HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-04 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, JANUARY 4, 2000
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. Trees for Vail. (5 mins.)
Jeff Bowen
2. Donovan Park updates. (1 hour)
Dominic Mauriello
3. ITEMITOPIC First reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000, an
George Ruther ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1992, to provide
for an amendment to the approved development plan for Special
Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, to allow for
the construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel; and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (30 Mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with
conditions, or deny Ordinance #1, Series of 2000, on first reading.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On November 23, 1999, the Town
of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission held a public
hearing for the final review and recommendation of a major SDD
amendment and conditional use permit request to allow for the
redevelopment of Phase IV, Vail Village Inn, Special Development
District No. 6. Upon review and consideration of the request the
Planning & Environmental Commission unanimously
recommended approval of the redevelopment proposal to the Vail
Town Council, with conditions.
On December 7, 14, & 21, 1999, the Vail Town Council held
worksessions to discuss the numerous aspects of the
redevelopment proposal. Following discussions which provided
input to the applicant, the Vail Town Council directed staff to draft
an ordinance for review and consideration on January 4, 2000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development
Department recommends that the Town Council approve
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000, on first reading.
4. Request to transfer Vail Arts Festival Council contribution from
Pam Brandmeyer the Vail Valley Tourist and Convention Bureau (VVTCB) to Vail
Arts Festival, Inc. (5 mins.)
Background Rational: In December, Vail Arts Festival, Inc., a
corporation composed of David Pinson (Cherry Creek Arts
Festival, Taste of Colorado, etc.), Michael Porto (marketing
agent), and Laurie Asmussen, bought the Arts Festival from the
VVTCB. Past Council will recall last year having allocated $3,000
directly for the production of the Arts Festival to the VVTCB, who
at that time was the most recent producer of the event. Now that
this purchase has occurred, a request to transfer the $3,000
directly to the new Vail Arts Festival, Inc., group, just as Council
did the previous year when the festival moved from the now
defunct Vail Valley Arts Council to the VVTCB, is being made.
Staff Recommendation: Transfer $3,000 from Y2000 Council
Contributions to the Vail Arts Festival, Inc.
5. Information Update. (10 mins.)
6. Council Reports. (10 mins.)
7. Other. (10 mins.)
8. Executive Session - Negotiations. (30 mins.)
Tom Moorhead
9. Adjournment. (4:40 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, 1118100, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/18/00, BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
_ THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 2/1/00, BEGINNING AT 2:00 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.
F:XAGENDA.NEWTC
ORDINANCE NO.1
SERIES OF 2000
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6, VAIL VILLAGE INN, PHASE IV, TO ALLOW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE VAIL PLAZA HOTEL;AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN
REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, In 1976, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1976,
establishing Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn; and
WHEREAS, Section 12-9A-10 of the Zoning Regulations permits major amendments to
previously Approved Development Plans for Special Development Districts; and
WHEREAS, Waldir Prado, dba Daymer Corporation, as owner of the Phase IV property,
has submitted an application for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail
Village Inn, Phase IV; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinance is to adopt an Approved Development Plan for
the Vail Village Inn Special Development District, Phase IV to allow for the construction of the Vail
Plaza Hotel; and
WHEREAS, the proposed major amendment to the Special Development District is in the
J
best interest of the town as it meets the Town's development objectives as identified in the Town of
Vail Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Zoning Regulations, the
Planning & Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the major amendment application;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Environmental Commission has reviewed the prescribed criteria
for a major amendment and has submitted its unanimous recommendation of approval to the Vail
Town Council; and
WHEREAS, all notices as required by the Town of Vail Municipal Code have been sent to
the appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers it in the best interest of the public health,
safety, and welfare to adopt and re-establish the Approved Development Plan for Special
Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, Vail Plaza Hotel.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
1
Ordinance 1, Series of 2000
Section 1. Puroose of the Ordinance
The purpose of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000, is to adopt an Approved Development Plan for
Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, Vail Plaza Hotel. The Approved
Development Plans for Phases I, III & V remain approved and unchanged for the development of
Special Development District No. 6 within the Town, of Vail, unless they have otherwise expired.
Only the Approved Development Plan for Phase IV, the Vail Plaza Hotel is hereby amended and
adopted.
Section 2. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled. Plannina Commission Report
The approval procedures described in Section 12-9A of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled,
and the Vail Town Council has received the recommendation of the Planning & Environmental
Commission for a major amendment to the Approved Development Plan for Special Development
District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, Vail Plaza Hotel. Requests for amendments to the
Approved Development Plan shall follow the procedures outlined in Section 12-9A of the Vail
Municipal Code.
Section 3. Special Development District No. 6
The Special Development District and the Major Amendment to the Approved Development Plan
for Phase IV are established to assure comprehensive development and use of the area in a
manner that would be harmonious with the general character of the Town, provide adequate open
space and recreation amenities, and promote the goals, objectives and policies of the Town of Vail
Comprehensive Plan. Special Development District No. 6 is regarded as being complementary to
the Town of Vail by the Vail Town Council and the Planning &,Environmental Commission, and has
been established since there are significant aspects of the Special Development District that
cannot be satisfied through the imposition of the standard Public Accommodation zone district
requirements.
Section 4. Development Standards - Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn,
Phase IV, Vail Plaza. Hotel
Development Plan--
The Approved Development Plan for Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV,
Vail Plaza Hotel shall include the following plans and materials prepared by Zehren and
Associates. Inc., dated November 23, 1999 and stamped approved by the Town of Vail, dated
January 18, 2000: ,
2.
Ordinance 1, Series of 2000
A. Site Illustrative Plan
B. Site Vignettes Key Plan (noted "for illustration purposes only')
C. Site Vignettes
D. Site Plan
E. Level Minus Two
F. Level Minus One
G. Level Zero
H. Level One
1. Level Two
J. Level Three
K. Level Four
L.. Level Five
M. Level Six
N. Roof Plan
0. Roof Plan (Mechanical Equipment)
P. Street Sections (Vail Road Elevation/North Frontage Road Elevation)
Q. Plaza Sections (South Plaza Elevation/East Plaza Elevation)
R. Building A Elevations
S. Building A Sections
T. Building B Elevations
U. Building B Sections
V. -Building Height Plan 1 (Absolute Heights/Interpolated Contours)
W. Building Height Plan. 2 (Maximum Height Above Grade/Interpolated
Contours)
X. Pool Study (Pool Sections)
Y. Vail Road Setback Study
Z. Loading and Delivery plan
AA. Street Entry Studies (Vail Road/South Frontage Road)
BB. Sun Study
CC. Landscape Improvements Plan
DD. Off-site Improvements Plan
3
Ordinance 1, Series of 2000
Permitted Uses--
The permitted uses in Phase IV of Special Development District No. 6 shall be as set forth in the
development plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance.
Conditional Uses—
Conditional uses for Phase IV shall be set forth in Section 12-7A-3 of the Town of Vail Zoning
Regulations. All conditional uses shall be reviewed per the procedures as outlined in Chapter 12-
16 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations.
Density-- Units per Acre - Dwelling Units, Accommodation Units, & Fractional Fee Club Units
The number of units permitted in Phase IV shall not exceed the following:
Dwelling Units - 1
Accommodation Units - 99
Fractional Fee Club Units - 48
Density-- Floor Area
The gross residential floor area (GRFA), common area and commercial square footage permitted
for Phase IV shall be as set forth in the Approved Development Plans referenced in Section 4 of
this ordinance.
Setbacks--
Required setbacks for Phase IV shall be as set forth in the Approved Development Plans
referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance.
Height--
The maximum building height for Phase IV shall be as set forth in the Approved Development
Plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance. For the purposes of SDD No. 6, Phase IV,
calculations of height, height shall mean the distance measured vertically from the existing grade or
finished grade (whichever is more restrictive), at any given point to the top of a flat roof, or mansard
roof, or to the highest ridge line of sloping roof unless otherwise specified in Approved
c
Development Plans.
Site Coverage--
The maximum allowable site coverage for Phase IV shall be as set forth in the Approved
Development Plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance.
Landscaping—
The minimum landscape area requirement for Phase IV shall be as set forth in the Approved
4
Ordinance 1, Series of 2000
Development Plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance.
Parking and Loading--
The required number of off-street parking spaces and loading/delivery berths for Phase IV shall be
provided as set forth in the Approved Development Plans referenced in Section 4 of this
ordinance. In no instance shall Vail Road or the South Frontage Road be used for loading/delivery
w ? '
or guest drop-off/pick-up with/the ppr or written approval of the Town of Vail. The required parking
spaces shall not be individually sold, transferred, leased, conveyed, rented or restricted to any
person other than a tenant, occupant or user of the building for which the space, spaces or area
are required to be.provided by the Zoning Regulations or ordinances of the Town. The foregoing
language shall not prohibit the temporary use of the parking spaces for events or uses
outside of the building, subject to the approval of the Town of Vail.
Section 5. Approval Aareements for Special Development District No. 6, Phase IV, Vail
Plaza Hotel
1. That the Developer provide Type III Employee Housing Unit deed-restrictions , which
comply with the Town of Vail Employee Housing Requirements (Title 12, Chapter 13, of the
Town of Vail Municipal Code) for a minimum of 38 employees, and that said deed-restricted
housing be made available for occupancy, and that the deed restrictions be recorded at the
Office of the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of
Occupancy for the Vail Plaza Hotel. The Developer agrees that it shall make application to
the Town of Vail for placing the Type III Employee Housing Units within Phase IV of Special
Development District No. 6 within 30 days of approval of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000.
The Developer shall make a good faith effort to place some or all of such employee housing
units within Phase IV in such a way as to meet the design objectives of the Town of Vail
ordinances. Nothing contained herein shall obligate the Town to approve such application,
nor shall the Developer be required to remove existing uses or density in order to construct
the employee housing units within Phase IV.
2. That the Developer submits detailed civil engineering drawings of the required off-site
improvements (street lights, drainage, curb and gutter, sidewalks, grading, etc.) as.identified
on the off-site improvements plan to the Town of Vail Public Works Department for review
and approval prior to application for a building permit.
3. That the Developer submits a detailed final landscape plan and final architectural elevations
5
Ordinance 1, Series of 2000
for review and approval of the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to application for a
building permit.
4. The sdd approval time requirements and limitations of Section 12-9A-12 shall apply of
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000. In addition the phasing of the construction of the hotel
shall not be permitted.
5. That the Developer submits 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;
d. A Site Dewatering Plan; and
e. A Traffic Control Plan.
6. That the Developer receives a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type III
Employee Housing Units in Phase IV of the District, in accordance with Chapter 12-16, prior
to the issuance of a building permit, to provide housing on-site, if the application to amend
Special Development District No. 6 pursuant to Condition of Approval #1 above, is approved
by the Town of Vail.
7. That the Developer submits a complete set of plans to the Colorado Department of
Transportation for review and approval of a revised access permit, prior to application for a
building permit.
8. That the Developer meets with the Town staff to prepare a memorandum of understanding
outlining the responsibilities and requirements of the required off-site improvements, prior to
second reading of an ordinance approving the major amendment.
9. That the Developer increases the proposed Vail Road setback to insure adequate distances
are provided to meet the intended needs of the Town's right-of-way and the front setback or
successfully demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Town that adequate areas for
landscaping, streetscape improvements and snow storage are provided. The Town of Vail
Design Review Board shall participate in this decision-making process.
10. That the Developer submits a complete set of plans responding to each of the design
concerns expressed by Greg Hall, Director of Public Works & Transportation, in his
6
Ordinance 1, Series of 2000
memorandum to George Ruther, dated 12/13/99. The drawings shall be submitted,
reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer prior to final Design Review Board approval.
11. That the developer records a public pedestrian easement between the hotel and the Phase
III Condominiums and between the Phase V Building property lines. The easement shall be
prepared by the developer and submitted for review and approval of the Town Attorney.
The easement shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office prior to
the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
12. That the Developer record a deed-restriction, which the Town is a party to, on the Phase IV
property prohibiting the public use of the spa facility in the hotel. Said restriction may be
revoked if the Developer is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Town that
adequate provisions for vehicle parking have been made to accommodate the public use of
the spa.
13. That the Developer submits a final exterior building materials list, a typical wall section and
complete color rendering for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to
making an application for a building permit.
14. That the Developer submits a comprehensive sign program proposal for the Vail Plaza
Hotel for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to the issuance of a
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy
15. That the Developer submits a roof-top mechanical equipment plan for review and approval
of the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. All roof-top
mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the overall design of the hotel and
enclosed and screened from public view.
16. That the Developer posts a bond with the Town of Vail to provide financial security for the
125% of the total cost of the required off-site public improvements. The bond shall be in
place with the Town prior to the issuance of a building permit.
17. That the Developer installs bollards or similar safety devices at the intersection of the
delivery access driveway and the sidewalk along the South Frontage Road to prevent
conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate
of Occupancy.
18. That the Developer studies and redesigns the entrance on the northside of the hotel across
from the entrance to the Gateway, Building to.create a more inviting entrance or a design
7
Ordinance 1, Series of 2000
that redirects pedestrians to another entrance. The final design shall be reviewed and
approved by the Design Review Board.
19. That the Developer coordinate efforts with the owners of the Gateway Building to create a
below ground access for loading and delivery to the Gateway from the Vail Plaza Hotel to
resolve potential loading and delivery concerns at the Gateway. If a coordinated effort can
be reached the Developer shall submit revised plans to the Town of Vail Community
Development Department for review and approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit.
20. That the Developer revises the proposed floor plans for the Vail Plaza Hotel to provide
freight elevator access to the lowest level of the parking structure. The revised plans shall
be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
21. That the developer redesigns the proposed elevator tower to eliminate the cupola atop the
e
tower and revises the proposed building elevations and roof plan prior to final review of the
proposal by the Design Review Board. The Board shall review and approve the revised
design.
22. That the Developer submit a cost estimate prepared in cooperation with the Town of
Vail Public Works Department to cover the complete cost of designing and
constructing a left-turn lane on Vail Road and reconfiguring the landscape island in
the South Frontage Road median to eliminate left-turns from the loading/delivery area.
The Developer shall post a financial bond covering 150% of the cost of constructing
the left-turn lane and reconfiguring the landscape median to eliminate the left-turn
from the loading/delivery area. The bond shall be held by the Town of Vail for a period
of 10 (ten) years for the Town to use to construct the left-turn lane and median
improvements should it be deemed necessary by the Town of Vail. Upon determining
the need for said improvements and notifying the Developer of the need in writing, the
Town shall commence construction within eighteen months. The bond shall be in
place with the Town of Vail prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of
Occupancy.
23. That the Developer provides a centralized loading/delivery facility for the use of all owners
and tenants within Special Development District No. 6. Access or use of the facility shall
not be unduly restricted for Special Development District No. 6.
8
Ordinance 1, Series of 2000
Section 6.
.If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held
to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance;
and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts,
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 7.
The repeal or the repeal and re-enactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided
in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that
occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or
proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted.
The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously
repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 8.
All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof,
inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. The repealer
shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof,
heretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED; READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 4" day of January, 2000, and a public hearing for second
reading of this Ordinance set for the 18'h day of January, 2000, in the Council Chambers of the
Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Ludwig Kurz, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
9
Ordinance 1, Series of 2000
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 18`h day of
January, 2000.
Ludwig Kurz, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
10
Ordinance 1, Series of 2000
Kinney L. Johnson
100 East Meadow Drive #101
Vail; Colorado 81657
970-476-4330
January 3, 1999
Mr. Ludwig Kurz
Mayor, Town of Vail
Mr. George Ruther
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Fax: 970.479.2452
Dear Mr. Kurz and Mr. Ruther,
I would like to formally object to the proposed Vail Village Inn's Special Development District
as defined for the Vail Village Inn (VVI) site. As a year-round resident of the Village Inn Plaza
Condominiums, which are adjacent to the proposed Vail Village Inn development, .I am disturbed
with apparent disregard for the current planning guidelines and the magnitude and arrogance of
the proposed development.
I have not been notified of nor provided with new planning documents. The Village Inn Plaza
Condominium Association, which I am currently a board member, has likewise not been
informed of meetings, proposed changes, etc.
As proposed, the site, grossly exceeds the APPROVED development standards contained in the
SDD #6 legislation as well as some guidelines in the Vail Village Master Plan. Specifically, at
issue are the Gross Residential Floor Area and the height of the proposed building. Currently, the
proposed plan violates an established view corridor that has a controlling effect upon buildings in
SDD 46. Likewise, the proposed plan totally disregards the Vail Village Master Plan height
guidelines.
As the owner of the southwest unit in the Village Inn Plaza Condominiums, the proposed plan:
1) eliminates all western exposure to the mountains and the sun,
2) places truck docks literally against a bedroom wall,
3) eliminates any privacy from my patios, and
4) suggests traffic patterns that will be unacceptable.
Does the proposed plan compensate me for several years of dirt and construction noise? Can you
boldly eliminate values that were developed to protect my neighbors and me?
I am not opposed to change. I also believe that a quality hotel would, in the long run, enhance the
core of the Village. What I am opposed to is the blatant and reckless disregard to guidelines that
were established to preserve the integrity of Vail Village and to protect individuals.
I trust that good judgment and a true sense to preserve the value of Vail Village will overcome a
purely greedy and irresponsible decision.
Yours rJo KinneCC: Vill
age Inn Plaza Condominium Association.
70/949-0555 Tile Daily, Thursday, December 23, 1999-Page A5
SECTION.,
. y
December 23, 1999 y.. - '
1W "W
Nail Plaza Hotel closer to reality
Majority o council
t..
members show support
By Tom Winter
71
Daily Staff Writer rl
Aft "I,,
VAIL- At least four of the seven Vail Town ~~ry , ~.a¦ Yl a
+cu t t rt
Council members have voiced their support for ~~kµ3 rk
the Vail Plaza Hotel Af 3 t, ~rr E~ t r
Chuck Ogilby, Greg Moffet. Mayor Ludwig
Kurz and Rod Sliler all have either said publicly i
that they support the protect or that all of their
concerns about it h ve been cleared up. And while
fhr other three council members have not voiced
disapproval of the project, none have yet voiced I
public suppaY.
! The proposed hotel would be built on the pre-' r 1+,'.' r .
i sent site of the Vail Village inn.
The council met Tuesday afternoon at a work -
session to look at what the hotel would do to the
view of the mountain from the main Vail round-
about. The council spoke with the developers'
traffic engineer Tuesday night about the effect the
i Project would have of traffic circulation.
'Pile council also discussed their few remaining
concerns with representatives from the hotel. Atid
I a few citizens and representatives of the Gateway Special to the Daily
Plaza building - which is northwest of the pro- Pictured are artist's renderings of what the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel will look like.
posed hotel, also spoke to the council. -
'While Ogilhy and Kurz mentioned a few Chuck Lipcon,
aspects of the plan they would like to see changed, a representative of
both said they think the project is a needed rev- Gateway Plazas i
cane source for the town. residential users.
Council member Kevin Foley said he needs said he does not
more time to make his decision. think the numbers
In the past few weeks, Foley said, he has used to estimate
to-tered back and forth between thinking the pro- traffic volumes are jeer is a needed one for the town and thinking it accurate because o" 1~
t rr
:gaol I i!• .`'~°~i
doesn't quite ht the entrance to Vail. they were taken 40
Council member Diana Donovan was pioba- front urhan-traffic
s r E
bly the most critical of all of the council members estimates.
about the specifics of the hotel's site plan because Jim Lamont,
of the special setbacks and other engineering lee- executive director'
ways given to the developers with the hotel's spe- of the East Village Homeowners Association, said
vial development district zoning. that even though the numbers might work out to
r
A few concerns that had been voiced by the show that there will not be traffic problems, intu- f
council members throughout the process still tin- ition tells him there could be a problem in the
geted in the town chambers Tuesday night at the future if the road starts getting a lot of foot and '
council meeting. vehicle traffic. One concern is the possibility of gridlock on Nonetheless, Lamont voiced his support of the gassed with the developers of all three phases of
Vail Road from people attempting to turn left into project, saying it has come a long way since it was the project before he can sign off on the final plan
the main parking garage and the entrance into the proposed to the council this past spring. given to the council. Peterson said.
hotel. Another of the concerns the council discussed Discussion about the prospective hotel have
Jay Peterson, the developers' representative to Tuesday night is the whereabouts of employee gone through three town,councils; the last two
the council, said he would be willing to move the housing, could never reconcile their differences with devel-
hotel's sidewalk back so that Vail Road could be This is as important as building more hotel opers to clear a path for the hotel's construction.
expanded to two lanes, should the need arise. But, rooms in the town of Vail," Ogilby said. Employ- Now, two uro after the induction ro the
newest council, developers might see the process
he added that he would rather not expand the road ee housing could be in another location in Vail or come to a close. On Jan. 4, the council will hear
until a problem emerges. outside of Vail, though Ogilby said he would like if developers have taken their last concerns into
The council uas split about whether Vail Road to see the employee housing at the hutel.sile. consideration and given them a hotel they are
should be expanded immediately to accommodate Peterson warned the council that the project willing to accept.
the project. Larry Lang, the developers traffic could not he built if he has to make hotel rooms "1 was prcparcl, from rumor maybe, not to like
engineer, said the road will not be overtraffrcked, into rooms for employees. But, he added, if the this project," Ogilby said. "I like this project. I
Lang said there would be minor delays getting council allows him to add mass to the project, he think it will be good for the town and good for the
into the parking structure, but that traffic on Vail might he able to put the housing on site, economy."
Road would not be impelled. There will not be a The whereabouts of the employee housing and Tom {fintercovers Vail, Miruurn andRed Clif
backup to the main Vail roundabout, he added. die requirements for the lousing have to he dis- He can be reached at (970) 949-0555 ect 606
F
LAW OFFICES
DUNN, ABPLANALP & MAURIELLO, P.C.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
JOHN W. DUNN WESTSTAR BANK BUILDING TELEPHONE:
ARTHUR A. ABPLANALP, JR. 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST (970) 476-0300
DIANE HERMAN MAURIELLO SUITE 300 FACSIMILE:
(g70) 476-4765
JEROFRY COUNSEL: W. HANNAH VAIL, COLORADO 81657 e-mail: vaillaw@vail.net
LEGAL ASSISTANTS
January 3, 2000 KAREN M. DUNN, CLAS
JANICE K. SCOFIELD, CLA
Town Council
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail CO 81657
Re: Vail Plaza Hotel
Dear Mayor and Council:
As you know, this firm represents Charles Lipcon, the owner of a residential unit
at Vail Gateway Plaza and a member of the board of directors of the owners association at Vail
Gateway. It is our understanding that the first reading of the ordinance to approve a major
amendment of the development plan for Special Development District #6, to permit the
construction of the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel, will be heard on January 4, 2000. The purpose of
this letter is to set forth Mr. Lipcon's concerns with respect to that project.
