Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1999-06-08 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
VAIL?OWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1999 2:00 P.M. AT TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA NOTE: Time of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. 1. Site Visit and Discussion of Proposed Marriott Redevelopment. George Ruther (1 hr., 30 mins.) ITEMITOPIC: A work session discussion to present the proposed redevelopment of the Marriott Mountain Resort at Vail and the new construction of the Gore Creek Club. The purpose of the meeting is to present the proposal to the Council and for the Council to provide feedback on the proposal to the applicant and staff. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen to a presentation on the proposal by the applicant and engage in a discussion to identify areas of concern and to provide feedback to the applicant and staff. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On Monday, March 8, 1999, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed major amendment to Special Development District No.7, The Marriott, pursuant to section 12-16-6 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. The Planning & Environmental Commission's recommendation of approval was based upon review of the nine design criteria outlined in the staff memorandum. Having reviewed the criteria, the Commission found that the proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 7 complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12-9A-8 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Additionally, the applicant demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that any adverse effects of the requested deviation from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided. The Planning & Environmental Commission's recommendation carried with it twelve conditions of approval. The conditions of the Commission's approval are found in Section 6, of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1999. A copy of the staff memorandum and the final agenda from the March 8th meeting are enclosed for reference. On Wednesday, May 19, 1999, following four conceptual review meetings with the Design Review Board, the Board agreed to recommend conceptual approval of the proposed project to the Town Council. The Board's recommendation carried with it six recommendations for the Council's consideration. The six recommendations of the Board are outlined in the memorandum to the Vail Town Council from the Town of Vail Design Review Board, dated June 8, 1999. A final review of the proposed plans will be required at a future date by the Design Review Board. A copy of the memorandum is enclosed for reference. 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As this is a work session and not a final review, the Community Development Department will not be forwarding a recommendation to the Council at this time. Staff will forward a recommendation at the time of final review. 2. Future of Vail's Marketing Discussion. (30 mins.) Bob McLaurin Pam Brandmeyer . 3. DRB Review. (15 mins.) George Ruther 4. Discussion of Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1999, an Ordinance Dick Duran Regarding False Alarms. (10 mins.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: present draft ordinance and update on process. This ordinance will be on for first reading at the June 15, 1999, evening meeting. 5. Discussion of a new Housing Zone District and Potential Changes Dominic Mauriello to Employee Housing Chapter (30 mins.) ITEM/TOPIC: Discussion of potential text changes to the Employee Housing regulations, the Primary/Secondary and Two-Family Residential zones districts, and the Nonconforming Use Section of the Zoning Regulations. Additionally, discussion of a new Affordable Housing zone district. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide staff with direction on whether to pursue code amendments through the normal review process. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: See backup materials included in your packet. 6. Information Update. (10 mins.) 7. Council Reports. (10 mins.) 8. Other. (10 mins.) 9. Adjournment - 5:25 p.m. NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 6/15/99, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 6/22/99, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 6/15/99, BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2332 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. COUNCIL FOLLOW-UP TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 1999 5118199 SAFEWAY ROOF RUSS: Can we put in writing a request to the maintenance Sybill Navas division of Safeway (Denver headquarters) to repair the fencing around the roof vents? 611/99 CLIMBING WALL TOM/STEVE: What liability issues/costs might be FOLLOW UP: Tom indicates liability will be handled in the same manner LIABILITY/INSURANCE COST associated w/the construction of an advertised "climbing associated with the skateboard park, where the TOV includes the park in Bob Armour wall," as a part of the reconstruction of the Ford Park tot lot? its general liability policy. Our carrier will evaluate the risk involved, offer suggestions to reduce risk and increase our insurance cost commensurate with what the industry experience has been with similar facilities. June 4, 1999, Page I MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 8, 1999 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 7, Marriott's Mountain Resort at Vail and a conditional use permit to allow for a hotel redevelopment and the construction of the Gore Creek Club, _ located,at 714 West Lionshead Circle/Lots 4 & 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead "3`d Filing and Lots C & D, Marcus Subdivision. Applicant: HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., represented by Gwathmey, Pratt & Schultz Architects, P.C. Planner: George Ruther Executive Summary The Community Development Department is recommending approval of the applicant's proposal to amend Special Development District #7. Staff's review of the criteria to amend the Special Development District is outlined and discussed in Section IV of this memorandum. As stated in Section IV, staff believes that the proposed amendment complies with the development objectives of the Town and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Several concerns of staff, however, are the adequacy of the loading and delivery facilities, the need for a left turn lane on the South Frontage Road and the number of employee housing units being proposed by the applicant. Careful consideration should be given to these unresolved aspects of the plan during the review process. The Community Development Department is also recommending approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate an interval ownership club in the High Density Multi-family Zone District. Staff's review of the criteria and necessary findings can be found in Section V of this memorandum. As discussed in greater detail in the memorandum, staff's primary concerns with the proposed Gore Creek Club are the lack of adequate loading/delivery facilities to operate the club as a stand alone facility, the absence of any major streetscape landscaping at the entrance to the property and the need to pull those portions of the building on or over the property line back to eliminate any off-site encroachments. Staff is confident that these issues can be resolved and has recommended that their resolution be conditions of approval. A Zoning Analysis is provided in Section 111 of the memorandum. The analysis provides a comparison of the proposed development standards of the project to the standards prescribed by the underlying zone districts and the proposed Lionshead Mixed Use Zone District. Staff believes that the deviations proposed are both reasonable and appropriate as they promote the goals of the Town of Vail and the master plan documents. Overall, staff believes the proposed redevelopment of the Marriott and the construction of the Gore Creek Club will be amenities to the Town of Vail. F:\everyone\pec\memos\99\Marriott l 1 M~Q I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The applicant, HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., represented by Henry Pratt of Gwathmey, Pratt & Schultz Architects, is proposing a major amendment to Special Development District No. 7, Marriott's Mountain Resort at Vail. The major amendment is intended to facilitate the redevelopment and remodel of the existing Marriott Hotel and the construction of the new Gore Creek Club. The redevelopment and remodel of the existing Marriott Hotel is intended to compliment the interior renovations recently completed in the hotel. The applicant is proposing to "re-skin" the exterior of the hotel, convert "Windows" restaurant to four condominiums (6,625 sq.ft.) and convert existing ski storage/retail to Type III Employee Housing Units. The proposed remodel is intended to bring the existing hotel building into compliance with the design guidelines:prescribed by the recently adopted Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and increase the overall quality of the hotel. The applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 16 of the Zoning Regulations to allow for 66 interval ownership units in the Gore Creek Club. The new club will be constructed in Phase III of the Marriott development area atop the existing parking structure. The club will be comprised of 66 lodging-type of units totaling approximately 73,000 square feet of GRFA. As an interval ownership club, the 66 units will be sold in 1/201h intervals. 1/201h intervals guarantees each owner approximately 17 days per year in the Vail Valley. The applicant anticipates offering owners the opportunity to exchange their club unit within the international exchange market. Other components of the new club include a full-time front desk for registration and reservations, an owner's lounge, a health club & spa facility, on-site laundry services and a 61 parking space expansion to the existing parking structure. The 61 new spaces are intended to offset the increase in parking demand created by the construction of the new club. Approximately 1,912 square feet of retail space will be constructed on the north side of the club adjacent to West Lionshead Circle. A copy of the proposed interval ownership program is attached for reference. In addition to the improvements to the existing hotel and the construction of the new club, the applicant is also proposing site improvements to the property. Proposed site improvements include the removal of an existing landscape berm on the south side of the property to provide easy access to the creek and bike path, new landscaping on the south side of the hotel, a redesign of the existing loading and delivery area and the implementation of the recommended streetscape improvements along the south side of West Lionshead Circle. According to the Town of Vail Municipal Code, it shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that any deviation from the development standards of the underlying zoning provide public benefits that outweigh the adverse effect of said deviation. The applicant has identified the public benefits the community will realize as a result of the redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn site. The public benefits identified by the applicant include: 1. An increase in the annual hotel occupancy rate through the redevelopment of an older, existing hotel. 2. A significant increase in the Town's supply of short-term, overnight accommodations to serve our guests and visitors. F Aeveryone\pec vnemos\99 Marriott 1 2 I The creation of a commercial/retail space along West Lionshead Circle. 4. The implementation of the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan along West Lionshead Circle. 5. The construction of a world-class "anchor" hotel providing a high-level of guest service. 6. The implementation of the objectives stated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. 7. The construction of employee housing to off-set the demand resulting from the redevelopment of the hotel project. 8. A sizeable annual contribution to the Town's sales tax revenue. 9. The partial elimination of an existing on-street loading and delivery area. II. BACKGROUND The establishment of Special Development District No.7, the Marriott Vail Mountain Resort, was approved by Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1976, by the Vail Town Council. The expressed purpose for establishing SDD No. 7 was to allow for an increase in density beyond what was otherwise permitted by the underlying zoning of Public Accommodation and High Density Multi-Family. Public benefits realized since the approval of SDD No. 7 have been an increase in short-term rental units available to visitors of Vail and an increase in summer visitation due to the construction of a convention facility within the Marriott Vail Mountain Resort. Special Development District No. 7 has been amended since its establishment in 1976. The most recent amendment was in September of 1995. Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1995 permitted the conversion of seventeen dwelling units within the hotel to accommodation units and required that at least 294 parking spaces be provided in the structure. A building permit was issued by the Community Development Department and the dwelling units were converted and the parking structure was re-striped to accommodate 294 parking spaces. The existing Marriott is a mixed use development. The current uses on the site include 14 dwelling units and approximately 320 hotel rooms, a restaurant and bar, convention and meeting room facilities and a minimal amount of retail/commercial space.- According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the applicant's property is zoned Special Development District No. 7. The underlying zoning for SDD No. 7 is both Public Accommodation and High Density Multi-family. Tract 1 (the parking structure site) is zoned High Density Multi- family and Tract 2 (the existing hotel) of the SDD is zoned Public Accommodation. Pursuant to the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Public Accommodation Zone district is intended, " to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semi-public facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the District by F:\everyone\pecvnemos\99\Marriott1 3 establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community, and where permitted are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the District. The Public Accommodation District is intended to provide sites for lodging units at densities not to exceed twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre." The High Density Multi-family Zone District is intended, "is intended to provide sites for multiple-family dwellings at densities to a maximum of twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre, together with such public, and semi-public facilities and lodges, private recreation facilities and related visitor-oriented., uses as may appropriately be located in the same district. The High Density Multiple-Family District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with high density apartment, condominium and lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable residential and resort qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, which relate to the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community and, where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the District." According to Section 12-6H-3, Conditional Uses, time share units shall be permitted in the High Density Multi-family Zone District, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of the Zoning Regulations. Pursuant to Section 12-16-1 of the Zoning Regulations, the purpose of a conditional use permit is, "in order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this Title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review and evaluation so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this Title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this Chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties and the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to ensure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied." III. ZONING ANALYSIS The development standards for a Special Development District shall be proposed by the applicant. Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking and loading shall be determined by the Town Council as part of the approved development plan, with consideration of the recommendations of F:\everyone''\pec memos\99\Marriott 1 4 the Planning and Environmental Commission. Before the Town Council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it shall be determined that such deviations provide benefits to the Town that outweigh the effects of such deviations This determination is to be made based upon the evaluation of the proposed Special Development District's compliance with the Review Criteria outlined in the following section. In addition, the staff has evaluated the project for compliance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The development area is within the overall study area of the Plan which is discussed in detail in Chapter 4. The Community Development Department staff has prepared a Zoning Analysis for the Gore_ Creek Club and the proposed remodel to the existing hotel. The Zoning Analysis compares the development standards outlined by the underlying zoning of Public Accommodation and; High Density Multi-family to the applicant's proposed major amendment. The proposed deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are indicated in BOLD. Marriott Hotel Zoning: Public Accommodation Lot size: 3.5 acres or 152,666 sq. ft. Development Underlying Zoning 1999 Major SDD Proposed Standard of Public Accommodation Amendment proposal Lionshead Zoning GRFA: 80% or 122,132 sq* ft. 89% or 137,147 sq. ft. 80% or 122,132 sq. ft. Dwelling units per acre: 25 du/acre 52 du/acre 35 du/acre Site coverage: 55% or 83,966 sq. ft. 56 % or 83,997 sq. ft. 70% or 106,866 sq. ft. Setbacks: front: 20' per the development 10' sides: 20' plan rear: 20' Height: 48' sloping 122.83' sloping Average 71' (82.5 max.) Parking: per T.O.V. Code Section 294 parking spaces per T.O.V. Code Section Loading: per T.O.V. Code Section three berths on-site per T.O.V. Code Section 12-10-13 12-10-13 F:\everyone~p vnemos\99Wlarriott1 5 GORE CREEK CLUB Zoning: High Density Mufti-family Lot size:1.58 acres or 68,861 sq.ft. Development Underlying Zoning 1999 Major SDD Proposed Standard of High Density Mufti-family Amendment proposal Lionshead Zoning GRFA: 80% or 55,089 sq. ft. 105 % or 72,395 sq. ft. 250% or 172,153 sq. ft. Dwelling units per acre: 25 du/acre 42 du/acre 35 du/acre Site coverage: 55% or 37,873 sq. ft.' 67 % or 46,245 sq. ft. 70% or 48,203 sq. ft. Setbacks: front: 20' per the development 10' sides: 20' plan rear: 20' Height: 48' sloping 71' average Average 71' per the Lionshead (82.5' max.) Redevelopment Master Plan Parking: per T.O.V. Code Section 61 parking spaces per T.O.V. Code Section Loading: per T.O.V. Code Section no loading/delve very per T.O.V. Code Section 12-10-13 berths on-site 12-10-13 IV. THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAJOR AMENDMENT PROCESS Chapter 12-9 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code provides for the amendment of existing Special Development Districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 12-9A-1, the purpose of a Special Development District is, "To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land, in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a Special Development District, in conjunction with the properties underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development District." According to Section 12-9A-2, a major amendment to a Special Development District is defined as, F:\everyone\pec vnemos\99\Marriott1 6 "Any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the number of dwelling or accommodation units; modify, enlarge or expand any approved special development district (other than "minor amendments" as defined in this Section), except as provided under Sections 12-15-4, "Interior Conversions", or 12-15-5, "Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance)" of this Title." The Municipal Code provides a framework for the amendment of an established Special Development District. According to the Municipal Code, prior to site preparation, building construction, or other improvements to land within a Special Development District, there shall be an approved development plan for the Special Development District. The approved development plan establishes requirements regulating development, uses and activity within the Special Development District. Upon final review of a proposed major amendment of an existing Special Development District, a report from the Planning and Environmental Commission stating its findings and recommendations and a staff report shall be forwarded to the Town Council, in accordance with the provisions listed in Section 12-16-6 of the Municipal Code. The Town Council's consideration of the Special Development District shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code and approved by two readings of an ordinance. An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses and activities of the Special Development District. The development plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the Special Development District shall adhere. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to, the approved site plan, floor plans, building sections and elevations, vicinity plan, parking plan, preliminary open space/landscape plan, densities and permitted, conditional and accessory uses. The determination of permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council as part of the formal review of the proposed development plan. Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed Special Development District, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the property's underlying zone district. The Municipal Code provides nine design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed major amendment to a Special Development District. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. The staff has addressed each of the nine SDD review criteria below: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. The proposed redevelopment of the exterior of the Marriott Mountain Resort at Vail and the Gore Creek Club are consistent with the redevelopment objectives outlined in the recently adopted Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The exterior building materials of the Marriott Hotel are a mixture of stone, stucco and wood. The roof material is proposed to be asphalt shingles. Stone will be used around the base of the building. The applicant has proposed that the exterior stucco color be an off-white. Staff believes that the combination of building materials proposed has been well incorporated into the design of the Marriott Hotel. F \everyone\pec\memos\99\Marriotll 7 The exterior building materials of the Gore Creek Club are also a mixture of stone, stucco and wood. The roof material will be asphalt shingles. The Town of Vail Design Review Board will have the opportunity to review the building exteriors prior to final approval of the hotel and new club. The height of the hotel exceeds the allowable building height of the Public Accommodation Zone District by approximately 75 feet. The development standards for the underlying zone district indicate that the maximum height for buildings with sloping roofs shall be 48 feet. The height of the existing building is 85 feet. The applicant is requesting that the maximum building height for the Marriott Hotel be approximately 123 feet tall, to accommodate the two towers, which are intended to break up the mass of the structure. The height of the Gore Creek Club exceeds the height limitation prescribed for the High density Multi-family Zone District. The maximum allowable height per the zoning regulations is 48 feet. The applicant is proposing a maximum building height of 82.5 feet. The average height of the building, as measured along the primary roof forms is less than 71 feet. The proposed height is consistent with height considerations outlined in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Staff believes that the proposed height. of each of the buildings is reasonable and appropriate. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The existing Marriott Hotel and the proposed Gore Creek Club are bordered to the north by the Vail Spa Condominiums and the Enzian Condominiums, to the south by the Gore Creek stream corridor and Primary/Secondary Residential development, to the west by a vacant development site currently used for surface parking and to the east by the Antler's Condominiums, the Montaneros Condominiums and the commercial spaces in the Concert Hall Plaza Building. The applicant is proposing a mixed-use development that is in compliance with the uses allowed in the underlying zone districts. The underlying zoning of Public Accommodation and High Density Multi-family encourages the development of lodges (accommodation units) and accessory eating, drinking and retail establishments. The interval ownership component of the Gore Creek Club is allowed in the High Density Multi-family Zone District subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. A complete staff review of the conditional use permit criteria can be found in Section V of this memorandum. The proposed uses comply with the proposed zoning for Lionshead and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Employee Housing Requirements As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives of the Town's Master Plans, providing affordable housing for employees is a critical issue which should be addressed through the planning process for Special Development District proposals. In reviewing the proposal for employee housing needs, staff relied on the Town of Vail Employee Housing Report. This report has been used by the staff in the past to evaluate employee housing needs. The guidelines contained within the report were used most recently in the review of the Austria Haus development proposal. The Employee Housing Report, was prepared for the Town by the consulting firm Rosall, Remmen and Cares. The report provides the recommended ranges of employee housing units needed based on the type of use and the amount of floor area dedicated to each F:\everyone\pecvnemos199Wlarriott1 8 use. Utilizing the guidelines prescribed in the Employee Housing Report, the staff analyzed the incremental increase of employees (square footage per use), that result from the redevelopment. A copy of the Suggested Employment Categories and Ranges for Vail Expressed as Employees per 1000 Square Feet has been attached for reference. The figures identified in the Housing Report are based on surveys of commercial-use employment needs of the Town of Vail and other mountain resort communities. For comparison purposes, Telluride, Aspen and Whistler B.C. all have "employment generation" ordinances requiring developers to provide affordable housing for a percentage of the "new" employees resulting from commercial development. "New' employees are defined as the incremental increase in employment needs resulting from_ commercial redevelopment. Each of the communities assesses a different percentage of. affordable housing a developer must provide for the "new" employees. For example, Telluride requires developers to provide housing for 40% (0.40) of the "new" employees, Aspen requires that 60% (0.60) of the "new" employees are provided housing and Whistler requires that 100% (1.00) of the ,new" employees be provided housing by the developer. In comparison, Vail has conservatively determined that developers shall provide housing for 15% (0.15) or 30% (0.30) of the "new" employees resulting from commercial development. When a project is proposed to exceed the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 30% (0.30) figure is used in the calculation. If a project is proposed at, or below, the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 15% (0.15) figure is used. The Marriott special development district major amendment proposal exceeds the density permitted by the underlying zone district, and therefore, the 30% figure shall be used. EMPLOYEE HOUSING GENERATION ANALYSIS The staff analysis below indicates the top, the middle and the bottom of the ranges recommended by the Town of Vail Employee Housing Report, as well as a staff recommended figure which was used in determining the employee housing needs of the Gore Creek Club. A summary of the Employee Housing Generation Analysis is as follows: Bottom of Range Calculations: a) Retail/Service Commercial =1,912 sq. ft. @(5/1000 sq. ft.) = 9.56 employees b) Multi Family (Club Units) =66 units @(.4/unit) =26.40 employees Total Employees 35.96 = employees (X 0.30 multiplier) 10.78 = new employees Middle of Range Calculations: a) Retail/Service Commercial = 1,912 sq. ft. @(6.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 12.43 employees b) Multi Family (Club Units) = 66 units @(.4/unit) = 26.40 employees Total Employees = 38.83 employees (X 0.30 multiplier) = 11.65 new employees 9 Top of Range Calculations: a) Retail/Service Commercial = 1,912 sq. ft. @(8/1000 sq. ft.) = 15.30 employees b) Multi Family (Club Units) = 66 units @(.4/unit) = 26.40 employees Total Employees = 41.70 employees (X 0.30 multiplier) = 12.51 new employees Staff Recommended Range Calculations: The staff believes that the Gore Creek Club will create a need for 36 additional employees. Of' the 36 additional employees, at least 11(10.78) employees (30%) will need to be provided deed- restricted housing by the developers of the Marriott. The staff recommended range is based on: 1. the type of retail and commercial use proposed in the commercial space within the Gore Creek Club; 2. the size of the Gore Creek Club lodging component; 3. the result of research completed by Town of Vail staff of similar hotel operations in the Vail Valley. a) Retail/Service Commercial = 1,912 sq. ft. @(5/1000 sq. ft.) = 9.56 employees (bottom of range) b) Multi Family (Club Units) =66 units @(.4/unit) = 26.40 employees (range does not vary) Total = 35.96 employees (X 0.30 multiplier) =10.78 new employees 'Lodging has a particulahy large variation of employees per room, depending upon factors such as size of facility and level of service/support seances and amenities provided. Depending upon the size of the employee housing unit provided, it is possible to have up to two employees per bedroom. For example, a two-bedroom unit in the size range of 450 - 900 square feet, is possible of accommodating three to four employees. These figures are consistent with the requirements for the Type III employee housing units outlined in the Municipal Code. The applicant has proposed to provide a minimum of six employee housing units. The units would be deed-restricted as Type III ehu's and located on the garden level of the Marriott Hotel. Of the six units, four would be one bedroom units and two would be studio units. The applicant is proposing two employees in each of the one bedroom units and one employee in each of the studio units. A total of ten employees would be provided housing. Overall, staff believes that the density and uses proposed by the applicant for the Marriott and the Gore Creek Club do not conflict with the compatibility, efficiency or workability of the surrounding uses and/or activities. 10 C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 12-10 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Parking and loading requirements for development are established in Chapter 12-10 of the Municipal Code. The parking and loading requirements are based on the square footage of the uses proposed within a building. The applicant is proposing a total of three loading/delivery berths. The loading/delivery area is existing on the north side of the hotel and has been redesigned to accommodate three trucks. This area can handle trucks up to 50-feet in length. Additionally, an on-- street loading and delivery area has been reduced in size to help alleviate conflicts with cars and buses. The on-street space is intended only for temporary, short-term parking should the three on site spaces be occupied. Another loading/delivery area is located on the west side of the hotel between the hotel and the Gore Creek Club. This area is intended only for use of the conference space inside the hotel. It is not designed to accommodate deliveries to the hotel. No loading/delivery area has been provided for the use of the Gore Creek Club. The staff has reviewed the proposed loading/delivery plan. Upon review of the plan we believe the proposal does not meet the minimum standards for loading/delivery for the hotel and the new club. While we understand that the applicant is limited by the existing configuration and layout of the hotel, we believe it is necessary for the loading/delivery situation to be resolved with this redevelopment proposal. According to the loading/delivery standards outlined in the Municipal Code, a minimum of five berths are required. At a minimum, loading/delivery needs to be provided in a realistic manner for the Gore Creek Club. Should the Gore Creek Club ever become a stand alone building from the Marriott, minimum standards would not be met. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan. Vail Land Use Plan The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy guidelines during the review process for a major amendment to an existing special development district. Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the following policies are relevant to the review of this proposal: 1. General Growth/Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water, and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgrade whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill). 11 3. Commercial 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.2 The Village and Lionshead are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skier. 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 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. 4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through the implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. 5. Residential 5.1 Quality timeshare units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy rates up. 5.2 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. The Vail Land Use Plan projects a need for additional lodging units in the Town of Vail. While the statistical information used to project need is most likely, outdated, staff believes there continues to be a need for additional lodging units in the Town of Vail. The Plan projected a need for a total of 395 additional lodging units by the year 2000. The Plan further suggests that increased density for commercial, residential and lodging uses in the Village/Lionshead Core areas would be acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is being preserved. Staff believes the proposed major amendment of Special Development District (#7) is in concert with the goals and policies of the Vail Land Use Plan as outlined above. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan was adopted by the Vail Town Council in December of 1998. The purpose of the plan is to encourage redevelopment and new development initiatives within the Lionshead area. The plan outlines the goals and objectives for the enhancement of Lionshead and proposes recommendations, incentives and requirements for redevelopment and new development. 12 Chapter Four of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan identifies issues and provides recommendations that need to be considered in all planning and policy decisions as Lionshead redevelops. The applicant's properties are located in what is identified in the plan as the Resort Lodging Hub. This area is located just west of the Lionshead Commercial Core and is comprised of mostly high-density residential development. All future plans and proposals should work to reinforce the residential character of the area. New development should aim for quieter pedestrian streets, well-defined pedestrian connections and more intensive landscaping and higher quality streetscape development. The plan further suggests that new development be constructed on a north-south orientation to improve physical, visual and sun access to the buildings and the streets below. The plan proposes improvements to the intersection of West Lionshead Circle and Lionshead Place. Currently, this intersection handles heavy loads of traffic for lodging and service deliveries. The plan suggests the elimination of on-street loading and delivery and an improved pedestrian area at the intersection. To this end, the plan recommends that loading and delivery areas be deep enough into the building or property to prevent delivery trucks from blocking vehicle or pedestrian traffic. The plan further recommends that these areas be landscaped and/or screened to improve the aesthetic quality of the streetscape. In no case, however, shall a property utilize the public roadway or pedestrian area to stage service and delivery vehicles. Lastly, in Chapter Four, the plan encourages the creation of landmark features in Lionshead. A landmark feature is a significant architectural element that all visitors to Lionshead can identify and remember. Landmarks signify important points of entry, critical intersections in the pedestrian network, as well as destinations and visual reference points. Appropriate locations for landmark features are the east pedestrian portal, the central retail mall area and the west pedestrian portal in the vicinity of the intersection of West Lionshead Circle and Lionshead Place. Chapter Five of the plan provides detailed recommendations based upon the examination of individual parcels -of land in the Lionshead area. The intent of the examination is to identify important objectives for redevelopment of specific parcels in Lionshead. The recommendations for the Marriott property are listed below: 5.13 The Marriott With approximately 320 rooms, the Marriott is the only supply of hot beds in Lionshead. The single largest structure in Lionshead, it is also very visible, especially from the west. It is consequently a high priority renovation project, and all reasonable measures should be taken by the Town of Vail to encourage and facilitate its enhancement. Specific issues regarding this property are as follows: 5.13.1 Redevelopment or Development of the Parking Structure The best opportunity for new development on the Marriott property is the existing parking structure (figure 5-17). If this site is developed, attention should be given to the relationship between the development, Gore Creek, the Gore Creek recreation path, and the west day lot. Vertical development should step back from 13 the recreation path, and there should be a clear separation (most likely a landscape buffer) between the public space of the recreation path and the private space of the residential units. 5.13.2 Infill Opportunities There are several tennis courts on the south side of the Marriott. This area presents an opportunity for low-rise infill development that eases the visual and physical transition from the existing structure to the Gore Creek recreation path. 5.13.3 Opportunities for Fagade Renovation Exterior renovation of the Marriott is a community priority, but the size and dimensions of the structure present a challenge, and it is unlikely that the architectural design guidelines (see Chapter 8) can be fully met. However, this should not discourage exterior renovation, and the Town of Vail Design Review Board should insure that the intent of the guidelines is met. (This is a basic premise of the architectural design guidelines, relevant to all existing buildings in Lionshead). 5.13.4 West Lionshead Circle in Front of the Marriott Any future development or redevelopment of the Marriott property should include a continuous secondary pedestrian walk on the south side of West Lionshead Circle. A pavement snowmelt system is strongly recommended because of icing problems on the walkway in winter. Chapter Eight of the plan prescribes the architectural design guidelines for redevelopment and new development in Lionshead. The intent of the guidelines is to direct the growth of the community through distinct levels of perception, from views of the neighborhood from the mountain and highway, to perceptions within its pedestrian streets, to the detail level of artistry and ornamentation on the structures themselves. Staff believes that it is most appropriate for the Town of Vail Design Review Board to review the plan for compliance with Chapter Eight of the plan. Overall, staff believes that the applicant's proposal complies with the various provisions of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The proposal addresses landscape improvements, exterior fagade improvements to the existing hotel, pedestrian improvements both to and from the street, lodging improvements utilizing infill development and the creation of a landmark feature to help identify the western portal to Lionshead. The applicant has also proposed to enhance the pedestrian experience at the intersection of West Lionshead Circle and Lionshead Place by proposing new activity generating commercial uses on the corner. If there is an area where staff believes the applicant's proposal may fail to comply with the plan, it is in the design and operation of the loading and delivery area. Staff believes that the loading and delivery area should be redesigned to insure an adequate number of berths to accommodate service and delivery vehicles to prevent loading and delivery from the public right of way and to insure that the berths are adequately designed to prevent service and delivery vehicles from impeding traffic flows. Additionally, at a minimum, loading and delivery facilities should be designed into the Gore Creek Club so that the club can operate as a stand alone building should it ever need to be. 14 E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. There are no natural and/or geologic hazards that effect the applicant's property. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The applicant has proposed to deviate from the setbacks prescribed.by_ the underlying zoning. The underlying zoning prescribes 20-foot setbacks at the exterior lot lines. The. applicant is proposing a seven foot setback from the west property, zero setbacks at the ground level on the east and north property lines, and more than 50 feet from the centerline of Gore Creek. The proposed setbacks allow for a minimal landscape buffer to be planted around the perimeter of the Gore Creek Club. The setbacks for the existing hotel remain unchanged. The applicant has maintained a 20 foot building separation between the buildings on thq interior of the development. The building setbacks allow for the required building separation and provide adequate pedestrian-traffic circulation. The proposed zoning for Lionshead and the master plan requires a 10 foot setback along the west property line. The applicant is proposing to exchange two portions of Town of Vail right of way for additional stream tract area. The areas in question are at the front entrance to the Gore Creek Club and at the eastern end of the Marriott hotel. The exchange of land would be on a square foot-to-square foot basis. The applicant believes that the exchange would result in a win/win situation for both the Town and the property owner. The applicant has submitted a detailed sun/shade analysis. The purpose of the analysis is to illustrate the impacts of the redevelopment of the existing hotel and the construction of the new club the public right-of-way and adjacent properties. While the increased building heights will increase the amount of shading on the areas to the north of the development site, staff believes the increases are minimal and will not have any negative impacts on existing or future development. A copy of the sun/shade analysis has been attached for reference. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Staff believes that the proposal complies with the circulation system criteria described above. The applicant has worked closely with the Town Engineer to design a circulation system that is both functional and efficient. As stated previously, with the exception of the front entry drop-off spaces under the porte cochere, all of the parking will be in an underground structure. The applicant will also provide a much needed sidewalk along the south side of West Lionshead Circle connecting the pedestrian traffic to the South Frontage Road. The proposed vehicle and pedestrian traffic circulation plan complies with the-recommendation outlined in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. 15 H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The applicant is proposing to implement landscape improvements around the existing hotel and around the new club. As part of the improvements, the applicant will be providing a pedestrian connection from the hotel and club down to the streamwalk. Staff would recommend that the applicant increase the landscaping and enhance the streetscape at the. entrance to the new club. No landscaping is currently proposed in this area. The staff would suggest that the final landscape plan be reviewed and approved,.by.the_ . Town of Vail Design Review Board. 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Phasing of development is not proposed. The applicant is required to submit a construction phasing and staging plan to the Town prior to receiving a building permit. The plan will be used to ensure an efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses during the redevelopment of the hotel and the construction of the club. V CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The following criteria are to be used by the Planning & Environmental Commission to when evaluating a request for a conditional use permit. 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The applicant's property is located in an area identified as the Resort Lodging Hub of Lionshead. This area is characterized by residential and lodging-type of development intended to provide accommodations for our guests, residents and visitors. A long standing goal of Vail as a resort community is to maintain and enhance the short-term overnight accommodations. A substantial hotel bedbase is critical to the continued success of our resort market. There are many means of maintaining and enhancing the short-term overnight accommodations. The obvious is to build strictly hotel rooms. A second means is timeshare and other forms of interval ownership. The possible benefits of timeshare include: Increased activity during shoulder seasons ? The attraction of revenue generating tourists • Efficient utilization of resources ? Pride ownership and buy-in to the community • Increased levels of occupancy Increased resort exposure due to the extensive number of interval owners • Reduced cost of property ownership in a resort community 16 Overall, staff believes that the applicant's proposal to construct 66 1/20"' interval ownership units in the Gore Creek Club is positive. Interval ownership units and the use thereof are compatible with existing and surrounding uses. Staff does not believe that the proposed conditional use will not have any negative impacts on the character of the area. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities and other public facility needs. Staff does not believe that the request to construct and operate an interval ownership club will have any negative impacts on the above described criteria over strictly accommodation units. With increased occupancy comes possible increased use of our public facilities, such as the bus system, streamwalk, bike paths, etc. Staff does not believe, however, that the increased use will be detrimental. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and snow removal from the street and parking area. Similar to the criteria #2, staff does not believe that the proposed use will have any negative impacts on the above described criteria. A. Necessary Findings: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of this Title and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Title. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Major Amendment The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's request for a major amendment to Special Development District #7, Marriott, to allow for redevelopment of the existing hotel and the new construction of the Gore Creek Club. Staff's recommendation for approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section IV of this memorandum. The staff believes that the proposal generally complies with the nine design criteria, as identified in this memorandum. 17 Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the requested major amendment to the Vail Town Council, staff would recommend that the Commission make the following finding: That the proposed major amendment to Special Development District #7, Marriott, complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12-9A-8 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Additionally, the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that any adverse effects of the requested deviation from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided. Conditional Use Permit The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of the Gore Creek Club. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section V of this memorandum. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to approve the request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction and operation of a interval ownership club, staff would recommend that the following finding be made: That the construction and operation of the 66 interval ownership units in the Gore Creek Club adheres to the purpose statements of the High Density Multi-family Zone District and of a conditional use permit as stated in the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Additionally, the construction and operation of the Gore Creek Club will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor will it be materially injurious to the to the properties or improvements in the vicinity of the Club. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the requested major amendment and the conditional use permit, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions: 1. That the applicant submit the following plans to the Department of Community Development, for review and approval, as a part of the building permit application for the hotel: a. An Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan; b. A Construction Staging and Phasing Plan; C. A Stormwater Management Plan; and d. A Traffic Control Plan. 2. That the applicant provide deed-restricted housing, which complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13), for a minimum of 10 employees, and that said deed-restricted housing be made available for occupancy, and the deed restrictions recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Gore Creek Club. 3. That the applicant appear before the Design Review Board for a conceptual review of the proposed improvements prior to appearing before the Vail Town Council for consideration of an ordinance amending the Special Development District and receive final Design Review Board approval of the proposed improvements, prior to application for a building permit. 18 4. That the applicant redesign the proposed loading/delivery plan to insure that service and delivery vehicles do not block or impede pedestrian and vehicle traffic. 5. That the applicant redesign the proposed plans for the Gore Creek Club to provide a minimum of one off-street loading/delivery berth so the Gore Creek Club can operate as a free-standing facility. 6. That the applicant submit a complete set of civil engineered drawings of all the off-site improvements, including improvements to West Lionshead Circle, the sidewalk from the common property line with Antler's to the South Frontage Road, for the required on-site and off-site storm water drainage and management system, for the pedestrian connection. to the streamwalk, for review and approval, prior to application for a building permit. 7. That the applicant submit to the Community Development Department an approval letter from the owner of Lot A to the west of the Gore Creek Club development site granting permission to regrade portions of Lot A as depicted on the proposed plans. 8. That the applicant revise the plans to eliminate any off-site encroachments of the building on the Town of Vail right-of-way, prior to an appearance before the Design Review Board. 9. That the applicant meet with the Town Staff to prepare a letter of agreement outlining the requirements of the off-site improvements, prior to first reading of an ordinance approving the major amendment. 10. That the new sidewalk along the south side of West Lionshead Circle be snowmelted. 11. That the applicant amend the proposed landscape plan and provide increased amount of landscaping at the front entrance to the Gore Creek Club and the retail shops. 12. That the applicant submit a proposed streambank improvement plan to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to application for a building permit. 13. That the applicant submit complete set of plans to the Town of Vail Colorado Department of Transportation for review and approval of a left turn lane off of the South Frontage Road onto West Lionshead Circle. The plans shall by approved by CDOT prior to application for a building permit. 19 • - • Schultz iA Architects~ p.c. IWO S. Frontage Road We%, Vail. C010113do 8 1657. Tel: (970) 476-1147 FCOL (970) 476-1612 December 2, 1998 February 7, 1999 (revised) George Ruther Town of Vail Community Development Department 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Marriott's Mountain Resort at Vail- major amendment to SDD George: Subsequent to our pre-application meeting on 10/19/98, before making a formal application and accordance with the new policy, we would like to schedule a joint meeting with the PEC, Town Council and possibly even the DRB as early in January 1999 as possible. As requested, here is a synopsis of what exists at the hotel and what is being proposed. Subsequent to our pre-application hearing on January 12, 1999, the project remains as presented except that the location and number of EHU's has been revised. Existing Hotel The existing hotel is comprised of 3 buildings of varying age and construction. We refer to them as Phase I, Phase II and Phase Ila and the West Parking structure. Uses in the Hotel are AU, DU, commercial, various food service operations, and convention. For the purposes of our project, we will address only the uses of AU, DU and one particular restaurant space. Prints of each building's original design documents are in your archives under different names. The following information is based on these documents (I would like to point out that many of the units defined as DU's are owned by the Hotel and are operated as AU's). The current unit mix is as follows: Phase AU DU GRFA 1 74 14 38,380 II 97 12 48,212 Ila 35 27 50,555 Total 206 53 137,147 George Ruther February 7, 1999 (revised from December 21 1999) Page 2 Lot area (including the parking structure) is approximately 222,273 SF. Under PA zoning, allowable GRFA would be 80% of that or 177,818 SF. Existing GRFA is therefore 77% of allowable. The "Windows" restaurant, with a seating capacity of approximately 85 seats, is no longer in operation and is used only for special functions. Existing parking is located below the buildings and in the west structure. By count, there are 407 spaces with 205 in the west structure. We are assuming that existing parking is adequate and will be "grandfathered" in as such. Proposed New Construction & Changes 1. Convert the "Windows" restaurant space and 5 adjacent AU's into 3 or 4 DU's. Parking requirements decrease by 1.6 spaces (85 seats/8 seats per space less 4 spaces (2 units < 2000 SF) and 5 spaces (2 units > 2000 SF)). 2. Upgrade exterior appearance of existing hotel buildings by doing the following: a. Add steeply sloped roofs to lower the eave lines of the various buildings. Roofing material proposed to be 40 year shadow-line type fiberglass shingles. b. Add "landmark" roof elements to buildings II and Ila. C. Remove wood siding at balconies on all buildings and install new metal railings in various colors and patterns. d. Remove most of the existing wood siding and replace with EIFS in several colors. e. Repaint existing stucco. f. Existing standing seam metal roofs remain to a large extent. g. Add new retail spaces with heated sidewalks along West Lionshead Circle at Phase I and Phase II when future economic conditions warrant. h. Remodel existing pone cochere. 3. New Phase III atop existing west parking structure- with interval ownership units in accordance with the Lionshead Master Plan. a. 66 new units (see unit mix table below) totaling approximately 75,000 SF of GRFA. Current drawings reflect the following unit mix and area: Number Unit type GRFA 50 1050 SF 2 BR 52,500 12 1450 SF 3 BR (2 BR w/ loft) 17,400 4 Studio units 2529 66 72,429 b. Building amenities including front desk and Owner lounges. C. Addition to parking structure with internal ramps and providing for completely covered arrival. 61 new parking spaces with an easy additional 15 via valet positioning. George Ruther February 7, 1999 (revised from December 2, 1999) Page 3 4. Converting 9 existing DU's in Phase Ila into deed restricted EHU's; 8 units are studios with minimal kitchens and one unit is a one bedroom unit with full kitchen. Based on a recently completed project of similar size, the Phase III addition will create 25 new jobs. At a requirement of 20% of this number, 5 new EHU's are required. Instead of the 9 units in Phase Ila being deed restricted, we are now proposing to convert:the existing ski shop in Phase I into 6 new studio and one bedroom units (3 of each) ranging in size from 390 SF to 520 SF. 5. Modifications to landscape on Gore Creek side of complex including removal of most of the existing high berm thus opening up to the bike path and the creekscape. One tennis court to remain, the other one and the volley ball court will go. Other modifications per the submitted plans. Proposed total GRFA would be 209,576 SF or 118% of the total allowable on the site. This is far less than the 250% maximum that would govern in Lionshead and even less than the 150% granted the Austria House in the Village. .Compliance with Lionshead Master Plan and Design Guidelines- November 17 issue Existing Buildings: 1 . Proposed modifications to roofs comply with the design guidelines even though the proposed slope exceeds 12:12; the steeper roofs will lower apparent eaves, balance roof area with wall area. 2. The proposed "landmark" roof elements will give the western edge of Lionshead the presence of a "grand old hotel". 