Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-0111 PECCHAPTER 2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION SECTION: 3-2-1: Creation 3-2-2: Membership; Appointments; Terms 3-2-3: Removal From Office 3-2-4: Vacancies 3-2-5: Officers; Meetings; Rules 3-2-6: Function 3-2-1: CREATION: There is created by the Town Council a Planning and Environmental Commission in accordance with sections 8.3 and 8.4 of the Charter of the Town, composed of seven (7) members who shall act in accordance with the Charter, this Chapter, the direction of the Town Council and the ordinances of the Town, and shall be appointed and serve as provided in this Chapter. (Ord. 10(1978) § 1) 3-2-2: MEMBERSHIP; APPOINTMENTS; TERMS: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall have seven (7) members appointed by the Town Council. All members of the Commission shall be residents, qualified electors of the Town, and if any member ceases to reside in the Town, membership on the Commission shall immediately terminate. The terms of the members of the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be for two (2) years on an overlapping basis and shall expire on March 31 of the year of termination. (Ord. 10(1996): Ord. 29(1987) § 1: Ord. 10 (1978) § 1: Ord. 37(1981) § 1) 3-2-3: REMOVAL FROM OFFICE: Members of the Planning and Environmental Commission shall serve at the will of the Town Council and shall be subject to removal by the Town Council for inefficiency, neglect of duty, failure to attend meetings, malfeasance in office, or any other reasons the Town Council deems proper. (Ord. 7(1992)) 3-2-4: VACANCIES: Vacancies on the Planning and Environmental Commission shall occur whenever a member of the Commission is removed by the Town Council, dies, becomes incapacitated and unable to perform his or her duties for a period of sixty (60) days, resigns, ceases to meet the qualifications for Commission members, or is convicted of a felony. Vacancies shall be filled by a majority vote of the Town Council. (Ord. 7(1992)) 3-2-5: OFFICERS; MEETINGS; RULES: The Commission shall elect its chairman from among the members and shall fill such other offices as it may determine. The term of the chairman shall be for one year with eligibility for reelection. The Commission shall hold at least one regular meeting each month. It shall adopt rules for transaction of business and shall keep a record of its resolutions, transactions, findings and determinations, which record shall be a public record kept in the office of the Town Clerk. (Ord. 10(1978) § 1) 3-2-6: FUNCTION: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall have the following function and duties: A. To make and adopt a Master Plan, for approval by the Town Council, for the physical development of the Town, including any areas outside its boundaries, subject to the approval of the legislative or governing body having jurisdiction thereof, which in the Commission's judgment bear relation to the planning of the Town. The Plan, with the accompanying maps, plats, charts, and descriptive matter, shall show the Commission's recommendations for the development of the subject territory. E. To review and recommend to the Town Council a Zoning Ordinance with appropriate regulations, which may be specifically provided or required by ordinance of the Town. C. To review and recommend to the Town Council subdivision regulations as may be provided or required by ordinance of the Town. D. To review and approve environmental impact reports and mitigation measures as they relate to the Zoning Ordinance, codified in Title 12 of this Code. E. To review and comment on programs, studies of environmental issues for the Town and the Gore Valley. F. To conduct research and appropriate studies of environmental issues for the Town and the Gore Valley. G. To make recommendations to the Town Council for the control of pollution and the protection of the environment. H. When data is obtained indicating that State air and water pollution standards have been violated, to advise the Council of the necessary and appropriate action. 1. To be concerned and involved with environmental issues for the entire Gore Valley and to take the initiative to organize and coordinate environmental studies and measures necessary to protect the residents of Gore Valley and Eagle County. J. To consider any other matters pertaining to the Commission as provided by law, resolution, or ordinance, and to act in an advisory capacity to the Town Council when so requested, and to perform all other powers and duties authorized and required by ordinance or State law. (Ord. 10(1978) § 1) Printed by Judy Rodriguez 2/19/99 2:31pm From: Judy Rodriguez To: Alison Ochs, Dominic Mauriello, Nina Timm, Russell Forrest Subject: FYI Per Cliff Thompson of the Vail Daily --------------------------------------- Per Colorado Statute: any legal notice has to be published in a designated legal paper which is a paper that has a 2nd Class Mailing Certificate (Eagle Valley Times, Vail Trail which are once a week publications), unless Vail is a Home Rule Town and then a paper of General Circulation (the daily papers) will work, Phew! Talk about a run-on sentence!! Page: 1 Printed by Judy Rodriguez 1/25/99 From: Judy Rodriguez To: Dominic Mauriello Subject: fwd: PEC/DRB tapes --------------------------------------- ===NOTE=======__======1/25/99==3:29pm== CC: Tom Moorhead I'm getting ready to destroy 1997 tapes. (retention is 1 year) Any litigation that I'm not aware of? (I need to save any tapes that are in litigation) Fwd=by:=Tom=Moorhead==1/25/99==3:47pm== Fwd to: Judy Rodriguez CC: Dominic Mauriello ....................................... The only thing that I'm aware of is the common ground litigation. I am unaware of any PEC/DRB consideration or hearings on that issue. 4:Olpm / C/" / Page: 1 Printed by Judy Rodriguez 1/25/99 3:35pm --------------------------------------- From: Judy Rodriguez To: Dominic Mauriello Subject: fwd: PEC/DRB tapes --------------------------------------- C C: Tom Moorhead ....................................... I'm getting ready to destroy 1997 tapes. (retention is 1 year) Any litigation that I'm not aware of? (I need to save any tapes that are in litigation) Fwd=by:=Dominic=Mauri=1/25/99==3:32pm== Fwd to: Judy Rodriguez ....................................... None from 1997 that I am aware of. --------------------------------------- Page: 1 May 14, 1997 RE: 1997 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Members To whom it may concern: Below please find the current Planning and Environmental Commission members. Please update your mailing list. 1997 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Galen Aasland Greg Amsden - Asst. Chairman Diane Golden Greg Moffet - Chairman Ann Bishop John Schofield Gene Uselton All mail to the Board members can continue to be mailed to: Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 S. Frontage Rd., Vail, CO 81657. Thanking you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Judy Rodriguez Planning Secretary American Planning Association 1776 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20036 Center for Public-Private Sector Cooperation University of Colorado at Denver 1445 Market Street, Suite 380 Denver, CO 80202 - 1727 State of Colorado Department of Transportation 4201 E. Arkansas Ave. Denver, CO 80222-3400 CLE International 1541 Race Street, Suite 100 Denver, CO 80206 American Planning Association 122 S Michigan Ave Suite 1600 Chicago IL 60603-9604 ReNews Colorado Community Revitalization Assoc. c/o Colorado Municipal League 1660 Lincoln St., Suite 2100 Denver, CO 80264 Colorado Municipal League 1660 Lincoln Street, Suite 2100 Denver, CO 80264 APA Colorado 2150 W. 29th Ave., Suite 200 Denver, CO 80211 Association for Commuter Transportation 1518 K Street, Suite 503 Washington, DC 20005 The Chuck Stevinson Center for the Colorado Lottery Colorado Commons study of Local Government at the P.O. Box 7 PO Box 417 Independence Institute Pueblo, CO 81002 Longmont, CO 80502-0417 14142 Denver W. Pkwy., Suite 185 Golden, CO 80401 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE 40 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the, Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on January 11, 1999, at 2:06 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A worksession to discuss an amendment to Special Development District No. 4 (Glen Lyon), revising the Glen Lyon Office Building site (Area D), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Kurt Segerberg Planner: Dominic Mauriello 0 A request for a Type II Employee Housing Unit at a proposed primary/secondary residence, located at 95 Forest Road / Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Philip Hoversten, represented by Snowdon & Hopkins Architects Planner: Jeff Hunt A request for -. i,?,iance from Section 12-7B-13, Town of Municipal Code, to allow for the conversion of existing floor space to gross residential floor area (GRFA), located at 333 Bridge OLI JCL 'A portion of Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: The Remonov Company, represented by Braun & Associates Planner: Dominic Mauriello The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection du; *11 "J regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notifinptinn P1Pa(;P r.Pll 47C.)- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published December 25, 1998 in the Vail Trail. TRW PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 11 Monday, January 11, 1999 AGENDA 0 El Project Orientation / LUNCH - Communitv Development Department MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits : 1. Vail Plaza Hotel -100 E. Meadow Drive 2. Vail Village Club -- 333 Bridge Street Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6,00-6:30 p.m. Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 11:00 P.M. 12:30 p.m. 2:00 p.m. A request for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit at a proposed primary/secondary residence, located at 95 Forest Road I Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Philip Hoversten, represented by Snowdon & Hopkins Architects Planner: Jeff Hunt 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-78-13, Town of Municipal Code, to allow for the conversion of existing floor space to gross residential floor area (GRFA), located at 333 Bridge Street (Vail Village Club)l A portion of Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: The Remonov Company, represented by Braun & Associates Planner: Dominic Mauriello 3. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village), to allow for a fractional fee club and a change to the approved Development Plan, located at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominium Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson Planner: George Ruther 4. A worksession to discuss a major amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village), to revise the Glen Lyon Office Building site (Area D), located at 1000 S, Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Kurt Segerberg Planner: Dominic Mauriello TOWN OF MEMBERS ABSENT 5. A request for a final review of a major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment, located at 100 East Meadow Drive, Lots M and O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther 6. A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed arena expansion at the Dobson Ice Arena, located at 321 East Lionshead Circle/ Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation District, represented by Odell Architects Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 25, 1999 7. A request to amend the Town's "Public Accommodation" Zone District, Chapter 7 and amendments to Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), Town of Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Johannes Faessler, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 25, 1999 6. Information Update 9. Approval of December 28, 1996 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published January 8, 1998 in the Vail Trail E 171 2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, January 11, 1999 FINAL AGENDA Proiect Orientation / LUNCH - Community Developement Department MEMBERS PRESENT Greg Moffet John Schofield Galen Aasland Ann Bishop Brian Doyon Tom Weber Site Visits 1. Vail Plaza Hotel - 100 E. Meadow Drive 2. Vail Village Club - 333 Bridge Street Driver: George NOTE. If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 11:00 a.m. 12:30 p.m. 2:00 p.m. A request for a Type II Employee Housing Unit at a proposed primary/secondary residence, located at 95 Forest Road / Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Philip Hoversten, represented by Snowdon & Hopkins Architects Planner: Jeff Hunt MOTION: Ann Bishop SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Type II EHU deed restriction to the Town of Vail Department of Community Development. This document will be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office and will require that the employee housing unit be permanently restricted for employee housing. TY1W*Yn MEMBERS ABSENT Diane Golden 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-713-13, Town of Municipal Code, to allow for the conversion of existing floor space to gross residential floor area (GRFA), located at 333 Bridge Street (Vail Village Club)/ A portion of Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: The Remonov Company, represented by Braun & Associates Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 4-2 DENIED 3. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village), to allow for a fractional fee club and a change to the approved Development Plan, located at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominium Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson Planner: George Ruther MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL WITH 11 CONDITIONS: That the applicant submit a detailed contractor's cost estimate identifying the costs necessary to relocate the existing overhead utility line along the applicant's north property line underground, and that the applicant establish a financial bond with the Town of Vail in the sum of 125% of the said relocating costs to insure the undergrounding of the utility line. 2. That the applicant regrade and revegetate the knoll located at the northwest comer of the development site at the time of the final grading of the Westhaven Club & Lodge. Due to the exposure and aspect of the hillside, the knoll shall be regrading to slopes not exceeding 3:1. The regrading shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer. 3. That the applicant provide Type III Employee Housing unit deed-restrictions , which comply with the Town of Vail Employee Housing Requirements (Title 12, Chapter 13, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code) for each of the 21 employee housing units, and that said deed-restricted housing be made available for occupancy, and that the deed restrictions be recorded at the Office of the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Westhaven Club & Lodge. 4. That the applicant submit detailed civil engineering drawings of the required off- site improvements (street lights, drainage, curb and gutter, sidewalks, grading, etc.) to the Town of Vail Public Works Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. That the applicant record a twenty foot (20') wide pedestrian/bike easement for that portion of pedestrian/bike path traversing the applicant's property and as identified on the Topographic Map prepared by Intermountain Engineering Ltd., dated 12/22/94, and that said easement be recorded at the Office of the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The exact location and language of the easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney and Town Engineer prior to recordation. 2 T 6. That the applicant provide written documentation from the Public Service Company granting approval of the construction of the Westhaven Club & Lodge in the location identified on the site plan relative to the high pressure gas line. Written approval shall be granted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. That the applicant record an access easement along the east property line for that portion of the driveway and access and trash enclosure which encroaches upon the adjoining property and that said easement be recorded at the Office of the Eagle County Clerk Recorder. The exact location and language of the easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney and Town Engineer prior to recordation. 8. That the applicant pay-in-lieu on spaces not provided on site above the 52 spaces proposed. 9. That the final landscape plan and architectural elevations be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Design Review Board. 10. That the approval of this major amendment to Special Development District #4 shall become lapsed and void one year from the date of a second reading of an ordinance amending the district, and that should the approval lapse, the applicant shall be required to remove the "ruins" and restore and revegetate the site by no later than October 31, 1999. A bond providing financial security to ensure that said removal occurs shall be required following second reading of an amending ordinance. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to provide a cost estimate of the removal work. The bond shall be a minimum of 125% of the removal costs. 11. That the applicant revise and submit an amended site plan, landscape plan, and grading plan indicating improvements to the existing boulder retaining wall along the east side of the access driveway. Each of the plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Town staff and the Design Review Board. 4. A worksession to discuss a major amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village), to revise the Glen Lyon Office Building site (Area D), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Kurt Segerberg Planner: Dominic Mauriello WORKSESSION - NO VOTE 5. A request for a final review of a major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment, located at 100 East Meadow Drive, Lots M and 0, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH 10 CONDITIONS: 11 3 I 1, That the applicant submit the following plans to the Department of Community Development, for review and approval, as a part of the building permit application for the hotel: a. An Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan; b. A Construction Staging and Phasing Plan; C. A Stormwater Management Plan; d. A Site Dewatering Plan; and e. A Traffic Control Plan. 2. That the applicant provide deed-restricted housing, which complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13), for a minimum of 160 employees, and that said deed-restricted housing be made available for occupancy, and the deed restrictions recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & - Recorder, prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail Plaza Hotel. The ratio of units required shall be reduced to 2:1 for units provided in Town versis units provided down valley. 3. That the applicant receive a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club, in accordance with Chapter 12-16, prior to the issuance of a building permit. T- het th r a g in a-. eveFall height of the buildin , prl Review gGaFd. cG'. That %3 aP;: a Pla,'IS tdGrr +- ' '+e -p hanlt in the huil.Iinn nn fie! 3 ar. additional ar± ula -iR #4e 6. That the applicant receive final Design Review Board approval for the proposed off-site improvement, prior to application for a building permit. 3. That the applicant submit a complete set of civil engineer drawings of all the off- site improvements, including improvements to the South Frontage Road, for review and Town approval, prior to application for a building permit. 8. That the applicant submit complete set of plans to the Colorado Department of Transportation for review and approval of an access permit, prior to application for a building permit. 9. That the applicant explore alternatives to decreasing the depth of the enclosed main loading/delivery area to reduce the impact of the Vail Plaza Hotel at the ground level of the building on the adjoining property to the east. The final change shall be at the discretion of the DRB. 10. That the applicant meet with the Town Staff to prepare a letter of agreement outlining the requirements of the off-site improvements, prior to second reading of an ordinance approving. 11. That one, on-site employee housing unit be provided as a manager's type of unit. 12. That additional architectural articulation be provided on all north and south levels. 4 J 11 6. A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed arena expansion at the Dobson Ice Arena, located at 321 East Lionshead Circle/ Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation District, represented by Odell Architects Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 25, 1999 7. A request to amend the Town's "Public Accommodation" Zone District, Chapter 7 and amendments to Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), Town of Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Johannes Faessler, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 25, 1998 8. Information Update 9. Approval of December 28, 1998 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available. for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department • 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 11, 1999 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type 11 employee housing unit located at 95 Forest Road / Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Philip Hoversten represented by Snowdon & Hopkins Architects Planner: Jeff Hunt/ Brent Wilson DESCRIPTION CAP THE PROPOSED USE 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: Section 12-2-2 "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 EHUs 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 1, Type 11, 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." In June of 1995, the Design Review Board granted a separation request for a proposed primary/secondary residence on this lot. To date, construction of this new residence has not commenced. However, due to the physical constraints existing on this lot, the Town has granted an extension of this separation request until August of this year. The applicant is proposing a Type 11 employee housing unit on a portion of the main level of a new primary unit. The employee housing unit will be approximately 485 square feet in size and will include one bedroom, one bathroom, a full kitchen and living area. One enclosed parking space will also be provided for the EHU. Despite the separation, this lot is only entitled to one EHU and therefore the secondary unit will not be able to qualify for an EHU in the future. Site Area: 24,067 sq. ft. Same Height: 33 feet approx. 33 feet *GRFA: 6,007 sq, ft. approx. 6,000 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 4,813 sq. ft., or 20% approx. 2,700 sq. ft. Landscaping: 14,440 sq. ft., or 60% min. approx. 16,600 sq. ft_ Parking: 7 required 7+ Setbacks: Front: 20' 20' Side: 15' 15'- west Side: 15' 15' - east Rear (frontage) 20' 20' *This figure includes two 425 square foot credits plus a 500 square foot EHU credit. LI Ill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 12-16 - Conditional Use Permits, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: Relationship and impact of the use on the development obiectives of the Town. When the Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Affordable Housing study on November 20, 1990, it recognized a need to increase the supply of locals/employee housing units. The Town encourages EHUs as a means of providing quality living conditions and expanding the supply of employee housing for both year-round and seasonal local residents, The proposed unit will have a positive impact on the Town's rental housing needs. r1 LJ 2 aY TOWNOFYAIG 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population. transportation facilities, utilities, schools, oarks and recreation facilities. and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that there will be little impact from the proposed Type 11 EHU on light, air, population, transportation, utilities, schools or parks. 1 Effect uoon traffic with oarticular reference to congestion. automotive and pedestrian safetv and convenience. traffic flow and control. access, maneuverability. and removal of snow from the street and oarkinq areas. One additional vehicle is anticipated in association with this EHU. Staff feels that this would be an insignificant impact on the above-referenced criteria. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the oroposed use is to be located. including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The scale and bulk of this proposed structure is very similar to those in existence in the surrounding neighborhood. Since the proposed employee housing unit will be located within the primary residence, staff believes this EHU will not significantly impact the scale and bulk of this project in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Emplovee Housina Units may be allowed as a conditional use in those zone districts as specified by Section 12-13 of the Vail Municipal Code. Emnlovee Housing and shall be subject to the followina conditions: a. It shall be a conditional use in the Sinale-Family Residential. Two- Family Residential and Primarv/Secondarv Residential zone districts. The subject property is zoned Primary/Secondary Residential. b. It shall be oermitted only on lots which comoly with minimum lot size requirements of the zone district in which the lot is located. At 24,007 square feet in size, this lot meets the minimum lot size requirements (15,000 square feet) in the Primary/Secondary zone district. c. It shall be located within. or attached to. a sinale-family dwellinq or be located within. or attached to. a two-family dwelling oursuant to Section 12-11-50) - Desian Guidelines Duolex and Primarv/Secondarv Develooment. It may also be located in, or .7 3 attached to, an existing aaraae provided the Garage is not located within any setback. and further provided that no existinq oarkino required by the Town of Vail Municipal Code is reduced or eliminated. This Type 11 EHU will be located within the proposed primary residence. However, it will maintain a separate entrance and will not be accessible from the interior of the primary or secondary units. d. It shall not be counted as a dwellina unit for the purposes of calculatina density. However. it shall contain kitchen facilities and a bathroom. as defined in Chapter 12-2 - Definitions of the Vail Municipal Code. It shall be permitted to be a third dwelling unit in addition to the two dwelling units which may already exist on the lot. Only one Tvpe 11 EHU shall be allowed per lot. The proposed EHU will be a third dwelling unit on the site. It contains a full kitchen and full bathroom facilities. e. It shall have a GRFA not less than three hundred (300) square feet, nor more than nine hundred (900) sauare feet. An applicant. however. shall be permitted to apply to the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail for additional GRFA not to exceed five hundred (500) sauare feet to be used in the construction of the EHU. The applicant shall submit an application for the additional GRFA on a form provided by the Community Development Department. Approval or denial of the request shall be made by the Design Review Board in accordance with Section 12-13-5. If an applicant obtains Desian Review Board approval for 500 sauare feet of additional GRFA for the EHU. he or she shall not be entitled to receive additional GRFA pursuant to Chapter 12-15 - Additional Gross Residential F1oorArea of this Code for either unit on the lot. If an applicant obtains Desian Review Board approval for not more than 250 sauare feet of additional GRFA for the EHU, he or she shall be entitled to receive additional GRFA pursuant to Chapter 12-15 - Additional Gross Residential Floor Area of this code for one dwelling unit on the lot. The EHU will be 435 square feet in size. The applicant has submitted an application for 500 square feet of additional GRFA utilizing the code provision that allows for the use of 250's "up front" when creating a new Type 11 EHU. The unused portion of this GRFA (15 square feet) may not be allocated to the other units. No additional 250's will be allowed on this property. E 4 f. It shall have no more than two bedrooms. The proposed Type 11 EHU includes one bedroom and therefore complies with this requirement. g. No more than two (2) adults and one (1) child not older than sixteen (16) years of aae shall reside in a one (1) bedroom Tvpe 11 EHU. No more than two (2) adults and two (2) children not older than sixteen 06) years of aae shall reside in a two (2) bedroom Tvpe II EHU. Since this unit is a one-bedroom Type Il EHU, the first section of this regulation will apply. h. Each Tvoe 11 EHU shall be reauired to have no less than one (1) parking space for each bedroom located therein. However. if a one (1) bedroom Tvpe 11 EHU exceeds six hundred (600) square feet, it shall have two (2) parking spaces. All narkina spaces reauired by this Code shall be located on the same lot or site as the EHU. If no dwellina exists upon the property which is proposed for a Tvpe 11 EHU at the time a building permit is issued, or if an existina dwellina is to be demolished and replaced by a new dwellina. not less than one (1) of the parkinq spaces reauired by this paraaraph shall be enclosed. A 300 sauare feet GRFA credit shall be allowed for the construction of one enclosed parking space for the Tvpe 11 EHU. Since this project is a demolition/rebuild, the applicant must provide one enclosed parking space for the proposed EHU. The plans submitted for this application show a walkway providing direct access between the EHU and one of the enclosed parking spaces. S. Findings: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit for an Employee Housing Unit: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of Section 12-13 (Employee Housing) 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. n 5 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of Section 12-18 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Vail Municipal Code. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of this application for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit, based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of Section 12-13 (Employee Housing) 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 Section 12-18 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Vail Municipal Code. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve this application, the Community Development Department recommends the following condition: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Type II EHU deed restriction to the Town of Vail Department of Community Development. This document will be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office and will require that the employee housing unit be permanently restricted for employee housing. Please note that under Section 12-16 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the approval of a conditional use permit shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion, or the use for which the approval has been granted has not commenced within two years from when the approval becomes final. f:everyonelpeclmemosl991HoverEHU I 1 6 ' * r Fqy? Y 1InC 1 i 9 m?? afP aq?,y1® N?1 k7jj - w _ L,nr.ir-su.? 4R4 41,1 U` ? ? yin ?? v* ?04 5(464 4, E 'r`.A?.? -ai^J'ri.?.?1ryi;.?°.'?w ?lw:?t"R.,d :?,v'. ?..?"• ?"'?'r ?.??+s.?+i"? Sr' E ,w v a d. . c , a 1o '? 0 rj -*ms e" 19416 f-tVA011 V0*1( 4Z { I r li f' r pri d °+ tf kl-) • • 4. Y , - - t Y . of .. s• !: .. ? - ? ` ? ,? ?f _ 1"4 ?i IL J r 1 TW 1771111 _-toY?anO__n?_1 MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 11, 1999 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 12-7B-13, Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for the conversion of existing floor space to gross residential floor area (GRFA), located at 333 Bridge Street (Vail Village Club)/ A portion of Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: The Remonov Company, represented by Braun & Associates Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST AND BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking relief from the density control section of the Commercial Core 1 (CC1) zone district in order to allow GRFA in excess of that permitted. The property is allowed 3,716 sq. ft. of GRFA (80% of buildable area). The applicant is proposing an additional 402 sq. ft. of GRFA in order to convert the 3rd and 4th stories of the building from a private club to a single dwelling unit. The applicant is not proposing to expand any floor area of the building but simply convert the use of the space. The applicant has provided an analysis of the previous approvals for this property, which is attached. The original plan for this building was to have a portion of the 3rd floor as office s?ace and the remainder of that floor and the 4tn floor as a dwelling unit. Since a portion of the 3r floor was office space, the dwelling unit complied with the GRFA limitations, as there is no limitation on commercial floor area in the CC1 zone district. Subsequent to that approval, the previous owner obtained approval for a quasi-public club on the 3rd and 4t" floors, which was constructed. The applicant states that the existing interior building configuration creates an unnecessary physical hardship and a practical difficulty creating the need for this variance (see applicant's statement). 11. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS, A. Consideration of Factors: Upon review of Section 12-17-6 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Criteria and Findings, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested GRFA variance based on the following factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 11 \ ?k MWN YAILIL While the request will have no external or physical impacts on other existing or potential uses in the vicinity, approval of such a variance could be precedent setting, by allowing the interior configuration of floor area to be an argument for GRPA variances on other properties in the area. The applicant contends that other uses allowed by conditional use permit (such as a professional office) are not viable on the 3rd floor of the building and the only use which will be successful is a residential dwelling. Staff's concern here is that if this is approved, other properties in Town with 3rd floor office space (i.e., Crossroads) could point to this approval to allow conversion of non-residential spaces to residential uses without regard to GRPA limitations. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. The appplicant is seeking the minimum relief necessary to allow the use of the 3r and 4th floors of this building, in its existing configuration, as a residential dwelling unit. The applicant points to the existing building as providing a physical hardship. Staff is unaware of any instance where the interior layout of a building has been determined by the PEC to create a physical hardship, thus justifying a GRPA variance. As the applicant points out there are remedies to this situation. An office could be provided in a portion of the space, common storage areas could be created, and floor area could be removed creating "open to below" area on the 4th floor. Existing buildings have been determined to be a physical hardship in other areas justifying the approval of setback variances and site coverage variances. These have tended to be sites that are currently nonconforming, were constructed under Eagle County Zoning, or in areas where zoning requirements changed over the years, creating unique circumstances. This building was constructed over the past several years under the current CC1 regulations. While staff recognizes the "reasonableness" and the minor impact of the applicant's request, staff believes the approval of this variance will be a grant of special privilege as a physical hardship or practical difficulty cannot be found to exist on the property and that any unique circumstances which might exist on the property are self imposed. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposal will have little, if any, effect on these issues. The proposal will reduce parking and traffic impacts associated with the approved club use. E. The Planning and Environmental Commission shell make the following 2 findings before arantina a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the proposed variance, subject to the following findings: That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. FAEVERYON E\PEC\MEMOS\99\vvclub C 3 VISTA BARN BUILDING VARIANCE REQUEST December 14, 1998 (revised 12/21/98) A. Summary of Variance Request The purpose of the requested variance is for the Vista Bahn Building (formerly known as the Vail Village Club Building) located on Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing, to obtain relief from Section 12-713-13, Density Control, of the Vail Municipal Code. The applicant is the Remonov Company. This variance request will allow the Vista Bahn Building to exceed the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) permitted by the density control section of the Commercial Core I Zone District. As proposed, the excess GRFA will be established by converting existing "inon- residential" square footage on the third and fourth floor of the building to GRFA. The proposed variance does not involve any exterior modifications that will increase the height, size or bulk and mass of the existing building. If ypoved, this variance request would nullify the existing conditional use permit for a "quasi-public club" on the third and fourth floors of the building. B. History of the Building/Existing Zoning The following summarizes the recent history of the Vista Bahn Building: Snrina. 1995 Town Planning and Environmental Commission approves a number of applications that facilitate the re-development of the building. The "building program" approved by the Town included: Commercial uses in basement level « Retail on first floor Restaurant on second floor • Office space and residential condominium on third floor Residential condominium on fourth floor Approvals for this building included a conditional use permit for approximately 695 square feet of office space on the third floor of the building. The residential condominium was within the allowable GRFA for the property. Fall. 1995 Prior to construction of the building, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for a "quasi-public club" to be located on the third and fourth floors of the building. This approval essentially "voided" the previously approved conditional use permit for the third floor office space. With this change in use, the design of the building became a "single-use design". The implications of this change are discussed in greater detail below. 1996-1997 Building construction occurs. 1998 The Vail Village Club fails and with it the developers of the project lose ownership of the property. Bob Hernreich and Rick Mueller of the Remonov Company obtain ownership of the property. C. Variance Proposal The Remonov's immediate goal for the property is to establish viable uses for the building that are consistent with the permitted uses in the Commercial Core I zone district (CCI) and the mixed-use character of Vail Village. Remonov intends to maintain commercial uses on the first and second floors of the building and proposes to utilize the third and fourth floors for a residential condominium. Contrary to the objectives of the original developer, Remonov does not believe office space on the third floor is a viable use for the property. The recent failure of the Vail Village Club would indicate that a club-type use is not a viable use for the third and fourth floors. Residential use on the third and fourth floors is also consistent with existing zoning for the property. In fact, the only permitted uses for levels above the second floor of a building in CCI are lodges and residential dwelling units. Alternative uses for the third and fourth floor are fairly limited by CCI zoning and by the design of the building. Designed as a single-use building, emergency egress to the fourth floor is dependent upon internal access through the third floor. As such, unless a new egress point to and from the fourth floor can be added to the building (a difficult, if not impossible proposition), the internal circulation between the third and fourth floor must be maintained. This egress situation has in large part dictated the applicant's proposal to establish one condominium unit within these two floors of the building. The GRFA variance is necessary because the existing square footage of the third and fourth floors exceeds the GRFA permitted on the property. The following summarizes the allowable and proposed GRFA for the building: Site Area - 4,646 square feet Allowable GRFA (80%) - 3,716 square feet Existing square footage of 3rd and 4th floors - 4.118 square feet Proposed GRFA Excess - 402 square feet While the existing building was constructed as approved by the Town, previously proposed uses for the building and the uses permitted by the CCI zone district have created a dilemma for how the third and fourth floors can be used. By zoning, the only permitted uses for the third and fourth floor are lodges and residential dwelling units. However, converting the third and fourth floors to residential in presently not possible because the existing square footage of these two is floors exceeds the allowable GRFA by 529 square feet. Regardless of the fact that the conversion of this existing space will be accomplished with no exterior changes to the building that would increase the height, size or bulk and mass of the existing building, a GRFA variance is technically necessary in order to facilitate this conversion. Prior to submitting this variance request, a variety of other alternatives for resolving this situation were first considered: 1. Reduce GRFA by removing floor area GRFA could be removed by physically removing a portion of the existing building. Given that the bulk and mass of the building has been approved by the Town, this alternative is far too extreme to be considered viable. 2. Propose an SDD The entire building was developed without the need for an SDD. To propose an SDD for a project that will not even involve physical expansion of the existing building does not seem to the be most expeditious alternative. 3. Increase Parcel Size Increasing the parcel size will increase the allowable GRFA. While technically possible, this alternative was eliminated due to potential issues and complications with the obtaining additional property and subdividing and re-zoning the parcels. 4. Reduce the GRFA on the 3Td/4#h Floors by changing uses GRFA could be eliminated by introducing some other use to the third or fourth floors in a manner similar to the third floor office space proposed by the original developer. However, this would require approval of a conditional use permit and Remonov believes third floor office space is not a viable use for the building. Concern over the viability of third floor office space was also raised by the Planning Commission during the 1995 review of the original development proposal. After careful consideration of the alternatives outlined above, the variance process was selected as the most appropriate mechanism for resolving this situation. As outlined in the following section, a variance is an appropriate process given the very unique situation with this property and the extreme hardship and practical difficulty that would result from strict and literal compliance with the zoning regulations. D. Variance Criteria/PEC Findings The following summarizes compliance of the proposal with applicable review criteria and PEC Findings necessary to approve a variance. Consideration of Factors 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 0 The proposed variance will not increase the height, size or bulk and mass of the existing building and as such, will have no affect on existing or potential structures. The proposed use is consistent with permitted uses for the CCI district and is consistent with uses on surrounding properties. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity pr to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The "degree of relief' from the CiRFA regulations is limited to only the existing square footage in the building -- no additional square footage is proposed for the building. Approval of this variance request will allow for resolution of a very unique situation and in doing so further the objectives of the zoning title by establishing a use on the third and fourth floors that is consistent with the permitted uses in the CCI zone district. The existing building in itself presents a significant physical hardship for the applicants. The design of the building which contemplated a single-use further complicates the conversion of this space. Due to other variances that have been approved in and around the Village Core over the years, approval of this variance would not be a grant of special privilege. IV 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposal will not increase the existing height, size and bulk and mass of the building. As such, the variance request will have no adverse affect on the above considerations. Approval of the variance will facilitate the conversion of this space from a quasi-public club to residential. This change in use will dramatically reduce the parking demand on the Vail Village Parking Structure. PEC Findings 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. The variance request complies with Finding 1. Previously approved variances in and around the vicinity of the subject property is typically considered the "test" for whether approval of a variance would constitute a grant of special privilege. In this case, a site coverage variance approved during the re-development of the adjacent Red Lion Building presents a good example of why this proposal would not be a grant of special privilege. As indicated in the March 13, 1995 staff memo regarding the original review of the Vail Village Club, the Red Lion site coverage variance was "warranted" in part because it was related to conditions associated with an existing building and not new construction --- the inference being that conformance with all applicable development standards can be more difficult when dealing with an existing building than it is in dealing with new construction on a vacant site. In the case of this application, the existing Vista Balm Building constitutes a physical hardship. Because existing floor area on the third and fourth floors exceeds allowable GRFA, this space cannot be used in accordance the permitted uses of the CCI zone district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The variance request complies with Finding 2. The proposal involves no changes to the existing height, size and bulk and mass of the building and as such will not be detrimental or injurious to properties in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. The requested variance complies with Findings 3. A. As outlined above, the GRFA regulation could be complied with by physically removing a portion of the third or fourth floors - an alternative that would present an extreme practical difficulty and an unnecessary physical hardship on the land owner. Another alternative for conforming with the GRFA regulation would be to introduce a different use, such as the previously proposed office use, on a portion of the third or fourth floors. While office use was approved for the third floor by the PEC in 1995, a number of PEC members expressed significant reservations about the viability of third floor office space and the applicant shares these concerns. This concern is further supported by the lack of precedent for third floor office or commercial space within the Village area. To pursue office use or some other conditional use for the third or fourth floors could in theory remedy the GRFA situation. However, this alternative would create a hardship for the applicant by "condemning" the building to a use that is not viable and destine to fail. The requested variance complies with Finding 3. B. The presence of the existing building and the "ill-fated" saga of previously proposed and ultimately failed uses for the property represent a set of extraordinary circumstances or conditions that would not apply generally to other properties in the district. J E. Summary The goal of the Remonov Company is to "pick up the pieces" of this project by establishing uses that are both viable and consistent with the development objectives of the CCI zone district. The introduction of residential use on the third and fourth floors is a big step in this effort. The viability of residential uses in the core area is well-established and such a use is also consistent with the "horizontal zoning" and mixed use character desired for the core area. The propose variance will not change the exterior appearance of the building in any material way. It will, however, allow the new owners of the property to move beyond the building's troubled past and establish uses that will work for the building and work for the Town by establishing a mixed use building in the Village Core. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 11, 1999 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, to allow for the construction of eleven fractional fee club units, seventeen accommodation units and twenty-one employee housing units, to be located at 1325 Westhaven Drive, Westhaven Condominiums/Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann Planner: George Ruther 1. BACKGROUND On August 24, 1998, Jerry Wurhman appeared before the Planning & Environmental Commission with a request for a final review of a proposed major amendment to Special Development District ##4. The proposed major amendment would allow for the construction of eleven fractional fee club units, fifteen accommodation units and twenty- one employee housing units, to be located at 1325 Westhaven Drive, Westhaven Condominiums/Cascade Village Area A. Upon consideration of the applicant's request, the planning and Environmental Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the major amendment to the Vail Town Council. Prior to appearing before the Vail Town Council for approval of the proposed amendments to SDD #4, the applicant appeared before the Design Review Board for a conceptual review of the design of the newly proposed Westhaven Club & Lodge. Upon consideration of the design of the new building, the Design Review Board directed the applicant to make several substantial changes to the design and layout of the building. The most significant changes included internalizing the proposed external walkways and relocating the entrance and the lobby to the street side (south) of the building. As a result of these changes, the proposal previously recommended for approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission, has changed. Staff believes that the changes from the earlier reviewed proposal are significant enough to warrant a re-review of the major amendment proposal by the Planning and Environmental Commission. A summary of the effects of the change on the development standards is illustrated in Section IV of this memorandum. 11. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Jerry Wurhman, is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village) pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 9A of the Town of Vail Zoning v TOWN OFY 6 Regulations. The major amendment is intended to modify a 1995 major amendment approval and the August 24, 1998, Planning and Environmental Commission recommendation for the Westhaven Club & Lodge, located at 1325 Westhaven Drive (the "Ruins"). The applicant is proposing to amend the 1995 Westhaven Condominium approval and the August 24, 1998, Planning and Environmental Commission recommendation to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club. The new fractional fee club is proposed to include: eleven, two-bedroom, fractional fee club units, seventeen, one-bedroom accommodation units, and twenty-one, one-bedroom employee housing units. The proposed fractional fee club units range in size from 1,285 to 1,975 square feet. The accommodation units are to be 605 square feet to 700 square feet in size with the majority being the smaller size. The employee housing units are proposed to be Type III units and are between 450 and 500 square feet each. The on-site manager's unit is more than twice the size of the other employee units and is 1,185 square feet in size. All of the employee units are intended to be one bedroom units. The applicant is proposing to meet the anticipated parking demand on-site. To meet this need, the applicant has proposed to utilize the existing lower level parking garage as well as provide surface parking on the north side of the building. At this time, the applicant is proposing 37 enclosed garage parking spaces and 15 surface parking spaces. Of the 52 total spaces, three parking spaces will be handicapped accessible. The anticipated parking need as projected by the applicant differs from the parking requirement prescribed for the various uses outlined within the Municipal Code. The Municipal Code requires 74 parking spaces total. The discrepancy between proposed spaces and required spaces is a total of 22 spaces. The applicant has proposed to meet the loading and delivery requirement on-site. According to the Municipal Code, one loading and delivery berth is required to be provided. The applicant has provided the one berth on the north side of the building at the west end of the surface parking lot. Minor modifications are required to the site plan to adequately accommodate the berth in the location proposed. The modifications shall be made prior to final Design Review Board approval. As this request is for an amendment to an existing Special Development District, the applicant is proposing various deviations from the required development standards. Some of the deviations are unchanged from the existing Special Development District approval, while other are to be modified as a result of the current request. The development standards that will be modified as a result of this request are: ® Density (dwelling units/acre) Parking Site Coverage Common Area All other development standards are generally the same. A complete analysis of the zoning statistics is provided in Section IV of this memorandum. 2 Ill. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND On March 2, 1976, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance #5, Series of 1976 establishing Special Development District #4, Cascade Village. Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, is made up of four development areas. Area A is made up of the Cascade Hotel, Cascade Club, CMC, Millrace Phases I through IV, Westhaven Condominiums, LiftsidefWaterford, and Cornerstone. Area B is the Coldstream Condominiums. Area C is made up of the Glen Lyon residential duplex lots. Area D is the Glen Lyon Office Building. According to the original ordinance, development statistics are prescribed for each development area. As a result, the site coverage stipulated for Area A, which is 35%, applies to approximately 18 acres. Rather than require the applicant to provide a site coverage analysis of approximately 18 acres, in the past, staff has applied the development statistics to each lot individually. This has been the practice since approximately 1990. The projects that have been reviewed under this method include Cornerstone, Waterford, Millrace Phase III and Millrace Phase IV. The advantage to this method is that it allows a calculation of the development statistics on the land that is being reviewed and does not require off-site analysis. In the previous examples, the proposals complied with the development statistics when calculated for the individual lots and the proposed drawings clearly conformed with the maximum development allowances provided for in the SDD. When the staff reviewed the development standards on the individual parcel for this project, there are four development standards which the applicant's proposal exceeds. These include density, parking, site coverage, and common area. The developer agrees that the request for additional GRFA is above what the SDD allowed. Staff continues to believe that it is most reasonable and appropriate to evaluate each parcel within each development area individually. From a record keeping point of view, staff believes that the development standards for each parcel should be calculated based on the area of the land under the proposed development site. This has been the method used historically. Notwithstanding the simplicity of this method, staff acknowledges that the site coverage and landscaping discrepancies identified in the memo should not be viewed as significant issues as, elsewhere within Area A, there is excess site coverage and landscaping which could hypothetically be shared. In 1982, the Town of Vail issued a building permit allowing for construction on the then undeveloped site. Construction continued through the partial completion of the foundation and lower level parking garage. No new construction has occurred since. On April 19, 1995, the Vail Town Council approved a major amendment to Special Development District #4. This amendment approval granted the applicant the ability to construct fourteen free-market condominiums and seventeen employee housing units. Additional deviations granted allowed for increases in GRFA, site coverage and landscaping. No action has been taken on this approval. This approval shall lapse and become void pending the outcome of the current application. On March 3, 1998, staff met with the Vail Town Council to discuss the proposed development review process and to provide the Council with an opportunity to provide initial feedback and direction to the applicant, staff and Planning and Environmental Commission regarding the major amendment request. The Council provided the following direction and feedback: 3 What is the anticipated construction timeline? If the site is not to be developed in a reasonable time period, the existing improvements need to be removed. 2. The parking requirement for the development shall be provided on-site. 3. A detailed plan outlining the proposed fractional fee club ownership pattern and operation shall be provided for review and consideration. 4. The proposed review process is acceptable. On March 8, 1998, the applicant appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission for a worksession meeting to discuss the current proposal. The purpose of this worksession was to discuss the following issues: The proposal's compliance with the Town's land use regulations. • The combination and integration of the three differing types of residential uses. The completeness of the major amendment application. The relationship of the proposed development with the existing improvements. g The Town Council's initial thoughts and comments as received on Tuesday, March 3rd, regarding the applicant's request. During this first worksession, the Commission members expressed their general satisfaction with the major amendment as proposed. The Commission did however indicate their concerns regarding the lack of an on-site front registration and reservation desk. The Commission requested that the applicant appear at a future meeting with detailed information indicating how the on-site front desk issue was to be addressed. According to Section 12-2-2 of the Municipal Code, a Fractional Fee Club is defined as, "A fractional fee project in which each condominium unit, pursuant to recorded project documentation as approved by the Town of Vail, has no fewer than six (6) and no more than twelve (12) owners per unit and whose use is established by a reservation system. Each of the fractional fee club units are made available for short-term rental in a managed program when not in use by the club members. The project is managed on-site with a front desk operating twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week providing reservation and registration capabilities. The project shall include or be proximate to transportation, retail shops, eating and drinking establishments, and recreational facilities." On April 27, 1998, the applicant again appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission for a worksession meeting to discuss the current proposal and the on-site front desk component. At that meeting, the applicant agreed to revised the proposal to provide an on-site front desk operation as required by Section 12-2-2 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. On August 24, 1998, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the previous proposal and unanimously recommended approval of the major amendment to the Vail Town Council. The amended development standards approved by the Town Council are compared to the original SDD approval, the August 24,1998 recommended proposal, and the current amended proposal and 4 I 11 Ll E are listed below: Deveiooment Standard 1995 Avoroval August 24. 1998 Prooosal Januarv 11. 1999 Prooos IV. ZONING ANALYSIS I DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS Lot Area: 0.85 acres or 37,026 sq. ft. Zoning: SDD ##4 (Cascade Village) Height: GRF'A: Free Market: Accommodation Fractional Fee: EHUs: Total: Common Area: Density: Free Market: Accommodation: Fractional Fee: EHUs: Setbacks: Site Coverage: Landscaping: Retaining Walls: Parking: Loading/Delivery: Employee Housing: 55' 55' 55' 25,644 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 9,550 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 13,860 sq. ft. 8.296 so. ft. 10,731 sq. ft. 33,940 sq. ft. (92%) 34,141 sq. ft. '(92010) 3,417 sq, ft. (10.1 %) 7,054 sq. ft. (21 %) 14 du's 0 au's 0 ffu's 17 EHU's 31 total units (16.71 du's/ac) 24' 0 du's 15 au's 11 ffu's 21 EHU's 47 total units (21.25 du's/ac) 24' 36.7% (13,598 sq. ft.) 38.3% (14,173 sq. ft.) 47.9% (17,767 sq. ft.) 47.9% (17,767 sq. ft.) none proposed 82% shall be enclosed 45 total spaces one required 17 EHU', similar to Type III restrictions none proposed 78% shall be enclosed 46 total spaces one provided 21 EHU', similar to Type III restrictions 0 sq. ft. 11,071 sq. ft. 16,090 sq. ft. 11, 528 sq. ft. 38,689 sq. ft. (104%) 8;769 sq. ft. (23% 0 du's 17 au's 11 ffu's 21 EHU's 49 total units (22.52 du's/ac) 36.6% (13,538 sq. ft.) 47.9% (17,767 sq. ft.) none proposed 71 % shall be enclosed 52 total spaces one provided 21 EHU's similar to Type III restrictions 5 for density calculation purposes, accommodation units are 0.6 du's, employee units are 0.333 du's and fractional fee club units and free market units account are 1 du each. Westhaven Club & Lodcie Stauare Footaae Analvsis Common Area AU DU EHU Total Parking Level 1,371 sq. ft. -- -- -- 1,371 sq. ft. lgt 1,970 sq. ft. -- -- 10,343 sq. ft. 12,313 sq. ft. 2nd 2,737 sq. ft. 4,009 sq. ft. 5,110 sq. ft. -- 11,856 sq. ft. 3rd 1,733 sq. ft. 3,863 sq. ft. 5,680 sq. ft. 1,185 sq. ft. 12,461 sq. ft. E 4th 958 sq. ft. 3,199 sq. ft. 5,300 sq. ft. -- 9,457 sq. ft. Total 8,769 sq. ft. 11,071 sq. ft. 16, 090 sq. ft. 11,528 sq. ft. 47,458 sq. ft. V. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS Pursuant to Section 12-9A-2 of the Municipal Code, in part, a major amendment is defined as, "Any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the number of dwelling or accommodation units; modify, enlarge or expand any approved special development district." Since the applicant proposes to change the uses and change the number of dwelling and accommodation units, staff has identified the applicant's request as a major amendment. In accordance with Section 12-9A-4, A-C of the Municipal Code, an approved development plan shall be required prior to construction. The approved development plan shall establish requirements regulating development, uses and other activities in the special development district. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall, conduct the initial review of the 11 6 amendment to the special development district. The review shall take place at a regularly scheduled meeting. Following the Planning and Environmental Commission's review, the Community Development Department shall forward a report to the Town Council stating the PEC's findings and recommendations on the amendment request. The Town Council shall then review the application based upon the information submitted. Approval of the application by the Town Council shall require two readings of the ordinance. VI. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REVIEW CRITERIA Title 12, Chapter 9 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code provides for the establishment of 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." The Municipal Code provides nine design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed Special Development District. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. The staff has addressed each of the nine SDD review criteria below: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Staff continues to believe that the applicant has designed a structure which relates well to the site and the surrounding neighborhood. The mass of the Westhaven Club & Lodge is appropriate for the site and takes into consideration the massing of the buildings on the adjoining properties. The building could step down more on the east and west ends to insure a smooth transition between properties and does not create an imposing "canyon" along property lines. The redesigned building with the front entry at the street should provide a more pleasant and identifiable entrance to the building. The exterior building materials of the Westhaven Club & Lodge are a mixture of stucco, stone and metal. The roof material is proposed to be a dark green standing seam metal roof. The applicant has shown flower boxes on the decks and balconies on the rendering. Staff would recommend that the flower boxes be a required accent element on the building. The window and door trim is proposed to be bronze metal cladding. The proposed balconies will be constructed of metal rails and pickets. Staff believes that the combination of building materials has been well incorporated into the design of the 7 Westhaven Club & Lodge. The applicant has proposed that the exterior stucco color be an off-white to yellowish/cream color to blend in with the exteriors of the other buildings and structures in the area. The final color shall be approved by the Design Review Board. The development standards for the original SDD indicate that the maximum height for buildings with sloping roofs shall be 55 feet. The applicant is continuing to request that the maximum building height for the Westhaven Club & Lodge be 55 feet, from finish grade. Staff believes that the height proposed by the applicant is compatible with the development and the development objectives of the Town. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The Westhaven Club & Lodge is located at the perimeter of the Cascade Tillage Development. The Westhaven Club & Lodge is bound on the east by the Cascade Health Club, on the west by open space and residential development and on the south by the Mill Race Condominiums, CMC, and the Tail Cascade Hotel & Club. The applicant is proposing a lodging, short term accommodation and residential development that is in compliance with the uses allowed in the original SDD and as amended. The applicant is proposing to develop the Westhaven Club & Lodge at a density of 22.52 dwelling units per acre. Included in the density figure are the eleven member-owned club units (fractional fee), the seventeen hotel rooms (accommodation units) and the twenty-one employee housing units including the on-site manager's residence. Each of the ehu's are to be Type III Employee Housing Units. The applicant's proposal differs greatly from the original SDD approval. The original approval allowed the applicant to construct twenty free market condominiums and only ten employee housing units. The current proposal significantly alters the use of the property from mainly second homeowner condominiums to a lodging and short term accommodation use of the site. Given the proximity of the development site to the amenities in the area, the Westhaven Club & Lodge is ideally located and suited for the proposed development. Overall, staff believes that the density and uses proposed by the applicant for the Westhaven Club & Lodge do not conflict with the compatibility, efficiency or workability of the surrounding uses and/or activities. In fact, staff feels that the proposed Westhaven Club & Lodge will enhance the existing uses and activities in the area. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Title 12, Chapter 10, of the Town of Tail Municipal Code. Parking and loading requirements for development are established in Section 12-10-10 of the Municipal Code. The parking and loading requirements are based on the square footage of the uses proposed within a building. Based on the square footage of the uses proposed by the applicant, 74 parking spaces and one loading/delivery berth are required on-site. The applicant is proposing an enclosed parking structure on the lowest level of the building designed to accommodate 37 parking spaces and 15 surface parking spaces on the north side of the building (52 spaces total). E On March 3, 1998, the applicant appeared before the Vail Town Council for a conceptual review and discussion of the current proposal. The Council indicated that the parking requirement for the development shall be met entirely on-site. The applicant is deficient 22 parking spaces on-site (52 spaces vs. 74 spaces). The applicant has indicated that ample parking will be provided to accommodate the anticipated demand. The anticipated demand is thought to be less than projected by the Municipal Code since it is believed many guests will arrive via shuttle services and that the parking standards address the fractional fee clubs as dwelling units instead of than accommodation units. Given Council's direction, staff would recommend that the applicant explore alternatives to the proposed parking situation and provide all of the required parking on-site. The applicant is now proposing one loading/delivery berth for service vehicles on the west end of the surface parking lot, located on the north side of the building. Staff feels that the newly proposed loading/delivery berth for service vehicles is a positive change, though we believe additional visual screening may be necessary. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plano, Town policies and Urban Design Plan. Vail Land Use Plan The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy guidelines during the review process of establishing or amending Special Development Districts. Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the following policies are relevant to the review of this proposal: 1. General Growth/Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water, and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgrade whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill). 3. Commercial 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 12 The Village and Lionshead are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skier. 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 11 9 5. Residential 5.1 Quality timeshare units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy rates up. Staff believes the proposed amendment of Special Development District #4 is in concert with the goals and policies of the Vail Land Use Flan as outlined above. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. There are no natural and/or geologic hazards, including the Gore Creek floodplain, that affect the applicant's property. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The site plan currently proposed has remained relatively unchanged from the previous major amendment proposal. The applicant has altered the surface parking area to comply with our recently amended development standards. The alterations to the parking area resulted in minor changes to the landscape plan. The changes made to the landscape plan do not affect the south side of the building which was highly scrutinized during the review process in 1995. The changes to the plan essentially result in better accommodations for snow storage on the site. A condition of the 1995 approval required the applicant to remove or underground the 40 overhead utility line adjacent to the development site and to regrade and revegetate the road cut at the northwest corner of the property. Pursuant to a general note on the site plan, the applicant has indicated a commitment to regrading the road cut after Holy Cross or others bury or remove the line. Staff believes that road cut and revegetation needs to take place at the time of construction of the Westhaven Club & Lodge. Staff would recommend that the applicant be required to either relocate the utility line or remove the line and complete the grading and revegetation. The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing street cut and entrance on the east side of the property adjacent to the Cascade Club. Currently, a boulder retaining wall is constructed along the entrance driveway. Staff would recommend that the applicant revise the site plan, grading plan, and landscape plan to reflect proposed improvements to the retaining wall. The existing wall is in disrepair and in need of work. This is especially important since this entrance will be the "front door" to the project. Staff would recommend that the proposed improvements to the wall be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer and the Design Review Board. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. The Westhaven Club & Lodge will have major impacts on the amount of pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the area. In light of the increase in traffic, the applicant has proposed off-site and on-site vehicle and pedestrian traffic systems surrounding the property. This 10 includes internal sidewalks on the property which enable safe and efficient traffic flow as well as a five-foot wide sidewalk from the Westhaven Club & Lodge to the entrance to the Cascade Club. Staff believes that pedestrian circulation will be substantially improved as result of the proposal. There is an existing portion of the Town of Vail bike path which crosses the south west corner of the applicant's property. At this time there is not an established easement for the bike path. Staff would recommend that the applicant be required to provide an easement for the bike path. The exact language and location of the easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney and Town Engineer prior to recordation with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's office. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The proposed landscape plan will have important beneficial impacts on the quality of the development site and the surrounding area. The existing site has been termed the "ruins" due to the dilapidated condition of the site. Staff would recommend that the final landscape plan be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. Staff believes the proposed streetscape improvements will improve and enhance the aesthetic quality of the area dramatically. 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Phasing of development is not proposed. The applicant is required to submit a construction phasing and staging plan to the Town prior to receiving a building permit. The plan will be used to ensure an efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses during the development of the Westhaven Club & Lodge. At the time of the Town Council's conceptual review, the Council expressed there concern and dissatisfaction with the current condition of the site. The existing 1995 amendment approval is due to lapse and become void pending the outcome of the current proposal. The lapse of the approval is in accordance with the Municipal Code which limits SDD approvals to a maximum of three years unless the project is diligently pursued towards completion. Staff would recommend that a maximum of a one year approval be granted for the current application. Unless work is diligently pursued on the project, the existing "ruins" shall be removed and the site restored by October 31, 1999. Vl. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend approval of the request for a major amendment to Special Development District #tt4, Cascade Village, located at 1325 Westhaven Drive to the Vail Town Council, The staff believes that each of the SDD design criteria continue to be met, as identified in Section V of this memorandum. 11 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to continue to recommend approval of the major amendment to Special Development District #4, staff would recommend that the following finding be made: The Planning and Environmental Commission has held a public hearing on the major amendment to Special Development District #4 request to allow for a fractional fee club and a change to the approved Development Plan, located at 1825 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominiums/ Cascade Village Area A, pursuant to Section 12-9A-4 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, and finds that the proposed major amendment complies with the design criteria outlined in Section 12-9A-8 of the Municipal Code, meets the definition of a fractional fee club as defined in Section 12-2-2 of the Municipal Code, and furthers the development goals and objectives of the Town of Vail. The staff has identified the following conditions of approval, which we recommend be included in a Planning and Environmental Commission motion. That the applicant submit a detailed contractor's cost estimate identifying the costs necessary to relocate the existing overhead utility line along the applicant's north property line underground, and that the applicant establish a financial bond with the Town of Vail in the sum of 125% of the said relocating costs to insure the undergrounding of the utility line. 2. That the applicant regrade and revegetate the knoll located at the northwest corner of the development site at the time of the final grading of the Westhaven Club & Lodge. Due to the exposure and aspect of the hillside, the knoll shall be regrading to slopes not exceeding 3:1. The regrading shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer. 3. That the applicant provide Type III Employee Housing Unit deed-restrictions , which comply with the Town of Vail Employee Housing Requirements (Title 12, Chapter 13, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code) for each of the 21 employee housing units, and that said deed-restricted housing be made available for occupancy, and that the deed restrictions be recorded at the Office of the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Westhaven Club & Lodge. 4. That the applicant submit detailed civil engineering drawings of the required off-site improvements (street lights, drainage, curb and gutter, sidewalks, grading, etc.) to the Town of Vail Public Works Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. That the applicant record a twenty foot (20') wide pedestrian/bike easement for that portion of pedestrian/bike path traversing the applicant's property and as identified on the Topographic Map prepared by Intermountain Engineering Ltd., dated 12/22/94, and that said easement be recorded at the Office of the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The exact location and language of the easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney and Town Engineer prior to recordation. 6. That the applicant provide written documentation from the Public Service Company granting approval of the construction of the Westhaven Club & Lodge in the location identified on the site plan relative to the high pressure gas line. Written approval shall be granted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 0 12 7. That the applicant record an access easement along the east property line for that portion of the driveway and access and trash enclosure which encroaches upon the adjoining property and that said easement be recorded at the Office of the Eagle County Clerk Recorder. The exact location and language of the easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney and Town Engineer prior to recordation. 3. That the applicant explore alternatives to the proposed parking plan and provide all of the required parking spaces (74) on-site as requested by the Fail Town Council. 9. That the final landscape plan and architectural elevations be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Design Review Board. % That the approval of this major amendment to Special Development District #4 shall become lapsed and void one year from the date of a second reading of an ordinance amending the district, and that should the approval lapse, the applicant shall be required to remove the "ruins" and restore and revegetate the site by no later than October 31, 1999. A bond providing financial security to ensure that said removal occurs shall be required following second reading of an amending ordinance. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to provide a cost estimate of the removal work. The bond shall be a minimum of 125% of the removal costs. 11. That the applicant revise and submit an amended site plan, landscape plan, and grading plan indicating improvements to the existing boulder retaining wall along the east side of the access driveway. Each of the plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Town staff and the Design Review Board. 13 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 11, 1999 SUBJECT: A worksossion to discuss a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4 (Cascade Village), revising the Glen Lyon Office Building site (Area D), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Kurt Segerberg Planner: Dominic Mauriello L DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is proposing to amend SDD #4, as it relates to the Glen Lyon Office Building property, Area D. The applicant is proposing to construct a 20,146 sq. ft. (gross) office building addition on the west end of the site and a 2,997 sq. ft. (GRFA) residential building with two EHU's (655 sq. ft. and 684 sq. ft.) and one condo unit (1,657 sq. ft.). A one car garage is proposed for the condo unit. The proposal also includes constructing a 98 space parking structure on the area of the existing parking lot. The parking spaces are proposed to be 8' wide, which is a deviation from our standard of 9' wide; aligning the entrance of the parking lot with that of the Vail Professional Building directly across the street; and re-stripping of the traffic lanes on the S. Frontage Road to accommodate turn lanes and bike lanes. The original Cascade Village SDD was approved in 1976 and has since been amended several times. The development plan approved in 1988 for this area included additional office space and a micro-brewery. On August 10, 1998, the PEC provided direction to the applicant to provide structured parking, substantially increase the square footage of office space, eliminate the proposed duplex development, and upgrade the architectural quality of the existing building. The Commission stated that adherence to the interior landscape provisions and the building height provisions of the previous approval could be varied. The Town Council gave very similar guidance to the applicant, at its September 1, 1998 meeting. Please refer to the Description of the Previous Approval and the Zoning Analysis for a comparison of the previous approval to the present proposal. 11 If. DESCRIPTION OF PREVIOUS APPROVAL (19$$) Staff has summarized the information for the Cascade Tillage SDD that pertains to Area D below: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7 8 9. Permitted Uses: Business and professional offices. Please note that other uses are also listed as allowed in the SDD. Density - Dwelling Units: Three dwelling units were previously allowed, two of which were employee dwelling units. Density - GRFA: The GRFA for the EHU's were to be a minimum of 795 square feet and 900 square feet. These dwelling units shall be restricted as Type III EHU's. The free market unit was not to exceed 1,630 square feet. Commercial Square Footage: Total office area for Area D was not to exceed 32,314 square feet. The existing building is 14,000 sq. ft. in gross area. Setbacks: Setbacks were to be as indicated on the approved development plans, which are as follows: N: 2 feet S: 8 feet E: 30 feet W : 15 feet Gore Creek: 50 feet Height: A maximum of 51 % of the roof was to have a height between 32 and 40 feet. A minimum of 49% of the roof area was to have a height under 32 feet. Site Coverage. No more than 37% of the total site area was to be covered by buildings. Landscaping: 60% of the area was to be landscaped. Parking: A minimum of one hundred spaces were to be located in the parking structure. Parking shall conform to Town of Tail parking requirements. Please note that there are other standards regarding parking tied specifically to the operation of the micro-brewery. 11 2 I E C n 111. ZONING ANALYSIS The development statistics for the proposed buildings in Area D are shown below: Lot Area: 73,307.31 sq. ft. Standard Allowed by SDD (oreviousiv) Proposed Difference Height: 51% max. 40 feet 40732' approx. (office building) NA 49% max. 32 feet 32' approx. (residential) Setbacks: Per development plan: NA N: 2 feet N: 29' (existing) 2' parking S: 8 feet S: 11' E: 30 feet E. 30' W: 15 feet W: 19' Stream Setback: 50 feet from centerline unknown NA Site Coverage: 37% or 28,974 sq. ft. 19% (15,028 sq. ft.) 13,946 sq. ft. Landscaping: 60% or 46,935 sq. ft. 55% (43,249.8 sq. ft.) 3,735.2 sq. ft. Parking: Per Mail regulations 97 req./ 98 provided 1 space Commercial Floor Area: (existing) 32,314 sq. ft. 34,146 sq. ft. total/gross -1,832 sq. ft. 24,232 sq. ft. leaseable (14,000 sq. ft. gross) Density: 1 free market DU allowed 1 dwelling units n/c 2 EHU's required 2 EHU's n/c GRFA: DU -1,630 sq. ft. 1,657.5 sq. ft. - 27.5 sq. ft. EHU's - 1,479 sq. ft. total min. 1,339.5 sq. ft. 139.5 sq. ft. Loading and Delivery: 1 berth required 1 provided n/c IV. DISCUSSION ISSUES 1. Building Height Building height is one aspect of the proposal that may exceed the development standards listed in the SDD. For the 1988 approval of the micro-brewery, building height standards were as follows: Maximum of 51 % of the roof was allowed to range from 32 feet to 40 feet. e A minimum of 49% of the roof was required to be less than 32 feet. 3 The applicant is proposing a building that ranges from 30'- 40' in height. The Arterial Business Zone District (across the street) has a similar standard for building height. That 10 district requires that 30% of the building under 32' and 70% up to 40' in height. The previous direction given by the PEC and the Town Council was that the previous limitation could be varied for this project. 2. Landscaping and Parking The Zoning Code requires that an area equal to 10% of the paved parking area be accommodated within the parking area in order to breakup the large expanse of pavement and provide landscaping to reduce the overall scale of the parking area. The applicant is now proposing a parking structure which makes this provision of landscaping problematic. The direction given by the PEC and Town Council is that this requirement could be waived. Staff recommends that due to the lack of landscape buffer width along the frontage road, high quality and larger plant materials be provided to buffer the parking structure. 3. Architectural Character The applicant is now proposing improvements to the existing building in order to create a consistent architecture across the site. The applicant will be making a presentation to the DRB, which is the appropriate body to review the proposed architecture. 4. Employee Housing The applicant is proposing this same quantity of employee housing units (2 EHU's) as was previously approved. The scale of the project and the type of use proposed will not generate as many employees as the previous approval, since that project included a micro-brewery and restaurant. However, the office use proposed will generate the need for employee housing. A recent study (June 1998) on Town of Vail businesses shows that professional offices in Vail, on average, operate with 5.86 employees per 1,000 sq. ft. of net leaseable floor area. With other SDD projects the Town Council has required that 30% of the demand generated be accommodated either on-site or off-site, in the form of deed restricted housing. The currently accepted standard for minimum square footage of housing required per person is 350 sq. ft. If we apply these numbers to this project we find the following: Entire Development: 24,232 sq. ft. (net leaseable floor area) x 5.86 employees/1,000 sq. ft. _ 142 employees Employees to provide housing for = 142 x 30% = 42.6 employees Translates to 14,910 sq. ft. of employee housing New Impact Only: 13,138 sq. ft. (net leaseable floor area) x 5.86 employees/1,000 sq. ft. = 77 employees Employees to provide housing for = 77 x 30% = 23.1 employees Translates to 8,085 sq. ft. of housing 4 Is it appropriate to evaluate the employee housing impacts of this development and to require employee housing? Is this evaluation a substantial departure in philosophy from the previous approvals (although the previous approval was made 10 years ago)? Staff had recommended that the applicant provide at least one EHU on-site, based on the previous approval, however, recent SDD's have been required to provide housing more in concert with the impacts generated (i.e., Austria Haus). Provide the applicant and the staff with direction on this issue. 5. Utilities The previous approval for this site required that all utilities be placed underground. Staff continues to believe that this should be required. This improvement should either be completed as part of this project or the applicant shall install the proper conduit with this development and provide a cash deposit or letter of credit insuring the under grounding within a reasonable period of time. 6. Snow Storage The current standard for snow storage being utilized by staff is an area equal to 30% of the paved parking area. These areas cannot conflict with trees and other impediments. The current plan does not accommodate snow storage. The applicant is proposing to temporarily store snow on-site and then have it hauled away. This has been approved in the past for the City Market and Safeway projects. Should the snow storage be accommodated on-site or should hauling of snow be allowed? Z Parking The parking spaces in the structure are proposed to be at a width of 3'. Our code requires a minimum of 9' in width for a standard parking space. The applicant has indicated that a reduction in parking space width is necessary to accommodate the amount of office space being proposed. With the required 9' in width per parking space, approximately 10 parking spaces would be lost, necessitating the removal of 2,500 sq. ft. of leaseable office space from the project. V. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST Titlel2, Chapter 9 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code provides for the establishment of 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. 5 The Municipal Code provides nine design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed 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. This criteria is provided for your information. Staff will fully evaluate these criteria upon final plan development. 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. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Title 12, Chapter 10, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan. Vail Land Use Plan The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Flan are to be used as the Town's policy guidelines during the review process of establishing or amending Special Development Districts. Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the following policies are relevant to the review of this proposal: 1. General Growth/Development 1,1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water, and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgrade whenever possible. 1.5 Commercial strip development of the Valley should be avoided. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill). 3. Commercial 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 6 4. Residential 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. 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. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed amendment to SDD #4, staff will not be providing a formal staff recommendation at this time. Staff will, however, provide a staff recommendation at the time of final PEC review. FF AEV ERYON E\P EC\M EMOS\99\G LOB 1 v 7 V 11I s. 61.,1.111, II• _.+l I IMrOtl - K II Illill Pt S. ubanu: a aS?iis a acWarsciVax mac ' .?rm?xwmv raoaai»wiu' 09 py I//y 3 O z II Rxvubvs = rz?ae ire SITE PLAN! - bNi: Y8 '[hakes n: f uatm -LtW LY. - 9aua Or = n t Ir `f r'r !? ?? ?? 1ntetetntg H1St+way -Z? ' rFP Assool ?ttxb4 ,.•..,.• . w . -... ue rurrr. SITE PLAN ' ?llis IrE pl4p,.?- mum ? to W ara j ^u ape. ?; M u R?? r k, Se er6erg ? _ Sppaeh " Arrhiitats f.G.AJA. ,? A pit910M`6UL f v a.1ufU a _ '. a -?u (?t F-T 1- - k i aFi". OFF. qy, UPPER iFVEd. SCA6C: //M H?9' . f t_ .t E i ks,U? l?-414 - =ia.n: ?1?9b °imtkl ro: I -. ka,.wo ?,: k 9MC1 ar 3 ?,neillG?Jll,.?, lA.LLin. ?? • ?. ....Ai ,iui. .?M,1 .LL n.?nG'ii u, I,ii+? x.11 IW tx.Ya, u, MIIl1..u lk, ,1411 -t y Pierce, - SlgltppblFL & ?_ - ArlAKK4 T.G•AXA. _ xi1aMlI?CRf - urruarc m+: rw?ina..r vu. cw«w.nar _ a?°..=rx.aa 11u G. _ - Dn 11Y6?1,roM ? ?ti {!Gt{I..,Ii r?II?fIJ (?)?{i?l? ! `'e _ rF ?k I 1 ?.l ? I{!1:!I.•{ir1; -rffl{f . 1 FTI ;cc O L9 = - 5 ?? Jtt - a I I ?liEC i 4 'f i ( - - I a - -M.L ?,? ?TnakN G? J 9a _ d gYtt ..?.°'Mtl'f.l '. :I Y' I. ??. ..?. ? ..r , , ay ,?nm.• Pnrr PA?Pnrl^'^o?n'?FIIII'lIR"' e. .,,,... ...... ..a,e,.,. +w ...,.wwiw ,,,, _ ...., ..u, . .. .,ua ?. u,?a, ,., u,., i., nu .. fIi ?!' - - - I I?{ Illlr [ i?il?l? ?'L,"`fL j"iik(II II lllli ?? ... ?P?L^1??? EEEEEE?????? ? 1t '? t, ?i_°---.,.-; •?e:-. _.,..,I 41}? tpill?_??Ef II • ?L_.!L 'LJ4?ILJ-Gf--1' _. ___ (L._J??L,?I?t_dPIP LJC_ LJL-IL? _. p'.`'?..,... b OTT ma'y'. i.o ?? I? lCl? y i. t Tai ? i 1 f ! ! I I . Ws.ur r:nF-, Amnoi4 4.-., ^? ? :Gc O wf LL ??... OD c a Q?f ?1 L L"-EL 1 fi .% v - aewu, vs•a?-v - wrehct«. Sp"F r.C,•A.I,& - .vcxmc,o?c ttANMitc ?. , knsuors NORTH EL£UA-nOrj wesr M.EvArlhly, O -A ? r ua - f E ' I ff AmwIff "III 4R? 71" fFtH EC,EVATION Sfi fk.EVATION = scut: va?r-a 8 - icnw?e o-r j - sn.a at i SeLerhPrL& = spp,?T la hiH A rc es P.C.•AJ.A. arTG'?M?MB? I2+IR+Ials f..?aYn+IVfmwu + IDSIa'IMU ? l!ow+Gfav 1 flpfM%wflf MIW W+f f V • p''c//idmre /krTT 1.l? a Da 77 ?Y jt+ e?d+Y+wyuela5+auu?'>WS4 '.?wYLL?.'.www.+awn.. ;..: i•?E;.-s•'?'": _ t.zACiflG .?C4'?7G=fi1RY ,fx VA _ ' _AZA 1 O ' _ Redeve o?ment Pro?osa Planning & Environmental Commission Memorandum 1/11/99 ToWNOFFAIL ?{ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 11, 1999 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment to Phase IV, located at 100 East Meadow Drive/Lots M, N, & O, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The applicant, Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson, is proposing a major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn. The major amendment is intended to facilitate the redevelopment of the existing Vail Village Inn, Phase IV Condominiums and allow for the construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel. The current proposal proposes to amendments to Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn Plaza only. No changes are proposed to Phases 40 1-111 or V. The Vail Plaza Hotel provides a substantial increase in the total number of short-term accommodation units in the Town of Vail. The applicant is proposing to construct 276 accommodation units (hotel rooms), 15 part-time fractional fee club units, and 1 condominium. The Vail Plaza Hotel also includes 2 restaurants; each with outdoor dining areas, 8,600 square feet of retail space along Vail Road and along an internal pedestrian mall, and a conference facility totaling 21,000 square feet in size, a 28,000 square foot full service spa and health club facility and approximately 394 underground parking spaces. According to the Town of Vail Municipal Code, it shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that any deviation from the development standards of the underlying zoning provide public benefits that outweigh the adverse effect of said deviation. The applicant has identified the public benefits the community will realize as a result of the redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn site. The public benefits identified by the applicant include: 1. An increase in the annual hotel occupancy rate through the redevelopment of an older, existing hotel. 2. A significant increase in the Town's supply of short-term, overnight accommodations to serve our guests and visitors. 3. The creation of a commercial/retail space link connecting the Vail Gateway Building and the Vail Village Inn Plaza commercial spaces to the pedestrian traffic along East Meadow Drive. E 1 TOWN 01 YAX 4. The implementation of the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan along the South Frontage Road, Vail Road and East Meadow Drive. 5. The construction of a world-class "anchor" hotel providing a high-level of guest service. 6. The creation of a major conference and convention center providing accommodations for upwards of 1,000 attendees and their families. 7. The construction of employee housing to off-set the demand resulting from the redevelopment of the hotel project. 8. A sizeable annual contribution to the Town's sales tax revenue 111. BACKGROUND In 1976, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 7, Series 1976, establishing Special Development Districts No. 6, Vail Village Inn, to ensure the unified and coordinated development of a critical site to the Town of Vail, as a whole, and in a manner suitable for the area in which it is situated. • In 1985, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 1, Series 1965, providing certain amendments to the approved development plan for Special Development District No. 6. • In 1987, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No.14, Series 1987, which amended and modified Section 8 relating to the allowed density of the development plan for Special Development District No. 6. is • In 1991, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 9, Series 1991, providing for certain amendments to the approved development plan for Special Development District No. 6, which relates specifically to Phase IV. In 1992, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 2, Series 1992, allowing for modifications and amendments to various sections of Special Development District No. 6 which related directly to Phase IV, and which made certain changes to the approved development plan for Special Development District No. 6 as they relate to Phase IV. An analysis of the 1992 approval is provided in Section III of this memorandum. When originally considering deviations from the underlying zoning in 1976, the Town Council found that such deviations were acceptable as the community was to realize a substantial increase in the hotel bed base. An increase in short-term accommodations has been a long standing objective of our resort community. The existing Vail Village Inn Phase IV is a mixed use development. The current uses on the site include 78 hotel rooms, a restaurant and bar comprising approximately 5,400 square feet, 1,950 square feet of commercial/retail area (Craig's Market), a surface parking lot and one residential condominium. The total square footage of the existing building is approximately 44,150 square feet. • 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, " 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 District is intended to provide sites for lodging units at densities not to exceed twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre. (Ord. 30(1977) § 7; Ord. 8(1973) § 7.100).,, 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. is Ill. 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 compliance with the Review Criteria outlined in the following section. The Community Development Department staff has prepared a Zoning Analysis for the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel. The Zoning Analysis compares the development standards outlined by the underlying zoning of-Public Accommodation to the applicant's proposed major amendment. it is important to note that the comparison is based on the area of Phase IV only, and the area of the Special Development District. 0 3 Vail Plaza Hotel Lot size: 1.467 acres or 63,902.5 sq. ft. (Phase IV only) Buildable area: 63,902.5 sq. ft. Development Underlying Zoning 1999 Major SDD Standard of Public Accommodation Amendment proposal GRFA: 80%0 or 51,122 sq. ft. 202%0 or 124,527 sq, ft. Dwelling units per acre: 25 du/acre 105 du/acre Site coverage: 55% or 35,146 sq. ft. 91 %n or 58,335 sq. ft. Setbacks: front: 20' 12' sides: 20' 0', 8' & 6' rear: 20' 8' Height: 48' sloping 85.75' sloping 87.5' (arch.proj.) Parking: per T.O.V. Code Section 394 parking spaces Loading: per T.O.V. Code Section six berths 12-10-13 Commercial sq. footage: 10% of allowable GRFA 6% or 8,265 sq. ft. or 5,112 sq. ft. IV. THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAJOR AMENDMENT PROCESS Chapter 12-9 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code provides for the amendment of existing Special Development Districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 12-9A-1, the purpose of a Special Development District is, "To encourage flexibility_and creativity in the development of land, in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas, and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail. Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a Special Development District, in conjunction with the properties underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development District.,, is According to Section 12-9A-2, a major amendment to a Special Development District is defined as, "Any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the number of dwelling or accommodation units; modify, enlarge or expand any approved special development district (other than "minor amendments" as defined in this Section), except as provided under Sections 12-15-4, ,.Interior Conversions", or 12-15-5, "Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance)" of this Title." The Municipal Code provides a framework for the amendment of a Special Development District. According to the Municipal Code, prior to site preparation, building construction, or other improvements to land within a Special Development District, there shall be an approved development plan for the Special Development District. The approved development plan establishes requirements regulating development, uses and activity within the Special Development District. Upon final review of a proposed major amendment of an existing Special Development District, a report from the Planning and Environmental Commission stating its findings and recommendations and a staff report shall be forwarded to the Town Council, in accordance with the provisions listed in Section 12-16-6 of the Municipal Code. The Town Council's consideration of the Special Development District shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code and approved by two readings of an ordinance. An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses and activities of the Special Development District. The development plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the Special Development District shall adhere. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to, the approved site plan, floor plans, building sections and elevations, vicinity plan, parking plan, preliminary open space/landscape plan, densities and permitted, conditional and accessory uses. The determination of permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council as part of the formal review of the proposed development plan. Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed Special Development District, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the properties underlying zone district. The Municipal Code provides nine design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed major amendment to a Special Development District. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. The staff has addressed each of the nine SDD review criteria below: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Staff believes the applicant has designed a structure which relates well to the site and the surrounding neighborhood. The mass of the Vail Plaza Hotel is significantly greater than that of the existing building on the site. However, staff believes the increased mass is appropriate for the site and takes into consideration the massing of the buildings on the adjoining properties, though the removal of the eight floor of the building would further increase the building's compliance. The applicant has modified the building mass by reducing the overall height of the structure and by lowering the roof eave lines, since first 5 reviewed by the Town Council. However, staff believes that additional height and mass can be removed from the building. The lowered roof eave lines match more closely to the eave lines of the adjoining buildings to the east, west and south, insuring a smooth transition between properties. The retail shops proposed on the east side of the Vail Plaza Hotel along Vail Road create a commercial connection between the pedestrian traffic on East Meadow Drive and the retail shops and restaurants in the Vail Gateway plaza. Staff believes that the commercial connection will result in increased street activity along Vail Road and greater pedestrian traffic to the commercial spaces in the Vail Gateway Plaza. Staff would suggest that the applicant and the Town of Vail Design Review Board re-examine the street fagade along Vail Road. Staff believes that additional architectural design measures could be taken to reduce the height of the proposed six story fagade. Staff would suggest that the fagade be redesigned to create a maximum of a three-story tall fagade with a step back in the building. The stepping of the building along Vail Road would create a more pedestrian-friendly street edge and help to reduce the perceived mass of the hotel. The exterior building materials of the Vail Plaza Hotel are a mixture of stone, stucco and wood. The roof material is proposed to be a greenish concrete the with copper flashing. The applicant has proposed to incorporate irrigated flower boxes and copper chimney caps into the design of the structure to serve as accent elements. A grayish-brown granite stone will be used around the base of the building. The use of non-reflective glazed windows all around the building reduces the potential of glare. The applicant has proposed that the exterior stucco color be an off-white or cream color to blend in with the exteriors of the buildings on the adjoining properties. Staff believes that the combination of building materials proposed has been well incorporated into the design of the Vail Plaza Hotel. The Town of Vail Design Review Board will have the opportunity to review is the building exterior prior to final approval of the hotel. The height of the Vail Plaza Hotel exceeds the allowable building height of the Public Accommodation Zone District by approximately 39 feet. The development standards for the underlying zone district indicate that the maximum height for buildings with sloping roofs shall be 48 feet. The applicant is requesting that the maximum building height for the Vail Plaza Hotel be approximately 87 feet tall. If the eighth floor were removed from the building, the overall height would be reduced to 78 feet tall. The building height is based on an interpolated topography of the Vail Village Inn property, and not the original topography of the site (pre-development). Original topography of the site is not available, as the site was.originally developed prior to zoning (and prior to the requirement that a topographic survey be submitted prior to development). Staff believes, based upon the topography in the vicinity of the development site, that the interpolated topography is reasonable and appropriate to use to determine building height. 6 r? Point Building Elevation A B C D E F C H I J K L M N C 228.3 243,6 257 257 244.3 247 218.3 247 237 208.3 224 213.6 227 224.3 237 Vail Plaza Hotel Building Height Existing Elevation Building Height Finished Elevation 173 173 171.25 169.5 168.5 169 170.5 166.5 165 162.75 162.5 157 156 158 159.75 **** (height of the architectural projection) 55.3 70.6 85.75 ****87.5 75.8 78 47.8 80.5 72 45.55 61.5 56.6 71 66.3 77.25 165 171 Building Height 63.3 47.3 According to the Vail Village Master Plan Conceptual Building Height Plan (attached), the site of Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn is in an area with conceptual building heights of 3- 4 stories, with a building story being approximately nine feet, excluding the roof. The applicant is proposing to construct an 8-story tall hotel. The Building Height Plan element of the Vail Village Master Plan, states in part, "Generally speaking, it is the goal of this plan to maintain the concentration of law-scale buildings in the core are while positioning larger buildings along the northern periphery (along the Frontage Road), as depicted in the Building Height Profile Plan (attached). The Building Height Plan also strives, in some areas, to preserve major views from public rights-of-way. The building heights expressed on the Illustrative Plan are intended to provide general guidelines. Additional study should be made during specific review processes relative to a building's height impact on the streetscape and the relationship to surrounding structures." In response to the general guidelines provided in the Vail Village Master Plan relative to building height, staff has requested that the applicant prepare a view analysis from eight different locations from the public rights-of-way (attached). This analysis provides a "before & after" depiction of the proposed building. In addition, a sun/shade analysis was prepared to illustrate the building's height impact on the surrounding streetscape (attached). The sun/shade analysis compares the height impact of the existing structures to the height impact of the proposed structures. The result of the comparison shows that substantially more of the streetscape along the South Frontage Road east of the roundabout will be shaded. The increase in shading results from the increase in building height, the increased encroachment into the front setback and the additional building mass proposed. To offset the impacts of the increase in shading during the winter months, the applicant has proposed to improve the pedestrian streetscape along the 7 South Frontage Road by installing heated sidewalks and drive aisles. To help mitigate the building's mass, the applicant has proposed to construct exterior decks and balconies along with providing horizontal stepping of the building along the South Frontage Road. With respect to the relationship to surrounding structures on adjoining properties, and at the request of the Planning & Environmental Commission, the applicant has removed 1 to 1 1/2 stories from the building and increased the vertical stepping of the building. The net effect of these changes results in the maximum height of the building being located in the center portions of the building away from the adjoining property lines and structures and the lowering of the roof eave lines to more closely match the roof eave lines of the adjoining buildings. Again, staff believes that the applicant has designed a building which relates well to the site and the surrounding neighborhood. Further, staff believes that the proposed building complies with the general guidelines and intent of the Conceptual Building Height Plan and the Building Height Profile contained in the Vail Village Master Plan. Much has been said regarding the potential "loss" of the "established view corridor" from the intersection of the South Frontage Road and Vail Road, as a result of the construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel. Staff believes that the true loss of the view occurred when the Vail Gateway Plaza was constructed. Through the construction of the five-story tall Vail Gateway Plaza, the view from the intersection was substantially lost. Staff believes additional development and building height behind the Vail Gateway Plaza will have minimal impacts on the remaining view. Additionally, while the Vail Village Master Plan discusses the importance of maintaining views from public rights-of-way, it did not establish a view corridor in the vicinity of the proposed development site, nor did intend to protect views from private property. The Town of Vail has six established view corridors and is proposing five additional view corridors in Lionshead, to be protected by ordinance. These protected view corridors are generally located in Vail Village and Lionshead. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The Vail Plaza Hotel is located within the mixed-use development of the Vail Village Inn Plaza. The Vail Village Inn Plaza is a mixture of retail, restaurant, office, residential and lodging uses. The Vail Plaza Hotel is bound on the east by Vail Village Tower Condominiums and the Vail Village Inn commercial buildings, on the west by the Vail Gateway Plaza and Vail Road, and on the south by the Phase V Building of the Vail Village Inn. Each of these buildings is a mixed-use development incorporating commercial/retail space with residential and/or accommodation units. The applicant is proposing a mixed-use development that is in compliance with the uses allowed in the underlying zone district. The underlying zoning of Public Accommodation encourages the development of lodges (accommodation units) and accessory eating, drinking and retail establishments at a density of twenty-five dwelling, units per acre. The applicant is proposing to redevelopment the Vail Plaza at a density of 105 dwelling units per acre, with 8,265 sq. ft of commercial/retail space, 21,000 sq. ft. of conference and convention space, one condominium, 276 hotel rooms, 15 part-time fractional fee units, and 394 underground, structured parking spaces. The applicant's proposal differs greatly from the existing density of the property. Currently, the Vail Village Inn includes only 78 accommodation units, and one dwelling unit, equaling 27.3 dwelling units per acre, a restaurant and a limited amount of commercial/retail space. Parking at the Vail Village Inn is accommodated by two surface 8 parking lots. An informal loading/delivery/trash area exists on the property. Emoiovee Housina Requirements As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives of the Town's Master Plans, providing affordable housing for employees is a critical issue which should be addressed through the planning process for Special Development District proposals. In reviewing the proposal for employee housing needs, staff relied on the Town of Vail Employee Housing Report. This report has been used by the staff in the past to evaluate employee housing needs. The guidelines contained within the report were used most recently in the review of the Austria Haus development proposal. The Employee Housing Report, was prepared for the Town by the consulting firm Rosall, Remmen and Cares. The report provides the recommended ranges of employee housing units needed based on the type of use and the amount of floor area dedicated to each use. Utilizing the guidelines prescribed in the Employee Housing Report, the staff analyzed the incremental increase of employees (square footage per use), that result from the redevelopment. A copy of the Suagested Emolovment Categories and Ranaes for Vail Exoressed as Emolovees oer 1000 Sauare Feet has been attached for reference. The figures identified in the Housing Report are based on surveys of commercial-use employment needs of the Town of Vail and other mountain resort communities. For comparison purposes, Telluride, Aspen and Whistler B.C. all have "employment generation" ordinances requiring developers to provide affordable housing for a percentage of the "new" employees resulting from commercial development. ,New" employees are defined as the incremental increase in employment needs resulting from commercial redevelopment. Each of the communities assesses a different percentage of affordable housing a developer must provide for the "new" employees. For example, Telluride requires developers to provide housing for 40% (0.40) of the "new" employees, Aspen requires that 60% (0.60) of the "new" employees are provided housing and Whistler requires that 100% (1.00) of the "new" employees be provided housing by the developer. In comparison, Vail has conservatively determined that developers shall provide housing for 15% (0.15) or 30% (0.30) of the "new" employees resulting from commercial development. When a project is proposed to exceed the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 30% (0.30) figure is used in the calculation. If a project is proposed at, or below, the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 15% (0.15) figure is used. The Vail Plaza Hotel special development district major amendment proposal exceeds the density permitted by the underlying zone district, and therefore, the 30% figure shall be used. The applicant has provided proposed employment figures for the operation of the redeveloped Vail Plaza Hotel. The applicant estimates a need for approximately 213 employees, plus an unknown retail need. A copy of the "Vail Villaae Inn Staffina Roster" has been attached for reference. n 9 EMPLOYEE HOUSING GENERATION ANALYSIS The staff analysis below indicates the top, the middle and the bottom of the ranges recommended by the Town of Vail Employee Housing Report, as well as a staff recommended figure which was used in determining the employee housing needs of the Vail Plaza Hotel. A summary of the Employee Housing Generation Analysis is as follows: Bottom of Range Calculations: a) Retail/Service Commercial 8,265 sq. ft. @(5/1000 sq. ft.) =41.3 employees b) Health Club =27,800 sq. ft. @(1/1000 sq. ft.) =27.8 employees c) Restaurant/Lounge/Kitchen =19,596 sq. fit. @(5/1000 sq. ft.) 98.1 employees d) Conference Center =21,208 sq. ft. @(1 /1000 sq. ft.) =21.2 employees e) Lodging =276 units @(.25/unit) =69 employees f) Multi Family (Club Units) =15 units @(.4/unit) =6 employees Total Employees =263.4 employees (-60 existing employees) =203.4 employees (X 0.30 multiplier) =61.02 new employees Middle of Mange Calculations: a) Retail/Service Commercial = 8,265 sq. ft. @(6.5/1000 sq. ft.) =53.7 employees b) Health Club 27,800 sq. ft, @(1.25/1000 sq. ft.) =34.8 employees c) Restaurant/Lounge/Kitchen =19,596 sq. fit. @(6.5/1000 sq. ft.) =127.4 employees d) Conference Center =21,208 sq. ft. @(1/1000 sq. fit.) =21.2 employees e) Lodging =276 units @(.75/unit) =207 employees f) Multi Family (Club Units) =15 units @(.4/unit) =6 employees Total Employees =450.1 employees (-60 existing employees) =390.1 employees (X 0.30 multiplier) =117.03 new employees 10 Top of Flange Calculations: a) Retail/Service Commercial =8,265 sq. ft. @(8/1000 sq. ft.) =66.1 employees b) Health Club =27,800 sq. ft. @(1.5/1000 sq. ft.) =41.7 employees c) Restaurant/Lounge/Kitchen =19,596 sq. ft. @(8/1000 sq. ft.) =157.1 employees d) Conference Center =21,208 sq. ft. @(1 /1000 sq. ft.) =21.2 employees e) Lodging =276 units @(1.25/unit) =345 employees f) Multi Family (Club Units) =15 units @(.4/unit) =6 employees Total Employees =637.1 employees (-60 existing employees) =577.1 employees (X 0.30 multiplier) =173.1 new employees Staff Recommended Ranae Calculations: The staff believes that the Vail Plaza redevelopment will create a need for 535 additional employees. Of the 535 additional employees, at least 160.5 employees (30%) will need to be provided deed-restricted housing by the developers of the Vail Plaza Hotel. 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; 2. the size of the Vail Plaza Hotel lodging component; 3. the level of services and amenities proposed by the developers for the guests of the Vail Plaza Hotel; and 4. the result of research completed by Town of Vail staff of similar hotel operations in the Vail Valley. a) Retail/Service Commercial =8,265 sq. ft. @(6.5/1000 sq. ft.) =53.7 employees (middle of range) b) Health Club =27,800 sq. ft. @(1.5/1000 sq. ft.) =41.7 employees (top of range) C) Restaurant/ Lounge/Kitchen =19,596 sq. ft. @(6.5/1000 sq. ft.) =127.4 employees (middle of range) d) Conference Center =21,208 sq. ft. @(1 /1000 sq. ft.) =21.2 employees (range does not vary) e) Lodging =276 units @(1.25/unit) =345 employees (top of range) f) Multi Family (Club Units) =15 units @(.4/unit) =6 employees (range does not vary) ------ ------------------------------ Total =595 employees (-60 existing employees) =535 employees (X 0.30 multiplier) =160.5 new employees 'Lodging has a particularly large variati services and amenities provided. on of employees per room, depending upon factors such as size of facility and level of service/support 11 Depending upon the size of the employee housing unit provided, it is passible to have up to two employees per bedroom. For example, a two-bedroom unit in the size range of 450 - 900 square feet, is possible of accommodating three to four employees. These figures are consistent with the requirements for the Type III employee housing units outlined in the Municipal Code. The applicant has indicated a potential need to provide the required employee housing for the Vail Plaza Hotel outside of the Town of Vail. The need to look outside of the Town is a direct result of the lack of available private land for developing employee housing in Town. The staff would suggest that the applicant and Planning & Environmental Commission discuss the possibility of building the required employee housing outside the Town. Staff would further suggest that the applicant and the Planning & Environmental Commission discuss providing a portion of the required employee housing on-site in the form of Manager's-types of units. Overall, staff believes that the density and uses proposed by the applicant for the Vail Plaza Hotel do not conflict with the compatibility, efficiency or workability of the surrounding uses and/or activities. In fact, staff: feels that the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel redevelopment will substantially enhance the existing uses and activities in the community. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 12-10 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Parking and loading requirements for development are established in Chapter 12-10 of the Municipal Code. The parking and loading requirements are based on the square footage of the uses proposed within a building. Additionally, the applicant is required via previous ordinances to provide the existing deficit in parking for the all of Special Development District #6. Over the years a deficit in parking spaces has been passed along pending the redevelopment of the site in question. The deficit in parking that the applicant will need to make up is a total of 75 parking spaces. Based on the square footage of the uses proposed by the applicant, 395 parking spaces are required on-site. The applicant is proposing an underground parking structure designed to accommodate 394 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing a total of six loading/delivery berths in two locations. One loading/delivery area is located on the east side of the building in an enclosed area and is designed to accommodate three trucks. This area can handle trucks up to 65-feet in length. The other loading/delivery area is located on the south side of the property between the proposed hotel and the Phase V Building. This area will accommodate three trucks parked in tandem. Both areas are designed to be loading/delivery sites for the entire Vail Village Inn Plaza development. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban Design Plan. Vail Land Use Plan The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy guidelines during the review process for a major amendment to an existing special 12 development district. Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the following policies are relevant to the review of this proposal: 1. General Growth/development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water, and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgrade whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 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. 4. Village +Core/Lionshead 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. 4.2 increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through the implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. 5. Residential 5.1 Quality timeshare units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy rates up. 5.2 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with 13 appropriate restrictions. The Vail Land Use Plan projects a need for additional lodging units in the Town of Vail. While the statistical information used to project need is most likely, outdated, staff believes there continues to be a need for additional lodging units in the Town of Vail. The Plan projected a need for a total of 395 additional lodging units by the year 2000. The Plan further suggests that increased density for commercial, residential and lodging uses in the Village/Lionshead Core areas would be acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is being preserved. Staff believes the proposed major amendment of Special Development District (#6) is in concert with the goals and policies of the Vail Land Use Plan as outlined above. Vail Villaoe Master Plan The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide to the staff, review boards and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with the such development. The most significant elements of the Master Plan are the goals, objectives, policies and action steps. They are the working tools of the Master Plan. They establish the broad framework and vision, but also layout the specific policies and action steps that will be used to implement the Plan. As noted on page 35 of the Master Plan, "!t is important to note that the likelihood of project approval will be greatest for those proposals that can fully comply with the Vail Village Master Plan." Staff believes this statement re-emphasizes that the Master Plan is a general document providing advisory guidelines to aid the Town in analyzing. development proposals. The staff has identified the following goals, objectives and policies as being relevant to this proposal: Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity, 1.1 Obiective: Implement a consistent Development Review Process to reinforce the character of the Village. 1.1.1 Policv: Development and improvement projects approved in the Village shall be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and design considerations as outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.2 Obiective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.2.1 Policv: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the action plan as is consistent with the 14 Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.3 Obiective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Policv: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. 2.1 Obiective: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub- areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. 2.3 Obiective: Increase the number of residential units available for short- term, overnight accommodations. E 2.3.1 Policv: The development of short-term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short-term overnight rental. 2.4 Obiective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.5 Obiective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2.5.1 Policv: Recreation amenities, common areas, meeting facilities and other amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as a part of any redevelopment of lodging properties. 2.6 Obiective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 2.6.1 Policv: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redeveloped project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. C Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Villages 3.1 Obiective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 15 3.1.1 Policv: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.1.3 Policv: Flowers, trees, water features and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas. 3.2 Obiective: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the greatest extent possible. 3.2.1 Policv: Vehicular traffic will be eliminated or reduced to absolutely minimal necessary levels in the pedestrianized areas of the Village. 3.4 Obiective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.2 Policv: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. Goal #4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. 4.1 Obiective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. 4.1.4 Policv: Open space improvements, including the addition of accessible green space as described or graphically shown in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Urban Design Guide Plan, will be required in conjunction with private infill or redevelopment projects. Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village, 5.1 Obiective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. 5.1.1 Policy: For new development that is located outside of the Commercial Gore 1 Zone District, on-site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the Zoning Code. 16 5.1.5 Policv: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. 6.1 Obiective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. Vail Villaoe Master Plan Buildina Height Plan Generally speaking, it is the goal of the Building Height Plan to maintain the concentration of low-scale buildings in the Core area, while positioning larger buildings along the northern periphery. According to the Conceptual Building Height Plan contained within the Vail Village Master Plan, the Vail Plaza Hotel is located within an area proposed to have building heights with a maximum range of three to four stories. A building story is defined as 9' of height, not including the roof. Vail Villaoe Master Plan Action Plan The Action Plan graphically expresses a summary of possible development which would be consistent with the elements of the Vail Village Master Plan. It is not an ail-inclusive list, nor is it intended to restrict proposals that are not identified on the Action Plan. It is 40 intended to provide suggestions and to act as a guide for implementing the Master Plan. The Vail Plaza Hotel is located in sub-area #1 of the Action Plan. Sub-area #1 is the mixed use activity center for Vail Village. It is distinguished from the Village core by the larger scale buildings. The area is further distinguished by the mixture of residential/lodging and commercial activity. According to the Plan, a significant increase in the Village's overnight bed base will occur within the area. According to the Action Plan, the Vail Plaza Hotel property is located within the mixed-use sub-area concept area #1-1. This concept area is, "an area intended for the completion of the final phase of the Vail Village Inn as established by the development plan Special Development District #6. Commercial development at ground level to frame the interior plaza with greenspace. The mass of buildings shall "step-up" from the existing pedestrian scale along Bast Meadow Drive to 4- 5 stories along the south Frontage Road. The design of the development must be sensitive to maintaining a view to Vail Mountain from the 4-way stop (aka roundabout). Special emphasis should be placed on the following objectives: Vail Village Design Considerations The Town of Vail adopted the Vail Village Design Considerations in 1980. The Design Considerations were revised in 1993. The Design Considerations are considered an integral part of the Vail Village Urban Design Plan. The Design Considerations are intended to: guide growth and change in ways that will enhance and preserve the essential qualities of the Village; and 17 serve as design guidelines instead of rigid rules of development; and help influence the form and design of buildings. The Vail Village Design Considerations are divided into two categories (urban design considerations and architectural/landscape considerations); 1. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS These considerations relate to general, large-scale land use planning issues, as well as form considerations which affect more than one property or even whole areas. These considerations are primarily the purview of the Planning and Environmental Commission. A. PEDESTRIANIZATION A major objective for Vail Village is to encourage pedestrian circulation through an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways. Many of the improvements recognized in the Urban Design Guide Plans, and accompanying Design Considerations, are to reinforce and expand the quality of pedestrian walkways throughout the Village. Since vehicular traffic cannot be removed from certain streets (bus routes, delivery access), a totally care-free pedestrian system is not achievable throughout the entire Village. Therefore, several levels of pedestrian ization have been identified. The level of pedestrianization most appropriate for the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel redevelopment is separated use and joint vehicle/pedestrian use of the roadway. • Staff Resaonse_ The applicant has met with the Town staff to discuss pedestrian improvements. The staff has concluded that the improvements recommended for the South Frontage Road, Vail Road and East Meadow Drive in the 1991 Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan should be implemented. This includes constructing a heated brick paver sidewalk with landscape planters along Vail Road; a partially heated decorative paver sidewalk from the western property line of Phase IV to the eastern property line of Phase III with the remainder of the sidewalk continuing to Village Center Road unheated; landscaping along the South Frontage Road adjacent to Phases III & IV; and streetscape improvements on public property along East Meadow Drive from the western corner of the Rase Mountain Sports retail space to the intersection of at Vail Road. The final materials used in the construction of the improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. B. VEHICLE PENETRATION To maximize to the extent possible, all non-resident traffic should be routed along the Frontage Road to Vail Village/Lionshead Parking Structures. In conjunction with pedestrian ization objectives, major emphasis is focused upon reducing auto penetration into the center of the Village. Vail Road and Vail Valley Drive will continue to serve as major routes for service and resident access to the Village. Road constrictions, traffic circles, signage, and other measures are indicated in the Guide Plans to visually and physically discourage all but essential vehicle penetration upon the Frontage Road. Alternative access points and private parking relocation, where feasible, should be considered to further reduce traffic conflicts in the Village. 18 • Staff Resoonse: The redevelopment of the Vail Plaza Hotel will increase vehicular traffic in the Main Vail Roundabout and on the South Frontage Road. According to the "Conclusion and Recommendations" contained in the Traffic Impact Analysis Hail Plaza Hotel Redevelopment, prepared by Felsberg, Holt & Ulievig: • The total projected trips consist of subtracting the existing 1042 trips from the proposed 3082 site generated trips. Two roadway improvements will be necessary at the main access onto the Frontage Road. The first includes modification to the center median to provide a storage area for vehicles turning left out of the site. This will allow for a two-step left turn with less delay. The second is an exclusive right turn lane into the site for eastbound traffic. This exclusive right turn lane will remove turning traffic from the through traffic lanes thereby improving safety characteristics. • The roundabout will not be adversely affected by the proposed site traffic. The site traffic will consist of approximately one percent of the total traffic in the roundabout in the year 2015. • The auxiliary lane east of the site for right turning vehicles needs to be extended west to the second access. This lane will be used for delivery trucks backing into the site. This lane and the delivery driveway in which it will serve should be designed to allow backing activity without impacting the eastbound through traffic. Physical separation should be considered between the through lane and the auxiliary lane where backing would be taking place." A complete copy of the report has been attached for reference. Staff agrees with the traffic engineer's assessment of the potential traffic impacts. While there will likely be an increase in traffic on the South Frontage Road, there will not be an increase in traffic on the pedestrian portion of East Meadow Drive. The applicant will be required to implement the mitigation measures recommended by the Traffic Engineer should the major amendment be approved. Staff feels the applicant has addressed traffic issues to the extent possible. C. STREETSCAPE FRAMEWORK 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. Infiil commercial storefronts, expansion of existing buildings, or new infiil development to create new commercial activity generators to give streetlife and visual interest, as attractions at key locations along pedestrian routes. It is not intended to enclose all Village streets with buildings as in the core areas. Nor is it 19 desirable to leave pedestrian streets in the open in a somewhat undefined condition evident in many other areas of Vail. Rather, it is desired to have a variety of open and enclosed spaces, both built and landscaped, which create a strong framework for pedestrian walks, as well as visual interest and activity. Staff Resoonse: The Vail Plaza Hotel redevelopment improves the streetscape framework through the creation of new commercial activity and enhanced visual interest along Vail Road. As stated previously, staff believes the proposed redevelopment creates the critical commercial connection between Vail Gateway Plaza and East Meadow Drive and provides new street life where very little currently exists. D. STREET ENCLOSURE While building facade heights should not be uniform from building to building, they should provide a "comfortable" enclosure for the street. Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms, whose walls are formed by the buildings. The shape and feel of these "rooms" are created by the variety of heights and massing (3- dimensional variations), which give much of the visual interest and pedestrian scale unique to Vail. Very general rules, about the perception of exterior spaces have been developed by designers, based on the characteristics of human vision. They suggest that:. "an external enclosure is most comfortable when its walls are approximately 1 /2 as high as the width of the space enclosed; if the ratio falls to 1 /4 or less, the space seems unenclosed; and if the height is greater than the width it comes to resemble a canyon". In actual application, facades are seldom uniform in height on both sides of the street, nor is this desired. Thus, some latitude is appropriate in the application of this 1 /2 to 1 ratio. Using the average facade height on both sides will generally still be a guide to the comfortableness of the enclosure being created. In some instances, the "canyon" effect is acceptable and even desirable. For example, as a short connecting linkage between larger spaces, to give variety to the walking experience. For sun/shade reasons it is often advantageous to orient any longer segments in a north/south direction. Long canyon streets in an east/west direction should generally be discouraged. When exceptions to the general height criteria occur, special consideration should be given to create a well-defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis to overcome the "canyon" effect. Canopies, awnings, arcades and building extensions can all create a pedestrian focus and divert attention from the upper building heights and "canyon" effect. Staff Resoonse: Vail Road and the sidewalks on either side, adjacent to the Vail Plaza Hotel, averages approximately 70 feet in width. The Vail Plaza Hotel (eaveline) along Vail Road is approximately 44 feet in height. Given that the Nine Vail Road Condominiums are not constructed parallel with Vail Road and proposed landscaping at the ground level of the 20 proposed building, staff believes the Vail. Plaza Hotel creates a "comfortable" enclosure of the street and does not create an undesirable "canyon" effect. However, staff does believe there is an opportunity to reduce the apparent height of the eaveline along Vail Road. Staff would suggest that the applicant create an eleven foot step back in the building at Level 3 on the south wing and at Level 4 on the north wing. The result of creating the step back in the building will reduce the apparent height of the building along Vail Road and provide additional visual interest to the west elevation. E. STREET EDGE Buildings in the Village core should form a strong but irregular edge to the street. Unlike many American towns, there are no standard setback requirements for buildings in Vail Village. Consistent with the desire for intimate pedestrian scale, placement of portions of a building at or near the property line is allowed and encouraged to give strong definition to the pedestrian streets. This is not to imply continuous building frontage along the property line. A strong street edge is important for continuity, but perfectly aligned facades over too long a distance tends to be monotonous. With only a few exceptions in the Village, slightly irregular facade lines, building jogs, and landscaped areas, give the life to the street and visual interest for pedestrian travel. Where buildings jog to create activity pockets, other elements can be used to continue the street edge: low planter walls, tree planting, raised sidewalks, texture changes in ground surface, arcades, raised decks. Plazas, patios, and green areas are important focal points for gathering, resting, orienting and should be distributed throughout the Village with due consideration to spacing, sun access, opportunities for views and pedestrian activity. Staff Resoonse: The Vail Plaza Hotel has street frontage along Vail Road and the South Frontage Road. The remainder of the building has building fronts internal to the development. The edge of the building has been designed at the street level to be varied and irregular through the use of recessed entries, arched arcades at the store fronts and horizontal steps in the building foot print. Staff believes that at the street level the design of the building conforms with the intent of the street edge design consideration. However, staff feels that more could be done above the street level to reduce the tall vertical mass. As discussed in the previous design consideration, a step in the building could be created around the building's mid-point to continue the irregular mass vertically up the building. F. BUILDING HEIGHT Vail Village is perceived as a mix of two and three story facades, although there are also four and five story buildings. The mix of building heights gives variety to the street, which is desirable. The height criteria are intended to encourage height in massing variety and to discourage uniform building heights along the street. Staff.Resgonse: As discussed previously, the Vail Plaza Hotel exceeds the allowable building height prescribed for the Public Accommodation Zone District. However, staff does not feel that 21 the proposed height of the Vail Plaza Hotel is excessive, given the location of the building at the northern periphery of the Village core, the removal of the eighth floor and the height of the buildings on the adjoining properties. Again, as stated earlier, the overall height of the building could be reduced by removing the portion of the condominium on the uppermost level. The applicant has submitted a scale model of the Vail Plaza Hotel in its Village context and this model will be available for use by the Planning & Environmental Commission during the final review process. G. VIEWS AND FOCAL POINTS Vail's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, creeks and other natural features are reminders to our visitors of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, are orientation reference points. Certain building features also provide important orientation references and visual focal points. The most significant view corridors in the Village have been adopted as part of Chapter 12-22 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The view corridors adopted should not be considered exhausted. When evaluating a development proposal, priority should be given to an analysis of the impacted project on public views. Views that should be preserved originate from either major pedestrian areas or public spaces, and include views of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, the Clock Tower, the Rucksack Tower and other important man-made and natural elements that contribute to the sense of place associated with Vail. These views, which have been adopted by ordinance, were chosen due to their significance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reference points for pedestrians. Development in Vail Village shall not encroach into any adopted view corridor, unless approved under Chapter 12-22. Adopted corridors are listed in Chapter 12-22 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Whether affecting adopted view corridors or not, the impact of proposed development on views from public ways and public spaces must be identified and considered where appropriate. Staff Resoonse; Although not directly impacting one of the five adopted view corridors, as listed in Chapter 12-22 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the height of the building will have impacts on the view from various locations near the roundabout. Public views of Vail Mountain will be partially blocked from these areas. Again, a view analysis has been completed depicting "before and after' conditions. Overall, given the building's location, staff feels that the Vail Plaza Hotel complies with the intent of the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations. H. SERVICE AND DELIVERY Any building expansion should preserve the functions of existing service alleys. The flew service alleys that exist in the Village are extremely important to minimizing vehicle congestion on pedestrian ways. The use of, and vehicular access to, those alleys should not be eliminated except where functional alternatives are not provided. In all new and remodeled construction, delivery which avoids or reduces impacts on pedestrian ways should be explored; and adopted whenever practical, for immediate or future use. Rear access, basement and below ground delivery corridors reduce congestion. Weather protection increases delivery efficiency substantially. Below grade delivery corridors are found in a few buildings in Vail Village {Sitzmark/Gore 22 Creek Plaza, Village Center, Vail Village Inn). Consideration should be given to extending these corridors, where feasible, and the creation of new ones. As buildings are constructed or remodeled, the opportunity may exist to develop segments of a future system. Staff Resoonse: Through the course of staff's review of the Vail Plaza Hotel redevelopment proposal, several loading and delivery options were explored. The applicant had originally proposed to provide far fewer berths than what the current design proposes. However, the applicant has amended the plans to provide a total of six berths on the property. These six berths will be able to be utilized by the entire Vail Village Inn Plaza and are connected via a series of elevators and below grade areas. The service areas are located away from areas of major pedestrian activity. The main service area is adjacent to the South Frontage Road in an enclosed facility. SUN/SHADE Due to Vail's alpine climate, sun is an important comfort factor, especially in winter, fall and spring. Shade areas have ambient temperatures substantially below those of adjacent direct sunlight areas. On all but the warmest of summer days, shade can easily lower temperatures below comfortable levels and thereby, negatively impact use of those areas. All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the spring and fall shadow line (March 21 - September 23) on adjacent properties or the public right-of-way. In all building construction, shade shall be considered in massing and overall height consideration. Notwithstanding, sun/shade considerations are not intended to restrict building height allowances, but rather to influence the massing of buildings, Limited height exceptions may be granted to meet this criteria. Staff Resoonse: Although the proposed height of the building will diminish the amount of sun, and likewise increase shading, along the South Frontage Road (north side of the project), the provision of heated public walkways effectively mitigates this consideration, thus providing ice-free and snow-free sidewalks. Overall, staff believes the applicant's proposal complies with the above-described considerations. 2. ARCHITECTURE/LANDSCAPE CONSIDERATIONS ROOFS Where visible, roofs are often one of the most dominant architectural elements in any built environment. In the Village, roof form, color and texture are visibly dominant, and generally consistent, which tends to unify the building diversity to a great degree. The current expression, and objective, for roofs in the Village is to form a consistently unifying 23 backdrop for the architecture and pedestrian streetscape, and to avoid roofs which tend to stand out individually or distract visually from the overall character. Roof Forms, Roofs within the Village are typically gable in form and of moderate-to-law pitch. Shed roofs are frequently used for small additions to larger buildings. Free-standing shed roofs, butterfly roofs and flat roofs, can be found in the Village, but they are generally considered to be out of character and inappropriate. Hip roofs likewise, are rare and generally inconsistent with the character of the Core Area. Towers are exceptions, in both form and pitch, to the general criteria, but do have an established local vernacular-style which should be respected. Staff Response The roof form of the Vail Plaza Hotel is a mixture of gables, barrel vaults and clipped hips. While a hip roof is generally considered inconsistent with the character of the Village, the applicant believes this roof form helps to reduce the mass of the building and blends well with the roof forms of the surrounding buildings Pitch Roof slopes in the Village typically range from 3/12 to 6/12, with slightly steeper pitches in limited applications. Again, for visual consistency this general 3/12-6/12 range should be preserved. Staff Resoonse The pitch of the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel roof is 7/12 and is generally in compliance with this guideline. Overhangs Generous roof overhangs are also an established architectural feature in the Village - a traditional expression of shelter in alpine environments. Roof overhangs typically range from 3 to 6 feet on all edges. Specific design consideration should be given to protection of pedestrian ways adjacent to buildings. Snow slides and runoff hazards can be reduced by roof orientation, gutters, arcades, etc. Overhang details are treated with varying degrees of ornamentation. Structural elements such as roof beams are expressed beneath the overhangs, simply or decoratively carved. The roof fascia is thick and wide, giving a substantial edge to the roof. Staff Response, The overhangs on the Vail Plaza Hotel varying, depending on location, and are generally four feet in depth. The overhangs are supported by timber bracing which adds character and visual interest to the overall appearance of the building. Staff believes that the proposal complies with the above-described criteria. 24 n Compositions The intricate roofscape of the Village as a whole is the result of many individual simple roof configurations. For any single building a varied, but simple composition of roof planes is preferred to either a single or a complex arrangement of many roofs. As individual roofs become more complex, the roof attracts visual attention away from the streetscape and the total roofscape tends toward "busyness" rather than a backdrop composition. Staff Resoonse The roof form on the Vail Plaza Hotel would be considered a simple composition of roof planes. Staff believes the roof composition proposed by the applicant is consistent with the intent of this architectural consideration. Steooed Roofs As buildings are stepped to reflect existing grade changes, resulting roof steps should be made where the height change will be visually significant. Variations which are too subtle appear to be more stylistic than functional, and out of character with the more straight-forward roof design typical in the Village. Staff Resoonse The Vail Plaza Hotel site is relatively flat (by Vail standards). While the building does not need to step to follow the topography, vertical and horizontal steps and dormers have been incorporated into the roof design. The vertical and horizontal steps and dormers provide a reduction in the overall mass of the building and adds to the architectural and visual interest of the building. Staff believes that the stepped roofs of the Vail Plaza Hotel comply with the intent of the above- described criteria. Materials Wood shakes, wood shingles, and built-up tar and gravel are almost exclusively used as roof materials in the Village. For visual consistency, any other materials should have the appearance of the above. Staff Resoonse Most recently, wood shakes and wood shingles are being discouraged for use as a roofing material due to fire safety concerns. At the recommendation of the Town of Vail Fire Department, the staff has been encouraging developers to use gravel, asphalt, tile, metal and other more fire-resistant roofing materials on new buildings. The applicant is proposing to use green concrete tiles on the roof of the hotel. The tiles will be similar in appearance to those used on the recent redevelopment of the Austria Haus. The staff believes this is an appropriate roof material to use on this project. Construction Common roof problems and design considerations in this climate include; - snowslides onto pedestrian walks - roof dams and water infiltration - gutters freezing - heavy snow loads 25 Careful attention to these functional details is recommended, as well as familiarity with the local building code, proven construction details, and Town ordinances. For built-up roofs, pitches of 4/12 or steeper do not hold gravel well. For shingle roofs, pitches of 4/12 or shallower often result in ice dims and backflow leakage under the shingles. Cold-roof construction is strongly preferred, unless warm-roof benefits for a specific application can be demonstrated. Cold-roofs are double-roofs which insulate and prevent snow Melt from internal building heat. By retaining snow on the roof, many of the problems listed can be reduced. Periodic snow removal will be required and should be anticipated in the design. Roof gutters tend to ice-in completely and become ineffective in the Vail climate, especially in shaded north-side locations. Heating the interior circumference with heat-tape elements or other devices is generally necessary to assure adequate run-off control in colder months. Staff Resoonse; The applicant is proposing a cold-roof construction atop the Vail Plaza Hotel. Through the review of a building permit, staff will ensure the roof construction complies with the standards prescribed for the Vail climate. FACADES Materials Stucco, brick, wood (and glass) are the primary building materials found in the Village. While not wishing to restrict design freedom, existing conditions show that within this small range of materials much variation and individuality are possible while preserving a basic harmony. Too many diverse materials weaken the continuity and repetition which unifies the streetscape. Of the above materials, stucco is the most consistently used material. Most of the buildings in the Village exhibit some stucco, and there are virtually no areas where stucco is entirely absent. It is intended to preserve the dominance of stucco by its use in portions, at least, of all new facades, and by assuring that other materials are not used to the exclusion of stucco in any sub- area within the Village. Staff Response The exterior materials proposed by the applicant are a combination of stone, stucco and wood. No one material is proposed to dominate the exterior of the hotel. Staff believes the applicant has complied with this particular architectural consideration. Color There is greater latitude in the use of color in the Village, but still a discernible consistency within a general range of colors. For wood surfaces, trim or siding, darker color tones are preferred - browns, greys, blue-greys, dark olive, slate-greens, etc. Stucco colors are generally light - white, beige, pale-gold, or other light pastels. Other light colors could be appropriate, as considered on a case-by-case basis. Bright colors (red, orange, blues, maroon, etc.) should be avoided for major wall planes, but can 26 be used effectively (with restraint) for decorative trim, wall graphics, and other accent elements. Generally, to avoid both "busy-ness," and weak visual interest, the variety of major wall colors should not exceed four, nor be less than two. A co.lorlmaterial change between the ground floor and upper floors is a common and effective reinforcement of the pedestrian scale of the street. Staff Response The applicant has proposed an exterior building color that is compatible with the color of the existing buildings in the vicinity of the hotel. Staff would like to point out that the applicant is required to obtain Design Review Board (DRB) approval prior to construction and that any concerns of the PEG on this topic will be brought to the attention of the DRB. Transparency Pedestrian scale is created in many ways, but a major factor is the openness, attractiveness, and generally public character of the ground floor facade of adjacent buildings. Transparent store fronts are "people attractors," opaque or solid walls are more private, and imply "do not approach.,, On pedestrian-oriented streets such as in the Village, ground floor commercial facades are proportionately more transparent than upper floors. Upper floors are typically more residential, private and thus less open. As a measure of transparency, the most characteristic and successful ground floor facades range from 55% to 70% of the total length of the commercial facade. Upper floors are often the converse, 30%-45% transparent. Examples of transparency (lineal feet of glass to lineal feet of facade) on ground level. Covered Bridge Building 58% - Pepi's Sports 71% - Gasthof Gramshammer 48% - The Lodge 66% - Golden Peak House 62% - Casino Building 30% - Gorsuch Building 51% Staff Response Transparency of the Vail Plaza Hotel is really only an issue along the retail space fronting on Vail Road. A measure of transparency of the Vail Plaza Hotel (west elevation) indicates that 48% (64 lineal feet of glass exists along the 132 lineal feet of building) of the ground floor facade is transparent. Staff believes that the ground level is transparent enough to provide the street appearance encouraged by the design considerations. Windows In addition to the general degree of transparency, window details are an important source of pedestrian scale-giving elements. The size and shape of windows are often a response to the function of the adjacent street. For close-up, casual, pedestrian viewing windows are typically sized to human dimensions and characteristics of human vision. (Large glass-wall store-fronts 27 suggest uninterrupted viewing, as from a moving car. The sense of intimate pedestrian scale is diminished). Ground floor display windows are typically raised slightly 18 inches } and do not extend much over 8 feet above the walkway level. Ground floors, which are noticeably above or below grade, are exceptions. The articulation of the window itself is still another element in giving pedestrian scale (human- related dimensions). Glass areas are usually subdivided to express individual window elements - and are further subdivided by mullions into small panes - which is responsible for much of the old-world charm of the Village. Similarly, windows are most often clustered in banks, juxtaposed with plain wall surfaces to give a pleasing rhythm. Horizontal repetition of single window elements, especially over long distances, should be avoided. Large single pane windows occur in the Village, and provide some contrast, as long as they are generally consistent in form with other windows. Long continuous glass is out of character. Bay, bow and box windows are common window details, which further variety and massing to facades - and are encouraged. Reflective glass, plastic panes, and aluminum or other metal frames are not consistent in the Village and should be avoided. Metal-clad or plastic-clad wood frames, having the appearance of painted wood have been used successfully and are acceptable. Staff Response The Vail Plaza Hotel proposal is in compliance with the above-described design consideration. Staff believes the use of dormers with windows, bay windows and windows with mullions adds to the architectural charm and visual integrity of the hotel. Staff recommends that the use of mullions in the windows at the ground level be a condition of approval, Doors Like windows, doors are important to character and scale-giving architectural elements. They should also be somewhat transparent (on retail commercial facades) and consistent in detailing with windows and other facade elements. Doors with glass contribute to overall facade transparency. Due to the visibility of people and merchandise inside, windowed doors are somewhat more effective in drawing people inside to retail commercial facades. Although great variations exist, 25-30% ± transparency is felt to be a minimum transparency objective. Private residences, lodges, restaurants, and other non-retail establishments have different visibility and character needs, and doors should be designed accordingly. Sidelight windows are also a means of introducing door-transparency as a complement or substitute for door windows. Articulated doors have the decorative quality desired for Vail. Flush doors, light aluminum frames, plastic applique elements all are considered inappropriate. As an expression of entry, and sheltered welcome, protected entry-ways are encouraged. Doorways may be recessed, extended, or covered. Staff Resoonse Staff believes the applicant's proposal complies with the above-described criteria. 28 Trim Prominent wood trim is also a unifying feature in the Village. Particularly at ground floor levels, doors and windows have strong, contrasting framing elements, which tie the various elements together in one composition. Windows and doors are treated as strong visual features. Glass- wall detailing for either is typically avoided. Staff Resoonse: Staff believes the applicant's proposal complies with the above-described criteria. DECKS AND PATIOS Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited, bring people to the streets, opportunities to look and be looked at, and generally contribute to the liveliness of a busy street making a richer pedestrian experience than if those streets were empty. A review of successful decks/patios in Vail reveals several common characteristics: - direct sunlight from 11:00 - 3:00 increases use by many days/year and protects from wind. - elevated to give views into the pedestrian walk (and not the reverse). - physical separation from pedestrian walk. - overhang gives pedestrian scale/shelter. Decks and patios should be sited and designed with due consideration to: - sun - wind - views - pedestrian activity Staff Resoonse: The majority of the decks and patios on the Vail Plaza Hotel are located on the south side of the building, facing Vail Mountain. With the exception of the two outdoor dining decks on the plaza, these decks and patios are for the use of the guests of the hotel and not the general public. Staff believes that the proposal complies with this design consideration. BALCONIES Balconies occur on almost all buildings in the Village which have at least a second level facade wall. As strong repetitive features they: - give scale to buildings. - give life to the street (when used). - add variety to building forms. - provide shelter to pathways below. 