Enclosed are copies of our letter to the Planning and Environmental Commission
dated June 2, 1998, and of our letter to the Town Council dated February 2, 1999. Set forth in
those letters are our legal position with respect to the non-compliance of the 1998 proposal with
the Vail Village Master Plan. While the mass of the proposed building has now been reduced,
the height of it to the south of the Vail Gateway Plaza remains approximately double what is
permitted by the Master Plan. It is also noted that, on October 5, 1999, the Town Council
adopted amendments to the underlying zone district but left'in place the height limitation of 48
feet for that zone district. Therefore, the proposal not only violates the height limitations of the
Vail Village Master Plan but also violates the height limitations of underlying zoning, as
readopted on October 5.
In our letter to the PEC dated June 2, 1998, we emphasized that § 12-9A-8 of the
Municipal Code makes it the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that a proposed development
plan complies with the Vail Comprehensive Plan, that the same is not applicable or that a
practical solution consistent with the public interest had been achieved. We also observed that
we were unable to find anything in the applicant's 1998 submittal to comply with that
requirement. Indeed, on November 30, 1998, the applicant submitted an application for revision
of the height limitations of the Master Plan, which application was withdrawn on December 18,
1998.
T
Neither is there anything in the 1999 submittal or in the staff reports to show
compliance with § 12-9A-8. Rather, the argument of the applicant, which seems to have been
accepted by staff, is that one purpose of the Master Plan height limitations, the preservation of
the view of Gold Peak from the former four-way stop, has been eroded by the construction of the
Vail Gateway Plaza and the main Vail roundabout. While those facts might support an
amendment to the Master Plan, no such amendment has occurred.
The Council is urged to bear in mind that there are important reasons to have a
master plan and to comply with it. One council member has raised two questions which we
believe demonstrate those reasons. The first question, whether the massing of the proposed Plaza
Hotel ought to be more consistent with Gateway Plaza, was responded to by staff s observation
that the underlying zoning for the two properties is different. The other question, how the public
are to know whether views of the ski mountain remain a consideration in planning, was not fully
answered. We suggest that the Vail Village Master Plan was intended to avoid the extreme
height discrepancy between Gateway Plaza and adjoining properties and requires consistency
notwithstanding the differences in underlying zoning. We also suggest that the Master Plan is
the document which is intended to provide the public with guidance with respect to mountain
views and that, without amendment of the Master Plan,'the public are justifiably confused.
The Council is also urged to bear in mind that the Vail Village Master Plan was
adopted in 1990, after Gateway Plaza was approved by Council on April 19, 1988. It is
submitted that, on the basis thereof, it cannot be seriously contended that Gateway Plaza is a
reason for disregarding the Master Plan. It is also submitted that contending that a view of the
ski mountain is no longer important because motorists no longer queue up at a stop sign belittles
the purpose of the Master Plan.
Mr. Lipcon's concerns as to the merits of the Plaza Hotel project are compounded
by his concerns with respect to the procedure whereby the application is being handled. Public
hearing was conducted by the Planning and Environmental Commission on December 13, 1999.
Notice of that hearing was not sent to Mr. Lipcon although, as appears from the enclosed copy of
his letter to George Ruther dated January 2, 1999, he had requested notice and had advised the
Department of Community Development that the manager of the condominium association (who
is also the owner of the commercial units and who controls the association) in the past failed to
forward to residential owners the notice sent to the association. It has also come to our attention,
as appears from the enclosed copy of a letter dated January 25, 1999, addressed to the Town
Cleric, that the address for the condominium association used by the Department is incorrect, as a
result of which no notice was received even by the association. It therefore appears that notice of
the December 13 hearing was inadequate as to Gateway Plaza owners.
Council has held work sessions on the Plaza Hotel project on December 7 and 21,
at which work sessions the applicant and members of the public have testified in support of and
in opposition to the project. While we understand that first reading of an ordinance will occur on
January 4, no date for hearing on the recommendation of PEC has been set. We believe that this
method of proceeding is inconsistent with 12-3-6B and 12-3-7F of the Municipal Code, which
require that, upon receipt of the recommendation of the PEC, a date for hearing "shall be set
which shall be not more than thirty (30) days from the date of filing of the application or receipt
of the document."
It is our concern that the Council, before and after its receipt of the
recommendation of the PEC, has initiated hearings without notice and has engaged in a dialogue
with the applicant which has resulted in a majority of the Council taking a position in support of
the project prior to the hearing prescribed by the Code. While Mr. Lipcon or I have attended
those work sessions, the absence of notice to other adjacent property owners and the public
perception that the project has already been approved will cause the noticed hearing to be
meaningless. Further, we do not understand how the council members who have publicly
announced their approval of the project can fairly sit in judgment of the application at the time of
hearing on it without denying to Mr. Lipcon and to other adjacent property owners their right to a
fair hearing and due process of law. It is very respectfully submitted that the Council is being
"stampeded" by promises of financial benefit to their constituents and to the Town.
For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the Council reject the
recommendation of the Planning and Environmental Commission and direct the PEC and the
Town staff to engage in a meaningful review of the Plaza Hotel proposal as it relates to the Vail
Village Master Plan. In the alternative, the Council may wish to consider a moratorium on
development adjacent to south Frontage Road and Vail Road until such time as a new master
plan has been adopted to govern the planning of that area of Vail.
Yours very truly,
DUNK, ABPLANALP & MAURIELLO, P.C.
Join W. Dunn
jwd:ipse
cc. Mr. Lipcon
LAW OFFICES
DUNN, ABPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
JOHN W. DUNN 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST TELEPHONE:
ARTHUR A. ABPLANALP, JR. SUITE 300 (970) 476-0300
ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN FACSIMILE:
DIANE L. HERMAN VAIL, COLORADO 81657
1970) 476-4765
R. C. STEPHENSON
KAREN M. DUNN
CERTIFIED LEGAL. ASSISTANT
SPECIAL COUNSEL: June 2, 1998
JERRY W. HANNAH
Planning and Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail CO 81657
Re: Vail Plaza Hotel Project
Dear Commission Members:
We represent three residential unit owners at Vail Gateway Plaza and have been
requested by them to provide you with written comment with respect to the application of
Daymer Corporation for a major amendment to Special Development District #6, the Vail Village
Inn Site ("the Vail Plaza Hotel Project" or "the Project"). Having reviewed the plans submitted
to the Town, we wish to set forth our concerns with respect to the relationship of the Project to
the Vail Village Master Plan.
From our review of the plans, it appears that the portions of the Project located
immediately adjacent to Vail Gateway Plaza will be 60 to 84 feet above the existing grade to the
south of Gateway Plaza on Vail Road and 70 to 100 feet above the existing grade to the east of
Gateway Plaza on Frontage Road. This proposed building height is not in conformity with the
Conceptual Building Height Plan of the Vail Village Master Plan, which establishes a building
height guideline on those parcels adjacent to Gateway Plaza of 3-4 (stepped) building stories.
Inasmuch as the Conceptual Building Height Plan defines "building story" as nine feet, the
corresponding building height guidelines are 27 to 36 feet. Nor is the proposed building height in
conformity with the Sub-Area #1-1 Plan at page 37 of the Master Plan, which requires that the
mass of buildings "step-up" from pedestrian scale along Meadow Drive to 4-5 stories along
Frontage Road. Construing the two together, the structure to the south of Gateway Plaza could
not by any interpretation exceed four stories or 36 feet.
The proposed building heights for the Project adjacent to Gateway Plaza therefore
exceed master plan limitations by as much as 33 to 48 feet on Vail Road and 43 to 64 feet on
Frontage Road. In other words, the plan proposes a building that is at least twice the height
limitations of the Vail Village Master Plan on those parcels.
Section 12-4A-8 of the Vail Municipal Code includes as part of the design criteria
for approval of an SDD "conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan,
Town policies and urban design plans" and provides, with reference to those standards, that:
"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 then: is not applicable, or that a practical solution
consistent with the public interest has been achieved:..."
We are'not able to fins: anything in the applicant's submittal to suggest that the
height limitations of the waster plan are not applicable or that the applicant is proposing a solution
to the conflict with the master plan which is consistent with the public interest. We can only
conclude that the applicant is asking that the height limitations of the master plan be ignored for
purpose of the application. It is therefore the purpose of this letter to provide you with a review
of Colorado law on the relationship between roaster plans and, zoning, including in particular the
type of zone district know as the "planned unit development" ("PUD") or, as it is known in Vail,
the special development district ("SDD" Based upon our review of that law, it is cur belief that
the. master plan must be strictly adhered to in the consideration of SDD zoning, and we.
respectfully request that your commission so determine at the outset of its consideration of the
application.
The Colorado Supreme Court first addressed the effect of a roaster plan in
7heobald v. Board of C'ounly Comm 'rs, 644 P. 2d 942 (Colo. 1982). In that case, the court; held
that a master plan is advisory only and that, in order for it to have a direct effect on property
rights, it must be further implemented through zoning. Thereafter, in Beaver Afeadows V. Board
of County Commis, 709 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1985), the court held that, while a :Waster plan as an
advisory document is not necessarily binding on the zoning discretion of a governmental body, id
is binding when the zoning legislation requires compliance with it.
Most recently, in Board of County Comm is v. Conder, 927 P.2d 1339 (Colo.
1996), our supreme court was faced with a subdivision application which conformed with
applicable zoning but not with the county master plan, which had been adopted as a "guideline"
by the subdivision regulations. Over two dissents, the court held that the county could enforce
the master plan compliance provision legislatively adopted as part of the subdivision regulations.
Taken together, those cases tell us that, to the extent that zoning is inconsistent with the roaster
plan, the master plan will prevail, provided compliance with it is required by some regulation.
We recognize that the Town has great flexibility in the amendment of special
development district zoning and that a purpose of an SAD zone district is to encourage flexibility
and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use. We also
recognize that our local district court has upheld the Town council's adoption of SDD zoning
over a challenge based upon the argument that the adoption of it constituted "'spot zoning" ian
contravention of the Town's master plan. However, we are not arguing that the present
application violates objectives or policies of the roaster plan, which are aspirational in nature.
Rather, we are arguing that no zone district within the town may violate a very specific height
a
limitation imposed by the master plan, given the master plan's incorporation into the Towr.'s
zoning, including SDD zoning.
It should also be mentioned that, so far as we are aware, there has not been district
court review of a rezoning in this county since the Conder decision. Prior to that decision, it
might have been argued that an SDD zone district, because it establishes special rules for that
zone district, may override master plan requirements. However, in Conder the court afF.rmed
Larimer County's denial of an application for a PUD subdivision based upon the subdivision's
creation of density in conflict with the county master plan, even though (as the court emphasized)
the proposed use of the land was in compliance with the county's zoning resolution. It must
therefore be concluded that, if the entirety of the Larimer County zoning resolution could not
have the effect of overriding the county master plan, PUD or SDD zoning could not have that
effect.
We also recognize that zoning is a matter of local and municipal concern; that the
Town's zoning authority is governed by its own charter and ordinances, Zavala v. City & County
of Denver, 759 P.2d 664 (Colo. 1988); Service Oil Co. v. Rhodus, 500 P.2d 807 (Colo. 1972);
and that the cases cited in this letter address county master plans. However, the grant of zoning
authority is contained in statute, § 31-23-301, C.R.S., and that authority-is conditioned upon the
adoption of a :Waster plan by § 31-23-303, C.R.S. Further, the statutory purposes governing the
adoption of a municipal master plan, § 31-23-207, C.R.S., track with those governing the
adoption of a county master plan, § 30-28-107, C.R.S., and both counties and municipalities are
required to find master plan compliance as a condition to approval of a PUD, § 24-67-104(1)(f),
C.R.S., absent a superseding ordinance of the municipality. Vail's ordinance in fact is consistent
with that statute. Finally, the discussion contained in the county cases cited are a discussion of
general principles of land use law. It is therefore our conclusion that your commission must give
literal effect to the Vail Village Master Plan, including in particular the height limitations
contained in it, in considering the application for the Project.
Of course, the Town's master plans may be amended, but that process should only
be initiated by the Town council. Pursuant to § 31-27-207, C.R.S., "careful and comprehensive
surveys and studies of present conditions and future growth" are required. Initiation of that
process, we believe, ought not be motivated by a single application.
It is our understanding that the applicant believes that the economic benefit of its
project to the community, including hotel accommodations and conference space, outweigh the
importance of master plan compliance. In that connection, it is well to bear in mind the purposes
of the Town's zoning regulations as they are set forth in § 12-1-2, Vail Municipal Code:
"these regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety,
morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and
harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance
its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential
community of high quality."
That purpose, we suggest, is intended to preserve the character of the town and not to promote
economic development.
We need not remind you that members of the public, including our clients, have
relied on the Town's land use regulations. Our clients were told, when they purchased units. at
Gateway Plaza, that they would continue to have unobstructed views, and they made major
investments based upon that information. If those views are obstructed, their investments will be
significantly devalued. Our clients understand that the Town's zoning was not enacted to protect
their personal view corridors. However, because they are adjacent landowners and because the
value of their property may be affected by your recommendation to council, they have standing
before you.
Section 12-3-3, Vail Municipal Code, provides for administrative determination or
interpretation of the provisions of the zoning ordinance and for review of such determination or
interpretation by your commission. We urge you to request an int,,. Faetation of § 12-9A-8(D'),
Vail Municipal Code, and a determination that that provision requires that the application before
you strictly comply with the building height limitations of the Vail Village Master Plan.
In making that request, we do not wish to minimize other aspects of the Project
which would require that on the merits your commission make a recommendation of denial of the
application. The impact of the Project on Frontage Road is difficult even to imagine. Traffic flow
through the roundabout intersection and along Frontage Road would be increased very
substantially, with the attendant noise and pollution caused by vehicular traffic. Without an
impact analysis, it is impossible to say what the effect of the Project would be on level of service
at the Main Vail Roundabout. That impact is aggravated by the absence of pedestrian access
from the village core. Further, the refocusing of activity on Frontage Road, together with the
overall height and mass of the Project, would have a fundamental, potentially devastating effect
on the feeling and character of Vail.
We intend to press those issues at time of hearing on the application, if that stage
is reached. We again urge that an initial determination be made that the Project must comply with
the Vail Village Master Plan. That determination, for obvious reasons, would serve to focus
consideration of the application.
Yours very truly,
DUNN, 7PLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C.
Jop W. Dunn
JWD:ipse
cc. Mr. Lipcon
Mr. Johnston
- - L-Aw OarlcEs
DUNN, ABPLANALP & MAURIELLO, P.C.
A PgOFC35IONAL CORPORATION
JOHN W. DUNN _ WESTSTAR SANK BUILDING TELEPHONE:
ARTHUR A. ABPLANALP, JR. IOA SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST (970) 476-0300 -
DIANE HERMAN MAURIELLO
SUITE 300 FACSIMILE:
CARRIE A. HENDON
VAIL, COLORADO 81697 1970)476-4765
SPECIAL COUNSEL. KAREN M. DUNN
JERRY W. HANNAY. February 1999 CERTIFIED LEGAL ASSISTANT
Mayor and Town Council
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail CO 81657
Re: Vail Plaza Hotel Project
Dear Mayor Ford and Council Members:
The purpose of this letter, written on behalf of Charles Lipcon, is to provide you
with additional comment regarding the above project submittal.
i. Vail Village Master Plan
Included as part of the record in the above matter, is a letter dated June 2, 1998,
from this office to the Planning and Environmental Commission. That letter objects to aspects of
the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel as violating the Vail Village Master Plan. The reasoning of the
objection is based in part on the holding of our supreme court in Board of County Commis V.
Conder, 927 P.2d 1339 (Colo. 1996). In essence, that case held that a master plan, once
incorporated into a land use regulation, is binding and not advisory.
At the hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Town
Attorney disagreed with that analysis. He stated it to be his opinion that the Conder case has no
application to the Town of Vail because that case involved a county regulation, as opposed to the
regulation of a home rule municipality. He stated it to be his opinion that, because the Town of
Vail is a home rule town, the Vail Village Master Plan is advisory only. The purpose of this
letter is to reply to that opinion.
It is respectfully submitted that the concept, that a master plan is advisory in
nature, arises not out of a home rule analysis but rather out of the decision of our supreme court
in Theobald v. Board of County Comm 'rs, 644 P.2d 942 (Colo. 1982). In that case, the court
held that a master plan is advisory only and that, in order for it to have a direct effect on property
rights, it must be further implemented through zoning.
The Conder case involved a master plan which had been implemented as part of
Larimer County's subdivision regulations. The court stated that:
"master plans are purely advisory documents, absent (1) formal
inclusion of sufficiently specific master plan provisions in a duly-
adopted land use regulation by a board of county commissioners or
(2) a statutory directive from the General Assembly that
landowners must comply with master plan provisions in pursuing
land use development proposals." 927 P.2d at 1346.
We note that the Vail Charter contains no authority for the adoption of zoning
regulations. For that reason, the Town car. look only to state statute for its zoning authority. It
must therefore comply with the state statutory requirement of adoption of a master. plan, as it has
done. It is also bound by state law and our supreme court's interpretation of state law as to the
effect of a master plan. It is immaterial whether that interpretation involves a county government
or a home rule- municipality.
Apart from that, the Vail Municipal Code makes the Town's comprehensive plan
a binding, and not an advisory, document. Section 12-9A-$, Vail Municipal Code, places the
burden on the applicant to demonstrate I) that a special development district submittal complies
with the comprehensive plan, 2) that the comprehensive plan is not applicable or 3) that a
practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. The proponent of the
Vail Plaza Hotel has done none of the foregoing. He simply asks that you disregard the specific
limitations of the Vail Village Master Plan, including in particular the height limitations of the
master plan.
We therefore submit that the Vail Village Master Plan cannot be passed over as an
advisory document and that the council must comply with the ordinance cited above, placing the
burden on the applicant. We submit that the applicant has not met that burden and that the
application should be denied.
ii. Concerns as to Work Sessions
This project application was considered by the council in a work session on
January 26, 1999, at which time the suggestion was made that further work sessions may be
scheduled. It was also indicated, on behalf of the applicant, that concerns of the council would
be responded to.
The council is respectfully reminded that it has before it a recommendation of the
Planning and Environmental Commission. `Vhen such a recommendation is received, it is
required by § 12-3-7F, Vail Municipal Code, that a date for hearing be set. Section 12-3-6 of the
code establishes the manner in which hearings before the council must be conducted, including
the requirement of § 12-3-6D3 that all interested parties be afforded the opportunity to submit
exceptions, contentions and arguments. It is respectfully submitted that consideration of any
project in work session without notice to the public and to adjacent landowners does not comply
with that requirement. It also requested that the council avoid negotiation with the applicant,
either informally at staff level or in the course of a work session. Review of a recommendation
of the PEC is intended by the Code to be a public hearing process and not a work
session/negotiation process.
a
iii. Encorachment and b view Agreement
Members of the council have expressed interest in an Encroachment and View
Agreement, dated October 31, 1939, between Vail Village Inn, Inc., and Leo PalrLer as the
developer ofthe Vail Gateway Plaza. In essence, that agreement required that Palmer obtain
from purchasers of units at Gateway Plaza a waiver of any interest, claim or right in an
unobstructed view across VVI property.
It is emphasized that that agreement was entered into with respect to the then
approved plans of VVI, which were altogether different in scope from the existi.>g appli,--ation.
Further, the agreement amounts to a private covenant and. obviously has no effect on the right of
our client to insist that the council comply with the requirements of the Vail Village Master flan
and town ordinances.
Yours very, truly,
DUNN, ABPLANALP & CHIRISTE SEN, P.C.
John W. Dunn
J WD:Ipse
cc. Mr. Lincon
Mr. Moorhead
P• 1
- - - -
;fan 02 99 12:36p CHARLES R. LIPCON 1-9?0-4?6-8e81
CHARLES R. I,IPCON
Vail Gateway Unit 5
12 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Co. 81657
Tel. (974) 4716-9388
Fax. (970) 476-8681
January 2,1999
George Ruther
Town of Vail.
Fax: 479-2452
Re: Village Inn
Dear Mr.Ruther:
'Thank you for your letter dated Dec. 30, 1998.
Sending a notice to Stolu Management is not adequate notice for me or the other residential owners
in the Vail Gateway with respect to any matters involving the Village Inn.
Please send notiW-es directly to me at the above address and at my NV&ami address Which is 430 N.
Mashta Drive, Key Biscayne, Fl. 33131.
Very Truly Yours,
Charles R Lipcon
P.S. Please give me your email address.
cc: John Dunn
Jan 01 oC 12:53p CHARLES R. LIPCON 1 -9'?C 476- 6'81 P- z ' -
mowntainaireprowerties, inc.
R. 1V. ,jenson # 19233
05 10 East BeiVer Creek Blvd, A 102A
PG $®.x 19000
Avon, CO 81620
(970) 949.0768 1:AX.W017 4 -9825
January 25, 1999
Lorelei Donaldson
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Rd.
i
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Address Change of Property Owner for Public Notices
Dear Ms. Donaldson:
We are the owners of Vail Gateway plaza. The home office where. any notices of public
meetings have been sent has relucated.. The former addzes was Mountainaire Properties, Inc..
and Mountain Owners, LY. clo Stoltz Bros. Ltd., 1300 Market Street, Suite - Oil,
WIzingion, DE 19801. Please replace that address with the following:
Mountainaire Properties, ln.c., and
Mountain OvNmers' 1'. P.
c/o Stoltz Bros. Ltd.
