. The following are Goal Statements extracted from the 1986 Land Use Plan which have relevance to the application pending before the Town Council: 1. General Growth/Development 1.2 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 2. Skier/Tourist Concerns 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day visitors. Town of Vail Town Council Marriott Mark Resort Application July 17, 1990 Page Nine 3. Commercial 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.2 T1ie Village and LionsHead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 3.'3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 4. Village Core/LionsHead 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. 9. 1988 Underlying Zoning: A more recent approach for the determination of acceptable uses in Special Development Districts was amended to the zoning ordinance in 1988. The amendment provides a more specific guide to all Special Development Districts concerning the determination of acceptable uses. The amendment in part states, "Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed special development district, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in a property"s underlying zone district." It is important to note that the amendment provides specific direction for determination of uses. to development districts which are or•have been created from only one zone district. The 1988 SDD amendment, does not resolve the issue of determining "primacy of uses" when two or more zone districts are merge into one Special Development District. Further, the existing amendment, as quoted above, only provides for a greater restriction or limitation upon uses than is otherwise provided for in the originating underlying zone district. Town of Vail Town Council Marriott Mark Resort Application ' July 17, 1990 Page Ten Any changes in the underlying zone districts does not affect prior decision made for .Special Development Districts 2 through 21. According to section 18.40.140, Existing Special Development Districts, "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit, replace, or diminish the requirements, responsibilities, and specifications of special development districts 2 through 21. The Town council specifically finds that said special development districts 2 through 21 shall remain in full force and effect, and the terms, conditions, and agreements contained therein shall continue to be binding upon the applicants thereof and the Town of Vail." According to this section attempts to change, the underlying zone district of a preexisting SDD or append amendments because changes have occurred in the underlying zone districts since the passage of the Special Development District 7, would not be acceptable. When a special development district is created, because of the benefits and privileges granted and exercised, all rights and privileges conferred by the original zone district are given up. In the foregoing citation, a distinctive class of Special Development Districts has been created. Amendment, be it for additional uses or GRFA and unit increases, in any one of the Special Development District 2-21 would confer the same or similar privileges to all. III. Policy Considerations: 1. 1990 Designating An Underlvinq Zone District: The proposal to change or alter an underlying zone district for a Special. Development District has no merit or purpose. No unique or unknown circumstance has been demonstrated that any of the privileges and benefit already conferred and exercised have been denied the applicant. The changing of the underlying zone district would grant a special privilege that can be shown to be inconsistent with prior approvals and intention of the Town of Vail. Section 18.40.140 provides that unique limitations have been imposed upon changes to Special Development District 2- 21. The alteration of these limitation for one special development district would be applicable to the regulation of Special Development District 2-21. Town of Vail Town Council Marriott Mark Resort Application July 17, 1990 Page Eleven 2. Burden of Proof: It has been represented that the Town of Vail cannot produce documentary evidence of the preexisting zone district designation for the specific parcels of land which are included in Special Development District 7. Archive requirements by the State of Colorado provide for the preservation of official documents such as amendments to the official zoning map by a municipal government. (See CDD Staff to PEC memoranda Dated January 8, 1990 and April 23, 1990.) Administrative procedures and legal remedies are available for the authentication and location of the original zone districts for each parcel incorporated into Special Development District 7. However, failure to determine the specific location of a zone district does not conflict with a limitation of the most restrictive use being allowed when two different zone districts (HDMF and PA) exist within a special development district. The burden of proof is upon the proponent to prove their position. The lack of evidence proves nothing. 3. riaster Planning Documents: Presently, urban design and master planning documents has not been prepared to the same level of detail that is required for review and consideration of development in the Golden Peak neighborhood and Vail Village. Given the scope and significance of the pending application, the same level of urban design and master planning documentation should be available before the application can be adequately considered. 4. Timesharing: A majority of quality time share units that occur at present are used as short term residential vacation housing. Occupancy rates have continue at a flat rate of growth during the low occupancy seasons during the last several economic cycles. Low Occupancy. seasons are common to all resort community economies. The rate of foreclosures is significant. (See copy of public notices from Avon Beaver Creek Times.) Town of Vail Town Council Marriott Mark Resort Application July 17, 1990 Page Twelve The sales tax base will be eroded because, unlike hotels and condominium hotels, timesharing hotels do not collect sales tax from the use of short term accommodation rooms. In recent years, the relinquishment of accommodation and dwelling units from the condominium hotel short term rental pool has been significant. It has been stated during the first public hearing on the pending application, by an authority on local hotel/timesharing development, that the conversion of an existing hotel to timesharing, to save it from economic collapse, has not been shown to be a proven remedy to sustain an economic turnabout of a hotel property. 5. Grant of Special Privilege: The benefits that created Special Development District 7 were achieved through combining the preferential advantages from two underlying zone districts (PA and HDN1F). The attempt to remove one of the underlying zone district in order to overcome the limitations upon use within the Special Development District is gain by special privilege. Economic advantages have already been exercised and taken under both underlying zone districts. It would be inapvropriate to allow a windfall gain to occur, through the amendment process, unless substantial financial restitution were made for the economic gains conferred by the original underlying zone districts. The applicant has already exercised all benefits and privileges granted by the creation of Special Development District 7. The approval of HDMF as an underlying zone district seeks to gain a grant of special privilege that would more than .likely be denied to Special Development ' Districts 2-21 according to the provisions of section 18.40.140. 6. Residential vs Commercial Uses The benefits and .privileges conferred and exercised in Special Development District 7, allowed the property to become overwhelmingly dominated by commercial uses. It would be impossible to consider the existing development as predominantly residential in nature. The Marriott bark can no longer be considered residential. Town of Vail Town Council Marriott Mark Resort Application July 17, 1990 Page Thirteen It can be demonstrated from the historical record, existing ordinances, and master planning guidelines that the Town of Vail intends and defines timesharing as a residential use, to be located within buildings and projects that are composed in there entirety of time share units, located in High Density Multiple family zones and do not contain commercial use activities. It should not be an acceptable practice to allow a development to derive benefits by claiming commercial status, then when all benefit have been extracted, recant and ignore these privileges in order to gain benefits reserved for residential development. 7. Employeeriousinq: There is no existing employee housing in the Special Development District 7. It is questionable that quality employee housing units can be located in such close proximity to high intensity commercial uses. IV. Conclusion: The Marriott Mark proposal is defective because it fails to meet the conditions of long established criteria and standards imposed by the Town of Vail over limitation imposed upon density increases and the location and definition of timesharing as a residential use. It is evident from the foregoing review of events and official records that the Town of Vail has, over the years, exercise consistent and diligent concern over the creation and amendment of Special Development Districts. S'ncerely,: Ada ~es F. Lfamo/t i ~ PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT Kaiser Morcus, representing the Mark, . has requested rezoning of Lots 4 and 7, and a portion of L4ts.5 and 6, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Third Filing from Public Accommodations and High Density Multiple Family to Special Development District to allow development of the site in a more innovative manner. Application has been filed pursuant to Section 21.500 of .the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973. Public Hearings were held on December 9, 16 and 23, 1976 before the Town of Vail Planning Commission in accord with Section 21.400 of the Zoning Ordinance. Planning .Commission recommendations have been forwarded to the Town Council who will make a final decision orb January 18, 1977 at 7:30 PM in the Vail Municipal Building. TOWN OF VAIL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT _ ~ G~ Diana S. Tough~ll Zoning Administrator Published in the Vail Trail December 24, 1976 . ti PROOF OF PUBLICATION • STATE OF COLORADO ) sa. COUNTY OT'' EAGLE ) 1, do sofemniy swear that 1 am the~V~-lS~ of TiiE VAiL TRAIL; that the same is a weekly newspaper "printed, in whole or in part and ptlblislled in the Ccwllty of 13ngle, Si.ale of - . Cotorndo, and has a general citcuiatton therein; that said n~w~paper has been S published continuously and trnlnterruptedly in said County of Ellgll• for a period of ~~9~~~~ more than n[ty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper bas been admitted to NOTICE Is NFItEer o1vEN Iha r•Iser Mo?cus. rtprefcnlinlf Th. Mark, h•s llle United States mai{s as second-class matter under file provisiflns o[ the Act o[ reo~es+^-d .erenl~• of I.ol• • snd r •rw • Diarch 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly Po?non el lots s •nd s. Block vu llo~sNe•d Thlyd F111n0 Iron Pvbllc newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the F•milyo?~Slpcc+•1 D!HeMpmentlOtsfrlcl M meaning of the laws o[ the State o[ Colorado. ~ -now ; - - mnn+ w ine ule le + Inn•vIive me~mer. Appllc•Ilon h•~ been That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and iOrdh+•~e'o?d°?nerK+c Ne~'i ie.iK o nil A Public Ilearlnq will b• held on entire' Issue of every number of sold weekly newspaper for the period o[ ~ December lock htlae nee Town a Veil ' PI•rminp Commission M accord wan Section ~1.IOO of the 2onlrq OrdMant•. S•td hearirq consecutive insptliona; and that the first pubication o[ said notice was in the issue a neirw la •IS:oop.m.k,M•vIIMUnItip•I o[ said news a r dated N~V lg A.D. 19~_ o(, and that the last TowN of vAlk - p pe DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT publication ot. satd notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated DI•n.s.TOUphlll ' 20nh+p Adminhtnlor Pubthhed M tr• V•n Tnn en November tJtx(~1N.t~~CL l~ A.D.197~ wrt. r .t ~ ' in witness whereof i have hereunto set my hand this ~ - day of ~C~ A.b.19 ~ ~ r - Subscribed end sworn to [ore me, a notary pll in a fl [ur the ounty of Gagle t/ A . State o[ Colorado, thin .day of ~ .D. 19~~j du ?7 ' ' 'Qi~ 1r.~'1 Noti ' ub~tic°~'~- t OSt T9 - . - I?iy Commission expire(i?~.GWRt]i~s$IOiI CXp11ES~ fir _ _ _ _ r t•~EttORAtJDUt4 T0: PLA;JiJIt~1G CG.„41SSION FROtA: DEPARTttENT OF COi u ~UiJITY DEVELOPI•tEWT RE: PRELIhiIi;ARY ASSESS11E1;T OF THE t•U4RK SPECIAL DEVELOPt~EiJT DISTRICT DATE: Cecember 9, 1976 COi;PARISO": OF t•;ARK SPECIAL OEVELOP;?ENT DISTRICT PROPOSAL tJITH CURREiJT ZOt~1IiJG Site Area Alloti:able GRFA Proposed GRFA Allo~•:able Units Proposed Units Lot 4 61,852 sq. ft. 37,111.2 . ~ b Lot 5 ] 23, 562 sq. ft. 74,137.2 Site considered as a ~•~hol e Lot 7 40,040 sq. ft. 23,032.0 225,454 sq. ft. 143,280.4 Less existing bldg. 40,276.75 703,003.65 94,000 max. 129 - 258 210 accoT~~oda- d:•:elling units tion units converts to 258 - 516 accom- 20 suites (DU) modation units Less existing units _ (74 ace. units 14 dwelling units) Allot•~able Commercial Proposed Corr~nercial 17,531.24 Less Existing Bldg. 3,225.00 74 306.24 4,500 Disco and commercial Less existing meeting room 4,860.00 10,000 proposed meeting room 9,446.24 Additional sq. 14,500 sq. ft. proposed ft. allowable The Town of Vail generally feels that the project is in line with the proposed growth management plan in that it is located in a hi~5h density area, ~is directly adjacent to pedestrian areas, transportation, and provides a community benefit (convention center) jt private expense. 'ti'e do not feel that we have had sufficient time to review the proposal since it is a very involved one as the Environmental impact report was sub- mitted only today. ti'e would recorrnend a conceptual .approval and suggest that the j`~= any fon„al action be ~•rithheld until such time as the staff and the Planning Commission have had an opportunity to review both the revised drawings and the environemtnal impact report. t+'e do not feel i t '1 s fa i r to either the To~•m or the appl ic,ant to base a decision on information that we have not had the opportunity to review. A ccr..plete report will be prepared prior to the December 16 Planning Com- mission r2eting ~•rhich ~•rill give staff recommendations and review of the Environmental impact report. - r - ":lea. ` - , Page Three - - PTannin~ Co^:nission Comments: Dan Corcoran felt that this site was not suitable for the proposed development because of the Reee=_=any cuts $ retaining wall necessary to rake it tirork. The only development that he thought trould work tirere the 3 single-family dwell ?r.~s on the open area. Nis vote for the proposed project +vas NO Ed Draper had probleas with the project because of the visability of it. Ne vote was t~0 Sandy hills voted t.0 because of the visability of the project. Dudley Abbott voted t;0 because of the environmental impact on the hillside Gerry t•;hite voted t.0 because of the environmental and visual impact the project tirould have on the valley. Ne felt that this project would be a detriment to the valley. Bill hanlon voted NO Pam Garton voted NO because of the environmental and visual impact and she had problems with the necessary cuts & fills and hoar it ~•rould be revegetated. As requested by the applicant a preliminary vote 1•ras taken. The Planning Commission unanimously felt that the project was not a desirable one for the Vail Valley & Co••~nunity. THE :',ARK Jim Lamont gave a summary of the discussion held at last week's meeting. Attached are some figures of the proposed project that were prepared by Diana Toughill. After a lengthy discussion between the Developer, Kaiser FSorcus, and the Planning Commission, it was decided by the Planning Commission to table final decision on this matter until next week when they would have had more time to thoroughly digest all the information. - ~ PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT Mr. Kaiser Morcus has applied for a resubdivision of Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Third Filing. Application has been made pursuant to Article III, Section 3, Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations. A Public hearing will be held before the Town of Vail Planning Commission pursuant to the Subdivision Regulations on January 6, 1977 at 3:00 p.m. in the Yail Municipal Building. TOUPJ OF VAIL DEPA~1't4EJJT OF COMMUPJITY DEVELOPMEPJT 1~'~~ Diana S. Toughill Zoning Administrator Published in the Vail Trail December 17, 1976 r ' PROOF' OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) , as, COUNTY OF F.AGLE ) 0~ do solemnly swear lha! I am 1 the pV~l~SI~ o[ TILE VA1L TRAIL; that the same is a r.•eekly newspaper printed, In ++•I+ole or In part and published In site County of Eagle, Stnle o[ Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; ll+at s,•+id newspaper has been r`. published contin++ously and unintern+pt~dly in said Cc7unty o[ Eal;ie for a period elf more than fifty-two conser•ullvc works nPxl prior to the fill pubiicalicln of the ~:'1.1~~~~~ ~~~'~l~t' annexed legal notice of advertisement; that said ncw~paper has been admitted to the United States mails as second-class maUcr under U+e provisions of the Act o[ ~ r+oncE is 11EaEev Grvea 1hM Mr. Plarch 3. 1879, of any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekiy lceiser Mo.cus nee eppn.d ror , • newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and adcertisenlcnts within site `veibitw:siH edLTni dsl61t~7` ~POlitOko~ meaning o[ tl+e laws o[ Lhe State o[ Colorado, lw, been mate. a,rz.,•t ro Article lit. Section Town M Vell Subdlvlslon That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was pubiished In the regular and R A opubl~t IleerMp wttl be.helA bolero IAe • Town Or Vea Planning CommySlOn pursusnl ' entlR ISSUe o[ eve number o[ said weekly news a er [or site eriod o[ l to the Subdlvlslon Regulations en Jerniery ry P P P ton al 7:0o a.m. In the volt Munlcil»l avlldirq. consecutive insertions; and that ti+e [first pubication o[ said notice was in the Issue Towe or vAl~ OEPl.RTMEr1T OF o[ said newspaper dated ~1;C~1bl~=TZ 1? A.D. 19~~b and plat the last coMMiJN1Tr oo i ieMuFOni i • 2ening Adminlslrelw publication o[ , said notice was in the issue o[ said newspaper dated Published In The van Trail On oecemee? 17, 1976. , - ~,lE3r-2 l 7 A.n. is?lam . In witness wllereo[ I have hereunto set my t?and this I D ~ ,day o[ ~ PaJIJ P~ Y A.u. 19~ • Subscribed and sworn to be[ re that a hots p ~bllc In lcl for tl+e~unty o[ Eagle. Slate o[ Colorado this day o[ ~»t.