3. Proposed streetscape elements do comply with the Plan and guidelines. New Building: 1 . New building is right at maximum height limits with the proposed steeply sloped roofs and small areas of flat roof. We are well below the roof height average required. 2. Our proposed 15:12 roof pitch is steeper than the 12:12 specified but again provides significant aesthetic advantages the satisfy the intent of the guidelines: lower eave heights and wall heights and a better balance between wall area and roof area. This aesthetic benefit and addressing of intent is the basis for which we would seek conditional approval as provided in Section 4.2.8.3. As for the small areas of flat roof, they are comparable to those found at the Sonnenalp and would be visible only from high on the mountain. They are also allowed under Section 4.2.8.1. 3. The issue of height and flat roofs could be resolved if the datum for measuring height is set at the top of the existing parking garage instead of at surrounding grade. We have an unusual case here for new construction in that we do not have the option of putting the structure completely below grade as could be done with other new buildings. George Ruther February 7, 1999 (revised from December 21 1999) Page 4 I hope this gives you an adequate overview of our project. We look forward to the meeting with the Council and PEC and a subsequently smooth approval process. We could reluctantly accept staff approval on this one if required to do so. Sincerely, GWATHMEY PRATT A CHITECTS, P.C. f' d.~ Henry R. Pratt, AIA • - • Schultz February 7, 1999 George Ruther Town of Vail Community Development Department 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Marriott's Mountain Resort at Vail- major amendment to SDD- Conditional Use Permit George: Subsequent to our discussion last Friday, we are applying for a conditional use permit to allow time-share units at the proposed Phase III addition to the Marriott Hotel in Lionshead. This application does not change the building or its bulk and mass in any way from that presented to the Council and PEC on January 12, 1999 and recently submitted for approval by the PEC. Nor does it change in any way the impacts associated with this project (light, air, Town objectives, traffic, etc). It merely seeks permission to sell the units in a manner that is consistent with the current market and this project's location. I will point out that both fractional fee units and time-share units are conditional uses allowed under HDMF zoning with no stated preference of one over the other. The Phase III component of the Marriott project is stated as a high priority project in the Lionshead master plan. Regardless of whether it is approved as an amendment to an existing SDD or as an exterior alteration under the new Lionshead zoning, what we are proposing will provide higher occupancy rates and more warm beds than a condominium (HDMF) project. For this reason alone, this conditional use permit for time-share under HDMF should be approved. A further explanation of why time-share is desirable is attached. Sincerely, G ATHMEY P ATT CHULTZ ARCHITECTS, P.C. 12_ Henry R. ratt, AIA Gwofhtney Rolt SCPWh 5p' I Ijl ilrill' •i III!1:!illl,l!I'~ ~ ..SK,/+s. G4 .wOn_ t . it + ~ ~ V 1 PHASJ j l~~L//J ; ® aooo ~S . Z - _ . _ . . - '1 i , r .rK n B~ ~ e ,Ili ilrb Cai'i III'•,Ilr~ ''tl: , , ~ \ Z CONICRfNCL CCN /ER ~g.~...o. ,1' ; ~ ~ 'll 11 II I,I,~il ili jllll s. //.J• O ~ 1 1 x,11 I I li'll'I!~-11'I!~'.liil•.,I,',I II = \ , r,.o ~ IY A00///ON :I.'I' i. ' II ICI. li •Ijt,Ily~yj 1!L lilll:l fill ill'I~1 - ~ j.~~4 _ I \ > •1 ~I ~ -~Jri. J0~ ;,00 1 era \ / - _ ~'p_ - ---so„ n.•,..a: 6+* _ w-. % ! - PROPOSED SITE PLAN vlr'1 ~Ni~•5- wrawy,..m ` ~I.I • GW°Inmay alcn SchWh o ell" E E s i O 3 E RNnS/ w oo° ,Z 7 e.1 1'~ 3k CONfj Rf NCC CE'N!ER , d • , \ ~ '~IIIIiI;jII!,I~;j'i;llh;4ih~1j L-r.. K t F+,.•`', s~ I III I I I I I q I II it I lily III I III II i ~ ~ V Ill III il'I II I .-l - ° ~jIIIII~IIj;IIIIIjII Ij il~j;~l~il ~ ;'o°~ O 0 's RNesc 11 aun111oN - . I I jl Ijll ~lllllj' IIlll in l I~ I I - ~i°`\ O 0V l 1 'Ij 'I'~i'I il'I'll'}II I ill 1I I' M- j Ii II II~'illllj11111'III'!i I Ijllllllll II ~•I,Ij ay O y ° v •I J ',0' ~V ~ I~IjiIIIIIt11,.IIIlI;1j~'ill,lllllillgl~l oo0 !y _ If,l Q ~ ~ 13 Or/1 is r,u5[ 1„ It Fx _ O n Z p .lllo r` I • ~`":i>c..,,.r (71.71') `'i I r---- Asa I„ -e m`y /~0 -I ~.sN~°~. "1~I•~~:C".'.1 OA:i:~_:=~ __.,<o aw.. oe r•ee PROPOSED LANDSCAPE y-. -'i IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 'N~ ~~i - ~ °ES~NYfM1A.Y 1(11•• „ami ~~.r» Gwathmsy Batt Sctxdh / ~ `gyp C II Irll'I;rl: li P/us[ / i NN lliljil'`i 111'111ii ~,II I!II. IL o , M" W ° oaoa 9 1 es 1 / zz S w M ° ° 0000 / / PHASE /,p Z :~I:r I4•Il lln;.,lj, - - ~.,_l1y1~:~•'i' / CONFERENCE CENIER ! q 1: i 1 I' ~i• / ~ Illlji?i111~lIIII ';IIi II. bi 1'1,''11111111111 r~ ./f?f k ~nw 1. I; I 1 i1; 11 I IIII II'I' 1 9 ° ,~,111k1j11i~l1'1'i11h!Ijll'i1ai1''I'!I I! t 111 111 Irbl ~ bl I~,,I .oo ~ 4 ° !IIIj:, I,il 1!.1111 ,1111i1111:''ll'1 1'll - \ IYY 1.. ,1, • 1 L1,. ,.Il. 1 11 I,' o PARK/NV S PRASE AOU/!/ON o I1j1'1i111,4 th; l!!4!1;li1iilll f 1j 1i II ! j~~ 4 IRUCIUR[' 1•I•; o III; ,o li 1jl,nl~u:' bl; 11 11111 ~,re ~~~I X fill ~!1i'I! l;~! gjli~1ljl. k .,,rlll!i".db, ~;Iidaii 1 Qo \ `l 1 1 1 1 I'P ~;,,.:.,q'':I; I I •pjlJl J"1"1' - I '1 r~ r~ Q .ra" 11 -11 I . lln~r I Ink * I EXISTING SITE PLAN 'N7i.C~'(';. v~~ 31rw1 NnrWr r , -~~W.: AI.Ia Gwo=Mney Rotf . ScAulh _•,Ih 16/12 ® ® y~~~, ~ III y»., fi i A~• ~ . sl1% `rr,; ~ `fY • In Q s r , „ { ~ ~ va n y i m 99~ _ z ® m IM m [L] 1!8 911 mm m i FMM-l 1 ~ Q PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION PHASES 1 - III Q O J U X J 7~ i r 5J 1! a: ILI III NU ' ILl - Doe rm« tLt A...~ C 0 m m CD m m' 0 EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION PHASES I - III ?,1.2 RCf~~»Y SGlxtlli I6/I ~ A _ w 1~r1 ~n_li i M1 ~ ® ® O k I~ j 1 n Y m ~z o !r~ U-i ® ® r. uj E3 ^ ~i I Uj C3 ? J Z m - ! o0 o m m m m ° 9Q! I z u u u u ~ r~K n ~K it ~bm PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION O O PHASES I - III QQ Q ~ J 10 L .1 N to . ^ Potty OD N P-111p, IM . Y..a ..I: _ 1 1 .A rn LLI m 11 Innnil rnn~e i ~K n ~K m rn+~e m EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION PHA5E I - III A1.3 / O C •e 6walhrtley J Pran _ I LAt.IUMARK Sclwlh C, u LANDMARK j0 / I~ III p5 1 L d 'ci-DONEE G ..HALL-'PL 1 - \U I -U `1L~ 11 UJ I~ j1 r ~ QP -QgIN t EPi JN~ tJ•'I / S SUNBIRD LODGE Z / h d / ~p\ c O I /I I•i0' I O - - CIRCLE" \ 11i z \ I I I I / ' " 'WFS~ 'LIONSH r PDOLi.' ' III ; ' • . I / I _ f( i 11 it I I / 0 1, ICI ¢0 O ml MARRIOiT 00;\r pN Sp"'SE n, Q / ) o f(: - 6f T ~ RODE \ OU 1 \^OCd~ / 1:... _ PARKING L I J' J / ARl 101 T r~l /1.I . l 111E M O r6' ~ 10NSHC AD LACE 1. f, \ pA,KIN, I .O 8001 PARNRA. n f , rr I \ Ic n-_r , I \ • `I LION SOUARE C _ C I AIJIlEl7 ,„nl U w j : wF.SI un'1, O,' ``-w/ aot. oe reeve (1019' " - (iWv 1 - 9~ / ` 1111\'r{' 1 ` "_f'.: SPRING/FALL EQUINOX 10:00 AM MARCH 21/5EPTEMBER 23 AI.4a SUN/SHADE ANALYSIS - EXISTING BUILDINGS Scfwlh LANDMARK Y LANDMARK w..». I I I / , • " / .I -1'. II _-~_.CONCEf7 Yf__ I CA i IAU- PL AZ ( )a/ S SUNDI(20 LODGE Z , p z it o EIHCLC O I,I i J)i , r / li WESI UONSIHEAD i I POOLI O V' O THC MAHHIOTT ~01\ N SpVrsE n/ Q ~ HOOF ')(0 l'C C ,,\1Gy S~y~ PARKING , V r, l O I!,~~ ~ lN[ MAIL Ipl I , I 'LACE ~ q,~,.•~ ';r[ PNtKIN~ -,l1, / ROpI PAHKINL LION saunRE AN Il CHS _ WC $I NAY p\\;; l I e]] nu1'd v...l wmw. SPRING/FALL EQUINOX 2:00 PM PY" MARCH 21/SEPTEMBER 23 A1.4b SUN/SHADE ANALYSIS - EXISTING BUILDINGS `~y~ "9, } 1' \J Gwarhmey LANDMARK - Scpla" lrulhrr ' Ja LANDMARK Ir ! _ / p, I I I If J-1 ONCE 0 • 1 \ ` E 0 1 _ I W - ^'ti-. ~ • ~ , ~ \ ` all ~ SUNRIRO LODGE Z SS .13 1 O _ "ll r E DO, I r IUk; MAIiR1OiT gyp.\.. O\)PRL- 1' f IL -ROOF O 4 A V rl ~ ,J \ ~ PARKING 1 14 101T ITIL AA C Q / - .~J~ 'LACE - J I PfJiKING 1 1 '11,.! ROOF i,mKING f- CJ (:;I , CI `'f LION SOIIARC ~v~~•ti„~ ANR. I,.,~1lr• o l~ CI t LI('\ ) WINTER SOLSTICE 10:00 AM 'f {'l DECEMBER 21 SUN/SHADE ANALYSIS -EXISTING BUILDINGS •40 - - Pratt , I J LANDMARK tichulh I' i I ow 1' LANDMARK [ILIA o 1 0, Lu Q HN:1.-'PLAZ I lL p 1 p, j ( ~I 1 1 W 11 a SQP (Sl t 4 / S SUNBIRD LODGE Z rPOOi O , / I.. 1 I~ I I I ~ , O Q r I I 1, 0(~j UPgt 1 is ~'I i I I CJ 1 _ mt 1A ARRIOiT oll SO r~' ,Qy{ ROOF PARKING` } ~ Ilit. IAAIt11UIT [ LACE i \ PARKNG RUUI PARKpIG x rI r 1' 1 - \ IC C} p.. - LION SQUARE t~'L~.~ST£w i ~rl w1:Sl 0A\ I.nl ~UIfl- . ' ° 0, " n O WINTER SOLSTICE 2:00 PM 3. DECEMBER 21 A "L ~4 } SUN/SHADE ANALYSIS - EXISTING BUILDINGS ® A1.4d ' . ~ C ~g ~ ~ Gwalhrnsy / 1 - O )1 O LANDMARK ScMdh - LANDMARK ~jo 11 I,, ~ osTF\ I r` i ~ _).eonc ' j1 1 d~ H O' ~ / 1IIA'~L-Ptf1L LLJ E}\N+N~ / SQ P SUNDIND LODGE Z \ 1 ~pS _ f- • ~Il /GI I' Oa O _ _ ~I ' ROLE' ' POOL - 1 ~ I I1 '1 / I O 1 ) I 1 ' 1' 'O O pµf D O O 1MI(. MARRIOIT SpU Q ROOL i1 0..Ii1 f.~ a~,.• 1.1 i. PARKING ,'1 a ! ' ~ \ MAfil 1011 ~ > ' 7NC ~ \ ~ ~ IUNSN[AD~ C. 1 \ 'L ACC 1 / J \ ` I (1• i / R011i F'/.RKINI, (l I~ , LION SONARC O ~ jI ' i O I AN I I k. RG _ r o , cl OU c) o wLSI 0A'11 lul GORE CREEK O cee«rnrea r l B7 ~ CI \ 1111\',~ - _ y,,.111N,b1/ SPRING/FALL EQUINOX 10:00 AM j _ MARCH 21/SEPTEMBER 23 A1.4e SUN/SHADE ANALYSIS - PROPOSED BUILDING AND FACELIFT J 1 J LANDMARK SCfMYh oo i LANDMARK I r I I r'~ `J l --G'ONCE'L - O SPP P, J 1 ( Jla \ ' a0S `SUNDIRD LODGE Z_ _j Q I r/ ~ _ Ci _ i CEO . O - l• i I 1 LIDNSNEPD GRGLE F- ..1 O ':ir 0 r-. 11 I ~ _ / IHE MAI2RIOIT Q~~;' L\ON SOU~~ Q ROOF \ / r \ \ : Od PARKING ~I ~10.i l , it. M J f I / /QJ ./U IIINSHL Af7 LACE ROOI I'AI2KIN(', I Cl 1 J ..'IC y mac==?- - 1 1 \1 11 / `I I.-ON SQUARE A N I 1.0.125 WI.51 DAY, tot I\ 14' GORE CHEEK CI.Ul3 ' pay, p9 ~CEw eo SPRING/FALL EQUINOX 2:00 PM ~..1. MARCH 21/SEPTE1,15ER 25 A1.4f 5UN/SHADE ANALYSIS - PROPOSED BUILDING AND FACELIFT g~ ' , . O , B Gwathmey J ; _ o Aalr I LANDMARK Schulh oIl , _ ! uo LANDMARK w~ I 1I 051 -Nnl.t.-PLAZ Q/ U 80, U / Sp P „ r SUNBIRD LODGE _Z u IDOL 111E MnRR1011 / .I . (O \ \ \ \ O CO N SOVraL Q lL ROOF PARKING i~ MART 1011 \ • 1 . / O C 0 > > IONSFIEAQ ACI ROOF PARK110, O r I• \ IC O _ / ; LION SQUARE C,C !S. CI q _ WI .S I Un II I I I OORI'. LRLL K CLOD1 (;I - - - \ UoM 09 fee N ooW. I III - 1 f - - Id, WINTER SOLSTICE 10:00 AM DECEMBER 21 ~ ai 4g F;1 SUN/SHADE ANALYSIS - PROPOSED BUILDING AND FACELIFT f O e RWat~tlY LANDMARK ScMIh LANDMARK OcD --CON C S J I O,I / p Qyrtr F.p} Vpl` ~'i'~ rr . SUNDIRD LODGE z I li ~ i r O J _ j. I, Ir111'/I' iT Q• 0" MARRIO S J" 001, r /1 ~ E,vQ. lL ROOF \ l~ 1` f / i ,ld l~ lw , PARKING INE MAR 101' < 71 r QJ" 'ONSNEM C > LION SQUARE 1. U,' I O1 ` 140RE CRIa:K CL11E3 - 7-- r r' WINTER SOLSTICE 2:00 PM 6,6 DECEMBER 21 A1.4h / = . 1. - SUN/SHADE ANALYSIS - PROPOSED BUILDING AND FACELIFT Rail limey Sc~Wh -o O g ~I r.•1 lr 'rr~•i r~r^rrI= Tr. + i' r • - nr 1, l O I1}yi Z w~ .~t NIT a4 UNIT $q o U - I L ~ I - - - C9 =d -l Z I' UNIT #3 'I UNIT a2 w > ' r _ f;. i~l.it.l...!:.1..1.1L.11.J.:..1.~.ll L'l.ly.l t,L ~ • ~~''LLL..lj.l..::.J.L..:~1 Pob~ OD N LEVEL COMMON FLOOR AREA UNIT AREA 51X 95O SF _UNIT eI _ 2366 GRFA LNIT 02 = 2545 GRFA UNIT 03 = 1156 GRFA PROPOSED "WINDOWS" REMODEL- PHASE 11 N»l~+» UNIT X04 8l8 (,P-A 5C41r Ss • I'-O• TOTAL b ,q25 GRFA 2 6walhmey Pray Schulh k Q 4 G ~~{F^ l ~a ~,1~ ~rtg3y~ "I.~; i !a~;a ~ ~ :i~ IS, "1 1pp t2~. r !ir r. F- k, J ~I A,.r.b n u r ~M1 J r rr~ c 3 ~ A y: tvh n~ _ ! f3 ctrl~rl~y'~+r piIIU~r to - m Jk ' .1 . i ~ lL - 01 UP: 0'} _ J PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION J Q PHASE I PHASE I x~ll: Ni I'-O' 9CALC: N.' • I'-O' ~ ~ O Z O Y ~ r ~J > uxi > - - - p` u •i: r LLILI_L _ ? I ~ I1~Nw0: I k 'f EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION PHASE I PHASE I x/LLL lp . I'-p' erwr rMw.. A 3.1 . _ Ro1tt~~Y Scfwlh ,7 t. p };v ~~,G r~L n t~ E!'it lL Fin O . I- T CL PEI O o J Q PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION PHASE I PHASE I O SGALCN.- • V-O' ..-ALE. ~u. O` ~ z V _i X Q i at ,M1 , Li'l---M HT 1 ' - m ' ? m El --~--a EXISTING EAST ELEVATION EXISTING WEST ELEVATION PHASE I PHASE- I sc.LC r -a x.LC i.o - A 3.2 Gwolhmey Ron Scfwlh T I ~r 1 I I 1 5 ~~I 5I . n~ ~ •i~ ~~lf~~ 1 I I iJ~~~l'. rtr rJ ~G~~t ~ji'S 1,1175. ~.i f ry~'V yyl~ I, ir~rf f t r 1 f f f f, O Q I 1 fst,iff3.?-~~~}~`., w 1flflCf]I I:.`:l;,i - 1'J~J Ir:_I F~ - ~f _ i fT~fTl. fat' i Z Q PROPOSED BUILDING 5ECTION PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION O PHA5E I - BB PHASE I - AA U 9LI.I.E~ 14. • 1'-O' 5G4LE~ Ne' • -O' -A ~ J 7 w 1 ~ I I-LILLU LI FffT '11ip((4 . I I i EXISTING BUILDING SECTION PHASE I - AA " . -o A 4 .I ' Gwaltuney Pratt SchWh ' v Y P N g N, Y yT'~'~ I Iu .ZTW ~Tl.j '(irrTi, 1~.I Q _ O PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION Q PHASE I - AA O s PLC N4' 1'-O' J ~ _Z O ~ J v v v Q xQ > W > ~rll iI~rII~ Ilrlnt Iliin i _ r:l I' rant irl urt 'rru l w r~if rt iltr tiH.b { { _ilI' iltllrl~ IIIFI1 111111 . EJiISTIN6 BUILDING SECTION PHASE I - AA A 4.2 v T r pi' q ~ v p v v. Y p p T p t r~ Y q Gwathmey _ °1 O I o PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION PHASE II - GG PHASE II - BB PHASE II - AA -A z 3G~LE: Ne' I'-O" SG.eLE~ W" . I'-O' SGnLC M" I'-O' N J Y y T TV T T T S' Y Y Y T i Ti T > w j : : II . El I ~ I • ~ , : L1wl IYMv EXI5TIN6 BUILDING SECTION EX15TINO BUILDING SECTION EXI5TING BUILDING SECTION PHASE 11 - GC PHASE II - BE, PHASE 11 - AA 9GALC: 4e" I'-O' SGn.LE. ly' . I -o O SGnLC Ile - T Yi' 7 S' Y S' TT Y T T T Y 1 "T T S' Y 1 1 11 U _ _ i ?N IEEE J REVISED BUILDING SECTION Q PHASE IIA - BB REVISED BUILDING SECTION J p x-C, PHASE I IA - AA W 1^- ]1~ Q Z 1 TT T T S' Ti Y Y Y TT 1 YT Y S Y Y T1 Y T T 11 Q N J W : r r r r iMi~~~. , El i 7-1 , i i i r r i r i i i r i D1wl lMnb~r EXISTING BUILDING SECTION PHASE IIA - BB EXISTING BUILDING SECTION P,4.4 PHASE IIA - AA x e: ~ yT T ? T S' TT 1 1 1 1 P • GwatMney SchWh O Q <a REVISED BUILDING SECTION Q PHASE IIA - C.4-' IL 13 ln,L O Q Q ~ aOI J z y TT T S' y 17 Y T T 1 q `n w > „ - EXISTING BUILDING SECTION PHASE IIA - CC SGn~C. N: i'-O' II ~ ' I II ~ ulznrG Srwcaac R~ ~Y I I _ =hulk I _ _ _ _ I } 5 1 s e b II I I, I I II ' P • I W TO E lMIN i I I n to cus w II W % rouoe,lrne L=_II I I I N 5 I} b 1 / II I ~ II z I I I ~ G Is w n I. VAU verzc ~ II Z I I n lo..r~ xor[o • uIL 11 O Q II i I }5 _ n }e )e n _ I I i. I ~ ~==1 J a II U 'l I w o p 13 I ` I r-.CQ_ A W 2 J 'II•:I O ~ I / V I FII EXISTING I I MARRIOTT I I ~ Da4 ]1 .NN 11 I II I ruF ulsrlw corona Lan a•vl•.d• lrvrl b PMKIaS RCna i A. srwcnac staler.[ AaCw bar. •au I (pa0`Al (ba0•hl leRPh1 _ i' !I I lC90 ogle 51' 613 X I I Q( Y11p .Y }]p63X 40wp 51.115. low 1'506.1 I 1 M1n II Il=sr )lpe3 X 1DDp X 0 LxItS • IPJO p'Jpp bWn 1! I MLLC Iq 110X 5Ee)X 1,9}X La1r5 ••1050. 0]00 Oxr. . rOla - r255 X -La1r6 • IDSD • IpDro bVn rM - S:IS Y IL LNIiS • OSO • IOSOO 6ar1 . __5o•r5.5q,. I_esa . PARKING LEVEL ZERO 511 5:15 5' 10 WIfS • 1050 ~ ILX10 GafA ~~\`~{\~~\\~\~\I 5`•ICN _ SLI.LC Ili I'~p' x•Irl NurWr 5195f glmlr5.10'A• g1506afp 32I5X - 5 . „bar, A 2.0 Sa n 1 ~-1 snimv 2~4 1 •551. 11.1 par. 1? 115 bar. Gwalhmsy Raft [usnw smLenac Sellulh - - - -T- FT I ; - J ' - - SrORADC I;%r r I al toe Ios w. lo) lo] la IW a Il .e 95 1191 u v ,o ~ dt DD' el I DDI es - ~ ,rts.~ DtI ~ n 1 / ~ _ c c l c l ;c c c i c l c c i c i~ c l c ~ c _ J n l ~ 1 [ o-D r---~ .9 IIJI Wars y) a 111 \illl E.!e:i~ o.uy [~lor ~[O~ E.v5tIN5 P~RKIW ICVCl 101'6" 'VI'[ I I i,~l - I I ~ ~ I I I 11 ll_ I ( I• I qD 101 W ¦ 15 15 bt DD I b I 70 1 ] 13 11 >5 U it 1D N I DO I d ; D] \i. (yy~~ ' I ` c n I uJ lu rn vo w 1e n Ie ro , v+ I a I 63 b] 1 d I eo I 59 i se ~ s1 I 3e I n 15. i 53 ; 52 5 W 11 I ~ i.ld t I ~ I O~ I I If C1 d I I I Wrt5 I NI ~ I 1 ` i I 1 I'.~' ~ _ 1]1 I]'.• I]D I]1 I]D IT 190 _ _ SO I L 5) i 91 ( 55 56 Sl 1150 I 99 I 0 19J i 1'. 15 116 I .1 I ID .9 I SO ~ ' ` 1!I Nuzj I I I~ WR ] U o 1 I ~ ~ DuLaM SiOPADC I t l i, D mw[ w Raa4 V L,. ~ LI«,1 I I I . lu J '"I • fir---- I EXISTING I MARRIOTT 1 I L LVU• IR .NN M 14v11~d I '1 I Kd CxISTl% COHCM LllL PKRKINi PARKINS KWR RC1.9L Wrl 5111CRM[ 51RLCIl¦l 6RP1 MC/• I lMafA IbAO`!~) Id10a31A. 1 I ICAO 1116 N D9J Y J1 I 111 I 01( 11115, 22D V .ODD Sf S Wr3 P 10•A . 5]SO difK MO Y.]]Y )]1635! ]DedY DWItS 11030• ..3004- I 111 I -CC 19 ~.OY 5De]Y 112Y bWIiS 61050. 630069,6 ; 1Q19 ,j33 5i ID WI15.10>0 .1010069/6 . flvC S]Oy IpWIT561050•-IO3oosw~ PARKING LEVEL ONE "!Q'''•-"'-' 19D56" 6 UNIT LEVEL ONE 5n 51)Y - IO W~IS.1050 0300 DW1 I ~i\/ 91wt WrMw, 5C'rtD 51i N 1 WIIS 9 ,050 9.5069f6 CKM LCfrS P Nl :11169]6 A 2.1 D:.s v SROW I . eel • eel 6a6 SIWgS x3..55. 111] G9l6 ,]g5W 1 ~ Gwathmey Scllulh Fc, O] ]P ]00 r1 IV 111 11D c IT'0L IC L I 1 CL 1204' / O Cl_'S I EASIYK PAAKID15 lCVCL YI'3' II I - - SLLPOD p 15* ~ V 1 I - ' 1 ]0p l01 )OD ]01 TO TI TI T3 b5 I IDb 1pl IDD 1D9 Il0 IA "d. Ii) IH 115 I 116 Ill Ilb IH I I 100 z 1j; WtT lo ' r Q I I '.,~I i ~ ~ 1... a •..I . , .i.:.J:, o ,..j... b ;tl ~ - I 1T ))O T1 TD Tl T6 T5 M IM I I.3 ID] NI 160. 1511 % Ifl D'k 1155 131 Is3 i IS] Iv t50 ! IM `i .Z ._I:.c.t_ l c c i IU I I' _ _ I I I I I I \L O I I r I CL j71•-a ? LP sLOa[Dp l~f l I~ (L I I I Dni1 ~ I 1 . ))l 1 ]]3 ]l1 ]ri _ 13 I 13: 13) 131 1155 13p 131 1m I' IH I IAO 117 113 I IAA 1135 116 I 141 IAD I I ..J - _ I`L~I. ~ _ _ L LEI II ' I IM ~ G I L I L 1c G L I L ~I V {J ` j l I I 1 I 'p~ttI Y jj In I WITD w I . bANA6C [nrtUnc[IEgI O I I I ! Il 11 1 ~ I I LR -;I ~ ~rfk ~ ¢+nnrol ' P'`1 v WIT I T. c ? b ^ I I EXISTING I I MARRIOTT lr DbM 11 .NN M I 11 I _ 14NYp6 ICVCI PAV,W PAYAYG R00N PEIAN WIl 5NUlCrtRC 5DpG1UtC ARCA eNCA MCA I 1~1 IMPIY_ IpN05Y 1011aY1 1 O I, I lUb n91DY 6435r I !l I '~I I -0nC Y110Y 22Lp39 1,066 5WN5.I050. ' DwA n 1Y10 113]]Y ]]203Y ]DpeY pWIl5 p105D OD0063VA ^I I 111 I 1MCC -4- 5Dp2Y .,1) Y p WIR 11050 • p9006NA I I fqA l]33Y ID WI15.1050 • IbD00 GNCA FIA 525Y -IOWI,~-~~o5D~1o5ooen:~ PARKING LEVEL TWO - - 5 1IDS6=r UNIT LEVEL TWO 51n STS Y 10 WI(•i Y 1050 • 10500 -A SCALC, l4' . I. O' Dlwl NvnWr SCKn _-_5151 ~ WIIS.IOb• 350 Da,A ~DM,-= ,LOC,s.f1,. ?,H6/1fA A2.2 3,)35Y 5-1.D61 DW-A SNATOS ]3A .531. 1Dp)6A,fA Ip,A~ t]3661fA Gwalhmsy Ralt SChUIh I 11 ~.____[MIStINS 5,10LIWC ~ «w~ II I I r 'I. I 1 r~ r / ]mI ]a i ]eo I ]sN _ 9. % F2a ]n. ]6NI ]et ELI?1d' I 1'~ .rt 11 ~~I; l105iu16 PA9K1N5lEVEL I]t'D' • 9 ` / r. I L: n. `_.1 ~[L 111' r aQS KRC / 'Y r lL IF 1 y I:y YI_ I 1 , = I-- ' :OD :1N . u J j nd 05~ I n5 j ]56 ]!l I ]56, ; Q I d w I I , IG, ( z j I ~ ' : e I _ ~ e as ]IN n] n ~ ]so I ]~r I ]96 ]n! ~ I O Q a I cr..l 1 xcpEO. u* ~ i~ L In.~ . E.i n>~ .dr.c I i 1 i 1 ].s ' I 11 ~ L„r, 1, I1f~ I,{ j off`' o I 111 1 , FL ` i '1 I I i Ij r 1 I I ( - ron.ec -I I~ h/ v Q ]5° ]j ]t] ]551 ]N I i35 ]Se 1 I ]te 1 ]r c c , c c :"I uc'~^ Q/ 11 KLIMNILSL ]]e j I i I +II I, ].O ]31 ~l3] ]~3 I~L Q 1 I I.t d I _ - - c c ]]e '111 I ~D 1 1 S3 l4 Nutt i y11t I] 1 (6R 22. n _ i~•I O ^r i I :b "k I'" ,I 1i ~`=t I ;^I 11 ww 11= rl 1 IT I I EXI5TIN6 Ebw],1A„« i. MARR I OTT lM9q I Kn CVStDG CG,9gI LEAL P RKIK, SPAN:IrGIRIKrtRE APZ ARE f,A 6 600AA ' A RREE1 I 5C ML A I I,1 I 168055) !6°551 16RDw IERO P,165r M3Y I OK rVle Sr ]]66351 ND"V S.It591050. 5]5 6RrA I 1 I -In0 11.42251 22p635r 2D V - 6.1591050. 030061. i T," -40`.r 5 D6] K 1,9] K 6 .f5 91050 • .300 -A I I fqA 12335 6.591050. Iey00WA 1 10.,591050 • 10 A06RIA EIVC 505 5I' S 1.Q,$ 9 551 -WA 5r. srs sr ,O WIM. 1050. 103006 WA PARKING LEVEL THREE 51wL„Vmw. xaN s1u5r S.Irs91050• us IWIA UNIT LEVEL THREE [16X1 ,lOr1S•51l. ],1NORre SGALE.'tM •1'.0' A2.3 51Wr01. w • E66RrA S1WW5 23,E .551. 166] 681. IOIAL - 1139s6REA • GwaMvney FtUNN I Eusnw srnwrw[ , ~ SchWh I - - , I , IiII I LI.: `Iil'~ it r •C[II~~~ ni I Y I i 1111 I. I IM i. P Lf, ` ' I SLiI I t II II I~11)~ (IILII~ ,4~. - q,,.. ll~l, ~ ~1 ~ ICI III! ~ I I__ I f a ~ I r i.~•' wr n~ t,.~t i II I wrn ~ j I wne ~ l ~•L~ wlr v~ I' I ~ .II I ,.I l l l l l ~ r L.tvl_ I I wn] _ ~ wr~al ~.•-•l ~ =~f.- eopsr ~ I aA- I ~ fl II i~~lllill~~~ lL , I I III ,1 14 I ~...1 ~I I! II„ I NIA' 'I' I i II - 22 I II ll wr/R i ' «o it .I .:,III _ IG',. ( I I I ~4 I I'll I I . pl Z W wr 9] V u !1 I I to I ly.;lbl`' aaar 6•wcx 'I uxh a.woc6 . J,I! 1~ ~-rflr, __I I' _•I•I I O Q I 1;..1,~ 1 11 Ill~illl 0. ~Q I ! - I 1 I I / ..I ii ~ I I4erX •f c... I I I~..~`I~IIIIIII ~ 1 I I \ wlr]1 ii 11;x., i~-flilL.. I II fl~ I I'I wr ~ • I wuy ~ I~' I _ i I Q yti r- I ~I itI I IIIIf ~ JD I I f_5~ I: '1.1 :7 ~ ~ I I I 1' I1 i I I; c l o I wr ]o tl ~ I. ((1~ rae:n~rw~"`lureartur >.n> 4 I Ir~, yl 1L II ~I '~Iwr.~ I EXI5TIN6 I MARR IOTT r xH Kn uarws cor+wl I ~I I ICKL v.wcw6 vA1u.n noun uu1L wr - srwcrlne smlcrtnc aA 6wA AnEA IaPOfJ 16+0531 16+pY1 I pE !91651 ]]9635! Ip60Y 9w1r5+10'A• 5,]SO 6wA / li I (n0 11422Y ]]El35C 1060X 6MI 41050. 69o06wA A; I I,I I -EC 1a ~~OY S062Y 112N -awr5.1050. 6900 O+fA :3 . •l I6 wr5 .1050 • 16D00 Own I Iqp 1333 rIK SlS'l--_ IO wlr5 alOSO •10300A A S LC r5 •911 5W A so- s~ls sr 1ownz aoso.lo soo 6wA UNIT LEVEL FOUR 91yaL HnrWr •crte sras cwlrs.lo5o• vlw swA IW 1'-0- - -J A2.4 3].SX 589105 ]3..+N. la62Ow,A, 1235 6 A ' ,I - ~ GwaTrrw.y I I i - [usnXS SrwcnaE ~ RaMy SchWh I I f. f,. ql , I I - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 I L f~ C ley I:, I Ali I [rE ra ;,q J 11 I J, ~l F z I. ' I X 1` I - I I }L.7 1 l; i palm j - - i7,.rl I. ,..I 1 r u ,IV i'~: t•..d • I ~ d•,d-- II ~ li I f ~ ~I!nllll~ O f L" Qp71II pp1rr 14 I 1 I I I L L; ,.I.1 is L..i, 11 _I Wr35rl ! ul 1 rWlr 31~ II gWrS64i ' uaru l;ll I ~ II L, , rWi~r ]3 - - If y' r 4 I1 ~ I ' I I ~ I I f 111 I - j uar sa I I wr. I Y-•T~ I'`-' »o s X - ( I I i, 4 W 1 I 1 I 1 .e 1 i ° r',I III '-I ` i • lll~' ( 1 _ , _ F: I, I 'I I ¢ I` I y IrI Wa!3a a l l WI, L,,22 j F I aeEXra' ;1 I '~I e[ta± i !I ~ aq ~ ~ I .II ~ I I I'I I ~I~ l II; II ICI w,'+a 1I~WIIU I ttr" III' 1~1 ~.,il.l I II' 0 O ' . Q III I I III OPENiO I I u.tX ' m_.t.~.~l ~ ~ I ~ I ' ~ W O e61d1 { ! LOri ~ IL 6n,A6[[NIMICC/LUi ~ O y]{ I~ I I ~ ! R<511X;1 I _ F ! oP[N 10 o IwiN to ennn II 1- 1il I ~ &IP1 li Wrt 6 II O^ 1 A w ~ J 11 I ~ Q I 1!12I 1 ~~2 I I EXISTING I I MARRIOTT 1 Il Poles N JAX M II.vXtl I K M Ea5IM3 GQltlN ?UI 1,1 I IEVCI PM1c flOfR uul. 51t6CML STwl IWJ~IWE ANfn 6IVA ARCn I ICAOYI (6,0%1 lbFOYI G '1 I ]EPO Falb X 613 X 1 l~ I 111 I OI(_- II Il6 Y ]]L63 X 106D X 3 W,5,1030 • S]b d1fA iX0 -4225r 126635r ] C66 X 6 WI 1030 • 6300 WA A I 11'I I TPCC X.10 X 3C6] X 1,,1]Y- b W15.1030 • 63006un 1]33X 4r WIr5.1030 •16DOO bun rIK 3]IS X -~10 WI13.1030 • 1030061i[n _ SlLf15. 3V1_ I.a6s bun ' " - - - - UNIT LEVEL FIVE sl. s]Isv 10 Wns .loco •1o3m 6</n _ Xv[N Slav - a mM.1ov] : also 6XC. ~ 9]1351 6rLOq 1. Dbl Dw 6un _ _ SIW GS ]a 1 . YS, : Ipb] 6RCn Gwofhmsy Plan Cx6-s,w -L Schultz I - - - - - - _ 1111 i III11~i.1 ~`,I IIII IL.III` }',~'.~1I Irrr it I - ..fII >IW II ~ T, ~q _ - -3.tr: ~ li l x I f I,IJI II V_I i II ii'J~ I rll l~ P 1 I •lyt lEl• tL I ~ Ib I. I 'I l'~r ~ ~ ,mod l~l/i~ ~ I ~1._ I ~I ~.I i..~. l' i _ , 1 I --:~:~L.#•. rl rL~ Iml .yI{ .tq SVA ,2 f 1 J Wn s3 'l Ii _II I_' II'lill o o : 1 Ij... II 'J Wlu,l I Wn .e~ ! :QI11.....ll nov~ <La y~.liq•- ~~;i -~i 1..1:1',' I I ._r-JI ~i?~..°. ~I I I 'I I ~ °l II ~ 1 1 1 I I~ I I I 11 ~ I,1~ W1r Y9 .i, .j 1l. ~ ii I II I II B' I I,J. '~f_ •~.j"a ~ it o Q 1 ~ uq g I I I I I ~ l" ~ ~ lL: l I, 1 1 4 fl'y', . I , `4 f III rry~e ~fl WIl W li l WII Y ~ l(: I I I III I I II W 1 I , a I SMADC Cxm,r En" \ r]/ O I Itxnlllril \L U V I VII p ~ i ~ ~ > I,? el I ?'I EXI5TIN6 I MARRIOTT ~ [b4 ]9 1AN 99 l I NN..A I J, I NCrI [xnlen CMbx LCKL PA0.llR5 PM[eG fLOCP PEIAIL WII MCA S1MU:IW[ 51,DC1W: AftU W. I (CNO35/ (DFOY~1 IenOhl I 1 2 ]CPO n~10X 613X 1 I '1 I qC - 19,0 X- ]]D63 N !ODD Y f WIR a 1030 • 3]f06WA I^ ntl 9!}]Y ]]D»X ]DDDX 6WIt5•IpSp bD00 OVA y I 111 I M1CC N..O Sr !Db}X I~]X 6WI15e1050• e3-WA l 1 Fq l)33X 16 WIRe105p •bD006WA rIK_----'- szsX io mne•ww .-a?oo aw: 3 a.3,,_3eD=" A UNIT LEVEL 51X 51x 3113 X 10 LM,S. 1030 • IO.65 WA -E. H. -0' •Nrt Nwrpr SCKx 319X 9WitS eIOSO. 1.306W'A 3,2455 5R0101. 009• 0090 5 89105 SN• IDA]DxfA I cA1srIIG s]aucrwc Gwothmey f I Sefwlh I : - . - - . - - - - - I 1 I• ' r IJ I I Ill _ I i + I. 5 it VII 6- I i = 11 I '`ij111j1 r~/ I i • ~ I~ ~ II III 1. U.~ ~ I 7~ I - I u, 'ri:.l r I' I i 1.~i I 4 1111 IIr Q ' ' , 1 I '1 !a unr 11! t w wrt b] r r~' u6t 51~ iovrXcc. ~ Ifs II C-) J'III~11 anx I _ I ,c:_Y=- o L,-,- I~ f-- ~ y .0 -_7- _ ud ~ i W a I 1 z I i I ~ I ~'i ~1 ~ 1 1.1 I II I r 1. 4 ED II aura it II wt pl I 1 i I 11 _ ' J ll'll~l Ir Z w I it 'I 1; r ;~'ll - 1:- 11 i O Q l i I ' i I.r,p x I ;1 , li ud1'~l ll,j~III`IIj CL 11 d I - 11 I l'i I'd I I ! ' eAa.oc [Nautcc2,n ' < w O I ~ ICx15rva1 I ~ V Q I -A I o w J I ml ElEX15TINC6 I I MARRIOTT L {krlw .NN M I I '1 I x•uKU~ vAnuw, caxwx n.•n..a. wn t[vtt rcr, wcxn nxn -AIL sratenac sta6Lrwc u bal. -A (6a0Y.J leaa'rl 16x0551 ' I ]cao x.re X e13 Y 1 i I ' I i1 I ON! xa16Y ]]663Y .o66X S1MIt6xIOS0• 57506WA r rx10 x 1]] X ]]063'-! ]S6v'Y 0 WIIS • 1050 • 6,300 Gal. t. r I I INCC N110Y 5362 X la]Y 6XM .IOSO. 630 A I lOW-_ 1733X--_. ID UNI15x1050•Ie30obWA !M fTSX IO UNry•1050 .105006W. 050 10 UNIT LEVEL SEVEN St. 5 TS X 10 UarS .1 • 300 bal. 6xxxt Nxrbr SL46C. Ni . 1'-p' ``-CVCN SIxY aYal`i•IL'A.'15 WA ] lOrrS x 311 • _ A 2 . ~ 6ea • 6fA 6W A _ 51 234: 51 If616WA _---x]3150WA Gwafhmey e.6". 5rw.e RaI, sc"U. - - -._.L - - - - - - - - - - - 'j 1 (i I r,I i, I r.- i• r ,I r Wrt51 _ - i Lar°] Lr .IIL I~ I wr se o orcx ro' 1 1 - vcx ro Ar;,;li 'I jecLa+ ecom 'N Pea eeLOn I~ _I I 1 I,/ W ' uITJ"---TO I I uo I 11 I % I, . Wf 56 I I tl I o ro. ~ rEx eL~ or9 Ik I i ( UL~ I JI Z I o I I I 11 5Mp2 51491031 I I I 11 .1 I I Iilli I iI ' 1 1 I 'Ails 111, d i mce ro n¢ o.ul ro ' I III ' I I I !I ~ eeLOry I I BElOP1 ' ~ 11.' I ~ I~lilil~ ~ Q ~ O I L -it -IiIl'I'I . Q II I n D4 Lx ~L,LA1, l o /C,StINli ` I J LU I L 'l 1 \ / > II1'~:I `I n 111 ~ '~I..r.. I LI I~', 'L-~ 2 I `I LXI5TIN6 I I MARR IOTT L PTw .Mn M r R.v1..0. I ,'1 I rzn r^iS~NG tcl.al Lw, ILKt n uP~ P¢rAx StWCTIIC Se4CRPl P[/. pWw .er I lbROhl (6W 5W 1 1 I 1C.0 Pm- Yx3 X I 1 I pC- Yl1DX ]]D63X AWpX lW1r5.lOS0•!]'A bPCA M1tl Y x]] X ]]DD3 X ]DDp X b WITS 11050 • 6~0 GxfA I 1!1 I rML4 Ii.~pN Spb]X I.]X D.115. 1- 690 WA 1 fOR 1]33Y a ba15. b50 . Ibp00 b.FA , IM - ~ f_15Y--_ IO lN15.1050.103006MCw 5,175. ml !.p56RlA ' - UNIT LEVEL E16HT Su f]5 X I.u,S .1050 . pS00 6WA . ~ 51w1 PYnty. SGALC, lli 1' p' SC'Rx lla. X V WIrS. 1050 • aX50 wA EIW 3],5Y Srt9101. pp. Lba DIVA ~'1 (.J 5RVI~ 1.551. I Lb] 6Pf'A rO,~L _ 1]3x5 fAfA ' uisnwe SC~:C.nlaE $ChIAR I - .!IIL I' ~ ' ~ II J it -~I--/ I fEWI EYtM1CC/Calf . ` 0 (CA5fIN51 V v w N~ Y EXISTING MA RR I OT T am.• ae ree « n.nwa ci ROOF PLAN C~ On.aN w. SGALC tle -0" A2.q ' Gwathmey Raft Sclwlfi C r: ' (I ~ l(~ / tt i i~% 'tt, E•?~ t ~~Af m~' J i f,' Ir,~~hl lL rc,,.? ;/,rrl I I~I t III ! I / !ft if If / Ill t. h y - O I'} "I I ! li 1u ui((dq ~((eLu~ li(~mG; ,nfl( ~r~flku n(u (:a~~ ~la~'r w r ~ f ' 7 1 vim_~ InHl W ~ F~~(D IIHtt~q Ulgl DC t " i~• , r,c4 i tt Nre Ill (i IN 'n~ll}GI u~, lit III E RIDI i jl~tI a» I ~ ~ ~ z_ nz.'Ja i' i - j.: ,r' I (':'I~i'_:.II .+~,j. s:i~~;.~;,s•n-, f~r!;,iie ® 0 1' lil laid iWIIl ® I € tr/t? ? ar!.'s? t ti „ Y. v=+P r t,, . { ~r<~f f y Q;, ` Z rf3 ..f I - ! m mD (II[i 1. j Yz`rr zr.r;rY~; i r? a EAST ELEVATION Y ~ v O 111 J ~rl`,ny-,~,I 1 ~ > I L ® ,yr~t ti('~)1 ' (h V) :'tr t f N,f rt.~. a. f 'rr 1 1PN ( J ySy} rry t'~'li , u t t' t3!r .s 1is e 3f ~I _ J f ~.r,s -`T'~ If C rtS lwkt0l t~ r r ? r:z r 1 s J c k I~, ~A 1 --a~Y.i r..r s f J.r;, }~Vt~ti r. - c•= _ 1. hs~ Pa 1.{f. I Pail s_I'~ m m ® m ® m ® y,l f'r "'fCC~++"' r• i,d;a; ,fir, 'S #~f~`~• j ss~,t ~ 4 c i C „i k 4~ ^p • 'r . ~i ; :j. ~i, .~fZj' kr k~~%j~ ` tu~ ! - '~rzy~ v~r i k: t WEST ELEVATION R~ hrney Scln9h MIN pm. - M z u u u u ~I NORTH ELEVATION Q W O Q W J iw Q _i i' > > ~I:.t ~.t::.i, t. ,tn~y:6ii"drl'~y.~ . f~:C,:, l t'1'. l,i w.na: wx.,».vw~ dl? 4 .9 M ® l w !f N 11 F~ k ~ ~ ft ~h it I ~Ift' ~ I SOUTH ELEVATION A 3.2 • Gwattmey PraH Schulte sue. _ 1Ii~f it _ r '~1. a. 5, f..r~, ~t ,t • . ~....:c, t:. / iu`I lL lu ptli X11 IIDl fly 1 ® F;.jr~~??. + F a 253 [ h w« EAST ELEVATION/ SECTION O U Ca w O v O a;:-..d `~I-~,.:~ ''ht'~ Fitt ~ "t `V~: 'j1 i r i r '~~(~~tv _ •~r-,.~ Dales N .HN ~0 _I EAST-WEST SECTION A 4.1 - u~ PPS Nr~ _1~IkToy 3 NEW SMPIOTEE New E7C1 JTIN Ca - v° MF~H•~'~TaR+~kE --'~i.l olo C= ~]lr 4.F. O t~ O O D - _DF_1b.8EDR~1 o -SID 441. 0 173 V mmom • owemmmM oe OU t 6.F. ° des 5•t- ° 1 O NEW Ov 0100 p 4'roRaG~E C=J - ~1lD 4fJD a o o Ell 0 D I M~w?r?~.~L I Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Architects, p.c., 1000 S. Frontage Road West Vail. Colorado 81657 Tel: (970) 476-1 ' 47 Fax: (970) A76-1612 ~ Pratt 'F~~ED LQADJJ 4-, Schultz POCX MoDIrIC,~ vN5 ' w~~NC~ rxx~Jc DN F ~T 9j'Alib F5 CoMFAC~b(~ ~ 11! DC _Z du1wA~( ~II,d.SE TL 4 ~cSONFic-{. 1?u~~i~.. - ~ Iz W - NEW ENCL. EXI r4CT ly N / -NEw N R3~Pbf,~D L- - -1 i NEw 8W HI N wALL5 w/ HE, NEVJ ~IDEµIAL}G. ~ ~ V7=NEED NJEW ~A~WAI--K - I~ East West Partners George Ruther February 8, 1999 Town of Vail 751 S. Frontage Rd. West Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Ruther: Asa gencral benefit to-the cor um=ty,- atimeshare property-fulfillsseyeral basic needs of both the permanent and the transient resident. This is evidenced by rapid pace at which this industry isgmwing.worldwide _-According to, The 1' catiov Ownership Industry, a study by ARDA, interval ownership is the fastest growing segment of the travel and leiswe mark=et- The-following disrussioa represents3ua a few.-of the valuable reasons why properties such as the Gore Creek Club have been so well received by the corr>manities-iwwhich they ..are-built and-by-those par-ch sing the properties. By creating the right size of interval ownership for a particular property, interval ownersl properties are-abletoattract abetterretain-the-valuable guests on which our resort d,-,pends. Interval Size Intcrvakmw=sWp,-taneshare,_ fractisnal-ovn"siip-.and resider" sluos are all part of the same family of real estate. They arc all variations of the idea of sub-dividing a piece of rzalestate-in ores- to, lawer:the_costandhassles.of getting inv*ed in the resort real estate market. Choosing the correct amount of ownership is based on the cost, location, and the.demographics~ tae target_markat-for_~ particular property. The following chart outlines some sizes of interval ownership interests around ski . gtyd.how,.m»rh time they allcm, =ah_Qwner to use per year. Property Interval Size Time Per Year HyattMournairrLodge- 1/20 App;-ox. 17 Days Beaver Creek, Colorado Park Plaza 1/I 5 Weeks Beaver Creek, Colorado Poste Montane Lodge 1/50 1 Week Beaver Creek, Colorado Franz Klarnmer Lodge 1/101" 5 Weeks :00 EAST THOMAS PLACE • P.O. DRAWER 2770 a AVON, COLORADO 81620 ZC0 Mx M,8;5.7205 Telluride; Colorado The Deer Valley Club 1/6.5 8 Weeks Deer Valley, UT Marriot's Mtn. Resort 1/50 1 Week Breckenridge, Colorado Many variations have been created in interval ownership; however, the Gore Creek Club would be best-suited for a share approximately 1 /20 ' in size. When the property is not divided far enough, like the Park Plaza, The Franz Klammer, and-The-Deer Valley Glib, the cost&out-weigh-the benefits of intaV4ownership in many ways. First, the cost to buy into the property becomes too close to the cost of buying an older smaller-full ownership property-nearby.- Thecost-te-purchandn these larger share properties can run well above 5250,000. Secondly, the cost of upkeep becomes more than most owners are willing-to-pay. ?Mast interval ownership-properties offer their owners more amenities than a typical condo. When dividing the cost of these amenities among fewer owners, each owner's expense becomes greater. FtnaHy, the financial cost oftime.hernmPC too much for.most owners.. IntervaLowners_enjoy the freedom to travel extensively through their exchange networks. However, most of their are unable to vacation as many as-5.or.6.weeks.per_year_. Their family-and- ob_obLptions only allow 2 or 3. In the-pastmto-years-the-Hyatt Mountain-Lodge in Beaver .Creek, has shown the great value of a medium sized fraction. At 1/20"', the owner receives one week of prime ski time-art Ymradd-itional-10-days-of summer usage every year. This-mix fits very well with the demographics of the Vail Valley client, These owners tend to come from out of state for one or two visits, per year. Wittr both summer and winter usage; at the Hyatt, these owners have a strong sense of loyalty and ownership in their property. However, if they are not able to use all of-their time here, they are able to use it through their exchange nctwork-snmewhere_elae. They are not forced to buy and maintain property they do not use. Demographics Ora o€ the-first-concerns many communities have when. an interval. Qwnership property is proposed is, whom will this property attract. The demographics of the typical consumer of interval avnershipproperty .in-the Vail Valley are-no different.. than that of our high- end hotels and lodges. The Hyatt Mountain Lodge in Beaver Creek sold 750 1/20d' shares to-approxiinately400 clients in just over two years. The following statistics about these interval owners were compiled from a survey of these owners in March of 1998. 1. What-they-ova-24%own studios, 450/9-ewn 2 bcdruom condos, and 35% own 3 bedroom condos. 2. How-much they eam- 96°/-earn more than X100,000-per year, and 73%o earn more than 5150,000 per year. i I 3. Hove oldthey are - 47°/a are_between-36 and 45, and-43% are between 46 and 56. 4_ Hain-much. they.vacatien- 30%-between? and 14-days, 33% between 15 and 21 days, and 21 % between 22 and 28 days. 5. Rio -they vacations with.- 61% v=aborrwith familp-&,Kids, 18% vacation as couples, and 16% vacation with friends. 6. Whatheyda--onvacabon - 88'%b vacation to ski, 45% vacation to golf, and 18% vacation to play tennis. 7 Where they are from - They represent almost all 50 states plus several foreign couWziesJncluding Mexico, -Great Britain, Puerto-Rice, Venezuela, S. Africa; Germany, Canada, Austria, Aruba, and Panama: Thc=ners-zt-the_ Hyatt Mountain-Lodge.in Beaver Creek are the--same clients that have vacationed in Beaver Creek and stayed at the Hyatt Regency for years. They, too, could have become homeowners in ,Beaver. Creek long ago. However, they preferred the better location and the many amenities of the Hyatt Regency and other upscale hotels in the valley, VA= the opportunity to own a property with similar amenities and location at only the traction of the cost of other condos, they knew what they preferred. The ease of et=y-and quality-of the property made them owners and return guests for many years to come. The Gore-Creek-Club-in-Vail-will offer this-sarne opportunity. The clients that have enjoyed the Vail Valley for many years, but choose not to purchase a home, will find the qu&W location and ease of entry very attractive. They will become interval owners in the Lionshead area and will return year after year to their property. Live Beds The-biggest_goaLof.a.destination resort property is to properly yield manage their inventory. Yield management is the process of fluctuating rates in order to maximize the total occupancy of a property while simultaneously maximizing total gross revenue. However, in a destination resort such as Vail, Colorado, it is often difficult to use such a process.- Thus, the-number.of occupied properties (Live Beds) is not optimized. In areas such as Vail, the majority of the properties are owned by individuals and, if rented, mauaged-b-y-an-on site property management firm,, There are two inherent problems facing the number of live beds in the Vail Valley. First, only a few of the owners-choose to rent their properties. As an example, let's assume approximately 35% of the second home owners chnov-.to_rent their properties -and the other 65°lo-onlyu"eir properties for 21 days per year, Even at an occupancy rate of 70% for the rental properties the total-occupancy ffor.the valley drops to less than 30%. Secondly, it is difficult for the property manager to manage the yield of the properties made available. With only are owner per wxit, the unit is-either-ae"pied or empty in the eyes of the owner. The property manager can not offer one room at a discount and another at a_premium and have an offset positive yield. If the property manager operated in this. fashion;-he would be stealing from one owner to pay himself and another owner. It is precisely this problem that keeps the Vail Valley from filling our rooms more often than-not Interval ownership is a good solution to this problem. There are several reasons why this type of ownership offers a better quality, more highly occupied property. 1. Return guests - With the dividing of the ownership interest comes the dividing of the ownership costa By bringing down the largest obstacle to becoming an owner (money), the Vail Valley can guarantee that guests will become owners and return year after year. 2 High= Quality - In an industry with over a_90% satisfaction rating, quality of product is one of the primary reasons these owners are pleased. By dividing the cost-of-maintaining a property among multiple owners, there is more money to be spent on repairs and maintenance. This allows interiors and exteriurywbe upgraded n, av&dinKthe-pmverbial orange shag carpet we often see in older properties. 3. Live Seds - Interval owners don't come back every year. However, when they do not occupy their condo, they almost always send someone else. Interval International is the association that allows owners of one interval ownership property to trade it with another. The number of members in the organization is now in excess of 400,000 families. If one of the owners of the Gore-Creek.Club. chooses not -to use his property, on"f these 400,000 clients will soon become one of the Vail Valley's newest guests. For. these. reasons, interval ownership has been a great solution for many resorts hoping to maximize the number of guests in town year round. The Poste Montane Lodge in Beaver Creek is agreat-exantple of a property that heips-bring-guestste town year round, as shown by their five year total occupancy chart. Month 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 January 76%_ 89% 90% 88% 93% February 69% 91% 95% 93% 94% Momh 83% 87% 94-% 96% 92% April - 38% 67% 77% 78% 77% IWay 460/6- 46% 49%, 61% 39% June 65% 71% 70%- 69% 74% July- 78% 76% 81%q 83% 74% August 80% 67% 80%- 75% 77% September 790/o- 68%- 7M 76% 78% October 42% 54% 58% 61% 64% November- 50%- 780/0 640/q 69% 50% December 75% 83% 72% 91% 84% This chart-shows that -the average occupancy of the Poste Montane-Lodge is well above the expected occupancy of any hotel, and far exceeds the very best condominium rental i 11111nagulilent-puol occupancyrates. Creatinga larger year round-clientele will ultimately help every business-ox%mer and employee in the Vail Valley.. It is of paramount importance that we continue the legacy of the Vail Valley as North Ametma's number one ski destination. By insuring that the quality -guests, on whom our valley relies, continue to visit year after year, we will be able to uphold this tradition. Interval Ownership-isa-gavd fhTt-step in-guara:tteemgthat tlm'"wners will return to use their property and spend money in our valley for many years to come. Sinc ~1 East West Partners'ool~~ i Interval Ownership Presentation East West Partners Table of Contents I i Section 1 Interval Ownership History Page 2-4 Section 2 Interval Ownership Benefits - Consumer Page 5-6 I Section 3' Interval Ownership Benefits- Community Page 7-12 j Section 4 Interval Ownership & The Vail Valley Page 13-14 i Section 5 Look Who's Talking About Interval Pages 15-23 Ownership _ I i i i East West Partners - Interval Ownership Presentation i i What is Interval Ownership? Interval ownership offers the opportunity to purchase fully furnished vacation property sold in a variety of forms, such as weekly intervals or point based usage systems. For a one-time purchase price and the payment of an annual maintenance fee, purchasers own their portion of the vacation property in perpetuity. Owners share both the use and costs of upkeep of their unit and common facilities. i I There are many formats of ownership, varying both in size of the interest purchased and i how it can be used. Based on the location and the demographics of the target market, intervals range in size from 115 01h (giving the owner one-week per year), up to '/2 (giving the owner 26 weeks per year). In addition the owners have multiple ways in which to use the time they own. Systems vary from a specific week in a specific unit (fixed week fixed time), to a floating system where the owner may select any week in a certain season (floating time). I I Re-Introduction the Interval Ownership (Timeshare) Industry I I If you formulated your opinion about the interval ownership industry more than a few vears ago, it is time to re-examine just what is happening in-this business. The interval ownership industry has gone through a long maturing process. It can be characterized by three distinct phases. I The industry started in the French Alps in the late sixties. It wasn't long before unscrupulous individuals in the United States found a way to exploit this good idea to their advantage. For the greater part of the seventies, timeshares were conversions of old condominium properties that were difficult to sell because of financing or lack of quality. Unscrupulous developers typically sold them with no follow-up management after the i sale. This image was well ingrained in many Americans for a long time to come. i 2 East Nest Partners - Interval Ownership Presentation i The second phase of timeshare came in the early eighties. During this time period many i reputable developers recognized the benefits the sub-dividing of resort real estate can offer. During this time period many developers began to purpose build timeshare properties. These were often in prime locations with prime amenities. However, the old timeshare image was still hard to dispel. It wasn't until the third phase of evolution in the industry that it finally shed its old image. The entrance of many name brand operators characterizes this phase. Marriott was the first nationally branded hotel company to change many people's opinion. They led the way in the mid-eighties and have been joined now by almost every major hotel brand including Four Seasons, Hyatt, Hilton, Ramada, and many more. With every major hotel brand now involved in this industry, most Americans are beginning to understand its benefits. They see that a reputable company is selling a quality product and staying in the business to take care of the consumer, after the sale. Interval ownership has truly matured and shed the problems associated with it in its early years. From its beginnings in the French Alps in the late sixties, interval ownership has become the fastest growing segment of the U.S. travel and tourism industry. It has enjoyed a growth rate of more than 16% per year since 1993. There are now more than 4,000 resorts located in 81 countries, with more than 3 million families in 174 countries worldwide enjoying the benefits of this ownership opportunity. I i Large Companies Involved in Interval Ownership Name of Company # of Project # of Total Units Disney Vacation Club 4 1,339 i Fairfield Communities 20 3,680 Hilton Grand Vacations 5 566 Hyatt Vacation Club 5 205 3 East West Partners - Interval Ownership Presentation Marriott Vacation Club 35 3,000 Ramada Vacation Suites 15 868 i Shell Vacations LLC 10 1,154 Sunterra Resorts 70 5,038 Visatana Development Ltd. 10 1,725 i I i I I I 4 East V~kst Partners - Interval Ownership Presentation Interval Ownership Benefits - Consumer I Interval ownership offers the owner many benefits ranging from pride of ownership in a I particular resort to the benefit of owning deeded real estate. The following list is not exhaustive, but does outline many of the tangible benefits why more than 40% of interval owners purchase additional shares. 1. Higher Quality Accommodations - Of more than 2,000 US interval owners surveyed in 1995, 83.1 % responded that "certainty of quality accommodations" was a "very important" factor in their decision to purchase. By dividing the initial cost of development over the number of shares sold in a property, the total cost to each individual is greatly reduced. This allows the developer to increase the total expense for the development project, allowing him to have better locations, better amenities and higher quality interiors and exteriors. 2. Higher Level of Maintenance - Along the same lines as item number one, a higher level of maintenance means a better assurance of quality of accommodations. In today's inflated resort real estate market, renting accommodations has become a risky proposition. The rates are high, but no one knows just what they will get. Many second homeowners buy into their resort home and spend tens of thousands of dollars i to redecorate and upgrade the property. However, after just a few years in the rental j pool, the quality begins to wane. The owner has only used the property five or six times, but already it is time to replace the sofa and all of the. linens. They are often reluctant to make these financial outlays. However, with interval ownership, the cost i of maintenance is spread over the entire group. This allows more money per unit to be collected without burdening any one owner; creating a better quality resort many years down the road. i i 3. Better Locations & Amenities - In today's market place, it is the overall resort experience that is selling real estate. Not just the physical property or the salesmanship. It is the relationship of the property to onsite and nearby amenities. Some examples include: the Disney Vacation Clubs located on Disney property in Orlando, the Marriott Palm Desert Resort with multiple golf courses, tennis facility 5 East West Partners - Intervai Ownership Presentation and full service spa, and the new RiverPointe Napa Valley property in the heart of I wine country. The Vail Valley is no different. Our consumers want proximity to the slopes and a full array of on-site facilities. With the cost of land at a premium in the valley, it is only logical that these sites should be available to multiple families. 4. Exchange Network - Along side "certainty of quality accommodation," "flexibility offered through the vacation exchange opportunity" was the second most cited reason for owning this type of property. As the size of the world shrinks, thanks to faster and less expensive travel, people are choosing to travel to a variety of locations more i often. Interval International (II), an international exchange company, offers 1500 i properties worldwide. Using a system of equitable exchange, an owner from the Vail Valley may choose to use a different property at the beach or even Europe. There is no feeling of being locked into one resort, like many people feel when buying a second home. II offers these owners exchanges as their gateway to the world. I These four general benefits are not exhaustive, but do offer the four main reasons consumers are beginning to prefer interval ownership. In fact, two statistics reported by j ARDA (the American Resort Development Association), characterize the overall satisfaction most owners are experiencing. i I • 41.2% of those who have owned eight years or longer have purchased I additional intervals within that time. • 85.2% of owners are satisfied with their purchase, and 76% report having their quality of life being positively impacted by their purchase. i i 6 East Nest Partners - Interval Ownership Presentation Interval Ownership Benefits - The Community i The biggest goal of a destination resort property is to properly yield manage their inventory. Yield management is the process of fluctuating rates in order to maximize the total occupancy of a property while simultaneously maximizing total gross revenue. However, in a destination resort such as Vail, Colorado, it is often difficult to use such a process. Thus, the number of occupied properties (Live Beds) is not optimized. In areas such as Vail, the majority of the properties are owned by individuals and, if rented, managed by an on site property management firm. There are three inherent problems facing the number of live beds in the Vail Valley. First, only a few of the owners choose to rent their properties. As an example, let's assume approximately 35% of the second home owners choose to rent their properties and the other 65% only use their properties for 21 days per year. Even at an occupancy rate of 70% for the rental properties the total occupancy for the valley drops to less than 30%. Secondly, it is difficult for the property manager to manage the yield of the properties made available. With only one owner per unit, the unit is either occupied or empty in the eyes of the owner. The property manager can not offer one room at a discount and i another at a premium and have an offset positive yield. If the property manager operated in this fashion, he would be stealing from one owner to pay himself and another owner. It is precisely this problem that keeps the Vail Valley from filling our rooms more often than not. j Thirdly, most of our condominium properties are not set up for transient occupancy. In order to truly attract destination resort travelers today, it is important to offer a high level of service. Many of our condominium properties do not offer front desk, concierge and I bell services on site. They are operated from a remote location adding to the confusion of manv guests. However, most interval ownership properties are set up to operate like 7 East VO--st Partners - Interval Ownership Presentation j hotels, offering the most current amenities and services. This helps to attract and retain a higher level guest. I Interval ownership is a good solution to these problems. There are several reasons why this type of ownership offers a better quality, more highly occupied property. ~ i 1. Return guests - With the dividing of the ownership interest comes the dividing of the ownership cost. By bringing down the largest obstacle to becoming an owner (money), the Vail Valley can guarantee that guests will j become owners and return year after year. i 2. Higher Quality - In an industry with over an 85.2% satisfaction rating, quality of product is one of the primary reasons these owners are pleased. By dividing the cost of maintaining a property among multiple owners, there is more money to be spent on repairs and maintenance. This allows interiors and exteriors to be upgraded more often, avoiding the proverbial orange shag carpet we often see in older properties. 3. Live Beds - Interval owners don't come back every year. However, when they do not occupy their condo, they almost always send someone else. Interval International is the association that allows owners of one interval ! ownership property to trade it with another. The number of members in the organization is now in excess of 400,000 families. If one of the owners of the Gore Creek Club chooses not to use his property, one of these 400,000 customers will soon become one of the Vail Valley's newest guests. Interval International uses a system of like exchange. This means that the owner trading into the Vail Valley will be relinquishing a property of similar quality from a different destination. The demographics of the guests trading in will i be very similar to the demographics of our owners. These guests are new to the valley and would not have vacationed here if they could not have exchanged their property for the Gore Creek Club. This customer base is an excellent marketing opportunity for the community. I I i 8 East West Partners - Interval Ownership Presentation For these reasons, interval ownership has been a great solution for many resorts, hoping to maximize the number of guests in town year round. The Poste Montane Lodge in Beaver i Creek is a great example of a property that helps bring guests to town year round, as shown by their five year total occupancy chart. I Month 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 January 76% 89% 90% 88% 93% February 69% 91% 95% 93% 94%- March 83% 87% 91% 96% 92% April 38% 67% 77% 78% 77% May 46% 46% 49% 61% 45% i June 65% 71% 70% 69% 74% July 70% 76% 81% 83% 74% August 80% 67% 80% 75% 77% September 79% 68% 72% 76% 78% October 42% 54% 58% 61% 64% November 50% 70% 64% 69% 50% December 75% 83% 72% 91% 84% Yearly Average 65% 73% 75% 76% 75% i i This chart shows that the average occupancy of the Poste Montane Lodge is well above the expected occupancy of any hotel, and far exceeds the very best condominium rental management pool occupancy rates. Creating a larger.year round clientele will ultimately help every business owner and employee in the Vail Valley. ARDA statistics help support the argument that interval ownership properties bring more guests that vacation more frequently. • The average year round occupancy of interval ownership resorts was over 80% • Interval owners will return to their home resorts an average of 5.5 times during the next 10 years, as compared with an average of just 2.7 times if they i I 9 East vVest Partners - Interval Ownership Presentation I had not purchased the ownership. (Industry research suggests that Mountain properties have an even higher level of owner usage) • When not using the property for themselves, interval owners send a friend, rent the property or trade the property. They only left it unused 9% of the time. i i Demographics One of the first concerns many communities have when an interval ownership property is proposed is, whom will this property attract. The demographics of the typical consumer of interval ownership property in the Vail Valley are no different than that of our high- end hotels and lodges. The Hyatt Mountain Lodge in Beaver Creek sold 750 1/20th shares to approximately 400 clients in just over two years. The following statistics about these interval owners were compiled from a survey of these owners in March of 1998. I 1. What they own - 20% own studios, 45% own 2 bedroom condos, and 35% own 3 bedroom condos. I 2. How much they earn - 96% earn more than $100,000 per year, and 73% earn i more than $150,000 per year. 3. How old they are - 47% are between 36 and 45, and 43% are between 46 and 56. 4. How much they vacation - 30% between 7 and 14 days, 33% between 15 and i 21 days, and 21% between 22 and 28 days. 5. Who they vacations with - 61 % vacation with family & Kids, 18% vacation as couples, and 16% vacation with friends. 6. What they do on vacation - 88% vacation to ski, 45% vacation to golf, and 18% vacation to play tennis. 7. Where they are from - They represent almost all 50 states plus several foreign countries, including Mexico, Great Britain, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, S. Africa, Germany, Canada, Austria, Aruba, and Panama. i i 10 East West Partners - Interval Ownership Presentation The owners at the Hyatt Mountain Lodge in Beaver Creek are the same clients that have vacationed in Beaver Creek and stayed at the Hyatt Regency for years. They, too, could have become homeowners in Beaver Creek long ago. However, they preferred the better location and the many amenities of the Hyatt Regency and other upscale hotels in the valley. When the opportunity to own a property with similar amenities and location at only the fraction of the cost of other condos, they knew what they preferred. The ease of entry and quality of the property made them owners and return guests for many years to come. The Gore Creek Club in Vail will offer this same opportunity. The clients that have enjoyed the Vail Valley for man y y years, but choose not to purchase a home, will find the quality, location and ease of entry very attractive. They will become interval owners in the Lionshead area and will return year after year to their property. Resale Value - Vail Valley i in general terms, interval ownership is not sold as an investment to the consumer. However, the Vail Valley enjoys a unique position in the Interval ownership industry. Due to a very limited supply and a higher quality over many areas, the historical values of the newer projects in the Vail/Beaver Creek area have increased with the value of general real estate. This fact has helped to open up this type of ownership to many individuals that would not have considered it just a few years ago. I Four projects in the Vail Valley currently have some sort of historical data supporting the relative increase in interval real estate values. i ? St. James, Beaver Creek - A resale analysis by Slifer Smith & I Frampton/VARE from 1/1/94 to 11/30/97 shows an average annual return of 17.26%.