29 Staff Response Again, the majority of the balconies on the Vail Plaza Hotel are located on the south side of the building facing Vail Mountain and away from the 1-70 traffic noise. Staff believes that the proposal complies with this design consideration. Color Balconies contrast in color (dark) with the building, typically matching the trim colors. Staff Response Like the exterior color of the building, the Design Review Board will be reviewing this aspect of the proposal. Size Balconies extend far enough from the building to cast a prominent shadow pattern. Balconies in Vail are functional as will as decorative. As such, they should be of useable size and located to encourage use. Balconies less than six feet deep are seldom used, nor are those always in shade, not oriented to views or street life. Staff Response Staff believes this criteria has been met. Mass Balconies are commonly massive, yet semi-transparent, distinctive from the building, yet allowing the building to be somewhat visible behind. Solid balconies are found occasionally, and tend to be too dominant obscuring the building architecture. Light balconies lack the visual impact which ties the Village together. Staff Response The balconies on the Vail Plaza Hotel are proposed to be semi-transparent in appearance. Materials Wood balconies are by far the most common. Vertical structural members are the most dominant visually, often decoratively sculpted. Decorative wrought iron balconies are also consistent visually where the vertical members are close enough to create semi-transparency. Pipe rails, and plastic, canvas or glass panels should be avoided. Staff Response The material to be used in the construction of the balconies on the hotel is wood, with vertical structural members. A detail of the railing will be reviewed by the DRB. n ACCENT ELEMENTS The life, and festive quality of the Village is given by judicious use of accent elements which give 30 color, movement and contrast to the Village. Colorful accent element. Awnings and canopies - Flags, banners - Umbrellas - Annual color flowers - Accent lighting- Painted wall graphics - Fountains - Staff ReSDonse: consistent with existing character are encouraged, such as: canvas, bright color or stripes of two colors. hanging from buildings, poles, and even across streets for special occasions. over tables on outdoor patios. in beds or in planters. buildings, plazas, windows, trees (even Christmas lights all winter). coats of arms, symbols, accent compositions, etc. sculptural, with both winter and summer character. Accent lighting on the building, annual flowers in containers and in the planting beds, potted trees decorated with Christmas lights and irrigated flower boxes are proposed to provide colorful accent elements on the Vail Plaza Hotel. Staff would suggest that the applicant provide an additional accent symbol (clock, crest, etc.) on the main elevator tower. The tower is visible from a distance as illustrated in the view analysis and would serve as focal point to guests and visitors. LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS Landscape considerations include, but go beyond, the placement of appropriate plant materials. - plant materials - paving - retaining walls - street furniture (benches, kiosks, trash, etc.) - lighting - signage Plant Materials Opportunities for planting are not extensive in the Village, which places a premium on the plant selection and design of the sites that do exist. Framework planting of trees and shrubs should include both deciduous and evergreen species for year round continuity and interest. Native plants are somewhat limited in variety, but are clearly best able to withstand the harsh winter climate, and to tie the Village visually with its mountain setting. Trees Shrubs Narrow-leaf cottonwood Willow Balsam poplar Dogwood Aspen Serviceberry Lodgepole pine Alpine currant Colorado spruce Chokecherry Subalpine fir Mugho pine 0 Potentilla Suffaloberry 31 Staff Resoonse A landscape plan has been submitted by the applicant. The landscape plan has been developed with some assistance of Town staff, since a majority of the landscape improvements are proposed on Town property. The proposed landscape design takes into consideration factors such as the location of the plantings (sun/shade), maintenance, climate, etc. Staff would suggest that the final landscape plan be reviewed by the DRS along with the final streetscape improvements. Paving The freeze/thaw cycle at this altitude virtually eliminates common site-cast concrete as a paving surface (concrete spall). High-strength concrete may work in selected conditions. Asphalt, brick (on concrete or on sand), and concrete block appear to be best suited to the area. In general, paving treatments should be coordinated with that of the adjacent public right-of-way. The Town uses the following, materials for all new construction: - asphalt: general use pedestrian streets - brick on concrete: feature areas (plazas, intersections, fountains, etc.) Staff Resoonse The paving material used in the public areas around the Vail Plaza Hotel has yet to be determined and finalized. Again, the staff would suggest that the final paving treatment be determined with the assistance of the DRB, Retaining Walls Retaining walls, to raise planting areas, often protects the landscape from pedestrians and snowplows, and should provide seating opportunities: Two types of material are already well established in the Village and should be utilized for continuity: - split-face moss rock veneer - Village Core pedestrian streets (typical). - rounded cobble hidden mortar - in open space areas if above type not already established nearby. • Staff Resoonse Landscape retaining wails are proposed on the north, west and south sides of the building. The retaining walls are needed to provide proper grading and drainage around the building. The surface material of the new landscape retaining will match the stone on the exterior of the building. Lichtinq Light standards should be coordinated with those used by the Town in the public right-of-way 32 • Staff Reseonse As part of the streetscape improvements along Vail Road, East Meadow Drive and the South Frontage Road, the applicant will be installing new Village light fixtures. The number and locations of the new lights was determined through consultation with Town staff. Sionaoe Refer to Town of Vail Signage Ordinance Staff Resroonse: Given the staging of the application, signage has not yet been considered by the staff or the applicant. The staff has requested that the applicant prepare a comprehensive sign program for the Vail Plaza Hotel for review at a future date. The comprehensive sign program will be reviewed by the DRB. SERVICE Trash handling is extremely sensitive in a pedestrian environment. Trash collection is primarily made in off-peak hours. It is the building owners responsibility to assure that existing trash storage problems are corrected and future ones avoided. Trash, especially from food service establishments, must be carefully considered; including the following: - quantities generated - pick-up frequency/access - container sizes - enclosure location/design - visual odor impacts Garbage collection boxes or dumpsters must be readily accessible for collection at all times yet fully screened from public view - pedestrians, as well as upper level windows in the vicinity. Materials Exterior materials for garbage enclosures should be consistent with that of adjacent buildings. Construction Durability of the structure and operability of doors in all weather are prime concerns. Metal frames and posts behind the preferred exterior materials should be considered to withstand the inevitable abuse these structures suffer. Staff Response: The applicant is proposing to incorporate a trash dumpster into the design of the main loading/delivery area. The trash dumpster will be completely enclosed and accessible from inside the building. The driveway is designed to accommodate trash trucks. Staff believes the applicant's proposal complies the above-described criteria. 33 E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. There are no natural and/or geologic hazards that effect the Vail Plaza Hotel property. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The applicant has proposed to deviate from the setbacks prescribed by the underlying zoning. The underlying zoning prescribes 20-foot setbacks at the exterior lot lines. The applicant is proposing a 12 foot setback from the north property line (31 feet from the edge of asphalt), zero setbacks at the ground level on the east and west property lines, adjacent to the Vail Gateway Plaza and Tower Condominiums, with an increase to 20 feet above the first floor, an eight foot setback from the property line south of the Vail Gateway Plaza, and a 6 foot setback from the west property (13 feet from the edge of asphalt) adjacent to Vail Road. The proposed setbacks allow for a landscape buffer to be planted around the perimeter of the building, with the exception of the east and west sides where it is necessary to accommodate vehicular access. The applicant has maintained a 20 foot building separation between all the buildings on the interior of the development. The building setbacks allow for the required building separation and provide adequate pedestrian-traffic circulation. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Staff believes that the proposal complies with the circulation system criteria described above. The applicant has worked closely with the Town Engineer to design a circulation system that is both functional and efficient. As stated previously, with the exception of the front entry drop-off spaces under the porte cochere, all of the parking will be in an underground structure. Similarly, the main loading/delivery area will be enclosed and screened from public view. The applicant will also provide a much needed sidewalk along the South Frontage Road. The entrances on the south side of the building have been located with pedestrian circulation in mind. The entrance on the east side of the plaza will help to circulation pedestrians through the existing plaza while the entrance to the south will provide easy and convenient access to East Meadow Drive and the bus stop. All of the pedestrian areas around the building will have a snow melt system installed. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The streetscape improvements recommended in the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan will be implemented. The improvements will enhance the pedestrian experience along Vail Road, the South Frontage Road and East Meadow Drive through the construction of a wider and more attractive heated walkways. The staff would suggest that the final landscape plan be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Design Review Board. 34 Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Phasing of development is not proposed. The applicant is required to submit a construction phasing and staging plan to the Town prior to receiving a building permit. The plan will be used to ensure an efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses during the development of the Vail Plaza Hotel. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department is recommending approval of the applicant's request for a major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for redevelopment of Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn. Staff's recommendation for approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section IV of this memorandum. The staff believes that the proposal is in generally complies with the nine design criteria, as identified in this memorandum. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the requested major amendment to the Vail Town Council, staff would recommend that the Commission make the following finding: That the proposed major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn, complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12-9A-8 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Additionally, the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that any adverse effects of the requested deviation from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided. 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: That the applicant submit the following plans to the Department of Community Development, for review and approval, as a part of the building permit application for the hotel: a. An Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan; b. A Construction Staging and Phasing Plan; C. A Stormwater Management Plan; d. A Site Dewatering Plan; and e. A Traffic Control Plan. 2. That the applicant provide deed-restricted housing, which complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13), for a minimum of 160 employees, and that said deed-restricted housing be made available for occupancy, and the deed restrictions recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail Plaza Hotel. 3. That the applicant receive a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club, in accordance with Chapter 12-16, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 35 4. That the applicant remove the eighth floor of the building in an effort to lower the overall height of the building, prior to appearing before the Town Of Vail Design Review Board. 5. That the applicant revise the building plans to create a step back in the building on Level 3 and Level 4 along Vail Road to provide additional articulation in the facade, prior to appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board. 6. That the applicant receive final Design Review Board approval for the proposed off-site improvement, prior to application for a building permit. 7. That the applicant submit a complete set of civil engineer drawings of all the off-site improvements, including improvements to the South Frontage Road, for review and Town approval, prior to application for a building permit. 8. That the applicant submit complete set of plans to the Colorado Department of Transportation for review and approval of an access permit, prior to application for a building permit. 9. That the applicant decrease the depth of the enclosed main loading/delivery area to reduce the impact of the Vail Plaza Hotel at the ground level of the building on the adjoining property to the east. 10. That the applicant meet with the Town Staff to prepare a letter of agreement outlining the requirements of the off-site improvements, prior to second reading of an ordinance approving the major amendment. C 36 a n Attac iments Vai ' aza -tote Redeve o :)ment 1111199 TowwOF v 0 171 APPENDIX A. Vail Plaza Hotel ' 961c?0.00 Level 8 Gross Square Footage Dwelline Unit Dwelling Unit (upper level) Other Areas Mechanical (Rooftop) Totals Dwelling Unit Net Other Net Total Net Net/Gross Difference 2,007,00 Area Deck Area 1,516.00 70.00 306.00 1,516.00 306.00 1,822.00 185.00 91% Level. 8 Kevs Bedrooms 0.00 1.00 Page I Pillows 2.00 Zehren and Associates- Inc, 1/",194 Vail Plaza Hotel 961070.00 Level 7 Gross Square Footage Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit (lower level) Club Units Unit Number Club Unit l(upper level) Club Unit 2 (upper level) Club Unit 3 (upper level) Club Unit ,4 tuner level) Sub-Total Club Units Other Areas Corridor tpublic) Core (elev,raechanical,shaft) Cate (stair) Mechanical (rooftop) Sub-Total Area Totals Dwelling Unit Net Club Unit Net Other Net Total Net Net/Gross Difference y t. Level 7 Zehren and Associates. Inc., r 117!99 9,161.00 Area Deck Area Kevs Bedrooms Pillows 4,126.00 404.00 100 4.00 1100 Area Deck Area Kevs Bedrooms Pillows 592.00 146.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 432.00 8$.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 432.00 88.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 592.00 146.00 1.00 2100 2.00 2,048.00 468.00 4.00 0.00 8.00 1.1 12.00 150.00 137.00 773.86 2,172.86 4,126.00 2,048.00 2.172.86 8,346.86 814.14 91% Page 2 VJ.' At1Za Hotel 961 G 1G.00 Level 6 Gross Square Footage Club Units Unit Number Club Unit 1(lower level) Club Unit 2 (lower level) Club Unit 3 (lower level) Club Unit 4 (lower level) Sub-Total (lower level) Club Unit 5 (upper level) Club Unit 6 (upper level) Club Unit 7 (upper level) Club Unit 8 (upper level) Club Unit 9 (upper 1^,,vel) Club Unit 10 Sub-Total (upper Level) Accomodation Units Unit Tvoe Ace. Unit A ACC. Unit B Ace. Unit C Ace. Unit D (suite-corner) Ace. Unit E (suite- center) Sub-Total Ace. Units Corridor (public) Core (elev,mechanical,sbaft) Maid Core (stair) Mechanical(roofton) Sub-Total Area Club Unit Net Accommodation Net (Other Net Total Net Net/Gross Difference Level 6 19,147.00 Area Deck Area Kevs Bedrooms Pillows 1,395.00 2:00 3.00 6.00 1,214.00 2.00 3.00 6.00 1,477.00 2.00 4.00 8.00 1.792.00 3.00 4.00 10.00 5,878.00 9.00 14.00 30.00 550.00 88.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 519.00 88.00 1.00 0.00 100 445.00 88.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 519.00 88.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 569.00 88.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 1.807.00 8800 3.00 100 8.00 4,409.00 528.00 8.00 3.00 18.00 Unit Area Kevs Total Area Decks 324.75 1.00 324.75 1.00 330.75 6.00 1,984.50 357.75 0.00 0.00 368.47 2.00 736.94 307.00 2.00 614.00 2.00 11.00 3,660.19 3.00 Zehren and Associates. Inc. 117/39 Deck Area Total Deck 55.00 55.00 5300 106.00 108.00 161.00 2,510.00 478.00 197.00 214.00 263.00 3,662.00 10,287.00 3,660.19 3.662.00 17,609.19 1,537.81 92% Page 3 r Vail Plaza Hotel Level 5 Zehren and Associates. lnc., e 961070.00 1 i7199 Level r Gross Square Footage 32,672.00 Club Units Unit Number Area Deck Area Kevs Bedrooms Pillows Club Unit 5 (lower level) 1,388.00 2.00 3.00 6.00 Club Unit 6 (lower level) 1,53100 2.00 4.00 8.00 Club Unit 7 (lower level) 831.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 Club Unit 8 (lower level) 1,546.40 2.00 4.00 8.00 Club Unit 9 (lower level) 1.169.00 2.00 3,00 6,04 Sub-Total (lower Level) 6,467.00 8.00 16.00 32.00 Club Unit I I(upper level)' 526.00 88.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 Club Unit 12 (upper level) 431.00 88.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 Club Unit 13 (upper level) 431.00 88.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 Club Unit 14 (upper )evel) 526.00 88.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 Club Unit 15 (uaoer level) 2309.00 109.00 5.00 4.00 10.00 Sub-Total (upper level) 4,223.00 461.00 9.00 4.00 18.00 Accomodation Units Unit Tvne Unit Area Kevs Total Area Decks Deck Area. Total Deck Acc. Unit A 324.75 3.00 974.25 Acc. Unit B 330.75 19.00 6.284,25 Ace. Unit C 357.75 2.00 715.50 Ace. Unit D (suite-corner) 368.47 4.00 1,47188 100 34,00 68.00 Acc. Unit E (suite- center) 307.00 4.00 1,228.00 2.00 40.00 50.00 Ace. Unit F (curve roof) 432.00 2.00 864.00 Sub-Total Ace. Units 339.41 34.00 11,539.88 4.00 148.00 Other Areas Area Corridor (public) 4,481.00 Core (elevator, mech. shaft) 850.00 Maid 194.00 Core (stair) 28100 Mechanical (rooftm) 263.00 Sub-Total Other Areas 6,075.00 Club Unit Net 10,690.00 Accommodation Net 11,539.88 Other Net 6,075.00 Total Net 28,304.88 Net/Gross Difference 4,367.12 87% Page 4 Plaza Hotel 961070.00 Level 4 Gross Square Footage Club Units Unit Number Club Unit I I(lower level) Club Unit 12 (lower level) Club Unit 13 (lower level) Club Unit 14 (lower level) Sub-Total (lower level) Accomodation Units Unit TVDe Ace. Unit A Ace. Unit B . Unit C Ace. Unit D (suite-comer) Ace. Unit E (suite- center) Ace. Unit G (curve) Ace. Unit H (suite-corn/tower) Sub-Total Ace. Units Other Areas Corridor (public) Core (elevator, mech. shaft) Maid Core (stair) Sub-Total Other Areas Club Unit Net Accommodation Net Other Net Total Net NettGross Difference E Level 4 35,772.00 Zehren and Associates, inc. 117199 Area Deck Area Keys Bedrooms Pillows 2,005.00 2.00 4.00 8.00 1.155.00 0.00 3.00 6.00 1,188.00 0.00 3.00 6.00 1.587.00 3.00 3.00 6600 5,935.00 5.00 13.00 26.00 Unit Area Keys Total Area Decks Deck Area Total Deck 324.75 7.00 2,273.25 330.75 27.00 8,930.25 357.75 8.00 2.86100 368.47 7.00 2,579.29 3.00 34.00 102.00 307.00 8.00 2,456.00 4.00 40.00 160.00 370.85 4.00 1,483.40 717.50 1.00 717.50 343.58 62.00 21,301.69 7.00 262.00 Area 4,717.00 1,147.14 194.00 287.00 6,345.14 5,935.00 21,301.69 6.345.14 33,551.83 2,190.17 94% Page 5 Vail Plaza Hotel 961070.00 Level 3 Gross Square Footage 38.161.00 Accomodation Knits Unit Tyne Unit Area Ace. Unit A (wet bar) 324.75 dec. Unit B (kitchenette) 330.75 Ace. Unit C (suite-master) 357.75 Ace. Unit D (suite-corner) 368.47 Ace. Unit E (suite- center) 307.00 Ace. Unit G (curve) 370.85 Ace. Unit H (suite-cornttower) 717.50 Ace. Unit 1 (suite-cornttower) 531.00 Sub-Total Ace. Units 344.86 Other Areas Area Corridor (public) 5,670.00 Core (elevator, mech. shaft) 1,082.46 Maid 218.00 Core (stair) 265.00 Sub-Total Other Areas 7,235.46 Accommodation Net 27,933.35 Other Net 7235.46 Total Net 35,168.81 Net/Gross Difference 2,992.19 Levei 3 L?, L Zehren and Associates. Inc- 1/7199 E Keys 'T'otal Area Decks Deck Area Total Deck 8.00 2,598.00 32.00 10,584.00 13.00 4,650.75 10.00 3,684.70 4.00 34.00 136.00 12.00 3,684.00 6.00 40.00 240.00 4.00 1.483.40 i.00 717.50 1.00 53 L00 81.00 27,933.35 10.00 376.00 92% • • Page 6 Vail Plaza Hotel 961670.00 Level 2 Gross Square Footage Accomodation Units Lint TVDe Ace. Unit A Ace. Unit B Ace. Unit C Ace. Unit D (suite-comer) Ace. Unit E (suite- center) Ace. Unit G (curve) Ace. Unit 1 (suite-corn/tower) Sub-Total Ace. Units Adminstration Executive Office Accounting. Sub-Total Admin. Restaurant Specialty Rest. (indoor) Cocktail Lounsre Sub-Total Restaurant Outdoor Dining Other Areas Satellite Kitchen (Specialty) Restrooms/Coats/Service Loading Dock Corridor (public) Core (elevator, mech. shaft) Core (stair) Sub-Total Other Areas Totals Accommodation Net Administration Net Restaurant Net Other Net Total Net Net/Gross Difference Level 2 33.269.00 Zehren and Associates, Inc. 1/7/99 Unit Area Kevs Total Area Decks Deck Area Total Deck 324.75 6.00 1.948.50 330.75 18.00 5,953.50 357.75 9.00 3,219.75 368.47 5.00 1,842.35 4.00 34.00 136.00 307.00 6.00 1,842.00 6.00 40.00 240.00 370.85 4.00 1,48140 531.00 1-00 531.00 343.28 49.00 16,820.50 10.00 376.00 1,135.00 1.135.00 2,270.00 Area Occ. Factor OCCUDants 2,116.00 25.00 84.64 1.673.00 1800 92 94 3,789.00 177.58 2,184.00 25.00 87.36 980.00 0.00 1,659.00 4,388.00 796.00 251.61 8,074.61 16,820.50 2,270.00 3,789.00 8.074.61 30,954.11 2,314.89 93% Page 7 Vail Plaza Hotel Levu 1 Zchren and Associates, Inc., 961070,00 1/7/99 Level I Gross Square Footage 36,497.00 Accomodation Knits unit `lone Unit Area Keys Total Area Decks Beck Area Total Deck Acc. Unit A 324.75 6.00 1,948.50 acc. Unit B 330.75 14.00 4,630.50 Ace, Unit C 357.75 7.00 2,504.25 Ace. Unit D (suite-corner) 368.47 5.00 1,842.35 4.00 34.00 136.00 Acc. Unit E (suite- center) 307.00 6.00 1,842.00 6.00 40.00 240.00 Acc. Unit 1 (suite-corn/tower) 531.00 1.00 531.00 Sub-Total Ace. Units 340.99 .39.00 13,298.60 10.00 376.00 Retail Unit Tvve Area Units Retail Area One 1,045.60 1.00 Retail Area Two 388.00 1.00 Sub-Total Retail 1,433.00 2.00 Adminstration Admin. Area Area Front Office 1,712.00 Restaurant Area Occ. Factor Occupants Main Restaurant 2,737.00 20.00 136.85 Lohbv Bar 1.729.00 20.00 86_,_45 Sub-Total Restaurant 4,466.00 223.30 Outdoor Dining* 757.00 20.00 37,85 "included in south outdoor area Other Areas Lobby (indoor) 1,913.00 Corridor (public) 8,691.00 Satellite Kitchen (Main) 1,933.00 Restrooms/Coats/Service 0.00 Service 0,00 Core (elevator, mech. shaft) 67600 Core (stair) 121.00 Sub-Total Other Areas 13,334.00 Totals Accommodation Net 13,298.60 Retail Net 1,433.00 Administration Net 1,712.00 Restaurant Net 4,466.00 Other Net 13334.00 Total Net Area 34,243.60 Net/Gross Difference 253.40 2 94% , Outdoor Areas* Area Page 8 x Vail Plaza Hotel Level 1 961070.00 Structural Deck (north) 11,614.00 Structural Deck (south) 1634.00 Total Structural Deck 15,248.00 "Deck areas beyond gross area Parkins Provided New Valet 19 Existing Phase 111 42 New Full Size 0 Sub-Total Parking Provided 61 Zehren and Associates, Inc. 117199 Page 9 Vail Plaza Hotel Level 0 961070.00 Level 0 Gross Square Footage 57,265.00 Retail Unit Tvve Area Units Retail Area Three 1.390.00 1.00 Retail Anima Four 420.00 1.00 Retail Area Five 1,526.00 1.00 Retail Area Six 1,275.00 L00 Retail Area Seven 1.047.00 1.00 Sub-Total Retail 5,658.00 5.00 Conference Facilities Area ,'Main Ballroom" 10,162.00 Junior Ballroom 4.864.00 Pre-Convene/Public Circulation 5,98300 Sub-Total Convention 21,009.00 *Includes 1,722 sq. ft, circulation with partitions in closed position Kitchens Unit TVDe Main Kitchen 3,000.00 1.00 3,000.00 Banquet Kitchen 2,000.00 1.00 2,000.00 Banquet Satellite Kitchens 594.50 2_00 1.189.00 Sub-Total Kitchen 4.00 6,189.00 Food and Beverage Storage 1,741.00 Other Areas Core (elevator, mech. shaft) 676.00 Core (stair) 143.00 Service Corridors 4,057.00 Restrooms/Telephones 680 Total Other Areas 5,556.00 Parkinzr Provided Valet Spaces 0.00 Parking Spaces (Full Size) 23.00 Parkine Spaces (Compact) 8.00 Sub-Total Parking 13,507.00 31.00 Totals Retail Net 5,658.00 Conference Net 21,009.00 Kitchen Net 6,189.00 F & S Net 1,741.00 Other Net 5,556.00 Parking and Ramp 13.507.00 Total Net 53,660.00 Net/GrossDifference 3,605.00 94% 7 Zehren and Associates, Inc. ' 117199 A v Page 10 Plaza Hotel 961070.00 Outdoor Areas* Structural Deck (west) "Areas beyond Gross Area C 11 l,11$9.0d Level 0 Page i 1 Zehren and Associates, Inc. 1/7/99 Mail Plaza Hotel 961070.00 Level Minus One Gross Square Footage Emnlovee Facilities Personnel Emolovee Facilities Sub-Total Employee Areas Service Areas Receiving/Storage/Trash Laundry Housekeeping Sub-Total Service Areas Other Areas Mechanical second story) Core (elevator/mechanical) Core (stair) Elevator Lobby (corridor) Cub Owner Storage Closets Storage(Service) Service Corridor Sub-Total Parking Provided Valet Spaces Parking Spaces (Full Size) Parking Soaces (Comnact) Sab-Total Parking Totals Employee Net Service Net Other Net Parking and Ramp net Total Net 52,811.00 1,000,00 2.300.00 3,300.00 3,100.00 2,935.00 1.723.00 7,758.00 1.606.00 312.00 272.00 309.00 1,81 Loo 661.00 500.00 5,471.00 Spaces 2.00 64.00 33.00 99.00 Area 3,300.00 7,758.00 5,471.00 34.553.00 51,082.00 Level -1 20.82 87.00 Area 34,553.00 Net/Gross Difference 1,729.00 97% Page 12 Y Zehren and associates. Inc = 1/7/99 `ail Plaza Motel 1-2vel -2 961070) 00 Level Minus Two Gross Square Footage 45,670.00 Administration Sales/Catering 2,146.00 2.00 1.073.00 Service Areas Engineering 1,954.00 Mechanical Plant 6.993.00 Service Sub-Total 8,947.00 Soa Areas Exercise Equipment 2,936.00 3.00 978.67 Aerobic Room 2.943.00 3.00 981.00 Sub-Total Spa 5,879.00 Other Areas Club Owner Storage. Closets 1,710.00 19.00 90.00 Corridor (public) 5,387.00 Core (elevator, mech. shaft) 324.00 Core (stair) 379.00 Sub-Total Other Areas 7,800.00 Area Level -2 (cont.) Valet Spaces 0.00 Parking Spaces (Full Size) 44.00 Parkins Spaces (Compact) 20.00 Sub-Total Parking 18,954.00 64.00 Totals Area Administration Net 2,146.00 Service Net 8,947.00 Spa Net 5,879.00 Other Net 7,800.00 Parking and Ramp Net 18.954.00 Total Net 43,726.00 Net/Gross Difference 1,944.00 %% Zehren and Associates. Inc. 1/7/99 Page 13 Vail Plaza Hotel Level -3, t, r Zehren and Associates. Inc_. ? 961070.00 117/99 Level :!Minus Three Gross Area 49,566.00 Sna Areas Pool Area 3.025.00 Pool Deck Area 8,268,00 Treatment/Locker Rooms 10.630.00 Sob-Total Spa 21,923.00 Retail Areas Retail Area Eight (Salon) 1,174.00 1.00 Restaurant Areas Restaurant/Juice Bar 498.00 17.00 29.29 Other Areas Club Owner Storaze. Closets 1,649.00 18.95 87.00 Corridor (public) 3,315.00 Core (elevator, mech. shaft) 325.00 Core (stair) 372.00 Sub-Total Other 5,661.00 Parking Provided Valet Spaces 0.00 Parking Spaces (Full Size) 43.00 Parking Spaces (Compact) 2000 Sub-Total Parking 18,761.00 63.00 Totals Area Spa Net 21,923-00 Retail Net 1,174.00 Restaurant Net 498.00 Other Net 5.661.00 Parking and Ramu Net 18.761.00 Total Net 48,017.00 Net/Gross Difference 1,549.00 97% Page 14 Vail Plaza Hotel Level -4,-5 Zehren and Associates. Inc. 3 96100.00 1/7/99 Level Minus Four Gross Area 11,480.00 Parking Provided Valet Spaces 0.00 Parking Spaces (Full Size) 46.00 Parking Spaces (Compact) 30.00 Sub-Total Parking 9,391.00 76.00 Other Areas Club Owner Storage, Closets 835.00 18.56 45.00 Corridor (public) 445.00 Core (elevator, mech. shaft) 151.00 Core (stair) 130.00 Sub-Total Other 1,561.00 Totals Area Other Net 1,561.00 Parking and Ramn Net 9.391.00 Total Net 10,952.00 Net/GrossDifference 528.00 95% Page 15 t 4 Vail Plaza Hotel Parking Summarv Zehren and Associates. inc.: t 117/99 961070.00 Parkine Reouired Dwelling Unit Area Park. Factor Park. Reo'd Dwelling Unit 1 5,642.00 >2000 2.50 Club Units Area Park. Factor Park. Reod Club Unit 1 1,987.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 2 1,646.00 500<2000 100 Club Unit 3 1,909.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 4 2,384.00 >2000 2.50 Club Unit 5 1,938.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 6 2,05100 >2000 2.50 Club Unit 7 1,276.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 8 2,065.00 >2000 2.50 Club Unit 9 1,738.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 10 1,807.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 11 2,5_> 1.00 >2000 2.50 Club Unit 12 1,586.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit t3 1,619.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 14 2,113.00 >2000 2.50 Club Unit 15 2.309.00 >2000 2.50 Total Club Units 28,960.00 33.00 Accommodation Units Unit Area Park. Factor Units Park. Reo'd Accommodation Unit A 324.75 0.72 31.00 22.47 Accommodation Unit B 330.75 0.73 116.00 84.77 Accommodation Unit C 357.75 0.76 39.00 2955 Accommodation Unit D 368.47 0.77 33.00 25.36 Accommodation Unit E 307.00 0.71 39.00 26.87 Accommodation Unit F 432.00 0.83 2.00 1.66 Accommodation Unit G 370.85 0.77 12.00 9.25 Accommodation Unit H 717.50 1.12 2.00 2.24 Accommodation Unit 1 609.19 1.01 3.00 3.03 Total Ace. Units 343.14 0.74 276.00 205.19 Restaurant Seatine Area Occ. Factor Seats Park. Factor Park. Reo'd Specialty Restaurant 2,116.00 25.00 84.64 1:8 seats 10.58 Main Restaurant 2,737.00 20.00 136.85 1:8 seats 17.11 Spa Juice Bar 498.00 1700 29.29 1:8 seats 366 Total Restaurant 5,351.00 250.78 31.35 Lounge Seating Area Occ. Factor Seats Park. Factor Park. Rea'd Cocktail Lounge 1,673.00 18.00 92.94 1:8 seats 11.62 Lobbv Bar 1.729.00 2000 86.45 1:8 seats 10.81 Total Lounge 3,402.00 179.39 22.42 Retail Retail Area Park Factor Park. Rea' d Total Retail 8,265.00 1300 sq. it. 27755 Conference Retail Area Park. Factor Park. Reo'd Main Ballroom 10,162.00 1:240 sq. ft. 42.34 Total Reouired Parking Page 16 Vail Plaza Hotel Parking Summary Zehren and Associates. Inc. 961070.00 1/7199 Total Dwelling Unit Total Club Units Total Accommodation Units Total Restaurant Total Lounge Total Conference Total Retail Sub-Total Parking Req'd Parkinir Deficit (Prey SDD) Sub-Total Parking Req'd Mixed Use Reduction (10%) Total Parking Required Total Parking Provided Parking Difference Dwelling Unit Club Unit Accommodation Unit Retail Restaurant Lounge/Bar Conference Kitchen Food and Beverage Front Office Sales/Cater. (multi-use) Accounting Executive Office Receiving/Storage Personnel (office) Employee Areas Laundry Housekeeping Engineering Pool Deck Exercise Rooms Total Net Area One Berth/ 75,000 s.f. One Berth/ 25.000 s.f. Sub-Total Load Berths Mixed Use Reduction Total Loading Berths 2.50 33.00 205.I9 31.35 22.42 42.34 27.55 364.35 75:00 439.35 -43.94 395.42 394 -1.42 5,642.00 28,960.00 94,554.21 8,265.00 5,351.00 3,402.00 15,026.00 9,102.00 1,741.00 1,712.00 2,146.00 1,135.00 1,135.00 3,100.00 1,000.00 2,300.00 2,935.00 1,723.00 1,954.00 8,268.00 5.879.00 205,330.21 75,000 130.330.21 1 5 6 -3 3 Parking Provided Full Size Comnaat Valet Total Level One Parking 42 0 19 61 Level Zero Parking 23 8 0 31 Level Minus One Parking 64 33 2 99 Level Minus Two Parking 44 20 0 64 Page 17 Vail plaza 9otel Parkine Summary Zehren and Associates. Inc,' ` 961070.00 117199 Level Minus Three Parking 43 2G t7 63 Level Minus Four Parking 46 3 4 7o Total Parking Provided 262 ill 21 394 Percentage 66% 28% 5% 100% E Page 18 Vail Plaza Hotel Program Summarv Zehren and Associates, Inc. 961070.00 117/99 Dwelling Units Dwelling Unit I Club Units Club Unit I Club Unit 2 Club Unit 3 Club Unit 4 Club Unit 5 Club Unit 6 Club Unit 7 Club Unit 8 Club Unit 9 Club Unit 10 Club Unit I i Club knit 12 Club Unit 13 Club Unit 14 Club Unit 15 Total Club Units Accommodation Units Accommodation Unit A Accommodation Unit B Accommodation Unit C Accommodation Unit D Accommodation Unit E Accommodation Unit F Accommodation Unit G Accommodation Unit H Accommodation Unit I Total Ace. Units Totals Restaurant Specialty Restaurant Outdoor Dining (SDecialtv) Sub-Total Specialty Restaurant Main Restaurant Outdoor Dining (Main) Sub-Total Main Restaurant Sub-Total Spa Juice Bar fatal Restaurant (indoor) Total Restaurant (Outdoor) Total Restaurant Lounge Cocktail Lounge Lobbv Bar UoDer Area Lower Area Total Area Deck Area 1,516.00 4,126.00 5,642.00 474.00 Ilrmer Area Lower Area Total Area Deck Area 592.00 1,395.00 1,987.00 146.00 43100 1,214.00 1,646.00 88.00 43290 1,477.00 1.909.00 88.00 592.00 1,792.00 2,384.00 146.00 550.00 1,388.00 1,938.00 88.00 519.00 1,533.00 2,05100 88.00 445.00 831.00 1,276.00 88.00 519.00 1,546.00 2,065.00 88.00 569.00 1,169.00 1,738,00 88.00 1,807.00 0.00 1,807.00 88.00 526.00 2,005.00 2,531.00 88.00 431.00 1.155.00 1,586.00 88.00 431.00 1,188.00 1,619.00 88.00 526.00 1,587.00 2,113.00 88.00 2.309.00 0.00 2309.00 109.00 10,680.00 18,280.00 28,960.00 1,457.00 Room Area Rooms Total Area Deck Area 324.75 31.00 10,067.25 330.75 116.00 38,367.00 357.75 39.00 13,95125 368.47 33.00 12,159.51 578.00 307.00 38.00 11,666.00 1,066.00 432.00 100 864.00 370.85 12.00 4,450.20 717.50 2.00 1,435.00 609.19 3.00 1.827.57 343.44 276.00 94,788.78 1,644.00 129,390.78 Seating Area Oce. Factor Seats 2,116.00 25.00 84.64 2.184.00 25.00 8736 4,300,00 25.00 172.00 2;737.00 20.00 136.85 757.00 20.00 37 85 3,494.00 20.00 174.70 498.00 17.00 29.29 5,351.00 21.34 250.78 2.941.00 23.49 125 211 8,292.00 22.05 375.99 1,673.00 18.00 92.94 1.729.00 20.00 8645 Page 19 Kevs Bedrooms Pillows 2.00 5.00 14.00 Kevs Bedrooms Pillows 3.00 3.00 8.00 3.00 3.00 8.00 3.00 4.00 10.00 4.00 4.00 12.00 3.00 3.00 8.00 3.00 4.00 10.00 1:00 100 6.00 3.00 4.00 10.00 3.00 3.00 8.00 3.00 3.00 8.00 3.00 4.00 10.00 1.00 100 8.00 1.00 100 8.00 4.00 3.00 8.00 5.00 4_,00 10.00 43.00 50.00 132.00 Keys Bedrooms Pillows 31.00 31.00 62.00 116.00 116.00 232.00 39.00 39.00 78.00 33,00 33.00 66.00 39,00 38.00 76.00 2.00 100 4,00 12.00 12.00 24.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 300 6600 276.00 276.00 552.00 3,575.00 321.00 331.00 698.00 , Vail Plaza Hotel Prouram Summary Zehren and .-associates. Inc. } 961070.00 117199 Total Lounge 3,402.00 18.96 179.39 Total 61 31 99 64 63 76 394 Retail Retail Level One Retail Level Zero Retail Level Minus Three Total Retail Conference Facilites Main Ballroom Junior Ballroom Pre-Convene/Public Circulation Sub-Total Convention Spa Spa Level-2 Spa Level -3 Total Spa Storage Closets Level -I Club Storage Closets Level -2 Club Storage Closets Level -3 Club Storage Closets Level -4 Club Storage Closets Total Club Storage. Closets Parking Provided Level One Parking Level Zero Parking Level Minus One Parking Level Minus Two Parking Level Minus Three Parking Level Minus Four Parking Total Parking Provided Percentage Retail Area Units 1,433.00 100 5,658.00 5.00 1.174.00 1.00 8,265.00 8.00 10,162.00 5,595.00 5,451.00- 21,208.00 5.879.00 21.923.00 27,802.00 Total Area Closet Area 1,811.00 20.82 1,710.00 19.00 1,649.00 18.95 835.00 I8?56 6,005.00 19.43 Full Size Compact 42 0 23 8 64 33 44 20 43 20 46 30 262 111 66% 28% Closets 87.00 90.00 87.00 45.00 309.00 Valet 19 0 2 0 0 0 21 5% Page 20 I Z aAad 66/UI 'aul 's01e!0ossy pue vaayay 00'469'91 00'sn'51 0O"68£'1 (apais le) yaaii tarn3. 00-LLS'£ 0004 00 ZL9 00.9E9 00609 oo-M 00,94E 009LE 00'9LC 4'ap lalRi %£6' 1616 V6 %Z6 - %19 %P6 %Z6 %E6 %P6 °4116 %116 '696 U6 %56 101aad IaN-sq.9 ZL-3191LZ 00591 PI MR 19'LES'l ZI'L9E'P 0 '061'Z 61"Z66'Z 68-PI£'Z OP ESZ'Z 00'909'£ 00"5E£'£ 00'11116'1 Go 6PS'f 009Z5 Vow Or.) IoN-ssmrE) RVZ98"56£ 06'ZZ8'1 98'91'E`8 61'609`41 88'PO£18Z 08'1891££ te'89t`SE 11.1156`0£ 09'£PZ'P£ 00'099'£5 00'9411`66 00.9Z4`£P 00'1.10'RP 00'256"01 -V M 1-ML-q-9 00f0s '60275 Ufa 001510 W wu at, jfi0'{iA 00'199 000 00199 a8a?mg a01»aa8 00-65911 00659' ( >[avq 8vlpaml OO'OR9 000 000 00,089 atg/sm0o)Smvvltsa 0(Y500'4 00,1121 i 00,010 i 00'6119' 1 009£8 aaay 23mols Itu1) gnTD 00'991`S6 00"LOVE 1 00£95'95 00'456'$1 o0191'8I w16E'6 (d..'soaads) slwJ ,j 19'$98'2 00"LEI W"Piz 00"LRZ 00"M 0059Z 1915Z 00 tzi OO'EPI 00'ZLZ 00'6L£ OO"ZLE 00'0£1 (I!m) -0 09'496'9 0O'oq 00841, 00058 Pi'LPT'1 9P ZRO'1 0096L 009L9 on 9L9 0(21E 00,42E 009ZE 00"151 (ITvys'yoaut'n0la) asoo TtO LSS`P 00'1190 00009 faalnlas)zvpuau? 00'SZO'iP (X)'ZI I'1 0001 S'Z 00184'4 00LIL'P 00"OL9'S 00'880'4 00'169'8 0060E OO'L8T'5 0051 E'E 00544 (Lygv{'a0gnd)topl,Ixv3 00.648'5 00'648'9 smova aslalaxg 00-5z0'T" 00520,E wsy Ivod OO'89Z'8 00892'8 11aa4 IOOd 00'0£9'01 00U£9'01 (s.laK>orydlnaOaw,E) adg 98'509'1 00-90£ 98 CLL 00'E9Z 00'£9Z (duiluvy)!aalvet11a1y 00'£66`9 00 E66'9 Ieoryayaay8 (lnald) ? 456`1 00"P56't 8vuaaulAug N'£ZL'l 00£24' I 8u!d-p-,voTT O0SE6'Z O()' SE6'Z ,Clpvvai 00 "00E'Z 00'00EIz scaly aa,(o(dcn3 00,000'1 00'0001 (aay)O)lauuo-j no DOVE 00'005'£ a8aIV1S/Sv{»paaN 00'S£Pi 00'SEI"1 aaggo an(pvaaxg 00.5£1'1 00 5ET'i 8u0un-V O4Y9P1'Z 009P!"Z {asn-nlnut)-latap/sapz9 00"Zit'1 00'ZIL'T a0+,1,1{3 urtud wive l 00" 1 PL' i asma»ag pax p004 00'ZO116 00096 00EE6'1 00'681'9 uayalFN 00'£86'5 00'£86'5 aualnu0 D and 00'9Z0'51 009Z0'S1 muoia,)vo, 00,2011,E 00'EL9'i 00624'1 mgp8unv? 00'59£'9 0091 I'Z 00'4EL"Z 00 8611 tuntnatsog 00'£1611 00 EI61 6ggv'1 OII'S92's 00 E£P'l 00899'5 00441'1 1?61aN TZ'P55'P6 61'099'£ 88"6ES'1I 69.100Z S£'EE6'LZ 05028'91 09.MVET nvn uvnapovnuvaay 00-096`82 00'840'z 0019Z'OI 00069'01 005£6'9 MO gnl3 00'u119'S 00945'1 00.9Z1'P )Iul1 svt8omu 00'SLP'EZP 00 LO(Q 001x91'6 00'LP1'61 00249,2E 00 ZLL'SE 00191,8E 0069Z'EE 00"464'9£ Ot0'OVL5 001 Te'Z5 GO 0/9,5P 00'995'611 00.084'11 amy s-q tdl°.L 8 lava'A L ? 9 ^a 'S 1A"! lanai £ lana7 Z ta^ i Tana D ta^ T- laaa t Z- to^3? £- tana? 6- )an uruaausd W v (XA'OL0196 gigultvng easy . )atoll azeld I?$A West Section a, At: Forth Section ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. -T8 l9FMllP y FA%6FpfK1UlD Vail, Colorado 1-11-99 i Street Sections State: 1"= SO`-& ii 1 _ 11 yl < I t I _ u+ _ _ I I ? u m? Y Y _ _ INl1.4 NLIi1 -. Id6.40-11 --- ..- LL 011 mi - -. __._._ I I -- -- IN9.1 N.{q I2YC F(41t 1i _ _ __ uvn.HUii m --- 1rra.t+tlU ??wt LLVSOfhIIP,) m ? __ __ Innas4+Itl) 'A23 t1.IFY? I East E _.levat I1Y6 ion 0NItN i 7471 I .--..-.-.__.._.._..-iNn.01+I5N I L ------ ----- ---- ` -- j F.------------ '- -- -.? .. _-------- ioaPrt+tan n uvattaun -- - - -. I 70"I) - ItYE t t+tt11 t V\ I }-- - - uvntr+tuy -- -- LLVw10Mi) I &(.IFY) a ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Aso,tocn,i wxa .1116 tA.KUC lot moo cammn ttftD lwwv N( IAtpFgtf i- r' l i I I L,-,J L- 1 6 u -- - -.- - i 8(+I40 uya IN ltN -?-? - 1 I IMiP{iltN Cs ,A` estj Elevation I itM •f f+11?.N"- I .---..-- r--.-?.-__ ?._ - - ..- - _ - -" -. ------------------ ------ ---- n ------ ---_-_-- tA.fOOCft IIPJr - --. Va *0 Plaza Hate Vail, Colorado 1-11-99 -47-- '? E?evatacns I Scale: 1t= W-!P I 1.MCItlmK - -- -i?_ "cuff- _ tNE.S Hmi} lLVGi[+1411 -? ID 7CL7 m3cj -'-- -- ixYYli.al+aD 1I - -- _- tm.l Nee t} --- IN65l+I1i) I u n rt+rc4J ISM I-----_----_-----_----_...____. ? ?{ th El ti lever-r(+)am -- I 7 ou eva on I - - - - - - - - - --- a ZEHREEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. aAid(ifri AWN, Op.OlAMJ $I M l[C 1l703bbOfta FAY dXAfgio54 -1+l1M I I (aa4HUr} - - - -.-. saia.rs+a)} - -.-.-. Imlc Hxif} _.._. ?. -.- 1x46111+a1 i} --- --- --- - Obew rx41i1}+f 413 - - ?<. rnw r --_.-A - lMn.SHmr} -WA --- m4a1(II1q m 4RFDx Hilo -- .- - - ?-- Ix4m.k(al>17 -? h El i N ?aHrw ?iat+ra? - _ - -"'- _-_ _. -__ ev ort __ at on -.- -.- - - - - - -.- -1" -- ta4uoHmw raa.i Haas} -. _. - -------- ----------- 1 I ---?._--1'-----"'-- - - -- - -- ------------I ---...- __ -.--- - --r- - uvn-rHr.o.a I I _--'-?--_-______ 1f40.a HI1i7 -. - _..-, ._._._..----- -.__ _...__._-_..?_-..._?-__ --------' _.-._-- - - ._-'- --- -.. -.- -.- , I t -- - - ..' . ..._ lLVx..i {+115} - - - ..._-_.'.-- -.-.- -.- Vao l Plaza He tee Vail, Colorado 1-11-99 -- 1x461.1(+2111 AIN Scale. V Sty-0° i 0 r --------------------------- i -- ---- -- r--------- - ---------- --------- ------------------------- f t ? 1 k ------------- I t I j I , 11 1 11 1 I? I V , t I I i (i I i I I i I 7 ! t I I ? ,I II , I, I 1 t I i I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I r 1 I I 1 i I F 1 I f i k ( I L - ---------------------------------- 1{ i t F 1 64 4 6 i L_ II I ? rt -_-----_--1 11 I f I f ?v f \ 1 t I } i I t I 7 1 ! l f i F i t I I 4 4 I I I t l I 1 1 1 I 1 . ? I _ F r 1 ? F I .-._ I t F I ?" r \\ 4 1 F It 7 1 I r-----------------'--? I t 1 f _--_-J I I I t ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ,uiencAA? - nAnnuc . wtana ?D.YdI fn4 AKMI, FAIbV1Uff •1fID m (IpipfAUtt1 fA wo-Im 1 1 I i 4 i I t t \ \ \ S ?V \ t t 1 \ \ St J t y 4 \ 4 \ t1 \t t} 3 \ \ Y/F t aH Maza HoteQ Levu Wnus 4/5 XnUZ I I 11 u 11 Fr II Level -5 Vail, Colorado 1-11-99 Scale: 1'= 5(y4r ------------------- I t I l I I I I , 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I t I 1 f 1 1 I 1 t`ljt t 6 f i tt ----------_.__ I (? I I Ik u r-? I E? I? I n t `f I I IY ?? I i I IY 1 IY to I Ia= ?I 'L ------------ - _ c? c=u ? Z t I I I Q Q ?? C? _i r_) L t t a 011qn non 1 0 mEj Finn LR_j k I f I 1 i I I 14 .1 I tl t I 1 YI t. - - ? II I ' I k , 41 ii , I 1 ?. t 1 ' I I t i i ? , I 1 _ I w C 1 t ,. I I 3 ? ? I l k q \ ? 1 q v 1 / l 1 -------------------- i I I I t t t. Z tG I! It R E N AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Ne:HRf 0. nAMNNG. Wi UCW Mn IM AWK aXORA fQ stem m bfin?} FUOMe i- t ?' l!? 1 t t t 1 r 1 1 1 j ?'\ t' .,4 1 \ Ci C' V v ?1 t -ff \ \ \ t\ t r Vac 1 Plaza Hotel ? Levu Hams Three Vail, Colorado 1-11-99 U Scale: 1'= 50'4) f r flip= Wm Uzi M &I m Im ue ?- r t I t I { I 1 I I I I F I L-------------- i l 1 1 i s y i? f 1 _s f' ------------------------ 1 I I _-F-'---------' i ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. r? tm AM d%OK D MAN tip.l9llpM FACp74*wm t \t tot tot {'w t? t vas Cww1? 1 \ i l \ \ l 1 \ 1 \ t, <ww w^ v? P aza T -------- ---------- --------- t t _ <„I I , ! I ' I I I f ,r I f t I ? ,r I \ { i 1 r I I ' I I I ' ?I I 1 , I L ?? t c I I _ !? I t ( f f / I r I I f " f i I I 1 ' t 1? I k I ?1 I I i i ? kl ' , i { I '1 ( ' t 1 y t \ , r t x\ y i \ 1 1 r t ' ! i \7 e?w wi4 w'\ w't I \ ?w 1 t t \ \ 4 k t l ti v 4 \ \ 1 \ 4 ? \ i1 H ote Vail, Colorado t-11-99 U LeveQ W nus Two Scale: 1 "= SU'-W -------_------------------- ! k I k I i i i 4 i I t i 1 i i IX i I 1 i a f i 1 f ii ii 1 i I I it I! ' ' k I t I YI t I 1 I / t / I / I I f I i t t 1 I I t I i 1 I t 1 1 I I I i I i -- -- L - ._ -i I ? 1 L---t I ? 1 t I t ?. _--t r t I I I tt I I t t I s? I__? L-__ I t I I I I L__J ) r' < ! E H R E N VD ASSOCIATES, INC. :NIKfUIE - MNNING - Wi91pp Ud( i»t Avow. OOLORADO OW paultloln mxvmN lm I F7 I ? 4 - t ? t I t 4 '^t I ` tom-. I t t I tir% t t t I t t t 1 t t t h `v t t t t t t t t tt 't y ` Z t ` t t tt `t > t t t ?? ? Wt ?1, ? tt .'t t P.aza plate a Levu Minus One Vail, Colorado Scats. I., Sir_ar 1-11-99 I I I I I 4 I I a a o e ?_ J ?vti.?r--1 ,?,? 4 A t A 1 u 1 A t I Y II 1 4 II Y I II Y I II A -'? tl Y Y I Y A 8 1 A u ?n? r u ? II 1 y ? i II t ? ? i q 1 it Y 1 II j^? 0 p tl I ? / ?, A n I u 1 A tl i II tl ) 1 n Y tt r Vacl P az Hote Z E H R N Vail, Colorado AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1-11-49 P10" Im AWK C=Ma AYiC Til blgsMOU7 iAROMr t- ?? LLeve? Zero s?sYY: t? so?-a? t 1 1%1? ![E ICIIREN VD ASSOCIATES, INC. om?rua ? nAwr+a - N?duews i.10X lift AKk( CalaViaa 1ffi0 dAIFfN42il T111[ditl NllCtl TJI Vw1 Plaza Hotel Vail, Colorado 1-11-99 + ? LeveD One Scale 1'= S®`A" • I i ?I 4 ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. A._._..-:..... • tMAN11tK3 ? IXlfwaas tfilOlt l1K ANCfl. CQOaAW atom tiC 11sQ Ma01t1 iA%tvfq ot>r•faw J__ _ a a 1 L rt ? i 4 L f '-„?: try-?-.?''? I IF v,6 a?.. ^ i a _ -1 ?? J ti } `^ i_J t -- I \\\\\ 1-1 IN --- f r--' Rif] --- (7 [ cC[? Its , , as Nana Hole Vail, Calarada t-11 99 C-1 ? J/ 1 t4 i i Levee Two Scale. t"= SW-0" :-t rJ I I vo ? ?? L_?/ ? y g?$ [l Otl 06 ? L OQ _ b_ri? AO0®? A0, TM-P?Li ®OQ AOQ_ T H - - If ZED REN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ARd/mCNK - _ q(19g16 1,15 WX 106 AVON, fl%QU00 slim Vag Plaza H ote Vail, Colorado 1-11-94 ZI ULevee Three Scale. I'- 50'-t)• ? c ? i J V/ w - ? L7 I I. l - r- 9TL 0, '000" 1004 ????f II II IE tom.. 4Y?`?-L? _ ?{ r- I 1- O I t i L- I Z[EHREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. APCXttiMWX - /{M . - NIMK.ti "OIW 'm AVOK COLOKWO AIM m omm* R FA[iFFN++ M a01 f laz . a Hole Vail, Colorado 1-11-" r Leve ? Four scale: 1 •-- 50'-0* rl ?Ii L-J-? - f tt .L.,? I CL 1 1 ??a u ? ? J?i'] CS e=? ` -i q. ZEHIIIEN AND ASSOCIATES, INCA w tlJ01fK6i69 fA%b 4a {'R?l -- :2-5a I{ 11 1 MDaRCruls - --a • ".." MOM M AVON, 0Y.00lD SIM ILI ar :ru ?i J -+ -j A Vai 1 Plaza H(ate 1 Vail, Colorado 1-11-" Scale: 1'= SCY-01 L 1_--C r I \1 i ?? OQppB i s? 'li f 3 1 , 4 g - t 7 9 F--- !I U _- t Q 1 ?d 3 II-- _ Vai Plaza H(ate Z E H R E N Mail, Colorado AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1-11-99 AMD.U ft . KM/MN0 • raauo" " .. AVM m{qI" KM IR OlgflFi]A FAXOM-IM J Levu Sax Scale: t 1=50'-0* ,l ?I C f-? Ali Z[EHEREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. '4'M "I' AWN, COMX1 MM M dttb- 1AXWO -1W i CIA cc'-111?? NL - ?-- 1,\\\\ N---- - \ Va41 Plaza Hotel Vail, Colorado 1-11-99 __ "? e Levu Seven Scale: 11. 5o"-0' a ?- 1 \V \ \V ?t l ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Ai.m.,TLW _ ? . N1PJW tA" 117E AIM K .0LXt"W *I- tu PM*W an FAXPM-1- >4<-- - Vail, Colorado 4-11-" 4 Scale: 7*= SIY-O* r= I e r , rr ! G Z E HR E N AND ASSOCIATES, INC. NiNfS w • F Nmm . u+ mw k0'WX ills AWK t70 b W30 MM m w"N" Ir FAR.b1Yp}t.Im _... .mss ?.... _ ._ ? _ _?. ? .. -- KIND i L l t __.?1 r T Van l Nana Hotel Vail, Colorado 1-11-99 U (hoof Man scale: l 50'-0` `\ Y 'myn+`. ! V 11 \ \ ti^-4v 41.:. +R..?_ +?1Sf? "" ,m `lre?, .? _ ,n ia?r - -? I \ \ ? ? izsu.m_ .., n t X »n . \_1 ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Mcr *g . nnwdw - wl a Flo" Im AWN, cmXq w nw M Mgtl"47 MXWOs tm mim vrwn a~„?s ? ? -_ z - Nam Vail, Colorado 1-11-99 .errxr Bufldan Hec ht Man Interpolated Contours Smie: T"= Mr-01 /"?? 1 t l 1 I h? ?\ .. 4% w % i ZEHR(EN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. "im Im MON, COLDO".tw m anVShmsr Nsbfap-f- ?IyI ? _ / F ?kf(4 Vag Maza H cte ? Vail, Colorado 1-1t_gy F--TI7( i ?r ?Mprovements Man Scale: 1 *= ecr.,a.. ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. NA91 -- ItA a - ? FAAW Im AWK C0039" lif0i M b7fptN9i5] FA%b]t664 4l P . az Hote Vail, Colorado 1-11-" CG'rccua ation Nan 0 Scale, t "= 20'-0" -__ N-N- ------------ . -7/ -1f----- ------------ -_ ?? I ! I U ff ?II !f n tt l-._1_? -? RM- o ?,. Vag Plaza He tee i? , Orculafion Man Z E H R E N Vail, Colorado s?alr, a scr ory AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1-11-99 Monuav? . rw«ua . ,x,aw ?lalbl( t97t ANT(. OJLGIIKIO tlbY +. 1El lp0llia?S) /A%dVd lM-0Otl a __- NIY0.` i--. .. l i YO, \ •,. r'ri> 1 ! I'Ifl 9} '_ _. ._ ??? .II IYaY ` ? ? ? r\ ? .Irlf% - _- -.. -.. .... t \ --S 1 - r ?R<+??Aisv. ? (iTtnr+a 'n I NaiYT•.•.r "N,sh... %ry\ I ? ,. - __.__ ` •lrl r{ I ,i.lia x¢] tt? '{I 1*li¢,aY• ? t ?/ ? `- ti?tcrseF I H C - ?4+? / RRii i/hh \ I ? .t.,rc s5 ------ - ?uE NJ ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC ti10(iBCNq - Mµ me - IMNNOIIi I. IOX'04 awl. M M M nun m mom) EAXWO* IM ® - tl '( r Cl Vag P aza Hate Vail, Colorado 1-11-99 4 o u I V ?! GrcWatffon Nan A Scala- 1'"= 30`4' w.rte-r?X7::Cie?'.++rtM'kfS?ll?t,. ? f??7 .. i -•.':. . $T ? t t Al Z E H R N AND ASSOCIATES. INC. tteGtYIWW. PLANE IM1Efl?O11iHLANDeCAPEAAGHttEGYYl1E Lim, 7 e Vail Plaza Hotel November 30,1998 E 'w- j ...."cif.. View Analysis 1 0 0 0 >r AND ASSOCIATES, INC. AN4NIFfCN11G •Y4Mx1%6 View Analysis 1 A R N Val F"IaZa Hotel .. 3V.,:1 INfERtak3 •t%pa?^5? ?%%CNIICCTU4E j, 4 V l? ¦(??g1Ie41(j?7(?] ryy- TO.W%tHiFraS CdwNOtHi? '?,VT[]=)embyyy )(?el ?+ HtgWa6L>iA(pfifNFiOq j V ' Z E H R E N Y 6 AND ASSOCIATES. ]NO eeoen€e7uR€•r?airrv,roa mt€mm?a.wauama€nnwor€oYu. Vail Plaza Hotel November 3©,1998 E View Analysis 2 Z E " R E " Vail Plaza Motel View Analysis 2 vl!2 AND ASSOCIATES. MC. cxrtCCTUht •tLAxxixp iN3F@?4k!•LANC@CMlAhplpFlLTUh@ November 34,1998 '' 14^? }f }4 x yy ? f Y. 1.A1 \ M14;411 N r It :l ?? 1 - a yr: i g _? A " V i (u§o AND ASSOCIATES, INC. AKCHtT¢QTGA¢. PlANNYNQ a l Flaw Hotel NrtEKIQPB •LANQBQAPEARQNii¢GTGR¢ flQ.¢QRN KMV.CNp?! .,.2 November 30,1998 0 0 ,p View Analysis 3 a 11 0s r t ,g ,ALL r? RNd RSg rr.;r i t ?y J H N?cxoedClAT&$. .'tp fio.syty? {?1°{ xexrc?rtNR fb r+vlr { ?Hm{r r{{? {w{r M?a.q,yr? Wp ,all INr{Rx) {, ?r1r{{•. AL4YNfN6 Novelnbe? o olel 998 View Analysis 3 f l 1 ? Y 4 F.._}1•M r{ t }? i itt ? a,Ty X? ?• ?. } }'?, N S 1 l ?f ? ? ?J? 4r Wt 1 c ? .. 1 4. 3 a r I to r .ex ,.4 +° :5? ?? k ?? ? ! ' r • J A d? ? .fit r?. . r . S ??' ?' ? i?.? ,us k t k R . . ?3, ' .'wt,+?fi ? ? 1 \ y , d: w? _ ;ic N r Z E H R E N ?+ a ANO ASSOCIATES, INC, ? ANCNIxp...N .MtANNIN6 ffRE11IQAa.LANpgGANE ApONirtCiVgH ;i ^? ? .? $. RO. iDM firlk?w.CN»bfIBA Prolw¢N?yyeAZ tarnWwoen ?ttnrzSwpra Vail Plaza Hotel November 30, 1998 4 View Analysis 4 h t ? ?tt K r a X Aa I ,: ? n S? 1 i ??tt a Z E H R E N kN0 A88dGIAT ES. 1NG. ' FF4MttECiY?!•IUtrXiHY IMFEIOPS •1M10lGFPE MCkRtG1U1lE ?", ?"r lnlM+?? ra+s s View Analysis 4 Vail Plaza Hotel November 30, 1998 W S? '°' '; E H R E N A AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ? Vai Plaza Hotel 1r. ry AEGNttEGYtgE•PW(eEEo ,{9 ? ,fiOE' IXYegitPO •tAgteCAPEAPtNITEGYiIgE November 3Q 1998 View Analysis 5 0 0 0 e • • -, ..'I AND ASSOCIATES. ING_. A " AT " Valk Plaza Hotel View Analysis 5 ?e?'1]'vtzXU?? .aexireorou.purinan ?. :..: wA uctf Pp.ioxf<"5-, .....i ..... . o? ;o ,?, November 30, 1998 _or AN ' Z E H R E N AND ASSOCIATE8, INC. AACMIYGCTUhp • P(hNNINO Air INtE0.1b0.8 •(hMbpcAPl hPGMiYlCYU0.G hO. pa pphwCUwaL npm rlwiwsan:nunroia+olpep INr«?QYtl MY 1?1 Vail Plaza :Hotel November 30, 1998 E View Analysis 6 C LI ,f ?fM1.. 1k.`. ..1 eS P. ? S . °? so rR x' ?? IMkRWRQxhfiC?Y1ARN? ?g +N'Y 0.;,?y 4MNIpy . .4y... ` ?bR ty?t8'NCxiYECfbKq e'ry^r? RYy? ,?AiY fF?? fy_; l 1 Plaza 1110tel Nove'nber 30,119g "te'e` Analysis 6 • • ? ti w,- Z E H R E N AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I.NCMITFCYIIRF • txANNiNO HltFR1pRF •UNGFCMF FRGNITFGLUR6 11 0 IRx yrtupN t4P E?11 Vail Plaza Hotel November 30,1998 View Analysis 7 Z E H R N Vail Plaza Hotel 'View Analysis 8 nrro mssocrntes, INC. A[[gkT[L'Ngl ?tLMgfX6 urr[uaq[uxoscnvlAgagtt[tru[[ November 30,19!9'8 go.wxfy[A.m,eaerpeH[m 'a!kid aPe! li!4!I!i?Pi°"? ?'N410pn ' 0 9 0 i \? L ., M1.u t LEGEND - 3'4 MAXIMUM RANGE OF SUIWINO HEIGHT IN STORIES A bustling story is defined as B feet of height Ino root Included). EHeoi height resMotina, will oe determined by zoning. Varied [oat heights within range soecifled Is desired for each building DENOTES EXISTING OR APPROVED BUILDINGS WHICH DO NOT CONFORM TO THE CONCEPTUAL SUILDING HEIGHT PLAN SHADING DENOTES AREAS OF SIMILAR HEIGHT -? t l4 n CONCEPTUAL l r% BUILDING HEIGHT PLAN f VAIL VILLAGE PLAN ti o 4? ?? ?? Qe4? PG ??QJ X05 ca??e3 ------- - ------------- ? ????? (??•`? III ! ? "? ? SEE-! VIEW CORRIDORS ( ELEVATION FROM FRONTAGE ROAD ( 0 ,rt 1, i.. I 'i I I I If BULDING PROFILE FOLLOWS GENERAL BOWL SHAPE OF VALLEY FLOOR BUILDING MASSING (VILLAGE CORE SECTION] BUILDING HEIGHT PROFILE VAII VILLAGE PLAN ;i ,. a =?4 is I 1 n TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Vail Plaza Hotel Prepared for: Zehren & Associates, inc. P.O. Box 1976 Avon, CO 81620 Client Contact: Mr. Timothy R. Losa Prepared by: Feisburg Holt & Ullevig Greenwood Corporate Plaza 7951 E. Maplewood Avenue, Suite 200 Englewood, CO 80111 303/721-1440 Engineer: Holly A. Hefner Project Engineer: Chris J. Fasching, F.E. FHU Reference No. 98-174 September, 1998 r t TABLE OF CONTENTS Pace 1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................1 A. Land Use,- Site and Study area Boundaries ....................... 1 B. Existing Conditions ........................................ 1 11. PROJECTED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ................................. 7 A. Trip Generation and Design Hourly Volumes ...................... 7 B. Trip Distribution .................................... . .... 8 C. Year 2015 Projected Traffic Volumes ........................... 8 111. YEAR 2015 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ..................... . ........... 12 A. Background Traffic ........................................ 12 B. Total Traffic ........................................... 12 IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 14 APPENDIX A - TRAFFIC COUNTS APPENDIX B - EXISTING CONDITIONS LOS APPENDIX C - YEAR 2015 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS LOS APPENDIX D - YEAR 2015 TOTAL CONDITIONS LOS E C LIST OF FIGURES Paoe 1. Vicinity Map ................................................. 2 2. Site Plan ........................ ...........................3 3. Estimated Existing Winter Conditions ................................ 4 4. Trip Distribution ............................................... 6 6. Year 2015 Background Traffic Conditions ..................... .:. ... 10 7. Year 2015 Total Traffic Conditions .......................... .... 11 LIST OF TABLES 1. Existing Trip Generation Estimates .................................. 7 2. Proposed Trip Generation Estimates ................................. 8 11 L INTRODUCTION A. Land Use, Site and Study area Boundariep Zehren and Associates, Inc. is proposing the Vail Plaza Hotel development to be located on the southeast corner of Vail Road and the South Frontage Road in Vail, Colorado. This development will be replacing three existing buildings with one building. The site location is shown in Figure 1. The existing three buildings consist of a total of 41,643 square feet. The proposed development will consist of a total of approximately 150,000 square feet of various uses including accommodation units, a restaurant, a lounge, a spa, and retail space. The proposed development will have one main access onto the South Frontage Road. The main access will serve as the entrance to the four level parking garage. A second access east of the main access, will be used for most deliveries. The site plan is shown in Figure 2. The impacts of the project traffic at the site access points and the roundabout south of 1-70 are presented in this report. The purpose of this report is to address the projected traffic impacts associated with the Vail Plaza Hotel development proposal, and to identify any roadway or traffic control improvements required as a result of these impacts. B. Existing Conditions The existing conditions in the vicinity of the project site are illustrated in Figure 3. Currently there are two accesses to Vail Plaza Hotel site. The main access is on the South Frontage Road and the second access is on Vail Road. The South Frontage Road runs east/west 46 through Vail with a posted speed limit of 25 MPH adjacent to the site. Vail Road runs north/south from the roundabout intersection with the Frontage Road providing access to several hotels. Vail Road is primarily used for local access south of Vail Plaza Hotel. The roundabout is located approximately 115 feet west of the main entrance to Vail Plaza Hotel. Most of the site traffic currently uses the roundabout as does traffic oriented to/from 1-70. Since Vail is a ski resort, winter traffic volumes have typically been higher than summer volumes. Traffic counts were collected during the week of August 17, 1998, and these counts were used to estimate winter numbers based on 1990 data collected during the winter and summer. The estimated existing winter traffic volumes for the study area are shown in Figure 3 (the raw count data are shown in Appendix A). As indicated, the South Frontage Road east of the roundabout carries approximately 3000 vehicles during the winter PM peak hour. The volumes at the two accesses were calculated by estimating trip generation for the existing buildings. P-.? • A Figure I Vicinity Map North VaN Plaza Hotel 68.374 8X24189 a FELSBURG (01-101A, & ULLEVIG Frontage Road - - -- - -- E - -- I 7? -J , { i?li E l { I i ?, ?. \0 CG 7= OTI, -it ?_ 4R- \? -1114 if iif 1P[ MIN \,a?2 ? ? ? ? rr ? ?ooo rr ? axa? T rr ? ? , m f -v tf 1 Figure 2 Site Flan North a. _ Velt Pfa198.174 9124198 t FELSRURG (41IOLT & ULLEVtG A - - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- U1 ^+ of .l1 • 1785 t4 -- to oa 0 LEGEND Figure 3 xxx = PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes X = PM Peak Hour Level of Service Estimated Existing Winter Conditions -A-- = Stop Sign (March 1998) North „ Veil Plate Hotel 08-174 0126/99 The total peak hour traffic volumes were used as the basis for subsequent LOS (levels of service) computations, the results of which are summarized in Figure 3 (worksheets are shown in Appendix C) as is the intersection lane geometries. Level of service is a qualitative measure which describes traffic operations. A letter designation ranging from A to F is used as the measure. A LOS A is indicative of excellent traffic operations with very little delay and no congestion, while a LOS F represents extreme delay and significant congestion. As shown in Figure 4 the left turn onto the South Frontage Road from the main site access currently operates at a LOS F during the PM peak hour. The left turn into the site from the South Frontage Road currently operates at a LOS C during the PM peak hour. All other movements operate at a LOS B or better during the PM peak hour. The minor movements to/from the second access along Vail Road currently operate at a LOS B or better during the PM peak hour. The roundabout currently operates at an overall LOS A. • 5 • FELSDURG I-I O L T & ULLEV I G -t )0- 25% A North Vail Plaza Hotel 88-174 8125!88 f(tr, r? ?1v} C7 -.10 lvo A W O r E ------------------------- A? c.n Y. • ? 30% Figure 4 Trip Distribution II. PROJECTED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS A. Trip Generation and Design Hourly Volumes Trip generation equations, as documented in Trig Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Sixth Edition, 1997 were used to estimate the vehicle-trips generated by the existing and proposed development. It was assumed that 50 percent of the traffic to/from the restaurant, lounge, and specialty retail comes from outside while the other 50 percent is internal (as such, the trip generation associated with these uses was reduced 50 percent). T -ole 1 summarizes the trip-generation results with existing conditions. Table 1 Existing Trip Generation Estimates Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekday Building ITE Type Code Size Unit In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total ? Condo/ 230 22 Rooms 3 7 10 7 5 12 64 64 128 Townhouse I ? Hotel 310 58 Rooms 20 12 32 19 17 36 239 239 4781 j Restaurant 831 2 1,000's 1 0 1 5 2 7 43 43 86 Sq. Ft. Drinking 836 1 1,000's 0 0 0 3 1 4 13 13 26 Sq. Ft. Market 852 2 1,000's 16 17 33 16 15 31 162 162 324 Sq. Ft. LTotals I I 39 37 76 50 40 ( 90 521 521 1042 F Daily Drinking Total from 15% of PM R ates As shown in Table 1, the site currently generates approximately 1050 trips per day. The AM and PM peak hour trip generation is estimated to be approximately 75 and 90 trips, respectively. Table 2 summarizes the trip generation results for the proposed development. As shown, the proposed development is estimated to generate approximately 3100 trips per day. The AM and PM peak hour trip generation is estimated to be approximately 175 and 260 trips respectively. Approximately three times as many trips are projected for the proposed development as compared to the existing uses on the site. 7 0 Table 2 Proposed Trip Generation Estimates El f•. J Land Use f AM Peak Hour PM Peak hour weekday Building ITE T pe Code Size Unit in Out Total In Out Total in Out Total y Condo/ 230 16 Rooms 2 5 7 5 4 9 47 47 94 Townhouse Hotel 310 276 Rooms 95 60 155 ii 89 I 79 168 1136 1136 2272 Restaurant 831 9 1,000's 3 1 4 22 12 34 201 201 402 Sq. Ft. Drinking 836 4 1,000's 0 0 0 14 7 21 69 69 138 Sq. Ft. Specialty 814 9 1,000's 5 6 11 14 14 28 87 87 174 Retail Sq. Ft. Center Totals ( 104 4 73 176 144 115 259 1541 1541 306,1 j ` Daiiv Drinking Total from 15% o f PM Rates B. Trip Distribution The trip distribution estimates used in this analysis are shown in Figure 4. These percentages are based upon the existing traffic data previously presented (Figure 3). As shown, approximately 70 percent of the total site traffic is expected to be oriented to and from the west through the roundabout. Site generated traffic was assigned to the adjacent roadway network per these distribution patterns and are shown in Figure 5. C. Year 2075 Projected Traffic Volumes Backaround Traffic Analysis of traffic impacts for a year 2015 scenario requires projecting background traffic volumes. The projected background traffic was a result of exponentially increasing the volumes by two percent per year. Year 2015 background traffic volumes and operational conditions are shown in Figure 6. Total Traffic The total year 2015 traffic volumes are shown in Figure 7. These volumes were determined by first removing existing site traffic then adding the site generated traffic to the year 2015 background traffic volumes. As shown, the Frontage Road is projected to carry approximately 4600 vehicles during the PM peak hour in 2015. Trips attributable to the proposed VaiLPlaza Notes would comprise approximately 6 percent of the total. 