Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-0228 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE 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-ti of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on February 28, 2000, at 2:00 P.M, in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of; A request for final review of a proposed major amendment to Special Development District #t4 (Cascade Village), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West (Glen Lyon Office Building)ILot 54, Black IK, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Dundee Realty, represented by Segerberg Mayhew Architects Planner: George Ruttier A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the conversion of existing hotel rooms into employee housing units, located at 2211 N. Frontage Rd. (West Vail Lodge}ILot 1, Vail dos 5chone #3.. Applicant; Reaut Corporation Planner Brent Wilson A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing raw water intake structure and pump station, located on Black Gore DrivelLot 8, Heather of Vail. Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Planner: Brent Wilson A request for variances from Section 12-6C-6, Section 12-8D-8, and Section 12-14-6, Town of Vail Code,. to allow for an extended entry, trash enclosure and deck expansion, located at 706 W. S Forest RoadlLot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 6`h FlFing. Applicant: Cliff Illig, represented by Beth Levine Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a variance from Sections 12-6H-6 and 12-14-6, Town of Vail Code,. to allow for the addition of gross residential floor area and balconies within required setbacks. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, represented by Ron Diehl, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf A request for a minor subdiivision, to allow far an amendment to a previously platted building envelope and a revised lot access, located at 1452 Lionsridge Loop I Lot 4, Ridge at Vail. Applicant: Mike Young Planner: George Ruttier The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road, Please call 471-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published February 11, 2040 in the Vail Trail. 1 ,~ .ti Tnt[~~i nr ire ~ f THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Punning and Environmental Commission a# the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Seetion 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on February 28, 2000, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a final review of a major amendment, to allow for the proposed redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn, Phase !V, within Special Development District No. fi, and a conditional use permit, to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club in the Public Accommodation Zone District, located at 100 East Meadow Drive/Lots M, N, & O, Bloci~ 5-D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther The applications and information about the propasals are available far public inspection during regular office hours in the praject planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notificatian. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone fior the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published February 11, 2000 in the Vail Daily. .7 ;4 T~1WN OF Y~JL ~ 1 s s PRC)C-F ©F PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) SS. COUNTY OF EAGLE ) 1, ALLEN KNOK do soiemnly swear that I am the PUBLISF~ER of THE VAIL TRAlL: that the same is a newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a generai circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptediy in said County of Eagle far a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement, That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said newspaper for the period of ~ con- secufiive insertions; and that the first publication of said public notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated ~~~~ , 20 ~ and the fast publication of said notice was in the issue dated ~~~''l ~~ , 20 ~ . In witness where- of, Ihave hereunto set my hand this l ~' -day of ~~~ , 20 c5[ ~~ Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public ' State of Colorado, this d day of ~~t the C~t.inty of Eagle, ,20 ~1 , r``` ~ ';~ 'i ~~ My commission ex fires on June 23, 2004 ~' s • PRO~~F CJF PUBLIGATIfJN STATE QF CflLORADC~ ) SS. COUNTY OF EAGLE ) I, ALLEN KNOX do solemnly swear that I am the PUBLISHER of THE VAIL TRAIL• that the same is a newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement That the annexed Segal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said newspaper for the period of ~ con- secutive insertions: and that the first publication of said public nofiice was in the issue of said newspaper dated ~uUl~"~ ~ ~ , 2~ a~ and the last publication of said notice was in the issue dated ~ +'~'~ / ~ ~t , 2Q '~ In witness where- of, I have hereunto set my hand this ~~~ day Qf ~''~~~- , 20 ~~ Subscribed and sworn to before me, a note State of Colorado, this t~~ day of ~f Eagle, t t.l ~, ~~ ~/_~ ~'~ammissian expi n Ju~e 23, 2004 ~,. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, February 2i3, 2000 AGENDA Proiect ®rfentation / PEC LUNCH - Community Development Deoartmen$ 12:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1:3D p.m. 1. West Vail Lodge - 2211 N. Frontage Rd. Driver: George ~~ NOTE: If the PAC 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 2:DD p.m. 1. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the conversion of existing hotel rooms into employee housing units, located at 2211 N. Frontage Rd. (West Vail Lodge)/Lot 1, Vail dos Schone #3. Applicant: Recut Corporation Planner Brent Wilson 2. A request for a final review of a major amendment, to allow for the proposed redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, within Special Development District No. 6, and a conditional use permit, to allow for the operation of a fractional fee clod in the Public Accommodation Zone District, located at 100 East Meadow Drive/Lots M, N, & C7, Block 5-D, Vaif Vi{loge First Filing. Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson Planner; George Ruther 3. A request for variances from Section 12-6C-6, Section 12-6D-6, and Section 12-14-6, Town of Vail Cade, to allow far an extended entry, trash enclosure and deck expansion, located at 706 W. Forest RoadlLot 9, 131ack 1, Vail Village 6`h Filing. Applicant: Cliff Iliig, represented by Beth Levine Planner: Allison Qchs TABLED UNTIL MARCH 13, 2000 ~. 1~WN OF YAIL ~ - -J 4. A request far a minor subdivision, to allow for an amendment to a previously platted building envelope and a revised lot access, located at 1452 Lionsridge Loop /Lot 4, Ridge at Vail. Applicant: Mike Young Planner: George Rusher TABLED UNTIL MARCH 13, 2(}00 5. A request far final review of a proposed major amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West (Glen Lyon Office Balding)/Lot 54, Block K, Gien Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Dundee Realty, represented by Segerberg Mayhew Architects Planner: George Rather TABLED UNTIL MARCH 13, 2000 6. A request for a variance from Sections 12-6H-6 and 12-14-6, Town of Vail Cade, to allow far the addition of grass residential floor area and balconies within required setbacks, located at 303 Dare Creek Drive Vail Townhouse #2-CILot 2, Black 5, Vail Village 1'' Filing. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, represented by Ran Diehl, Architect Planner: Ann l<jerulf TABLED UNTIL MARCH 13, 20{10 7. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow far the construction of an addition to the existing raw water intake structure and pump station, located an Black Gare DrivelLot 8, Heather of Vail. Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Planner: Brent Wilson WITHDRAWN 8. Information Update 9. Approval of February 14, 2Q00 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available far public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Raad. Please call 479-2138 far information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notificatien. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published February 25, 2~4a in the Vail Trail • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, February 28, 2Q40 MEETING RESULTS Project Orientation ! PEC LUNCH - Communihr Development Department ~Z:UO p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Galen Aasland John Schofield Diane Golden Brian Doyon Tom Weber Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Site Visits : ~ ;gyp p,m, 1. West Vail Lodge - 2211 N. Frontage Rd. Driver: George !~ NOTE: !f the PEC bearing extends until 6.00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing -Town Council Clambers, 2:OQ p.m. 1. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the conversion of existing hotel roams into employee housing units, located at 2211 N. Frontage Rd. (West Vail Lodge}/Lot 1, Vail dos Schone #3. Applicant: React Corporation Planner Brent Wilson MOTION: Chas 6ernhardt SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE. 5-0 TABLED UNTIL MARCH 13, 21100 2. A request for a final review of a major amendment, to allow for the proposed redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, within Special Development District No. 6, and a conditional use permit, to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club in the Public Accommodation Zvne District, 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 MOTION: Tom Weber SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 4-1 +' Chas Bernhardt apposed) APPROVED -MAJOR AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATION TO 70WN COUNCIL ~. 1~VFN ~,~ VAIL MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Tom Weber VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH 29 CONDITIONS: 1. That the Developer submits detailed civil engineering drawings of the required off-site improvements (street lights, drainage, curb and gutter, sidewalks, grading, road improvements, etc.) as identified on the off-site improvements plan to the Town of Vail Public Works ;Department for review and approval, prior to application for a building permit. 2. That the Developer submits a detailed final landscape plan and final architectural elevations for review and approval of the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to application for a building permit. ~. The sdd approval time requirements and limitations of Section 12-9A-12 shall apply to Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2QOfl. In addition, the phasing of the construction of the hotel shall not be permitted. 4. That the Developer submits the following plans to the Department of Community Development, far review and approval, as a part of the building permit application for the hotel: a. An Erosion Control and Sedimentation Pfan; b. A Construction Staging and Phas"rng Plan; c. A Stormwater Management Plan; d. A Site Dewatering Plan; and e. A Traffic Control Plan. 5. That the Developer receives a conditional use permit to allow far the construction of Type III Employee Housing Units in Phase IV of the District, in accordance with Chapter 12-i6, prior to the issuance of a building permit, to provide housing on-site. 6. That the Developer submits a complete set of plans to the Colorado Department of Transportation for review and approval of a revised access permit, prior to application for a building permit. 7. That the Developer meets with the Town staff to prepare a memorandum of understanding outlining the responsibilities and requirements of the required off-site improvements, prior to second reading of an ordinance approving the major amendment. 8. That the Developer submits a complete set of plans responding to the design concerns expressed by Greg HaEI, Director of Public Works & Transportation, in his memorandum to George Ruther, dated 12113199. The drawings shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer, prior to final Design Review Board approval. 9. That the Developer records public pedestrian easements between the hotel and the Phase III Condominiums, between the hotel and the Phase V Building, and along the Vail Road frontage. The easements shall be prepared by the Developer and submitted for review and approval of the Tawn Attorney. The easements shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 10. That the Developer record adeed-restriction, which the Town is a party to, on the Phase IV property prohibiting the public use of the spa facility in the hotel. Said restriction may be revoked if the Developer is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Town that • adequate provisions for vehicle parking have been made to accommodate the public use of the spa. The restriction shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2 11. That the Developer submits a final exterior building materials list, a typical wall sections, architectural details and a complete color rendering for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prier tv making an application for a building permit. 