~LIJ~ .D. 1cJ~ ,l ~ • n No ar Publle I?fy Commission expires , /'tom' /7 19~ ~ r MEMORANDUM ~~;;f-- T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development GATE: January 6, 1977 RE: Resubdivision of Lots 4, 5, 6, 7,~, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Third Filing. The applicant, Kiaser Morcus, is requesting a resubdivision of Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, ~ 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Third Filing. This parcel of property presently consists of a portion of the tdark Property and Vail Associates North Day Skier Lot. ~ ' . The applicant would like to trade parcels of property with Vail Associates in order to move the present parking lot further west so that his new proposed project would fit better within the site. With the trade, 20 additional parking spaces would be added, but the square footage of the new lot would remain the same as the old but having a different configuration. The Department of Community Development foresees no difficulties with . the proposed resubdivision and recommends approval of the request. T0: Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council ' FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 22, 1985 SUBJECT: Request for an amendment to the conditional use section of Special Development District 1 (Marriott Mark Hotel) to add time sharing on a fractionalized fee ownership basis. Applicant: Kaiser Morcus I. THE REQUEST / 1. ~ '¢l~~;~+1 ~.~rr~~~r~(Jr,r~- Z7'G%~Cncns~ l~ w~0~?~vrc ~,Grawu.r=~ Basically, the request is to convert Phase III of the Marriott Mark Hotel from 121 rooms (27 existing kitchens) to a time sharing use. The terminology "fractionalized fee ownership) refers to the proposal of selling five-week . packages to each owner, thus representing ten owners per unit. Although quite lengthy, we've enclosed Jay Peterson's memorandum describing the proposal in detail and discussing its merits. A thorough understanding of the request can be obtained by reading Jay's memorandum. II. BACKGROUND A. Previous Approval On April 20, 1981 the PEC held a public hearing on the request for approvals I~ ~ for Phase II addition (referred to as Phase III in the applicant's documents) along with a number of amendments to the Special Development District to accommodate revisions to this project. We've enclosed the staff memorandum and the minutes from that April 20, 1981 meeting for your • - reference. We've also highlighted several areas within the memorandum and minutes which, are applicable to the request now before the PEC. The following are aspects of the previous approval which are important 'to keep in mind when considering the current request to amend a number of characteristics and elements of that previous approval: ° Additional density in terms of more kitchens in the rooms was granted to the applicant upon the argument that more hospitality rooms were needed to support the convention facility (see minutes). ° The applicant represented as part of the proposal that there would be 320 hotel room keys available to the Marriott as the management firm fora period of 25 years. This was represented so that the concern over additional kitchens with regard to future condominium- ization was not a problem. We have been informed by the applicant's "representative that this agreement between Morcus and the Marriott has already been amended. . ° There were many concessions made to the applicant in the 1981 approval with regard to extra fireplaces in accommodation units, reduction Marriott -2- 4/22/85 of amenities which were a part of the master development plan, allowing parking to be provided as agreed upon in 1977 with the ~ original approval of the development plan and the relocation of undergound parking from underneath the convention facility to an above-ground structure west of the Phase III building. B. Time Sharing in Vail Attached please find Appendix B of our most recent Development Statistics report regarding existing and potential build-out of all timeshare projects in Vail. The table represents a substantial amount of timeshare use in Vail. Upon build-out of all multi-family dwelling units in the Town of Vail, timeshare will represent approximately 8~ of all these units. The number of owners (21,750) is very significant in relationship to the total number of units in the final build-out scenario of the entire Town, being 8,896 units (single family, duplex, accommodation and multi-family). The timeshare industry has followed the rest of the real estate industry in the last several years. There has been a substantial slowdown in development of timeshare units and some major problems within the industry. In the peak of the national recession many timeshare owners simply ignored their mortgages and/or weekly maintenance fees for their units - and this resulted in a high level of foreclosures for many projects. Furthermore, the timeshare industry has been unable to get a handle on the tacky and shoddy marketing practices which have plagued this type of development since its inception. Little to no regulation over these marketing practices by either state real estate commissions or municipalities has occurred and the problems continue. These poor marketing practices project a negative image upon the entire community in which these projects are located. C." Economic Impact Upon the Town The following excerpt is from the recently released report of the Economic Oevelopment Commission of the Town of Vail. We feel that these comments - are appropriate to this application and should be a serious consideration in the PEC's decision on this proposal: "Recommendations on Lodging Time Sharing. Discourage conversion of hotel-type units to timeshare ownership. Although the real estate transfer tax generates more revenue than the sales tax on hotel room revenues, within three or four years the tax on room occupancy will exceed the one-time real estate transfer tax. However, conversion of condominiums to timeshare ' ownership has the potential of increasing utilization of the units-- and higher utilization means more visitor spending, more jobs, more tax revenues. In'new time share projects, units without kitchens shoul d be encouraged. T,,,~,~;< . ~ , ~ . Ma r• ~tt -3- 4/22/85 • "A continuing concern regarding time sharing, however, is the long- _ term management commitment after the sales program is substantially complete. Approximately 40 percent of the project's sales revenues are committed to sales commissions and/or one-time promotions. Often, the developer is completely out of the picture; and typically too many of the time share owners have relatively lii;tle at stake to make a strong commitment during some type of economic setback." III. .IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL .Following are pros and cons of the proposal as evaluated against the existing situation of 121 accommodation units run as a part of the overall hotel and containing 27 kitchenettes within some of the units. A. PRO ° Increase off-season occupancy. Generally, time sharing has higher year round occupancy than hotels because the owner feels an obliga- tion to utilize or rent the weeks that he owns. ° Part of the proposal is to put capital into improving the Phase III building. ° Retaining the Marriott as the management firm would increase the ~ compatibility of the time shared portion versus the accommodation unit portion of the complex. Be aware, however, that these management agreements obviously are changed without Town of Vail knowledge or control. ° The five-week package reduces the number of potential owners to 460 within Phase III, whereas, it could have been five times that amount by selling individual weeks to individual purchasers. ° The Marriott Mark facility contains sufficient amenities and is in a good ]ocation for the time sharing use. B. CON ° Allowing this conversion would be a precedent setting decision toward a. general direction of dilution of the short term hotel bed base in the Town of Vail. Removal of accommodation units, especially from an organization such as the Marriott:~can only be viewed as a significant negative impact upon the Town of Vail. High quality . accommodation units in good locations (within the Village and Lionshead ~ areas) supported by major conference facilities are a land use that this community cannot afford to be reduced. h, Cott Mark -4- 4/22/85 . ° Negative effect upon group business. It is noted in the applicant's memorandum that approximately a one year lead time will be required to include an individual week into the Marriott rental pool. It is unlikely that an owner will have made the decision of whether or not he will utilize the unit himself one year in advance. This could result in the unit being vacant for that week because the owner decided within a shorter time frame not to use the unit and the Marriott was subsequently unable to rent it. The impact upon the Marriott's ability to conduct the larger group business meetings would be very negative with this uncertainty over unit availability. ° Town of Vail contains a sufficient number of time share units. As previously noted, the Town contains seven time share projects representing 435 total units upon build-out. Without a great deal of statistical data we, nevertheless, feel that in considering the time share industry's current problems that we may, indeed, have enough of this type of land use. ° Negative impacts of marketing program. The intention or the proposal is to "sell" the guests of the hotel the time share weeks as well ~as bringing people to the site from throughout the front range and the country for short term visits. We feel that these may be negative marketing influences upon Vail rather than positive ones with the knowledge of the poor track record of time share sales people and general marketing practices.. ° Decrease in marketing dollars for the hotel.. The application fully admits a long term decrease in marketing dollars for the hotel in regard to the reduction of the number of accommodation units. ° The violation of the four year old agreement on accommodation unit restrictions. The applicant requested extra kitchens four years ago with the assurance that these units would remain accommodation units and be managed by the Marriott and would be an integral part of the conference facilities. The approval was given based on these proposals and we feel strongly that they should be respected as was promised. ° Negative economic impact of the Town of Vail. The EDC points out the loss of long term sales tax revenues from accommodation unit rentals as opposed to the short term real estate transfer tax gains. Conversion to time sharing of Phase III of the Marriott is a very negative economic impact upon the Town and a poor use of tax payers' dollars. ° Negative parking impacts. Especially during the marketing stages (approximately 4 years) the impacts of parking on the site will be tremendous with the large numbers of potential purchasers driving to the site for sales pitches. Moreover, time sharing requires more parking as~a use than accommodation units because front range purchasers will choose to drive to the site, and studies show that ' arriott-5- 4/22/85 at least two parking spaces per unit are needed. Trend in Vail of condominium conversion of accommodation units. We are receiving a significant number of applications to convert existing accommodation units to condominiums. Although, our regulations stipulate owners' use restrictions to two weeks winter and two weeks summer, overall, the wholesale conversion of AU's to condominiums has a negative effect upon overall room availability in the community. One thing the Town of Vail can ill afford to lose is the availability - of our lodge rooms to the public in general in a flexible arrangement. ° Negative effect upon restaurant business. The conversion to time share condominiums of Phase III will reduce restaurant business and have a negative effect upon the sales tax due to the increased number of meals to be eaten in the condominiums with kitchens. IV. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department feels strongly that that this application should be denied. We feel that although time sharing generally increases occupancy on a year round basis that the negativPS far outweigh the positives with this proposal. We feel that one of the mosi: important things we can ~ oo at this point in the Town's history is to protect to the greatest extent possible our accommodation units which are centrally located and are related , to group business facilities The Community Action Plan contains many C~-,l;r.~`~ policies related to this feeling. In fact, we encourage the addition of lodge rooms in the Villaap end Lionshead areas with these charac~Y'Sstics ~ rather than their elimination. We also feel that the Prnnomic impact as noted by the EDC will be a negative one for the Town and share t e s concern over the long term management commitment. We feel strongly that the applicant should respect the promises and~ua+'a~tpps that.~crerp aivpn to~T_own four vPars ago in that many concessions were made to allow additional kitchens-and for other aspects of the Phase III approval. Furthermore,~hp time sharing industry's inability to coly~ some of their problems in the marketing area are of ma,ior concern to the Community Development Department in that allowing the conversion may indeed result in a negative image of Vail rather than a positive one. The potential neoative impacts uonn the Marriott's ability to condom arnup ~sinPSS is a very real one as well as the loss of sales tax from reduced restaurant revenues. In general, we feel that the Marriott Mark hotel is a positive contributor to the Town of Vail in its existing configuration and operating procedures and we feel that the conversion to time sharing of a major portion of this hotel is not in the best interests of the Town in either a short or long term outlet. .r- IIPPEND 1X t3 . ~Q~4,~-~ ~~-~-~~~~-Qf~'?~S~ -JL~~ ~lJ~~~ ` ~ ~ Tlt~lE SIIttRE UNITS 7 s ~ • A LL TOWN OF VA I L ~,Q,~~ . ~ c~ '~~/~i9.~`_~~C.. /~~/t'l,~' S ~r(~vs ~ ~D~T.E~/f ~Q ~C.C~- /~1~~17•E" l APOLLO PARK COMPLETE 32 0 32 I • UNDER SIIWDSTONE CREEK CLOD CONSTRUCTION 66 ].8 Sly STRE11hiS t DE CONDOS PHASED ~ ~ ~ * 39 150 - DEVELOPMENT V111 L RUN COMPLETE 5~I 0 5t1 I TILE 1•lREN ~ COMPLETE 66 0 66 . i V/11,TlIGE POINT COMPLETE ~ 9 0 9 • . S UI~ f3 I RD LODGE COMPLETE ~~10 0 h0 TOTAL 378 5a ~i35 - PIOTE: /1SSU111NG 50 01~lNERS PER ONDOMINIUM, x.135 UI~ITS I.OU/1L_ /1 P_~ TENTLl11. OF 21,750~11~(RERS , - * Includes building now under onstruction. ~ . I . I I I I Planning and Environmental Commission May 28, 1985 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Oiana Donovan Peter Patten Duane Piper Rick Pylman Howard Rapson Kristan Pritz Sid Schultz Tom Braun Jim Viele Betsy Rosolack ABSENT Eric Affeldt Jere Walters The meeting was called to order by Duane Piper, chairman, at 3:10 pm. 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of May 13. Donovan moved to approve minutes, seconded by Viele. Vote was 5-0 in favor. 2. Reouest to amend Special Development Distric. =7 (Marriott Mark) in rder to allow time share estate units, fractional fee units. and t~ma-sfiare license units as a conditional use in Phase III. -Huu~~icant: MK Corporation Peter Patten gave a brief history of the SDD stating that it was originally developed and approved with the intention that lodging open to the public be provided. Phase III was originally called the Phase IIA addition. Patten showed a site plan of the SDD. He explained that fractional fees would limit the number of owners of each unit to 10, each owner would have five weeks of time, 2 weeks winter, 2 weeks summer, and 1 Off-season. 46 units would be involved, 27 with kitchens, and the others with micro-wave ovens. Patten went on to explain that in 1981 the SDD was amended and additional • density granted in terms of more kitchens in the rooms upon the argument that more hospitality rooms were needed to support the convention facility. As ,part of the proposal, there were to be 320 hotel room keys available to the Marriott as the management firm for a period of 25 years'. This was represented so that the concern over additional kitchens with regard to future condominiumization would not be a problem. Patten stated that the Town has since been informed that the agreement between Morcus Kaiser and the Marriott had already been amended. There were also concessions made to the applicant in 1981 with regard to extra fireplaces in accommodation units, reduction of amenities (indoor tennis courts), and parking concessions. Patten referred to an Appendix B regarding existing and potential build- out of all timeshare projects in Vail, pointing out that timeshare will represent PEC -2- ,'28/85 a 8~ of all multi-family units, and the number of owners would be 21,750. Patten also pointed out that there has been a substantial slowdown in development of timeshare units and there have been a high level of foreclosures for many projects, along with shoddy marketing practices. The marketing practices have had little to no regulation by either state real estate commissions or municipalities, and the image projected upon communities with these marketing practices is a negative one. Patten then listed pros and cons which were in the memo, closing with the statement that this was a precedent setting decision and denial was recommended by staff. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that the Town of Vail was going through a transition with regard to hotels. Peterson stated that Phases I and II of the Marriott are condominiumized and Phase III could also be condominiumized which would not be good for the Town of Vail. Peterson felt that long term condo- miniumization was not the best solution. Ray Warren, manager of the Marriott stated that the Marriott name was important and the marketing would not be shoddy. Peterson felt that the land transfer tax would not be traded for sales tax dollars because the people buying these fractional fee interests would not be using their kitchens very much. Further, he said that since the lodging was already paid for, these persons would be spending more money in Town. He added that all amenities of the hotel would remain intact and the hotel could still cater to groups of 50 to 100 people. Ray Warren pointed out that in 1984 24 groups had 200 rooms per Hite, and that the Marriott could use other lodges for overflow guests. Peterson stated that the Marriott could not go on under the present conditions and a solution needed to be found. Schultz was concerned that the renta]s would be taken off of the market during peak times. Peterson replied that there were many vacancies except during Christmas week and that the condos would be full during periods which would otherwise be slow. Warren stated that he was on the VRA board to study occupancy rates and that in January the occupancy rate was 70 in February 72~o and that there were . many rooms available at all levels. Donovan did not see the difference between condos and time share. Patten pointed out a difference~of opinion with regard to Phase III being changed to condominiums, and stated that Phase III could not ~ be changed to time share without restrictions. Peterson answered that Phase III :~-;t;.