* I I 11 East west Partners - Interval Ownership Presentation ? The Poste Montane, Beaver Creek - A resale analysis by East West Resorts Real Estate from 1/1/93 to 2/3/97 shows an average annual return of 13.71 ? The Marriott Streamside, Vail - The current price for a two bedroom floating winter season share is 29,900, this same property sold in 1989 for S 17,900. This represents an average annual return of approximately : 5%. ? The Hyatt Mountain Lodge, Beaver Creek - Although this property just opened and the resale program has not fully developed, there are approximately 30 shares on the resale market. These shares are listed at approximately 40% over their purchase price from less than one year ago. Real estate values are an important factor for many consumers of interval ownership and second homes. By bringing a high quality interval ownership property to the Lionshead area, we will see an overall increase in the value of real estate and the rate at which the values grow. I I i I - - I I i i I i 12 East West Partners - Interval Ownership Presentation *Value of vacation time utilized by the owner is not factored into the return. If the cost of alternative accommodations are factored into the returns, the total return would be even greater. Interval Ownership & The Vail Valley Why not just another condominium project? i - I " The Vail Valley has been slipping in the North American Ski Industry ratings. One of the problem areas is the value and quality of accommodations. For all of the reasons previously stated, the quality of an interval ownership property tends to be higher, and the occupancy also offers the community a larger base of business. However, fifinancially interval ownership also provides a better value to the consumer. The total cost of vacationing for a one-week stay in the Vail Valley is on the rise. With room tax and inflation, the average Vail guest can expect to spend over $50,000 dollars j ust on accommodations over the next 10 years. Room Rate $ 350 $ 450 $ 550 $ 650 i Year 1 $ 2,671 $ 3,434 $ 4,197 $ 4,960 Year 2 $ 2,884 $ 3,708 $ 4,532 $ 5,356 j Year 3 $ 3,115 $ 4,005 $ 4,895 $ 5,785 Year 4 $ 3,364 $ 4,325 $ 5,286 $ 6,248 Year 5 $ 3,633 $ 4,671 $ 5,709 $ 6,747 Year 6 $ 3,924 $ 5,045 $ 6,166 $ 7,287 I Year 7 $ 4,238 $ 5,449 $ 6,659 $ 7,870 Year 8 $ 4,577 $ 5,884 $ 7,192 $ 8,500 Year 9 $ 4,943 $ 6,355 $ 7,767 $ 9,180 I Year 10 $ 5,338 $ 6,864 $ 8,389 $ 9,914 10 Year Total' $ 39,036 $ 50,190 $ 61,343 $ 72,496 ' 10 year total is the total dollar amount a guest can expect to pay for one 7 night stay per year i 13 East West Partners - Interval Ownership Presentation L Over a 10-year period assuming a 9% tax rate and 8% lodging inflation rate. Value is a concern to our guests and purchasing a higher quality accommodation for less money than they would expect to pay in rent will help satisfy them. Seasonal Business The Vail Valley has come a long way in 30 years toward making this a four-season l I resort. However, there still exists a distinct spring and fall season. Because of the returning frequency of the owner and the international exchange network, an interval ownership property will offer a higher rate of occupancy, year round, than either a hotel or a condominium property. Location The average second home is within two hours driving distance of the owner's primary residence. The Vail Valley caters to a larger demographic thanjust the Front Range of Colorado. By opening up an opportunity to own just the portion of real estate that our guest uses, we are better able to attract owners that would not consider full ownership because of the distance & time constraints. I I i w i 14 East West Partners - Interval Ownership Presentation Look Who's Talking About Vacation Ownership Interval ownership has been in the press a lot over the last few years. With the new found interest by the public and the great improvements being offered by developers, newspapers and magazines from around the country have had a lot to report: ARDA recently compiled the following list of quotes from around the country. I I I I 15 East West Partners - Interval Ownership Presentation THE StTNT Investor's Business Daffy IN . OCTOBER 1. 1997 JULY 13. 1998 APRIL 14. 190- << "More hotel firms have joined the Four million households own time- "Part of the appeal is the souped-up shares. a number that has more than industry, bringing it credibility. Flexible » timeshare packages have made resorts quality and the more desirable doubled since 1990. more attractive to consumers. And locations.~~ overall, the industry has a better repu- The Advocate tation than it did in its early days dur- I U LY 12. 1998 ing the `70s.77 "k,Ve're selling an experience." MAY 19 9 "Sales of timeshare units in Florida in COASTAL 1996 totaled $817 Million..52'percent more than in 1992, the last time indus- LIVING S E P T E M B E R 3. 1997 trv sales were measured in the state. 1 1 "According to the American Resort NOVEMBER /DECEMBER 1 9.9 7 Development Association, 35 percent of • 00 "Timeshares are a compelling proposi- Americans believe they have a 50-50 tion for any vacationer who hankers for _ chance of owning a second home with_-4. JULY 25, 1997 the amenities of a resort getaway, com- •in:the__next 10 years.~;~, " bined with the creature comforts of ai "Timesharing, often found with beach- luxury second home. y front property, allows businesses and individuals to cut purchasing costs by Sunday News Journal pooling money through a management "The opportunity to exchange was. company. AUGUST 3 1. 1998 ranked as the most important motiva- "Quality of accommodations, good tion for purchasinf a timeshare by EL FINANCIERO© value. desirability of the timeshare owners surveyed.1 unit, resort amenities and features, and JUNE 9. 1997 the ability to exchange to non-U.S. Ile Detroit "Timeshare market recovers despite 11i~vs and ~aoe V=6 resorts were cited by owners as highly- recession. rated reasons for purchasing.17 APRIL 13. 1997 "The industry is evolving for con- Travel 50 & Beyond N e w S ~ i a , ~ sumer demand and timeshare operators J U N E- A U c U s T 1997 continually seek ways to expand the number of vacation options."Timeshare ownership, an industry A U G U S T 24. 1997 growing by leaps and bounds and show- "The number of U.S. households own- 1 ing no sign of slowing. You can vaca- ing timeshares has reached 1,767.000.~Qe~e£ tion in some of the world's most desir- with a compounded annual growth rate MARCH 25, 1997 able places for the rest of your life." of 9 percent. according to a study "Timeshares are now very, very hot." released by the American Resort note "W 064 Development Association.» &MM NOVEMBER 16, 1998 f-I FORTCOLI_B~1S "Baby boomers fuel growth of time- MARCH 30, 1997 share opportunities the industry A U G U S T 10. 1997 "It [timeshare] has enjoyed a recent enjoyed a 25 percent increase in sales « boost in popularity due to high quality in 1997, with total sales of $2.72 billion Buying a couple of weeks' ownership resorts, increased consumer protection in the U.S." in a condominium or a home is and a better understanding of the own- sounding better and better to people on vacation.~~ ership concept.„ Ocean Drive JANUARY 1998 Mle Orlando &Int~P.~ "The timeshare experience is here to g stay Timeshares are .particularly JULY 16 1997 suited for families or those who like to "Timeshare owners to receive tax vacation in groups.17 break." Patriot Ledger The Vail Trail D E C E M B E R 2 7. 1 1) 9 7 Houston Chronicle MAY 2-8 . 199- "The timeshare industry is making a JUN E 1, 1997 "The big players in the hospitalitt• Indus comeback from '80s black eve.77 "Better known as timesharing, the try are rolling out the vacation ownership interval form of vacation ownership red carpet. Thev've helped polish time- time- allows you to buy a piece of a fully-fur- share's tarnished image. Owners take a Denver Rocky Mountain News niched place for only a percentage of the great deal of pride in their units, and DECEMBER 26. 1997 cost of full ownership Variety is the there is a real sense of ownership.) ) "Timeshares are better bargains than name of the game, and there are several buying condos for short-term use.)) types of programs available so bu~ers are $iteaa~iogo ' better able to match their needs. 'i~t~ •~y ~ ~ttt o~ ~ngele~ 1111eo MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL MAY 18. 1997 AUGUST-10.-1997 MARCH 15. 1998 "Florida's timeshare industry is "They're [timeshares] a lifestyle investment.)) "Major hotel chains are jumping on booming.)) the timeshare bandwagon.)) Barter News Lodging Hospitality AUGUST 1997 Investor's Business Daffy rs.: _ APRIL-JUNE 1997 Timeshares set sights on cities. Urban FEBRUARY li. 1998 y Fact holida timeshares are`t timeshares are growing in popularity. fastest growing segment of the U.S_ . =r Timeshare deals are getting better. traveI and-tourism industry. Travelers can find flexible schedules, Scottsdale Progress prices and more fun. Tribune The (atanon- rtdQer J U L Y 29. 1997 Southern Living APRIL 13. 1197. "Nationwide, timeshare sales have MARCH 1998 "The vast change in the American soared 900 percent since 1980 and are "Timeshare ownership has increased vacation lifestyle over the last 25 years the fastest growing segment of the nearly 900 percent since 1980.)) has had a profound effect on the time- an i~Yancisco ~~~amt travel and tourism industry.)) share market.) ) •ner Hawaii Business f Senior World of San JULY 1997 MAY 30. 1997 "Some hotel experts say the urban Diego "Today's prohibitive real estate prices timeshare industry is sa the rise.)) JULY 1997 have made timeshares more attractive "Timeshares appear to be excellent to a broader market in comparison to News Gaurd alternatives to owning a vacation home, condominiums.)) MAY 28. 1997 which is why the industry prefers the THE KANSAS CITY STAR. moniker `vacation ownership' to `time- "Travel dreams come true with time- share'.)) JUNE 15, 1997 share exchanges.) "Never before have Americans been so Cornell Quarterly optimistic about their chances of own- Physicians Financial News JUNE-JULY 1997 ing a vacation home. Thirty-five per- J U N E 15. 1996 "Owning a piece of a vacation provides cent of all U.S. households feel they "Developers are tailoring timeshares consumers a hedge against cost, time, have a better than ever chance of buy- to suit wide economic spectrum.)) and trouble.)) ing recreational property." Business Monday TRAVEL WEEKLY JUNE 21. 1997 "Timeshare properties growing and JUNE 19, 1997 gainin respect of industry and "Hawaii's timeshare industry attracts public.) 292,000 visitors a year who spend $370 million in the state, according to the 17 American Resort Development Association.)) Kalamazoo Gazette $an 3 cisco examiner Nms & RECoRD 1UL1' 15. 1997 NOVEMBER 22. 1998 DECEMBER 7, 199,- «A home away from home - a time- "Timesharing grows up along with the "Forget the horror stories - interval sharing venture turns into vacations all boomers.... Aging baby boomers see ownership is more than it's cracked up over the world." their value. This is a crowd that is real to be. It has policed itself and now estate savvy, likes to use data-bases, enjoys a good reputation among tens of ~I wants flexibility in vacation planning thousands of tourists worldwide." YDQNA6RED~QC7 (NEWS and likes making creative investments. Timeshares meet all of these tests.... The Palm Beach Post MAY 28. 1997 And for the busy baby boomers who "Timeshare:Away for visitors to own want certainty in all aspects of their NOVEMBER 9. 1997 a home.I~ lives, timeshares may be the answer.72 "It's like a piece of Florida without the Inner-City Express hassles of actually buving r'eal estate.7) Sun NOVEMBER 27, 1998 Awfn,9~11 AUGUST 1. 1997 7Lu "Robust sales fuel timeshare boom.~~ "The timeshare business is certainly ms booming. The number of timeshare NOVEMBER 2. 1997 - resorts in this country has increased e ~lU~ulllbu5 ~t~pah __:from 240 to more than-2 000: The mass appeal of the timeshare for visitors is being able to own property, DECEMBER 18 . 1997 but at a reasonable price. Rather than The Jewish Journal purchasing a six-figure condo that sits Satisfaction rates among Florida's ~NOVEMSER it = 294.`+ empty for most of the year, timeshare timeshare owners have soared, as 90 "The timeshare investor is relieved of:... owners buy time in a unit for a fraction percent report being satisfied with the the responsibility of absenteeship own- of the price.11 seivices, amenities, facilities and ership for the time when he is not upkeep of their resorts and units. The there, and he can choose 'a-wide variety- Vail Daily ability to use the vacation exchange of locations for his annual vacation. option is cited by Florida owners as the OCTOBER s . 1 9 9 i primary motivation to purchase, and Timeshare units are spacious, with ample room to accommodate the entire "Fractional ownership has whole ben- 73.9 percent state they have saved or family. The savings, compared to stay- efits. Times have changed and the con- expect to save money on vacations ing in a simple hotel room at a vacs- cept of fractional ownership has spear- through ownership. tion destination, are impressive." headed that change." Real Estate Weekly THE TAMPA TMUNE S K I I N G N O V E &A B E R 12, 19 97 mid Ox Unpa Q= SEPTEMBER 1998 "The industry is attractive to Wall NOVEMBER 2, 1997 Street's investment bankers and bro- cc "We figured we could break even with= There are millions of happ~ owners. in three to four years, considering we kerage houses for a number of reasons. Otherwise, it wouldn't grow. Compounded growth rate of the indus- go out West to ski twice a year. try has historically been and continues Garden Island to be lb to 20 percent a year. In com- HotQi~ parison to the hotel industry, which NOVEMBER 19. 1 9 9 7 until recently has been growing at 1 to "More and more consumers are reject- I U LY 20. 1998 2 percent a year, this ongoing expan- ing the theory that only the upper class "Industry studies indicate that con- Sion explains the attractiveness of time- can afford a second home. Sumer acceptance has never been high- sharing to major brand names and er for timeshares. The demand far out institutional investors.77 paces the supply and the trend will continue in the foreseeable future." 18 Stages Record Courier FALL I Q Q 8 JULY 18. 1998 Hom&sum "But a timeshare can certainly be a "Some 7.5 million American house- N O V E .m B E R 20. 1908 good buy for your vacation dollar. holds own some type of recreational "Timeshare: Using new rules to grow a Basically, vou're buying a small piece of property." a vacation home -rather than the maturing industry. The industry is on whole thing - and for many middle- the verge of becoming the darling of class families land couples or singles, of The Ad w a Contls6tudon those in the know within the lodging course), that's an affordable alternative. JULY 29. 1998 industry. It offers a viable vacation The accommodations are more plush « alternative. And the customers are very. and spacious than any hotel room. end The idea is simple: When you buy a very happy. if you like to vacation at a resort - and timeshare, you buy occupancy of a con- can envision doing so for the next five dominium for a specified period of time. THE DFNVER P09r _ to ten vears-- timesharing is a money Think of it this way: A condo is a small saver. You're locking in your vacations portion of a building, and a timeshare is N O V E `i B E R 8. 1998 ten vears hence, at today's prices.~~ a small portion of time carved out of a "More and more consumers are buv- single condos year. Occupancy periods are called `intervals,' almost always one ing into the idea that owning a time- POst and Courier week. If you want longer vacations you share is a cost effective way to vacation. AUGUST 3. 1998 can buy multiple intervals.17 Developers have enhanced their prod- An emer in trend from San ucts by introducing some creative pro- - grams, such as bonus use, split weeks Francisco to Boston to New Orleans - - and lock-off units. These types of inno- urban' timeshares that tout the allure vative options, combined with a rigor- of renaissance cities rather than the 1 U LY L2, 199 s-: - ous regulatory climate and a growing resort staples such as golf courses, - - - pools and beaches.y~ "Those who own a timeshare interval, number of exchange opportunities, usually a week, and are knowledgeable have enhanced the success and popular and flexible can maximize,its trading appeal of the timeshare concept." power and-enjoy lodging at thousands-- J u ` E 19 9 8 of resorts worldwide for a fraction of `i8igo the cost of a comparable hotel stay.y~ Oli•~ Ct~lltlte "Just think for a moment about the thousands of dollars you've spent on Arizona Business AUGUST 23. 1998 vacation hotels over the past 10 years. Magazine "Exchange companies to into time- W`hv waste all that money when you share owner wanderlust.~~ could own a share of a fancv home or DECEMBER 1998 condo, This rationale has convinced "The newly polished image of the NEWS-PRESS over 1.7 million Americans that buying timeshare industry is paying off. Sales into a vacation timeshare is a much bet- of timeshares are booming and new ter deal." resort developments are springing up I U L Y 12. 19 9 s throughout the country. " Lodging Hospitality Timeshare market is on the rise.77 AUGUST 1 5 . 1998 The Montgomery County New Haven Register "It's not a cottage industry anymore, News JULY 12. 1998 especially with the public companies. NOVEMBER 1 0 , 1998 "Traveling `boomers' are becoming There has been a huge influx of new "Today, owners can swap their week in timeshare vacation traders.y~ money. Now you have the weight and Orlando for a skiing trip in Vail, resources of Wall Street helping the Colorado, or switch a vacation in Palm ASBURY $ PARK industry grow. 7J Beach for a week at the music mecca of the world, Branson, Missouri. PRESS THE ALEXANDRIA Worldwide, there are close to 5,000 ULII"m resorts to explore. 71 OCTOBER 11. 1998 "Timeshare industry has recovered ' E PT EM B E R' 1. 199 s from troubled pasta} "I traded for three weeks in Europe and spent a week in Italy. Austria and Germam•. I have been to a lot of exotic 19 places that I wouldn't have without having a timeshare.71 The Commercial Appeal o~ _~ngeles Dime" JULY 13. 1998 LAS VEGAS SUN N O V E N I B E R 1. 1998 "Timeshares boom in the `90s to 4 APRIL 1998 "Timeshare exchanges take baggage million.~y "This positive climate has permitted out of ownership. More buyers are timeshare resorts, in turn, to cultivate swapping their holdings for equivalent The Times-Picayune an upscale. loyal visitor base and con- digs elsewhere, breathing new life into JULY 19. 1998 tribute economically.l~ the industry.71 "The resort-area timeshare can be a WAYLA`D far more comfortable and convenient TomCwE ~iOfe'1 place to stay than a conventional hotel. 1 You can enjoy more space and living OCTOBER 8. 1998 N O V E ,%A B E R 2. 199 8 facilities than you typically get in a cc hotel. And the ability to exchange "Home awav.from'home: vacation get- Record growth forces timeshares to worldwide means you can enjoy the awavs rise in popularity as baby ` expand recruitment efforts. There's not boomers age. a lot of challenge to retain employees apartment experience virtually any- once they come into the industry. It's a where. Cornell H.R.A. Quarterlvery dynamic and fast-growth business. an exciting story once they get here Modern Maturity OCTOBER NOVEMBER 1998-- Ws and touch it. ~ g J U N E 1998 - "For buyers, the attractions of a VOI "You pay ahead of time for lifetime (vacation ownership interval) purchase HEMISPHERES use. After the seventh year, that vacs- include being able to stay at an ameni- tiori is costing just maintenance and ty-laden resort of known quality, as well NOVEMBER 1998 exchange fees. And you're an owner. 71 as the prospect of putting their interval "When you buy a timeshare, you get - into a pool in exchange for a stay at an ownership interest in a room or an other resort locations at various times apartment in a resort, an interest that _ -Sun-Sentinel other than the interval they originally you can sell or bequeath, and you also purchased.~~ get the right to occupy your unit fora JULY 12. 1998 specific week each year. It should not "Sunny days are back for timeshares; Inman News Features be viewed as anv kind of real estate new laws, prominent names sway con- NOVEMBER 1 9 . 1 9 9 8 investment. Nobody in the industry » even suggests that anymore. It should sumers. "Timeshares have never been more be looked at as a prepaid vacation." their aging boomers begin to see New Orleans r value. b Selling to Seniors CITY NfsiNESS DECEMBER 1998 OCTOBER 19. 1998 "Timeshares are increasingly attractive "Timesharing allows owners to feel a DECEMBER 1998 to empty nesters and an older popula- sense of continuity without the hassles tion because they like the predictable that go with ownin a conventional why are timeshares springing w accommodations, convenience and vacation property. next to ski hills? Because people want quality timeshares offer.77 them. Timeshares attract many people for their convenience, the opportunity to trade, and low cost relative to buying property. SORT `DES. 4~ F~7 ti z , 3 < z 5 i ~ 1% N'Olld ARDA 1220 L STREET. N.W. SUITE 500' WASH 1NGTON. D.C. 20005-4018 202 371 6700 FAX 202 -2 8 9. 8 5 4 4 w W w. A RDA . o R G imeshari'ng Nlaki~n 9 Sense • 4"V 0 for Millions ot Ameritcans The future looks Fright for the history. In July, Grand Timber Millisor thinks the boom in sales them, Ior instance, to rent out a for the timeshare industry is prices when we move into the rgeoning business of vacation Lodge surpassed its previous is also due to the personalized part of their unit to recoup some growing at rapid pace. The building,' Millisor says. rnership. Fueled by aggressive monthly sales record by a amenities available at the five-star costs. or use the unit for two long projected demand coupled with Meanwhile, the cost of lodging in rrketing, the '$6-billion, newly whopping 70 percent, and then Grand Timber Lodge and the weekends instead of one full week. the current low interest rates the popular resort town continues w personal attention paid to These types of innovative make now the best time to consider to increase at a rapid pace, making consumers and their needs. 'We see options, combined with a rigorous vacation ownership opportunities, vacation ownership opportunities the trends in the industry and reguLunrv climate and a growing say the experts. seem even more appealing. recognize the demands of network of exchange Another tip from the experts: II you are thinking about ' consumers for tailor-made, opportunities, have enhanced the check out pre-construction sales purchasing a timeshare, experts affordable vacation-ownership ruccess and popular appeal of the opportunities for the best deals. suggest using this formula: X 4; .R opportunities,' he says. He also timeshare concept, and have /j1 •!t•,. / ' points out that he personally knows helped the vacation ownership THE PROJECTED DEMAND - COUPLED WITH THE each of the company's 1,700 industry shed some negative CURRENT LOW INTEREST'RATES - MAKE NOW THE BEST owners. perceptions of the past. The first phase of the $25 milliun, The industry has also scored TIME TO CONSIDER VACATION OWNERSHIP i OPPORTUNITIES, SAY THE EXPERTS. tI, " .A ski-in/ski-out Grand Timber Lalge Points with the entrance into the_--_____.._-.....,,-_..-...__.__-._.____~___ broke ground last fall on Peak 9 of business by some big-name Often the best time to buy a Determine how much yuu would ys the renowned Breckenridge Ski companies with solid reputations timeshare unit is when the resort spend each year renting a nice Resort. The project consists of 46 heavy hitters such as Disney, is under constructinn. when vacation hotel room in the two-bedroom lock-off units, and 10 liyatt, Four Seasons and the prices tend to be lowest. destination of your choice, amt lamed vacation-ownership proceeded to break that record three-bedroom lock-off units. with Marriott. These companies are The lower prices offered during compare that amount to what a lustry is growing by 16 percent a three months in a row. prices ranging from $12,000 to spending millions of dollars pre-construction is another likely timeshare would cost per year, ar with more and more 'The sales pace has just been 545,000. Amenities include developing timeshare resorts reason that Breehem idge's Grand including' up-front expenses, nsumers buying into the idea explosive,' says Michael Millisor, a underground parking,- indoor- around the world, further Timber Lodge has sharitci ed stiles annual fees and maintenance. it owning a timeshare is a cost- partner in the project with his outdoor swimming pool, steam and increasing exchange opportunities records. "Grind 'fiorher is just Also make sure to chose a ective way to vacation. brother Robert. 'Everyone's sauna room, outdoor hot tubs, I•or owners. Their development of now coming out of the ground, so company with a good reputation The American Resort getting on board.' massage room and 24-hour check-in upscale, consistent products has we have great pre-construction that belongs to a reputable :velopment Association Millisor credits the success to the dgsk. lent credibility to the industry and deals, but I'm c•onfidettt we'll raise exchange network. rm tes that about 4.5 million fact that more and more people are "This is the nicest, newest, in- helped to capture the attention of useholds hold a vacation more affluent consumers.' ,nershiP interest in one of more For their part, consumer are rh in 4,500 timeshare resorts FOR MOST FAMILIES, WHETHER ITS SKIING IN COLORADO OR Si pleased with not only the idea •oughout the world. The number FROLICKING IN THE SUN, TIMESHARING HAS PROVEN TO BE owning their vacations, but the e owners is growing even in THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE MEANS AVAILABLE TO TAKE FIVE reality of it as well. A 1997 survey untries where timeshare resorts STAR VACATIONS EVERY YEAR. '6,`•, _ by the American Resort not yet exist, and all indications Development Association found ' { jt± int to continued growth in years realizing the financial benefits of town, ski-in/ski-out resort in the that 85.2 percent of vacation owners t; come. owning their vacations. 'Vacation Rocky Mountains,' Millisor says. were satisfied with their purchase. In Colorado, timeshare sales ownership allows consumers to build Timeshare developers such as the By all signs. the upswing in ve exploded in mountain resort equity and have something to pass on Millisor's have enhanced their vacation ownership sales is likely to . c i `'1t !,r vns such as Breckenridge. The to their heirs, while also allowing products by introducing some continue. -The average age of CO-000 DAILY NEWSPAPER r n t DENVER POST ! r I vn's newest vacation ownership them to vacation in the place of their creative programs, such as bonus today's vacation ownership buyer Denver, CO tort, Grand Timber Lodge. choice every year,' he says. 'Thu is use, split weeks and lock-oft' units. is -48. and with 75 million 11~ xntly recorded the most prolific an inexpensive way to take a great These options greatly increase the Americans projected to enter their Ott:-(M) 351,102 (S) 490,130 es in the company's 14-year vacation for the rest of your life.' flexibility of owners, allowing 50s in the next 18 years, the market F „ !ter ; For instance, a time share week m a two-bedroom unit in Orlando, Time Share Exchanges Tae Fla., may cost $12,000, which gives the owner the right to use it for one week every year for 20 years, 30 Baggage Out of Ownership years, or forever, depending on the I deed. (Many weeks are deeded in "That became the number-one perpetuity and are handed down to ¦ Travel: More buyers are reason people bought the product," heirs). swapping their holdings said Ed McMullen of Orlando, Fla., Spread over 20 years, that's $600 a time-share developer for 21 a year, plus about another $400 in for equivalent digs years who helped Marriott and annual maintenance fees. Staying Hilton enter the market and now in comparable accommodations elsewhere, breathing new likely would cost twice as much. chairs the industry group Amerk I like the fact that I know I'm life into the industry c Xi Resort Development As9gr . - For most travelers, the lime- going to take a nice vacation every By KEN KUSMER share industry represents the year," Kim Craig said. ASSOCIATED PRESS pushy salesmen who use high Time shares are available in pressure sales practices in an at- every U.S. state and 90 nations, INDIANAPOLIS-Sam and Kim tempt to lure potential buyers. ! from sunny Caribbean resorts to Craig were newlyweds when they Although 90 percent of those who busy midtown Manhattan. They decided to buy a time share in Las sit through a sales pitch walk away range in price from $20,000 or more Vegas five years ago. without buying anything, there's per week for a three-bedroom Since then, they've used it ex- the other 10 percent. condo in high season, to as little as actly twice, once for just a week- The Craigs were in that group. $6,000 for a week in a studio during end. During one of their occasional trips the off-season. But they've also swapped it for to Las Vegas, a resort asked if Last year, 42% of the time weeks at Lake Tahoe and skiing at they'd listen to a pitch for owning a shares owned in the United States Vail, Colo. After their two children week of lodging there, every year. were exchanged, ARDA statistics were born, the Craigs, who moved "They got us in the door with the show. Only 39% were used by the from San Jose, Calif., to Raleigh, free show tickets," Kim Craig, 36, households that owned them. N.C., traded it for weeks at Hilton recalled. The larger of the two exchange Head, S.C., and in the North Caro- The Craigs, both accountants, companies, Indianapolis-based Re- lina mountains. hesitated to sign a contract, so the sort Condominiums International The Craigs are among 4 million developer sweetened the offer with Inc., arranged 1.8 million ex- households that own time shares, a more free tickets. The couple changes last year, or nearly one for number that has more than signed the next day, paying a each of its 2.3 million members, doubled since 1990. About 1.8 mil- one-time price of $8,000 for a week through a network of 3,200 affili- ated lion of those owners reside in the every year in a one-bedroom con- Miami-resorts. based The Interval other Interna company, - United States, where the industry dominium in the Ramada Suites Miami-resorts. RCI has recovered from its troubled Grand Flamingo resort off the tional, has 850,000 members. infancy in the 1970s. In all, people gtrip, members cannot exchange through in 190 countries own time shares. Those who own a time share Interval, but about 50 resorts are affiliated with both companies. Much of the credit for. the indus- interval, usually a week, and are ' "The idea of the exchange was . try's growth goes to two exchange knowledgeable and flexible can companies which, for the past 24 maximize its trading power and really fulfill that consumer need years, have helped time share enjoy lodging at thousands of re- of gang variety and flexibility owners swap weeks they own in sorts worldwide for a fraction of I to a product that otherwise would one place for different weeks the cost of a comparable hotel stay._ i have been rather stale," said Cris- somewhere.else. tel DeHaan, a former owner of RCI, which is now owned by Cendant Corp., of Stamford, Conn., the fran- chiser of the Ramada, Days Inn and Howard Johnson lodging brands. The relationship between the resorts and the exchange compa- nies is very simple, she said. "One LOS ANGELES T I M E S could not exist without the other." In RCI's recently opened, $28- Los ANGELES, CA million call center in Indianapolis, SUNDAY 1,391,076 700 "vacation counselors" are at N O V 1 1998 work handling 90,000 calls per week. In addition to incoming calls, 22 the counselors call members to solicit condo space that's in de- mand but not yet offered. Please see SWAP, C10 SWAP: 42% of U.S. Time Shares Exchanged in '97 l Continued from Cl Internet auctioneer Onsale Inc. different and changing PoPula- ( www.onsale.cmn). Lion." An RCI exchange works like Developers also rent out their In more ways than one. The this: Members place their time- own unsold space at rock-bottom demographics of time share owners share week into a pool managed by rates to get potential buyers onto are changing, said Dick Ragatz, an RCI and choose a week of compa- the property. One of the largest, industry researcher since the 1970s rable value deposited by another Sunterra Resorts, sells a two-bed- who sold his consulting business .to member. The company says 60% of room condo at Cypress Pointe less RCI two years ago. its members' vacation requests are than a mile from Walt Disney Time shares originally were filled within 24 hours. Members can give up their time- World in Orlando for $444A week marketed as vacation retreats to ~ i in September. The catch: guests middle-income consumers who . i share space, and request a different must take a 90-minute "tour" couldn't afford a second home. The one, as much as two years or as where they'll get a sales pitch. arrival of major brands such as little as two weeks in advance. Those represent two of the ways Disney and Marriott since the mid- The savvy ones learn early on the industry is trying to capture 1980s improved the industry's im- how the system works. more of the aging baby boomers age, but also raised the rates. As a "We do try to plan our vacation a who are placing premiums on their result, those in the $35,000-$60,000 year ahead of time, so we can get leisure time as rewards for the. annual income group are being the destination we want," Kim hard work they've put into._their priced out of upscale develop- Craig said. "The thing with the careers. ments. trading, you have to do it early. "We have this huge public that's Ragatz'said there's more room You can do it later, but then you earning more than they ever have for budget-class developments. . have to be flexible." in their life and who may be "The market's going to be For the service, RCI charges members $78 per year, plus ex- approaching semiretirement," said broadened, Ragatz said from his change fees of $110 domestic, $145 John Reinhardt, RCI's senior vice office in Eugene, -Ore. Also, "I international. Members aren't re- President of global resorts sales think we're going to be marketing sponsible if the time they've given and service. "We're dealing with a more to singles than in the past." up isn't taken by someone else. RCI tries to keep the property full by offering special deals to members on unused units; typically $149 for three nights or $299 for a week. Even then, not all of the mem- bership's time share space is claimed, providing a pool of unused condominium time that RCI is making available to nonmembers who want to sample the time-share market. Beginning in August, the. space will be. marketed through. 23 EU~0i y PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 8, 1999 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Ann Bishop Russ Forrest John Schofield Brian Doyon Dominic Mauriello Galen Aasland George Ruther Judy Rodriguez Public Hearing 2:00,p.m. Greg Moffet called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a worksession to discuss the establishment of Special Development District No. 36 (Antler's) , to allow for a residential expansion of 24 new condominiums, and 7 new employee housing units, located at 680 W. Lionshead Place/ Lot 3, Block 1, Lionshead Third Filing. Applicant: Antlers Condominium Association, represented by Robert Levine Planner: Jeff Hunt Jeff Hunt gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Rob Levine said he was hoping for a final in two weeks and wanted to hear the PEC's concerns. He said the roof element had been changed and rock had been added as this had been an architectural concern. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were no public comments. Galen Aasland said the 14' parking space was too small for a parking spot. Greg Moffet said the units were just over enough to require more parking and said that the project was booked heavily as short-term with weekly turnover. Galen Aasland said if a parking space was represented as a parking space, it needed to meet the standards. He said in terms of stacking spaces, you couldn't stack employee spaces in front of guest spaces. He agreed that the shuttle service had really changed this industry and said that since the landscaping was close to 20%, it was ok. He suggested knocking off the - southeast corner of the swimming pool, as it was dangerous. Diane Golden said she didn't like the stacked spaces, but suggested stacking employee to employee, since allowances could be made since they were on the shuttle. She agreed that landscaping should be 20% and also to knock off the corner of the swimming pool. Tom Weber said the setback was alright, but the applicant needed to come up with an analysis of how many parking spaces would be needed since they are on the bus route and don't want to get into the parking management business. He suggested adding additional landscaping by the pool to bring up the total landscaping to 20%; possibly adding to the berm on the other side of the pool. Planning and Environmental Commission 1 Minutes March 8, 1999 Rob Levine stated that the eastern part of the property was owned by the Town of Vail. John Schofield suggested working with the Marriott on the west side, as it was not real attractive. He suggested going one more level down to address the parking, as he said he disagreed and thought parking was needed. He said make the spaces work with using a real size space, otherwise, people end up taking two spaces. He said if the applicant could come up with numbers showing more parking was not necessary, that would help. He said he would like the numbers showing loading trucks could fit in the radius as well as a fire truck. He said he agreed with the others regarding the swimming pool and suggested a joint venture on a pool with the Marriott. Greg Moffet said the Marriott was corporately owned and would not be agreeable dealing with.an association. He said the setbacks were fine, but without enough parking you will be creating problems for yourselves. He suggested before going to Council, that the applicant come in with evidence ratios. He said he liked where the swimming pool was. He said to formalize an agreement with the Town and encouraged a lease with perhaps the applicant maintaining the landscaping on the east. He said he agreed with the staff's recommendation on loading. Galen Aasland said you had significantly less conference rooms than the Marriott, and so the parking generation was different. Rob Levine said they don't market their conference facilities for people outside the Antlers. Architectural Character Rob Levine presented a model. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was no public comment. Galen Aasland said the entrance was starting to get better, but he said it was unacceptable on the east and west sides and it needed to wrap better. He said this design perpetuates the Lionshead look. He said to make changes on the east and west side, and he saw opportunities to make changes on the roofs. He said he did appreciate the stone on the bottom. Diane Golden said the entrance was fine, but the decking needs to be made more interesting, perhaps with some design. .Rob Levine said the railings would be open. He said the owners would like them to remain pickets as they are now, but that debate was still going on. Galen Aasland said the applicant was risking monotony and suggested putting glass around the athletic club. He said this project needed to add significant interest on the roof, with more variation. Rob Levine stated they were concerned about the great variation from the existing building. Dominic Mauriello said they were using the same room design as the existing building. Rob Levine stated that these units needed to stay rentable and if they became more expensive, they would be less rentable. He said the outdoor balcony made it more rentable. Using the Austria Haus as an example, he said what they did would not work for what we are trying to do. Tom Weber said the massing and courtyard are right there, but they needed to break up the eave where it goes into the dormer to break the continuous band. He suggested knee braces at the decks and he had no opinion on open or closed railing. He said he liked the east elevation better than the west elevation because it had more glass. He suggested a copper look rather than the Planning and Environmental Commission 2 Minutes March 8, 1999 green with more articulation of structure at the eave lines, perhaps with metal shingles. John Schofield echoed the comments from the other Commissioners, with the addition of heating the interior driveway because of the shade. He agreed with Galen on the east and west elevations, that they needed to get it right and he said that the stone was definitely a step in the right direction. Tom Weber suggested vertical wood siding on the upper taller units to break up the north elevation. He encouraged a study an enclosed walkway. Greg Moffet agreed with Tom to do some more interesting things with the roof to create more architectural interest. He suggested talking to Nancy Sweeney, AIPP, to discuss art and the interest issue for the balconies. Dominic Mauriello suggested going back to the DRB for a conceptual, before coming back to the PEC. Greg Moffet agreed that the DRB would be helpful and take the model as it was, before changes were made. 2. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 7 (The Marriott Hotel) and a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of the Gore Creek Club and a remodel to the existing hotel, located at 714 Lionshead Circle / Marriott Mark. Applicant: HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., represented by East-West Partners Planner: George Ruther George Ruther said the PEC was making a recommendation to Council for the major amendment, but that a final decision would be made on the conditional use permit. He then gave an overview of the staff memo. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Greg Moff et asked for any public comments. There were no public comments. John Schofield asked the applicant if the proposed percentage of 1/20th shares was open-ended or part of this approval. Henry Pratt , of Gwathmey Pratt Architects, said that fractional fee clubs were defined as interval clubs with 1 night or less or a maximum of 1/12 . George Ruther said a maximum or minimum could be placed as a condition on the approval. Greg Moff et said there could be an amendment to the conditional use permit. Galen Aasland made a motion to approve the request for a conditional use permit for interval ownership for the Gore Creek Club Tract A, as detailed in the staff memo. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. George Ruther gave an overview of the major amendment. Planning and Environmental Commission 3 Minutes March 8, 1999 Dominic Mauriello said buildings could encroach upon setbacks in a build to line or on adjacent properties 10', per the Lionshead Master Plan. Henry Pratt said a setback would not be more than 7'. George Ruther said staff thought 7' was reasonable, as long as there was an approved landscape plan. Henry Pratt said this project was the same as presented in January at the pre-ap meeting and they had been working on the designs for over 18 months. He said this met the new design guidelines in letter and intent. He said he tried. to make each of the buildings look, different to reduce the apparent size of the project and there was very little impact on light and shading and neighbors. He said there were steeply, sloping roofs to bring them more in line with the walls. He said the 66 new time share units had varied roof elements to make it very clear that there were different from the existing hotel. He stated that the only impact was along the creek and along Lionshead Circle. He said landscaping was at a minimum level and that they were getting _ rid of some of the tennis courts and volleyball courts, but that they still anticipated a permanent special events tent. He stated that the Marriott was not interested in sharing the pool. He said they were creating new ehu's in the building where the ski storage was, totaling 10 pillows. He said that they were running behind schedule right now and that it met the intent of the Lionshead Master Plan. He explained the rationale for the 30% density ratio, because they almost doubled the required ehu's which were on-site, being in excess of what the Town required. He said the manager would have a residence on-site and there would be improvements to the existing loading and delivery. He said they couldn't change the existing building and were proposing a two-berth loading dock to create 3 usable loading docks and was the best they could do with the existing hotel. He explained that the new building could accommodate any UPS or other vans and that there would be no restaurants in the new building. He said that laundry tended to show up in smaller vans and that trash would be rolled out from inside the building. He said ownership would make it more complicated, as the hotel would retain their parking. He said Peter Dan was here from East West Hospitality to explain the loading. Greg Moffet said we would need to see the easement recorded for any loading management agreement. Chuck Madison explained when we go through the platting process, we will go through the legal access at that time and we were aware that would have to be addressed. George Ruther said that when a loading truck-was parked on the west side of Lionshead Circle, staff -would need to know that there would be another place to go. Henry Pratt said there were 5 loading berths, which met the minimum requirement. He said they were proposing to do one wing per off-season, if you want to call it phased or not. He said he had no problem with Condition #1, and that regarding Condition #2, they had 6 units or 10 pillows and that regarding Condition # 3, they were on the agenda for the April 7th DRB meeting. He said Conditions #4 & #5 were as discussed and that Condition #6 was not a problem and the Town had asked us to extend a simple concrete path sidewalk to the west day lot and Condition #7 allowed us to grade onto VA's site. He mentioned that Condition #8 had roofs overhanging onto the sidewalk and there was no problem with Condition #9. He said regarding Condition #10, that they should not be required to snowmelt the property in front of the west day lot. He said regarding Condition #11 that the area between the retail and the pedestrian was very tight for landscaping, but that it could be put by the street. He said the streamwalk in Condition #12 was already in and they would negotiate with staff for wildflower seeds as it was in our best interest. He did have a problem with Condition #13 to upgrade the Frontage Road as the Lionshead Master Plan was proposing to relocate the road, so this condition didn't make sense. He said they were spending millions of dollars to upgrade the property and this condition was a Planning and Environmental Commission 4 Minutes March 8, 1999 disincentive and so he wanted this condition removed entirely. Greg Moff et asked for any public input. There was none. George Ruther said regarding Condition #5, that the access was needed for the lower level of the parking structure. He explained that the addition of landscaping was a condition per the DRB's approval. He explained the unheated section of West Lionshead Circle was for a pedestrian connection. He said regarding Condition #8, that the area of encroachment might be an opportunity to exchange some of the existing private land adjacent to the streamtract. He said there were some opportunities for improvements and benefits. Tom Weber stated that 90% of deliveries were UPS or FedEx for the Gore Creek Club, so he didn't see much delivery happening and that 10 pillows were good enough. He said he didn't agree with the wording in Condition #13, but he thought developments should pay for impacts, as it wouldn't make sense for taxpayers to pay for new development. John Schofield asked how large the banquet facility was and how often it was used. He said there was not enough parking for banquets and he was concerned how parking would be handled when some of the parking went away. Henry Pratt said the hotel had gone to valet parking for all events. He stated that the parking structure was underutilized and they were not making any changes to how the existing hotel was operated. John Schofield said he was comfortable with the height, loading dock and the setbacks on the west. Chuck Madison said the garage would be accessed from the top level. He said the two lower levels would have internal ramps and a delivery vehicle could go from the alley to the top and circulate down to the lower levels. He said there would be reciprocal access easements with the valet. Galen Aasland said, although impressed with the model he was concerned with the height and the parking, as there was a significant deviation from the height. He said he was bothered by the inconsistency of the amount of deviation from the height. He said the applicant hadn't demonstrated a need for the two towers, so he said he would need to tell me why this is the best and he would need to sell me on the big masses . He felt the project needed smaller towers and also a manager on-site. He said he was fine with the loading, but that banquets had always been a problem. He said the applicant would have to demonstrate that this was acceptable, but in his mind, he was a little short. Henry Pratt said, in terms of the height, there was no height restriction on landmark elements. Dominic Mauriello said there could be flexibility with the height of large buildings in the Lionshead Master Plan. George Ruther said the intent of the guidelines was to get a sloping roof . Russ Forrest said each individual area of the Lionshead Master Plans was discussed and this is a new set of rules. Chuck Madison said the two landmark elements were trying to break up the box look. He said they were starting with 85' across, but there was no additional square footage; this was merely an architectural feature. Planning and Environmental Commission 5 Minutes March 8, 1999 Diane Golden had no objection with the height, but would love to see an ehu in the Gore Creek Club. Chuck Madison said we could never find a manager who wanted to live on-site. Diane Golden asked if the guests were only going to use valet parking. Chuck Madison stated that was the way it was now. Greg Moffet stated that if you stayed at a first class hotel, you dealt with a valet. He said he differed from his fellow Commissioners, as he thought the parking was fine. He-said a manager's unit was needed in the Gore Creek Club, because the hotel and Gore Creek Club were not commonly owned. Henry Pratt stated that there would be a 24-hr. desk. Dominic Mauriello said there was no such requirement for a time-share. Greg Moffet said to deed restrict the easement and record the plat, regarding the loading. He said that this building was specifically delineated as a special case. He mentioned that there were real opportunities for AIPP to integrate functional art pieces here with no greater impact than landscaping. He thought this complied with the code, but would like an on-site ehu in the Gore Creek Club, the loading/delivery plan be recorded and platted, the building be trimmed back off the sidewalks, as set forth in the memo, that snowmelting occur in front of lot A only, that public art be substituted, particularly at the front entrance, and delete Condition #13 and require this applicant to pay a pro-rate as it relates to the Frontage Road impact. Russ Forrest said Greg Hall has a ballpark number concerning the Frontage Road impacts. Greg Moffet said he would like to see a number prior to Council approval, as it relates to the Frontage Road impact. He suggested an additional condition to hide the mechanical. John Schofield said by adding 61 parking spaces, the total would be 355 spaces and 66 rooms to the Gore Creek Club. He asked what the average occupancy of the hotel was. Chuck Madison said between 60%-70% approximately. Peter Dan said managers on-site don't work out, as they didn't want to deal with problems on a 24-hr. basis. Greg Moffet said all the ehu's were now on the neighbor's property. He understood about manager burnout, but one is needed on-site. John Schofield said a 24-hr. desk was not required. Henry Pratt asked to just put in an ehu and not a manager's unit. Tom Weber said this is about the code and I'm going against it, as an on-site ehu was not needed. George Ruther said it would gain acceptance in the community to have this facility. Henry Pratt said a manager's unit would do away with the number of pillows in Town and the 24 -fir desk can be made a requirement. Planning and Environmental Commission 6 Minutes March 8, 1999 1 John Schofield suggested a choice of either a 24-hr. desk or an ehu. Greg Moffet asked what kind of assurance could they have if the owner of the. land decided they didn't want to do business anymore. Chuck Madison said a fixed number of parking spaces could be allocated to the Gore Creek Club and said they wouldn't be successful if we didn't spell it out up front allocated by deed to them. He said the spaces would be allocated to use the top floor (1 per unit) for the Gore Creek Club and the hotel would use the lower floors. Greg Moffet said this still sounds like they are still encountering problems for events. Henry Pratt said they took the approach that the parking was grandfathered and this was a new project. He said they had heard nothing from management that parking was a problem. He said they had to learn how to park that structure and no new spaces can be added to that structure: John Schofield made a motion for approval in accordance with the findings on page 18 and Conditions 1,2, 6 with the change that the ehu's be deeded with no less than 10 pillows, with a 24-hr desk or ehu on- site, Conditions #3,#4, #5 with loading in the alley off-street, Conditions #6,#7„#8„#9, #10 with the heated snowmelt continuous to the applicant's property and not further to the west, Condition #11 with landscaping approved by the DRB, Condition #12„#13 that before the final reading with the Town Council, the applicant enter into a Frontage Road agreement and that we recommend to the DRB some other shingle than asphalt. Tom Weber seconded the motion. Diane Golden said to amend the motion to include AIPP art in the landscaping. Greg Moffet said so amended. George Ruther suggested to include the change to Condition #5 to say recorded and platted. Henry Pratt said asphalt shingles was an approved material in the Lionshead Master Plan. He said his shingle was a 40-yr. top-notch shingle, so this restriction was not in accordance with the Lionshead Master Plan. John Schofield stated it was a recommendation, not a condition. George Ruther suggested amending it to read instead of "prior to the final (2nd )reading, could we say prior to the 1 st reading. John Schofield said to leave it prior to the 2„d reading see, as there could be changes on the 15t reading. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 3. A request for a final review of a proposed locker room and loading dock expansion to the Dobson Ice Arena, located at 321 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation District Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL MARCH 22, 1999 Planning and Environmental Commission 7 Minutes March 8, 1999 Y 4. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-9 (Site Coverage) of the Town of Vail ' Municipal Code, to allow for site coverage in excess of 20%, located at 362 Mill Creek Circle / Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Walter Forbes, represented by Gwathmey-Pratt Architects Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MARCH 22, 1999 5. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for an encroachment into the required side setbacks, located at 3003 Bellflower Drive / Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Mr. Guillermo Huerta Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL MARCH 22, 1999 6. A request for an amendment to Special Development District No. 4 (Glen Lyon), revising the Glen Lyon Office Building site (Area D), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Kurt Segerberg Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL APRIL 26, 1999 Diane Golden made a motion to table the above items. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 7. Information Update Dominic Mauriello said the ordinance to rezone Lionshead was approved by the Town Council. Russ Forrest advised that advertising for the PEC and DRB would continue for another 3 weeks and a new position was being created for DRB, since the PEC rep on the DRB was being removed. Three, two-year term PEC vacancies (Greg Moff et, John Schofield and Ann Bishop) 8. Approval of February 22, 1999 minutes. Diane Golden, Tom Weber and Galen Aasland had changes. Diane Golden made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. John Schofield made a motion to adjourn. Planning and Environmental Commission 8 Minutes March 8, 1999 ` Tom Weber seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. Planning and Environmental Commission 9 Minutes March 8, 1999 is?~ I ~y TOWN OF PAIL Department of Community Development CHAMPIONSHIPS 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 1999-VAILoBEAVER CREEK, 970-479-2138 MEMORANDUM FAX 970-479-2452 TM To: Vail Town Council From: Community Development Department Date: June 4, 1999 Re: Marriott Redevelopment Proposal Worksession Henry Pratt, of Gwathmey. Pratt, Schultz Architects has requested a worksession with the Town Council. The purpose of the worksession is to: ? present the redevelopment proposal to the Council for preliminary review prior to preparing an ordinance, ? visit the proposed development site, ? inform the Town Council of the results of the development review process with the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board to date, ? provide the Council with the opportunity to engage in a discussion with the applicant. staff and public with regard to the proposal, and ? identify the Council's issues or concerns with the redevelopment proposal. To that end, staff has included the following documents in the packet for your review and consideration: 1. A copy of the March 8, 1999 staff memorandum to the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Commission's approved meeting minutes. At the March 8 meeting the Commission voted to recommend approval of the major SDD amendment with conditions. 2. A copy of the Design Review Board's recommendation to the Town Council dated June 8, 1999. The Board's recommendation is the result of four conceptual review meetings with the applicant. 3. A copy of a summary of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and an Architectural Design Guideline checklist including the Board's comments on the proposal. 4. Copies of correspondence received from the community with regard to the proposed redevelopment. 5. Reduced copies of the proposed plans. In evaluating the redevelopment proposal staff has identified a number of pros and cons of the project. The pros and cons are listed below for consideration: Pros 1. The attainment of the goals of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan through the implementation of the objectives and recommendations of the Plan (renewal/redevelopment, stronger economic base, improved infrastructure, vitality/amenities). La RECYCLEDPAPER 2. The redevelopment will act as a catalyst for other redevelopment projects in the Lionshead area. 3. Improved pedestrian circulation through the construction of sidewalk and streetscape improvements. 4. The enhancement of the Gore Creek stream corridor through stream bank restoration and revegetation. 