12. That the Developer submits a comprehensive sign program proposal for the Vail Plaza Motel for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, 13. That the Developer submits aroof-top mechanical equipment plan for review and approval of the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. Ali roof- top mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the overall design of the hotel and enclosed and screened from public view. 14. That the Developer pasts a bond with the Tawn of Vail to provide financial security for the 125°I~ of the total cost of the required off-site public improvements. The bond shall be in place with the Town prior to the issuance of a building permit. 15. That the Developer installs boMlards or similar safety devices at the intersection of the delivery access driveway and the sidewalk along the South Frontage Raad to prevent conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 18. That the Developer studies and redesigns the entrance vn the north side of the hotel across from the entrance to the Gateway Building to create a more inviting entrance yr a design that redirects pedestrians to another entrance. The final design shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. 17. That the ^eveloper coordinate efforts with the owners of the Gateway Building to create a below ground access for loading and delivery to the Gateway from the Vail Plaza Hotel to resolve potential loading and delivery concerns at the Gateway. If a coordinated effort can be reached the Developer shall submit revised plans to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval, prior tv the issuance of a building permit. 18. That the Developer revises the proposed floor plans for the Vail Plaza Hotel tv provide freight elevator access to the lowest level of the parking structure. The revised plans shall be submitted to the Tawn of Vail Community Development Department for review and approve! prior to the issuance of a building permit. ~. Thy #cr t c :~ ~~~~ n c n'~-reef p I ~~6 ~^f h; 1*. Th ~c~~ 20. That the Developer, in caoperativn with the Town of Vail Public Works Department design and construct a lefit-turn lane an Vail Road and reconfigure the landscape island in the South Frontage Road median to eliminate left-turns from the loading/delivery. The construction shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 21. That the Developer provides a centralized loading/delivery facility for the use of all owners and tenants within Special Development District IVo. 6. Access or use of the facility shall not be unduly restricted•for Special Development District lVo. 6. The loadingldelivery facility, including docks, berths, freight elevators, service corridors, etc., may be made available far public and/or private loadingldelivery programs, sanctioned by the Town of 3 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 2$, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the conversion of existing hotel rooms into employee housing units. I©cated at 2211 N. Frontage Rd. {West Vail Lodge)ILot 1, Vail dos Schone #3. Applicant: React Corporation Planner Brent Wilson I, BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF TFiE REQUEST The West Vail Lodge property, constructed in 1979 under Eagle County jurisdiction, includes ~3 accommodation units {hotel rooms), 19 dwelling units and significant commercial floor area. In the 1980's, the Town of Vail annexed the property and applied Commercial Core 111 zoning. This zoning designation does nat. allow dwelling units or accommodation units as a use and the property has been rendered non-conforming ever since its annexation into the town. in 1991, the Vail Town Council approved a special development district {SDD) at the site to allow for the addition of a new three-story building containing 37 Type III employee housing units. This project was never constructed and the approved SDD became null and void in 1994. The applicant's request involves the conversion of the existing 83 hotel roams into 41 one-bedroom Type I11 employee housing units {including an on-site manager's unit). Additionally, the owner proposes to add additional commercial square footage at the lowest level and provide life-safety improvements to the existing 19free-market condominiums at the upper levels. Existing meeting room space would be converted into 15 covered parking spaces in conjunction with this application. The employee housing units would range in size from 550-772 square feet with full kitchen and bathroom facilities. In addition to the walk-in closets provided in each unit, the applicant proposes 1,720 square feet of common tenant storage space. Cn-site amenities proposed include an exerciselsauna facility, ski lockers, a laundry facility and a po©I area. The PEC is being asked to review the conditional use permit request to allow for the creation of the employee housing units. The other aspects of this proposal (commercial expansion and upgrading of dwelling units) are either permitted by right under applicably . - -~ . .~~ • II. REVIEWING Bl7ARD ROLES - CQNDITIONAI. USE PERMIT Drder of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for acceptabiiify of use and then by the DRB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Carnmissian: Action: The PEC is responsible for final approval/denial of CUP. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal far: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Tawn. 2, Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas, 4, Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. Conformance with development standards of zone district - Lot area - Setbacks - Building Height - Density - GRl"A - Site coverage - Landscape area - Parking and loading - Mitigation of development impacts Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review aui~horify an a GUP, accompanying DRB applicafion. any • • • 2 The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal far: - Architectural compatibility with other s#ructures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - RemovailPreservation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision for snow storage on-site - Acceptability of building materials and colors - Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms - Provision of landscape and drainage - Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures - Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances - Location and design of satellite dishes - Provision of outdoor I'rgh#ing - The design of parks Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the honing Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance wi#h the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the properly and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Actions of DRl3 or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. III. STAFF RECC~MMENDATIQN The Community Development, Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission table the applicant's request far a conditional use permit to allow for the conversion of existing hotel rooms into employee housing units, based on the fiollawing findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the ~ ~ °~ ~ conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 3 2, That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. if the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions be placed on the approval: 1. The approval will not be valid unless the Vail Town Counci6 approves the pending proposal to amend Section 13-7 ("Condominiums and Condominium Conversions"} of the Town of Vail Code. This amendment is necessary to allow for the conversion of accommodation units to condominiumized employee housing units. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all provisions of the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations. ~. All employee housing units created with this proposal will be deed-restricted in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-13, Town of Vail Code ("Employee Housing"}, prior to the issuance of a building permit for any improvements on the property. 3. The applicant shall provide the Tawn of Vail a pedestrian easement. for the existing sidewalk located at the south end of the subject property along North Frontage Road. 4. The applicant shall complete and improve the existing unfinished retaining wall at the north end of the subject property. This improvement is subject to approva! by the Town's Design Review Board. 5. In accordance with the anticipated impacts generated by the provision of employee housing units upon the Town's transit system, the applicant shall provide a pedestrian stair connection between the berm at the north end of the parking lot and the existing Town of Vail bus stop along Chamonix Lane. This improvement is subject to approval by the Town's Design Review Board. 6. Landscaping along the parking area and lot perimeter will be provided in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-11, Town of Vail Code ("Design Review"}. Compliance with these provisions will be determined by the Town's Design Review Board. 7. The applicant shall complete additional exterior improvements (if applicable} to be determined by the Towns Design Review Board. N. ZONING ANALYSIS Under the applicable Commercial Core III {CC3} zoning, the following non-conformities cun'ently exist ^ Use (residential dwelling units) ~, ^ ... Use (accommodation units) -~+rsk~r~,+1~c~*'~r~ '~, r '~ ~~' '~' "`;" . ' x~ -, .~,:.~. ^ Density (unitslaere) ^ Landscaping ~` ^ Parking located within required setbacks y ro~xo~~,~r~Uf 4 Since the property was developed under Eagfe County jurisdiction, the existing building has been granted a legal non-conforming {"grandfathered"1 stafus. Type III employee housing units are a conditional use in the Commercial Care III zone district. Lot Area: 3.949 acres or 172,018 sq. ft. Buildable Lot Area: 3.890 acres or 169,448 sq. ft. Density: Allowed {CC3): Existing: Proposed: GRFA: Allowed {CC3}: Existing: Proposed: Commercial Floor Area: Allowed {CC3): Existing: Proposed: 46 d.u.'s 19 d.u.'s and 83 a.u.'s = 60.5 equivalent d.u.'s 19 d.u.'s and 41 EHU's = 39.5 equivalent d.u.'s 50,834 sq. ft. 43,532 sq. ft. no change"` No limit 17,252 sq. ft. 20,826 sq. ft. Setbacks: Required {CC3) Existing: Proposed: Site Caverase: Allowed {CC3): Existing: Proposed: Parkins: 20' on afi sides 20' on al! sides no change 40% or 58,807 sq. ft. 20.1 % or 34,576 sq. ft. no change Required (CC3): 184 spaces Existing: 191 spaces Proposed: "198 spaces Landscaoinq: Required (CC3): 25% of site area or 48,395 sq. ft. Existing; less than 15%""' Proposed: unknown GRFA associated with Type Ill EHU's is excluded '`'` Interior landscape requirement for parking lot is not met. • 5 V. REQUIRED GRITFRIA ANt? FINDINGS - CnNDITIONAL IJSE PERMIT A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: Relationshia and imoact of the use an the development obiectives of the Tawn. The Vail Land Use Plan identifies the subject property as part of the °`Community Commercial" zone. This land use designation is intended to "meet consumer demands from community residents." The key goals outlined for commercial uses in this zone are as follows: 1} Commercial strip development should be avoided. 2) Commercial growth should be concentrated primarily in existing commercial areas to accommodate bath local and visitor needs. 3} New hotels should continue to be located primarily in the Village and Lionshead areas. Staff believes this proposal would impact the fallowing goals and policies identified in the Vail Land Use Plan: 1.1 Vail should cantinas to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance befvrreen residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 9.12 Vail should accommodate mast of fhe addifianal growth in existing developed areas {infrll areas). • Staff Res~oonse Staff believes the proposed amendment would help facilitate the location of employee housing units within the Town of Vail {a high Council priority) at an existing infiil location. Staff believes affordable employee hauling is essential far the provision of services that both residents and visitors expect. Staff also believes the benefits of employee housing may outweigh the need for accommodation units at this location. 