3 J IN FELSBURG ?4 11 O LT & ULLEVIG LEGEND xxx {= PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes s _I 1 ---------------------------- 44 Cow w u, j Figure 5 Site Traffic ignment , North O Velt Pleu Hotel 88.174 0/26/90 r r I:ELSBURG (411OLT & ULLEVIG V N O D f ov@r@ I3? 4 B I4 B It 1850 LEGEND XXX = PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes X = PM Peak Hour Level of Service North va8 Plaza Hotel 98474 8126/98 1 d , ?i i Figure 6 Year 2015 Background Traffic Conditions - ,... I . . M rELSBURG (41101-1, LILLEVIG E - > Al- "I W D (overa F B t? LEGEND M = PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes X $ = PM Peak Hour Level of Service -*- = Stop Sign North VailP otet98.174 9/14/98 •- 2570 2570 j-- 44 ?r ? ' 1790 ---0. ? - - - 100-4 CO w f OD A - - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - i Figure 77 i Year 201.5 - Total Traffic ndit'Ion,S III. YEAR 2015 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS A. Background Traffic The peak hour traffic volumes shown in Figure 6 were used as the basis for subsequent levels of service computations, and the results are also summarized in Figure 6 (worksheets are shown in Appendix C). The roundabout will operate at an overall LOS D. However, the only movements that are lower than LOS B would be' the south approach and right lane east approach. These movements are projected to operate at LOS C and F respectively. The LOS F from the east movement is a result of the high amount of volume turning to the north toward 1-70 and the North Frontage Road. B. Total Traffic The total peak hour traffic volumes shown in Figure 7 were used as the basis for subsequent levels of service computations, and the results are also summarized in Figure 7 (worksheets are shown in Appendix D). All movements on the roundabout will operate at the same LOS as the background traffic showed previously with the exception of the south approach which will operate at a LOS D. The left turning movement into the site (at the main entrance) will operate at a LOS F and the left turning movement out of the site will operate at a LOS F. Site generated traffic consists of approximately 1.2 percent of the total traffic entering the roundabout. Of the right lane east approach the contribution from site generated traffic is approximately 2 percent. No improvements were used on the roundabout for this analyses. The main access onto the South Frontage Road included two roadway improvements in the analyses: Provide a "storage" area in the existing median for site outbound left turning vehicles to safely pass eastbound traffic. A raised island already exists in the median from the roundabout to the site access providing separation between eastbound and westbound traffic. Minor modifications would need to be made to the island to provide for a storage area. With this "safe harbor," left turning vehicles could cross eastbound traffic in one maneuver and wait in the storage area prior to merging into westbound traffic. With the addition of the storage area the left turn movements out of the site would still remain at a LOS F, however, the delay time for this movement is improved significantly (more than 25%). Construct a right turn deceleration lane into the site for eastbound traffic. This lane is needed to remove right turns from thru traffic lanes. This is of importance here because vehicles coming out of the roundabout do not have sufficient reaction time in the 115 foot distance to slow or stop for a right turning vehicle. 12 Limiting movements to right in/right out or three-quarter movement was considered for the site's main access. This would require that vehicles exiting the site desiring to use the Vail Road intersection with 1-70 (which is most of the site traffic) make a U-turn somewhere along the South Frontage Road. However, there is not a safe place for vehicles to make a U-turn within a reasonable distance. Therefore, it is recommended to improve the main access so as to accommodate full movement as safely as possible which includes a center "harbor" area and a right turn deceleration lane. The second access onto the site from the South Frontage Road will be used for deliveries. Due to space limitations on site, trucks will need to back up onto the site from the Frontage Road. This should be done from a separate lane along the south side of the road. The existing right turn lane east of the site should be extended west to the site's delivery access. The design of the lane and driveway should accommodate backing trucks to allow no interference with eastbound though traffic. Physical or barrier separation should be incorporated into the design. ........... 13 v L' IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following highlight the significant findings and recommendations as a result of this traffic analysis: ? The total projected trips consist of subtracting the existing 10742 trips from the proposed 3082 site generated trips. Two roadway improvements will be necessary at the main access onto the Frontage Road. The first includes modification to the center median to provide a storage area for vehicles turning left out of the site. This will allow for a two-step left turn with less, delay. The second is an exclusive right turn lane into the site for eastbound traffic. This exclusive right turn lane will remove turning traffic from the though traffic lanes thereby improving safety characteristics. ? The roundabout will not be adversely affected by the proposed site traffic. The site traffic will consist of approximately one percent of the total traffic in the roundabout in year 2015. The auxiliary lane east of the site for right turning vehicles needs to be extended west to the second access. This lane will be used for delivery trucks backing into the site. This lane and the delivery driveway in which it will serve should be designed to allow backing activity without impacting the eastbound through traffic. Physical separation should be considered between the through lane and the auxiliary lane where backing would be taking place. 0 14 APPENDIX A TRAFFIC COUNTS I 77 E 4t` Fax Note 7672 Pnst To ' Fu it Teiearorw , Comte Site'Code : 3 N-S street: MAIN VAIL ROU E-W ------------------------- TIME TOTAL I7DON BEGIN CLASSIFIED SLIP ------------------------- i:00 PM 954 14 1:15 995 18 1=30 1009 15 1:45 970 14 NR TOTAL 3928 61 2:00 PM 928 5 2:15 819 15 2:30 945 6 2:45 959 18 HR TOTAL 3651 46 0 ABOUT -------------------------- 170ON 170 VAILN VAI ROAST OFF ON C--F ----------------------- -- 62 48 103 .133 62 33 103 153 68 38 93 156 69 44 98 151 261 163 397 599 47 49 89 159 60 40 72 129 59 47 102 134 64 40 86 149 230 176 349 511 No- d Pages zl- Drys Dacee T"r t From ? '? 1 ( `Cf.' uU l ?'L 4?'A 5C-) i'?? localor Dect. Caaroe Fax S Te+ermne s Qngnat ! 1 De5m y Re u r D Cal for poop Dwmrion COUNTER MEASURES, INC Direction: Dir I ----------------------- .N VAILS VAILS EFRON ON OFF ON ------------------------ 70 73 117 85 84 145 103 105_ 119 88 67 139 346 329 520 71 72 154 65 42 110 68 68 149 89 86 152 293 268 565 EFRON OFF 155 151 116 120 542 111 116 140 113 480 ------------ AFRON WFRON ON OFF ------------ 122 57 82 79 133 63 106 68 443 267 103 68 104 66 92 78 94 68 393 280 DAY TOTAL 7579 107 491 339 746 1170 639 597 LOBS 1022 836 547 PERCENT of TOTAL 1.4 6.5 4.5 9.8 15.4 8.4 7.9 14.3 13.5 11.0 7.2 PAGE: I FILE: VAIL DATE: 8117/98 ---------------- C I-] 303 333 1107 PAGE - 01 AUG 18 '98 11E ry? 0 .e" RUB IS 199 11: 5 m H a 0 303 333 110? j,pGF. 02 APPENDIX S EXISTING CONDITIONS LOS v C HCS. Jnsignalized Intersections Release 2.1v CC2 .?CG Pag_ = Cenvter For M ?rCCOm^ tars -.. TranS?Ortat.: Universwty of Flori 512 Weill Hall Gainesville, FL 3261'-2083 Ph: 1,905) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) Vail Road (i-k') Access 2 Major Street Direction.... NS Lena--h cf Time Analyzed... 15 imin) Analvs........ I— ......... 1.!AH Date of Analysis.......... 8/25/98 Other Information ........ .Peak Hour Existing Two-way Stcp-controlled Intersection { Northbound { Southbo und { Eastbound { westbound { L T R} L T R j L T R { L T R --- ---- ---- { ---- ---- No. Lanes { 0 1 < 0 { 0 > 1 ----{---- ---- --- 0 { 0 0 0 - - { 0 > 0 < 0 Stop/Yield ( N{ N{ { Volumes { 655 11 14 530 { { 1 11 PnF { .95 .951 .95 .95 { { 95 .95 Grade { 0 I 0 ( I 0 MC`s (0 I { I { SUI/RV' sO I i 1 1 CV's (9) I 1 I I PCB's { (1.10 ------------------------------------ ( ------------------- 11.10 1.10 ---------------- Adjustment :actors Ve^-_ e critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) -------- ------------------------------------ Le__ Turn Major Road ------------------- 5.00 --- 2.10 Rich: Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Throuch Traf_rc Minor Road, 6,00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 3 HCS: Unsianalizen _. -sections Re ease 2.1g ACC"HCO Pa- -= t Woe s -_ for TtiISC Intersection ------------------------------------------------------ -- , e Z S~e^ re ---- WS ---------------- = p -- ---------------------------------- Conflicting ..lows: (vph) 732 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 589, Movement Capacity: (pcph) 589 Prom. of Queue-Free State: ---- 0.98 -------®_---- - -- ---------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street --- ----- - - - -- SB ---------------- NB -- - - - -- ---------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 733 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 767 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 767 ?rob, of Queue-Free State: 0.96 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation. =low Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lan_ Prob. Of Queue-Free State: 0.97 ----- - - -- --------------------------------------- Stec) 4: LT from Minor Street - - ------ WB EB ,.o^,fli-zi ng . lows : ; vph) 1306 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 186 Major LT, Minor Imc)edance Factor. 0.97 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.97 Capacity Adjustment -actor due to s„c)e -nc Mclements 0.97 Movement Capacity: (p--ph) -------------- -_--__-_-____------------ 180 -_---___-_-__-- _- I_.tersection Performance Summary Avg. 950 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delav Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) --- ------- ----- (sec/veh) --------- -------- ------ ------ ------ ---- WB L 1 180 > 507 7.3 0.0 B 7.3 WB R 13 589 > SB L 17 767 4.8 0.0 A 0,1 intersection Del °,- - 0.1 sec/veh n VCs. Unsi.nal zed Tn:erse: __cns Release 2.'c ACC2.HCC Faze IN C ?J Caner For M' _ Jfi^L er_ n _ra^<5°`SJrt fl: C#niVerS4t`, or _-or-"" 51- Weil He-- Gainesville, FL 32611-2033 Ph: \'904) 392-0378 Streets. (N-S) Main Access (E-W) South Frontage Road Major Street Direction.... W Length of Time F-alvzec... 15 (min) Analyst ................... F-71 Date of Analysis.......... 8/25/98 Other inf'crmaticn......... Peak Four Existing Two-way Stop-controlled wntersection _ _ - _- -}- Eastbound ? Westbound j Northbound 1 Southbound I L T R L T R 1 L T R' 1 L T R 1---- ---= ----{---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- -=-- ---- No. Lanes ( 0 2 e 0 1 1 3 0 1 1 0 1} 0 0 0 Stop/Yield 1 N1 NI 4 Volumes 1 1205 251 10 1785 1 20 81 PF 1 .95 ,951 .95 .95 1 .95 .95) Grade 0 1 0 1 0 1 MCIS (o) ! I I i su/pv`s (o)! i i 1 CV's (9) { ( f I PCE's 1 11.10 11.10 1.101 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- adjustment Factors Vet:icle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) - ---- Time (tf) --------- ---- -------------------------------- Le=t Turn Major Road -------------- - 5.50 - 2.10 Rig:t Turn Minor Road 55.50 2.60 Throuch raffic Minor Roa 6..50 3.30 Ludt Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 ACS. I3nsignalized mntersections Release 2.1g ACC2 .C0 Page 2 Wc __-_------------------------- -------`------------ -- e ? -- Ste"J ? RT 2ro<<: Minor Street NB ------------------- SB -- ------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: ('S'ph) ---- 647 Potential Capacity: tncph) 652 Movement Capacity: (ccon) 651 Prob. of Queue-Free ..tat. 0.99 ----------- -- ------------------------------- Step 2. LT from Major Street ----------------------- ------------ WB ----------------------- LB -- -------- Ccnflicting Flows: (vph) 1294 potential Capacity: (pcph) 346 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 346 prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97 ------------- -- ------------------------------- Steil 4: LT from Minor Street - ---------- NB -------------------- - SB -- ------------------- ----------- Conflicting Flows: (twh) - - 3172 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 10 Major Lm, Minor TH ?moedance Factor: 0.97 Adjusted Impedance _ tor. 0.97 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.97 Movement Capacity: (pcph) ------------------------°_----- lb ------------------------ -- Tntersecticn Performance Summary Avg. 9s, Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Pate Cap Can Delay Length LOS Delay Mcvement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (seclveh) (veh) ----- ------- ----- - (secjveh) --------- -------- ------ ------ ------ NB 23 10 - * 2.4 951.2 NB P. 9 651 5.6 0.0 B 4;a L 12 346 10.8 0.0 C 0.1 nterseotior. De lay = 8.8 sec/veh - The calculated value was greater than 999.9. --------------------------------------------------- Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 1 13 Registered User No. 1234 Time and Date of Analysis 9:12 AM, Aug 26,1998 Vail Plaza Hotel * ROUND "xisting Cond-lions Wtersection No.: SIDRA US Highway Capacity Manual (1994) Version Roundabout RUN INFORMATION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ * Basic Parameters: Intersection Type: Roundabout Driving on the right-hand side of the road SIDRA US Highway Capacity Manual (1994) Version Input data specified in US units Default Values File No. 11 Peak flow period (for performance): 30 minutes Unit time (for volumes):120 minutes (Total Flow Period) Delay definition: Overall delay, Geometric delay included Delay formula: Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service based on: Delay (HCM) Queue definition: Back of queue, 95th Percentile ---------------------°------------------_--------------------------------------- Jail Plaza Hotel * ROUND Existing Conditions intersection No.: 0 Roundabout Fable S.3 - INTERSECTION PARAMETERS _----------------------------------------°--------- Degree of saturation (highest) = 0.656 Practical Spare Capacity (lowest) - 30 Total vehicle flow (veh/h) - 3134 Total vehicle capacity, all lanes (veh/h) = 9503 Average intersection delay (s) = 4.1 Largest average movement delay (s) = 6.3 Largest back of queue, 95% (ft) = 162 Performance Index - 148.58 Total fuel (ga/h) - 102.0 Total cost ($) - 1237.29 Intersection Level of Service = A Worst movement Level of Service = _------------------°--------------------------- A ---- Vail Plaza Hotel * ROUND xisting Conditions .ntersection No.: Roundabout 'able S.6 - INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE ----- - _------ 'r--al -- - --------------- Total Aver. Prop. -------°--------- Eff. Perf. ------- Aver. w Delay Delay Queued Stop Index Speed .veh/h) -------- (veh-h/h)(sec) --------°-----°--_------ Rate ------_-_-------- (mph) ------- 3134 3.57 4.1 0.378 0.61 148.58 14.6 A Vail Plaza Hotel Existing conditions Intersection NO-: Roundabout * ROUND * t *, 0' ER FORMAN CE SUMM ARY 0 Table S.10 - MOVE -7NT CAPACITY AND P - Mov -_ -- Mov Arv Total Lane Deg. Ave:. E£f. 95% Perf. No: Typ Flow Cap. Util Satn Delay Stop Back of Index (veh (veh Rate Queue /h) /h) -- M - -- x ------- (sec) ------- ------ (veh) --------- ------ ------ -7est: ------------------ West Approach - - 12 L 355 1016 100 0.349 2.9 0.52 2.1 16.93 11 T 304 1280 68 0'.237 3.4 0.52 1.2 14.21 13 R 74 312 __®_---____ 68 -_-__ 0.237 __--_-- 3.5 _--___- 0.56 -----_ 1.2 -__---_-_ 3.34 _----- ______ South: _________ South Approach 32 L 81 251. 100 0.323 6.2 0.69 1.7 4.10 _ 31 T 203 629 100 0.323 6.1 0.68 1.7 9.78 33 R 102 316 ----------- 100 ----- 0.323 ------- 5.9 ------- 0.70 ------ 1.7 -----.._-_ 4.81 --_--- ------ East: --------- East Approach 22 L 107 383 43 0.279 4.9 0.66 1.4 5.18 21 T 254 908 43 0.280 4.5 0.59 1.4 11.97 23 R 634 966 ----------- 100 ----- 0.656* ------- 6.3 ------- 0.98 ------ 6.5 --------- 31.49 ------ __---- 4orth: --------- North Approach 42 L 374 1034 100 0.362 1.6 0.28 1.8 17.17 41 T 91 283 89 0.322 2.0 0.30 1.5 4,04 43 R 216 673 89 0.321 2.0 0.37 1.5 9.33 ------ ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ------ -®-_-__ ____-- --------® _-_-__ NorthWest: North West App roach 82 L 146 625 100 0.234 3.6 0,57 1.1 7.17 81 T 121 518 100 0.234 4.0 0.57 1.1 5.73 83 R ______ 72 308 ____________________ 100 _____ 0.234 _______ 4.1 _______ 0.62 ______ 1.1 _________ 3.32 ______ * Maximum degree of saturation Vail Plaza Hotel 'xisting Conditions ..Intersection No.: Roundabout Table S.15 - CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE (HCM STYLE) Mov Mov Total Total Deg. Aver. LOS ,No. Typ Flow Cap. of Delay (veh (veh Satn - - - /h) ----------------- /h) ------ (v/c) --------- ------- (sec) ----- - -- rlest: West Approach 12 L 355 1016 0.349 2.9 A 11 T 304 1280 0.237 3.4 A 13 R 74 312 0.237 3.5 -- A ----- --------- 733 - ------ 2608 --------- 0.349 --- -- 3.2 - - A ----- ------- South: --------------- South Approach ------ --------- --- - - 32 L 81 251 0.323 6.2 A 31 T 203 629 0.323 6.1 A * ROUND * L A --------- 386 ----- 1196 ---------- 0.323 ------- 6.0 ----- A ,?--- ---------------------------------------- ----- East: mast Approach 22 L 107 383 0.279 4.9 A 21 T 254 908 0.280 4.5 A` 23 10 R 634 966 0.656% - - 6.3 ------ A ----- --------- 995 - ----- ----- 2257 ----- ---- - --- 0.656 ---------- - 5.7 ------- A ----- ----------- ------ North: North Approach 42 L 374 1034 0.362 1.6 A 41 T 91 283 0.322 2.0 A 43 R 216 673 - --- 0.321 ------- - 2.0 ------ A ----- --------- 681. - 1990 ----- -- 0.362 ----------- - 1.8 ----_-- A ----- ------------------------ ---NorthWest: North West Approach 82 L 146 625 0.234 3.6 A 81 T 121 518 0.234 4.0 A 83 R 72 •308 - --- 0.234 -------- - 4.1 ------- A ----- --------- 339 - 1451 - 0.234 3.8 A - -_--- ALL -------------------- VEF rCLES : 3134 ----- 9503 ---------- 0.656 ------- 4.1 ------ ---- A ----- ----------------------- INTERSECTION: 3134 - ------ - - ------- ----- 9503 ----- ---------- 0.656 ---------- - 4.1 ------- A ----- - - - ---- Level of Service c alculations are based on average overall de lay (RCM criter ia), independent of the current delay definit ion used. For the criteria, refer to the "Level of Service" topic in the SIDRA Output G uide or the Output sec tion of the on-line help. * Maximum v/c ratio, or critical gr een per iods --- End of SI DRA Output --- APPENDIX C YEAR 2015 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS LOS u -------------------------------- ------------------ Felsburg Holt & U1levig 13 Registered User No. 1234 % Time and Date of Analysis 9:10 AM, Aug 26,1998 * BACK tail Plaza Motel --azure Conditions ztersection No.: SIDRA US, Highway Capacity Manual (1994) Version Roundabout RUN INFORMATION ------------------.-------------------------------------------------------------... a Basic Parameters: Intersection Type: Roundabout r Driving on the right-hand side of the road SIDRA US Highway Capacity Manual (1994) Version Input data specified in US units Default Values File No. 11 Peak flow period (for performance) : 30 minutes Unit time (for volumes):120 minutes (Total Flow Period) Delav definition: Overall delay, Geometric delay included Delay formula: Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service based on: Delay (HCM) Queue definition: Back of queue, 95th Percentile ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jail Plaza Hotel * BACK Future Conditions intersection No.: Roundabout cable S.3 - INTERSECTION PARAMETERS -------------------------------------------------- Degree of saturation (highest) = 1.181 Practical Spare Capacity (lowest) - -28 Total vehicle flow (veh/h) 4391 Total vehicle capacity, all lanes (veh/h) = 7313 Average intersection delay (s) - 45.1 Largest average movement delay (s) - 183.1 Largest back of queue, 95% (ft) - 2630 Performance index = 366.41 Total fuel (ga/h) - 177.7 Total cost ($) - 2267.37 Intersection Level of Service - D Worst movement revel of Service - F _-----------------°-------------------------------- Jail Plaza Hotel * BACK Future Conditions Intersection No.: Roundabout Fable S.6 - INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE ------------ - - - - - - - -------- -------- Total - Total Aver. -- --- --------- - -- - Prop. Eff. Perf. - Aver. 0 w Delay Delay Queued Stop Index Speed ( /h) - - (veh-h/h) (sec) -------------- Rate ----------------------- (mph) -------- ----- - 4391 55.011. 45.1 0.764 3.02 366.41 11.5 Jail Plaza Hotel * BACK Suture Conditions .ntersecdion No. Roundabout ! 0 'able S.10 - MOV EI-=- NT CAPACITY AND PERFORMANCE SUNA3ARY - Mov -- ---- Mov Arv Total Lane Deg. Aver. Eff. 955 Perf. No. Typ Flow Cap. Util Satn Delay Stop Back of Index (veh (veh Rate Queue /h) /h) (-%) - - - x ----- (sec) ------ ------- (veh) -------- ------- ----- +est: - -------------------- West Approach - - -- 12 L 497 622 100 0.605 7.6 1.04 6.0- 26.87 11 T 426 1016 69 0.419 6.7 0.80 2.7 21.45 13 R 104 248 _------°--------- 69 ----- 0.419 ------- 6.8 ------ 0.82 ------- 2.7 -------- 5.06 ------- .----°- South: ---_ South Approach 32 L 114 137- 100 0.832 31.4 1.96 10.4 8.68 31 T 284 341 100 0.833 30.1 2.01 11.6 20.82 33 R 143 172 x------------- 100 tl----- 0.831 -_----- 29.0 ------ 2.05 ----_-- 11.6 -°-_----- 10.27 _--_--- --_-- :ast: - ---_--- East Approach 22 L 150 307 41 0.489 9.4 0.96 3.3 7.97 21 T 356 729 41 0.488 9.0 0.92 3.3 18.50 23 R 888 752 ------------- 100 ----- 1.181* ------- 183.110.95 ------------- 105.2 -------- 175.94 ------- ----- forth: ------- North Approach 42 L 524 916 100 0.572 3.3 0.64 3.9 25.85 41 T 128 251 89 0.510 3.6 0.61 3.1 6.05 43 R --_-303---594-- --89- -0.510 3.6 0.64 3.1 13,90 NorthWest: North West App roach 82 L 204 443 100 0.460 8.0 0.90 2.9 10.99 81 T 169 367 100 0.460 8.9 0.90 2.9 8.86 63 ----- R - 101 219 -------------------- 100 ------ 0.461 ------ 9.3 -------- 0.93 ------- 2.8 --_----- 5.18 -------- * Maximum degree of saturation Fail Plaza Hotel `uture Conditions ntersection No.: Roundabout Table 5.15 - CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE (HCM STYLE) Mov Mov Total Total Deg. Aver. LOS No. Typ Flow Cap. of Delay (veh (veh Satn -- /h) ---------------- /h) ------- (v/c) -------- ------- (see) ----- ---- rvest: West Approach 12 L 497 822 0.605 7.6 B 11 T 426 1016 0.419 6.7. B _m 13 R 104 ----- -- 248 -- ---- 0.419 ------ - 6.8 ------- B ----- - - 1027 - 2086 - 0.605 7.2 -- B --- - ---- South -- : ---------------- South Approach ------- ---------- ---- - - 32 L 114 137 0.832 31.4 C 31 T 284 341 0.833 30.1 C * HACK * E 5 -------- 541 - -- - --------- 650 ------ - ------- 0.833 ------- ------- 30.1 ------- ----- C ----- last ----------- - - : East Approach - - 22 L 150 307 0.469 9.4 B 21 T 356 729 0.488 9.0 B 23 R 888 752 -- 1.181* ------ 183.1 ----- F 10 --- 1394 - 1786 - - 1.181 ----- 119.9 ------- F ----- ----------------------- North: North Approach ----- - -- 42 L 524 916 0.572 3.3 A 41 T 126 251 0.510 3.6 A 43 R 303 594 0.510 --- 3.6 - --- A ----- --------- 955 - -------- 1761 - ---- 0.572 - --- 3.4 ------- A ----- --------------------- - NorthWest: North West ------- Approach 82 L 204 443 0.460 8.0 B 81 T 169 367 0.460 8.9 B 83 R 101 .219 0.461 --- 9.3 - ----- B ----- --------- 474 -------- 1029 ---- 0.461 - - 8.6 - ----- B ----- ---- ALL ------------------ 7 VEHICLES: 4391 - - - -------- 7313 --- - ------ 1.181 ------- - 45.1 ------- D ----- -- - - ---------------- INTERSECTION: 4391 - --- - 7313 --- - 1.181 ------- 45.1 ------- D ----- ---- ----------------- --- -- bevel of Service calculati ons are based on average overall delay (HCM criter ia), independent of the current delay definit ion used. For the criteria, refer to the "L evel of Service" topic in the SIDRA Output Guide or the Output sec tion of the on-line help. Maximum v/c ratio, or crit ical green per iods --- En d of SI DRA Output --- L ti APPENDIX D YEAR 2015 TOTAL CONDITIONS LOS n v • riCS: t3nsignalized intersections Release 2.19 nCC_ CO Pag= - Cen-er For M1CrOrOmpLterS !n rr?^,S C? t1OZ Universit.' of Florida 512 Wei_ tall aineSVil-e, FL 32611_2063 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) Main Access (E-V+) South Frontage Road Major Street Direction.... EW Length cf Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst ................... !x_kK Date of Analysis.......... 6/25/98 Other Information ......... Peak :our Year 2015 Two-way Stop-controlled intersection .'as-bound Westbound Northbound ( Southbound L T R L T R L T R f L T R ---- --- Z_ ----I---- ---- ----?---- ---- ----?---- ---- ---- No. Lanes ( 0 2< 0 4 1 3 0, 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 Swop/Yield NJ NJ Volumes 1790 100 44 2570 1 83 351 PiF 95 .95J .95 .95 1 .95 .951 Grade 0 1 0 1 0 MCIs (a) i 1 1 I sLT/RV I s( o> 1 1 1 1 C'VIs (Q) ! I t PCE's I 11.10 11.10 1.10' E Adjustment Factors Vehiule Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ L=ft Turn Major Road Right Turn.Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.10 5.50 2.60 6.50' 3.30 7.00 3.40 E HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g ACC.HCO Page 2 ------------- -.-y--a_-_`.---------------------°---------- Sten 1: R'--L _,,... Minor Street-- NB SB Conf'_icting -sows: (vph) 994 Potential Cap=c_ty. (pcph) 434 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 434 Prob. of Queue-Free Sr-a--e: 0.91 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2. LT _ror Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting .lows. (vph) 1989 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 147 Movement Capacizv: (pcph) 147 Prob, of Queue-Free Sta--e. 0.65 -------------------------------------------------------- Steo 4: L'm' _ro:n Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Confl_ctina -lows: (vp ) 4688 Pozen-ial Capar4tV: (pcph) 1 Major LT, Mi..c_ 'rH Imzedance Factor: 0.65 Adjusted ImpeaJance Faczc . 0.65 Capacity Adjustment Factor due zo Impeding Movements 0.65 Movement Capa-_ty: (pcp^) 1 -------------------------------------------------------- inte_sectioi Performance Summary Avg. 95a _-VW Move Shared. Total Queue Approach Ra--e Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (z)= ) (pcph) (poph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- - ---- ----- --------- N:_ _ 1 11.9 * NB R _ 434 9.2 0.2 B WB I_ 147 37.0 3.3 E 0.6 Intersection Delay = 893.3 sec/veh * The calcula--ed value was greater than 999.9. C r?CS: Lnsignalized Intersections Re= ease 2. - ACCA.HCO Page .. Center For M-..roeomputers _- Transpcrtat.on Universir_-v of Florida 51 Weil Hall Gainesville, F. 32511-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) ?Main Access ^------------------ (F-W) South Frontage Road Major Street Direction.... 7W Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analvst ................... AH Date o Analysis.......... 8/25/98 Other Inzormation......... Peak Hour Year 20'_5 Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection y Rastiound f Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R i L R L T R L - R (---- ---- ----?---- ---- ----?---- _--- ----{---- ---- ---- No. Danes 0 2 1( 1 0 0 1 0 1( 0 0 0 Stop/Field NJ N( Volumes 1790 100( 44 1 83 351 PHF 95 .951 .95 1 .95 .951 Grade 0 1 0 1 0 1 MC's (o) I I f I SU/RV 's t a a I 1 ( 1 CVIs (o) prgIs 11.10 1.10 1.101 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 Adjustment Factors Veh icl_ Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------- - ------------------ ------------- ,e=: T _,r Major Road -------------------- 5.50 ----- - 2.10 R_gn_ Turn Mincr Road 55.50 2.80 _..rouh Tra r v MinoritOad 6.50 3.30 Left .Urn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 I-] ..^S : Unsi ;nalizeo _. -erseczions Rel ease 2 . ig AC 4w Pac_ 2 Works_ v.z for TWSC _I -!Zerse___on ------------------ -- ------------------------------- Steo 1: FT from Minor Street ----- NS ------------------ aB -- ------------ ------------------ Conflicting Flows: (vph) ----- 942 Potential Capacizv- (pcph) 461 Movement Capacizv: (pcoh) 461 Prob. of Queue-F_--_e State: 0.91 --------- ----- -- ------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street ------ --- WB -------------------- - SB -- ------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) - - 1989 Potential Capaci`_: (pcph) 147 Movement Capacity= (pcph) 147 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.65 ----------------------- -- ------------------------------- Steo 4: LT from M-nor Street NB -------------------- SB -- ------------------------------- Co_ L _ing Flows. (vph) --- 1930 Potential Capaci-v: (pc--h) 62 Major LT, Minor ?- Imnedance Factor: 0.65 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.65 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.65 Movement Capaci-v: {pcph) -- ---------------------------- 40' ----------------------- -- Intersection Peer-ormance Summary Avg. 950 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Car) Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) ---- ----- ----- - (sec/veh) --------- -------- ------ ------ ------ NB L 96 40 -- -- 848.2 8.4 F 599.2 NB R 41 461 8-.6 0.2 B WB L 51 147 37.0 1.3 F 37.0 _ntersection De lay = 35.2 sec/veh is iks: unsianalized Inte.sedtions Release 2.1g ACCS.nu0 ra^ _ ?ransnortat_on Center For M_crcwomnuters In university of 71orida 512 Weill Gainesville, FL 32511-2063 Ph: (904) 302-0376 Streets:A(N-S)YMain Access (E-w) South Frontage Road Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst ................... IHAH Date of Analysis.......... 8/25/58 Other information .......... eak Hour Year 2015 Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection ( Eastbound { Westbound { Northbound { Southbound { J T R{ L T R{ L T R{ L T R - - - - - - - - - - - - { - - - - - - - - .- - { - - - ° ---- No. Lanes ( 0 0 0{ 0 3 0( 0 0 0{ 0 0 1 Stop/Yield 1 N{ N( Volumes { ( 2570 + ( 83 PHF I I .95 I I .95 Grade 0 I I 0 MC's (a) 1 i 1 1 SU/RL" S (11) { t 1 { 'IVIS (a) { ; V L PCE's { l 4 1 1.10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- n Adjustment -,.etcrs Vehicle ..-_,..-^a1 Follow-up Mane:-veL Gap ( tg) - Time e (tf) ---- _ ------- - ---------------- Left Turn Major ---------------- Road -------------------- 5.50 - 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road _.50 2.50 Thrcugh Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 E HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g ACCB.HCO Page 2 Wcrxs eet f,cr TWSC I - - nzerse_,.ion t?t _ Step .s RT from Minor S r -___ ----__-__ NB -___ _-?? ------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) ------------------..--- ---- 902 Potential Capacity: (pcph} 483 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 483 Prob. of Queue-Free State: ------------------------------- --------------------- 0.80 ---- intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95. Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay length LOS Delav Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(see/veh) (veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ---- (sec/veh) - --------- 9.3 SB R 95 483 9.3 0.8 B ntersection Delay = 0.3 sec/veh E 11 --------------------------------------------------- Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 13 Registered User No. 1234 Time and Date of Analysis 9:11 AM, Aug 25,1998 Vail Plaza Hotel * FUT Future Conditions intersection No.: SIDRA US Highway Capacity Manual (1994) Version Roundabout RUN INFOR.MAT I ON -----------------------------------------------------------------------_------ * Basic Parameters: Intersection Type: Roundabout Driving or. the right-hand side of the road SIDRA US Highway Capacity Manual (1994) Version Input data specified in US units Default Values File No. 11 Peak flow period (for performance): 30 minutes Unit time (for volumes) :120 minutes (Total Flow Period) Delay definition: Overall delay, Geometric delay included Delay formula: Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service based on: Delay (HCM) Queue definition: Back of queue, 95th Percentile ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Vail Plaza Hotel * FUT Future Conditions Intersection No.. Roundabout Table S.3 - INTERSECTION PARAMETERS Degree of saturation (highest) - 1.206 Practical Spare Capacity (lowest) _ -30 Total vehicle flow (veh/h) - 4453 Total vehicle capacity, all lanes (veh/h) = 7189 Average intersection delay (s) - 50.9 Largest average movement defy (s) - 205.4 Largest back of queue, 95% (ft) - 2916 Performance Index = 392.16 Total fuel (ga/h) = 185.3 Total cost ($) = 2379.22 Intersection Level of Service - D Worst movement Level of Service = F -----------------°--------------------------------- Vail Plaza Hotel * FUT =`uture Conditions Intersection No.: Roundabout Table S.6 - INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE. ------------ - -------- metal --- - Total Aver. -------------------- Prop. Eff. Perf. -------- Aver. w Delay Delay Queued Stop Index Speed -{veh/h) (veh-h/h)(sec) - Rate (mph) -------- 4463 ------ -------- 63.12 50.9 ---------------------- 0.772 3.29 392.15 -------- 11.1 2 Tail Plaza Hotel Future Conditions _ntersec.i on No. Roundabout * FLIT * ' 'able C CAPACITY S.10 - MOVStC- C. AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY --------------- ------- ----- Mov - -------------------- Mov Arv Total ----- Lane ------- Deg. ------ Aver. Eff. 95% Perf. -No. Typ Flow Cap. Util Satn Delay Stop Back of Index (veh (veh Rate Queue /h) /h) (?) x --- (sec) ------ ------- (veh) -------- -------- ----- 7est: - -------------------- West Approach ----- ---- 12 L 496 806 100 0.615 8.1 1.08 6.3 27.08 11 T 438 1003 71 0.437 7.1 0.83 2.9 22.26 13 R 104 238 ----- -- 71 ----- 0.437 ------- 7.2 ------ 0.85 ------- 2.9 -------- 5.11 ------- ------ South: - ------------ South Approach 32 L 114 130. 100 0.877 38.4 2.25 12.4 9.43 31 T 283 322 100 0.879 36.9 2.31 14-0 22.59 33 R 148 168 ------------ - 100 ----- 0.881 -------- 35.6 ------ 2.37 ------ 14.0 -------- 11.59 ------- ----- xast: - - ------ East Approach 22 L 153 306 42 0.500 9.5 0.98 3.4 8.16 21 T 366 731 42 0.501 9.1 0.94 3.4 19.08 23 R 908 753 -------------- 100 ----- 1.206* -------- 205.411.95 ------------ 116.6 -------- 194.20 ------- .----- 4orth : ------ North Approach 42 L 539 906 i00 0.595 3.6 0.68 4.3 26.79 41 T 128 246 88 0.520 3.7 0.63 3.2 6.08 43 R 304 584 88 0.521 3.7 0.66 3.2 14.02 ----- - -------------------- ----- ------- ------- ------ -------- ------- NorthWest: North West App roach 82 L 204 422 100 0.483 8.6 0.94 3.2 11.12 81 T 174 360 100 0.483 9.5 0.94 3.2 9.24 83 ----- R - 104 215 -------------------- 100 ----- 0.484 -------- 9.9 ------ 0.97 ------ 3.0 -------- 5.40 ------- * Maximum degree of saturation :ail Plaza Hotel -utare Conditions .-ntersec:ion No.: Roundabout fable 5.15 - CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE (HCM STYLE Mov Mov Total Total Deg. Aver. LOS No. Typ Flow Cap. of Delay (veh (veh Satn - /h) ------------- - /h) -------- (v/c) -------- ------- (sec) ----- ---- west: - - West Approach 12 L 496 806 0.615 8.1 B 11 T 438 1003 0.437 7.1 B 13 R 104 -- - -- 238 --- - 0.437 -- ---- 7.2 ------- B ----- -- - 1038 - -- - --- 2047 --- - - - 0.615 ------- 7.6 ------- B ----- ----- south: ------- ------ South Approach --- - - 32 L 114 130 0.877 38.4 D 31 T 283 322 0.879 36.9 D * FUT * C 3 k J k', ??i yl J }a_ r.. ? Z,CS ?? 3('? ?' 1 y ? ?'. `7 37i '3,;; rf?? ?. ??. ?II?r;k f;? ,y ?;??'?' VAIL PLAZA CIO, I'LL TOWN OF VAIL INCREMENTAL REVENUE IMPACTS September 9, 1998 Prepared By: STAN BERNSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TABLE OF CON i ENTS SECTION A: EXECUTIVE SUMi1?IARY AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS SECTION B: REVENUE IMPACT MODEL - ALL SUPPORTING SCBEDULES 7 SECTION A EXECti i i VE SUNMARY AND KEY ASSLWTIONS VAIL PLAZA HOTEL TOWN OF VAIL INCREMENTAL REVENUE IMPACTS 1. INTRODUCTION Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc. was retained by the developers of the y..,yosed Vail Plaza Hotel Project (the "Hotel") to analyze the incremental municipal revenues that could accrue to the Town of Vail (the "Town") as a direct result of the construction and c...,pletion of the Hotel. The in,..?;,...entai Town revenues that could be generated from the Hotel are based upon the assumption that buildings 3, 4, and 5 of the existing Vail Village Inn are replaced with the Hotel as set forth in the following chart. , INC., SEr' 11,MBER 8,1998) PROGRAM ANALYSIS (PER ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES VAIL PLAZA EXISTING WI INCREMENTAL HOTEL TO BE ROOMS UNITS, COMPONENT PROJECT I REPLAc;ED SQ. FT. GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE 428,782 44,143 384,639 DWELLING UNITS 1 1 0 FRACTIONAL r? CLUB UNITS 15 01 15 ACCOMMODATION (HO1hi,) UNITS I 276 781 198 RESTAURANT SQUARE FOOTAGE 8,959 4,2171 4,742 LOUNGE SQUARE FOOTAGE 3,5901 1,196 1 2,394 COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE I 8,596 1 11932 6,664 HEALTH CLUB/SPA/RELATED SQ. FT. 29,447 0 29,447 CONi,ExENCE CENTER SQ. FT. 21,208 1,0741 } 20,134 0 -1- VAIL PLAZA HOTEL. TOWN OF VAS,, INCREMENTAL REVENUE EMPACTS -2- EXHIBIT I VAIL PLAZA HOTEL TOWN OF VAIL INCREMENTAL. REVENUE IMPACTS FINAL. DRAFT DATED 9-9-98 1998 TOWN RECURRING REVENUES AT PROJECT COMPLETION, BUDGET PROPERTY & S.O. TAXES $68,175 $2,054,140 4% SALES TAXES 1,163,213 14,557,735 4% SKI LIFT TAXES 46,679 2,164,288 1 % REAL ESTATE TAXES 11,760 1,700,000 BUSINESS LICENSES 11,632 341,500 COUNTY SALES TAXES 43,620 465,619 CIGARC i i E TAXES 388 128,393 ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND 15,026 539,798 FRANCHISE FEES 44,202 557,255 TOTAL INCREMENTAL REVS $1,404,696 X22,508.728 % OF TOWN'S 1998 BUDGET 6.2% 1998 TOWN INON-RECURRING REVENUES GENERATED BUDGET 0 % REAL ESTATE TAXES $294,000 $1,700,000 CONSTRUCT. RELATED PERMITS 483,750 550,000 TOTAL REVENUES $777,7517 $2.250.00 % OF TOWN'S 1998 BUDGET 34.6% OTHER SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION, 1997 ACTUAL SKIER DAYS 31,119 1,597,932 % OF 1997-98 ACTUAL 1.9% ASSESSED VALUATION $15,026,202 $448,552,540 % OF 1997 .ACTUAL 3.3% TAXABLE SALES $29,080,333 $367,525,500 % OF 1997 TOWN ACTUAL 7.9% GUEST NIGHTS 143,599 Not Available 0 -3- VAIL PLAZA HOTEL TOWN OF VAIL INCREMENTAL REVENUE IMPACTS III. SUN vLAaY OF SIGNIFICANT PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS A. GENERAL ASSUMe 4IONS 1. The incremental revenue impacts are based upon the Hotel Program Analysis as developed by Zehren and Associates, Inc, September 8, 1998. 2. All incremental revenue impacts are based upon 1998 uninflated dollars (i.e., inflationary impacts have been ignored for financial planning purposes). 3. Fifteen Fractional Club Units will be developed as a part of the Hotel. Approximately 28 weeks of each Fractional Club Unit will be sold as intervals and the remaining 24 weeks will be retained by the developers of the Hotel and rented to guests. E E. ASSESSED VALUATION AND PROehKTY TAX REVENUES 0 1. Hotel rooms (including hotel amenities and parking spaces) will have an actual value of $150,000 per room. 2. Retail, restaurant and lounge space will have an actual value of $275 per square foot. 3. Fractional Club Units (each containing approximately three bedrooms and 1,900 square feet) and the 5,542 square foot condominium will have an actual value of $1,000 per square foot. 4. The commercial assessment rate will remain at 29% of actual value and the residential assessment rate will remain at 9.74% of actual value. 5. The current assessed valuation of Vail Village Inn buildings 3,4 and 5 total approximately $2.0 million and have been deducted from the forecasted assessed valuation associated with the Hotel. 6. The T'own's 1998 certified mill levy of 4.321 mills is assumed to remain constant. -4- VAIL PLAZA HOTEL TOWN OF VAIL INCREMENTAL REVENUE "ACTS M. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS (CON, nNUED) C. SALES TAX REVENUES 1. It is assumed that an average of 1.75 persons will occupy each hotel room 80% of the year, and that the average hotel room rate will be $190. 2. It is assumed that an average of six persons will occupy the Fractional Club Units retained by the developers of the Hotel for rental purposes (i.e., the portion of each Fractional Club Unit expected to be rented for 24 weeks during the "shoulder seasons" of the year). An 80% occupancy rate and an average nightly rate of $500 is expected. 3. It is assumed that an average of six persons will occupy the Fractional Club Units expected to be sold as weekly intervals. A 9011/o occupancy rate is assumed and these units are expected to be used by the owners or their guests (i.e., no sales taxable rental income has been assumed although it is likely that some owners will rent their respective weekly intervals). 4. It is assumed that each hotel and Fractional Club guest will spend an average of $100 per day for sales taxable food, beverage, and retail related items. This assumed daily spending rate is supported by a survey conducted by RRC in 1996 and 1998. 5. The forecasted incremental sales tax revenues and guest nights generated from the Hotel have been reduced by sales tax revenues and guest nights estimated to be generated from the existing Vail Village Inn operations. D. LIFT TAX REVENUES 1. According to analyses developed by Design Workshop, annual skier days generated per Fractional Club Unit are assumed to be 252 and annual skier days generated per hotel room are assumed to be 13 8. 2. Effective taxable ski lift revenues per skier day are assumed to be $37.50. rF1 -5- VAIL PLAZA HOTEL TOXIN OF VAR. INCREMENTAL REVENUE FACTS M. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS (COIF I tNU'ED) E. REAL, ESTATE TRANSrhx TAX REVENUES 1. It is assumed that approximately 276 interval weeks will be sold for an average price of $70,000. 2. The annual rate for secondary sales of interval weeps is assumed to be 4% of total inventory. F. The Town's portion of the Eagle County road and bridge fund revenues are calculated based on a continuation of the 2.00 mill Eagle County road and bridge fund mill levy. C G. Construction permits were estimated based upon discussions with the Town's building department officials. H. The Eagle County sales tax rebate to the Town is calculated by applying a factor of .0275 to the Town's forecasted incremental annual sales tax revenues. 1. Cigarette tax revenues are calculated by applying a factor of .0089 to the Town°s incremental annual sales tax forecasts. 3. Franchise fee revenues are calculated by applying a factor of .038 to the Town's incremental annual sales tax forecasts. K. Business license revenues are calculated by applying a factor of .0I to the Town's incremental annual sales tax forecasts. n -6 Ll SECTION B REVENUE IMPACT MODEL - ALL SUPPORTING SCBEDULES 11 11 VAIL PLAZA EXISTING VVI INCREMENTAL HOTEL TO BE ROOMS, COMPONENT PROJECT REPLACED UNITS, Std. F1". GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE 428,732 44,1431 334,639 DWELLING UNITS 1 1 0 FRACTIONAL FEE CLUB UNITS 15 0 15 JACCOMODATION (HOTEL) UNITS 276 73 198 RESTAURANT SQUARE FOOTAGE 8,959 4,217 4,742 LOUNGE SQUARE FOOTAGE 3,590 1,196 2,394 COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE j 8,596 1,932 6,664 HEALTH CLUB/SPA/RELATED SQ. FT. 29,447 0 29,447 1 CONFERENCE CENTER SQ. FT. 21,208 1,0741 20,134 1 ? I I* SOURCE: ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROGRAM ANALYSIS DATED SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 B-1 E . i VAIL PLAZA HOTEL TOWN OF VAIL INCREMENTAL REVENUE IMPACTS RECURRING AT PROJECT COMPLETION -INAL DRAFT DATED 9-9--98 0 SUMMARY ING AT PROJECT C PROPERTY TAXES 4% SALES TAMES 4% SKI LIFT TAXES 1 % REAL ESTATE TAXES BUSINESS LICENSES COUNTY SALES TAXES CIGARETTE TAXES ROAM AND BRIDGE FUND SPECIFIC OWNERSHIP TAXES FRANCHISE FEES TOTAL INCREMENTAL REVS • -- VAIL PLAZA HOTEL B-2 $64,928 1,163,213 46,679 11,760 11,632 43,620 388 15,026 3,246 44,202 $1.404,696 n VAIL PLAZA HOTEL TOWN OF VAIL INCREMENTAL REVENUE IMPACTS FINAL DRAFT DATED 9-9-98 ASSESSED VALUE AND PROPERTY AND S.®. TAX REVENUES General Assumptions: Retail/Rest/Lounge Value - Sq. Ft. $275 Retail/Rest/Lounge Sq. Ft. 21,145 Hotel Value per Room $150,000 Hotel Rooms 276 Interval Sq. Ft. 1,900. - interval Units 15 Condominium Sq. Ft. 5,542 Condominium Units 1 Condo/Interval Value per Sq. Ft. $1,000 1. Retail/Restaurant/Lounge Space - Vail Plaza Hotel Actual Value Retail, Restaurtant, Lounge $5,814,875 Assessed Value @ 29% $1,686,314 Town Mill Levy 4.321 Town Property Taxes $7,287 Town S.O. Taxes @ 5% $364 2. Vail Plaza Hotel (Including Conf. Ctr. & Amenities) Actual Value Vail Plaza Hotel $41,400,000 Assessed Value @ 29% $12,006,000 Town Mill Levy 4.321 Town Property Taxes $51,878 Town S.O. Taxes @ 5% $2,594 3. Fractional (Interval) Club Units - Vail Plaza Hotel Actual Value Fractional Club Units $28,500,000 Assessed Value @ 9.74% $2,775,900 Town Mill Levy 4.321 Town Property Taxes $11,995 Town S.O. Taxes @ 5% $600 S-3 (Continued On Next Page) 11 Ll VAIL PLAZA HOTEL TOWN OF VAIL INCREMENTAL REVENUE IMPACTS FINIAL DRAFT DATED 9--9--98 11 ASSESSED VALUE AND F'R4?PERTY AND S.O. TAX REVS tCONIT.1 4. Condominium Unit - Vail Plaza Hotel Actual Value Condominium Unit $5,542,000 Assessed Value @ 9.74% $539,791 Town Mill Levy 4.321 Town Property Taxes $2,332 Town S.O. Taxes @ 5% $117 5. Total Assessed Valuation - Vail Plaza Hotel Proiect Assessed Value Retail Restaurant, Lounge $1,686,314 Assessed Value Hotel and Amenities $12,006,000 Assessed Value Fractional Club Units $2,775,900 Assessed Value Condominium Unit $539.791 Total Assessed Value - Vail Plaza Hotel Project $17,008,005 Town Mill Levy 4.321 Town Property Taxes 73.492 Town S.O. Taxes @ 5% 63.675 6. Deduct: Existina Assessed Valuation - Properties to be Replaced: Assessed Value - Buildings 3 & 4 $849,178 Assessed Value - Building 5 $832,625 Assessed Value - Dwelling Unit # 400 $300.000 Total Assessed Value - Bldgs. 3 - 5 and Unit #400 $1,981,803 Town Mill Levy 4.321 Town Property Taxes 8 563 Town S.O. Taxes @ 5% 1426 7. Net Incremental Assessed Valuation & Prooertv Tax Revenues Total Incremental Assessed Value - Vail Plaza Hotel P $15.026,202 Town Mill Levy 4.321 Town Property Taxes $64,928 Town S.O. Taxes @ 5% $3.246 8. County Road and Bridqe Fund Revenues @ 1 Mill 9. Construction Permits @ .0075 x $64,500.000 B-4 $15.t}26 $483,750 E VAIL PLAZA HOTEL TOWN OF VAIL INCREMENTAL REVENUE IMPACTS FINAL. DRAFT DATED 9-9-98 f 4% SALES TAX REVENUES General Assumptions: Hotel Rooms: Number of Rooms Available for Rent 276 Average Daily Rental Rate per Room $190 Average Annual Occupancy Rate per Room 80% Average Persons Occupying a Room 1.75 Incremental Persons Generated Annually 141,036 Average Taxable Daily Expenditure per Person (Excluding Lodging) $100 Fractional Club (Rental Portion - 24 weeks/year): Number of Fractional Units Available for Rent 15 Average Daily Rental Rate per Unit $500 Average Occupancy Rate per Unit 80% Average Persons Occupying a Unit 6 Incremental Persons Generated Annually 12,096 Average Taxable Daily Expenditure per Person (Excluding Lodging) $100 Fractional Club (interval Ownership Portion - 28 weeks/year): Number of Fractional Units Available for Occupancy 15 Average Daily Rental Rate per Unit 0 Average Occupancy Rate per Unit 90% Average Persons Occupying a Unit 6 Incremental Persons Generated Annually 15,876 Average Taxable Daily Expenditure per Person (Excluding Lodging) $100 Sales Taxes Generated from Hotel Operations Taxable Sales - Annual -e Lodging $15,312,480 4% Sales Tax - Annual - Lodging $612,499 Taxable Sales - Annual - Retail/Rest $14,103,600 4% Sales Tax - Retail/Restaurant $564,144 Taxable Sales - Annual - All Sources $29,416,080 4% Sales Tax - All Sources $1,176,643 (Continued On Next Page) R-5 C • I? f? VAIL. PLAZA HOTEL TOWN OF VAIL INCREMENTAL REVENUE IMPACTS FINAL DRAFT MATED 9-9-98 W-4% SALES TAX REVENUES (CONTINUED) 2. Sales Taxes Generated from Rental Portion of Fractional Club Taxable Sales - Annual - Lodging $1,008,000 4% Sales Tax - Annual - Lodging $40,320 Taxable Sales - Annual - Retail/Rest $1,209,600 4% Sales Tax - Retail/Restaurant $48,384 Taxable Sales - Annual - All Sources $2,217,600 4% Sales Tax - All Sources $88,704 3. Sales Taxes Generated from Interval Portion of Fractional Club Taxable Sales - Annual - Lodging $0 4% Sales Tax - Annual - Lodging $0 Taxable Sales - Annual - Retail/Rest $1,587,600 4% Sales Tax - Retail/Restaurant $63,504 Taxable Sales - Annual - All Sources $1,587,600 4% Sales Tax - All Sources $63,504 4. Sales Taxes Generated from All Sources: Taxable Sales - Annual - Lodging $16,320,480 4% Sales Tax - Annual - Lodging $652,819 Taxable Sales - Annual - Retail/Rest $16,900,800 4% Sales Tax - Retail/Restaurant $676,032 Taxable Sales - Annual - All Sources $33,221,280 4% Sales Tax - All Sources ;1.328,851, 5. Deduct: Existing Sales Taxes Generated from Prooerties to be Replaced: Taxable Sales - Annual - Lodging - 78 Rooms $1,600,000 4% Sales Tax - Annual - Lodging - 78 Rooms $64,000 Annual Persons Generated from 78 Rooms @ 51% Occupancy 25,409 Taxable Sales - Annual - Retail/Restaurant $2,540,948 4% Sales Tax - Annual - Retail/Restaurant $101,638 Taxable Sales - Annual - All Sources $4.140,.948 4% Sales Taxes - Annual - All Sources $165,638 6, Net Incremental Taxable Sales & 4% Sales Tax Revenues Taxable Sales - Annual - Lodging 4% Sales Tax - Annual - Lodging Taxable Sales - Annual Retail/Restaurant 4% Sales Tax - Annual - Retail/Restaurant Taxable Sales - Annual - All Sources 4% Sales Taxes - Annual - All Sources 7. County Tax Rebate (cr7 .0375 $14,720,480 $588,819 $14,359,853 $574,394 $29.080.333 $1.163,213 $43.620 8. Cigarette Taxes 0 .0089 388 9. Franchise Fees @.0038 $44.202 Q!. Business License Fees 0.01 X11.632 B-6 t r K VAIL PLAZA HOTEL TOWN OF VAIL INCREMENTAL REVENUE IMPACTS FINAL DRAFT DATED 9-9--98 114% SKI LIFT TAX REVENUES General Assumptions: Annual Skier Days/FFU 253 Annual Skier Days/Hotel Room 138 Effective Revs/Skier Day $37.50 1. Ski Lift Taxes Generated from Hotel Rooms Number of Hotel Rooms 276 Skier Days 389088 Taxable Lift Revenues $1,428,300 4% Ski Lift Taxes -- Hotel Rooms $57,132 2. Ski Lift Taxes Generated from Fractional Units Number of Fractional Units 15 Skier Days 3,798 Taxable Lift Revenues $142,313 4% Ski Lift Taxes $5,693 3. Ski Lift Taxes Generated from All Sources Skier Days 41,883 Taxable Lift Revenues $1.570.613 4% Ski Lift Taxes $621825 4. Deduct: Existing Ski Lift Taxes Generated from Properties to be Replaced: is Number of Hotel Rooms 78 Skier Days 10,764 Taxable Lift Revenues $403.650 4% Ski Lift Taxes $10_1 40 5. Net Incremental Skier Davs & 40/o Ski Lift Tax Revenues Skier Days 31,119 Taxable Lift Revenues $1.166,_963 4% Ski Lift Taxes $46,67-9- B-7 11 VAIL PLAZA 'HOTEL TOWN OF VAIL INCREMENTAL REVENUE IMPACTS FINAL DRAFT DATED 9--9-95 1% REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX REVENUES General Assumotions: Interval Weeks for Sale per Unit Number of Units Number of Interval Weeks for Sales Ave. Price per Interval Week Secondary Sales Bate 1. Sale of Fractional Fee Interval Weeks Taxable Initial Sales 1% NETT Taxes - Initial Sales I%Rr- i + Taxes -- Secondary C S-8 28 15 420 $70,000 4.00% $29,400,000 $294.000 $11.780 ?.J x, ?,? ?r-r ? 1 7 a ? t ? f' !?:. r < ?.?? ? ??: ,,' GNRR? E R' C)4:a31 1o' lCx'atevaa 3 Road, 12 ?a Co. 3auar5' 5,1999 forge der , . Senior -Plavaer Taws of via Fax: 479-2452 ;z. 1Le: Tillage inu Dear Ms'- muter- fallowi°' cent tt} the Village 1U 13otel- is to corgi the gateway • It is directly adaa went about the '? t 3 in the V OR from Stoltz Mana to any I . am the ocaner of of V all nor in meet&? I object written ,once fr°mt I ??gnsnental CowSa cav 2. I lie nat re edor dbout lnua notice r?,vaL Writtim VITage iam$roP I proper and act 2,,d ex??g S DT) aPp Meetings you waster plan part on the axg and bloc?g the view 3. I purchased MY 10't rely?g lax the gDD Wroyal, violating the n3aster p 4.1 object to the Village corridor towards Clold Peak. V,,,y Truly Yours $reyo sobn 11 nr? lta. Pont Office Box 3= bait CO Phoum 9M,9ft41= el FAX 970.SIMUM4 M La ''"`' s 'ru2rlin®vaiLnet Wednesday, January 6,1999 Members of the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Department of Community Development Vail, CO 81657 Re: Vail Plaza Hotel Dear Members I Dave been asked to make an objective evaluation of the proposed Vail plaza Hotel and analize the potential detriments Tom the realization of this development.) have reviewed the submittal and the following are comments for the record. A11 of the pedestrian space is surrounded by structure that is often 40 to 70 feet in height creating areas that will be permanently in shadow and offering very little openness or landscaping and unless you are within the building itself there is not any protection from the micro climates in the area created by the new structure such as wind. This design does not create any enclosure. Based on the applicants own study of the shadows, the Frontage road would also remain in shadow and visually create a wall of structure that prohibits any view beyond. What ever happened to view corridor that initially restricted the development surrounding the roundabout? Those restrictions have been in place since the earliest proposals for this area were presented. It is obvious that the intent of previous review decisions held the height to maintain this view. I would life to question the validity of such a gross deviation to the approved SDD especially when it appears that this project significantly increases the size above the previous approval and essentially doubles the density and height of the underlining 11 J IV` (- l 5 1k7 • C i C 4 C!V F t4 'Cv hC i bLN H 1 Y i riYC sk15 ?F JJ 24 t . iSJ k f zoning. Is this the way the Master Plan untended the development to proceed? I believe upon earefUl examination you will fled this project does not meet that criteria- Additionally I would like to touch upon other aspects of the According to the submittal, the traffic study indicates that there would be little effect upon the existing conditions, but I would tend to diftr on this because this project would only begin to set a precedent for others that would eventually maidmize the capacity of the roundabout and it is clear that this now creates an alley out of the ftntage road and diminishes the character of the entrance to the village. The model utilized for this study does not take this into consideration. Generally the request to significantly reduce the setbacks require the applicant to show there would be a hardship. I cannot see the hard ship in this case. Again there is very little consideration given to the neighboring development. A final. question. was not a similar but smaller project for this area previously rejected by the Council and Planting Commission? And what has change to make this approval? Sincerely, Steven James Riden AJ.A_ Architect .IUIHL P.03 'ail Village Im Subject: Vail Village Inn Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:07:14 EST 'roan: Sealaw@aol.com To: ford@vail.net, "George Ruther" <gruther@ci.vai1.co.us> CC: bryanwachs@pobox.com, John Dunn <lex@vail.net>, LEdwal234@aot.corn, Hanna@aol.com, David <DavidHanna@sota.com>, kinney cr sequelve.com, JFLamont E'VHA@email.msn.com, palmos@privatei.com, sriden@vail.net CHARLES R. LIPCON . Vail Gateway Unit 5 12 S. Frontage Road Vail, Co. 81657 Tel. (970) 476-515- Fax. (970) 476-8681 January 7,1999 Mayor Rob Ford and Town Council Members, Planning and Environmental Commission, and George Ruther, Senior Planner Town of Vail Fax: 479-2452 Re: Vail Village Inn Dear Sirs and Madams: One or more of the residential property owners at the Vail Gateway have the following objections to the Vail Village Inn A Major Amendment to Special Development District ##6 as follows: 1. The application for Planning and Environmental Commission Approval was signed by Jay K. Peterson as attorney in fact on April 13, 1998. I received a copy of the limited power of attorney signed by Waldir R. Prado as managing director on Jan. 4, 1999. A review of the power of attorney indicates that: THE POWER OF ATTORNEY IS SPECIFICALLY LIMITED TO CHAPTER 12-9a-2. THIS CHAPTER DEALS WITH DEFINITIONS. THE POWER IS INVALID ON ITS FACE TO AUTHORIZE JAY PETERSON TO SIGN AN APPLICATION FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION APPROVAL WITH-RESPECT TO A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO AN SDD. Further, there is nothing in the record with the town that would indicated that Waldir Prado was the duly appointed managing director of Daymer Corp. or that Daymer Corp. has through its board of directors approved the granting of a power of attorney to Jay K. Peterson. 