5. The elimination of an unsightly surface parking deck. 6. The provision of employee housing opportunities for up to ten employees in the immediate Lionshead area. Cons 1. The proposal adds new building height and building mass to the property which may have impacts on adjacent properties. 2. Potential increases in both vehicular (car, bus, delivery truck) and pedestrian traffic in the immediate areas surrounding the development site. 3. The loading and delivery configuration as proposed may result in periods of delay and/or congestion. 4. The additional building height increases the "shade and shadow" effects of the building on adjacent properties. FILE COPY TOWN O WAIL 75 South Frontage Road Department of Community Development Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-21381479-2139 FAX 970-479-2452 May 26, 1999 Henry Pratt Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz Architects, P.C. 1000 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Marriott off-site improvements Dear Henry, The Lionshead Master Plan and enabling ordinances discuss the need to assess reasonable off-site improvements to specific developments. The Master Plan has identified over $15 million in Frontage Road improvements from the main Vail Roundabout to the Cascade Village. This is a distance of approximately 7300 and will continue approximately ten major intersections. The Town has requested from the Colorado Department of Transportation, $5 million to provide improvements. The remaining $5 million is assumed to directly be attributable to the ten intersections; equaling $500,000 per intersection. Those developments accessing the two intersections of West Lionshead Circle will be contributing to the improvements of these two intersections. In order to determine, at this time, the attributable number of trips to each intersection, the combined trips of both intersections were determined. The Traffic Study for the Lionshead Master Plan shows an increase of vehicle trips at both intersections of 127 trips in the a.m. for a total of 640 trips and an increase of 195 trips in the p.m. peak hour for a total of 795 trips. The Marriott's proposal adds 10 new DU's, 4 new condos and 6 EHU's in the existing hotel. The time-share projects adds 66 new units. The Saturday peak factor is .738 x 66 = 49 = 25% of $1,000,000 = $250,000. 195 _ Sincerely, George Ruther, CP Senior Planner Town of Vail Xc: Greg Hall, Acting Director of Public Works c RECYCLED PAPER 4VAIL TOWN ODepartment of Community Development • • • CHAMPIONSHIPS 75 South Frontage Road 1999 -VAIL -BEAVER CREEK Vail, Colorado 81657 D0 970-479-2138 Memorandum FAX 970-479-2452 TM To: Vail Town Council From: Town of Vail Design Review Board Date: June 8, 1999 Re: Board Recommendation of the Proposed Redevelopment of the Marriott and the Gore Creek Club The Town of Vail Design Review Board has completed its preliminary review of the proposed redevelopment of the Marriott and the construction of the Gore Creek Club. Upon the completion of their preliminary review, the Board has requested that their recommendations on the proposal be forwarded to the Vail Town Council. The Town Council will now have the opportunity to evaluate the proposal and the Board's recommendation, and provide direction to the applicant and the Board on the final review process. On Wednesday, May 19`', the Town of Vail Design Review Board agreed to recommend approval of the Marriott redevelopment and Gore Creek Club constriction to the Vail Town Council with the following recommendations: 1. That the roof mass and roof forms (i.e., landmark feature, rake ends, building cantilevers, etc.) of the existing hotel and the Gore Creek Club be revised to allow more light and air to reach the pedestrian areas around the buildings and to comply with the architectural design guidelines of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. 2. That a portion of the upper floor of the Gore Creek Club building mass along West Lionshead Circle be relocated on the site to open a corridor between the existing hotel and the Gore Creek Club. 3. That the exterior wall of the Gore Creels Club along the west property line is too straight and needs to be articulated more than is shown on the proposed plans. 4. That the applicant provide perspective drawings or photo-imagery of the proposed development to aid in the review and analysis of the project. 5. That the applicant revise the proposed east and south elevations of the Phase I building to improve the appearance and articulation of that particular portion of the hotel as they are readily noticeable from the pedestrian areas of Lionshead. 6. That improved site circulation be provided throughout the development area with the goal of creating pedestrian points of arrival, public access to the Gore Creek corridor and pedestrian circulation within the development. The Board's recommendation to the Town Council is intended to focus on the "bigger picture" issues. The Board has not considered nor reviewed architectural details such as exterior colors, door and window trim, balcony rails, soffit and fascia applications, roofing materials, exterior siding application, etc. The review of these items will be forthcoming. RECYCLEDPAPER ~y TOWN OF PAIL WORLDi Department of Community Development 4 CHAMPIONSHIPS 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 1999-VA I L-BEAVER CREEK 970-479-2138 i CO L OR ' FAX 970-479-2452 TM MEMORANDUM To: Town of Vail Design Review Board From: George Ruther, Senior Planner Date: April 23, 1999 Re: April 21, 1999 DRB Meeting Notes The following is a summary of the comments from the April 21, 1999 meeting of the Design Review Board with regard to the proposed redevelopment of the Marriott and the construction of the Gore Creek Club. Please review the comments and provide any additional information or clarification. The next step in the review process of the Marriott proposal will be to provide the applicant with a final and complete list of the Board's comments. This step is currently scheduled for Wednesday, May 5`''. ? The site planning of the Gore Creek Club creates a building which is too inclusive and inward facing resulting in a lack of regard for the public spaces around the building and the existing or potential surrounding uses. ? There are opportunities to create a sense of arrival at the entrance portals to the property and building. ? The entrances to the property need to be more inviting and less awkward. ? The treatment of exterior details lacks consistency throughout the project. ? The proposed landmark elements are too big and are not in proportion with the building. ? Are the landmark elements necessary? ? The basic aspects of site planning such as points of arrival, loading/delivery, pedestrian circulation are not addressed in the current proposal. ? More attention needs to be given to the sense of arrival at the southeast comer of the property. ? Why does the height of the building have to increase to achieve the sloping roof forms? Are the sloping roof forms necessary on the existing hotel? ? The application of the sloping roof form on the Phase I building in particular appears phony and contrived ? The steepness of the sloping roof creates a wall rather than a roof. ? The stacking of the decks and windows is too repetitive and does not comply with the intent of the Design Guidelines. The proposal makes it too easy to read the gridlines of the building. ? The hotel rooms need to extend outward to fill in the void spaces created in the areas on the sloping roof. ? Address fenestration, wall surface planes, and exterior building materials of all the buildings. ? There appears to be no relationship between the existing and proposed building and the Gore Creek stream corridor. A relationship should be created. ? Phase 11 of the hotel is intended to become a "flagship" building, yet the proposed exterior building materials are not of "flagship" quality. The Bavaria Haus is an example of a "flagship" hotel. C~~ RECYCLEDPAPER ? The proposed application of exterior stone makes the building appear to be "dipped" in stone. The height of the stone around the buildings should varying with massing and building forms in mind. ? The east and west elevations with the exposed parking structure is unacceptable. These areas need to be addressed. ? The building elevation along the west property line is too straight and needs to be articulated, both vertically and horizontally. ? The space between the commercial use and the main building of the Gore Creek Club is a "no man's land".. Consider connecting the buildings. ? The use of the top of the parking structure does not appear to be very well thought out. ? Open up a light corridor between the existing hotel and the Gore Creek Club to get light back down to the street and sidewalk. The remaining comments were expressed by members of the public: ? The commercial space on the north side of the Gore Creek Club is too close to the street and should be moved back to respect the 10 foot setback. ? The ridge lines of the improvements should be lowered and a greater space left between the buildings to maintain the view to the mountain from the Vail Spa. ? The Design Review Board should be allowed to finalize its review prior to the Town Council considering an amendment to the Special Development District. ? The Vail Spa has requested that photo imagery and an independent urban design consultant review the plan for compliance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. ? Pedestrian circulation has not been addressed; especially along the stream tract. ? No "sense of arrival to a great place" has been provided. ? The reality of how the buildings will function has not been addressed. ? The mass of the roof as proposed and the additional volume it creates is excessive and should be reduced in scale. ? The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Architectural Design Guidelines should be study in great detail to determine compliance of the proposal with the guidelines. ? The applicant's options are significantly limited given the existing conditions and constraints. ? The north elevations of the proposed buildings are attractive. ? The landmark element, while large, is in scale given the size and mass of the existing building. ? Vail Associates as owner of Lot A to the west of the development site does not object to the proposed west elevations and building location of the Gore Creek Club. ? Vail Associates is agreeable to working with the applicant on site grading issues. Please review the comments as recorded at the meeting and add additional issues as you complete your review of the full size plans. Again, the goal of the May 5`h meeting will be to finalize the Board's issues and concerns and give the applicant the Board's clear and concise direction. Please rely on the Architectural Design Guidelines of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the Design Guidelines outlined in the Zoning Regulations when evaluating the proposal. When possible, please cite from the Guidelines indicating how the proposal furthers the goals of the Plan and when the proposal deviates from the Plan. f • Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Document Summary Amended May 12, 1999 The following document is summary of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The summary contains the sections and subsections of the Plan that address the Marriott and Gore Creek Club development sites. This document is intended to be used when reviewing and evaluating the applicant's redevelopment proposal for the Marriott for compliance with the recommendations of the Master Plan. Since the May 5`h Design Review Board meeting staff has attempted to place the comments of the Board and the Public into the various sections and subsections of the master plan. This exercise is intended to base all the comments expressed to date in the master plan. While several of the issues are expressed in Sections 4 and 5 of the Document Summary, the majority of the comments are founded in Section 8, Architectural Design Guidelines. This summarized document should continue to be used in the review of the proposed Marriott/Gore Creek Club project. CHAPTER 2 Introduction 2.1 Purpose of the Plan The master plan was initiated by the Town of Vail to encourage redevelopment and new development within Lionshead. The plan outlines the Town's objectives and goals for the enhancement of Lionshead and proposes recommendations, incentives, and requirements for redevelopment and new development. The plan also recommends specific public improvement projects that are strategically important to the future success of Lionshead. 2.3 Policy Objectives ? Renewal and Redevelopment Lionshead should be renewed and redeveloped to become a warmer, more vibrant environment for guests and residents. ? Vitality and Amenities We must seize the opportunity to enhance guest and community interaction through expanded and additional activities and amenities. ? Stronger Economic Base through Increased Live Beds Renewal and redevelopment in Lionshead must promote improved occupancy rates and the creation of new live beds. ? Improved Access and Circulation The flow of all modes of traffic must be improved within Lionshead. ? Improved Infrastructure The infrastructure of Lionshead (streets, walkways, loading/delivery, snow removal, etc.) and its public and private services must be upgraded to support redevelopment and revitalization efforts to meet the expectations of our guests. 1 ? Creative Financing for Enhanced Private Profits and Public Revenues Creative and realistic strategies must be identified so that adequate capital may be raised from all possible sources to fund desired improvements. CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions Assessment and Problem Identification Introduction The initial task in the Lionshead master planning process was to conduct a thorough assessment of existing physical and regulatory conditions in the study area. The goal of this assessment was to identify the problems, opportunities, and constraints that the master plan recommendations must recognize and address. 3.8.1.3 West Lionshead Circle West Lionshead Circle (see figure 3-10) functions primarily as the access route to Lionshead Place, several lodging facilities, and the Vail Associates core site. In addition the road carries a significant amount of service and delivery traffic and serves as a transit route for the Town of Vail bus and the Eagle County regional bus. a. Transit There are two Town of Vail transit stops on West Lionshead Circle, the first located in front of the Marriott and the other at Concert Hall Plaza. According to the traffic study (see appendix A), only eight percent of the total traffic entering Lionshead -and only two percent of passengers on-the Town of Vail bus - used the Concert Hall Plaza stop. The Town of Vail Public Works Department has recommended that the transit stop at Concert Hall Plaza be discontinued. b. Service and Delivery Two service and delivery areas are accessed from West Lionshead Circle, one at the Concert Hall bus-stop and the other in the alley between Concert Hall Plaza and the Landmark Townhomes. The delivery vehicle staging behind the Landmark Townhomes is ad-hoc and illegal, as this is a designated emergency vehicle access lane. Both areas occasionally back up and cause trucks to stage temporarily on West Lionshead Circle. C. Pedestrian Traffic Concert Hall Plaza is intended to be the western portal into the Lionshead mall, but the pedestrian paths along West Lionshead Circle are fragmented and the point of entry is unclear. A partial sidewalk runs along the south side of the street in front of the Marriott but it is not continuous. The gradient is difficult in places, and pavements are often icy in winter. There is no pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection of West Lionshead Circle and Lionshead Place. Dark and compromised by stairways, the passage through Concert Hall Plaza is seriously deficient as a pedestrian and retail environment. Very few pedestrians from west Lionshead ever make the connection through Concert Hall Plaza to the mall. CHAPTER 4 Master Plan Recommendations - Overall Study Area This section of the master plan addresses issues that affect Lionshead as a whole. These issues -and recommendations to address them - should be considered in all planning and policy decisions as Lionshead redevelops. 2 J " J Underlying Physical Framework of Lionshead The Lionshead resort area (that portion of the study area north of Gore Creek) is a mixed-use urban environment with several discernible land-use sub-areas, or "hubs" (see Map N). Although the hubs overlap somewhat, there is no consistent and comprehensive pedestrian connection between them. The primary goal of the master plan is to create a visually interesting and functionally efficient pedestrian environment that connects the hubs to create a cohesive and memorable resort environment. 4.1.4 Resort Lodging Hub- This area of Lionshead is located just west of the Lionshead retail core and is comprised almost exclusively of high-density residential and lodging products. All future planning and design decisions in this area should work to reinforce the residential nature of the neighborhood and retain the sense of privacy desired by individual properties. New development in this area should aim for quieter pedestrian streets, well defined pedestrian connections, more intensive landscaping and higher quality streetscape development. 4.3.1.1 View Corridors Creating and establishing view corridors is an effective way to link the urban core of Lionshead visually to the natural environment of Gore Creek and the mountain. The master plan is recommending the creation of several dedicated public view corridors. In addition, all private development and redevelopment should endeavor to create visual connections from and through their properties. View corridors do not have to be expansive to be effective. In many cases, a slender but well targeted view corridor can be just as effective as a broad view. Nor do visual connections have to be continuous; they can reoccur, providing intermittent views from different angles. 4.3.1.2 North-South Orientation of Buildings The predominant east-west orientation of buildings in Lionshead acts as a visual and physical barrier, interrupting the connection to the natural environment. It should be a priority in future development and redevelopment to orient vertical building masses along a north-south axis whenever possible. This will help to accomplish the following objectives: a. Views from Existing Buildings Public input throughout the master planning process indicated that existing property owners in Lionshead are concerned that new development will block their private views to the mountain. By orienting new buildings on a north-south axis, the potential visual impact on existing buildings is reduced. ? Open up a light corridor between the existing hotel and the Gore Creek Club to get light back down to the street and sidewalk. ? The ridge lines of the improvements should be,lowered and a greater space left between the buildings to maintain the view to the mountain from the Vail Spa. 4.3.2.1 Landscape and Greenbelt Corridors Wherever possible the natural landscape of the Gore Creek corridor should be allowed to penetrate into the more urbanized portions of Lionshead (see Map 0). This will open up access points to the Gore Creek corridor, enhance the quality of individual properties, and improve the image of Lionshead as an alpine resort. 4.5.2.2 Eliminate the Concert Hall Plaza Stop The existing bus stop at Concert Hall Plaza is. underutilized and is too close to the transit stop at the Marriott. The elimination of the Concert Hall stop will free up space needed to implement a meaningful redevelopment of Concert Hall Plaza and create a better western portal to the Lionshead core. 4.6.4 Modifications to West Lionshead Circle and Lionshead Place 3 West Lionshead Circle and Lionshead Place currently handle the heaviest load of lodging access and delivery traffic in Lionshead and will likely continue to do so. The recommended improvements to these roads are both aesthetic and functional, working to provide for safe and efficient vehicular traffic while also insuring a safe pedestrian environment visually consistent with the overall goals of the master plan. 4.7.1 Properties with Direct Service Access As a general rule, properties that can provide for their own service and delivery needs should comply with the following guidelines: a.- Loading and delivery facilities should be located deep enough into the property that the estimated peak volume of service vehicles does not back up into or block the access road or pedestrian areas. b. Service drives and loading docks must be screened with landscaping, fencing, retaining walls or other appropriate design techniques. c. All reasonable measures shall be taken to prevent noise and exhaust impacts on adjacent properties. d. In no case shall a property utilize the public roadway or pedestrian area to stage service and delivery vehicles. 4.9 Housing Recent community surveys and grass-roots planning efforts such as Vail Tomorrow have identified the lack of locals housing as the most critical issue facing the Vail community. Early in the Lionshead master planning process, west Lionshead was identified as an opportunity area to implement some of the community's housing goals, particularly relating to employee housing. These opportunities and associated issues are outlined below. 4.9.3 Policy Based Housing Opportunities The first means of implementing housing goals in Lionshead is through policy based requirements such as the employee generation ordinance currently being pursued by the Vail Town Council. As required by a future ordinance, all development and redevelopment projects, as a prerequisite to project approval, should provide housing for employees generated and to the extent possible this housing should be located in the Lionshead area. 4.10 Gateways, Landmarks, and Portals The lack of spatial hierarchy or organizational clarity is a fundamental problem in the Lionshead pedestrian and vehicular network today. This section discusses the need to create a series of gateways, portals, landmarks and useful public spaces that will increase and enhance the character and identity of the pedestrian environment. ? The site planning of the Gore Creek Club creates a building which is too inclusive and inward facing resulting in a lack of regard for the public spaces around the building and the existing or potential surrounding uses. ? There are opportunities to create a sense of arrival at the entrance portals to the property and building. ? The entrances to the property need to be more inviting and less awkward. ? The basic aspects of site planning such as points of arrival, loading/delivery, pedestrian circulation are not addressed in the current proposal. ? More attention needs to be given to the sense of arrival at the southeast corner of the property. 4.10.2 Landmarks A landmark is a significant architectural element that all the visitors to Lionshead can identify and remember. Landmarks signify important points of entry, turning points and critical intersections in the pedestrian network, as well as destinations and visual reference points. The single landmark in Lionshead today is the Gondola clock tower, which will be replaced with the Vail Associates core site redevelopment. 4 Appropriate locations for new landmarks in Lionshead are the east pedestrian portal, the central retail mall adjacent to the main pedestrian plaza, and the west pedestrian portal adjacent to the intersection of West Lionshead Circle and Lionshead Place. In addition, the potential civic center complex at the east end of the parking structure should function as a significant architectural landmark for the east end of Lionshead. ? The proposed landmark elements are too big and are not in proportion with the building. ? Are the landmark elements necessary? CHAPTER 5 Detailed Plan Recommendations This section of the Lionshead Master plan examines individual parcels and groups of parcels within the Lionshead study area, excluding the residential properties on the south side of Gore Creek. The intent of this chapter - and the Master plan as a whole - is to identify important functional relationships and visual objectives within the district and to propose a framework for the long-term redevelopment of Lionshead. The document does not intend to limit or eliminate ideas relating to specific parcels; any proposals consistent with this framework should be considered even if they are not anticipated in this document. The parcels addressed here are organized generally from east to west, starting with the civic hub on the eastern end of the parking structure. 5.4 Gore Creek Corridor The master plan goals for the Gore Creek corridor are to protect and enhance its natural beauty and environment, to connect it to the Lionshead core, and to make the Gore Creek recreation path safer and more inviting as a passive recreation amenity. ? There appears to be no relationship between the existing and proposed building and the Gore Creek stream corridor. A relationship should be created. ? Pedestrian circulation has not been addressed; especially along the stream tract. 5.4.5 Revegetation and Landscaping West of the Ski Yard Slope revegetation and landscaping are needed along the western portion of the Gore Creek recreation path. This section, which traverses a fill bank above Gore Creek, may never have the forested character of the section east of the ski yard, but it can be greatly enhanced by planting more trees. The focus should be on the more barren north side, with less intensive landscaping on the south bank framing views to the creek (see figure 6-4). The added landscaping should be as natural as possible and appropriate for a riparian environment. The use of small understory plantings that would increase maintenance requirements should be minimized. 5.13 The Marriott With approximately 320 rooms, the Marriott is the only supply of hot beds in Lionshead. The single largest structure in Lionshead, it is also very visible, especially from the west. It is consequently a high priority renovation project, and all reasonable measures should be taken by the Town of Vail to encourage and facilitate its enhancement. Specific issues regarding this property are as follows: 5.13.1 Redevelopment or Development of the Parking Structure The best opportunity for new development on the Marriott property is the existing parking structure (figure 5-17). If this site is developed, attention should be given to the relationship between the development, Gore Creek, the Gore Creek recreation path, and the west day lot. Vertical development should step back from the recreation path, and there should be a clear separation (most likely a landscape buffer) between the public space of the recreation path and the private space of the residential units. 5.13.2 Infill Opportunities 5 There are several tennis courts on the south side of the Marriott. This area presents an opportunity for low- rise infill development that eases the visual and physical transition from the existing structure to the Gore Creek recreation, path. 5.13.3 Opportunities for Facade Renovation Exterior renovation of the Marriott is a community priority, but the size and dimensions of the structure present a challenge, and it is unlikely that the architectural design guidelines (see chapter 8) can be fully met. However, this should not discourage exterior renovation, and the Town of Vail Design Review Board should insure that the intent of the guidelines is met. (This is a basic premise of the architectural design guidelines, relevant to all existing buildings in Lionshead.) 5.13.4 West Lionshead Circle in Front of the Marriott Any future development or redevelopment of the Marriott property should include a continuous secondary pedestrian walk on the south side of West Lionshead Circle. A pavement snowmelt system is strongly recommended because of icing problems on the walkway in winter. CHAPTER 6 Site Design Guidelines Chapters four and five identified important public spaces and pedestrian corridors that together define the underlying .structure of Lionshead and form essential connections between the district's primary destinations. This chapter on site design guidelines describes the detailed elements that lend character and quality to the overall fabric of public spaces. The master plan envisions a hierarchy of pedestrian spaces and, as outlined in this chapter, demands increasing attention to detailing in areas where public use will be more intense. Any projects or situations that do not fall within the framework described below shall conform to the existing Town of Vail regulations. 6.4 Secondary Pedestrian Walk Secondary pedestrian walks (see figure 6-3) are similar to primary pedestrian walks except that they are not located on primary pedestrian corridors and thus carry a lower volume of pedestrian traffic. The suggested minimum width for these secondary walks is six feet, although wider walkways may be required where anticipated pedestrian traffic volumes are greater. Poured concrete may be used as a paving material. All other design parameters that apply to primary pedestrian walks also apply here. CHAPTER 7 Development Standards This section outlines recommended development standards for private property in the Lionshead study area. In some cases, implementation of these standards will require revision of applicable provisions in the Town of Vail zoning regulations. Adoption of special provisions for redevelopment of properties that already violate existing development standards should also be considered. It is critical to note that all of the following recommended standards apply equally as future projects are reviewed for compliance. When one standard is more restrictive than another, that is the standard that shall be the limiting factor. These standards do not represent entitlements in any way. For example, if the GRFA ratio of a project cannot be met after the building height, setback, and other architectural b sideline standards have been applied, then that project is not entitled to the maximum allowable GRFA. In this case, the quantitative and qualitative standards of the architectural design guidelines would take precedence over the potential GRFA allocation. 7.1 Landscape Area The master plan does not recommend modification of this standard for Lionshead. The Town's current standard, which applies to the majority of sites in Lionshead, requires that at least 20% of a parcel be landscaped. This standard should be flexible for properties along build-to lines and in the pedestrian retail core area so they may be able to decrease planted area and increase hardscape in order to create the 6 i functional pedestrian corridors and spaces outlined in the master plan. This potential reduction of landscape area is not a right and should require the approval of the Planning and Environmental Commission. 7.2 Site Coverage The master plan does not recommend changing this standard. The Town's current standard, which applies to the majority of sites in Lionshead, prohibits site coverage by structures in excess of 70% the area of a site. This standard should be flexible for properties along build-to lines and in the pedestrian retail core area so, they may be able to increase site coverage as required to create the functional pedestrian corridors and spaces outlined in the master plan. This potential increase in site coverage is not a right and should require the approval of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Below grade development is not counted as site coverage. 7.3 Setbacks The master plan does not recommend changing this standard. The current setback requirement on the majority of sites in Lionshead is 10 feet from the property line on all sides. This requirement shall be waived in areas with designated build-to lines, and leeway should be considered in areas of significant hardship that otherwise meet the intent of the master plan and do not negatively impact adjacent properties. 7.4 Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) An important component of the Lionshead Master Plan process was the analysis of GRFA's effectiveness as a tool for insuring the quality of architecture and the built environment within Lionshead. In short, the masterplan team found that GRFA was not effective as a primary means of providing for architectural quality. Based on this finding it is the conclusion of the master plan team that GRFA should not be the primary means of regulating building size. To accomplish this, one of two options must be pursued. First, GRFA could be eliminated. Secondly, the GRFA ratio could be increased so that it functions as a safety valve to insure that buildings do not exceed the maximum residential floorplate area that would otherwise be allowed according to the criteria of the architectural design guidelines. If this second course of action is pursued, the following recommendations are made: a. The ratio of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) to lot area should be increased on all properties within Lionshead, excluding the residential properties south of Gore Creek, so that the site and architectural design guidelines, not GRFA, are the primary building size and mass constraint. b. The method of calculating GRFA should be greatly simplified and changed to include common space so that basic floor plate area calculations will suffice. 7.5 Density (Dwelling Units Per Acre): The allowable density of development in the study area should be increased to provide ample incentive and create the financial mechanism for redevelopment of properties. Additional consideration must be given to existing properties that currently exceed the density limitations. A model developed during the master planning process showed that an increase of at least 33% over existing zoning or existing dwelling units on a given site would be needed to make redevelopment an attractive option. In order to encourage the development of live beds or warm beds in Lionshead, the master plan recommends that accommodation units, hotel rooms and fractional ownership units not be counted in the calculation of density. Further, because it is a community goal to increase the number of permanent residents in Lionshead, employee housing units that are deed restricted for local employees should not count toward density. 7.6 New Unit Definition The master plan recommends that the zoning regulations be modified to include "lodge unit" as an additional definition of a residential unit. This product is defined as a small condominium dwelling unit with limited kitchen and floor area. (The floor area usually averages less than 650 sq. ft.) Units of this small size are most likely to be in short-term rental pools, with occupancy rates similar to those for hotel . 7 L' rooms. Because an increase in the short-term bed base in Lionshead is a key objective, the planning team recommends that lodge units count as one-quarter of a normal dwelling unit (i.e. 4 lodge units count as one dwelling unit). Further, it recommends that units of this size in existing properties be treated as lodge units for the purpose of calculating density. 7.7 Building Height This standard is addressed in the Architectural Design Guidelines (see chapter 8). CHAPTER 8 Architectural Design Guidelines 8.3 Existing Structures 8.3.1 Special Provisions While these Guidelines offer a roadmap for the redevelopment of Lionshead, they are not intended to limit the efforts of developers and/or designers involved with existing structures. It is understood that many of the buildings within the community may be unable to comply with some of the criteria described in the ADG. Many existing buildings, for instance, may already exceed the height criteria identified. Some existing roof pitches within the community may not meet the numerical values described. And many of the existing pedestrian streets may fall well short of the "ideal" proportions depicted. These and similar issues will be handled on a case-by-case basis, with determination of compliance based upon whether the building meets the general intent of these Guidelines and the tenets described herein. 8.3.3 Redevelopment Prioritization and "Triggers" Consistent with Section 8.3.1 above, existing properties are encouraged to renovate and rehabilitate, to the greatest extent possible, the exterior of their buildings according to the parameters of the ADG. It is recognized, however, that a single, complete, and comprehensive exterior renovation may not be economically possible for all existing structures, and incremental improvements must be allowed. Having said this, the following potential exterior improvements should be considered as priorities by both private property owners and the Town of Vail. All. reasonable efforts to encourage, provide incentives, and facilitate these improvements should be made. • Renewed and expanded retail frontage. For properties fronting the Lionshead retail mall and retail pedestrian streets, the renovation and expansion of the ground floor retail level is perhaps the most critical element in revitalizing the Lionshead retail core. • Roofs. As outlined in the ADG, the roofscape of Lionshead is a critical component in "knitting" together the built environment and providing visual cohesion to the urban fabric of Lionshead. • Planning considerations. All buildings in Lionshead, both existing and new development, should seek to fulfill the roles of landmarks, portals, turning points, and other roles as outlined in the Master Plan. • Form, massing and height criteria. • Building surface treatment- walls, doors, windows, signage, etc. • All other components of the architectural design guidelines. A critical question regarding the renovation of existing structures is when compliance with the architectural design guidelines is "triggered" or required. Regarding this, the following guidelines should be considered: 8 J • To the greatest extent possible, renovating properties should endeavor to make significant and meaningful improvements to their properties as opposed to small, insignificant improvements. This does not discount the importance of any improvement to a properties exterior. • Any single incremental improvement to one building element will not necessarily trigger compliance on all remaining building elements. However, any portion of the building being improved should do so according to the parameters of the architectural design guidelines. For example, if a property applies to resurface the walls of their building, this resurfacing should be done according to the ADG, but will not in and of itself also require the replacement of the roof, or another major modification, at the same time. Any proposal to add significant volume or mass to a property will trigger full and reasonable compliance to the Master Plan and Architectural Design Guidelines. CHAPTER 9 Implementation The intent of this chapter is to provide guidance to the Town of Vail as it seeks to implement the recommendations of this master plan. The recommendations regarding priorities, phasing, and timing are intended to be flexible, not binding, so that the community can adapt the plan to changing conditions and priorities. The project priorities listed below are divided into public and private improvements, although many projects will be implemented-through joint public and private financing efforts. 9.1.1.5 Sidewalk and Streetseape Improvements Enhancements to Lionshead's streets and pedestrian circulation patterns are important both functionally and visually. Rather than undertaking the major improvements by itself, the Town of Vail is advised to ask for the financial participation of adjacent properties as they redevelop or expand. 9.1.1.11 Gore Creek Corridor Improvements Improvements in the Gore Creek corridor will greatly enhance the ability of locals and guests to experience the creek but are not vital to the overall functionality of Lionshead. However, these improvements are stand-alone projects, not contingent on adjacent redevelopment, and thus may be significantly easier to implement, both financially and logistically. Because the creek is a significant benefit to Lionshead, the implementation of improvements here should be diligently pursued but not allowed to delay other, more critical plans. 9.1.2.1 Individual Property Redevelopment and Exterior Renovations The improvement of individual properties through redevelopment, site enhancement, and exterior renovation is critical to the accomplishment of master plan goals. The Town of Vail should create incentives, encourage, and facilitate these important projects, using the master plan as a framework to guide renewal and redevelopment projects. The specific recommendations of the plan, including the architectural design guidelines, are not intended to create a disincentive for redevelopment or exterior renovations. If any provision of the plan proves over time to create a disincentive for desired renewal or redevelopment, Town Council should consider amending it 9 .c Architectural Design Guidelines Checklist The following checklist was created to provide a means of evaluating the Marriott Redevelopment Proposal for compliance with Chapter 8 (architectural design guidelines) of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The checklist is intended for use with Chapter 8 of the master plan. Staff has taken the comments of the Design Review Board and the Public and attempted to place the issues of concern into the various design guideline recommendations of the master plan. Please review this list for completeness and accuracy. Any discrepancies should be communicated to the staff and/or applicant. ? 8.3.4.3 Door and Window Enhancements ? 8.3.4.4 Building Finishes ? The proposed application of exterior stone makes the building appear to be "dipped" in stone. The height of the stone around the buildings should varying with massing and building forms in mind. ? 8.4.1.2 Building "Roles" (portals, edge definers, landmarks) ? No "sense of arrival to a great place" has been provided. ? The reality of how the buildings will function has not been addressed. ? The landmark element, while large, is in scale given the size and mass of the existing building. ? 8.4.1.3 Pedestrian Streets (width-to-height relationships, public/private domain) ? A landscape buffer is needed at the street frontage of the Gore Creek Club. ? 8.4.1.4 Transition Spaces (streetfront patios, courtyards, gardens, colonnades, loggias, arcades) ? The space between the commercial use and the main building of the Gore Creek Club is a "no man's land". Consider connecting the buildings. ? The use of the top of the parking structure does not appear to be very well thought out. ? The commercial space on the north side of the Gore Creek Club is too close to the street and should be moved back to respect the 10 foot setback. ? 8.4.2.2 Building Form and Massing ? The building elevation along the west properity line is too straight and needs to be articulated, both vertically and horizontally. ? The mass of the roof as proposed and the additional volume it creates is excessive and should be reduced in scale. ? Vail Associates as owner of Lot A to the west of the development site does not object to the proposed west elevations and building location of the Gore Creek Club. ? The spires over the stair and elevator towers are out of portion making. the buildinas.appear top heavy. ? 8.4.2.3 Building Height (primary retail pedestrian frontages, remaining buildingfrontage, wall surface criteria, maximum heights, additional requirements/exceptions) ? 8.4.2.4 Exterior Walls (materials, base materials, middle wall materials, colors, trim) ? Address fenestration, wall surface planes, and exterior building materials of all the buildings. ? Phase II of the hotel is intended to become a "flagship" building, yet the proposed exterior building materials are not of "flagship" quality. The Bavaria Haus is an example of a "flagship" hotel. ? The east and west elevations with the exposed parking structure is unacceptable. These areas need to be addressed. ? The north elevations of the proposed buildings are attractive. ? 8.4.2.5 Exterior Doors and Windows (exterior door sizes, shapes and types, materials and colors, hardware, window sizes, shapes and types, materials and colors) ? The hotel rooms need to extend outward to fill in the void spaces created in the areas on the sloping roof. ? 8.4.2.6 Balconies, Guardrails, and Handrails (location and size, materials and designs) ? The stacking of the decks and windows is too repetitive and does not comply with the intent of the Design Guidelines. The proposal makes it too easy to read the gridlines of the building. ? The decks and balconies on the existing hotel need to be articulated. ? 8.4.2.7 Roofs (dimensional guidelines, pitch, materials and colors, dormers, snowguards, gutters and downspouts, miscellaneous equipment, skylights) ? Why does the height of the building have to increase to achieve the sloping roof forms? ? Are the sloping roof forms necessary on the existing hotel? ? The application of the sloping roof form on the Thase I building in particular appears phony and contrived ? The steepness of the sloping roof creates a wall rather than a roof. ? 8.4.2.8 Fireplaces and Chimneys fireplace requirements, chimney sizes and shapes, materials, caps) ? Chimney caps and the portions of the chimneys needs to be examined. ? 8.4.2.9 Detail ? . The treatment of exterior details lacks consistency throughout the project. ? The quality of the exterior finishes are not up to our resort standards. ? OTHER ? The applicant's options are significantly limited given the existing conditions and constraints ? The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Architectural Design Guidelines should be study in great detail to determine compliance of the proposal with the guidelines. ? The project lacks regard for the adjacent properties. Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Architects, p.c. 1000 S. Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Tel: (970) 476-1147 Fax: (970) 476-1612 May 17, 1999 George Ruther Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: response to May 13 list of Marriott Lionshead DRB issues Dear George and members of the DRB: Here is our response/ explanation to the DRB comments listed in the May 13, 1999 memo from George Ruther. As you are aware, many of the comments predate the May 5, 1999 DRB meeting and may have already been addressed through changes proposed at that meeting. 4.3.1.2- North South Orientation of Buildings: 1. Open up a light corridor between the existing hotel and the Gore Creek Club to get light back down to the street and sidewalk.: Changes to the proposed design of the Phase 2a building and the Gore Creek Club were presented at the May 5th DRB hearing. In the May 19th hearing we will present additional changes wherein all units on the top floor of the north wing of the Club have been relocated to the south end of the Club. This change will provide a significant reduction in height at the northeast corner of the Club. 2. The ridge lines of the improvements should be lowered and a greater space left between the buildings to maintain the view to the mountain from the Vail Spa.: In the May 51h DRB hearing, we presented significant lowering of building height at Phase 1 , Phase 2a and at the Gore Creek Club north wing. As described above, we will propose on the 19`h additional lowering of the height of the northeast corner of the Club's north wing. The wording of the Master Plan states that "future development and redevelopment <should> orient vertical building masses along a north-south axis whenever possible". Whenever possible. Increasing the separation between the existing Hotel Phase 2a and the Gore Creek Club is not possible due to the constraints imposed by the existing parking structure. We have located the majority of our density in a north-south manner along ij . . Ruther/DRB response May 17, 1999 Page 2 the west edge of the property. This corridor is not identified in the Master Plan (see Map 0) as a view corridor but we have made the changes nonetheless. 4,10- Gateways, Landmarks, and Portals: 1. The site planning of the Gore Creek Club creates a building which is too inclusive and inward facing resulting in a lack of regard for the public spaces around the building and the existing or potential surrounding uses.: The only elevation that is "inward" facing (it is oriented towards the mountain) is the west elevation. All other sides face out. The west elevation has been designed with fenestration, dormers, french balconies, etc that gives it the appearance that some units face outward. In addition, the Owner of the property to the west has publicly indicated full support for our design of the west elevation and has acknowledged that their site planning would need to respect the conditions that are created by our building. The south and north elevations- the only ones facing public spaces- are within the restrictions and intent of the Master Plan and the Design guidelines. As of the May 19'" hearing, we will have made changes suggested by the DRB to ALL sides of the building. 2. There are opportunities to create a sense of arrival at the entrance portals to the property and building: Our proposal includes improvements to every point of arrival to the existing Hotel including the landscaped portal at the southeast that was presented to the DRB on May 5'. An additional metal gate will be presented to the DRB on May 19'". The point of arrival for the Gore Creek Club is clearly expressed at the street and at the point of check-in. Again, we would like to point out that most people arriving at the Club know where they are going when they get to Vail. We ask that the DRB expand further on this comment at the May 19' hearing so that we can understand the comment more fully. 3. The entrances to the property need to be more inviting and less awkward.: See item 2 above. Furthermore, the proposed improvements to the existing porte cochere at the main entrance to the Hotel are dramatic. In addition to greater height and width of cover, skylights are being proposed to allow more light into the arrival area at the door. At the Gore Creek Club, the porte cochere extends as close to the street as allowed and its height is sympathetic to the units directly behind it. If the DRB thinks this porte cochere should be made larger, we will look at it. 4. The basic aspects of site planning such as points of arrival, loading/delivery, pedestrian circulation are not addressed in the current proposal.: As presented in great detail at the May 5m hearing, points of.arrival, loading and delivery and pedestrian circulation have been fully addressed. These items all meet the requirements of the client and are in conformance with the requirements of the Master Plan. Loading and delivery has been discussed in great detail with the operators of the Gore Creek Club, the Town Staff and the PEC. All parties in these discussions have acknowledged the adequacy of the proposals. Pedestrian circulation internal to the Marriott site has been significantly enhanced in our proposal. This circulation is not public circulation and is not mentioned in the Master Plan. Ruther/DRB response May 17, 1999 Page 3 5. More attention needs to be given to the sense of arrival at the southeast corner of the property. : We do not feel that an architectural portal is appropriate at the southeast corner of the existing Marriott Property but will present a metal gate at the May 19" meeting. As presented at the May 5" hearing we are also proposing to enhance this point of arrival with additional landscaping that is consistent with our proposals to provide a more natural setting on the south side of the Hotel. The pedestrian easement shown on the plat ends halfway to the creek. Even so, our proposed landscape plan does provide a continuous and visually interesting route to the bike path- a significant improvement over the existing conditions. 4.10.2- Landmarks: 1. The proposed landmark elements are too big and are not in proportion with the building. : On May 5t" we presented a revision to Phase 2a that removed one of the landmark elements and significantly altered the appearance of the landmark element atop Phase Il. We feel that the remaining landmark element is designed to be in proportion with the building and is the size necessary to meet the intent of the Master Plan (more discussion of this below). Also, a comment in George's checklist down under section 8.4.1.2 indicates that not everyone feels that the landmark is too big. 2. Are the landmark elements necessary?: Page 8-5 of the Master Plan, paragraph 3 states "All buildings in Lionshead, both existing and new development, should seek to fulfill the roles of landmarks...": The Master Plan therefore encourages landmark elements. The largest hotel in Lionshead, if not all of Vail, would seem to be a logical location to implement this intent. In response to DRB concerns, we have already eliminated one landmark element atop phase 2a. 5.4- Gore Creek Corridor: 1. There appears to be no relationship between the existing and proposed building and the Gore Creek stream corridor. A relationship should be created.: We are proposing to go to great lengths to remove the vertical separation (the 20' high berm) between the existing hotel and the bike path. Our landscape plans show that we propose to significantly enhance both the visual and physical access to the stream tract from the courtyard south of the Hotel. At the Gore Creek Club, we presented on May 5t" a change in the configuration of the south wing that gives us direct on-grade access to the Bike path. We are also proposing to add significant landscaping between the Gore Creek Club and the bike path in.addition to improving the landscaping south of the bike path. 2. Pedestrian circulation has not been addressed, especially along the stream tract.: The changes presented on May 5t" addressed this issue. v} r Ruther/DRB response May 17, 1999 Page 4 8.3.4.4- Building Finishes: 1. The proposed application of exterior stone makes the building appear to be dipped in stone. The height of the stone around the buildings should vary with massing and building forms in mind.": No additional stone is being proposed for the existing hotel except at the wall around the expanded loading dock. Design Guidelines Section 8.4.2.4 requires a clear definition of base, middle and top but does not require or suggest that the height of the base needs to vary. This section also talks about the importance of establishing "key datums" (i.e. lines of reference). We feel that our proposed use of stone veneer satisfies this intent in the Master Plan Design Guidelines. The use of veneer does vary quite a bit in height on all four elevations of the Gore Creek Club. On each elevation we feel that the stone does indeed help establish the desired datum and sense of base- even inside the courtyard at the roof garden level. If the DRB would like us to lower this datum or remove stone in certain areas, we will study the possibilities. Finally, the existing parking structure does not have adequate structural capacity to allow for the installation of stone veneer on all exposed surfaces. We have chosen here to use the stone as an expression of structure and to break the existing precast walls down into a rhythm of smaller areas. 8.4.1.2- Building "Roles": 1. No "sense of arrival to a great place" has been provided.: As one approaches the existing Hotel from afar, our proposed landmark roof element' . provides a significant indication of the point of arrival. As one gets closer, this element becomes less dominant (pyramid shape fades in mass) and the various improved points of arrival start to become dominant. As discussed above we have made substantial and significant improvements to the Hotel porte cochere. Arrival to the Gore Creek Club is clearly denoted by its porte cochere which extends almost all the way to the street (GCC members. will know where they are going). If you are looking for a portal.to this side of Lionshead, we feel it should be at the intersection of the Frontage road and Lionshead Circle or further west as appropriate. 2. The reality of how the buildings will function has not been addressed.: We presented a pedestrian circulation plan at the May 5th meeting demonstrating the relationship of some of the interior spaces of the buildings to how pedestrian traffic will flow and how this flow relates to the Master Plan. We are happy to answer any additional questions in this area. In addition, a great deal of thought has gone into the internal functioning of the Gore Creek Club, the point of arrival, front desk, Owners' lounge, internal amenities, roof garden, ski storage, etc. We can present the internal functioning of the building at the May 1 9th hearing if desired. J' Ruther/DRB response May 17, 1999 Page 5 8.4.1.3- Pedestrian Streets: 1. A landscape buffer is needed at the street frontage of the Gore Creek Club.: We have addressed this issue and will present our proposals at the next DRB meeting on May 19th. 8.4.1.4- Transition Spaces: 1. The space between the commercial use and the main building of the Gore Creek Club is a "no man's land" Consider connecting the buildings. Please refer to our sheet A2.3 to see that on the east side of the Gore Creek.Club arrival ramp this "no man's land" is actually used for parking and bicycle storage adjacent to the ski/bike storage room. In addition to these uses, the gap between the buildings serves to provide additional light to the Entry and Arrival spaces. On the west side, we considered connecting the buildings and felt the benefits were not equal to the disadvantages (especially for the Vail Spa). The drawings that will be presented to the DRB on May 19 will show the buildings connected. We can go with either design. 2. The use of the top of the parking structure does not appear to be very well thought out. The uses on top of the parking structure are in accordance with the programming needs of the client and the future guest. At the north end, closest to the Owners' lounge and the vertical core (also the end with the best sun and views), we have located the hot tubs in a garden of trees and plantings. In the middle we have placed a sun terrace. This separates the hot tub garden from the free play area where we envision children playing tag, frisbees, etc. On May 5' we presented a change to the south lawn adding a connection to the break in the south wing. All of this combines to provide protected, secure areas for the Gore Creek Club guest to enjoy year-round. 