~~.::.:.. could go through a condo conversion and the dwelling units could also have lock- offs resulting in two units each, or 54 rooms without restrictions. They would also put restrictions on Phases I and II so that the TOV would have protection .for 229 rooms. Donovan felt that this was a bail-out for the owners, and that the TOV would not have much control aver the new owners. Peterson answered that using fractional fees in Phase III would get the cost of the remaining facility down so that Morcus could still remain. Rapson's major concern was of the marketing program and felt that the quality of the overall experience would be diluted. Peterson stated that there had been a study done to look at the all available units in the TOV and this study was available for anyone to read it. Viele wondered if there were any studies showing the economic impact of time share and he wondered how much the restaurants would be impacted, No one knew of a study, PEC -3- 5/28/85 _ but Peterson stated that dispite the fact that the Marriott had 27 kitchens, a great deal of revenue for the Town was realized by the occupants of these units. Ray Warren stated that the kitchens were mainly used for snacks (he could tell by the charts used by the cleaning persons). Viele was also concerned about the marketing procedures. Peterson stated that the Marriott would go through the strict- est guide lines and the Marriott would also be concerned that they would not antagonize their own guests. Viele wondered about conflict between time share and regular guests and also wondered what the TOV could do if the time share project doesn't work. Peterson stated that if this were not successful, it could be converted to a hotel. Viele stated that Beaver Creek claimed that they now need a traditional hotel and this conversion worried him. Peterson replied that he had been studying this for 9 months. Piper wondered how owners of fractional fee units would have input, and Peterson stated it would be the same as a condo association. Piper wondered about the con- flict between time share owners and hotel guests when the time share units would be more nicely decorated. Warren stated that hotel guests would not see the other units. Patten stated that the discussion pointed out that fractional fee ownership may be different in experience from time share. He added that conditions or' approval were difficult to enforce, that 5 of 7 in 1981 weren't complied with, and did not want to have conditions that were unenforceable. Ranson moved to deny the request per the staff memo and Donovan seconded. After more discussion, Peterson requested to table to the next meeting (if he were ready). Vie1e moved and Ranson seconded to table this item. Vote was 5-0 in favor of tabling. 3. Request fora conditional use permit in order to construct an amphitheatre. at Ford Park. Applicant: Uail Valley Foundation Patten presented the proposal and explained the master plan and the interim plan, also. Jim Morter, architect for the project, also explained the proposal. Donovan read her comments (attached) which stated in part that cultural activities and sports did not mix, that the political situation forced the plan. Schultz said that in some ways he agreed and that he was not sure if this was the best place for an amphitheatre, but that a majority of people wanted it in Ford Park. Rapson agreed with Donovan, Viele stated that he shared some of the same concerns but felt that the architect had done a good job. Piper was concerned about the financing. 'The number of spectators was discussed at 2,000 with the additional berm seating. Viele moved and Schultz seconded to approve the re~uest per the staff memo. She vote was 3 in favor, 2~against (Rapson and Donovan . 4. Request fora variance to convert an employee unit, Unit 2 in Building 15 of the Vail RacQUet Club to office space for the Vail Racquet Club Owners' association located at 4695 Vail Racquet Club Drive. Applicant: Vail Racquet Club Condominiums Rick Pylman showed the floor plans of the proposed conversion and stated that because of prior restrictions, that employee units be restricted to long term rental to local employees for 20 years, Mr. Kirch was requested to follow variance procedures -4~- 5/28/85 for this request. Walter Kirch spoke and said that he was not the owner of the Racquet Club, but was the owner of the employee unit involved and owner of the space used for an office for the rental group. He stated that growth of overnight rental had grown from 9,000 per year to 25,000 so far in 1985 and that an increase in personnel resulted in a very crowded office. He stated that in the event the employee unit was not needed in the future for office space, that he would agree to return it to employee rental. Jennie Culp, representing the board of directors of the Vail Racquet Condominums owners (who owned the rental operations). added more information about increased need for more office space. Donovan asked if there were any chance to put another employee rental unit somewhere else. Kirch replied that there was a 2 bedroom unit currently occupied by an employee which he believed might be possible to commit to an employee unit if the request were granted to eliminate the employee unit next to the office. Donovan then stated that if that were the case, she had no problem with the conversion, and other members agreed. Schultz wondered if an addition could be built onto the office either above or to the left. Kirch stated that he owned the ground floor, but the upper floor was owned by condo oti~~ners. If he were to add to the ler"t he would be encroaching on Meadow Drive right-of- way. Viele moved and Donovan seconded to approve the request to convert the employee unit to office space upon the condition that another unit be restricted to employee rental to keen the number of employee units at the same amount. The vote was 5-0 in favor. 5. Request fora conditional use permit in order to construct a miniature golf course on parts of Tracts C and D, Vail Lionsvead Filing No. 1. .Applicant: Bud Benedict The applicant had requested that this item be tabled. 6. Uadate on the development of Vail Valley Medical Center's lonq~range plan. - Debra Jost, administrator of the hospital, told the board of the plans far the Medical Center in the coming years. f~ Jose Alvarez, et. al. vs. Kaime r-- Serdan, et. al. Plaintiff and defendants 424 Edward E. Harvey. 20. 1Kiattan. Jurgen Brandt, charges of depositing pV°e, formed a verbal partaetship for owner_ Criminal mischief. waste material, .creating a public Gr• ship of a Holiday House condo. Plaintiff 6/24 William T. Stanfill, 22, Vail, nuisance. .at, claims defendant has failed W make Theft. .James W. Davis, d..~..a,,,,,; of d..,....:ting capital contributions to the rondo. He 6124 Gerald Arepano, 24, Gypsum. waste material, ..,,,,r~yng, disorderly etas I ~ . 'e cusmd seeks W. adjudication of the rights of Y conduct, criminal injury to property, p,,~, the p,„t,~,~~, owners. 6/24 Guilkrmo Fernandez, 24, Vail. Julian G. Ruybal, charges of assault S: >i ~ 6d1S Streamside at ViW vs. David C. Iastaarrce violation, and battery and criminal injury to Stuhq a al. Seeks payment of 56,539 6,R5 Frank J: Fresgnes, 24, Edwards. r•~~r~?,, lttb,t pmmrssoty note. Thad-degree assault. Craig L. Brace, Sae not paid i~•d 6/26 Streamside at Vail va. Harvey R. 6/26 Kelly R. O'Neil, 33, Gypsum. ~IPh P. Roberts. Sae trot paid, sad Karen A. Hanson. Seeks payment Speeding, drove motorcycle without a Richard J. Tbidemann, Sae not paid. ~ of 55,130 r. ~ ~,,,.issorY note. license. DUI, faihn+e m pay (two comas). Guy D. Gowan, Sao not paid. w 6Rb Strsamside at Vail vs. Anthony J: 427 li:~vin S. Garrabrant, 21, Deaver; C7rri and Juanita Kirkpatrick. Set9cs Fugitive from justice Avon Court payment of defaulted promissory note 6R7 Mark J. Ferguson, Z0, Denver. ph and 51.264 in common ~.ses. Fugitive firm justice. The following actions went: taken June xaor . 6/16 Streamside at Vail vs. Randall 6/27 James T. Nadelt, 31, Basalt. 27 in Avon Municipal Court with Judge ~ sad Kay J. S ~ ~ ~ ~ ..aa. Seeks payment '~d-d•e,. assault Buck Allen presiding. gra of 52,416,,,,. ~,,,issory none, Me. 4R6 Streamside at Vail vs. Phillip F. Colorado State Potroi Fine and seateaceg: P'r'y and Dorthea" J. Richmond. Seeks William A. Woodman, 5200, disorderly payment of 58,704 promissory note. 422 Patrick K. Grannie, 23, Denver. conduct, assault and battery. w a 6,R6 Stresm:side at Vail vs. Albert L. Drove motorcycle without a license, Rhonda Clayton, S35, ~r ..,ling. 7 a aad Kathleen Ellison. Seeks payment failtu+e to report, careless driving. Joa S. Chaassee, 550, fraud by check. Lot t of 54,508 promissory note. 6/24 Ricky Milani, 2S. Glenwood Dorothy C. Paul, 540. fraud by check, lip 6Rb Streamside at Vail vs. Albert and Springs. DUI, driver's license violation, Sheila E. Curti4, 560. fraud by check. Ruth Thoman. Seeks payment of ice violation. Charles M. Mace, 5200, larceny. ~ 54,494 ~...issory note. 6/24 Charles W. Keetanrer, 28, Shirley A. Bower, 560, gaud by check. ~OOa 6/26 Streamside at Vail vs. Frederick Newton; Mass. Fugitive fiom justicx. Kim E. Dorsey, 535, fraud by check. A. Struck. Seeks payment of 54,323 6,R7 Donna M. Sandoval, 23, Edwards. Stephen J. Hiatt, 517, dog control. 6/ts. promissory note. DUI, lane usage. Joseph E. Heffernan, 525, speeding. p; 6,R6 Streamside at Vail vs. Vivian B. Jeremy T. Marner, 5250, underage Faocw Goldstein. Seeks payment of 56,460 Avon PUbIjC Safe/ possession of•liquoz: PvD y..~.....issory note. Dawn S. Meleadez, S35, fraud by 6R6 Streamside at Vail vs. John H. 6/13 Claudio G. Garcia, 23, Minttun. cam- SMoo~a and Lillian J. Davi.4. Saks payment of DisotderiY conduct. Ariet R. Smi~ 5250, rubble storage. w ~ 55,695 promissory note. 6/23 William A. Woodman. 32, Grand failutz to ar,, 6J26 Streaaz;ids ati VaB vs. Charles D. Iunction. Disorderly conduct, third- Fernando V. Gallegos, S35. careless semi aad Barbara A. Zeis, et al. Seeks ~ZR'a assault. ~~8• sYi° PsYmat ~ P~u~Y note. Patricia t. Prewitt, 5450, fraud by 4R6 Stteamside at Vsii vs. Michael A. . Minturn Police check (3 counts). ,,Q~ ~J990T E ~Y~'t 6/22 Willie A. Lopes, 37, Mintura. B~t'~'~lS ~ f/Z6 Sb^edmdde at Vac? vs. James M. Dn~ng. t"t'0°g w~'~'~g side of anti Erin H. Hamann. Seeks payment DUI, driver's license violation, in.,..,~..,,,, 6/17 Kaitlya Christine Platte to Debra of S7,I80 promissory none. violation, drove mota+cycle without a and David of Avon, L.ns _ 6,24 Sbeap~side at Vail vs. Susan C. valid license, possession of d=ug 6R1 Miranda Nod Sc7va oo Francisco s®A Pmdletoa. Seeks payment of 56.434 and David of Edwards. N~aao . pconti.w,,.~ note. 6/24 Gilbert P. Msrtiaez, 30, Vail. . Rev - >:a~ ~ag~, Dom. TI?ANSFFI?S o~ u,652 pran:.N Vail• Police ~ Flan ~ ~ ,,.t , . b??6 Sbran,side at- ViB James C. 6111 James 4 Cok, Z0, Ca..~ Firemana Fend Mortta a Co w Barbara Mate sad Ged L Eaiobt. Seeb payment: of ~ ~ to~ w.a. t~.u Ate; s..a.,rr v~ra i 5530 is cotnmoo . y, „~,.~ses. TUamas tit itobye Foot co Siehter. 6/12. t3ad 4Rb Str+~~ide at Vail va. Chock and 6l22 'William J. 13acltaer, 22, Clark, s« tno~o..r, So. - 4It3;. ~ etaL Seeks payment. Cola F' ~ ~ ~ .from jnsticx. Fomrb xatioot ltanir ai 'lbisa w Rao Jamieson. ra. ~ afS1,487 is cotntnoa w 426~MIchad ~ Ph~on, 27, Piftsbmgh,-" 6na, s.w.a Lot 17, >ttaet t liadebaM, s0. - - - bR6 Streamside stVai1 ws. Mark A. ~ ~ 6/t3~ w.D: Hartman. Seeb /~ny t.G~r,.,... w~n a sZ9A oommone,~, -sm. payment of 51,881 vQl{ Court ~ 6/19 s.w.D. Lot t!, R:adi~Sttor~+e~ rtG`i ~i, ~H 51700. 6/12, 6x26 Streamside at Vail va. following acarons a taken Jane F,~ B• ~ R~ G1oor m 1~ a Dan. Gtooy Christopber S L~ , ~ .Seeks payment of 6/t9, S.w.D. Lot ts, R,~edl sbor.o, S0. 28 is Vail Mm»cipal Court with Judge ~Wa R, Pltitbas ~ , , D, Team.' OOtaRfOn ,..y, ...SeS. Buck Allen r..~.ding. Arebolw, Bo~ke lambs t~bati P.C~ 6/lE. P.R.D. iCaiiM Lob 7 aid s,131od[ C, ~~M A/d a MY,rer~ Crimfna(Actions Fines and sea; . , _ ~.IaaaD. K Haddad to Mark R a Renee 8 Riuow Breen Rosario Hermosillo, 5385. larceny, 6Jls. w.D. Lac ss, rude Ra~ak, 149,000.' 'i'ae t J , „ . S. liardr to I R. A?odawa . 6/19, 6126 People vs. Edward J. Walsh. to art w.D. Lot s2, A,*e. ssa Bseacea ~t.tt 2, Notice of appeal of county court Jonathan L. Hunt, 535., careless sslsoa tY6ira conviction. driving. lulu A. 3~, K 1lartwi~ a, L 8nm Ens, 427 People vs. Jonathan L. Sweatt. Timothy Indamodde, 5100.1 dry jat7, gi6~p'DOoptot f,1tt«rc vat Vtlta;. tell. t, 4~3. . Notice of appeal of county court nblic die la or coasnm non of ~111~ In~anenc ~ vetor A. a•btartba M. tvmr .S . w.:,oa. . _ cannabis, P y _ : p , ilm,oin~. ~3' w.D, tttcaa t+ao ca.te~ ~ !~i?~ . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 8, 1990 SUBJECT: Work Session on proposed major amendment to Special Development District #7 - The Marriott Mark Resort I. BACKGROUND OF THE PROPOSAL The Marriott Corporation is proposing to construct 67 vacation ownership condominiums adjacent to the existing hotel. The Marriott Corporation believes that this concept will have significant benefits to the existing hotel and to the Town of Va_1 and they intend to complete the project utilizing the same high qua~ity standards that have beer. established in their other vacation ownership properties. The proposed building is located south and east of the . existing Marriott Mark parking structure. Proposed is an additional 101 parking spaces which equals 1 1/2 spaces per dwelling unit. The condominium units would each be 1200 sq.f~. representing 80,400 sq.ft..of additional GRFA. Building height prcposed is in the vicinity of 6~ feet with building setbacks on the west and south sides of 5 feet. A major element of the proposal is to construct significant interior and exterior improvements to the existing Marriott Hotel. Proposed site improvements include greatly increased landscaping and public walkways throughout the site. Aiso propcsed is to construct sidewalks from the project west to South Frontage Road. Information that has been submitted to the staff includes preliminary floor plans, elevations, vicinity map, existing conditions, pedestrian and vehicular circulation and access, site plan 'and typical unit plans as well as a visual analysis from six different locations around _ the project site. ~ II. EXISTING ZONING FOR SDD #7 In researching the development of Special Development District „7 and the Parriott Hotel history, we have found a lack of clear, concise and comprehensive informatics. This is due in part to the fact that the hotel has been developed in a variety of phases and uses within each development stage-. Moreover, there have been a series of ordinances and amendments to SDD #7 which appears have never resulted in a comprehensive set'of development plans or zoning ordinances. We do, however, know that the site is built to its maximum density as allowed by SDD #7. To the best of our knowledge, the site contains 247 accommodation units and 53 dwelling units with a total of about 134,000 of GRFA. With the site area of approximately 5.17 acres, this represents a density of a little more than 34 dwelling units/acre. Of course the site contains a substantial amount of square footage devoted to conference and meeting facilities, restaurants, night clubs, recreational amenities and hotel ancillary facilities. The hotel began construction in 1973 and applied for SDD status in 1977 under two different ordinances. After construction of the first phase another addition was applied for in 1981 under an amendment to SDD ~7. This phase included the conference center with lodge rooms and condominiums above. Although we do not have all of the accurate information regarding the existing zoning on this property, suffice it to say that the property has no development rights remaining under existing zoning and that the focus of the work session should be on the proposed new project. III. FRE_I`.•?I`1~:RY ISSUES AND CONCERNS . Planning staff has conducted a review of the project as well as the Public Works/Transportation Department. While acknowledging that the Master Land Use Plan encourages ad?_:=c:~_ tourist accommodaticns to be sited in the central or core areas of Vai'_, i~ c~=tainly does not do so if it is to the detriment of sound land use and site planning principles. The staff's primary concern is that the project is too much for this existing high density mixed-use site. We have no problems with the vacation ownership approach and acknowledge that the Marriott Corporation has develoce~? sev~=~1 very high quality vacation ownership projects throughout the country. Time share projects generally retain a higher year round occupancy than any other tourist acccnmodation use and this fits well within Veil's policies to level-off seasonalities of guest visits. An attractive element of this proposal is the substantial upgrading of the existing hotel, especially the public pedestrian way through the property from east to west. This pedestrian way would provide a much needed improvement to the connection of the Lionshead Mall to the West Day Lot and Arterial Business District. Thy building and associated parking structure are proposed on the only r:~~:^''-^; open space on the entire site. While areas to the east on the property do not have buildings on them, they are used for the location of recreational amenities such as tennis courts and a swimming pool/deck • area. We feel that the scale of development is too large and that the mass and bulk is pushed too fa. to the south and west sides of the site. If there were to be additional development on this property it would seem to be better located to the north over the existing parking structure and it should step down from east to west to help alleviate the ' TO: Planning and Environmental C.,..~ission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 23, 1990 RE: A work session to discuss proposed amendments to SDD No. 7 (The Marriott Mark Resort). Applicant: Marriott Corporation. This item was tabled at the applicant's request after lengthy discussion at the PEC's April 9th meeting. A number of design changes have been made in response to comments made by the Planning Commission. Prior to finalizing this redesign, the applicant's have requested a work session discussion with the Commission. It is the intention of this meeting to continue the April 9 dialogue and allow the Commission an opportunity to comment on the revised design. The following points highlight some of the issues that warrant discussion at this work session. j~elcht and Mass of the Proposed ~+,dd' ' on The proposed redesign eliminates mass on the north, south and east sides of the addition. These units have been relocated to the courtyard area. The building height is generally within 48'. This redesign results in a net gain of one timeshare unit (58 units) while maintaining eight employee units. pes~an Comcatibility with Existing Building The applicants have agreed to repaint the Marriott Hotel in conjunction with this expansion. While no physical changes are proposed to the existing structure, it ~is the applicant's intention to lighten the color of the existing building fn order to relate to the proposed addition. V~,ew ~Dacts o~4diacent Properties Arrangements have been made with the Vail Spa to view the - proposed expansion from a variety of different units. The applicants are evaluating alternatives for demonstrating the ridge line of the building's north elevation in~the field in order to evaluate impacts on the Vail Spa. Existing Parkins $~~yctt~e There was concern among some C~~.W..issioners that existing parking was partially exposed on the west and north side of the project. The applicants have modified this design to minimize exposed parking area on the north, and totally cover the parking along the west side of the structure. While this does screen the parking, it raises the question of the building setback along the westerly property line. Previous direction from the Commission encouraged the applicants to keep all new building mass 20' back of this property line. With the proposed redesign, a building addition would be within 5' of the west property line. jjnderlvina Zoning Additional research has revealed no new information relative to this sites underlying zoning. The original ordinance that created-the SDD in 1977 made no reference to underlying zoning. There is no question that there was zoning on the site, however, the staff .has been unable to determine with any degree of certainty what this zoning was. It is Larry Eskwith's feeling that the SDD could be amended without underlying zoning, but if the Commission was desirous of applying an underlying zoning that could also be done. If that is the desire of the Commission, it would require republication of this application. - pevelopmez~t Comparison o~ Adiacent sots The accompanying chart indicates the existing development on adjacent properties. -This was done to provide a comparison of these properties relative to the development proposed on the . Marriott site. As indicated by this table, there are a number of properties developed beyond what is proposed on the Marriott site. ,staff Recoaune~dation The staff is not presenting a rec........endation at this time. It is the intention of this meeting to continue the dialogue that took place on April 9th. It is the intention of the applicant to have a formal review with the Planning C~.,..