The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-02-13 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2001 NOTE: Time of items is approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. (Noon - 2:00 P.M.) Joint Work Session with Eagle County Commissioners Eagle County Building 500 Broadway Eagle, Colorado 12:00 Noon -12:30 P.M. Lunch 12:30 P.M. -1:00 P.M. Employee Generation • Presentation by Nina Timm, Vail Housing Coordinator • Discussion 1:00 P.M. -1:45 P.M. Town of Vail Capital Projects • Mayor Ludwig Kurz Remarks • Discussion 1:45 P.M. - 2:00 P.M. Berry Creek 5t" Affordable Housing Project • Discussion on Process to Move Project Forward VAIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 2:30 P.M. 1) Vail Plaza Hotel West SDD. (1 Hour.) Brent Wilson ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a Town Council work session to discuss the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel West Special Development District - a new conference facility/hotel/fractional fee unit club proposal at 13 Vail Road / Lot A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2. Applicant: Doramar Hotels, represented by the Daymer Corporation Planner: Brent Wilson ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide feedback to the applicant and staff regarding next steps for the SDD proposal. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Vail Plaza Hotel West is a mixed-use development proposal. Uses within the hotel include residential, commercial and recreation. The proposed plan currently includes a 120-room hotel, 17 condominiums, 39 fractional fee units, 16 (on site) employee housing units, a restaurant/bar, retail space, conference space (including a 10,000 s.f. ballroom), and a spa/health club. The current (and proposed underlying) zoning for the property is "Public Accommodation." RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Environmental Commission will review the proposal on February 12th and provide a recommendation to the Vail Town Council. Staff will forward a recommendation to the council prior to final council review of this item. Please refer to the staff memorandum for complete details. 2) Boards and Commissions. (15 min.) Pam Brandmeyer BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Council had agreed to revisit the appointment of Councilmembers to boards and commissions, based on a more thorough understanding of the meeting times and constraints for the various boards. Council has also indicated a willingness to appoint staff to fill some of these positions. In the packet, Council will find a current listing of boards and commissions to which Councilmembers have been appointed, as well as a second listing that generally shows meeting times and obligations. 3) DRB/PEC Report. (5 min.) 4) Bright Horizons Discussion. (15 min.) John Power 5) Review Council Critical Strategies. (15 min.) 6) Information Update. (10 min.) 7) Council Reports. (10 min.) 8) Other. (10 min.) 9) Executive Session - Land Negotiations (30 min.) 10) Adjournment. (5:20 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, 2/20/01, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 2/20/01, BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 2127/01, BEGINNING AT 11:30 A.M. KALTENBERG CASTLE BREWERY FOR LIONSHEAD WALKABOUT Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Brent Wilson, Department of Community Development DATE: February 13, 2001 SUBJECT: Vail Plaza Hotel West Special Development District After four hours of deliberation on the Vail Plaza Hotel West proposal, the Planning and Environmental Commission made the following motions on February 12th: Special Development District Reauest A unanimous vote to recommend denial to the Vail Town Council. Conditional Use Permit Reauest - Fractional Fee Units A unanimous vote of approval of the request, with a condition that the approval is only valid in conjunction with the approval of an ordinance adopting the associated special development district on second reading. Conditional Use Permit Reauest - Emolovee Housina Units A unanimous vote for denial of the request, based on an inconsistency between the proposal and the provisions of the town code requiring no more than two employees per bedroom. Based on the direction received by the PEC, the applicant (the Daymer Corporation) is requesting that the application be tabled indefinitely. Therefore, today's council work session and Wednesday's special DRB meeting have been cancelled. i MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Brent Wilson, Department of Community Development DATE: February 13, 2001 SUBJECT: Vail Plaza Hotel West Special Development District After four hours of deliberation on the Vail Plaza Hotel West proposal, the Planning and Environmental Commission made the following motions on February 12th: Special Development District Reauest A unanimous vote to recommend denial to the Vail Town Council. Conditional Use Permit Reauest -Fractional Fee Units A unanimous vote of approval of the request, with a condition that the approval is only valid in conjunction with the approval of an ordinance adopting the associated special development district on second reading. Conditional Use Permit Reauest- Emolovee Housina Units A unanimous vote for denial of the request, based on an inconsistency between the proposal and the provisions of the town code requiring no more than two employees per bedroom. Based on the direction received by the PEC, the applicant (the Daymer Corporation) is requesting that the application be tabled indefinitely. Therefore, today's council work session and Wednesday's special DRB meeting have been cancelled. Feb 13 01 11:10a P•1 Via Facsimile Memorandum DATE: February 13, 2001 TO: Brent Wilson FROM: Connie Dorsey/Daymer Corp SUBJECT: Upcoming Meetings with the Town Council and DRB Please table our meeting for today (02.13.01) with the Town Council as well as our scheduled meeting with the DRB for Wednesday 02.14.01. Thank you, Feb 13 01 11:10a P,1 Via Facsimile Memorandum DATE: February 13, 2001 TO: Brent Wilson FROM: Connie Dorsey/Daymer Corp SUBJECT: Upcoming Meetings with the Town Council and DRB Please table our meeting for today (02.13.01) with the Town Council as well as our scheduled meeting with the DRB for Wednesday 02.14.01. Thank you, T 4 TOWN OF VAIL Town Council Critical Strategies Action Plan September 2000- November 2001 Council Status Next Council Point of Contact/ Action Timeline Date Lead Employee Community Alignment & Partnerships Set Council/VRI 14 month Meeting notes and 4/10/01 Suzanne Silverthom retreat matrix tracking format distributed. Next steps include adding detail to the matrix. • Begin report out to community at "Peer 14 month Additional meetings for 2001 TBD Suzanne Silverthor Resort" meeting to be scheduled • Redefine TOVNRI CounciWRI to clarify Task Task Force 14 month Force role as outlined in 4/10/01 Ludwig Kurz Managed Growth Agreement; then develop appointment process. • Define desired outcomes by Process to be designed as Bob McLaurin creating a vivid 14 month next step in constituent By the end of Suzanne Silverthom description for 2005, partnership efforts. February staff Russell Forest 2010, 2015, 2020 will have a framework for creating a vivid description. Morter Architects working to • Consolidate 14 month identify possible locations. TBD Pam Brandmeyer Information Booths This project is unfunded. • Work w/ Merchants On going to define approval 6 month 2/27101 Pam Brandmeyer procedures for Another meeting with event special events producers, merchants, vendors set Uheads.matrix l Council Status Next Council Point of Contact/ Action Timeline Date Lead Employee 1-70 Noise Abatement 14 month • Noise map complete and • Identify Options reviewed by Council NA Greg Hall • Identify Funding • Staff identifying short term options 03101 Greg Hall • Staff preparing cost estimate for wall 03101 Greg Hall mitigation • Determine to what extent the TOV is willing to fund TBD Town Council noise mitigation 2 Council Status Next Council Point of Contact/ Action Timeline Date Lead Employee I I Maintain natural environment and town Maintenance infrastructure • Water Quality • Foster stewardship Solid Waste & partnership 6 & 14 On going Everyone months • Noxious Weed ¦ Achieve Disney standards • Clean Pedestrian Areas • Reinstitute "Adopt-a- Path/Street" ¦ Well lit, clean parking structures ¦ Village Parking 14 month Structural engineering Nina Timm Structure (retail) report. states $2-4 million to 02/13 Greg Hall stabilize beam Council to get public feedback on commercial space built by TOV. TBD Town Council • Review Uniform Gary Goodell Building Code and 14 month Presentation to Council on Mike McGee Fire Code 12/12. Staff preparing 03/6 Tom Moorhead appeals procedure. Greg Morrison Parking Pay in Lieu 6 month Staff is preparing ordinance setting higher fees for 2"d Reading on residential uses and lower (if 20d' Brent Wilson any) for commercial uses. 2/6/01 • Community 6&14 Concept paper presented to Complete Facilities Hub Site month Council on 12/12. Council Budget in Feb Russ Forrest developed wish list on 12/19 and present to Council on March 6th 3 Council Status Next Council Point of Contact/ Action Timeline Date Lead Employee I j Special Events Brief Council from a first-time promoter's 6 month & neighbor's 2/27/01 Pam Brandmeyer perspective ¦ Solicit input from 6 month on going event organizers • Identity additional 6 month Currently available venues venues identified and occupancy 4/03/01 Mike Vaughan load to be determined for each site by 3/31 Wayfinding Greg Hall • Approve drawings Substantially complete Suzanne Silverthorn • Install upon arrival 6 month Phase-one signs will be 03/01 Greg Hall delivered in March with Suzanne Silverthorn interior parking structure signs first to be installed. All remaining phase-one signs will be installed no later than Memorial Day. ¦ Trail identifiers installed by 4/15/01 04 /01 ¦ Lionshead Public 6 & 14 Staff is evaluating revenue TBD Russ Forrest Financing month potential and legal issues, Bob McLaurin required improvements and Steve Thompson costs associated with these Tom Moorhead improvements. Also monitoring Broomfield case. 4 Council Status Next Council Point of Contact/ Action Timeline Date Lead Employee i i Donovan Park 6 & 14 Pavilion design under February 2001 George Ruther month way (Review architecture) Todd O • Phase 1 site development NA bid awarded • Execute project Steve Thompson financing ($3 million) TBD • Property owner plans on Nina Timm ¦ Ruins 14 month reapplying for the same February 2001 Tom Moorhead development approval Russ Forrest that expired (1/9/01). • Town has expressed intention to purchase property for affordable housing. Will consider re-establishment of Housing Authority to move forward with project. • Berry Creek 14 month Council to meet with Berry Nina Timm Creek Developer and County 02120101 Tom Moorhead Commisioners Russ Forrest • Buy down program Staff will begin looking for 3 When suitable (3 bedroom units 14 month bedroom units immediately. unit is found Nina Timm for families) Tom Moorhead Meet w/ Commissioners Meeting with Commissioners • Employee 6 month scheduled for 02/13/00 February 13, Russ Forrest Generation Capital Projects 2001 Nina Timm 5 Council Status Next Council Point of Contact/ Action Timeline Date I Lead Employee Timber Ridge 6 month Allison Ochs Ordinance drafted. Council 02120101 Tom Moorhead Housing Zone tabled 151 reading until 2/. District 6 month Identify impacts of Telluride housing decision Tom Moorhead • Decide on fire Bob and John Gulick to station locations and 6 month prepare memo summarizing 02/01 Bob McLaurin staffing. and framing issues. Discuss impact fee Discuss possibility of 02/01 proposal to fund hiring Rocky Mtn. Group to Tom Moorhead fire dept. capital conduct impact fee study. projects and (Tom researching legal John Gulick equipment issues) • Preliminary design/cost Todd O Red Sandstone 14 month estimate complete TBD Tom K Field ¦ Staff to meet with School Board on 2114 TBD Bob McLaurin Todd O. In-town Transportation • Staff has investigated the • Review alternatives 6 months smart bus stop 2/01 Greg Hall to replace in town technology and is Mike Rose shuttle meeting with the vendor to determine feasibility Explore possible 14 month and cost implications funding partners • Staff has contacted Mike Rose (demo project) various custom muffler Greg Hall manufacturers and will get proposals on "quiet " muffler technology • GPS implementation Mike Rose underway Greg Hall 6 • Summary of Completed Actions • Mission, Vision and Values Statement Posted in Council Chambers • Notification of 1 own's intent to strengthen partnership with Vail Resorts • Establishment of schedule for monthly Council "walkabouts"; two walkabouts held. • Affordable Housing Zone District drafted; reviewed by PEC & Town Council • Donovan Park Agreement for design services complete. • Donovan Park zone Change 2"d reading for Council approval 12/19 • Vail Center 501(c)(3) formed • 1 s' Community meeting held ¦ 2nd Community meeting held • TOV/VRI Retreat held • Completion of special event "shadowing" by Greg Moffet Unfunded Capital Projects • Ruins Housing Project • West Vail Lodge • Information Center • Lionshead Public Improvements • Vail Center Improvements • 1-70 Noise Abatement • Gymnastics Facility • Gore Creek Sediment Clean Up 7 TOWN OF VAIL Town Council Critical Strategies Action Plan September 2000- November 2001 Council Status Next Council Point of Contact/ Action Timeline Date Lead Employee Community Alignment & Partnerships Set Council/VRI 14 month Meeting notes and 4/10/01 Suzanne Silverthorn retreat matrix tracking format distributed. Next steps include adding detail to the matrix. Begin report out to community at "Peer 14 month Additional meetings for 2001 TBD Suzanne Silverthorn Resort" meeting to be scheduled • Redefine TOVNRI Council/VRI to clarify Task Task Force 14 month Force role as outlined in 4/10/01 Ludwig Kurz Managed Growth Agreement; then develop appointment process. Define desired outcomes by Process to be designed as Bob McLaurin creating a vivid 14 month next step in constituent By the end of Suzanne Silverthorn description for 2005, partnership efforts. February staff Russell Forest 2010, 2015, 2020 will have a framework for creating a vivid description. Morter Architects working to Consolidate 14 month identify possible locations. TBD Pam Brandmeyer Information Booths This project is unfunded. Work w/ Merchants On going to define approval 6 month 2/27/01 Pam Brandmeyer procedures for Another meeting with event special events producers, merchants, vendors set F.dheads.matrix Council Status Next Council Point of Contact/ Action Timeline Date Lead Employee 1-70 Noise Abatement 14 month • Noise map complete and • Identify Options reviewed by Council NA Greg Hall ¦ Identify Funding • Staff identifying short term options 03101 Greg Hall • Staff preparing cost estimate for wall 03101 Greg Hall mitigation • Determine to what extent the TOV is willing to fund TBD Town Council noise mitigation 2 Council Status Next Council Point of Contact/ Action Timeline Date Lead Employee Maintain natural environment and town • Maintenance infrastructure • Water Quality ¦ Foster stewardship • Solid Waste & partnership 6 & 14 On going Everyone months • Noxious Weed ¦ Achieve Disney standards • Clean Pedestrian Areas ¦ Reinstitute "Adopt-a- Path/Street" ¦ Well lit, clean parking structures Village Parking 14 month Structural engineering Nina Timm Structure (retail) report. states $2-4 million to 02/13 Greg Hall stabilize beam Council to get public feedback on commercial space built by TOV. TBD Town Council ¦ Review Uniform Gary Goodell Building Code and 14 month Presentation to Council on Mike McGee Fire Code 12/12. Staff preparing 03/6 Tom Moorhead appeals procedure. Greg Morrison • Parking Pay in Lieu 6 month Staff is preparing ordinance setting higher fees for 2`b Reading on residential uses and lower (if 201h Brent Wilson any) for commercial uses. 2/6/01 Community 6 &14 Concept paper presented to Complete Facilities Hub Site month Council on 12/12. Council Budget in Feb Russ Forrest developed wish list on 12/19 and present to Council on March 6th 3 Council Status Next Council Point of Contact/ Action Timeline Date Lead Employee Special Events • Brief Council from a first-time promoter's 6 month & neighbor's 2/27/01 Pam Brandmeyer perspective ¦ Solicit input from 6 month on going event organizers • Identify additional 6 month Currently available venues venues identified and occupancy 4/03/01 Mike Vaughan load to be determined for each site by 3/31 Wayfinding Greg Hall ¦ Approve drawings Substantially complete Suzanne Silverthorn ¦ Install upon arrival 6 month Phase-one signs will be 03/01 Greg Hall delivered in March with Suzanne Silverthorn interior parking structure signs first to be installed. All remaining phase-one signs will be installed no later than Memorial Day. ¦ Trail identifiers installed by 4/15/01 04/ 01 ¦ Lionshead Public 6 & 14 Staff is evaluating revenue TBD Russ Forrest Financing month potential and legal issues, Bob McLaurin required improvements and Steve Thompson costs associated with these Tom Moorhead improvements. Also monitoring Broomfield case. 4 Council Status Next Council Point of Contact/ Action Timeline Date Lead Employee • Donovan Park 6 & 14 ¦ Pavilion design under February 2001 George Ruther month way (Review architecture) Todd O ¦ Phase / site development NA bid awarded • Execute project Steve Thompson financing ($3 million) TBD ¦ Property owner plans on Nina Timm Ruins 14 month reapplying for the same February 2001 Tom Moorhead development approval Russ Forrest that expired (1/9/01). Town has expressed intention to purchase property for affordable housing. Will consider re-establishment of Housing Authority to move forward with project. ¦ Berry Creek 14 month Council to meet with Berry Nina Timm Creek Developer and County 02120101 Tom Moorhead Commisioners Russ Forrest ¦ Buy down program Staff will begin looking for 3 When suitable (3 bedroom units 14 month bedroom units immediately. unit is found Nina Timm for families) Tom Moorhead Meet w/ Commissioners Meeting with Commissioners • Employee 6 month scheduled for 02/13/00 February 13, Russ Forrest Generation Capital Projects 2001 Nina Timm 5 Council Status Next Council Point of Contact/ Action Timeline Date Lead Employee Timber Ridge 6 month Allison Ochs Ordinance drafted. Council 02120101 Tom Moorhead • Housing Zone tabled is'reading until 2/. District 6 month Identify impacts of Telluride housing decision Tom Moorhead • Decide on fire Bob and John Gulick to station locations and 6 month prepare memo summarizing 02101 Bob McLaurin staffing. and framing issues. ¦ Discuss impact fee Discuss possibility of 02/01 proposal to fund hiring Rocky Mtn. Group to Tom Moorhead fire dept. capital conduct impact fee study. projects and (Tom researching legal John Gulick equipment issues) • Preliminary design/cost Todd O Red Sandstone 14 month estimate complete TBD Tom K Field • Staff to meet with School Board on 2,114 TBD Bob McLaurin Todd O. In-town Transportation • Staff has investigated the • Review alternatives 6 months smart bus stop 2/01 Greg Hall to replace in town technology and is Mike Rose shuttle meeting with the vendor to determine feasibility Explore possible 14 month and cost implications funding partners • Staff has contacted Mike Rose (demo project) various custom muffler Greg Hall manufacturers and will get proposals on "quiet " muffler technology • GPS implementation Mike Rose underway Greg Hall 6 Summary of Completed Actions • Mission, Vision and Values Statement Posted in Council Chambers ¦ Notification of Town's intent to strengthen partnership with Vail Resorts • Establishment of schedule for monthly Council "walkabouts"; two walkabouts held. • Affordable Housing Zone District drafted; reviewed by PEC & Town Council ¦ Donovan Park Agreement for design services complete. • Donovan Park zone Change 2"d reading for Council approval 12/19 ¦ Vail Center 501(c)(3) formed • 1 s` Community meeting held • 2nd Community meeting held • TOVNRI Retreat held • Completion of special event "shadowing" by Greg Moffet Unfunded Capital Projects ¦ Ruins Housing Project ¦ West Vail Lodge ¦ Information Center ¦ Lionshead Public Improvements • Vail Center Improvements ¦ 1-70 Noise Abatement ¦ Gymnastics Facility ¦ Gore Creek Sediment Clean Up 7 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, February 12, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 11:30 am MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1:30 pm 1. Peters residence - 2955 Bellflower Drive 2. Brandess Building - 2077 N. Frontage Road Driver: Bill 11*3 NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearina - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 363 Beaver Dam Road / Lot 2, Block 3, Vail Village 3`d Filing. Applicant: Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson 2. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a Type li Employee Housing Unit, located at 383 Beaver Dam Road / Lot 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3`d Filing. Applicant: Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson 3. A request for a final review of a proposed special development district to allow for the construction of a new conference facility/hotel; and a final review of conditional use permits to allow for the construction of fractional fee units and Type III employee housing units at 13 Vail Road / Lots A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2. Applicant: Doramar Hotels, represented by the Daymer Corporation Planner: Brent Wilson 4. A request for variances from Section 12-6D-6.(Setbacks) and Title 14 (Development Standards- locating required parking in the Right-of-Way), to allow for a residential addition and remodel located at 2955 Bellflower Dr. / Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan Peters, represented by Braun Associates Planner: Allison Ochs 1 TOWNOFYA& 5. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the installation of rooftop telecommunications antennas at the Brandess Building, located at 2077 N. Frontage Road (Brandess Building)/Lot 39, Buffehr Creek. Applicant: Jayne Brandess Revocable Trust, represented by Abacus Communications Planner: Allison Ochs 6. A request for a recommendation to the Town Council on proposed text amendments, to allow for clarification & corrections to the Town Code. A complete description of the text amendments is on file at the Office of Community Development, located at 75 S. Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs 7. A worksession to discuss an interpretation of the definition of site coverage. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther 8. A request for a recommendation to the Town Council on the proposed Vail Land Use Plan amendments to change the land use designation for the following properties: 1. LDR to OS, located at 3880 & 3896 Lupine Drive/Lots 15 & 16, Bighorn Subdivision 2"d Addition. 2. OS to HDR, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd. West/ generally located northwest of the 1-70 interchange at the main Vail exit, known as "Mountain Bell," A TRACT OF LAND IN THE SOUTH HALF, OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT THAT IS NORTH 00 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 686.60 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF INTERSTATE 70; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 6 A DISTANCE OF 633.40 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 21 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 2633.76 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST BOUNDARY LINE OF VAIUPOTATO PATCH; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 12 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID EAST BOUNDARY LINE A DISTANCE OF 361.21 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE, SAID CURVE ALSO BEING ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF INTERSTATE 70; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE FOLLOWING 8 COURSES: 1) A DISTANCE OF 204.62 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 18 SECONDS, A RADIUS OF 3990.0 FEET, AND A CHORD NORTH 85 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 10 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 204.60 FEET; 2) NORTH 80 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 06 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 211.80 FEET; 3) NORTH 84 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 50 MINUTES EAST A DISTANCE OF 319.70 FEET; 4) SOUTH 79 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 28 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 424.40 FEET; 5) SOUTH 69 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 21 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 303.20 FEET; 6) SOUTH 74 DEGREES 21 MINUTES 35 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 204.70 FEET; 7) SOUTH 83 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 826.30 FEET; 8) SOUTH 71 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 45 MINUTES EAST A DISTANCE OF 196.10 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LAND DESCRIBED IN WARRANTY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 218 AT PAGE 419, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN 9. Approval of January 22, 2001 minutes 2 10. Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published February 9, 2001 in the Vail Trail. 3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, February 12, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 11:30 am MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1:30 pm 1. Peters residence - 2955 Bellflower Drive 2. Brandess Building - 2077 N. Frontage Road Driver: Bill NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 363 Beaver Dam Road / Lot 2, Block 3, Vail Village 3`d Filing. Applicant: Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson 2. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 383 Beaver Dam Road / Lot 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3`d Filing. Applicant: Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson 3. A request for a final review of a proposed special development district to allow for the construction of a new conference facility/hotel; and a final review of conditional use permits to allow for the construction of fractional fee units and Type III employee housing units at 13 Vail Road / Lots A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2. Applicant: Doramar Hotels, represented by the Daymer Corporation Planner: Brent Wilson 4. A request for variances from Section 12-6D-64Setbacks) and Title 14 (Development Standards- locating required parking in the Right-of-Way), to allow for a residential addition and remodel located at 2955 Bellflower Dr. / Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan Peters, represented by Braun Associates Planner: Allison Ochs i TOWN of YA& 5. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the installation of rooftop telecommunications antennas at the Brandess Building, located at 2077 N. Frontage Road (Brandess Building)/Lot 39, Buffehr Creek. Applicant: Jayne Brandess Revocable Trust, represented by Abacus Communications Planner: Allison Ochs 6. A request for a recommendation to the Town Council on proposed text amendments, to allow for clarification & corrections to the Town Code. A complete description of the text amendments is on file at the Office of Community Development, located at 75 S. Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs 7. A worksession to discuss an interpretation of the definition of site coverage. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther 8. A request for a recommendation to the Town Council on the proposed Vail Land Use Plan amendments to change the land use designation for the following properties: 1. LDR to OS, located at 3880 & 3896 Lupine Drive/Lots 15 & 16, Bighorn Subdivision 2nd Addition. 2. OS to HDR, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd. West/ generally located northwest of the 1-70 interchange at the main Vail exit, known as "Mountain Bell," A TRACT OF LAND IN THE SOUTH HALF, OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT THAT IS NORTH 00 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 686.60 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF INTERSTATE 70; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 6 A DISTANCE OF 633.40 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 21 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 2633.76 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST BOUNDARY LINE OF VAIUPOTATO PATCH; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 12 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID EAST BOUNDARY LINE A DISTANCE OF 361.21 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE, SAID CURVE ALSO BEING ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF INTERSTATE 70; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE FOLLOWING 8 COURSES: 1) A DISTANCE OF 204.62 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 18 SECONDS, A RADIUS OF 3990.0 FEET, AND A CHORD NORTH 85 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 10 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 204.60 FEET; 2) NORTH 80 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 06 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 211.80 FEET; 3) NORTH 84 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 50 MINUTES EAST A DISTANCE OF 319.70 FEET; 4) SOUTH 79 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 28 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 424.40 FEET; 5) SOUTH 69 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 21 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 303.20 FEET; 6) SOUTH 74 DEGREES 21 MINUTES 35 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 204.70 FEET; 7) SOUTH 83 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 826.30 FEET; 8) SOUTH 71 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 45 MINUTES EAST A DISTANCE OF 196.10 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LAND DESCRIBED IN WARRANTY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 218 AT PAGE 419, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN 9. Approval of January 22, 2001 minutes 2 10. Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published February 9, 2001 in the Vail Trail. 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: February 12, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a final review and recommendation of a proposed special development district to allow for the construction of a new conference facility/hotel; and a final review of conditional use permits to allow for the construction of fractional fee units and Type III employee housing units at 13 Vail Road / Lots A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2. Applicant: Doramar Hotels, represented by the Daymer Corporation Planner: Brent Wilson 1. INTRODUCTION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST SDecial.Develooment District Reauest The applicant is proposing the Vail Plaza Hotel West special development district (SDD) where the Chateau at Vail is currently located. The current (and proposed underlying) zoning for the property is "Public Accommodation." The Vail Plaza Hotel West is a mixed-use development proposal. Uses within the hotel include residential, commercial and recreation. The proposed plan currently includes a 120 hotel rooms (392 s.f. each), 17 condominiums, 39 fractional fee units, 16 employee housing units, 5,741 square feet of restaurant/bar space, 7,027 square feet of retail space, 22,514 square feet of conference/meeting space, and a 23,767-square foot spa/health club. The existing "Chateau at Vail" hotel contains 120 hotel rooms at 280 square feet each. The applicant and staff have identified what are believed to be the public benefits that would be realized by the Town as a result of the Vail Plaza Hotel West redevelopment. The public benefits associated with the hotel proposal are: ¦ An increase in the annual occupancy rate through the redevelopment of an older existing hotel. ¦ The creation of approximately 22,500 square feet of new conference and meeting room facilities. This includes a 10,000 square foot ballroom and 9,000 square feet of breakout/preconvene space. The implementation of the recommended Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan improvements along South Frontage Road and a portion of West Meadow Drive. Y T0Rk OF VAIL i ¦ The re-investment and redevelopment of resort property in the Town of Vail. ¦ The implementation of the development goals, objectives and policies adopted by the Town for Public Accommodation properties. ¦ A significant increase to the Town's supply of short-term, overnight accommodation to serve our guests and visitors. • The construction of an "anchor" hotel providing a high-level of guest services and amenities. • A potentially sizeable annual contribution to the Town's declining sales tax revenue. A sauare footaoe breakdown of the proposal is provided below: • 59,314 sq. ft. - fractional fee club units ¦ 45,511 sq. ft. -condominium • 46,871 sq. ft. -accommodation units ¦ 12,768 sq. ft. - restau rant/retai I • 22,514 sq. ft. -conference/meeting rooms ¦ 23,767 sq. ft. - spa/health club ¦ 236,445 sq. ft. - common area (mech., stairs/hallways, parking, office, lobby, etc.) In reviewing the proposal, staff identified a number of pros and cons that we believe are associated with the hotel proposal. The list includes, but is not limited to, the following: PROS ¦ The presence of economic redevelopment in Vail. • An increased level of quality to the Town's of hotel bed base. • The implementation of certain development goals, objectives, and policies. • The creation of new, deed-restricted employee housing to offset the housing impacts associated with the hotel. • The elimination of an unsightly surface parking lot. ¦ The construction of new conference and meeting room facilities within the Town. ¦ The construction of public improvements funded with private dollars. • The potential increase in sales tax revenue. • The removal of existing loading/delivery and guest traffic from West Meadow Drive. 2 CONS • Deviations from the underlying zoning development standards are required. • The bulk and mass of the new hotel is not consistent with the established neighborhood character and the pedestrian scale along West Meadow Drive. • There are increased impacts of shading on public areas. • Additional views of Vail Mountain from public areas will be impacted. • Additional loading/delivery truck traffic on Town streets. • There may be safety issues associated with the proposed pedestrian circulation system. • There is no net increase of true accommodation units over what exists today. • A significant period of building construction (noise, construction traffic, etc) and the anticipated impacts to public streets and adjacent properties. Conditional Use Permit Reauests In association with the application for a special development district, the applicant is requesting conditional use permits to allow for the establishment of 39 fractional fee units and the construction of 16 Type III employee housing units. Please refer to Sections VIII & IX of this memorandum for a detailed review of these requests. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Soecial Develooment District The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of denial of the applicant's request to the Vail Town Council for the proposed special development district to allow for the construction of a new conference facility/hotel. Staff's recommendation for denial is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the following finding: 1. That the proposed special development district, the Vail Plaza Hotel West, does not comply with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12-9A-8 of the Vail Town Code. The applicant has not demonstrated that any adverse effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided. There are still unresolved issues that render the submittal substantially incomplete. 3 Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the requested special development district to the Vail Town Council, staff would recommend that the Commission make the following finding: 1. That the proposed special development district, Vail Plaza Hotel West, complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12-9A-8 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that any adverse effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided. Further, the Commission finds that the requested conditional use permits to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club and the construction of Type III employee housing units complies with the applicable criteria and is consistent with the development goals and objectives of the Town. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the requested major amendment, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions: 1. 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. 