2. In spite of numerous requests, neither I nor any of the other residential owners in the Vail Gateway, to my knowledge, have been given notice of any hearings what so ever in front of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Notice to Stoltz Management is not adequate since they do/did not in turn provide notice to the owners in the Vail Gateway. This information about lack of notice was previously provided to you. YOU HAVE ACTUAL NOTICE THAT THE GIVING OF NOTICE TO STOLTZ MANAGEMENT DOES NOT IN TURN RESULT IN NOTICE TO THE CONDOMINIUM OWNERS IN THE VAIL GATEWAY. This is specially troublesome in light of the fact that Stoltz Management or their principals was represented by Jay Peterson who is also the claimed attorney in fact and the attorney for Daymer Corp. 3. The Town of Vail ordinance 12-3-6 C. dealing with notice constitutes a denial of due process and equal protection of the law for the owners in the Vail Gateway and other adjacent condominium owners since it does not provide for actual notice to them as adjacent property owners. YOU HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY INFORMED THAT THE GIVING OF NOTICE TO STOLTZ MANAGEMENT DOES NOT IN TURN RESULT IN NOTICE TO THE CONDOMINIUM OWNERS IN THE VAIL GATEWAY. As such of 4 1/8/99 8:24 AM Vail Viilage Inn it is unconstitutional. A letter from John Breyo, owner of Unit 3 in the Vail Gateway was faxed to you indicating lack of notice as well as reliance on the master plan, zoning, etc. 4. The amendment violates the "view corridor" from the four way stop (now roundabout) established in the SDD approval for the Village Inn. Based on this "view corridor" the height of the Vail Gateway was reduced. In Rick Pylman's (Town Planner for Vail) letter dated Feb. 16, 1988 discussing the Vail Gateway, he stated: "Staff feels strongly that this building(Vail Gateway) should present no encroachment into the view corridor that is established by the approved Vail Village inn development. The existing design will require substantial revisions to maintain the view parameters established by the VVI." It would be unfair, arbitrary, and unreasonable to have reduced the height of the Vail Gateway based on the ,view corridor" in the SDD ordinance for the Village Inn and then to turn around and ignore the same requirement for the Village Inn itself. The agreement between. Joe Stauffer and the Town of Vail as documented in the SDD approval constitutes a recorded real covenant that inures to the benefit of the adjacent land owners who relied on this real covenant. The SDD approval provides for a three story building in the "view corridor" area. The SDD approval was the result of give and take negotiations between the Town of Vail and Joe Stauffer. Joe Stauffer agreed to two story buildings on East Meadow Drive and Vail Road in return for a five story building on Frontage Road. In addition to constituting a real covenant, the SDD approval constitutes a contract between the Town of Vail and Joe Stauffer which inures to the benefit of adjacent owners as third party beneficiaries. 5. The amendment violates the Town, of Vail Master Plan. The master plan states with respect to the Vail Village Inn: "Mass of buildings shall step up from existing pedestrian scale along Meadow Drive to 4-5 stories along Frontage Road .... Design must be sensitive to maintaining view corridor from 4-way stop IS to Vail Mountain" The VVI proposal will directly impact the character of the Vail Village. if approval of the amendment is allowed, where will it stop. Won't the owners of the Holiday House property, the gas station and others want to have the same massive size to maximize the value of their properties. Perhaps the Vail Gateway would like to add another 4 floors also. The entrance to the Vail Village would be a massive canyon of buildings more in keeping with a large city rather than a unique ski village. 6. The Village Inn project does not coordinate well with the Vail Gateway. It cuts off its pedestrian access and drastically reduces its visibility. This would be particularly harmful to the commercial tenants in the building. The Town of Vail in considering the Vail Gateway SDD application required that a major entrance be placed on the side of the building facing the Village Inn. That entrance would be virtually worthless under the Village Inn proposal. The'Vail Gateway would be facing a large wall that goes up 95 feet which would only be a few feet from the Vail Gateway property. A canyon would be created. This is not in keeping with the initial representation made by the Vail Village Inn to the Town of Vail, that: "The architects Zehren & Associates were challenged to accommodate this program in a configuration harmonious to the immediate neighborhood and add to the Vail Character." There is nothing harmonious about this project as it relates to the Vail Gateway and it is certainly not in keeping with the Vail Character. It is a big city project being urged on a small village. During the application process for the Vail Gateway, it was required that a major entrance be placed for access from the Village Inn property. In Rick Pylman's (Town Planner for Vail) letter dated Feb. 16, 1988 he stated: "We feel that it will be important that this project and the approved Vail Village Inn project when built, have a strong pedestrian connection. We recognize the 10 need for the developer of the VVI project to relate his project to the Vail Gateway. We do want to ensure, however, that the design of the Gateway allows this pedestrian connection to occur." 7. The Village Inn project comes within 2 feet or so of the Vail Gateway 2 of4 11$/99 8:24 AM 'ail Village Iran driveway where cars enter the garage and deliveries are made. It would create large alley that would cause auto and diesel fumes to accumulate and enter the Vail Gateway. This would be noxious, odorous, harmful to health, and perhaps deadly. A study should be done to determine the buildup of carbon monoxide and other dangerous fumes that would enter the Vail Gateway and the Village inn from this area. 5. The Village inn project would cut off sunlight and air for the Vail Gateway. The Vail Gateway would for the most part be in the shadow of the Village Inn. 9. The traffic, noise, and accompanying pollution in the area of the roundabout, Vail Road, and Frontage Road would increase dramatically. The roundabout presently backs up at certain times of the day, and the increase in the number of cars will only exacerbate the problem. The Traffic Impact Analysis done by Feisburg, Hult & Ullevig.is based on the assumption that 500 of the traffic is internal and as such reduced their trip generation figures by 500. This ignores the fact that the Vail Village has a free transportation system that is unique. Even assuming a 50% reduction, the overall traffic increases from about 1050 trips per day to 3100 trips per day. THIS IS A TRIPLING IN TRAFFIC. If the assumed reduction figure is wrong then the increase could be as much as six fold. An increase percentage of 20 was used to indicate that the traffic would go to 4600 vehicles during the PM peak hour in the year 2015. This assumes that further large hotel projects similar to the Village Inn will not be approved, which would be unrealistic if this project is approved. There would be a Domino effect. 10. No studies have been filed to reflect the pollution levels that would come from the increased traffic. 11. The owner of the Village Inn knew at the time of its purchase what was allowed and what was not allowed under the SDD approval in place at the time. The Village inn proposal would change the rules and would greatly increase the value of the Village inn property and at the same time diminish the value of the Vail Gateway property as well as other adjacent property owners. It would be unfair to provide the Village inn owner with a financial wind fall at the expense of the Vail Gateway owners. 12. owners in the Vail Gateway purchased their properties and spent money fixing them up relying on the approvals already in place for the Village Inn, including the view corridor, as well as the master plan. As such changing these items would constitute an inverse condemnation of the ownership interests of the Vail-Gateway owners. The value of the Vail Gateway owners would be reduced so as to provide a windfall to the owners of the Vail. Village Inn. 13. The Vail master plan which was enacted by ordinance cannot be violated under the guise of an SDD, without changing the master plan itself. Attorney John Dunn has previously submitted a memorandum of law on this issue. The Village Inn acknowledge this when they submitted a "Revision of Vail Village Master Plan- Conceptual Building Height Plan..." on Nov. 30, 1995. 14. The Village Inn proposal has not discussed the hazard of a fire spreading to or from their buildings to the Vail Gateway in light of their extremely close proximity. (The fact that the proposed Vail Village Inn has exterior fireproofing does not apply to the Vail Gateway and the Village Inn Condo which does not have special fireproofing.) What further problems would this create for the fire department if a fire had to be fought? Also there is no showing that the Town of Vail fire department could handle a fire in a building of this size and height. 15. What assurances has the owner of the Village Inn provided that it has the financial and real estate capability to build what they say they want to build? What assurances have they provided that they are trustworthy and will of 4 1!$199 8:24 AM Vail 'Villaa Inn do what they say they will do? Daymer Corporation N.V. has reportedly been previously involved in litication where claims were made of wrongful conduct by Daymer. Daymer should mane a full disclosure of prior litigation and its 0 outcome to properly assess its trustworthiness. Also its true ownership should be revealed since it is a Netherlands Antilles Corporation. 16. The simulated pictures submitted by the Vail village Inn are misleading. View analysis number three shows a nine story Vail Village Hotel not much higher than the adjacent five story Vail Gateway. If the true height of the Vail Village Inn was depicted the whole of the Golden Peak area would be blocked. Even the incorrect picture submitted shows that the view of the Golden Peak area would be almost completely blocked. 17. The sales tax revenues projected to the Town of Vail are based on numerous assumptions. What guarantees or bonds have the Village Inn offered if their projections are wrong. If the Village Inn is seeking to motivate the Town of Vail by the promise of additional funds, certainly they should stand behind the numbers and provide a guarantee or bond from a financially sound third party to back up their numbers. 18. The Village Inn should provide compensation to the adjacent property owners, whose values will go down as a result of the Village Inn violations of the master plan as well as the agreement between the Town of Vail and Joe Stauffer as codified in the SDD approval, 19. The Vail Plaza Hotel Fact Sheet is misleading. It indicates that the 1992 approval allowed a building height of 67 feet. It does not indicate that this height applied to the building on Frontage Road and does not apply to the buildings that would be south of the Vail Gateway. (Between the Vail Gateway and the ski mountain) 20. The report of the gown Planner is expected to be done by the end of the 0 day on Friday Jan. 8, 1999. It is unknown if sufficient time will be available to review the report prior to the PEC meeting scheduled for Monday Jan. 11, 1999. As such the right to object on this ground is reserved until such time as the report has been provided and studied. 21. No view corridor analysis was done other than providing photos so of which are misleading. A view corridor analysis was requested in the memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated June 22, 1998. 22. No urban design analysis was done. An urban design analysis was requested in the memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated June 22, 1998. 23. The Town Planning department was unable to locate the original SDD approved drawings for the Vail Village Inn referenced in Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1976. These are needed for review and reference particularly in terms of the View Corridor. Where applicable the same objections are being made to the Faessler Amendments to the Public Accommodation Zone District. Very Truly Yours, Charles R. Lipcon C 4 of 4 118199 8.24 AM It , 171 January 7, 1998 Mr. Rob Ford Mayor, Town of Vail Mr. George Ruther Senior Planner Town of Vail Fax: 970.479.2452 Dear Mr. Ford and Mr. Ruther, I would like to formally object to the proposed Vail Village Inn's Special Development District as defined for the Vail Village Inn (VVI) site. As a year-round resident of the Village Inn Plaza Condominiums, which are adjacent to the proposed Vail Village Inn development, I am disturbed with apparent disregard for the current planning guidelines and the magnitude and arrogance of the proposed development. As proposed, the site, referred to as Special Development District Number 6 (SDD #6), grossly exceeds the APPROVED development standards contained in the SDD #6 legislation as well as some guidelines in the Vail Village Master Plan. Specifically, at issue are the Gross Residential Floor Area and the height of the proposed building. Currently, the proposed plan violates an established view corridor that has a controlling effect upon buildings in SDD #6. Likewise, the proposed plan totally disregards the Vail Village Master Plan height guidelines. As the owner of the southwest unit in the Village Inn Plaza Condominiums, the proposed plan: 1) eliminates all western exposure to the mountains and the sun, 2) places truck docks literally against a bedroom wall, 3) eliminates any privacy from my patios, and 4) suggests traffic patterns that will be unacceptable. Does the proposed plan compensate my potential loss in real estate value? Does the proposed plan compensate me for several years of dirt and construction noise? Can you boldly eliminate values that were developed to protect my neighbors and me? I am not opposed to change. I also believe that a quality hotel would, in the long run, enhance the core of the Village. What I am opposed to is the blatant and reckless disregard to guidelines that were established to preserve the integrity of Vail Village and to protect individuals such as myself. Is your intent to build another Beaver Creek? Construct a cement city in the mountains? 11 I trust that good judgment and a true sense to preserve the value of Vail Village will overcome a purely greedy and irresponsible decision. Yours truly, Finney L. Johnson CC: Village Inn Plaza Condominium Association 11 -17 AST ILLA F OMEOWNERs ASSOCIATION, INC. Officers: President - Bob Galvin Secretary - Gretta Parks Treasurer - Patrick Gramm Directors - Judith Berkowstz - Dolph Bndgewater - Hie Cauildns - Ron Langley - Bill Morton - Connie Fodder To: Mayor Rob Ford and Town Council Members Planning and Environmental Commission From: Jim Lamont, Executive Director Date: January 7, 1999 RE: Special Development District 6 - Prado Amendment Public Accommodation Zone District - Faessler Amendments The Homeowners Association objects to the proposed Waldir Prado Amendment to Vail Village Inn Special Development District 6 (SDD6) and to the Johannes Faessler Amendments to the Public Ac- commodations Zone District. On the basis of the following factors the Association recommends denial of both proposals as currently proposed. There are merits contained within each proposal. However, the cu- mulative scope of the proposals suggests that a comprehensive master planning process should be undertak- en to amend the Vail Village Master Plan in order to substantiate the concepts underlying these proposal within the broader context of Vail Village and the economic needs of the community. The community's long held vision of accommodating appropriate and timely development within the context of controlled master planned growth and the established character of the community's neighborhoods should continue. 1. Special Development District 6 - Prado amendment: 1. The Prado amendment significantly exceeds the requirements of the existing SDD6 that its ap- proval would be considered a breach of faith on the part of the Town of Vail to fulfill the terms of zoning agreements it adopted, subsequent to negotiation with property owners, for the Vail Village Inn and Vail lsateway sites. These zoning agreements and standards were based upon detailed planning and zoning analysis ofthe site, adjacent sites, the surrounding neighborhood and Vail Village in general. The Amend- m t causes a degree of departure that does not conform to the requirements of the Vail Village Master Plan or follow the requirements to amend the master plan. In order to amend the Vail Village Master Plan a comprehensive review of conditions, opportune#tes, and consequences is required for the site, adjacent sites, the surrounding neighborhood and Vail Village in order to determine the impacts and compatibility of the Prado proposal upon the established character of the surrounding neighborhood and Vail Village. 2. The bulk, mass, height and setbacks of the proposed structure is incompatible and inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Certain functional aspects of the proposal, such as traffic flow, air duality and pedestrian routes will cause the potential for ongoing dysfunctional and detrimental activities to occur on or adjacent to the site. The current proposal should be reduced in order to overcome these and other detrimental effects upon adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood and Vail Village. 3. The degree of economic benefit is prejudiced towards the Prado Amendment at the expense of prior property owners and all adjacent property owners. These property owners have been or are subject to more onerous requirements enforced by the Town of Vail than would be Prado. If approved, the result will be a grant of special privilege that creates a windfall economic benefit that will accrue solely to the gain of the Town of Vail through increased tax revenues and the current property owner through increased density and building size. 11. Public Accommodation Zone District - Faessler Amendments 1. In established residential neighborhoods where the Public Accommodation Zone District occurs the proposal will cause radical changes to the character of these residential neighborhoods. The degree of the increase in bulk, mass and uses would aggravate existing noxious conditions and therefore would be detrimental to these established residential neighborhoods and Vail Village in general. Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: (974) 827-5680 Message[FAX: (970) 827-5856 EVHA/TOV - SDD6 and Public Accommodations Zone District Amendments 1/7/1999 2. The proposal creates the opportunity to concentrate an aggregation of commercial space on sites adjacent to the main entrance to Vail. The scope of this opportunity suggests that a comprehensive master planning process should be undertaken to amend the Vail Village Master Plan in order to provide guidance to the scope of development being proposed. The Vail Village :Master Plan was adopted in 1990 and is considered a comprehensive long range master plan. 3. The proposal to grant increased exterior retail uses should continue to be limited to the interior of a building or to buildings that front established pedestrian precincts or have ample required setbacks from roadways. 4. The proposal in deregulating the amount of commercial space is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Public Accommodations Zone District and as well, the proposal denies the same or similar treatment to all similar types of lodging facilities and therefore appears to create a grant of special privilege. 5. There are aspects of the Public Accommodations Zone District development standards that are in need of reform in order to encourage the development of short term accommodations and affordable housing. However, the degree of change advocated in the Faessler Amendments are far reaching and may have unintended consequences. III. Cumulative Effects: 1. The proposals appears to reinforce and aggravate existing infrastructural problems in Vail Vil- lage. At a minimum, any proposal to increase the density, size or uses on any site must include require- ments to absorb, on the site, a portion of surrounding neighborhood and Vail Village infrastructural needs. For example, a pressing infrastructural problem in Vail Village is the need for dispersed off-street loading and delivery facilities. Loading and delivery facilities should to be :incorporated into new developments that serve on-site, neighborhood and Vail Village needs. As well, the housing of employees generated by new developments should be required. 2. If not properly master planned, the aggregate impact from increases in commercial square foot- age and time share units may dilute the value of existing businesses and properties with the latent affect of reducing the overall economic health of the community. Further, it would be useful to know the number of new hotel rooms that are required to offset losses in recent years in the rental of condominium units and from the migration of local consumers down valley, Additionally, efforts should be undertaken to reform tax codes and sales tax rates so as to stimulate the condominium rental market or to entice businesses to en- courage customers to pay their fair share of sales tax. 2 L.Aw OFF ice-9 A 0"err-SWOW& mnPo""aft TOWN W- DUNN ARTHUR A. ARPLANALP, JR. DIANE HERMAN MAURIELLO CARRIE A. HEN€3CN SPECIAL COUNSEL: JERRY W. HANNAN WFSTSTAR BANK BUILDING 106 SOUTH 1= RQNTAGE ROAD WFL5T SUITE 300 VAIL, COLORADO 61667 January 8, 1999 Ccorge Ruther, Senior Planner Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail CO VIA FACSIMILE 479-2452 Re: Vail Plaza Hertel Project Dear George: 61 U11 1 tai it ti[ v rr 4i t T. ? TEL£PIAONE (970) .47f3'-C?3CJ0 ; Jt FAC51MILE: _ (970) 476-4-765 KAREN M< DUNN CERTTFIED LEGAL A9919YAN7 t r. Chuck Lipcon tells me that a copy of my letter to the Planning and Environmental `'? 11 Commission, dated June Z, 1998, is not in the Me in connection with the allove matter- A copy of it therelbre 1`oll«; ws, and t ask that it, together with this letter, he put in the life. It is our intent to have the hea ing before the Planning and. Environmental Commission transcribed by a court reportez, at our own expense of course. We will share any transcript with you and ask that it be matte a part of the record. Thanks for your help in connection with this matter. Yours very truly, DUNN, ABPLANALP & MAIIRTELL0, P.C. jwd:ipsc cc. Mr. l ipcon Mr, Moorhead I Jo W. Dunn t +, LAIN OrricEs DUNN, AePLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C. A PR0"=A1*WA1 i „ WIQN JOHN W. DUNN 30B SOUTH FRONTAGE.E'ROAn WEST 4P AATMLIA A. AGPi,ANALP, JR. SUITE 300 ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN VAtL? COLORADO 8t667 DIANE 6. HERMAN R. C. STEPHENSON 9FCCU4 C4UN9EL' 1(](yQ a June 2 9717 JERRY W. HANNAH , Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Va CO 81657 Re: Vail Plaza Hotel Project Dear Cv......:ssiQn Members: TELEPHONE: 49701 476-0300 FAC31 MILE: t470) 476-476H KAREN K OUNN CER11FIEtD t.eGAL AWATAxT We represent three residential unit owners at Vail Gateway Plaza and have been requested by them to provide you with written comment with A1r1p=t to the application of Daymer Corporation for a major amendment to Special Deveiut,..emt District #6, the Vail. ViAlage Inn Site ("the Vail Plaza Hotel Project" or "the Project"). Having reviewed the plans submitted to the Town, we wish to set forth our con.w.,,.s with respect to the relationship of the Project to the Vail Village Master Plan. From our review of the plans, it appears that the portions of the Project located immediately adjacent to Vail Gateway Plaza will be 60 to 84 feet above the existing grade to the south of Gateway Plaza on Vail Road and 70 to 100 feet above the existing grade to the cast of Gateway Plaza on Frontage Road. This proposed building height is not in conformity with the Conceptual Building Height Plan of the Vail Village Master Plan, which establishes a building height guideline on those parcels adjacent to Gateway Plaza of 3-4 (stepped) building stories. Inasmuch as the Conceptual Building Height Plan defines "building story" as nine feet, the corresponding building height guidelines are 27 to 36 feet. Nor is the proposed building height in conformity with the Sub-Area #I-i. Plan at page 37 of the Master Flan, which requires that the mass of buildings "step-up" from pedestrian scale along Meadow Drive to 4-5 stories along Frontage Road. Construing the two together, the structure to the south of Gateway Plaza could not by any intr.. l.. w..ation exceed four stories or 36 feet. The proposed building heights for the Project adjacent to Gateway Plaza therefore exceed master plan limitations by as much as 33 to 48 feet on Vail Load and 43 to 64 fact on Frontage Road. In other words, the plan proposes a building that is at least twice the height limitations of the Vail Village Master Plan on those parcels. J 5 d a.) d i Section 12®9,x_8 of the hail Municipal Code includes as part of the design; criteria for approval of an SDD "conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive playa, Town policies and unman design plans" and provides, with reference to those standards, that. "It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved:..." We are not able to find anything in the applicant's suL•uiiW to suggest that the height limitations of the master plan are not applicable or that the applicant is proposing a solution to the conflict with the master plan which is consistent with the public interest. We can only conclude that the applicant is asking that the height limitations of the master plan be ignored for purpose of the application. It is therefore the purpose of this letter to provide you with a review -;. of Colorado law on the relationship between master plans and zoning, including in particular the type of zone district know as the "planned unit development" ("PUD") or, as it is known in Vim, the special development district ("SDD"). Based upon our review of that law, it is our beliefthat the toaster plan must be strictly adhered to in the consideration of SDD zoning, and we respectfully request that your commission so determine at the outset of its consideration of the application. The Colorado Supreme Court first addressed the effect of a master plaza in T eobald v Board (if t wnty Comm'r.s, 644 P.2d 942 (Colo. 1982). In that case, the court held that a toaster plan is advisory only and that, in order for it to have a direct effect on property rights, it must be further implemented through zoning. Thereafter, in Beaver Meadows v B" d of County Comm `rr, 709 P,2d 428 (Colo. 1985), the court held that, while a roaster plan as an advisory document is not necessarily binding can the zoning; discretion of a goy ?..?..Yental beady, it is binding when the zoning legislation requires compliance with it. Most recently, in Board of County Comm'rs v Conder, 927 P.2d 1339 (Colo. 1996), our sup,;:.,e court was faced with a subdivision application which cotdu....ed with applicable zoning; but not with the county toaster plan, which had been adopted as a "guideline" by the subdivision regulations. Over two dissents, the court held that the county could enforce the master plan compliance provision legislatively adopted as part of the stttxiivision regulations. Taken together, those cases tell us that, to the extent that zoning is inconsistent with the master plan, the master plan will prevail, provided compliance with it is required by some regulation. We recognize that the Town has great flexibility in the amendment of special development district zoning and that a purpose of an SDD zone district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use. We also recognize that our local district court has upheld the Town council's adoption of SDD zoning over a challenge based upon the argument that the adoption of it constituted "spot zoning in contravention of the Town's master plan. However, we are not arguing that the present application violates objectives or policies of the toaster plan, which are aspirational in nature. Rather, we are arguing that no zone district within the town may violate a very specific height • SEND` BY : ATTORNEYS r7l 1- 8-88 , 11.01 b 9704764765- 9704792452,n 5/ 6 limitation imposed by the master plan, given the master plan's incorporation into the Town's zoning, including SDD zoning. It should also be mentioned that, so far as we are aware, there has not been district court review of a rezoning in this county since the Gon&r decision. Prior to that decision, it night have been argued that an SDD zone district, because it establishes special rules for that zone district, may override master plan requirements. However, in Gorr the court affirmed Lorimer County's denial of an application for a PUD subdivision based upon the subdivision's creation of density in conflict with the county roaster plan, even though (as the court emphasized) the proposed use of the land was in compliance with the county's zoning resolution. h must therefore be concluded that, if the entirety of the Latimer County zoning resolution could, not have the efi`ect of overriding the county master plan, PUD or SDD zoning could not have that effect. We also recognize that zoning is a matter of local and municipal that the Town's zoning authority is governed by its town charter and ordinances, 7.arwda to City & Cowity of Denver. Llenver, 759 Pa.2d 664 (Colo, 1998). Service Oil Co. v. Rhodos, 500 P.2d 807 (Colo. 1972), and that the cases cited in this letter address county master- plans., However, the of zoning authority is contained in statute, § 31-23-391, C.R.S., and that authority is conditioned upon the adoption of a master plan by § 31-23-303, C.R.S. Further, the statutory purposes go?-;,i,. ng the adoption of a municipal master plan, § 3I-23-207, C.RS., traclt with those governing the adoption ofa county master plan, § 30-28-107, C.R.S., and both counties and municipalities area.. required to find master plan compliance as a condition to approval of a PM § 24-67-104(lxt), C.R.S., absent a superseding ordinance of the municipality. Var'1's ordinance in fact is consistent, with that statute. Finally, the discussion contained in the county cases cited are a discussion of . general principles of land use law. It is therefore our conclusion that your commission must give 4 literal efFect to the Vail Village Master flan, including in particular the height li",.dons contained in it, in considering the application for the Project. Of course, the Town's master plans may be amended, but than proms should only be initiated by the Town council. Pursuant to § 31-27-207, CRS., "careful and c,, up,.els,ensive surveys and studies of present conditions and future growth" are required. Lake' fion of that process, we believe, ought not be motivated by a single application. .; it is our understanding that the applicant believes that the economic benefit of its project to the community, including hotel accommodations and conference space, outweigh the importance of roaster plan compliance. In that connectiorn, it is well to bear in grind the purposes of the Town's zoning regulations as they are set forth in § 12-1-2, Vail Municipal Code: "these regulations are enacted for the plea,. of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to p-v--ote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and, enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality." 17-1 -SENI' BY T i `'k 4 1- 8-b ; 11:01 004764766- &70716,245224-, bi:,, 't'hat purpose, we suggest, is intended to preserve the character of the town and not to o,..,.uote economic development. We need not remind you that members of the public, including our clients, have relied on the Town's land use regulations. Our clients were told, when they ppurchased units at - Gateway Plaza, that they would continue to have unobstructed views, and they made major investments based upon that information. If those views are obstructed, their inv;,,,u.,ents will be significantly devalued. our clients understand that the Town's zoning was not enacted to protect their personal vier corridors. However, because they are adjacent landowner and because the value of their property may be affected by your recommendation to coumil, they havt standing before you, Section I2-3-3, Vail Municipal Code, provides. for administrative detc i cm or interpretation of the provisions of the zoning ordinance and for review of such determination or. interpretation by your commission. We urge you to request an int-ip.. ration of § 12-9A-S(D), `Tail Municipal Code, and a determination that that provision-requires that the application before you strictly comply with the building height limitations of the Vail Village Master Platt. In making that request, we do not wish to minimize other aspects of the Project which would require that on the merits your commission make a rec. i.wiendationt of denial of the application. The impact of the Project on Frontage Road is difficult even to imagine. Traffic flow through the roundabout intersection and along F. u..4e Road would be in%Ar;.,sed very substantially, with the attendant noise and pollution caused by vehicular traffic, Without an impact analysis, it is impossible to say what the c#fect of the Project would be can level of service at the Maim Vail Roundabout. That impact is ao&&vated by the absence of pedestrian access ' from the village core. Further, the refocusing of activity on Frontage Road, together with the overall height and mass of the Project, would have a fundamental, potentially de i S affect on the feeling and character of Fail. We intend to press those issues at time of hearing on the application, if that- stage is reached. We again urge that an initial determination be made that the Project must comply with the Vail Tillage Master Plan. That determination, for obvious reasons, wound save to focus consideration of the application. Yours very truly, D , 7PLANALP & C US 1`r rtSEN, P.C. Jol n W_ Dunn JWD:ipse cc. Mr. Lipcvn Mr. Johnston • ,pan-08-86 03.08pm From-FOX HORAN ? CAMERNI 2127090231 FOX i' ORAN & CAMERiNl LLP Ip ONE BROADWAY NEW YORK, NEW YORK 100904 DO.-M T, FOX .JOHN R --RAN 6ZECJUIZ" A GAMERH%I ANT»ONY Z. DAVIS PATRICK .. -GRE RAPAEi. A GINCDRA Ar A. R . 0.14OON M.Q#4Atra. F -Id-NZTQ14 KAYnLGCN M. KU ftO^R ROBERT C MANGaNe COWARA C M^RSCnnER Ci./FFORO A RAT.,AOPF .JR CNR!'STOPHER " 6C.Y-Q%JR EOL"ka o 6. TABIO 00 COUNSEL RAPACF VROuIA 11 January 8, 1999 Via Pax Mr_ George Ruther Town of `Nail T-472 P.02 F-730` "q P_ ATTO"Ey$ AND COUNSELLQRS AT LAW TELECOPIERS• 01212W4-a7.3 g3:. 12'Irz 7t9-0248-. .;4,,,; - e z? ?j A Dear Mr. Ruther: We represent Knightsbridge Corporation, owner of Unit No. 2 at the Vail Gateway Condominium. This is to express our client's adamant opposition to the proposed Mail Plaza Rotel project, which is detrimental to the Town of Vail and contrary to the Vail Village Master Plan. The proposal should be rejected out of hand. Very truly yours, Michae F_ Johnston MFJ:lc D . 3: wr 3034799527 FAX to MAYOR ROB FORD AND TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, AND GEORGE RUT1H]ER, SENIOR. PLANNER, TOWN OF VAIL 970-479-2452 1110/99 Lee M. Edwards, Ph.D 483 Gore Creek Drive # 5A, Vail CO 81657 P. 01 Phone 970-479-9528 fax 970-479-9527 mailing address in Vail 2121 N. Frontage Rd., W #221 Vail CO 81657 re: Vail Village Inn and increased zoning density for all hotels As a long time property owner in Vail I would life to voice my objections to the following proposals by private developers: A) The plan to increase the height and density for the Vail Village Inn; Development. B) The plan to increase zoning density for all hotel facilities. Both proposals would ruin view corridors, increase txaffic to dangerous levels, create a skyscraper effect (which has already obliterated the former attractions of Beaver Creek), increase property taxes to unfair levels, and spoil the village atmosphere that has long made Vail unique. The proposed amendments, if passed, will turn Vail into another urban mess with all the chaos that entails. Please don't let it happen. It is our responsibility to protect the beauty of Vail. Yours sincerely, o Lee M. Edwards .10.1999 11=34RM GAME CREEK CLUB 970 4798010 tN0.996 iP.2 -_ ©E.. «...e ...rn„KircS K. LIPCON I --S7C-47S-8x;81 p« I RAYMOND F. I)WYER, ATTORMYAT LAW 4690 VAIL RA KET CLUB DRI t7E H-2 VAIL, COLORADO 81667 Tom= 970-479-9029 i Jan. 1% 1998 Mayor Rob Ford and Town Couxi Members, ? and Ryamr?rc?/`??a?ta?i?y/C?o?oa, 1J VIYI W 41ker, Seem ?"°MMff 'own ofVml Fax: 479-2452 tie. V29 VAip Inn SDI) prppOU1; and raeader Amftdments to tlm 1301w Accommodation Zone DIMMt. Dear Mayor Feud, Town ONI04 MC and Mr. Ruttier: Please "Pt. this as t e undersigned's to &e. " proposed to be caast? trttthe V' Stwy the ?? as o?j n to the Fps propot?t to it mere the denser Of &0 Public Tzm Pccconiodatioaa 71e r',, ail, ased'Vad Vittage Ian ouam at ti t stories is out of step V" *0 rest of via It would no only be the *A tymg one would see from. the ro m debout mtering VwL but it would 210 act am tmfortUnIft P ".am far Sin&r strttictum is the'villw Ole can coy a+e aev l ancht .??,.aliths Tattm natural ?.g attd pry beauty. gout the vOage? ?o+B Va 'a One "a 4160 imgmc the inaused vehicular L .Mc steh a bwIft 1d Pr'SMY it woad most tardy ermte gate alOlIg with the It is also easy tom e the w Of'Vaa7,s 6,:??ts in the desaucdan 6f Vaal s bea ! oix, a uE n 4&wed xo be ?suucted. Lveryone Y save tamed with se if ats?dve. live tea, only hops that ratsou =d oad. 'ua share the f?liags expressed ,. ? statcture be detdt?d, g t pnVSiI and the P far s a R ec tfi ft Subs ` !r I I -- CHARLES R. LIPCON Vail Gateway Unit 5 12 S. Frontage Road Vail, Co. 81657 Tel. (970) 476-5151 Fax. (970) 476-8681 January 8,1999 Mayor Rob Ford and Town Council Members, Planning and Environmental Commission, and George Ruther, Senior Planner Town of Vail Fax: 4792452 Re: Vail Village Inn Dear Sirs and Madams. One or more of the residential property owners at the Vail Gateway have the following objections to the Vail Village Inn A Major Amendment to Special Development District ##6 as follows: 1. The application for Planning and Environmental Commission Approval was signed by Jay K. Peterson as attorney in fact on April 13, 1998. 1 received a copy of the limited power of attorney signed by Waldir R. Prado as managing director on Jan. 4, 1999. A review of the power of attorney indicates that: THE PvwhR OF ATTORNEY IS SPECIFICALLY LIMITED TO CHAPTER 12-9a-2. THIS CHAPTER DEALS WITH DEFINITIONS. THE PvwrR IS INVALID ON ITS FACE TO AUTHORIZE JAY PETERSON TO SIGN AN APPLICATION FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION APPROVAL WITH RESPECT TO A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO AN SDD. Further, there is nothing in the record with the town that would indicate that Waldir Prado was the duly appointed managing director of Daymer Corp. or that Daymer Corp. has, through its board of directors, approved the granting of a power of attorney to Jay K. Peterson. 2. In spite of numerous requests, neither I nor any of the other residential owners in the Vail Gateway, to my knowledge, have been given notice of any hearings whatsoever in front of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Notice to Stoltz Management is not adequate since they do/did not in turn provide notice to the owners in the Vail Gateway. This information about lack of notice was previously provided to you. YOU HAVE ACTUAL NOTICE THAT THE GIVING OF NOTICE TO STOLTZ MANAGEMENT DOES NOT IN TURN RESULT IN NOTICE TO THE CONDOMINIUM OWNERS IN THE VAIL GATEWAY. This is specially troublesome in light of the fact that Stoltz Management or their principals was represented by Jay Peterson who is also the claimed attorney in fact and the attorney for Dayer Corp. k.. 3. The Town of Vail ordinance 12-3-6 C. dealing with notice constitutes a denial of due process and equal protection of the law for the owners in the Vail Gateway and other adjacent condominium owners since it does not provide for actual notice to them as adjacent property owners. YOU HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY INFORMED THAT THE GIVING OF NOTICE TO STOLTZ MANAGEMENT DOES NOT IN TURN RESULT IN NOTICE TO THE CONDOMINIUM OWNERS IN THE VAIL GATEWAY. As such it is unconstitutional. A letter from John Breyo, owner of Unit 3 in the Vail Gateway was faxed to you indicating lack of notice as well as reliance on the master plan, zoning, etc. 4. The amendment violates the "view corridor" from the four way stop (now roundabout) established in the SDD approval for the Village Inn. Based on this "view corridor", the height of the Vail Gateway was reduced. In Rick Pylman's (Totem Planner for Vail) letter dated Feb. 16, 1988 discussing the Vail Gateway, he stated: "Staff feels stronaly that this building(Vail Gatewav) should Dresent no encroachment ipto the mew corridor that is established by the aDuroved Vail Village Inn development. The existing design will require substantial revisions to maintain the view narameters, established by the VVI." - It would be unfair, arbitrary, and unreasonable to have reduced the height of the Vail Gateway based on the "view corridor" in the SDD ordinance for the Village Inn and then to turn around and ignore the same requirement for the Village Inn itself. The agreement between Joe Stauffer and the Town of Vail as documented in the SDD approval constitutes a recorded real covenant that inures to the benefit of the adjacent land owners who relied on this real covenant. The SDD approval provides for a three story building in the "view corridor" area. The SDD approval was the result of give and take negotiations between the Town of Vail and Joe Stauffer. Joe Stauffer agreed to two story buildings on East Meadow Drive and Vail Road in return for a five story building on Frontage Road. In addition to constituting a real covenant, the SDD approval constitutes a contract between the Town of Vail and Joe Stauffer which inures to the benefit of adjacent owners as third party beneficiaries. 5. The amendment violates the Town of Vail Master Plan. The master nlan states with resuect to the Vail Village Inn: "Mass of buildings shall ste-o un from existing -pedestrian scale along Meadow Drive to 4-5 stories along Frontage Road .... Design must be pensitive to maintaining view corridor from 4-wav stun to Vail Mountain" The VVI proposal will directly impact the character of the Vail Village. If approval of the amendment is allowed, where will it stop. Won't the owners of the Holiday House property, the gas station and others want to have the same massive size to maximize the value of their properties. Perhaps the Vail Gateway would like to add another 4 floors also. The entrance to the Vail Village would be a massive canyon of buildings more in keeping with a large city rather than a unique ski village. 6. The Village Inn project does not coordinate well with the Vail Gateway. It cuts off its pedestrian access and drastically reduces its visibility. This would be particularly harmful to the commercial tenants in the building. The Town of Vail in considering the Vail Gateway SDD application required that a major entrance be placed on the side of the building facing the Village Inn. That entrance would be virtually worthless under the Village Inn proposal. The Vail Gateway would be facing a large wall that goes up 95 feet which would only be a few feet from the Vail Gateway property. A canyon would be created. This is not in keeping with the initial representation made by the Vail Village Inn to the Town of Vail, that: "The architects Zehren & Associates were challenged to accvj,,..v,,date this program in a configuration harmonious to the immediate neighborhood and add to the Vail Character." There is nothing harmonious about this project as it relates to the Vail Gateway and it is certainly not in keeping with the Vail Character. It is a big city project being urged on a small village. During the application process for the Vail Gateway, it was required that a major entrance be placed for access from the Village Inn property. In Rick Pylman's (Town Planner for Vail) letter dated. Feb. 16, 1988 he stated: "We feel that it will be imnortant that this nroiect and the ate-oroved Vail Village Inn Dro-ect when built, have a, strong 'Pedestrian connection. We recoanize the need for the developer gf the VVI nro-iect to relate his urolect to the Vail Gatewav. We do want to ensure, however.. that the design of tbe. C,a.teway allows this pedestrian connection to occur." - v 7. The Village Inn project comes within 2 feet or so of the Vail Gateway driveway where cars enter the garage and deliveries are made. It would create a large alley that would cause auto and diesel fumes to accumulate and enter the Vail Gateway. This would be noxious, odorous, harmful to health, and perhaps deadly. A study should be done to determine the buildup of carbon monoxide and other dangerous fumes that would enter the Vail Gateway and the Village Inn from this area. 8. The Village Inn project would cut off sunlight and air for the Vail. Gateway. The Vaal Gateway would for the most part be in the shadow of the Village Inn. 9. The traffic, noise, and accompanying pollution in the area of the roundabout, Vail Road, and Frontage Road would increase dramatically. The roundabout presently backs up at certain times of 40 the day, and the increase in the number of cars will only exacerbate the problem. The Traffic Impact Analysis done by Feisburg, Hult & Ullevig is based on the assumption that 50% of the traffic is internal and as such reduced their trip generation figures by 50%. This ignores the fact that the Vail Village has a free transportation system that is unique. Even assuming a 50% reduction, the overall traffic increases from, about 1050 trips per day to 3100 trips per day. THIS IS A TRIPLING IN TRAFFIC. If the assumed reduction figure is wrong then the increase could be as much as six fold. An increase percentage of 2% was used to indicate that the traffic would go to 4600 vehicles during the PM peak hour in the year 2015. This assumes that further large hotel projects similar to the Village Inn will not be approved, which would be unrealistic if this project is approved. There would be a Domino effect. 10. No studies have been filed to reflect the pollution levels that would come from the increased traffic. 11. The owner of the Village Inn knew at the time of its purchase what was allowed and what was not allowed under the SDD approval in place at the time. The Village Inn proposal would change the rules and would greatly increase the value of the Village Inn property and at the same time diminish the value of the Vail Gateway property as well as other adjacent property owners. It would be unfair to provide the Village Inn owner with a financial wind fall at the expense of the Vail Gateway owners. 12. Owners in the Vail Gateway purchased their properties and spent money fixing them up relying on the approvals already in place for the Village Inn, including the view corridor, as well as the master plan. As such changing these items would constitute an inverse condemnation of the ownership interests of the Vail Gateway owners. The value of the Vail Gateway owners would be reduced so as to provide a windfall to the owners of the Vail Village Inn. 13. The Vail master plan which was enacted by ordinance cannot be violated under the guise of an SDD, without changing the master plan itself. Attorney John Dunn has previously submitted a memorandum of law on this issue. The Village Inn acknowledge this when they submitted a "Revision of Vail Village Master Plan- Conceptual Building Height Plan..." on Nov. 30, 1998. 14. The Village Inn proposal has not discussed the hazard of a fire spreading to or from their buildings to the Vail Gateway in light of their extremely close proximity. (The fact that the proposed Vail Village Inn has exterior fireproofing does not apply to the Vail Gateway and the Village Inn Condo which does not have special fireproofing.) What further problems would this create for the fire department if a fire had to be fought? Also there is no showing that the Town of Vail fire department could handle a fire in a 0 building of this size and height. 15. What assurances has the owner of the Village Inn provided that it has the financial and real estate capability to build what they say they want to build? What assurances have they provided that they are trustworthy and will do what they say they will do? Daymer Corporation N.V. has reportedly been previously involved in litigation where claims were made of wrongful conduct by Daymer. Daymer should make a full disclosure of prior litigation and its outcome to properly assess its trustworthiness. Also its true ownership should be revealed since it is a Netherlands Antilles Corporation. 16. The simulated pictures submitted by the Vail Village Inn are misleading. View analysis number three shows a nine story Vail Village Hotel not much higher than the adjacent five story Vail Gateway. If the true height of the Vail Village Inn was depicted the whole of the Golden Peak area would be blocked. Even the incorrect picture submitted shows that the view of the Golden Peak area would be almost completely blocked. 17. The sales tax revenues projected to the Town of Vail are based on numerous assumptions. What guarantees or bonds have the Village Inn offered if their projections are wrong. If the Village Inn is seeking to motivate the Town of Vail by the promise of additional funds, certainly they should stand behind the numbers and provide a guarantee or bond from a financially sound third party to back up their numbers. 18. The Village Inn should provide compensation to the adjacent property owners, whose values will go down as a result of the Village Inn violations of the master plan as well as the agreement between the Town of Vail and Joe Stauffer as codified in the SDD approval. 19. The Vail Plaza Hotel Fact Sheet is misleading. It indicates that the 1992 approval allowed a building height of 67 feet. It does not indicate that this height applied to the building on Frontage Road only and does not apply to the buildings that would be south of the Vail Gateway. (Between the Vail Gateway and the ski mountain) 20. The report of the Town Planner is expected to be done by the end of the day on Friday Jan. 8, 1999. It is unknown if sufficient time will be available to review the report prior to the PEC meeting scheduled for Monday Jan. 11, 1999. As such the right to object on this ground is reserved until such time as the report has been provided and studied. 0 21. No view corridor analysis was done other than providing photos 40 some of which are misleading. requested in the memorandum to Commission dated June 22, 1998. 22. No urban design analysis was requested in the memorandum to Commission dated June 22, 1998. A view corridor analysis was the Planning and Environmental done. An urban design analysis was the Planning and Environmental 23. The Town Planning department claims to be unable to locate the original SDD approved drawings for the Vail Village Inn referenced in Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1976 after repeated requests. Waldir Prado also had a set which he received from Joe Stauffer. Mr. Prado also claims that he no longer has these drawings. The two known custodians of these important drawings have conveniently lost them. These are needed for review and reference particularly in terms of the View Corridor. Where applicable the same objections are being made to the Faessler Amendments to the Public Accommodation Zone District. Very Truly Yours, Charles R. Lipcon Attachments: n CHARLES R. LIPCON EXHIBITS SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO VAIL VILLAGE INN SDD AND PUBLIC ACCOMODATIONS FAESSLER AMENDMENTS 1. John Dunn June 2, 1998 letter 2. Charles R. Lipcon letters and email to and from the Town of Vail 3. John Breyo Jan. 5, 1999 letter to the Town of Vail 4. Plaintiff's Original Petition against Daymer Corporation N.V. 5. East Village Homeowners Association White Paper on the Vail Plaza Hotel 6. Copies of documents from the Vail Gateway SDD Proposal file of the Town of Vail. A. Feb. 16, 1998 letter from Rick Pylman B. Feb. 22, 1998 Community Development memo. C. Vail Gateway View Profile. D. Revised Encroachment of Vail Gateway E. Peter Jamar letter dated March 24, 1998 7. Architect Steven Riden's evaluation. C John Dunn June 2, 1998 letter E LAw nFFicen DUNN, ABPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C. A PROFESSIONAL COPPORAVON JOHN W. DUNN 108 SQVTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST ARTHUR A. ABPLANALP, JR. SVITE 300 ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN HERMAN VAIL. COLORADO 81857 DIANE L. R, C. STEPHENSON SPCCIAA, COV-L. June 2, 1996 JERRY W, HANNAH Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail CO 81657 Re: Vail Plaza Hotel Project n Dear Commission Members: TELEPHONE: (970) 476-0300 FACSIMILE: (970)476-476S KAREN M. OVNN CCUTWICO Li GAG ASSISTANT We represent three residential unit owners at Vail Gateway Plaza and have been requested by them to provide you with written comment with respect to the application of Daymer Corporation for a major amendment to Special Development District #6, the Vail Village inn Site ("the Vail Plaza Hotel Project" or "the Project"), Having reviewed the plans submitted to the Town, we wish to set forth our concerns with respect to the relationship of the Project to the Vail Village Master Plan. From our review of the plans, it appears that the portions of the Project located immediately adjacent to Vail Gateway Plaza will be 64 to 84 feet above the existing grade to the south of Gateway Plaza on Vail Road and 70 to 100 feet above the existing grade to the east of Gateway Plaza on Frontage Road. This proposed building height is not in conformity with the Conceptual Building Height Plan of the Vail Village Master Plan, which establishes a building height guideline on those parcels adjacent to Gateway Plaza of 3-4 (stepped) building stories. Inasmuch as the Conceptual Building Height Plan defines "building story" as nine feet, the corresponding building height guidelines are 27 to 36 feet. Nor is the proposed building height in conformity with the Sub-Area # 1- I Plan at page 37 of the Master Plan, which requires that the mass of buildings "step-up" from pedestrian scale along Meadow Drive to 4-5 stories along Frontage Road. Construing the two together, the structure to the south of Gateway Plaza could not by any interpretation exceed four stories or 36 feet. The proposed building heights for the Project adjacent to Gateway Plaza therefore exceed master plan limitations by as much as 33 to 48 feet on Vail Road and 43 to 64 feet on Frontage Road. In other words, the plan proposes a building that is at least twice the height limitations of the Vail Village Master Plan on those parcels. 