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.2 The Village and Lianshead areas are the beef location for hotels fo serve fhe future needs of fhe destination skiers. 3.3 ,Hotels are imporfant fa the confinued success of fhe Toavn of Vail, therefore conversir~n to condominiums should be discouraged. 3.~ Commercial growth should he concentrated in exisfirrg commercia! areas to accommodafe bath loco! and visitor needs. Staff Response Although the Land Use Plan identifies lodging unit preservation as a high priority, it also. ,~ identifies appropriate locations for accommodation units-(the Village end Lic~nshead)., .``K -. `'. Staff believes these policies should be used to identify whether a proposed conversion is consistent with master planning objectives. Although the conversion of any accommodation unit within VaiC's core areas should be highly discouraged, staff befeves the subject property may be an appropriate location for employee housing. 6 5.7 Additions! residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, Platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incenfives, provided by the Town of 1/ail with appropriate restrfctions~ 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with market place demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The exisfing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee pausing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. Staff Response Staff believes this proposal furthers the above.listed goals by providing additional opportunities for localslemployeepousing within the town limits at an existing infill location. fi. ~ Services should keep pace with increased growth. Staff Response Staff believes the provision of employee housing is vital if Vail is to provide services consistent with the demand created by residents and visitors. 2. The effect of the use on lioht and air. distribution of population. transportation facilities. utilities. schools. Darks and recreation facilities. and other public facilities needs.. The subject property is located in a developed "infill" area with access to all of the above-listed facilities and services. Staff believes the reduction in units with this proposal will have a positive impact on these facilities while in the increase in commercial .floor area {17%) will have a limited incremental impact on the above-listed facilities. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to conoestion. automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience. traffic flow and control. access. maneuverabiFit_v. and removal of snow from the street and parl~ina areas. Traffic Flaw .. "Attachment 1" references ITE's (Institute of Transportation Engineers} projected traffic impacts for the existing and proposed uses at the site. According to ITE calculations, we should anticipate a 10% decrease in traffic generation based on proposed uses. This is due largely to the decrease (over 50°J°} in the number of employee housing units proposed compared to existing accommodation units. Additionally, staff anticipates a higher usage of town transit (West Vail Red and Green routes} by potential local employees. Staff believes this proposal would have a positive impact on traffic flow in the area. - ~:.,:~ • .~~ Parking -Based on the proposed land uses, the Town of Vai6 Code requires 184 "~ parking spaces. The appfcant is proposing 198 spaces on site. Snow storage res~uirements will be addressed as part of the design review process. 7 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the oraoosed use is to be located; ~ ----- including the scale and bulk of the orooosed use in relation tv surrounding uses. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the bulk, mass or location of the existing building. B. FINDINGS The Planning and EnvirnnmPntal C;nmmission shall' make the followina_ findina_ s before arantina a conditional use Hermit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to proper#ies or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. VI. SUMMARY Although generally supportive of the applicant's request at this point, staff believes additional information is required prior to final PEC approval of this request As mentioned by the PEC at their February 14'f' meeting, staff believes the following additional items should be submitted for review: ^ A landscape plan that demonstrates an attempt to buffer the properky and help transition the building from a commercial to a mixed residential nature. This landscape plan should include any and all recreation amenities proposed {barbecue grills, volleyball court, etc.). ^ A detailed description of the proposed management plan for the property once eondominiumization occurs. As mentioned previously, future maintenance and upkeep of the property will be taken into account while assessing potential impacts to adjacent properties. . --..-- _ z . ._ . _ • 8 ATTACHMENT 1 -- TRIP GENERATIQN Table 1 -Trips Generated Under Existing West Vail Lodge Conditions ~OD~ DESCRIPTION 7RIPSiDAY 23U Residential Condominium 5.857 310 Hotel 7.487 810 Retail -General Merchandise 48.04 832 High-Turnover (Sit-f~owre} Restaurant 200.895 ';~'=-', IND. VARiADLE FRCTt~FZ -_~ C DWELLING UNITSIWEEKDAY 19 ROAMS/SATURDAY 83 1000' GFA 13.60 1000' GFA 3.592 TOTAL. Table 2 -Trips Generated Under Proposed West Vail L®dge Conditions CQDE DESCRIPTION 230 Residential Condominium 310 Hotel 810 Retail -General Merchandise 832 High-Turnover (Sit-Down} Restaurant TRI'PSIDAY IND VARIABLE ` FACTOR . _ 5.857 DWELLING UNITSIWEEKDAY 60 7.487 ROOMSISATU RDAY 0 48.04 1000' GFA 17.238 200.895 1000' GFA 3.588 TOTAL Source: Trrp Gener-afion Manual, Fourth Fdlflon, Institute of Transportation Engineers • • ~II H 1 i~ I ~_I • V11 Vllest Vail L©dge X211 N . Frontage Road Lot 1 Tract K} ,Vail das Schone #3 N • Vicinity Map DR. ~fl ... ~ .- t • • • January 31, 2000 Russell Forest, Dominic Mauriello, Nina Tim Department of Cammux'iity Development Town of Vail 7S S. Frontage Road Vail Colorado Dear Planners, F RITZLE N PIERCE SMITH ARCH 17 E C T S Following is a summary of PEC Application for the West Vail Lodge Redevelopment. Current anei Proposed Uses The West Vail Lodge is located at the intersection of the I-70 West Vail exit and the North Frontage Road. The site currently has 19 dwelling Units and 97 accommodation units that are rented as hotel rooms to area visitors. The 19 units were platted as separate condominiums prior to purchase by the current owner. There are also .meeting moms and other commercial uses within the existing building. The underlyinb zoning is Commercial Care III. The hotel operation has continued to decline, lasing revenues in the last two years. There are a number of reasons believed to be the cause. - The property has been difficult to market to prospective guests as an independent operator due to the increasing competition from central reservations systems. - The physical building canfiguration for hotel use has become obsolescent. The room size, function. and context no longer meet market demands. Guest expectations have chanted as new development adjacent Vail has molded the hotel market. Zee West Vail Lodge was originally built to attract short term visitors familiar with a motel experience. fJver the past two decades both Vail's visitors and landscape have changed considerably. It is unlikely that the West Vail Lodge could be successfully renovated as a hotel given the existing constraints and be economically viable. Gin the other hand the retail operations have continued to be economically viable, probably due to the continued expansion of commercial properties in the West Vail area. Given those parameters the owner, Recut corporation is proposing an adaptive re-use that would match the current building canfiguration and meet market demand. Recut is proposing to convert the 97 existing hotel rooms into 49 one bedroom EHIJs as defined by the Town of Vail zoning code. They arc proposing to sell the existing 19 condominium units with no deed restrictions and leave the existing retail in its current configuration. ,_ -, - _ .. ~Loning Staters ~~~ n-~~~~,~~ ~'~..-~ ,~ T. - - tti'',D002 -West Vail t_od~e RcdevelopincntlProject Correspondenccl'Tc~u•n of Vai61PEC0127.wpd Planning • Architecture • Interiors 165 Ca East Vaii Valli~y E7rive Failridge C:-1 • Vail, CCU 81657 • fps(~r_olorado.net ~ lax (97(71 47G-4901 • (97Q~ 476-6342 In 199(} The West Vail Lodge Thad a a7 unit employee housing proposal approved through a Special Development District {SDD) rezoning. The project was never initiated. The proposed ~7 units exceeded the underlying allowed density and square footage for the CCIII zone district and therefore a zone change was required to add the housing. The Town of'Vai1 found it desirable to approve the additional density because additional employee housing is a stated political goal of the town as well as the county. In 1992 Reaut Corporation became involved in the property and took full ownership in I994 after the previous owner defaulted on financial obligations. In 1994, the Reaut Corporation again applied for the employee housing addition that had been approved tlrrough the 1930 SDD. As Paul remembers it ,the SDD approvals lapsed and the SDD application had to be reinitiated. 1'he planner assigned to the project was Jim Curnutte, The SDD was initiated but not completed. It is our understanding the property at this time does not have an approved SDD and that the CCIII is the applicable zoning. Zoning Application -Conditional Use ~.s I waderstand it Employee Dousing is a conditional use allowed in CCi. It is my understanding that the this would require a separate application ~u3d two hearings in front of the planning commission for approval The existing retail is clearly defined as an allowed use but I am unclear on the residential and hotel. Section 12-7D-7 adopted by ordinance in 1981 addresses allowed residential density in CC3 but there is no direct reference to it as an allowed use. Zoning ~ipplicadon SDD It appears that there may not be an applicable SDD for this project. If that is so, then there is no need to make an SDD related application since the proposed change in use is allowed by the underlay zone district. If there is an existing SDD it may no longer be relevant and more expedient to rely on the standards defined by the underlay zone district. Condominium Conversion In conclusion it is the goal ofthe Reaut Corporation to revitalize the property with a use that has been identif ed by the community as a priority and also has strong market demand. I am including a site plan and elevation photo for additional clarification We look forward to your feedback. Sincerel:~, ~ .~ ~~ Lynn F itzlen AIA ~. K:li)U4~2 - west /ail Loe1~e ItedcvC]opctteratlProieci C'arrespandencelTawn of vaillt'EC0127.wpd FRITZLEN PIERCE SMITH ,+xcr+irecrs ~~, a ...+. ~., ~~ ro ~ W ~, .~.~ ., FRITZLEIV PIERCE S M I T H ~RCairECrs v,a m ..o q.~.o.....u • ~y~, ARCMi'fECT~ rt+Y~ ca ~ f. Ya W~M~ d ~+, m we ~, w,..~ • 210 ~ 209 ~. 208 l 207 , 206 1205 20 i~ ~~ i~~ f~"~ i"~ I ------ z FRITZLEIV PIERCE S M I T H ARCHITECT 4 ~O I, Vd Vdw a ~d~Y~. G~ Y~ Cp ~W ~~ I~Ni CHIO Ii1iM1 ~ 310 ~ 309 ~`rrr~il~rrr~ 311 ( 312 i -_ - - -_ C, 308 307 306 ~ 305 304 ~ 303 _, 30 313 314 315 316 317 318 1319 3~0 Bedroom Living Room ~~ ~ ~1 ~_`~ ~ - FRITZLEN PIERCE -=-~ :- SMITH -_ Eledrvom Living Room ARCH 1 4 E C 7 5 wawwo anon owns ~ w~ 410 409 408 40~ 406 40~ 404 403 402 -~ -~ - ,,~~ _ aim - ~ ~ . -=~J ~~ - ~~ Living Bedroomll!' Roorn _~ ~. -~; ,If~„ ~~~~ ~ ~~ FRITZLEN ,~ 1 ~ ~ ~J ~'I ERCE it f. ' SMITH t:1 i , ~ Living E3edroom Room ARCHITECT S w c yr vrr n.. ~+~~ c.~ p` vit CO we II arum w.n~~na wa ~ _ . u - $~',~, ~; ~; ,, _~, 509 ~ 508 li 507 I~ 506 I 505 R 504 R 50: 510 511 512 ~ 513 514 515 518 ~Z ~~- L f I__ II _ i I_ f FRITZLEN PIERCE SMITH A R C H I T E C T S tl0 c vp vaq 6 ~ryF G Ya{ C9 NYC 1~1 Y4~p~Y1lU1l 502 519 520 llrJfl Open to Storage Below ~' Bedroom r a - i '~~ -- ~- , . ~ Bedroom ~~ Q open to Below Storage ~T. ~ ~ '~~'~` ~~ i ~ ~ ~ .