2. That the developer provides deed-restricted housing, which complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13), for a minimum of 50 employees, and that said deed-restricted housing be made available for occupancy, and that the deed restrictions are recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail Plaza Hotel West. 3. That the developer submits a final detailed landscape plan to the Community Development Department for Design Review Board review and approval prior to making an application for a building permit. 4. That the developer submits a complete set of civil engineer drawings of all the off-site improvements, including the improvements to the South Frontage Road, for review and Town approval, prior to application for a building permit. 5. 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. 6. 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 first reading of an ordinance approving the special 4 development district. This includes streetscaping improvements along South Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive in accordance with the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. 7. That the developer records an easement for Spraddle Creek. 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. 8. That the developer submits a final exterior building materials list, a typical wall section and complete color renderings for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to making an application for a building permit. 9. That the developer submits a comprehensive sign program proposal for the Vail Plaza Hotel West for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 10. 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. 11. That the developer posts a bond to provide financial security for the 150% 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. 12. That the developer either receives approval from the Nine Vail Road association to allow for grading and relocation of parking areas on Nine Vail Road property or removes these improvements from the proposed plan. 13. That the developer either receives approval and a pedestrian easement from the owner of the Alpine Standard property to allow for the encroachment of a proposed sidewalk on Alpine Standard's property or removes these improvements from the proposed plan. Conditional Use Permit - Fractional Fee Units The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of 39 fractional fee units within the Vail Plaza Hotel West based upon the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 5 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The approval of this conditional use permit is not valid unless an ordinance approving the associated special development district request is approved on second reading. Conditional Use Permit- Emolovee Housina Units The Community Development Department recommends denial of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of 16 employee housing units within the Vail Plaza Hotel West based upon the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in not accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposal does not comply with the minimum requirements outlined for employee housing units outlined in Section 12-13-3 of the Vail Town Code. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would not comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve this request, the Department of Community Development recommends the following condition be placed on the approval. 1. The applicant shall record applicable deed restrictions for all employee housing units with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail Plaza Hotel West. III. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS Special Development District + Order of Review. Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for impacts of use/development, then by the DRB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning, and final approval by the Town Council. 6 Plannina and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisorv to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the following: ¦ Permitted, accessory, and conditional uses ¦ Evaluation of design criteria as follows (as applicable): A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 1. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Recommendation on development standards including, lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverages, landscaping and parking. 7 Desian Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a SDD Drooosal. but must review anv accomoanvino DRB aoolication The DRB review of an SDD prior to Town Council aooroval is ourely advisorv in nature. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal: - Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision for snow storage on-site - Acceptability of building materials and colors - Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms - Provision of landscape and drainage - Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures - Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances - Location and design of satellite dishes - Provision of outdoor lighting - Compliance with the architectural design guidelines of applicable master plans. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Action: The Town Council is responsible for final aaoroval/denial of an SDD. The Town Council shall review the proposal for the following: Permitted, accessory, and conditional uses Evaluation of design criteria as follows (as applicable): A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. 8 D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 1. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Approval of development standards including, lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverages, landscaping and parking. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS (CUP): Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for acceptability of use and then by the DRB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Plannina and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is responsible for final approval/denial of a CUP. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a CUP proposal for: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 9 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. Conformance with development standards of zone district - Lot area - Setbacks - Building Height - Density - GRFA - Site coverage - Landscape area - Parking and loading - Mitigation of development impacts Desian Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a C;l1P. hi it must review anv accomoanving DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: - Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision for snow storage on-site - Acceptability of building materials and colors - Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms - Provision of landscape and drainage - Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures - Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances - Location and design of satellite dishes - Provision of outdoor lighting - The design of parks Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. 10 Town Council: Actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. IV. DEVIATIONS FROM THE UNDERLYING ZONING The Vail Plaza Hotel West Special Development District proposal contains the following deviations from the underlying Public Accommodation (PA) zoning: 1. Heiaht - the proposed hotel is 29.5' (61 taller than the 48' allowed under PA zoning. The proposed building is 77 feet tall at its highest ridge (adjacent to South Frontage Road). 2. Required Parkina -the proposal provides 52 (19%) fewer parking spaces than required by the Town Code and staff's calculations. Staff recommends a total of 268 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing 216 spaces. Parking for the special development district will be prescribed by the PEC. 3. Parkina Within the Front Setback - Additionally, the Public Accommodation Zone District regulations require that no surface (or above-grade) parking is located within the required front setback. This proposal has a significant amount of parking located within the front setback. 4. Landscaoina -the underlying zoning requires a minimum of 30% landscape area. The applicant is providing 26.1 % of site area in the form of landscaping. Pursuant to the town's definition of "landscaping," a maximum of 20% of the landscape requirement may be fulfilled with hardscape (patios, pavers, etc.). However, the applicant is proposing 34.5% of the landscaping as hardscape, for a total landscape/hardscape area of 30.7%. 5. Site Coveraae (below, arade) - although the proposal complies with site coverage requirements above grade, it deviates by 9% below grade. 6. Setbacks (above arade) - although the proposal complies with minimum setback requirements for the building footprint, the proposed covered entry encroaches into the front setback and abuts the property line. 7. Setbacks (below grade) -the proposal deviates 15' (75%) from the required 20' minimum setback below grade. V. "PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION ZONE DISTRICT" According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the applicant's property is zoned Public Accommodation. Pursuant to the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Public Accommodation Zone district is intended, t1 L to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semi-public facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community, and where permitted are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the District. The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodging units with densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre. The Public Accommodation Zone District, prior to January 21, 1997, did not permit interval ownership. On January 21, 1997, the Town Council adopted regulations allowing interval ownership subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Previously, interval ownership was only allowed as a conditional use in the High Density Multi-family Zone District. On October 5, 1999, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1999, amending the development standards prescribed in the Public Accommodation Zone District. The amendments included an increase in allowable GRFA up to 150%, an increase in site coverage, the elimination of AU's and FFU's in the calculation of density, revised setback requirements, and other various aspects in the development of properties zoned Public Accommodation. The allowable building height, landscape area and limitation on commercial square footage remained unchanged. VI. ZONING ANALYSIS The development standards for a Special Development District shall be proposed by the applicant. Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking and loading shall be determined by the Town Council as part of the approved development plan, with consideration of the recommendations of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Before the Town Council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it shall be determined that such deviations provide benefits to the Town that outweigh the effects of such deviations. This determination is to be made based upon the evaluation of the proposed Special Development District's cgmpliance with the Review Criteria outlined in the following section of this memorandum. The Community Development Department staff has prepared a zoning analysis for the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel West. The Vail Plaza Hotel West Zoning Analysis compares the development standards outlined by the underlying zoning of Public Accommodation (revised 10/99) to the Vail Plaza Hotel West proposal. 12 A copy of the Vail Plaza Hotel West Zoning Analvsis has been attached for reference (Exhibit 13). VII. THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT AND REVIEW PROCESS Chapter 12-9 of the Town Code provides for the amendment of existing Special Development Districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 12-9A-1, the purpose of a Special Development District is, "To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land, in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a Special Development District, in conjunction with the properties underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development District." An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses, and activities of the Special Development District. The development plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the Special Development District shall adhere. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to: the approved site plan; floor plans, building sections, and elevations: vicinity plan; parking plan; preliminary open space/landscape plan; densities; and permitted, conditional, and accessory uses. The determination of permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council as part of the formal review of the proposed development plan. Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed Special Development District, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the property's underlying zone district. The Town Code provides nine design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed major amendment to a Special Development District. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved- The following is a staff analysis of the project's compliance with the nine SDD review criteria: NOTE: Staff's analysis is based in part on an analysis by Jeff Winston, an independent design consultant. 13 CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. The town solicited the services of an urban design consultant to assist in the review of the urban design elements of this proposal. Jeff Winston's analysis has been attached for reference (Exhibit C). Staff does not believe the applicant has responded significantly to the design direction given by the Town's elected and appointed boards since October of 2000. Specific concerns include: ¦ Bulk and Mass - The overall scale of the current proposal is inconsistent with the established character of the area. A "breaking up" of the primary roof ridges would help scale down the mass. The project should read as an assemblage of buildings rather than one large structure (Joint Board Meeting, 10/24/00). ¦ Bulk and Mass - The building should be turned outward towards the public and opened up to allow greater public access. The proposed atrium area should be opened more to the south to take advantage of the sun exposure and pedestrian traffic (PEC, 11/27/00). Heioht - The height along West Meadow Drive should be stepped down again to a level more consistent with the established character of the area (PEC, 11/27/00). ¦ Bulk and Mass - The project should read as a fragmented assemblage of structures. The linear, unbroken wall planes along the South Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive are too massive and should be broken up to help reduce the apparent mass of the project. There should be points in the project where light and air penetrate through to allow for more transparency. The current proposal is not sympathetic to the design and scale of adjacent buildings (DRB, 12/8/00). ¦ Lavout/Footr)rint - The inward focus of the project should be turned outward. The current proposal is reminiscent of the Vail Gateway project. It needs to be more inviting to the public from the outside. The large internal atrium could be reduced in size; this would allow more flexibility in breaking up the layout of the proposal (DRB, 12/8/00). The Vail Land Use Plan identifies the subject property as part of a "transition zone" that forms a buffer between the foreground residences along the south side of the West Meadow Drive and the larger, higher-density structures along the frontage road. Staff agrees with the comments from the Design Review Board that the internal "compound" design should be broken up into an assemblage of buildings that are more inviting from the exterior. The long, unbroken linear masses proposed along the frontage road and West Meadow Drive add to the massive appearance of the building. The Town of Vail Design Guidelines (Title 14, Vail Town Code) require that any proposed structure is "compatible with existing structures, their surroundings, and with Vail's environment." Given the significant deviation in height and the long, unbroken linear mass of the building proposed, staff does not believe this requirement has been met. Although a significant number of buildings in the neighborhood deviate from the 14 allowable building height, staff believes the applicant's proposed overall mass is inconsistent with comparable neighboring properties. Please refer to staff's "Adjacent Building Height Analysis" (Exhibit D) for details. Although some deviation in building height may be warranted for a project of this scope and nature, staff believes the current proposal is inconsistent with both the existing neighborhood character and the standards established for properties across the street in Vail Village. Proposed building story heights are 10.5 feet. The applicant has submitted a Vail Plaza Hotel West Sun/Shade Analysis (Exhibit E) and Vail Plaza Hotel West View Analysis (Exhibit F) to demonstrate impacts to the streetscape and public ways. The sun/shade analysis indicates substantial portions of South Frontage Road (including the sidewalk on the south side) will be impacted by shade during the winter months. The applicant is proposing to heat the sidewalk on the south side of the frontage road along the Chateau property line in an effort to mitigate a portion of this impact. Orientation - One of the urban design goals the town has adopted for redevelopment in Lionshead is a predominantly north-south orientation for buildings. Although the subject property does not fall directly into the context area for the redevelopment master plan for Lionshead, the design concepts that apply to adjacent Lionshead properties are a critical element in the evaluation of compatibility with neighborhood character. Additionally, the design concepts promoted here are general "good design" policies, and not specific sub- area concepts from any specific plan. One goal adopted by the DRB, PEC and Town Council is "it should be a priority in future development and redevelopment to orient vertical building masses along a north-south axis whenever possible." This will help to accomplish the following objectives: a. Sun Access - During the winter months, the sun is low in the southern sky, providing the greatest solar exposure to the south faces of buildings and to streets and spaces open to the south. A north-south orientation of building masses will increase the amount of sun reaching the Lionshead pedestrian core and the buildings to the north. b. Views from New Buildings - In double loaded buildings oriented on an east-west axis, units on the south side of the building get great views of the mountain, but units on the north side do not. Orienting the building mass on a north-south line creates angled southern views for both sides of the building, and units on both sides will get direct sun sometime during the day. C. Views from Existing Buildings - By orienting new buildings on a north- south axis, the potential visual Impact on existing buildings is reduced. d. Creation of "Streets" or Areas of Interest for Pedestrians. Although staff acknowledges the subject lot does not lend itself to a complete north- south building alignment, staff agrees with Jeff Winston's comments that a diagonal 11 sawtooth" treatment similar to Eldon Beck's plan for the Vail Village Inn properties fronting East Meadow Drive would be more desirable than the linear east-west horizontal mass that is proposed by the applicant. t5 B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The uses, activities and densities for the Vail Plaza Hotel West development site are prescribed by the underlying zoning. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the underlying zoning for the proposed special development district is Public Accommodation. The Public Accommodation Zone District encourages the development of lodges (accommodation units) and accessory eating and drinking establishments at a density of twenty-five dwelling units per acre. The surrounding uses and zoning designation include Public Accommodation to the south, east and west (Sonnenalp, Nine Vail Road & Special Development District No. 6 - Vail Village Inn), High-Density Multiple Family to the west and northwest (Alphorn and Scorpio), Heavy Service to the north (Alpine Standard) and Commercial Core I/SDD #21 (Gateway) to the northeast. The same development standards that apply to the Vail Plaza Hotel West development site apply to the Sonnenalp, Nine Vail Road and Vail Village Inn properties. The Commercial Core I underlying zoning of the Gateway Special Development District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of commercial and residential development The Heavy Service district is intended to provide sites for automotive-oriented land uses. The Vail Plaza Hotel West is proposed as a mixed-use development. The mixture of uses includes commercial, lodging, recreational and residential. Staff believes the proposed mixture of uses and its proximity to both Vail Village and Lionshead is consistent with the intended purpose of the underlying zoning of Public Accommodation. Further, staff believes that the proposed uses within the Vail Plaza Hotel West will compliment those existing uses and activities on surrounding and adjacent properties. The proposed density of the hotel and the presence of the conference facilities will improve and enhance the viability and success of the existing restaurant and retail businesses in the immediate area. Emolovee Housina Reauirements As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives of the Town, s Master Plans, providing affordable housing for employees is a critical issue which should be addressed through the planning process for Special Development District proposals. In reviewing the proposal for employee housing needs, staff relied on the Town of Vail Employee Housing Report. This report has been used by the staff in the past to evaluate employee housing needs. The guidelines contained within the report were used most recently in the review of the Austria Haus, Marriott and Special Development District No. 6 - Vail Village Inn development proposals. The Employee Housing Report was prepared for the Town by the consulting firm Rosall, Remmen and Cares. The report provides the recommended ranges of employee housing units needed based on the type of use and the amount of floor area dedicated to each use. Utilizing the guidelines prescribed in the Employee Housing Report, staff analyzed the incremental increase of employees (square footage per use), that results from the redevelopment. The figures identified in the report are based on surveys of commercial-use employment needs of the Town of Vail and other mountain resort communities. For comparison purposes, Telluride, Aspen and Whistler, B.C. all have "employment generation" ordinances requiring developers to provide affordable housing for a percentage of the new employees resulting from commercial development. "New" employees are defined as the incremental increase in employment needs resulting from commercial 16 redevelopment. Each of the communities assesses a different percentage of affordable housing a developer must provide for the new employees. For example, Telluride requires developers to provide housing for 40% (0.40) of the new employees, Aspen requires that 60% (0.60) of the new employees are provided housing and Whistler requires that 100% (1.00) of the new employees be provided housing by the developer. In comparison, Vail has conservatively determined that developers shall provide housing 15% (0.15) or 30% (0.30) of the new employees resulting from commercial development. When a project is proposed to exceed the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 30% (0.30) figure is used in the calculation. If a project is proposed at, or below, the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 15% (0.15) figure is used. The Vail Plaza Hotel West special development district does not exceed the density permitted by the underlying zone district. However, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Vail Town Council have indicated the 30% figure should be used. The applicant is proposing to provide employee housing for a percentage of the "new" employees resulting from the hotel construction. Based upon an analysis completed by the applicant and provided to the Community Development Department, the new hotel is expected to generate 164 "new" employees. The "new" employees are in addition to the 79 "full time equivalent" employees already working at the Chateau at Vail. The applicant is proposing to provide deed-restricted employee housing for 22.5% (37) of the "new" employees. Due to the unavailability of private vacant land resources within the Town limits, the applicant anticipates that all or a portion of the deed-restricted housing will be provided in an out-of-town or down-valley location. In order to maximize the benefit of the housing to the Town of Vail, the applicant has suggested that the housing will be available only to Vail Plaza Hotel West employees. It is further anticipated that some form of transportation will be provided to the employees from the out-of-town or down- valley location to the hotel. EMPLOYEE HOUSING GENERATION ANALYSIS For a point of reference, the "top," "middle" and "bottom" ranges of calculations for the Vail Plaza Hotel West proposal are provided below. The applicant's employee generation report is attached as Exhibit G. • Bottom of Range Calculations = 25 employee beds ¦ Middle of Range Calculations = 51 employee beds ¦ Top of Range Calculations = 77 employee beds • Staff Recommended Range = 50 employee beds, • Applicant's Proposal = 37 employee beds Staff Recommended Rance Calculations: Staff believes that the Vail Plaza Hotel West redevelopment will create a need for the housing of 164 additional "new" employees. Of the 164 additional employees, at least 50 employees (30%) will need to be provided deed-restricted housing by the developers of the Vail Plaza Hotel West_ The staff recommended range is based on: 1. the type of retail and commercial use proposed in the commercial space within the Vail Plaza Hotel West; 17 2. the size of the Vail Plaza Hotel West lodging component; 3. the level of services and amenities proposed by the developers for the guests of the Vail Plaza Hotel West; and 4. the result of research completed by Town of Vail staff of similar hotel operations in the Vail Valley. a) Retail/Service Commercial = 7,027 sq. ft. @ (5/1000 sq. ft.) = 35.1 (bottom of range) b) Health Club = 23,767sq. ft. @ (1.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 35.7 (top of range) C) Restaurant/Lounge/Kitchen = 5,741 sq. ft. @ (6.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 37.3 (middle of range) d) Conference Center = 22,514 sq. ft. @ (1/1000 sq. ft.) = 22.5 (range does not vary) e) Lodging =120 units @ (.75/unit) = 90.0 (middle of range) f) Multi Family (Club Units) =17 units @ (.4/unit) = 6.8 (range does not vary) g) Fractional Fee Units = 39 units @ (.4/unit) = 15.6 (range does not vary) Total = 243.0 (-79 existing employees) = 164.0 (X 0.30 multiplier) = 50 new employees "Lodging has a particularly large variation of employees per room, depending upon factors such as size of facility and level of service/support services and amenities provided. Bottom of Range Calculations: a) Retail/Service Commercial = 7,027 sq. ft. @ (5/1000 sq. ft.) = 35.1 b) Health Club = 23,767 sq. ft. @ (1/1000 sq. ft.) = 23.8 C) Restaurant/Lounge/Kitchen = 5,741 sq. ft. @ (5/1000 sq. ft.) = 28.7 d) Conference Center = 22,514 sq. ft. @ (1/1000 sq. ft.) = 22.5 e) Lodging =120 units @ (.25/unit) = 30.0 f) Multi-Family Units = 17 units @ (.4/unit) = 6.8 g) Fractional Fee Units = 39 units @ (.4/unit) = 15.6 Total Employees = 162.5 79 existing employees) = 83.5 (X 0.30 multiplier) = 25 new employees 18 Middle of Range Calculations: a) Retail/Service Commercial = 7,027 sq. ft. @ (6.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 45.7 b) Health Club = 23,767 sq. ft. @ (1.25/1000 sq. ft.) = 29.7 C) Restaurant/Lounge/Kitchen = 5,741 sq. ft. @ (6.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 37.3 d) Conference Center = 22,514 sq. ft. @ (1A000 sq. ft.) = 22.5 e) Lodging = 120 units @ (.75/unit) = 90.0 f) Multi-Family Units = 17 units @ (.4/unit) = 6.8 g) Fractional Fee Units = 39 units @ (.4/unit) = 15.6 Total Employees = 247.6 79 existing employees) = 168.6 (X 0.30 multiplier) = 51 new employees Top of Range Calculations: a) Retail/Service Commercial = 7,027 sq. ft. @ (8/1000 sq. ft.) = 56.2 b) Health Club = 23,767 sq. ft. @ (1.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 35.7 C) Restaurant/Lounge/Kitchen = 5,741 sq. ft. @ (8/1000 sq. ft.) = 45.9 d) Conference Center = 22,514 sq. ft. @ (1 A 000 sq. ft.) = 22.5 e) Lodging = 120 units @ (1.25/unit) = 150.0 f) Multi-Family Units = 17 units @ (.4/unit) = 6.8 g) Fractional Fee Units = 39 units @ (.4/unit) = 15.6 Total Employees = 332.7 79 existing employees) = 253.7 (X 0.30 multiplier) = 77 new employees Depending upon the size of the employee housing unit provided, it is possible to have up to two employees per bedroom. For example, a two-bedroom unit in the size range of 450 - 900 square feet is possible of accommodating three to four employees. These figures are consistent with the requirements for the Type Ill employee housing units outlined in the Municipal Code. The applicant's current proposal for employee housing units does not meet the town's basic minimum requirements outlined in Chapter 12-13 of the Vail Town Code. Additionally, it is important to note the proposed EHU's are located directly adjacent to the loading docks and ramps. Please refer to Section IX of this memorandum for details. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 1240 of the Vail Town Code. The proposal does not comply with the parking and loading requirements outlined in Chapter 12-10 of the Vail Town Code. There are conflicts and inconsistencies among the parking plan sheets submitted by the applicant. For example, the applicant is proposing a bus parking space within a space already identified as required parking for four cars. Overall, the parking proposed by the applicant falls short by a minimum of 52 spaces. Pursuant to Section 12-10-20 of the town code, the applicant has submitted a "special review report" to request a reduction in the number of required parking spaces. Staff has identified the following inaccuracies and inconsistencies with the report: • The square footage calculations used in the study do not match the applicant's program analysis and floor plans. Therefore, they are irrelevant. 19 ¦ The study does not assess any parking for the employee housing units. • The study assumes external (i.e. local, non-guest) health club/spa users will arrive via public transit. Staff believes this is unrealistic, especially given the premium services provided at a "five-star" resort and spa. • The study greatly under-assesses health club parking (one space per 25 external memberships). Staff's recommended rate is one space per approximately 10.8 memberships. There is no codified rate for health club parking in the town code. Therefore, the parking rate is prescribed by the PEC. • The study recommends a reduction in parking that far exceeds the maximum reduction. allowed by the town code. Based on these factors, staff recommends the PEC reject the attached (Exhibit H) parking study by Alpine Engineering. Staff's parking calculations are contained in the attached Exhibit I. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan. Vail Land Use Plan: The Vail Land Use Plan applies two "future land use" designations to the property: Resort Accommodations and Service: This area includes activities aimed at accommodating the overnight and short-term visitor to the area. Primary uses include hotels, lodges, service stations, and parking structures. These areas are oriented toward vehicular access from 1-70, with other support commercial and business services included. Also allowed in this category would be institutional uses and various municipal uses. Transition: The activities and site design of this area is aimed at encouraging pedestrian flow through the area and strengthening the connection between the two commercial cores. Appropriate activities include hotels, lodging and other tourist-oriented residential units, ancillary retail and restaurant uses, museums, areas of public art, nature exhibits, gardens, pedestrian plazas, and other ties to the north. The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy guidelines during the review process for the establishment of a special development district. Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the following policies are relevant to the review of this proposal: 1. General Growth/Development 11 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water, and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 20 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill). 3. Commercial 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.2 The Village and Lionshead are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skier. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 5. Residential 5.1 Quality timeshare units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy rates up. 5.2 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. The Land Use Plan suggests that increased density for commercial, residential and lodging uses in the Village/Lionshead Core areas would be acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is being preserved. Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan The town's Streetscape Master Plan identifies West Meadow Drive as the primary pedestrian route between Vail Village and Lionshead Mail. To improve the quality of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrian ways, as a continuous system, two general types of improvements adjacent to the walkways are considered: 1. Open space and landscaping, berms, grass, flowers and tree planting as a soft, colorful framework linkage along pedestrian routes; and plazas and park greenspaces as open nodes and focal points along those routes. 2. Infill commercial storefronts, expansion of existing buildings, or new infill development to create new commercial activity generators to give street life and visual interest, as attractions at key locations along pedestrian routes. 21 Future streetscape improvement concepts for West Meadow Drive include: ¦ A primary pedestrian path (10'-12' wide) on one side of the street with a smaller (5') sidewalk on the opposite side of the street. The primary path crosses from the north to the south side of the street to avoid the head-in parking that exists at the Alphorn and Skaal Hus. Curb and gutter would be used to define the street. The street has been narrowed to the minimum width of 26' curb-to-curb. ¦ Sidewalks are constructed of concrete unit pavers to clearly distinguish them from the roadway. The primary path may be a different color than the secondary walkway. ¦ A pedestrian priority crosswalk is planned near the Chateau Vail site. This raised crosswalk keeps the path at the same level as it crosses the street. ¦ The plan calls for extensive landscaping along the right-of-way to reflect the landscape character of nearby Gore Creek. • Seating is provided at regular intervals. Public art or a similar feature is proposed adjacent to the pocket park at the intersection with Vail Road. Although the town is in the process of refining the plan for West Meadow Drive, staff believes the applicant's preliminary streetscape plan demonstrates substantial compliance with the above-listed provisions. Staff believes the uses and activities proposed are in compliance with the policies, goals, and objectives identified in the Vail Land Use Plan. However, staff does not believe the proposal provides enough employee housing to meet the intent of policy 5.2 (please refer to the previous page). E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. According to the Official Town of Vail Geologic Hazard Maps, the Vail Plaza Hotel West development site is not located in any geologically sensitive areas or within the 100-year floodplain. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Loadina and Deliverv ° Staff believes the removal of loading and delivery traffic from West Meadow Drive is a definite start in the right direction. However, there are significant sight and sound concerns for adjacent residents with the loading bays and ramp as proposed. The burden shall be on the applicant to demonstrate adverse impacts to adjacent properties have been successfully mitigated. As mentioned previously, the applicant has stated there will be a strong connection between this proposal and the Vail Plaza Hotel East across the street. However, the connection proposed involves a pedestrian walk across a loading truck ramp. Perhaps there should be a stronger gesture and orientation between the two buildings if they are to function interactively via a strong pedestrian connection. 