725 Conshohocken State Rd.
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Attn: Steve Lewis
Also, we now have a local office in Ai,on and if we could have a copy of any correspondence
that goes to the home office sent to the following address it. would be appreciated:
Mourtainaire Properties, Inc.
0150 East Beeti er Creek Blvd.
PO Box 19000-157
Avon, CO 81620
Attn: Sear. Snyder
Thank you for your cntiou to this matter.
Ya t5ulyi
R. Weslev J~nson
cti: Steve Letivis _
~3 ~0 r,
F,
CHARLES R. LIPCON
Vail Gateway Unit 5
12 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Co. 81657
Tel. (970) 476-5151
Fax. (970) 476-8681
January 3,20-00
Mayor Ludwig Kurz and Town Council Members,
Planning and Environmental Commission,
and George Ruther, Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road ~C~~~~
Vail, Colorado 81657 wikte JAN 0 3 2000
Fax: 479-2452
Re: Vail Village Inn
Dear Sirs and Madams:
This is my second comprehensive letter in objecting to the
Village Inn Hotel. I adopt the prior letter and exhibits which I
would like considered as well as the following.
It would appear that the Town Council is about to willfully
ignore the law pertaining to the master plan and ignore the-
requirement that the applicant prove up the elements for an SDD
amendment because of a desire to have more visitors to Vail and
to increase tax revenues during a period of time when the Town of
Vail is over budget. The town should look into the reason for
lack of visitors to Vail. Might they be lack of snow or the buddy
pass system under which skiers are diverted away from Vail to
other ski areas operated by the same company or the price of
skiing in Vail? Is this an antitrust violation? Before panicking
and ruining the Vail Village, shouldn't the town look into the
possibility that the market is being manipulated.
Although the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal might have some appealing
short-term benefits for the town of Vail, it will have many long-
term disadvantages that will outweigh any possible benefits. On
the Town of Vail web site (http://ci.vail.co.us/) it states:
"much of Vail's charm comes from its uniquely-designed alpine
village and pedestrian system." "Together we value a lifestyle
that combines one of the best alpine resorts in the world with a
friendly, small town feel." Clearly the approval of the massive
hotel, spa, and convention center will change all of that. The
entrance to Vail village is where visitors get their first
impression of the Town of Vail and it will certainly be a lasting
r
one. The Town of Vail will obtain revenue that a project of this
size.would create, but it will suffer later on. Little by little
Vail will change, starting with the construction of this massive
structure. Tourists enjoy Vail for the exact same reasons that
you advertise on your web site; why begin a journey that will
change all of that? If you approve this project, future council
members will look to your decision to approve other proposed
projects that are uncharacteristic of Vail.
More importantly, the hotel, spa, and convention center would
greatly exceed the height limitations of the Vail Master Plan.1
This plan would also violate the master plan and prior SDD.
approval regarding the view towards Gold Peak. Why have a master
plan if it is not followed? View analysis 7 dated August 13, 1999
reflects that the proposed building will completely cut off the
view of the mountain.
The following design criteria set out in 12-9A-8 are being
clearly ignored.
• Compatibility
• Relationship
• Comprehensive Plan
• Design Features
• Traffic
• Landscaping
The master plan is hardly even mentioned by the applicant.
Future council members will look to your actions to justify
deviating from the design criteria and the master plan again and
again. one day, Vail will have lost much of its charm and
beautiful vistas. Not only will the charm and vistas be gone, but
also your approval will spark a new wave of traffic that is
certainly not in character with Vail's atmosphere. Common sense
should tell you that the traffic analysis that was done did not
make any sense. How could an extra 147 rooms, a convention
center, a spa, restaurants, plus extra employees create only one
extra car per hour as the traffic engineer stated? We know that
is not anywhere near the truth. If the solution to that problem
is to add another lane on Vail Road, you would again be making
another step towards changing Vail's charm and unique village
1 The master plan states: "Within this context the Master Plan is one of several documents that have been developed to
preserve and strengthen the Tyrolian/Alpine character of Vail Village while allowing for limited, highly- controlled
growth.... From numerous public meetings, a concensus emerged that additional development was acceptable, even
desirable, as long as it did not signifigantly alter the existing character of the Village.... As a result, it is a development
guide for private land owners and for the Town. The Plan provides the Town direction when formulating capital
improvement programs and establishes standards for the review of development proposals on private land (pages 1,2,
and 3)
atmosphere.
It is clear what will happen to the "'small town feel" when
visitors get stuck at the circle to sit there and view a massive
wall of buildings at the entrance to Vail instead of the
mountain? The pictures that were submitted to the Council by the
applicant were very misleading. Their photos show a picture of
the Vail Gateway and nothing else. We all know that when you are
going around the circle you see a lot more than just the Gateway
building. You see beautiful mountains as you drive through the
circle.
During the last few years, the accommodations in town have not
been fully booked. The snow conditions have not been as good as
in the past, certainly accounting for the low occupancy. How will
adding an additional 147 accommodation units to the rental pool
help? Just because Vail has more places to stay, that is not what
will draw people to Vail. It is the snow conditions and the
village charm that will draw people here, not a big hotel that
can be found in any big city. If the answer to Vail's tourist
problems was adding new rooms to the rental pool, why wasn't the
Sonnenalp fully booked during the Christmas 1999 period?
One or more of the residential property owners at the Vail
Gateway have the following objections to the Vail Village Inn A
Major Amendment to Special Development District #6 as follows:
1.Daymer Corporation has been meeting informally with various
Town of-Vail committees and the Town Council in informal sessions
without providing adequate notice to the adjacent landowners.
Attached is a list of meetings obtained by doing a search of
"Daymer" on the Town of Vail web site. Proper notice of these
meetings was not given to the adjacent landowners. This has the
effect of Daymer making its case without input from the adjacent
landowners- At the Town Council meeting on December 21, 1999
almost all of the members of the Town Council indicated that they
would approve the project without giving all of the adjacent
landowners and the residents of Vail much,. if any, input. This
violates the rights of the adjacent landowners and the residents
of the town of Vail to due process. I OBJECT TO ANY COUNCIL
MEMBERS PARTICIPATING IN THE FORMAT., VOTE WHO HAVE ALREADY
PREJUDGED THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE FORMAL VOTE TAKES PLACE.
FURTHER I OBJECT TO ANY COUNCIL MEMBER VOTING ON THE APPLICATION
THAT HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
2.In spite of numerous requests, neither I nor any of the other
residential owners in the Vail Gateway, to my knowledge, have
been given notice to most if not all of the meetings. Notice to
Stoltz Management is-not adequate since they do/did not in turn
- r
provide notice to the owners in the Vail Gateway. The notice to
Stoltz when given, goes to the wrong address contrary to Stoltz's
letter. This information about lack of notice was previously
provided to you. YOU HAVE ACTUAL NOTICE THAT THE GIVING OF NOTICE
TO STOLTZ MANAGEMENT DOES NOT IN TURN RESULT IN NOTICE TO THE
CONDOMINIUM OWNERS IN THE VAIL GATEWAY. This is especially
troublesome in light of the fact that Stoltz Management or their
principles were represented by Jay Peterson who is also the
claimed attorney for Daymer Corporation.
3. The Town of Vail ordinance 12-3-6 C. dealing with notice
constitutes a denial of due process and equal protection of the
law for the owners in the Vail Gateway and other adjacent
condominium owners since it does not provide for actual notice to
them as adjacent property owners. YOU HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY
INFORMED THAT THE GIVING OF NOTICE TO STOLTZ MANAGEMENT DOES NOT
IN TURN RESULT IN NOTICE TO THE CONDOMINIUM OWNERS IN THE VAIL
GATEWAY. As such, it is unconstitutional.
4. The amendment violates the "view corridor" from the four way
stop (now roundabout) established in the SDD approval for the
Village Inn. Based on this "view corridor",.the height of the
Vail Gateway was reduced. In Rick Pylman's (Town Planner for
Vail) letter dated Feb. 16, 1988 discussing the Vail Gateway, he
stated: "Staff feels strongly that this building (Vail Gateway)
should present no encroachment into the view corridor that is
established by the approved Vail Village Inn development. The
existing design will require substantial revisions to maintain
the view parameters established by the VVI."
Photographs of the notch in the Vail Gateway building are
attached.
It would be unfair, arbitrary, and unreasonable to have reduced
the height of the Vail Gateway based on the "view corridor" in
the SDD ordinance for the Village Inn and then to turn around and
ignore the same requirement for the Village Inn itself. The
agreement between Joe Stauffer and the Town of Vail as documented
in the SDD approval constitutes a recorded real covenant that
inures to the benefit of the adjacent landowners that relied on
this real covenant. The SDD approval provides for a three story
building in the "view corridor" area. The SDD approval was the
result of give and take negotiations between the Town of Vail and
Joe Stauffer. Joe Stauffer agreed to two story buildings on East
Meadow Drive and Vail Road in return for a five story building on
Frontage Road. In addition to constituting a real covenant, the
SDD approval constitutes a contract between the Town of Vail and
Joe Stauffer which insures to the benefit of adjacent owners as
third party beneficiaries.
5. The amendment violates the Town of Vail Master Plan.2 The
master plan states with respect to the Vail Village Inn: "Mass of
buildings shall step up from existing pedestrian scale along
Meadow Drive to 4-5 stories along Frontage Road Design must be
sensitive to maintaining view corridor from 4-way stop to Vail
Mountain" The portion being submitted by Daymer, in this
applicatiion, should.be 3-4 stories according to the Conceptual
Building Height Plan in the Master Plan. The VVI proposal will
directly impact the character of the Vail Village. If approval of
the amendment is allowed, where will it stop. Won't the owners of
the Holiday House property, the gas station and others want to
have the same massive size to maximize the value of their
properties. Perhaps the Vail Gateway would like to add.another 2.-
or 3 floors also. The entrance to the Vail Village would be a
massive canyon of buildings more in keeping with a large city
rather than a unique ski village.
6. The Village Inn project does not coordinate well with the Vail
Gateway. The Vail Gateway would be facing a large wall
approximately 68 feet high, which would only be about 40 feet
from the Vail Gateway property. A dead end canyon would be
created. This is not in keeping with the initial,representation
made by the Vail Village Inn to the Town of Vail, that: "The
architects Zehren & Associates-were challenged to acc-...,.odate
this program in a configuration harmonious to the imrnediate
neighborhood and add to the Vail Character." There is nothing
harmonious about this project as it relates to the Vail Gateway
and it is certainly not in keeping with the Vail Character. It is
a big project being urged on a small village.
7. The Village Inn project comes very close to the Vail Gateway
driveway where cars enter the garage and deliveries are made. It
would create a high, long and large dead end alley that would
cause auto and diesel fumes to accumulate and enter the Vail
Gateway. This would be noxious, odorous, harmful to health, and
perhaps deadly. A study should be done to determine the buildup
of carbon monoxide and other dangerous fumes that would enter the
Vail Gateway and the Village Inn from this area.
8. The Village Inn project would cut off sunlight and air for the
Vail Gateway. The Vail Gateway would for the most part be in the
shadow of the Village Inn during the winter months. On the East
side of the Gateway building the Hotel will almost touch. From
the plan it would appear to be 2 feet away at the lower levels.
9. The traffic, noise, and accompanying pollution in the area of
the roundabout, Vail Road, and Frontage Road would increase
2 Jeff Winston's August 24, 1999 report reflects the areas where the Master Plan is not followed A copy of his report
is attached Jeff Winston was a consultant with respect to developing the master plan.
dramatically. The roundabout presently backs-up at certain times
of the day, and the increase in the number of cars will only
exacerbate the problem. The Traffic Impact Analysis done by
Feisburg, Hult & Ullevig is based on the assumption that 50% of
the traffic is internal and as such reduced their trip generation
figures by 500. This ignores the fact that the Vail Village has a
free transportation system that is unique. Even assuming a 50%
reduction, the overall traffic increases from about 1050 trips
per day to 3100 trips per day. THIS IS A TRIPLING IN TRAFFIC. If
the assumed reduction figure.is wrong then the increase could be
as much as six fold. An increase percentage of 2% was used to
indicate that the traffic would go to 4600 vehicles during the PM
peak hour in the year 2015. This assumes that further large hotel
projects similar to the Village Inn will not be approved, which
would be unrealistic if this project is approved. There would be
a Domino effect. Also the study does not take into consideration
the effect of other buildings being redeveloped and further
increasing traffic on Vail Road. What about the timber that has
to be removed from category III which will go through Vail Road.
An estimated 3000 trips approximately will be made by large
trucks. VAIL SHOULD HIRE AN INDEPENDENT TRAFFIC FIRM TO VERIFY
THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
10. No studies have been filed to reflect the pollution levels
that would come from the increased traffic.
11. The owner of the Village Inn knew at the time of its purchase
what was allowed and what was not allowed under the SDD approval
in place and master plan at the time. The Village Inn proposal
-would change the rules and would greatly increase the value of
the Village Inn property and at the same time diminish the value
of the Vail Gateway property as well as other adjacent property
owners. It would be unfair to provide the Village Inn owner with
a financial windfall at the expense of the Vail Gateway owners.
12. Owners in the Vail Gateway purchased their properties and
spent money fixing them up relying on the approvals already in
place for the Village Inn, including the view corridor, as.well
as the master plan. As such changing these items would constitute
an inverse condemnation of the ownership interests of the Vail
Gateway owners. The value of the Vail Gateway owners would be
reduced so as to provide a windfall to the owners of the Vail
Village Inn:
13. The Vail master plan, which was enacted by ordinance, cannot
be violated under the guise of an SDD, without changing the
master plan itself.3 Attorney John Dunnhas submitted a
3 Daymer's argument that the master plan does not apply because the Vail Gateway was built does not hold water. The
Vail Gateway was approved before the master plan was approved All of the diagrams of Vail in the master plan show
the Vail Gateway and its height. Therefore the Vail Gateway was considered at the time the master plan was enacted.
memorandum of law on this issue. The Village Inn acknowledges
this-when they submitted a "Revision of Vail Village Master Plan-
Conceptual Building Height Plan..." on Nov. 30, 1998.4
14. The'Village Inn proposal has not discussed the hazard of a
fire spreading to or from their buildings to the Vail Gateway in
light of their extremely close proximity. (The fact that-the
proposed Vail Village Inn has exterior fireproofing does not
apply to the Vail Gateway and the Village Inn Condo, which does
not have special fireproofing.) What further problems would this
create for the fire department if a fire had to be fought? Also
there is. no showing that the Town of Vail fire department could
handle a fire in.a building of this size and height.
15. What assurances have the owner of the Village Inn provided
that it has the financial and real estate capability to build
what they say they want to build? What assurances have they
provided that they are trustworthy and will do what they say they
will do? Daymer Corporation N.V. has reportedly been previously
involved in litigation where claims were made of wrongful conduct
by Daymer. Daymer should make a-full disclosure of prior -
litigation and its outcome to properly assess its
trustworthiness. Also its true ownership should be revealed since
it is.a Netherlands Antilles Corporation.
16. The simulated pictures submitted by the Vail Village Inn are
misleading. As an example, view analysis number three shows a
seven story Vail Village Hotel not much higher than the adjacent
five story Vail Gateway.
17. The sales tax revenues projected to the Town of Vail are
based on numerous assumptions. What guarantees or bonds have the
Village.Inn offered if their projections are wrong. If the
Village Inn is seeking to motivate the Town of Vail by the
promise of additional funds, certainly they should stand behind
the numbers and provide a guarantee or bond-from a financially
sound third party to back up their numbers. There is no
requirement that the applicant submit a "Town of Vail Incremental
Revenue Impact" report. It is clearly a carrot being dangled in Y
front of the town counsel to justify ignoring the master plan and
other zoning requirements. IT IS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS5 FROM THE
APPLICANT. WHAT CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TQ THE FACT THAT SALES
TAX WILL BE LOST WHEN PEOPLE SWITCH FROM THE OTHER HOTELS IN TOWN
TO THE APPLICANT'S HOTEL. OBJECTION IS MADE TO THIS TOWN COUNCIL
VOTING ON THE APPLICATION SINCE IT NOW HAS A FINANCIAL INTEREST
IN THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTE. REQUEST IS MADE FOR THE TOWN COUNCIL
4 No action was taken on this submission.
5 General Assumptions: "1. The incremental revenue impacts are based upon the Hotel Program Anaylysis as
communicated by Mr. Walder Prado as of September 8, 1999. " Page 4 of the Sept. 20, 1999 Stan Bernstein report.
TO RECUSE ITSELF. A Conflict of interest has been created by the
Applicant by virtue of it's submission of this report.
18. The Village Inn should provide compensation to the adjacent
property owners, whose values will go down as a result of the
Village Inn violations of the master plan as well as the
agreement between the Town of Vail and Joe Stauffer as codified
in the SDD approval.
19. The Vail Plaza Hotel Fact Sheet is misleading. It indicates
that the 1992 approval allowed a building height of 67 feet. It
does not indicate that this height applied to the building on
Frontage Road only and does not apply to the buildings that would
be south of the Vail Gateway. (Between the Vail Gateway and the
ski mountain)
20. No view corridor analysis was done other than providing
photos some of, which are misleading. A view corridor analysis
was requested in the memorandum to the Planning and Environmental
Commission dated June 22, 1998. Daymer Corporation takes the
position that the Vail Gateway has already blocked the view
corridor therefore it is a non issue. Further Daymer has
represented to the counsel that the notch in the Gateway building
was filled in. That did not happen. The notch is still there.
No view analysis has been done from the Vail Gateway to determine
design compatibility as well as the effect of violating the
master plan. The applicant has constantly misused the
Encroachment and View Agreement signed by Leo Palmer and Joe
Stauffer. Both of them have explained that it applied to the then
existing plans and not to future plans. As such it would not
apply to this application.
21. It is unknown if an urban design analysis was done. An urban
design analysis was requested in the memorandum to the Planning
and Environmental Commission dated June 22, 1998.
I urge you as council members to take all of these factors
into consideration. How could this project be done in good
conscience when it will have so many negative results. Certainly
a hotel more in keeping with Vail's charming atmosphere would
benefit the town. As you make your decision, you are making
history. The way you decide to make that_history, is what will
ultimately determine Vail's future and long-term success. You
will not be able to market Vail as a small town with a charming
Alpine feel after these projects and subsequent ones of the same
kind are constructed. Is the building of this specific hotel
truly beneficial to Vail Village? I don't think so. The Village
can certainly wait for something better than this to come along.
The Sonnenalp and Austria House are good examples of that. Why
settle for second best, or even worse? You don't have to, and you
shouldn't. Someone has to uphold not only the good principles and
morals that we all hope to have, but the reputation of Vail and
it's representatives. I hope you can do that. Thank you for your
time.
Very Truly Yours.,
Charles R. i,ipcon
LANJk-QA1FARCHITE=`URF_ URBAN DESIGN
'l
1
Date: August 24, 1999
To: George Reuther, Town of Vail Community Development
From: Jeff Winston ?
r,
Re: Vail Plaza Hotel Design Review
~t~%
V ~
1
CC
The location and context of this building makes the Vail Village Master Plan the primary guiding document, not
'f~
the Urban Design Guide Plan.
VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
Illustrative Plans vf1
Oland Use Plan - Is consistent with Medium/High Density Residential designation.
20pen Space Plan - Does not reduce Village Inn Plaza w/ Greenspace. Y:' I d
?Parking and Circulation - Does not continue ENV pedestrian linkage from Crossroads to Vail Road.
i=
?Building Height - Exceeds 3 to 4 story designation to achieve "stepping down" to Gateway building.
OBuilding Height Profile-Does not achieve stepping down toward Vail Road.
QAction Plan - Implements projected infill development of residential/lodging infill.
?Sub-area I - Commercial development at ground level to frame interior plaza with greenspace - ;
? Mass of building does not "step up" from existing pedestrian scale along Meadow Drive to 4-5
stories along Frontage Road. Rather, makes an abrupt transition to 5 to 6 stories.
? Design does not maintain view corridor from 4-way stop (roundabout) to Vail Mountain.
Applicable Objectives ("Special Emphasis"):
21.2 Encourages the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities.
E12.3 Increases the number of residential units available for short-term ovemight accommodations.
12114 Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing
land uses.
22.6 Encourages the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector.
23.2 Minimizes the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the greatest extent possible.
?4.1 Does not improve existing open space areas or create new plazas with greenspace and pocket parks.
25.1 Meets parking demands with public and private parkng facilities.
26.1 Provides service and delivery facilities for existing and new development.
Land Use Comparison (Appendix A)
1 WMP Appendix A Proposed
i Unbuilt units 148 a.u. (74 e.d.u.) 41 d.u.+ 97 a.u. (90 e.d.u.)i
Unbuilt square feet ( 45,636 101,060
VailPlamP.rall _ Page I oJ7
2299 PEARL STREET , SUITE 100 • BOULDER. CO 80302 0 303-440-9200 • FAX 303 449-b9 I I . itwinstcn@winstonassociates-com 1
TOWN OF VAII. MEETINGS FOR DAYlVty x
Town of Vail - Search Pagel of 2
ri
4
l i OF tlI
t xx t `r r~,,{ .R `rx+r x~rry Era~'u HRs
y
Mnq
i
ARCH
Search for: [daymer -
Start sew,. 6 Reset'
Number of documents found: 32. Click on a document to view it, or submi
another search.