~. ~+"'- r r~ ! ~ ~"~.. y ` ~ ~ ; "w'+r `- r ~ ° ~'"_ ~ r, - '°'*~,, ,. ~~ ~ + ,~ __. f FRIT ZLEN PIERCE SMITH ARCHITECT 5 rs rrue c~ Yp r. rd °~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~riaW '~{~ 4L~+S~! - T - •~r ~~ r -c<- FRfTZLEN PIERCE SMITH ARCHITECT 5 Asa c vv vri o. r~wy. a~ vat w ~ rrna wan nu FRiTZLE~1' PIE~~E SMITH ~,p C N I T E C r 5 rnM- ~' F,p G rJ Y4f ~or. y~ p~N~ ri1M~ `a . • VAIL PLAZA HOTEL 2000 REVISED MAJOR AMrNllM~NT PROPOSAL Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission February 2$, 2000 • 'OWN OF SAIL Department of Community I)eweloprnent 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado $1 r~57 970-479-.21313 FAX 970-479-2452 Vail Plaza Hole! ExecutiWe Summary ~alzaloo} The Town of Vail Community Development Department and the Public Works Department, wifh the aid of various outside consultants, have completed the review of the proposal for the redevelopment of the Vail Plaza Hotel. Upon completr`on pf your review, the Town staff is recommending approval of the proposed project. The staff's recommendation for approval carries with it 2Z conditions. The details of the staff's recommendation and the recommended conditions can be found in Section 11I of this memorandum. In evaluating the proposal, the Town staff relied upon the regulations, policies and guidelines outlined in the various Iand-punning related documents adopted by the Town of Vail. Throughout the course of the development review process staff remained primarily focused on the technical aspects of the proposal. The masters of design and policy were left up to the Town's boards. A detailed narrative of the staffs >lndings based upon the established review criteria is outlined in Secttan VN of thr's memorandum. A complete breakdown and technical analysis of the proposal has been prepared. In the Vai! Plaza Hotel Zonina Analysis (revised 2/28/44) and the Vail Plaza Hotel Proposal Comparison (revised 2/28144}, staff provides analysis and comparison of the various development standards prescribed by the Zoning Regulations and compares the figures of the 2000 proposal to those of the 1999 approve! and the 1958 proposal which had been rejected by Town Council nearly one year ago. Also included in the analysis documents are a Vai! Plaza Hotel View Analysis, Vail Piaza Hotel Sun/Shade Analysts and a Vai! Plaza Hotel Parking Analysis (revr`sed 2128/04). The purpose of these documents is to provide a comparison of existing conditions relative to proposed conditions should the hotel be constructed. Accompanying this information is also a revised Vail Plaza Hotel Traffic lmr~act Report The original report had been prepared for the 1998 proposal. Since its original formulation, the report has been revised and supplemented in response to changing conditions and requests of staff and others. The basic findings of the report conclude that while the redeveloped hotel will have impacts of current traffic patterns, the projected impacts can be successfully mitigated, Complete copies of these six reports and ocher relevant information have been provided as exhibits and are found in the back of this memorandum. Lastly, a brief overview of the development history of the Vail Village Inn Special Development District has been prepared. This overview Is Intended to provide a basic understanding of the proposed changes that have occurred within the laistriet since Its original adoption in 1976. The development history of the Vail Village !nn is outlined in Secfion 11/ of this memorandum. • ~~• RF.'CYCLEUP9PER `~ s WAIL PLAZA HOTEL Staff Memorandum (21281t]O) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODU CTION_.. _,.----•-• ..........................................................................................................•-•---•----------.._.........................1 II. AESCRIPTIQN C7F THE REQUESTS ........................................................................................................_.........................2 A. Major Amendment to Speclai Development District ...........................................................................2 B, Conditional Else Permit ..........................................................................................................................3 III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................................................3 A. Pros/Cons ............................................................................................................................................3-4 B. Conditions of Approval .......................................................................................................................4-7 IV. BACKGRaUND ..................................................................................................................................................7-8 V. PUBLIC ACCOMMC)DATIiDN ZONE DISTRICT ....................................................................................................8 VI, ZONING ANAL'YSIS .........................................................................................................................................9-10 VII. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAJOR AMENDMENT PROCESS ...................................................iQ-11 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 arientatian ...,,.,-.-•-•--•-------_--•--•-••--•--•--••-•--• .................................................11-13 B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and ac#ivrty ..........................................................................................................13-14 Emoiovee Housing Reauirement ......................................................................................14-15 Emniovee Housing Generation Anaivsis. .15-17 C. Camplianee with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. of the Town of Vail Municipal Code ----•-• ...............•--•----•---•-----•-•--•.--.-.._.....................................................-----•- -.---- ----17-18 D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vaii Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan----•--••-•--•--•-•----•-•--...-•--•-••----.•-•.----•-----•--• .........................................................•---•.-....._.._..._..--•--._._..._ 18 Vail Land Use Plan ..............................................•---•--•--•--...._.....................,...............--•---.........._....18-20 Vail Village Master Plan .................................•-•--.._.._....._.....__.........................................................2{}-23 Vail Village Design Considerations ..................................................................._............._......__.._.23-24 Urban Design Considerations .............•---........................................................,,...,.---....................24-30 Architect Landscape Considerations ..........................................................................................30-40 E. Identification and mitigation of natural andlor geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special. development district is praposed .......................................................................................................40 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 cornmunit ..........................................................................40-41 y ..................................................................... G. A cireuia#ion 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 ..................................................................................................41-42 1. Phasing plan ar subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district ..............................................................42 VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CaNDITIONAL USE PERMIT ............................,....,..................................,........42-45 ATTACHMENT AA - L -----•-----•--• ..........................•-----•----•------•-----------°•-•---_..............,.....-•--•-•-........•-•----_._............................., MEMORANDUM TC~: Planning and Environmental Commission FRUM: Department of Community Develaprnen# DATE: February 28, X000 SUBJECT: A request for a final review and recommendation of a major amendment, to allow for the proposed redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, within Special ^evelopment District No. 6, and a conditional use permit, to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club in the Public Accommodation Zone District, located at 100 East Meadow DrivefLots M, N, & D, Block ~-D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Waldir Prado, Dayrner Corporation Planner: George Rather I, INTRODUCTION The applicant, Waldir Prado, d.b.a. Daymer Corporation, represented by ~4ay Peterson, is proposing to redevelop the Vail Village Inn, located a# 100 East Meadow Drive. The applicant has submitted two applications to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and consideration: i~fajor Amendmen# Request 1} A request for a major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn. The major amendment application proposes changes to the axis#ing approved developmen# plan and 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 amends Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn Plaza only. Nv amendments are proposed to Phases 1-!II or V of the Vail Village Inn. Canditiar~ai Use Permit Request 2} A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 1fi of the Tawn of Vail Zoning Regulations, to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club within the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel. The fractional fee club will be comprised of 50 fractional fee club units operated and managed by the owner of the Vaii Plaza Hotel. The applicant has identified what he believes to be public benefits which will be realized by the Tawn as a result of the Vail Plaza Hotel redevelopment. The public benefits associated with the hotel proposal are: ~. TDW,'Y OF b~ An increase in the annual occupancy rate through the redevelopment of an older, exis#ing hotel. • The creation of approximately 7(3,500 square feet of new conference and meeting room facilities. • The implementation of the recommended Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan improvements along Vail Road, the South Frontage Road and a portion of East Meadow Drive. + The re-investment and redevelopment of resort property in the Town of Vail. + The implementation of the development goals, objectives and policies adopted by the Town for the Vail Village Inn property. + A significant increase in the Town's supply of shor#-term, overnight accommodation to serve our guests and visitors. + The construction of a world-class "anchor" hotel providing ahigh-level of guest services and amenities. + A potentially sizeable annual con#ributian to the Town's declining sales tax revenue. 1!. DESCRIPTION dF THE REQUESTS Major Amendment Request The applicant, Daymer Corporafion, represented by Jay Peterson, has submitted two development review applications to the Town of Vail Community Development. The first application is a request for a final review and recommendation of a proposed a major amendment, pursuant to Chapter 9 of the Town of Vail honing Regulation, to Special ©evelopment District No. 6, Vail Village Inn. The second request is for a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club. The purpose of the major amendment is to amend the approved development plan to allow for the construction of the Vail Plaza Ho#el in Phase lV of the District. The applicant is proposing significant improvements to Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn Special Developrnen# District.. The existing hotel and restaurant are proposed to be demolished to allow for the new construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel. The hotel is intended to be a mixed-use development including residen#ial, commercial and recreational uses. The applicant is proposing to construct 99 new accommodation units (hotel rooms) ranging in size from approximately 35{] sq. ft. to 374 sq. ft. per unit, 50 part-time fractional fee club units, 18 employee housing units X38 beds) and 1free-market condominium. The fractional fee club units are considered part-time,. since during the summer months the hotel will retain ownership of the units to rent as short-term accommodation units, and then during the winter months (approximately 24 weeks) the units will be sold as fractional fee club units. The Vail Plaza Hotel also includes two restaurants, 4,047 square feet of accessory retail located within the hots! and along the plaza, a 15,338 square foot conference facility, a 24,799 square foot full-service spa and health club facility and approximately 249 new underground parking spaces. The approximate total gross square footage of the new hotel is 379,857' square feet. The following is an approximate square footage breakdown of the various uses within the hotel: •: 62,816 sq, ft. - fractional fee club units • 5,499 