22 Landscape Plan and Ooen Soace Provisions Although the amount of "landscaping" provided by the applicant is deficient pursuant to town zoning, staff feels the overall preliminary plan for landscaping and open courtyard areas is functional and aesthetically improved over what exists today along West Meadow Drive. One concern is that too much landscaping along the exterior spa deck may be proposed in an attempt to screen the somewhat private nature inherent to pool decks and sunbathing areas. However, this issue may be addressed in greater detail at the DRB level. On the other portions of the property, staff believes the size and massing of the building proposed may inhibit the ability of the landscaping to provide a true feeling of "open space." This is particularly true of the western lot perimeter adjacent to the Alphorn and Scorpio buildings. Although there are good preliminary concepts at work (particularly along West Meadow Drive), staff does not believe this criterion will be adequately addressed until some of the building's massing issues are finalized. Staff will solicit additional input on this criterion from the Design Review Board on February 141h G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Pursuant to Section 12-7A-14 (Mitigation of Development Impacts) of the "Public Accommodation" zone district regulations, property owners/developers shall be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. The intent is to provide appropriate mitigation to an extent that is proportional to the anticipated impacts of new development. Vehicular Traffic and Road Impacts: The applicant has submitted a traffic study from an engineering consultant to address the impacts of this proposal. Staff has identified the following problematic issues with this study: ¦ Wrona Peak Periods Were Used - Weekday trips with peak periods of 7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-5:00 p.m. were used. In Vail, peak periods occur on weekends from 8:30-10:30 a.m. and 3:00-5:30 p.m. • A Sian ificant Traffic Generator was Overlooked - The report does not take into account any traffic generated by the employee housing units. ¦ An Error in the Interpretation of the State Hiahwav Access Code - The consultant underestimated the required storage and ttLper lengths for the left-hand turn lane on South Frontage Road. Since the traffic report contains significant errors, staff believes the PEC should reject the applicant's traffic study (,Exhibit J). Staff does not believe adequate mitigation of road impacts has been demonstrated by the applicant at this time. Other Vehicular Traffic Concerns: • The proposed charter bus parking space is located within the middle of a drive lane. This conflicts with traffic circulation of guest vehicles. 23 ¦ There is insufficient information to determine if there is adequate clearance to ensure trucks will not hit balconies along the loading ramps. • There is insufficient information to determine if there is adequate sight distance at access points to avoid traffic safety hazards. ¦ The consulting engineer's delivery truck backing movements show trucks backing onto walk areas and colliding with a retaining wall. ¦ There may not be enough of a buffer zone within turning radii to account for delivery truck driver error. For example, the Town designed a five-foot buffer zone for the roundabouts and cars and trucks still hit the curbs. It would be a better solution for this access point for the developer to negotiate an easement across the Alpine Standard property to provide a more realistic turning movement into the access road. Pedestrian Traffic Circulation: The applicant (as well as the town staff and elected/appointed boards) has identified the need for a strong pedestrian connection between the proposal and the Vail Village Inn site via the access drive adjacent to Vail Road. The applicant is proposing a 4-foot wide paver sidewalk for pedestrians along this drive. However, if the sidewalk is constructed as proposed, there will be conflicts between pedestrians along this walk and overlapping loading/delivery truck turning movements. This is a significant safety (and aesthetic) concern. Although staff believes sufficient attention has been given to pedestrian circulation along the southern portion of the property, more pedestrian "breakthrough" in the building and site in general would be desirable. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. Staff believes additional detail is necessary to evaluate whether the proposed loading bay sound/sight mitigation berm will achieve an acceptable level of buffering. There are no established public view corridors in the immediate vicinity of-this proposal. Staff will solicit additional input on this criterion from the Design Review Board on February 14tH 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The applicant is proposing to construct the project in one phase. A subdivision of the property is not necessary to facilitate this proposal (with the exception of a condominium map). Construction staging is reviewed as part of a building permit submittal for any project. 24 VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- FRACTIONAL FEE UNITS Upon review of the Vail Town Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of 39 fractional fee units within the Vail Plaza Hotel West based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. In January of 1997, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996. In part, this ordinance amended the Public Accommodation Zone District allowing fractional fee clubs as a conditional use and set forth criteria for the Commission to consider when evaluating such a request. Since that time, the Austria Haus Club redevelopment project has been completed and the Gore Creek Club and Vail Plaza Hotel projects have been approved by the Town. The applicant is requesting the issuance of a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club within the Vail Plaza Hotel West. The proposed club would be comprised of 39 one, two and three- bedroom units. These units would range in size from 943 square feet to 2,423 square feet. The average club unit size is approximately 1,400 square feet in size. Each of the units has been designed in such a manner as to provide multiple "keys" to for lock-off units. The total number of "keys" in the club is 118. According to the applicant, the ownership of the club units will. be divided into a maximum of 1/12`n intervals for the 28 winter weeks during the ski season, while the remaining 24 shoulder season and summer weeks would be owned by the hotel. This ownership program allows for the most attractive weeks of the year to be sold as club units with the proceeds helping to finance the redevelopment project. The remaining interest in the clubs is then used by the hotel to support the conference facility during the summer months. According to the applicant this program will create the best possible occupancy of the hotel and maximize the viability of the conference facility. Through the adoption of Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996, the Town further recognized the need for lodging alternatives for our guests and visitors. In passing the ordinance the Town Council found that quality fractional fee clubs are an appropriate means of increasing occupancy rates, maintaining and enhancing short-term rental availability and diversifying the resort lodging market product within the Town of Vail. Equally as important, the Council believed that fractional fee clubs were simply another of many forms of public accommodations. It has been a long held belief that in order for the Town to remain competitive and on the leading edge of resort development, that alternative lodging opportunities must be created and creative financing vehicles for hotel 25 redevelopment must be implemented. Staff believes that the conditional use permit for a fractional fee club within the Vail Plaza Hotel will be beneficial to the Town and will have a positive impact on the development objectives of the Community. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. These review criteria are addressed in the Special Development District review portion (Section VII) of this memorandum. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. These review criteria are addressed in the Special Development District review portion of this memorandum (Section VII). 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. These review criteria are addressed in the Special Development District review portion of this memorandum (Section VII). Please refer to the nine design criteria used to evaluate special development district proposals. 5. Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit for a time-share estate, fractional fee, fractional fee club, or time-share license proposal, the following shall be considered: a. If the proposal for a fractional fee club is a redevelopment of an existing facility, the fractional fee club shall maintain an equivalency of accommodation units as presently existing. Equivalency shall be maintained either by an equal number of units or by square footage. If the proposal is a new development, it shall provide at least as much accommodation unit GRFA as fractional fee club unit GRFA. The Vail Plaza Hotel West proposal is a redevelopment of an existing hotel. The applicant is proposing to meet the equivalency requirement by replacing an equal number of accommodation units. According to information on file in the Community Development Department 120 accommodation units exist at the Chateau at Vail. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing units with 120 new hotel rooms totaling approximately 46,871 square feet. 26 b. Lock-off units and lock-off unit square footage shall not be included in the calculation when determining the equivalency of existing accommodation units or equivalency of existing square footage. The applicant meets the equivalency requirements irregardless of the calculation of lock-off square footage. C. The ability of the proposed project to create and maintain a high level of occupancy. The fractional fee club component of the Vail Plaza Hotel West proposal is intended to provide additional hotel and hotel-type accommodation units in the Town of Vail. Although not included in the equivalency requirement, the fractional fee club units have been designed to accommodate lock-off units. Staff believes that lock-off units provide an additional community benefit of added pillows. If a fractional fee club unit owner purchases an interest in a multiple bedroom unit, and does not desire to utilize all the bedrooms, they can then have the opportunity of returning the unused bedrooms (lock-offs) to a rental program. Staff feels that by providing lock-off units, and managing the availability of the lock-off units in a rental program when not in use, a fractional fee club project can significantly increase the availability of accommodation units in the Town of Vail. Through our research on the fractional fee issue back in 1996, staff then identified some potential positive impacts of fractional fee units in the Town of Vail: A) Activity during the shoulder seasons tends to increase due to an increase in year-round occupancy; B) The attraction of revenue-generating tourists; C) The efficient utilization of resources. This is the "warm beds" concept; D) More pride of ownership and community buy-in with fractional fee club units than with accommodation units; E) Increased levels of occupancy; and F) Increased resort exposure due to the extensive number of interval owners. d. Employee housing may be required as part of any new or redevelopment fractional fee club project requesting density over that allowed by zoning. The number of employee housing units will be consistent with employee impacts that are expected as a result of the project. Staff included the fractional fee club units into the calculation of the employee generation resulting from the proposed major amendment of the Special Development District. Based strictly on 27 the number of club units, the development will generate a need for 15.6 "new" employees. When the multiplier of 0.30 is factored in, 5 of the "new" employees which the developer must provide deed- restricted housing for, are generated by the fractional fee club. e. The applicant shall submit to the Town a list of all owners of existing units within the project or building; in written statements from 100% of the owners of existing units indicating their approval, without condition, of the proposed fractional fee club. No written approval shall be valid if it is signed by the owner more than 60 days prior to the date of filing the application for a conditional use. The applicant, Doramar Hotels, represented by Waldir Prado (dba Daymer Corporation) -is the sole owner of the property. No other written approval is required. B. FINDINGS The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findinas before arantina a conditional use hermit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. 28 IX. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- EMPLOYEE HOUSNG UNITS The Community Development Department recommends denial of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of 16 employee housing units within the Vail Plaza Hotel West based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. In September and December of 1992, the Town Council passed Ordinances 9 and 27, Series of 1992, to create Chapter 12-13 (Employee Housing) which provides for the addition of Employee Housing Units (EHUs) as permitted or conditional uses within certain zone districts. The definition in that ordinance states: "Employee Housing Unit (EHU) shall mean a dwelling unit which shall not be leased or rented for any period less than thirty (30) consecutive days, and shall be rented only to tenants who are full-time employees of Eagle County. EHUs shall be allowed in certain zone districts as set forth in Section 12-13 of this Code. Development standards for EH Us shall be as provided in 12-13 - Employee Housing. For the purposes of this Section, a full-time employee shall mean a person who works a minimum of an average of thirty (30) hours per week. There shall be five (5) categories of EHUs: Type i, Type II, Type III, Type IV, and Type V. Provisions relating to each type of EHU are set forth in Chapter 12-13 - Employee Housing of this Code." Pursuant to Section 12-13-3(C)(7), Vail Town Code, occupancy of an employee housing unit shall be limited to a maximum of two persons per bedroom. The applicant is proposing three beds per bedroom within five units on the "Minus One" level. This is inconsistent with the Town's minimum basic requirements for employee housing units. However, all other standards for employee housing units appear to have been met. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. These review criteria are addressed in the Special Development District review portion (Section VII) of this memorandum. 29 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. These review criteria are addressed in the Special Development District review portion of this memorandum (Section VII). 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. These review criteria are addressed in the Special Development District review portion of this memorandum (Section VII). Please refer to the nine design criteria used to evaluate special development district proposals. B. FINDINGS The Planning and Envirnnmental Commission shall make the followina findinas before arantina a conditional use hermit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. 30 LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT NUMBER DESCRIPTION A Architectural Drawing Reductions B Staff Zoning Analysis C Jeff Winston Urban Design Analysis D Staff Building Height Analysis E Applicant's Sun/Shade Analysis F Applicant's View Analysis G Applicant's Employee Generation Data H Applicant's Parking Study Staff Parking Analysis J Applicant's Traffic Study K Comments from Elected and Appointed Boards L Citizen Correspondence M Applicant's Statement of the Request 31 EXHIBIT A ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING REDUCTIONS Paver sidewalk to match existing Town of Vail aide- walk, extended to new bus ~ e goad 1 t ~ • Stop t? ntog . - '~r~ a'= Evergreen Trees for Y, f ~c screening ' I 19r~ -1 # Qrp r e Ndl Amoco r1~ 1 ' r r B~.E{t19~ u A d .u 1 it a a BN~lding ~1 ki f 1 N. i I P, t h tt Jr. Deciduous d to ~b pe , twn orscrecn ng I ~1 Lvergreeu 1 r w' ° i I I fir. r ,wi t. v ~ suceoing ` v ipho ~I a C•I Q ~ 1- _ ~ ~ .r i' IIII, Iv I ~ • , ~ P' , ~ 11 I 1 k A it Vt r r~ LYeslMeadvwDtlve IIA RluGday Deciduous trees atEntry, ~ ~ a H9use ' l planting to follow radial Concrete Pavers in paving pattern. Trees at contrasting patterns i rs: I I street In tree grates • .:a1~~ m r, <Q it 1, Paver Sidewalk to match existing 1Fq'1 Thwo of Vail sidewalk It I ,~4 East Meadow ;:_:r.Milik.t• ° ao• r, Drive ' A' 1 ANDE ABBHOCAT`A.EBE. INC. Vail Plaza Hotel - West ` Vail Colorado Site Illustrative Plan ILW~6tlllAi Febrvaq 12, 2001 'i i f-I 10 F-1119 F-1U8 F-IU7 F-IU6 F-IUS F-104 F-IU7 F-!U2 I I C. 19 a a f} a C-20 I V-991 / / / \ `S-Sot, \ \ F-111 I V-I I V-4] / F-63 \ \ V-$tl Ur P-39 V-IR I n' F-I F-SB I I FJI I V.3 I V-46 I A-I I A.6 I 1 37 C-21 C-17 Onc Wq F-2 I 1-31 One WaY F-42 V-3 I V94 Oec Way One Way 111 III1'/~/~(~//~'IF(8f, C-22 C-16 F-3 I F-36 F4) V4 I V-43 V-57 ILYt C-23 ('-15 F-4 I F-33 F-44 C-24 (:-IJ F-3 I F-34 F45 I Vfi I V-41 A-2 A-S C-25 -r 33 F-46 V- _ I1L- ( I F- I 7 I V-4U F-64 F-IUI C46 1`11 F _ I C-12 One Wny F-7 I P-32 Ooe Way F47 V-A I V39 Unc Wa F C-2] I Y 65 I F-IW Doc Way _ (142.0) I C-I I F% I 1-3I ~ F48 I V-9 I V-38 F-6fi I F-99 ~ C-29 I - C'-111 F-9 I 1-31) F-49 I V-IU I V-37 F-67 F-9A C-29 C-9 F-117 I F-29 P•SU V-II V-36 F-fig I F- ~ - 97 C-30 C'-N P-II I F-2tl F-52 V-12 I V-33 F-69 ~ F-96 C-31 I EnUyy Fxis 2:A SMI` C'-] F-12 I F-27 F-51 I V-13 I V-3d F-70 I F-95 C-32 2% Slop \ i C'-fi F-Il 1-26 F-53 V-14 V-33 F-71 F-94 C-33 C-3 F-Id F•25 F-54 V-15 I V-32 A-3 I A4 C-39 C4 One Woy F-1St I F-24 On~sy P-55 V-16 I V-31 One Way One Wq ~~~~~~aaaa•rr~~rryyyyyyr~ (V7 C-33 \ Vd ' F-16 I- ' F-56 V-17 V-30 I l V-33 - \ I:ony Stop Sign \ SITPSta. Si / / Exn Ci Sloii V-SII 1 z V Sa _ P L ~ yy I M.eeaaia.l CT F-17 F-22 F 57 V18 V-~.9 -72 F-93 1114 V•25 V•26 C-2 F-19 F-2l P-59 V-19 V-28 F-73 F-92 \ FF''II TC-11 1 V-2] F-74 P-91 G37 (-38 V-21 V-22 V-23 C-39 F-62 LI F-73 F•_ P-61 F-76 I F-89 I Nose: Ail dninaso Nave Sand end Grease 7nkrcepkrs J(-' 0-60 F-77 F-88 ` F48 I F-79 F-RU rl-~I Fl.2 F-R3 [F-.,i F-RS F-96 F A7 F G Va H Haza Hotel ° Vest Level -3 (131.51) ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Vail, Colorado 11 Scale: 1 = 50'-077 A ~ P February 8, 2001 SIM m Iola 4wss7 fAX P1gf4L1080 Service Corridor I I I ~ I I I I I I~ I Reltronm Service I SpnMcernelun Corridor I I I ~ ( (1420) Pre-Con- Srsir Up ~1a2. Breekw / \ - Breakout 1' rk InK P R.mmK s Bcl~w Corridor Below \ - - i ser.iee ~ ~ Service Corridor Rcaucome / \ Pool AFavc clep4one. Cn01a I \ B-k- 132111 L------------------- gervi~ L--------- ~ i' Va 0 Nam Hote0 - West 1? Level -2 (142.01) ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Vail, Colorado Scale: 1" = 50'-0" MINI Pfi - PA Nm - INiBIgR. ..°.009 F.x. Awrµ Odkq .r.x. February 8, 2001 m pAl.Fwxsx FAfl PSq.u.loeo C5~ (IG3kiRalnDpen wBeiow I2 More S--Corridor „r -j i orenm B.A-Below ' SpalHeeNdub 11 I Service f f-~-~ Parking .'kmmp Aa,np El.- (gbhy 142.11' Steir Down 142.0' ~ _ s ! SpoMcadreiub Open mere-Convene Below Staic Up Fwurc Tunnel ` ~I I ~ 4 ^ Mezzxmru• ~-I__ \ .nmy w.a SLA-il EleVamr Ski Lek $er.iee,~imhen Lobby " K ~n MndinF~n r bpnu f r') Up O n ,af) Paot Pool 6a0~ t (1522} t.ur, .t+ux r1 Rc I.-I 4 Loading Dock Ab- ) TT VV _ I s.lsxs)x 'I^IS f~,fsi>im. .I.,siJt ~i1~sw~ ter~a / anion Plnu~a e~ 5 I -L'sf ftcslaumnt \ -I E-2 :3 E-1 E 5 \ 5 1 a r.a.o. QQ ~Q QQ coo - ~~OOAA11 CC99 I ,unbnni.v a ~ / / t I•,sei - n.u - e ni^d nev u.1/ txm 3"aie L..c iIFai anrp nm.. i~4 dt.a e m ( l.,fn I Vap 0 Nana HoteC o West ~ Level -1 (1525) Z E H R E N Vail, Colorado Scale: 1" = 50'-01' AND ASSOCIATES, INC. „Ro*="rf . MAW" - IMFR1M February 8, 2001 ymeox tnc ~wv, tpl.txnoo n4ap to nP~saw2sr PA MQIM)(IIO i•_- wMVh Nn LiaM ud FiafN _ ) i rn inf^t~Sxv.\ \ alli~ ~ See a zni:'vS:~:'Mra' _ 1 - r1.1J0.1 \ - I 1 fir,` f.i MI I n~~~a`aUV 1.1bJ.x.n ~LjLL'J.-{~]Il-Jsy o_ 1/-k1~ uin)U, I4M ~'°`,bu° 1•I6bl el _1J ~ Pane Mhere I ebl•, ^ M1 g , I I I I I / e '~3' I 1 I H I Orf2e 1 //y~~~-y\\ otfce F.lev • c ~~w. [a, w. J Retail Lobby' n< ' Retail F-, Desk E-3 TD~ F,niry lobby EA bml ~ ~C S 1 Retail Retail IyIQ'Iy~ E4 ~ Stale Down Guen Carc la ium Enry l.bby I a~liiea L1 u11 P. Atr (1630) I I I I (163.0) Open to Below ~{~#~,p~ - mi Ini-Ii,. - Recoil Stir eIM'rn . ` f 1~1a»'~ inf\ i}n1 ~ 6G O ~ Ac,ail C.170Lobby Bar a Retail - Cal./Lobby Rv a E i 1,b yJ E8 I ser,.n I n.im,x) Vf I.Ifv, ,a Daw r E 9 I Bz) l^16n e swre Et.- _ 1-n Open lu Prwl Below Open to Pwl B.bw Open la Lnbby Belnw Lnbhy E-10 .WI+1} iJ (152.5') Open lU Reztauzan Bebw I 1•in1, _ F-36 F-37 Loafing Dark i.}I T + nMew I.ifl f,• I.i JS.J, u. (.i Sr,Si b.~ Y Y1. ~~.ifUl I~ I ~ ~ L a{em.e t 0 F-38 F-39 ,~a~,xh la. w ~ Pt3ej QQ Va H Mazy Hotee ° West ~ Level 0 (163.01) ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Vail, Colorado Scale: 1" = 50'-0" ng°rn5cJlxtF - nwwNU3c - xaJUfou rv.tJlnt urs bvorl, mLOCaDO n~9o February 8, 2001 M Ara srsa2sr FA%oJW JJaaJaa 1 H~ ~ H 1 n C Open m H-2 - H-I rr-I I FH. ~ j.7 Below H -s H- _7 J42 rig V Lub ° Lounge ° Lr O H- 2 - O 7 L.bby O -31 -3 Opcn W ~clow -32 M.IA ,~..ya nya am eY13 M{ee~han{ic~al ¢p$ l pH U-27 LJ LJ o 0-4 i~ 1 H 13 r b -31 ' F., ~3g. ore..med~..' I I oreo fo uemw ^ zs 88 ~~yry~ 1?7 Nn 11-24 L-.. .H-14•'- W OI 1 1 Q'OLL~I lula vl.f dllA ~ LL.N v.,U' .3 F- 1- -2 I- ONrn lu Below n5 n5 Lobby .2 r- -1 Lobby 0 O ~'~~•1~1~ F 22 0 t1 F-23 F-24 F-25 F-Ifi - QQ Lobby T l 00 p,'lp QQ° Mccfi. albs aClx C.CJS 03 PD q_ C()33 CCYe bQ ~J3 ~b ~YB ~p C7m F-27 F-28 ~ - R)] ~O 0 F-16 " Qq \ arcs ' [i.33 4}O I D-17 afJJ3 O~ CY37 ('X.17 4~ T_ P 49 X49 o Va 0 Nana Hotel o West U Level 1 0 73.5') ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Vail, Colorado Scale: 1" = 50'-0" - "ANtXN° .o.xox cns nwµ Cofaxnoa 21M February 8, 2001 R b1W l14O2l1 Mxplq llifOb - - I i I CPO coo i1 -3 J il- H- -1 I H~2 H-IS 0001-1 11-7 H-A H-14 p,, O 1 o n C7 Lohhy 0 i0 0 u F.le•ebr O n~ -3! 1- J(I J Lobby l' ~n F-Itl 17 V Maid Mechanical vYYI u'fl [Yb aYb KYl p(r ~1 p H-34 V G! FI-IS n \ ~ ~ \ II / ~ II ~ ^ a P-1 F.7 33 HI- 31 HlT~yp, 819 " V ~l.V klJ aI.TJ 0.A 0.)J .lly i1JU N..U alA1 f ry j S•- I ba ~ 9 M I 'I ~ / 1-3 1- .2 - Lobby Lobby F-0 pf o a Y! . I ]D-A D9 -1 )-11 u )-1 - .1 Elc~elur FJ Lnbby Mech coo coo 003 0~" C03 coo COE, CCU cco cco .00 -I )-I • I u ~ MaH Haza Hotel West U Level 2 (184.0') ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Vail, Colorado Scale: 1" = 50'-0" Mva"a FU MI . IHrtuon MI" 1". AVM m.d .lam February 8, 2001 7a fl>m.+ross7 F.vcfllW f.?IO.O = \ NO y i d1 1~1 mcn n~ Ptp Pica an n o Pxx2 c ~ P2,a1 ~ -3 -0 H- fi H- -II i- (I I P~ ~ P HI N2 ^-7 FS-& H-13 H-Id ~Q¶ 1 F-I F-1 L~ t ~ !JJ M~nF:levelor O ~C Id Maid Lobby R !rA \ an ~ ~ Mcchaniul H- 8 ~W\)\lI, 14-15 LIU 'F-7 1.27 H-I6 10 1 N V I H-1 LLD ~ ~ 0 cy f2 Fb 0 ®O 1-25 ti.le 1 - ®o a~ o0 00 oa oo - p F-3 H-26 fI-23 1.22 H-21 H-2 H-I9 `c~+~~' I.obhY n n r-"l n F-6 lobby q p j F-IS ?-P D-v D-IO ?-II *D-'1j2E ?-1J 11 E ?-q,~ lobby tl II Y ilia' Mech. Afecl, Li D-IJ ?-15 O O 616 D-17 Al: 1 00 003 003 I G Va H Haza H ote 0 ° West ? Level 3 (194.51) ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Vail, Colorado Scale: 1 50'41 F.O.WX AvaK ?.~o . February 8, 2001 16 pT01lNO2fF FAP PIp !111010 ~ I c Sy ask, Diu 'KI, I bui ew ui~ kt, I 1- 14-2 HI H7 HR H-Il m~ 0 1 ® p Lobby D-3 D-1 D-5 D6 8 O ® e ~ D P.Icvabr Lobby F--/ F8 / MI iJ coo a~ coo Cl77 ~c® Mechanical Maid k{ [\//_j`-f' O EL I F-1 ? \ ? F7 - O 1:1 E] F.2 7A\ 1 O F-6 O e - _ d Atli F 1 F-5 1 ~ 9 O O O P O Lobby D.g D-9 D-10 U-11 D-12 D 13 Lo O / - t FA 000 coo OCO coo t ? ? 14 D-IS ? ? f l ~J l L ~J i dJo \ ~ Q Va H Naza Hote 0 ° West Level 4 (205.0') ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Vail, Colorado I+ Scale: 1 = 50'-011 ~A AWN, GOldtApp a1W February 8, 2001 mnyns5wxn rAxnraHStao I ~ Jill o® om o0 r ~ C ~ Ih 0 C1 nl r' D- , o; Di Da as D~ ld:~~ -CIO U3 a~ U 1--J u uJ u p 118aa E] Ll ° F7, ~0 a ? ? ? ? ? ? 1i'~~I???El _ 11 <I I~ <1 Iii ~ ~~Alecfinmcal I L' ? ? J Va' a Plaza dotal m West ? Level 5 (215.51 Z E H R E Vail, Colorado Scale: 1" = 5Q'-Q" AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Axnmmuu.F`-*+ - wwon February 8, 2001 r0.l Im AVOK COLD u 5 M i \ - ` - - - o\\?? a~ D I p `p~I O n I D-Z D3 D4 ~ D-5 Dfi I ~ - / 1 J// coo oCb coo 003 .00 Elevaio~ Mechanical P-j T' 70 E:1 El I . ? o e ~I ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? El 0 X $ , I L Va 0 Hazy HoteQ o West i? Level 6 (226.0') ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Vail, Colorado Scale: 1" = 50'-0" rnwx one nvoµ mquoo nw February B, 2001 m armHwu~ Inx nml s+s+aea Vol - ~ ~ r~ l 1 /1\ 1 I~ LaJ L~ \ u J ~ u ~ ~,_j u ~u u u 1 EC~ u F IL- I E, -e-- -e- -e- -e-- -E -6-- -8- - ~El ~ ~ J ~u u I , 1 u -E~ _ i ~ Va d Nana Hote a West ? Roof Plan Z E H R E N Vail, Colorado Scale: 1" = 50'-0" AND ASSOCIATES, INC. A1i095H.T,1R . K-M%Q - wsraaan February 8, 2001 P.- 111. AVON, ~ - •„~a~ lax,,, ~ I -0--- ' - cis I I.y I 1 l' I- i lrl,l. r~l la _ ~ •x„I - Ia1W1 iu) l.lu'1 iW') iW, a Ia113 ,.53„I A l.lii') [/~^I~. ~ 'T'~._-~ I \ ' ' ' 1 I I,l - r a 1 YIRx:a L1 [1 11 11 0-13~0- El 11 i•,RR!- ,fl - .1 n \ 1.111 ila,s 3 ILI 6 +I _ u t.3a,l Mf'1 I•Mll .301) \ i I g, _ 1.3YR.1 (.lob.,'1 1 it l h LL- \ t.:»- rviov Ia. - N i G o ~ o ~ Buildin Height 1 Va ~ 6 F l aza H ®teAbsolute Heights Z E H R E N Vail Colorado Interpolated Contours AND ASSOCIATES, INC. AKmomm-PImt"-1109 S February 8, 2001 Scale: 1" = 50'-0" 1.Q I'M AMOK CgARA00 6fam lti (9Yq H~Q1f1 fAt{dTN f1F1lNn -A --F 'S I I+M1U.ES) f^W.TI (r6U 1'1 (.60.3'1 (.W 3'1 $ (.PLLtI I+Pe.Y) _2. 9.11 .IJ.TI _ - f a].E] I,rwLl-- I (MiI.1T1 (.61.)TI ~ ~ ' {w1.iS1 ~ ~ry ~ I I{ a F / fP3 _ 6 L-j II fl AA / { ELL- EL-11 0 11 7~x 1 F F _ _ I ~ I N mf 1 _ ~ I+W xs, IItt ~ / _ `a~ .LJ U U p ,.v3, U~ \ - M1.u'S A 85!'1----._ \ ~ ~ ,I IS1 .51.15' ~•o. V4. - - v Rnu.rA ~ _ n - ~ x.lP' f~5U1 9.)5' 3.110 94 ~4 - l Lf A-V (qu% pJS) rAS~ _ G,7 a Building Height 2 Va0 aza ®t(~l1 West Height Above Grade ZEHREN Vail, Colorado Interpolated Contours AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 011. FA~ February 8, 2001 Scale: 1 50'-0" MM ISIS AVOK M3]RADO SIM M W(894-7 FASlOMMILIM ate... ~f' u~ Lij Zl- North Elevation 6 _ South Elevation Va' 0 Naza H-bte~ o West Elevations ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Vail, Colorado Scale: 1" = 50'-0" AM°IIIKlUOF - M MNG - M~uW Fn I- -K cao.noo nw February 8, 2001 ,sous y fnxnlo.~sioeo '1J~13'IMl C17 ~ ...r:1~R4 ?k Ur W W 12 M ® L +4*5 1_1 East Elevation m ~ r 9m] ffl - - ---::444 West Elevation G Vao Nana f'ote -West Elevations Z IE H R [E N Vail, Colorado Scale: 1" = 50' AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ,.oMnrn,u - rwiwr+c wiua~s February 8, 2001 P. ine AWN, caar'no nssa J mmmHSmsr ran~mws~ao m®m n~ ~ ~®A~ ~ "ono ~ m ® m ~mn ® o o ®®o ® mums m ® m ry ® ® ® m m ® m - - ® J2, m ¦ m m°mmmmem mmmmmm VVI Phase 111 Vail Plaza Hotel East Vail Plaza Hotel West Alpine Standard Vail Plaza Hotel West Scorpio Nine Vail Road South Frontage Road VV VV I weo. m~ W r~0 W ® w EKINIT I n lII m m Alphorn Vail Plaza Hotel West Nine Vail Road Vail Plaza Hotel East VVI Phase 111 Scorpio West Meadow Drive Z E H R E N Va H Naza ~1®te 0 0 Mast Street Sections AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Vail, Colorado Scale: 1" = 100'-0" ~ - .o..o~ February 8, 2001 m Dfi1llf 7 fAYD/D lIYIOW ol::.a..... ,-moo 121 ldi 1111111 !'1 ,....wBawo -Y Fo rTT ~d:::yf.,... ~ racNonal Ft 'fr.mt r\C 7~1~~a~ ~ - ~r-.'.''.4f1'F6 Frnmi...IFee I~X/~) Hotel Hoicl W FractionalF« r mJ+ ~ af'~:,a~: Fraclinnal Fcc \X 1 Ilntcl f I //~~y~ ~?f~al~. ~V ~ Howl I7(, FractionnlFa Fractional Fec ,~xn' Hntcl lei Howl / \1 Fractonal Fce ~a Fraelinnal F« I/ \g Reiail Reuil Y I V Iona rage - _ ~,ri I gw /Healbbcbib T,L/•\•J,L/=\I + ~a~~a Ix ~ Service f ~rfh°~'4 Ballroom $micc 1 ^I Spa /Hcahhclub ` ` Parking Garage tl...~JJ South Elevation Dwellin ' ~ ~ t i -,H`_ Dw~ll{ng Unit mD Gng 1 _ 1 II JJ' \y OwcRing Unit IXI Haml U~vclling Ynil \I/ \I Had Fractional Fee 1 X Ii Hotel Dwelling Unlt ' Hotel Hotel ' X r Hntcl fl Fractional Fee IX 9.r Atrium Porte-f h ~P tttt~Extetior -o3.:1WN4 Garden Entry/Gallery b Breekov[ Pruconvenc Ballnxrm Service Parking Garage ~-.n:r 111 East Elevation R Va H Naza Hote0 0 West Building Sections ZEHEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Vail, Colorado Scale: 1" = 50'-0" ro.ox tssg AwFI, waaRAao ~tua "A"~HC ~a B February 8, 2001 18 bf0 fIf01Sf rAg blolMStgn / w ling Unil ,I ~yy'"__ (Dwcll~nB ' X welling nil / ` 14{ HMeI Dwaunguna Harel ~ Fncional Fee - ~ Hmel cpwklling U1it ~q wcwro~ Ho<c! ' y' HMeI Hmel IXI OwellinB Unn FTl PR 1 Fractional Fee Porte-Cochert Mmi r- Ea¢nor I I:nlry/Gallery ' GarAen $crria eallmnm Preconvrne Arcak- F Perking Genge I • East Elevation PIC~'ir1 F c onel Fee m `FractionalF 1c A- Fl+k1i...I gee WXI Meiel \ Horel Fractional Fcx uYm a 4. Umd ---III BB 00 _ 00 Be Hatei I~/~ Fr„c,lnnal Fee " Fnctional fee IX~ IIMeI I X 1 Fnctlnnal FCC EMry Retail 17(g Fr.ceiroel Fee g F ~ - ~ V „wrWN9~0 Service Spa/Hmithclah 'aY Aellroom ' Scrviu Via. I $pa/Heahhclub I La, L ~ - Paa=king Garage xamp North Elevation L Va H Hazy Hotd o West Building Sections ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Vail, Colorado Scale: 1" = 50'-011 AKMIH.IIgIF - nAH.- - February 8, 2001 Rolm Im ar AWN, ogAW &I= m oym -M FAg bfilab-lagn EXHIBIT B STAFF ZONING ANALYSIS Exhibit B Zoning Analysis Vail Plaza Hotel West (Deviations from underlying zoning are indicated in bold type) Development Criteria Allowed/Required (PA Zoning) Proposed Vail Plaza Hotel West Lot Area: 101,140 sq. ft. or 2.32 ac. 101,140 sq. ft. GRFA: 150% or 151, 710 sq. ft. 150% or 151, 710 sq. ft.* Dwelling units per acre: 25 du/acre or 58 d.u. 7.33 du/acre or 17 d.u. 120 (au) 39 (ff u) 17 (du) Site coverage: Above grade: 65% or 65, 741 sq. ft. 62.4% or 63, 116 sq. ft. Below grade: 65% or 65, 741 sq. ft. 76.0 % or 76,821 sq. ft. Min. Setbacks (above grade): Frontage Road: 20' 0' (covered entry), 21' (footprint) Vail Road: 20' 20' West Side: 20' 21' W. Meadow Drive: 20' 20' Min. Setbacks (below grade): Frontage Road: 20' 15.75' Vail Road: 20' 4.75' West Side: 20' 8.75' W. Meadow Drive: 20' 19.5' Max. Height: 48' sloping 77.5' sloping 60' arch. projection 92.3 arch. projection Landscaping: 30% or 30,342 sq. ft. 26.1% or 26,438 sq. ft.** Parking: 280 spaces*** 216 spaces Loading: 3 berths 3 berths Common Area: n/a 236,445 sq. ft. * this proposal complies with the required 70%130% equivalency requirement for GRFA within the PA zone district. this proposal does not comply with the max. 20% hardscape requirements outlined in Section 12-2-2, Vail Town Code. Per the Town's definition of landscaping, 26.1 % is provided. Including the additional hardscape provided by the applicant, the total becomes 30.7% or 31, 077 sq. ft. ***pursuant to Section 12-10-20, Town of Vail Code, staff recommends a total of 268 parking spaces. EXHIBIT C JEFF WINSTON URBAN DESIGN ANALYSIS WINSTON AsSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING L~AINCSCAFE ARCHITECTURE - URBAN DESIGN Date. 17 January 2001 To: Brent Wilson, Community Development, Town of Vail From: Jeff Winston Re: Design Review-Vail Plaza Hotel West CC: This review will be confined particularly to the bulk, mass and building configuration issues related to the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel West. 1. The fact that the property, is outside both the LionsHead and Vail Village Design Guidelines raises a question as to what standards should be used to evaluate the design. Guidelines have never been developed for this transition area, and it is so varied (single family, hospital, condominiums, library, ice arena, etc.) as to almost defy guidelines. For a variety of reasons it would appear to benefit from a relationship to the Village more than to be treated totally as a stand-alone facility: ? The guest orientation of the building (as opposed to office or private residence), ? the strong pedestrian gesture toward West Meadow Drive, the significant retail inside the building, ? the alpine character of the architecture, ? the desire to relate it to Vail Plaza Hotel East, ? and its closeness to the Village. Therefore, it appears reasonable to evaluate the building according to the basic design principles already outlined for Vail Village. 2. In the absence of a model or other 3 dimensional representation, we have tried to visualize the building from the plans, sections and elevations, and as a result may have missed some of the building massing that is not evident in those drawings. 3. The building appears to follow the general Village pattern of stepping down from the Frontage Road to the south toward West Meadow Drive. However, the building still presents a series of very tall facade along WMD (approximately 46' to 50' at the top of the vertical facades). True, there are other buildings along the north side of West Meadow Drive that present a facade almost as tall. The Skaal Hus roof is parallel to the street and is probably 38' at the eave line (46' at the ridge). The Alphorn roofs are perpendicular to the street and 32' at the top of the Winston Memo Page 10) 2299 PEARL STREET, SUITE 100 . BOULIER, CO 80302 303-440-9200 • FAX 303-449-6911 jtwinston@winstonassociates.com Design Review-Vail Plaza Hotel West Town of Vail 17 January 2001 vertical facades'. In contrast to the other buildings along WMD however, the VPHW presents a very long, unbroken fagade that tends to heighten its impact. 4. Acknowledging that there are minor ins and outs and balconies that break up the fagade slightly, the overall result is a long, straight fagade parallel to the street. This contrasts with the way other buildings relate to this end of WMD. Nine Vail Road, the Bank, Villa Cortina, Meadow Vail Place all face the street on an angle. The best example is the way the Vail Village Inn, a potentially long building along WMD, is turned slightly presenting to the street a saw-tooth edge of what appears to be separate buildings. The result of this angle-to-the-street pattern is to avoid a long straight fagade, and the creation of a series of triangular spaces, large and small, that provide the expansion and contraction that gives interest and variety to the pedestrian experience. Suggestions: A. Step the fagade lower along WMD, even down to two-stories in several places. B. Break the building into a smaller parts, possibly by angling the building to the street, varying the roof heights and stepping it back and forth. C. If the above two steps are taken (or other steps that accomplish the same objectives) the building could actually be pulled closer to WMD (continuing the relationship established by 9 Vail Road) with an even smaller visual impact than the building as proposedz. Very rough sketches of the current proposal and a possible modification are attached. In the long nun, the Alphom should probably not be considered irreplaceable, and should not be the height standard for the area- - Again, the VVI is a good example of how a lower building alone the street obscures the extremely large buildings behind (VVI phase 11). - 11I Winston Memo page 2of2 1 2299 PEARL STREET, SUITE 100 • BOULWR, CO 80302 303-440-9200 • FAX 303-449-6911 • itwinston@winstonassociates.com f f n y ~Proposed Concept Design Review Vail Plaza Hotel - 'Vest Winston Associates ! 7 January 0 f i l1 f ~ o Suggested Adjustment Design Review Vail Plata Hotel - West Winston Associates 17 Jarztsary 01 EXHIBIT D STAFF BUILDING HEIGHT ANALYSIS Adjacent Building Heights-Vail Plaza Hotel West "Resort Accommodations and Services" Zone-South Frontaae Road Buildina Max. Heiaht Zone District/Heiaht Allowed Alpine Standard 25.3' HS/38' Existing Chateau Vail 52.8' (roof); 56.9' (proj.) PA/48' Scorpio 55.2' HDMF/48' West Star Bank Building approx. 54'* SDD-CSC/38' Evergreen Lodge approx. 88'* SDD-HDMF/48' "Transition Area" zone - West Meadow Drive Buildina Max. Heiaht Zone District 9 Vail Road approx. 66.2'* PA/48' Alphorn 32.6' HDMF/48' Skaal Hus approx. 46' (phase II) HDMF/48' VVMC approx. 53'* GU/per PEC First Bank 28' PA/48' Villa Cortina approx. 48'* HDMF/48' Fire Station 42.3' GU/per PEC Meadow Vail Place approx. 52'* HDMF/48' Other Residential Units approx. 33'* R/33' Vail Village Zone - east of Vail Road Buildinq Max. Heiaht Zone District Gateway 54.8' SDD-CC I/43' Vail Village Inn (VPH East) 77.3' (approved) SDD-PA/48' Sonnenalp (Bavaria Haus) approx. 