11 Section 12-9A-8 of the Vail Municipal Code includes as part of the design criteria for approval of an SDD "conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, 10 Town policies and urban design plans" and provides, with reference to those standards, that: "it shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved:..." We are not able to find anything in the applicant's submittal to suggest that the height limitations of the master plan are not applicable or that the applicant is proposing a solution to the conflict with the master plan which is consistent with the public interest. We can only conclude that the applicant is asking that the height limitations of the master plan be ignored for purpose of the application. It is therefore the purpose of this letter to provide you with a review of Colorado law on the relationship between master plans and zoning, including in particular the type of zone district know as the "planned unit development" ("PUD") or, as it is known in Vail, the special development district ("SDD"). Based upon our review of that law, it is our belief that the master plan must be strictly adhered to in the consideration of SDD zoning, and we respectfully request that your commission so determine at the outset of its consideration of the application. The Colorado Supreme Court first addressed the effect of a master plan in Theobald v. Board of County Cumm 'ry, 544 P. 2d 942 (Colo. 1982). In that case, the court held that a master plan is advisory only and that, in order for it to have a direct effect on property rights, it must be further implemented through zoning. Thereafter, in Beaver Meadows v. Barad of County Commis, 709 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1985), the court held that, while a master plan as an advisory document is not necessarily binding on the zoning discretion of a governmental body, it is binding when the zoning legislation requires compliance with it. Most recently, in Hoard of County Comm `rs v Conder, 927 P.2d 1339 (Colo. 1995), our supreme court was faced with a subdivision application which conformed with applicable zoning but not with the county master plan, which had been adopted as a "guideline" by the subdivision regulations. Over two dissents, the court held that the county could enforce the master plan compliance provision legislatively adopted as part of the subdivision regulations. Taken together, those cases tell us that, to the extent that zoning is inconsistent with the master plan, the master plan will prevail, provided compliance with it is required by some regulation. We recognize that the Town has great flexibility in the amendment of special development district zoning and that a purpose of an SDD zone district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use. We also recognize that our local district court has upheld the Town council's adoption of SDD zoning over a challenge based upon the argument that the adoption of it constituted "spot zoning" in contravention of the Town's master plan. However, we are not arguing that the present application violates objectives or policies of the master plan, which are aspirational in nature. Rather, we are arguing that no zone district within the town may violate a very specific height E limitation imposed by the master plan, given the master plan's incorporation into the Town's zoning, including SDD zoning, It should also be mentioned that, so far as we are aware, there has not been district court review of a rezoning in this county since the Conder decision. Prior to that decision, it might have been argued that an SDD zone district, because it establishes special rules for that zone district, may override master plan requirements. However, in Conder the court affirmed Larimer County's denial of an application for a PUD subdivision based upon the subdivision's creation of density in conflict with the county master plan, even though (as the court emphasized) the proposed use of the land was in compliance with the county's zoning resolution. It must thereforc be concluded that, if the entirety of the Larimer County zoning resolution could not have the effect of overriding the county master plan, PUD or SDD zoning could not have that effect. We also recognize that zoning is a matter of local and municipal concern; that the Town's zoning authority is governed by its own charter and ordinances, Zavala V. City & County of Denver, 759 P,2d 664 (Colo. 1980; Service Oil Co. v. Rhodus, 500 P.2d 807 (Colo. 1472); and that the cases cited in this letter address county master plans. However, the grant of zoning authority is contained in statute, § 31-23-301, C.R.S., and that authority is conditioned upon the adoption of a master plan by § 31-23-303, C.R.S. Further, the statutory purposes governing the adoption of a municipal master plan, § 31-23-207, C.R.S., track with those governing the adoption of a county master plan, § 30-28-107, C.R.S., and both counties and municipalities are required to find master plan compliance as a condition to approval of a PUD, § 24-67-104(1)(f), C.R.S., absent a superseding, ordinance of the municipality. 'Vail's ordinance in fact is consistent with that statute. Finally, the discussion contained in the county cases cited are a discussion of general principles of land use law, it is therefore our conclusion that your commission must give literal effect to the Vail Village Master Plan, including in particular the height limitations contained in it, in considering the application for the Project. Of course, the Town's master plans may be amended, but that process should only be initiated by the Town council. Pursuant to § 31.27-207, C.R.S., "careful and comprehensive surveys and studies of present conditions and future growth" are required. Initiation of that process, we believe, ought not be motivated by a single application. It is our understandings that the applicant believes that the economic benefit of its project to the community, including hotel accommodations and conference space, outweigh the importance of master plan compliance. In that connection, it is well to bear in mind the purposes of the Town's zoning; regulations as they are set forth in § 12-1-2, Vail Municipal Code; "these regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality." JL;iI Ul ? A I IViutLlJ i ? -- , .e v- - - -- -. That purpose, we suggest, is intended to preserve the character of the town and not to promote economic development. We need not remind you that members of the public, including our clients, have relied on the Town's land use regulations. Our clients were told, when they purchased units at Gateway Plaza, that they would continue to have unobstructed views, and they made major investments based upon that information. If those views are obstructed, their investments will be significantly devalued. Our clients understand that the Town's zoning was not enacted to protect their personal view corridors. However, because they are adjacent landowners and because the value of their property may be affected by your recommendation to council, they have standing before you. Section 12-3-3, Vail Municipal Code, provides for administrative determination or interpretation of the provisions of the zoning ordinance and for review of such determination or interpretation by your commission. We urge you to request an interpretation of § 12-9A-8(D), Vail Municipal Code, and a determination that that provision requires that the application before you strictly comply with the building height limitations of the Vail Village Master Plan. In making that request, we do not wish to minimize other aspects of the Project which would require that on the merits your commission make a recommendation of denial of the application. The impact of the Project on Frontage Road is difficult even to imagine. Traffic flow through the roundabout intersection and along Frontage Road would be increased very substantially, with the attendant noise and pollution caused by vehicular traffic. Without an impact analysis, it is impossible to say what the effect of the Project would be on level of service: at the Main Vail Roundabout. That impact is aggravated by the absence of pedestrian access from the village core. Further, the refocusing of activity on Frontage Road, together with the overall height and mass of the Project, would have a fundamental, potentially devastating effect on the feeling and character of Vail. We intend to press those issues at time of hearing on the application, if that stage is reached. We again urge that an initial determination be made that the Project must comply with the Vail Village Master Plan. That determination, for obvious reasons, would serve to focus consideration of the application. Yours very truly, D , PLANALP & CH USTENSEN, P.C. Jahn W. Dunn JWD:ipse cc. Mr. Lipcon Mr. Johnston Charles R. Lipeon letters and email to and from the Town of Vail LI Subj: Re: Village Inn SDD 116/99 8:46:53 AM Mountain Standard Time gruther@ci.vaiI.co.us (George Ruther) To. Sealaw@aol.com CC: lex@\eil.net (John Dunn) Dear Chuck, I have received your a-mail request. Given my extreme workload this week in preparing for Monday's meeting, I am unable to pull and organize all of the information you requested at this time. Please feel welcomed to stop by our office and the Town Clerk's office to renew and get copies of the info.... aGon you requested. You wi11 be able to reviewthe information at your leisure. Again, I apologize for not being able to pull and organize all the information you requested. Sealaw@aol.com wrote: > Dear George > I tried to contact you Tuesday to obtain the SDD approval and plans from 1976. > Please make sure they are ready for viewing and/or copying on Wednesday. I > need that information to complete my objection letter. > 0 Iso need to see the following, all of which apply to the Vail Village Inn: > Ordinance no. 7, series 1976 establishing SDD no. 6, Vail Village Inn. > Ordinanace no. 1 series 1985 > Ordinance no. 14, series 1987 > > Ordinance no. 9, series 1991 > > Ordinance no. 2, series 1992 > > Ordinance no. 24, series 1998. > > Thanks > Chuck Upcon Headers Retum-Path: <gruther@ci.NdI.co.us> Received: from dY-zd02.mx.aol.com (dy-zd02.madl.aol.com 1172.31.33.226]) by air-zd0l.maiLaol.com (ti55.5) with SMTP; , 06 Jan 199910:46:53 -0500 lWeived: from ci.\oail.co.us (tov vai 1. net [206.168.52.q) by dy-zd02.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id KAA18372 for <Sealaw@aol.com>; Wed-d".J... rvbfANS A-1-0.1f.w8"l- P...! 1 Subj: Re: Village Inn 1/6/99 8:38:45 AM Mountain Standard Time mgruther@ci.vail.co.us (George Ruther) 00.,Osealaw@aol.com Dear Chuck, I recall making two copies of the view analysis; one for you and one for Steve. To refresh your memory, the view analysis is the photographs showing the before and after situation. No urban design analysis was completed for the project. Sincerely, George Ruther, AICP Senior Planner Sealawa@aol.com wrote: > Dear George > I reviewed the June 22, 1998 memorandum in which the staff found that a view > corridor analysis and urban design analysis would be useful. > Were either of these provided with respect the the Vail Village Inn > application. If so, I would like to see copies. These were not provided to me > at our meeting on Jan. 4, 1999. ery Trully Yours, > Charles R. Upcon Headers Retum-Path: <gruther@ci.vaii.co.us> Received: from riy-zd02.mx.aol.com (dy-zd02.mail. aol.corn [172.31.33.226]) by air-zd0l.mail. aol.com (\.65.5) with SMTP; Wed, 06 Jan 199910:38:45 -0500 Received: from ci.vei.co.us (tov.wil.net [206.168.52.5]) by dy-zdO2.mx.ad.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL.-4.0.0) with ESMTP id KAA17149 for <Sealaw@aol.com>; Wed, S Jan 199910:38:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by ci.\eil.co.us from localhost (router,SLMail V2.6); Wed, 06 Jan 1999 08:36:12 -0700 Received: by ci.vil.coms from ci.wil.co.us (192.168.1.225:: mail daemon; unvedled,SL.Mail V2.6); Wed, 06 Jan 1999 08:36:11 -0700 Message-!D: <369381CA.95353A82@ci.\eil.co.us> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 08:31:22 -0700 From: "George Ruther" <gruther@ci.\edLco.us> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (W n95; 1) MIME Version: 1.0 Sealaw@aol.com abject: Re: Village Inn 'References: <dOd3fe24.36930bec@acl.com> Content Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Wedneadov.JannaN66.1993 Anwim Online: 3aelew Pane: 1 Wert, 6 Jan 199910:46:49 -0500 (EST) eked: by ci.vail.co.us from localhost router,SLMail V2.6); Wed, 06 Jan 1999 08:44:18 -0700 eceved: by ci.vaji.co.us from ci.wdl.co.us (192.168.1.225:: mail daemon; unverified,SLMail V2,6); Wed, 06 Jan 1999 08:44:17 -0700 Message-!D: <369383B0.8A92CA60@ci.\ei{.co.us> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 08:39:28 -0700 From: "George Ruthee'<gruther@ci.\ail.co.us> X-Mader: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; 1) MIME Version: 1.0 To: Sealaw@aol.com CC: John Dunn <lex@vail.net> Subject: Re: Village Inn SDD References: <4cc8992a.36930ab3@aol.com> Content Type: textlplain; charset=us-ascii Content Transfer-Encoding: 7bit L E Wadnaadav.Jann 09.9999 Am im Oniina:8a 1" Pane: 2 TOWN &VA Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2138 FAX 970-479-2452 January 4, 1999 Charles R. Lipcon Vail Gateway Unit #5 12 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 51657 Fax: 970476-8681 Dear Chuck, I am in receipt of your letter dated January 2, 1999. Adjacent property owner notification for the proposed redevelopment of the VVI will continue to be sent to Stoltz Bros. Ltd., pursuant to our regulations. The Town of Vail is unable to accept any notification obligation outside the parameters of our regulations. I anticipate your continued participation in the development process of the redevelopment of the VVI property. Sincerely, George Ruther, AICP Senior Planner Town of Vail Xc: R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Attorney Russell Forrest, Community Development Director John Dunn Jay Peterson E 7M ?? RECYCLEDPAPER CHARLES R. LIPCCN Vail Gateway Unit 5 12 S. Frontage Road Vail, Co. 81657 Tel. (970) 476-9388 Fax. (970) 476-8681 January 2,1999 George Ruther Town of Vail Fax: 479-2452 Re: Village Inn Dear Mr.Ruther: Thank you for your letter dated Dec. 30, 1998. Sending a notice to Stoltz Management is not adequate notice for me or the other residential owners in the Vail Gateway with respect to any matters involving the Village Inn. Please send notices directly to me at the above address and at my Miami address which is 430 N. 0 Mashta Drive, Key Biscayne, Fl. 33131. Very Truly Yours, eoz-.e--- Charles R. Lipcon P. S. Please give me your email address. cc: John Dunn 11 4VK 'OWN Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail. Colorado 81657 970-479.2138 FAX 970-4aa 30, 1998 Charles R. Lipcon Vail Gateway Unit #5 12 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Pax:970-476-8681 Re: Village Inn Dear Chuck, I have received your letters of December 25d'. 1998 with regard to the Village Inn. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a response to the questions you raised in your letters. Pursuant to the Town of Vail Municipal Code adjacent property owner notification was sent to the Gateway Condominium Association cJo Stoltz Bros., Ltd in Wilmington, Delaware. It shall be the ...i, .-sibility of the managing agent of your association to disseminate information to association members. All future public notices for development proposals on properties adjacent to the Gateway Building will be sent to Stoltz Bros., Ltd. As you are aware from our previous telephone conversations, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission will hold a public hearing on the final review ofthe proposed Vail Plaza Hotel on Monday, January I IT° at 2:00 pm in the Town Council Chambers. Subsequent public hearings with the Vail Town Councilor any other Town Board are yet to be confirmed. Once confirmed, all required notification will be sent to the Gateway Condominium Association- The proposal to amend the Public Accommodation Zone District development standards is scheduled for a joint worksession with the Planning & knvironrnental Commission and the Vail Town Council for Tut-,day, Jam-,ary 12" at 2:00 pm in the Town Council Chambers. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the applicant with policy direction from the Council and the Commission. According to Schedule A of the title report submitted with the development application for the Vail Plaza Hotel, the owner of record of the property in question is Dayrner Corporation, N.V., a Netherlands Antilles, CQ, t.& .ation with Waldir R. Prado as the Managing Director. Jay K. Peterson has been assigned power of attorney to act on behalf of the corporation. This information is public record and is available for your review. Should you wish to review the Town's rite. please do not hesitate to call and we will arrange a mutually convenient time for you to review the information. I anticipate and look forward to your continued participation in the development process of the Vail Plaza Hotel. Sincerely, George Ruther. AICP Senior Planner Town of Vail Xc: R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Anomey 0 rM Aft I/I 33Vd 65b654b®L6:Ot Sd3Cr-tl3Q-WtJ3-f10S WC32i3 Ht;=tt GC-0E-330 CHARLES R. LIPCON Vail Gateway Unit 5 12 S. Frontage Road Vail, Co. 81657 Tel. (970) 476-9388 Fax. (970) 476-8681 December 25,1998 George Ruther Town of Vail Fax: 479-2452 Re: Village Inn Dear Mr.Ruther: This is to confirm that we spoke a few days ago when I informed you that I did not receive written notice from the Town of Vail about the Dec. 28, 1998 PEC meeting. It is important that I get notice of these meetings since my condominium is adjacent to the Village Inn property. The notices should go to me at the above address and to my office at One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2480 Miami, Florida 33131. You informed me that the meeting was off in December for the Village Inn and also the proposal to amend the Town's Public Accommodations Zone District. The proposal to amend the Public Accommodations would also effect me since I am next to several hotels. I want to be notified in writing about these meetings also. Please confirm in writing to me the next meetings set up for the Village Inn and for the Public Accommodations in January, 1999. I need the time and location also. Very Truly Yours, &e4 1,44- Charles R. Lipcon cc: John Dunn E CHARLES R. LIPCON Vail Gateway Unit 5 12 S. Frontage Road Vail, Co. 81657 Tel 70) 476-9388 Fax. (970) 476-8681 December 25,1998 George Ruther Town of Vail Fax: 479-2452 Re: Village Inn Dear Mr.Ruther: Please confirm the true ownership of the Village Inn property and that Mr. Prado has the authority to act on their behalf. Mr. Prado has represented that he is the owner and as such I would like to see some proof of that in writing since the corporation is a foreign Netherlands Antilles Corporation. :J Very Truly Yours, ((x1'Q'(A e- Charles R. Lipcon 11 OWN OF VAI office of the Town Attorney 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2107/Fax 970-479-2157 April 29, 1998 Charles R. Lipcon, Esquire One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131 Dear Mr. Lipcon: I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence of April 17, 1998. I assure you that the project will be submitted to the review as required by the Vail Town Code. The Planning & Environmental Commission, the Design Review Board, and the Vail Town Council will consider the application and objections thereto consistent with the Town Code. We anticipate and look forward to your participation in this public process. Very truly yours, TOWN OF VAIL R. Thomas Moorhead Town Attorney RWM/aw xc: John W. Dunn, Esquire Jay Peterson, Esquire George Ruther .Fa C TM C RECYCLEDPAPER RE - ,:IVED APR 2 t CHARLES R. `LIPCON Attomey At Law Suite 2480 One Biscayne Tower 2 South. Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida. 33131 Email: sealaw@aol.com Web: www.lipcon.com Phone; (305) 373-3016 Toll free: (800) 838-2759 Fax: (305) 373-6244 April 17, 1998 R. Thomas Moorhead, Esq. Town Attorney Town of Vail 75 south Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE : Vail. Plaza Hotel. 0 Dear Mr. Moorhead: My wife and I own Unit 5, Vail Gateway Plaza. I will be opposing the Vail Plaza Hotel project because of its impact on Gateway Plaza in general and on my view in particular. My wife and I have spent millions of dollars in reliance on the presently approved plans for the Vail Village inn and the master plan. Any deviation that impacts the Gateway will have a substantial financial impact on us. It is my understanding that the application for approval of the project has been filed by Jay K. Peterson on behalf of Daymer Corporation, N.V., a Netherlands Antilles corporation. According to documents filed with the Town, Mr. Peterson is acting pursuant to a power of attorney granted by Waldir R. Prado as managing director of Daymer Corporation. You are probably unaware that Mr. Peterson is simultaneously representing Stoltz Management of Delawere, Inc., now the owner of all commercial condominium units at Gateway Plaza. Stoltz Management, as controlling member of the Gateway association, has taken the position that the owners association is unwilling to support the residential owners and the commercial tenants in their opposition to the project, perhaps even on the advice of Mr. Peterson. In my opinion Mr. Peterson has a conflict of interest and should not appear before the planning and environmental cvuuuission or the town council as the representative of Daymer Corporation. I also wish to express my concern as to principals of Daymer Corporation. Ownership of a project of this scope by an offshore corporation is unusual. It is my understanding that Waldir Prado has an interest in the corporation, but no real or full disclosure of ownership has been made. I believe that it should be made as part of the application process so that the Town and all those involved in the review process will know which entities are really behind the project. This information is needed to ascertain conflicts of interest. Please require Daymer to reveal their true ownership. If you have any questions, please call me. Very Truly Yours, Charles R. Lipcon cc: John Dunn Jay Peterson 11, OTOWN'OF PAIL Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2138 FAX 970-479-2452 January 22, 1998 Charles R. Lipcon Suite 2480 One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Blvd. 'Miami, Florida 33131 Re: Vail Gateway/ Vail Village Inn Dear Mr. Lipcon: TM I am responding to correspondence from you to Susan Connelly, Director of Community Development, dated January 20; 1998. At this time, the Town has not received any plans or application(s) from the Vail Village Inn, for the redevelopment of their property. Please note that the records of the Town of Vail Community Development Department are open records and available for your inspection, subject to reasonable regulations. Additionally, the Public (Open) Records section of the Colorado Revised Statute is located at 24-72-101 et seq. . The Town of Vail ordinances provide requirements for notification of adjacent property owners, as well as public notice in particular circumstances. I can assure you that the Town staff is vigilant in assuring that adjacent property owners and the public receive the notice required by law. We cannot, however, commit to providing notice that is not legally required. If and when an application is submitted by the Vail Village Inn, it will be assigned to a planning staff member of the Community Development Department and that individual would then be the appropriate person to contact. Prior to an application being submitted, the Community Development Department has a staff member available on a daily basis (Kathleen Dorram, (970) 479-2128) whom you can contact periodically to determine if any application has been filed. Sincerely, Mike Mollica Assistant Director of Community Development xc: Kathleen Dorram F:IEVERYONE\MIKEILETTERSUPCON.112 E ??? RECYCLEDPAPER JAN-20-1568 It=; 01 LHHf2Lt-?D t1. L1t'WN r.U1 is CHARLES R. LI'CON Attorney At Law Suite 2480 One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33131 Email: sealawi&aol.com Web: www,lipcon.com Phone: (305) 373-3016 'l'oll free: (800) 838-2759 Fax: (305) 373-6204 January 20, 1998 Susan Connelly Planning Director Town of Vail Vail, Colorado Fax: 1-970-479-2452 Re: Vail Village Inn Dear Ms. Connelly: I am a unit wwl.,er at the Vail Gateway. In addition I am on the board of directors for the association. The Vail Gateway opposes any development at the Vail Village Inn property which would violate the master plan, which would adversely affect the views from the residences and which would not coordinate with respect to pedestrian traffic. Please immediately let me know if any plans are submitted or discussed with the Town of Vail with respect to the Vail Village Inn property. Also I would like to have the schedule of meetings and hearings at which such plans would be discussed. If you have any questions, please call me. Very Truly Yours, CA-at /t . Charles R. Lipcon Cc. Norman Helwig, Esq. fax: 1-970-845-8817 C TOTAL P.01 John Breyo Jan. 5, 1999 letter to the Town of Vail E JOHN BREYO Vail Gateway Unit 3 12 S. Frontage Road Vail, Co. 81657 January 5,1999 George Ruther Senior Planner Town of Vail Fax: 479-2452 Re: Vail Village Inn Dear Mr. Ruther: This is to confirm the following: 1. I am the owner of Unit 3 in the Vail Gateway. It is directly adjacent to the Village Inn Hotel. 2. I have not received written notice from the Town of Vail nor from Stoltz Management about the Village Inn proposal or about any Planning and Environmental Commission meetings. I object to any meetings without proper and actual written notice. 3. I purchased my unit relying in part on the existing master plan and existing SDD approval. 4. I object to the Village Inn violating the master plan, the SDD approval, and blocking the view corridor towards Gold Peak. Very Truly Yours, v hvi -Or John Breyo Plaintiff's Original Petition against Daymer Corporation N.V. .vut.-20-:J7 I W= Old PROM: T A= 2 14891 94 1 9 Ca Nll. PAGE 2.J7 C. 'X'_ BECICI AM § IN t H i<; DISTRIC'T' COURT Plaintiff, § VS. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § D A YMER CORPORATION N. V. § § Defendant. § AA)ICL4J, D STIUCT .. j.1A.IN "tr ! S 0 MCT PEJ Liam: y TO ! nV. HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW C. T. Beckham, pla wiff herein, and bring?,t 5e comj-liizur. -:Z• F Daymer Corporation N. V., and for causes of action would respe idly show thspurt the following: 1. Ft`1- N3? :Tip. ICIN 1. Plaintiff C. T. Beckham [ Beckha&'is an individual who resides in Dallas County, Texas. 2. Defendant Daymer Coxporation N. V. ["Daymeel is a Netherland Antilles Coxporation which may be served with process by serving its registered agent, Roger D. Moeller, with service e of process at the registered office at 7802 Glenn Eagle Dr., Dallas, Dallas County, Texas, 75248. 3. Venue is proper in Dallas County, pursuant to Section 15.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as all or part of the caus:; of action accrued herein. Further, the jurisdiction of this court is invoked under the Declamtory Judghaent Act. 08/20/97 09:37 TX/12X N0.1731 P.002 .vat:-UW-!j7 10=4o T=RDMe 113_3]4GS194]5 PAGE 3./7 STATEMENT OF 1" ACTS 4. On the fast day of Apzil, 1984 Waldir R. Frado V"prado"j, can behalf of Daymer, and Beckham signed a document styled "JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENl"I , which was not a binding contract, but rather was a pmliminary document which ?1??,??ssly contemplated the later execution of a "FINAL AGRE1^MENr. . The Joint Venture A&,ti:,.nent did not contain all the material terms necessary to create a valid and enforceable agreement, and expressly stated that a final agreement would contain additional detailed terms, which would obviously have to be: negotiated between the parties. The 3oint Venture Agr..,,."ent also contained condition prmcdcaU to the formation of a contrast- The conditions kr,>"Jent contemplated under the preliminary Joint Venture Agreement did not occur, or did not timely occur. Therefore, no binding agreement was ever formed. 5. Can the first day of Apa 1984, Daymc r and Beckham. signed a document styled "A JOINT r r r 4R TS A GREEMENr,2 stated to be entered into as of the 3 I st day of Mmch, 1984. 6. Daring the time period following April 1, 1984, the parties failed to meet, inter alia, one r . of the conditions precedent by failing to ever negotiate and execute a "FINAL AGREEMENI"' as contmnplated by the Joint Venture Agreement. Further, the parties conduct in the years following 1984 established that they did not intend to be bound by the Joint Venture Agreement, as both parties did not fWly p,-,Xorm under the non-binding Joint Venture Agreement- 7. Approximately five years later, on March 22, 1989, Beckham, during a conversation with Rmdo, informed Prado that Beckham was negotiating to sell Beckham's real property which was mentioned in the Joint Venture Agreement. Can the next day, March 23, 1989, Prado, on behalf `Tbe. JOWT VENTURE AGREEMENT is attached hereto as Exhibit "Z." 3 The JOINT EEJ'O1FCTS AGREEME'NT is attarhW hereto as Exhibit "2.n PT,A NjU r'r IS OiRTJITN d.T j&j Q Page t L7 08/20/97 09:37 TX/RX NO.1731 P.003 ,u -? -?/ Iid49 1Rf3riYIl x34 9]9479 PAGE 4I7 of Daymer, filed the Joint Venture t},?.,.`?.ent and a document titled "Summary"3 among the Real Property Records of Tarrant County, Texas, the sites of the real estate which was the subject of the Joint Venture Agreement_ Apparently, Ptacio made this bad faith filling, intending to limit Beckham's ability to sell Beckhain's portion, of the property. Prado made this bad faith filing without notice to Beckham. & In response to Prado's bad faith filing, Beckham filed a noticed among the Real Property Records of Tarrant County, Texas which clearly stated that the Joint Venture Agreement was not a binding contract, and in the alternative, Beckham gage notice of his termination of the joint f Venture Agreement. A 9. From that time until The present, there have been no further dealings between Dapmer and Beckham on the subject property which would evidence pcrfoxznauce under either the Joint Venture Agreement or the Joint Efforts Agreement. 10- In March of 1994, some ten years after the execution of the Joint Went re A.grecuient, Prado, purportedly acting on behalf of Daymer, c%VF aachcd BcQkh t for the fast time and att,-.A.Nted to enforce provisions of the Joint Venture Agreement. Beckham disclaimed the Joint Venture Agreement and stated that it never became a binding agreement. Prado their gave notice of his intent to attempt to enforce the Joint Venture Ag<? ?tucnt Prado's above described dilatory . action, which constitutes waiver, laches and estoppel, has given rise to an actual controversy between Beckham and Prado or Daymcr. The SUMMARY is attached hereto as Exhibit "3_" a no PK)'1e1tM filed by Beckham in response to Exhibit "3", is attached hereto as Exhibit "4." rLAI&TIIt' S ORIGINAL Ft: t Y tLQX Page 3 C 08/20/97 09:37 TX/RX NQ.1731 P.004 ,_. .. ,1, :,«2_?. r?cv?v= TU?1"14693t1+5'1]9 PFCL TORY TiTD( IMF n PACE 507 II. Plaintiff incorporates in this section of the Petition the allegations in paragraphs I through 10 as if fully set forth herein. 12. There exists an actual controversy ripe for adjudication regarding the facts plead abovc. 13. The Joint Venture Agreement never became a contract of any form or fashion because of the non-occua..?,?ce of the condition precedent stated therein. In the alternative, in the event that the Joint 'V'enture Agreement was a contract, then the nor-occi???..ce of the conditions precedent therein excused Beckham from performance thereunder. In the alternative, in the event that the Joint Venture was a contract, Prrado aad Daymer have waived any rights that they may have over had under the Joint Vent= Agreement. In the alternative, in the event that the Joint Ve zzture was a contract, Prado and Daymer arc estopped from asserting any rights that they may have ever had unde=r the Joint Venture ,A,grerement. In, the alternative, in the event that the Joint Venture is a contract, Prado and Daymer are barred by the doctrine of lathes fz-om asserting any rights that they may have even- had under the Joint Venture Agri,:..i.ent Additionally, there exists an actual controversy ripe for adjudication, regarding they rights, if any, of C. T. Beckham, Prado and Daymer under the Joint Efforts A.w,. ,,"ent. 14. Consequently, pursuant to Section. 37.001, et seq-, of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Plaintiff asks this Court for declaratory judgment as set forth in paragraph 13 above, aqd for fees and costs under Section 37.0M F XI I.R '-' QWG X- Pn.r'e u iOrl Page 4 • 08/20/97 09:37 TX/RX N0.1731 P.005 ?..,.. _,, . ? «t = v x r l?:t.ilv3 = 1 D : ? 1 483 1 94 1 9 0 IV. C FAGS S/ 7 15. Plaintiff' hereby incorporates in this cause of action the allegations of paragraphs 1 tbrough 15 hereof as if set forth herein in their entirety. 16. As indicated above, Daymer's conduct coiistihrtes tozt`tous interference with the poteatiall, business relations between, l" laintiff' and potential piuchasors of plaintiff's property. Plaintiff may have a reasonable probability of closing a sale of the i,Avpt,iy at issue, but for the intentional conduct of Defendant 7aymer. 17. Defendant Daymer has no privilege or justifiicati.on to interfere with the potential contracts and contractual Mallow of Plaintiff. Daymer's tortuous interference has proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer actual monetary damages and has further prevented Plaintiff from, marketing clean title to his property. V, DEMAND FOR A JURY TRLAL 1. Plaintiff hereby respectfully demands a trial by jury in the above captioned matter-. 08/20/97 09:37 7'X/xX N0.1731 P.006 AUU-10-97 10:442 FROM: 513:2I4GS29419 PAGE 7J7 C`. "ItREFORE, PREMISES CONStDMED, Plaintiff prays that defendant be cited to appear and answer, and that on final trial hereof, the court declare judgment as set forth above, and that plaintiff has and recovers damages from and against; defendant Dayiner. Respectfwl Submitted, Chris C. Hudsu •' `° State Bar No- 10156800 4741 Roxbury Lane Da.has, Texas 75229 (214) 369-0519 voice and fax ATTORNEY FOR PLAtMak''k, C.T. BECKHAM C t 4CLSh'iW11?USZZ1$SSLG CH?711tI1PAH(1?ras J. A ,kox. DOC 11-: D M '3FES C?R'GJNALY- :a:wC}N Wage 6 08/20/97 09:37 TX/RX N0.1731 P.007 East Village Homeowners Association White Paper on the Vail Plaza Hotel LI SRI! t+2531 tnae (+zui i ? tP?a'7 t+254 ? ( `.. tnn c t+tz u ttj tM14l+20(1 ID 01 trVM3(+ro1J tt1LJJ I. 1 1Ca2t+tOly a Vail Village Inn Phase III (8a1(+SG71 txraot+1331 ... .. trial(+137) WZ_-Vail Plaza. Hotel is a major convention hotel project proposed for the Vail Village Inn (VVI) site. The project will replace the existing hotel wing built in the early 1960's. Also, the recently remodeled lobby and confer- ence building is scheduled for demoli- tion. The Vail Plaza Hotel proposal included 340 hotel room, 12 timeshare club dwelling units, a 16,750 sq. ft. convention and conference center, 25,000 sq. ft. spa, 5,600 sq. ft. of retail space, a 9,500 sq. ft. restaurant and a parking garage for 389 parking spaces. The 3.455 acre Vail Village Inn site was one of the first Special Development District approved by the Town of Vail in the mid-1970's. Known as Special Development District Number 6 (SDD #6), it has been amended four times since being adopted in 1976. The underlying zone district for the site is Public Accommodations. The site of SDD #6 is separated into Phases I-V. The Vail Plaza Hotel is the final phase (also known as Phase IV) of the SDD to be completed. The size of the proposed project will st likely be debated in public hearings ause it appears to exceeds some of the approved development standards contained in the SDD #6 legislation as r ? View From South Frontage Road Looking South Low cst Level ofUnderground Parking well as some guidelines ' in the Vail Village Master Plan. Some of the subjects to be debated may be the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) and the height of the proposed building. GRFA Issues: The Vail Plaza Hotel application, based upon a review of Town of Vail records, appears to exceed approved GRFA limitation for the entire site by approximately 85,795 sq. ft. and for the Phase IV portion of the site by 90,657 sq. ft. A total of 148,002 sq. ft. of GRFA is being proposed for the Phase IV portion of the site. A 1991 amendment to SDD #6 limits total GRFA on the 3.455 acre site to 124, 527 sq. ft. Combining the Vail Plaza Hotel portion of the site with existing GRFA on the remainder of the site yields a total of 210, 322 sq. ft. of GRFA on the entire SDD #6 site. Height Issues: If approved, the Vail Plaza Hotel building will be the tallest structure allowed to be built in the community since the early 1970's. The proposed plan appears to be at odds with an established view corridor that has a controlling effect upon buildings in SDD #6. The original approval in 1976 of SDD #6 established a view corridor from 12 a location in what is now the northwest quadrant of the main Vail roundabout. This was the first view corridor estab- lished for the community. The purpose of the view corridor was to preserve a view of Golden Peak and Vail Mountain from the entrance to the community. All subsequent development including the Gateway Plaza building have been required to conform to the view corridor. In 1992 a dispute arose over a portion of a remodel to the lobby building of the VVI that protruded into the view corri- dor. The owner was required by the Town of Vail to remove the protrusion from the view corridor. The plan also appears to be incon- sistent with the Vail Village Master Plan height guidelines. The Vail Village Master Plan calls for a height that steps back from a pedestrian scale on Meadow Drive to 4-5 stories along the South Frontage Road. According to the Master Plan the height of a building would be from 36 feet to 45 feet not including the height of the roof. The application for the Vail Plaza. Hotel shows the building steps from 7 to 9 stories along the South Frontage Road and from 5 to 7 stories along Vail Road. Including the height of the roof the highest point of the structure is approximately 100 feet above esti- (aL O ti25S) ?oi?lL\ e {A.67titiSl ? ttV62Nt/q c1C??; (MLGNtt° + iMLS Ii21U =ERJ -7 MVtL4(+201J ""'t+tiq -? (C.L 3(ileq Gateway Plaza Building 1240.-1 (+14" ItM 4 (.123.51 ated average grade. In the approval for the Sonnenalp Austria Haus developers were required to remove a floor from their proposal in order to conformed the height guideline of the Vail Village Master .Plan. EVHA is concerned with the fair, equal and consistent treatment among property owners in the same or adjacent zone districts. The Association objects to SDD's because they are inconsistently applied and grant special privileges not generally available to all property owners in the same or similar zone districts. The extentiveness of the apparent differences between approved SDD #6 development standards and the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal creates the potential for precedents to be established that could open the way for similar sized develop- ment on adjacent hotel properties. The environmental, economic, infrastructure and social impacts upon Vail Village and the adjacent neighborhoods from the magnitude of this type of development has not been addressed in the Town of Vail's master planning documents. A master planning analysis, similar to that 'eing undertaken for the Lionshead area, uld be conducted of this proposal and surrounding area prior to making any final decision. ¦ a0 A At I IS`-L_ FxMng Site Conditions and Hotel Site ?? 7! f ...Y _ n _ IlC1D a° ...»? ri Fast Fk lon O° 1 °O W rr.w«» an 11 m ?- 1 yi?. .alit m m .. m! m m ) '" "` 115M X11 South Fkvation m mi m 1 m' m qJ ffD in N (JJID miff] ?_ _?. Wea Fkvati 13 EVHA Whine Paper. SDD's 1 North U-4on lJ • 0 Copies of documents from the Vail Gateway SDD Proposal file of the Town of Vail. • A. Feb. 16, 1998 letter from Rick Pylman • E. Feb. 22, 1998 Community Development memo. • C. Vail Gateway View Profile. • D. Revised Encroachment of Vail Gateway • E. Peter Jamar letter dated March 24, 1998 ii At OWE 0 V8 75 south frontage road vaii, colorado 81657 (303) 476-7000 February 16, 1988 Mr. Peter Jamar 108 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Gateway Dear Peter: , office of community development The following are concerns and issues identified by the staff with regard to the Vail Gateway SDD proposal. 1. If CCI zoning is to be used as the underlying zoning for this project, then the horizontal restrictions of the permitted and conditional uses as stated in the CCI zone district shall apply to this project. This would require a bank to obtain a conditional use permit. 2. The proposed uses as outlined in the development plan require approximately 104 parking spaces compared to existing Town of Vail standards. The development proposal shows 75 underground parking spaces and a possible 3 to 4 surface spaces. The staff position at this time is that parking for this project must meet the requirements per the Town of Vail municipal code. With regard to the surface parking spaces, Community Development Department feels they are not appropriate as designed and that surface parking may not be appropriate at all on this site. If you would like to pursue surface parking, it must be redesigned where it is completely on the applicant's property and does not conflict with circulation patterns. 3. Staff feels strongly, that this building should present no encroachment into the view corridor that is'established by the approved Vail Village Inn development. The existing design will require substantial revisions to maintain the view parameters established by the VVI. We feel t„at the east and west ridges are both too high, and believe that the ridge heights should be driven by the view considerations as well as their relation to the eave line of the approved Vail Village Inn project that surrounds this development. Relationship of the ridge lines of the Gateway to the eave lines of the Vail Village Inn project is important in maintaining the consideration of stepping up from the corner to the Vail Village Inn project. With regard to building shape and form, we feel that the ridge areas, particularly the eastern ridge form should be simplified into a single gable with dormers. This would strengthen consistency with the Urban Design Guide Plan. The flat roof form is also an-issue that needs to be addressed in context with the Urban Design Guide Plan., 4. We feel that the driveway width should be increased to accommodate a pedestrian walkway or that the pedestrian entrance on the south side should be relocated closer to to Vail Road. 5. With regard to setbacks, we feel strongly that the north side of the building should maintain a 20 foot setback from the property line. This would keep it in line with the plane of the approved Vail Village Inn building. With regard.to the setback on the east side of the property, we would encourage the architects to investigate carrying the first floor further to the property line to encourage a possible architectural connection with the Vail Village Inn project. This would eliminate any alley way, and would allow the project to maintain enough square footage to pull the north side of the building back. 6. We feel that it will be important that this project and the approved Vail Village Inn project, when built, have a strong pedestrian connection. We recognize the need for the developer of the VVI project to relate his project to the Vail Gateway. We do want to ensure, however, that the design of the Gateway allows this pedestrian connection to occur. As you can see, the staff has substantial concerns with the current proposal. We feel that the concept is sound and would like to work with you toward refinement and resolution of some of these issues. It is our recommendation that the formal hearing date of February 22 be postponed in order to allow futher communications on this project. If you wish to move forward on February 22nd, we will not be able to support the project as proposed. Sincerely, t ICC 04 Risk Pylman Town Planner RP:br LA TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 22, 1988 SUBJECT: Request to rezone a part of Lot N, and a portion of Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing from Heavy Service District to Special Development District with underlying Commercial Core I zone district. Applicant: Palmer Development Company I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST This rezoning request has been proposed in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the existing Amoco Service Station on the southeast corner of the 4-way intersection in Vail Village. At the present time the Amoco Station is zoned Heavy Service District. The Heavy Service District uses consist of industrial and service businesses. The existing Amoco station consists of 8 gasoline pumps and a small one-story building containing 4 service repair bays and a car wash. The size of this site is approximately 24,154 square feet. The proposed Vail Gateway project is a mixed use development containing retail, office, commercial and residential uses, with a majority of the parking being provided in an underground structure. Section 18.40.010 of the Vail Municipal Code describes the purpose of Special Development Districts. It reads as follows: "The purpose of special development districts is to encourage flexibility in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design, character and quality of new development; to facilitate the adequate and-economic provision of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural and scenic features of open areas." The Special Development District chapter in the Municipal Code goes on to state that: "The uses in a Special Development District must be uses `permitted by right' conditional uses, or accessory uses in the zone district in which the Special Development District is located." In order to meet these requirements of the Special Development District chapter, the applicant has applied to rezone this property from Heavy Service District to Commercial Core I and simultaneously apply for Special Development District No. 21. This memorandum will address the rezoning of the property from Heavy Service to Commercial Core I, as well as the application of Special Development District to this parcel with Commercial Core I as the underlying zone district. A summary of the proposed development is as follows: A. Floor Area: Retail: Retail/Commercial: Office: Residential: 11,200 sf 3,900 sf 4,900 sf 12,000 sf, 13 du B. Buildinq Heiqhts: Building heights of the east and west ridges as calculated by the standard Town of Vail method are approximately 62 and 57 feet respectively. The peak ridge heights are 57 and 52 feet above the elevation of the 4-way intersection. It C. Site Coverage: 14,357 sf, 600 D. Parkinq 75 covered spaces 3 surface spaces E. Proposed Uses Uses as proposed are to be those uses specified within the Commercial Core I zone district. F. Access: Vehicular access to the underground parking would take place off of Vail Road on the southwest corner of the site. A comprehensive traffic analysis is included within the development plan. In order to evaluate this proposal, we must first evaluate the request to amend the zoning from Heavy Service to Commercial Core I. The Heavy Service District as it is defined in its purpose section in the zoning code is intended to provide sites for automotive oriented uses and for commercial service uses which are not appropriate in other commercial districts. Because of the nature of the uses permitted and their operating characteristics, appearance and potential for generating traffic, all of the uses in this district are subject to conditional use permit procedure. Some of the uses allowed as conditional uses within the Heavy service zone district include animal hospitals and kennels, automotive service stations, building material supply stores, business offices, corporation yards, machine shops, repair garages, tire sales and service, and trucking terminals. The Heavy Service District does require 20 foot setbacks from all property lines, allows a 38 foot building height, 75% site coverage, and requires a minimum of 100 landscape coverage. Density standards are not applicable to the Heavy Service District, as no residential type use is listed as a permitted or conditional use in the Heavy Service District. The Commercial Core I zone district allows a variety of retail, commercial and residential uses, all of which are controlled as permitted or conditional uses on a horizontal zoning basis. The proposed change from HS to CCI entails a major change in the allowable uses for this parcel of land. A complete 16 analysis of the merits of this zone amendment is addressed in another section of this memorandum. II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL There are a number of criteria to be evaluated when reviewing a request of this nature. The first set of criteria to be utilized will be the three criteria involved in an evaluation of a request for zone change. The second set of criteria to be used in review of this proposal will be the 9 development standards as set forth in the Special Development District-chapter of the Zoning Code. The third set of criteria will be a general comparison of the proposed project to the Urban Design Guide Plan, as stipulated in the CCI zone district. Also, the Land Use Plan should be utilized as a guideline in any request to change zoning. However, because this site is part of the area covered by the Vail Village Master Plan/Urban Design Guide Plan, the Land Use Plan made no recommendations for this site. The Vail Village Master Plan, as yet unapproved, recommends no changes in the land use of this site. Staff comments include those of Jeff Winston, our urban design/landscape consultant. III. EVALUATION OF ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM HEAVY SERVICE TO COMMERCIAL CORE I A. Suitability of existing zoning The staff feels that the existing gas station is an acceptable use as existing on the corner of the 4-way stop. We do recognize, however, that it is one of the few uses allowed in the Heavy Service District that would be an acceptable use in this highly sensitive location. The conditional use review process would require Town of Vail approval for any change in use on this site. We have also recognized for quite some time that redevelopment of this site could allow the opportunity to present a more pleasant and appropriate entrance statement to the Town of Vail. We generally support the uses proposed at this location. B. Is the amendment presenting a convenient, workable relationship within land uses consistent with Municipal objectives. The Amoco site has been called out on the Urban Design Guide Plan as a special study area and has been reviewed previously as a potential portion of the Vail Village Inn development project. With concern over the potential congestion a bank could cause at this location, we feel that the uses proposed for this piece of ground are generally consistent with the surroundings uses. C. Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly, viable communitv. We feel that development of a gateway project into Vail is a sound concept. This concept can provide for orderly and viable growth within the community if revisions to the plan, such as inclusion of a left turn lane and elimination of parking along Vail. Road are incorporated. IV. DESIGN STANDARDS IN EVALUATING SDD PROPOSALS The following are staff comments concerning how this proposal relates to the design standards as outlined in the zoning code: A. A buffer zone shall be provided in a Special Development District that is adjacent to a low density residential zone district. The buffer zone must be kept free of buildings or structures and must landscaped, screened or protected by natural features so that adverse effects on the surrounding areas are minimized. This may require a buffer zone of sufficient size to adequately separate the proposed use from the surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy, noise, adequate light and air, air pollution, signage, and other comparable potentially incompatible factors. The proposed development is surrounded by commercial development on the south and east sides, by Vail Road on the west side and by the Frontage Road on the north side. There is no residential area that this project should provide a buffer from. The staff does feel strongly, however, that the north side of the building should maintain a 20 foot setback from the property line. We feel that the proposed 10 foot setback is inadequate from the Frontage Road. There is an existing landscape buffer between the service station and the roadway. This planter, however, is entirely located on State Highway right-of-way and neither the applicant nor the Town of Vail control future development on that property. We feel that this building should have the ability to provide a sufficient buffer from the roadway should this planter be eliminated. B. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, taking into consideration safety, separation from living areas, convenience, access, noise, and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be permitted if they can be used by Police and Fire Department vehicles for emergency purposes. Bicycle traffic should be considered and provided when the site is to be used for residential purposes. As is many of these criteria, this consideration is intended primarily for large scale development. As it relates to this proposal, the vehicular access to the underground parking occurs in the southwestern corner of the site. There is a comprehensive traffic analysis that has been submitted as part of the development plan. This traffic analysis states that there is a 40 foot stacking distance for cars waiting to turn left into the Gateway project from Vail Road. The Community Development staff and Public Works feel 00 that circulation related to this project would benefit greatly by the design and implementation of a left turn lane on Vail Road to serve the Vail Gateway project. This improvement makes sense due to the predicted daily traffic flow of 810 cars/day into and out of this driveway. The approved Vail Village Inn project left turn lane for their access point distance down Vail Road from this pro it is important to circulation at the intersection that this left turn lane of the project. does contain a a short ject. We feel 4-way be made a part The applicant has also designed into the project approximately three surface parking spaces that fall partially on the applicant's property and partially on the road right-of--way on Vail Road. The staff feels that these surface parking spaces are not appropriate as they are designed and that surface parking may not be appropriate at all on this site. The spaces are too close to the intersection and would impede future road improvements if needed. We feel that if the applicant wishes to pursue surface parking, it should be redesigned to be completely on the applicant's property and in an area where it does not conflict with circulation patterns. C. Functional oven preservation of drainage areas), function. space in terms of: optimum natural features (including trees and recreation, views, convenience, and The Community Development Department feels strongly that this building should present no encroachment into the view corridor that is established by the approved Vail Village Inn development. During the Vail Village"'Tnn Phase'IV approval process, much time /---and effort was put into maintaining a view corridor from the 4-way stop. The eventual and approved building design of the Vail Village Inn Phase IV reflects this effort and presents a wide view from the 4-way stop. Although the applicant has not submitted to the staff a complete view analysis, it is apparent from the information that we do have that the existing building will require substantial revision to maintain the view parameters that are established by the VVI. D. Variety in terms of housing type, densities, facilities and oven space. This Special Development District proposal includes 13 dwelling units with GRFA of approximately 12,000 square feet. With CCI as the underlying zoning, the allowable density on this parcel would be 13 units and approximately 19,300 square feet of GRFA. The use of the units (i.e. rental or condominium) has not been determined. It is difficult, on a site of 24,000 square feet that contains only 13 dwelling units to apply the criteria of variety of housing type and quality and amount of open space. These two criteria are not really applicable to a development of this scale. The applicant has attempted to provide some open space by creating a large setback from the 4--way intersection in the form of a landscape or sculpture plaza. Staff feels that this design form is very appropriate to this development. E. Privacv in terms of the needs of individuals, families and neighbors. As with other criteria, these considerations are felt to be more relevant to large scale SDD's. F. Pedestrian traffic in terms of safety, separation, convenience, access to points of destination, and attractiveness. The applicant has provided pedestrian entrance to this building on the northwest corner as well as a pedestrian entrance centrally located on the south elevation. The pedestrian,entrance on the south elevation is located in the center of the building to allow pedestrian traffic to arrive at the building by coming through both the existing and approved Vail Village Inn developments. The approved Vail Village Inn Phase IV'development was designed in a manner to screen view and pedestrian access from the existing gas station. We feel that it will be important the eventual developer of the Vail Village"Phase IV project amend certain circulation and design aspects of his project to better relate to the Vail Gateway project. The staff does feel that pedestrian safety would be greatly benefited by providing a pedestrian walkway from Vail Road to the building entrance on the south side of the building. The pedestrian access as designed conflicts with the vehicular access to the parking structure. G. Buildinq type in terms of: Appropriateness to density, site relationship, and bulk. 00 The Community Development Department staff has serious concerns with the site relationship of the proposed development, with the height, and with the massing of the building. There was much discussion during the approval process of"Phase IV of"the Vail Village Inn project regarding stepping those buildings down toward the 4-way stop. That concept was reinforced in the original SDD documents and in planning studies completed by Eldon Beck that show proposed building height allowances for the Vail Village Inn area. The architects have recognized this concept and, to a certain extent, responded. We do, however, have serious concern with the height of both the east and west ridges. We feel that the height of these ridges presents an unacceptable encroachment by narrowing the wide view corridor to a smaller "tunnel." Lowering of the ridge heights will accomplish two objectives in the development of this site. It would reduce or remove any impact of this building on the view corridor and it would further reinforce the concept of stepping down toward the corner. In the present proposal, there is approximately 5 feet difference from the ridge heights of the Vail Village Inn and the Gateway projects. We feel there should be a substantial step down from the Vail Village Inn ridge height to the Vail Gateway ridges. This would reinforce previous design considerations as well as the applicant's own architectural concept. The staff also has a concern, as has been previously stated in this memo, with the relationship of this building to the Frontage Road. This development plan proposes a 10 foot setback from the front property line. While there is an existing planter that buffers this site from the Frontage Road, that planter is located entirely on State Highway right- of-way. There are no assurances that can be made by the Town of Vail or the applicant that further Frontage Road improvements will not impact this planter. We feel that a 20 foot setback from the main road in Vail is the minimum buffer that should be allowed. H. Building design in terms of orientation, spacing, materials, color and texture, storage, signs, lighting, and solar blockage. With regard to this proposal, a majority of these issues relate to the Design Review level of approval. I. Landscaping of the total site in terms of purposes, types, maintenance, suitability and effect on the neighborhood. Staff feels that the design of the plaza entrance on the northwest corner of this development is appropriate and presents a great opportunity for development of a landscaped plaza, possibly with some sculpture. This plaza area can contribute much toward the positive image of Vail. The plaza as it is designed is very conceptual and further work will need to take place at the Design Review level. VI. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A. Uses The applicant is proposing this special Development District with the underlying zone district of CCI. As required in the special Development District section of the Vail Municipal Code, the uses in an SDD must match that of the underlying zone district. In the CCI zone district, permitted and conditional uses are defined horizontally by building level. We feel that utilizing CCI as an underlying zone district requires the applicant to structure his uses in accordance to the horizontal zoning of CCI. This will require submittal and approval of a conditional use permit for the office uses. For the purpose of review of this project, the staff has assumed that office will be an eventual use on the 3rd and 4th levels, and see no negative impact to these uses. The total size of this parcel is 24,154 square feet. Under CCI zoning, this would allow a 19,323 square feet of GRFA and 13 dwelling units. The applicant has proposed approximately 12,004 square feet of GRFA and 13 dwelling units. The density proposed is within allowable density of the zone district. The staff does feel, however, that the overall bulk and mass of this building results in several major concerns of this development proposal. The level of density being requested by the applicant contributes to the massing of the building, and is therefore related to those concerns. B. Parkinq According to standards outlined in the off-Street Parking section of the zoning code, the uses involved in this proposal will require from 89 to 104 parking spaces, depending upon whether or not a bank is involved and what the size of that facility would be. The applicant has proposed 75 structures spaces and 3 surface spaces. Staff feels that the surface parking 00 as located and designed is inappropriate. That leaves 75 parking spaces to serve this development. Staff feels that this is inadequate and sees no reason on this site to entertain a parking variance to any degree. The applicants have submitted a parking management plan they feel addresses the ability of their development to serve their parking needs. The parking management plan has been included as a part of your packet on this project. VII. URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN The Urban Design Guide Plan addresses this parcel of land as a special study area and does identify two sub-area concepts that relate to this proposal. Sub-area concepts 1 and 2 on East Meadow Drive involve both short and long term suggested improvements as an entry into the community and to Vail Road. Improvements include planting bed expansions, an island to narrow Vail Road, and tree planting to further restrict views down Vail Road. These sub-area concepts also reinforce the fact that this parcel should be a future study area. other than some initial work done by Eldon Beck, that suggest building heights for this parcel as well as the Village Inn parcel and some study done to incorporate this site into the VVI, no special study of this parcel of land has been conducted to date. The Eldon Beck study does show that building heights for development of this parcel of land should reach one to two stories. The Beck plan also shows that the Vail Village Inn development behind this parcel should be a maximum of 3 to 4 stories. The staff supports the Beck concept of stepping down to the intersection, but given the heights of the approved Vail Village Inn project, we certainly feel that 2 to 3 stories of development on this site are appropriate. While this proposed development is within the general area of the Urban Design Guide Plan, we feel that many of the Urban Design Considerations may not be appropriate criteria with which to review this project. We do, however, have concerns of several aspects of this proposal in a general relation to the Urban Design Considerations. The building height and views, in particular, are concerns of this proposal and issues that do not adequately correspond to the Urban Design Considerations. The Urban Design Guide Plan building height consideration provides for a maximum height in the CCI zone district. This building height requirement is a mixed height of 33 and 43 feet, with 409., of the building allowed up to 43 feet in height. We feel that these height guidelines, coupled with the concept of stepping this building down toward the intersection, suggest appropriate design guidelines for this development proposal. The Design Consideration regarding views and focal points states that: "Vail's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, geologic features, etc. are constant reminders of the mountain environment, and by repeated visibility, orientation reference points." While the view corridor through the approved Vail Village Inn project from the 4-way stop is not a designated view corridor by ordinance, we feel it is a very important view upon entering the community. The Vail Village Inn project responded to staff concerns and attempted to maintain an acceptable view corridor from the 4-way stop. We feel strongly that the Vail Gateway project must respect the view corridor as defined by the Vail Village Inn Building. The applicant has responded well with his building design to several of the other design considerations including streetscape framework, street edge, vehicle penetration and service and delivery. However, we have major concerns with the amount of flat roof proposed. Flat roofs are discouraged in the Urban Design Guide Plan. VIII STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff generally supports the mixed use concept proposed in this redevelopment plan and the concept of the rezoning to CCI. Although it may be considered spot zoning, we feel that the uses are compatible with the adjacent Vail Village Inn Special Development District and are appropriate for this location within the community. However, we are not supportive of the uses proposed without the left turn lane and elimination of the surface parking as well as adequate parking provisions. We feel that the general concept of development proposed by the applicant is appropriate and believe that there is an opportunity here to provide an exciting and aesthetically pleasing entrance into Vail. The Community Development Department staff has, however, major concerns with the project as proposed. We feel the issues of bulk and mass, height, setbacks, view corridor encroachment and parking are all important issues that must be addressed. The staff recommendation for this project would be for the Planning Commission to table this and allow the staff and the applicant to work together to try to resolve some of these issues. We feel that with adequate resolution of the aforementioned issues, we could support this project. However, as presented, we feel there are major issues that need to be addressed and cannot support this project as presented. Although many of the uses of the Heavy Service District would certainly not be acceptable in this location, we feel that the existing service station is appropriate to this location. We believe that'SDD #21 as proposed, presents impacts that are not acceptable. If the applicant wishes to move forward with this project as proposed, staff recommendation is for denial. Cl ..-...?.?.? _. --? ' 71 .V Ya.4MYwv.+:1 1 10S, AL Y? YJI' VAIf _ r ATFWAY - VIEW PROFILE n Lr n c r IX I f ?-,? m Rin P T W - IA/ F -qT " Encroachment of Approved VVl e 4 Encroachment of Initial Vail Gateway Submital ' Revised Encroachment of Current Vail Gateway Submit, ,yy - w -„ - ELI= s? .. ..,..,, _ j ¢ ?, ... ??`{ .•.. - c hap-:. ??r ?. ?'? §n'`?-.f „n... ?? ??-g e ??: .c _ ??- ?v ? PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS, RESEARCH March 24, 1988 A. Peter Patten, Jr. Director of Community Development Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Peter: The purpose of this letter is to summarize the changes and revisions made to the plans for the Vail Gateway Development as a result of the comments and suggestions made by the Town Council. The changes and revisions, which we reviewed with you and Rick yesterday, are as follows: 2) PARKING AND FLOOR AREAS. As requested by the Town Council, the parking requirement will now be totally met within the underground garage. Revisions to the building design have resulted in slight changes in building floor area and parking requirements as shown below: USE FLOOR AREA PARKING ROMT. Retail 11,250 sq. ft. 37.5 spaces Bank/Commercial 3,600 sq. ft. 18 spaces Office 3,800 sq. ft. 15=2 spaces Dwelling units 13,000 sq. ft./12 units 24 spaces TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 94.7 spaces TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 95 spaces 2) BUILDING ORIEN TATION/ENTRIES As requested by the Town Council, the building and landscaping have been redesigned to provide a major entrance near the southwest area of the building and to lessen the importance of the northwest corner. Suite 308, Vail National Bank Building 108 South Frontage Road West • Vail, Colorado 81657 • (303) 476-7154 A. Peter Patten, Jr. Director of Community Development 16 Town of Vail March 24, 1988 Page 2 3) EAST SETBACK As requested by the Town Council, the east setback has been reduced to 0' for the ground level therefore eliminating the "alley" effect. In addition, the northeast corner has been "cut-off" to provide a better transition to the future development to the east. 4) NORTH SETBACK The building face has been pulled back an additional 2 feet in order to provide a 17 foot setback for the ground level of the building and to allow the bay window projections to meet the 15 foot setback from the north property line. In addition, the column adjacent to the northwest entry has been pulled back 7 feet from its original location. 5) LANDSCAPING The hardscape plaza area at the northwest corner of the site has been minimized and the building has been setback an additional 10 feet on the southwest to allow for a larger plaza and entry area in this location. Also, the planter on the north has been increased in size. 6) ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS The redesign of the building has resulted in detail changes such as major modification of the southwest area, minimization of the importance of the northwest area, an increased amount of sloped roof, and a minimization and off-set of flat roofed areas. As you know, we will be discussing with the Town Council and Planning on Tuesday. We believe that all o concerns which the majority of the during the review process. Please additional information or have any Sincerely Peter Jamar, AICP these modifications in detail and Environmental Commission f these changes address the Council and PEC has raised let me know if you need questions. PJ:ns n Architect Steven Riden's evaluation. LI L-I JAN-09-1999 14:210 FROM KINNEY JOHNSON TO 4768681 P,01 L_J January 7, 1998 Mr. Rob Ford Mayor, Town of Vail Mr. George Ruther Senior Planner 'own of Vail Fax: 970,479,2452 Dear Mr, Ford and Mr. Ruther, I would like to formally object to the proposed Vail Village Inn's Special Development District as defined for the Vail Village Inn (VVI) site. As a year-round resident of the Village Inn Plaza Condominiums, which are adjacent to the proposed Vail Village Inn development, I am disturbed with apparent disregard for the current planning guidelines and the magnitude and arrogance of the proposed development. As proposed, the site, referred to as Special Development District Number 6 (SDD 46), grossly exceeds the APPROVED development standards contained in the SDD #6 legislation as well as some guidelines in the Vail Village Master Plan. Specifically, at issue are the Gross Residential Floor Area and the height of the proposed building. Currently, the proposed plan violates an established view corridor that has a controlling effect upon buildings in SDD 116. Likewise, the proposed platy totally disregards the Vail Village Master Platt height guidelines. As the owner of the southwest unit in the Village Inn Plaza Condominiums, the proposed plan: 1) eliminates all western exposure to the mountains and the sun, 2) places truck docks literally against a bedroom wall, 3) eliminates any privacy from my patios, and 4) suggests traffic patterns that will be unacceptable. Does the proposed plan compensate my potential loss in real estate value? Does the proposed plan compensate me for several years of dirt and construction noise? Can you boldly eliminate values that were developed to protect my neighbors and me? I am not opposed to change. I also believe that a quality hotel would, in the long run, enhance the care of the Village. What I am opposed to is the blatant and reckless disregard to guidelines that were established to preserve the integrity of Vail Village and to protect individuals such as myself. Is your intent to build another Beaver Creek? Construct a cement city in the mountains? n JAN-09°1999 14:21 FROM KINNEY JOHNSON TO 4768681 P.02 v I trust that good judgment and a tree sense to preserve the value of Vail Village will overcome a purely greedy and irresponsible decision. Yours truly, Kinney L Johnson CC: Village lrm Plaza Condominium Association E ?J TOTAL P.02 quc ?n employee otvwdcoopern lae 01/14199 Dear Mayor Ford, Town Council, Mr. Ruther and PEG: I am the owner of a Restaurant in the Gateway building in Mail Village. I have A E C A W 7 E only just found out about a meeting with the Town of Vail regarding the Vail -- -= Village Inn Project. I only found this out by chance... the Town never notified us, and neither did our landlord, Stoltz Management. This is not the way the Town usually does business. I have been notified in the past about other issues regarding development in the Town when it would affect my business. I oppose the Vail Village Inn plan. The traffic would be horrendous, and after the summer of 1999, maybe we should all took at the rate of ,u,,otruction and timing of such projects. What happened to the small cute mountain town? What about the effect on air quality? What about the master plan and all the issues when the Vail Gateway buildiing was built? The Vail Gateway and the Vail Village Inn were supposed to have a pedestrian connection. The plan being proposed would isolate and hide the Vail Gateway behind a huge building. Between the buildings an alley would be created that would not be inviting to visitors to the Vail Gateway. 1 have not had a chance to study the proposal in detail. These are my immediate objections. To not notify us when there is potentially a 9 story building, which would *%A I?A take 18 months to build, is outrageous. SK? Sincerely, 2077 n. frontage rd. suite 103b vail, co 81657 970-476-2090 fry' 971-479-6494 Eat-inq cr pcbox. com Sent Sy: PW. Associates; 954 753 9775; Jan-10-99 4:29Pt4; Page 112 Village Inn Plaza Phase V Condominium Assoc. 100 East Meadow Drive 31 Veil, Colorado 61657 January 10, 1999 • The Honorable Robert Ford Mayor of Vail Town of Vail Municipal Office Vail, Colorado 91657 Subject: Construction of the new Vail Village INN Your Donor, 1 am writing as a director and officer of the above Association. During the annual meeting of our association on Dec. 29th 1996 we were, for the first time, allowed to review some information about the construction plans of the new Vail Plaza Hotel to be erected on the grounds of the current VVI. 1. We consider the planned project a substantial departure from the Special Development District as approved on the property. 2. It is in conflict with the quiet enjoyment of the property rights of Phase V Condominium Association property owners in as much as it violates the reciprocal easement and access agreement of 1987. This agreement guarantees Phase V Condominium Association Owners to have access across Vail Village Inn orooerty to their six oarkinca spaces. 3. The owners represented at the meeting and other owners in VIP Phase V Condominium Association have expressed great concern over the impact a nine-story building would have on the overall atmosphere of Vail Village. It would set a dangerous precedent that could impact on other potential development plans of such re- developable properties as the Sonnenalp Swiss Chalet, Chateau Vail (formerly Holiday Inn), the Tivoli and possibly others. Sent By; Pty. Associates; 954 753 9775; Jan-10-99 4:29PM; Page 212 0 May I ask that the above views, concerns and objections of the owners of VIP Phase V Condominium Association be introduced and considered in the upcoming planning meeting next week. Respectfully, Hubert Wagner Director of VIP Phase V Condominium Association CC: to all condo owners of record This letter is submitted via Fax #970-479-2157 to the Town of Vail. It was sent from my permanent residency: Hubert Wagner 4100 N. W. 101 [give Coral Springs, FL 33065 Tel # 954-753-4303 Fax # 954-753-9775 0 GFC Ltd. Poet Omee Box 8248 vam CO Phone: 870.949.4121 91868= FAX: 970.949,OW4 81OSB 8298 omaiL sriden@ vwlnet Wednesday, January 6, 1999 Members of the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Department of Community Development Vail, CO 81657 Re: Vail Plaza Hotel Dear Members I have been asked to make an objective evaluation of the proposed Vail plaza Hotel and analize the potential detriments from the realization of this development. I have reviewed the submittal and the following are comments for the record- My first observation is as to the overall massing and scale of the development. The scale is far beyond what I see as compatible with the surrounding structures the proposed project absolutely dwarfs the Vail Gateway and rises far above any other structure in the immediate area. The proposal indicates that there will be large massing at the edges of the boundaries of the property and without any required setbacks from the adjacent buildings nor is there any stepping of the structure in a relationship to the existing buildings. It would seem that this is not the intention of any of the previous approvals or any of the underlining zoning from which the SDD has been based. All of the pedestrian space is surrounded by structure that is often 40 to 70 feet in height creating areas that will be permanently in shadow and offbring very little openness or landscaping and unless you are within the building itself there is not any protection from the micro climates in the area created by the new structure such as wind. This design does not create any enclosure. Based on the applicants own study of the shadows, the Frontage road would also remain in shadow and visually create a wall of structure that prohibits any view beyond. What ever happened to view corridor that initially restricted the development surrounding the roundabout? Those restrictions have been in place since the earliest proposals for this area were presented. It is obvious that the intent of previous review decisions held the height to maintain this view. I would like to question the validity of such a gross deviation to the approved SDD especially when it appears that this project significantly increases the size above the previous approval and essentially doubles the density and height of the underlining zoning. Is this the way the Master Plan intended the development to proceed? I believe upon careful examination you will find this project does not meet that criteria, Additionally I would like to touch upon other aspects of the proposal. According to the submittal, the traffic study indicates that there would be little effect upon the existing conditions, but I would tend to differ on this because this project would only begin to set a precedent for others that would eventually maximize the capacity of the roundabout and it is clear that this now creates an alley out of the frontage road and diminishes the character of the entrance to the village, The model utilized for this study does not take this into consideration. Generally the request to significantly reduce the setbacks require the applicant to show there would be a hardship. I cannot see the hard ship in this case. Again there is very tittle consideration given to the neighboring development. A final question, Was not a similar but smaller project for this area previously rejected by the Council and Planning Commission? And what has change to make this approval? Sincerely, Steven James Riden A.I.A. Architect C7 TOTAL P.02 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 11, 1999 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Diane Golden Russ Forrest John Schofield Dominic Mauriello Galen Aasland George R+uther Ann Bishop Brent Wilson Brian Doyon Judy Rodriguez Tom Weber Tom Moorhead Public Hearinq 2:00 p.m. Greg Moffet called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. A request for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit at a proposed primary/secondary residence, located at 95 Forest Road / Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Philip Hoversten, represented by Snowdon & Hopkins Architects Planner: Jeff Hunt 0 Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant, public or Commissioner's had any comments. There were no comments. Ann Bishop made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-78-13, Town of Municipal Code, to allow for the conversion of existing floor space to gross residential floor area (GRFA), located at 333 Bridge Street (Vail Village Club)/ A portion of Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: The Remonov Company, represented by Braun & Associates Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. 1 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 11, 1999 t, Tom Braun, the architect representing the Remonov Company, said the intent of the application was to clean up the place and that because of egress issues, they could not build 2 condominiums. He explained that there was no physical square footage addition to the building and the floor space was there without having to expand the existing shell of the building. He said the project would not harm anyone in the area and he stated the presence of the existing building was a hardship. He said for the applicant to adhere to the code, it would be a hardship with the building as it. existed. He said the real essence was what the Town had done in the last year addressing interior conversions with ordinances and that the Town made a policy to use the interior space if the building wasn't expanded. He said this would not be a grant of special privilege, since other properties had done this and again said there would be no adverse impacts on anyone. He stated that it wouldn't serve anyone not to do this. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were none. Galen Aasland stated he had sympathy for this request, as it was relatively minor, but he said the proposal was dangerous for the Town. He said that other properties in the area do not enjoy this and therefore, it was clearly a special privilege. Ann Bishop made a disclosure that the applicant was a client of hers, but that she saw no conflict. She said she thought interior conversions were ok, since this building has had a tough history. Dominic Mauliello agreed that this was dangerous and explained that there was no existing dwelling unit on the property, just commercial space. He explained that the Interior Conversion Ordinance only applied to existing dwelling units. Tom Braun said the ordinance could apply to a multi-family building with a commercial component. He reverted back to the allowable use of the project and said it was lacking in logic and common sense. He said there was a distinction between this and the Crossroads situation. Tom Weber said he had a problem with drawing the line with regard to future conversions and that it was tough to quantify how much was appropriate. He said the applicant was creating it at the same time as he was converting it. Brian Doyon agreed with Galen in that it was dangerous precedent. John Schofield asked Tom to explain the 400 sq. ft., as there were some areas designated, but at this point in time, the 400 sq. ft. was not designated. He said the applicant's intent was to sell the condo, but he had a problem with it being a hardship. He said he wished the variance code had a common sense section of the code, but that it did not. He said they had never granted a GRFA variance of this type and the interior conversion agreement was convincing, but the PEC couldn't stray from the code. Greg Moffet said the PEC was required by law to enforce the law. He said he didn't like the fact that the ordinance encouraged the applicant to get cute. He said when the PEC granted variances in the CC1, AU's and hotel beds were created, or other elements of the Master Plan documents were implemented, allowing for relief. He said it was a clearly enumerated public policy and he didn't see that here. 2 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 11, 1999 11 Tom Braun said mixed use was encouraged and that this couldn't match Pepi's live beds. He said it fit the criteria to say yes and that the PEC had latitude with the interior conversion ordinance. Greg Moffet said the code was clear on this and if granted, it will push us down a slippery slope, as it could be used as a precedence. He said the application encouraged you to skirt the law. Galen Aasland made a motion for denial, in accordance with the staff memo, with the finding that it would be a special privilege. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion for denial passed by a vote of 4-2. 3. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village), to allow for a fractional fee club and a change to the approved Development Plan, located at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominium Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo and included a change to condition #8 . Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Jerry Wurhmann said he questioned the condition requiring 74 parking spaces. Greg Moffet said that staff just revised the parking pay-in-lieu. Gerry Wurhmann said the date of October 31, 1999, was not appropriate, as the validity was for one year and so it should be after that. Greg Moffet agreed to amend the approval with the date after the 2Id reading. He then asked for any public comment. There was none. Tom Weber stated he was in favor of this. Brian Doyon had no comment. John Schofield said he agreed with 52 parking spaces. Galen Aasland said he hoped the applicant would be able to do this. Ann Bishop echoed Galen's comments. Greg Moffet said he would like to see this with a change to Condition #8 so that the applicant would pay-in-lieu on spaces not provided on-site above the 52 spaces proposed and that the approval would lapse 1 year from the date of the second reading of an ordinance amending the district by Council. 3 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 11, 1999 John Schofield made a motion for approval with the above two changes to the conditions. I* Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 4. A worksession to discuss a major amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village), to revise the Glen Lyon Office Building site (Area D), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Kurt Segerberg Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Kurt Segerberg, the architect, gave an overview of some illustrations. He explained the location of the parking structure requiring the 98 cars on-site and said they were trying to keep as much of the entrance across form the Vail Professional Building, as could be. He said the bike path would remain as is and the architecture was redressing the existing building. He stated that this was a fairly linear site, but landscaping and color would break it up, giving it a residential feel on the Frontage Rd. side. He said the new facility would be a stand-alone facility; just skin work to the existing building and that the parking requirement would be met with the structure. He said if 9' parking spaces needed to be added it would create an entry problem by pushing the structure to the east. He said that CDOT wanted to align the exit with the Vail Professional Building. He said that widening of the bridge was not a part of this proposal, even though there would be a stacking up of cars at the bridge. He said the 22' aisle width was below the 24' required aisle width in the parking structure. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was no public comment. Galen Aasland said Kurt had done what we asked him to do from the last meeting. He stated he had a problem with the 8' wide parking spaces, but said there needed to be standard spaces by pushing the building closer to the creek. He said he was ok with more office space and the EHU's and didn't see the necessity for more EHU's. He said snow storage could be hauled away and that the site was being used in an appropriate way, however, it could use more trees. Ann Bishop shared Galen's comments and agreed with needing more trees. Tom Weber said the building could go taller. Tom said he had one concern with the parking and he was not concerned if it moved to the east. He said he was not sure about CDOT's reason for lining up the exit. Kurt Segerberg said there were heated ramps. 4 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 11, 1999 F-I L Tom Weber said he didn't see a need to make it look residential. He said he didn't see a 110 generation of employees and so would like more office space with no EHU's. He said he had no problem with hauling off snow. Brian Doyon disclosed for the record that he worked for a tenant in this building. He said big trucks don't fit in 8' wide spots and more handicapped spaces were needed. He said putting in a new building cancelled the handicap access and there needed to be an accessible route between buildings. He said he would like to see an elevation of how the parking structure would work with regards to the grading. He said the applicant would be removing large, tail trees by the creek and so there needed to be some screening. John Schofield said he had no problem with more height, the residential nature was not required, he agreed on the 9' spaces and snow storage hauling was acceptable. He suggested, since this office space wouldn't generate new employees, to stick the EHU's on top of the structure, to increase the parking down below. Greg Moffet said parking was the tail wagging the dog. He said we needed more office space to maintain the economic viability in Town and in that direction, he encouraged the applicant to look at how parking was handled in other situations. He suggested getting employees to park someplace else, or to charge for parking, which would make the blue pass a good deal. He said he would like to see more office space on this site and that an EHU was nice, but not necessary in this context. He summarized the consensus from the PEC was to squeeze more on the site. 5. A request for a final review of a major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment, located at 100 East Meadow Drive, Dots M and 0, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther Greg Moffet asked for the Commissioner's to disclose any relationships with the applicant. Galen Aasland said he worked for Zehren a dozen years ago and Jay Peterson was his attorney. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment to be limited to 5 minutes each and stated the meeting would be immediately adjourned, if any arguing ensued. George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo and attachments and said this would be a recommendation to Town Council. He said that since the packet, he had received 5 additional letters, which would be available in the Town's file. He then went over the publishing dates for this proposal as 11/27, 1998 and then the item was tabled. He said that according to Section 12- 8-6 of the Town Code, notice was sent at least 15 days in advance to property owners adjacent to the property. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, said that George had worked on the report for the past 6 months. He went through a few of the comments from the last meeting and what had been done since that last meeting. He said the PEC had stated that this was an appropriate site and liked the detail of the smaller building and he said that the traffic engineer was here today to answer any questions. He said this building was a story and a half lower than presented at the last meeting and a view analysis was included in the packet. He said the project needed to better relate to the streetscape and that they had lost approximately 60 hotel units. Jay said that 5 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 11, 1999 this had taken 2 years to put together and we did go around the business community to ask what they thought of our concept. He said the consensus was that a major hotel with conference facilities would be the best thing for the Town, as a large conference hotel would be another marketing arm for the Town. He said the applicant would be cutting back revenue for the Town of Vail by cutting back the size of the project. He then handed out a response to the 1!3199 Daily Trail paid advertisement. He said in the last 10 years a recreation center and performing arts center had been voted down by the Town and hence, they are down valley. He mentioned that there would be various people objecting today, since their views would be blocked from the Vail Gateway Building. He stated that those condominium units sold for a lot of money, but that a document was recorded in 1939, prior to the sale of any unit in the Gateway, with Leo Palmas obtaining a signed waiver from each property owner stating that they would not object to the potential redevelopment of the VVI. There have been numerous encroachments on views being blocked, but Jay stated that there were only 5 views that were protected in the Town of Vail. He then commended staff for a great job. He said the economic health of the Town was of great concern and that 1993, for the first time, will be a negative growth with an actual decrease in sales tax revenue. He stated the Town has taken the bull by the horns in Lionshead, but the Village needs the same. He said there has been an increase in tax from grocery stores, but Vail Village is flat and dying. He said by taking an outlying area and putting in mass and bulk, the economic benefit would trickle into the Town of Vail. Tim Losa, with Project Management, explained the roof height illustrations. John Schofield asked for a brief explanation of the traffic flow. Chris Fasch, a Senior Transportation Member, estimated that trips generated by this project, using the ITI manual of rates and equations, would be 3000 trips per day, coming in and going out. Having each of the uses in one complex, would require less trips and the trip generation estimation net increase, with the redevelopment, would be 2000 trips per day, which included everything, not just guests. He said the relative impact of the net additional traffic was a 4-6% increase in front of the proposed building and was less through the roundabout, which the roundabout could accommodate. He said the level of service was a traffic engineering report card. He said the level of service calculations was a "B" or better in the peak seasons, which included other growth from other development, as well as our development. He stated two improvements as being the right turn deceleration lane and the median, which would prohibit the left turn in eliminating the conflict by using the right turn deceleration. He said the median improvements would be designed to harbor a vehicle, allowing the driver to deal with each direction of flow individually. He said they wanted to make sure the Town supported the project before they went to CDOT. He explained that if you increase the curbcut traffic by 20%, you had to go to CDOT. Brian Doyon did not like having to cut across 3 lanes to get to the highway. Tim Losa explained the loading and delivery and how the deceleration lane would be expanded for trucks to pull in and then back down. He said the fully enclosed loading dock would have no fumes and noise. He then explained the access from Vail Road, by backing in. Tom Weber said it is a stretch to ask a truck to back up, as it would stack up the traffic and he asked why they would load there, rather than off the Frontage Rd. Tim Loss explained that the Frontage Road would be to service the guests and we were asked to provide this for the other redevelopments. He said no backing would occur from the Frontage Rd. 6 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes fanuary 11, 1999 Tom Weber asked about pulling straight in. George Ruther stated that Greg Hail said the turning maneuvers do function properly. Tim Losa said turning radius's for buses can be accommodated. Brian Doyon questioned the turning radius for buses in the front. Tim Losa said there would be 2-4 valet parking spaces in the front and we would know in advance if buses were coming. Brian Doyon asked if this was overflow or valet in the garage. Tim Loss said, overflow. He said the corridors would be 7.5'- 8' ceiling heights. He said the bedrooms in the lower level would have 9' ceilings, with the exception of the vaulted ceilings on the upper floors. Galen Aasland asked about the Frontage Rd. exits and if CDOT doesn't approve, what is the applicant prepared to do. Jay Peterson said an option, if a left turn can't be made out of the project, would be to turn left farther down the road away from the roundabout. He said this would be paid for by the applicant. Tom Weber asked if cars could exit onto Vail Road, providing a right hand turn with a ramp up for exit only. Tim Losa said that would significantly increase the trips in the roundabout and the applicant was trying to reduce impacts on the roundabout. Tom Weber said most of the traffic was coming from the other side of the roundabout. Jay Peterson said we had committed to other phases of SDD 6 for loading and deliveries and that there were huge expanse of concrete in that area. He said they were trying to keep as much traffic off of Vail Road as possible. Galen Aasland asked if it was angled when entering into the facility in front of Gateway. Tim Losa said any improvements occurring on the Town right-of-way could be granted approval by the Town. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. Charles Lipcon, a second homeowner from Miami who spends 4 months a year in Vail, quoted from Confucius from 2500 years ago; "when words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom." He said that in 1976, Joe Stauffer entered into an SDD approval. He said there were no set of approved plans located between the TOV and Joe Stauffer. He said they were not to build over 3 stories and the Gateway project was moved around in order to protect the view corridor established by the Vail Village Inn development plan and the TOV. He said this new project would windfall profit for the developer. He said that the traffic to this hotel will be internal to the Village and right now the circle backs up under 1-70 in the morning and afternoon and It will become a traffic nightmare. He said the project would be a 2% increase yearly and he asked about the domino-effect with everyone wanting to go to 8 stories. He said the cutting off of the 7 40 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 11, 1999 view corridor was the 2°d problem. He read from a publication that quoted; "breathtaking vistas" at every turn," and now they would be gone. He stated that this building was far too big, with 6 stories on Vail Road and that it was violating the Master Plan that allowed 5 stories on the Frontage Road. He gave an example of walking out the south door of the Vail Gateway, seeing a 70' wall 20' away from the door, as being the first canyon alley in Vail and he said this alley would be double what's needed to create a canyon. He stated that the buildup of fumes would be unsafe, as well as sunlight being cut off from this bunker, not to mention the ice build-up. He said without amending the Master Plan, the SDD could not be passed. He said the height would be 87', instead of 47' in some places. He said this monolithic structure would cause people not to come here, because they love the little village. He asked where the tax revenue was. He said the Town would get inverse condemnation suits. Galen Aasland asked about the south entrance on the Gateway Building. Charles Lipcon quoted from a letter from the TOV to the Gateway, requesting a strong pedestrian connection, which this alley wouldn't address. John Dunn, representing Charles Lipcon, said he believed the Master Plan was a regulatory document. That being said, he said one definition of the guideline was that a lesser height might be more appropriate, as it was in excess by 100%. Greg Moffet said the Gateway Building exceeded the zoning by 67%. Tom Moorhead said the plan stated that it was intended as a guide and he said the State of Colorado stated the Master Plan of a municipality was advisory only. He said he concurred with the view corridors in the staff memo. Teak Simonton, representing Curtin Hill, supported this project, as the bed base needed to be increased and a convention facility would be a good step for the off-season. Istaccio Cortina, owner of the Lionshead Inn, said he was monitoring the process as he wants to redevelop as well. He said the alley and traffic were negative, but we needed to keep on working on Vail and he supported this, as we needed a bed base. He said the Lionshead Inn had 52 hotel rooms but occupancy was 30% below last December. He said we were 40% occupied our 1 st year. Joe Stauffer stated he was not here to either support or oppose the project, as it would be a conflict of interest. He then explained the SDD. He said since he couldn't sell the property, he developed it himself and the Town asked him to have an SDD adopted in 1976, adding that GRFA was taken away from him. He said the SDD said the pedestrian plaza movement area required a 2 story building area through the plaza over East Meadow to the Village. He said he was allowed 5 stories on the Frontage Road, by cutting down to 2 stories on the plaza. He said the Town was very concerned that skiers be seen on Gold Peak, so the view had to be protected. He envisioned that the last phase would be in the year 2000 or 2002, when Craig's market was completed. He said he was here only to explain what his thoughts were regarding the SDD. John Schofield asked Joe Stauffer about the agreement with Leo Palmas in 1989. Joe Staufer said Mr. Palmas was going to rent the condos as hotel units and I was concerned that they needed to know there was an approved building going up in front of them. He said he assumed that Mr. Palmas advised his tenants. 8 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 11, 1999 f Paul Zuger, owner of a retail gallery at the Gateway Building, asked about the building height in the agreement. Joe Staufer said buildings were allowed up to 5 stories on the Frontage Rd. side, Paul Zuger said 95% of the traffic comes from the south side. He said the 80' wall was not acceptable for his business and would put him out of business. He said the fumes were a concern and a terrible eyesore. Hans Woldrich, a DRB member, said it was glaringly obvious that the traffic situation was totally unresolved. He said handling one car at a time was not acceptable when a banquet lets out. Anthony Gemoiino, a 3-year business owner of Phoenix Rising, spoke on behalf of the merchant's point of view, saying the area was very dark and a facility in the back would enhance it and improve the area. Jay Peterson said that Joe gave a good rendition, but he left out two approvals. He said In 1984 Tony Kempf amended it for site specific for Phases 1 and 2 . He said Tony brought in the a 67' tall building behind the gas station. He said in 1988, before Phase 5, Mr. Hillis included the gas station site and was never built because it had all kinds of contingencies, so the 1984 plan held. He said they just showed pockets of height. He said in the Town of Vail in the winter, most of the people arrive by public transportation and during the summer more people drive. He said the loading fumes were from the Gateway's trucks. He said there was a pedestrian connection through the hotel, if the dumpster was moved. He said if you look at our numbers they are less than the Austria Haus, except for height and he didn't respond to threats of lawsuits. Greg Moffet stated the public hearing was now closed. John Schofield asked if the view encroachment agreement was a public record. Jay Peterson said the owners all had a copy. Ann Bishop asked if the view encroachment showed up on the Gateway title policy. Charles Lipcon said the agreement referred to the then-approved plans; or 3 stories in the view corridor. Jay Peterson said this was not a true statement and the document spoke for itself. Tom Weber thanked the public for their input. He said SDD's were dynamic in nature and didn't take into account previous applications. He said that SDD's put all the cards on the table, stating what was best for the Town. He said some of the conditions were negligible, such as taking out the 8t" floor level penthouse or the stepping back on Vail Road. He said he would take out Condition #4 of the staff memo. Brian Doyon said this was a good project and with the outside participation, it would result in a good quality project for the Town of Vail. He agreed with Tom to remove Condition #4, as it had little impact. He said he would insist traffic circulation be looked at carefully and he was very concerned with the valet parking, as well as the route to get to 1-70 when leaving the hotel to go to Denver. He said the applicant would really need to take a serious look at this, as it was dangerous, especially with heavier snows and locals who tend to gun it in the roundabouts. He 9 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 11, 1999 again said that that issue had not been finally resolved and they need to get cars away from the roundabout. He felt the number of EHU's could be dropped significantly if a large percentage of EHU's were located in the Town of Vail. He said that this was a tax base for the Town, so they cannot be located down valley. He said he would consider I unit in Town to 2 units down valley. He said the elevation along Vail Road needed a better architectural feature. He stated there still needed to be circulation and flow towards the Gateway Building. John Schofield said there were no ideal projects during a re-development phase, which the TCOV would be in for the next 30 years, so we need to think of the bettering of the TtOV and not individual owners. He thought the applicant and staff could come up with some kind of EHU number. Galen Aasland said this building would have real consequences for the neighbors, but it would be good for the Town. He said he appreciated taking the height out of the building and the floor to floor height was not excessive. He said he had real concerns about traffic, with people leaving the hotel going towards Denver. He said the south door of the Gateway needed to be addressed. He said the west wing needed to be a condition, so we don't have flat walls. He said the net result of reduction of rooms was good and bad. He said there needed to be an on-site manager's unit, as part of the approval, living there 24 hours of the day in a nice unit, which would be a good commitment on the part of the developer. Ann Bishop conducted her own study when living at Crossroads 365 days a year. She said there were times there was no one in Town and we need this facility to keep us viable. She said she would hate to see what would happen if this project did not occur. She said from experience, it was very difficult to coordinate a convention in the Town of Vail now and so we must have a convention center. She said the view encroachment document was very clear to the people who owned units in the Vail Gateway Building and she found it hard to believe that this comes as a big surprise. Greg Moffet said he was strongly in favor of this type of development and scaling this project back would run contrary to public policy and the local economy. He said he was in agreement with the finding and it was appropriate for this type of hotel, as we know smaller products were not viable and we needed to commit to size. He said a conference for 400 people would not go to Beaver Creek. He said in May and October, there was not enough economy for businesses to stay in business. He said our elected officials have stated the community objectives and this meets those objectives. He said he agreed with Brian regarding the EHU. He said he didn't agree with Conditions 4,5 E& 9, as we have nickeled and dimed the applicant to death. He said there was sufficient excess parking on-site in the winter and the bottom line was that the PEC was concerned with left turns out of this project. John Schofield made a motion for approval, in accordance with the findings in the staff memo, with changes to Condition #2, to read the ratio of units required shall be reduced to 2:1 for units provided in Town versus units provided down valley and to delete Conditions #4 and #5 and Condition #9 read that the applicant explore alternatives to decreasing the depth of the enclosed main loading/delivery area to reduce the impact of the Vail Plaza Hotel at the ground lever of the building on the adjoining property to the east. The final change shall be at the discretion of the DR& Ann Bishop seconded the motion. 10 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 11, 1999 Galen Aasiand asked for additional architectural articulation on all north and south levels on the north and south elevations of the west wing and that one, on-site employee housing unit be provided as a manager's type of unit. Greg Moffet said he will vote, but he would like to see #5 eliminated. Jay Peterson said we would look at it at the DRB level Brian Doyon said he wanted Condition #5 removed, but not the removal of Condition #4, but with articulation only. John Schofield said so moved (referring to Galen' Aasland's and Brian Doyon°s comments). Ann Bishop said so seconded. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0, 6. A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed arena expansion at the Dobson Ice Arena, located at 321 East Lionshead Circle/ Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation District, represented by Odell Architects Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 25, 1999 7. A request to amend the Town's "Public Accommodation" Zone District, Chapter 7 and amendments to Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), Town of Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Johannes Faessler, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 25, 1999 Tom Weber made a motion to table items #6 and #7 until January 25, 1999. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 8. Information Update Dominic Maurieilo reminded the PEG of the joint Council worksession tomorrow. 9. Approval of December 28, 1998 minutes. Ann Bishop made a motion to approve the minutes as read. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 11, 1999 The motion passed by a vote of 5-0-1 with Brian Doyon abstaining. John Schofield made a motion to officially cancel the 2/8/99 PEC meeting due to the Championships. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. Galen Aasland made a motion to recommend to Council Town Council remove a PEC representative on DRB. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-2, with John and Greg opposed. John Schofield made a motion to adjourn. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. 1.2 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 11, 1999