sq. ft. _ condominium 2 • •:• 35,818 sq. ft. -accommodation units <:• 6,332. sq. ft. - employee housing units • 8;375 sq. ft_ - restaurant retail •:• 15,130 sq. ft_ -conference/meeting roams •:• 24,817 sq. ft. - spalhealth club :• 221,07Q sq. ft. - common area (mechanical, lobby, etc.) 379,857 sq. fit. gross building square footage maid closets, stairslhallways, parking, office, Cortdrtrona! Use Permit Request The second application submitted for review is far a conditional use permit to allow far the operation of a fractional fee club in the Public Accommodation zone district. The granting of a condi#ianaf use permit by the Town of Vail would allow the applicant to operate 50 fractional fee club units within the Vail Plaza Hotel. The applicant is proposing that the club units be sold on an interval basis. The club units would be sold far 24 weeks during. the winter months with the remaining 28 weeks owned by the hotel for use as short-term accommodations units. It is believed by the applicant that this sales structure wiA maximize the occupancy of the units and optimize the availability of the units for marketing the conference facility of the hotel during the summer months and shoulder seasons. To further improve occupancy potential of the fractional fee club, the 5© club units have been designed to include up to two "lock-off' spaces per unit. This design creates a total of 1d8 "keys"° and 216 "pillows" for the fractional fee club component of the hate! (1 key = 1 room). A complete set of reduced plans has laeen attached far reference (Exhibit AA). III. STAFF RECOMMEIV©AT10fU The Community Development Department is recommending approval of the applicant's request far a major amendment to Special Development District #6 and a conditional use permit, to allow far redevelopment of Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn. Staff's recommendation far approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Sections V & VI of this memorandum. The staff believes that the proposal is in general compliance with the nine design criteria and the criteria for a conditional use permit, as identified in this memorandum. In reviewing the proposal, staff identified a number of pros and cons that we believe are associated with the hotel proposal. The list includes, but is not limi#ed to, the following: PRDS • The presence of economic redevelopment in Vail. • An increase to the Town's supply of hotel beds and an increased level of quality. The implementa#ian of the Town's devefopmen# goals, objectives, and policies. • The creation of new, deed restricted employee housing to offset the hauling impacts associated with the hotel. • The elimination of an unsightly surface parking lot. • The completion of the final phase of the Vail Village Inn Special Development pistrict. • The construction of new conference and meeting room facilities within the Town. 3 ~, • The construction of public improvements funded with private dollars. • The potential increases in sales tax revenue. • An increased amount of public open space. An improved and updated loading/delivery facility which is relocated from Vaii Road. • The provision of 18 on-site employee housing units. CONS Increased vehicular trafi:lc on Vaii Raad. • Deviations from the underlying zoning development standards are required. The bulk and mass of the new hotel is significantly greater than the sizes of buildings presently on the development site. • There are increased impacts of shading on public areas. • The conference and meeting room facilities are potentially under-sized. • Additional views of Vail Mountain from public areas will be negatively impacted. • ©nly a portion of the dilapidated plaza paver surface is being replaced and improved. • Increased loadingldelivery truck traffic an Town streets. • There is only a marginal ne# increase of true accommodation units over what exists today. • An eighteen to twenty-four month construction process (noise, construction traffic, etc}. Shaukd the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the requested major amendment to the Vail Town Cauncii, staff would recommend that the Commission make the following finding: "That the proposed major amendment fa Special D~evelopmerat nistrict #6, Vail Village lnn, complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12-9A-8 of fhe Tawn of Vail Municipal Code. The applicant, as required, has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission That any adverse effects of fhe requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided or has demonstrated that one or more of the development standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. Further, the Commission finds that the requested conditional use permit to allow for" the operation of a fractional fee club complies with the applicable criferia and is consistent with the development goals and objecfives of the Town. Lastly, public notice of this public hearing has been sent fa adjacent property owners end published in a local newspaper of record in accordance with Section i2-~-6G of fhe Town Code. Should the Planning & Enviranmentai Commission choose to recommend approval of the requested major amendment, staff would recommend tha# the approval carry with it the following conditions: 1. That the Developer submits detailed civil engineering drawings of the required off-site improvements (street lights, drainage, curb and gutter, sidewalks, grading, road improvements, etc.} as identified on the vff-site improvements plan to the Town of Vail Public Works Department for review and approval, prior to application for a building permit. 2. That the Developer submits a detailed final landscape plan and final architectural elevations for review and approval of the Tawn of Vail Design Review Board, prior to application for a building permit. 4 .~ • 3. The sdd approva! time requirements and limitations ofi Section 12-9A-12 shall apply to Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2©OQ. In addition, the phasing of the construction of the hotel shall not be permitted. 4, That the Developer submits the following plans to the Department of Community Development, for review and approval, as a part of the building permit application for the hotel: a. An Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan;: b. A Construction Staging and Phasing Plan; c. A Stormwater Management flan; d. A Site Dewatering Plan; and e. A Traffic Control Plan. 5. That the Developer receives a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type Iii Employee Housing Units in Phase IV of the District, in accordance with Chapter 12-16, prior to the issuance of a building permit, to provide housing on-site. 8. That the Developer submits a complete set of plans to the Colorado Department of Transportation for review and approval of a revised access permit, prior to application far a building permit. 7. That the Developer meets with the Town staff to prepare a memorandum of understanding outlining the responsibilities and requirements of the required off-site improvements, prior to second reading ofi an ordinance approving the major amendment. 8. That the Developer submits a complete set of plans responding to the design cancems expressed by Greg Hall, Director of Public Works ~ Transportation, in his memorandum to George Ruther, dated 12f13199. The drawings shall be submi#ted, reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer, prior to final Design Review Board approval. 9. That the Developer records public pedestrian easements between the hotel and the Phase I!I Condominiums, between the hotel and the Phase V Building, and along the Vail Road frontage. The easements shall be prepared by the Developer and submitted for review and approva! of the Town Attorney. The easements shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 10. That the Developer record adeed-restriction, which the Town is a party to, on the Phase IV property prohibiting the public use of the spa facility in the hotel. Said restriction may be revoked if the Developer is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Town tha# adequate provisions far vehicle parking have been made to accommodate the public use of the spa_ The restriction shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permi#. 11, That the Developer submits a final exterior building materials list, a typical wall sections, architectural details and a complete color rendering for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to making an application for a building permit. 12. That the Developer submits a comprehensive sign program proposal for the Vail Plaza Hotel for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 13, That the Developer submits a roof-tap mechanical equipment plan for review and approval of the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. All roof top mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the overall design of the hotel and enclosed and screened Pram public view. 14. That the Developer posts a band with the Town of Vaii to provide financial security for the 125°!o of the total cost of the required off-site public improvements. The bond shall be in place with the Town prior to the issuance of a building permit. 15. That the Developer installs boElards or similar safety devices at the intersection of the delivery access driveway and the sidewalk along the South Frontage Road to prevent conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 16. That the Developer studies and redesigns the entrance on the north side of the hotel across from the entrance to the Gateway Building to create a mare inviting entrance or a design that redirects pedestrians to another entrance. The final design shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. 17. That the Developer coordinate efforts with the owners of the Gateway Building to create a below ground access for loading and delivery to the Gateway from the Vail plaza l~atel to resolve potential loading and delivery concerns at the Gateway. If a coordinated effort can be reached the Developer shall submit revised plans to the Tawn of Vail Community Development Department far review and approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 18. That the Developer revises the proposed floor plans far the Vail Plaza Hotel to provide freight elevator access to the lowest level of the parking structure. The revised plans shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permi#. 19. That the Developer redesigns the proposed elevator tower to create an architectural feature atop the tower and revises the proposed building elevations and roof plan prior to final review of the proposal by the Design Review Board. The Board shall review and approve the revised design. 