3. The commercial space on the north side of the Gore Creek Club is too close to the street and should be moved back to respect the 10 foot setback. Section 8.4.1.4 talks about the need to create "a layer of frontage with interest and life" as a transition between public and semi-public. The location of the existing parking structure provides only a small area in which to place this desired element so the setbacks we are proposing (proposed setbacks vary from 2'-6" to 10'-0) are the only way we can meet this Master Plan intent. Pushing all faces of the retail back 10' would make the spaces too small for retail tenants). At the request of the DRB at the first meeting, we have already moved these spaces as far back as we feel we can. Since we are talking about an important Master Plan concept, we feel that the ability to provide this transition outweighs the need to satisfy building setbacks in this location. I would like to point out that the front elevation of the retail steps along the property line. This provides more of the visual interest sought by the Master Plan. I will also point out that changing the grades in this area by 3' to allow the retail (which must be accessible) to push back onto the existing structure is not really feasible and is discouraged by the bottom paragraph on page 8-15. t Ruther/DRB response May 17, 1999 Page 6 8.4.2.2- Building Form and Massing: 1. The building elevation along the west property line is to straight and needs to be articulated, both vertically and horizontally. On May 5" we presented a west building elevation that has is significantly more articulated vertically and horizontally than before. Given the constraints of the existing parking structure and the need for our new parking extension to line up with the existing structure, there is little additional opportunity to break up the straight line of the west elevation. This elevation is in full conformance with the Design Guidelines. There are no wall panels exceeding 35' in any direction and the building steps exceed the recommended 24" minimum step (the obvious exceptions to this are the faces of the parking structure and the elevator towers where a 24" step is not possible). Furthermore, please refer to Section 8.4.2.3, page 8-18, middle paragraph. The Master Plan acknowledges that "a building's greatest vertical mass... should occur on the frontage with the least volume of pedestrian traffic and should be oriented north-south". The west property line is not identified in the Master Plan as a primary or secondary pedestrian route (see map Q) and certainly has less pedestrian traffic than the other three sides. 2. The mass of the roof proposed and the additional volume it creates is excessive and should be reduced in scale. We assume that this comment relates to the remaining landmark element atop Phase 2. This is discussed above and according to George's memo, the comments on this are not in complete agreement. The pyramid shaped addition is very efficient in that it results in a mass that will disappear as one approaches the building and yet at a distance, it provides the scale necessary to fit with the existing Marriott. We studied the scale of this element very carefully and feel it is a good fit with the Hotel. Furthermore, this element has no impact on light and air for any of the adjacent properties. It also is an effective way to break the line of the existing roof. 3. The spires over the stair and elevator towers are out of proportion making the buildings appear to be top heavy. The height and width of the spires is what is required for elevator overhead and machine rooms. Our proposed design provides visual interest at the west end of Lionshead until they are blocked from view by development of the West Day Lot. I also refer you to the intent of the Master Plan as stated in the last sentence of page 8-32. "The ...image of Lionshead takes its cue from the simple forms of European alpine villages." The design intent for these particular roofs was to provide the look of european belltowers in a part town where there are no churches. 8.4.2.4- Exterior Walls: 1. Address fenestration, wall surface planes, and exterior building materials of all the buildings. Colors and materials were submitted back in March and have yet to be discussed in any detail. To help with the cooming discussion we offer the following: Ruther/DRB response May 17, 1999 Page 7 Fenestration (existing buildings)- no changes are proposed except that EIFS window and door trim in a wood tone color is being proposed in some locations. • Fenestration (Gore Creek Club)- Windows proposed meet the Design Guidelines in terms of shape, variety of shapes, divided lites, color and finish. Trim will be wood. Wall surface planes (existing buildings including parking garage)- We have made some changes to the wall surfaces of the existing hotel buildings, most notably to remove some of the existing "floating frame" and to reduce apparent wall area by lowering eaves. We cannot meet the 35' rules in all locations and are not required to do so under Section 8.3.1, • paragraph 2. Our intent is to take these buildings back to a simpler, cleaner less dated look- the primary directive of the Master Plan. • Wall surface planes (Gore Creek Club)- We meet the letter of the Design Guidelines as explained previously. • Exterior Building materials (existing buildings)- It is our intent to replace much of the existing wood siding. Where the existing siding is left in place, it will be painted to look more natural and to decrease the visibility of the defects in the material. The new material will be EIFS. Most, but not all existing roofs (standing seam metal) will be replaced or covered with asphalt shingles meeting the requirements of the Design Guidelines. Existing wood siding and pipe railings will be replaced with new steel railings in the color submitted. • Exterior Building materials (Gore Creek Club)- All materials being proposed meet the requirements of the Design Guidelines and the requirements for the various levels of the building. 2. Phase of the Hotel is intended to become a `flagship- building, yet the proposed exterior building materials are not of "flagship" quality. The Bavaria Haus is an example of a "flagship " hotel. We understand the sentiment associated with this comment, but would like to point out that all proposed materials are allowed by the Design Guidelines and are top quality within their respective classifications. Except for the roofing, all are the same as the materials found on the Bavaria Haus- a new building. The proposed asphalt roofing is also top-of-the-line and will have an appearance far superior to the asphalt shingles that are so prevalent in Lionshead today. 3. The east and west elevations with the exposed parking structure is unacceptable. These areas need to be addressed. Structural analysis of the existing parking structure has indicated that there is no excess structural capacity, so leaving some (if not all) areas of the-existing precast exposed is unavoidable. We have attempted to use stone veneer in limited amounts to break down the size of the precast panels and to express some transmittance of load to the ground. Under. the largest masses, we have attempted to provide the base level datum requested by the Master Plan. We intend to paint the balance of the exposed precast to minimize its impact. This will give the same look and texture as if it were covered with EIFS. Ruther/DRB response May 17, 1999 Page 8 8.4.2.5- Exterior Doors and Windows: 1. The hotel rooms need to extend outward to fill in the void spaces created in the areas on the sloping roof. Marriott has emphatically indicated that this is not desired at this time. The additional cost cannot be recovered in the room rates and raising the rates is not an option at this time. In order to address this concern, we have revised our designs to lower the roofs. This reduces roof mass (a previous DRB comment) and decreases the space between the balconies and the roof. 8.4.2.6- Balconies. Guardrails, and Handrails: 1. The stacking of the decks and windows is too repetitive and does not comply with the intent of the Design Guidelines. The proposal makes it too easy to read the gridlines of the building. This comment misinterprets the intent of the Design Guidelines. Where page 8-10, middle paragraph discourages grid layouts in plan, page 8-29 states that windows should be "organized into fairly regular patterns to establish rhythm and continuity". Our design meets the intent and the letter of the.Design Guidelines. 2. The decks and balconies on the existing hotel need to be articulated. This is exactly our intent in removing most of the existing outer frame on the buildings and in removing the solid wood railing walls at the Phase 1 balconies. Additionally, we propose to install open metal railings per the Design Guidelines to further articulate the balconies. We also vary the expression of the balconies from building to building and within each building face. We therefore feel that all the balconies (including some new variations to be introduced on May 19') comply. 8.4.2.7- Roofs: 1. Why does the height of the building have to increase to achieve the sloping roof form? The height does not have to increase to achieve the sloping roof form, the height has to increase to achieve a non-linear roof form. The Master Plan calls for this additional height. Page 8-20, last sentence of top paragraph specifically states that "regardless of final built height, buildings shall avoid monotonous, unbroken ridge lines...'. Figures 8-3 and 8-4 on page 8-6 and figure 8-17 on page 8-21 show additional height being added to a building to achieve this result. The existing Marriott buildings all have flat roofs and straight line parapets. We added height because the Master Plan recommends it and the height we added has minimal impact on the light and air to adjacent properties. Even so, in response to DRB comments we have reduced the additional height to achieve a discontinuous ridge line and in the case of Phase Ila we have replaced the larger landmark feature with a smaller one that does not cover the existing elevator tower. r Ruther/DRB response May 17, 1999 Page 9 2. Are the sloping roof forms necessary on the existing hotel. They are not necessary but they are specifically encouraged by the Master Plan. Our basic design goal for improving the existing hotels, and one specifically promoted by the top paragraph on page 8-7 of the Design Guidelines, is to lower wall heights by adding sloping mansard roofs to existing buildings (see also page 8-32 and 8-34). 3. The application of the sloping roof form on the Phase 1 building in particular appears phony and contrived. We have revised this elevation to break up the simplicity of the previously presented roof. The changes will also give more emphasis to the existing entry at the northeast corner of Phase 1. 4. The steepness of the sloping roof creates a wall rather than a roof. Page 8-23, second paragraph calls for roofs that add to the overall long-distance roofscape of Lionshead and adds that roofs should disappear as approached on foot. Page 8-7 allows for steeply sloping mansard roofs. Furthermore, the application of windows and doors in dormers breaks up the plane of the mansard and leaves no question that it is a roof. We feel that our proposed designs meet the intent of the Master Plan requirements and would like to point out that the use of mansards is quite common in large (hotel) buildings throughout the world as a means to reduce apparent height. 8.4.2.8- Rreplaces and Chimneys: 1. Chimney caps and the portions of the chinmeys need to be examined. We will add the required chimney tops and adjust chimney heights to be more consistent. 8.4.2.9- Detail: 1. The treatment of exterior details lacks consistency throughout the project.I This is intentional. The level of detail proposed varys from building to building and will vary from elevation to elevation. This is an attempt to break the Marriott complex into smaller discrete entities. Our proposal follows through on this concept with color as well. The Master Plan does not require full compliance with the Design Guidelines for existing buildings and the level of detail being proposed for the GCC is in accordance with the Design Guidelines. 2. The quality of the exterior finishes are not up to our resort standards. All proposed materials are allowed by the Design Guidelines. If the approved materials in the Design Guidelines are not up to our resort standards, then the Design Guidelines should be amended. Ruther/DRB response May 17, 1999 Page 10 Other-: 1. The applicant's options are significantly limited given the existing conditions and constraints. This comment is very important. The existing structures, including the parking structure at the west do not allow us to make many of the changes desired by the DRB. With existing structures, these changes add up quickly become disincentives to redevelopment. 2. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Architectural Design Guidelines should be studied in great detail to determine compliance of the proposal with the guidelines. The applicant has studied the Guidelines in great detail and feels that the proposed design meets all of the intentions and the detailed rules contained in the Master Plan. We do require conditional approval of our roof slopes but have maintained all along that the steeper slopes provide substantially increased benefits to the Town than would be provided by roof slopes within the 12:12 limit in the Guidelines. 3. The project lacks regard for the adjacent properties. All aspects of our proposal meet the intent of the Master Plan. To the south, we are in full compliance with setbacks and height but continue to make changes that are being recommended by the DRB. To the west, we again meet the requirements for height and have done as much as we can to mitigate the limitations of an existing building. Our neighbor to the west has indicated to the DRB his full support of our design. To the north, we again comply fully with the intent of the Master Plan. We continue to make changes to the height and configuration despite the fact that we are under the height limits, do not infringe on any defined view corridors and do not impact anyone's light and air. We hope this response helps to further explain our proposal and enhance the DRB's understanding of it. GWATHMEY PRATT SCHULTZ ARCHITECTS, P.C. iP Henry R: raft, AIA Nancy Shapiro Adam Owner of 706 Forest Road--East Unit 765 Forest Road--Both Primary and Secondary Units Vail: 970-476-5383 Vail Fax: 970-476-9194 Denver: 303-770-5383 April b, 1999 To: Owners of West Forest Road Re: Proposed Marriott Development I am the owner of the referenced properties on West Forest Road, Vail, Colorado. I recently became aware of the Marriott's proposed development plans across the river from our homes. The Marriott is scheduled to appear before the Design Review Board for approval of their plans tomorrow, April'I 9, 1999, at 3pm. I will attend tomorrow's hearing to make the following objections to the Marriott's proposal: 1. A 400 foot long, 70 foot high building built within 10 feet of the bike path along the river is far too voluminous for the open air nature of the area; 2. The proposal encroaches on the light and air space of the area; 3. The proposal does not provide for pedestrian connection and circulation; 4. The proposed steep roofline on top of the existing buildings seem to have no purpose other than to add additional volume on an already massive structure; 5. The new building is poorly situated on the site; 6. The proposal does not have architectural integrity on its own, it's just a series of different styles stuck on in different places; and 7. Concern for the impact of time share units on the already overtaxed sewer system in the area--as evidenced by the sewer smell that permeates Forest Road at times. In summary, the proposal merely perpetuates what is wrong with Lionshead now, rather than providing a solution for the future. - I do not object to the Marriott's pursuing their development rights. I object to the creation of another monstrosity that we will regret for years in the future. If you are available to attend tomorrow's hearing in person, your presence will have an impact on the Design Review Board's hearing. If you are not able to attend the hearing but are willing to voice your position on these matters, please forward to me your comments by lpm tomorrow and I will submit them to the DRB on your behalf. Thank you for your attention to this matter, !T~-17-1777 n0. 77x1'1 rrcuri i u ly'/{04'1y~15'r N. t~6 Gr• r1C- 1C Apr-07-99 10:37A P.01 J?'~r George R non 36 Steeie StreE•Suite 250 Denver, co 80206 _ i i April 7, 1999 Design Review Board Vail, Colorado Dear Design Review Board Members- 1 am the owner of the residence on 616 Forest Road and recently became aware of the proposed re-development of the Marriott at Lionshead. As an owner of the above reference property since 1969, 1 have witnessed the development and growth of Lionshead. Although I certainly support the upgrading and beautification efforts of the town of Vail towards Lionshead, I concur with Nancy Adams that this project does not positively improve the character of Lionshead. Without substantial improvements in Marriott's plan, I oppose the project as currently planned. Si ,pe rely, e i I i - I U at F V APR 2 1999 f April 12, 1999 To: Town of Vail Town Council Re: Objections to the application of Marriott Hotel expansion in Lionslic;ad We have a home at 725 Forest Road and we are writing to protest the proposed addition to the Hotel Marriott. We are especially cunu,-ilwd with: ' Water needs and sewage disposal for people occupying <0 time share units. ' Loss of open space and mountain views if a four story building is constructed on the proposed site. The proximity to the city bike path---only 30 feet, 'c The apparent disregard of the Marriott Hotel for the interests of home owners on Forest Road and the walkers, runners, strollers and n tune lovers on the city bike path. We strongly urge the Vail Town Council to vote an emphatic "no" to the Marriott expansion proposal. We also certainly want to believe that you will give us, your constituents, the same consideration that you give the Marriott, an outside corporate-entity. Sincerely, VRog, and Sally M. Gadol Date Receive( APR 13 1999 Z U~ PS v~~31 , Alice L. Parsons P.O. Box 497 Edwards, CO 81632 April 13, 1999 Town of Vail Town Council Vail Town Government offices 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 RE: Lionshead Marriott Hotel Application Dear Town Council: I am in complete agreement with each and every objection made to the design and scope of the Marriott's submitted plans for their expansion as expressed by Nancy Adam in her letter to you. (Please see copy of letter which I have enclosed). Vail does not need anymore Time Shares nor lodging. If anything needs to be added, it is housing for employees of the Marriott and that should be limited to a two-story building. Sihc:erely, Alice L. Parsons Owner: 745 Forest Road, Vail, Colorado APR-13-1999 11:51 ACKERMAN & COMPANY 7709133965 P.01i01 Ackerman & Co. Fww Loom Strife 200, Crown Pointe 1040 crown Pointe Parkway Aflame. Georgia 30338 Chi i s. Agkw lon Telephone: 7701913.3900 President FM 770/913.3965 To: Town of Vail Town Council Via FAX 970-479-2157 From: Charles S. Ackerman 716 B Forest Road. Vail CO 81657 Date: April 13, 1999 Subj. Objections to the Application of Marriott Hotel in Lionshead - Renovation and Expansion if the. expansion of the Marriott Hotel is for timesharing, I am adamantly against it. The neighbors on West Forest have invested substantially to create an attractive environment in our neighborhood. We currently contend with the disruptive "snow cats of Vail Associates", an unattractive concrete bridge, and a threat to re-zone the tennis courts to multifamily. Using the undeveloped site adjoining the Marriott for hotel expansion is minimally acceptable. The site should be developed for upscale residential. Since I have not been privy to the design of the expansion, I reserve my approval for the hotel expansion until I review said plan. Specifically, I oppose expansion for timeshare and will affirm hotel expansion after a review of the plan. Syours, ckerman CSA:blh eecivt uate APR 13 1999 TOTAL P.01 04-12-1999 0e:32RM FROM TO 19704792157 P.01 yCl~Pav Vy I ~4 _NanG Shapirol Adam A. 4975 Bast Preserve Court Greenwood Village, EO 80121 303-1'770-5393 Fax: 303-770-8918 i BY FAX #970-479-2157 April 14,1999 To: Town of Vail Town Council Re: Objections to the Applitatioa of Marriott Hotel in Lionshead--Renovation and Expansion I am the owner of three properties on Nest Forest Road-the prey side of 706Forest Road and both the primary and secondary units at 765 Forest Road. The Mariott's proposed renovations and e4ansion has significant impact on all of these properties. I received information this 4einoon that the Marriott will be seeking approval from the Town of Vail Town Council for its plans to expand and renovate its Lionshead property at it's work sessionjon Tuesday, April 13, 1999. It is my understan ding that the Marriott is seeking to ~cl edule this matter for the first of two readings of an ordinance by the Town Council on Tuesday, April 20, 1999. I am writing to inform the Town Council that, as the West Forest Road property Towner directly south of the Marriottis expansion plans, I object to the Marriott's plans for the following reasons: i 1. The proposed Gore Creek Club creates a massive 60 foot tall buildingwithin 3 0 feet of the bike paih along the river which is far to volurninous for the open air nature of the area; 2. The Marriott proposal does not provided for pedestrian connection and circulation; 3. The Marriott proposal encroaches on the light and air space of the area; 4. The proposed steeo roof fine on top of the existing buildings seem to have no purpose other than to ladd additional volume on an already massive structure; f 04-12-1999 00:33AM FROM TO 19704792157 P.02 5. The new building ~s poorly situated on the site; 6. The proposal does not have architectural integrity on its own, it's just series of different styles stuck on in different places; 7: Concern for the in5pact of 60 time share units plus additional condominimn units on the already 6vertaxed sewer system int he area-as evidenced! by the sewer smell that permeates West Forest Road at times; and 8. The apparent attenJpt by the Marriott to bypass the Design Review Board's authority and purposle by seeking Town Council approval after the Design Review Board clearly advised the Marriott that this massive scope of this matter warrants careful and thorough consideration to ensure proper developmentof this major property. It was merely five days ago when the Marriott went before the Design ReviewBoard and presented it's proposal !for consideration- The members of the Design Review Board stayed well beyond their normal session to hear the Marriott's presentation and to address numerous concdms that were raised. The Design Review Board was explicitly clear that a project lof this magnitude will require careful, thorough review--- that the project is too massive in scope and impact on the Lionshead Master P1am to be rushed through as the Manion was requesting. The Design Review Board stated that the development of the Marriott site would need to be consistent with the plans for development of the West Pang Lot site. After more thazx two hours of discussion, the Design Review Board and the Marriott representatives agreed to continue the matter for the next hearing date of April 21, 1999. During the course of this lrieetmg, the Design Review Board suggested, and the Marriott representatives seemed to agree, that the neighboring landowners on forest Road should participate in the process to protect their interests as well as to invite Vail Resorts to the next meeting t6 make sure that the development of the Marriott project would be consistent with VA's plans to develop the West parking lot. I am not be able to attend t1i Town Council's meeting this week. Please advise me what, if any, fiuther action needs to be taken to make sure that the objections of the adjacent property owners art duly considered in this matter. Respectfully submitted, i TOTAL P.02 04-12-1999 08:3VAM FiRCM TO 19784792157 P.22 5. The new building ~s poorly situated on the site; 6. The proposal does rot have architectuual integrity on its own, it's just a series . of different styles stuck on in different places; 7. Concern for the impact of 60 time share units plus additional condom i 112M units on the already Overtaxed sewer system int he area--as evidenced !by the sewer smell that pen eates West Forest Road at times; and 8. The apparent attempt by the Marriott to bypass the Design Review Board's authority and purposle by seeking Town Council approval after the Design Review Board clearly advised the Marriott that this massive scope of this matter warrants careful and thorough consideration to ensure proper development: of this major property. It was merely five days ago When the Marriott went before the Design ReviewBoard and presented it's proposal!for consideration- The members of the Design Review Board stayed well beyond their normal session to hear the Marriott's'presentation and to address numerous concei ns that were raised. The Design Review Board was explicitly clear that a project Eof this magnitude will require careful, thorough review that the project is too massive in scope and impact on the Lionshead Master Pla>L to be rushed through as the Mariio* was requesting. The Design Review Board stated that the development of the Marriott site would need to be consistent with the plans for development of the Nest Paldd ag Lot site. After more than two hours of discussion, the Design Review Board and the Marriott representatives agreed to continue the matter for the next hearing date of April 21, 1999. During the course of this uaeeting, the Design Review Board suggested, and the Marriott representatives seetned to agree, that the neighboring landowners on Forest Road should participate in the process to protect their interests as well as to invite Vail Resorts to the next meeting tb make sure that the development of the Marriott project would be consistent with Vat's plans to develop the West parking lot- I am not be able to attend die Town Council's meeting this week. Please advise the what, if any, further action deeds to be taken to make sure that the objections iof the adjacent property owners ark duly considered in this matter. Respectfully submitted, `~.lot TOTAL P.02 SENT 8Y:GRIM5HAW & HARRING, NG; 4-15-H ; 5;ZJPM ; ~u;~.aayaauu~ `J'!U4'!~'L451;if 'L Gwxs Aw & HARRMG A. PRoH'$1micmAL OORPORATI074 ATi'OBPt M AT LAW our= 8800 ONE NORWIMT 00WTRR. 1700 LINCOLN HTRMT ABINVB1R. OOLORADO 80808-4U8 TBII"XONX Ia081880.5800 THLECOFIB:R 1808) 88848888 Gilbert F. McNeish April 15, 1999 (303) 839-3722 Vail Town Council 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1999, Amendment of Special Development District No. 7 Dear Council: Our law firm has been engaged by the Vail Spa Condominium Association ("Vail Spa") to represent Vail Spa's interests in connection with the Marriott redevelopment and the development of the Gore Creek Club. This letter is intended to set forth the concerns of Vail Spa with respect to Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1999, Amendment of Special Development District No. 7, which is scheduled to come for a first reading before the Council on April 20, 1999. Section 12-9A-8 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations sets forth the design criteria to be considered when evaluating the merits of a special development district ("SDD"). Of particular relevance here are Criteria A and B: A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Vail Spa believes that the proposed amendment to SDD No. 7 is incompatible with Vail Spa and has adverse effects on Vail Spa and other surrounding properties that cause the amendment to fail to meet these design criteria and elements of the Liousbead Redevelopment Master plan ("the l.ionshead Plan"). This letter sets forth the areas of incompatibility and other concerns of Vail Spa with respect to Ordinance No. 10: SENT BY:GRIMSHAW & HARRING, HG; 4-15-H 5;13NM i . ~U;itf~`J~tlUU'~ y'/U4'Iy14bLS J Vail Town Council April 15, 1999 Page 2 A.' Design Review Board Vail Spa believes that no action should be taken on Ordinance No. 10 until the Design .Review Board ("DRB") completes its evaluation of the amendment. At its last meeting, the DRB tabled its final review of the Marriott redevelopment and Gore Creek Club project until its April 21,. 1999 meeting. Vail Spa believes that there remain substantial design issues that need to be addressed by the DRB and that should be taken in consideration before the development plan proposed by Ordinance No. 10 can be considered complete, even for the purposes of a first reading of the Ordinance. It is imperative that the Design Review Board be given the time, the tools, and the input necessary to conduct a thorough review of this proposal to insure that all the considerations of the Lionshead Plan and the Zoning Regulations are addressed. The input that the DRB has into the architectural features of the redeveloped buildings and the new building should be incorporated into the development plan of SDD No. 7. These issues may include height, mass, setbacks, and other considerations that could fundamentally alter the development plan. For example, the DRB may come to the conclusion that the height and mass of the Gore Creek Club, when coupled with the added height and mass of the existing Marriott buildings, would create an architectural scheme that has too great of a visual impact on surrounding properties. The DRB may encourage a design that reduces these heights and masses, and these fundamental design changes should be incorporated into the development plan that defines what may be constructed within SDD No. 7. An approval of the development plan prior to the final DRB approval undermines the purpose of having the DRB involved in this process in the first . instance. We also suspect that there are several other concerned property owners that may want to raise similar issues with the DRB and that a special meeting of the DRB to address such public concerns is warranted. B. Building HeighUi Masses. and Obstruction of Views Vail Spa is concerned that the proposed additions to the existing Marriott buildings, combined with the construction of the new Gore Creek Club building, will have a serious detrimental visual impact on surrounding properties (i.e., obstruction of established views), and cause a substantial decrease in surrounding property values. The development plan submitted by Marriott in conjunction with its application for an amendment to SDD No. 7 indicates that the existing Marriott buildings will add new towers reaching heights up to 122 feet and that the new Gore Creek Club will have towers reaching similar heights. As Map M of the Lionshead Plan indicates, the Marriott is already one of the tallest structures in Lionshead. Additionally, the Lionshead Plan notes that the Marriott is "the single largest structure in Lionshead (and] is also very visible, especially from the west." Lionshead Plan, Page 5-33. Amending the SDD to allow the largest structure in Lionshead to become even larger and more visible does not comply with the spirit of the Lionshead Plan. The Lionshead Plan was not created simply to promote redevelopment and development without regard to impact on surrounding properties. SENT BY:GRIMSHAW & HARRING, PC; 4-15-99 ; 5:24PM ; 3038393800-4 9704792452;# 4 Vail Town Council . April 15, 1999 Page 3 The amended SDD would allow the views towards the ski Mountain from certain units in the Vail Spa building to be almost .entirely obscured: The views of many other Vail Spa units would also be affected, albeit to a lesser extent. This would have the immediate effect of decreasing the economic value of these units. Currently, Vail Spa units facing south are selling for tens of thousands of dollars more than comparable units facing to the north. Without these views, these south facing units would lose this value. Any redevelopment of the existing Marriott buildings and development of the Gore Creek Club should be designed in a fashion to minimize the loss of views from the Vail Spa and therefore to minimize any detrimental effect on the property values of the Vail Spa units. With respect to the existing Marriott buildings, Vail Spa is not necessarily opposed to redefining the architecture to eliminate the boxy nature of the buildings and to break up the flat rooflines. However, simply adding height to existing. buildings is not the only means of accomplishing this goal. We believe .that there should be an exploration of accomplishing these architectural goals while decreasing the overall height of the buildings, or by adding as little height as possible so as to comply as closely as possible with the LMU-1 height restrictions and the compatibility. and relationship design criteria for consideration of an SDD cited previously. With respect to the proposed Gore Creek Club building, the building that will most directly impact views from the Vail Spa to the mountain, height is of particular concern. We do not believe that any additional height accommodation is warranted from the underlying LMU--1 zoning district. As the Gore Creek Club building will be starting from the existing parking structure up, the design of the building should be'able to account for the height of architectural features called for by the Lionshead Plan and fit these features within the height guidelines of the LMU-1 district. Further design considerations and input from the DRB may warrant a consideration of design of a lesser height for this structure and would serve to mitigate the adverse effects on Vail Spa, its established views, and the property value of its units. C. Setbacks Vail Spa is very .concerned with the proposed reduced setbacks in Ordinance No. 10, which call for a zero setback on the north and east property lines, and a seven-foot setback on the west property line. The north zero setback will allow the Gore Creek Club to be built up to the Marriott property line and put commercial. uses in a very close proximity to some of the Vail Spa units- The west seven-foot setback would allow the building to be built closer to the adjacent West Day Lot than the LMU-1 zoning district allows. The standard for waiving setback requirements is set forth in the Lionshead Plan. Specifically, the Lionshead Plan states that the. general 10-foot setback requirement in Lionshead "should be waived in areas with designated build-to lines, and leeway should be considered in areas of 0C.141 U I UfAl1Y1QnMW 01 riMnnllYw rv 1 y 1 J I7N 1 J • LNf 111 1 v...../.. . • °•'T`•- •r Vail Town Council April. 15, 1999 Page 4 significant hardship that otherwise meet the intent of the master plan and do not negatively impact adjacent properties." Lionshead Plan, Section 7.3. 1. NORTH SETBACK According to the Lionshead Plan, the Marriott property is not within the "framework" for build-to lines, which are set forth in areas where there is only pedestrian traffic and no vehicular traffic (i.e., the retail core). Lionshead Plan, Map S. The reasons given for allowing build-to lines are to "create a continuous, well-defined retail experience in which all' ground floor spaces directly address the pedestrian street" and to remedy "excessive distances between opposing retail faces; which causes pedestrians to interact with only one side of the street. " Lionshead Plan, Section 5.8.1. In the Marriott's case, there is no adequate justification for building to the north property line. There is no "pedestrian street" as there is in the retail core; rather, there is a sidewalk and a vehicular street. Furthermore; there is no need for pedestrians to interact with both sides of the street because there is no commercial use on the Vail Spa side of the street. None of the justifications set forth in the Lionshead Plan for allowing building up to a property line are present with respect to the Marriott north property line, and the requested zero north setback should not be permitted. 2. WEST SETBACK The requested seven-foot west setback is also a major concern. The true potential impact of Ordinance No. 10 can not be determined without some input from Vail Associates as to its plans for development of the West Day Lot, the property immediately to the proposed Gore Creek Club's west. As discussed above, Ordinance No.. 10 would amend SDD No. 7 to permit a seven foot setback on west edge of the Marriott property (the site of the Gore Creek Club). Permitting a seven-foot setback along this propertyline without at least investigating the development possibilities for the immediately adjacent West Day Lot would be shortsighted. The Lionshead Plan. specifically contemplates the likelihood that the West Day Lot will be developed into a higher-end fee simple or fractional fee development. Lionshead Plan, Section 5.17. Input from Vail Associates is needed to determine how this lot may in fact be developed. Vail Spa particularly fears the prospect that a reduced west . setback Gore Creek Club, combined with the redevelopment of the existing Marriott buildings and another large scale building that may be developed on the West Day Lot will create a massive wall of buildings along Vail Spa's entire southern boundary. The Council should consider the west setback not only in terms of its, present impact on adjacent properties, but also in terms of its potential future impact when adjacent properties are developed. None of the reasons for reducing west back setback set forth in the Lionshead Plan, Section 7.3, are present in this case, and the potential for negative impact on the Vail Spa is very real. We believe that there should be an exploration of keeping the 10-foot LMU-1 SENT BY:GRIMSHAW & HARRING, PC; 4-15-99 5:25PM 3038393800-4 9704792452# 6 Vail Town Council April 15, 1999 Page 5 west setback in order to allow an adequate corridor of open space between the Gore Creek Club and development on the West Day Lot. Input from Vail Associates is key to this exploration, and we believe that a final determination of the appropriate setback cannot be made until such input is considered. D. Timin It is Vail Spa's understanding that Marriott does not have any immediate intent to begin. constriction on. this project. Vail Spa believes that it would be in the best interest of all parties concerned-Vail Spa, the Marriott, other surrounding property owners, the Town, and the public--that proceedings on this matter be taken very slowly and deliberately. It is Vail Spa's understanding that this is one of the first, if not the first, projects to be considered under the new Lionshead Plan and the LMU-1 zoning. Because this project has the potential to set precedent as far as how the various agencies of the Town of Vail will consider proposals under the guidance of the new Lionshead Plan, we believe that it is imperative to proceed cautiously and to insure that the public and affected properties have adequate opportunities for input throughout the entire process. E. Commercial Uses Vail Spa is also concerned with the prospect of commercial uses immediately across the street from some of its units. The commercial uses are potentially incompatible with the current residential use of the Vail Spa. Vail Spa is particularly concerned with potential commercial uses that may continue in the evening hours and the potential for noise disturbance from these activities. Vail Spa would like to know the types of commercial uses that are anticipated for this location. The character of the commercial uses and hours of operation should be specifically addressed prior to approval of the amendment to the SDD. F. Road and Intersection' Consideration Vail Spa also requests that the issue of Marriott's participation in all of the off-site improvements to be made by Marriott be finally resolved before Ordinance No. 14 is approved. Condition No. 5 of the Ordinance currently calls for Marriott to submit civil engineered drawings for all off site improvements, including improvements to.West Lionshead Circle. At the work session before the Town Council on April 13, 1999, Marriott representatives stated that they did not feel that they should be required to bear the entire expense of such drawings and construction. This issue should be resolved before the Council approves the Ordinance so that adequate consideration of the future configuration of the roads surrounding the Marriott property can be considered as part of the development plan. JGlvl U( •unlI MAW dt r1hr%M1IVU1 rlrt 4-l~-7~ i ~L~rm 1 UUJUJ.7J000 JIUY/JLYJLIA Vail Town Council April 15, 1999 Page 6 G. Conditional Uses It is unclear from the language of Ordinance No. 10 whether it requires that uses that are listed as conditional and accessory uses in the LMU-1 zone district must go through the review process for such uses provided for under the zoning code. Section 5(F) of Ordinance No: 10 states: "Uses--Shall be those permitted conditional and accessory uses identified in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Zone District." This language should be clarified to indicate that these conditional and accessory uses are not allowed as of right in the amended SDD, but rather that they must still go through the review processes provided for by the zoning code before the conditional and accessory uses are permitted. . Conclusion These are the initial comments of the Vail Spa to proposed Ordinance No. 10. We expect that we will raise additional issues throughout the evaluation .process of the Ordinance. We look forward to working with all the parties involved to insure that the Marriott project. is compatible with the adjacent properties and complies with the spirit and intent of the Lionshead Plan and the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. Very truly yours, GRIMSHAW & EARRING, A Professional Corporation Gilbert F. -McNeish GPM/aob cc: George Ruther, Town of Vail Community Development Department Design Review Board May-04-99 11:11A NSA Investments, Inc. P_01 05/03/1999 1300 519fby~'b54 - - • yC i e' v.-ate FAX MESSAGE TO: Town of Vail Town Council and Design Review Board Hearings FROM: Gary and Betty Biszantz. 670 Forest Road,` Vail, Colorado DAT'E_ May 3, 1999 PAGES: One of One Dcar Council Members* We are unable to attend the May 4° Council meeting and wish to site a number of concerns regarding the Maniott's Proposed Redevelopment Plan: 1 _ We have not seen the Proposal's site plan with elevations, without the irdon+nation received from neighbors we would not have been aware of the proposed redevelopment.- Z. We have not been shown pictures of how the area exists now versus how views will be impacted upon completion; 3. A 7V till building just off of a bike path does not bode well for the safety and increase in numbers of bikers when one considers the traffic in and out of the building; 4. Foot traffic throughout the buildings, the site and the surrounding area; 5. The lack of consistency between architectural styles of the different buildings. I'm sure we may have more concerns, however, we need more information regarding the proposed projcct- %EAR3 GE WMV r' O. Sme 75S, • 61a5Q L Granada Rancho Santa Fe. CA 92067 (619) 759-2x50 • Fax (619) 759.ZVA GHrKSHAW & H A RR7 MG A_ PROB'EMMN.AL CORPORATION ATTORNZMM AT LAW SETITS 8800 ONE M08WFST OETTZ2 1700 Ln1TOOI.N 9T8RBIT DX VER. UMORADO 80808-5688 TZIAMPHONR a= 83aa800 Pbi1i M. chi T~ooP~ mm 8898888 (303) 839-3833 May 3, 1999 VIA TELECOPIER NO (970) 479-2452 Design Review Board Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Design Review for Ordinance No. 10, Amendment to Special Development District No. 7, Marriott Redevelopment Project Dear Design Review Board: Our law firm has been engaged to represent the Vail Spa Condominium Association in conjunction with the proposed Marriott redevelopment project. The Vail Spa condominium is located adjacent to the Marriott property on the north side of West Lionshead Circle Road. We forwarded to you our letter to the Town Council, dated April 15, 1999, raising the Vail Spa's concerns with the proposed amendment to Special Development District No. 7. 1 also attended the Design Review Board Meeting on April 21 regarding conceptual review, and voiced some of the Spa's concerns. This letter is intended to recap our major concerns with the Marriott proposal, and to provide you with our reactions to comments raised at the April 21 meeting. 1. Design Review Framework As you are aware, the Zoning Regulations for the Town of Vail set forth the intent, criteria, and procedures for the Design Review Board and the Design Review process.. The Regulations state that design review is intended to "preserve the natural beauty of the Town and its setting, to protect the welfare of the community, to maintain the values created in the community, to protect and enhance land and prQpgy, for the promotion of health, safety, and general welfare in the community, and to obtain the objectives set out in this Section." Section 12-11-1(C) (emphasis added), The specific mandatory Design Review objectives established by the regulations that are particularly relevant to the Vail Spa regarding the Marriott proposal are as follows: SENT BY:GRIMSHAW &•HARRING, PC; 5- 3=99 4.38PM ; 303.8393800-4 9704792.452;# 3 Design Review Board May 3, 1999 Page 2 2. To allow for the development of public and private property which is in hAMM with the desired character of the Town as defined by the guidelines herein provided. 4. To ensure that the architectural design, location, configuration materials, colors, and overall ttutment of built-up and open spacxs have been designed so that they relate harmoniously to the natural landforms and native vegetation, the Town's overall appearance, with surrounding development, and with officially approved plans or guidelines, if any, for the areas in which the structures are proposed to be located. 5. _TS<u t neighboring propgf timers and usm by making sure that reasonable provision has been made for such matters as pedestrian and vehicular traffic, surface water drainage,- smd and Sight bLffers, the =erYa ono Ha ht o air, and those.asoects of de9i not ately cuued by Other regulations which av have substantial effects on ~h1Z41'~Y land >i~t Section 12-11-1(D) (emphasis added). There are several aspects of the Marriott project that fail to meet the design Objectives required by the regulations. Based on these regulations, we expect that the Design Review Board will consider the impact of the Marriott project on the Vail Spa and require design alternatives that mitigate the adverse effects on the Vail Spa. Furthermore, your regulations require that it is the applicant's burden to provide adequate information to the Design Review Board to enable the Board to have the necessary tools, including design options, at its disposal to make an informed evaluation of the applicant's design proposals. We trust that the Design Review Board will place that burden on the Marriott, and also ask for such additional information that would enable the Board to evaluate the full impact of the Marriott proposal on the Vail Spa and other surrounding properties. II. Specfflc Comments A• Design Review Board Authority. There was some discussion at the April 21 meeting regarding whether the Design Review Board was reopening zoning issues that had either been decided or that were outside of its authority. As explained above, the Vail Zoning Regulations charge the Design Review Board with a duty to take into account the design of buildings on the surrounding properties. See Section 12-11-1. For example; the maximum building standards (i.e., height, setback, etc.) established by the property's zoning designation dQ no establish an automatic entitlement to such maximums under your regulations, rather, those entitlements may be earned, if and 2nly if, other factors such as design guidelines are adequately addressed. Just because the zoning of a property allows ~~lvl oi.unimonmw at nAnnilWo M 0- 3-4U 4•aarm JUJUJUJ7UU-4 37U47yZ.4:;Z 4 4 Design Review Board May 3, 1999 Page 3 structures up to a certain height does not mean that the Design Review Board is obligated to approve that building height. Nor can a property owner demand such approval The Board should investigate and require other designs that result in lesser heights if these other designs mitigate against negative impacts on surrounding properties. The Design Review process is intended to insure harmonious development and to mitigate adverse impacts of new structures on their surroundings. Therefore, it is clearly within the Design Review Board's authority and mandate to require that an applicant explore alternative designs, even. if the applicant's proposed design otherwise appears to fit within the strict confines of the property's zoning limitations. B. Heights. We believe that the Marriott should explore ways of reducing their proposed heights for both the existing Marriott buildings- and the Gore Creek Building. Although we acknowledge that the existing Marriott structures are already among the tallest in Lionshead, the Marriott project should nevertheless meet as closely as possible the maximum heights allowed in the new LMU_1 zone district and called for under Section 8.4.2.3 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Architectural Design Guidelines. We understand that the Lionshead Redevelopment Master plan calls for elimination of flat rooflines and suggests, in concept, many of the architectural features proposed by the Marriott. However, many of these architectural goals could be achieved without adding the additional heights currently proposed. We would suggest a roofline design that reduces the proposed increase in building height, and that a mansard-type roof and other designs be explored. Mansard roof designs appear to be the best means for achieving the architectural goals while minimizing any increased heights. Indeed, Section 8.3.4.1 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Architectural Design Guidelines specifically contemplates mansard roofs as a means of replacing flat' roofs. with pitched roofs. C. Computer-aided photographic dnndutlon. We would like to see a computer aided photographic simulation Showing how the Marriott project as currently proposed would look from various vantage points, including the 'Pail Spa. This is not an expensive or time consuming. requirement, and it would greatly aid, both the Vail Spa and other surrounding property owners in understanding how the project as currently proposed will visually impact its surroundings. For example, the elevations- that have been submitted to date do not 'adequately indicate whether there will be a view preserved between the proposed Gore Creek Club building and the existing buildings. And, the elevations without the backdrop of the surroundings and the mountain make it difficult to judge the scale of the project in relation to its surroundings. A computer aided photographic simulation could also help the Design Review Board to appreciate the impact of the project on public views. If West Lionshead Circle is eventually going to become a pedestrian corridor as contemplated by the Uonshead Redevelopment Master plan, it would certainly be, a more appealing pedestrian corridor if there were pedestrian views.back towards the mountain from the street or sidewalk. Section 12-11-4(C)(2) sp=iAcaAy states. that "the Administrator may require SENT dY:GRIMSHAW k HARKING. PC; 5- 3-99. 4:3.9PM 303839.3800-+ 9.704792452;# 5 Design. Review Board May 3, 1999 Page 4 any additional. items from the applicant as review, may be necessary for complete and proper design " D, Stepping back. We are very supportive of Hans Woldrich,s suggestion that the Gore Creek Club building should be designed to "step back" on the 5th through 8th floors., This would reduce the walling effect that the combination of all the Marriott buildings have when viewed from the Vail Spa and the pedestrian corridor, and it would specifically reduce the obstruction of views from the Vail Spa units which are negatively impacted the most by the proposal. E. Proce&wat law". We believe that the Design Review Board should be permitted to complete its evaluation and make a final decision on, the Marriott project before the Town Council makes a decision on whether or not to approve Ordinance No. 10 amending SDD No. 7. The development plans that are currently before the Town Council are likely to be materially altered by Design Review. Vail Spa's position is that an amendment to the SDD cannot be considered by the Town Council until the Design Review is completed because the proposal amendment to the SDD is entirely dependent upon the results of the Design-Review Board process. These are our primary comments to the Marriott proposal as it currently Wdsts. We look forward to continuing our participation in this process and to insuring that the Design Review process results in a Marriott, project that adequately balances the inoerests of all concerned parties, as contemplated by the Town's regulations: the Marriott, the Town, and the surrounding property owners. Yours very truly, GRIMSHAW & EARRING, A 2rofessional Corporation Philip M. Quatrochi PMQ/aob cc: George Ruther (via telecopier number (970) 479-2452) Al H$user, Vail Spa. (via telecopier number (970) 476-5548) Nancy Shapiro Adam 4975 East Preserve Court Greenwood. Village. CO 80121 303-770-5383 Far: 303-770-8918 May 3, 1999 BY HAND DELIVERY To: Town of Vail Town Council and Design Review Board Re: Marriott's Proposed Redevelopment Plan As the owner of 765 Forest Road, I am directly impacted by the Marriott's proposal to modify its existing buildings and to add the Gore Creek Club. I attended the Town Council Hearing on April 20, 1999, and the Design Review Board Hearings on April 7 and 21, 1999. At both of these meetings, the Design Review Board expressed and demonstrated its commitment to making sure that a project of this magnitude receives the time and attention to detail that it deserves. In response to the Marriott's representation that they were postponing consideration of their proposal until they had an opportunity to receive feedback from the neighbors in the area, I forwarded to their representatives the enclosed letter dated April 22, 1999. After discussing the contents, the representatives stated that no changes would be made to their proposed plan until they received feedback from all interested parties. Since I may not be able to attend this weeks' hearings due to an arbitration that is scheduled for this week, I am forwarding to you the written objections that have been . made aware of at this time. A particular concern to be addressed by the Town Council is whether an interval ownership project is truly the ideal solution for this area. Does such a project address the need to protect the tax base and increase the bed space of quality hotel rooms for our visitors? . The need. for a luxury hotel experience is particularly true for Lionshead. Imagine the magic of the experience our visitors would enjoy if a top quality hotel were developed which would provide for fast class amenities while being situated. on an incredible site that encourages the guests to visit and enjoy the surroundings--both natural and retail. Another issue raised at the last Town Council hearing was the concern for the declining tax base of the Town of Vail. It is my understanding that a hotel is taxed as commercial property for real estate purposes whereas an interval ownership unit is taxed at the lower residential tax rate. Likewise, it is my understanding that a hotel stay is subject to tax, whereas the.use of an interval ownership unit is not subject to tax. Accordingly, the Town of Vail should consider the economic benefit of developing this site as a hotel site rather than an interval ownership project before approving the proposed project. The representatives of the Marriott have subtly suggested that unless they receive immediate approval of their plans and adoption of the ordinance, the developer might not proceed with the project. As a person who is involved in real estate development in this Valley, I do not put much merit on this concern. Quite frankly, this is a spectacular piece of real estate. It is walking distance to the Gondola, overlooks the Gore Creek, and is right on the Town of Vail bus line. The desirability of this location and the development opportunity here are special and unique. The three rules in real estate are "Location, Location, Location." Many developers will be eager to have the opportunity to pursue development of this wonderfully located site. The rush to develop the Valley in the 1970's created many of the problems we are trying to-correct today. Let's not let history repeat itself. Let's make sure the projects we approve today truly resolve the problems of the past rather than create problems for the future. It is the Town Council and the residents of Vail who will live with the projects we approve today, long after the architects have been paid and the developer has made its profit. Please do not allow the Marriott to usurp the authority and duties of the Design Review Board. Respect the integrity and responsibilities of the Design Review Board as they diligently proceed with their thorough, attentive, responsive review of this project to allow the project to develop to its optimal potential. Thank you for your consideration of these matters. IL.lt~d~. ~ Gt.L'~.GL yyLJ J PRESENTATION TO TOWN OF VAIL TOWN COUNCIL May 4, 1999 OBJECTIONS TO MARRIOTT'S PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Cover letter dated May 3, 1999 from Nancy Shapiro Adam to Town of Vail Town Council and Design Review Board; Pictures of the area as viewed from West Forest Road; Letter dated April 22, 1999 from Nancy Shapiro Adam to the Marriott's Architect and Developer summarizing issues to be addressed; Memo dated April 17, 1999, from Hans Woldrich as a Design Review Board Member to the Town of Vail; Letter dated April 16, 1999 from Design Review Board Members to the Town Council; Letter dated April 14, 1999 from Nancy Shapiro Adam as the owner of 3 adjacent parcels-765 Forest Road both Primary and Secondary Units and 706 Forest Road-E; Letter dated April 13, 1999 from Charles Ackerman, owner of 716-W Forest Road; Letter dated April 13, 1999. from Alice Parsons, owner of 745 Forest Road; Letter dated April 12, 1999 from Roger and Sally Cadol, owners of 725 Forest Road-, Letter dated April 12, 1999 from Sperberg & Associates LLC, attorney for Ms. Adam; Letter dated April 7, 1999 from George Cannon, owner of 616 Forest Road; and Letter dated April 15, 1999 from Grimshaw & Harring as attorneys for the Vail Spa. If a picture paints a thousand words, then let these pictures remind you how special the open space is, how overbearing the existing Marriott already is, and how tragic it would be to allow this monstrous structure to grow in height and mass. - - 07- F ~r w Y117 i Nos M-- V4 The proposal to build a 70' tall structure merely 30' off of the bike path will take away the beauty and tranquility of this special part of the town from all of the residents and tourists who enjoy this peaceful setting. There must be another way to expand the Marriott without destroying the beauty of the area. See that big boulder above the bike path? Beautiful open space leading south to the Bike Path and the Gore Creek and north with views up the Valley. 