Search Results
Document Title JjDate IISc,
Tovm of Vail - Connrnw itv De-vei rneiit - -EEC - Current 12/20/99
eri Dece-rAper 1
31
1.994 1111:15:03
To-wn of Vail - Corc mu-vity De --o-oi-tier:t - PEC - culTent 12/20/99
Agenda -_-Arcliive - November- 22. 1.999 11:15:03
'oven of Vail - Coannw=ity Dewl-onment - ;SEC - Current 12/20/99
Aizeuda - Arclinve_.- Novernbe S. 1.999 1111:15:02 1
Town of Vail - Coinantaniv; eN elovir ent - PEC: - Current 12/20199
1HMejida -_Archive - December 11, 1909 1111:15:03 11
Town of Vail - Comm unit-v De- e3ppment = PE C' meeting 12/21/99
lResalts - Archive - December -1110,901 1112:19:52 1
Town of Vail - Community Develownent - PEC - C-Lu ent 12/20/99
lend - Archi-ve_- October 1's_, 999 1111:15:02 11
Toywn of Nail - Cony mmiitv Development - PEC - Meeting 1112/20/99
P-1'Toven ber 22,, 1999 - - 1{11:15:09 11
Town of Mail - Coeawn-wai?v De-velomlient - PEC - Current 12120199
ika~mda_- Archive October 25.. 1999 1111:15:02 (1
1Towa of Vail - Coa inanity eVelonment Plaimine - D B (112/20/99 11
C react f ea~dta - A r sec- er 1.1099 11:14:51
Towa of Vail - Con-,muiaity De-veloom- em - PE - C wTent 12/20/99
IAze~nda - ,archive emerrber 27, 1999 ~111:15:01
Town o. Vail - Co=uniL v D-evelon ent - PEC - Final 12120/99
IAgenda Archive - October 1 _i.. 1999 111.1:15:08 11
http://civaiLco.us/ yti-hinMtml.exe/search.htm 12/25/1999
Town. ofVail - Search Page 2 of 2
r„a., - Colil t Devei pment- i"F_,C- - legit n 12/20/99
t>i ui
sesiltd - Archive. - October -71_. g Y !!11:15:49 I)
ILI Cy
4 onkm of Vail - Community e- elopment - P EC -Meet' (112/20/99 11
Results - Ardhiv.- - Nove nber ~ 11:15:09
Vuil - Commu. itv Devel€ lmu ent - PEC: - .C uurent 12/20/99
~.Rrnd4 11:14:59 1
o;-vn o.V7I:LL - CommUt>Y De, elopm-ent - PI uni a - DRB 12/20/99 1
C Urrent. /I=ida - "Irdiive - 'November '1 7, 1999 (111:14:51 11
T nvo,- of Vail - C(--, unity Development - Planning - 1DRB 12/20/99
Mectin2 Re--alts - Arclai~Ve - v ber 17. 1999 111:14:58 11
1IT-iLlIll- of Vail - Comns«nity Deveil)p m`nt - PEC - Final 1111:15:08
12/20/99 11
A a.en dr - Archive - 3emember 2'. QQQ t o r; u of Vail - Comma ity Development - PEC - Final 12/20/99
1Aae;?da - Amil 111999 1111:15:04 11
1 Town of Vail - Commun~~iyDe=velopment PEC - Minutes - 12/21/99
l c=v4i;-flbe-r 2'21999 1112:32:07 11
of ;Jail - Community Development - Planning - rD..RB 1111:14:59
12/20/99 leetisesr~lts -ece~~tber 1 1999 11
ToxvA of Vail - Conmunity Developmrient - Planning - DRB 12/20/99
1- CUrrent Agenda - ArChive - -NoYTe.. uer 3, 19QQ 1111:14:50 11
Town of Vail - Cemmunst Deve1= E meet - Pla g - DRB 12/20/99
I- Ara;hh e - CmTent Agenda - October 20. 1999 1111:14:50
oWn of Vail - Community De°;-?IoYent - Planning - DP.B 12/20/99
1- Meeting Results - Arclnive - 11-11o _-einber 1999 1111:14:58 1
12/20/99
1 Olk-1,t of Vail - Community Development - PE.C - Minutes 1111:15:16
- -J"'Ovember 83 999 11
1
Tow c1 U - Community Develo . e-, - Planning -DPI 12/20/99
1- Arc1ii-ve - Current Agenda - Octnb--r 6, 999 11:14:50-
12/20/99
Town 1of Vail - Community Development finent - Planning - DRB 1111:14:57
; l 11
eetina 11`esults Arc we Oc o er 20. 1 Q99 TFOAlk"n `'L ail - Co 3-:.jmty De~, elopment - PEC. - Minutes 12/20/99
Archive - Am i' 12. 1999 111:15:10
.,NvA of Vail - Community Developnient - Planning - DRB 1111:14:57
12/20/99
Archive - .Meeting Results - €.~}aObwr 6. 1999 Town of Vail - Community Development - PEC -Minutes 12/20/99
Ardh - November 8, 1999 1111:15:15 11
I
3vv o `.'ail - Co?nmanit., Deve'op_ient - PEC - ITV- inutes 1111:15:15
12/20/99 11
I - Am-n- ie - O toa)er 25, 1.9Q`9 Town of Vail - Con-ti nit! v Devtkanment - PEC - Min-utes 12/20199
1- Arch ve - October 1 i , 19Q9 1111:15:15 11
oa of Vail - Comm-unity De=.-Ii-pm ent - PEC - vu~utes 12/20/99
Arch we - September 27. 1 QQQ 1111:15:14 11
http://civaiLco.us/ vti bin/shtmlexe/search.htm 12/25/1999
Town of Vail - Visiting Vail Page 1 of 2
V OWN,.' OF VA 11,
E C
! 1741 I / \ iAi Y\~ ! P .!i\iR tl i ~ ? \ 7 1 I - S i
L
x
With world renowned skiing,
# diverse shops and u
- - - restaurants, luxurious
accommodations and breath-
taking mountain views, Vail is
r:
arguably the finest resort r` 4 f
destination in the world.
Although the skiing is
unsurpassed, much of Vail's
charm comes from its
uniquely-designed alpine
village and pedestrian system. Most lodges and condominiums an
within walking distance of each other and the shops and restaurar
are clustered around the center of the resort accompanied by a Gc
Medal fishing stream. Other areas are connected by the largest fre
transit system in the country. See for yourself. Vail is a ,great place
visit--summer or winter.
Vail_ Valley Tourism and- Convention Bwreau
t
{
alt
http://civail.co.us/visitingivisiting.htm 12120/1999
I • Town of Vail - Living in Vail Page 1 of 1
a TVWX:OF;-
i >
~ TI )V IY II! I I!IV R II
I. Qq!
~M ; 4 a
- r
bi x
Vail is home to 4,500
permanent residents, plus
another 5,000 part-timer`
residents of vacation J,
properties, Together, we
value a lifestyle that
combines one of the best
alpine resorts in the world
with a friendly, small-town =
feel. We're a thriving
mountain community with excellent schools, a state of the art
hospital, outstanding skiing and other recreational facilities and
more open space than any resort community in the U.S. We cheris
our alpine environment as our most important natural resource an
we all work hard to protect it. Welcome to our world.
Community Development Sales Tax
Design Review Board c ias "i - r. rrns
Planning and Environmental Cornmis_io; r a: ".I for c skew:.
Environmental P:egrams and Res aurant inspections :!;ail ';_ovgi ;g Tax F/'-.Gs
Furxsan Fesour.es Bail Transit
,I. ~Lmn~^.i r r, :r..'dr!iTI3S ti~US r.. i.clca s
http://ci-vaiLco.us/fiving.htm 12/20/1999
12-25-1999 -11:31AM FROM MB MAC MEDIA 303 831 4427 P.1
December 24, 1999
Mayor Ludwig Kurz
Town Council Members
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
RE- Proposed Village inn Hotel'Compiex
Dear Mr. Mayor and Town Council Members,
As the publishers of Vail-Beaver Creek Magazine and several other valley
publications we are kept abreast of the public pulse both local and visitor. Over
the past few years comment has run decidedly in the negative. Greed appears
as the common complaint followed by the loss of quaintness enjoyed in years
past.
While growth by its nature will diminish quaintness it can, and has in other areas,
be accomplished without the perverse and short sighted greed evidenced in the
approval of the Village Inn Project, as it is currently offered.
The scale of this project is too massive not only in a visual sense but from a
consumptive perspective as well. "Creating a Monster" may well be the epitaph
that this council will leave if this project is given hasty approval.
Give this project more thought.
Best regards) 1 t;. ".1 t
1 :N• ri.: ,1
MEDIA, LLC
4(,477
Afl,
D. Michael Barry
President' and Publisher
I.-1/ HZI.IA l7
III ,II1.'•r'I..n rl li\,niR]
JOHN BREYO
18 Summerfield Lane -
Saratoga Springs, N.Y. 12866
Telephone: 518-464-2350
December 24,1999
Mayor Ludwig Kurz and Town Council Members,
Planning and Environmental Co......:ssion,
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Village Inn Hotel
Dear Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is to confirm the following:
1. I am the owner of Unit 2 and Unit 3 in the Vail Gateway. They are directly adjacent to the
proposed Village Inn Hotel.
2. I have not received written notice from the Town of Vail nor from Stoltz Management about the
Village Inn proposal or about any Planning and Environmental CoL...L:ssion meetings or about Design
Review Board meetings or Town Council meetings. I object to any meetings without proper and
actual written notice. Further I object to any informal meetings.
3. I purchased my unit relying in part on the existing master plan and existing SDD approval.
4. I object to the Village Inn violating the master plan, the SDD approval, and blocking the view
corridor towards Gold Peak. The proposed plan will block my views, put my units into a shadow,
create traffic problems, create pollution problems and destroy the village ambiance. Also the proposed
hotel will come within about two feet of the Vail Gateway on the side where one of my units is
located. This creates afire hazard as well as a security hazard.
5. I object to any Town Council members voting on the issue of the Village Inn Hotel who have
prejudged the matter and have already indicated their decision before I even have a chance to provide
any input into the process. According to an article in the Vail Daily dated December 23, 1999, many
of the Town Council members have decided the issues prior to my being given notice and an
opportunity to become involved in the process.
Very Truly Yr 5s,
John Breyo
12-24-99 09:43pm From- T-043 P. 02102 F-535
David W. Hanna
December 24, 1999
Mayor Ludwig Kurz and Town Council Members,
Planning and Environmental Commission,
and George Ruther, Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Fax: 970-479-2452
Re: Vail Village .Inn
Dear Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen:
1 am writing to express my concern about the proposed Vail Village Inn Hotel
project. The plan is too large for Vail Village and will create a high-density
feeling upon entering Vail.
I am an original owner of a condo in the Vail Gateway, with living room and
bedroom windows facing Frontage Road and with side windows facing the
proposed project. I expect Frontage Road and the round-about will become very
congested, creating an intolerable amount of traffic outside our living room and
bedroom windows. And from what I understand, the hotel will be very close to
the east side of the Gateway building - and therefore very close to our bedroom
and bathroom windows. Not only will this project severely impact our privacy.
I expect the project will cause a substantial decline in our property value and its
marketability-
We chose to buy a condo in Vail because we enjoy its elegant village
atmosphere. We rely upon the good judgement of Vail's leaders to preserve this
appeal. I urge you to reject this proposal for the benefit of the residential
owners in the Vail Gateway and for the benefit of Vail Village.
;WHanna
vVa Residential Owner, Unit #4
cc: The Honorable Jack Kemp
948 Rembrandt Street
Laguna Beach. CA 92651
s - -
Stephen & Corinne Saldanha
7202 Ayrshire Lane 1380 Westhaven Circle
Boca Raton FL 33496 Vail CO 81657
Fax: 561 852 1160 Fax: 970 476 7323
Email: SSaldanha@pacernet.com
Mayor Ludwig Kurz
Town Council Members
Planning and Environmental C,~..,..,Lssion
George Ruther - Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Fax: 970-479-2452
Re: Vail Village Inn - Proposed New Hotel
Dear Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen:
We have been part of the Vail Valley c.....anity for twenty-one
years and have watched our beautiful area grow into an
International Resort Destination.
The recent news regarding the plans to tear down the Vail Village
Inn and replace it with a new hotel as high as 7/8 stories is
most concerning-to us.
In our considered opinion the proposed hotel requires c.,,Alance
with the Vail Master Plan and Vail Building Codes and Standards,
and, as such, needs to be reconfigured in four key areas:
1. The requirement to maintain the character of Vail Village
as a Village
2. The building height requirements
3. The set back requirements to Vail Frontage Road, The Vail
Gateway and Vail Village Condo Buildings
-4. The views toward the mountain - specifically Gold Peak
In addition, concerns of the c.,..-m- ity with regard to over-built
hotel acc.,......odations and increased road traffic so close to the
Vail roundabout need to be fully evaluated.
If this is approved, as is, there will be no justification in the
future to turn d-.... other applications for destroying the
character of Vail Village, obliterating the views of the
mountain, preventing the construction of high-rise buildings or
requiring necessary set backs.
We understand the first reading of the ordinance is set for Jan.
4, 2000. We urge you, Mayor, Ladies and Gentl.~..._.., to uphold the
laws of our beautiful Village and make sure this project conforms
to all the requite ~..wnts and standards applicable, before approval
is granted.
We are well aware how difficult it must be to satisfy all the
demands required by a diverse and growing c-...-anity. However, you
the guardians of our beautiful environment must enforce
c-.,.liance with the Vail Master Plan and Vail Building Codes and
Standards for the benefit of all the people of Vail.
Sinc Y.
iq
Stephen A Sal{danha Corinne N Saldanha
Daniel E. Virnich
4320 Glen Falls Lane
Vail, CO. 81657
970-479-6345
December 28, 1999
Mayor Ludwig Kurz & Town Council Members
Planning & Environmental Commission, and
George Ruther, Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO. 81657
Re: Vail Village Inn
Dear Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am writing to voice my strong objection to the proposed Vail Village Inn Project. I have
been a full time resident of Vail for the past 'six years and have owned property here for
over ten years.
My objections can be summarized as follows:
A. The scope of the project, particularly the height, is not in keeping with the
character of Vail. I believe the character should continue to be that of a cozy
Alpine village. A project of this size-particularly at the entrance to Vail, is
not consistent with this image. I am concerned that the visibility of this to all
entering Vail as well as those passing by will lend a `Nigh Rise" image to the
Village totally inconsistent with its character.
B. There is no demonstrated need for more hotel rooms in Vail. The recent
struggle to utilize the existing rooms is evident and with the indicated flattening
of the ski industry growth curve will only serve to exacerbate the vacancy
issues.
Recently there have been articles in our local newspapers setting forth the
the difficulties experience by the projects next door neighbor-the Gateway
Center as well as the increasing number vacancies in the village core. I am
told that our existing hotels are struggling to maintain 70% occupancy rates
even in the peak season. Such an expansion of a business in the Village core
will make this struggle much more difficult. We need good strong profitable
businesses in the Village-creating additional competition in a weak business
environment is not the answer to the current dil; ....i faced by our c„.ercial
center.
C. We face an employee crisis. One only needs to pick up the local newspaper to
understand the crisis that exists for our current businesses to find an adequate
number of qualified employees. Increasing the demand for employees by over
100 will only make this increasingly difficult problem worse. Need I also
mention the demand put on employees housing-a problem which is far from
being solved.
D. Traffic-the studies I have seen suggesting that this project will have only
minimal traffic impact must be flawed. I remember the traffic problems before
the roundabouts. It appears to me that our traffic problem is again getting out
of hand. I am sure each of you in the last couple of weeks has struggled gQal,g
into and out of the main parking lot during peak times(which incidentally seem
to be getting longer and longer). The addition of 290 parking places in the
middle of the current congestion can only make it worse.
E. Precedent-I am concerned that the approval of this project sets a dangerous
precedent for future development that will be almost impossible to control.
If this project is approved what are you going to say to the next developer
that comes along with respect to height, traffic, employee demands etc.
I believe it is time that this town be managed for the residents, property owners and
existing business entities rather than for the benefit of the real estate developers and
their related businesses. If every time one of these `favored people"comes up with a project
and it is approved whether or not it makes c,, ...on sense- then the future of our wonderful
part of the world is indeed bleak.
I think now is the time to sit back and look at the scope and problems associated with this
project through the eyes of your real constituencies-the people who live and own property
here. If you do I am sure you will turn this project down.
Very truly yours,
Dec-31-99 11:32A TRIGO 19706450762 P.02
Nlrs.
December 29, 1999
Mayor Ludwig Kurz
& Town Council Members
Town of Vail
75 S Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Tranmission by Fax: 479-2452
Re: Village Inn Hotel
Dear Mayor, Ladies & Gentlemen:
The plan ned'construction of the Vail Village Inn remodel does not keep with the building
tradition of Vail Village. The plans call for a huge building that betrays the warmth and
Bavarian tradition of'our town.
Many ofour visitors, like ourselves, find in Vail a respite from big and tall buildirip,
traffic problems and the congestion and pollution these cause.
We would encourage you to think this through thoroughly and look after the environs that
have made Vail what attracted so many of us to invest here.
Respect' rs,
ens fRto Trigo ,
BTG/tt
/`^a,il; 7 ~r~1 01 ic" lip-T WHO • t. n~:•.,. 16,20
` Der. 29. 1999 .4:40IDM FIELD CONTAINER No. 7214 P. 2
FIELD CONTAINER COMPANY, L.P. Larry Field
Chief Executive Officer
December 29, 1999
Mayor Ludwig Kurz and Town Council Members,
Planning and Environmental Commission,
And George Ruther, Senior Planner
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Vail Village-Inn
Dear Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen:
As a homeowner on West Forest Road in Vail, I would like to voice
my strong objection to the Village Inn Hotel project that was rejected
by the last council.
I feel the revised plan is still too large for Vail. The project will cause
a density problem, increase traffic, and set a precedent for applications
for other tall buildings to be approved.
The mandate from Vail residents and the Master Plan call for Vail
Village to be kept a village. This is being disregarded.
I am voicing my concern and would appreciate your strong
consideration of this message. I can be reached via fax at 847-956-
9250.
Very truly yours,
fr> h
- t.
Larry Field
fpm
1500 Nicholas Boulevard Telephone847.956.3II6
Elk Grove village, IlflnOiS 60007 Facsimile 847,956.9250
FILE 31.5 3 4
I LETTER DATE
NAME Lk h w TIME IN
TIME DUE
ADDRESS
CLERK
CITY PHONE ? S~ S TWIN CHECK
v~
3°s " 3 ~-1 ~ 37 3s ; i
i
i
l-G~-60
ONLY ONE+ROLL OF FILM OR'GNE:SfZE=NEGATIVE'PER ENVELOP:,,E
FILM TYPE 'RASA .EXPOSURES "SIZE `
- REPRINTS:
? KODAK ? 100 ? 12 ? 1 i 0 r~o of r~EG sru+r~s
0 FUJI' Q 200` 1,5 w~ 3hx5 []O.Wallets
M
? 24 ? ' 126 ~4 x 6 [}~Panoramlc,.
? KONICA , 0= 400 ? 25
? AGFA ? '1000 ENLARGEMENTS
?36 ? 1
35
;
? 3 M 'El .1600 0 '40
I.
? ? ? e
'Q MA i n d'3- X,5 NO.OF
PRINT
L}GLOSSY 14 XA6 '='1 C M
ADES
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS PRICE
?C
?H
$ 9e-711
E
?P $ )(-7
TOTAL $
NO. OF ,
TAX
PRINTS
TOTAL
i
~
Tai w y
.
k
~ r `
` ~t~~
~~J=xeesf
NOT
y
AAA"
At
~ av~e
dep. '
w
r
...J~icl~yA!
i
F fir
Al
d
r
if 1 it I~
°
tl yR'
tr? ~ , :E1 d
MAN
3
fit!
mina WO&W-M
s:
4b
UAW-
1
t
1~
,A
i
3
~ ~ ~
Y~ F s
i
r= ~a
~ ,
~ t ` tiT
f'
t ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~'t~t
r
~
J _ ~
~ _ ,..tom-*`"` r
1
_ . y.~..~ n 1 n.n . '
r
a -
w~
ililillilljii
1
X
r
4 r
R
T"i
~ t
4 ,r i3 ~g, y lo'v yii i, t_ 4rt
1 K
a
i
- .
- ~
~ s_R x i
9~n.
{ 1. ~ - <
li .
~ ~
.j~_ '
, -
_r
L
Pf(`,
r~ ,E
ifil, -
r 1 dperM.slKi s '3 r
Mks
t
rte:
- Al V
r r I ~ y~ ~r
a NI -Z ri la
ro ~ t
/
R
f' r
~C~ 1 'Yi
1 .r".r ~
r
Y ~
i ~ ~ r ~ ~ ,
yr`''"^
i. .o
A- .l1
{
f air
R • .'t
~"T_P vt ~~sn+ i
„y+°'_^'
~s ~
_ ~ ~ 8
4 <y
r sir r4~... :i.: ..f.~
r'
-,may eY'"` e
1
v ~
01/04/2000 15:21 19498639417 CAYMAN DEVELOPMENT PAGE 01
Raymond J. Rutter
Vail Village Inn, Unit 401
100 E. Meadow Drive
Vail, CO 81657
By Facohnile to: 970.479-2452,
Mayor Ludwig Kurz and Town Council Members
c/o Mr. George Ruther, Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
January 4, 2000
Re: Vail Village Inn
Dear Mayor Kurz and Council Members:
A few other owners of property within Vail Village Inn verbally informed me that
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000 regarding the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal will be
considered for introduction at your January 4, 2000 meeting. This letter expresses my
strong objections to the developer's proposal and the primary reasons why I believe you
should deny the proposed ordinance.
My concerns are principally rooted in the same objections that other owners within VVI
have previously expressed In regard to this matter, i.e., the excessive magnitude of the
proposal, in terms of height and view impairment. The unprecedented breadth of the
project's components, when contrasted with the established and well founded policies of
the Master Plan for this area, make it an entirely inappropriate proposal. I am even more
concerned about the fashion in which this process has been evaluated; a process, if it
were widely known, should properly evoke outrage among the citizenry of the Town of
Vail.
The Prooosal:
The Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously recommended approval of
the proposal together with certain conditions of approval. When one considers the
excessive magnitude and scope of the major amendments sought by the developer for
this SDD area, I cannot comprehend how or why the Town of Vail city fathers would
knowingly ignore the safeguards established for everyone's protection in the Master
Plan. On its surface, the staff analysis appears to address each required finding
concerning proposals of this type.
However, many of the conclusions fail as legitimate findings of fact. They are merely
biased and unsupportable assertions that attempt to shed a favorable light upon
something that deviates markedly from what was envisioned as a proper intensity of land
use for this area.
%01/04/2000 15:21 19498639417 CAYMAN DEVELOPMENT PAGE 02
Mayor Ludwig Kurz and Town Council Members
January 4, 2000
Page 2
Please consider just a few of the requisites for approving major deviations from the
vision of the Master Plan:
1. 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.
Comment: Not once has the developer approached VVI to discuss his plans. There
was no regard whatsoever on his part to do the right thing and share thoughts with
those most directly affected. I have been a residential developer for 35+ years and
always make it a point to seek community input. In this case, we have been
stonewalled in a most cavalier fashion. Many VVI owners do not live here full time.