47'* PA/48' * indicates heights referenced from architectural drawings and town records. All other building heights are referenced from stamped surveys. Of the 17 properties contained in the "context area" (.including the existing Chateau Vail), 8 buildings (or 47%) exhibit a deviation in building height. EXHIBIT E APPLICANT'S-SUN/SHADE ANALYSIS x § Fr q 4 t t a 2. t- M I T,F i ~I 11 F ~ ;k~ x i 4 A+j 1 i _ n t, Vail ~~iza otel -'b'est t I w P bl L I w i~3y, i k'~q ft44ti 9 yp AWL ln'. { t 1,5j ~ 1~ ~,1 Y 1 { A !tp #:i rS?P j t Nall lazy _ lotel - ~ est is till. (,4nt'adu % a ~'_j did { t 1 it I t. , bi- d I: 1 ~ 1!' 3~i~~! p~'~Srk'~ 1 •5a ~iYi9 ~ I it jp 1 Vail i aza Hotel - Dam : i7. t a 9p' ~y`" t ~I f ~ i I : I x~ 1 h ,r F w e t h: I 4pff f ` ~1 r r ~ s*~ ~ III Vail Plazallotel - West f' AY' Illlii+f'li1C~l'D:; '111111 F;Ifi 2pill - M'T' Y 4 3~ ~ 4: J ~ F «xt~ 1 k, « } N t J t M1 ~ II 1 .~Y ~ i 'fib r . 4 f 7T ~ Ii 7` ~ ' , t M~ 9 ty I T Y t f } ~ r 4p w J I _ 0 ~1 I~~P n F 1 ~ fi ' a. i 1 t -7- 7 sw itrrx".r..i F rl ? E. ^ I Vlfll Plaza Hotel " West ! _ "";:t.,c' lair, c uua.ldu ~Ilili,~)I:11)1' ~11:lti?':T)11 t Il Alf I 1w e l Ii ~ ~ I I II tV i its ~ A 1+ ~I I i,t t zt:t~ ~q i ai'~ryM1l~F..•~gt~~MF• iy r K 'q_ 04 44 I i rY } o ~a Vail -Plaza 140tel - T W'j It'll sd ; t+ 11 iI]te ?1)111 EXHIBIT F APPLICANT'S VIEW ANALYSIS ax s 41g 41 ~ 1ti= ~ ~ ~ # y^ x~ ~ x~ ~ ~ ` ~a•y '~-':a; a, ~ ~ ~ t r jTS~o F ~-'ro s, ati ~ ' 1. , I: ~I l i dwa~s ~ * ~ AT- 17 ivf. ~:-~11~3,~ ~vC+~ ;}~,i"" .--C,~ ~9~ ~'a t ~ 5 :~#l~ ~ Y~~~~ '"$i~r`~. ~ a ~i,~ ~~~r~ ~ ~ r ^ y • ~ 4,10 ~y dt:raiW3~ {r wtf 3 1MF3 psi f x, i * 3[# x it!r t.y i4d ~1 sr r "f 4, - 4C { - k * d r~' $ )r . 3{k b K'H " tl,?'.tr ~6`t~ r #-r~"31n'M~ !y i'. ' ..~y .t.. :>f,, # yp~ z~ 01, ~ f~ aft ~ c xir 3€ a[' c r ' E'~" j ~Y ~k F ,F y~ { ! ~ t^+ ~ ~~7f"~t' }''iP+'T ~~I~~~ 41~ ~ ~s•'F ~ 1 Ypu i #+,fi Fail plat d # t wf~ ~ ~ It ;f 1 t $ r ii + - i 1 1 a 1 1 f ~ 143 4) N, At x , ~ ~ x 'w rte i~j¢'~F eWajM'fi t ' ' ~ ki ~xCt ; ,,K, "'R'•r. .v/ i~~~~~ ~64~~~ _1~t 1e 1~ ~ 1~~ ~ i~~. ip tl.. is * ENS a t? ~ ArW- `'U~~';~$5 : ~3~ }:.~~1~_ ~a yf ayr~ia ~1~k~ ~"~`~,:E ~1 } ~ {~'w~ 5~~+~`,~9?' t r~33lYY~' ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~l ~ A I . fl ~"~.lp~ ~~T~,:iy,~RlYS~` ~ i'4~~'#~k a .:x ~+It~,y.~~$,'~•b 3t~~~9+~Y,~~,~ y 1 :I ~11tl$d f;t~~~>$.dak#t t afsa Awl ~d. qv-p a -w4 ~ ~;ys , It ~ '~li+, TSq.kave I ~al.;.]' - 15; ftv ta Vail Plaza tiotel ~,~lest Z ,Pa• VI' ay i y , I't ~l r L, I ~ ry a - 1 i l J 1, , I ~ ^Yna ~ I Ii Yh - ii ri to Nu y i I R t' a 1 t 3~{ .yAt ri. i' • a + A - ,.Re ~F'$f 's`r~r~~ Y M ;+r i ~s' 4. yy n j y y f lbyw1yE`31i'ztfs! Z M cf,~ Z' "Y'I di~4•~i " F FIR 4 # q i+~t~ifi y1'1k9F?I "k ` ? t~ &n` # 7 3~ t w )164 tt:+" rl Per.;tk y { "k o m wxr Wfi ti A t f ib r 1 +M "1' •'c~, , p.. 11 1 ' {~6`,lyi Y s~ fie, t` :1( 14 ~1 ~ , t~ V"°'s'r •~'t ;'I4 vke r` " eK k~ k~ Yj 14 ~4rf r i i „ter.. 44 -ff #!t } e, t. lilt~ Wv* `'Jr u~ y r II{{ L.. aau" ~4~.t ~$fflQ'}~f' ~ 17A ~ e,~b~}{~ ~a °`3,Jr t~ ~ ~L ~ d, r~ ~ ~~y1 ~ err i r>• ~y 4~~g1~ ~~t~~tw~~ ,~tq 'x~~r~"`~ I ~'~iS Flj~tt iri~~.~(~ ~ tt"1 ' +•M~ ~ ~~iL 1{.K .,~.1??,' '~R H-. -~If :J~ ,Yf ~ ,~~.'~7S'-~ ~?=17•.~ cr b i?}~ I7~ : 4' {'S r j.- q r re I , • i. Fr .F. 'z+r it 1 , ~ i e ~S+4F~~;<x °V~ $#ti.,;~-qP I l~t~ d•~R r~y ~fl"~~ rw ~+,:'3 NNT 'laza I' I,' t 1 : (L ! 1 ! R I, i IfI ~ ~ ~ ~-tom:` III i i -44 } r. II i 9!F i r x; I !,Y fr.,1 fl i { ~ -r ~ ~i t II I ~ . ~ ,R.. err"~w.,F'r•. ! tt C !«.«tes'`+i'R'~'.~'$r W ,y~. st .~:i 'Vi'i y' t~~, 44 W. I w _ .,'I I -1 T I !a rr ! e_~ 1.~ Nl ifs'} ~ ~ ~ l « ~ t ~ ;fie, f t t; w ~p>• ~ . ~ bd~*~~~i k x ~ Lr, ~ ItAR» - 1f fy. t j! Y^. kpy{y~r lt.:.,/ r:+ f '1 Sri I yy"..7 yr" ys~ I Ott. r i e~ r w r T p. 5~. b S i ad ! 4 , ' ~ # 1 Ptah P 1 i,/ N'f 0'N to 1 lail.! 4m ado i i I w r ; ..r I I I 1 1 .y 1 ! ~ it i f , 1iI t 1 ' i i 4 I I ! i I~ d w I~ Y Y?. ~~:'h its t-. t L{(~ ~~y ~;~y 1. I.. I 1 v f I, I Yo, r{ i t' ~i F T 5 ~ t y$ VOW , 1 . nrr'w I iA : t: .r it ~`;~~k~ ~~dlM ' - ~ , • ! . o a I' I I j r f t~ . 1 _ A t ~ ,yJ 1 P "'""',7,?n y f e t e a• .7, 46 6= ~I , r I _ I est , i rti Q i 1. A it P1 t ~I II I' ~I i i rA}• I 1 w nl, ~ , CV. "r:~ DI 1 F ' ~ ~.k NS I 1 i~ is ' I a 1 { x,.: ,ti ~ ~At t " ~ G s ft i j I i t ~ { it i ~ 4 tc, : i a t ~ f.s.r• .f it ~ -~--T ' ~F '3 i ' i e , ,...t F 'F. r _ t, i t y -itq r Y tr go-AL;i1B E fJ q" Phiz-a Hotel - r i i i s r ~I Y N;. t ~ ' t da L F 24 •~'4..~ ~'Y ~y, iY. t'IJY ~!'t ~f ~ ~~.F ' i~:{ Zp fl'1`-. ~t t~ ~ ~ T~;S ~t F-. T 1 z -'des - 1 ier~..t i i i~ ` R )Ftr LA. . I. l I + t- ~i U ~ I f i Y + a yt ur ~G' ' 1~ Ta;d'F j+.- 4'.. p it ~ + f ~ 4 ,~f J t R +R 4-p f # rK'` . r ! i I: I• i. 1' t II ' .t4 e• al ; "t~~ k ~ ITi ~ ~t.~kr a~;'f ~~x ~ ~~,~~N ~ ~x,ht'xp; : ~ ~ ter. !1 ~ " ik ow- x r" . 1 x8 J M'44 E . r - Fail Plaza otel .v West - - w i i i :I III ;'fF r xI I 01 r ~ •~yhVh f wwN S f :x J ,r ,7 f - - •~~~,Y.Y~ E ~ I :I A': 1 i t ! E , t : 4 r t # IM Vail I i ~II i~ rr. I i r 3 w , A, ~ ~S, p,l !$t~A~Y{' ~ x p r~ + ~ ! A(~45'tlf~ ~fHx{y~j~S~ AV n % M u r, " 1 ~ k e3 F a r 44i h3 xfi., A. n.. v!'f~Md Fr sr.:~rfa r 'r it Plaza Hotel West ( ' I I I i I1 ~I :I : j Y i; fr" " Yyit.r , IG161 p 4 I } bra , Y 7 p I i't r>,.#, ~~5(', 4 N:v d a'# t# t$ "r~ #t= ~~I' AftrT~Nm I " it I ' j x 1 llazll Hotel - vvest i 1 I ~ - 1 i I! i 11 1 ~~I :I I1 r! e ~z1 r~!:i task _ , I y W ~ Ids -i;vx , ~ I~ r rwa n?,r ri r rvr i ~ r I' 7 {F l y 21 r= r Apr Rj~ t1 d'gt ' aRrpS76.4:X#4M t t • „firs sd:, a x}T 'P t7tF1 j 1 v n11 , G~Y3 §P~kek " 'fl.. JL- u x } 'i' P tit g'i 11 t } { :~I Ey f~+ N 1-1 r 9 i ~ f , rda ~ t~l F'S' , i,t~..~ i t try - 1 dY Y ~cY T. tt n a:; y, s F~~.' qt t l1, kr y lb w} 14 fi~4+"n ~~`;l~s LR r,•i~F"Ea -R'it .Etta ' i I ~ ! rJ~ 101111%11110 i t ~ f i ~ rcr I 1~r rN f I ` a v nrlr~rr~r a w.? i ~ c ~I r ~,l~; Ill' ~ f4 Yei rae «:,.i I ~ i r 5 J _ af• . ~l ~ r t r r1 I~ I y ~ r ~,d ~~~'`$k ~ iI ~ ~.1 • 7 41 w y 1 d r r a I 1 Y~{`. rf € I~ ,I f Q td v`N 77 'a{ I d~ ,tad ti..T..:1 '1' t R p r l,~ r c1 y~,i' L• I # II x# l!. & F. v'• J-, f.~ b, .'tF'_t PF +k ,,,'~~tr r~'8~-"g ry~ ~t t tw'i , i t •.l k' , i. ( K v.k r { l:~ , `}'~y. ~ k r. 4 r}.7: a~ ~ ~~~"~tl~tx3"~.:~~'S~1 5'" 1 E R iil-'~L f~5 Y §r A..~: ~ ~~p NR~#'( t Vr ~ *P ~f i ' fjt }S Y x, t' S F L ~ ~f~ ~i,t`It4 ~ y~ Sl~ ^5 'f~ i 1 y~i } .k. Ts t'~F i+ft;` 8 ai,•. idi~`+}',5 ks'4 'a,,,}t yyy ~S y~ 13 s4 F~kith~l ~k it „LL 4k:S"„34'. Y `i . 1~ `j} r f' tli, ,14 ' . # y qK S t S[~ 7 /~F -{n y st* 47 N!'yy~F ~i tyyl r~i~~}~py?~,~{ ~el~ .~`rs~t~ t`~~ ~R?1~~ A''" # x ~ a''~~ } ~ ~ •'It'.1ti' k . br - - - i ~EEr , i I 1 I III ,I I 'It ai L c ^,4 itr';+ i~ sl r N~ t i>, 1*4 ~r- ' `ail Fuze Hotel ~ West Ro~adl ,~4grt~a (II ,j I ~ ` Y I 'I i 11 a u R r fth7 w~ a't ~ : . r s~ 'a~kt 't ' z I~ r I ~ - Y IA. i a yi i U7„ I ;y ~yr~, •~Yia*r- '^`m'-~ a~ i *.•'d (,K r'm `+th- r~ ~.i {a ' I, t 1~~1,~"t•""~~w..~ ~v ii~~TM ~ ~I yr p~~ max. r,rn, r { i ~ M~~~~ :^MnF1~3 v' I. ~ : ~ 9~t' 1~'C.~t.` k r4-+ ~fE -$d> ~ 7 ~•a ~ ~ ~ J.= ~ I I ti it 5e "~+~rr .;I.;•r-w.-_i ,.+,p.. K.i'G'tu"`~ d: II i ~I pail PI, z-1 Hotel - West ilt•() utit~te ltetrcR I ~ tiro-1 EXHIBIT G APPLICANT'S EMPLOYEE GENERATION DATA Memorandum DATE: January 24, 2001 TO: Brent Wilson FROM: Connie Dorsey, Daymer Corp SUBJECT: Vail Plaza Hotel `Italian' Wing, cti t- Employee Housing Requirements Housing requirements for the Vail Plaza Hotel `Italian' Wing (west) The best way to look at the housing needs of Vail Plaza. Hotel `Italian' Wing (or the west wing) is to compare it to the already approved Vail Plaza Hotel `French' Wing (or the east wing). Both the `French' and the `Italian' wings are virtually the same in size and category. There is actually a negative difference in the number of keys when you compare the existing keys with the proposed or planned keys at each location. This causes a negative increase in the housekeeping staffing needs. There is a slight in.,.~;:ase in the square footage of retail space. (note: As indicated in my memo regarding the parking needs for the `hotels' retail space we see this space being used as small boutique type business, galleries, sundries, necessities shops, logo and a small ski related shop geared toward the guests in the hotel. Staffing of these shops will be minimal, 1 person per shift for two eight hour shifts.) The Convention and Health Club/SPA facilities will be relocated to the `Italian' Wing (or west wing). The employee housing approved at the VPH `French' Wing (or the east wing) covers the housing required for this staring. The General Manager, Accounting, Reservations and Sales/Marketing departments are located at the already approved `French' Wing and their housing needs have been met at that location as previously approved. Because these departments are located at the VPH `French' Wing and are not repeated at the VPH `Italian' Wing there is a negative amount in the overall staring needs of the `Italian' Wing when comparing the two. Housing for staff in other departments, i.e. Food & Beverage, Front Desk, Maintenance etc. at the approved VPH `French' Wing are covered in the thirty-eight (38) beds planned. These departments and their housing eeds are covered at the VPH `Italian' Wing and included in the proposed thirty-six beds at that site. _ 1 Approved VPH `French' Wine (east) VPH `Italian' Wing (west) VPH `French' Wing 212 keys VPH `Italian' Wing 235 keys Existing kevs VVI 76 kevs Existing kevs Chateau 120 keys Total Increase in keys 136 keys Total Increase in Keys 115 keys The increased difference, comparing the VPH `French' Wing with the planned VPH `Italian' Wing is a negative 21 keys or a negative 2.1 employees using the hotel industry standard of 1 maid per 10 keys. Anproved VPH `French' Wine (east) V rn `Italian' Wine (west) Retail VPH `French' Wing 4,047 S.F. Retail VPH `Italian' Wing 6,282 S.F. The difference is 2,735 S.F. or 2.7 employees. Taking into consideration the negative 2.1 housekeeping staff needs compared to the 2.7 retail space increase one negates the other. Therefore the housing needs at the VPH `Italian' Wing shows no need for an increase in beds. By comparing the staffing at the approved VPH `French' Wing and the proposed staffing needs of the VPH `Italian Wing as well as the number of `keys' at each location we believe that we :ve met the housing needs/requirements at the VPH `Italian' Wing with the thirty-s) beds. We have actually exceeded the number of beds needed at the VPH `Italian' Wing by 9.2 beds (see parar,.aph four (4) page one (1). Attached is a more detailed outline of the employee staffing needs of the VPH `French' Wing and the VPH `Italian' Wing. 2 VPH west EMPLOYEE GENERATION (based on aprroved for WI site) j The VPH east or VPH west are same Cn:oywV and same size. I I I I I I j The only difference is the number of housekeeping, which is proportional to the 1 ! N number of keys. I I 1 ! I I I i i r ~ I Convention and SPA will be relocate from the east site to the west site Employee Housing for those departments is already provided at the east site. . I ! 1 I I I I I I ~ Staff for all other departments (F&B, front desk, maintenance, etc. i will have identical staff (same number), regardless of it's location, east or west I I I I ! I I I I I Therefore, we just have to rJ,:u,..:ne the number of employee generated by VPH west over VPH east ' I I I I ~ Item I approved Proposed difference I I difference VPH VPH west - west - east west east east A I B I B-A 1 unit i lempooyees I Keys(new) I 212 2351 1 ) _ . I 1 ! I ~ 761 120 .1 Ebsting keys " I I 1 ( Keys increase{ 1361 115 -211 key 1 maid per 10 keys I -2.1 I I ( retail sf 4,0471 6,782 I Z7351sf 1 empl. per 11,000 sf I 2.7 ~ f 1 1Gen. Manager 1 0~ -1 empl. (housing Accounting 61 0 -6 for these j Reservation 1 3 01 -3 positions Sales & Nom: t ~ ;nq 1 41 01 -4 already 1 141 01 -14 I provided 1 -14.0 athe I -13.4 I Convention Center l 31 0 -3) I VPH I ! -3.0 I I SPA 21 0 -21 east). I 1 -21.0 I i I I Total difference) -37.4 1 beds/employee I increase l 30%1 Beds provided I ` I 381 I I 1 1 1 I I beds { Additional beds to be provided by VPH west ( I I in relation to a,.r, ed 38 beds = 37.41 x 130% _ -11.2 ! I ( I I I ~ I I I beds to be provided at west site = I beds 4•~• ~4ed at the east site) 1 38.0 I 1 I plus: I additional west over east 1 -11.2 1 I I I beds to be provided at west site 26.8 1 I i beds proposed at the west site 36.0 r I I I excess proposed (beds) 9.2 1 i excess proposed (beds) equivalent to (employees) 30017 VPH (Chateau site) STAFF Page 1 (permanent and seasonal/part-time) SUMMARY PERMANENT STAFF I SEASONAL PART-TIME HELP part-time I VPH n emplo- Work employees total maxi- FUNCTIONS o gees hours/ work mum by department t year = hour hours peak work e 40 hsAveek per per days hours _ note 1 x 50 quart- each/ peak i per 1 per 1 for all wk/year tity peak day day year year ! I 1 l I I I Lodginq (hotel S C1ub~ I I j General Manager I 2.14 i Ass;.lo,,l manager _ 1 2, 14 1 4 8,0001 I I I I Guest relations 1 2,14 1 4 4 161 921 1,4721 Front Office ! t 2,14 ! 81 16,000 61 41 241 921 2,208 Concierge 1 I I 21 4,000 21 4 8 921 736 Bell man 1 ( I 4.21 8,4001 121 4 48 921 4,4161 Door man I J 1 I 4.2 8,4001 I 1 I 921 i lValet parking 1 1 4.21 8,4001 12 4 48 921 4,4161 I 1 2,141 I 1 921 Reservations I 1 2,14 ( 1 1 I I Sales & Marketing 12. 14 1 I I Accounting 1 r 2, 14.1 House,-.+,.ng supervisor' 21 u _ _ -31 6,0001 1 maid service 3 15.081 30,160 10 4 401 92 3,6801 Engineering 6 920001 61 41 241 921 2,208 Garage Operations 1 4.2 8,4001 41 4 161 92 1,472 Lodging (hotel & Club I 1 55 109,760 561 224 9211 20,608 Food & Beverage (F&B) 1 1 - - - } 1 1 manager+hast ! ) I 41 - -8,000 4) 4 16! 921 1,472 w~ *+busbov(1:3 wp;:~,~) I 12 1 131 26,7471 16 4 401 921 3,6801 bar j a. 1 ..3 _ 6.000 2 - 4~81 921 7361 kitchen f I 1 161 32.000 ( 1 I 1ROOd & Ser' Beverage (F&13) i . j. 421 $ 0001 201 4 801 161 92 71,47 1 Conference Center ! 14, 141 j 41 1 92 Health Club/SPA I I I I 1 1 I i .w ~onl 1 1 14 I 1 Iup keeping I I 14 , 41 921 ,therapist 1 5, 14 1 1 I 1 41 1 921 se roorrr C 1 14 1 I Health Club/ PA 12,141 j 1 I 92 Retail (5 shops) 1 101 20,000 41 4 16 92 1,472 GRAND TOTALS: ( 107 j_-214,507, 801 j 3201 92 29,4401 coneG u-. part time to full time 'I note I I One full time work hours/year _.-I I 2,000 - 1 ,Par, time equivalent to Full time 6 ( 151 j I 1 c2rarw !Drat tuts time equrval I 711 1 I I I I, I note (Awagehours/parttime empkryeery( $ 80) 41 1 Number of pan. time, „w i I otal payroll names 1 1 1871 ! 1 I I i I - IF f I continue I I , _I 1 , -1 EMPLOYEE NET ENCREASE CALCULATION 1 Employee Totals VPH west I Existing Chateau ~ Net in- I # I equiv. # equiv. c.~.~,~ full time 1071 1071 57 57 part time 801 15 1 22 4 ! total 1871 1221 791 61, part time at same ratio as VPH west. 1 1 I I VPH STAFFING IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING t. uses I I i note units I ' I Iquant i Hotel i keys -1 1 1 120 1 Club keys I I 1 1 115 Hotel + Club 1 9 keys I l ! i 235 VPH (Chateau site) STAFF Page 2 (permanent and seasonal/partAme) SUMMARY Hotel & Club YEAR occupancy 72% I Persons/occupied unit 1 { I { 1.75 Hotel + Club population t 10 1 persons 1 I 296 maid service { ; t loccup rms/maid J 10 walk in for lunch or dinner I 11 ~cust----. „/function/dayj ( 30 serves/waiter/function I { i j 30 j Restaurant & bar 12 Jsf f I 6,582 kitchen I 1 1 12 Isf 1 I I 1 3,2001 Conference j 12 Isf 1 1 1 10,009 1 /SPA treatments 12 1 I 22~ Retail I j 12 Isf 1 1 1 6,782 i I ~ I ~ 1 I I 1 highest demand for restaurant/day I I I note lunch I dinner I I I { hotel & Club guests 13 ' 1.5 I 1.0 i per 3 nights stay. serves/function/day I { 148.1 98.7 Walk in cUst.,,,,,:„ffunctiordday serves/function/day I 11 1 30.0 30.0 I I I I, Total serves/functioryday I 178.1 178.1 j i I I I I I I breakfast is buffet type, served by the same lunch staff. I I 4 NOTES I I I I I note 1 j Includes "day oft" garage were applicable j note j 2 1This function (all or part) provided by the WI I 1 inote 3 ;Maid service is based on j 10 1occupied .emu-,/maid. Minor -,0ional fluctuations in demand will be covered with overtime of the pennanerrt staff and/or temporary help. note 4 Occasional large banquettes will be serviced by the the two shifts restaurant and kitchen staff in over time, note 5 I Same therapist may cover more than 1 of the 22 treatment . . for some treatments. note 6 I The total 129,440 1 seasonal work hours/year divided by the regular one full time u,.,,6 ,,ree f I I 2,000 I hours/year is = 15 1 equivalent full time employees. I note 7 time hyper. It is a typical hours/peak day of a part I I j note 8 i It is the total part time "names" on the payroll. Evidently d.+,..t0 on the average part-time hours/peakday I note 9 I Hotel & Club are staffed as a unified ~.Uzin I I note 10 Population for the specified number of units, occupancy, persons/room. I note i1 All hotel ,,-0',*arants off the main pedestrian traffic (Ludwig, The Villager, etc.) rarely (if ever) achieve a high I walk in d.:. o. A.This 1 30 1serves/function/day is a very high assumption. 1 I note 12 Al these uses are staffed based on real demand and not based an sq_ft., or seats or any other No,od„star. note j 13 It is established in the business that the restaurant at the hotel never captures more than '1 lunch and '1 dinner per I 3 nights stay. It is part of guests program to dine out in other restaurants. j The law ratio of 15 serveslaraiter/shif /day indite that this staff can serve more than 2 times this ( demand. I I I I I note, j 14 I Employee Housing already provided at the VPH mot! I I 1 VPH (WI site) STAFF (permanent and seasonal/part-time) page 2 ( ( A I B I C ( D 1 E F I G I H I I I J ( K L ! M 60 oersons/occvpied unit i ! i 1.75 j 61 Hotel + Club owuladon 1 ( 1 10 (persons I 237 I 62 Imaid service I i i I lockup rms/maid 1 10 63 Iwaik in for lunch or dinner j J I 11 Icustomers/functioNday 30 164 lserves/wader/function ! I I I I I 20 65 (Restaurant & bar - -I 12 Isf I I 5,775 661 3 67 Conference I 12 Isf I I 200 12 68 691Retail I... _I.._..... 4. I 12 Isf I I 1 4,0471 I I 1701 l I I I ! 1711 C highest demand for . ~;~.rrant/day 72 I I I -1 - emote I lunch dinner) 1 73 (hotel & Club quests L_._ _i.._ I 13 I 1 1 3 nights stay. 74 Iserves/function/dav I I I 79 I 79 751 - 1+ (Walk in custom W ~/functioNdav j 76 Iserves/funct.avd 11 i 3U 30 I Total serves/function/day - 1 I 109 109 781 breakfast is buffet type, sensed by the same lunch staff, j I 791NOTES f I I I I I I 80 1 note 1 Includes "day off" coverage were applicable. I 1 811 note 1 2 1This function (all or oart) provided by the edsting WI I I 82 note 1 3 Maid service is based on( _ _ _1_0 occupied roans/maid. Minor .,.ional fluctuations in 831 1 demand will be covered with overtime of the permanent staff and/or temporary help. 84 note ( 4 (Occasional lame banaueltes if-be serviced by the the two shifts restaurant and kitchen staff in over time. 85 I note 5 `Same therapist may cover more than 1 of the 22 treatment roans for some 1 861 note 6 I The total #AW I seasonal work hours/vear divided by the neqular one full time employee 87 2.000 l hours/vear is 4 16 `equivalent full time empho . i I 88 note 7 1 It is a typical hours/peak day of a part time helper. I 89 I note I 8 It is the total part time "names" on the payroll. Evidently depends on the a.: partfime hours/peakday 190 note I 9 Hotel & Club are staffed as a unified operation I I I I 91 now 1 10 ~Pooulation _ for the s., _'f"- number of units, occupancy, persons/roan. 92 (note 1 -11 iA I. hotel restaurants off the main pedestrian traffic (Ludwig, The Villaw, etc.) rarely (if ever) a high 931 walk in d~...a ~.i.ThIS T 30 1 serves/functioNdav is a verv hiqh assumption. I 94 note 12 Al these uses ..are staff ed based on real demand and not based on sq_ft., or seats or any other „a.m..eter. 95 1 note 13 I It is established in the business that the restaurant at the hotel never captures more than { lunch 1961 and 1 dinner per 3 ]nWhts stay. It is part- of quests program to dine out in other restaurants. 1 97 (The lw ratio of 15 1senvesh&m.' i zhift/dw indicates that this staff can serve more than 1981 1 1 12 times this Gu. I I ! I w V I , qr ...01,~l, aura ocoo.n ,ou V., 'm t lcj rage A I B I C D I E I F G I H I I I J I K L i M 1 PERMANENT SEASONAL PART-TIME HELP 1 STAFF VPH I part-time n emto- work total maxi- 2 FUNCTIONS o ye es employees nou work mum 1 by department t year = I per I hours peak work e 40 hs/week each/ per days hours note 1 x 50 quan- peak peak per per 1 for all wkNwr titv 1 day day year year L5 J!= ino (hotel & Club) 6 General h1m.a..er I 1 2,0001 I 1 1 1 7 (Assistant manacter 4 8.000 I 1 8 IGuest relations 21 4.000 41 4 161 921 1,472 9 (Front Office 1 1 81 16,0001- 6 4 24 921 2,208 10 C.,-,..;~,,,e 1 2 4,000 2 4 8 92' 736 11 Well mans 1 1 51 10.000 - 61 4 241 92 2,208 12 (Door man 1 1_..__. 4.21 8,400 I 1 13 Valet parking 1 41- 8,000 12 4 48 921 4,4161 14 PBX I I I 3 _ 6,0001 41 41 16 921 1,4721 15 Reservations I _ 1 3 6.0001 I 116 Safes & Marketing 1 4) 8.000 I I 17 fAccountina i _ _ ....._...1 . _ 6 112.. 00 - 01._ 1 18 [Housekeeping supervisor - 2 4.000 19 maid service 2 11.73 23.456 10 41 401 921 3,680 20 Engineering 1 9 18,000 6 41 24~ 921 2,208 21 Garage C..z. ~ IS 3 6,000 4 4 161 92 1,4721 221Lodging (hotel & Club) I 72 143,8561 541 2161 19,872 23 Food & Beverage (F&B) 1 I 24 fmanaoer+host - _ 1 31 6,0001 41 4 161 92 1,4721 25 ~Wwasters+busboy(1:3 wa 1 11 1 12.071 24.1391 10[ 4{ 401 921 3,6801 1 261bar l I 1 31 _ 6_,d00 1 2 41 81 92~ 7361 27 kitchen . L 161.. . 32 0001 - I I 28 Room Service 1 41 8.-0'- 4 4 16 92( 1,472 29 Food & Beverage (M) 1 381 76,1391 201 80 7,360 30 Conference Center 3 1 31 6,000 21 41 81 92 736 1 31 1Heaith CIub1SPA 1 I I I I I 32 reception 1 1 1 41 81000 1 33 up keeping I ( 1 41 8.000 4 41 16 92 1,472 34 therapist 1 4&2 1 _10.... 20_0W1 4I 4 16 921 1,472 135 I~,44 ~se room- 1 I I 2 4,000 I I .36 Health Club/SPA 1 2 1 201 40,0001 8 321, 1 2,9441 37 etau (3 shops) 1 fit 12,0001 4, 4 16 92 1,4721 381GRAND TOTALS; 1 1391 277,99511 88 4 352 , 32,384 39 I convertion part time to full time I note I I I 40 (One full time work hours/vear I 1 2.000 I 6- 41 jPar 1Grand Total u~ full timto Full e equivalent 42 43 I note I 44 Average hours/part time employee 7 4 45 Number of part time names 8 88 - 1 46 Total payroll names 227) 1 1 Continue 471 EMPLOYEE NET INCREASE CALCULATION 481 I - _ Employee Totals VPH east I Existing VVI I Net in- 491 1 # 1 equiv. # I equiv. i 501 I full time 1 139 1391 421 42 511 ! 1 part time 88~ 16 32 6 52 I total ! 227 155 74 48, 1 531• part time at same ratio as VPH French. I 1 1 I 1 54 VPH STAFFING IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING 55 uses I I ( 1 note units I i ~quant. 56 Hotel 1..... I 1 99 57 Club keVS 113 . 58 Hotel + Club L I ( 9 keys I 212 1 59 Hotel & Club YEAR occwancv ( I I i i ( 64 I EXHIBIT H APPLICANT'S PARKING STUDY Memorandum DATE: January 29, 2001 TO: Brent Wilson FROM: Connie Dorsey/Daymer Corp SUBJECT: Update and Correction my previously submitted memo of 01.23.2001 Parking Reduction Report Completed by Alvine En-ineering Vail Plaza Hotel `Italian Wing, Chateau Site I had indicated that we would be providing a total of 231 parking spaces and we will be providing a total of 216 parking spaces. To review the attached and p., piously submitted study completed by Alvine Engineering Please note that in the first paragraph of the report they are recommending a 22.3% reduction from the TOTAL required parking of 244 Harking spaces for a recommended total of 188 parkins spaces. We are providing 216 parkins spaces. Thank you Memorandum DATE: January 23, 2001 TO: Brent Wilson FROM: Connie Dorsey/Daymer Corp SUBJECT: Parking Reduction Report Complet Mine Engineering Vail Plaza Hotel `Italian Wing, Chateau Site Attached is a copy of the report completed by Alpine Ensineering. Please note that in the first paragraph of the report they are recommending a 22.3% reduction from the required parking of 244 narking- spaces for a recommended total of 188 narkiniz snaces. We are providing 231 narking spaces which is only an 5.6% reduction. Thank you L~ January 22, 2001 Town of Vail Mr. Todd Oppenheimer 1309 Elkhorn Dr. Vail, CO 81657 Re: Parking Study for the Vail Plaza/Chateaux Vail Project The purpose of this letter is to provide recommendations for the amount of parking required for the Vail Plaza Hotel project as well as to provide justification for recommending; up to an 22.3% reduction (from 242 to 188 spaces) for the project. The Town of Vail ordinances allows up to a 25% reduction in the parking requirement if mixed uses are proposed and if this reduction is justified. Our study indicates that 188 parking spaces should be provided, however, it is our understanding that the building plans provide 210 parking spaces, which is only a 13% reduction. There are a number of factors that would justify a reduction in the number of required parking; spaces for an individual project, as summarized below. 1. Mined Uses - For example, use periods for a health chub are typically from around 6-8 a.m and 4-7 p.m. Retail space usually opens between 9-10 a.m., thus parking used by the morning health club users would normally be available for those going to the retail space later in the day. Similarly, peak time for a quality restaurant is typically after 6 p.m., thus those using the health club during its evening peak time will begin to leave as those coming; to the restaurant arrive. Similarly, persons who park at the site as hotel guest will predominantly also be the patrons of the restaurant, spa, health club and retail shops and i..;:....al trip ends to the project are combined. 2_ Proximity To Local Transit - Those using the spa/health club, restaurant or retail as well as employees will likely either be staying at the hotel or at a hotel nearby in town, and will walk to or use the town's free public transportation. "Parking Generation" is published by The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The primary objective of the publication is to provide a comprehensive source of parking occupancy rates for land uses and building types. The publication states that "the vast majority of the data indicated in the ITE report is derived from suburban developments with little or no significant transit ridership. At specific sites, the user may consider modifying the parking generation rates presented because of public transportation, ride sharing, proximity to other developments which may reduce parking g;cnerated, either thru walking or combined trips or of special characteristics of the site or surrounding areas. Local data should be collected for companies when considering: use of the data in this report. Although parking information from similar hotel sites was provided by the owner, it was difficult to calculate a reduction as a result of the proximity to the public bus system. L Connie Dorsey, the manager of the Vail Village inn, and future manager of the Vail Plaza Hatei said that the hotel pays for bus passes for any employee living outside of Vail who desires it. Currently, 15 of the 47 employees use the bus pass. It is assumed that most employees within the Town would use the public transportation due to its convenience. Uic parking rate for "hotel rooms" is 1.4 per room: since only one vehicle typically arrives per room, the extra 0.4 spaces per room is provided for employees and other uses associated with the operation of a hotel. Therefore, we would assume that the parking could be reduced by 5 to 10 spaces to account for employee use of local (within Vail) and ECO (outside Vail) bus systems. 3. Local Factors - Many persons who visit and stay in Vail use the various public transportation alternatives to arrive (ie, bus, limousine, shuttle services, etc.) instead of renting a car and driving. It is assumed that very few persons will drive to the hotel specifically to use the restaurant or retail: most will be hotel guests which will not generate additional parking. Of those who do drive into town, many park at one of the parking structures or are already parked at a nearby hotel and walk through town before choosing a particular restaurant. Connie Dorsey has indicated that ``itlo free parking will be provided for external patrons (non-hotel guests)" while shopping, dining, using the club or meeting room. Therefore, there is incentive for guests already parked at a local hotel to either walk or ride the bus to arrive at the Vail Plaza Hotel. 4. Reserved Parking Reserved parking may not be shared: if the spot is unused, it is reserved and remains open without the benefit of allowing reduction for mixed uses. Connie Dorsey stated that neither the dwelling or fractional fee club units will have assigned or reserved parking. "All parking will be `open parking' excluding the valet parking." Therefore reductions for mixed used, per table attached will also apply to the dwelling units. 5. Private Incentives - As stated previously, Connie Dorsey stated that employees who live outside of Vail are offered ECO bus passes (paid by the Hotel). At the Vail Village Inn, 15 of the 47 employees, or 32% of the employees take advantage of the offer. Connie said that the policy would be continued at the Vail Plaza Hotel. Club memberships are to be sold to two user types 1) an absentee homeowner within the Vail Village area that would like to have a health club membership for use then they are in Vail and 2) a local person who works in Vail that would like to have a club membership near their place of employment. The hotel/club will not provide free or complimentary parking for the club memberships and they will have to pay an hourly rate to use the hotels garage. This will discourage persons from driving to the hotel, and due to the convenience of the public bus system, few external (non-hotel guests) trips to the club arc expected (where a parking space would be required). Memberships are also to be offered on a variable price scale: the best rates will be offered for off peak periods. Although most external club members are expected to use public transportation or walk to be club, a few may not. Variable price scales can offset peak use periods of the club, as well as reduce; they parking required for it. 6. Specific Operational Details of Retail - The retail shops are geared towards the hotel guest. The shops will be small 'kiosk' type that are covered by one person at 2 eight hour shifts per day. Tenants arc expected to be art galleries, sundries shops and logo (brand/souvenir) shops, which are not only oriented towards the hotel guest (minimal external trips), but also low patron and employee volume uses. Again, no free parking will be provided for the retail shops so that if an "external" (not hotel guest) patronizes the store, they will likely arrive by walking or the bus. We have computed the required parking for this project per Town of Vail Ordinance as £oilows: • Hotel Rooms: 120 rooms @03 spaces/room = 84 spaces • Fractional Fee Units: 39 units @0.7 spaces/units = 27.3 spaces • Dwelling Units: 17 units @1.4 spaces/units = 23.88 spaces • Restaurant: 3258 sf @ 1 space/250 sf seating floor area = 13.03 spaces • Cafe/Bar: 2,537 sf @ I space/250 sf seating floor area = 10. i spaces • Retail: 5582.5 sf @ 2.3 spaces/1000 sf area = 12.84 spaces • Meeting: 10,009 sf @ 1 SPACES/330 sf = 303 spaces • Spa: 7,700 sf @ 2.7 spaces/1000 sf = 20.9 spaces • Health Club: 500 members @ 2.5 visits/wk =179 visits/day Assume 80% visit @ peak shift w/4 peaks/day = 179 x 0.8 = 143 visits at peak/4 peaks = 36 visits/peak (36 users at the same time) Assume 50% need parking = 36 x 0.5 =18 spaces Use: 20 spaces TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED PER ORDINANCE = 242 spaces • We have referred to two different publications to determine parking requirements for health clubs, neither of which provided parking recommendations. We also looked into the ITE Trip Generation Manual to determine vehicle movements. Unfortunately, the trip generation data used only one observation. As a result, this data was not used because of the small sample size. Nonetheless, the health club/spa is geared towards the hotel guest and local (transit user/walking) guest, so that significant external trips are not expected. METHOD #1 - Parking based upon mixed uses within the hotel. The following table provides parking factors for the various uses of the hotel, during various times of the day and week. (For example, it is expected that on a weekday, only 75% of the "hotel" parking spaces will be occupied due to 25% of hotel guests driving offsite or lack of 100% occupancy. From 6.00 p.m. to midnight; 100% of the hotel parking spaces are assumed to be occupied.) Percent of occupied parking space requirement for various time of the day and week Weekday i Weekday Weekend j Weekend Midnight - 6am Use Day 6am- Evening A I 6ptn 6 - midnight' Day Evening ` ( General Retail - ! 60% 1 800/0 100% 70% 5% I I Hotel. Motel 75% 1 100% 75% 1 100% 75% Restaurant 1 50% ( 10011/9 100% 1 100% 10% Commercial, Recreational Establishments' 1 900/" 25% 900/0 309/9 5% (Hcalth Club) Meeting Ccnter 42 4 f I 1 ~ I j s ' -I I 1 I 1 1 Dwelling Units 1 ( 1 f A 50% 100% 1001% 1000/9 1 100% I) Sea { (same &c retail) 60% I 80% 100% 90% 5% Total I 1 I, The following table provides the product of the required parking and the mixed use reduction. Mixed Use Spaces Required I Weekday ( Weekday I Weekend Weekend Midnight - 6am Use Day Gam- Evening 6pm 6 - midnight Day f Evening General Rctail ! (A) 60%(17)=10 160%(17)=10.2 85%(17)-14.5 ! 70%(17)=12 5%(17) 1 ( Hotel. Motel 75% (84) = 63 l 80% (84) = 67 75% (84) =63 90% (84) = 76 1 75% (84) = 63 ( Restaurant 50% (22.7) = 11 I 100% (22.7) = 80% (22.7) = 100% (22.7) - 100/9 (22.7) = 3 22.7 22.7 22.7 Commercial, Recreational Establishments• 1 90% (20) = 18 25% (20) = 5 900% (20) = i 8 30% (20) = 6 5%(20)-l (Health Club) Meeting Ccatcr - (B) 35% (30) = 10.5 35% (30) =10.5 20% (30) = 6 20% (30) = 6 t 0% (30) = 0 { I I 1 Dwelling Units 1 i (C) 1 50%(56) = 28 100% (56) = 56 k 100% ('56) = 56 100% (56)^ 56 100% (56)= 56 Spa (Sallie as rotnil) 100% (21) = 13 1 75% (21) = 15.8 100% (21) - 21 90% (21) = 19 5% (21) = 1 Total Assuming A & r + 154 I 198 197 198 120 A. General retail are low generator uses geared iowards hotel guests such as art galleries, sundries shops, souvenir shops B. Meeting rooms are for seminars which are predominantly hotel guests C. 17 dwelling units and 39 fractional fee units; no assigned parking. Method #2 - Required parking based upon the Institute of Transportation Engineers (11TE) 2nd edition, "Parking Generation". The 1TE provides date based upon actual site studies of various uses for the purpose of estimating parking requirements. The publication states that-"tt appears reasonable to assume that multi-use projects would potentially demand fewer parking spaces, because of the internal matching trip ends within the project. ITE land use section 311, "Convention Hotel" was used for the purpose of the study. It is defined as a place of lodging providing sleeping accommodations, restaurants, lounges and meeting rooms and banauet rooms cavable of handling conventions. These hotels often have retail and service shoos within the facility". Since the convention hall use aireadv considers mixed uses, such as lounges. restaurants, shops and meeting rooms, no reduction for mixed uses has been applied. Convention Hotel section 31 1 ITE. Ln (P) = .71 Ln (x) t 1.42 X = # rooms =120 P= 123 = 123 spaces Dwelling units 17 (1.4) = 23.88 spaces Fraction fee units 39 (0.7) = 27.3 spaces Health Club* 20 Total 195 spaces *The health club is intended predominantly for hotel guests, however, some outside memberships will be sold. Since the ITE definition of "Convention Hotel" did not include health elubispa, the 20 spaces were added to the amount of hotel parking. Summary • The mix use parking mduetion method indicates that the peak parking requirements occurs during both the weekend day and evening periods, and that 197 or 198 spaces are estimated to be required during those periods. • The ITE publication, "Parking Generation" provides data which suggests that 195 parking spaces are adequate for the site (without making any adjustments for public transportation or site specific conditions). r • Recommended Parking: Required parking per Vail ordinance 242 ?Mixed use reductions 44 Total 198 ITE estimate 195 Proximity to Public Bus reduction 10 10 Total recommended parking 188 185 It is recommended that a minimum of 188 parking spaces be provided, which represents an 13% reduction (44 spaces) for "mixed use (or just "hotel') use, and 4% reduction for proximity to public transportation (or 10 spaces) for a total reduction of 22.31%. S The probable long term use of the building should not generate additional parking demand due to the fact that the building is essentially a hotel. Hotels typically contain restaurants, health clubs, retail and meeting rooms. As long as the restaurant and retail are located within and part of the hotel, they will be geared towards the hotel guests and thus not generate a significant amount of external trips and also benefit from "mixed use" parking reductions. • As stated by Mr. Connie Dorsey, the manager of the Vail Village Inn and the future manager of the Vail Plaza Hotel, the hotel has provided ECO bus passes for those employees who ride the bus. It is apparently a successful program since 15 of the 47 employees are currently taking advantage of the policy. We are recommending that only up to 10 parking spaces (or 4%) be reduced at the Plaza Hotel as a result of the Hotel Purchased Bus Pass Policy. (The other 18% are a result of hotel operation - mixed use criteria). o The proximity to the public transit system (Town of Vail buses, ECO bus system and airport shuttle service such as CME) is a significant factor to the use of this facility. It is assumed that most external restaurant and health club members will use public transportation. As a hotel, many guests fly to either Denver (DIA) or Eagle and use the shuttle service (CME, etc) to arrive instead of renting a car or driving. Currently, 32°l0 of the employees use the ECO bus system for transportation: it is not known how many use the free Town of Vail bus system. As a ski resort hotel, many, if not most of the guests use the public transportation to go skiing, shopping, or dining. We assume that consideration is given by both hotel guests and employees to stay or be employed at the hotel as it's easy access to the ski slopes and Vail shops, which clearly means using the public transportation (or for employees, it's proximity to the bus system). Glenn Palmer Cc: Tim Losa, Zehren Associates, Mr. Waldir Prado, Mr.Connie Dorsey S.. t'# 713./ iw ¦ v r u / CONVENTION HOTEL DESCRIPT30N PARKING CHARACTERISTICS AND DATA LIMITATIONS A convention hotel is a place of lodging providing sleeping accommodations, restaurants, lounges, and Parking rates are bid on total rooms in each hotel meeting and banquet rooms capable of handling surveyed. Room occupancy data were not available conventions. These hotels often have retail and ser- for this edition. Caution should be used in apptying vice shops within the facility. these rates since they could differ by ten to twenty- It is difficult to determine a division between a con- five percent or more. vention hotel and a non-convention hotel since many The peak parking times varied between noontime, hotels seem to accept conventions (or meetings), early evening, and the late evening hours. No trend but not all actively seek that trade. was apparent. Most of the studies received listed the number of More data are needed for convention hotels. Future hotel rooms, and not the number of occupied rooms. data needs include a more detailed breakdown of The number of rooms ranged from 100 to 785. related facilities such as lounge seating, restaurant seating, banquet/meeting room square footage, and retail facilities, in order to create a more defined data base from which to draw conclusions. Data describing the number of occupied rooms at the time of the survey are also needed. Parking Generation, August 19amnstitute of Transportation Engir-mrs 39 CONVENTION HOTEL (311) ~J Peak Parking Spaces Occupied vs: ROOMS On a: WEEKDAY PARKING GENERATION RATES Average Range of Standard Number of Average Number of Rate Rates Deviation Studies Rooms 0.81 0.26-1.32 0.29 22 449 DATA BLOT AND EQUATION CAUTION-USE CAREFULLY--LOW R2. 