20. That the Developer, in cooperation with the Town of Vail Public Works Department design and construct a ief#-turn lane an Vail Road and reconfigure the landscape island in the South Frontage Road median to eliminate left-#urns from the iaadingldelivery. The construction shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 21. That the Developer provides a cen#ralized loading/delivery facility far the use of all owners and tenants within Special Development District fVa, 6. Access or use of the facility shall not be unduly restricted for Special Development District IVa. 6. The loadingfdelivery facility, including darks, berths, freight elevators, service corridors, etc., may be made available for public and/ar private loadingldelivery programs, sanctioned by the Town of Vail, to mitigate loading/delivery impacts upon the Vail Village Ioadingldelivery system. The use of the facility shall only be permitted upon a finding by the Town of Vail and the Developer that excess capacity exists. The Developer will be compensated by the Town of Vail and/or others far the • common use of the facility. The final determination of the use of the facility shall be mutually agreed upon by the Developer and the Town of Vail_ 22. That the Developer submits a written letter of approval from adjacen# properties whose property is being encroached upon by certain Improvements resulting from the construc#ion of the hotel., prior to the issuance of a building permit. IV. BACKGROUND The development review process for the Vail Plaza Motel has been a lengthy, labor intensive process that has included numerous meetings with the various Town boards, Town staff, and interested members of the community. The review process began aver two years ago when the applicant submitted the original redevelopment proposal application to the Community Development. Following a nine month review pr©cess including a final review and recommendation of approval from the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board, the Vail Tawn Council informed the applicant that a favorable vote could not be made on the application and directed the applicant to revise the proposal. The primary concerns of the Council were building height, compliance with the Town's planning documents, off-site traffic impacts, loading and delivery capabilities and vehicular site access. fn response to the Council's concems the proposal has been revised and resubmitted to the Community Development Department. The revised proposal has been reviewed and evaluated by the Planning & Environmental Commission, the Design Review Board and the Town staff. The Commission has held five meetings while the Board has held five conceptual reuiews of the revised plans. Additionally, the applicant held an open house to present the plans to interested members of the community, All the submitted plans, models and related materials have been available for review at the Office of Community Development and on various web sites.. The fallowing is a summary of the existing phases and development with the Vail Village Inn Special Development Dis#rict: Phase I -This phase consists of the buildings located at the southeas# corner a# the Dis#riet. Phase I includes one residential dwelling unit approximately 3,927 square feet in size and nine commerciallretail spaces. Phase li -This phase consists of three residential dwelling units totaling approximately 3,492 square feet in size and three commerciallretail spaces. Phase II is generally located in the center of the District. Phase ill -This Phase consists of twenty-nine residential dwelling units totaling approximately 44;133Q square feet in size and six commercial/retail spaces. Phase III is located at the northeast corner of the District. Phase IV ~- This is the original and oldest Phase in the District. This Phase consists of one residential dwelling unit approximately 5,©t70 square feet in size and seventy-two accommodation units comprising approximately 1~6,5r35 square feet of floor area. Phase IV is generally located in the northwest corner of the District. Phase V - This Phase consists of eleven residential dwelling units and three 7 accommodation units totaling approximately 9,972 square feet of floor area and four commerciallre#ail spaces, Phase V is located in the southwest comer of the District at the intersec#ion of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive. A map illustrating the location of the various Phases has been attached for reference (Exhibit A). The following is a brief summary of the amendments to Special Development Dis#rict No. 6 since the original adoption: ^ In 1976, the Vail Town Council passed ©rdinance No_ 7, Series 1976, establishing Special Development Districts No. 6, Vail Village Inn, #o 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 1985, providing certain amendments to the approved development plan for Special Development District No. fi. The amendments included a requirement for a minimum of 175 accommodation units and 72,400 square feet of GRFA devoted entirely to accommodation units in Phase IV. ^ 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. This amendment broke Phase 1V into two distinct phases; Phase lV and Phase V. This amendment established the maximum allowable GRFA for the entire District at approximately 120,Ofl0 square feet. Fur#her, the amendment reduced the minimum accommodation unit requirement to 148 units and 67,387 square feet of GRFA. ^ In 1989, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989, amending the '~ density controls of the District. This amendment increased the allowable GRFA to 124,527 square feet and allowed Unit #30 to be created in a commercial space. The amendment maintained the previous approval requiring a minimum 148 accommodation units and fi7,3fi7 square feet of GRFA devoted to units in Phases IV and V. ^ In 1991, the Vaii Town Council passed Ordinance No, 9, Series 1991, providing for certain amendments to the approved development plan for Special Development District No. fi, which relates specifically to Phase IV. ^ !n 1992, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 2, Series 1992, allowing far modifications and amendments to various sections of Special Development District No. fi which related directly to Phase IV, and which made certain changes to the approved development plan for Special Development District Na. 6 as they relate to Phase IV. 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 along- standng objective of our resort community. V. "I~URLIC AGCOMMdDATION ZONE DISTRICT" According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the applicant's property is zoned Public Accommodation. Pursuant to the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Public Accommodation Zone 8 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 rela#ed visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation Qistrict 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 I]istrict 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 Qistrict." 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. C)n January 21, 1997, the Town Council adapted 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 Zane District. Can October 5, 1999, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1999, amending the development standards prescribed in the Public Accommodation Zone District. The amendments included an increase in allowable GRFA up to 150%a, an increase in site coverage, the elimination of AU's and 1=FU's in the calculation of density, revised se#back requirements, and other various aspects in the development of properties zoned Pubic Accommodation. The allowable building height, landscape area and limitation on commercial square footage remained unchanged. VI. ZC}NING 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 s#andards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it shall be determined tha# such deviations provide benefits to the Town that outweiigh the effects of such deviations. This de#ermination is to be made based upon the evaluation of the proposed Special Development Districts compliance with the Review Cri#eria outlined in the following section of this memorandum. The Community Development Department staff has prepared a zoning analysis far the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel. The Vail Plaza Hotel Zoning Analysis compares the development standards outlined by the underlying zoning of Public Accommoda#ion {revised 10199), to the existing development, the applicant's proposed 1998 major amendment (which was not approved), the approved 1999 major amendment and the 2000 revised proposal. It is important to note that the comparison is based on the entire area of the Special Development District. A copy of the Vaii Plaza Hotel Zoning Analvsis has been attached for reference {Exhibit B). 9 For compara#ive purposes, the Community Development Department has also completed an analysis comparing the 1998 proposal and the 1999 approval to the 2000 proposal. The purpose of the analysis is to provide a direct comparison of the '1998 proposal and the 1999 appr©va1 to the applicant's revised 2000 proposal. A copy of the Vail Plaza Ho#el Proposal Comuarison has been attached for reference (lnxhibit C}. VII. THE SPECIAE. DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAJOR AMENDMENT PROCESS Chapter 12-9 of the Town Code provides for the amendment of existing Special Development Districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 12-9A-1, the purpose of a Special Development District is, "To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land, in order tv 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 i~evelapment District.'° 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 develaprnent district bother than "minor amendments" as defined in this Section}, except as provided under Sections 12-15-4, "Interior Conversions", or 12-15~, "Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance)" of this Title." The Town Code provides a framework for the amendment of a Special Development District. According to the Town 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 12-1fi-6 of the Town Code. The Town Council's consideration of the Special Development Distric# shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Town Code and approved by two readings of an ordinance. An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the devel©pment, uses, and activities of the Special Development District. The development. plan shall contain all relevant 10 material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the Special Development District shall adhere. The developmen# 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 permi#ted, conditional, and accessary uses. The determination of permitted, conditional and accessary uses shall be made by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council as par# of the formal review of the proposed development plan. Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed Special Development District, permitted, conditionaC and accessory uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessary uses in the property's underlying zone district. The Town Code provides nine design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed major amendment to a Special Development District. it shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following s#andards, 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 applicant has submi#ted a report outlining a review of the criteria (Exhibit D), The nine SDD review criteria are lis#ed below. NOTE: Staff's analysis is based in part on an analysis by Jeff Winston, an independent design consultant. A. Design campatilaility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacen# properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and arientatiiart.. Staff believes the applicant has designed a structure which relates veil to the site and the surrounding neighborhood. The mass of the Vail Plaza Hotel is significantly greater than that of the existing buildings on the site. However, staff believes the increased mass is appropriate far the site and takes into consideration the massing of the buildings on the adjoining properties and in the immediate vicinity. The applicant has modified the building mass by redesigning various roof elements, articulating the building fapade along the South Frontage Road, reconfiguring the tower elements and by lowering the roof eave lines. The lowered roof eave lines match more closely to the eave lines of the adjoining buildings to the east, west and south, thus insuring a smooth transition of building mass be#ween properties. To further address building mass the tallest portions of the building haute been located near the center of the development site. This design reconfiguration reduces the perceived height of the hotel in the immediate area. The applicant has revised the building footprint in response to the Town Council's request to maintain the twenty-foot setback along Vaii Road. The revised footprint does not maintain the full twenty-foot setback as requested. The proposed plan shows that the building encroaches a maximum of four fee# into the Vaii Road setback. The encroachment is on the southwest. corner of the building. The total square footage of building area in the setback is approximately 56 square while the total amount of GRFA in the setback is roughly 3fi square feet, Staff believes that the intent of the Town Council's direction has been met since there is now adequate space for the required landscape and sidewalk improvements. The Vail Plaza Hotel exterior building materials are a mixture of stone, s#ucco and wood. The roof material is proposed to be a terra cotta colored concrete the wi#h copper flashing. The applicant has proposed to incorporate irrigated flower boxes and capper chimney caps into the design of the hotel to serve as attractive accent elements. A grayish-brown granite stone will be used around the base of the building. The use of non- 1~ reflective glazed windows all around the building reduces the potential of unwanted 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 #hat the combination of building materials proposed has been well incorporated into the design of the Vail Plaza Hotel. The Town of Vaif C7esign Review Board will have the opporkunity to review the building exterior prior to final approval of the hotel. The height of the Vail Plaza Hotel exceeds the all'owabie building height of the Public Accommodation zone district by approximately 29 feet. The building height standards of 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 77 feet. This figure does not include the proposed architectural feature or landmark element atop the elevator tower. The height of the elevator tower is approximately 99 feet. The building height is based an an interpolated topography of the Vail Village Inn property, and not the original topography of the site (pre-development).. ©riginai topography of the site is not available, as the site was originally developed prior to zoning (and before 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 a reasonable and appropriate method to determine building height. According. to the Vail Village Master Plan Conceptual Building Height Plan and the Building Height Profile Plan (Exhibit E), the development 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 alive-story hotel, excluding roof. 