9 rF+ A~ Now, imagine open space replaced by a 70' tall, very wide structure that runs 400' to the north? See that beautiful blue sky and view up to the Valley? It will be lost to cement, stucco, roofline and steeples. - Ai- c; n Nancy Shapiro Adam 4975 East Preserve Court Greenwood Village, CO 80121 303-7110-5383 Fat: 303-770-8918 April 22, 1999 By Fax 970-845-7205 and 970-476-1612- To: Chuck Madison Scott Lindall Re: Marriot Redevelopment Plans I feel like I am wearing several hats in these discussions--as the owner of the lot across Gore Creek from your project and as a part-time resident of Lionshead who wants to make sure that future development of Lionshead solves the problems of the past rather than creates mistakes for the future. The result is that I may sound like an outside consultant in providing these comments to facilitate the optimal development of the site. As a neighboring landowner, I make the disclaimer that I am not the spokesperson for the West Forest Road Owners. Rather, I have been appearing at the hearings on my own behalf. Accordingly, I strongly recommended that you notify the West Forest Road property owners of the Marriott' s Proposed Redevelopment Plan (the ."Proposal") and a calendar of the upcoming Town of Vail Town Council and Design Review Board Hearings. I encourage you to provide the West Forest Road owners with copies of the Proposal's site plan and elevations along with pictures of the area that show it as it exists today versus how the views will be impacted upon completion of the Proposal. This pictorial presentation should include pictures from both the North and South sides of the streets and from the East and the West ends. Your ability to draw in to scale the proposed modifications to the existing buildings and the addition of the new building may go a long way toward appeasing concerns that immediately arise when such a massive project is being proposed. 1 In addition. you may want to explain to these owners the differences between the Proposal from the plan submitted in 1991. The goal of providing the West Forest Road owners with this information in advance is to afford them an opportunity to review. the Proposal and address their concerns with you in advance of the hearings or at the next hearings. This approach may expedite the review process since all of the interested parties will have an opportunity to be heard now rather than later in the .process. Please provide me with a copy of the mailing you send to these owners. At this time, my concerns with respect to the Proposal are as follows: 1. The impact of a 70' tall building just off of the bike path; 2. The height of the "architectural elements" imposed upon the West wall of the Gore Creek Club; 3. Pedestrian circulation throughout the buildings, the site, and the surrounding area; 4. The monotony of a 400' long elevation along the west wall of the property; 5. The suggestion presented by the DRB to break up the massive linear design of the Gore Creek Club by staggering the units and providing access directly to the Bike Path by opening up the tier of units along the South property line; 6. Step back the south units at the Gore Creek Club to lessen the massive impact along the river; 7. Break up the monotony of the architectural features in both the new building and the. remodel of the existing buildings; 8. Lessen the height and impact of the roof on the existing buildings since it is not achieving the architectural feature goals intended=-rather, the DRB stated that adding roof mass is only increasing the problem of this already massive property; 9. Modify the landscaping plan to increase the Spruce and Evergreen Trees to the north side of the bike path since these will provide year round screening without screening the Gore Creek from the pedestrians and general public using the bike path; 10. Concern for the impact of the Proposal on the light and air space of the area; 11. Concern that the Proposal does not ideally develop the site and will create a problem for the future rather than a solution of a problem; 12. The steep rooflines appear to have no purpose other than to increase massing on an already voluminous structure; 13. The lack of consistency with the architectural styles of the different buildings; 14. The impact of 66 time share units on the already overtaxed sewer system; and 15. The need to coordinate the development of the Marriott's site with the development plans of Vail Associates for their adjoining lot. In a more consulting position, I would like to encourage you to address the following issues and ideas: 1. Design the redevelopment project to accommodate the actual needs and desires of the guests-there are many concerns that the Proposal will not satisfy the needs of the occupants and/or users of the Marriott and/or the Gore Creek Club; 2. Along these lines, you seemed to concur with the suggestion of conducting a feasibility study or a survey of the owners and guests of the Marriott to address their actual use and interests in the site development; 3. The desirability of providing outdoor amenities that will create a resort atmosphere and encourage the users to enjoy the surroundings--to provide Vail in general, and Lionshead in particular, with a wonderful resort atmosphere that encourages the users of the Proposal to enjoy the space and amenities, rather than returning to their rooms and staying indoors; 4. Identify the specific public benefits that result from this SDD as concluded in the draft of the Ordinance; 3 5. As discussed above, provide a pictorial representation of the Proposal so the impact on the character, aesthetics and open space of the area can be evaluated by the neighbors as well as the DRB and Town CounciL 6. Adapt the design to orient toward the natural landscaping and aesthetics of the area rather than orienting to an artificially created interior courtyard, the actual use and value of which is suspect; 7. Provide an inviting entrance into the Marriott from the Southeast since this is the main route of ingress and egress used by the Mam"ott's guests; = 8. Whether developing the site for time share units will really solve the problem of raising sales and property taxes for Vail when hotel rooms would be taxed on their revenue and at a commercial property tax rate; and 9. Pursue our discussions about providing a playground or other outdoor attraction along the Southern property area to encourage guests to enjoy the surroundings. Dave Corbin from Vail Associates attended the recent DRB hearing and represented that Vail Associates does not object to the Proposal, that VA will work with the Proposal in designing their future development of their site, and that VA will not duplicate the 400' long wall of the Gore Creek Club, but, instead, will develop their adjoining site by orienting their project toward the west and away from the 400' long western wall of the Gore Creek Club. All of these statements are extremely cooperative to and supportive of the Proposal. However, time changes many memories and representations. To ensure there is no future change in position by VA when it proceeds with its development plans, a legally binding agreement should be entered into with VA setting forth their position with these plans and affirming the cooperative stance presented at this week's DRB hearing. Again, this suggestion is designed to avoid problems in the future by memorializing the representations and assurances that are being given today. Finally, you may want to review the draft of the ordinance as it has some typographical. errors and/or incomplete sentences. I think this list is pretty exhaustive at this time. I look forward to discussing these matters at our 12:30pm conference call tomorrow. ,LA- zt C -f-( 4 1 MEMO To: Town of Vail From: Hans Woldrich D.R.B. April 17, 1999 As requested by the staff, I have reviewed the preliminary plans for the proposed Marriott redevelopment and the new building of the Gore Creek Club. At this point I can not address details. I am commenting only on the architectural design concept, which I think is well done, however I do have some strong suggestions. Gore Creek Club 1. North wing of building, the east and west sides of building„ comes out of the ground abruptly rather then gradually rising from ground to roof eve. I suggest to step back both sides of floor level 5, 6, 7 and 8. This will open up a view corridor between the existing Marriott and the new building on the east side--it would then be possible to lower the tall Landmark tower on the west side--and in general give a more gradual transition from LOW to HIGH. ( See concept sketch on plan NORTH elevation) 2. WEST ELEVATION The proposed length of the building along the lot line is a straight line, rifle shot distance of approximately 330 feet. There are proposed T-T offsets which break up this elevation somewhat however, I believe that this does not meet the intent of the Lionshead ADG which says that we must prevent long straight building masses. This problem needs to be addressed and resolved in order to avoid setting a most undesirable precedent. The architectural detailing and fenestrations on this elevation seems to be lacking in richness and compliance with the ADG. 3. SOUTH ELEVATION Has repetitive, almost identical building face organization across the entire building length. 4. STAIRCASE TOWER Pedestrian connection from roof garden to the ground level park landscape area seems unresolved. (4 story high enclosed staircase? is most unpleasant) I will gladly discuss these above mentioned points and the overall project. Comments on the Marriott redevelopment plans are forthcoming. Date: April 16, 1999 To: Vail Town Council Members From: Bill Pierce. Hans Woldrich Re: Approval Process for \larriot SDD Dear Council Members. It has come to our attention from a number of Vail citizens and property owners that..the Marriot has requested approval of their SDD Documents at the up-coming Town Council' Meeting on Tuesday. April 20, 1999. You are probably aware that the Design Review Board has had some initial reviews of the Project but more extensive review will be necessary to assure that this very significant Project meets the intent of the recently adopted Design Guidelines. Unfortunately the Design Review Board (in our opinion) has not had the opportunity to study this Project to the extent necessary. We realize the significance this complex Project will have on the future of Lionshead and the precedent it will set it will set for other Projects. The DRB members have expressed a sincere willingness to make themselves available for additional meetings, subject to State Law, prior to regularly scheduled meetings or at other times that can be arranged. It is our intention to provide appropriate review on a timely basis to minimize any inconvenience to the Applicant. It seems that the DRB review should be complete. or close to completion before the SDD Documents are approved. We will be happy to discuss this matter with you if you deem it neces#1WIii Pierce Hans Woldrich K:lrnarriott.wpd Nancy Shapiro Adam 4975 East PresLn-e Cour. Greenwood Village, CO 80121 303-770-5383 Fax: 303-70-8919 BY FAX #970-479-2157 April 14,1999 To: Town of Vail Town Council Re: Objections to the Application of Marriott Hotel in Lionshead--Renovation and Expansion I am the owner of three properties on West Forest Road-the primary side of 706 Forest Road and both the primary and secondary units at 765 Forest Road. The Marriott's proposed renovations and expansion has significant impact on all of these properties. I received information this afternoon that the Marriott will be seeking approval from the Town of Vail Town Council for its plans to expand and renovate its Lionshead property at it's work session on Tuesday, April 13, 1999. It is my understanding that the Marriott is seeking to schedule this matter for the first of two readings of an ordinance by the Town Council on Tuesday, April 20, 1999. I am writing to inform the Town Council that, as the West Forest Road property owner directly south of the Marriott's expansion plans, I object to the Marriott's plans for the following reasons: 1. The proposed Gore Creek Club creates a massive 60 foot tall building within 30 feet of the bike path along the river which is far to voluminous for the open air nature of the area; 2. The Marriott proposal does not provided for pedestrian connection and circulation-, 3., The Marriott proposal encroaches on the light and air space of the area; 4. The proposed steep roofline on top of the existing buildings seem to have no purpose other than to add additional volume on an already massive structure; 5. The new building is poorly situated on the site; 6. The proposal does not have architectural integrity on its own, it's just a series of different styles stuck on in different places; 7. Concern for the impact of 60 time share units plus additional condominium units on the already overtaxed sewer system int he area--as evidenced by the sewer smell that permeates West Forest Road at times; and 8. The apparent attempt by the Marriott to bypass the Design Review Board's authority and purpose by seeking Town Council approval after the Design Review Board clearly advised the Marriott that this massive scope of this matter warrants careful and thorough consideration to ensure proper development of this major property. It was merely five days ago when the Marriott went before the Design Review Board and presented it's proposal for consideration. The members of the Design Review Board stayed well beyond their normal session to hear the Marriott's presentation and to address numerous concerns that were raised. The Design Review Board was explicitly clear that a project of this magnitude will require careful, thorough review-- that the project is too massive in scope and impact on the Lionshead Master Plan to be rushed through as the Marriott was requesting. The Design Review Board stated that the development of the Marriott site would need to be consistent with the plans for development of the West Parking Lot site. After more than two hours of discussion, the Design Review Board and the Marriott representatives agreed to continue the matter for the next hearing date of April 21, 1999. During the course of this meeting, the Design Review Board suggested, and the Marriott representatives seemed to agree, that the neighboring landowners on Forest Road should participate in the process to protect their interests as well as to invite Vail Resorts to the next meeting to make sure that the development of the Marriott project would be consistent with Vail's plans to develop the West parking lot. I am not be able to attend the Town Council's meeting this week. Please advise me what, if any, further action needs to be taken to make sure that the objections of the adjacent property owners are duly considered in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Ackerman Co. wr Em- 9ute 200. Crown Pointe 1 n40 Crown Pointe Parkway in. Georgia 30338 ChttrrNs S. -kf*orffw Ohane- 77MI3-3WO Pnasidant Fax 7706913.3965 To: Town of Vail Town Council Via FAX 970-479-2157 From: Charles S. Ackerman 716 B Forest Road Vail CO 81657 Date: April 13, 1999 Subj: Objections to the Application of Marriott Hotel in Lionshead - Renovation and Expansion If the- expansion of the Marriott Hotel is for timesharing, I am adamantly against it The neighbors on West Forest have invested substantially to create an attractive environment in our neighborhood. We currently contend with the disruptivc "snow cats of Vail Associates", an unattractive concrete bridge, and a threat to re-zone the tennis courts to multifamily . Using the undeveloped site adjoining the Marriott for hotel expansion is minimally acceptable. The site should be developed for upscale residential. Since I have not been privy to the design of the expansion, I reserve my approval for the hotel expansion until I review said plan. Specifically, I oppose expansion for timeshare and will affirm hotel expansion after a review of the plan. S. ckerman CSA:blh Date Receiver APR 13 1999 TOTAL F.01 Alice T Parsons P.O. Box 497 Edwards, CO 81632 April 13, 1999 Town of Vail Town Council Vail Town Government Offices 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 RE: Lionshead Marriott Hotel Application Dear Town Council: I am in complete agreement with each and every objection made to the design and scope of the Marriott's submitted plans for their expansion as expressed by Nancy Adam in .her letter to you. (Please see copy of letter which I have enclosed). Vail does not need anymore Time Shares nor lodging. If anything needs to be added, it is housing for employees o_ the Marriott and that should be limited to a two-story building. Sincerely, Alice L. Parsons owner: 745 Forest Road, Vail, Colorado April 12, 1999 To Town of Vail Town Council Re: Objections to the application of Marriott hotel expansion in Lionshead We have a home at 725 Forest Road and we are writing to protest the proposed addition to the Hotel Marriott. Wt: are especially concerned with: * Water needs and sewage disposal fnr people occupying 60 timeshare units- * Loss of open space and mountain views if a four story building is constructed on the proposed site. . The proximity to the city bike path---only 30 feet. * The apparent disregard of the Marriott Hotel for the interests of home owners on Forest Road and the walkers, runners, strollers and nature lovers on the city bike path. We strongly urge the Vail Town Council to vote an enTphatic One" to the Mw-rioti expansion proposal. We also certainly want to believe that you will give us, your constituents, the same consideration that you give the Marriott, an outside corporate entity. Sincerely, R ~oge V. and Sally M. Cadol SPERBERC & ASSOCIATES LLC; aird Gourt~elo~a at ~.ata Rcs~t L. SFERSTRG NOc&v-sS CsN'ER. SurrE 205 ERic A. RsHER 70 BENc%aw.w Rowe. P- O. 6cx 34.20 974845-0200 MICHAF-I_ R DUNLEM AVON, COLOPLADO 9 1620 Fax 970.3.457339 April 12, 1999 VIA FACSDAILE (479-215 Tom Moc4uzd, Esq. Town Attorney, Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, CO 8165? Re: Application of Marriott Hotel (Lionshead) for renovation and expansion. Dear Tom: We _epreserd Nancy Adam, a homcowne: of three parcels at the West end of Forest Road across the river from the Marriott Hotel. We leamed from her today that the Marriott Hotel is apparently trying to do an end run around the Vail Design Review Board in its efforts to get a =j or remodeling and renovation approved by going straight to the Town Counsel at its meeting tomorrow, The details are contained in Ms. Adam's letter to the Town Council, a copy of which is attached to this letter. Needless to say, we believe that the Marriott hotel, like evezym else, should have to satisfy the design review process before the Town Council bears the matter. This is especially true if there are significaz homeowner and adjacent property owner concerns, as there agpearto be in this case. Due process requires that the affected property owners have an opportunity to be heard; and this would include the desip review process. Thus, we would consider any preferential treatment accorded to the Marriott Hotel to be arbitrary and capacious conduct on the part of the Town Council, and we trust that the Town Council will be astute enough to deny such special treatment to the hoteL Thank you in advance for bringing our concerns to the attention of the Town Council. If we can provide additional information, or answer any questions, please call. V truly urs, R erb erg Apr-07-99 10:37A P.01 George R. (`;;-ion 36 Steele StreL Suite 260 Denver, 80206 April 7, 1999 Design Review Board Vail, Colorado Dear Design Review Board Members- I am the owner of the residence on 616 Forest Road and recently became aware of the proposed re-development of the Marriot` at Lionshead. As an owner of the above reference property since 1969, 1 have witnessed the development and grcwth of Lionshead. Although I certainly support the upgrading and beautification, efforts of the town of Vail towards Lionshead, i concur with Nancy Adams that this project does not positively improve the character of Lionshead. 4'b'ithout substantial improvements in Marriott's plan, I oppose the project as currently planned. SI re1y, - eo`' 71, GmxsHAw & MuunNG A PROPASSIMA.1, CORPORA Al"MILNINYB .AT LAW BIIITS 2,800 - OAX N03IWEST C CKTZR 1700 L INC01 9T MET 1LTVIM 013LORJD0 80808-4d88 Tmur._PToSH =at sawssoo T23T BCCdPI 'Et 1808 eas-ams . E•IRAII, r•*r9••-•~~Ots7fJV~Haa'$TO.ODi[ Giloert F. WNeish April 15, 1999 (303) 839-3722 Vail Town Council 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1999, Amendment of Special Developm= District No. 7 Dear Council: Our law fern has been engaged by the Vail Spa Condominium Association ("Vail Spa") to represent Vail Spa's' interests in connection with the Marriott redevelopment and the development of the Gore Creek Club. This letter is intended to set forth the concerns of Vail Spa with respect to Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1999, Amendment of Special Development District No. 7, which is scheduled to come for a first reading before the Council on April 20, 1999. Section 12-9A-8 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations sets forth the design criteria to be considered when evaluating the merits of a special development district ("SDD"). Of particular relevance here are Criteria A and B: A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate envirotunent, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Vail Spa believes that the proposed amendment to SDD No. 7 is incompatible with Vail Spa and has adverse effects on Vail Spa and other surrounding properties that cause the amendment to fail to meet these design criteria and elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan ("the Lionshead Plan")- This letter sets forth the areas of incompatibility and other concerns of VA Spa with respect to Ordinance No. 10: Vail Town Council April 15, 1999 Page 2 A. Design Review Board Vail Spa believes that no action should be taken on Ordinance No. 10 until the Design Review Board ("DRB") completes its evahiatinn of the amendment. At its last meeting, the . DRB tabled its final review of the Marriott redevelopment sad Gott C!rx Club project until its April 21; 1999 meeting. Vail Spa believes that there remain substantial design issues that need to be addressed by the DRB and that should be taken in. consideration before the development plan proposed by Ordinance No. 10 can be considered complete, even for the _ purposes of a first reading of the Ordinance. It is imperative that the Design Review Board be given the time, the tools, and the input necessary to conduct a thorough review of this proposal to insure that all the considerations of the Iaonshead Plan and the Zoning Regulations are addressed. The input that the DRB has into the architectural featurea of the redeveloped buildings and the new building should be incorporated into the development plan of SDD No. 7. These issues may include height, mass, setbacks, and other considerations that could fundamentally alter the development plan. For example, the DRB may come to the conclusion .that the height and mass of the Gore Creek Chub, when coupled with the added height and mass of the existing Marriott buildings, would create an architectural scheme that has too great of a visual impact ou surrounding properties. The DRB may encourage a design that reduces these heights and masses, and these undametttai design changes should be incorporated into the development plan that defines what may be constructed within SDD No. 7. An approval of the development plan prior to the final DRB approval undermines the purpose of having the DRB involved in this process in the first. instance. We also suspect that there are several other concerned property owners that may want to raise similar issues with the DRB and that a special meeting of the DRB to address such public concerns is warranted. B. Building HeiEhts, biassm and Obstruction of Views Vail Spa is concerned that the proposed additions to the existing Marriott buildings, .combined with the construction of the new Gore Creek Club building, will have a serious detrimental visual impact on surrounding properties (i.e., obstruction of established views), and cause a substantial decrease in surrounding property values. The development plan - submitted by Marriott in conjunction with its application for an amendment to SDD No. 7 indicates that the existing Marriott buildings will add new towers reaching heights up to 122 feer and that the new Gore Creek Club will have towers reaching similar heights. As Map M of the Lionshead Plan indicates, the Marriott is already one of the tallest structures in Lionshmd. Additionally, the Lionshead Plan notes that the Marriott is "the single largest suucture in Lionshead [and] is also very visible, especially from the west-" Lionshead Plan, Page 5-33. Amending the SDD to allow the largest structure in Lionsbead to become even larger and more visible does not comply with the spirit of the Lionshead Plan. The L.ioosbead Plan was not created simply to promote redevelepment and development without regard to impact on surrounding properties. Vail Town Council April 15, 1999 Page 3 The amended SDD would allow the views towards the ski mountain from certain units in the Vail Spa building to be almost entirely obscured. The views of many.other Vail Spa units would also be affected, albeit to a lesser extent. This would have the imrnediate effect of decreasing the economic value of these units. Currently, Vail Spa traits facing south are selling for tens of thousands of dollars more than comparable units facing to the north. Without these views, these south facing units would lose this value. Any redevelopment of the existing Marriott -buildings and development of the Gore Creek Chub should be designed in a fashion to minimize the loss of views from the Vail Spa and therefore to rninimi7r any detrimenW effect on the property values of the Vail Spa units. With respect to the existing Marriott buildings, Vail Spa is not necessarily opposed to redefining the architecture to eliminate the boxy nature of the buildings and to break up the flat rooflines. However, simply adding height to existing. buildings is not the only means of accomplishing this goal. We believe that there should be an exploration of accomplishing these architectural goals while decreasing the overall height of the. buildings, or by adding as little height as possible so as to comply as closely as poss%le with the LMU-1 height restrictions and the compatibility and relationship design criteria for coasideration of an SDD cited previously. With respect to the proposed Gore Creels Club building, the building that will most directly impact views from the Vail Spa to the mountain, height is of particular concern. We do not believe that any additional height accommodation is warranted from the underlying LMU-1 zoning district. As the Gore Creek Club building will be starting from the existing parking structure up, the design of the building should be able to account for the height of architectural features called for by the Lionshead Plan and fit these features within the height guidelines of the IIMU-1 district- Further design considerations and input from the DRB may wan'= a consideration of design of a lesser height for this structure' and would serve to mitigaw die adverse effects on Vail Spa, its established views, and the property value of its units. C. Setbacks Vail Spa is very concerned with the proposed reduced setbacks in Ordh ance No. 10, which call for a zero setback on the north and east property lines, and a seven foot setback on the west property line. The north zero setback will allow the Gore Creek Club to be built up to the Marriott property line and put commercial uses in a very close proximity to some of the Vail Spa units. The west seven-foot setback would allow the building to be built closer m the adjacent West Day Lot than the LMU-I zoning district allows. The standard for w2iiing setback requirements is set forth in the l_.ionshead Plan. Specifically, the Liondmad Plan states that the general 10-foot setback requirement in Liomheed "should be waived in areas with designated build-to lines, and leeway should be considered in areas of Z ail Town Council April 15, 1999 Page 4 significant hardship that odierwise meet the intent of the master plan and do not negatively impact adjacent properties." Lionshead Plan, Section 7.3. 1. NORTH SETBACK According to the Lionshead Plan, the Marriott property is not within the "fiamcwork' for build-to lines, which are set forth in areas where there is only pedestrian .traffic and im vehicular traffic (i.e., the retail care). 11onshead Plan, Map S. The reasons given for allowing build-to lines are to 'create a continuous, well-defined retail experience in which all ground floor spaces directly address the pedestrian street' and to remedy "excessive distances between opposing retail faces; which cm, pedestrians to itne= with only one side of the street." lionshead Plan, Section 5.8.1. In the Marriott's case, there is no adequate justification for building to the north property line. There is no 'pedestrian street' as there is in the retail core; rather, there is a sidewalk and a vehicular street. Furthermore; there is no need for pedestrians to interact with both sides of the street because there is no commercial use on the Vail Spi side of the street. None of the justifications set forth in the Lionshead Plan for allowing building up to a property line are present with respect to the Marriott north property line, and the requested zero north setback should not be permitted. 2. WEST SETBACK The requested seven-foot west setback is also a major concern. The true potential impact of Ordinance No. 10 can not be determined without some input, from Vail Associates as to its plans for development of the West Day Lot, the property immediately to the proposed Gore Creek Club's west. As discussed above, Ordhm= No. 10 would amend SDD No. 7 to permit a seven-foot setback on %rest edge of the Marriott property (the site of the Gore Creek Club). Permitting a seven-foot setback along this property line without at least investigating the development possibilities for the immediately, adjacent West Day Lot would be shortsighted. The Lionshesd Plan specifically contemplates the likelhwod that the West Day Lot will be developed into a higher-end fee simple or fracti6ral fee development. Li,onshead Plan, Section 5.17. Input frnnn Vail Associates is needed to determine how this lot may in fact be developed. Vail Spa particularly fears the prospect that a reduced west setback Gore Creek Club, combined with the redevelopment. of the existing Marriott buildings and another large scale building that may be developed on the West Day Lot will create a massive wall of buildings along Vail Spa's entire southern boundary. The Council should consider the west setback not only in terms of its present impact on adjacent properties, but also in terms of its potential future impact when adjacent properties are developed. None of the reasons for reducing west back setback set forth in the Lionshead Plan, Section 7.3, are present in this case, and the potential for negative impact on the Vail Spa is very real. We believe that there should be an exploration of keeping the 10-foot LMU-1 Vail Towm Council April 15, 1999 Page 5 west setback in order to allow an adequate corridor of open space between the Gore Creek Club and development on the West Day Lot. Input from Vail Associates is key to this exploration and we believe that a final determination of the appropriate setback cannot be made until such input is considered. D. It is Vail Spa's understanding that Marriott does not have any immediate intent to- begin construction on this project. Vail Spa believes that it would be in the best interest of all parties concerned-Vail Spa, the Marriott, other surrounding property owners, the Town, and the public--that proceedings on this matter be taken very slowly and dehbetamly. It is Vail Spa's understanding that this is one of the first, if not the first, projects to be considered under the new Llonshead Plan and the LMU-1 zoning. Because this project has the potential to set precedent as far as how the various agencies of the Town of Vail will consider proposals under-the guidance of the new Lionshead Plan, we believe that it is imperative to proceed cautiously and to unsure that the public and affected properties have adequate opportunities for input throughout the entire process. E. Commercial Uses Vail Spa is also concerned with the prospect of commercial uses irnmedintely across the street from some of its units. The comiuercial uses are patentially iacrrmpatible with the currem residential use of the Vail Spa. Vail Spa is particularly concerned with potential c=mercisl rises that may continue in the evening hours and the potential for noise disturbance from these activities. Vail Spa would like to know the types of commercial uses that are anticipated for this location. The character of the commercial uses and hours of operation should be specifically addressed prior to approval of the amendmeaz to the SDD. F. Road and InWsertion Consideration Vail Spa also requem that the issue of Marriott's participation in all of the off-site improvements to be made by Marriott be finally resolved before'Ordinance No. 10 is approved. Condition No. 5 of the Ordinance currently calls for Marriott to submit civil engineered drawings for all off-site improvetnxnts, including improvements to West Lioushead Circle. At the work session before the Town Council on April 13, 1999, Marriott representatives stated that they did not feel that they should be required to bear the entire expense of such drawings and construction. This issue should be resolved before the Council approves the Ordinance so that adequatc consideration of the future configuration of the roads surrounding the Marriott property can be considered as part of tht devclopment plan. Vail Town Council April 15, 1999 Page 6 G. Conditional Uses it is unclear from the language of Ordinance No. 10 whether it requires that uses t m are listed as conditional and accessory uses in the i.MU-1 zone district must go thrvagh the review process for such uses provided for under the zoning code. Section S(F) of Ordinance No. 10 states: 'Uses-Shall be those perms conditional and accessory uses identified in the Lionshead Mizell Use 1 Zone District.' This language should be clarified to indicate,.dut • - these conditional and accessory uses are not allowed as of right in the amended SDD, but rather that they must still go through the review processes provided for by the zoning code before the conditional and accessory uses are permitted. Cmdu=* )n These art the initial eommeuLS of the Vail Spa to proposed Ordinance No. 10. We expect that we will raise additional issues throughout the evaluation process of the Ordinance. We look forward to working with all the parties involved to insure that the Marriott project. is compatible with the adjacent properties and complies with the spirit and intent of the Lionshead Plan and the Town of Vail Zoning ReguhWons. Very truly yours,, GRWHAW & HARRY:'~1G, A Frofeskonal Corporation Gilbert F. McNeish GFMlaob cc: George Ruther, Town of Vail Community Development Department Resign Review Board auv i ar • Urt1mDMAW MAKKINUi h U t 5-ZU-yU ; '1; U'IVM ; 3UJUJSJUUU-+ ;t! 2 GiumsEmw da HAIRRuNG A PROTAMMONAL OORPORATION A.TTOR"YB AT LAW OtT= 3800 ONX NORWROT ORNT%R 1700 LINCOLN 9T3=T DENVER, OOLORAI)O 80806-400 TRLRBHONE Mom 886.8800 TRI.ROOMM 1808! sae-$sss Philip Phili 83 M. Quatuatrochi WIWATT >IAn~nos*GxnwxAvrzAnnWa.oox (303) 9-3833 May 27, 1999 Design Review Board c/o George Ruther, Senior Planner Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Marriott Hotel/Gore Creek Club Dear Members of the Design Review Board: As you are aware, our law firm represents the Vail Spa Condominium Association in connection with the Marriott/Gore Creek Club redevelopment proposals currently being considered by the Town of Vail. The Vail Spa is the property immediately to the north of the Marriott and the proposed Gore Creek Club. At the last Design Review Board ("DRB") meeting on May 19, 1999, we were asked to submit a written summary of our concerns and comments to the current Marriott and Gore Creek Club proposals in order to aid you and the Town Council in understanding the issues that are still outstanding regarding the design of this project: This letter is intended to convey these concerns and comments so that they may be incorporated into the DRB comments that are forwarded to the Town Council. 1. General Considerations • The Zoning Regulations and Master Plan require desigu review to consider a development's impact on adjacent properties. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan ("the Master Plan") generally, and the Zoning Regulations for the Town of Vail set forth the intent, criteria, and procedures for the DRB and the design review process. The Regulations state that design review is intended to "preserve the natural beauty of the Town and its setting, to protect the welfare of the community, to maintain the values created, in the community, protect and enlmnce 1 , for the promotion of health, safety, and general welfare in the community, and to obtain the objectives set out in this Section." Section 12-11-1(C) (emphasis added). The SENT BY:GRIMSHAW & HARRING, PC; 5-28-99 ; 2:07PM ; 3038393800-+ ;~i 3 Marriott Hotel/Gore Creek Club May 27, 1999 Page 2 specific mandatory design review objectives established by the regulations that are particularly relevant to the Vail Spa regarding the Marriott/Gore Creek Club proposal are as follows: 2. To allow for the development of public and private property which is harmon with the desired character of the Town as defined -by the guidelines herein provided. 4. To ensure that the architectural design, location, configuration materials, colors, and overall treatment of built-up and. open spaces have been designed so that they relate harmonious!_v to the natural landforms and native vegetation, the Town's overall appearance, gjf m=ndJIIg_daelapment and with officially approved plans or guidelines, if any, for the areas in which the structures are proposed to be located. 5. To protect neighboring XWoU owners and nee by making sure that reasonable provision has been made for such matters as pedestrian and vehicular traffic, surface water drainage, mound and sight buffers. the preservation of light and air, and those BOMB of design no aft_uately, covered by other regulations which mahave substantial effects on nel¢hboring land uses Section 12-11-1(D) (emphasis added). • The DRB must identify design techniques to mitigate the adverse impacts on adjacent properties -and evaluate the full impact of the Marriott/Gore Creek Club proposal. The Marriott/Gore Creek Club designs must be reviewed with each of the objectives cited above in-mind, including appropriate mitigation measures. Based on these Regulations, we expect that the DRB and the Council will consider the impact of the Marriott/Gore Creek Club project on the Vail Spa and require design alternatives that mitigate the adverse effects on the Vail Spa. Furthermore, the Regulations require that it is the applicant's burden to provide adequate information to the DRB to enable the Board to have the necessary tools, including design options, at its disposal to make an informed evaluation of the applicant's design proposals. We trust that the DRB and the Council will ask for such additional information that would enable the DRB and the Council to evaluate the full impact of the Marriott proposal on the Vail Spa and other surrounding properties. V VI.I YI V11\~INV11/l.1 P 11/1111\JI.VI rVl J' LY JJ 1 L•VYr IN 1 JVVYVVVYYY IA Y Marriott Hotel/Gore Creek Club May 27, 1999 Page 3 • Vail Spa supports renovations to the Marriott so tong as surrounding properties' interests are considered and negative impacts minimized. In general, we support the renovations that have been proposed for the existing Marriott buildings. We agree that there is ample opportunity for improvement of their appearance and ample opportunity to add some architectural life to these buildings. However, we strongly believe that such renovations must take into account the interests of adjacent property owners and should be designed in a manner so as to eliminate, or at least mmimi any adverse effects on neighboring properties. • Computer aided photographic simulation is necessary to accurately assess the .full impact of the Marriott/Gore Creek Club proposal. We renew our request for the applicant to provide a computer aided photographic- simulation of the Marriott/Gore Creek Club project as seen from various public and private vantage points, including the Vail Spa. We understand that this may add some cost and time to the process for the Marriott, but it is really the only realistic way for the adjacent property owners, the DRB, and the Council to be able to fully. evaluate the visual impact of the entire project if built as proposed. Such a simulation would aid in understanding the project in the context of the surrounding properties and the visual backdrop of the mountains, as well as its overall compliance with the Master Plan. II. Phase II Landmark Feature on Roof of Marriott The Phase H landmark feature (the pyramid) is not consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan for all of the reasons set forth below: • The Master Plan does not designate the Marriott as an appropriate site for a landmark feature. The Master Plan, in Section 4.10.2, calls for landmark features at certain designated locations within Lionshead, but does not list the Marriott as one of the locations that is appropriate for a landmark feature, Map R of the Master Plan shows the contemplated locations for landmark features, and does not designate the Marriott site as a landmark location. • If the Marriott were a logical location for a landmark feature, it would have been designated as such in the Master Plan. The Gwathmey Pratt memo, on page 3, states that because the Marriott is already the largest hotel in Lionshead, "it would seem to be a logical location to implement this intent [of encouraging landmark elements]." We disagree with this conclusion. It is not logical that the largest hotel in Lionshead would add even more height and mass at the expense of adjacent properties in order to become a Lionshead SENT BY:GRIMSHAW & HARRING, PC; 5-28-99 ; 2:08PM ; 3038393800-+ 5 Marriott Hotel/Gore Creek Club May 27, 1999 Page 4 landmark. If the Marriott was a logical location to create a landmark feature, it would have been specifically designated as such in Section 4.10.2 of the Master Plan as other particular locations were designated. It must be concluded that the Marriott was not designated as such in the Master Plan because it is not an appropriate site- for a landmark element. • The pyramid is not In scale to the structures on surrounding properties, as required by the Master Plan. The Gwathmey Pratt memo, on page 3, states that the landmark element is "in proportion with the building and is the size necessary to meet the intent of the Master Plan." However, it is not the size of the-Marriott buildings that is important in considering the proportion of the landmark element, but also the buildings surrounding the Marriott buildings. Section 8.4.1.2 states that Landmarks "should be carefully scaled to the buildings adi to them," (emphasis added). Thus, consideration must be given to the relationship between the size and height of the pyramid and all of the structures surrounding the Marriott site. Given the fact that the Marriott structures are already larger in both height and mass than all of the surrounding structures, a pyramid feature that adds additional height and mass to the Marriott would increase the disproportionality between the Marriott buildings and neighboring structures. • The Master Plan does not contemplate all buildings fulfilling the roles of landmarks, but rather contemplates specific, designated locations for landmarks. The Gwathmey Pratt memo cites to Section 8.3.3 of the Master Plan as support for adding a landmark feature on the Marriott site (page 3 of memo). This section should not be interpreted to support the addition of a landmark feature on the Marriott site. Specifically, Section 8.3.3 states "[aall buildings in Lionshead, both existing and new development, should seek to fulfill the roles of landmarks, portals, turning points, and other roles as outlined in the Master Plan. " The plan is certainly not calling for every building in Lionshead to serve as landmarks, portals, or turning points; to do so would negate the uniqueness and sense of place that a landmark, portal, or turning point is intended to convey. Rather, this section lists landmarks, portals, and turning points as examples of roles- for particular buildings that may be outlined in the Master Plan. The Master Plan does not outline a landmark role for any of .the Marriott buildings, and this general clause of the Master Plan should not be read to support that conclusion. • The pyramid would not fulfill the Master Plan's requirement that landmarks should be visible from key locations or major public spaces. Section 8.4.1.2 of the Master Plan offers further guidance as to the purpose and nature of landmarks. It states that landmarks should be visible from "key SENT BY:GRIMSHAW & HARRING, PC; 5-28-99 2:09PM 3038393800-+ 6 Marr iott Hotel/Gore creek club May 27, 1999 Page 3 locations within the community, such as portals and major public spaces." There is no evidence that the pyramid feature meets any of these criteria. There has been no indication that the pyramid would be visible from the West I! sbead pedestrian portal, or from other major public spaces in the pedestrian core. To the contrary, the comments from the Marriott have indicated that views of the pyramid will be extremely limited from pedestrian vantage points, and that the pyramid primarily will be 'visible from greater distances. Given the fact that the Master Plan repeatedly comments on the, role of landmarks within the pedestrian environment of Lionshead, it is inconsistent that the pyramid will frequently be invisible to pedestrians. - . • The pyramid does not serve a role in the Lionshead pedestrian network as contemplated by the Master Plan. Section 4.10.2 states that "p]andmarks signify important points of entry, turning points and critical intersections in the pedestrian network, as well as destinations and visual reference points." The pyramid does not fulfill any of these roles. It does not serve a role in the "pedestrian network" of 11onshead because it rarely will be visible from pedestrian vantage points. Because the pyramid rarely will be visible to pedestrians, it would be very difficult for it to serve as a destination or a visual reference point. The pyramid would only serve as a limited destination or visual reference point when the observer views it from a great distance. 0 The pyramid would not serve any special function as contemplated by the Master Plan. Section 8.4.1.2 states that "[11andmarks are most successful when they serve special functions such as bell towers, clock towers, monuments, or public art, rather than being self-serving. " The proposed pyramid does not serve any of these special functions. The pyramid would not be in the core area and would not serve as a meaningful identification feature. To the contrary, the Marriott pyramid will simply add additional beds to the Marriott hotel and does not serve any special purpose or provide any critical public benefit. • The pyramid may allow the Marriott to circumvent the building height limitations of the Matter Plan. The Master Plan states that a landmark element "shall not be used as a means of circumventing the intent of the building height limitations" (Section 8.4.2.3). Here, the pyramid would exceed the building height limitations of the Master Plan while allowing the Marriott to add an additional series of loft units. The combination of a landmark element with additional usable gross residential floor area (GRFA) suggests that the landmark element may allow the Marriott to circumvent the building height limitations in violation of the Master Plan. SENT BY:GRIMSHAW & HARRING, PC; 5-28-99 2:09PM 3038393800-+ 7 Marriott Hotel/Gore Creek Club May 27, 1999 Page 6 • The current size and mass of the Man Lott ahudy establishes it as a landmark in Lionshead. Furthermore, we believe the grand scale of the Marriott buildings already establishes the Marriott site as a landmark. We acknowledge that the Marriott buildings are not the most architecturally attractive. However, with some of the improvements proposed by the Marriott, such as pitched roofs, new color schemes, and detailing, the Marriott Property will become a widely recognized landmark simply due to its size and quality of its finishing. We do not believe that adding the pyramid feature is necessary to draw further attention to this complex of buildings in order for them to serve as landmark elements in Lionshead. • The pyramid will adversely affect views frrom the Vail Spa. The pyramid will most dramatically affect the views of Vail Spa units on the upper floors in both the west and east wings. These units. all currently have views towards the ski mountain to the south, Because these upper units are closer in height to the base of the pyramid than the lower units or pedestrian views, almost the entire mass of the pyramid will be visible to these units. The pyramid, which at best serves very few, if any, public objectives in the Master Plan, should not-be permitted at the expense and burden of existing adjacent buildings, especially the Vail Spa which is uniquely impacted. M. Gore Creek Club The Gore Creek Club is not consistent with the Master Plan for all of the reasons set forth below: • The Gore Creek Club should be designed to "gradually rise out of the wound," as contemplated by the Master Plan. Sections 8.4.2.2 of the Master Plan discusses the intent of the guidelines for architecture in Lionshead. It states: The intent of this section is to guide the creation of a village which is appropriately scaled through the use of segmented forms and masses. The underlying fabric shall be constructed of structures which rise out of the ground gradually, rather than being vertical blocks set on the ground plane. The design of the Gore Creek club does not achieve this gradual transition from the ground plane to vertical on any of its facades. The limited, upper floor stepping-back of the Gore Creek Club at its northeast corner is progress in the right direction, but there is still much that could be done to soften this transition. This architectural goal has been achieved by several buildings in SENT BY:GRIMSHAW & HARKING, PC; 5-28-99 2:10PM 3038393800- 8 Marriott Hotel/Gore Creek Club May 27, 1999 Page 7 the Lionshead area, including building predating the Master plan such as the Vail Spa, which makes a gradual transition from low to high with its western wing. Even after the Marriott's revisions to the northeast corner of the Gore Creek Club, it still rises an immediate 60 vertical feet at this point mud presents pedestrians and adjacent properties with an imposing vertical plane. This facade and the other facades on the Gore Creek Club must be evaluated in terms of achieving this gradual transition, and we believe there is much more that can be done with respect to the Gore Creek Club design in this regard. • The Gore Creek Club does not create vh=W c onnectlons as contemplated by the Master Plan. The Gwathmey Pratt memo, page 10, states that the Gore Creek Club design proposal does not "infringe on. any defined view corridors and do not impact anyone's light and air. " The Vail Spa acknowledges that the proposal does not affect any designated public view corridors, but the Master Plan also calls for development and redevelopment to consider and make accommodation for private views as well. Section 4.3.1.1 states that "all private development and redevelopment should endeavor to create visual connections from and through their properties." Thus, the Master Plan imposes an affirmative obligation on development and redevelopment to "create" these visual connections. Because the Gore Creek . Club will be the only "new" development on the Marriott site, it is the one building that still has a opportunity to provide for such visual connections through the property. Again, we believe the Vail Spa is a good example of this type of design: the Vail. Spa steps down to the ground' on its western edge and contains a low, two-story saddle between its two taller wings that breaks up the mass of the structures and allows for views through the property. • The north-south orientation of the Gore Creek Club does not accomplish the Master Plan's objective of preserving views. Additionally, Section 4.3.1.2 of the Master Plan states that new developments should be oriented along a. north-south axis whenever possible. Among the objectives of this orientation are the reduction of potential visual impacts on existing buildings and greater sun access to buildings to the north. Although the Gore Creek Club is oriented along a north-south axis, simply orienting the building in this manner does not accomplish these objectives. Because of the narrow nature of the Gore Creek Club site, additional attention to issues such as massing, stepping-back of the structure, and views through the mass of the structure must be given in order to meet the objectives of north-south orientation stated in the plan. SENT BY:GRIMSHAW & HARRING, PC; 5-28-99 ; 2:11PM 3038393800-+ ;ii 9 r Marriott 110tel/Gore Creek Club May 27, 1999 Page 8 • The Marriott proposal does not utilize infill development locations specifically contemplated by the Master Plan. Although the Master Plan specifically contemplates the tennis court area behind the Marriott as a Potential MU oPPO=* (Page 5-34), the current Marriott designs do not propose any development in this area. We believe' that there is an opportunity to move additional units, and their accompanying building mass, away from the north edge of the Gore Creek Club and into this area. 'This -would enable the creation of open space along West Lionshead Circle and allow the overall height of the Gone Creek Club to be lowered. Another advantage of this suggestion is that it would give the DRB and the Council an opportunity to address the tennis court infill area in the context of a comprehensive Marriott redevelopment proposal for the entire site. • The Master Plan and the Zoning Regulations do not grant the Marriott any eatitlemenU with respect to building design. As discussed in Section 1 of this letter, the Zoning Regulations charge the DRB with a duty to take into account the design of buildings on the surrounding properties. For example, the maximum building standards (i.e., height, setback, etc.) established by the property's zoning designation oo not establish an automatic entitlement to such maximums under the regulations; rather, those entitlements may be earned, if . and 2* if. other factors such as design guidelines are adequately addressed-. Just because the zoning of a property allows structures up to a certain height does not mean that the DRB is obligated to approve that building height. Nor can a Property owner demand such approval. The Board should investigate and require other designs that result in lesser heights if these other designs mitigate Against negative impacts on surrounding properties. It is clearly within the DRB's authority and mandate to require that an applicant explore alternative designs, even if the applicant's proposed design otherwise appears to fit within the strict confines of the property's zoning limitations. Thank you again for the time and thought you have put into the design review process. We appreciate the complexities and inherent difficulties in balancing the'various design considerations, particularly as this is one of the first projects to undergo review under the new Master Flan. We look forward to continuing our role as an active participant in this process and to assisting in the Implementation of the spirit and intent-of the Master Plan as it relates to the Marriott and Gore Creek Club project. JtIV I OT -UtiIMMAW & MAKKINGi K; 5-1d-95 i 1-.11PM i 3U3B393800-? 410 Marriott Hotel/Gore Creek Club May 27, 1999 Page. 9 Yours very truly, GRIMSHAW & HARRING, A Professional Corporation i Philip M. Quatrochi PMQ/aob. cc: Vail Town Council Al & Lorna Hauser Chuck Madison Nancy Shapiro Adam Jim Lamont r DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FINAL AGENDA Wednesday, June 2, 1999 3:00 P.M. PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE (All portions of meeting are open to public) PROJECT ORIENTATION / LUNCH - Community Development Department 12:00 pm Discussion of DRB roles. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Bill Pierce Clark Brittain Hans Woldrich Melissa Greenauer Tom Weber (PEC) SITE VISITS 2:00 pm 1. Village Center Condominiums -124 E. Meadow Dr. 2. Lot 25, Glacier Ct. -1854 Glacier Ct. Driver: George PUBLIC HEARING - TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:00 pm 1. Adam residence - Final review of a proposed remodel. Brent 765 West Forest Road/Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Village 6cn Applicant: Nancy Adam, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Smith MOTION: TOM WEBER SECOND: HANS WOLDRICH VOTE: 2-0-1 (Bill Pierce abstaining) APPROVED WITH 3 CONDITIONS: 1) The proposed dormer above the garage shall be lowered in height so as not to exceed the existing ridge elevation. 