Given that fact, I would have thought the city would have demanded that the
developer make every effort to produce information and request the opportunity to
make a presentation, with ample advance notice. Moreover, how can a finding on
things touted by the developer, such as the 'potential' for increased revenue to the
town outweigh the long-term negative effects that a massive structure in front of
existing structures presents? One is theoretical and the other is an absolute - by
following your own Master Plan and ordinances, your decision must necessarily be
weighted heavily on the issue of land use impacts, such as massing, view
impairment, privacy, shadow effects, etc_
2. The intensity of the proposal and its attendant deviations in no way meets the test of
providing benefits that outweigh the effects of such deviations. The zoning analysis
within the staff report clearly shows an overbuilding scenario. Curiously, the
underlying zoning of public accommodation was originally contrasted against the
proposal as the measure of impacts (ref. Staff analysis dated 1/1199). Now, however,
the existing Vail Village Inn is an inserted point of reference, ostensibly to show that
the VVI and the proposal are not unalike. Comment, To an extent, this is true.
However, the point of the Master Plan is to maintain an equilibrium between the
lower structures and the tailor structures.The proposal is to place a ± 73 foot building
in an area that was envisioned to only be 3 or 4 stories in height.
In substance and effect, the support the proposal has garnered in the staffs analysis is
predicated upon findings purporting to embody "facts,' which at best are rationalizations
designed to produce the illusory effect of demonstrating that the deviation measures up
to the code's criterion. I believe it is your unequivocal obligation to take the important
purposes of the Master Plan and the code's provisions much more seriously than merely
utilizing these as a guide that can be explained away or even dismissed out of hand, as
intimated in the analysis.
01/04/2000 15:21 19498639417 CAYMAN DEVELOPMENT PAGE 03
Mayor Ludwig Kurz and Town Council Members
January 4, 2000
Page 3
The Process:
I believe that not requiring a full Environmental Impact Assessment for this intense
proposal will surely subject the Town of Vail to a court challenge as to the adequacy and
depth of their evaluation, should the proposal be approved absent this very necessary
document. When any land use intensity is proposed to be nearly doubled over that of
existing standards, I cannot think of any jurisdiction that dispenses with a full
environmental assessment.
Second, I find it particularly distasteful that I do not receive public hearing notices; for
this is the second time I experienced being unaware of your deliberations. In 1992, a
proposal for the expansion of VVI was approved without any notice whatsoever being
received by me. Imagine the shock of seeing a new building blocking my view of the
valley upon my arrival and the sad resignation that nothing could be done about it at that
point- Not only are your notice practices flawed, but I feel they are very likely to and up
the subject of a court challenge in this instance because they do not exercise due care
to inform the public. The Town of Vail should be most sensitive to this, given the known
absentee ownership profile of the village. Moreover, the practice of mailing notices to the
managing agent provides no assurances of notice distribution to owners. In our
particular case, Mr. Joe Stauffer has a conflict of interest that has been addressed
thoroughly to you in a letter sent by Mr. Charles Lipcon.
Finally, I believe a sensible plan can be arrived at by cooperation and interaction - not
stonewailing as is the case I believe we have here. None of the concepts of the proposal
defy encyclopedic definition - they are easily compared to benchmarks of measure that
were created in the Master Plan, with a vision to protect the integrity and purpose of this
fine community. As such, I urge you to refrain from committing the subject property to
such an intense use and to consider utilizing the tools available to you to ensure that a
responsible proposal is given the chance to be properly and thoroughly evaluated on
behalf of everyone concerned.
Ve truly yours,
FFom: James Johnson Sr. To: george ruther Date: 1/4/00 Time: 5:59:32 PM Page 2 of 3
January 4, 2000
JAMES R. JOHNSON
Vail Gateway Unit R-1
12 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Phone: 970.477.2035
Fax: 970.477.4697
Re: Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000
Construction of The Vail Plaza Hotel
MAYOR LUDWIG KURZ, Town of Vail Council Members, Planning and Environmental
Commission Members, and George Ruther, Senior Planner, Town of Vail.
LADIES & GENTLEMEN,
Please be advised that I am the owner of Unit R-1 located in the Vail Gateway Plaza Building.
I have owned this unit since October of 1998. When we agreed to purchase this unit from the
prior owner, we were made aware of certain plans to develop the adjacent property by our real
estate agent, Frank McKibben. At that time the project was still in a design phase. When we
inquired about the impact of the proposed project to the Gateway Building, Mr. McKibben
referred to the Village Master Plan. He made specific reference to both the view corridor
requirements as well as the maximum height requirement of 48 feet. The Austria House plan
was
specifically mentioned because the atto,,,pt to build a higher structure was voted down by the
existing Town of Vail Council.
I object to the passage of Ordinance No. 1, Series 2000 for the following reasons:
* as an adjacent property owner we were never notified of any public hearings
regarding the to proposed Vail Plaza Hotel, applications for a major amendment
to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, or any changes
to the existing Vail Village Master Plan via variance or ordinance.
* passage of ordinance No. 1, Series 2000 would appear to be in direction violation
of the Vail Village Master Plan. What will prevent future developers from seeking i
relief from the Master Plan? How many years until this enchanting mountain
village looks like Beaver Creek or Copper Mountain?
i
i
* for purely selfish reasons, I like the warmth and light the sun provides me almost
I
ti
From: James Johnson Sr. To: george ruther Date: 1/4/00 Time: 5:59:32 PM Page 3 of 3
everyday. I bought this property for the panoramic view of the mountains. I will
loose both if you vote in favor Ordinance No. 1
In closing, I am baffled by your support of a project that makes many promises that are
questionable, from proposed revenues for the Town to the sophmorish traffic study. I am
involved in the property development business in Western Pennsylvania. Never in my 25 years of
experience have I witnessed a governing body charging wholeheartedly towards approving a
project that violates an exiting ordinance (Vail Village Master Plan), and is not in the best interest
of the residents of Vail Village. Approval opens "PANDORA'S BOX" for all future developers.
Once this process is in motion what will stop owners of exiting 2 and 3 story buildings, i.e.
Meadow Drive properties, from. legally demanding equal treatment. Thank you for any
consideration.
Sincerely,
James R. Johnson
sent via fax: 970.479.2452
e-mail: gruther(cbci.vail.co.us
hand deiliverd January 4, 2000
Dec-31-99 11:30A TRIGO 19708450762 P_01
/v1r'. Ctr1i~ ~:iCl•Zic.~Plc~ ~.?•i~~t_~
A,••111 • C-01.16 "Will
December 29, 1999
Mayor Ludwig Kurz
& Town Council Members
Town of Vail
75 S 1:...-.fie Road
Vail, CO 81657
Tranmission by Fax: 479-2452
Re: Village Inn Hotel
Dear Mayor, Ladies & Gentlemen:
The planned construction of the Vail Village Lin remodel does not keep with the building
tradition of Vail Village. The plans call for a huge building that betrays the warmth and
Bavarian tradition of our town.
Many of our visitors, like ourselves, find in Vail a respite from big and tall buildinbK,
tragic problems and the congestion and pollution these cause.
We would encourage you to think this through thoroughly and look after the environs that
have made Vail w t attracted so many of us to invest here,
;enigno T igo
BTG/tt
Wil: °o•d u)tj'C-C Box 'l:'tS(1 • ~1vpn, l-.~ui•.a'i.: n 11;!I(1
Dec. 29. 1999 4:37PY FIELD CONTAINER No. 7213 P. 1
FIELD CONTAINER COMPANY, L.R - Larry Field
Chief Executive Officer
December 29,1999
Mayor Ludwig Kurz and Town Council Members,
Planning and Environmental Commission,
And George Ruther, Senior Planner
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Vail Village Inn
Dear Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen:
As a homeowner on West Forest Road in Vail, I would like to voice
my strong objection to the Village Inn Hotel project that was rejected
by the last council.
I feel the revised plan is still too large for Vail. The project will cause
a density problem, increase traffic, and set a precedent for applications
for other tall buildings to be arr...ved.
The mandate from Vail residents and the Master Plan call for Vail
Village to be kept a village. This is being disregarded.
I am voicing my concern and would avy.;.ciate your strong
consideration of this message, I can be reached via fax at 847-956-
9250.
Very truly yours,
Larry Field
/pm
1500 Nicholas Boulevard Teiephonee479563226
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007 Facsimile W.956-9250
liec b5 11:04F CHHRLES R. LIPCON 1-970-476-8681 p.l
J.
Stephen & Corinne Saldanha
7202 Ayrshire Lane 1380 Westhaven cirdle
Boca Raton FL 33496 Vail CO 61657
Fax: 561 852 1160 Fax: 970 476 7323
Email: SSaldanha@pacernet.eom
Mayor Ludwig Kurz
Town Council 1--,„i :rs
Planning and Envi-_.--..ntal Cammassion
George Ruther - Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Fax: 970-479-2452
Re : Vail Village Inn - p-,,,-,Bed Now Hotel
Dear Mayor, Ladies and Gentl,:;..
We have been part of the Vail Valley commmIty for twenty-one
years and have watched our beautiful area y. ..u into an
International Resort Destination.
The recent news 1-vc rding the plans to tear down the Vail Village
Inn and replace it with a new hotel as high as 7/8 stories is
most con--- -zing to us.
In our considered opinion the proposed hotel requires ..,..,.,~liance
with the Vail Master Plan and Vail Building Codes and Standards,
and, as such, needs to be reconfigured in four key areas:
1. The requir_,......t to maintain the character of Vail Village
as a Village
2. The building height requ ements
3. The set back requi_:- ntz to Vail Frontage Road, The Vail
Gateway and Vail Village Condo Buildings
4. The views toward the mountain - specifically Gold Peak
In addition, con---ns of the c.,..--mity with regard to over built
hotel acc.,,......'ations and increased road traffic so chose to the
Vail roundabout need to be fully evaluated.
Dec-29 99 11:04p CHARLES R. LIPCON 1-970-476-8681 p.2
If this is approved, as is, there will be no justification in the
future to turn down other applications for destroying the
character of Vail Village, obliterating the views of the
mountain, preventing the construction of high-rise buildings or
requiring necessary set backs.
We understand the first reading of the ordinance is set for Jan.
4, 2000. We urge you, Mayor, Ladies and Gentlems.., to uphold the
laws of our beautiful Village and make sure this project conforms
to all the requi.__..:nts and standards applicable, before
is granted.
We are well aware how difficult it must be to satisfy all the
demands required by a diverse and y_..,,.ing c., .,,mi.ty. you
the guardians of our beautiful envi_. , __..,,..t must enforce
compliance with the Vail Master Plan and Vail Building Codes and
standards for the benefit of all the r _..r.le of Vail.
Sin..
t
Stephen A danha Corinne N Saldanha
EAST VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
Officers: President - Bob Galvin Secretary - Gretta Parks Treasurer - Patrick Grattan
Directors - Judith Berkowitz - Dolph Bridgewater - Ellie Caulkins - Ron Langley - Bill Morton - Connie Ridder
To: Mayor Ludwig Kurz and Town Council Members
From: Jim Lamont, Executive Director
Date: January 3, 2000
RE: Vail Plaza Hotel SDD amendment application
The following is a recommendation for standard language of a condition of approval for
the mitigation of off-site impacts on the Vail Village Loading and Delivery system resulting
from the development of the project and other recommended conditions of approval for the Vail
Plaza Hotel SDD amendment application.
1. The property owner shall not reasonably withhold, compliance with and participation
in public or private programs, sanctioned by the Town of Vail, allowing the use and management
of certain on-site facilities, limited to loading and delivery docks and bays, freight elevators,
delivery corridors, parking and storage areas, for the remediation of off-site impacts upon the
Vail Village loading and delivery system related to the development of the project. Further,
upon the determination of the Town of Vail, the property owner may receive compensation for
the provision of said facilities and management services and/or a wavier from associated
development standards.
a. Requirement that the loading dock freight elevator service all floors of the
Phase III and proposed building below the loading dock.
2. Compliance with the Vail Village Master Plan with respect to the maintenance of 3- 4
stories height along Vail Road on that portion of the proposed building immediately south of the
Gateway Plaza Building. It is recommended that the displaced building area be relocated to the
south wing of the proposed project adjacent to the Phase V building.
a. Requirement for building height, with the exception of architectural
appurtenances, shall be at or below a line of sight, for that portion of the project, within 20-30
degrees on either side of a line from the center of the main Vail roundabout along a centerline
proximate to the central declivity of the Gateway Plaza Building.
b. Requirement that a maximum ridgeline height limitation for each wing of the
proposed building is established in the development plan.
3. Compliance with 20' property line setback limitation along Vail Road for surface
development. It is recommended that the displaced building area be relocated to the south wing
of the proposed project adjacent to the Phase V building.
4. Compliance with employee housing requirements in a manner that is not dependent
upon the use of publicly owned lands.
5. No left turns are to be allowed from the South Frontage Road exits and that a
landscaped median is constructed.
a. Requirement that if and when the Town of Vail sanctions the construction of
traffic control features allowing for a left hand turn or reserve flow for east bound traffic on the
South Frontage Road, east of the main Vail roundabout, the property owner shall participate
proportionally in the funding of the project.
Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658
Telephone: (970) 827-5680 Message/FAX: (970) 827-5856
NO. 4M P. 214
SPERBERG & ASSOCIA i ms LLC
G~ltovr and eaaWdow a ~
NORwEsr CENTER, SUITE 205
ROBERT L. SPERBERG 70 89NC14MARK ROAD. P. o. Sax 3420 97084",Z00
MICHAEL R. OUNLEME AVON, Co>_oRAoo 81620 FAX 970-845-7339
August 24, 1999
VIA 1;ACSIMILE (479-2452) and FIRST CLASS MAIL
George Ruther, Senior Planner
Town of Vail
111 S. Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Phase IV Development, Vail Village Fnn,
Dear George:
We osent Meadow Drive Ventures, Inc., owner of units 17 and 18 in Phase V of the
Village Inn Plaza Special Development District. We understand that you are the planner
assigned to the proposed devel.p.,.ent of Phase IV-13 of the Village Inn Plaza. The purpose of
this letter is to ~....4s our client's concern that adequate parking for Phase V owners be
provided for in the Phase IV-A development plan.
It is common knowledge to all of us that the original developer of the Village Inn Plaza
Special Devel~k,-eat District 6 ("SD6'~ wanted to defer the responsibility to provide parking for
the project until the latter stages of the project. To accomplish ibis, the original developer
successfully persuaded the Town of Vail to permit the construction of Phases I-B, 1-C, II-A,
II-B, a portion of Phase III and Phase V, all without parking of any kind (or with a minimum
amount of parking availability), with its promise to provide parking for these phases in the larger
Phase III and Phase IV smwtures. These v-uaatiSeS, for the most part, were placed of public
record. The promise specific to Phase V was contained in a document entitled "Declaration of
Basements and bights," recorded February 4, 1988, in Book 478 at Page 377, in the records of
the Recorder for Bagle County, Colorado, in that document, the developer promised as follows:
"Upon separation and subdivision of Phase V from the Property,
any vehicular parking, in addition to that contained in phase III
and phase IV, required to satisfy the total parking requirement of
the SD6 development plan shall be included in the development
plan for Phase IV, when such plan is submitted to the Town of
Vail for its 4Vv oval-"
NO. 435 P. 3/4
3
The developer fiutber obligated itself to provide parking for Phase V owners in Phase IV
of the project by granting Phase V owners certain rights, as follows;
Declsraut hereby and conveys to each Owner, its tenants
and their respective customers and invitees, the right to use such
vehicular parldng spaces on Phase IV under the terms and conditions
as are reasonably established by the owner of phase TI including,
without limitation, the right to charge a fee for the use of such
vehicular parking spaces..."
Based upon such promise, the Toxin of Vail permitted the original developer to construct
Phase V without parking of any kind, except for about three outside p, .l.;~.g spaces on the
northwest side of the building, reserved cxclusively for commercial owners, and two "loading
zone only" parking spaces made available in the some location for all owners. Thus, residential
owners in Phase V have nothing but the developers promise, and the Town of Vail's resolve, to
ensure that they have adequate parking for themselves and their guests and invitem.
In order to make the residential units in Phase V attractive to potential purchasers, the
original developer sold to each purchaser of a residential unit a ca ndominiumized parking place
owned by the developer in Phase M. These parking places were deeded separate Tr..... the units,
and were not made appurtenant to the units. Thus, each owner was free to resell his/her/its
panting place independent of his/her/its unit. At least one such owner has taken advantage of
that ownership arrangement. A predecessor of Meadow Greek Ventures purchased two units
(Units 17 and 18) in Phase V and was thus allowed to purchase two parking spaces in Phase III
as a result. The owner then combined the two units into one penthouse unit, and sold the
penthouse unit to a purchaser. In the sale, the owner sold only one of the two parking spaces to
the purchaser, and retained the rather parking space for his own use. As it turns out, the prior
owner also owned other,. -,erty in Vail (not in the Village Inn Plaza SD6), and wanted the
second parlang space for that unit.
The sum result of the deveL k..ueat of SD6 to date is that no parking exists in SD6 for
owners in Phase V other than what they have been able to purchase l independent owners of
condominiumized parking places in Phase M. With respect to Phase III condomiumized parking
spaces, none are deed restricted for use solely by owners in SD6, and all may be sold to owners
outside SD6. In fact, many such spaces have already been sold to owners outside SD6. Thus,
there is no guarantee that the condominiumized parking spaces in Phase III will be available for
owners in SD6, or Phase V for that matter, in the future. The only thing the owners in Phase V
have to ensure adequate parking in the filture is the original owner's r. ~...ise as quoted above.
- - NO. 435 P. 4/4
We are of the view that any condominiumized parking space in Phase III that is not deed
restricted for use solely in S136 or otherwise restricted to parking within SD6 should not count
toward the required parking in SD6 established by the the Town of Vail Ordinance No, 7, Series
of 1976, as amended. After all, the parking requirements for the special development district
were based upon the anticipated parking need in the special district, not the Town of Vail in
general. Thus, in accordance with the promises made by the original developer, the current
developer of Phase YV-A should be required to provide all remaining paddng required for SD6, .
not including parking spaces in Phase III without deed restrictions. Luther, in accordance with
the promises wade in the above-quoted document, at least a portion of the parking provided in
Phase IV-A (about 36 spaces) should be deed restricted for use by Phase V residential owners.
Any other resolution of the parking issue would result in Phase V owners being denied what was
promised to them in a document filed of public record, upon which they relied in purchasing
their properties.
We ask that the Town of Vail act to protect the interests of the owners in Phase V when it
considers and approves the development plan for Phase IV-A. We think that the Town Council
and the Planning Department have an obligation to protect such interests, since the Town
Council was the gov".....ental entity that allowed construction of Phase V without the required
parking based solely upon a promise of the developer to provide such parking in the future Phase
IV plans. The failure of the Town to protect the interests of the owners in Phase V would result
in a substantial diminution in the value of Phase V residential units, and would be a denial of
substantial substantive rights r.ti...ised and conveyed to such owners by the original developer.
We thank you in advance for your consideration of this letter, and your anticipated
cooperation in ensuring that the owners in Phase V of SD6 get what was promised to them by the
original developer. If we can answer any questions, or provide additional please
call.
Sincerely YO ,
Robert . Sperberg
_ LAW OFFICES
DUNN, ABPLANALP & MAURIELLO, P.C.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
JOHN W. DUNN WESTSTAR BANK BUILDING TELEPHONE:
ARTHUR A. ABPLANALP, JR. 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST (970) 476-0300
DIANE HERMAN MAURIELLO SUITE 300 FACSIMILE:
(970) 476-4765
OF COUNSEL: VAIL, COLORADO 81657
JERRY W. HANNAH e-mail: vaillaw@vail.nec
CERTIFIED LEGAL ASSISTANTS
January 3, 2000 KAREN M. DUNN, CLAS
JANICE K. SCOFIELD, CLA
Town Council
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail CO 81657
Re: Vail Plaza Hotel
Dear Mayor and Council:
As you know, this firm represents Charles Lipcon, the owner of a residential unit
at Vail Gateway Plaza and a member of the board of directors of the owners association at Vail
Gateway. It is our understanding that the first reading of the ordinance to approve a major
amendment of the development plan for Special Development District #6, to permit the
constriction of the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel, will be heard on January 4, 2000. The purpose of
this letter is to set forth Mr. Lipcon's concerns with respect to that project.
Enclosed are copies of our letter to the Planning and Environmental Commission
dated June 2, 1998, and of our letter to the Town Council dated February 2, 1999. Set forth in
those letters are our legal position with respect to the non-compliance of the 1998 proposal with
the Vail Village Master Plan. While the mass of the proposed building has now been reduced,
the height of it to the south of the Vail Gateway Plaza remains approximately double what is
permitted by the Master Plan. It is also noted that, on October 5, 1999, the Town Council
adopted amendments to the underlying zone district but left in place the height limitation of 48
feet for that zone district. Therefore, the proposal not only violates the height limitations of the
Vail Village Master Plan but also violates the height limitations of underlying zoning, as
readopted on October 5.
In.our letter to the PEC dated June 2, 1998, we emphasized that § 12-9A-8 of the
Municipal Code makes it the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that a proposed development
plan complies with the Vail Comprehensive Plan, that the same is not applicable or that a
practical solution consistent with the public interest had been achieved. We also observed that
we were unable to find anything in the applicant's 1998 submittal to comply with that
requirement. Indeed, on November 30, 1998, the applicant submitted an application for revision
of the height limitations of the Master Plan, which application was withdrawn on December 18,
1998.
' a
Neither is there anything in the 1999. submittal or in the staff reports to show
compliance with § 12-9A-8. Rather, the argument of the applicant, which seems to have been
accepted by staff, is that one purpose of the Master Plan height limitations, the preservation of
the view of Gold Peak from the former four-way stop, has been eroded by the construction of the
Vail Gateway Plaza and the main Vail roundabout. While those facts might support an
amendment to the Master Plan, no such amendment has occurred.