~ission on May 14th, and the staff will present a complete recommendation at that time. DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS WEST LIONSHEND AREA AND SELECTED SITES April 18, 1990 PARCEL SIZE l!NITS UNITS FER GRFA GRFA BUILDING SITE ACRES SOFT. ZONING FEkMITTED EXISTING ACRE PERMITTED EXISTING RATIO HEIGHT MarrioQt Marl: 5.17 c^~5,2!~5 SDD 177.0 177 34.2 134.000 134,000 0.60 85 Vail Spa 3.20 139,x92 HDMF 8~?.!~ 55 17.2 111,514 83,672 0.60 61 Antlers 1.19 51,8:6 CCII 24.8 72 6~:s.S 41,4b9 54,486 1.05 72 Landmark 1.49 64,9!4 CCII 37.? 58 38.9 51,924 61,616 1.26 75-92 Vantage Point 0.91 :9,64!, CCII 2~',8 b`. 7].4 3],712 54,816 ~ 1.38 78 Montaneros 1.02 44,431 CCII 25.5 41 40.2 35,545 44297 1.00 n/a Enzian 1.21 52,708 CCII 38 31.4 42,166 43305 0.66 82 Lionsquare Lodge 1.79 77,97 CCII 44.8 99 55.3 62,378 94,000 1.21 n/a West Day Lot 2.64 114,998 Parl.:inq Ci 0.0 O O n/a n/a V. A. Shops 3.2 139,392 ABD 0 O.O 0 G n/a n/a Doubletree 2.62 114,17 SDD!HDMF b°..5 134 X1.1 91.302 166,153 1.46 88 Vail Village Inn 3.45 150,282 SDD/F•A 86.3 130 37.7 90,169 120,000 0.80 62 PROPOSED MARRIOTT 5.17 225,2!5 SDD 243.0 243 47.0 n/a 206,914 0.43 48 E XF'AN3I ON NOTESs ]reformation gathered from TOV p~o~ect files, building plans, condo plats and development statistics. Existing development for SDD's reflect total development at time of buildout. Unit counts reflect accomodation unit conversion at 2:1. Permitted development for VVI and DoubletrFe was calculated using underlying zoning. WYI.MARRIOT ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Yj ~ ~ ~ ~ REC~J JUL 1 71990 U L~lll] p 3030 BOOTH CREEK DRIVE, VAIL, COLORADO 81657 July 16,1990 To The Mayor and Council Town of Vail This letter is being sent to you inorder to address our concern regarding the decision on July 11,1990 by the Design Review Board of the Town of Vail for approval of a new residence pro- posed for Lot 4, 11th Filing~:~in the To~,rn of Vail.- jieci~ 1. It is our understanding that design approval is predicated upon design compatability of a proposed residence with other residences in the area or neighborhood. Our immediate concern after viewing a photograph of the Caulkins' residence on Mill Creek Circle, the design of which they intend to reproduce on Booth Creek Drive, and subsequently making a personal site inspection of the existing residence, is that a Swiss style chalet with patterned shutters having a blue and trhite design painted upon them is totally incompatable with all existing homes in the 11th filing. It is a style popular in the 1960's when Vail was founded as an alpine style community. Recent construction, as well as re-models are , replacing this particular style as it does not reflect the Master Plan or image which Vail proposed to project going into- the 21st Century. We further find no reversion to this particular type of design within the Filing, the Town of Vail, or along the I-70 Corridor. Once the willows defoliate .the incongruity of style will be very visable from the highway and within the Filing during a major portion of the year. It is our belief that as proposed and approved we will be smbjected to a decrease in the value of our home and property since we will be adjacent to a property that is out of place in the area. We are therefore respectfully requesting that this approval be re-evaluated and ask that an approval be based upon an appearance that is compatable with existing homes within the 11th Filing and the Town of Vail. We appreciate the time and effort expended tby the Review Board and regret that we must question the compatability of a Swiss style chalet being placed in a contemporary neighborhood. Please advise us as to what action will be taken in behalf of this appeal. i cerely, Werner and Gilda Kaplan / ,~1~.2..~/ ~<il~-l ~ Irving J• ~iotx~ Juunior 1 r /~,1.iC ~j,~. ranclon lane I ^ ~ D~~~~ c' 1109 B ~~'L~~~ `Ilrilmington~ Delaware 19807 ~1 ,!1 IS' , L~ r i '~d~ ~ 0 t Lam- ~ ly~'7 ~ ~ ,1~r~ ~ n~ • ~1l fit ~C'~ ,I- ~ .~~ft,~ ~~f ,1~~~ ~j, ~,Cll,~ ,~7 `~-~T~ ~ RECD U L_ 1 ?1990 ~ ~ , / ~ ~trZ c~~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ,err G~~ . /~2c'~L~ _ 1 ~ f( , j . Q,,p ~oGfef 2 ll~ ~,~-ll~llGr.~l1 ~ f a UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D. C. 20217 CHAMBERS OF WILLIAM M. FAY JUDGE July 11 , 1990 Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Jacobson, Jr. 765 Forest Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Tom & Cindy: Thanks so much for your nice letter of June 8, 1990. We are in your corner when it comes to "gone busting'' and :ahe;~ Gcrden Britton wrote us about the Tannenbaum attempt to acquire national forest land, Jean and I sent Gordon a check to help resist the attempt by the Tannenbaums., Mike Fay al~o sent Gordon a check . ~3c~--~ C~--~-~^~? We were in Vail over the 4th of July but missed seeing you two. Hope we have better luck on our next visit. ~ ~ 5 FREDERICK M. IiAYNES ~ N3 SUIVRI3E DRIVE • ENGLEWOOD. COLORADO 80110 July 12, 1990 Mayor Kent Rose Town of Vail, Colorado P.O. Box 2101 Vail, Colorado 81658 Subject: Re-zoning Application, Marriott Time Share Pro3ect Dear Mayor Rose and Town Council: As a property owner of a condominium in Vail, I am concerned that the zoning, that has allowed an orderly development of Vail, is about to be compromised. It is my understanding that the owners of the Marriott project are applying for a change in zoning to accomodate the expansion. The existing zoning was established over time and should remain uncompromised. I fear that once the zoning in the city is compromised for one project, many more applications would follow shortly. I urge that the city leaders turn down this request for re-zoning. Verb truly yours, n\1`~ Fred Haynes cc: Irene Westbye, Manager Talisman Condominiums Tom and Cindy Jacobson 10/11 , I do Aga ~w~1~g9 ~s`e yt~~~~1 JULY 16, 1990 Mayor Kent Rose and Town Council Members Vail, Co. 81657 Dear Mayor Rose and Council Members, As property owners in Vail (184 Seaver Data Boad) we want you to know how concerned and upset we are about the recent upsurge in development that is goins on in Vzil Village. If over-development of certain areas is allowed by changing their current zoning, the entire scheme of Vail will be altered, and not for the good. There are still many undeveloped areas that will serve the future needs well, and will be developed as need dictates. To sanction a re-zoning of the Mark- Marriott property to allow time-sharing, and the no doubt eventual loss of a convention facility will not be good for business. Also, the granting of such a huge increase in their density and square-footage will serve as an open invitaion for others to copy cat. This must not be allowed. Do not open the door to overdevelopment in Vail and take the chance of losing the quality and prestige image Vail has. . 5iacerely, Dick an8 Kath~Lilienth 1~"'y lodustrlal HaN Chrom• Plstlrtp 5p~clati:Fnq !n Cr~nkshalts union National Bank & Trust Co. ~ 727 Poyntz Avenue, P.O. Sox 1087 • !1Aanhsttan, Kansea 66502 Telephone 913/637-1234 J L. W. Stol=er chairman & chief executive officer July 16, 1990 Town Council Vail, Colorado Si657 Dear Council Members: This letter is to oppose the expansion of the Marriott- Mark Resort. The original ordinance preserves certain desirable density. It would be a crime to vary this simply because of powerful financial pressure. Further, to allow this now would have a domino effect and Veil's open space, which provides such great charm and has made the resort so unique, will be lost. Please don't let this happen. Vote NO on the rezoning. Sinc rely, Stolzer dbt I 11 Archer Road Harrison, New York 10528 July 7, 1990 Town Council Vail, Colorado Dear Sirs: My wife and I and our family have been long-time visitors to Vail as have many of our Eastern friends. We now own property at 0931 Singletree Road, Edwards, Colorado and are deeply disturbed by the continued over-development in the Vail Valley. You have such a wonderful, gpen and glorious year-round home that I hope the lure of the giant hotel chains, etc. will not spoil this beautiful valley. We trust you will use your best judgement in this matter'. Sincerely yours, Mary Anna b bon Scanlon t ~ ~~j0 ~~t~Jl f ER ~-N , "~'~I J! s t 9 9 ~ ~e ~v ~~C ~ vwK ~ia•,c~ aw~ Y ~ ~G1~Vf~. I~~Cti~ ~ !!iC'.i ` ~ VV J ~J1,R ~ S ~C" ~ ~ ~ d lA+ L pjir~ c~. J ~ C J t e 4 v ~ ~ ~'!t ~t c„ ~ J U,f e a.~SL o•. ~ o.?r, 4 f O 1 ~p ".~a ~ fiQt ~ J i., r~ c ~ v v.~ b 2 ~ h S C s 4 .i ~ H c i ~ ~ 4 ti~ ~m o ,s 0 e ~..1 U ~ ~ o s e ~ ~3 ~ C. h a ao p...Yy~~ cl a "td 9 w t ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f . From CAPTAIhJ VIDEQ, IPdC. C383) 476-7368 Ju1.16.2005 03: D3 PP1 P~~1 EAGLE COUNTY OVERSIGHT, INC. . BOX 12a . M{NTURN, Cb 81645--0125 (303) 476--7368 Fax (303) 476--7411 July 16, 1990 Mr. David C. Shelton, Division Director Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division Colorado Department of Health 4210 fast 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 8Cf220 . Dear Mr. Shelton, We write to let the record show our unhappiness with the current state of affairs relating to the cleanup plan Paramount Communications has entered into with the Colorado Department of Health. That plan is not and will not work, nor have previous proposals proved workable over the last 1 B years. We are frustated! Governor Romer has told us that he endorses the work of his Health Department. Yet, all plans prop©sed by Pararrtaunt and rubber stamped by the Health Department and the Attorney General's office have further damaged our environment, as was predicted, The health department has told us it would do the right thing. However, the upper Bogle River is now dead. And the safety of our children at the Minturn Middle School is in further jeopardy. The state has errored in approving tress expensive plans that do not work, over local objections, thereby possibly rendering the polluters "bulletproof." We must require Paramount to provide c{eon air, water and land, instead of approving plans that provide band--aid solutions that have actually worsened our environment. The Attorney General's office has "wimped out," according to Bogle County Commissioner Dick Gusto#son, in regard to pursuing this Superfund cleanup, Both the County Commissioners and our District Attorney Pete Michaelson have now gone on retard requesting that all tailings be removed. We heartily endorse the removal of the tailing's pond immediately, In agreement with the health department's own Dr. Robert Arnott's 1986 reoort. We also are requesting the reloca#ion of the Minturn Middle Schaal for the safety of our children, It is time far local initiative in this matter. Bogle County Clverslght, Inc. is endeavoring to begin a class action lawsuit against Paramount that has played us and the State Health and At#orney General`s offices as fools. We believe that eagle County should be a member of this class and are asking for your' department to approve the county`s involvement in this action, Sincerely, C Michael Cacioppa, Rev, Hal Holman, Fredric Gordon, DDS President Vice-President Secretary~-Treasurer . rc: The Vail Trail The Vai I Daily The Avon--Beaver Creek Times The Eagle County Enterprise KZYR Radio K~-bite Radio K-Ski Radio The Denver Post The Rocky Mountain News NBC AsC cBs CNi~J Sen. Bill Armstrong Sen. Tim Wirth Rep Ben Nighthorse Campbell Herbert A. Del_ap, Atty. at law Eagle County Commissioners Town of Minturn Town of Avon Town of Gypsum Town of Vail Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District ~~d 6Jd : ~0 S©©Z '9Z ' I n!' S9~Z-9zb C~'0~? '~N I `O~Q I fl N I dldd~ woad ~wh ~ou~c~--~ f~... Q ~ f O S.o ~W ~~vK. ~Q~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~y s RECG ~U~ 161996 'y ~ Action Yai~ Inc. FRIENDS OF OPEN-SPACE P.O. Box 1426 Vail, Colorado 81658 J U L 1 71990 Town of. Vail Town Council 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 July 17, 1990 Dear Mayor Rose and Town Council Members: Action Vail, Inc. Friends of Open Space would like to express the concerns of its members with regards to the unresolved issues associated with the amendments being proposed to Special Development District Seven, The Darriott Mark Resort: Because of the need for greater detailed research, several of our concerns which have been left unresolved by The Marriott Mark Resort application, staff review, and PEC recommendations, are still under study. Among our concerns are the following: 1. It appears to us that there are no unique and specific conditions which sets the proposed expansion of The Marriott Mark Resort apart from other properties having similar conditions in the community. 2. It is clear that there are several other properties in the community that would be eligible for rezoning and density increases, through the variance or Special Development District approval procedures, based upon the conditions identified by the staff as~favorable reasons for granting The Marriott Mark Resort application. 3. Undoubtedly the specific conditions that exist for The Marriott Mark application demonstrate, if approved, that the method of approval and the degree of density increase granted will establish a precedent that could be emulated by other properties throughout the community. 4. The unprecedented amount of the square footage being requested, beyond the limitation of density and unit restrictions for standard zone district, is unacceptable . under any circumstances and in our opinion is a grant of special privilege that would be denied other property owners with similar conditions and circumstances. 5. DIo extraordinary contributions to the community, other than those that would be expected of any similar development application in the community or which would not be considered as normal and expected maintenance, have been made in the Marriott Nlark application. Town of Vail Town Council The Marriott Mark Resort Amendment Application July 17, 1990 Page Two 6. We believe that insufficient actions have been taken to preserve, protect, and correct the maintenance deficiencies of the public and private open space which occurs in association with The Marriott Mark Resort. 7. The master planning documents which have been used to evaluate the merits of the proposed Marriott Mark Resort infill site are not of comparable and sufficient detail to the master planning documents used to make similar evaluation for Vail Village and the Golden Peak infill sites. 8. There are circumstances or extraordinary conditions that we can see that would not allow the changing of underlying zone districts in other similar Special Development Districts or standard zone districts. 9. We believe that the changing of the underlying zone district to HDMF would allow for the timesharing of both proposed and existing buildings which will more than likely result in the abandonment of on-site convention facilities which are critical to the Lionshead short term rental bed base and the community-at-large. Prior to making an informed evaluation with regards to the scope and implications of The Marriott Mark Resort application we believe that it is essential to have the following planning information available. 1. The number of additional timesharing and hotel rooms that could be constructed in the community, assuming a comparable increase in density being requested by The Marriott Mark Resort application were granted to properties with similar circumstances. 2. Identify the specific amounts of increased public funds that would be required to finance necessary improvements to the community"s infrastructure, including roadway and transportation improvements, that would result from community wide increases in short term timesharing and hotel units. 3. Provide specific planning reports based upon credible statistical and demographic data that substantiates or refutes the assertion that timesharing units have significantly better annual occupancy rates than hotel rooms. i Town of Vail Town Council The Marriott Mark Resort Amendment Application ' July 17, 1990 Page Three 4. Provide specific planning reports based upon credible statistical and demographic data that substantiates or refutes that the occupants of timesharing units have an equal or significantly higher expenditure level while visiting the community as compared with the occupants of hotel rooms. 5. Provide specific planning reports which substantiate or refute the consequences that timesharing will have upon the availability and operations of The Marriott Mark Resort on-site convention facilities. 6. The 1986 Land Use Plan should be updated according to the review provisions of these planning documents, prior to making a determination with regards to The Marriott Mark Resort application. 7. A Lionshead Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan should be completed to a similar level of detail as the Vail Village Master Plan before a determination of infill sites is made for the Lionshead area. It is the position of our organization that until sufficient independent investigation and information is available from the Town of Vail with regards to the foregoing unresolved concerns, it is inappropriate and impossible to adequately evaluated the merits of The Marriott Mark Resort application. We firmly believe no exceptional conditions exist or that extraordinary community benefits are acquired within the scope of the present application. Approval of The Marriott Mark Resort applications is premature and unwarranted at this time. Sin rel x Gordon G. itt ~ Executive Committee ion V 'I Znc. 'ends of Open-Space Wa en Mil er J ck Rush James Franklin Lamont ~ f~'D J U L 1 ? 