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 low-scale buildings in the core area while positioning larger buildings along the northern periphery (along the Frontage Road], as depicted in the Building Height Profile Plan. The Building Heigh# Plan also strives, in some areas, to preserve major views from public rights-of-way, The building heights expressed on the #llustrative Plan are intended to provide genera! 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. This Vail Plaza Hotel View Analvsis provides a "before & after" depiction of the proposed building Exhibit F). The view analysis and on-site inspec#ions have indicated that the view from public rights-of-way will not be negatively impacted. In addition, a Val! Plaza Hotel SUNShade Analvsis was prepared to illustrate the building's height impact on the surrounding streetscape (Exhibit G}. The sunlshade analysis compares the height impact of the existing structures to the height impact of the proposed structures. The result of the comparison shows that subs#antially 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 South Frontage Road by installing heated sidewalks and drive aisles and has redesigned 12 the roof form of the hotel to minimize the shading impact an adjacent properties. 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. To respect the relationship of the hotel to surrounding structures an adjoining properties, and at the request of the Planning & Environmental Commission, the applicant has removed 2 to 2 /~ stories from the original proposed (1998} building, increased the vertical stepping of the building and increased the width of the Vail Road setback. Because of the increased vertical stepping of the building and the minimumtwenty-foot setback above grade, staff believes that the proposed hotel is respectful of existing development and uses on adjacent properties. The net effect of these changes results in the maximum height of the building being located in the center portions of the site away from the adjoining property lines and structures. 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 basic intent of the Conceptual Building Heigh# Plan and the Building Height Profile contained in the Vail Village Mas#er Plan. Much has been said regarding the potential "lass." 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. No adopted view corridor exists in this area. Staff and the Town's Urban Design Consultant believe #hat the true loss of the view and the real negative impacts occun'ed when the Vail Gateway Plaza was constructed. Through the construction of the five-story tall Vaii Gateway Plaza, the view from the intersection was substantially lost. While the existence of the view corridor was recognized during the development review process of the Gateway Plaza Building and attempts were made to respect the view, the efforts fell short of protecting the view. This, coupled with the fact that the intersection configuration and traffic flow patterns of the South Frontage Road have changed since the original adoption of the master plan, is justification for additional encroachments upon the view. Furthermore, staff and Jeff Winston believe additional development and building height behind the Vail Gateway Plaza will have minimal impacts on the rerrlaining view. 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 five 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, efficiient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The Vail Plaza Hotel is located within the mixed-use development area of the Vail Village lnn Special Development District. The uses, activities and densities for the Vail Plaza Hotel development site are prescribed by the underlying zoning for Special Development District No_ 6. According to the Official Town of Vaii Zoning Map, the underlying zoning for Special Development Qistrict No. £~ is Public Accommodation. The Public Accommodation Zone District encourages the development of lodges (accommodation units) and accessory eating and. drinking establishments at a density of twenty-five dwelling units per acre. The surrounding uses and zoning designation include Public Accommodation to the south and west (Sonnenaip Holiday Haus & Chateau at Vail}, Commercial Service Center to the east {Crossroads} and Commercial Core IISDD #21 (Gateway) to the north. The same development standards that apply to the Vail Plaza 13 Hote! development site apply #o the Sonnenalp, Holiday Haus and Chateau at Vail properties. The Commercial Service Center zoning applicable to the Crossroads property is intended primarily for commercial development together with a limited amount of multiple-family and lodging types of residential use. The Gommercial Gore I underlying zoning of the Gateway Special Development District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of commercial and residential development. The Vail Plaza Hotel is proposed to be a mixed-use type of development. The mixture of uses includes commercial, lodging, recreational and residential. Staff believes the proposed mixture of uses and its proximity tv both Vail Village and Lionshead is consistent with the intended purpose of the underlying zoning of Public Accommodation and in keeping with the intent of Vail Land Use Plan. Further, staff believes that the proposed uses within the Vail Plaza Hotel will compliment those existing uses and activities on surrounding and adjacent properties. The proposed density of the hotel and the presence of the conference facilities wll improve and enhance the viability and success of the existing restaurant and retail businesses in the immediate area. Additionally, through the redesign of the redevelopment proposal, staff believes that the applicant has improved the integration of the hate! with the adjacent properties. Examples of improved integration include a pedestrian connection and sidewalk adjacent to the Gateway Building, an intemai service corridor providing loading/delivery access from the centralized loading and delivery facil#y to the entire District, lower7ng of roof eaves to relate to the existing conditions of the neighboring properties, and more appropriately sized pedestrian walkways throughout the plaza areas to ensure cong~st:ion free flow. Emolovee Hausina Requirements As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives of the Town's Master Flans, providing affordable hauling 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 Vaii 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 and Marriott development proposals. The Employee Housing Report was prepared for the Town by the consulting frrn 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 results from the redevelopment. A copy of the Suaaested Emvlovment Gateaories and Ranges for Vail ExorPSSed as Emolovees oar 1000 Square Feet has been attached for reference. The figures identified in the Housing Report are based on surveys of commercial-use employment needs of the Tawn of Vail and other mountain resort communities. For comparison purposes, Telluride, Aspen and Whistler B.G. 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 defned 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. Far example, Telluride requires developers to provide housing for 4©% (0.4Q) of the "nevi' 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 14 developer. In comparison, Vaik has conservatively determined that developers shall provide housing far 15% (fl.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 does not exceed the density permitted by the underlying zone district. However, the 30% figure was used. The applicant is proposing to provide employee housing for a percentage of the "new" employees resulting from the Note! construction. Based upon an analysis completed by the applicant and provided to the Community Qevelopment Qepartment, the new hotel is expected to generate 125 "new" employees. The "nevi' employees are in addition to the 74 employees already working full-time or part-time at the Vail Village Inn.. The applicant is proposing to provide deed-restricted employee pausing for 30°l° of the "new" employees. t7ue to the unavailability of private vacant land reso rces within the Tawr~ g limits, the applicant anticipates that all yr a portion of the deed-restricted housing will be provided in an out-of-town ordawn-valley location. In order to maximize the benefi# of the housing to the Tvwn of Vail, the applicant has suggested that the housing will be available only to Vail Plaza Hotel employees. It is further anticipated that some form of transportation will be provided to the employees from the out-of--fawn or dawn-valley location to the hotel. The Planning & Enviranmen#al Commission has briefly discussed the employee housing alternatives with the applicant and expressed that, based upon the information provided to date, the proposal seems reasonable and appropriate. A copy of the "Vail Village Inn Staffing Roster" has been attached for reference (Exhibit H}. EII~RPLDYEE HC?U51NG GENERATIGIV ANALYSIS The staff analysis below indicates the top, the middle and the bottom of the ranges recommended by the Tawn of Vail Employee Housing Report, as well as a staff recommended figure which was used in determining the employee housing needs a# the Vail Plaza Hotel. The staff analysis does not take into account full-time versus part-time employee needs. A summary of the Employee Housing Generation Analysis is as follows: Bottom of Range Calculations: a) RetaillService Commercial = 4,047 sq. ft. @(511000 sq. ft.) =20.2 employees b} Health Club =24,7gg sq. ft. ~(1l100fl sq. ft.) =24.8 employees c) Restaurant/bounge = 5,775 sq. ft. @(5110fl0 sq. ft.) = 28.8 employees d} Conference Center =10,368 sq. ft. @(111000 sq. ft.} =10.4 employees e} bodging =99 units @(.25lunit} = 24.8 employees f) Multi Family (Club Units) =50 units @(,4lunit} =20.0 employees Total Employees =128.2 employees (-74 existing employees} = 54.2 employees 1S a {X 0.30 multiplier) =16.3 "new" employees AAiddle of Range Calcuilations_ a) RetaillService Commercial = 4,047 sq. ft. @(6.511000 sq_ ft_) =26.3 employees b} Health Club =24,799 sq. ft. x(1.25/1000 sq. ft.) =31.0 employees c} RestaurantlLounge = 5,775 sq. ft. G~(6.5/1000 sq, ft.) =37.5 employees d) Conference Center =10,368 sq. ft. @(111000 sq. ft.) =10.4 employees e) Lodging = 99 units @(.751unit} =74.3 employees f) Multi Family {Club Units} =50 units @(,4/unit) =20,0 employees Total Employees =198.7 employees (-74 existing employees) =124.7 empioyees (X 0.30 multiplier} = 37.4 "new" empioyees Top of Range Calculations: a) Retail/service Commercial =4,047 sq. ft. @(81'[000 sq. ft.) =32.4 employees b) Health Club =24,799 sq. ft. @(1.511000 sq. ft.) =38.0 employees +~ c) RestaurantlLaunge = 5,775 sq. ft. @(811000 sq. ft.) = 46.2 employees d) Conference Center =10,368 sq. ft. @(111000 sq. ft.) =10.4 employees e) Lodging =99 units @(1.251unit) =123.8 empioyees f) Multi Family (Club Units) =50 units @(.4funit) =20.0 employees Total Employees =270..0 employees {-74 existing employees) =196 employees (X 0.30 multiplier) = 58.8 °`new" empiloyees Staff Recommended Ranee Calculations: The staff believes that the Vail Plaza redevelopment will create a need far 125 additional employees. Of the 125 additional employees, at least 38 employees (30%) will need to be provided deed-restrieted 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 l-iotel; 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 16 4 . the result of research completed by Town of Vail s#aff of similar hotel operations in the Vail Valley. a) Retail/Service Commercial =4,047 sq. ft. ~{811000 sq. ft.) = 20.2 employees (bottom of range) b) Health Club =24,795 sq. ft. @{1.5!1000 sq. ft.) =37.2 employees {top of range) c) Restaurantft_ounge =5,775 sq. ft. @{6.511000 sq. ft.) =37.5 employees {middle of range) d) Conference Center =1(},368 sq. ft. ~{111000 sq. ft.) =10.4 employees {range does not vary) e) lodging = 99 units @(.751uni#} = 74.3 employees {middle of range) f} Multi Family {Club Units) = 50 units @{.4lunit) =19.2 employees (range does not vary) ----~ ----__~..