900- w 800- 700- 0 600 ° a 500 ° z Y p cr_ 400 ° ? a ° x ° w 300 ° Cl a a 20Q as 100 100 300 500 700 900 X = (NUMBER OF ROOMS ? ACTUAL DATA POINTS FITTED CURVE Fitter! Curve Equation: Ln(P) = 0.71 Ln(X) + 1.42 R'=0.498 ' -1 Parking Ganeradon, Adgust 19871Institute of TranaponWfon !Engineers b 40 Park ng needs at the Vaal Plaza Hotel West (Italian. Wine) ~ .o 1) Retail ~~~ll~o , ~ T l All shops will be small `Kiosk' type that are covered by one (1) person for each eight (8) hour shift and a maximum of two (2) shifts per day. Retail will be of the type that caters to a hotel clientele and serving the needs of the traveling public. i.e. Art Galleries, Sundries Shops, Logo (brand/souvenirs) Shop, a Ski/Skiing Necessities Shop, geared to hotel guests. No FREE parking will be brovided for the shoes and no FREE narking will be available while shoonins at the shoes. 2) Meetine/Function Svace: The meeting/function space will be used as a sales tool packaged by the `Hotel Sales Department' and booked with lodging for `group business'. This will give the sales department their best opportunity to maximize the booking of the hotels lodging/accommodations. There will be times that a `group' will be of the size that it will have overflow lodging with adjacent hotels. Overflow lodging traditionally is within walking distance of the host hotel. Parking for these persons is at the hotel where they are staying. Anv t)erson attending a meetina/function at the hotel but not staving at the hotel will ray an hourly rate for narking. 3) Health Club/SPA: The hotel's Health Club/SPA function will be used again by the sales department as a sales tool to obtain bookings both `group` and `r11 , for the hotel. These persons will of course be staying in the hotel. A portion of the Health Club/SPA use will be walk-ups paying a daily or weekly fee. The walls-up guest will more than likely be a rep lial from other nearby hotels that are within walking distance. The walk-up guest of course does not drive. Memberships will be sold to two (2) types 1) an absentee homeowner within the Vail Village area that would like to have a Health Club/SPA membership for use when they are in Vail. And, 2) a local person that works in the Village or nearby that would like to have a `Club' membership near their office or place of employment. We will not vrovide FREE or comnlementarv narking to this type of membership. They will have to pay an hourly rate to use the Hotel's garage. This will discourage persons to drive when the hotel is within walking distance and or on the Vail shuttle route. 4) Emalovee Parking: The Hotel will pay for bus passes for _,.1,loyees living outside of the Village area who prefer to ride the bus or that do not have a car (our form of car-pooling). For example the VVI has forty-seven (47) employees and fifteen (15) of them use bus passes that the hotel I purchases, that is approximately 32% of the entire staff. The Mail Plaza Hotel will continue this policy. 5) Restaurant/Cafe/Lobbv Bar. These functions play largely into the hands of the sales department again as a sales tooL Hotel Restaurants/Cafes/Bars are not traditionally the "Restaurant/Cafe/Bar of "Choice". Research shows that a hotel will capture one (1) diner per guest during an average four (4) night stay. The hotel's breakfast clientele are again the hotel guests as well as is the bar. Going out to dine-around at various restaurants is part of the `resort' experience. Parking provided for guests using the Hotel's Food & Beverage outlets will be minimal to say the least. 61 Condominium Owners Parking: Of the seventeen (17) Dwelling units as well as the thirty-nine (39) Fractional Fee Club units there will be one (1) parking space for each unit. These parking spaces will not be assigned. All parking will be `open parking' excluding the `valet parking'. 2 EXHIBIT I STAFF PARKING ANALYSIS A VAIL PLAZA HOTEL WEST STAFF PARKING CALCULATIONS Parking Use Factor Requirement Sub-total Notes Reduction Sub-total Accommodati_on Units 120 0.7 84 84 Fractional Fee Units 39 0.7 27.3 27.3 Dwelling Units 17 1.4 23.8 I 23.8 Employee Housing_ Units 16 1.4 ( 22.4 22.4 Restaurant/bar 5741 1/250 sf 22.964 I 22.964 Retail 7027 2.3/1000 sf 116.162197 Primarilv internal 25% 12.121648 Conference (Ballroom Only) 10009 ~ 1/330 sf ~ 30.330303 30.330303 ~ - - - Health Club 13872.5 1/300 sf 46.241667 Leasable Area Credit 15% 39.305417 Spa / Group Wellness_- Therapy 7863 1/370 sf 21.251351 Primarily external 10% 19.126216 294.44952 281.34758 Staff Total Per Code Recommendation (includes mixed use (includes mixed use credit) 279.72704 credits) 267.2802 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 EXHIBIT J APPLICANT'S TRAFFIC STUDY ALPINE ENGINEERING, INC. January 12, 2001 Mr. Greg Hall, P.E. Town of Vail Department of Public Works 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, CO 81657 Re: Chateau Vail Access Locations Dear Greg: The purpose of this letter is to make recommendations for the access driveways to the proposed Chateau Vail Hotel and to address your comments made during out meeting yesterday. This will include location with respect to other driveways (both existing and proposed), the roundabout, design criteria, full or restricted access, etc. The site is located between South Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive, near the southwest corner of the intersection of South Frontage Road and Vail Road. The existing hotel has 120 rooms, an 80 seat restaurant and 60 seat bar. Tile proposed plan currently includes a 120 room hotel, 17 free market condominiums, 39 fractional fee condominiums, 163 seat restaurant, 126 seat cafe/bar, 5582 sf retail space and a 26,395 sf spa/health club. Use of the health club/spa will be primarily by hotel guests, however spa services (massages, salon, etc.) will be available to the general public on a walk-in/reservation basis. Approximately 500 memberships to the health club will be sold to the public. Existing Conditions: Access to the site is from 3 locations: 1) South Frontage Road via a shared driveway entrance with the existing Amoco service station; 2) the private driveway from Vail Road and 3) the driveway from West Meadow Drive. 1) Access from the South Frontage Road is provided from a shared entrance with the Amoco service station. The South Frontage Road has two eastbound, two westbound and a middle turning lane adjacent to the site. A third eastbound lane is provided just before the roundabout. The posted speed is 25 mph. A concrete median on the South Frontage Road extends to the western edge of the entrance, which terminates at the center turning lane. Vehicles exiting 1-70 can travel west on the South Frontage Road, make a shirt u-turn around the median and enter the driveway. It is assumed that only a few vehicles(] 0%) make this turn to enter the site. This shared entrance is located about 100 ft. west of the roundabout. 2) The second access is a two way driveway from Vail Road, approximately 150 ft. south of the roundabout and about 60 ft, south of the Vail Road access to the Amoco service station. A 24"x24" hotel sign is located at this entrance. An existin- two lane driveway that leads to the parking garage for Vail Gateway is located directly across from the hotel driveway on Vail Road. CA nre4c ni icinacc r antct . Pn Rnv 47 . Fdtwirdl ('nlnrado 91632 • (970) 926-3373 - Fax (970) 926-3390 . Proposed plans for development of the parcel south of the Vail Gateway indicate the construction of a'one-way' exit adjacent to the existing access to the Vail Gateway parking garage. 3) The third access to the site is a two-way driveway from Nest Meadow Drive located on the western side of the site. We assume that this access is rarely, if ever, used by hotel guests since it is not readily apparent that the hotel parking lot can be accessed from this driveway. Since the majority of vehicles travel on the South Frontage Road or Vail Road, trip rates are expected to be low at this entrance and are not considered in this report. Proposed Conditions: 1) A separate one-way entrance to the hotel is proposed from South Frontage Road on the western side of the site, approximately 130 ft. west of the Town of Vail Municipal Center entrance and 300 ft. west of the Amoco access. This access drive will parallel South Frontage Road along the front of the hotel and connect to the existing shared access at the Amoco service station. Vehicles will only be permitted to make a right (eastbound) turn from the Amoco access onto South Frontage Road. It is proposed to extend the existing median on South Frontage Road approximately 100 ft to the west to prohibit left turns in/out of the shared Amoco access. 2) The existing driveway from Vail Road is proposed to be one-way in (right turn only from Vail Road), and will be used for service vehicles only (approximately four per day), with the exception of providing four parking spaces for vehicles using the adjacent condominium complex to the south of the drivewav. Vehicles will exit onto South Frontage Road via the shared access at Amoco. 3) The existing driveway onto West Meadow Drive will be closed. References and Assumptions: The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) "Trip Generation" publication (6`h edition) has been used to determine average vehicle trip ends (AVTE) for the existing and proposed conditions. As various uses will be considered in this analysis, the "peak hour of adjacent street traffic" has been used to determine traffic volumes. Using the "peak hour of generator" could give false results since the timing of peak traffic can vary for a given use. Two time periods are thus analyzed, 7 am - 9 am and 4 pm - 6 pm as outlined per ITE. The ITE publication provides various land use options for hotel-type establishments. This report will consider the existing and proposed hotel as a "Resort Hotel", land use 330 per ITE. As described in the manual, "Resort Hotels are similar to hotels (land use 310) in that they provided sleeping accommodations, restaurants, cocktail lounges, retail shops and guest services. The primary difference is that resort hotels cater to the tourist and vacation business, often providing a variety of recreational facilities, rather than convention and meeting business. Resort hotels are normally located in suburban or outlying locations on larger sites than conventional hotels." It was assumed that this project fits the above description. The trip generation per room tends to be less for a "resort hotel" than for a "hotel" and given the location of the site, this should be true for this project. Since the hotel is within close proximity to the various attractions in Vail, it would be expected that the majority of guests will walk or use the free public transportation, thus generating less vehicle volumes than a typical hotel where guests would normally have to drive to attractions. The description of a resort hotel (as well as a hotel) includes restaurant, cocktail lounge, retail shops, etc. Based on this description, this report will include the proposed restaurant, bar, etc. in the traffic generated by the resort hotel, and does not break these out separately in determining traffic volumes. It is to be noted that the ITE description does not specify square footages, seating, etc. for each auxiliary use in relation to the number of hotel rooms. The proposed development will also have 17 free market condominiums and 39 fractional fee condominiums which will be designated as "High-Rise Residential Condominium/Townhouse" Land Use 232 per ITE to determine trip rates. This designation was chosen since the description best matches the proposed development. The proposed health club/spa is identified under land use 493 (Health Club) in the ITE manual. It should be noted that only one observation was used in the ITE study, thus the data extrapolated should be used with extreme caution due to the small sample size. Additionally, the ITE study for health clubs was based on square footage of floor area and not on the number of members. Since the club will be used primarily by hotel guests (and only 500 memberships available to the public), and is not a "stand alone" facility but part of a hotel complex, it is difficult to determine actual vehicle trips. An on-site traffic count has not been conducted for this report. Vehicle trip ends were estimated using the values for each land use as provided by ITE. The percentage of vehicles entering the site from any given direction has been assumed and is not based on actual observations. The assumed percentage for each direction is indicated along the turning movement arrow on the accompanying diagrams. Existing Average Vehicle Trip Ends: Peak hour* Peak hour* 7am-9am 4pm-6pm Land Use 9 rooms I Total Enter Exit Total Enter ( Exit Resort Hotel I 120 37 27 10 51 22 29 Gas Station 5 pumps 61 31 30 73 37 I 36 Total f 98 58 40 I 124 59 65 Proposed Average Vehicle Trip Ends: Peak hour* I Peak hour* 7am-9am I 4pm-6pm Land Use Units Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Resort Hotel 120 rooms 37 27 10 51 22 29 Condo/Timeshare 56 units 19 4 15 21 13 8 Health Club 26.4 ksf 8 4 4 113 69 44 Subtotal - Site 64 35 29 185 104 81 I Gas Station 5 pumps 61 ( - 1 30 1 73 37 36 Total 125 66 59 258 141 117 i *Note: Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Auxiliary Lane Requirements: Frontage Road Per the 1998 State Highway Access Code Section 3.13, South Frontage Road is category F-R (Frontage Road). The posted speed limit is 25mph. Section 3.13 of the State Highway Access Code states that auxiliary lanes are required as follows: 1) A left turn lane with storage length plus taper length is required for any access with a projected peak hour left ingress turning volume greater than 25vph. Existing left turns from South Frontage Road are estimated at 6 (into the existing shared entrance) and proposed left turns into the new separate hotel entrance are 73. Available storage plus taper length from the west end of the new median is approximately 155 ft (required length is 115 ft: 25 ft. storage plus 90 ft. taper per Tables 4-6 and 4-8 in the Access Code). This length is available in the existing turning lane beyond the new (extended) median. 2) A right turn with storage length plus taper length is requited for any access with a projected peak hour right ingress turning volume greater than 50vph. Existing right turns from South Frontage Road are estimated at 18. Proposed right turns are estimated to be 31 at the hotel and 15 at Amoco. An auxiliary lane should not be required. 3) A right turn acceleration lane with taper is required for any access with a projected peak hour right turning volume greater than 50 vph when the posted speed on the highway is greater than 40 mph, and the highway has only one lane for through traffic in the direction of the right turn. A right turn acceleration lane is not required on multi-lane highways of this category. Since South Frontage Road is multi-lane with a posted speed of 25 mph, a right turn acceleration lane is not required. 4) A left turn acceleration lane with transition taper may be required if it would be a benefit to the safety and operation of the roadway or as determined by subsection 3.5. A left turn acceleration lane is generally not required where: the posted speed is less than 45mph, or the intersection is signalized, or the acceleration lane would interfere with the left turn ingress movements to any other access. South Frontage Road has a posted speed of 25 mph. No left turns are proposed from the project, thus a lane should not be required. Subsection 3.5 of the State Highway Access Code states: The auxiliary lanes required in the category design standards may be waived when the 20'h year predicted roadway volumes conflicting with the turning vehicle are below the following minimum volume thresholds. The right turn deceleration lane may be dropped if the volume in the travel lane is predicted to be below 150 DHV. The left turn deceleration lane may be dropped if the opposing traffic is predicted to be below 100 DHV. The right turn acceleration lane may be dropped if the adjacent traveled lane is predicted to be below 120 DHV. The left turn acceleration lane may be dropped if the volume in the inside lane in the direction of travel is predicted to be below 120 DHV. Summary Table* For Relocated Frontage Road Access South Frontage Road Allowed per 3.13 ! Current/Projected Lane Req'd per 3.13 - - - _ Left Decel 25 6173 1' Right Decel 50 I 18/31 N Left Accei N/A 14/0 N Right Accel N/A 32/103 1 N *The information contained in the summary table with regards to existing and proposed vehicle trips is based solely on ITE "Trip Generation" publication for specific land use as previously described in this report. Turning movements are estimates and not based on actual field observations. The Current/Projected movements include hotel and gas station trips. Recommendations/Conclusions: 1. South Frontage Road Access Section 43 in the State Highway Access Code discusses sight distance along the highway and at access points. Minimum/design site distance along the South Frontage Road is 150 ft. (based on 25mph posted speed). Section 4.4 states that each access should be separated at a minimum by a distance equal to the design sight distance, in this case 150 ft. The current plan indicates that the proposed entrance (located on the westernmost portion of the property) is separated from the entrance to the Amoco service station by approximately 300 ft and 130 ft from the Town of Vail Municipal Center entrance (centerline distances). The existing median on the South Frontage Road should be extended approximately 100 ft to the west to the Town of 'hail building entrance. This should reduce any conflicting movements adjacent to the roundabout for vehicles travelling west and provide for better traffic flow on South Frontage Road. 2. Vail Access Road: The access from Vail Road should be a'one way in' driveway, used primarily for service vehicles. This should improve traffic flow though the site and limit internal conflicting movements. It should also limit the conflicting turning movements on Vail Road if the proposed 'exit-only' access is constructed adjacent to the Vail Gateway driveway 3. 'Vest Meadow Drive Access: This driveway will be closed. We also recommend that a copy of the site plan, showing the proposed access revisions, be forwarded to the owner of the Amoco service station and Town of Vail Fire Department for their review and comments. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, Frederick E. Tobias, PE Enclosures Cc: Waldir Prado Tim Losa Glenn Palmer 1/1Z~a j EXI`ati !NL CD~~~T~ nN 1 N.T. HDTEL ~M. PEAK HOUR er- A~ALtArt TII.At~ic. ~ -4 Rm LR S__`M 4 Pm N M: VA(L- B lll!_Ut 1J b.5 1p~0 i i i 2p j0 1 2 ~ 1 C / r' I Z : I 1 + 1~ `mow dad FRONTAGE ZOAD--*-- S Iz. 14 ' N M O Ld zz (Gp?off, •i i v ~l1 i_ . ~FLV~L.B STATIOrJ l L-, Fi'.rr=w AY - c, r~aRn~ ---ZIP %NZ cyp curEe/c-~r i' 7~IRNiNG M~UE[hE?aT 7Dvq(, C-,A5 No f El-PFAY- l\DOM of RD?{~CE~JT `C<?R~Ft~ Rm HM -t -9 Am N ` , P/rt Prn P!y - to PtYt / \ ~~wtJ of VAtt_ ExT~nsa t~tEntAN I 1 M Un11L1 P AL Ci;3J?E~. ~ ' a z9 q7 tai o \5 E~ Tuem LAr.3E `7~ a~ ASE qoA ,4,~ - 0 4 o ~ ~ L'k. AML1co Srra•r~n..1 rx zz All ~(:UF2tiSF1a NOT EL_ / r ~y ~A~1Lf?.1 L~ n CL W. il- 1 Y KnY. FAMP ~X DQ~V G W A / y ~OF ~ TA 'Be C.LOSE-D LJI ! 1 FOCI Est. cc~ n5 DOP~(Ul u LF V/ OK ~LJQQ~ r~o~aQt l f l l l l l l l l ~a ~c~ac D,J l..tFST y -m Eq Resort Hotel (330) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Rooms On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 7 Average Number of Rooms: 504 Directional Distribution: 72% entering, 28% exiting Trip Generation per Room Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.31 0.24 - 0.41 0.57 Data Plot and Equation 400 :X 300 to 200 h.......... d X Q X i00 X X 300 400 500 600 700 800 E-00 X = Number of Rooms X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Average Rata Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.395(X) - 40.786 R2=0.75 Trip Generation, 61h Edition 586 Institute of Transportation Engineers Resort Hotel (330) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Rooms On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 10 Average Number of Rooms: 495 Directional Distribution: 43% entering, 57% exiting Trip Generation per Room Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.42 0.19 - 0.51 0.65 I Data Plot and Equation Soo X 400 ut ; 300 ..X.............. U e~ 200 x; ' .X . Q X X 100 X ; 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Soo Soo X = Number of Rooms X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: LnM =1.437.Ln(X) - 3.621 R2 = 0.93 Trip Generation, 6th Edition 587 Institute of Transportation Engineers High-Rise Residential Condominium/Townhouse (232) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 4 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 543 Directional Distribution: 19% entering, 81% exiting rip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.34 0.31 0.48 0.59 )ata Plot and Equation Caution - Use Carefully- Small Sample Size 500 400 mil:.. C l1J C 300- U Q) 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X, g. Q 100 200 300 400 500 800 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 X = Number of Dwelling units X Actual Data Points Pitted Curve Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.288(X) + 28.861 R2 = 0.98 Trtp Generation, 6th Edition -395 Institute of Transportation Engineers High-Rise Residential Condominium/Townhouse (232) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 5 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 444 Directional Distribution: 62% entering, 38% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.38 0.34 - 0.49 0.62 Data Plot and Equation Caution - Use carefully - small sample size 600 500 , . . 400- o h v 300 t . Q II 200 . . X 100 0 r i 1 f I f 1 I I ' 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Boo Soo 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation- T = 0.342(X) + 15.466 R2 = 0.99 Trip Generation, 61h Edition 396 Institute of Transportation Engineers Land Use: 493 Health Club Independent Variables with One Observation The following trip generation data are for independent variables with only one observation. This information is shown in this table only; there are no related plots for these data. Users are cautioned to use these data with care because of the small sample size. Trip Size of Number Generation Independent . of Independent Variable Rate Variable Studies Directional Distribution 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area Weekday A.M. Peak 0.30 43 1 46% entering, 54% exiting Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Weekday P.M. Peak 4.~0 43 1 61 % entering, 39% exiting Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Weekday A.M. Peak 0.30 43 1 46% entering, 54% exiting Hour of Generator Weekday P.M. Peak 4.30 43 1 61 % entering, 39% exiting Hour of Generator r.,n r`anpratinn. 6th Edition 789 institute of Transportation Engineers E_ i' - t Gasoline/Service Station (844) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Vehicle Fueling Positions On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 18 Average Vehicle Fueling Positions: 8 Directional Distribution: 51 % entering, 49% exiting Trip Generation per Vehicle Fueling Position Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 14.56 5.00 - 27.33 6.70 Data Plot and Equation 220 X 210 200 190 180 170 160 LU 150 . 140 U L 130 is 120 ...........:............X. cri > 110 Q 100 ...........X 90 X 80 X 70 60 50 X------------- 40 3p i i 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 X = Number of Vehicle Fueling Positions X Actual Data Points Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R2 Trip Generation, 6th Edition 1459 `J Institute of Transportation Engineers Gasoline/Service Station (844) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs; Vehicle Fueling Positions On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 12 Average Vehicle Fueling Positions: 8 Directional Distribution: 51 % entering, 49% exiting Trip Generation per Vehicle Fueling Position Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 12.27 7.33 - 17.50 4.36 Data Plot and Equation 150 140 130 ............X.............:..............._... 120 'ND c 110 .2- 7E5 100- r > d 90 ,s.......X rn j Q 6o 70 60 50 40 i i 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 X = Number of Vehicle Fueling Positions X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 9.810(X) + 18.865 R2 = 0.51 Trip Generation, 6th Edition 1458 institute of Transportation Engineers EXHIBIT K COMMENTS FROM ELECTED AND APPOINTED BOARDS 6~ 11 el e)~~ TOWN OF VAIL Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2138 FAX 970-479-2452 October 27, 2000 Tim Losa, AIA Zehren and Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 1976 Avon, CO 81620 Re: Lot 9 A-C, Vail Village Filing 2 / The Chateau at Vail Dear Tim. On October 24h, the Town of Vail Design Review Board (DRB), Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), and Vail Town Council conceptually reviewed the above-referenced proposal. The following is a synopsis of their comments. Soecial Development District - Some deviations from the underlying zoning may be acceptable. However, any proposal for a special development district should incorporate the Vail Village Inn property as well. The Town boards believe the sharing of infrastructure between both projects could be of substantial benefit to both the developer and the public. Also, an incorporation of the gas station property into the design would be a great addition to the overall plan (if this is possible). Heiaht Some deviation in building height may be acceptable. It is recommended that the highest portions of the building are placed on the north side (along the frontage road) with a gradual stepping down of the massing towards West Meadow Drive. Bulk and Mass - The overall scale of the current proposal is inconsistent with the established character of the area. A "breaking up" of the primary roof ridges would help scale down the mass. The project should read as an assemblage of buildings rather than one large structure. Traffic and Access - Every effort should be made tc keep all vehicular traffic off of West Meadow Drive. It is recommended that primary vehicular access is placed along the frontage road. Some limited accessory traffic along Vail Road may be acceptable. Adequate pedestrian access and circulation throughout the site should be demonstrated. Setbacks - The setback encroachments proposed below grade are a good solution to meeting the hotel's operational needs. However, it is recommended that the minimum setbacks above grade are maintained. This is especially relevant along West Meadow Drive where the pedestrian scale and neighborhood character should be respected. RECYCz ED PAPER i,•s JA At TOWN OF VA1L 9 Department of Community Development ' 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2138 FAX 970-479-2452 www ci. vail. co. us November 28, 2000 Tim Losa, AIA Zehren and Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 1976 Avon, CO 81620 Re: Lot 9 A-C, Vail Village Filing 2 / The Chateau at Vail Dear Tim: At its November 27`h meeting, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) conceptually reviewed the above-referenced proposal. The following is a synopsis of the PEC's comments. Soecial Develooment District - the PEC believes the project should be able to function as an independent "stand alone" project in case ownership of either hotel project transfers. However, it is necessary to address some of the cumulative impacts (traffic, loading/delivery, etc.) from both sites. Although it is not necessary to incorporate both sites into the context of this SDD, please address the significant impacts and opportunities provided by the Vail Village Inn site. The PEC will not consider any "above-ground skyways" an acceptable connection between the two projects. Heiaht - Some deviation in building height may be acceptable. It is recommended that the highest portions of the building are placed on the north side (along the frontage road) with a gradual stepping down of the massing towards West Meadow Drive. The height along West Meadow Drive should be stepped down again to a level more consistent with the established character of the area. Bulk and Mass - The building should be turned outward towards the public and opened up to allow greater public access. The proposed atrium area should be opened more to the south to take advantage of the sun exposure and pedestrian traffic. Traffic and Access -Given the limited amount of one-way delivery traffic anticipated for the access drive from Vail Road, the PEC believes the proposed combination of pedestrian and vehicular facilities is acceptable. However, creative paver treatments should be used to delineate the pedestrian and vehicular zones (similar to the Austria Haus pavers along East Meadow Drive). The loading bay location is appropriate, but some visual enhancement and noise mitigation may be necessary. The proposed guest entry and exit is acceptable (pending the completion of a traffic study). aWYMMPAPAR I 4VAIL lop? TOWN OF Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2138 FAX 970-479-2452 www ci. vail. co. us December 8, 2000 Tim Losa, AIA Zehren and Associates, Inc- P.O. Box 1976 Avon, CO 81620 Re: Lot 9 A-C, Vail Village Filing 2 /The Vail Plaza Hotel West Dear Tim: At its December 6`h meeting, the Town of, Vail Design Review Board (DRB) conceptually reviewed the above-referenced application. The following is a synopsis of their comments from this meeting: Bulk and Mass - The project should read as a fragmented assemblage of structures. The linear, unbroken wail planes along the South Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive are too massive and should be broken up to help reduce the apparent mass of the project. There should be points in the project where light and air penetrate through to allow for more transparency. The current proposal is not sympathetic to the design and scale of adjacent buildings. Lavout/Footorint - The inward focus of the project should be turned outward. The current proposal is reminiscent of the Vail Gateway project. It needs to be more inviting to the public from the outside. The large internal atrium could be reduced in size; this would allow more flexibility in breaking up the layout of the proposal. Articulation - On a small scale, the dormer elements work well to articulate the roof forms. However, the gables need a better hierarchy and the roof massing needs additional breaks to reduce the visual scale of the proposal. Streetscaoino -the current streetscape concept plan along West Meadow Drive works well. However, the pedestrian level entry along West Meadow Drive should be more inviting and should be defined better as a major arrival point for the hotel. ~ow RECYCLEDPAPER EXHIBIT L CITIZEN CORRESPONDENCE i E TOWN OF VA1L Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2138 FAX 970-479-2452 www ci. vail. co. us December 22, 2000 Tim Losa, AIA Zehren and Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 1976 Avon, CO 81620 Re: Lot 9 A-C, Vail Village Filing 2 / The Chateau at Vail Dear Tim: On December 18'h, the Town hosted an informal neighborhood meeting for discussion of the Vail Plaza Hotel West Proposal. The following is a synopsis of the comments expressed by various adjacent property owners at this meeting: Access from Vail Road - Lon Moellentine (Owner of Alpine Standard property) expressed concerns about restricting traffic to one direction along the eastern "flag" of the property. He was concerned this may impact Alpine Standard's ability to redevelop the property in the future- Additionally, Lon expressed concern about the project's potential impacts on Alpine Standard's ability to accommodate large gasoline trucks. Town staff is looking into the legal ramifications of the access easement and its effects upon the ability to restrict access to one direction. Gwen and Rick Scalpello, representing the 9 Vail Road association, expressed concerns about the amount of delivery traffic proposed for the access drive adjacent to their property. Loadino/Deliverv- Gwen and Rick Scalpello (representing the 9 Vail Road Homeowners' Association) expressed concerns about the amount of noise delivery trucks would generate while backing down the proposed ramp to the loading bays. The Scalpellos, Bruce GiMe (representing the owners of the rental units at 9 Vail Road) and Jim Lamont (representing the East Village Homeowners' Association) stated they felt loading and delivery should be accommodated within the interior structure of the hotel; preferably at the northwest corner of the property (opposite the town offices). Fire Access - Richard Kent (representing the Scorpio association) and Jim Lamont (representing the East Village Homeowners' Association) expressed concerns about fire access along the western wing of the project. Additionally, Richard expressed concerns about the impacts the project may have on the Scorpio's ability to construct residential additions in the future. ILJ~ RECYCLED PAPER TO: Design Review Board, Town of Vail FROM: 9 Vail Road (Holiday House) Condominium Association DATE: November 30, 2000 SUBJECT: I3 Vail Road / Lot A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2 (Vail Plaza Hotel - Italian Wing) The owners of 9 Vail Road reviewed the applicant's Vail Plaza Hotel West proposal at their annual meeting in late November. We are not harpy with the proposal and wish to share our concerns and requests with you. As we are unable to attend the December 6 meeting, we submit this letter for your consideration. 1. Design: The latest proposal has not changed materially in design from that presented to you in October. It is still a big box and far too massive for the neighborhood. Request: That you direct the applicant to come back with a less massive design that links to the immediate neighbors. Examples would be several buildings on a campus or perhaps a "U" or "H" shaped structure that opens to West Meadow Drive. 