The Council is urged to bear in mind that there are important reasons to have a
master plan and to comply with it. One council member has raised two questions which we
believe demonstrate those reasons. The first question, whether the massing of the proposed Plaza
Hotel ought to be more consistent with Gateway Plaza, was responded to by staff s observation
that the underlying zoning for the two properties is different. -The other question, how the public
are to know whether views of the ski mountain remain a consideration in planning, was not fully
answered. We suggest that the Vail Village Master Plan was intended to avoid the extreme
height discrepancy between Gateway Plaza and adjoining properties and requires consistency
notwithstanding the differences in underlying zoning. We also suggest that the Master Plan is
the document which is intended to provide the public with guidance with respect to mountain
views and that, without amendment of the Master Plan, the public are justifiably confused.
The Council is also urged to bear in mind that the Vail Village Master Plan was
adopted in 1990, after Gateway Plaza was approved by Council on April 19, 1988. It is
submitted that, on the basis thereof, it cannot be seriously contended that Gateway Plaza is a
reason for disregarding the Master Plan. It is also submitted that contending that a view of the
ski mountain is no longer important because-motorists no longer queue up at a stop sign belittles
the purpose of the Master Plan.
Mr. Lipcon's concerns as to the merits of the Plaza Hotel project are compounded
by his concerns with respect to the procedure whereby the application is being handled. Public
hearing was conducted by the Planning and Environmental Commission on December 13, 1999.
Notice of that hearing was not sent to Mr. Lipcon although, as appears from the enclosed copy of
his letter to George Ruther dated January 2, 1999, he had requested notice and had advised the
Department of Community Development that the manager of the condominium association (who
is also the owner of the commercial units and who controls the association) in the past failed to
forward to residential owners the notice sent to the association. It has also come to our attention,
as appears from the enclosed copy of a letter dated January 25, 1999, addressed to the Town
Clerk, that the address for the condominium association used by the Department is incorrect, as a
result of which no notice was received even by the association. It therefore appears that notice of
the December 13 hearing was inadequate as to Gateway Plaza owners.
Council has held work sessions on the Plaza Hotel project on December 7 and 21,
at which work sessions the applicant and members of the public have testified in support of and
in opposition to the project. While we understand that first reading of an ordinance will occur on
January 4, no date for hearing on the recommendation of PEC has been set. We believe that this
method of proceeding is inconsistent with 12-3-6B and 12-3-7F of the Municipal Code, which
require that, upon receipt of the recommendation of the PEC, a date for hearing "shall be set
which shall be not more than thirty (30) days from the date of filing of the application or receipt
of the document."
It is our concern that the Council, before and after its receipt of the
recommendation of the PEC, has initiated hearings without notice and has engaged in a dialogue
with the applicant which has resulted in a majority of the Council taking a position in support of
the project prior to the hearing prescribed by the Code. While Mr. Lipcon or I have attended
1.1
those work sessions, the absence of notice to other adjacent property owners and the public
perception that the project has already been approved will cause the noticed hearing to be-
meaningless. Further, we do not understand how the council members who have publicly
announced their approval of the project can fairly sit in judgment of the application at the time of
hearing on it without denying to Mr. Lipcon and.to other adjacent property owners their right to a
fair hearing and due process of law. It is very respectfully submitted that the Council is being
"stampeded" by promises of financial benefit to their constituents and to the Town.
For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the Council reject the
recommendation of the Planning and Environmental Commission and direct the PEC and the
Town staff to engage in a meaningful review of the Plaza Hotel proposal as it relates to the Vail
Village Master Plan. In the alternative, the Council may wish to consider a moratorium on
development adjacent to south Frontage Road and Vail Road until such time as a new master
plan has been adopted to govern the planning of that area of Vail.
Yours very truly,
DUNN, ABPLANALP & MAURIELLO, P.C.
Jolin W. Dunn
jwd:ipse
cc. Mr. Lipcon
LAW OFFICES -
D'UNN, ABPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
JOHN W. DUNN' 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE: ROAD WEST TELEPHONE:
ARTHUR A. ASPLANALP, JR. SUITE 300 (970) 476-0300
ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN
MAIL, COLORADO 81657 FACSIMILE:
DIANE L. MERMAN
(970) 476.4765
R. C. STEPHENSON
KAREN M. DUNN
SPECIAL COUNSEL: June 2 1770 CERTIFIED LEGAL. ASSISTANT
JERRY W. HANNAH
Planning and Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail CO 81657
Re: Vail Plaza Hotel Project
Dear Commission Members:
We represent three residential unit owners at Vail Gateway Plaza and have been
requested by them to provide you with written comment with respect to the application of
Daymer Corporation for a major amendment to Special Development District #6, the Vail Village
Inn Site ("the Vail Plaza Motel Project" or "the Project"). Having reviewed the plans submitted
to the Town, we wish to set forth our concerns with respect to the relationship of the Project to
the Vail Village Master Plan.
From our review of the plans, it appears that the portions of the Project located
immediately adjacent to Vail Gateway Plaza will be 60 to 84 feet above the existing grade to the
south of Gateway Plaza on Vail Road and 70 to 100 feet above the existing grade to the east of
Gateway Plaza on Frontage Road. This proposed building height is not in conformity with the
Conceptual Building Height Plan of the Vail Village Master Plan, which establishes a building
height guideline on those parcels adjacent to Gateway Plaza of 3-4 (stepped) building stories.
Inasmuch as the Conceptual Building Height Plan defines "building story" as nine feet, the
corresponding building height guidelines are 27 to 36 feet. Nor is the proposed building height in
conformity with the Sub-Area # 1-1 Plan at page 37 of the Master Plan, which requires that the
mass of buildings "step-up" from pedestrian scale along Meadow Drive to 4-5 stories along
Frontage Road. Construing the two together, the structure to the south of Gateway Plaza could
not by any interpretation exceed four stories or 36 feet.
The proposed building heights for the Project adjacent to Gateway Plaza therefore
exceed master plan limitations by as much as 33,to 48 feet on Vail Road and 43 to 64 feet on
Frontage Road. In other words, the plan proposes a building that is at least twice the height
limitations of the Vail Village Master Plan on those parcels.
Section 12-9A-8 of the Vail Municipal Code includes as part of the design criteria
for approval of an SDD "conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan,
Town policies and urban design plans"' and provides, with reference to those standards, that:
"It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and
the proposed development plan comply with each of the fallowing standards, or
demonstrate that one or more of thenr is not applicable, or that a practical solution
consistent with the public interest has been achieved:..."
We are not able to find anything in the applicant's submittal to suggest that the
height limitations of the master plan are not applicable or that the applicant is proposing a solution
to the conflict with the master plan which is consistent with the public interest. We can only
conclude that the applicant is asking that,the height limitations of the master plan be ignored for
purpose of the application. It is therefore the purpose of this letter to provide you with a review
of Colorado law on the relationship between master plans and zoning, including in particular the
type of zone district know as the "planned unit development" ("PUD") or, as it is known in Mail,
the special development district ("SDD"). Based upon our review of that law, it is cur belief that
the master plans must be strictly adhered to in the consideration of SDD zoning, and we.
respectfully request that your commission so determine at the outset of its consideration of the
application.
The Colorado Supreme Court first addressed the effect of a master plan ir=
Theobakl v. Board of County, Comnr'rs, 644 P.2d 942 (Colo. 1982). In that case, the court held
that a master plan is advisory only and that, in order for it to have a direct effect on property
rights, it must be further implemented through zoning. Thereafter, in Beayer Meado ws v. Board
of County Comm rs, 709 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1985), the court held that, whi..le a roaster plan as an
advisory document is not necessarily binding on the zoning discretion of a goverrunental body, it
is binding when the zoning legislation rewires compliance with it.
Most recently, in Board of County Comm rs'v. Conder, 927 P.2d 1339 (Colo.
1996), our supreme court was faced with a subdivision application which conformed with
applicable zoning but not with the county master plan, which had been adopted as a "guideline"
by the subdivision regulations. Over two dissents, the court held that the county could enforc
the master plan compliance provision legislatively adopted as part of the subdivision regulations.
Taken together, those cases tell us that, to the extent that zoning, is inconsistent with the roaster
plan, the master plan will prevail, provided compliance with it is required by some regulation.
We recognize that the Town has great flexibility in the amendment of special
development district zonia S and that a purpose of an SDD zone district is to encourage flexibUity
and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use. We also
recognize that our local district court has upheld the Town council's adoption of SDD zoning
over a challenge based upon the argument that the adoption of it constituted "spot zoning" in
contravention of the Town's master plan. However, we are not arguing that the present
application violates objectives or policies of the master plan, which are aspirational in nature.
Rather, we are arguing that no zone district within the town may violate a very specific height
limitation imposed by the master plan, given the master plan's incorporation into the Town's
zoning, including SDD zoning.
It should also be mentioned that, so far as we are aware, there has not been district
court review of a rezoning in this county since the Conder decision. Prior to that decision, it
might have been argued that an SDD zone district, because it establishes special rules for that
zone district, may override master plan requirements. However, in Conder the court afFxmed
Larimer County's denial of an application for a PUD subdivision based upon the subdivision's
creation of density in conflict with the county master plan, even though (as the court emphasized)
the proposed use of the land was in compliance with the county's zoning resolution. It must
therefore be concluded that, if the entirety of the Larimer County zoning resolution could not
have the effect of overriding the county master plan, PUD or SDD zoning could not have that
effect.
We also recognize that zoning is a matter of local and municipal concern; that the
Town's zoning authority is governed by its own charter and ordinances, Zavala v. City & County
of Denver, 759 P.2d 664 (Colo. 1988); Service Oil Co. v. Rhodus, 500 P.2d 807 (Colo. 1972);
and that the cases cited in this letter address county master plans. However, the grant of zoning
authority is contained in Statute, § 31-23-301, C.R.S., and that authority is conditioned upon the
adoption of a master plan by § 31-23-303, C.R.S. Further, the statutory purposes governing the
adoption of a municipal master plan, § 31-23-207, C.R.S., track with those governing the,
adoption of a county master plan, § 30-28-107, C.R.S., and both counties and municipalities are
required to find master plan compliance as a condition to approval of a PUD, § 24-67-104(1)(f),
C.R.S., absent a superseding ordinance of the municipality. Vail's ordinance in fact is consistent
with that statute. Finally, the discussion contained in the county cases cited are a discussion of
general principles of land use law. It is therefore our conclusion that your comr-russion must give
literal effect to the Vail Village Master Plan, including in particular the height limitations
contained in it, in considering the application for the Project.
Of course, the Town's master plans may be amended, but that process should only
be initiated by the Town council, Pursuant to § 31-27-207, C.R.S., "careful and comprehensive
surveys and studies of present conditions and future growth" are required. Initiation of that
process, we believe, ought not be motivated by a single application.
It is our understanding that the applicant believes that the econonuc benefit of its
project to the community, including hotel accommodations and conference space, outweigh the
importance of master plan compliance. In that connection, it is well to bear in mind the purposes
of the Town's zoning regulations as they are set forth in § 12-1-2, Vail ?Municipal Code:
"these regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety,
morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and
harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance
its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential
community of high quality."
That purpose, we suggest, is intended to preserve the character of the town and not to promote
economic development.
We need not remind you that members of the public, including our clients, have
relied on the Town's land use regulations. Our clients were told, when they purchased units at
Gateway Plaza, that they would continue to have unobstructed views, and they made major
investments based upon that information. If those views are obstructed, their investments will be
significantly devalued. Our clients understand that the Town's zoning was not enacted to protect
their personal view corridors. However, because they are adjacent landowners and because the
value of their property may be affected by your recommendation to council, they have standing
before you.
Section 12-3-3, Vail Municipal Code, provides for administrative determination or
interpretation of the provisions of the zoning ordinance and for review of such determination or
interpretation by your commission. We urge you to request an interpretation of § 12-9A-8(D'
Vail Municipal Code, and a determination that that provision requires that the application before
you strictly comply with the building height limitations of the Vail Village Master Plan.
In making that request, we do not wish to minimize other aspects of the Project
which would require that on the merits your commission make a recommendation of denial of the
application. The impact of the Project on Frontage Road is difficult even to imagine.. Traffic flow
through the roundabout intersection and along Frontage Road would be increased very
substantially, with the attendant noise and pollution caused by vehicular traffic. Without an
impact analysis, it is impossible to say what the effect of the Project would be on level of service
at the Main Vail Roundabout. That impact is aggravated by the absence of pedestrian access
from the village core. Further, the refocusing of activity on Frontage Road, together with the
overall height and mass of the Project, would have a fundamental, potentially devastating effect
on the feeling and character of Vail.
We intend to press those issues at time of hearing on the application, if that stage
is reached. We again urge that an initial determination be made that the Project must comply with
the Vail Village Master Plan. That determination, for obvious reasons, would serve to focus
consideration of the application.
Yours very truly,
DUNN, 7/,,P,,LANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C.
Jo11n W. Dunn
J~/~apse
cc. Mr. Llpcon
Mr. Johnston
i
- - - - LAw OFF -ICES
DUNN, A6PLANALP & MAURIELLO, P.C.
A PRCFC3510NAL CORPORATION
JOHN W. DUNN - WEST-STAR BANK BUILDING TELEPHONE:
ARTHUR A. ASPLANALP, JR. 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD NEST (970) 476-0300
DIANE HERMAN MAURIELtO
SUITE 300 FACSIMILE:
CARRIE A. HENDON t970) 476-4765
VAIL, COLORADO 61687
SPECIAL COUNSEL: KAREN M. OUNN
JERRY W. HANNAH February 2, 1999 CERTIFIED LEGAL ASSISTANT
Mayor and Town Council
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail CO 81657
Re: Vail Plaza Hotel Project
Dear Mayor Ford and Council Members:
The purpose of this letter, written on behalf of Charles Lipcon, is to provide you
with additional corunent regarding the above project submittal.
i. Vail Village Master Plan
Included as part of the record in the above matter, is a letter dated June 2, 1998,
from this office to the Planning and Environmental Commission. That letter objects to aspects of
the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel as violating the Vail Village Master Plan. The reasoning of the
objection is based in part on the holding of our supreme court in Board of County Comm'rs V.
Conder, 927 P.2d 1339 (Colo. 1996). In essence, that case held that a master plan, once
incorporated into a land use regulation, is binding and not advisory.
At the hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Town
Attorney disagreed with that analysis. He stated it to be his opinion that the Conder case has no
application to the Town of Vail because that case involved a county regulation, as opposed to the
regulation of a home rule municipality. He stated it to be his opinion that, because the Town of
Vail is a home rule town, the Vail Village Master Plan is advisory only. The purpose of this
letter is to reply to that opinion.
It is respectfully submitted that the concept, that a master plan is advisory in
nature, arises not out of a home rule analysis but rather out of the decision of our supreme court
in Theobald v. Board of County Comm 'rs, 644 P.2d 942 (Colo. 1982). In that case, the court
held that a master plan is advisory only and that, in order for it to have a direct effect on property
rights, it must be further implemented through zoning.
The Conder case involved a master plan which had been implemented as part of
Larimer County's subdivision regulations. The court stated that:
"master plans are purely advisory documents, absent (1) formal
inclusion of sufficiently specific master plan provisions in a duly-
adopted land use regulation by a board of county commissioners or
(2) a statutory directive from the General Assembly that
landowners must comply with master plan provisions in pursuing
land use development proposals." 927 P.2d at 1345.
We note that the Vail Charter contains no authority for the adoption of zoning
regulations. For that reason, the Town car. look only to state statute for its zoning authority. It
must therefore comply with the state statutory requirement of adoption of a master plan, as it has
done. It is also bound by state law and our supreme court's interpretation of state law as to the
effect of a master plan. It is immaterial whether that interpretation involves a county government
or a home rule municipality.
Apart from that, the Vail Municipal Code makes the Town's comprehensive plan
a binding, and not an advisory, document. Section 12-9A-8, Vail Municipal Code, places the
burden on the applicant to demonstrate. 1) that a special development district submittal complies
with the comprehensive plan, 2) that the comprehensive plan is not applicable or 3) that a
practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. The proponent of the
Vail Plaza Hotel has done none of the foregoing. He simply asks that you disregard the specific
limitations of the Vail Village Master Plan, including in particular the height limitations of the
master plan.
We therefore submit that the Vail Village Master Plan cannot be passed over as an
advisory document and that the council mus,, comply with the ordinance cited above, placing the
burden on the applicant. We submit that the applicant has not met that burden and that the
application should be denied.
ii. Concerns as to Work Sessions
This project application was considered by the council in a work session on
January 25, 1999, at which time the suggestion was made that further work sessions may be
scheduled. It was also indicated, on behalf of the applicant, that concerns of the council would
be responded to.
The council is respectfully reminded that it has before it a recommendation of the
Planning and Environmental Commission. When such a recommendation is received, it's
required by § 12=3-7F, Vail Municipal Code, that a date for hearing be set. Section 12-3-6 of the
code establishes the manner in which hearings before the council must be conducted, including
the requirement of § 12-3-6D3 that all interested parties be afforded the opportunity to submit
exceptions, contentions and arguments. It is respectfully submitted that consideration of any
project in work session without notice to the public and to adjacent landowners does not comply
with that requirement. It also requested that the council avoid negotiation with the applicant,
either informally at staff level or in the course of a work session. Review of a recommendation
of the PEC is intended by the Code to be a public hearing process and not a work
session/negotiation process.
iii. Er_eorachment and t iew Agreement
Members of the council have expressed interest ire an Encrcaclament and View
Agrwement, dated October 31, 1989, between Vail Village Inn, Inc., and Leo Palmer as the
developer of the Vail Gateway Plaza. In essence, that agreement required that Palmer obtai.i
from purchasers of units at Gateway Plaza a waiver of any interest, claim or right in an
unobstructed view across VVI property.
It is emphasized that that agreement was entered into with respect to the Then
approved plans of VVI, which were altogether different in scope from the exl*sti.,g application.
Further, the agreement amounts to a private covenant and. obviously has no effect on the right of
our client to insist that the council comply with the requirements of the Vail Village Master Plan
and town ordinances.
Yours very truly,
DUNN, ABPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C.
John W. Dunn
JVVD:Jpse
cc. Mr. Lipton
Mr. Moorh?,ad
Ian 02 99 12:36P CHARLES R. LIPCON 1-9'10-476-8681 P-1
CHARLES R. LI'PCON
Vail Gateway Unit 5
12 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Co. 81657
Tel. {970} 476-9388
Fax. (970) 476-86681
January 2,19-09'
George Ruttier
Town.of Vail
Fax: 479-2452
Re: Village Inn
Dear Mr.Ruther:
Thank yOu for your letter dated Dec. 30, 1998.
Sending a notice to Stoltz Managt-t is nest adequate notice for me or the other residential owners
in the Vail Gateway with resPect to ally matters involving the Village Inn.
]Please send notices directly to me at the above address and at my Nhsmi address which is 430 X_
Mashta Drive, Key Biscayne, Fl. 33131.
Very Truly Yours,
Charles R. I icon
P.S. Please give me your email address.
cc: John Dunn
Jan 01 CU 12:53p CHRRLE5 R. L1PCON 1-570--47G-86€31 p.
momnia
P.. W. ,lesson # 19233
0510 East Beavef Creek Blvd, A l 02,E
PC Box 19000
Avon, CO 81620
(970) 949.0748 FAX f 970j74 -9825
January 25, 1999
Lorelei Donaldson
75 S. Frontage Rd.
Vail, CO 81657
,I
Re: A cidress Change of Property Owner for Public Notices j
Dear .his. Donaldson:
We are the owners of 5,'?il Gateway Plaza, The home office where. any notices of pAlic
meetings have been seat has relocated- The former ad&ess was Mountainaire Praperf'ies, Inc..
and Nloi twin Owners. L.P. clo Stoltz Bros. Ltd., 1304 Market Street, 'Suite 300,
WA agicax, DE 19801. Please replace tlu., address with the following:
Mountainaire Properties, Inc., and
Mountain Owcers, L. P.
c/o Stoltz Bros. Ltd.
725 Conshohocken State Rd.
Bata Cynwyd, PA 19004
Ann: Steve Lewis
AL,*, we now have a local office in Avon and if we could have, a copy of any corre z ondence
that goes to the home office sent to the fcLowing address it would he appreciated:
Mountaitiake Properties, .Inc.
0150 East Bearer Creek Blvd.
PO Box 19000-157
Avon, CO 81620
Attn.: Sear Snyder
Thank you for your cztion to this matter.
Ya t~*7
,11
R- Wesley Jenson
cti: Stcve LeAvis
CHARLES R. LIPCON
Vail Gateway Unit 5
12 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Co. 81657
Tel. (970) 476-5151
Fax. (970) 476-8681
January 3,2000
Mayor Ludwig Kurz and Town Council Members,
Planning and Environmental Commission,
and George Ruther, Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road Date wrieceive,
Vail, Colorado 81657
JAN 03-2000
Fax: 479-2452
Re: Vail Village Inn
Dear Sirs and Madams:
This is my second comprehensive letter in objecting to the
Village Inn Hotel. I adopt the prior letter and exhibits which I
would like considered as well as the following.
It would appear that the Town Council is about to willfully
ignore the law pertaining to the master plan and ignore the
requirement that the applicant prove up the elements for an SDD
amendment because of a desire to have more visitors to Vail and
to increase tax revenues during a period of time when the Town of
Vail is over budget. The town should look into the reason for
lack of visitors to Vail. Might they be lack of snow or the buddy
pass system under which skiers are diverted away from Vaal to
other ski areas operated by the same company or the price of
skiing in Vail? Is this an antitrust violation? Before panicking
and ruining the Vail Village, shouldn't the town look into the
possibility that the market is being manipulated.
Although the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal might have some appealing
short-term benefits for the town of Vail, it will have many long-
term disadvantages that will outweigh any possible benefits. On
the Town of Vail web site (http://ci.vail.co.us/) it states:
"much of Vail's charm comes from its uniquely-designed alpine
village and pedestrian system." "Together we value a lifestyle
that combines one of the best alpine resorts in the world with a
friendly, small town feel." Clearly the approval of the massive
hotel, spa, and convention center will change all of that. The
entrance to Vail village is where visitors get their first
impression of the Town of Vail and it will certainly be a lasting
one. The Town of Vail will obtain revenue that a project of this
size would create, but it will suffer later on. Little by little
Vail will change, starting with the construction of this massive-
structure. Tourists enjoy Vail for the exact same reasons that
you advertise on your web site; why begin a journey that will
change all of that? If you approve this project, future council
members will look to your decision to approve other proposed
projects that are uncharacteristic of Vail.-
More-importantly, the hotel, spa, and convention center would
greatly exceed the height limitations of the Vail Master Plan.1
This plan would also violate the master plan and prior SDD
approval regarding the view towards Gold Peak. Why have a master
plan if it is not followed? View analysis 7 dated'August 13, 1999
reflects that the proposed building will completely cut off the
view of the mountain.