1990 Town of Vail Town Council 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 July 17, 1990 Dear Mayor Rose and Town Council Members: Subsequent to a query from Kristan Pritz, Director of Community Development, I have made the following review of the historical record concerning my recall of zoning matters associated with the creation of Special Development District 7. Please be advised I have been retained by Action Vail, Inc. Friends of Open Space to review and report upon the pending zoning action concerning changes and modification to Special Development District 7. I . Summary The zoning standards prescribed for Special Development District 7 are inconsistent and conflict with the requests in the pending application. The changes permitted by the application are inconsistent and conflict with existing conditions on the site of Special Development District 7. 1. Allowing HDMF as the sole underlying zone. district, based upon the alleged lack of sufficient documentation, will cause the approval of timesharing as a conditional use to be technically defective in Special Development District 7. a. Sufficient information exists to determine the underlying zone districts are High Density Multiple Family and Public Accommodations. b. There are adequate reasons and acceptable practices to demonstrate the purpose and intent for the lack of boundary line location for the zone districts that predated - the creation of any Special Development District. 2. Allowing a change of existing underlying zone districts and designating HDMF as the sole underlying zone district for Special Development District 7, based upon provision of section 18.40.070 USES, will cause the subsequent approval of timesharing as a conditional use to be technically defective. a. Section 18.40.070 in part states, "Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed special Town of Vail Town Council Marriott Mark Resort Application July 17, 1990 Page Two development district, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in a property"s underlying zone district." The request to allow timesharing, now prohibited, would be a lessening not an additional restriction. b. Special Development District 7 was created from two zone districts using the principle of "the most restrictive development standard" to determine GRFA and conflicting uses. Timesharing would not be permitted using the foregoing principle, since it is prohibited in Public Accomodations, one of the underlying zone districts. c. The creation of a Special Development District 7 removed all rights and privileges granted by preexisting zone districts. d. The applicant has exercised benefits and privileges granted by the creation of Special Development District 7. Economic advantages have been exercised and taken. 3. The Town Council may further restrict permitted, conditional and accessory uses in special development districts according to section 18.40.070; providing their actions cannot be construed to limit, replace or diminish the requirement, responsibilities, and specifications of special development districts 2 through 21. The changing of the underlying zone district to HDMF so that timesharing will be allowed as a conditional use will cause the approval to be technically defective. a. Allowing timesharing as a conditional use can be construed to limit, replace or diminish the requirements, responsibilities, and specifications of Special Development District 7. b. Allowing timesharing as a conditional use can be construed to limit, replace or diminish the requirements, responsibilities, and specifications for special development districts 2 through 21.. 4. Amending Special Development District 7 to provided for increases in GRFA and dwelling units, exceeds the limitations imposed upon Special Development District 7. Amending for purposes of increasing development density specifically for Special Development District 7 will cause the approval to be technically defective. s Town of Vail Town Council Marriott Mark Resort Application July 17, 1990 Page Three a. Granting density increases can be construed to limit, replace or diminish the requirements, responsibilities, and specification of Special Development District 7. 5. In section 18.40.140, "The Town Council finds that said special development districts 2 through 21 shall remain in full force and effect, and the terms, conditions, and agreements contained therein shall continue to be binding upon the applicants thereof and the Town of Vail. Amending to allow density increases or changing underlying zoning to allow timesharing as a conditional use will cause the approval to be technically defective. a. The amendment to allow density increases or change underlying zoning to allow timesharing will overturn a binding agreement. II. Review of Historical Record: The following review of the historical record is based upon my previous employment with the Town of Vail, as the Director of Community Development, during the period of discussions which resulted in the authorization by the Town Council of Special Development District 7. Further, I have reviewed the Community Development Department records concerning subsequent activities associated with this zoning matter. 1. 1969 Origins of Zone Districts and Development Standards: In 1969, zone districts were established for all parcels of land within the Town of Vail in conjunction with the adoption of the community"s first zoning ordinance. Zone districts were applied to all newly subdivided or annexed land. An official zoning map was prepared and adopted. All parcels of land subdivided by Vail Associates INC. that comprise the LionsHead area were zoned under the provisions of this ordinance, including the parcels which are now incorporated in Special Development District 7. The zone district for each parcel was indicated on the official zoning map. s Town of Vail Town Council Marriott A1ark Resort Application July 17, 1990 Page Four 2. 1973 Revision and Expansion of Zoning Powers: In 1973, the original zoning ordinance and its ensuing amendments were repealed. Anew zoning ordinance was adopted that combined the essential elements of the original zoning ordinance with expanded powers of review as well as revisions to preexisting development standards. The preexisting zoning map was readopted with no changes in zone district boundaries. The 1973 zoning ordinance allowed for the first time the creation of Special Development Districts. A Special Development District could be imposed over a preexisting zone district. Further, a Special Development District could be imposed upon newly annexed territory without having a standard zone district as its genesis. However, at the time of annexation, development standards were imposed that were consistent with requirements found in comparable zone districts. 3. 1976 Special Development District 7: In 1976, Special Development District 7 was created from two separate zone districts, Public Accommodation and High Density Multiple Family. (See copy of rezoning Public Notice attached.) Lengthy consideration was given to the most equitable means of incorporating the conflicting development standards required by each zone district into a set of unifying development standards for the Special Development District. Particular emphasis was placed upon the calculation of density, number of units, and the interpretation of permitted, conditional, and accessory uses. As a result of this conflict, a principle was accepted which concluded that the development standards for Special Development District 7 would be determined, unless otherwise provided for in the adopting ordinance, by applying the most restrictive development standard from either zone district to the entire Special Development District. By example, GRFA .calculations were based upon HDMF density standards; HDMF GRFA multiple being .60 as opposed to PA which is .80. Special Development District 7, allowable GRFA for a 5.17 acre site is 134,000 square feet. (See memorandum dated December 9, 1976 concerning Preliminarv Assessment of the Mark Special Development District.) Town of Vail Town Council Marriott Mark Resort Application July 17, 1990 Page Five The necessity to identify or apply the development standards of each zone district (HDMF or PA) to each separate lot that composed the original site was not considered, at the time, a matter of importance. During public hearings associated with the creation of Special Development District 7, it was sufficient that the determination had been made that the "most restrictive development standard" would apply, in matters that required interpretation such as permitted, conditional, and accessory uses. For example, in the present circumstance, timesharing is allowed as a conditional use in the HDMF zone district but pro~iibited in PA therefore, due to the most restrictive use principle, timesharing could not be allowed as a conditional use in Special Development District 7. It was accepted that with the application of the "most restrictive development standard" premise there was no need to continue documentation of zone district boundaries. Consequently, there was no need to retain official records that illustrated preexisting zone district boundaries. All subsequent zoning maps were amended to reflect the appropriate designation of each Special Development District and any reference to the original zone district or districts were removed. It was determined that once a property received and exercised advantages granted in a Special Development District, all rights and privileges of the original zone district were given up. Zt was also resolved that specific limitation on density and numbers of units would be imposed so that subsequent amendments could only be allowed for aesthetic and functional considerations such as parking and circulation. 4. 1977 Resubdivision of Special Development District 7: In early 1977 a resubdivision of the Special Development District 7 was completed. Lot 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8,'Block 1, Vail LionsHead Third Filing were subdivided. (See public notice dated: December 17, 1976.) The purpose of the resubdivision was to created revised lot boundaries between land owned by Vail Associates Inc. zoned for parking and Special development District 7 so that more efficient parking lots and structures could be laid out for each development site. . Town of Vail Town Council Marriott Mark Resort Application July 17, 1990 Page Six The boundaries of zone districts which predated the creation of Special Development District 7 were not redrawn to conform with the new lot line boundaries. It was determined that changing original zone district boundaries within Special Development District 7 was not necessary. It was concluded that the original boundaries of the zone districts were dissolved with the creation of the Special Development District 7. Once uniform zoning standards had been imposed over the entire Special Development District 7, lot lines could be Moved within the special development district without consideration of preexisting zone district boundaries. The development standards from each zone district were incorporated, using the principle of the most restrictive development standard, into the development standards for Special Development District 7. Consequently, there was no need to maintain zone district boundaries in order to determine the specific location of uses or the primacy of development standards. It should be noted that portions of the site identified in the pending application, as the location of additional timesharing units, has an underlying zone district of Parking. These areas are the former location of the Vail Associates site zoned for Parking that existed prior to the 1977 resubdivision of Block 1, Vail LionsHead Third Filina. 5. 1980-81 Timesharing Related Ordinances: In mid-1980 the Town Council approved Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1980. This ordinance approved timesharing as a conditional use in the HDMF, PA, CCI, and CCII zone districts. This ordinance was accompanied by a series of other ordinances which imposed regulatory control over timesharing activities. Within six months of approval the Town Council reversed it approval, repealed Ordinance No. 26, replacing it with Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1981 which permitted timesharing only in the HDMF zone district. Such a significant and rapid turnabout in Town Council attitudes is worthy of note. The Town Council acted to establish intent and regulate the inclusion of timesharing as a conditional use within an existing project or building. According to Ordinance No. 36, Series of 1980, Town of Vail Town Council Marriott Mark Resort Application July 17, 1990 Page Seven "7.) Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit for a Time-Share Estate, Fractional Fee or Time-Share license proposal, the applicant shall submit to the Town a list of all owners of existing units within the project or building; and written statements from 100$ of the owners of existing units indicating their approval, without condition, of the proposed Time-Share, r'ractional Fee or Time-Share license." 6. 1984 Request for Conversion from Accommodation Units to Condominium Units: In 1984 a request by the MK Corporation (Kaiser blorcus) was made for the conversion of 67 accommodation units and 27 dwelling units to condominium units. The CDD staff recommended that owner occupancy would be restricted to two weeks in the summer and two weeks in the winter. The proposal was tabled by the PEC at the request of the applicant. 7. 1985 Request for Conversion from Accommodation Units to Timesharing Units: A request by the MK Corporation (Kaiser Morcus) in 1985 sought to convert 121 rooms (27 existing kitchens) to a time sharing use. The Community Development Department recommended denial. The PEC, after lengthy debate, tabled the application at the request of the applicant. (See CDD Staff Memorandum Dated April 22, 1985; PEC Aiinutes riay 28, 1985.) Four of the same people who served on the PEC which drafted the 1986 Land Use Plan, (adopted November 18, 1986) rejected the Marriott Mark Resort application (May 28, 1985) . to convert accommodation units to timesharing units. The Community Development Department recommended against an amendment to the conditional use section of Special Development District 7 (Marriott Mark Hotel) to add time sharing on a fractional fee ownership basis. As quoted from staff memorandum to the PEC and Town Council date April 22 1985, "Allowing this conversion would be a precedent setting decision toward a general direction of dilution of the short term hotel bed base in the Town of Vail. Removal of accommodation units, especially from an organization such as the Marriott can only be viewed as a significant negative impact upon the Town of Vail." Town of Vail Town Council Marriott Mark Resort Application ' July 17, 1990 Page Eight "Negative effect upon group business. It is noted in the applicant"s memorandum that approximately a one year lead time will be required to include an individual week into the Marriott rental pool. It is unlikely that an owner will have made the decision of whether or not he will utilize the unit himself one year in advance. This could result in the unit being vacant for that week because the owner decided within a shorter time frame not to use the unit and the Marriott was subsequently unable to rent it. The impact upon the Marriott"s ability to conduct the larger group business meetings would be very negative with this uncertainty over unit availability." 8. 1986 Lancl Use Plan: The 1986 Land Use Plan is an policy advisory document and does not circumvent zoning and other regulatory documents. It was prepared with the assistance of an advisory task force working in conjunction with the Town of Vail staff and PEC. The planning document set forth goals and objectives to used as a general policy guidelines to evaluate the merits of proposed development. The framers of the 1986 Land Use Plan took precautionary steps to clearly distinguish between quality time share projects as being appropriate for residential development rather than commercial. This perspective rnirrors the 1981 decision of the Town Council to limit timesharing to HDMF zone districts. It is apparent from the goals statements for Vail Village/LionsHead and Commercial, the retention and development of hotel rooms and facilities is of paramount importance. The following are Goal Statements extracted from the 1986 Land Use Plan which have relevance to the application pending before the Town Council: 1. General Growth/Development 1.2 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 2. Skier/Tourist Concerns 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day visitors. Town of Vail Town Council Marriott Mark Resort Application July 17, 1990 Page Nine 3. Commercial 3.1~ The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.2 Tlie Village and LionsHead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 3.'3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 4. Village Core/LionsHead 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. 9. 1988 Underlying Zoning: A more recent approach for the determination of acceptable uses in Special Development Districts was amended to the zoning ordinance in 1988. The amendment provides a more specific guide to all Special Development Districts concerning the determination of acceptable uses. The amendment in part states, "Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed special development district, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in a property"s underlying zone district." It is important to note that the amendment provides specific direction for determination of uses. to development districts which are or. have been created from only one zone district. The 1988 SDD amendment, does not resolve the issue of determining "primacy of uses" when two or more zone districts are merge into one Special Development District. Further, the existing amendment, as quoted above, only provides for a greater restriction or limitation upon uses than is otherwise provided for in the originating underlying zone district. Town of Vail Town Council Marriott Mark Resort Application ' July 17, 1990 Page Ten Any changes in the underlying zone districts does not affect prior decision made for .Special Development Districts 2 through 21. According to section 18.40.140, Existing Special Development Districts, "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit, replace, or diminish the requirements, responsibilities, and specifications of special development districts 2 through 21. The Town council specifically finds that said special development districts 2 through 21 shall remain in full force and effect, and the terms, conditions, and agreements contained therein shall continue to be binding upon the applicants thereof and the Town of Vail." According to this section attempts to change, the underlying zone district of a preexisting SDD or append amendments because changes have occurred in the underlying zone districts since the passage of the Special Development District 7, would not be acceptable. When a special development district is created, because of the benefits and privileges granted and exercised, all rights and privileges conferred by the original zone district are given up. In the foregoing citation, a distinctive class of Special Development Districts has been created. Amendment, be it for additional uses or GRFA and unit increases, in any one of the Special Development District 2-21 would confer the same or similar privileges to all. III. Policy Considerations: 1. 