2. Height: The proposed building is still way too tall. It exceeds underlying zoning, the height of the current Chateau Vail and the maximum height of its neighbors. Request: That you direct the applicant to return with a design that does not exceed the underlying zoning except on the South Frontage Road, where it can reach the maximum height of the current Chateau Vail. 3. Mixed Vehicular/Pedestrian Traffic: The applicant's proposal to use its Vail Road access for commercial trucks puts these massive vehicles into conflict with the many guests walking between the two wings of the Vail Plaza Hotel. Additionally, lost and confused automobile traffic looking for the entrance to the hotel will use this access. At twelve feet wide, it is not safe to mix pedestrians and vehicles, especially trucks. Request: That you direct the applicant to produce a design that does not mix pedestrian and vehicular traffic. 4. Loading Dock: The applicant's proposal has trucks entering from Vail Road, turning right and then backing down a 6.50,,o grade ramp. For approximately 70 feet of this ramp, the driver will be riding his brakes and the automatic backup alarm will be sounding. Request: That you direct the applicant to fully enclose the,rar p area with a structure that is architecturally consistent with the rest of the building and apFlupriately landscaped. Should there be any questions, please contact the undersigned through Brent Wilson in Community Development. Gwen Scalpello, President TO: Planninz and Environmental Commission. Town of Vail FROM: 9 Vail Road (Holiday House) Condominium Association DATE: November 27, 2000 SUBJECT: 13 Vail Road ! Lot A, B, C. Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2 (Vail Plaza. Hotel - Italian Wing) The owners of 9 Vail Road accept and support the need to redevelop the current Chateau Vail property. Our objective is to stimulate discussions that will lead to decisions that make the eventual design one that will benefit and fit into the community and immediate neighborhood. To that objective we ask the PEC to consider the following concerns. 1. Vail Road Access: Allowing the use of Vail Road to access the Loading Dock is dangerous to both vehicular traffic on Vail Road and pedestrian traffic on the access drive. Drivers exiting the roundabout onto Vail Road typically gainn speed quickly because of the grade and be---e of conscious acceleration to resume speed after successfully negotiating the often unfamiliar traffic pattern. If they almost immediately encounter the back end of a stopped or slowly turning truck that is swinging wide to began its entry to the access drive, accidents are foreseeable and likely. This drive, as proposed, will inevitably serve a mix of commercial vehicles, disoriented passenger vehicles searching for the entrance to the Vail Plaza. Hotel West and pedestrians. This access drive is the route most of the hotel guests in the Vail Pla.''a. Hotel East will take to get to the convention, spa and restaurant facilities in the Vail Plaza Hotel West. The plans indicate that two-way traffic would be permitted on this drive, exacerbating the problem. Since there is very little reason for traffic exiting this drive to turn right onto Vail Road, it will most likely turn left across traffic accelerating out of the roundabout. Once again accidents are foreseeable and likely. Request: Prohibit vehicular traffic on this drive and make it a dedicated pedestrians walkway. We currently rely on an easement to use this drive to access four outdoor parking spaces on our property, and we are reviewing with the planning staff our options to relocate the parking spaces. 2: Loading Dock For all the same reasons that the PEC and Council decided that the loading facility for the Vail Plaza Hotel East should be on South Frontage Road, so should the loading facility for the Vail Plaza Hotel West be there. The current design has trucks jockeying into position to back du„v,i the rarnp, which has a steep 6.51,14 grade. They will then use their noisy brakes to control their descent, all the while sounding loud automatic back=up warnings. To depart the loading area and climb the steep L-=,Ly,.the trucks will have to rev their engines. This will be unpleasant for guests and owners of 9 Vail Road, Vail Plaza Hotel guests, and the employees whose housing units are adjacent to this loading ramp. Finally, a loading facility in the proposed location would almost certainly eliminate any motivation for 9 Vail Road to invest in upgrading its property. .Request: That the loading facility and its access be moved to South Frontage Road.. 3. Height and Mass: East Meadow Drive is predominantly hotel and retail, while Nest Meadow Drive is predominandv residential. The major e„ceptions are 9 Vail Road, the current Chateau at Vail property and the 1st Bank building all zoned Public Accommodation. We believe that the planning community displayed wisdom in the past by using the above properties to transition between hotel/retail and residential by gradually reducing the height of the buildings. The Vail Plaza Hotel East has an approved height of some ninety feet- 9 Vail Road exists with a madmum height of some sixty-three feet. The Chateau az Vail exists with a ma=ximum height of some fifty-eight feet. We believe this stepping down was done intentionally by you and your predecessors and that the current maximum heights should be maintained so as not to threaten the character of the existing community. Additionally, the mass of the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel West dwarfs everything around it and provides no linkages with any of its neighbors. It is based on an urban design that utilizes a large central atrium to provide light and artificial views. We have the real thing in Vail - beautiful mountains and blue skies which people from around the world come to enjoy. Request: That the mass and height of the proposed building be reduced to be compatible with the surrounding community. 4. Setbacks: Public Accommodation zoning requires a setback of at least 20 feet on front, sides and rear. The expectation is that this would result in a 40-foot buffer between buildings. The awkward reality is that the property lines platted in 1973 for 9 Vail Road did not result 'in a 20 foot setback for either the Chateau at Vail or 9 Vail Road structures along their common property line. Request: To preserve access for fire safety and to mitigate the visual and shade effect of a new neighbor siepificantly higher than the low eastern wing of the Chateau at Vail, we ask that the setback provide a 40 foot sepua.'on of the buildings. 5. Special Develuptiient District: There does not seem to be a basis for granting SDD status to this project. There are currently no SDD properties on West Meadow Drive. All of the intended uses are provided for under its wdsting PA zoning. The number of accommodation units available during the high season is increased only by relying on the questionable availability of fractional fee unit lockoffs. This project provides a large spa and a large convention facility that exceed the bed base of the site and are thus dependent on the Vail Plaza Hotel East, which is not part of the SDD application. The conclusion of the joint work session was that the Chateau Vail could be reviewed as an SDD so long as proposed changes to the Vail Village Inn redevelopment a,yioval were reviewed simultaneously. - Request: That SDD status be denied, unless the applicant can provide compelling and real value to the community and show the linkage between the two sites. This revision of the proposal presented to the joint work session of the Council, PEC and DRB removes guest entry traffic from Vail Road and replaces it with commercial traffic relocated from 'West Meadow Drive. It does address increased setbacks and improvements to the streetscape on Nest Meadow Drive. However, we see insufficient changes in the commercial u4211c on Vail Road and in the overall height and mass of this project to m,:u,,u t further review at this time. It remains too large and out of character. We continue to support reasonable redevelopment of the Chateau at Vail, but we do not believe this proposal meets that criteria, nor that it appropriately reflects the wishes of the Council, PEC, and DRB expressed in the joint session- Moellentine Land Company, LLC c/o Alpine Standard, LLC 29 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 December 1, 2000 Mr. Brent Wilson Town of Vail/Department of Community Development 111 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Wilson, As the owner of the Alpine Amoco station, 28 South Frontage Road, property, we would like to express our concerns regarding the Vail Plaza Hotel-West project directly adjacent to us to the west. During the most recent Planning Commission work session (November 27, 2000), we became aware of our neighbor's intent to convert the parcel of land separating our property and 9 Vail Road to the south into a 12' wide, one-way drive (ingress only from Vail Road) with heavy landscaping and pedestrian amenities. As you will note on the attached Legal Description for our property, we have an ingress/egress easement for this parcel which is directly behind us. The proposed redirecting of traffic patterns would violate our easement. Furthermore, we are concerned that the proposed changes in ingress/egress could have a material adverse impact on the business of Alpine Standard. It has also come to our attention that during the work session a number of the statements and descriptions of how Alpine Standard operates were incorrect, particularly the safe ingress/egress patterns for fuel deliveries which should be of paramount importance to all involved. It is our intent to preserve our rights to allow the continued full use of this easement as it exists today, as it may well play an important part in any redevelopment activities we might pursue for our property in the future. Recognizing the importance of the issues being considered, I am in the process of securing proper legal representation and remain hopeful that a suitable and constructive solution can be achieved. Please feel free to contact me if you have any comments or questions about the points covered in this letter. Sincerely;. Lon Moellentine President of Moellentine Land Company, LLC 11/28/00 19:04 FAX 476 1981 0.1VIEST/VAIL,C0. ~j001 Eke + Otto Wiest D ~Creeuzkofstr. S / 881611.NDENBERG / (0049) (0) 8381 -Tel. 50320 /7378 F=82267 UZ? VAZ, CO./ 816-571122 W. Meadow Dr. / ph+Fax: (001) 970476-1961 mail US : clo .Brandess-Cadenza / 281 Bridge St. Mobile,Handy: 0171 -Tel: 426-0514 -Fax; 427- 6173 /E-mail: wiestottog4OL.com TOWN OF VAIL MAYOR L. KURZ Dear Ludwig, After having been at the town meeting yesterday, I have seen the plans of the new Plaza Hotel I think the part across the street from my home t 122 W.Meadow Drive ) will be called Italian Wing, Generally I do welcome the improvement of the buildings there. But looking to the size and especially the planned height. I think it doesn't fit at all between all the surrounding buildings. Rules are for everybody and if the town of Vail gives an extra pQ,..:ssion to this building as big as planned, you will have to give special permissions all over. I flunk those general rules dbuilding height have .r.. "Led in Vail a pretty reasonable Village and I hope you all stay with it. Until now the town of Vail has handled all this very well And even it doesn't especially bother me, if the building behi ud my home is o% b:zed, it would not at all be helpful for the whole community- I am sure you will handle all this with the necessary c= and I want to support the town to decide for a reasonable size of the Plaza Motel. Sincerely Otto Wiest 11.28.2000 l TO: Vail Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board FROM: 9 Vail Road (Holiday House) Condominium Association DATE: October 23, 2000 SUBJECT: 13 Vail Road 1 Lot A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2 (Vail Plaza Hotel - Italian Wing) The following is a summary of the issues, concerns and recommendations in response to the application for a special development district (SDD) at the Chateau Vail property. The 9 Vail Road (Holiday House) Condominium Homeowners Association, an adjacent neighbor and affected party, wishes to bring these items forward at the Town Council work session Tuesday, October 24. 1. Special Development District We recognize the advantages of redevelopment of the site currently occupied by the Chateau at Vail. However, the property is already zoned "public accommodation district" and the intended use of the proposed project is compatible with that zoning. We feel the current proposal is incompatible with the neighborhood. No special development districts currently exist in this primarily residential area of West Meadow Drive. We see no community benefit from approval of a special development district at this site. We ask that the request for a special development district (SDD) be denied. 2. Height and Mass Considerations A luxury project at the entrance to the town and an increase in luxury accommodations should benefit the Town of Vail. However, the height and mass of the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel Italian Wing is not compatible with the underlying zoning nor with the scale of the adjacent neighbors. The mass of the building is also incompatible with the residential nature of West Meadow Drive. The building height towers over adjacent buildings to east, west and south. Adjacent properties are residential and are 3-4 stories at West Meadow Drive. Two-family residential zoning on the south side of West Meadow Drive begins immediately across from the site and continues west to the end of the street. We would like to see the heiaht of the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel Italian. Wing reduced on the south. east and west faces to meet the current heights established in the neighborhood. If height variances are to be granted, they should be limited to the northern portion of the building. This would be consistent with the concepts of the Town of Vail Master Plan, which calls for low scale buildings in the core area and allows for taller buildings along the Frontage Road. 3. Setback Considerations The setbacks in the current proposal do not appear to meet the requirements for PA zoning. We ask that the 20' setbacks called for in PA zonino be enforced both above and below orade. This is especially critical to the 9 Vail Road Condominium Association because the property transferred to the Association by the developer of the Holiday Inn and Holiday House resulted in an erratic setback on our west side of as little as one foot. If the 20 foot setback is not enforced on the Vail Plaza Hotel Italian Wing project, our two buildings will be uncomfortably close. Enforcing the 20' setback also helps to ensure fire equipment access to the area between our buildings. Mr, Prado has assured us that the setbacks from our common property. line will be 20 feet. We ask that the setback be enforced below grade as well, because of the erratic setback and because of an underground creek which is visible on the property line between 9 Vail Road and the proposed structure. West Meadow Drive, which is a major pedestrian access to Lionshead, begins at Vail Road with a pocket park. There is a large open green space on the north side of West Meadow Drive at the current site. We would like to see a minimum of a 20' setback in this project on West Meadow Drive to retain some of the open green space in this area. 4. Traffic Considerations. Two-way access to the Vail Plaza Hotel Italian Wing is currently proposed from both Vail Road and the South Frontage Road. Traffic exiting the hotel to Vail Road will more likely turn left towards the roundabout than right towards the village core. As this driveway is opposite the exit drives from Gateway and the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel French Wing and is exposed to fast-moving traffic exiting the roundabout, it seems inappropriate to permit vehicles to exit via this access. That driveway is also the most likely pedestrian route between the two wings of the Vail Plaza Hotel and will create a dangerous situation unless a walkway is provided. Therefore, we recommend that the access drive from Vail Road be one-way entry access, to permit the construction of a landscaped pedestrian walk in addition to the driving lane. The Town of Vail should also evaluate the need for a crosswalk on Vail Road. Commercial traffic is currently planned to travel Vail Road and West Meadow Drive to a loading dock at the southwest comer of the building. Such commercial traffic, estimated in the traffic study at B-10 trucks per day, is inconsistent with the residential character and pedestrian usage of West Meadow Drive. We recommend that the loadina dock and commercial vehicle access be moved to the South Frontage Road as is the plan at the Vail Plaza Hotel French Wing. In summary, we are concerned that approval of a special development district and relief from current zoning requirements will damage the character of this residential area. We look forward to a response and a resolution of these concerns. If there are any questions concerning the above, please forward them through the planning department. Sincerely, Gwen Scalpello Ruben Catan President, Board of Directors Vice President, Board of Directors 9 Vail Road (Holiday House) Condominium Homeowners Association MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council, Design Review Board. Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Scorpio Condominium Home Owners Association DATE: October 18, 2000 SUBJECT: 13 Vail Road / Lot A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2. (Vail Plaza Hotel) 1. INTRODUCTION The following is in response to the proposal for a special development district (SDD) where the Chateau at Vail is currently located. The following is more specifically a response to the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel West from the viewpoint of the neighboring complex; the Scorpio Building. II. ISSUES 1. The Scorpio Condominium Home Owners Association does not believe the proposed design for the Vail Plaza Hotel is compatible with the scale, bulk, and building height of the current neighborhood. The size of the proposed project is currently zoned as a Public Accommodation (PA) District. The height in a PA district "shall not exceed forty eight feet." This height is measured from any point on a proposed or existing roof to the existing or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive) located directly below said point of the roof. We have diagramed how the proposed development is exceeding this current zoning on the attached 8 1/2" x 11"sheets Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B". The scale of the development is also not in agreement with the heights defined for the neighborhood on the zoning maps. If the Vail Plaza Hotel is allowed to exceed the height and bulk limits established then the neighbors will have justification to exceed the heights established and the neighborhood as it currently exist will grow in scale and mass. It would be more desirable if the Vail Plaza Hotel would make an effort to transition to the heights established for the current neighborhood. We would like to see the mass and heiL-ht of the nroAosed Vail Plaza Hotel be reduced by 1 '/z stories on the West. South West and South faces to meet the current he]--hts established in the neinhborhood. We have also attached a copy of the zoning maps and their relation to the heights of the neighborhood under Exhibit "C. Under xhis exhibit we are also proposing how the Conceptual Building Height Plan under the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan can be extended on to the proposed site. The comprehensive plan states under the Building height plan on page 31 of the Vail Zoning Code, "it is the goal of this plan to maintain the concentration of low scale buildings in the core area while positioning larger buildings along the northern periphery (along the frontage road)." This is consistent with our request to reduce the height along West Meadow Drive and have the higher portion of the building along South Frontage Road. 2. The mass of the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel exceeds the current setbacks as defined for a (PA) District. Below the grade the building is within 5'-0" of the property line on the North. East and West sides. The Scorpio group is concerned with the encroachment of the building into the setback on the West Side and the South West comer. Under the current zoning the applicant is required to submit for Board approval a list of items as defined within 12-7A-12, if modifications, are to be made to a (PA) District. One of these requirements is to provide a written statement as to how the proposal complies with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and Urban Design Plan. We would like to reauest the applicant provide the submittal reouirements defined within 12-7A-12 of the PA District. Our concern with these alterations is that the South East corner extends beyond the setback established for the Alphorn building. We would like to see the South West Corner of the proposed building pulled North to align with the Alpborn building. Please refer to attached Exhibit "D" for a diagram illustrating where the building should be pulled North to meet the intent of the Vail Comprehensive Plan and Urban Design Plan. 3. The setbacks r.,„yosed are also providing problems with the Fire department access currently required for the Scorpio Building and the Alphom Building. Currently fire department access to the South and East sides of the Scorpio building and Alphom building is through a gate on the East End of the parking between the Scorpio building and the Alphom building (see attached Exhibit "E"). The fire department requires this through access to get a fire truck to the East facades of the existing buildings. If the proposed development is to be built this close to the adjacent site, whereby eliminating a required fire department access, the existing buildings would be reducing the allowable square footage for their development as defined in the Uniform Building Code Section 505.1.3 and 505.1.2. The Scorpio and Alphorn buildings have been designed and built on a LIFE SAFETY code that necessitated the openness of these buildings on four sides. We the Scomio Condominium Groin would like to reauest the Vail Plaza Hotel be reduced on the West side -by 20'-0" and provide a plaza space for fire department access on ton of the parking structure for the fire truck access. We would therefore be maintaining the LIFE SAFETY of our development as defined in the UBC. If this modification (reduction in building size on the West Side) is made the proposed site coverage below grade (currently 70.8%) can be brought closer to the required 65%. 4. The proposed landscaping is not in compliance with the Public Accommodation District (PA) or the Vail Village Master plan, Town Policies or Urban Design Plan. The (PA) District requires "at least thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be landscaped." The current proposal has only 14.7% landscaping. Some of this landscaping does not meet the minimum width and length of an area qualified to be called landscaping per section 12-7A-10 of the Zoning Code. We the Scorpio Condominium Home Owners Association would fake to reauest the applicant, meet the minimum reouirements for landscaping as required for a (PA) District even if the applicant is to be modified to a Soecial Development District. The Vail Village Master Plan has developed an open space plan. This plan currently does not extend into this site but if the applicant is to modify the current zoning we would request the open space plan be extended into the Vail Plaza Hotel Site. There is currently a nice green space buffer on the North side of West Meadow Drive. We would like to see a plaza or greenspace incoroorated into the West Meadow Drive streetscan_ a design. It is our belief this would meet the intent of the Vail Comprehensive plan. 5. The proposed Vail Plaza Hotel is proposing on site employee housing. We would like to request this housing is DI-aced off-site in order to reduce the overall mass and size of the proposed Hotel. The other option that would allow a reduction in the overall size / height of the project is to reduce the size of the spa, atrium, ballroom and service area on the lower levels. This would allow some of the hotel units to be displaced from the upper floors to the lower levels. 6. The applicant for the Vail Plaza Hotel is proposing a dock area off the South West corner of the development. We would like to request this dock be moved to the Northeast corner of the proposed hotel. The potential noise and trash produced by this dock will adversely affect the living units located near the dock area. The dock should also incorporate doors to mitigate the noise generated wherever the dock is placed. The second issue related to the dock and garage is the exhaust requirements. The fans removing and providing fresh air for the dock and garage generate noise and fumes. We would like to request the applicant provide where the exhaust fans will be located and a study defining the extent of the exhaust and noise generated. if the fans are to be located anywhere near the Scorpio building. We would also like to request commercial vehicular traffic be removed from West Meadow Drive. 7. It is our understanding the Vail Plaza Hotel will be placed over Spraddle Creek. Please identify and Drovide mitigation for this natural creek. There appears to be a conflict with the proposed parking structure and the existing path of the creek piped beneath the site. 8. The proposed height of the project significantly reduces the Scorpio building's view of Vail Mountain. We would like to request the roofline is reduced to maintain the view we currently have on the West end of the proposed project. Given the above, the nrouosal for the Vail Plaza Hotel FAILS to meet the reauirements under 12- 9A-8 (A through I) of the Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance. The above concludes our major concerns at this time. We will look forward to a response and resolution to the issues identified above. If there are any questions concerning the above please forward these continents through the planning department. Sincerely Richard Kent President - Board of Managers Scorpio Condominium Home Owners Association Cc: File v:\projects\scorpio\0024000\admin\memo\agn 101800 r~wr& ~Mf MAXIMUM 6UIIDING NBGIR - r•~ ' - t ` T ~j ` UNDER CURREM PA TONING T'''.' p ) K t'- S I! Ft1 :1Tii+~ • ' t - ~L7 EXISTING ROOF e R • . - F"'` G HE1GHi.CURRRnIY {s y- ,Y~k~~ ~ S ~ yw~,..~ I'-.. ~ ~~^.7j_ 7 . ."r~ ~ ~ (~T~ 11D' 4INIMUM TO CUR! > 1 7 t' I } a JK7i ( liW i iWi ] a7+ys fwj~j i 1~ f11 1f1 ( r 48'.'.w NEIGM i _!w4 ~MY„__ Lei :....i16f[ Alto; 37 W.ou rB•P .I t 1~ r I ` 4 11 6 j GRAM ATsMXCr. , c r 4 tL PROPOSED GRADE ~s:..aE?ll. , North CURRENT ZONING IS PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION(PA)DISTRICT. Noth Elevation ARTICLE A.ISECTION T2-7A-1: HEIGHT: SCALE: 1" - 1 d'0 FOR A FLAT ROOF OR MANSARD ROOF, THE HEIGHT OFTHE BUILDING SHALL NOT EXCEED FORTY FIVE FEET (45). FOR A SLOPING ROOF, THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING SHALL NOT EXCEED FORTY EIGHT FEET (48'). HEIGHT: THE DISTANCE MEASURED VERTICALLY FROM ANY POINT ON THE PROPOSED OR EXISTING ROOF OR EAVES TO THE EXISTING OR FINISHED GRADE (WHICHEVER IS MORE RESTRICTIVE) LOCATED DIRECTLY BELOW SAID POINT OF THE ROOF OR EAVES. WITHIN ANY BUILDING FOOTPRINT, HEIGHT SHALL BE MEASURED VERTICALLY FROM ANY POINT ON A PROPOSED OR EXISTING ROOF TO THE EXISTING GRADE DIRECTLY BELOW SAID POINT ON A PROPOSED OR EXISTING ROOF. ' 1 r t3 f > I• ' A' 7 > • w / `~~f ;f»!p HBGNLCUORRBIiIY 70 tT FROM CURB MAXIMUM AMONG HHGM I-" _ ,Z r r ' y b t' A MAX, H r,•!,I' AIIOWED FROHr EiGM UND6! CURRENT PA TONING ~ ~ - '3 rt, _.LS1. F.TlT Cl~l) >k 3 1 - ' . 1 GRADE AT SETBACK r f , . 7' - . PRO"ED GRADE Smith Hevation SCALE: i"= 16'-0" Scorpio Condominium HOA Exhibit A - Elevation Studv October 2000 y.. NE(',HIGROO FROM PRHOPOUD ~ GRADE rf SI) f MAXIMUM IUILDING HBGHf UNDER CURRENT PA 7[MllNG - .,.•.V... 'Y r 4- I 1 GRADE _ Y CURRENT ZONING IS PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION {PA) DISTRICT. ARTICLE A. / SECTION 12-7A-1: HEIGHT: r FOR A FLAT ROOF OR MANSARD ROOF, THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING SHALL NOT EXCEED FORTY FIVE FEET (45'). East: Elevation FOR A SLOPING ROOF. THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING SHALL NOT EXCEED FORTY EIGHT FEET (48'). SCALE: I"= 16'47" HEIGHT: THE DISTANCE MEASURED VERTICALLY FROM ANY POINT ON THE PROPOSED OR EXISTING ROOF OR EAVES TO THE EXISTING OR FINISHED GRADE (WHICHEVER is MORE RESTRICTIVE) LOCATED DIRECTLY BELOW SAID POINT OF THE ROOF OR EAVES. WITHIN ANY BUILDING FOOTPRINT. HEIGHT SHALL BE MEASURED VERTICALLY FROM ANY POINT ON A PROPOSED OR EXISTING ROOF TO THE EXISTING GRADE DIRECTLY BELOW SAID POINT ON A PROPOSED OR EXISTING ROOF. QTY Z:.T_.+:. MAXIMUM BURRING H9GHT i 'y UNDER CURRINT FAZOMNG y' 1 H19GH G RODF 6GM Awn AN MAX 4& d' CAE OPOS 1 *I PROPQSED GRADE West Elevation SCALE: 1" =16'-0" Scorpio Condominium HOA Exhibit B - Elevation Studv October 2000 A RffU3PlYj$I,QN Or. ILDT1_, - t3it~C 1, VAI L..IONSHEAD 2nd Fit-ING - r : ; i t flu "t ~r ' _ SDDa 23 R - r P QP05ED ~RbJECl' SITE= ' Y'.. LOT D VALVILLAGE 2nd FILING PROPOSED PROJECT SITE SDD' [ I C i 5 ~y *q SOD o I.~ ~t§ a~~r,:CC_ 6CC~ CC C 'n CCC~C CC~Q C"6. G y. 1 ' l l f.f ~t X 9•: M1'y \\\I Ci ~'.r~,. .y U C:: ~'~w:Q[ r= I ~I "SZ.~ J`-'~.'r r,S 1 . ti. nyd.. r . ',Q CCii p 'G;"r"COC~ 4 ( f i ~ D .:J~~' C~yy Q4! O P~ QPPt9 .C <f Q U Cp L ' ryx1 I !v! vi _r : ~'Z/ s. ;f.7 W .F/ 7.,P Q ~C ~ b e~ C L P t U J O,. ~ t ' ~r[,C t JC ~`C4 Cr µ~F• C~ i C"a.. 'PGP-G C.60`~.',U CO's.. '-."~_hz.'~ ~ i~` 1..'.C ~i~~ ~-05 ?i•CrR ..QL HR. L'a'C. C~a..~fr f.C.^s 2`.r v'ni. ~r4. Cr. .1 ` ~'^,r:.. "e''~ w`Y l.b Asti t ~~''Ki. ,.i w.. a r r • . ^ :.....1 ~ is Current Zoning and Building Height Allowed C_ onceptuai Building Hei ht Plan Public Accommodation District - 48' Max. 1001 High Density Multiple Family - 48' Max. Current Conceptual Building Height Plan Heavy Service District - 38' Max. From Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan Two Family Residential District - 33' Max. Ftnt 0 General Use District - Prescribed by Planning -3~ Proposed Extension of Conceptual Building Height Plan EMO Special Development District #6 - 67' Max. i M Special Development District #21 - 54' Max. MIN99 Special Development District #23 - 29' Max. Scorpio Condominium. HOA Exhhit C-- Related Btiildina Heights October 2000 PROPERTY LINE - t - `TORPID I c -fF PHUKIV w NOISE 2F .T DSCAI AR MUM IN p • y _ O RIVE Setback Violations and Concerns Proposed Building Concerns Areas Apparent Setback Violations Proposed Building Height Reduction to minimize - the effect on Scorpio's views. 1. Building underground structures up to Scorpio's and Alphorn's Property Line. 2. Constructing venting structures for the building and the Proposed Building Shape Reconfiguration to minimize parking garage inside the setback. WhereV MOM the effect on Alphorn's and Scorpio's setback. 3. Constructing noisy underground loading uses inside the setback. Scorpio Condominium HOA Exhibit D - Setback Violations and Concerns October 2000 PFOPOF®P{NAFPAQ - 10lM!{ANtACCFi! A_ SrA,ro I , ,fit s ri I ( l f" SaN Fit141 tr(66A t, I f r , rt t Jr , l 4' 1i tIIIP, I f ~ '-7~ ice' ? 5 ~ ~ _ 27, ' > I ~'"7•{'I'S" ~'-r^~~jR,` SCdRP! i r. ,u+enx.' s~sA I ~ I I A~Lr. A 1 I ~ 4 -`a - ! sA tld` it \ y,~ Itt IX qt I l / ~4 r . _ I , E7fISTiNG HOLI AY IMrl 7 ?C ~INFACCBi i bF flAi 1 „ACPHOHN ~ i _ / , ii 4 f 1; 61 I' ;k NLLFL~CIH3 eKi~/ "''^f"-. I - TOALWW we 5 r we Current Fire Department Access Proposed Fire Department Access ..,I, Existing Fire Department Access to Scorpio and Alphom buildings. Proposed Plaza Spaces for Fire Department Access. 1. How will existing buildings be accessed If the proposed development Is approved Existing Fire Department Access. Scorpio Condominium' HOA Exhibit E - Fire Department Access October 2000 EXHIBIT M APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF THE REQUEST Sep, 25. 2000 4:44PM ZEHREN AND ASSOCIA No, 8774 F. 1/2 From:1348 Z E H R E N RECD S E P 2 6 2000 AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Monday, Septembex 25, 2000 Mr. Brent Wilson Planner Town of Vail Department of Cv.L,..,,unity Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Vail Plaza Hotel - West Brent: This letter is to address design criteria A. through I as outlined in section 12-9A-8 of the town code. It is our understanding that these nine (9) criteria are to be used in evaluating the merits of the creation of the new Vail Plaza Hotel-West Special Development District. A. Design Compatibility, We believe that the hotel is designed in such a way that is both compatible and sensitive to the Lwuediate enviaua.ment, neighborhood, and adjacent y.uyerties while at the same time giving the hotel a character and an identity as a commercially viable entity within the c.~.,,...unity. The major orientation of the hotel is to the pedestrian areas at the southern edge of the site. The more public functions including the major pedestrian entrance, spa, conference space, retail areas, and the restaurant have been located along this side of the site in order to give the maximum visibility and life to those areas along with access to sunlight and views to the ski mountain. The majority of the mass and bulk have been placed along the northern edge of the site as seen in the more closed Frontage Road elevation to aid in buffering highway noise and to avoid blocking existing views across the site. The y..,yoscd landscaped buffer zones are consistent with the underlying zoning in that they visually maintain the required v,.1,erty line setbacks above grade. Additional buffering area has been allowed for pedestrian and landscape areas along West Meadow Drive. The mass and bulk are sensitive to adjacent structures in that the hotel is designed to step up in height and bulk from both the street and adjacent smaller structures in order to maintain a comfortable pedestrian scale while maintaining consistent heights with the roof lines of adjacent structures. The stepping and broken ridge lines, the variations in building materials, and the vaned wall and deck planes act to break down the overall mass and bulk of the project, add pedestrian scale and interest, and relate the hotel to the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the hotel has been designed around a courtyard or atrium, much like the neighboring structures to the west, so that the hotel can be perceived as a collection of smaller structures connected over time around a common, public, open space. The architectural design is meant to be both compatible in scale with the Scorpio, Alphom, Nine Vail Road condominium, and the aNy,aved Vail Plaza. Hotel while at the same time providing some identity to the hotel as both a recognizable and viable c.,,..,crcial structure within the c.,....,,unity. B. Uses, Density, and Activity. The Vail Plaza Hotel-West as y,.,yosed, is a full service hotel, which would include conference, spa, restaurant, and limited c..,,,,,.ercial activities. The hotel is meant to replace the aging, smaller Chateau Vail and to act as the first in a series of ...,posed uses along East and West Meadow Drive including the Bavaria House, Vail Plaza Hotel-East, the Hub Site, Dobson Area, Evergreen Lodge, and the Hospital meant to create evaim,,ercial interest along West Meadow Drive and create a dynamic link between the Village and Lionshead core areas. ARCHITE(:TIJRL-I)LANNINC-INTERIORS-L ANf)SCArE ARCHITECTURE Sze. 25. 2000 4.48PM ZEHREN AND ASSOCIA No. 8774 P. 2/2 From;1348 Vail Plaza Hotel 7,Ehren and Associates, Inc. 961070.00 9/25/00 C. Farking and Loading. We believe the proposed parking and loading facilities are in compliance with the requirements of the underlying zoning. D. Comprehensive Plan. We believe the proposed development substantially complies with the goals expressed in both the streetscape master plan and the Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan identifies our site as Resort Accommodations and Service, and as such reconunends activities aimed at accommodating the overnight and short-term visitor including hotel, parking, and support commercial/business services. These services are oriented in order to maintain a clear separation between the vehicular access from I-70 and the pedestrian orientation of West Meadow .drive. We believe that the proposed pedestrian and vehicular impacts and subsequent improvements to . the Frontage Road, Vail Road access points, and West Meadow Drive as indicated on the submitted documents substantially comply with the elements proposed in the Streetscape Master Plan. The proposed curb, gutter, sidewalk, and roadway median ;&,,vL.,rements along both the Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive will add to the overall functionality of the existing infrastructure in excess of our impacts while at the same time visually enhancing the surrounding neighborhood. E. Natural Hazards, We believe there are no natural hazards that may affect development of this site. F. Design Features, The proposed site plan, building design, location, and open space provisions provide for both an efficient and functional hotel and an attractive and visually interesting hotel entry/retail experience. This is accomplished through maintaining an effective separation of guest and service functions at both the Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive guest entrances. All service functions, including vehicular movements occur underground at the western edge of the site while all vehicular guest access is provided at the northeastern area of the site and all pedestrian access is provided at the southeastern area of the site.. G. Traffic. We believe we have proposed a pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation system that provides for minimal impact on existing infrastructure while at the same time provides a safe and efficient means of circulation through effective separation of these systems as indicated in Design Features, (F.), above. H. Landscaping, The proposed landscape design provides for enhanced and more diverse pedestrian and vehicular areas by dc.