The following design criteria set out in 12-9A-8 are being
clearly ignored.
• Compatibility
• Relationship
• Comprehensive Plan
• Design Features
• Traffic
• Landscaping
The master plan is hardly even mentioned by the applicant.
Future council members will look to your actions to justify
deviating from the design criteria and the master plan again and
again. One day, Vail will have lost much-of-its charm and
beautiful vistas. Not only will the charm and vistas be gone, but
also your approval will spark a new wave of traffic that is
certainly not in character with Vail's atmosphere. Common sense
should tell you.that the traffic analysis that was done did not
make any sense. How could an extra 147 rooms, a convention
center, a spa, restaurants, plus extra employees create only one
extra car per hour as the traffic engineer stated? We know that
is not anywhere near the truth. If the solution to that problem
is to add another lane on Vail Road, you would again be making
another step towards changing Vail's charm and unique village
1 The master plan states: "Within this context the Master Plan is one of several documents that have been developed to
preserve and strengthen the Tyrolian/Alpine character of Vail Village while allowing for limited, highly- controlled
growth.... From numerous public meetings, a concensus emerged that additional development was acceptable, even
desirable, as long as it did not signifigantly alter the existing character of the Village.... As a result, it is a development
guide for private land owners and for the Town. The Plan provides the Town direction when formulating capital
improvement programs and establishes standards for the review of development proposals on private land (pages 1,2,
and 3)
atmosphere.
It is clear what will happen to the "small town feel" when
visitors get stuck at the circle to sit there and view a massive
wall of buildings at the entrance to Vail instead of the
mountain? The pictures that were submitted to the Council by the
applicant were very misleading. Their photos show a picture of
the Vail Gateway and nothing else. We all know that when you are
going around the circle you see a lot more than just the Gateway
building.. You see beautiful mountains as you drive through the
circle.
During the last few years, the accommodations in town have not
been fully booked. The snow conditions have not been as good as
in the past, certainly accounting for the low occupancy. How will
adding an additional 147 accommodation units to the rental pool
help? Just because Vail has more places to stay, that is not what
will draw people to Vail. It is the snow conditions and the
village charm that will draw people here, not a big hotel that
can be found in any big city. If the answer to Vail's tourist
problems was adding new rooms to the rental pool, why wasn't the
Sonnenalp fully booked during the Christmas-1999 period?
One or more of the residential property owners at.the Vail
Gateway have the following objections to the Vail Village Inn A
Major Amendment to Special Development District #6 as follows:
1.Daymer Corporation has been meeting informally with various
Town of Vail committees and the Town Council in informal sessions
without providing adequate notice to the adjacent landowners.
Attached is a list of meetings obtained by doing a search of
"Daymer" on the Town of Vail web site. Proper notice of these
meetings was not given to-the adjacent landowners. This has the
effect of Daymer making its case without input from the adjacent
landowners. At the Town Council meeting on December 21, 1999
almost all of.the members of the Town Council indicated that they
would approve the project without giving all of the adjacent
landowners and the residents of Vail much, if any, input. This
violates the rights of the adjacent landowners and the.residents
of the town of Vail to due process. I OBJECT TO ANY COUNCIL
MEMBERS PARTICIPATING IN THE FORMAL VOTE WHO HAVE ALREADY
PREJUDGED THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE FORMAL VOTE TAKES PLACE.
FURTHER I OBJECT TO ANY COUNCIL MEMBER VOTING ON THE APPLICATION
THAT HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
2.In spite of numerous requests, neither I nor any of the other
residential owners in the Vail Gateway, to my knowledge, have
been given notice to most if not all of the meetings. Notice to
Stoltz Management is not adequate since they do/did not in turn
provide notice to the.owners in the Vail Gateway. The notice to
Stoltz when given, goes to the wrong address contrary to Stoltz's
letter. This information about lack of notice was previously
provided to you. YOU HAVE ACTUAL NOTICE THAT THE GIVING OF NOTICE
TO STOLTZ MANAGEMENT DOES NOT IN TURN RESULT IN NOTICE TO THE
CONDOMINIUM OWNERS IN THE VAIL GATEWAY. This is especially
troublesome in light of the fact that Stoltz Management or their
principles were represented by Jay Peterson who is also the
claimed attorney for.Daymer Corporation.
3. The Town of Vail ordinance,12-3-6 C. dealing with notice
constitutes a denial of due process and equal protection of the
law for the owners in the Vail Gateway and other adjacent
condominium owners since it does not provide for actual notice to
them as adjacent property owners. YOU HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY
INFORMED THAT THE GIVING OF NOTICE TO STOLTZ MANAGEMENT DOES NOT
IN TURN RESULT IN NOTICE TO THE CONDOMINIUM OWNERS IN THE VAIL
GATEWAY. As such, it is unconstitutional.
4. The amendment'violates the "view corridor" from the four way
stop (now roundabout) established in the SDD approval for the
Village Inn. Based on this "view corridor", the height of the
Vail Gateway was reduced. In Rick Pylman's (Town Planner for
Vail) letter dated Feb. 16-,_-1988 discussing the Vail Gateway, he
stated: "Staff feels strongly that this building (Vail Gateway)-
should present' no encroachment into the view corridor that is
established by the approved Vail Village Inn.development. The
existing design will require substantial revisions to maintain
the view parameters established by the VVI."
Photographs of the notch in the Vail Gateway building are
attached.
It would be unfair, arbitrary, and unreasonable to have reduced
the height of the Vail- Gateway based on the "view corridor" in
the SDD ordinance for the Village Inn and then to turn around and
ignore the same requirement for the Village Inn itself. The
agreement between Joe Stauffer and the Town of Vail as documented
in the SDD approval constitutes ,a recorded real covenant that
inures to the benefit of the adjacent landowners that relied on
this real covenant. The SDD approval provides for a three story
building in the "view corridor" area. The SDD approval was the
result of give and take negotiations between the Town of Vail and
Joe Stauffer. Joe Stauffer agreed to two story buildings on East
Meadow Drive and Vail Road in return for a five story building on
Frontage Road. In addition to constituting a real covenant, the
SDD approval constitutes a contract between the Town of Vail and
Joe Stauffer which insures to the benefit of adjacent owners as
third party beneficiaries.
5. The amendment violates the Town of Vail Master Plan.2 The
master plan states with respect to the Vail Village Inn: "Mass of
buildings shall step up from existing pedestrian scale along
Meadow Drive to 4-5 stories along Frontage Road.... Design must be
sensitive to maintaining view corridor from 4-way stop to Vail
Mountain" The portion being submitted by Daymer, in this
applicatiion, should be 3-4 stories according to the Conceptual
Building Height Plan in the Master Plan. The VVI proposal will
directly impact the character of the Vail Village. If approval of
the amendment is allowed, where will it stop. Won't the owners of
the Holiday House property, the gas station and others want to
have the same massive size to maximize the value of their
properties. Perhaps the Vail Gateway would like to add another 2
or 3 floors also. The entrance to the Vail Village would be a
massive canyon of buildings more in keeping with a large city
rather than a unique ski village.
6. The Village Inn project does not coordinate well with the Vail
Gateway. The Vail Gateway would be facing a large wall
approximately 68 feet high, which would only be about 40 feet
from the Vail Gateway property. A dead end canyon would be
created. This is not in keeping with the initial representation
made by the Vail Village Inn to the Town of Vail, that: "The
architects Zehren & Associates were challenged to accommodate
this program in a configuration harmonious to the immediate
neighborhood and add to the Vail Character." There is nothing
harmonious-about this project as it relates to the Vail Gateway
and it is certainly not in keeping with the Vail Character. It is
a big project being urged on-a small village.
7. The Village Inn project comes very close to the Vail Gateway
driveway where cars enter the garage and deliveries are made. It
would create a high, long and large dead end alley that would
cause auto and diesel fumes to accumulate and enter the Vail
Gateway. This would be-noxious, odorous, harmful to health, and
perhaps deadly. A study should be done to determine the buildup
of carbon monoxide and other dangerous fumes that would enter the
Vail Gateway and the Village Inn from this area.
8. The Village Inn project would cut off sunlight and air for the
Vail Gateway. The Vail Gateway would for the most part be in the
shadow of the Village Inn during the winter months. On the East
side of the Gateway building the Hotel will almost touch. From
the plan it would appear to be 2 feet away at the lower levels.
9. The traffic, noise, and accompanying pollution in the area of
the roundabout, Vail Road, and Frontage Road would increase
2 Jeff Winston's August 24, 1999 report reflects the areas where the Master Plan is not followed. A copy of his report
is attached Jeff Winston was a consultant with respect to developing the master plan.
dramatically. The roundabout presently backs up at certain times
of the day, and the increase in the number of cars will only
exacerbate the problem. The Traffic Impact Analysis done by
Feisburg, Hult & Ullevig is based on the assumption that 50% of
the traffic is internal and as such reduced their trip generation
figures by 500. This ignores the fact that the Vail Village has a
free transportation system that is unique. Even assuming a 50%
reduction, the overall traffic increases from about 1050 trips
per day to 3100 trips per day. THIS IS A TRIPLING IN TRAFFIC. If
the assumed reduction figure is.wrong then the increase could be
as much as six fold. An increase percentage of 2% was used to
indicate that the traffic would go to 4600 vehicles during the PM
peak hour in the year. 2015. This assumes that further large hotel
projects similar to the Village Inn will not be approved, which
would be unrealistic if this project is approved. There would be
a Domino effect. Also the study does not take into consideration
the effect of other buildings being redeveloped and further
increasing traffic on Vail Road. What about the timber that has
to be removed from category III which will go through Vail Road.
An estimated 3000 trips approximately will be made by large
trucks. VAIL SHOULD HIRE AN INDEPENDENT TRAFFIC FIRM TO VERIFY
THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
10. No studies have been filed to reflect the pollution levels
that would come from the increased traffic.
11. The owner of the Village Inn knew at the time of its purchase
what was allowed and what was not allowed under the SDD approval
in place and master plan at the time. The Village Inn proposal
would change the rules and would greatly increase the value of
the Village Inn property and at the same time diminish the value
of the Vail Gateway property as well as other adjacent property
owners. It would be unfair to provide the Village Inn owner with
a financial windfall at the expense of the Vail Gateway owners.
12. Owners in the Vail Gateway purchased their properties and
spent money fixing them up relying on the approvals already in
place for the Village Inn, including the view corridor, as well
as the master plan. As such changing these items would constitute
an inverse condemnation of the ownership interests of the Vail
Gateway owners. The value of the Vail Gateway owners would be
reduced so as to provide a windfall to the owners of the Vail
Village Inn.
-13. The Vail master plan, which was enacted by ordinance, cannot
be violated under the guise of an SDD, without changing the
master plan itself.3 Attorney John Dunn has submitted a
3 Daymer's argument that the master plan does not apply because the Vail Gateway was built does not hold water. The
Vail Gateway was approved before the master plan was approved All of the diagrams of Vail in the master plan show
the Vail Gateway and its height. Therefore the Vail Gateway was considered at the time the master plan was enacted.
memorandum of law on this issue. The Village Inn acknowledges
this when they submitted a "Revision of Vail Village Master Plan-
Conceptual Building Height Plan..." on Nov. 30, 1998.4
14. The Village Inn proposal has not discussed the hazard of a
fire spreading to or from their buildings to the-Vail Gateway in
light of their extremely close proximity. (The fact that the
proposed Vail Village Inn has exterior fireproofing does not
apply to the Vail Gateway and the Village Inn Condo, which does
not have special fireproofing:) What further problems would this
create for the fire department if a fire had to be fought? Also
there is no showing that the Town of Vail fire department could
handle a fire in a building of this size and height.
15. What assurances have the owner of the Village Inn provided
that it has the financial and real estate capability to build
what they say they want to build? What assurances have they
provided that they are trustworthy and will do what they say they
will do? Daymer Corporation N.V. has reportedly been previously
involved in litigation where claims were made of wrongful conduct
by Daymer. Daymer should make a full disclosure of prior
litigation and its outcome to properly assess its
trustworthiness. Also its true ownership should be revealed since
it is a Netherlands Antilles Corporation.
16. The simulated pictures submitted by the Vail Village Inn are
misleading. As an example, view analysis number three shows a
seven story Vail Village Hotel not much higher than the adjacent
five story Vail Gateway.
17. The sales tax revenues projected to the Town of Vail are
based on numerous assumptions. What guarantees or bonds have the
Village Inn offered if their projections are wrong. If the
Village Inn is seeking to motivate the Town of Vail by the
promise of additional funds, certainly they should stand behind
the numbers and provide a guarantee or bond from a financially
sound third party to back up their numbers. There is no
requirement that the applicant submit a "Town of Vail Incremental
Revenue Impact" report. It is clearly a carrot being dangled in
front of the town counsel to justify ignoring the master plan and
other zoning requirements. IT IS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS5 FROM THE
APPLICANT. WHAT CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO THE FACT THAT SALES
TAX WILL BE LOST WHEN PEOPLE SWITCH FROM THE OTHER HOTELS IN TOWN
TO THE APPLICANT'S HOTEL. OBJECTION IS MADE TO THIS TOWN COUNCIL
VOTING ON THE APPLICATION SINCE IT NOW HAS A FINANCIAL INTEREST
IN THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTE. REQUEST IS MADE FOR THE TOWN COUNCIL
4 No action was taken on this submission.
5 General Assumptions: "1. The incremental revenue impacts are based upon the Hotel Program Anaylysis as
communicated by Mr. Walder Prado as of &,F',-ber 8, 1999. " Page 4 of the Sept 20, 1999 Stan Bernstein report.
TO RECUSE ITSELF. A Conflict of interest has been created by the
Applicant by virtue of it's submission of this report.
18. The Village Inn should provide compensation to the adjacent
property owners, whose values will go down as a result of the
Village Inn violations of the master plan as well as the
agreement between the Town of Vail and Joe Stauffer as codified
in the SDD approval.
19. The Vail Plaza Hotel. Fact Sheet is misleading. It indicates
that the 1992 approval allowed a building height of 67 feet. It
does not indicate that this height applied to the building on
Frontage Road only and does not apply to the buildings that would
be south of the Vail Gateway. (Between the Vail Gateway and the
ski mountain)
20. No view corridor analysis was done other than providing
photos some of, which are misleading. A view corridor analysis
was requested in the memorandum to the Planning and Environmental
Commission dated June 22, 1998. Daymer Corporation takes the
position that the Vail Gateway has already blocked the view
corridor therefore it is a non issue. Further Daymer has
represented to the counsel that the notch in the Gateway building
was filled in. That did not happen. The notch is still there.
No view analysis has been done from the Vail Gateway to determine
design compatibility as well as the effect of violating the
master plan. The applicant has constantly misused the
Encroachment and View Agreement signed by Leo Palmer and Joe
Stauffer. Both of them have explained that it applied to the then
existing plans and not to future plans. As such it would not
apply to this application.
21. It is unknown if an urban design analysis was done. An urban
design analysis was requested in the memorandum to the Planning
and Environmental Commission dated June 22, 1998.
I urge you as council members to take all of these factors
into consideration. How could this project be done in good
conscience when it will have so many negative results. Certainly
a hotel more in keeping with Vail's charming atmosphere would
benefit the town. As you make your decision, you are making
history. The way you decide to make that history, is what will
ultimately determine Vail's future and long-term success. You
will not be able to market Vail as a small town with a charming
Alpine feel after these projects and subsequent ones of the same
kind are constructed. Is the building of this specific hotel
truly beneficial to Vail Village? I don't think so. The Village
can certainly wait for something better than this to come along.
The Sonnenalp and Austria House are good examples of that. Why
settle for second best, or even worse? You don't have to, and you
shouldn't. Someone has to uphold not only the good principles and
morals that we all hope to have, but the reputation of Vail and
it's representatives. I hope you can do that. Thank you for your
time.
Very Truly Yours,
Charles R. Lipcon
~L
„ rte
Date: August 24, 1999
A*
To: George Reuther, Town of Vail Community Development i 1 s I x
From: Jeff Winston
Re: Vail Plaza Hotel Design Review '
The location and context of this building makes the Vail Village Master Plan the primary guiding document, nok
the Urban Design Guide Plan.
VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
Illustrative Plans lI,
s
ElLand Use Plan - Is consistent with Medium/High Density Residential designation.` G ~v` 1 c fly
210pen Space Plan - Does not reduce Village Inn Plaza w/ Greenspace.
?Parking and Circulation - Does not continue E/W pedestrian linkage from Crossroads to Vail Road. a S, ~r JP~,.
?Building Height - Exceeds 3 to 4 story designation to achieve "stepping down" to Gateway building.
?Building Height Profile-Does not achieve stepping down toward Vail Road.
QAcdon Plan - Implements projected infill development of residential/lodging infill.
?Sub-area I - Commercial development at ground level to frame interior plaza with greenspace -
? Mass of building does not "step up" from existing pedestrian scale along Meadow Drive to 4-5
stories along Frontage Road. Rather, makes an abrupt transition to 5 to 6 stones.
? Design does not maintain view corridor from 4-way stop (roundabout) to Vail Mountain.
Applicable Objectives ("Special Emphasis"):
211.2 Encourages the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities,
212.3 Increases the number of residential units available for short-term overnight accommodations.
212.4 Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing
land uses.
212.6 Encourages the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector.
E13.2 Minimizes the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the greatest extent possible.
?4.1 Does not improve existing open space areas or create new plazas with greenspace and pocket parks.
05.1 Meets parking demands with public and private parking facilities.
26.1 Provides service and delivery facilities for existing and new development.
Land Use Comparison (Appendix A)
WMP Appendix A Proposed
Unbuilt units 148 a.u. (74 e.d.u.) 41 d.u.l 97 a.u. (90 e.d.u.)J
Unbuilt_scuare feet 45,636 101,060 1
Vai0aaAnal I Page l ofl 1
2299 PEARL ST REE T , SUITE 100 • BOULDER. CO 80302 , 303-44Q-9200 • FAX 1303-449-6911 • jtwinsten@winstonasscciates-ccm
Town of Vail - Search V - Pagel of 2
TOW'S t0 V,. Jl 7 ,
ss { n5n r 'a i`~ a Eh ~ w @
V
i ARCS
`ti: JIB J I.
Search for: ldaymer
Start Search { Reset
Number of documents found: 32. Click on a document to view it, or submi
another search.
Search Results
[Document Title IjDate JISC,
Town of Vail - Co= mirrLity D-evelo meat - PEC - Current 1112/20/99 11
ALee~'~da_ Decernljer 3. 1999 11:15:03
Town of Mail - Conarnurdty Development - PEC - Cu-rent12/20/99 11
Agel-da--, ldiive_- Ngveriher 42. 1.999 To€€n of Vail - Coinim mitv De€relooment - ;SEC - Carre it 1112/20/99 II
Mer;da - Arcbi e_ ovemiher 8; 1.999 11:15:02
Tow-it of Vail - Colmnunit~v Develo-oment - PEC - Current 12/20/99
(Agenda --Ardhive - December 13% 1999 (111:15:03 II
Town of Vail - Comm -nit j Dq e qqpr~ent - PE_C - Meeting 12/21/99
lRes-o-Its - :4uc hive - December 13. 1999 1112:19:52 11
Tow-n of Vail - Community De€velovmetit PE C - CwTent 1112/20/99
A1g 11
enda =r~.rcIt~e=_ October 11- 1999 11:15:02
Town of Fail - Community Development - .PEC -Meetin6 12/20/99
IResults - i'loverriber 22.. 1999 111:15:09 11
Tour of Vail - CoarIxnurirv De€ elovillent - PEC - C.U rettt 12/20/99
a Benda - Archve- October 2,5. 1999 1111:15:02 11
(Town of Vail - Community De€ elomwit - Plaiiiiin - DRB 1112/20/99 11
Current Aaenda -_-_Archivie - December -1. 1.999 11:14:51
Town of Vail - Conirmnlity Develo-tomem - PEC - CwTent 12/20/99
IA,gend,a- clhive - Seiotexnbcr 27, 1999 1111:15:01 1
Vail - Communi v D evelot;ment - PEC - Ei*,A 12/20/99
T ow- of
IA-\,gencia Archive - October 11, 1999 1111:15:08 11
http://ctvaiLco.us/-vti-bin~shtmtexe/search.htm 12/25/1999
Town of Vail - Search Page 2 of 2
12/20/99 II
T o an of -•omzii ti :i e z - i. - .,ee~ 1111:15:09
lReSuNts - Arch: 'e - October- 25. 199 Town of Vau - Comm,uiity Development - PEC -flee:! ?g (112/20/99 11
11
IS - rCiin'e - Nove-mber b. 1999 11:15:09
Tn-.,%,n O-'Mail - Commw-dtv De--ve o-oment - P'E' - 'wrent 12/20/99
AL- e:*.da 1111:14:59
(To;,S- o Vail - Coltti:li, t~, Te;;es ;e?t - 1''_a~~7 - DPI 12/20/99
Ci,r en . ? end_, rcitive Nove-mber 17, 1999 111:14:51 1
1To ,n O Vail - Community Development - Plami-ina - D-kB
12/20/99 1i
1111:14:58
Meeting Results - Archive - Nov,em-bei 17, 11109 _ To m o Vail - mmamity Development -PEE - g nal (112/20/99 11
~A~cnda - Archive - SeT)teanber 27, 1999 11:15:08
Town of V aH - C o:mnauzity Development - PEC - Final 12/20/99
Agenda - Amii 12, 1999 1111:15:04
I own of Vail - Coma-mmity De- elmament - PEC - Minutes -1112:32:07
12/21/99 11
NeA7e-,Ib,e:- 22, 1999 Town of Vail - Commwiity Development - Punning - DPI 1111:14:59
12/20/99 11
- Meeting Results - December 1, 1999 ToAvn o* VaU - Community Dev --i<opment - Pisa i,g - RB 1111:14:50
12/20/99 11
I- Cu-nent Agenda - Archive - =`oveniber 1999 To.va of Vail- Community Devd3-3 et it - Plam, ;ng - -DPI 1112/20/99
Archive - Current Aae-nda - ~cto ~sr 20. 1999 1111:14:50
1
€ own, of Vail - Community Development - Planning - D 1111:14:58
12/20/99 11
Meetili Res-alts - Archive - N`oven~ber 3, 1999 i mma ol'Vail - Community Development - PEC - Nliin aces 12/20/99
- November 81999 1111:15:16 11
12/20/99
Town olf Fail - Community Develop Yment - Planning - DO 1111:14:50
O Trent A¢enda - Octaber 6. 1999 ITown -1 VA - Commmity Development - Planning - DRB 12/20/99
leetiil Rest as Archive O.-C-tobver 20. 1999 1111:14:57 (1
Toivji opVail - Comr- unity Develo,.n-,ertnt - PEC - Nlinuws 12/20/99
IAi cbrve - Am H 12. 1999 1111:15:10 11
;m oe'Vail - Commun tv I evrelopment - Planning - DIM-- 12120/99
11
Archive - meetins4 Results - Octol;er 6. 1999 (TovAi of Vait - Commtmity Develci>ment - PEC - Tva-utes 12/20/99
Ardlwrve - November 8, 1999 ~ 1111:15:15 1
Tt,,vxgi of. T-J" - v'o++'ii'.lunit y~ 5.evrel 3°
oY ent - PE - N'~5nei 1112/20/99 (I
Arch v - Oc ober 25, 19' 9 1111:15:15
Town osl Val - Community Development - PEC - Afin a-es 12/20/99
1- Archive - October 11, 1999, 111:15:15 1
Town l =Fail - C;orumm w DeVCIO Dment - PEC: - 3vli sites 1111:15:14
12/20/99 11
At-dhi je - Semenfber 27, 1999 http://ci.vaiLco.us/ vti-bin/shtmLexe/search.htm 12/25/1999
Town of Vail - Visiting Vail Page 1 of 2
y
ti ! ~ IIA I MI Y _ _ AAI Id W
A l! i l l l I
4 Y A J> 1/! I/I a 1/ li i Sal-/,l 1it
Iii I
s ] i f• a
With world renowned skiing,
diverse shops and
restaurants, luxurious
accommodations and breath- r~
taking mountain views, Vail is
arguably the finest resort
destination in the world. d .r.