2) The site coverage within the required setback is not permitted. 3) The plans shall meet all Town criteria (zoning and engineering) prior to building permit issuance. 2. Village Center Condominiums - Conceptual review of proposed exterior building George improvements. 124 East Meadow Drive/Lot 5, Block 5E, Vail Village 15` Filing Applicant: Stephanie Lord MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Conceptuai - No Vote *VAIL TOWN O1 3. Golden Peak Ski Base - Final review of a proposed skier tunnel. Dominic 458 Vail Valley Drive / Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO JUNE 16, 1999 4. Lot 25, Glacier Ct. - Final review of a new primary/secondary residence. George 1854 Glacier Ct./Lot 25, Block 2, Lionsridge #3. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais MOTION: Pierce SECOND: Woldrich VOTE: 3-0 Approved per revised plans dated 6/02/99 5. MicKibben Residence - Addition to existing residence. Allison 5095 Main Gore, Lot 28, Parcel B, Vail Meadows 1s' Applicant: RKD MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Withdrawn 5. Antlers - Final review of a proposed expansion. George 680 W. lionshead Place/ Lot 3, Block 1, Lionshead Third Filing. Applicant: Antlers Condominium Association, represented by Robert Levine MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED UNTIL JUNE 16, 1999 Staff Approvals Ellefson/Sturges residence - Re-roof. Brent 2607 Arosa Drive/Lot 11, Block C, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Tashima Ellefson & Ed Sturges Vail Interfaith Chapel - Location of snowmelt boiler. Dominic 19 Vail Rd./Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1s` Filing. Applicant: Vail Interfaith Chapel Hanlon residence - Change window into door. Allison 897 Red Sandstone Circle/Lot 1, Vail Village #9. Applicant: Joseph Hanlon Tall Pines Lots 1 &2 -Two new primary/secondary residences. Dominic 2239 and 2241 Chamonix Lane/Lots 1 &2, Tall Pines Subdivision. Applicant: Kurt Davis and Greg Amsden Lord Latigo - New awning. Brent 158 Gore Creek Drive (Lodge at Vail)/Lots A,B,&C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1St Applicant: Sage Pierson G.S. Johnson residence - Split rail fence along landscaped berm. Brent 1195 Hornsilver Circle/Lot 14, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Applicant: G.S. Johnson 2 Lester residence - Dining room addition/deck/windows/stairs/storage closet. Brent 4779 Meadow Drive/Lot 1, Block 5, Bighorn 5m Applicant: Therese Lester Strong residence -Screening of mechanical equipment. Brent 443 Beaver Dam Road/Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd. Applicant: Dick Strong Zevada residence - Changes to approved plans. Allison 1337 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 4, Block 3, Vail Valley 1s` Applicant: Spad International, Ltd. Vail Sky High Condos - New railings and exterior repainting. Allison 2448 Garmisch Drive/Lot 4, Block G, Vail das Schone 2"d Applicant: Kerry Lawson Vail International -Tree removal. George 300 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2"d Applicant: Vail International Bellflower Condo Assoc. - Landscaping & fence addition. Brent 2923 Bellflower Drive/Lot 2, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Bellflower Condo Association Lanzagorta residence - Deck addition. Brent 1610 Sunburst Drive #26/Vail Golfcourse Townhomes Unit #26, Sunburst Filing #3. Applicant: Jose Lanzagorta The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. 3 Chapter 4-9 FALSE ALARMS DRAFT COPY Sections: 4-9.1 Title; Purpose 4-9.2 Definitions 4-9.3 Construction, maintenance, and Performance standards 4-9.4 Letter of Certification Required 4-9.5 Violations 4-9.1 Title; purpose. A. Short title. This chapter shall be known as and may be cited as the "False Alarm Ordinance". B. This ordinance imposes or creates no duties on the part of the Town of Vail or any of its departments. The obligation of complying with the requirements of this ordinance and the liability for failing to do so, is placed upon the owners, operators, and parties responsible for operating and/or maintaining alarm systems. C. The purpose of this chapter is to: A. Promote and establish minimum standards for .installation, maintenance, servicing, inspection, and certification of fire alarm systems; B. Reduce the number and frequency of false alarms and endangerment faced by emergency response personnel while responding to false alarms; C. Provide for greater efficiency of emergency personnel by reducing the amount of time spent dealing with false alarms. D. Provide for penalties and remedies for false alarms; 1 4-9.2 Definitions. Alarm Agent: Any individual who is employed by an alarm vendor to install, monitor, maintain, test, or service alarm systems in any manner, or who supervises individuals who perfei- such work. Alarm Company: Any person operating as an alarm installer, an alarm monitoring-facility, an alarm service agency. Alarm Confirniation: A situation in which an alarm signal i_ transmitted and supported by a subsequent and separate: signal, which corroborates the validity of the original signal-, indicating that an emergency exists. Confirmation may be provided by a second sensor, transmitting "listen-in" microphones, transmitted video images, direct communication via 911, the use of other technologies that provide the intended results, or by direct communication between Vail Public Safety Ccitununications and an alarm agent or reporting party at the alarm system site. Multiple activations of the sa). sensor that caused the initial alarm are not considered confirmation. Alarm Monitoring Facility: A facility that receives signals from monitored alarm systems indicating emergencies such as fire, burglary, robbery, and medical problems may exist. Alarm System: An electronic, detection and signaling system, combining interrelated signal initiating devices, signal transmitting devices, signal indicating devices, control equipment, and interconnecting wiring, installed for a particular appl.i-ation, in accordance with manufacturer's specifications, rationally recognized standards, the National Fire Protection Association, Underwriter's Laboratories, Inc., Factory Mutual, inc., or other nationally recognized testing laboratories. Alarm System ?aner: A person, firm, partnership, associatic corporation, com,)any, or organization of any kind, in possessio, or control of an,, building, structure, facility or portion thereof, where an alarm system exists, whether such alarm system is owned or lea:,-:d. Alarm Verificltion Procedure: The procedures established by an alarm monitoring facility to contact an authorized representative of the alarm system owner, to validate or deny that the alarm signal received, was due to any condition the alarm system is .lesigned to detect and report. 2 Comprehensive Test: A test of an alarm system that includes (a) an inspection of the installation-, (b) a test to verify that all devices, including sensors, controls, communication equipment, and associated devices, function properly, (c)confirmation that the system can function under designed-for fault conditions,(d) verification that batteries are suitable, (e) manufacturer's specifications, applicable codes, and standards are adhered to, and (f) changes to the original installation are operable and comply with this ordinance. Day: A calendar day. False Alarm: The activation of a device or transmission of an alarm signal, indicating an emergency exists and/or necessitating response by the Vail Police Department or Vail Fire Department, where no emergency exist. False alarms shall be classified as follows: A. Malicious False Alarms: Alarm system activation or alarm signal transmission by a person knowingly, willingly, or recklessly causing or permitting an alarm, when no emergency exists. This category shall include, but is not limited to: the activation of manual alarm pull stations, holdup, panic alarms, and similar alarms; intentional discharge of monitored fire extinguishing equipment or appliances. B. Alarm Malfunction: An activation of a device or transmission of an alarm signal due to abnormal electrical activity, short circuit, device failure, electrical fault, or other factor not within the intended or normal operational parameters of the system or components. The activation of a device, sounding of an audible alarm or signal, or the transmission of an alarm signal, without annunciation of a specific zone, device, or circuit; the activation of multiple signals, zones, circuits, and/or devices without apparent cause; activation due to apparent radio frequency, electrical surge, power failure, or similar event; or the inability to silence, reset, restore, or otherwise return the system to normal operation using normal procedures. C. Failure to Maintain: The activation of a device, system, or transmission of a signal, due to failure to maintain the system and/or components thereof, according to manufacturer's recommendations, applicable codes, standards, or recommendations, the presence of contaminated detectors, loose wiring or electrical/mechanical connections, low batteries, failure to replace recalled or obsolete equipment, or devices; or failure to replace components subject to periodic replacement. 3 Person: Any individual, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company, or organization.of any kind. Request For Response: The notification by an alarm monitoring facility, Central Receiving Station, or Modified Central receiving Station, to the Vail Public Safety Communications center, information about an alarm event for which response by police, fire, or emergency medical personnel, is requested . Responsible party: A responsible party, for the purpose,o_f this ordinance, shall include the owner of the property - or- business, the manager or authorized agent, and/or an employee of a licensed alarm company under contract. Subscriber: Any person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation, who purchases, subscribes, leases, or otherwise ,contracts for or obtains an alarm system, an inspection, maintenance contract, or monitoring service, for an alarm system. Tampering: The unauthorized removal, manipulation, alteration, adjustment, operation, service, maintenance, installation, or other action, involving an alarm system or components thereof, including but not limited to wiring, devices, equipment, control panels, switches, and other appurtenances, by any individual, person, corporation, or other entity, who is not in possession of a valid and current Town of Vail Contractor's License, as required by Town of Vail regulations. Town: The Town of Vail. Town Council: The Town Council of the Town-of Vail. Unauthorized: Not having received direct and explicit permission from the Town of Vail Fire Chief,the Chief Building Official, or their designates, and not under a current and duly issued permit. Vail Public Safety Communications: A division of the municipal government of the Town of Vail that receives emergency and/or general information from the public, or other agencies, and which dispatches police, fire, and emergency medical personnel for the Town of Vail. 5.24.030 Reserved 6 5.24.040 Performance Standards B. Performance Standards: 1. The owner of an alarm system transmitting a false alarm, upon the issuance of a written order from the Fire Department or the Police Department or agent thereof, may be required to have the alarm system recertified. 2. False alarms of any type, are subject to the issuance of a Summons and Complaint to Municipal Court. Upon a finding.of guilty, penalties may be assessed in accordance with applicable law. 3. The Fire Department may require alarm confirmation and/or alarm verification, and then notify the Vail Communication Center (Dispatch) by telephone via the emergency notification system (911), prior to initiating emergency response. Verbal communication of an actual or suspected emergency condition to proper authorities shall not constitute grounds for reduced or restricted response status, or the requirement to confirmed an emergency exists, as well as other restrictions, to be imposed. 4. The Fire Department, at its sole discretion, may elect to waive the issuance of a Summons and Complaint for a false alarm, provided the building owner, mamager, or agent, takes reasonable steps to mitigate the cause of the alarm. The cause of the alarm must be identified and mitigation steps must be initiated and completed within a reasonable time period. Repeated alarms from the same cause may not be subject to any mitigating credits and are as such, subject to the issuance of a Summons and Complaint. 5. The Fire Department may take into consideration, the cause of the false alarm, the size of the structure, the number and frequency of false alarms for a particular location, and the property's.ability to respond to and mitigate the causes of the false alarms, when deciding whether or-not to issue a citation. False alarms caused by deficiencies in existing fire alarm system(s) shall be remedied by the building owner(s). Contractors shall not be assessed penalties resulting from problems with existing systems, provided the contractor is not directly responsible for the alarm. C. Maintenance Standards: 1. An annual inspection of every alarm system within the Town shall be performed by a licensed alarm company. Said inspection shall be performed to determine that the operation of the alarm system is in accordance with the manufacturer's specificities, 7 design and performance criteria. Tests shall be conducted to determine whether or not the system is free from ground faults, dead or intermittent shorts, and to determine that all peripheral devices are operational and that all self diagnostic functions are operable. 2. Fire alarm systems shall be tested in accordance with testing procedures adopted by the National Fire Protection Agency. Any alarm system which is shown by such test not to be ot)e hundred percent operational, shall be repaired as indicated by the test results. 3. A copy of such test(s), inspection reports,.and the required Letter of Certification shall be maintained on the premises and available for review. It is the responsibility of the licensed alarm company to forward a copy of both test(s) and inspection report(s), and the Letter of Certification, to the Town of Vail Fire Department. 4. Trouble calls or service calls regarding an alarm system shall be made to a licensed alarm company. Trouble or service calls shall be responded to within a reasonable time period. If the response for fire alarm repair does not occur within a time period acceptable to the Fire Chief, he may require a change in operation, or place specific restrictions or conditions on the owner including restrictions relating to the use of the building until such time as repairs are completed. Such restrictions shall be made with consideration of the relative degree of hazard imposed by the nature of the alarm system's condition, and with respect to the nature of the building and its use. 5. Upon request of the Vail Fire Department, a responsible party shall respond to the premises for the purpose of permitting access to determine the cause of the alarm, secure the property, or reset the alarm system. Failure of a responsible party to respond as requested, shall constitute a violation of this chapter by the alarm system owner. 6. It shall be the responsibility of the alarm system oerier to provide for the required response in accordance with the above section, and to insure that current information is provided to the Vail Public Safety Communications center or their respective central receiving station, including a list of responsible parties, phone numbers and current street and mailing addresses. The street address shall be visibly posted on the street side of the exterior of the protected premises. D. Notification: Any central receiving station or modified central receiving station monitoring alarm systems in the Town of Vail, whether the central receiving station or modified central receiving station 8 is located in Vail or not, upon receipt of an alarm signal indicating that a fire or other emergency condition exists, shall notify the Vail Public Safety Communications center immediately. All central receiving station or modified central receiving station operators shall furnish such information as requested. 5.24.050 Letter of Certification Required A. Letter of Certification: No person shall use an alarm or an alarm system, as defined by this chapter, unless the alarm or alarm system has been inspected by a licensed alarm company; and a Letter of Certification, stating that the alarm system has been inspected and conforms to minimum installation, construction, and operation standards as set forth in this chapter has been issued by the inspecting alarm company. No Letter of Certification shall be renewed unless the alarm system has been tested to insure operations of the main control panel and one hundred percent of peripheral equipment are in compliance with this chapter. The Letter of Certification shall be kept on the premises and will be available for inspection. A copy of such letter for fire alarm and detection systems shall be forwarded to the Vail Fire Departments by the alarm company. Letters of Certification are required annually and shall be credited as meeting the requirements of this section as of the date repairs are complete. B. Procedure: Any decision of the Fire Chief or designate, any order of suspension or revocation made pursuant to this chapter, the issuance of a Summons and Complaint, or levy of a fine, shall -be served upon the licensee or permittee either personally or by mailing a-copy of such order by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the licensee or permittee at the last known address. The failure of any person to receive such notice shall not affect the validity of any decision or order of the Fire Chief pursuant to this chapter. Service by certified mail in the manner herein provided shall be effective on the date of the mailing. Any order of the Fire Chief made pursuant to this chapter may be appealed the to the Town Manager provided a written notice of appeal is filed with the Town Clerk within fifteen days of the date of service of such decision or order. Upon receipt of any appeal filled pursuant to this section, the Town Manager shall fix a date, time, and place for the hearing of the appeal. Written notice of the time of the hearing of the appeal shall be given at least ten days prior to the date 9 of the hearing to the appellant, either by causing a copy of such notice to be delivered to the appellant personally or by mailing a copy thereof, postage prepaid, addressed to the appellant. 5.24.100 Violations. The conviction of any person for a violation of any provision of this chapter, or the conviction of any person for the installation or operation of any alarm.system in violation of any provision of this chapter shall not relieve such person-from. paying any license or permit fee required by this chapter. Each violation of any provision of this chapter shall be held to be a separate offense each day. wp/admn/false.rev.4.14.99 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development DATE: November 5, 1996 SUBJECT: Potential revisions to the Employee Housing regulations, the Primary/Secondary. . and Two-Family Zones Districts, and the Nonconforming Use chapter of the Zoning Regulations. Additionally, the proposed new Affordable Housing zone district. Staff: Dominic Mauriello As part of the Vail Tomorrow and Common Ground processes the community stated that the Town needed to improve its incentives for private developers to create Employee Housing Units (EHUs). Staff has identified some areas of the Zoning Regulations that may need to be modified in order to ensure that the Zoning Regulations are truly "promoting" employee housing rather than acting more as a disincentive. The intent of presenting this is to gauge whether the Town Council agrees that there may be areas that need to be addressed in the code and if staff should work to resolve these issues. The following is a list of what we believe to be disincentives to providing EHUs: • Requiring garage space for an EHU, where code does not require garage space for other dwelling units • Restricting the sale of a Type I EHU and requiring that it be a rental property • Taking away the right to do a 250 on older homes if an EHU GRFA credit is used • On smaller lots, not allowing enough site coverage to build the EHU • Not providing GRFA credits for multiple-family EHUs (Type III) • Counting Type III EHUs as an impact on density This memo attempts to identify certain policies that could be modified to promote development of EHUs. Also included is a proposed "Affordable Housing" zone district. Discussion of this proposal is included below, as well as proposed language for such a district. Pagel o175 f:\EVERYONE\COUNCIL\MEMOS\99\ehu2.doc TOWN OFVALL Summary of Potential Zoning Text Changes Chapter 13, Employee Housing 1. Deed Restrictions/Enforcement This proposal adds a provision requiring that EHUs be rented and not remain vacant for a period of 4 consecutive months. The existing compliance language is being removed so that violations of this chapter can be processed like any other zoning violation. The current compliance statement provides for "publication" of the violation with the Housing Authority. The proposed language will aid in the enforcement of EHUs by establishing that they must be rented and allowing the Town to cite the owner when they are not meeting these requirements. The current regulations are unclear as to the occupancy requirements. Additionally, the current reporting requirement provides that the owner provide a report of rental activity. This proposal requires a sworn affidavit from the owner. This will aid with the enforcement of EHUs. Deed restrictions are also being added for new Type V/ EHU which are units similar to the Vail Commons units and Red Sandstone, where the appreciation on the unit is capped. 2. Development Standards This proposal includes an amendment to the development standards allowing a Type I EHU (those allowed on lots less than 15,000 sq. ft.) which is less than 500 sq. ft. to be detached from the main structure if constructed in conjunction with a two car garage. Staff believes this gives flexibility with design on smaller lots without compromising the overall quality of development. 3. Application Procedure This section is proposed to be amended to allow existing dwelling units to be deed restricted administratively. Additionally, this section would allow illegal or nonconforming units to be deed restricted as long as they otherwise conform to the Building Code and can meet the Town's parking requirements. This will allow EHUs to be created without going through a lengthy process and helps encourage the legalization of substandard dwelling units/lock-offs. 4. Changes by EHU Type A. Type 1 (2"d unit allowed on duplex lots less than 15,000 sq. ft.) • Allowed to be sold separately from main residence (currently, both units on lot must be deed restricted to allow sale) • Allowed an additional 500 sq. ft. of GRFA (currently only allowed 250 sq. ft.) • Units allowed to apply for 250s regardless of EHU presence • Site coverage increased 5% and landscape area reduced 5% for lots with an EHU • Removal of age limitations and number of inhabitants • Removal of requirement that 50% of the parking be enclosed Page 2 of 5 F:\E V ERYON E\COUNCI L\MEMOS\99\ehu2.doc B. Type II (3'd unit allowed on duplex lots 15,000 sq. ft. A rental unit) • Allowed as a permitted use (currently, requires a conditional use permit) • Units allowed to apply for 250s regardless of EHU presence • Maximum size increased to 1,200 sq. ft. (currently 900 sq. ft. limit) • Removal of age limitations and number of inhabitants (inhabitants regulated by Zoning Regs. and Building Code) • Removal of requirement that 50% of the parking be enclosed C. Type III (rental unit in multiple-family, residential cluster) • Provides a 500 sq. ft. GRFA credit (no credit currently exists) • Parking simplified to meet Chapter 10 requirements, but no less than 2 per unit • Modified to include Type IV EHUs (Type IV category being removed) • Min./Max. sq. ft. modified to allow 300 sq. ft. minimum and 1,200 sq. ft. maximum for dwelling unit or 500 sq. ft. maximum for a dormitory style building • Proposed to not count as density (currently count as 0.5 of a dwelling unit and Type IV as 0.333 of a dwelling unit) • Removal of age limitations and number of inhabitants D. Type IV (multiple family, dormitory) • Eliminated as a category but rolled into Type III • None exist today F. Type V (Hillside Residential - Spraddle Creek) • Removal of requirement that 50% of the parking be enclosed G. Type VI (New Type for projects like Vail Commons and Red Sandstone) • Allowed as permitted use in Single/Two-Family/P/S zone districts, Agriculture and Open Space and conditional use in all other districts • EHUs must be sold separately (they are for sale units, not rental) • Site Coverage, garage area, and GRFA to be determined by the PEC • Density in single/two-family per zoning and determined by PEC in other zone districts Chapter 6 (C and D) - Primary Secondary and Two-Family Residential Zone Districts Minimum Lot Size Requirement The minimum lot size requirement in the Primary/Secondary and Two-Family Residential Zone districts of 15,000 sq. ft. has an impact on the number of EHUs property owners are willing to develop and an impact on redevelopment and upgrading of these units. The 15,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size requirement dates back to 1973 with the first full-scale re- codification of the Zoning Code (the 1969 Zoning Code required only 10,000 sq. ft. lots). That minimum lot size was applicable to platting occurring mostly in the Vail Village and Vail Valley filings. When the west Vail areas (1986-87) and the east Vail (1974) areas were annexed, the Town's zoning was applied to lots platted in Eagle County without regard for the County's lot size requirements of the time. Page 3 of 5 F:\EVERYON E\COUNC IL\MEMOS\99\ehu2.doc There have only been 20 Type I EHUs created in the Town. Property owners that currently have lots less than 15,000 sq. ft. with a nonconforming second dwelling unit are not allowed to add square footage unless they deed restrict the second unit on the property. Many people are not willing to deed restrict their already existing unit and therefore the EHU is not created and generally speaking the properties are not upgraded. Another problem is that on several of these smaller lots, two units exist on the lot by separate owners. They face the same deed restriction problem. What are the potential solutions? 1. Lower the minimum lot size requirement in the Two-Family and Primary/Secondary zone districts to a level that includes the majority of lots. This will allow lots to construct 2 dwelling units on a property and a Type II EHU. We believe the result, in the long run, will be more EHUs created. Staff needs to study this option further to understand all potential implications. 2. Keep the minimum lot size requirement, but allow lots to be developed as a single-family home (no change), one dwelling unit plus a Type I EHU (no change), or two dwelling units with a required Type 11 EHU (new). These changes, we believe, will result in a net increase in the number of EHUs and just as importantly, result in redevelopment of older properties. 3. In addition to the above, allow lots with 2 existing units that were legally deeded to separate parties to add allowable square footage without deed restrictions required. This would essentially promote the nonconformity an allow it to continue. By allowing #2 above, the deed restriction dilemma could be resolved by one of the owners providing an EHU, so that option could help resolve this unique problem. Another solution to this problem could also be utilizing our variance process and allow a variance in these situations and allow residents to expand their homes. This would require acceptance that having two owners of such a property is a hardship warranting the issuance of a variance. Staff believes this to be a viable solution. Effect of Proposed Changes on GRFA, Site Coverage, and Landscape Area Current Regulations Proposed Regulations 14,000 sq. ft. lot 14,000 sq. ft. lot (dwelling.unit plus Type I _EHU) (either DU + Type I EHU or 2 DUs + Type II EHU) GRFA: 3,500 sq. ft. (base) 3,500 sq. ft. (base) +850 sq. ft. (credits) +850 sq. ft. (credits) +250 (EHU credit) +500 sa ft. (EHU credit) 4,600 sq. ft. 4,850 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 2,800 sq. ft. (max.) 2,800 sq. ft. +700 sq. ft. (EHU credit) 3,500 sq. ft. (max.) Landscape Area: 8,400 sq. ft. (min.) 8,400 sq. ft. (min.) -700 sa. ft. (EHU credit) 7,700 sq. ft. (min.) Page 4 of 5 F:\EVERYONE\COLJNCIL\MEMOS\99\ehu2.doc Affordable Housing Zone District Staff has drafted a framework for a new zone district targeted at employee housing. The proposal would be to establish a zone district that could be applied to properties ensuring that once developed, they remain as employee housing in perpetuity. This could be applied to existing projects (i.e., Red Sandstone) as well as future projects (i.e., Mt. Bell site). The proposed district was modeled after the General Use zone district which lists all uses as conditional uses and requiring the PEC to set the development standards for the project. Therefore, all projects would be subject to review and approval through a Town review process. : The proposed framework is attached. Page 5 of 5 F:\EVERYONE\COLJNCIL\MEMOS\99\ehu2.doc Revised June 3, 1999 CHAPTER13 EMPLOYEE HOUSING SECTION: 12-13-1: Purpose 12-13-2: Applicability 12-13-3: General Requirements 12-13-4: Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Type 12-13-1: Purpose. The Town's economy is largely tourist based and the health of this economy is premised on exemplary service for Vail's guests. Vail's ability to provide such service is dependent upon a strong, high quality and consistently available work force. To achieve such a work force, the community must work to provide quality living and working conditions. Availability of housing plays a critical role in creating quality living and working conditions for the community's work force. The Town recognizes a permanent, year-round population plays an important role in sustaining a healthy, viable community. Further, the Town recognizes its role in conjunction with the private sector in ensuring housing is available. 12-13-2: Applicability. A. Chapter Provisions In Addition: The requirements of this Chapter shall be in addition to the requirements set forth in each zone district where employee housing units (EHU) are permitted by this Chapter and all other requirements of this Code. B. Controlling Provision: Where the provisions or requirements of this Chapter conflict with the provisions or requirements set forth in any zone district or any other requirements of this Code, the provisions of this Chapter shall control. 12-13-3: General Requirements. This section provides general requirements which are applicable to EHUs. A. Deed Restriction, Occupancy Limitations, Reporting Requirements Type I, ll, III, and V. 1. No employee housing unit which is constructed in accordance with this Chapter shall be subdivided or divided into any form of time shares, interval ownerships, or fractional fee. 2. For EHUs which are leased, they shall be leased only to tenants who are full-time employees who work in Eagle County. An EHU shall not be leased for a period less than thirty (30) consecutive days. For the purposes of this Chapter, a full- time employee is one who works an average of a minimum of thirty (30) hours each week. The owner of each EHU shall rent the unit at a monthly rental rate consistent with or lower than those market rates prevalent for similar properties in the Town. An EHU shall be continuously rented and shall not remain vacant for a period to exceed 4 consecutive months. 1 Team. The FnaFket Fate shall be based on aR aveFage of if five (5) AHt#er*. 3. For an EHU which can be sold separately, the EHU must be used by the owner of the EHU as a permanent residence. For the purpose of this paragraph, a permanent residence shall mean the home or place in which one's habitation is fixed and to which one, whenever he or she is absent, has a present intention of . returning after a departure or absence therefrom, regardless of the duration of absence. In determining what is a permanent residence, the town staff shall take the following circumstances relating to the owner of the residence into account: business pursuits, employment, income sources, residence for income or other tax purposes, age, marital status, residence of parents, spouse and children if any, location of personal and real property, and motor vehicle registration. Thirty (30) days prior to the transfer of a deed for an EHU, the prospective purchaser shall submit an application to the Department of Community Development documenting that the prospective purchaser meets the criteria set forth herein and shall include an affidavit affirming that he or she meets these criteria. 4. No later than February 1 of each year, the owner of each employee housing unit within the Town which is constructed following the effective date of this Chapter shall submit two (2) copies of aFepen a sworn affidavit on a form to be obtained from the Community Development Department, to the Community Development Department of the T-n;A;p and Chair= of the TmAxR Hour setting forth evidence establishing that the employee housing unit has been rented or owner occupied throughout the year, the rental rate, the employer, and that each tenant who resides within the employee housing unit is a full-time employee in Eagle County. 3. The provisions set forth in this subsection (A) shall be incorporated into a written agreement in a form approved by the Town Attorney which shall run with the land and shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval of the Town. Said agreement shall be recorded at the County Clerk and Recorder office prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of an EHU. B. Deed Restriction, Occupancy Limitations, Reporting Requirements Type VI. All Type VI Employee housing unit deed restrictions shall be incorporated into an agreement in a form and substance acceptable to the Town Manager and Town Attorney. C. Development Standards. 1. No property containing an EHU shall exceed the maximum GRFA permitted in Title 12 except as specifically provided in herein. 2. All trash facilities shall be enclosed. 3. All surface parking shall be screened by landscaping or berms as per Chapter 12- 2 11, Design Review. 4. Each EHU shall have its own entrance. There shall be no interior access from any EHU to any dwelling unit it may be attached to. 5. An EHU may be located in, or attached to, an existing garage (whether located in a required setback or not), , aed #eF provided that no existing parking required by the Town Municipal Code is reduced or eliminated. A Type I EHU which has 500 sq. ft. or less of GRFA, may be considered for physical separation from the primary unit if it is constructed in conjunction with a two car garage and is otherwise compatible with the surrounding properties does not have an adverse impact on vegetation and does not dominate the street. The Design Review Board shall review such requests for separation. 6. All EHUs must contain a kitchen or kitchenette and a bathroom. D. Application Requirements. 1. Applicants for a conditional use permit for the purpose of constructing employee housing shall not be required to pay a conditional use permit application fee. 2. EHU applications requiring a conditional use permit are subject to review and approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission as provided for in Chapter 12-16, Conditional Use Permits. 3. EHU applications which do not require a conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department subject to a Design Review Application. 4. Any existing legally developed dwelling unit in the Town of Vail may be converted to an EHU administratively by the Town without obtaining a conditional use permit as applicable. Dwellina units and lock-off units which exist as of the date of this ordinance but which are nonconforming with respect to density and GRFA may be converted to an EHU administratively by the Town as Iona as they otherwise comply with the development standards and parking requirements found herein and comply with the Building Code requirements of the Town of Vail Upon being converted to an EHU per this section, such dwelling units shall be considered legally conforming EHUs. 3 12-13-4: EHU Requirements by Type. EHU Zoning districts Ownership/ Additional GRFA/Site Additional Site Coverage Garage Credit Parking Minimum/ Density permitted by right or Transference Coverage /Reduced Landscape Area Maximum by conditional use GRFA of an EHU Type I Permitted Use: The EHU may be GRFA: Site Coverage: Allowed 300 sq. ft. of Per Chapter 12- Per Zone District. Counts as Primary/Secondary sold or The EHU is entitled to an The site is entitled to an garage area per 10 as a dwelling 2nd unit on Residential, transferred as additional 500 sq. ft. GRFA additional 5% of site coverage enclosed vehicle unit. properly. Two-Family Residential separate unit on for EHU. space at a maximum GFedil. It appFeved, !he 914W (all with lots less than the property. of 2 parking spaces 15,000 sq. ft.) addoleGAW Landscape Area: (600 sq. ft.). (Previously G0GIiQR 42 15- S_ Of th- The site is entitled to a reduction of landscape area by required deed restriction 5% (reduced to 55% of site on both areal for EHU. units to allow sale) Type II Permitted Use: The EHU shall not The EHU is entitled to an N/A Allowed 300 sq. ft. of 1 parking space 300 sq. ft. min. Allowed as Single-Famil be sold or additional 500 sq. ft. GRFA additional garage area per bedroom, . 200 f ft 3rd unit on 1. scl. Residential. Two-Family transferred credit. 11apPreved, the 6 for the EHU. unless EHU separately from exceeds 600 sq. max. property. oeResidential. not Primary/Secondary the unit it is FA 'IRdQ ft. of GRFA, then count as fesidential. Agricultu associated with. re it requires 2 density. & Open Space parking spaces. leas OR "filized, 1h@R 259 sq. Sesliea at a - 4 EHU Zoning districts Ownership/ Additional GRFA/Site dd tion i Site CoveMe / uce~ Landscape AYea Garage Credit Parking Minimum/ Density permitted by right or Transference Coverage Maximum by conditional use GRFA of an EHU Type III Conditional Use: The EHU may be EHU's are entitled to 500 N/A N/A 4 pa;14ngspase A. Dwelling Not counted Residential Cluster sold or transferred so. ft. of additional GRFA per b8dreerT unit as density. Low Density Multiple- separately. per unit aaless€k'1 format Family exceeds-69"q- Medium Density #1- of GR€A-then 300 sq. ft min. Multiple-Family 4 re9diF96 2 1.200 sg, ft. High Density Multiple- parkiag spaces- max. Family Public Accommodation Per Chapter 12- B. Dormitory Commercial Core 1 10, however, no format Commercial Core 2 less than 2 200 sq. ft min. Commercial Core 3 parking spaces 500 sq. ft max. Commercial Service per unit. Center Arterial Business Parking District General Use Ski Base/Recreation Type IMF The ra#l may be WA W 4 parlpg Space 200 sq. It- a~ 0432-e4a cold or URRaterFed Fna*r AAA I1- QU 2QQ may- POF . . Pam" d b AAed+u p P_ 8PX ly MultipleFaFpi4} Family commofGin, Cam -2 GealeF AFteaal Basiaess 6eaeral-~Jse Ske Type V Permitted Use: The EHU shall not The EHU is not entitled to N/A The EHU is not Per Chapter 12- 1,200 sq. ft. max. Counts as Hillside Residential be sold or additional GRFA. entitled to additional 10 as a dwelling 2nd unit on transferred garage area credit. unit. property. separately from the unit it is Arad associated with. easiesed- 5 r a EHU Zoning districts Ownership/ Additional GRFA/Site Additional Site Coverage Garage Credit Parking Minimum/ Density permitted by right or Transference Coverage /Reduced Landscape Area Maximum by conditional use GRFA of an EHU Type VI Permitted Use: The EHU may Shall be determined by wA Shall be determined Per Chapter 12- Shall be Per Zoning Single-Family only be sold or the PEC. by the PEC. 10 as a dwelling determined by in Single- Residential. Two- transferred unit. the PEC, family. Two- Family Residential, separately. family, and Primary/Secondary Two-family Residential. EHU covered by Primary/Sac Agriculture & Open deed restrictions ondarv Space for Type VI EHU Residential (See Section Districts. Conditional Use: Residential Cluster Shall be Low Density Multiple- determined Family by the PEC Medium Densitv in other Multiple-Family zone High Density Multiple- districts. Family Public Accommodation Commercial Core 1 Commercial Core 2 Commercial Core 3 Commercial Service Center Arterial Business Parking District General Use Ski Base/Recreation FAEVERYONETOWEHUCODE3.WPD 6 Last printed 06/03/99 3:57 PM Chapter 9 Special and Miscellaneous Districts ARTICLE D. AFFORDABLE HOUSING (AH) DISTRICT SECTION: 12-9D-1: Purpose 12-9D-2: Permitted Uses 12-9D-3: Conditional Uses 12-9D-4: Accessory Uses 12-9D-5: Development Standards 12-9D-1: PURPOSE: The Affordable Housing District is intended to provide adequate sites for affordable and employee housing which, because of the nature and characteristics of affordable and employee housing; cannot be adequately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts. It is necessary in this district to provide development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 12-1-2 of this Title and to provide for the public welfare. The Affordable Housing District is intended to ensure that affordable and employee housing permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents of Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and F:\EVERYONE\DOM\EHU-HOUS\HOUSWG 1.DOC Last printed 06/03/99 3:57 PM to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the allowed types of uses . 12-9D-2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the AH District: Passive outdoor recreation areas, and open space. Pedestrian and bike paths. Public parks. 12-9D-3: CONDITIONAL USES: Generally: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the AH District, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Deed restricted employee housing provided by the public or private sector. Type III employee housing unit as provided in Section 12-13-6 of this Title. Type VI employee housing unit as provided in Section 12-13-7 of this Title. Public buildings and grounds. Public utilities installations including transmission lines and appurtenant equipment. Commercial uses which are secondary (as determined by the PEC) to the use of deed restricted employee housing and developed in conjunction with deed restricted employee housing, in which case the following uses may be allowed subject to a conditional use permit: F:\EVERYONE\DOM\EHU-HOUS~HOUSING I .DOC Last printed 06/03/99 3:57 PM Banks and financial institutions. Eating and drinking establishments. Health clubs. Personal services. Professional offices, business offices, and studios. Retail stores and establishments. 12-9D-4: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the AH District: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-14-12 of this Title. Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential and lodge uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 12-9D-5: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: A. Prescribed By Planning And Environmental Commission: In the AH District, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission: F:\EVERYONE\DOM\EHU-HOUS\HOUSWG I .DOC 1 Last printed 06/03!99 3:57 PM 1. Lot area and site dimensions. 2. Setbacks. 3. Building height. 4. Density control. 5. Site coverage. 6. Landscaping and site development. 7. Parking and loading. B. Reviewed By Planning And Environmental Commission: Development standards shall be proposed by the applicant as a part of a conditional use permit application. Site specific development standards shall then be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission during the review of the conditional use request in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title. Minor changes to the development plan or development standards (by not more than 5% to any development standard unless reducing a standard's impact in which case the 5% limitation shall not apply) shall be approved by the administrator or by the Design Review Board. F:\EVERYONE\DOM\EHU-HOUS\HOUSWG 1.DOC TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 1999 June 3, 1999 RECEIVED JUN Contact: Russell Forrest, 479-2146 Community Development Director Piet Pieters, 479-2279 Vail Recreation District Director COMMUNITY FACILITIES EXPANSION IS GOAL OF JUNE BRAINSTORMING WORK IN VAIL; PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS ENCOURAGED THROUGHOUT 3-DAY EVENT (Vail)--Expanding Vail's network of community facilities is the goal of a three-day brainstorming session next week that will call upon the talents of three national design teams to sort through a list of facility ideas as well as possible locations. Sponsored by the Town of Vail and the Vail Recreation District, the June 8-10 activity will include three opportunities for the public to meet and interact with the teams. The work begins at 8 a.m. June 8 when members of the public are invited to join the designers for an orientation tour of existing facilities, plus 13 sites within Vail. Stops include the Vilar Center, Avon Recreation Center and the Eagle-Vail Pavilion, as well as potential lands from West Vail to East Vail. The bus tour will depart from the Vail Municipal Building at 8:15 a.m. To reserve a seat, call 479-2115 by 5 p.m. June 7. Following the tour, teams will work privately on their concepts before rejoining community members later that evening for a Vail Tomorrow BBQ from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Vail Municipal Building. Catered by Shirkie Evans, the family-style event is free and will offer community members an opportunity to meet the design teams and to share their own ideas for community facilities. (more) RECYCLED PAPER - \a Add 1/Community-Facilities The last public event will take place on day-three of the session when the design teams will present preliminary concepts from 5:30 to 8 p.m. June 10 in the Vail Town Council Chambers. Planning for the upcoming brainstorming "charette" has been underway since February when the Vail Town Council and Vail Recreation District Board of Directors agreed to a joint partnership, with each entity contributing $37,500 for this first phase of the community facilities program. The design teams were selected in March following a request for proposals process. According to Russell Forrest, project manager and director of Vail's Community Development Department, each of the teams are equipped with outstanding community facility design experience, a land use planner/developer and a financial analyst to ensure each team stays grounded in cost implications. In addition, each team has experience in designing both recreational and cultural facilities. The three design teams are: EDAW, Denver, Colo. Zehren and Associates, Avon, Colo. Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Minneapolis, Minn. Design examples include the 21-acre Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta, Ga.; St. Louis Park Recreation Center, St. Louis Park, Minn.; the Minnesota History Center in St. Paul; as well as numerous IMAX and OMNIMAX theaters across the country. Otis Architecture, Denver, Colo. Sasaki Associates, Denver, Colo. Design Workshop, Vail, Colo. Design examples include a 55,000 sq. ft. recreation and aquatics center at the University of California-Santa Barbara; an Olympic-size hockey rink at the University of New Hampshire; a 144,000 sq. ft. entertainment development in Westminster that includes three ice rinks; and the Rio Grande Botanic Garden in Albuquerque, N.M. IQ Magic, Santa Monica, Calif. Orne & Associates, Denver, Colo. OZ Architecture, Denver, Colo. Design examples include the Los Angeles County Fairplex, a 550,000 sq. ft. mixed-use entertainment, retail and convention facility intended to extend and expand the heritage of the Los Angeles County Fair and a client list that includes MGM, Universal Studios and more than 20 museums throughout the U.S. (more) r~ Add 2/Community Facilities Vail has grappled with a desire for additional community facilities for more than a decade, according to Forrest. Ballot issues have included proposals for a year-round aquatic facility in 1990; a performing arts and conference center in 1993; and a par-three golf course in 1994. All three ballot issues were defeated. The, last community facility to win voter support in Vail was in 1982 with approval of a bond issue to build the public library. In recent years, a community facilities "wish list" has been developed based on community survey preferences and the Vail Tomorrow process. Forrest says the design teams will be asked to sort through the wish list that has grown to include the following random listing: • Second sheet of ice • Outdoor skating rink • Activity/entertainment space • Snack bar/coffee house/deli • Arts/crafts room • Community theater/auditorium IMAX theater/dance floor • Gymnastics facility • High tech multi-media center, meeting rooms, learning center • Pavilion, community room • Skate park, skateboarding, in-line skates, BMX bikes • Swimming pool with retractable cover "We haven't prioritized any of the uses," Forrest said. "We're asking the design teams to think creatively about how we can develop a world-class recreational and cultural facility on our community hub site that would be complemented by satellite facilities serving other uses identified as community needs." The community hub site is the 4.3-acre area that includes Dobson Arena, the Vail Public Library and the charter bus lot east of the Lionshead parking structure. Forrest says the design teams will be asked to brainstorm creative uses of the space, including stronger cohesion among the facilities. Other sites to be explored next week include: • the top deck of the Lionshead parking structure (all or a portion) (more) v Add 3/Community Facilities • south side perimeter of the Lionshead parking structure (uses should complement the charter bus lot site) • Vail Village Fire Station (may be relocated in the future, making this site available) • Old Town Shops (currently used for storage and gymnastics, this building is scheduled to be torn down in the next 2 to 3 years to make way for a below-grade sewer expansion) Golf Course Clubhouse (also used as a Nordic ski center and outdoor ice Ank in the winter) • Vail Racquet Club (now a private club that includes tennis courts, swimming pools, exercise equipment, dance room and restaurant. The homeowners association is interested in upgrading) • City Market Bright Horizons space (once a day care center) • Parks (there are 9 parks in Vail over 1 acre in size. Certain uses could be appropriate on park lands, such as an outdoor swimming pool, enclosed pavilion/community meeting room or skate park) Forrest says the brainstorming process could provide some much-needed momentum in generating an action plan for the construction of public facilities in Vail. "I'm very excited about the opportunity for the charette teams, with public input, to develop a community facilities program that will address many of the long standing needs of the community and provide additional amenities for our guests," said Forrest. Piet Pieters, director of the Vail Recreation District, says the VRD is pleased to be a partner in the process. "We're sensing a tremendous amount of momentum from the community," he said. "We're extremely excited about the prospect of a joint venture between the town and the VRD. We're eager to expand our cultural and recreational programs within the town." Both entities say a public-private financing mechanism is envisioned to construct and operate one or more of the yet-to-be-determined community facilities. With that in mind, the partners have hired a corporate sponsorship consulting firm, Integrated Sports International, based in Washington, D.C., to participate in the charette and other ongoing partnership discussions. Following the June 10 community report-out by the design teams, the concepts will be displayed at the Vail Public Library and on the Internet while the Town of Vail and the Vail Recreation District seek public comment. From there, one of the design teams could be (more) 1 Add 4/Community Facilities selected by the Vail Town Council and Vail Recreation District to refine its conceptual plans more fully. For more information, contact Russell Forrest at 479-2146 or Piet Pieters at 479-2279. Pinnacle Resorts Systems V 970-476-5388 Q6/2/99 01:36 PM p212 Vai i ' g in u it,y g I 1 19 t i iative Meet~g When: Friday, June 4, 1999 CEIVED ,SUN 3 1999 Where: VVTCB Conference Room Time: 8:30 to 10:30 a.m. Agenda ,r * Community Letter (Draft distributed) * Budget (Draft distributed) * Community. Standards *'Bank Program _ • Design/Inspection Staff Position * Construction Management Staff Position * Fund Raising Contacts- Town of Vail, Avon, Beaver Creek Volunteers? Please RSVP to Craig at the VVTCB (476-1000) S 11 TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Department of Community Development Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-21381479-2139 FAX 970-479-2452 June 2, 1999, Safeway'Corporate Office C , `I) JUN 3 ,0 Property Management 6900 S. Yosemite Englewood, CO 80112 Dear Safeway: It was brought to our attention that the wood screening around the mechanical equipment above the Vail Safeway is in a state of disrepair. This fencing barrier for the mechanical equipment was part of the approved Design Review Board plans for the building. We would very much appreciate, if you have not already planned to do so, if you could repair the screening for the mechanical equipment on top of your store within the next 15 days. Please call me if you have any questions at 479-2146. Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, f klo Russell Forrest Director of Community Development x. c. Vail Town Council RECYCLED PAPER STATE. OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor Jane E. Norton, Executive Director pF cow WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION http://www.cdphe.state.co.us # Y + f 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South 1876 Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 T4~ Phone (303) 692-3469 JUN 3 Colorado Department Fax (303) 691-7702 of Public Health and Environment NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL HEARING BEFORE THE COLORADO WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION SUBJECT: To provide an opportunity to receive public comment on proposals to consider new statutory, regulatory and/or policy guidance provisions regarding wastewater reuse for landscape irrigation. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ENCOURAGED: The Commission encourages all interested persons to provide their opinions or recommendations orally or in writing regarding the recommendations of a Water Quality Forum workgroup concerning wastewater reuse. Copies of the work group's recommendations will be available after June 15, 1999 from the Water Quality Control Commission Office. HEARING SCHEDULE: DATE: Monday, July 12, 1999 TIME: 3:30 p.m. PLACE: Sabin Conference Room Colorado Department of Public Heaith and Environment 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado The hearing may be reconvened at such times and places as the Commission may announce. AUTHORITY FOR PUBLIC HEARING: The provisions of 25-8-202(1)(i) C.R.S. and Section 21.5 B of the "Procedural Rules" (5 CCR 1002-21) provide the authority for this hearing. STATE. OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor JJane E. Norton, Executive Director ~q WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION yc~ http://wvw.cdphe.state.co.us ' ' 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South . 