„..,asing the amount of continuous, visible surface paving materials through the use of roadway medians, varied materials, and non-linear land and hard-scape designs. 1. Phasing Plan. The development will be constructed in oile phase with completion anticipated for late fall of 2002. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns regarding the infw.LLXation presented. Additionally, if you need any additional inf....,ation, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Tim Losa Project Manager 2 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission, Town of Vail Town Council, Town of Vail Design Review Board, Town of Vail FROM: Nine Vail Road (Holiday House) Condominium Association DATE: February 9, 2001 SUBJECT: 13 Vail Road / Lot A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2 (Vail Plaza Hotel - West/Italian Wing) The owners of 9 Vail Road recognize and support the need to redevelop the current Chateau Vail property. However, we have several concerns with the current request for a special development district and with the project as currently proposed. The concerns common to all immediately adjacent property owners and documented in a separate letter are included here for completeness. Application for a Special Development District: We request that the application for a Special Development District be denied and that the project be reviewed under the current public accommodation zoning. We see no justification for an SDD for this project. • The most appropriate (and current) use for this site is a hotel, and the current PA zoning is consistent with that use. Provision for the intended uses of the property appears in the current PA zoning. • The current proposal does not significantly increase the current accommodation unit bed base. It replaces 120 accommodation units with 120 accommodation units. It adds fractional fee and free market condominium units that are not likely to significantly increase the seasonal rental bed base. • It provides convention and spa facilities which are redundant with those already approved for the Vail Plaza Hotel - East and which require the bed base of both the Vail Plaza Hotel - East and proposed Vail Plaza Hotel - West to fully utilize. This is clearly not a stand-alone project. It is tied to and dependent on the already approved Vail Plaza Hotel - East, and the applicant has told us that the two wings of the hotel will be operated as a single entity. Any consideration of an SDD should require the full context of the Vail Plaza Hotel - East and West wings. As a stand-alone project, our concerns with the proposed project include: loading and delivery, height, mass, landscaping and drainage and environmental. Loadino and Deliverv: This commercial loading and delivery facility is only partially enclosed and requires lengthy backing down a grade to access it. Placing such a facility immediately adjacent to residential neighbors is inconsistent with adjacent uses. This facility would more properly be located on the South Frontage Road, be enclosed and provide for forward entry and exit as in the already approved Vail Plaza Hotel - East. Height: Established zoning for the site limits building height to 48 feet. Since the current building and some neighboring buildings exceed that height, it is reasonable to consider increased height limitations to the current height of the Chateau Vail, with possible additional height at the South Frontage Road. However, it must be recognized that the mass of this project is significantly greater than that of any adjacent neighbors, and that the overall impact on the neighborhood of such height deviations would, therefore, be far greater for this project than for any existing buildings. Heights on West Meadow Drive should be limited to 2-3 stories to provide a step-down to the residential properties; height at the South Frontage Road, to the extent it exceeds current height of the Chateau Vail and adjacent properties, should step down toward adjacent properties. Mass: The mass of the proposed project is emphasized by its fortress-like design with long walls which enclose the property. We recognize that the applicant has made efforts to open the facade on West Meadow Drive, but the overall design is still predominantly that of an urban, inward- focused facility. When such a design is implemented outside an urban environment, it is customarily placed in a large park. This provides relief from its scale to the surrounding neighbors. This project is not in a park; it fills the site to the limits of the underlying zoning. Landscaping and Drainaae: To mitigate the noise and visual impact of the loading and delivery facility, the applicant proposes to construct a large berm which appears to span our common property line and a retaining wall along the drive from Vail Road which appears to be on the property line. In addition to questions of use of our property for the-purpose of the applicant's noise mitigation, the berm would appear to channel runoff from snow melt and rain directly toward 9 Vail Road. We ask that if this project is approved as proposed, that specific requirements regarding drainage impact on adjacent properties be placed on the project. Further, we ask that the deciduous trees proposed at the southeast corner be replaced with evergreens to extend the buffer between 9 Vail Road and the loading and delivery facility and the employee housing units and their associated ground level terraces. Environmental Concerns: We request that all venting and exhaust from kitchens, garages and the like be fully mitigated. In summary, we support redevelopment of the Chateau Vail, but this proposal is simply too large and incompatible with its residential neighbors to gain our enthusiastic support. Gwendolyn G. Scaloello President TO: Planning and Environmental Commission, Town of Vail Town Council, Town of Vail Design Review Board, Town of Vail DATE: February 9, 2001 SUBJECT: 13 Vail Road / Lot A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2 (Vail Plaza. Hotel - West) We, the adjacent neighbors of the Chateau Vail, have joined together to express our mutual concerns with the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel - West. Additional concerns of specific properties may be presented in letters from those properties and during public participation in your meetings. We wish to reiterate our overall support for redevelopment of the Chateau Vail, and we offer our criticisms and suggestions in hope of contributing toward a facility that the applicant, the adjacent community and the Town of Vail will be proud of. Unfortunately, the current proposal is not such a design. 1. Bulk and Mass: The design of the proposed building is incompatible with the neighborhood and it dwarfs everything around it. We refer you to the enlarged aerial view of the current neighborhood prepared by Town staff which includes an overlay of the proposed hotel for a visual impression of the proposal's bulk. We remind everyone that this is a residential community. In addition to its size, the proposed design directs attention inward to the atrium and has no connection with its neighbors. We support the recommendation of Winston Associates that the building be broken into smaller parts, "possibly by angling the building to the street, varying the roof heights and stepping it back and forth" and the comments of the DRB as stated in the planning staff synopsis that "The linear, unbroken wall planes along the South Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive are too massive and should be broken up to help reduce the apparent mass of the building." We further suggest angling or jogging the building in areas adjacent to residential buildings, opening the views from the hotel as well as from adjacent properties. 2. Height: We acknowledge that the applicant has made some height reductions from his original proposal, but the building remains too tall to be compatible with the neighborhood. a. West Meadow Drive: The proposal contains four and five story sections on West Meadow Drive. These are incompatible with the new Town of Vail streetscape design. We support the Winston Associates recommendation that the applicant "Step the facade lower along West Meadow Drive, even down to two stories in several places." b. Central Section: The maximum height of this section of the proposed hotel should not exceed the maximum height of the current Chateau Vail or 52.8 feet. c. South Frontage Road: We could agree to a maximum height greater than 52.8 feet along the Frontage Road as long as the hotel heights adjacent to the Scorpio and the planned redevelopment of the Alpine Standard site are at the same level, with steps in height as they reach the center of the building. This follows the same consideration given the West Meadow Drive side by attempting to break up the lines and facade of the building, as suggested by Winston Associates. 3. Loading & Delivery: An outside or visually exposed loading and delivery facility is undesirable adjacent to any residential property. The p.,,Fosed facility is particularly objectionable because it is uncovered, requires vehicles to maneuver noisily, and is intrusive when located along a property line. That positions it in full view of planned condominiums on the Alpine property and adjacent to the Nine Vail Road Condominiums. We believe service access and this facility should be relocated to the South Frontage Road and be fully enclosed as recommended by the Dep.Luent of Public Works in order to be oriented away from adjacent residential properties, midway between the east and west property lines. 4. Environmental: Mechanical venting, noise, odors, air pollution and other nuisances adverse to the surrounding residential uses should be fully mitigated. 5. Spa/Health Club: The proposed spa/health club is very large at 23,767 square feet and the plan to offer 500 memberships will greatly increase automobile traffic for this complex. According to the traffic study the spa is the largest traffic generator. This is a residential community and we request that auto traffic be reduced by limiting the use of the spa/health club to on-site residents, as was stipulated in the approval for the Vail Plaza. Hotel - East. From a town availability standpoint there are already public spa facilities on the retail/commercially oriented East Meadow Drive at the Swiss Spa and Vail Mountain Spa. 6. Vail Plaza Hotel - West and East: The applicant is presenting his proposal as a standalone hotel, but it is clearly not a standalone. The Vail Plaza Hotel, East and West wings, will be marketed and operated as one facility. The developer stated at the October Council/PEC/DRB session that he would probably not build the conference center and spa/health club in the East wing- The conference center and spa/health club in the West wing are sized to accommodate the combined capacities of both wings. The plans show a future tunnel that will connect the wings. We believe it is ayyiLopriate that the impacts of the two wings should be presented as a unified plan. Additionally, town government should assume the responsibility to determine if duplication of facilities e.g. spa, convention, loading & delivery is creating an unnecessarily large complex. For example, if one were to look at the two wings as one hotel, one could conclude that the convention center should be located in one wing and the spa/health club in the other. Additionally, since there does not appear to be a good location for the loading & delivery facility in the West wing, the already approved and enclosed facility in the East wing could be expanded to become a central facility and app, opriate vehicles used to transport goods via the tunnel. Furthermore, this tunnel could provide an excellent solution to facilitate the safe crossing of pedestrian traffic between the wings. Conclusion: We believe that the applicant's proposal is too tall and too massive and that tinkering with this design will not produce an acceptable design. The applicant should be strongly encouraged to develop an entirely new approach for the West wing that follows the guidance provided by the DRB and Winston Associates and to eliminate duplication of facilities between the East and West wings. 1-~' Herbert E. Wollowick, MD _ Jeff Moellentine President, Alphorn Condominiums President, Alpine Standard Richard Kent Gwen Scalpello President, Scorpio Condominiums President, Nine Vail Road Condo Alphorn Condominium Association 121 West Meadow Drive Vaii, CO 81657 February 8, 2001 Vail Town Council 75 S. Frontage Rd. West Vail, CO 81657 Re: Vail Plaza Hotel, West - Pradc Protect, Dear Members of the Council, The Alphorn Condominium Association does not believe the proposed project, without modification, is compatible with the current neighborhood. We are not opposed to this project, but would like to see its appearance and function be an asset to Vail. The building and project could be an asset to Vail and the neighborhood, i.e., the West Meadow Drive corridor. It should be in keeping with the guidelines for the•viilage, of which we are a direct extension, as well as in harmony with the neighbors and neighborhood. Two issues are of paramount concern to members of the Alphorn Condo Association. They are the size, height, proportion and configuration of the project; and, the location of the service entrances. Recent information obtained from neighbors include an analysis by Winston & Associates concerning the bulk, mass, and building configuration of the proposed Vail Plaza Hottr. West. It is a clear and logical document that we support. We hope the points outlined will be strongly considered. The second issue, i.e., access, was discussed in a letter from Tim Losa (Zehren & Associates), dated 12119/2000. Tim Losa made a clear opening statement that there must be a separation of both services and guest entrances. This separation of trucks, deliveries, garbage storage and collection from guest access is basic in any recreation or resort facility. This concept should be extended to neighboring properties, i.e., services should not be juxtaposed to residential properties. Thus, this essential separation must be applied to the neighborhood as well. We are not experts, but the area that does not juxtapose to neighboring residences is the area next to the gas station on S. Frontage Rd. Perhaps Mr. Losa should consider the options he mentioned in his letter of December 19, 2000, i.e., modifying building location, massing ofkinternal programs, and thus solve the problems and concerns of neighbors. The final result could be a sound project. We feel certain that issues such as fire access and environmental issues, such as noise, odor, venting fans, fumes, etc. will be fully addressed by DRB and Council. We expect that sensitivity IiQthe close proximity of the project to residential neighbors will be clearly considered. Finally, no board member or owner of the Alphorn Condo Association has received any notification of meetings concerning this project. This appears to be in violation of any city code that we know of and should be rectified. Consideration should be given to us so that we may be able to evaluate and respond to issues of concern. With thanks for your consideration, Herbert E. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission, Town of Vail Town Council, Town of Vail Design Review Board, Town of Vail FROM: Scorpio Homeowners Association DATE: February 9, 2001 SUBJECT: 13 Vail Road / Lot A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2 (Vail Plaza Hotel - West/Italian Wing) I have been asked by the homeowners of the Scorpio Condominium Complex to independently address our concerns about the proposed development of the Vail Plaza. Hotel - West. We wish to reiterate our overall support for redevelopment of the Chateau Vail, and we offer our criticisms and suggestions in hope of contributing toward a facility that the applicant, the adjacent community and the Town of Vail will be proud of. Unfortunately, the current proposal is not such a design. 1. No SDD should be granted. The design of the proposed building does not comply with the current PA zoning, and no public benefit has been demonstrated by the developer. We support the rec....,u..endation of Winston Associates that the underlying zoning of the Village be used to evaluate the project. "For a variety of reasons it would appear to benefit from a relationship to the Village more than to be treated as a stand-alone facility." Further, the developer has not am,,,y cd to link the East and West wings of the hotel together, which was a specific comment from the October 24, 2000 joint work session regarding the SDD application. The linking of the two wings would demonstrate the possibilities of reducing overall mass and limit the duplications of services to be provided. 2. Bulk and Mass. The project dwarfs everything around it. We support the rec-,~..,,endation of Winston Associates that the building be broken into smaller parts, "The best example is the Vail Village Inn...is turned slightly presenting to the street a saw-tooth edge of what appears to be separate buildings..." We believe this technique would open the views from the hotel as well as the adjacent properties. 3. Loading & Delivery. The loading and delivery should take place underground or at the East wing facility. The reduction of the bulk and mass would allow more underground area for loading and delivery facilities. 4. Underground setback violations. We are concerned about the developer being allowed to build to the lot line underground and the ramifications of disturbing our foundation footers. This calls into question the structural integrity of our entire building. 5. Conclusion. We believe that the applicants proposal is too tall and too massive. The applicant should be strongly encouraged to develop a new apt each for the West wing that follows the guidance provided by the DRB and Winston Associates and modify the design of the East Wing to eliminate the duplication of facilities resulting in excessive height, mass and other similar deviations. The Scorpio Homeowners Association has demonstrated its willingness to cooperate and offer professional opinions from our design consultants, Davis Partnership. We are willing to take further steps and expend more resources in providing suggestions and guidance to achieve an amicable agreement to the development of this project_ Richard Kent, President, Board of Managers, Scorpio Condominiums 17 a February 9, 2001 Brent Wilson. Planner 11 Town of Vail Dept. of Community Development 75 Soutb Frontage Road Vail, Co. 81657 Dear Mr. Wilson, Recognizing that the Chateau Vail.%Pra.do Project will be further reviewed by the PEC or, Monday, February 1""' 2001, and the T'oan Council on Tuesday, February 13''`,1 Lhau.zht it vvould be useful to outline our thpug}tts attd concerns regarding the impact of the proposed project on Alpine Stand, d and the property owned by the Itoellentine Land Company. Alpine; Standard As an ongoing busLness entity, we are particularly concerned about the use of our western easement for a staging area for the large trucks. our customers exit and enter off Frontage Road and arty concentration of traffic whether trucks or aut7s, would be de-trimental to our business. There is an issue of imminent danger with much of that area (see attached A) being used by trucks staging for backing into the delivery area and large trucks exiting onto Frontage Road, into s on-coming traffic of cars entering Alpine Standard. We are also deeply concerned over the impact of ;lie open unloading dock from at) acoustical and visual point of view. Land Development When we acquired the !and fora considerable sum, we %ere greatly influcnced by the casement rights we have to ingress and ;cress off our south easement between u5 and 9 Vail Road. .These easement rights arc an mmegral part of our plan to re-develop the Alpine Standard property into an attractive mixed-use site, which would be pri?Tiarily residential- The ability to enter and exit our property through our south easentent off Vail Roan is vital to our plans for future development I want to emphasize that any plan for the Arado proje,,:t must rccogrize this easement and allow for full and uninterrupted proper ingress and eg -ess froze and to Vail Road utilizizig o'ur south easement. We are in the process of working with our architects to prepare a preliminary studv and analysis for our re-development which we hope to submit for your consideration in the near future. Our goal in re-development is to create and build a structure that is architecturally attractive (similar to the Sonnenalp) which will be a beautiful and dAa,,,atic cornerstone to dhe entrance of Vail while being onaically viable and functional. We are contemplating a mixed-use facility, which :s primarily- residential, facing the mountain, integrated with the upgraded fuel and convenience store facing Frontage Road. As you can imagine, the use of our casement is vital to the success of our project. The value; and viability of our project will be meaningfully impaired if the easement is used for truck traffic. A duitionally, it : backing of large trucks with their reverse alert (beep/beep) will be ez:tremely detrimental and may ulth ately make our re-development financially unfeasible. Vehicular access to our proposed r.-development would be prinnarnly n-orn the South :~rc~nrage Road It 15 my understanding that traditionally the ingress and egress ioints from a prope:Ty ad acent to a public Rigrt of way (in ',his case the South Frontage Road), must be confined %vithin the length of ,he propern, line common to the subject property and the Right of Way. The current plan for Chateau Vail indicates that the west access initiates 'Tom a point iii front of the Scom.?o property and egress terminates in front of our property. This proposal will limit options for future access to both the Scorpio and our property, from the Frontage Road. 1 believe that access to this re-developed pre7perty should be accomplished in a way that it does not compromise current or "uture access options on adjacent properties. The latest Prado plan appears to be flawed. One 'took at the opening off Vail Road shows that it is too eight for medium sized, trucks or semis to make ale-al. and safe right turn and it appears that a truck would have to veer Into the oncoming north Iue of Vail Road to have a chance of malting the turn into tlae easement. The rendering shows that trucks malt n__;, the right turn off Vail Road onto our south easement, -nd top on ty to exit utilizing our the out-doing lane, which is unsafe and seemingly illegal, -while jeopardising our abi Ili easement to Vail Road without danger. As I said at our last meeting, we. would like to be cooper rive in resolving these: and other issues but must be careful that the :plans being presented, do not impair our ability to successfully re-develop the Alpine Standard or cause undo risk of safety to our custorners or business. Sincerely, Lon )h.Qellentirie President, _Moa llentme Land Company, L11C Chairman, .Alpine Standard „aiJ__F / t E3S' E l _j' - 40 t COUNCIL FOLLOW-UP TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOWUP 2001 ) 1/15/00 ACCESSORY EUILDING IN FORD RUSSELUGEORGE/TODD 0.: The VRD needs a We are waiting a response from Community Development. PARK building to house athletic equipment/supplies. Although the Ford Park Management Plan calls for no "above DIANA DONOVAN ground" buildings, VRD has noted the construction of the Alpine Garden's "tool shed." What are the parameters for approval and construction of buildings in the park? Maintenance shack by Manor Vail Bridge is an abomination. 1/23/01 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE (TO THE GREG H.: The load capacity continues to be an issue; Staff is currently getting an updated engineer's rating. EAST OF THE INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE) is it time to remove the bridge altogether, continue to monitor and control "load", or take steps to buoy up the foundation/support? 1/23/01 VACANT STORES RUSSELUBOB: As retail spaces become vacant, it is Staff proposes this could be an appropriate mediation by the Vail supremely better to have storefronts with displays from Chamber and Business Association. adjacent stores UNTIL the vacant space is rented, rather than allow them to stay empty. Can the town take a more active role in encouraging landlords to allow this interim practice? EXAMPLE: Covered Bridge Store/Village. 1/23/01 ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERSHIP PATRICK HAMEL: Schedule for evening televised To be rescheduled. Call Patrick WNAIL RESORTS, INC. presentation. COUNCIL F:\mcaster\bsalter\agenda\followup\O1 2401 du February 13, 2001 - Page 1 COUNCIL FOLLOW-UP iar QUESTIONS FOLLOWUP f 2001 1/23/01 NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS RUSSELUGREG M.: Of the following need of repair- The Club-the corner of the building near the entrance has crumbling plaster. Bob will discuss with property owners. Clark's Market - dried out wreaths on wall. 2/6/01 LETTER RE: ATHLETIC FIELD BOB: Prepare letter re: town's position on the athletic See attached letter. field at RSES, attn: Colleen Hill, RSES PTA President. KEVIN FOLEY 2/6/01 INCIDENT AT DOBSON ARENA BOB: Include Greg Morrison's response to an incident Please see attached e-mail from Greg Morrison to Mr. Crouch dated that occurred on New Year's Eve. 1-24-01. CHUCK OGILBY 2/6/01 GRAND OPENING OF THE ICE PAM: Contact Glenn Davis re: conflict of opening with Wendy at VRD said there is no way to accommodate the change. It's DOME "away" hockey tournament. going to stay at noon -1:30 Sat. Feb 17. SYBIL NAVAS 2/6/01 SIGNS ON POLES GREG H./LARRY: The skier signs on light poles are great but let's add some additional winter activities, KEVIN FOLEY e.g., ice skating, cross-country skiing, etc. 2/6/01 TRASH CANS LARRY: Trash is accumulating on the pedestrian bridge from Lionshead over to RSES. Please add a KEVIN FOLEY chained trash can at each end of this bridge. 2/6/01 SKI STORAGE SIGN RUSS: There is a large ski storage sign on the steps to the Kaltenberg Brewery for the lower ski storage. Is KEVIN FOLEY this legal? F:\mcaster\bsalter\agenda\followup\O1 2401 du February 13, 2001 - Page 2 COUNCIL FOLLOW-UP TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOWUP 2001 2/6/01 SKI STORAGE BY LA CANTINA MIKE ROSE/LARRY: There is a large sandwich board Sign has been removed. sign directing to the ski storage behind La Cantina. I KAYE FERRY told Kaye this was a request from Council following their latest walkabout in the Village (she'd had a merchant complaint). F:\mcaster\bsalter\agenda\followup\O1 2401 du February 13, 2001 Page 3 C R, N TOVVI OFF11I Office of the Town Rlan.ager 75 South Frontage Road' Vail, Colorado 81657 ` 970-479-21051Fax 970-479-2157 TM TO BE HAND DELIVERED February 9, 2001 Vanessa Currie and Heidi Young Red Sandstone Elementary PTA 551 North Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Dear Vanessa and Heidi: I wanted to take this opportunity to inform you and the Red Sandstone PTA of some of the town's most recent discussions with the school district concerning the Red Sandstone Elementary School. These discussions include proposed improvements, which we believe will enhance the school and increase opportunities for partnership with the community. Specifically, the Town of Vail is proposing to build an athletic "soccer" field adjacent to the school" This facility would provide an excellent play area for the students during the day and on the weekends would provide additional opportunities for youth soccer leagues. We also have been discussing with the school district the feasibility of building another floor on the Red Sandstone Gym which would be utilized as a gymnastics facility. As you may be aware, the existing facility at the old sewer plant on the South Frontage road is scheduled to be demolished in the next few years to make way for water and sewer plant expansions. For your information, I have attached a proposed site plan for the soccer field, and a letter which was sent to Superintendent Glynn several months ago. We look forward to working with you on these projects to make Red Sandstone Elementary School the best, even better than the best. Since y, Robert W. McLaurin Town Manager Enclosure cc: Vail Town Council RECrcLEDPAPER Pam Brandmeyer - complaint Page 1 From: Greg Morrison To: Ejmmcrouch@aol.com Date: 1/24/01 5:37PM Subject: complaint Dear Mr. Crouch, I am the police chief in Vail and your email has been forwarded to me by Mayor Pro Tem Navas. We fake complaints such as yours very seriously and investigate each thoroughly. My Administrative Officer, Scott Jansen, has been assigned to investigate your complaint. You can email him at sjansen@ci.vail.co.us or call him at 970-479-2231. He will need to interview, by phone if you all live in Georgia, all of the people who were present and heard or saw the officer in question. He will need the names and phone numbers of your children and any other witnesses so that a complete and thorough investigation may be completed. You also mentioned some local youths, could we please have their names and phone numbers also so that a complete and thorough investigation may be completed. On New Years eve we have police officers from other police departments as well as private security guards who assist us with security so we will need your assistance in determining who was actually involved. I will advise you of the results of the investigation when it is completer!. Thank you for bringing this serious matter to our attention. Sincerely, Greg Morrison Vail Chief of Police CC: bmclaurin@ci.vail.co.us; Scott Jansen; sjansen@ci.vail.co.us; sybnavas@hotmail.com COUNCIL FOLLOW-UP TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOWUP 2 F 001 1/15/00 ACCESSORY BUILDING IN FORD RUSSELUGEORGE/TODD 0.: The VRD needs a We are waiting a response from Community Development. PARK building to house athletic equipment/supplies. Although the Ford Park Management Plan calls for no "above DIANA DONOVAN ground" buildings, VRD has noted the construction of the Alpine Garden's "tool shed." What are the parameters for approval and construction of buildings in the park? Maintenance shack by Manor Vail Bridge is an abomination. 1/23/01 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE (TO THE GREG H.: The load capacity continues to be an issue; Staff is currently getting an updated engineer's rating. EAST OF THE INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE) is it time to remove the bridge altogether, continue to monitor and control "load", or take steps to buoy up the foundation/support? 1/23/01 VACANT STORES RUSSELL/BOB: As retail spaces become vacant, it is Staff proposes this could be an appropriate mediation by the Vail supremely better to have storefronts with displays from Chamber and Business Association. adjacent stores UNTIL the vacant space is rented, rather than allow them to stay empty. Can the town take a more active role in encouraging landlords to allow this interim practice? EXAMPLE: Covered Bridge Store/Village. 1123/01 ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERSHIP PATRICK HAMEL: Schedule for evening televised To be rescheduled. Call Patrick WNAIL RESORTS, INC. presentation. COUNCIL F:\mcaster\bsalter\agenda\followup\O1 2401 du February 13, 2001 - Page 1 COUNCIL FOLLOW-UP TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOWUP F2001 1/23/01 NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS RUSSELL/GREG M.: Of the following need of repair- The Club-the corner of the building near the entrance has crumbling plaster. Bob will discuss with property owners. Clark's Market - dried out wreaths on wall. 2/6/01 LETTER RE: ATHLETIC FIELD BOB: Prepare letter re: town's position on the athletic See attached letter. field at RSES, attn: Colleen Hill, RSES PTA President. KEVIN FOLEY 2/6/01 INCIDENT AT DOBSON ARENA BOB: Include Greg Morrison's response to an incident Please see attached e-mail from Greg Morrison to Mr. Crouch dated that occurred on New Year's Eve. 1-24-01. CHUCK OGILBY 2/6/01 GRAND OPENING OF THE ICE PAM: Contact Glenn Davis re: conflict of opening with Wendy at VRD said there is no way to accommodate the change. It's DOME "away" hockey tournament. going to stay at noon -1:30 Sat. Feb 17. SYBIL NAVAS 2/6/01 SIGNS ON POLES GREG H./LARRY: The skier signs on light poles are great but let's add some additional winter activities, KEVIN FOLEY e.g., ice skating, cross-country skiing, etc. 2/6/01 TRASH CANS LARRY: Trash is accumulating on the pedestrian bridge from Lionshead over to RSES. Please add a KEVIN FOLEY chained trash can at each end of this bridge. 