1990 Designating An Underlvinq Zone District: The proposal to change or alter an underlying zone district for a Special Development District has no merit or purpose. No unique or unknown circumstance has been demonstrated that any of the privileges and benefit already conferred and exercised have been denied the applicant. The changing of the underlying zone district would grant a special privilege that can be shown to be inconsistent with prior approvals and intention of the Town of Vail. Section 18.40.140 provides that unique limitations have been imposed upon changes to Special Development District 2- 21. The alteration of these limitation for one special development district would be applicable to the regulation of Special Development District 2-21. Town of Vail Town Council Marriott Mark Resort Application July 17, 1990 Page Eleven 2. Burden of Proof: It has been represented that the Town of Vail cannot produce documentary evidence of the preexisting zone district designation for the specific parcels of land which are included in Special Development District 7. Archive requirements by the State of Colorado provide for the preservation of official documents such as amendments to the official zoning map by a municipal government. (See CDD Staff to PEC memoranda Dated January 8, 1990 and April 23, 1990.) Administrative procedures and legal remedies are available for the authentication and location of the original zone districts for each parcel incorporated into Special Development District 7. However, failure to determine the specific location of a zone district does not conflict with a limitation of the most restrictive use being allowed when two different zone districts (HDMF and PA) exist within a special development district. The burden of proof is upon the proponent to prove their position. The lack of evidence proves nothing. 3. rlaster Planning Documents: Presently, urban design and master planning documents has not been prepared to the same level of detail that is required for review and consideration of development in the Golden Peak neighborhood and Vail Village. Given the scope and significance of the pending application, the same level of urban design and master planning documentation should be available before the application can be adequately considered. 4. Timesharing: A majority of quality time share units that occur at present are used as short term residential vacation housing. Occupancy rates have continue at a flat rate of growth during the low occupancy seasons during the last several economic cycles. Low Occupancy. seasons are common to all resort community economies. The rate of foreclosures is significant. (See copy of public notices from Avon Beaver Creek Times.) Town of Vail Town Council Marriott Mark Resort Application July 17, 1990 Page Twelve The sales tax base will be eroded because, unlike hotels and condominium hotels, timesharing hotels do not collect sales tax from the use of short term accommodation rooms. In recent years, the relinquishment of accommodation and dwelling units from the condominium hotel short term rental pool has been significant. It has been stated during the first public hearing on the pending application, by an authority on local hotel/timesharing development, that the conversion of an existing hotel to timesharing, to save it from economic collapse, has not been shown to be a proven remedy to sustain an economic turnabout of a hotel property. 5. Grant of Special Privilege: The benefits that created Special Development District 7 were achieved through combining the preferential advantages from two underlying zone districts (PA and HDNIF). The attempt to remove one of the underlying zone district in order to overcome the limitations upon use within the Special Development District is gain by special privilege. Economic advantages have already been exercised and taken under both underlying zone districts. It would be inappropriate to allow a windfall gain to occur, through the amendment process, unless substantial financial restitution were made for the economic gains conferred by the original. underlying zone districts. The applicant has already. exercised all benefits and privileges granted by the creation of Special Development District 7. The approval of HDMF as an underlying zone district seeks to gain a grant of special privilege that would more than .likely be denied to Special Development " Districts 2-21 according to the provisions of section 18.40.140. 6. Residential vs Commercial Uses The benefits and .privileges conferred and exercised in Special Development District 7, allowed the property to become overwhelmingly dominated by commercial uses. It would be impossible to consider the existing development as predominantly residential in nature. The Marriott Mark can no longer be considered residential. Town of Vail Town Council Marriott Mark Resort Application July 17, 1990 Page Thirteen It can be demonstrated from the historical record, existing ordinances, and master planning guidelines that the Town of Vail intends and defines timesharing as a residential use, to be located within buildings and projects that are composed in there entirety of time share units, located in High Density Multiple family zones and do not contain commercial use activities. It should not be an acceptable practice to allow a development to derive benefits by claiming commercial status, then when all benefit have been extracted, recant and ignore these privileges in order to gain benefits reserved for residential development. 7. Emplovee i3ousinq: There is no existing employee housing in the Special Development District 7. It is questionable that quality employee housing units can be located in such close proximity to high intensity commercial uses. IV. Conclusion: The l~larriott Mark proposal is defective because it fails to meet the conditions of long established criteria and standards imposed by the Town of Vail over limitation imposed upon density increases and the location and definition of timesharing as a residential use. It is evident from the foregoing review of events and official records that the Town of Vail has, over the years, exercise consistent and diligent concern over the creation and amendment of Special Development Districts. S'ncerely,; ~~a es F . L(amo~ t J I% PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT Kaiser Morcus, representing the Mark, . has requested rezoning of Lots 4 and 7, and a portion of Lots.S and 6, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Third Filing from Public Accommodations and High Density Multiple Family to Special Development District to allow development of the site in a more innovative manner. Application has been filed pursuant to Section 21.500 of .the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973. Public Hearings were held on December 9, 16 and 23> 1976 before the Town of Vail Planning Commission in accord with Section 21.400 of the Zoning Ordinance. Planning .Commission recommendations have been forwarded to the Town Council who will. make a final decision orb January 18, 1977 at 7:30 PM in the Vail Municipal Building. TOWN OF VAIL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~~n~.~ :-rfq''~~~ Diana S. Toughill Zoning Administrator Published in the Vail Trail December 24, 1976 • PROOF OF PUIiLiCATIUN STATE OF COLORADO ) aa. COUNTY Oi'' EAGLE ) • 1. do solemnly swear that 1 am ' ! the~l)~'~-lSl~E'2 of T1iE VAiL TRA1L; that the same Is a weekly newspaper 'printed, In Whole or in part and ptlblislled in lllP County of Fagle, Sl.ale of t Colorado. and has a general circulation therein; plat said newspaper has been ~ ' published continuously and uninterruptedly In said County of Eagll~ Cor a period of ~~~$~C@ more than fifty-two crnlseculive Weeks next prior to the Grsl publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said lleK•~papcr has been admitted to NOTICE Is Hrat=ar a1vEN the/ Kelser Marcus, •epresenlinp The MerR, het the United States mails as second-class matter under llle provisi9ns of the Act of requeslad reronlnp o1 I.ele • .nd T end , i?larch 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly portion of lo+s s and el«I: van lloniHeed Thl?d Flllnp from pVblic newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and Adrertisemellts within the Aceommodallons end Hlgh pensay Multiple meaning o[ the laws o[ the State of Colorado. Femlly to Spcele) O!velrpmen! ol:l.lc1 ro • ~ allow development of Me sIh M • more Mnovellvs manner. Ajlpllcefyn has been That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and rilee pvreueM 1e Seclbn t1.SVrollhe 2enlnq ~ ' OrdMence. O?dinence Ne. tl, Serlq er ills. entire• issue of eve number of said weekl news a r for the eriod of ~ A Public Ile.?tno wn1 b• hale on ry Y P Pe P POinnlrq Canm tston ter iccore wi n s ci ai . consecutive insettiona; and that the [Irst ubication of said notice was in the issue rl.roo er Ih.Ianirq oreMence. sold heerlrq P will b. held e17:00 p.m. M M• Vall Munlclpel auadhq. o[ said newspaper Baled NOl) lg A.D. 19~_ o[_ and that the last TOWN OF VAIL ' ' DEPARTMENT OF publication Ot. aald notice was in the Issue o[ said neWS a e[ dated [OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P P lgnlnoi?dmi^isoiitoi , N OJi~lt'1.(3~ ~ A.D, 19710 Pubils,I+ee In Tn• v.a Tr.n on Novembe? n, * mr~ ' in wftneas whereof i hate hereunto set my hand this day of • ~~ef~BC-2 A.D. 19 ~ /L,' . . Subscribed and sworn to ~to~re~me, a notary pll in a lfl fur the9ounty of Gagle ~ UQG • State of Colorado; this ,day of ~ .D. 19~~j ~ , ' ~ r~~ rroe. ~ able ~`r., ~ ~ ~ ~ t?ly Commission expire(~'-v~ fofn111iS510D CXDIfCSSt sr - - _ i•IEf•10RAfiDUi~1 T0: PLAfJiJIr~rG GG;•~i4I5SI0N FROM: DEPARTr•fENT OF COiusurrITY DEVELOPr•~ErrT RE: PRELIhiIi;ARY ASSESSt•1EryT OF THE r•1ARK SPECIAL DEVELOPt~Ei~lT DISTRICT DATE: Cecember 9, 1976 COtPARISO": OF f•lARK SPECIAL DEVELOPr•iENT DISTRICT PROPOSAL WITH CURREiJT ZOfJIr~G Site Area Allo+•:able GRFA Proposed GRFA Allo?•:able Units Proposed Units Lot 4 61,852 sq. ft. 37,111.2 . :~b Lot 5 123,562 sq. ft. 74,137.2 Site considered as a tivhole Lot 7 40,040 sq. ft. 23,032.0 225,454 sq. ft. 143,280.4 ~~~-Less existing bldg. 40,276.75 103,003.65 94,000 max. 129 - 258 210 accoT~:.oda- d:•,elling units tion units converts to 258 - 516 accom- 20 suites (DU) modation units Less existing units (74 ace. units 14 dtivelling units) Allo~•~able Commercial Proposed Com•ercial 17,531.24 Less Existing Bldg. 3,225.00 14 306.24 4,500 Disco and commercial Less existing meeting room _4,860.00 10,000 proposed meeting room 9,446.24 Additional sq. 14,500 sq. ft. proposed ft. allowable The Town of Vail generally feels that the project is in line with the proposed growth • management plan in that it is located in a hi•5~~ density area,~is directly adjacent to pedestrian areas, transportation, and provides a community benefit (convention center) 3t private expense. '~?e do not feel that we have had sufficient time to review the proposal since it is a very involved one as the Environmental impact report was sub- mitted only today. h'e would recommend a conceptual approval and suggest that the any fon~~al action be ~•iithheld until such time. as the staff and the Planning Commission have had an opportunity to review both the revised drawings and the environentnai impact report. t~'e do not feel it is fair to either the Totirn or the applicant to base a decision on information that we have not had the opportunity to review. A ccrplete report will be prepared prior to the December 16 Planning Com- mission r2eting trhich tvi11 give staff recommendations and review of the Environmental impact report. ~*irt ~ - . Page Three - - - - - 4 _ - Planni~ Co•^:nission Comments: Dan Corcoran felt that this site bras not suitable for the proposed development because of the AeEessa~y cuts & retaining mall necessary to rake it ?•rork. The only development that he thought arould work were the 3 single-family dc•:ellir~s on the open area. His vote for the proposed project bras NO Ed Draper had problE,~s with the project because of the visability of it. He vote was NO Sandy 1•Si 1 l s, voted 1.0 because of the v i sabi 7 i ty of the project. Oudlev Abbott voted t;0 because of the environr,,ental impact on the hillside Gerry t•.hite voted t+0 because of the environmental and visual impact the project would have on the valley. He felt that this project crould be a detriment to the valley. Bi11 Hanlon voted NO Pam Garton voted NO because of the environmental and visual impact and she had problEms with the necessary cuts & fills and ho~~~ it tiro uld be revegetated. As requested by the applicant a preliminary vote eras taken. The Planning Commission unanimously felt that the project was not a desirable one for the Vail Valley & Co•,~ unity. THE ;'ARK Jim Lamont gave a summary of the discussion held at last week's meeting. Attached are some figures of the proposed project that were prepared by Diana Toughill. After a lengthy discussion between the Developer, Kaiser tiorcus, and the Planning Commission, it was decided by the Planning Commission to table fina] decision on this matter until next week when they ~vould have had more time to thoroughly digest a]1 the information. - ~ . .V PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT Mr. Kaiser Morcus has applied for a resubdivision of Lots 4, 5, 6, 1, and 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Third Filing. Application has been made pursuant to Article III, Section 3, Tom of Vail Subdivision Regulations. A Public hearing will be held before the Town of Vail Panning Commission pursuant to the Subdivision Regulations on January 6, 1977 at 3:00 p.m, in the Vail Municipal Building. TOWt~ OF VAIL DEPA~TMEf1T OF COMMU~~ITY DEVELOPMENT .~.~`J~ Diana S. Toughill Zoning Administrator Published in the Vail Trail December 17, 1976 r ' tROOF OF tUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) . COUNTY OF F.AGLE ) ~~~!.c,CrJ ~No 1~_ ~ do solemnly swear that 1 am .'i~;' Ir the p1)~tlSl~ o[ TllE VAIL TRAIL; that the same is a r.•eekly newspaper prinled~ In a•1?ole or in pnrt and publisled in ll?e County of Cagle, Stale o[ Colorado. and bas. a general circulnliol? ll?erein; ll?at said newspaper has been rti. published continuously and unintern?ptcdiy in said County of Eal;lc for a period of morr lhnn ti(tyhco consecutive works Wert prior to the (ilxl publication of the ~'t1~.l~~l~ annexed Icgal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to ti?e United States mails as second•claas mallet under the provisions o[ the Act of ~ NorlcE Is ??EaEer GrvEn Ina? ne.. March 3~ 1879, or any amendments theteofr and that said mwspaper is a weekly Icahcr Mo.cus bas .vot~:n ter newspaper duly quall(ied [or publishing Icgal notices and adcrrlisemcnts within ll?e vali°uossH ou`Tni esibil.hro no Sakai . meaning o[ the laws o[ Lhe State o[ Colorado. Was been maae pursuant +o n.+ccle tll. Section town W Vall Subdlvlskin That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and R A Publalc~llearlnp will be bell be/ae the • town of Vell Plannlny Cornmhslen pursuant entire issue o[ every number of said weekly newspaper [or the period o[ 1 loll a °sw,'oo v~+R Mol~ v n M~ ~~p;i ' 9vfldinq. consecutive inserllons; and that tl?e [first p?rbication o[ said notice was in the issue Town or vAt~ _ OEPl.R1MEMT OF of aald newspaper dated '~UI:CCib1(',x=2 I? A.D. 19 and that the last _ coMMUNITV o s fie ont i . 2anleul Adminlslr~tor publication of • aald notice was in the issue o[ sold newspaper dated Publlsbed In 1be Vall hall en oeceMbe. q. ?v~6. in witness vrl?ereo[ 1 have hereunto set my hand this ~ day o[ ~ Q~cfJU AtP A.U. 19 . • Subscribed and sworn to bef re Iner a note p ~blic in ?cl (or tl?e~unly of Eagle, Slate o[ Colorado this day of ~L.~~,,/~ .D. 1~J~ No ar Pubno >`!y Commtsaton expires ~L1'/~ 19~ _ rz,. - MEMORANDUM j:~ TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 6, 1977 RE: Resubdivision of Lots 4, 5, 6, 7,~, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Third Filing. The applicant, Kiaser P1orcus, is requesting a resubdivision of Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, ~ 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Third Filing. This parcel of property presently consists of a portion of the Mark Property and Vail Associates North Day Skier Lot. ~ ' . The applicant would like to trade parcels of property with Vail Associates in order to move the present parking lot further west so that his new proposed project would fit better within the site. With the trade, 20 additional parking spaces would be added, but the square footage of the new lot would remain the same as the old but having a different configuration. The Department of Community Development foresees no difficulties with . the proposed resubdivision and recommends approval of the request. I ~ - t f T0: Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council ~ FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 22, 1985 ' SUBJECT: Request for an amendment to the conditional use section of Special Development District 7 (Marriott Mark Hotel) to add time sharing on a fractionalized fee ownership basis. Applicant: Kaiser Morcus I. THE REQUEST ~ L_ Z7~C~'~cntns~ w~o ~r~dr~ ~-~rac.