Although the skiing is
unsurpassed, much of Vail's
charm comes from its
uniquely-designed alpine
village and pedestrian system. Most lodges and condominiums arl
within walking distance of each other and the shops and restaurar
are clustered around the center of the resort accompanied by a Gc
Medal fishing stream. Other areas are connected by the largest fre
transit system in the country. See for yourself. Vail is a great place
visit--summer or winter.
Vail- Valley Tomrism and Convention Bureau
4
d
t
s
r ~
~t
c
y~ ,t et
http J/ci.vail.co.us/visiting/visi61g.htm 12/20/1999
Town of Vail - Living in Vail Page 1 of 1
r
y
5
fi
M o
- -
~e r ~4 r `fin v r r wr '._.p 6
.r ' i' -d r i'3 4' s _
tx
Vail is home to 4,500
permanent residents, plus
another 5,000 part-timer =E
_ residents of vacation
properties. Together, we
value a lifestyle that
combines one of the best
alpine resorts in the world
with a friendly, small-town
feel. We're a thriving
mountain community with excellent schools, a state of the art
hospital, outstanding skiing and other recreational facilities and
more open space than any resort community in the U.S. We cheris
our alpine environment as our most important natural resource an
we all work hard, to protect it. Welcome to our world.
Community Development Sales Tax
,u~d~L'ie iiousi~~a ~'r;=;a:~;v E3usir:•ass i_,;~s
Design Review Board : ai4s'1°_.. =nr=.r;-•
Planning and Environmental Commission :lies VrtVo;k
Envirannenial Program mind Restaurant inspections Vail f_od Bi[ Tax 1 !s
Hurnan Resources Vail Transit
http://civaiLco.usAiving.htm 12120/1999
J
MISCELLANEOUS LETTERS
4
12-25-1999 11:31AM -FROM MB MAC MEDIA 303 831 4427 P.1
December 24, 1999
Mayor Ludwig Kurz
Town Council Members
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Proposed Village Inn Hotel Complex
Dear Mr. Mayor and Town Council Members,
As the publishers of Vail-Beaver Creek Magazine and several other valley
publications we are kept abreast of the public pulse both. local and visitor_ Over
the past few years comment has run decidedly in the negative. Greed appears
as the common complaint followed by the loss of quaintness enjoyed in years
past.
While growth by its nature will diminish quaintness it can, and has in other areas,
be accomplished without the perverse and short sighted greed evidenced in the
approval of the Village Inn Project, as it is currently offered.
The scale of this project is too massive not only in a visual sense but from a
consumptive perspective as well. "Creating a Monster" may well be the epitaph
that this council will leave if this project is given hasty approval:
Give this project more thought.
Best regards,
MEDIA, LLC
fk J•,77
1
D: Michael Barry
President and Publisher
I..ix H11.tIf%!
" 1.. r. 3f'aa
JOHN BREYO
18 Summerfield Lane
Saratoga Springs, N.Y. 12866
Telephone: 518-46472350
December 24,1999
Mayor Ludwig Kurz and Town Council Members,
Planning and Environmental Commission,
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Village Inn Hotel
Dear Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is to confirm the following:
1. I am the owner of Unit 2 and Unit 3 in the Vail Gateway. They are directly adjacent to the
proposed Village Inn Hotel.
2. I have not received written notice from the Town of Vail nor from Stoltz Management about the
Village Inn proposal or about any Planning and Environmental Cot..-. scion meetings or about Design
Review Board meetings or Town Council meetings. I object to any meetings without proper and
actual written notice. Further I object to any informal meetings.
3. I purchased my unit relying in part on the existing master plan and existing SDD approval.
4. I object to the Village Inn violating the master plan, the SDD approval, and blocking the view
corridor towards Gold Peak. The proposed plan will block my views, put my units into a shadow,
create traffic problems, create pollution problems and destroy the village ambiance. Also the proposed
hotel will'come within about two feet of the Vail Gateway on the side where one of my units is
located. This creates a fire hazard as well as a security hazard.
5. I object to any Town Council members voting on the issue of the Village Inn Hotel who have
prejudged the matter and have already indicated their decision before I even have a chance to provide
any input into the process. According to an article in the Vail Daily dated December 23, 1999, many
of the Town Council members have decided the issues prior to my being given notice and an
opportunity to become involved in the process.
Very Truly Yqws,
John Breyo
12-24-99 09_43pm Fr6m- T-043 P. 02/02 F-535
David W. Hanna
December 24, 1999
Mayor Ludwig Kurz and.Town Council Members,
Planning and Environmental Commission,
and George Ruther, Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Fax: 970-479-2452
Re: Vail Village Inn
Dear Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen:
1 am writing to express my concern about the proposed Vail Village Inn Hotel
project. The plan is too large for Vail Village and will create a high-density
fee) ing upon entering Vail.
I am an original owner of a condo in the Vail Gateway~with living room and
bedroom windows facing Frontage Road and with side, windows facing the
proposed project- I expect Frontage Road and the round-about will become very
congested, creating an intolerable amount of traffic outside our living room and
bedroom windows. And from what I understand, the hotel will be very close to
the east side of the Gateway building - and therefore very close to our bedroom
and bathroom windows. Not only will this project severely impact our privacy,
I expect the project will cause a substantial decline in our property value and its
marketability.
We chose to buy a condo in Vail because we enjoy its elegant village
atmosphere. We rely upon the good judgement of Vail's leaders to preserve this
appeal. I urge you to reject this proposal for the benefit of the residential
owners in the Vail Gateway and for the benefit of Vail Village.
cere
vid W. Hanna
Va ).Gateway Residential Owner, Unit #4
cc: The Honorable Jack Kemp
908 Rembrandt Street
Laguna Beach. CA 92651
Stephen & Corinne Saldanha
7202 Ayrshire Lane 1380 Westhaven Circle
Boca Raton FL 33496 Vail CO 81657
Fax: 561 852 1160 Fax: 970 476 7323
Email: SSaldanha@pacernet.com
Mayor Ludwig Kurz
Town Council Members
Planning and Envir-.-.r-ntal C_.: _assion
George Ruther - Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Fax: 970-479-2452
Re: Vail Village Inn -.Pr-,,-sed New Hotel
Dear Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen:
We have been part of the Vail Valley c...-...anity for twenty-one
years and have watched our beautiful area grow into an
International Resort Destination.
The recent news regarding the plans to tear down the Vail Village
Inn and replace it with a new hotel as high as 7/8 stories is
most concerning to us.
In our considered opinion the proposed hotel requires compliance
with the Vail Master Plan and Vail Building Codes and Standards,
and, as such, needs to be reconfigured in four key areas:.
1. The requirement to maintain the character of Vail Village
as a Village
2. The building height requirements
3. The set back requite "..,ents to Vail Frontage Road, The Vail
Gateway and Vail Village Condo Buildings,
4. The views toward the mountain - specifically Gold Peak
In addition, concerns of the c......snity with regard to over-built
hotel acc.....`..odations and increased road traffic so close to the
Vail roundabout need to be fully evaluated.
If this is approved, as is, there will be no justification in the
future to turn down other applications for destroying the
character of-Vail Village, obliterating the views of the
mountain, preventing the construction of high-rise buildings or
requiring necessary set backs.
We understand the first reading of the ordinance is set for Jan.
4, 2000. We urge you, Mayor, Ladies and Gentlz_z..., to uphold the
laws of our beautiful Village and make sure this project conforms
to all the requj_z.._n_ts and standards applicable, before approval
is granted.
We are well aware how difficult it must be to satisfy all the
demands required by a diverse and growing c..,_... anity. However, you
the guardians of our beautiful environment must enforce
compliance with the Vail Master Plan and Vail Building Codes and
Standards,for the benefit of all the people of Vail.
Sinc Y.
e
Stephen A Saldanha Corinne N Saldanha
Daniel E. Virnich
4320 Glen Falls Lane
Vail, CO. 81657
970-479-6345
December 28, 1999
Mayor Ludwig Kurz & Town Council Members
Planning & Environmental Commission, and
George Ruther, Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO. 81657
Re: Vail Village Inn
Dear Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am writing to voice my strong objection to the proposed Vail Village,Inn Project. I have
been a full time resident of Vail for the past six years and have owned property here for
over ten years.
My objections can be summarized as follows:
A. The scope of the project, particularly the height, is not in keeping with the
character of Vail. I believe the character should continue to be that of a cozy
Alpine village. A project of this size-particularly at the entrance to Vail, is
not consistent with this image. I am concerned that the visibility of this to all
entering Vail as well as those passing by will lend a "High Rise" image to the
Village totally inconsistent with its character.
B. There is no demonstrated need for more hotel rooms in Vail. The recent
struggle to utilize the existing rooms is evident and with the indicated flattening
of the ski industry growth curve will only serve to exacerbate the vacancy
issues.
Recently there have been articles in our local newspapers setting forth the
the difficulties experience by the projects next door neighbor-the Gateway
Center as well as the increasing number vacancies in the village core. I am
told that our existing hotels are struggling to maintain 70% occupancy rates
even in the peak season. Such an expansion of a business in the Village core
will make this struggle much more difficult. We need good strong profitable
businesses in the Village-creating additional competition in a weak business
environment is not the answer to the current dilc....... a faced by our commercial
center.
C. We face an employee crisis. One only needs to pick up the local newspaper to
understand the crisis that exists for our current businesses to find an adequate
number of qualified employees. Increasing the demand for employees by over
100 will only make this increasingly difficult problem worse. Need I also
mention the demand put on employees housing-a problem which is far from
being solved.
D. Traffic-the studies I have seen suggesting that this project will have only
minimal traffic impact must be flawed. I remember the traffic problems before
the roundabouts. It appears to me that our traffic problem is again getting out
of hand. I am sure each of you in the last couple of weeks has struggled getting
into and out of the main parking lot during peak times(which incidentally seem
to be getting longer and longer). The addition of 290 parking places in the.
middle of the current congestion can only make it worse.
E. Precedent-I. am concerned that the approval of this project sets a dangerous
precedent for future development that will be almost impossible to control.
If this project is approved what are you going to say to the next developer
that comes along with respect to height, traffic, employee demands etc.
I believe it is time that this town be managed for the residents, property owners and
existing business entities rather than for the benefit of the real estate developers and
their related businesses. If every time one of these `Tavored people"comes up with a project
and it is approved whether or not it makes common sense- then the future of our wonderful
part of the world is indeed bleak.
I think now is the time to sit back and look at the scope and problems associated with this
project through the eyes of your real constituencies-the people who live and own property
here. If you do I am sure you will turn this project down.
Very truly yours,
Dec-31-99 11:32A TRIGO" 19708450762 P_02
7
December 29, 1999
Mayor Ludwig Kurz
& Town Council Members
Town of Vail
75 S Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Tranmission by Fax: 479-2452
Re: Village Inn Hotel
Dear Mayor, Ladies & Gentlemen:
The planned construction of the Vail Village Inn remodel does not keep with the building
tradition of Vail Village. The plans call for a huge building that betrays the warmth and
IBavtuian tradition of our town.
Many of our visitors, like ourselves, find in Vail a respite from big and tall buildings,
traffic problems and the congestion and pollution these cause.
We would encourage you to think this through thoroughly and look aver the environs that
have made Vail what attracted so many of us to invest here.
Respectrs,
v
enigmo Trigo
BTCi/tt
• jtv.r,. c..c ~:•r. c.~,~ N"I:o_h
)Ific' l ox WHO
Dec. 29. 1999 4:4011M FIELD CONTAINER No,-7214 F. 2
FIELD CONTAINER COMPANY, L.P. Larry Field
Chief Exeeutive'Officer
December 29, 1999
Mayor Ludwig Kurz and Town Council Members,
Planning and Environmental Commission,
And George Ruther, Senior Planner
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Vail Village Inn
Dear Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen:
As a homeowner on West Forest Road in Vail, I would like to voice
my strong objection to the Village Inn Hotel project that was rejected
by the last council.
I feel the revised plan is still too large for Vail. The project will cause
a density problem, increase traffic, and set a precedent for applications
for other tall buildings to be approved.
The mandate from Vail residents and the Master Plan call for Vail
Village to be kept a village. This is being disregarded.
1 am voicing my concern and would appreciate your strong
consideration of this message. I can be reached via fax at 847-956-
9250.
Very truly yours,
tr~
Larry Field
/pm
1500 Nicholas Boulevard Telephone $47.956.3226
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007 Facsimile 847.956.9250
COUNCIL FOLLOW-UP
TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS
r 1999
12/23/99 Street Beat Party Council COUNCIL: Please let Pam know if you are able to emcee
Participation any of the Wednesday night Street Beat parties. The dates
Ludwig Kurz are listed in the attachment.
12/23/99 Cancel Tuesday, July 4", 2000, TOM: Because this is an evening public meeting, should A reasonable interpretation of Section 1-5-11 (A) and would be to schedule
Work Session and Evening Meeting. we re-set the evening meeting, at the least, for Monday, the first regular public meeting in July on the second Tuesday, July 11, with
Pam Brandmeyer July 3rd, or simply cancel altogether? According to the provision that first readings only are scheduled for this meeting.
Charter, Section 4.10 - Procedure (e): "The ordinance shall
be introduced at council a second time, at a meeting not
rejection, or other action as may be taken by vote of the
council." This means if we hold the meeting later in the
week, and w/our official publish until the following Friday,
July 14'", thus not providing the adequate seven day notice
prior to the evening meeting on Tuesday, July 18, 2000, for
potential second readings on ordinances.
12/23/99 Mikes in Council Chambers LARRY P./LEO: Council will begin meeting in a more The cordless microphones are not directly connected to the voice recorder,
Pam Brandmeyer informal setting on work session days that lend themselves nor do they pick up sound for the video taping. Staff will continue to explore
to a less formal format. Is it possible to put longer cords on options.
the microphones so we can better record their discussions?
We also have issues with disabled hearing individuals.
12/23/99 Community Garden RUSSELL/TODD: Resident of the Intermountain area has Todd will speak with the Eagle County CSU Extension Officer.
Chuck Ogilby suggested the remaining portion of Stephens Park should
be turned into a "community garden."
12/23199 Central Reservations PAM/BETH: Schedule a meeting re: central reservations for Beth will ask Frank to decide who is most qualified to attend from the
Chuck Ogilby a January work session to include: Frank Johnson, Chris Advisory Board and/or if he wants to include John Garth from his staff.., or
Jarnot, and a member (or two?) of the Vail Local Marketing whomever?
District Advisory Board.
December 29, 1999, Page 1
3
12/23/99 Cleanliness and lighting in parking GREG H./LARRY P./JOHN GALLEGOS: There are 12 lights were replaced in the Lionshead structure today.. Staff could not
structures problems with both parking structures relating to get to an additional 5-6 lights because of parked cars but will attend to
Kevin Foley cleanliness, and in the Lionshead Parking Structure, those ASAP. As well, a half dozen lights were replaced in the Village
numerous lights are out. structure. Crews have also been cleaning and sweeping the structures.
12/23/99 Bus Bucks GREG H./MIKE R.: Can there be a consideration of an
Chuck Ogilby incentive program like "Bus Bucks," where the bus rider
could be rewarded with "bucks" that could be cashed at
local establishments?
12/21/99 Ski with the Council What is the status of the Town Council outreach program? Council needs to decide how they want to deal with this.
Sybil Navas
12/21/99 Joint Meeting of the TOVNRD task PAM: The task force is currently composed of Ross Davis We are currently in trie process o sc e u mg a meeting.
force and Chris Moffet from the VRD and Kevin Foley and Diana
Chuck Ogilby/Diana Donovan Donovan representing the town. Schedule a meeting to
discuss the realistic construction timeframe for the second
sheet of ice, as well as interim solutions, which would also
provide an ice surface during the future construction.
December 29, 1999, Page 2
pMt64A
P
-'i U 1-5-11
Clerk an oath or affirmation that he/she will 2. With respect to a special meeting
support the Constitution of the United which is called, in addition to the re-
States, and constitution of the State of quirements of section 4.2 of the Town
Colorado, the Charter and the ordinances of Charter, the Town Council will en-
this Town and will faithfully perform the deavor to have a legal notice of the
duties of the office. (Charter(1972) § 3.10) meeting published once preceding the
date of the meeting; provided, howev-
er, that the publication shall not be
1-5-11: REGULAR AND SPECIAL required in the absence of adequate .
COUNCIL MEETINGS': time therefor or may be dispensed
with for other good cause. -
A. Regular Meetings:
C. Order Of Business: In regular and
1. Time And Place: The Council shall special meetings of the Town Council
meet regularly at least twice monthly the order of business shall be as fol-
at a day and hour to be fixed by the lows:
rules of the Council. The meeting time
shall be established at the Town 1. Call to order by the Mayor.
Council's first organizational meeting
to be held within seven (7) days from 2. Determination of quorum.
the election as described in Section
1-5-3 of this Chapter. 3. Citizen participation.
2. Deferment: In the event a regular 4. Consent agenda including minutes
meeting pursuant to subsection Al of of preceding meetings.
this Section would fall on a legal holi-
day recognized by the Town or a reg- 5. Consideration of ordinances, reso-
ular meeting cannot for good reason lutions, and motions.
be held _by the Town Council on a
fcyu.ai 'f.aivu,ig date, the -regular 6. Consideration of other matters on
meeting shall .automatically he hair! nn the age-d-_.
the next secular day at the same time
and place; provided, however, that for 7. Reports from Town Manager and
good cause the Council at a regular Town Attorney.
meeting preceding the regular meeting
which will be deferred may defer, the S. Statements, observations, and
regular meeting to a subsequent date inquiries by the Mayor and
not later than one week after the de- Councilmembers.
ferred regular meeting date.
9. Concluding statement by the May-
B. Notice: or.
1. This Section constitutes notice of 10. Adjournment.
regular meetings to be held pursuant
to subsection A hereof and no other D. Purpose Of Meetings: Regular and
notice shall be required. special meetings of the Town Council
1. See also Town Charter art. IV.
1298
Town of Vail
20 5- =TM
M
• so 0 O
Ski Giveaway 1 Rock in Vail Village ~n
with FreddiAlenchi i
Sports Night Mambo u r~
Fitness Resolutions ;Salsa in Vail Village
`~in Lionshead
• with Barbaritd Torres with Cabaret Diosa
Holiday Shopping Soul in Vail Village Winter Sports 12 Reggae in Lionshead
with William Topley with International Reggae Allstars
Goodwijl..to All Z2 Gospel in Vail Village Travel & Leisure Blues in Vail Village ate.
TBD I with The Hazel Miller Ba
Y2K Giveaway ZGJ Acoustic in Vail Village Solid Gold Zfj I Disco in Vail Village
with Celeste Krenz , with Boogie Machine
a
Groundhog Day Z Cajun in Vail Village
with Rosie Ledet & the Zydeco PlayboysG
Valentine's Day G~ Romantic in Lionshead Dining Out 1 Show Tunes in Lionshead
with Lannie Garrett & Her with Broadway Player
Errand Boys of Rhythm Legends 8 Swing in Vail Village
President's Day 1,5 Classic Rock iri Vail Village with Royal Crown Revue
with Firefall - St. Patrick's Day Irish in Vail Village
Drivin' & Cryin' 23 Country in Vail Village with Young Dubliners
with Highway 101
Summer Sports 2211 Marimba in Vail Vi,49e with Jaka
Condo Drawing ?9 House Band in Vail Village
TBD
Every Saturday night from December, 1999 to April 1, 2000
4117
f "'TAM
enjoy a fireworks display above Vail Village beginning at 7:30.
Fireworks may be cancelled due to inclement weather.
Schedule subject to change. For t
1 latest information, visit the Vail V
K Z Y R ';I Foundation website at www.vvf.co,
~ wii