2/6/01 SKI STORAGE SIGN RUSS: There is a large ski storage sign on the steps to the Kaltenberg Brewery for the lower ski storage. Is KEVIN FOLEY this legal? F:lmcasterlbsalterlagendalfollowup1012401 du February 13, 2001 - Page 2 COUNCIL FOLLOW-UP TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOWUP 2001 216101 SKI STORAGE BY LA CANTINA MIKE ROSE/LARRY: There is a large sandwich board Sign has been removed. sign directing to the ski storage behind La Cantina. I KAYE FERRY told Kaye this was a request from Council following their latest walkabout in the Village (she'd had a merchant complaint). F:\mcaster\bsaiter\agenda\followup\O1 2401 du February 13, 2001 Page 3 Pam Brandmeyer - complaint Page 1 From: Greg Morrison To: Ejmmcrouch@aol.com Date: 1/24/01 5:37PM Subject: complaint Dear Mr. Crouch, I am the police chief in Vail and your email has been forwarded to me by Mayor Pro Tern Navas. We take complaints such as yours very seriously and investigate each thoroughly. My Administrative Officer, Scott Jansen, has been assigned to investigate your complaint. You can email him at sjansen(a)_ci.vail.co.us or call him at 970-479-2231. He will need to interview, by phone if you all live in Georgia, all of the people who were present and heard or saw the officer in question. He will need the names and phone numbers of your children and any other witnesses so that a complete and thorough investigation may be completed. You also mentioned some local youths, could we please have their names and phone numbers also so that a complete and thorough investigation may be completed. On New Years eve we have police officers from other police departments as well as private security guards who assist us with security so we will need your assistance in determining who was actually involved. I will advise you of the results of the investigation when it is completed. Thank you for bringing this serious matter to our attention. Sincerely, Greg Morrison Vail Chief of Police CC: bmclaurin@ci.vail.co.us; Scott Jansen; sjansen@ci.vail.co.us; sybnavas@hotmail.com TOWN OF VAIL tti' Office of the Town Manager • , 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157 TO BE HAND DELIVERED TM February 9, 2001 Vanessa Currie and Heidi Young Red Sandstone Elementary PTA 551 North Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Dear Vanessa and Heidi: I wanted to take this opportunity to inform you and the Red Sandstone PTA of some of the town's most recent discussions with the school district concerning the Red Sandstone Elementary School. These discussions include proposed improvements, which we believe will enhance the school and increase opportunities for partnership with the community. Specifically, the Town of Vail is proposing to build an athletic "soccer" field adjacent to the school. This facility would provide an excellent play area for the students during the day and on the weekends would provide additional opportunities for youth soccer leagues. We also have been discussing with the school district the feasibility of building another floor on the Red Sandstone Gym which would be utilized as a gymnastics facility. As you may be aware, the existing facility at the old sewer plant on the South Frontage road is scheduled to be demolished in the next few years to make way for water and sewer plant expansions. For your information, I have attached a proposed site plan for the soccer field, and a letter which was sent to Superintendent Glynn several months ago. We look forward to working with you on these projects to make Red Sandstone Elementary School the best, even better than the best. Since y, f: Robert W. McLaurin Town Manager Enclosure cc: Vail Town Council RECYCLEDPAPER d4AA TOO OF V141L 75 South Frontage Road Human Resources Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2111 / 479-2112 FAX 970-479-2470 http://Ci.vail.co.us Date: February 9, 2001 To: Town Council From: J. Power Subject: Day Care Montessori has reconsidered and wishes to put together a formal proposal. They would like until the end of February; before bringing their plan to Council. RECYCLEDPAPER 2- 7-01; 4:33PM;E.C. COMMISSIONERS ;9703287207 # 2/ 10 Town of Vail/Eagle County Meeting February 13, 2001 12:00 noon -12:30 p.m. Lunch 12:30 p.m. -1:00 p.m. Employee Generation • Presentation by Nina Timm, Vail Housing Coordinator • Discussion 1:00 p.m. -1:45 p.m. Town of Vail Capital Projects • Mayor Ludwig Kurz Remarks • Discussion 1:45 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. Berry Creek 5' Affordable Housing Project • Discussion on Process to Move Project Forward ic! ~ ~ All- EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO 2001 BUDGET -Adopted 01/08/01 04:42 PM Combined -All Funds Percent Percent Percent 1999 Of 2000 Of 2001 Of Description Actual Total Projected Total Budget Total REVENUES Sales Taxes 12,472,108 16.95% 12,704,571 15.26% 13,213,793 21.93% Property Taxes 9,917,323 13.48% 11,396,545 13.69% 11,746,942 19.49% Other Taxes 796,880 1.08% 738,853 0.89% 737,348 1.22% Internal Service Charges 4,776,381 6.49% 8,300,531 9.97% 7,346,937 12.19% Licenses/Permits/Fees for Svc 12,899,571 17.53% 14,008,540 16.83% 14,559,654 24.16% Federal Aid 2,515,357 3.42% 10,264,419 12.33% 1,957,502 3.25% State Aid 3,378,995 4.59% 4,784,012 5.75% 3,726,535 6.18% Local Aid 34,783 0.05% 40,210 0.05% 41,310 0.07% Miscellaneous 955,283 1.30% 2,189,431 2.63% 3,200,310 5.31% Bond Proceeds & Interest 18,752,427 25.49% 17,599,953 21.14% 2.851,968 4.73% Sub-total-Revenues 66,499,108 90.37% 82,027,065 98.54% 59,382,299 98.55% % of Increase 23.35% -27.61% Transfers IN 7,082,536 9.63% 1,219,526 1.46% 875,460 1.45% Total Revenues 73,581,644 100.00% 83,246,591 100.00% 60,257,759 100.00% o or increase o - o EXPENDITURES - By Function General Government 10,256,695 10,372,896 11,583,532 A Public Safety 8,629,935 9,226,355 10,627,030 A Public Works 18,915,179 30.09% 35,542,866 42.86% 26.017,594 43.28% Public Health & Welfare 2,714,433 4.32% 4,108,945 4.96% 3,850,723 6.41% Culture & Recreation 298,800 0.48% 324,707 0.39% 347,777 0.58% Intergovernmental 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 50,000 0.08% Capital Outlay 12,260,093 18,345,739 3,649,300 Debt Service 2,701,545 4.30% 3,779,060 4.56% 3.107,050 5.17% Sub-total-Expenditures 55,776,680 88.73% 81,700,568 98.53% 59,233,006 98.54% Transfers OUT 7,082,536 11.27% 1,219,526 1.47% 875,460 1.46% Total Expenditures 62,859,216 100.00% 82,920,094 100.00% 60,108,466 100.00% Operating Gain (Loss) 10,722,428 326,497 149,293 EXPENDITURES - By Type 1000 Personnel Services 15,434,562 •24.55% 16,638,695 20.07% 21,164,528 35.21% 2000 Supplies 1,742,267 2.77% 2,043,756 2.46% 2,210,686 3.68% 3000 Purchased Services 9,935,004 15.81% 11,968,195 14.43% 11,112,968 18.49% 4000 Building Materials 8,277 7,975 6,500 5000 Fixed Charges 4,590,314 7.30% 5,196,026 6.27% 5,301,506 8.82% 6000 Debt Service 2,701,545 4.30% 3,779,060 4.56% 3,107,050 5.17% 7000 Grants & Transfers 1,516,017 2.41% 2,405,606 2.90% 2,054,883 3.42% 8000 Intergovernmental Support 4,264,511 6.78% 5,441,212 6.56% 5,266,746 8.76% 9000 Capital Outlay 15,584,186 24.79% 34,220,043 41.27% 9,008,139 14.99% Sub-total-Expenditures 55,776,683 81,700,568 59,233,006 Transfers OUT 7,082,536 1,219,526 875,460 Total Expenditures 62,859,219 100.00% 82.920,094 100.00% 60,108,466 100.00% 0 o Increase 31.91 "/o _21.biu/b 9 2- 7-01; 4:33RM;E.C. COMMISSIONERS ;9703287207 # 3/ 10 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR (((JJJ~~~J (970) 328-8604 FAX (970) 328-7207 ' TDD (970) 328-8797 Email: Eagleco@vail.net http: //www.eagle-county.com EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO December 7, 2000 Eagle Board of County Commissioners and Citizens of Eagle County I: P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board: i Pursuant to Colorado State Law, I am pleased to provide your Eagle County Budget for FY 2001. This budget incorporates the changes identified by the Board of County Commissioners during the budget review process. This budget will accomplish the following: • make us one of the best run counties; • continue to require the county government to live within its means; • address employee recruitment and retention; I • improve our current level of county services; • reduce the number of employees funded by general fund dollars; • identify a five-year capital plan; P • improve our county paved road system; • fund the Board's capital and program priorities; and • allow the county to remain in a strong financial position this year and future years. I I BUDGET DEVELOPMENT This was an exciting year of change as we added several new and important steps to the budget development process. Along with the development of the Board's priority and project lists, we created a capital improvement committee with citizen representation and invited everyone of our employees to meet and discuss employee compensation and their department's budget priorities. The employee meetings were instrumental in development of the employee compensation and benefit package which will be announced in the December 14, 2000 paychecks. Our Q,..f,loyees s; identified several important but inexpensive adjustments to the budget that will significantly yw improve county operations. To the hundreds of employees that took their lunch hour to participate in these budget meetings I owe my gratitude. I` Eagle County Building, 500 Broadway, P.O. Box 850, Eagle, Colorado 81631-0850 2- 7-01; 4:33PM;E.C. COMMISSIONERS ;9703287207 # 4/ 10 i BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS The County Commissioners have made several important adjustments to the proposed b dget. Some of the more notable changes are highlighted below: • A new attorney has been added to county staffing along with the necessary monies to construct additional attorney offices. • A new maintenance position was added which will enhance facility maintenance at the maintenance center, justice center, animal control and the fairgrounds. • Employee compensation and benefits were funded at an additional $1,632,571 with a total cost for employee compensation and benefits of $19,542,114 (without ECO)1 • The Roaring Fork River Master Plan was added at $20,000. I Other important highlights that ......ain from the proposed budget are listed below: • Total county staffing was increased from FY 2000 by 0.14 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) to a total employment count of 355.36 r l rs (excluding the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority (ECO). • Purchased services decreased by <$1,732,258>. • The Tree Farm Community Center located in El Jebel is funded at $3,131,625 for FY 2001 completion. • Road projects are funded at slightly over $1,000,000 as recommended by our pavement management system. • Youth grants are funded at $72,000. • Recreation undesignated is funded at $50,000. r • Wildfire protection is funded at $75,000. • Human services grants are funded at $70,000. • Funding for the Fair and Rodeo increased to $287,585. t • Recycling funding increased to $236,000. REVENUES Sales Tax - ' With uncertain sales tax growth, we are projecting a modest 4 percent increase in FY 2001 sales s: tax collections. Year to date sales tax collections this year are running at 6.4 percent ahead of last years actuals. Sales tax revenues in FY 2001 are estimated at $13,213,793. { 2 G. I k' 2- 7-01; 4:33RM;E.C. COMMISSIONERS ;9703287207 # 5/ 10 Property Tax - The assessed valuation new construction in FY 2000 is $56,036,060. Together with last year's valuation, the preliminary total assessed valuation for FY 2001 increased by 3.4 percent to $1,659,648,510. I am recommending that the County's mill levy remain at 7.079. The budget is based on an assumption that there will be a 2.96 percent increase in property tax revenue from current total revenue. FY 2001 county property tax revenues are estimated at $11,748,652. Fund Balance - With more than $33 million in reserved and unreserved fund balance, Eagle County is in an excellent financial condition. Key funds contributing to the projected FY 2001 Year-end fund balance are listed below. Funds 15% Restricted Fund Balance Unrestricted Fund Balance General $3,514,108 $3,213,406 Road & Bridge $ 955,280 $3,103,955 Capital Outlay Funds $ 592,526 $1,516,867 Emergency Reserves $1,776,990 <$119,299> Airport $ 453,843 $ 589,368 Landfill $1,166,818 $1,570,228 Motor Pool $ 585,659 $5,962,415 ECO $1,016,434 $3,263,039 EXPENDITURES County department and elected officials recommended $60,108,466 id expenditures for fiscal year 2001. General Fund Operations - It was my goal to match general fund operating expenditures to operating revenues. I am pleased to report a balanced budget with a positive increase to the operating fund balance of $123,852. General Fund Revenues $23,661,240 General Fund Expenditures $23,537,388 General Fund Increase to Fund Balance $ 123,852 3 2- 7-01; 4:33PM;E.C. COMMISSIONERS ;9703287207 # 8/ 10 General Fund Expenditures by Type & Deviation from FY 2000 Budget- Personnel Services $14,821,694 10.85% Supplies $ 849,476 <12.81%> Purchased Services $ 4,738,988. <19.240/o> Building Materials $ 6,500 <7.14%> Fixed Charges $ 567,543 7.56% Grants and Transfers $ 316,500 <63.180/o> Intergovernmental Support $ 2,122,331 8.23% Capital Outlay $ 36,474 <61.29%> Debt Service - Eagle County's Debt Service is at only 15.64% of our County's debt limit. County Debt Total Interest and Principal Date Debt Paid Off GO Bond $ 4,415,725 12/2005 Justice Center $ 1,074,393 .12/2001 Maintenance Center $24,698,064 12/2018 New Programs - The FY 2001 Budget contains funding for one new program $32,000 for Youth Coordination Services. Employee Compensation and Benefits - The FY 2001 Budget also contains an additional $1,632,571 for employee compensation and benefits. This change is due for the most part to a $1,000,000 increase in the health insurance premium which reflects an actual 17 percent rate increase, plus an increase to stabilize the health insurance fund reserve. The remainder is available for salary adjustment. i In FY 2000, the County created a Human Resources Committee which was tasked with examining the underlying issues affecting- recruitment and retention of employees including the current compensation practices. Their effort included a market comparison on a grade level by grade level basis to other counties, to western's' lope governments, and to private industry. As this effort continues in FY 2001, the County may propose an alternative pay benefit system to address recruitment and retention issues. There are sufficient funds in the budget to F.. vide for a bridge adjustment in lieu of a 3%. average merit increase to facilitate any transition between the cu.YO,.t and the new FY 2002 compensation plan. I will be making a recommendation on compensation to the Board prior to the adoption of the 2001 budget. 4 A 2- 7-01; 4:33PM;E.C. COMMISSIONERS ;9703287207 # 7/ 10 As part of our research into compensation and benefits, Eagle County engaged the services of Mountain States Employers Council (MSEC) to survey our employees. MSEC characterized our 72 percent response rate as phenomenal. Normally, a 50 percent return is considered outstanding. The survey results show that the cost of housing weighs heavily on the minds of most Eagle County employees with 81 percent considering a housing stipend important and 73 percent saying that they would choose a housing stipend over a 4 percent market adjustment. This survey has assisted us in developing the FY 2001 budget. Capital Improvements Committee & Formulation of a 5-Year Capital Plan - In FY 2000, the County established a Capital Improvements Committee which was responsible for developing a 5 year capital plan. The Committee's membership included department ` directors significantly affected by our infrastructure program and three private citizens representing each of the Commissioner Districts. The direct citizen involvement proved to be an ' effective means for gauging community interest in the proposed projects. A copy of the recommended plan is attached. The proposed budget deviates to some degree from the recommendations of the Capital Improvements Committee. This is due in large part to the deferral of the Cooley Mesa Road reconstruction to allow for the completion of the Airport i Master Plan. Board Priorities - The Board of County Commissioners has p.~-iously identified key priority projects for accomplishment. Proposed funding levels for these projects in FY 2001 are shown below; ' Proiect FY 2001 Funding Tree Farm Community Center $3,131,625 Youth Programs $ 72,000 Wildfire Funding $ 75,000 Mortgage Down Payment Assistance $ 100,000 Berry Creek 5` /Edwards Intersection* FY 2000 Planned Carry Forward plus Fund Balance Fairgrounds Planning FY 2000 Planned Carry Forward * Funding level for improvements to the main Edwards intersection (State Highway 6 & I-70G) E. is unknown at this time. To be determined based on available contributions from Edwards Metro District, CDOT and others. 5 2- 7-01; 4:33PM;E.C. COMMISSIONERS ;9703287207 # 8/ 10 2000 - A YEAR OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS Eagle County can be justifiably proud over the accomplishments it has made during the current year whic resulted in its being named by Colorado Counties, Inc. as County of the Year. They are varied land .;,y.esent the commitment on the part of our employees to be the best County in the Cot... f. Key accomplishments include: • OpQ.alon of two Homebuyer Assistance Programs (Down Payment Assistance Pro&.,... and the Mortgage Credit Certificate Program); • Berry Creek 5' Housing Project under development with the Town of Vail; • 63-20 Mountain Glen Apartment Project Development • Section 8 Riverview Apartments Acquisition • Section 8 Existing Rental Subsidy Proe...... . • Adoption of the Comprehensive Housing Plan • Cv...pletion of a Housing Needs Assessment { Recreation Master Plan for the Berry Creek 5', Miller Ranch and the ` Fairgrounds Parcels Update of the Edwards Area Co......unity Plan { Review and Comment on the White River Forest Plan ` Develvk,...ental Planning for the Tree Farm and the Berry Creek/Miller Ranch Parcels • Completion of an Employee Benefits and Compensation Survey • Creation of a Capital Improvements Committee with Citizen j Representatives • Creation of a Human Resources Group. • Creation of a Critical Staffing Committee to evaluate staffing needs • Digital data conversion of all land based records for inclusion in the Geographic Information System • Digital data conversion of over 80% of county cadastral data. Construction of a new Maintenance Service Center for Road & Bridge i Department and ECO • Completed Fairgrounds Arena area improvements • Rehabilitation of Runway 7/25 and correction of line of sight issue at the Eagle County Regional Airport • Implementation of a Pavement Management System Revision of the Motor fool billing system • Major reconstruction of 4 miles of the Frying Pan Road • Installation of over 1.5 miles of new guardrail on county roads • Organized a County-wide Household Hazardous Waste Event • Constructed a new module for the landfill Constructed over 2 miles of trails in Edwards as part of county core trail system i 6 ` . i ;9703287207 # 9/ 10 2- 7-01; 4:33PM;E.C. COMMISSIONERS • Enhanced building permit review capability through outsourcing • Implementation of a skill based compensation plan for inspectors within the building division • Annual Earth Day • Government Week Festivities • Creation of Youth Conservation Corps • Installation of sheriff video conferencing to Blue Lakes building • Upgrade main building phone system and design and build phone system for new Maintenance Service Center r Created wire maps for all phone closets Significant level of software, and server upgrades throughout organization Transportation planning effort in Edwards Key involvement in Statewide transportation planning effort Completion of the RFRHA Corridor Investment Study ; t Successful completion of financial and assessor audits r • Reduction of assessor appeals to 1987 levels ` • Assessor Records availability on CD-Rom and on our website h . • Awarded certificate of achievement for excellence in financial reporting ,x by Government Finance Officers Association of United States & Canada t` • Outstanding Treasurer's Award for second year in a row • Established a pet fostering program for pets with special needs or too 1 Young for adoption • Reduced shelter intake without increasing pet abandonment through the implementation of a new pet st..,~;...der policy • Reduced euthanasia rate at the Animal • Co,.L vl Facility v • Implemented a Senior Tax work-Off Program • Requested proposals for an Assisted Living Facility Implemented the Rural Resort RSVP (Retired and Senior Volunteer Program) in conjunction with Summit County. Currently 250 volunteers are providing 3500 hours of volunteer service a month. i • Implemented the Early Head Start program for low-income pregnant s ° women and chile.,,. 0-3. • Initiated a Regional Consolidated Child Care Pilot program with Garfield, z ; Lake, Pitkin and Summit Counties. r • Relocated Senior Programs in the Roaring Fork Valley to the Valley Pines facility. • Expanded Senior program participation by 201/6 over 1999, with no increase in staffing and program budget. • Doubled the volunteer service capacity through Spirit of Eagle and RSVP to total 667 volunteers _ • Exceeded child support enforcement goals for 7' straight year • recognized by the State Department of Human Services for a zero error N. rate in the Food Stamp Program 3 7 ca 2- 7-01; 4:33PM;E.C. COMMISSIONERS ;9703287207 # 10/ 10 • Implemented a Child Care Provider Education pror,.a..r through public health to train day care homes in the administration of medications and universal precautions • • Extended clinic hours and community screening activities for well-child and immunizations to provide more family-friendly and work sensitive hours Partnered with Rotary in the Eagle River Valley and other community health organization to implement a Child Health Grant for Rotary International Partnered with Vail Valley Medical Center, the Eagle County School District and other community youth agencies to conduct a community Youth Health Assessment • Completed a Community Health Assessment • Recorded a record number of births in Eagle County through our Vital Statistics office. Y2K Preparedness and associated emergency preparedness a • Rodeo Improvements • urchased the Avon Annex • Plat scanning capability in the Clerk & Recorder's Office • Election ballot creation capability in-house i • Ability to support the Kids Voting Program in Eagle County Certification of the Clerk &.Recorder as a Certified Elections/Registration Administrator .'t Recipient of National Association of Counties achievement awards f.~ C^ Sincerely, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR /ck ad County Administrator & Budget Officer /ji f $ t i TOWN COUNCIL COMMITTEE/TASK FORCE APPOINTMENTS TO: Town Council FROM: Pam Brandmeyer DATE: February 5, 2001 RE: Committee/Task Force Annointments This is a list of all committees/task forces to which Council members have been appointed or for which they have volunteered. It is my understanding that all assignments run to the next Regular Municipal Election, November 2001. COMMITTEE/TASK FORCE COUNCIL MEMBERS 1. NWCCOG Sybill Navas Chuck Ogilby, alternate 2. NWCCOG Water Quality/ Sybill Navas Quantity Committee Chuck Ogilby, apprentice 3. Vail Valley Tourism & Rod Slifer & Convention Bureau Greg Moffet, alternate (formerly VRA) 4. CAST Ludwig Kurz Greg Moffet, alternate Bob McLaurin 5. VRD/Council Subcommittee Kevin Foley Hermann Staufer Diana Donovan Chris Moffet 6. Special Events Committee Sybill Navas Staff. Pam Brandmeyer Greg Moffet, alternate 7. Bravo! Colorado Board Rod Slifer Kevin Foley, alternate 9. Town of Vail Housing Authority Chuck Ogilby 10. Channel 5 Vail Valley Community Ludwig Kurz Television Board 11. Art In Public Places Sybill Navas, interim appointment 12. Mauri Nottingham Environmental Diana Donovan Award 13. Vail Valley Exchange/Sister Cities Sybill Navas Rod Slifer 14. Eagle County Regional Transportation Kevin Foley Authority Greg Moffet, alternate 15. Ford Park Management Plan Kevin Foley Staff: Pam Brandmeyer 16. The Chamber of Commerce Greg Moffet Staff. Pam Brandmeyer 17. Open Space/Charter Committee Sybill Navas, interim appointment 18. Colorado Ski Museum and Ski Hall of Fame Staff: Bob McLaurin 19. Town of Vail/Vail Associates Task Force Sybill Navas, interim appointment 20. Vail Youth Recognition Award Sybill Navas 23. Vail Alpine Garden Foundation Board Staff: Todd Oppenheimer 24. Colorado Alliance for a Rapid Transit Kevin Foley Staff: Greg Hall Solution (CARTS). F\MCASTER\BSALTER\LIST\TCAPPTS.LST PIZ -2- 25. Vail Local Marketing District Advisory Board Greg Moffet 26. White River Institute 501(c)3 Ludwig Kurz Chuck Ogilby 27. White River Institute 501(c)4 Greg Moffet Sybill Navas 28. Vail Chamber and Business Association Sybill Navas F\MCASTER\BSALTER\LIST\TCAPPTS.LST 5 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Contact Person, Name of Chairman, or Phone Entitv President Address Number Date/Place/Time NWCCOG Gary Severson 468-0295 Full Board - 5 times/year on 4th Thurs. Executive - 6 other times/year on 4th Thurs. (location varies between the 5 counties) NWCCOG Water Quality/ Lane Wyatt 468-0295 Quarterly meetings rotating around the state Quantity Committee plus extra forums generally held in Eagle or Silverthorn Vail Valley Tourism & Frank Johnson 100 E. Meadow Drive 476-1000 3rd Wednesday - every other month at Convention Bureau Suite #34 9:30 AM, location varies (VVTCB) Vail, CO 81657 CAST Jacque Whitsitt 970-297- Meet every other month 2414 VRD/Council Subcommittee Piet Pieters Ford Park 479-2279 Regular Mtgs.-2nd Tuesdays 9AM 700 S. Frontage Rd. East Work Sessions 4th Tuesdays 9 AM Vail, CO 81657 Vail Golf Course - Krueger Room (1778 Vail Valley Drive) Special Events Committee Joe Blair 100 E. Meadow Drive 479-1014 1st Thursday of month as needed at 8AM (1.5-2 Suite #34 Ext. 11 hours) Vail, CO 81657 f.mcaster/bsalter/Task Forces BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Contact Person, Name of Chairman, or Phone Entitv President Address Number Date/Place/Time Bravo Colorado Board Roger Behler 827-5700 BOD -1s` Tuesday every other month. Change John Giovando location each time. Committees - no schedule. Town of Vail Housing Authority Nina Timm 479-2144 Meetings as needed/scheduled to coincide with regular Town Council meetings Channel 5 Vail Valley Brian Hall 926-5855 2nd or 3rd Tuesday at 8AM Community Television Board (one meeting per month) Art in Public Places Leslie Fickling 479-2344 2nd Thursdays from approx. 8:30-10:30 AM Mauri Nottingham Environmental Patrick Hamel 479-2333 1 meeting/year in October Town Community Center Vail Valley Exchange/Sister Communities Merv Lapin 232-B W. Meadow Dr. 476-5531 1 meeting/month at Merv's home Sybill Navas Vail, CO 81657 (not regularly scheduled) Eagle County Regional Jim Lair 3289 Cooley Mesa Rd. 328-3520 Board Mtg. every 3`d Thursday of month Transportation Authority Gypsum, CO 81637 10:00 AM - Noon. (Various locations) ECO Ford Park Management Plan Pam Brandmeyer 479-2113 3rd Thursday at 1:30 PM Approx. 6 meetings/year f racaster/bsalter/Task Forces BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Contact Person, Name of Chairman, or Phone Entitv President Address Number Date/Place/Time The Chamber Jen Brown P.O. Box 1437 949-5189 3rd Wednesdays 5:30 PM (location varies) Avon, CO 81620 Open Space/Charter Committee Bob McLaurin 479-2105 Meets approx. 3 times/year as needed Colorado Ski Museum & Ski Hall of Fame Bill Sutphen 231 South Frontage Rd. E. 476-1876 Quarterly meetings for their Board Vail, CO 81657 Town of Vail/Vail Associates Task Force Not regularly meeting Vail Youth Recognition Award Pam Brandmeyer 479-2113 1 time per year (not regularly scheduled) Vail Alpine Garden Foundation Board Ry Southard 183 Gore Creek Dr. 476-0103 Committees/monthly - varies Vail, CO 81657 BOD/quarterly - varies Colorado Alliance for a Rapid Greg Hall 479-2160 Meetings as scheduled Transit Solution (CARTS) Vail Local Marketing District Frank Johnson 476-1000 3rd Thursday at 7:30 AM Advisory Board Ext. 3008 Council Chambers White River Institute 501(c)3 John Horan-Kates 926-7800 Meetings not yet scheduled White River Institute 501 (c)4 John Horan-Kates 926-7800 Meetings not yet scheduled f:mcaster/bsalterlTask Forces BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Contact Person, Name of Chairman, or Phone Entitv President Address Number Date/Place/Time Vail Chamber and Business Association Susanne Chardoul 477-0075 2nd Tuesdays in Council Chambers f:mcaster/bsalter/Task Forces OTHER LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS/NO SITTING COUNCIL APPOINTMENT Contact Person, Name of Chairman, or Phone EntitX President Address Number Date/Place/Time Vail-Eagle Rotary Club Cindy Callicrate 827-5567 Wednesdays - 7:45 AM Manor Vail Lodge Vail Associates, Inc. Andy Daly P.O. Box 7 476-5601 Vail, CO 81657 Vail Local Marketing District Advisory Ross Boyle 100 E. Meadow Drive 479-9164 Every 3rd Thursday - 7:30 AM Board Vail, CO 81657 Location Varies Vail Valley Foundation Ceil Folz P.O. Box 309 949-1999 Vail, CO 81658 Eagle County School District Mel Preusser P.O. Box 740 328-6321 2nd & 4t" Wednesdays Eagle, CO 81631 1St mtg. at Berry Creek Middle School 2nd mtg. varies 6:30 PM Eagle River Water and Sanitation Rick Sackbauer 846 Forest Road 476-7480 Last Thursday -1:00 PM Vail, CO 81657 ERW & SD Offices/Walter Kirch Conf. Room Upper Eagle Regional Water Rick MacCutcheon 846 Forest Road 476-7480 Last Thursday - 8:30 AM Vail, CO 81657 ERW & SD Offices/Walter Kirch Conf. Room f:mcaster/bsalter/Task Forces OTHER LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS/NO SITTING COUNCIL APPOINTMENT Contact Person, Name of Chairman, or Phone Entitv President Address Number Date/Place/Time Red Sandstone PTA Vanessa Currie 551 North Frontage Rd. W. 476-0650 2nd Thursdays at 12 Noon Heidi Young Vail, CO Red Sandstone School Eagle County Commissioners Tom Stone P.O. Box 850 328-8605 Mondays & Tuesdays at 8:30 AM (as needed) Eagle, CO 81631 Eagle County Building Vail Mountain Rescue Group 1055 Edwards Village Blvd. 926-6770 Edwards, CO 81632 Vail Symposium P.O. Box 3038 476-0954 Vail, CO 81658 Vail Board of Realtors Laddie Clark P.O. Box 7507 845-1028 3rd Tuesdays at 8 AM in their office Avon, CO 81620 (0070 Benchmark Road, Avon) Vail Business and Professional Women's Group Vail Valley Restaurant Association fmcaster/bsalter/Task Forces A {f i PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, February 12, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 11:30 am MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1:30 pm 1. Peters residence - 2955 Bellflower Drive 2. Brandess Building - 2077 N. Frontage Road Driver: Bill 11*111 NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearina - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 363 Beaver Dam Road / Lot 2, Block 3, Vail Village 3`d Filing. Applicant: Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson 2. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 383 Beaver Dam Road / Lot 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3`d Filing. Applicant: Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson 3. A request for a final review of a proposed special development district to allow for the construction of a new conference facility/hotel; and a final review of conditional use permits to allow for the construction of fractional fee units and Type III employee housing units at 13 Vail Road / Lots A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2. Applicant: Doramar Hotels, represented by the Daymer Corporation Planner: Brent Wilson 4. A request for variances from Section 12-6D-6.(Setbacks) and Title 14 (Development Standards- locating required parking in the Right-of-Way), to allow for a residential addition and remodel located at 2955 Bellflower Dr. / Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan Peters, represented by Braun Associates Planner: Allison Ochs Il 1 TOWN OF PAIL 5. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the installation of rooftop telecommunications antennas at the Brandess Building, located at 2077 N. Frontage Road (Brandess Building)/Lot 39, Buffehr Creek. Applicant: Jayne Brandess Revocable Trust, represented by Abacus Communications Planner: Allison Ochs 6. A request for a recommendation to the Town Council on proposed text amendments, to allow for clarification & corrections to the Town Code. A complete description of the text amendments is on file at the Office of Community Development, located at 75 S. Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs 7. A worksession to discuss an interpretation of the definition of site coverage. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther 8. A request for a recommendation to the Town Council on the proposed Vail Land Use Plan amendments to change the land use designation for the following properties: 1. LDR to OS, located at 3880 & 3896 Lupine Drive/Lots 15 & 16, Bighorn Subdivision 2"d Addition. 2. OS to HDR, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd. West/ generally located northwest of the 1-70 interchange at the main Vail exit, known as "Mountain Bell," A TRACT OF LAND IN THE SOUTH HALF, OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT THAT IS NORTH 00 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 686.60 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF INTERSTATE 70; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 6 A DISTANCE OF 633.40 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 21 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 2633.76 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST BOUNDARY LINE OF VAIUPOTATO PATCH; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 12 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID EAST BOUNDARY LINE A DISTANCE OF 361.21 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE, SAID CURVE ALSO BEING ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF INTERSTATE 70; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE FOLLOWING 8 COURSES: 1) A DISTANCE OF 204.62 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 18 SECONDS, A RADIUS OF 3990.0 FEET, AND A CHORD NORTH 85 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 10 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 204.60 FEET; 2) NORTH 80 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 06 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 211.80 FEET; 3) NORTH 84 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 50 MINUTES EAST A DISTANCE OF 319.70 FEET; 4) SOUTH 79 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 28 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 424.40 FEET; 5) SOUTH 69 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 21 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 303.20 FEET; 6) SOUTH 74 DEGREES 21 MINUTES 35 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 204.70 FEET; 7) SOUTH 83 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 826.30 FEET; 8) SOUTH 71 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 45 MINUTES EAST A DISTANCE OF 196.10 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LAND DESCRIBED IN WARRANTY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 218 AT PAGE 419, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN 9. Approval of January 22, 2001 minutes 2 10. Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published February 9, 2001 in the Vail Trail. 3 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA Wednesday, February 7, 2001 3:00 P.M. MEETING RESULTS PUBLIC WELCOME PROJECT ORIENTATION / LUNCH - Community Development Department 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Clark Brittain Andy Blumetti Bill Pierce Hans Woldrich Melissa Greenauer SITE VISITS 2:00 pm 1. Gray residence - 5109 Black Gore Drive 2. Sampson residence - 1824 Alta Circle 3. North Trail Townhomes - 2477 Garmisch 4. Lions Square Lodge - 600 Lionshead Place Driver: Bill PUBLIC HEARING - TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:00 pm 1. Steinmetz residence - Final review of a demo/rebuild & revised landscape plan. Allison 1157 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 12, Block 6, Vail Village 7'h. Applicant: Morter Aker Architects MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Clark Brittain VOTE: 4-0 CONSENT APPROVED 2. North Trail Townhomes (Arosa/Garmisch) - Final review of proposed window Allison Changes. 2477 Garmisch Drive/Lot 1, Block H, Vail das Schone Filing 2. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Nina Timm MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Clark Brittain VOTE: 4-0 CONSENT APPROVED 3. Sarratt residence - Final review of proposed addition & exterior alterations. Bill 1328 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 22, Block 3, Vail Valley 1" Filing. Applicant: Alex Sarratt MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Hans Woldrich VOTE: 4-0 APPROVED A TOWN OF YA& 1 4 4. Gray residence - Final review of a new single-family & Type 1 EHU. Ann 5109 Black Gore Drive/Lot 2, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Harry C. Gray MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Melissa Greenauer VOTE: 4-0 APPROVED 5. Lions Square Lodge - Conceptual review of minor exterior alterations. Bill 660 Lionshead Place/Lot 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing Addition Applicant: Bill Anderson TABLED 6. Tang residence - Conceptual review & separation request for a new Ann single-family residence & EHU. 185 Forest Road/Lot 26, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Applicant: Fieldstone CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE 7. Sampson residence - Conceptual review of an addition to an existing residence. Ann 1824 Alta Circle/Lot 36, Vail Village West Filing 1. Applicant: Pete & Linda Sampson, represented by Richard Dominick, Architect CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE 8. Beaver Dam residence - Conceptual review of a new single-family residence. Bill 363 Beaver Dam Road / Lot 2, Block 3, Vail Village.3`d Filing. Applicant: Fritzlen Pierce Architects CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE 9. Beaver Dam residence - Conceptual review of a new single-family residence. Bill 383 Beaver Dam Road / Lot 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3`d Filing. Applicant: Fritzlen Pierce Architects CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE 10. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on the Brent "Vail Plaza Hotel West," a proposed conference hotel located at 13 Vail Road / Lots A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2. Applicant: Doramar Hotels, represented by the Daymer Corporation MOTION: Hans Woldrich SECOND: Melissa Greenauer VOTE: 3-0-1 (Pierce recused) TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 14, 2001 (special meeting) Staff Approvals Huzella residence - Temporary relocation of hot tub. Judy 3070 Booth Creek Drive/Lot 7, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filing. Applicant: Lisa Huzella 2 Frein residence - Interior conversion of crawl space. Ann 798 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch. Applicant: Ann S. and James F. Frein Steinmetz residence - Site development sign. Allison 1157 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 12, Block 6, Vail Village Filing 7. Applicant: Verner Averch Robins residence - DRB extension of final approval. George 154 Beaver Dam Road/Lot 27, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1. Applicant: Kenneth M. & Judy Robins Zopf residence - Minor remodel. Brent 894 Spruce Court/Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village Filing 9. Applicant: Del and Julie Zopf Vail 21 - Replace freestanding sign. Allison 521 E. Lionshead Circle/Vail 21 Building. Applicant: Destination Resorts Snowstorm LLC residence - Interior conversion (270 sq. ft.). Bill 2009 Sunburst Drive/Lot 15, Vail Valley 3rd Filing. Applicant: K.H. Webb Architects Concert Hall Plaza - Sign replacement. Bill 616 W. Lionshead Circle/Concert Hall Plaza. Applicant: Beigewayholdings Hawkins residence - Deck enclosure on 2"d level and dormer addition. Allison 1558 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 11-A, Block 3, Vail Valley 15t filing. Applicant: Richard J. Hawkins The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356,Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. 3 l