1876 s Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 Colorado Department Phone (303) 692-3469 Fax (303) 691-7702 of Public Health and Environment NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL HEARING BEFORE THE COLORADO WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION SUBJECT: At the date, time and location listed below, the Water Quality Control Commission will hold a public informational hearing to consider approval of a draft update of the Colorado Nonpoint Source Management Program. Colorado's Nonpoint Source Management Program was originally developed and approved in 1989. The Water Quality Control Division has prepared the draft program update with substantial assistance from the Colorado Nonpoint Source Council. Copies of the draft program update include the following documents: • The Colorado Nonpoint Source Management Program • The Nonpoint Source Management Program Action Plan • Agriculture-Silviculture Nonpoint Source Management Program • Information and Education Management Program • Mining Nonpoint Source Management Program • Urban and Construction Management Program These documents are available from the Commission Office or are available from the Internet at www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/wgcc/cupsmpu.htmI HEARING SCHEDULE: - DATE: Monday, July 12, 1°99 TIME: 1:00 P.M. PLACE: Florence Sabin Conference Room Department of Public Health and Environment 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ENCOURAGED: The Commission encourages all interested persons to provide their opinions or recommendations orally or in writing as to whether the proposed program update should be approved by the Commission. STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor f Jane E. Norton, Executive Director p cps WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION http://www.cdphe.state.co.us ' f f 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South * 1$76 x Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 RECEIVED JUN 3 1999 Phone (303) 692-3469 Colorado Department Fax (303) 691-7702 of Public Health and Environment NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL HEARING BEFORE THE COLORADO WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION SUBJECT: Triennial review of the Commission's current regulation titled: "Biosolids Regulation," Regulation #64 (5 CCR 1002-64) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ENCOURAGED: The Commission encourages all interested persons to provide their opinions or recommendations orally or in writing as to whether the foregoing regulation should be continued in its current form, repealed, or changed and if so in what respect. HEARING SCHEDULE: DATE: Monday, July 12, 1999 TIME: 11:30 a.m. PLACE: Florence Sabin Conference Room Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado The healing may be reconvened at such tin1es and places as the Commission ma`s r• announce. Any suggested changes deemed by the Commission to require further action will be proposed as regulatory changes for subsequent public rulemaking. Recommendations for changes should be concise and supported by reference to the evidence that would be offered if the Commission moved forward to formally consider the recommended regulatory amendments. At this informational hearing the Commission does not desire to hear the full evidence that would be presented at a rulemaking hearing that would follow. The Commission requests only information needed for it to determine whether or not to propose a regulatory change. To strengthen and promote cities as centers of opportunity leadership, and governance. lm win 1A National League May 17, 1999 RECENE0 JUN 3 1999 of Cities `1301 Pennsylvania Ave.; N.W Washington, D.C. 20004-1763 MEMORANDUM 202-626-3000 Fax: 202-626-3043 To: Board of Directors Internet: vwvw.nlc.org Advisory Council Members Executive Director of State Municipal Leagues 1999 Officers President Mayor of M er Cities Clarence E. Anthony Mayor, South Bay, Florida First Vice President From: Don rut v r' Bob Knight Mayor, Wichita. Kansas Second Vice President Subject: The Howland Awards Publications Dennis W. Archer Mayor, Detroit, Michioan Immediate Past President I am pleased to enclose a copy of the 1998 Howland Awards Brian J. O'Neill Councilman, Philadelphia, publication, "Working Cities, Winning Ideas." This publication is Pennsylvania provided to you compliments of CH2M Hill Company, one of the Executive Director Donald J.Borut country's largest engineering consulting firms committed to the integration of technology with the environment, The James C. Howland Awards for Urban Enrichment program, sponsored by the National League of Cities and CH2M Hill 1936 ,Q y~ 1999 Company,-was established 10 years ago. The Awards recognize and encourage. communities who have improved the quality of their urban environment through thoughtful, innovative projects that demonstrate collaborative planning and high quality urban design. The urban enrichment programs described in this book reflect the tremendous effort communities have made to improve their environment. James Howland and I are delighted to share those ideas with cities and towns of all sizes across the land. Past Presidents: Glenda E. Hood, Mayor, Orlando Florida - Sharpe James, Mayor, Newark, New Jersey- Gregory Lashutka, Mayor, Columbus, Ohio - Cathy Reynolds, City Council President, Denver, Colorado - Directors- Amie Adamsen, Councilman. Las Vegas, Nevada - Kenneth A. Alderson, Executive Director, Illinois Municipal League - E. H. Alexander, Commissioner, Bed Springs, North Carolina -John B. Andrews, Executive Director, New Hampshire Municipal Association - Larry A. Bakken, Council Member, Golden Valley, Minnesota -James T Benham, Councilman, Baton Rouge, Louisiana - George D. Blackwood, Jr., Mayor Pro Tem, Kansas City. Missouri - George A. Brown, Jr. Councilmember, Lexington- Fayette. Kentucky - Maxine Childress Brown, Councilwoman, Rochester, New York - John P. Buena, Councilman, Pontiac, Michioan - Michael Cathay, Alderman, Senatubia. Mississippi - Frank Clini Mayor, Paris, Illinois - Hal Daub, Mayor, Omaha. Nebraska - Sue Donaldson, City Council President, Seattle, Washington - Francis H. Duehay, Mayor, Cambridge, Massachusetts - Ron Gallegos, Councilman, Longmont. Colorado - John A. Garner, Jr., Executive Director, Pennsvlvania League of Cities and Municipalities - Neil G. Giuliano, Mayor, Tempe, Arizona -Thomas J. Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities - Becky L Raskin, Council Member, Fort Worth, Texas - Patsy Jo Hilliard, Mayor, East Point, Georgia - Michael Keck, Vice Mayor, Little Rock, Arkansas - Jack Lynch, Chief Executive, Butte. Montana - Harriet Miller, Mayor, Santa Barbara, California -James E Miller, Executive Director, Leaaue of Minnesota Cities - Linda A. Motion, Mayor, Lakewood. Colorado -William A. Moyer, Executive Director, Oklahoma Municipal League -Jim Naugle, Mayor, Fort Lauderdale, Florida - Lou Ogden, Mayor, Tualatin, Oregon -Jenny Oropeza, Councilmember, Long Beach, California - Willie J. Pitt Council Member, Wilson, North Carolina - Mary C. Poss, Mayor Pro Tern, Dallas. Texas - Rebecca J. Ravine, Council President, Fort Wayne, Indiana - Johnny Robinson, Councilmember. College Park, Georgia - Michael Sittig, Executive Director. Florida League of Cities - Leon Smith, Mayer, Oxford, Alabama - Daniel M. Speer, Mayor, Pulaski, Tennessee - Connie Sprynczynaryk Executive Director, North Dakota League of Cites - Evelyn Recycled Feder Wright Turner, Councilor, Columbus, Georgia - Jerrilyn S. Wall, Council President, Evanston, Wyoming 06/03/99 THU 10:26 FAX 9709499227 SHAMROCK Town Council Mem Q00 I 0. (o~~P$ Comnuzn lea tion VVMA MEETING WEDNESDAY, JUNE % 1999 8:30AM EUIVEG JUN_ 3 COLORADO SKI MUSEUM AGENDA • WISH LIST FROM TOV We'll explore what we need from the TOV to help insure a successful year. • CHILI COOK OFF - FAMILY FEST • FRIDAY NIGHT STREET PARTIES • FRIDAY NIGHT Can we all stay open? • LODGING TAX-MARKETING DISTRICT May involve an increase (50-100%) in the Business License Fee. Will we support the tax? Will we support an increase in the BLF? This proposal will be decided in the next few weeks. .UNDER 30 MEETINGS Please review last meeting's handouts and bring them along for discussion. We'll review the problems and sort through some solutions. Your Workshop 10 super benefits Leader Susan Brown ou'll gain from Mastering Microsoft Office Susan Brown knows how ik+ A er ust one day, .You'll know how to important communication skills 'r, - particularly,computer skills 1. Add visual zip to a brochure or report using drawing tools, textures and 3-D - are in today's competitive effects from Office Art business world. Susan> # 2. Save time - every time you use your computer - by customizing menus specializes in teaching others and building your own toolbars how to use the components of 3 Avoid frustrating, time-wasting searches by using File Open with Fast Find to Microsoft Office. From her' ou locate any file - anywhere - in a jiffy y will learn how to produce 4. Create complex-looking tables, lists and charts you'd never have professional-looking documents attempted previously with just a few clicks of your mouse button with Microsoft Word, to crunch i 5. Transform yourself from "the silent type" in meetings to a dynamic numbers and create impressive . r • ,~-,j:,,,, presenter using overheads and handouts you made on your computer in charts with Excel, how to pull PowerPoint together powerful presentations 6. Express yourself in e-mail messages without fear of embarrassing spelling using PowerPoint, manage data goofs using WordMail - with Word as your trusty "editor" with Access and organize 7. Slash your work time in all five applications by using nifty keyboard projects, priorities and time with shortcuts Outlook. [ . 8. Set up meetings from start to finish - letting Outlook do everything but make the coffee! Susan's educational background includes general psychology 9. Save your organization a bundle in printing costs by customizing complex forms in Access and fashion design, and she is a L F , graduate of New Horizons 10. Boost your numbers-crunching productivity by mastering simple Learning Center. She has 12 spreadsheet tips in Excel years experience as a communications and computer.',:;: trainer. Past clients include the City of Los Angeles, GTE, i 10. more complex tasks various government agencies, United Airlines and Nabisco. you never dreamed your software could do that'll seem easy after you attend Mastering Microsoft Office "A 1. Use Table Analyzer Wizard to transform spreadsheet data in Excel into a useful relational database in Access 2. Insert information from one program into another in an instant using OLE drag and drop - without fear of losing anything! 3. Create multimedia presentations that will keep your audiences spell- bo"h learn ' bound using advanced PowerPoint techniques 4. Organize associated files from different applications into one unit in amateurs Office Binder and print them out as a single document, complete with page numbers 5. Fearlessly conduct a mail merge (without the moral support of five co-workers) using,Mail Merge Wizard ' 6. Insert special characters and design your own templates in Word to give a polished, professional look to even the most routine documents • • - 7. Organize text imported into Excel in columns and use new filter methods to copy specific data to another location or worksheet 9. Save documents from all Office 97 applications to HTML for ease in • Web~publishing 9 Set up a database in Access quickly and easily using the Database wizard 10. Work confidently with formulas using the new Formula AutoCorrect to expose errors When 3 enroll, the 4th attends FREE! 3 ` D Fortune 500 firms, government agencies, leading nonprofit Your Comprehens Sessions from 9 a.m. to 4 p organizations They all come to CompEd 1. Setting up shop in your ? Making Word's special features Solutions for new Office environment work hard for you ? First things first: How the Professional ? How to use columns, tables and lists guaranteed solutions! and Standard Editions differ to make your documents really stand out Honeywell • U.S. Coast ? A grand tour of the basic applications ? From dull to dynamic: quick tips to Guard • Goodyear Aerospace - and how much RAM you'll need to jazz up the appearance of your • Century 21 • Tektronix • run them documents Touche Ross • Johnson & ? Why Office is so much greater than Johnson • National the sum of its parts ? Goof-proof strategies for creating labels, mailing lists and more Association of Realtors • U.S. ? Essential Windows concepts every Navy • Georgetown successful Office user must University Medical Center • understand IV. How to Excel at Atlantic Richfield • American ? Differences and similarities among numbers-crunching Bar Association • IBM • the toolbars in the various National Geographic Society • applications ? Mastering spreadsheet basics: AT&T • Marriott • Texas ? The hassle-free way to start an Concepts and techniques you must Instruments • NASA • Office program and to switch know Hughes Aircraft • The World between applications ? How adjust column widths and align Bank • Digital Equipment and edit cells, rows and columns Corp. • Hewelett Packard • 11. 'Timesavers and power ? The hassle free way to format your City of Los Angeles • Bank of worksheets America • Pacific Mutual Life tricks for the savvy user ? Power tips for using Excel's collection Insurance • American Express ? Customizing the MOM toolbar to of toolbars to format text and • Transamerican Occidental meet your needs numbers easily Life Ins. • Pitney Bowes • ? How to build your own toolbars and ? How to change text sizes, fonts and Citicorp Real Estate Corp. customize menus so that they work colors to create stand-out for you spreadsheets Anheuser Busch Co., Inc. • ? An invaluable list of keyboard short- ? Add charts to put some life into Great Western Financial cuts that'll slash your work time those numbers -it's easy! Security • Monsanto • And ? Using wizards to walk you through over 750,000 morel complex tasks in all five applications V. Creating sizzling ? Find any file anywhere in a jiffy with pl'eselitalions with Fast Find ? Help! How to use the help menu and I'owel.IDoint your super-helpful new pal, Office ? The essential elements that every Assistant to get answer in a hurry good presentation contains ? Create your own shortcut keys to ? How to use Wizard to create dynamic perform special jobs presentations for you - automatically! Attend with a ~i- Tips for using PowerPoint's state-of- the-art tools to liven up your materials group and save! III. Producing professional- with borders, charts and even cartoon When 3 enroll, a looking documents in Word characters 4th attends FREE! ? The ABCs of Word: How to ? Our "Keep It Simple" strategy for create, open, organize and edit using visuals effectively without documents the easy way overkill ? Five keys to producing ? How to utilize the 1,000-image professional-quality documents ClipArt Gallery to spice up any every time presentation 4 Whatever your training needs - CompEd Solutions has the answer. Ca ® A special note to the approving manager we Workshop Agenda With today's economic uncertainty, i. Registration begins at 8:30 a.m. business professionals like you ' who're responsible for managing VI. Getting the job done VII. Beyond basics: others must be able to justify every dime that's spent. When you with Outlook, Access and Unleashing the fill power approve a $79 expense for one of 6:.. Mail of Microsoft Office your employees to attend this ? Why Access has become the ? Real world examples of sharing workshop, you deserve to know industry leader in database information between applications EXACTLY what return your management for amazing results organization can expect on its ? Learn to create a database in both ? What you need to know about investment. table and views and how to change Object-Linking and Embedding In just one day your employees their structure, find, move and (OLE) show records ? How to conduct a mail merge using will learn t ¦ Take control of your database and ? Setting up and organizing meetings Mail Merge Wizard make the information useful from start to finish with Outlook ? Nifty tricks with Office's "applet" ® Produce professional-looking ? How to save your company a programs: Graph, Media Player, documents filled with graphics bundle using Microsoft Mail WorclArt and more and charts Avoid embarrassing spelling goofs ? How to save documents instantly ¦ Perform complex tasks that once in e-mail by using Word as your - from any application - in HTML had to be jobbed out to different "editor" ? Using PowerPoint to publish an departments animated, narrated presentation on ¦ Design stunning presentations and the Web attractive handouts ® Boost their productivity, freeing up hours in the work week ® Do all of the above just by utilizing Still not convinced this software that's already loaded on your PCs, but that no one's ever workshop will benefit you? figured out how to use 5 more reasons why you can't afford to miss All that for only $79? There is Mastering. Microsoft Office! no better investment you could makel 1. You'll save countless hours of time and effort on the job when you use the invaluable tips, techniques and shortcuts you'll learn about this powerful software.`. • . o You'll stand out in the crowd, becoming the office guru on Word, Excel • • • ' and Access, and you will wow 'em with your new-found presentation ' techniques from PowerPoint.:. 3. You'll receive a thorough workbook containing everything you learned ' • in this program that will become a trusted reference guide you'll reach o for again and again. •i. You'll have trained on Microsoft Office with the best in the industry - ' a Microsoft Solution Provider, ° 5. You'll receive (if you wish) continuing Education Credit for 6 contact • hours, or .6 CEUs, indicating that you're a professional intent on growing in your career. (See page 7) , --t 800.258.7246 for a free catalog of seminars coming to your area soon. 5 Workshop Schedule COLORADO Ft. Collins SOUTH DAKOTA Arvada August 4 Rapid City August 24 Marriott Hotel August 6 Arvada Center! for the Arts 350 E. Horsetooth Road Radisson Hotel 6901 Wadsworth Blvd. Sem. #9904337 445 Mt. Rushmore Road Sem. #9904372 Sem. #9904339 Grand Junction Aurora August 25 UTAH August 5 Adams Mark Hotel Salt Lake City Holiday Inn DIA 743 Horizon Drive August 26 15500 E. 40th Avenue. Sem. #9904373 Quality Inn City Center Sem. #9904338 154 W. 600 South IDAHO Sem. #9904374 Boulder Boise August 3 August 27 WYOMING Hotel Boulderado Holiday Inn Airport Casper 2115 13th Street 3300 Vista Avenue August 23 Sem. #9904336 Sem. #9904375 Radisson Inn Casper, 800 North Poplar Road Colorado Springs Sem. #9904371 August 2 ',Sheraton Hotel 2886 S. Circle Drive Sem. #9904335 GOT A GROUP I , TO TRAIN? I I l I l a , t Why not bring Mastering Microsoft Save Of/ice to your office? The only thing better Microsoft Office Training Suite for business than an employee who knows $280! how to save time, money and frustration - (Excel, Word, Access, PowerPoint, Outlook all in one) plus produce top quality work - using This full series software training package features: Microsoft Office is 10 employees who can, do the same! When you bring this Microsoft Office 97 Training Program powerful new workshop on-site, you Excel 97 (3), Word 97 (3), Access 97 (3), Multiply your organization's effectiveness PowerPoint 97 (3) Outlook 97 (1) and productivity in just one day. , a« We can bring this information-packed Microsoft Office 97 Video Training workshop, or any of the dozens of other productivity-hoosting training programs we 13 Videocassettes - offer, into your organization, customized to Item No. B491VH Meet your unique needs. Plus, we present Your Price: $495 Save $230 it on your schedule, when and where it is convenient for your people to attend. Microsoft Office 97 CD-ROM Training For More information on group training, 13 CD-ROM ~j call our Business Training and Development Services Item No. B491CD department at 1-800-344-4613, ext. 3051, r ` Your Price: $679 Save $280 0111i;4 or see our Internet home page at Microsoft' http://www.compedsolutions.coni 6 s ;v h~ltS ' I _7 J To Enroll` o Yes, I want to attend Mastering Microsoft O p t t' ff7ce. The fee per person is 79. It includes workshop instruction and a comprehensive workbook. l! Seminar City Call toll-free ' Seminar Date t r" Seminar No. 1-800-258-7246 0 Please send me -copies of Microsoft 0„(/u-e Video Training suite (Item No. 13491VH) at $495 each. ? Please send me _ copies of Microsoft OAe C6ROMTraining suite (Item No. 134910) at $679 each. t aY? Add 7% or applicable sales tax to your product payment. Alethod of payment is indicated in step 4. h a or fax the completed registration J7 1"t form to 1-913-432-0824 ® Names of Attendees: (Please Print) 1. Mr./Ms. Title AW or register online at 2. Mr./Ms. - http://www.compedsolutions.com ,t ra' Title 3. Mc/Ms. Tide or mail the form to: .r CompEd Solutions c„„{ 4. Mr./Ms. (FREE!) Title P.O. Box 419107 Kansas City, MO 64141-6107 ! t' (When 3 enroll front your organization, a 4th attends free! Please list additional registtations on a separate sheet and attach.) I, 4 le .,ry t9' Irwin -FEE ® Com an Information: Please. ) z P.. S, ( Print Phone/fax rquired in case of last-minute changes. ii lvi Approving Supervisor: Mr./Ms. Registration Information Organization r Address The fee is $79 per person. Registration is open weekdays from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Central time; Mail Stop z Saturday, 7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. Central time. CityCheck in begins State Z[I tns at 8:30 a.m. The workshop schedule is 9 a.m. to 4 I hone 'Fax p.m. Lunch is on your _ own. E-Mail Address Cancellation. If you cannot attend it workshop - for which you are registered, you may send a ! a Method of Payment: substitute or receive a credit memo toward a future. workshop. If you cancel your registration t up to 5 business clays before the workshop, your r,. t a ? If you have registered by phone, please record your confirmation nun)ber here registration tee will be refunded less a $10 ' - - - - - - - - - enrollment charge. - ? Check payable to CompEd Solutions is enclosed ($79 each). SD and WV { Professional Continuing Education Credit. Our residents, please add applicable sales tax to your payment If you are tax-exem 1x r, programs are authorized for 6 contact hours (.6 fi enter your tax-exempt number here: CEUs) as set forth in the guidelines of the IACET and attach it copy of your tax-exempt certificate. Continuing education credit may be recognized by ? Charge to: ? MasterCard ? VISA ? AmExp ? Discover ? Diners Club - your professional board. Many national, state and Card No. local licensing professional boards and )rofessional a Exp. Date -Signature organizations will grant Continuing Education credit ?~r for attenclance at our seminars when you submit ? Bill my organization; Attn: E; the course outline and your Certificate of (Note: Full registration fee clue and payable prior to start of workshop) Attendance. You may want to contact your own ' El Our purchase order is attached (guvernutrnt, CdUCa11UO:11 :l till health care urg:ntizalions only) board or organization to find out what's required. ' • No prerequisite courses, experience or advance sar<, rr preparation is required for admittance to our ® Important: Your VIP Customer Number programs. Call our Continuing Education specialist at 1-800-258-7246, ext. 3100, if you have any ' questions. Fill in your VII' Customer Nuniher as it appears above the name on the mailing label. Tax Deduction. The expense of continuing (Record the number even if the label is addressed io another individual.) education, when taken to maintain and improve professional skills, is tax deductible. Please ` contact your accountant for details. FED ID #43-1576558 7 SETT BY: EAGLE, CO ; 6- 3-99 ; 1:48PM ; 970 328 7207 ;4 1/ 1 - JAUX 1NGSPAD 190011,001 RECEIYED JUN 3 M CCI Cokrado Counties, inc. 1700 &adwq • Sttil~ 1519 • Dca++ot, rolatado ~1~1 Pltnae: 3a38b1~076 ? FtL' 303.661.281a rtltsU: ool~cttlctatinaatg For Immediate Relcamc Contact: Ruth Kedzior June 3. 1999 303.861.4076 I &edzjgC cn1 * osa COUNTY OFFICIALS C4NnNF- IN EAGLE COUNTY Colorado county officials will gather at the Vail Cascade Hotel & Club in Eagle County, June! 7-10,1999 for Colorado Counties, Ino,'a (CCI)17`I' Annual Summer Conference. Among the 300 county officials att=ding are county eommissionem, social =vices dirccton, county n magm and administrators, and road supervisors and engineers from throughout Colorado. CCI President and Morgan County Commislioner Mark Arndt will preside over the conference. Governor Hill Owens will be the keynote speaker at the Cp=ing Session on Tuesday, June S. at 9:15 a.m. Other conference highlights include: Commissioner of Agriculture Don Arnent wiii speak during an agricultural forum held Tuesday, June 8, at 10:45 am. and Attomey General Ken Salazar will be the luncheon speaker on Tuesday, June 8, at noon. A (arum moderated by CCTa Executive Director Larry Kallenbcrger involving more than 20 legislators and twmerous county conanissioners statewide will gather to discuss areas of mutual interest on Wednesday, June 9, at 1:45 p.m. Several workshops and discussion groups and meetitW will be held at the two and a half-day conference. For a complete eonfetence agenda, contact Kristin Dunn at 303.861.4076 or go to COI's website at w:t,ecioeline.= under "CCI ScMces.» Colorado Cou>atics. Inc. (CCI) fast organized in 1907 and incorporated in 1974, is a nonprofit organization of county commissioners whose; purpose is to seek solutions to issues facing county government throughout the state. CCI service programs focus on education, information, and legislative policy. Ptsadeat Malt A. AMA4 MW&M - Fit Won PtM&M 10kMdw SUP'. Zt1le - 34am souiVN% DarSw • navy S W40A meters • mom m Reapmtle., lboQta Th;MM 8a tM Kihm•yar, wad - &=cL ,7 Ed 10=3. X1 Poo • PM PVMW= Huo1a 'Jake` XlEb6 oleto r. 4VAIL TOWN 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 RECEIVED JUN 3X999 MEDIA ADVISORY June 2, 1999 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community Information Office VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR JUNE 1 Work Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Arnett, Ford, Jewett --Site Visits The Council made site visits to Vail Mountain School and the Glen Lyon Office Building in preparation for appeal and development review discussions. --Temporary Classroom Conditional Use Permit Request by Vail Mountain School Although formal discussion of Council's call-up of the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approval will not be considered until the June 15 work session, Councilman Bob Armour suggested the Council consider a one-year approval of the temporary classroom, so long as the school presents a master plan to the town within the year. On May 24, the PEC voted to approve the request for a two-year period. That action was followed by a 5-0 Council vote on May 25 to call-up the issue to increase awareness within the neighborhood. Notification of adjacent property owners is now underway. Also yesterday, Councilman Michael Arnett suggested the Design Review Board offer guidance on the structure's wood siding and paint color. For more information, contact George Ruther in the Community Development Department at 479-2145. --Appeal of PEC Approval of Golden Peak Ski Tunnel At the request of Vail Resorts, the Council voted 4-0 to table this item to the July 6 work session. For more information, contact Dominic Mauriello in the Community Development Department at 479-2148. --Corporate Partnership Contract Proposal by ISI The Council voted 3-1 (Jewett against) to authorize a six-month contract with Integrated Sports International (ISI), a firm that specializes in obtaining corporate sponsorship for public facilities. The $45,000 contract will be shared between the Town of Vail and the Vail Recreation District as it relates to creating strategies for obtaining private financing for community facilities in Vail. The firm will also assess enhancement opportunities for special events and evaluate Vail's overall marketing program. In providing an overview of the ISI proposal, Community Development Director Russell Forrest expressed the town's sensitivity to over-commercialization as well as (more) RECYCLED PAPER Add 1/TOV Council Highlights/6-1-99 appropriate affiliations. He said the proposal enables Vail to provide total control of potential sponsorship matches, as well as setting the terms for such sponsorships. Noting that Vail voters haven't approved financing for a community facility since the library's approval in 1982, Mayor Rob Ford said private sponsorships could be what voters have had in mind all along. Councilman Bob Armour acknowledged fellow Councilman Michael Jewett's concerns about lack of a request for proposals (RFP) process, but said the town should strike while the iron is hot, especially since the Vail Recreation District is willing to help share the cost. ISI has provided sponsorship guidance to the University of Maryland and University of Notre Dame, among others. Although Forrest said the firm can't guarantee the ability to bring private. dollars to the table in Vail, the University of Maryland benefitted from ISI's help when it acquired $25 million in private support for a sports arena. For more information, contact Forrest at 479-2146. --Ford Park Playground Renovation, Design Review After hearing an overview of a $242,200 plan for Ford Park's playground renovation, Councilmembers asked Parks Superintendent Todd Oppenheimer to rework the proposal. Of particular concern was a $49,800 line item for artistic elements that included sculpted river rock boulders by an artist whose work is displayed at the Children's Museum in Denver. Councilman Bob Armour also expressed concern about a climbing wall component and the town's liability exposure. Other elements of the playground renovation, including site work, play equipment and structural repairs received support from the Council. Councilman Michael Jewett and Michael Arnett, in particular, said the town should be more frugal with the project in light of the town's sluggish economy. For more information, contact Oppenheimer at 479-2161. --Information Update Councilmembers were encouraged to help spread the word about next week's community facilities brainstorming session. There are three opportunities for public involvement: a bus tour from 8 a.m. to noon and a community barbeque from 6 to 8 p.m. on June 8; and a public presentation of the design team concepts from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. on June 10. All three public activities will be staged from the Town Council Chambers. For more information, contact Russell Forrest in the Community Development Department at 479-2146. After hearing about the town's unsuccessful efforts to value-engineer a $35,000 savings in the cost of the town's affordable housing duplex development at the A-frame site, Mayor Rob Ford encouraged Community Development Director Russell Forrest to move forward with construction of the project as designed (2 car garages with both units). Ford said the Council would address how to recover the $35,000 subsidy at a later time. One idea offered by Councilman Bob Armour is to sell one of the units on the free market and use the proceeds to subsidize the other unit. For more information, contact Russell Forrest in the Community Development Department at 479-2146. --Council Reports There were no Council reports. Evening Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Arnett, Ford, Jewett --Citizen Participation The Council heard from Eileen Connors, a local environmental activist, who criticized the town (more) 1 Add 2/TOV Council Highlights/6-1-99 for not going far enough with its environmental policies. Connors said the town should actively pursue mandatory recycling countywide as well as the conversion of environmentally-friendly lighting. She said the town's sponsorship of the Mauri Nottingham Environmental Awards failed to recognize the town's responsibility to take a lead role in increased environmental practices. --Presentation of Mauri Nottingham Environmental Quality Award Winners Next, the Council recognized winners of the fourth annual Mauri Nottingham Environmental Quality Award. In the individual category, Annie Egan of Brush Creek near Eagle took top honors for coordinating recycling efforts at community events and for generating public awareness during Earth Day. The top business winner was Vail Valley Medical Center; which, recently received its Green Star environmental certification and was applauded for installation of environmentally-friendly lighting and landscaping at the new Edwards Medical Clinic. In the student category, Will James of Eagle Valley Middle School was recognized for his water quality study on Eby Creek. The winners were introduced by Patrick Hamel, the town's environmental health specialist and coordinator of the award. The recognition was sponsored this year by the Town of Vail, Holy Cross Electric, FirstBank of Vail and Images of Nature. For more information, contact Hamel at 479-2333. --Glen Lyon Office Building Special Development District Major Amendment The Council voted 4-0 to approve first reading of an ordinance to amend the Special Development District for the Glen Lyon Office Building. The project proposes construction of a new 37,000 sq. ft, office building; 127 spaces of underground parking; a 3,000 sq. ft. addition to the current building; plus two employee housing units. The Council placed a condition on the approval to save four mature trees on the east end of the site. A previous town approval granted in 1988 for the addition of a brewery and more office space on the property was never constructed. For more information, contact Dominic Mauriello in the Community Development Department at 479-2148. --Town Manager's Report In his Town Manager's report, Bob McLaurin noted that repairs to the Slifer Plaza foundation will begin immediately. The repairs to fix a leak at the basin will take two weeks and will cost an estimated $30,000, he said. Also, the initial work will be disruptive due to use of jackhammers. UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS June 8 Work Session DRB Review Future of Vail's Marketing Discussion of False Alarm Ordinance Discussion of Housing Zone District and EHU Site Visit and Discussion of Proposed Marriott Development June 15 Work Session PEC Review John Ervin 15 Year Anniversary Jack Owen 10 Year Anniversary Housing Zone District and EHU Discussion Vail Mountain School Site Visit and Appeal (more) Add 3/TOV Council Highlights/6-1-99 June 15 Evening Meeting Community Survey Results First Reading, False Alarm Ordinance Second Reading, Glen Lyon Office Building June 22 Work Session DRB Review Joint Meeting with Eagle County Commissioners, re: Housing Discussion of Model Traffic Code Consideration of TCI Franchise Agreement Amendment TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE RECEIVFFn ium 3 ig94 May 27, 1999 Contact: Mike Rose, 479-2349 Transit Manager TOWN OF VAIL BUS SERVICE EXPANDS MAY 31 WITH SUMMER ROUTES (Vail)--Memorial Day (5-31) marks the beginning of season-long expanded summer service on the Town of Vail bus routes. Summer bus service, running daily through Dec. 6, provides 40- minute peak service on the West Vail routes, our hour service on the East Vail routes and two hour service on the Golf Course and Sandstone routes. There will be 10-minute service on the in-town route servicing Vail Village and Lionshead. As always, the service is free. Outlying Routes The West Vail Green route along the South Frontage Road will depart from the Transportation Center each morning at 6 a.m., 6:40 a.m., 7:20 a.m., 8 a.m., 8:40 a.m., 9:20 a.m., 10 a.m., 10:40 a.m. and 11:20 a.m. Afternoon and evening departures are at 12 noon, 12:40 p.m., 1:20 p.m., 2 p.m., 2:40 p.m., 3:20 p.m., 4 p.m., 4:40 p.m., 5:20 p.m., 6 p.m., 6:40 p.m/, 7:20 p.m., 8 p.m., 8:40 p.m., 9:20 p.m., 10 p.m., 10:40 p.m., 11:20 p.m. and midnight. At 2 a.m., one bus will run to West Vail and Sandstone. The West Vail Red route will depart from the Transportation Center each morning at 6:20 a.m., 7 a.m., 7:40 a.m., 8:20 a.m., 9 a.m., 9:40 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 11 a.m. and 11:40 a.m. Afternoon and evening departures are at 12:20 p.m., 1 p.m., 1:40 p.m., 2:20 p.m., 3 p.m., 3:40 p.m., 4:20 p.m., 5 p.m., 5:40 p.m., 6:20 p.m., 7 p.m., 7:40 p.m., 8:20 p.m., 9 p.m., 9:40 p.m., 10:20 p.m., 11 p.m., 11:40 p.m. and 12:20 a.m. At 2 a.m., one bus will run to West Vail and Sandstone. The East Vail route will depart hourly from the Transportation Center at 6 a.m., 7 a.m., 8 a.m., 9 a.m., 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. Afternoon and evening departures are at 12 noon, 1 p.m., 2 p.m., 3 p.m., 4 p.m., 5 p.m., 6 p.m., 7 p.m., 8 p.m., 9 p.m., 10 p.m., 11 p.m., midnight, 1 a.m. and 2 a.m. At 2 a.m., one bus will run to East Vail and Golf Course. The Sandstone route will depart the Transportation Center at 6:40 a.m., 8:40 a.m. and 10:40 a.m. Afternoon and evening departures are at 12:40 p.m., 2:40 p.m., 4:40 p.m., 6:40 p.m., 8:40 p.m., 10:40 p.m. and 11:40 p.m. At 2 a.m., one bus will run to Sandstone and West Vail. (more) RECYCLED PAPER Add 1/Summer Bus There will be no service on the Lionsridge Loop route. Riders are asked to use the Sandstone or West Vail Green route. The Ford Park route is serviced by the Golf Course route. The Golf Course route.will depart from the Transportation Center at 7:40 a.m., 9:40 a.m. and 11:40 a.m. Afternoon and evening departures are at 1:40 p.m., 3:40 p.m., 5:40 p.m., 7:40 p.m. and 9:40 p.m. At 2 a.m., one bus will run to Golf Course and _East Vail. In-Town Shuttle (Vail Village-Lionshead) Daily service will be provided every 10 minutes between 8:30 a.m. to 1 a.m., with 20 minute service during the remaining hours. Bikes on Buses Bike racks have been installed on the front of the town's outlying vans and buses to accommodate two bikes per rack. Bikes are not permitted inside vans or buses except after dark. Bikes are never allowed on the in-town shuttles. Paratransit With 24-hour notice, TOV operates a wheelchair lift-equipped paratransit service for those who are unable to use the fixed route buses. For more information, call 479-2358 or TDD 479-2825. Bus Schedules Summer bus schedules are available at the Vail Transportation Center and the Vail Municipal Building. For additional information on the schedules, call the town's 24-hour recorded information line at 328-8143. Vail's bus system is thought to be the largest free operation in the country, carrying more than 3.2 million passengers per year. 4VAIL TOWN O Office of the Town Manager 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157 RECEIVED dau TM Dear Town Council Member and County Commissioner, We are inviting each of the towns in Eagle County and the County Commissioners to send elected representatives with staff to a county wide presentation on the findings from the 1999 Affordable Housing Study. As each community within the county is finding that housing affordability and availability is changing rapidly, the information to be presented will help you understand the trends - both within your individual community and for the county as a whole. Findings from the study about solutions will also be presented and discussed. The study has been made possible through joint funding by Eagle County, the Town of Vail, the Town of Eagle, and Vail Resorts. Staff from all jurisdictions in the county have played a role in developing the questionnaire, providing population estimates, and distributing the surveys. The Town of Vail has coordinated the effort as the lead agency. We believe it is important that all the entities in the County benefit from the research and learn about ways we can create solutions together. As housing issues become more pressing throughout the county, the need to collaborate becomes more critical. The presentation will be held: Wednesday, June 16,1999,5:30 pm Single Tree Community Pavilion Your staff has copies of the Affordable Housing Study and can make them available to you in advance of the meeting. Please bring any questions about the research you might have as well as suggestions that will build on the findings and lead to solutions. If you have questions about the meeting, please call Russell Forrest, Community Development Director or Nina Timm, Town of Vail Housing Coordinator, at 479-2138. Sincerely, Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Town of Vail F:\EVERYONE\RUSS\LETTERS\Survcon. doc • RECYCLED PAPER JUN-03-99 THU 02:40 PM BRANDESS-CADMUS REAL EST FAX NO. 9704763188 P. 01 RECEIVED JUN 3 1999 June 3, 1999 Fax: 479-2157 One page total 't'own of Vasil Attit: 'Ibwn Coanfcil Members Bob McLauren 15 S. 11'rofit.age Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Relocation of ABC School Dear ColH1C11tmC[1lhcrs: My two children attend ABC School and I have been employed on Bridge Street for over nine years. It is very important to n1c that if ABC School is to be relocated, that it stay within the Town of Vail limits and most preferably near the existing; site in a well landscaped and wooded area for the children to play. Ili addition, if the school is relocated, ABC staff will need at least two years to raise the ffloncy to construct new facilities. I would hope that the Town will additionally assist in the funding of this project. 1 1111 g atcful for tho 'fowl's support of early childhood for the past 20 years and hope; that tile, consequonccs of development profits do not undermine the Town's commitment to our local conuntufity anti our children, In addition, it would be most pertinent that the Directors of ABC School assist in any procoss determining allernate sites, 'T'hank you for your time rept. this matter. ! 1 Theresa W. Smith Vice President of MIC School P.O. Box. 3462 Vail, CO 81657 (970) 476-1450 Xe~G-~-S~ ~1~5i v r tz r x ~w =aic Bravo!VAIL VALLEY MUSIC J~ T-ESTIVAL The Bravo! Vail Valley Music Festival has made arrangements for consumers of Holy Cross Energy to obtain two General Admission Lawn tickets for the price of one to . attend one of several selected concerts during the festival. To take advantage of this offer just present a specially marked May or June Holy Cross billing statement to the box office at the concert venue on the night of the show. The offer is limited to one concert per consumer per season, and limited to lawn seating only. Children 12 and under admitted free into the General Admission Lawn Area. No ticket upgrades will be allowed. Concert Dates: DECEIVED JUG Colorado Symphony Orchestra June 30, Wednesday July 2, Friday Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra July 7, Wednesday July 9, Friday July 11, Sunday C July 14, Wednesday f An Evening with Arlo Guthrie l and Family July 17, Saturday Dallas Symphony Orchestra July 21, Wednesday i July 25, Sunday July 28, Wednesday July 30, Friday July 31, Saturday Unless otherwise noted, all concerts will be held at 6:00 pm, at the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater in Vail. Bravo! Vail Vallev can be reached at (970) 827-5700 for more information and a complete concert ` schedule. u ~y TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 1, 1999 Contact: Greg Hall, Acting Public Works Director 479-2160 TOV STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ARE UNDERWAY THIS WEEK (Vail)--Two Town of Vail street improvement projects are getting underway this week, one in the Intermountain neighborhood, the other in the Buffehr Creek neighborhood. In Intermountain, an asphalt overlay will be applied to Kinnickinnick Rd. by B&B Construction. The work will occur over the next two weeks and will have minimal disruption on traffic in the neighborhood. The second project, the reconstruction of roads in the Buffehr Creek neighborhood, will continue throughout the summer and into the fall. The project will include the rebuilding of roadway on Buffehr Creek Road from the North Frontage Road to the end of the cul-de-sac; Lionsridge Loop Road from Buffehr Creek Road to Vail View Drive; and all of Meadow Ridge Road and Circle Drive. There also will be an asphalt overlay on Chamonix Lane from Vail Commons to Buffehr Creek Road. Dow Construction of New Castle is the project contractor. Construction will occur from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, with maximum 10- minute traffic delays. For more information, contact Acting Public Works Director Greg Hall at 479-2160. E ( NEE JUN 2 RECYCLED PAPER FL uaj w EL 101 1 Mavis= Old buildings remind I arrt a part of the story of wher- distinctions, to homogenize rather ever it is l call home. I'm a piaduc- an celebrate loca color. As the ~erso us of distinctive story lion of that story, and I'm one of the. Post, re erring to Je I n County, characters of its latest chapters. I put it, `7he laces weve created in z Don Simonton, former pastor of inherited the story, and I com i.bute - suburbia Iacx a Comm t2 a the Holy Cross Lutheran Church to it. And that's true, whether I a ~ se" I. he same could and a leading lm-al historian, was accept it or not. Even if that contri- be sal or the places we've created A quoted in last week's cover story bution•is to ignore it or deny it; this in our mountain valleys. z about the. Brett Ranch hotne Lead as simply becomes one of the more Pardon the setirion. Something a to wh - he believes it's important to pathetic (sometimes tragic) elements {someone) moved me to send i . I 3 sa y e sui Jt strrtc iu crs, Ne sent along i rt the conti rnum.9 saga. z this rtddettdistn !o his cc~narienr.s: The community is responsible suppose you can blame Him ° A visit torn (/-Her/li). = y parents graves for preserving the story and passing Don Simonton (historic sites) in Pennsylvania and it on to the newcomers. Historic an article ("Littleton, Isn't Anytown. structures, along with old pho- It's Notown" by Lakis Polycarpoa) tographs, illustrate that story. And, I in The Washin,ton Post National because of their physicalness, their Wcekly (5/1 ON9) prompt this post- visibility, they can be special script to our conversation about say- reminders of the distinctive story of ing historic structures... this place and its people. Cr The grave visit reminded me of And points of reference as we co other tombstones we discovered in steer our community into the future. the course of researching the. history What have our predecessors learned / of Eagle County, our home. We that still has value for us? What are /7 m were almost startled by the realiza- our proven scenic priorities? Is there al tion that these pioneers who shaped an architecture that's ecologically ov the character ol" our hometown did and culturally appropriate? Etc., etc. rr fV, indeed live and are in a sense still There's a terrible tendency today here among us, to look for similarities rather than G ° m 41 7 -2- 7v5' RECEIVED JUN 4 1999 QQ Board Retreat Wednesday, July 7th, 1999 The Vintage Hotel Winter Park, Colorado 9:30 am - 4:00 pm PROPOSED AGENDA 9:30 AM Introduction, Opening Remarks All Members 9: 45 AM QQ Budget - The Year 2000 All Members 10: 00 AM Homestake III & The Eagle River Assembly Process: Alternatives in Eagle and Pitkin Counties Doug Kemper City of Aurora Chris Treese Colorado River District 10:30 AM Review of the CRHF Memorandum of Understanding for 1041 Permits QQ Staff, Doug Kemper & Chris Treese 11: 00 AM South Park Conjunctive Use Project Doug Kemper City of Aurora 11:30 AM Colorado Big Thompson & Windy Gap Storage Alternatives? Don Carlson Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Jeff Drager Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District 12:00 PM Lunch 12:45 PM Positioning QQ for the 21't Century All Members Facilitator: Rita Schweitz Changeworks of the Rockies 3: 40 AM 1999 Legislative Session: How do the Takings and Vested Rights Bills Affect You? Jo Evans & QQ Staff 4: 00 PAI Discussion of next meeting All Members (Next Meeting - November 10'h, 1999 in Summit County) Adjourn MEETING NOTICE The next regular 00 meeting is set for Wednesday, July 7th, 1999 from 9:30 am to 4: 00 pm at The Vintage Hotel (by the ski area) Winter Park, Colorado Please Mark Your Calendars & Plan to Join Us!! The cost, including continental breakfast and lunch, is $30.00. This is one time rise in the meeting fee to help offset the cost of hiring a facilitator. Please let us know if you plan to attend to ensure that we have lunch for you. Please mail the registration form below, with your $30.00 fee, by Wednesday, June 30th, 1999. Thank You!! Registration Form I will _ attend the July 7ch QQ Retreat. Name: Organization : Phone: Fax: My registration fee is enclosed: NWCCOGQQ Tax ID # is 84-0639906. Please contact Lane or Taylor at (970) 468-0295 x116, x117, if you have any questions. RECEIVED JUN Jerry &Betty Ford A rLisans C,OIf Classic j (i Artisans Golf Classic PHONE: 970/949-1999 & FAX: 970/9A9-9265 P.O. Box 309 v VAIL, COLORADO 81658 www.vciil.net/vvf Musa. VIL.AK CL:NTU v 1 f' -~ILSI IVAL VAII.VAIJLY ror. 'ro ut nirrs FOUNDATION ra..6 - s(7/~ Wc:: ~•,(.'l) r ~ I li i • f+~' 1, , 01 heha]f of the board of director. ~ vunday,,gust 22 s of the Jerry and Belly Ford 1 Beaver Creels CIu6 Welcome P,rty/Pro Appearance 5:00 - 8:00 ,m Artisans Golf Classic, I wish to extend an invitation to I ? you to join us as we celebrate this inaugural tournament. (-Monday, ~ • l~Iugusl 23 This exciting and new event will be hosted at tI t t~ Shotgun Start -Flight 1 the extrusive Beaver ( 8:30 am Beaver Creek Golf Course Crech and Cordidlcra Golf C ourscs, Auyusl 22-24, Iy9y ` Shol,y,rn SLvl -Flight Q 8:30 am Cordillera Mountain Course articipation in the tournament will help to sustain and enhance Sponsor I'ro Clinic 3:00 pm B C l Golf C the development of the arts in our community by benefiting Beaver ree: Course r Bravol veil Ville a Reception p May Gallery - Ular Center t' Y Music Festival, the Viil International Dance 6:30 m lstival and the V]ar Cenler for the Art.-;. ~ Auction 7:UO pm V Inr Cenler I hope you area , ConcertpeBooker F 7:30 pm Ale to join us. Vlar Center O ~ (private pertormance) Sincerely, . t. Tuesday, (_-Lugusl24 Shotgun Shirt. - Flight 1 8:30 am Cordillera Mountain Course 'C Roger Behler, Chairman f Shotgun Start - Flight Q 8:30 am Artisans Golf Classic ^a^~ , J \ Beaver Creel: Golf Course . r' Shoot-Out 3:00 pm Cordillera Short Course Awards Celebration follows Shoot-Out j Cordillera r` s Artisans Golf Classic 'PARTICIPANT `E•SE'Rl'9TION Phone Fax I loch {orwar l to participating anJ have :nclcsz my contribution of $1,000,orwhick .S595 is tax.' ~c.~uctiblz. , r I rzgrzt that i am unable to participtatc, but w; uld li~u t. mahc a contribution in the amount o{. . r Ail hanclicappcl golfers are welcome an~ encouragcJ to play, however for scoring pruposes only. maximum hanclicaps of 24 for men anJ .30 for women have bzen establish z4. Niy &H.I N i_ Early responszs are apprcciateJ as space is hmitej. nces'Pa use 60 . Siste~'..CI$es ~n~ou for peace, New Millennium thoughts or desires by James then I think the shared sym On the Pause; For Peace Sister Cities international' bolism will prove inspira web , page (www pausefor- a :(SCI) win:, celebrate the tional, irresistible, and ulti `.peace.org) will arri val of the year 2000 with. be sto'rie`s and a s ' from world le, aders, e.ssays,' -matel y rerlg » e a Pause For Peace duruig; the In practical rms, the your eo le and members . ua of the faith community who f ` . ? last-second.. n co ective are actively engaged in work dnightDecember31,1999 Pauses la a a'. ll'• "The esture, though mod `thought for Peace in commu mg fora peaceful world est, is both noble and grand, pity countdown celebrations Cities and towns around said'Mary; Palko, vice:.' i -during the final seconds of the'swo'rld are being asked to pres- r dent of Sister Cities Interna the millennium... For exam „ designate December :31 1999 tional and chair of its Millen "-ple',M 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, Peace at Pause For' Peace Day. ¦ ' mum Initiative. on'>Earth, 1, Happy New ative. "If durin g the last fewrysec Year! a Details: Sister Cities at onds of 1999 we can get,peo Also, SCI is working with- `(202) 312-1209, or contact ple,'all over the world, per- ".other organizations to pro Mary `Palko at (817 926 haps millions of them, to . ,.vide a platform for an on-go 2799, or access the Pause For pause `and' insert their ing dialogue on Peace in" Peace web page. RECEIVED JUG 199 1~ TOWN OF PAIL 75 South Frontage Road TOV CALENDAR BRIEFS Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 June 7, 1999 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community Information Office Vail Community Facilities Study Welcome and Public Tour, 8 am to noon, June 8. The tour departs from the Vail Municipal Building at 8:15 am. For information, contact Russell Forrest in the Community Development Department at 479-2146. Vail Tomorrow Community BBQ, 6 to 8 pm, June 8, Vail Municipal Building parking lot. Meet the three community facilities design teams and enjoy free food catered by Shirkie Evans. For information, contact Suzanne Silverthorn in the Community Information Office at 479-2115. Vail Community Facilities Design Team Presentations, 5:30 to 7:30 pm, June 10, Vail Town Council Chambers. Concepts from three national design teams will be presented to the public. For more information, contact Russell Forrest in the Community Development Department at 479-2146. Dowd Junction Recreation Path Reopens, daylight, June 11. The path reopens following a deer migration study which runs May 14-June 10 with the help of 40 dedicated early morning volunteers. For details, contact Greg Hall in the Public Works Department at 479- 2160. Vail Commons Housing Lottery Applications Due, 12 noon June 11, Town of Vail Community Development Department. The two units each have 992 sq. ft. with 2-bedrooms and 2-bathrooms. One is listed at $118,744.44; the other at $117,741.53. For information, call Kris Widlak at 479-2454. Special Events Close-In Paid Parking Begins at Ford Park, 4 pm June 15, Ford Park and Soccer Field parking lots. When multiple events are scheduled this summer in Ford Park, a limited amount of paid close-in parking will be offered at the Ford Park and soccer field parking lots to ease parking and traffic congestion around the park. The cost is $5 per vehicle and spaces will be filled on a first-come, first-served basis. As always, summer parking in the nearby Vail Village parking structure is free. For more information, contact Pam Brandmeyer at 479-2113. Dowd Junction 1-70 Deer Tunnel Clean-up, 2 to 7 pm, June 23, Dowd Junction Recreation Path. Spend an afternoon assisting the Eagle County Trails Committee in cleaning the migration tunnel and planting trees to provide screening for safe migration. Bring gloves, sunscreen and rain gear. Call Ellie Caryl at 748-0702 for more information. Vail Commons Housing Lottery, 5:30 p.m. June 24, Vail Town Council Chambers. Two units will be awarded to qualified applicants. For information, call Kris Widlak at 479-2454. RECYCLED PAPER JUN. 8. 1999 8:11AM I NO. 6621 P. 2/4 In the third quarter of fiscal 1999; revenue per skier clay grew 14016 to $75.38 from $66.30 in the comparable quarter last year, despite a Ao decline in skier Oys. Total skier days for the third quarter were 2.5 million compared to 2.6 milliori last year. ' Ile Company also announced thit on a preliminary 3asis, skier days for the 1998-1999 total ski season for all four resorts combined are kxpected to be 4,5811,607, a 3% decline from the 4,716,605 skier days reported in the 1997-1998 skivseason. Adam Aron, Chairman and Chiet Executive Officer, commented, "While the 1998-1999 ski season has been disappointing for the UA. ski industry, there are a number of exciting advances which our Company has made that will allow us to maintain our st~nding as the leader in the mountain resort industry. First, our non-lift ticket businesses continue to perform well demonstrating the success of our business strategy. Second, Vail and Beaver Creek received tremendous worldwide exposure by hosting the 1999 World Alpine Sid Cbainpionships. Third, we have announced our intention to acquire our fifth resort and our first summer resort, the Grar.;d Teton Lodge Company located in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. And, fourth, eve completed a 5201) million private debt offering with attractive terms, providing our Company with meaningful financial flexibility. As a result of these advances, we believe our portfolio of world class resorts is extremely well positioned for future growth." Vail Resorts, Inc. is the premier mountain resort operator in North America. The Company operates the Colorado mountain resorts bf Vail, Breckenridge, Keystone, and Beaver Creek. Statements In this press release, other than statements of hh:torical information ate forward looking statements that are made pursuant to thi safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties rhat could cause actual results to d ffer materially from tho:;e projected. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements v,hich speak only as of the date hereof Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, 'general business and economic conditions, competitive factors in the ski and resort industry; and the w lather. Investors are also directed to other risks discussed in documents filed by thi Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (Tables to Follou ) i JUN. 8. 1999 8:12AM NO. 6621 P. 3/4 VAIG RESORTS, WC. Consolidated Financial Statements (in thousandsiof dollars except per share amounts) Three Moths Ended Nine Months Ended April 30, April 30, 1999(t) 1998(2) 1999(1) 1998(2) Net Revenue,. Resort 188,220 170,051 379,346 324,195 Real estate 14,022 3,912 31,409 _ 65,760 Net Revenues 202,242 173,963 410,755 389,955 Operating Expenses; Resort 111,097 62,413 273,900 200,552 Real estate 14,108 3,292 26,248 58,939 Corporate expense 1,733 1,544 4,555 4,313 Depreciation and amortization 132a34 11,488 _ 38,191 31,163 Total operating expenses 140,372 98,737 342,884 294,967 Income from operations 61,870 75,226 67,871 94,988 Other income (expense). Investment income 738 570 1,643 1,665 Interest expense (5,755) (4,869) (17,593) (16,064) Gain (loss) on sale of fixed assets 18 378 44 296 Other (9) (101) 130 (802) Minority interest in consolidated joint venture 1,914 3 715 Income (loss) before income taxes 54,948 71,204 48,380 80,083 Credit (provision) for income taxes (24,701) (2299,5541) (22,061) (33,226) Net income (loss) 30,247 X663 y- . 26 3I9 W57 Basic weighted average shares 34,580,173 '34,303,082 34,563,384 34, 1_ 8T 3,120 Basic earnings (loss) per common share g7 $ T 5___T7b 7) 1.5, Diluted weighted average shares ~d;77b'236 3 34,815,227, 3 . 9.616 Diluted earnings (loss) per common share 16 87 S J.LU - 5 0-76 s 1.35 Other Data: Resort EBITDA $ 75,390 S 86,094 $ 100,891 $ 119,330 Real estate operating income (loss) S (86) 620 S 5,161 S 6,821 ' The results for the three and nine month-periods ended April. 30, 1999 include the results of Village at Breokeouridge and Specialty Sports Ventute from their respective acquisition dates of August 13 and August 1, 1999. 'The results for the three and nine monthperiods ended Apri:, 30, 1998 include the results of Lodge at Vail, Iron at Keystone, and Grcat Divide Lodge from their resl wive acquisition dates of October 7, 1997, January 15, 1998, and October 1, 1997. JUN. 8. 1999 8:12AM NO. 6621 P. 4/4 YAUL RESORTS, I11'C. Resort Revenue by Business Lime and Skier Visits (in thousands) Three Months Ended April 30, Nine Months Ended April 30, 1999 1998 Chang: 1999 1998 0/0 Ch Business Line Lift Tickets $ 75,637 $ 82,523 (8.35135,667 $146,458 (7.4)% Ski School 22,151 22,115 0.2% 37,833 38,639 (2.1)% Dining 27,497 23,769 15.7% 52,325 45,972 13.8% Retail/Rental 26,878 10,136 165.2% 66,198 19,727 235.6% Hospitality 22,991 19,709 16.7% 50,887 39,057 30.3% Other 13,066 11,799 10.7% 36,436 34,342 6.1% Tots) Resort Revenues S 188,220 ] 70,051 10.7% 5379,346 5324,195 17.0'/0 Total Skier Days 2,497 2,565 (2.7)% 4,579 4,706 (2.7)0/e Total Season Sider VbIts 1998-1990 1997-I 99$ Vail 11334,939 1,597,932 Breckenridge 1,385,921 1,300,983 Keystone 1,253,191 1,149270 Beaver Creek 614,54P 668,520 Key H414txes Sheet Data: April 30 1999 Real estate held for sale 152,141 Total stockholders' equity 489,473 Total debt 293,862 Less: cash and cash equivalents _ 10,063 Net debt 83 799