~.c~r=~ Basically, the request is to convert Phase III of the Marriott Mark Hotel from 121 rooms (27 existing kitchens) to a time sharing use. The terminology "fractionalized fee ownership) refers to the proposal of selling five-week packages to each owner, thus representing ten owners per unit. Although quite lengthy, we've enclosed Jay Peterson's memorandum describing the proposal in detail and discussing its merits. A thorough understanding of the request can be obtained by reading Jay's memorandum. II. BACKGROUND A. Previous Approval On April 20, 1981 the PEC held a public hearing on the request for approvals for Phase II addition (referred to as Phase III in the applicant's documents) along with a number of amendments to the Special Oevelopment District to accommodate revisions to this project. We've enclosed the staff memorandum and the minutes from that April 20, 1981 meeting for your • reference. We've also highlighted several areas within the memorandum and minutes which are applicable to the request now before the PEC. The following are aspects of the previous approval which are important 'to keep in mind when considering the current request to amend a number of characteristics and elements of that previous approval: ° Additional density in terms of more kitchens in the rooms was granted to the applicant upon the argument that more hospitality rooms were needed to support the convention facility (see minutes). ° The applicant represented as part of the proposal that there would be 320 hotel room keys available to the Marriott as the management firm fora period of 25 years. This was represented so that the concern over additional kitchens with regard to future condominium- ization was not a problem. We have been informed by the applicant's representative that this agreement between Morcus and the Marriott has already been amended. . ° There were many concessions made to the applicant in the 1981 approval with regard to extra fireplaces in accommodation units, reduction ~ ~ ~vvv L 7~ LLB VJ ' of amenities which were a part of the master development plan, allowing parking to be provided as agreed upon in 1917 with the ~ - original approval of the development plan and the relocation of undergound parking from underneath the convention facility to an above-ground structure west of the Phase III building. B. Time Sharin4 in Vail Attached please find Appendix B of our most recent Development Statistics report regarding existing and potential build-out of all timeshare projects in Vail. The table represents a substantial amount of timeshare use in Vail. Upon build-out of all multi-family dwelling units in the Town of Vail, timeshare will represent approximately 8~ of all these units. The number of owners (21,750) is very significant in relationship to the total number of units in the final build-out scenario of the entire Town, being 8,896 units (single family, duplex, accommodation and multi-family). The timeshare industry has followed the rest of the real estate industry in the last several years. There has been a substantial slowdown in development of timeshare units and some major problems within the industry. In the peak of the national recession many timeshare owners simply ignored their mortgages and/or weekly maintenance fees for their units ' and this resulted in a high level of foreclosures for many projects. Furthermore, the timeshare industry has been unable to get a handle on the tacky and shoddy marketing practices which have plagued this type of development since its inception. Little to no regulation over these marketing practices by either state real estate commissions or municipalities has occurred and the problems continue. These poor • marketing practices project a negative image upon the entire community in which these projects are located. C." Economic Impact Upon the Town The following excerpt is from the recently released report of the Economic Development Commission of the Town of Vail. We feel that these comments are appropriate to this application and should be a serious consideration in the PEC's decision on this proposal: "Recommendations on Lodoina Time Sharing. Discourage conversion of hotel-type units to timeshare ownership. Although the real estate transfer tax generates more revenue than the sales tax on hotel room revenues, within three or four years the tax on room occupancy will exceed the one-time real estate transfer tax. However, conversion of condominiums to timeshare ownership has the potential of increasing utilization of the units-- and higher utilization means more visitor spending, more jobs, more tax revenues. In new time share projects, units without kitchens shout d be encouraged. ,~J~• , ~ Mar• ~tt -3- 4/22/85 "A continuing concern regarding time sharing, however, is the long- term management commitment after the sales program is substantially • complete. Approximately 40 percent of the project's sales revenues are committed to sales commissions and/or one-time promotions. Often, the developer is completely out of the picture; and typically too many of the time share owners have relatively little at stake to make a strong commitment during some type of economic setback." III. .IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL Following are pros and cons of the proposal as evaluated against the existing situation of 121 accommodation units run as a part of the overall hotel and containing 27 kitchenettes within some of the units. A. PRO ° Increase off-season occupancy. Generally, time sharing has higher year round occupancy than hotels because the owner feels an obliga- tion to utilize or rent the weeks that he owns. ° Part of the proposal is to put capital into improving the Phase III building. ° Retaining the Marriott as the management firm would increase the ~ compatibility of the time shared portion versus the accommodation unit portion of the complex. Be aware, however, that these management agreements obviously are changed without Town of Vail knowledge or control. ° The five-week package reduces the number of potential owners to 460 within Phase III, whereas, it could have been five times that amount by selling individual weeks to individual purchasers. ° The Marriott Mark facility contains sufficient amenities and is in a good location for the time sharing use. 8. CON ° Allowing this conversion would be a precedent setting decision toward a general direction of dilution ~f the short term hotel bed base in the Town of Vail. Removal of~accommodation units, especially from an organization such as the Marriott:~can only be viewed as I / a significant negative impact upon the Town of Vail. High quality . I/ ~ accommodation units in good locations (within the Village and Lionshead ~ ~ areas) supported by major conference facilities are a land use that this community cannot afford to be reduced. P, Cott Mark -4- 4/22/85 ° Negative effect upon group business. It is noted in the applicant's memorandum that approximately a one year lead time will be required to include an individual week into the Marriott rental pool. It is unlikely that an owner will have made the decision of whether or not he will utilize the unit himself one year in advance. This could result in the unit being vacant for that week because the owner decided within a shorter time frame not to use the unit and the Marriott was subsequently unable to rent it. The impact upon the Marriott's ability to conduct the larger group business meetings would be very negative with this uncertainty over unit availability. ° Town of Vail contains a sufficient number of time share units. As previously noted, the Town contains seven time share projects representing 435 total units upon build-out. Without a great deal of statistical data we, nevertheless, feel that in considering the time share industry's current problems that we may, indeed, have enough of this type of land use. ° Negative impacts of marketing program. The intention or the proposal is to "sell" the guests of the hotel the time share weeks as well as bringing people to the site from throughout the front range and the country for short term visits. We feel that these may be negative marketing influences upon Vail rather than positive ones with the knowledge of the poor track record of time share sales people and general marketing practices.. ° Decrease in marketing dollars for the hotel. The application fully admits a long term decrease in marketing dollars for the hotel in regard to the reduction of the number of accommodation units. ° The violation of the four year old agreement on accommodation unit restrictions. The applicant requested extra kitchens four years ago with the assurance that these units would remain accommodation units and be managed by the Marriott and would be an integral part of the conference facilities. The approval was given based on these proposals and we feel strong Ty that they should be respected as was promised. ° Negative economic impact of the Town of Vail. The EOC points out the loss of long term sales tax revenues from accommodation unit rentals as opposed to the short term real estate transfer tax gains. Conversion to time sharing of Phase III of the Marriott is a very negative economic impact upon the Town and a poor use of tax payers' dollars. ° Negative parking impacts. Especially during the marketing stages (approximately 4 years) the impacts of parking on the site will be tremendous with the large numbers of potential purchasers driving to the site for sales pitches. Moreover, time sharing requires more parking as-a use than accommodation units because front range purchasers will choose to drive to the site, and studies show that arriott-5' 4/22/85 at least two parking spaces per unit are needed. Trend in Vail of condominium conversion of accommodation units. We are receiving a significant number of applications to convert existing accommodation units to condominiums. Although, our regulations stipulate owners' use restrictions to two weeks winter and two weeks summer, overall, the wholesale conversion of AU's to condominiums has a negative effect upon overall room availability in the community. One thing the Town of Vail can ill afford to lose is the availability of our lodge rooms to the public in general in a.flexible arrangement. ° Negative effect upon restaurant business. The conversion to time share condominiums of Phase III will reduce restaurant business and have a negative effect upon the sales tax due to the increased number of meals to be eaten in the condominiums with kitchens. IV. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department feels strongly that that this application should be denied. We feel that although time sharing generally increases occupancy on a year round basis that the negatives far out:veigh the positives with this proposal. We feel that one of the most important things we can _ ~ do at this point in the Town's history is to protect to the greatest extent possible our accommodation units which are centrally located and are related , to croup business taciirties.. The Community Notion Pian contains many ~l;r,~`~ policies related to this feeling. In fact, we encourage the addition of lodge rooms in the Village and Lions head areas with these characcs ~ rather than t}~i r el ~mi nation. ~`.~y / I~fl~~ We also feel that the economic impact as noted by the EDC will be a negative one for the Town and share t e s concern over the long term management commitment. We feel strongly that the applicant should resoec, t the promises ..aar+ C~~3rantao~ that wgre ~1ven tip Tn~n four ears ago in that many concessions were made to allow additional kitchens and for other aspects of the Phase III approval. Furthermore,~hp tip sharing industry's inability to ~°lve ~nmP of their problems in the marketing area are of ma.ior concern to the Community Development Department in that allowing the conversion may indeed result in a negative image of Vail rather than a positive one. The potential negative impacts uonn the Marriott's ability to conduczt croup, usiness is a very real one as well as the loss of sales tax from reduced restaurant revenues. In general, we feel that the Marriott Mark hotel is a positive contributor to the Town of Vail in its existing configuration and operating procedures and we feel that the conversion to time sharing of a major portion of this hotel is not in the best interests of the Town in either a short or long term outlet. APPENDIX B - ~ ...~Qa4,~.~ ~'-r_f G~ ~~~~=Qr~,~~--~~ -JL,~r ~1~~1~ ` TII~E SriARE UNITS c T c~ . ~c ,4 ~ • n L L TOWN OF VA I L ~,~~fr : ' • ~ • j~i~pJ"~CT v~, c1 ~,u` ',E~T~~9.~.~-,~. ~~~-l,~ ST~~~vs ~ ~ /~aT,E~~f ~4,Pcc,~- ~tlfl~l~.E" APOLLO PARK COMPLETE. 32 0 32 • UNDER SAIJDSTONE CREEK CLUB CUNS1'RUCTION 66 18 811 PHASED 111 * 39 150 ' STREnh1SIDE CONDOS DEVELOPMENT ' Vn 1 L RUN COMPLETE 511 0 511 i . , TIIE 1•IREN ~ COMPLETE 66 0 66 - Vnt,'TtIGE P01 tdT COMPLETE• ~ 9 0 9 . f SUI~BIRD LODGE COMPLETE X10 0 h0 TOTAL 37s 5a 1135 - hlOTf_ : /1SSUr'1 l NG 50 01•lNERS PER ONDOM I N I UM, 1135 Ul~i f TS I .~U/1L_ n r'_~. TFNT I./11. OF 21 ~ 750SWNERS , - * Includes building now under onstruction. i I • f I ~ 4 I Planning and Environmental Commission May 28, 1985 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Duane Piper Rick Pylman Howard Rapson Kristan Pritz Sid Schultz Tom Braun Jim Viele Betsy Rosolack ABSENT Eric Affeldt Jere Walters The meeting was called to order by Duane Piper, chairman, at 3:10 pm. 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of May 13. Donovan moved to approve minutes, seconded by Viele. Vote was 5-0 in favor. am nd a ial Development Distric. -7 (Marriott Markl in rder 2. Request to a Sp c to allow time share estate units, fractional fee units, and t1m~-sfiare license units as a conditional use in Phase III. -HUU~~? anL: MK Corporation Peter Patten gave a brief history of the SDO stating that it was originally developed and approved with the intention that lodging open to the public be provided. Phase III was originally called the Phase IIA addition. Patten showed a site plan of the SDD. He explained that fractional fees would limit the number of owners of each unit to 10, each owner would have five weeks of time, 2 weeks winter, 2 weeks summer, and 1 qff-season. 46 units would be involved, 27 with kitchens, and the others with micro-wave ovens. Patten went on to explain that in 1981 the SDD was amended and additional • density granted in terms of more kitchens in the rooms upon the argument that more hospitality rooms were needed to support the convention facility. As part of the proposal, there were to be 320 hotel room keys available to the Marriott as the management firm for a period of 25 years'. This was represented so that the concern over additional kitchens with regard to future condominiumization would ,not be a problem. Patten stated that the Town has since been informed that the agreement between Morcus Kaiser and the Marriott had already been amended. There were also concessions made to the applicant in 1981 with regard to extra fireplaces in accommodation units, reduction of amenities (indoor tennis courts), and parking concessions. Patten referred to an Appendix B regarding existing and potential build- out of all timeshare projects in Vail, pointing out that timeshare will represent PEC -z- .~2s~ss 8~ of all multi-family units, and the number of owners would be 21,750. Patten also pointed out that there has been a substantial slowdown in development of timeshare units and there have been a high level of foreclosures for many projects, along with shoddy marketing practices. The marketing practices have had little to no regulation by either state real estate commissions or municipalities, and the image projected upon communities with these marketing practices is a negative one. Patten then listed pros and cons which were in the memo, closing with the statement that this was a precedent setting decision and denial was recommended by staff. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that the Town of Vail was going through a transition with regard to hotels. Peterson stated that Phases I and II of the Marriott are condominiumized and Phase III could also be condominiumized which would not be good for the Town of Vail. Peterson felt that long term condo- miniumization was not the best solution. Ray Warren, manager of the Marriott stated that the Marriott name was important and the marketing would not be shoddy. Peterson felt that the land transfer tax would not be traded for sales tax dollars because the people buying these fractional fee interests would not be using their kitchens very much. Further, he said that since the lodging was already paid for, these persons would be spending more money in Town. He added that all amenities of the hotel would remain intact and the hotel could still cater to groups of 50 to 100 people. Ray Warren pointed out that in 1984 24 groups had 200 rooms per Hite, and that the Marriott could use other lodges for overflow guests. Peterson stated that the Marriott could not go on under the present conditions and a solution needed to be found. Schultz was concerned that the rentals would be taken off of the market during peak times. Peterson replied that there were many vacancies except during Christmas week and that the condos would be full during periods which would otherwise be slow. Warren stated that he was on the URA board to study occupancy rates and that in January the occupancy rate was 700, in February 72`o and that there were . .many rooms available at all levels. Donovan did not see the difference between - ~ condos-and time share. Patten pointed out a difference~of opinion with regard - ~ to Phase III being changed to condominiums, and•stated that Phase III could not ~ be changed to time share without restrictions. Peterson answered that Phase III could go through a condo conversion and the dwelling units could also have lock- ....~i.;.:. offs resulting in two units each, or 54 rooms without restrictions. They would also put restrictions on Phases I and II so that the TOV would have protection for 229 rooms. Donovan felt that this was a bail-out for the owners, and that the TOV would not have much control over the new owners. Peterson answered that using fractional fees in Phase III would get the cost of the remaining facility down so that Morcus could still remain. Rapson's major concern was of the marketing program and felt that the quality of the overall experience would be diluted. Peterson stated that there had been a study done to look at the all available units in the TOV and this study was available for anyone to read it. Viele wondered if there were any studies showing the economic impact of time share and he wondered how much the restaurants would be impacted. No one knew of a study, PEC -3- 5/28/85 . but Peterson stated that dispite the fact that the Marriott had 27 kitchens, a great deal of revenue for the Town was realized by the occupants of these units. Ray Warren stated that the kitchens were mainly used for snacks (he could tell by the charts used by the cleaning persons). Viele was also concerned about the marketing procedures. Peterson stated that the Marriott would go through the strict- est guidelines and the Marriott would also be concerned that they would not antagonize their own guests. Viele wondered about conflict between time share and regular guests and also wondered what the TOV could do if the time share project doesn't work. Peterson stated that if this were not successful, it could be converted to a hotel. Viele stated that Beaver Creek claimed that they now need a traditional hotel and this conversion worried him. Peterson replied that he had been studying this for 9 months. Piper wondered how owners of fractional fee units would have input, and Peterson stated it would be the same as a condo association. Piper wondered about the con- flict between time share owners and hotel guests when the time share units would be more nicely decorated. Warren stated that hotel guests would not see the other units. Patten stated that the discussion pointed out that fractional fee ownership may be different in experience from time share. He added that conditions of approval were difficult to enforce, that 5 of 7 in 1981 weren't complied with, and did not want to have conditions that were unenforceable. Rapson moved to deny the reouest per the staff memo and Donovan seconded. After more discussion, Peterson requested to table to the next meeting (if he were ready). Viele moved and Rapson seconded to table this item. Vote was 5-0 in favor of tabling., 3. Request fora conditional use permit in order to construct an amphitheatre. at Ford Park. Applicant: Vail Valley Foundation Patten presented the proposal and explained the master plan and the interim plan, also. Jim Morter, architect for the project, also explained the proposal. Donovan read her comments (attached) which stated in part that cultural activities and sports did not mix, that the political situation forced the plan. Schultz said that in some ways he agreed and that he was not sure if this was the best place for an amphitheatre, but that a majority of people wanted it in Ford Park. Rapson agreed with Donovan, Viele stated that he shared some of the same concerns but felt that the architect had done a good job. Piper was concerned about the financing. The number of spectators was discussed at 2,000 with the additional berm seating. Yiele moved and Schultz seconded to approve the re uest Qer the staff memo. The vote was 3 in favor, 2 against (Rapson and Donovan . 4. Request fora variance to convert an emplovee unit, Unit 2 in Building 15 of the Vail Racquet Club_to office space for the Vail Rac uet Club Owners' Association located at 46y5 Vaii Racquet C ub Drive., Applicant: Vai Racquet Club Condominiums Rick Pylman showed the floor plans of the proposed conversion and stated that because of prior restrictions, that employee units be restricted to long term rental to local employees for 20 years, Mr. Kirch was requested to follow variance procedures -4~- 5/28/85 for this request. Walter Kirch spoke and said that he was not the owner of the Racquet Club, but was the owner of the employee unit involved and owner of the space used for an office for the rental group. He stated that growth of overnight rental had grown from 9,000 per year to 25,000 so far in 1985 and that an increase in personnel resulted in a very crowded office. He stated that in the event the employee unit was not needed in the future for office space, that he would agree to return it to employee rental. Jennie Culp, representing the board of directors of the Vail Racquet Condominums owners (who owned the rental operations) added more information about increased need for more office space. Donavan asked if there were any chance to put another employee rental unit somewhere else. Kirch replied that there was a 2 bedroom unit currently occupied by an employee which he believed might be possible to commit to an employee unit if the request were granted to eliminate the employee unit next to the office. Oonovan then stated that if that were the case, she had no problem with the conversion, and other members agreed. Schultz wondered if an addition could be built onto the office either above or to the left. Kirch stated that he owned the ground floor, but the upper floor was owned by condo o~•m ers. If he were to add to the left he would be encroaching on Meadow Drive right-of- way. Viele moved and Donovan seconded to approve the request to convert the employee unit to office space upon the condition that another unit be restricted to employee rental to keep the number of employee units at the same amount. The vote was 5-0 i n favor. 5. Request fora conditional use permit in order to construct a miniature golf course on parts of Tracts C and D, Uail Lionsyead Filing No. 1. .Applicant: Bud Benedict The applicant had requested that this item be tabled. 6. Update on the development of Vail Valley Medical Center's long range plan. . . Debra Jost, administrator of the hospital, told the board of the plans for the Medical Center in the coming years. 6/ZS Jose Alvarez, et. al vs. Kaime r'--~--~- vee Serdaa, et. al. Plainti$ and defendants 424 Edward i :Harvey, 20. Miaa~, Jurgen Brands, charges of depositing D« formed a verbal partnership for owner- mischief. waste material, .creating a public - ship of a Holiday Hours condo. Plaintiff 6R4 William T. Stanfill, 22, Vail, nuisancx. .o4t: claims defendant has failed W make Tbeft James W, Davis, of d..~.raing t~,taar capital contributions to the condo. He 6rZ4 Gerald Areitano, 24, Gypsum, waste material, _,,.,,,assing, disorderly s as seeks ,adjudication of the rights of . ~...,...'e c~Y conduct. criminal injtuy to . rty. ~ r~ ~r owners. 6/24 Guillermo Fernandez, 24, Vail, Julian G. Ruybal, charges of assault d , 425 Str+eam~side at Vail vs. David C. lnsta~aace violation, and battery and criminal injury to J Stuhr, et aL Seeks payment of 56,539 425 Frank J: Fresgaez, 24, Edwards, ry ~r w•~• 1M..~a 1 . promissory nott. Zha~d-~!„er.,,e assault. Craig L. Brno Sue not paid. Mo. ~~VV" 6r/?b Streamside at Vail va. Harvey R. 6/26 Kelsy R. O Netl, 33. Gypsum. ~lpkP Rot .~finenotpaid, and Karin A. Hanson. Seeks payment Speeding. drove motorcycle without a Richard J. Thidemann, fine not paid. ~ of 55.130 promi.?,f,,.~? note. license, DUI, failot+e m pay (two com1~~). Guy D. Gowan, fios not paid. W 6/26 Streamside a< Vail va. Anthony J. 6R7 Kevin S. Garrabrant, 22, D...~ , CNL~f and Jnaaita Kirkpatrick. Seeks Fugitive front justice. Avon Court payment of defaulted promissory ante 6R7 Mark J. Ferguson, 20, Denver. D,'h and 51,264 in common w,,, ~.ses. Fugitive fi+om justice, The following actions were taken June Naor 6R6 Streamside at Vail vs. Randall 6/27 James T. Nadels, 31, Basalt. 27 in Avon Municipal Covert with Judge HI« Buck Allen ~ and Kay J. Sven.Son. Salts payment '17tird-d,.r,.,,,,assault r...?:ding. Md of S2,416 ~ „„issory note. 426 Streamside at Vail vs. Phillip F Colorvdo State Potro! Fixes and sentences: and Dortbea J. Richmond. Seeks William A. Woodman, 5200, disorderly Fran payment of 58,704 promissory note. 4/22 Patrick K. Grannis, 23, Denver. conduct, assault and battery. W.D 6lZ6 Streamside at Vail vs. Albert L. Drove motorcycle without a license. Rhonda Clayton, 535, ...ling. 71a and Kathleen Ellison. Seeks payment failure to report, careless driving. Jon S. Chaassee, 550. fraud by chock. Lot t of 54,508 promissory note. 6/24 Ricky Milam, 25, Glenwood Dorothy C. Paul, 540, fraud by check, Jima Sheila E. Curtis, 360. fraud b >saos± 4R6 Streamside at veil vs. Albert and Springs. DUI. davds license violation, y check. , Ruth Thoman. Seeks payment of insurance violation. Charles M. Mao, 5200, L:.,,,,.,y. 54,494 promissory note. 6/24 Charles W. Keetanver, 28, Shirley A. Bower, 560, flood by check. 6,%26 ShYamside at Vail vs. Frederick Newton, Mass. Fugitive Elam justicx. Kim E. Dorsey, S35. fraud by check. A. Struck. Seeks payment of 54,323 427 Donna M. Sandoval, 23, Edwards. Stephen J. Hiatt, 317, dog control. 6/18, promissory note. DUI, lane usage. Joseph E. HeRernan, 525, speeding. P.v; 6,26 Streamside at Vail vs. Vivian B. Jeremy T. Marner, 5250, underage Goldstein. Seeks payment of 56,460 Avon Public $C7fety possession ofliquor: promissory note, Da~wkn. S. Meleadez, 535, fraud by 6?26 Streamside at Vail vs. John _H. 4/23 Claudio G. Garcia, 23, NCnmra. sma and L,71ian J. Davis. Sob payment of tiY conduct Arie! R. Smiths 5250, rubble storage, 55,695 promissory note. 42.3 William A. Woodman, 32, Grand failure ~ L~rr 4/Z6 SL 1e at Vail vs. Cstarles D. Jnacdon. Disorderly conduct, third- Fernando V. Gallegos, 535, careless Ss and Barbara A. Zeis, et as. Seeks ~S~ assault ~~8• pay~t ~ p~~~y nom. Patricia L. Prewitt, 5450, fraud by 426 Stteamside at Vau vs, Michael A. - MintUt71 Police checJc (3 counts). ; & Simpson. Sob payment 6/22 Willie A. Lopez, 37, Minturn. BifthS 426 S4reamVai7 vs. James M. ~"'ng "'r'0°g way/wrong side of and Erin H. Aaaoann. Saks payment DUI, drivds license violation, in.....~.,,. 6/17 Kaitlyn Cbristine Platte to Debra of 57,180 promissory none. violation. drove motorcycle without a and David of Avon. 414 Sttnma<Side st y~ Snsaa G valid license, possession of drug 6/Ll Miranda Nod Sava m Fraacisca s®A Pendleton. Seeks payment of 56,434 ptsraphernalis. and David of EdwaNs. Noma : pr,~i,,,,,,•~ nom. 6/24 Gilbert P. Martinez, 30, Vail. Bsod 4~ ~ Valk Jatd<ie L.. ~ ~ Dom- TRAIVSFFI?S aaid Rosa L D~7isg+ sob payment - ~of ss,6s2 pevtn~~,~ none. Vail, Police ~ Frorr? Pbpe ~ 1,.~ , " 61/1+6 Sitlamidt at' VaU Jsmes C. ~ ~ ~ Fiiemana Faad Mortp a Co w Barber. Mara _ and Geri L EBiott Sob payment of James I.. Cole, 2Q Ca.,, Wjra ~;,a. ~4, sw.D. t~.u As~ B..d.ara stew TbeR ~ co.do, sus ooo, R,o~ ti+raa t ~t 5530 is common . „4 . . 4/Z6 Shraos.Side at Vail va. CLnclt and 6/Z3 William J. Hacber, 2Z, Dark. ~ sw ta.:. Jo. 41i2.. . etaL Seeks Cob. Fngitiv~s Kota jnstia. Toots Natioeul Bads at 7Waa so Rao J~wr4 >E1~ ~ t3~26~Mlc6sel J: Pl>moa, 27, bllb, S.W.D. Let 17. Bfi.dt t ><adaha.d. S0. ~I of5I,487 in common • ~ w.D: . -4116 Str~eamsid! aC Vail va. Mark A. P'a.'Ibeft Toonh Nwanat Bast at'hvs. ao lab. Devil, bus, . sw.D.lat 16, Bt.a Ldaba.d. sa Aartmaa. Seeb payment of S1,881 L GiIDaRSm w=boaa d< M¦ry bt ~aoa common w~~~~ Vafl Court ~ s~,~ppL~ W.D. l.~ t,, ,:..a s.er~ >?tt. ~ ~a 6R6 Strlamaide at Vail va. Teed B. ~ Hdee Gtoor w Rden ! D.ea Gtooti The following at~oaS a w . taken June bn9, sw.D. Lot u, Rradi Sbat~, so. ~ Christopher Sc~,~., .Seeks paytneat of 28 in Vail Municipal Court with Judge D,~e R c3aoates oo Pbilbert d< r , , D. Tamp - OOmmOtl y, ...SCS. ~ BOCK Allen,,,, ..:,ding. Ate>hdeta. Bourke Jambi I~be~ P.t.,, 6113, P.R~. Ott l.oto 7 a.d a, Bloat C, 'dJMr AdaL fa MYue~r~ B~ai6~ west+ C~fiminaf Actions Fiaa a~a ~ ~ ~ $ x;,~,., Brain S38S. ]arceay, bn~ W.D. Loa as, t}edt Baaxt, S49,oflo. Rosario Hermoaillo, Jerome S. Hard1? w J R wodawar~!, 6/19, 6R6 People vs. Edward J. Walsh. fai~ureto,,,i,i w.D. Lot 22, Aare. aaa Batatea U¦It 2, Notice of appeal of county court Jonathan L. Heat, 535. careless s6z,soo. wave OOnviCilon. diving. John A. 3 R E1.nwia m L 8 6,113, 427 People va. Jonathan L Sweatt. Timothy Iadermoel:le, 5100. 7 c.D. Lot f, Bt.st vai°~tttaa~tt. t. ~~s. • 1 day jail. s 60 ooa :~~c No~uce~of appeal of county court ublic die la or coasnm lion of HM>£ Inre,~ent ~ Vieror A. ~•bt.rs6a M. whirl cp.aririabis. P Y P s.mhau, bus. w.D. truss v~-'~~tt. w.l.t. p " TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 8, 1990 SUBJECT: Work Session on proposed major amendment to Special Development District #7 - The Marriott Mark Resort I. ~ BACKGROUND OF THE PROPOSAL The Marriott Corporation is proposing to construct 67 vacation ownership condominiums adjacent to the existing hotel. The Marriott Corporation believes that this concept will have significant benefits to the existing hotel and to the Town of Va_1 and they intend to complete the project utilizing the same high qua~ity standards that have been established in their other vacation ownership properties. The proposed building is located south and east of the . existing Marriott Mark parking structure. Proposed is an additional 101 parking spaces which equals 1 1/2 spaces per dwelling unit. The condominium units would each be 1200 sq.f~. representing 80,400 sq.ft..of additional GRFA. Building height preposed is in the vicinity of 6~ feet with building setbacks on the west and south sides of 5 feet. A major element of the proposal is to construct significant interior and exterior improvements to the existing Marriott Hotel. Proposed site improvements include greatly increased landscaping and public walkways throughout the site. Aiso propcsed is to construct sidewalks from the project west to South Frontage Road. Information that has been submitted to the staff includes preliminary floor plans, elevations, vicinity map, existing conditions, pedestrian and vehicular circulation and access, site plan 'and typical unit plans as well as a visual analysis from six different locations around the project site. ~ II. EXISTING ZONING FOR SDD #7 In researching the development of Special Development District „7 and the iarriott Hotel history, we have found a lack of clear, concise and comprehensive informatics. This is due in part to the fact that the hotel has been developed in a variety of phases and uses within each development stage. . Moreover, there have been a series of ordinances and amendments to SDD #7 which appears have never resulted in a comprehensive set'of development plans or zoning ordinances. We do, however, know that the site is built to its maximum density as allowed by SDD #7. To the best of our knowledge, the site contains 247 accommodation units and 53 dwelling units with a total of about 134,000 of GRFA. With the site area of approximately 5.17 acres, this represents a density of a little more than 34 dwelling units/acre. Of course the site contains a substantial amount of square footage devoted to conference and meeting facilities, restaurants, night clubs, recreational amenities and hotel ancillary facilities. The hotel began construction in 1973 and applied for SDD status in 1977 under two different ordinances. After construction of the first phase another addition was applied for in 1981 under an amendment to SDD r7. This phase included the conference center with lodge rooms and condominiums above. Although we do not have all of the accurate information regarding the existing zoning on this property, suffice it to say that the property has no development rights remaining under existing Zoning and twat the focus of the work session should be on the proposed new project. III. FRE_I.•1I".1?RY ISSUES AND COrICERNS Planning staff has conducted a review of the project as well as the Public Works/Transportation Department. While acknowledging that the Master Land Use Plan encourages ad3'__ic:~: tourist accommodaticns to be sited in the central or core areas of Vai'_, i~ c=~~ainly does not do so if it is to the detriment of sound land use and site planning principles. The staff's primary concern is that the project is too much for this existing high density mixed-use site. We have no problems with the vacation ownership approach and acknowledge that the Marriott Corporation has developed sev~:sl very high quality vacation ownership projects throughout the country. Time share projects generally retain a higher year round occupancy than any other tourist accommodation use and this fits well within Vail's policies to level-off seasonalities of guest visits. An attractive element of this proposal is the substantial upgrading of the existing hotel, especially the public pedestrian way through the property from east to west. This pedestrian way would provide a much needed improvement to the connection of the Lionshead Mall to the West Day Lot and Arterial Business District. Thy building and associated parking structure are proposed on the only r:~~'_^?^7 open space on the entire site. While areas to the east on the property do not have buildings on them, they are used for the location of recreational amenities such as tennis courts and a swimming pool/deck . area. We feel that the scale of development is too large and that the mass and bulk is pushed too fa: to the south and west sides of the site. If there were to be additional development on this property it would seem to be better located to the north over the existing parking structure and it should step down from east to west to help alleviate the . TO: Planning and Environmental C.....r.ission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 23, 1990 ' RE: A work session to discuss proposed amendments to SDD No. 7 (The Marriott Mark Resort). Applicant: Marriott Corporation. This item was tabled at the applicant's request after lengthy discussion at the PEC's April 9th meeting. A number of design changes have been made in response to comments made by the Planning Commission. Prior to finalizing this redesign, the applicant's have requested a work session discussion with the Commission. It is the intention of this meeting to continue the April 9 dialogue and allow the Commission an opportunity to comment on the revised design. The following points highlight some of the issues that warrant discussion at this work session. ~Ieicht and Mass of the Proposed Addition The proposed redesign eliminates mass on the north, south and east sides of the addition. These units have been relocated to the courtyard area. The building height is generally within 48'. This redesign results in a net gain of one timeshare unit (58 units) while maintaining eight employee units. pes~cn Comnatibiiity with Existinc Buildinc The applicants have agreed to repaint the Marriott Hotel in conjunction with this expansion. While no physical changes are proposed to the existing structure, it ~is the applicant's intention to lighten the color of the existing building fn order to relate to the proposed addition. V,ipw jmDacts on Adiacent prooprties Arrangements have been made with the Vail Spa to view the proposed expansion from a variety of different units. The applicants are evaluating alternatives for demonstrating the ridge line of the building's north elevation in~the field in order to evaluate impacts on the Vail Spa. Existinv Parking Structt~g There was concern among some Commissioners that existing parking was partially exposed on the west and north side of the project. The applicants have modified this design to minimize exposed parking area on the north, and totally cover the parking along the west Bide of the structure. While this does screen the parking, it raises the question of the building setback along the westerly property line. Previous direction from the Commission encouraged the applicants to keep all new building mass 20' back of this property line. With the proposed redesign, a building addition would be within 5' of the west property line. Underlvinc o 'n Additional research has revealed no new information relative to _ this sites underlying zoning. The original ordinance that created the SDD in 1977 made no reference to underlying zoning. There is no question that there was zoning on the site, however, the staff has been unable to determine with any degree of certainty what this zoning was. It is Trarry Eskwith's feeling that the SDD could be amended without underlying zoning, but if the Commission was desirous of applying an underlying zoning that could also be done. If that is the desire of the Commission, it would require republication of this application. pevel.oDment Comoarisox~ o~ Adiacent ;,ots The accompanying chart indicates the existing development on adjacent properties. This was done to provide a comparison of these properties relative to the development proposed on the Marriott site. As indicated by this table, there are a number of properties developed beyond what is proposed on the Marriott site. ~i~comme~latio~ The staff is not presenting a recommendation at this time. It is the intention of this meeting to continue the dialogue that took place on April 9th. It is the intention of the applicant to have a formal review with the Planning C.,~..,.,.ission on May 14th, and the staff will present a complete recommendation at that time. DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS WEST LIONSHEAD AREA AND SELECTED SITES April 18, 1990 F'AkCEL SIZE UNITS UNITS PER GRFA GRFA BUILDING SITE ACRES SOFT. 20NING PERMITTED EXISTING ACRE PERMITTED EXISTING RATIO HEIGHT MarrioQt Mar 1s 5.17 225,205 SDD 177.0 177 X4.2 134.000 134,000 0.60 BS Vail Spa 3.20 139,92 HDMF 8C~.0 55 17.2 111,514 83,672 0.60 bl Antlers 1.19 51,86 CCII ~4.B 72 bil.5 41,469 54,486 1.05 72 Landmark 1.49 64,9i~4 CCII 37.3 58 39.9 51,924 81,619 1.26 75-92 Vantage Point 0.91 _•9,64i.i CCII 22.8 b.`. 71.4 31,712 54,916 1.39 78 Montaneros 1.02 44,41 CCII 25.5 41 40.2 35.545 44297 1.00 n/a Enz i an 1 .21 82, 7i_i8 CC I I ~ ~ ~ 'iB 31 .4 42, 166 43305 0.86 82 Lionsquare Lodge 1.79 77,972 CCII 44.8 99 55.3 62,378 94,000 1.21 n/a West Day Lot 2.64 114,998 F•arl.:inq 0 0.0 O O n/a n/a V.A. Shops 3.2 139,392 AHD 0 O.O O O n/a n/a Doubletree 2.62 114,17 SDD/HDMF b°..S 1~4 51.1 91.302 166,153 1.46 89 Vail Village Inn 3.43 ISti,2G2 SDD/F•A Bb.' 1'O 37.7 90,169 120,000 0.80 62 F•ROFOSED MARRIOTT 5.17 225,2~~5 SDD 243.0 243 47.0 n/a 209,914 0.93 48 EXPANSION NOTESs Information gathered from TOV p~o~ect files, building plans, condo plats and development statistics. Er.isting development for SDD's reflect total development at time of buildout. Unit counts reflect accomodation unit conversion at ~:1. Permitted development for VVI and Doubletree was calculated using underlying zoning. WF:1 . MARRIOT