___ -----____-- Totai = 158.8 employees {-74 existing employees) = 924.8 employees {X 0.30 multiplier) = 38 "new°' employees 'Lodging has a particularly large vadatlon of e~mpbyess per rporn, depending upon factors sack as size at facility and level of serveefsuppott services and amenities provided Depending upon the size of the employee housing unit provided, it is possible to have up to two employees per bedroom. For example, atwo-bedroom unit in the size range of 450 - 900 square feet, is possible of accommodating three tv four employees. These tagures are consistent with the requirements for the Type Ill employee housing units outlined in the Municipal Code. Qverail, staff believes that the density and uses proposed by the applicant for the Vaii1 Plaza Hotel do not conflict with the compatibility, efficiency or workability of the surrounding uses and activities on adjacent properties. In fact, s#aff feels that the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel redevelopment wiH 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 Vail Town Cade. The Vail Plaza Hotel ,proposal has been reviewed far compliance with the parking and loading requirements prescribed in Chapter 12-10 0# the Vail. Town Code. Pursuant to the prescribed regulations, 378 parking spaces are required far all of Special Development District No. 6. The applicant is proposing to provide a total of 368 parking spaces. The difference between what is required by Cvde and what the applicant is proposing is 10 parking spaces. To account for the difference, the applicant is requesting a deviation from the prescribed parking requirement pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 12-5. A copy of the Vail Plaza Hotel Parlcina Anaivsis prepared by staff and. the applicant has been attached for reference {Exhibit I}, The Vail Plaza Hotel has proposed a centralized loading facility for the hotel and surrounding uses within the special development district. Pursuant to the prescribed loading regulations, five loading berths are required to be provided. To insure compliance 17 with the applicable regulation the applicant is proposing to provide five loading berths within an enclosed faci]ity. Vehicular access to the facility is taken from the South Frontage Road. The design of the access creates forward-in and forward-out traffic flow and provides adequate maneuvering and turning space within the lot lines of the development site. The flow of traffic on the South Frontage Road will not be impeded by the maneuvering of delivery vehicles. Furthermore, pursuant to the prescribed regulations, the loading facili#y will not be located in the required setback, nor will it block access to the parking spaces within the Phase III Condominium Building. Lastly, the five loading berths more than adequately meet the size requirements (12" x 24' x 14'} outlined in the regulations. Upon review of the proposed parking and loading/delivery plan for the Vail Plaza Hotel, the staff finds that the proposal meets the intent of the Town's parking requirements and exceeds the loading and delivery requirements. Staff recognizes this as a benefit. We believe that given the proposed and existing uses within the district, the proximity of the development site to the Vail Transportation Center, the immediate availability of public transportation and recent trends in destination resort travel, the 368 proposed parking spaces will adequately provide for the needs of District. Additionally, in a recent parking study undertaken by the Town of Vail, the consultant working with the Town recommended a significant reduction in the required number of parking spaces for fractional fee club units. The reduction has been recommended as the use of the club unit is more similar to the use of an accommodation unit. The maximum parking space requirement for an accommodation units is one space, regardless of size. Staff has been informed of a potential parking space violation within the district. The apparent violation stems from a real estate transaction that transferred a Phase V condominium unit separate from the required parking spaces, thus creating a situation where a residential property does not have the required number of parking spaces. Staff believes this issue could be addressed and resolved if an appropriate number of parking spaces were provided in the newly created parking structure. d. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan. Vail Land Use Plan The Vail Land Use Pian map and the goal statements are intended to serve as the primary focus for the review of development proposals, along with Town ordinances and regulations. Any project should be reviewed with the context of the intent of the overall Plan Document. The Land Use Plan is intended to provide a general framework to guide decision making but is no# intended to be regulatory in nature. The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy guidelines during the review process for a major amendment to an existing special development district. According to the Vaii Land Use Plan, the proposed hotel redevelopment site is located within the Vail Village Area. According to the prescribed key goals of the Vail Land Use Plan for the Vail Village Area, in part, Commercial growth should be concentrated primarriy in existing commercial areas to accommodate Both local and visitor needs, arad 18 IVew hotels should continue to 6e located primarily irr fhe Village and Lionshead areas, and Increased density for commercial, residential and lodging uses in the Core areas would 6e acceptable sa long as the existrng character of each area is being preserved Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the following policies are relevant to the review of this proposal: 1. General GrowthfDev+elopment 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve bath 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 Tawn 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 axis#ing developed areas (infill). 3. Commercial 3. i 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 Tawn 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. Viltape Core/Lonshead 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 #o facilitate access and delivery. • 42 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. 19 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 incen#ives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. The Vail Land Use Plan projects a need for additional lodging units in the Town of Vail, Vlihile the statistical information used to project need is most likely outdated, staff believes (here continues to be a need for additional lodging units in the Town of Vail The Plan projected a need far a total of 395 additional lodging units by the year 2D~i7. The S#aff believes the proposed major amendment of Special Develapmen# District No. 6 meets the intent, goals, and policies of the Vail Land Use Plan as outlined above. Vail Villa~se Master Plan According tv the Vaii Village Master Plan, the Plan is intended to serve as a guide to the staff, review boards and the 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, "lt is important #o no#e that the likelihood of project approval wilt be grey#est for those proposals that can fully comply with the Nail Village Master Plan," Staff believes this statement re-emphasizes that the Master Plan is a general document providing advisory guidelines tv aid the Town in analyzing developmen# proposals and that 10~% compliance is not required in order for a project to be approved. The staff has identified the following goals, objectives and policies as being relevant to this proposal: Goal #1 Enccseirage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to susta"rn its sense of community and identity. 1.1 Objective: Implemen# a consistent Development Review Process to reinforce the character of the Village. 1.1.1 Policy: Development and improvement projects approved in the Village shalC be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and design considerations as outlined in the Vail Village Master Pian and Urban Design Guide Plan. 2~ 1.2 O~biective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residen#ial and commercial facilities. 1.2.1 Poiicv: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the action plan as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.3 Jbiective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by priuate deyelnpers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Policy: 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 comrnunty as a whale. 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 C~biective: increase the number of residential units available for short- term, overnight accommodations. 2.3,1 Policy: 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 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activities where compatible with existing land uses- 2.6 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial faciii#ies to better serve the needs of our guests. 2.5.1 Policy; 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 Objective: Encourage the development of affnrdabie housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 2.6,1 Policy: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redeveloped project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning, 21 Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Palicv: 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 ©biective: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the greatest extent passible. 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 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3..42 Poiicv: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan andior Recreation Trails Master Plan. Goal #4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. 4.1 C7biective: 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 andlor Urban Design Guide Plan, will be required in conjunction with private infill or redevelopment projects. Gaai #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the #ransportatian and circulation system throughout the Village. 5.1 Objective: Meet parking demands wi#h public and private parking facilities. 22 5.1.1 Policv: For new development that is located outside of the Commercial Core 1 Zone District, on-site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking fund) fo meet any additional parking demand as required by the Zoning Code. 5.1.5 Pol`rev: 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. 0.1 ~}biective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. Vail Villaoe Master Plan Building Hei~aht 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 norrhem periphery. According to the Conceptual Building Height Plan contained within the Vaii 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. The applicant is ,proposing five stories, excluding the roof, with a 10' 6" floor to floor heigh#. 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 Vaii Village Master Plan.. It is not an all-inclusive list, nor is it intended to restrict proposals that are not identified on the Action Plan. It is 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 residentialllodging 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 Rlaza 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 East 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). Vail Viilaae Desian 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 23 integral part of the Vail Village Urban Design Plan. The design Considerations are intended to: • guide grow#h and change in ways tha# will enhance and preserve the essential qualities of the Village; and • serve as design guidelines ins#ead 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): URBAN DESIGN CON5IDERATfONS 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 accompany"rng 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 car-free pedestrian system is not achievable throughout the entire Village. There#ore, several levels of pedestrianization have been identified. The level of pedestrianization most appropriate for the proposed Vail Plaza Motel redevelopment is separated use and joint vehiclelpedestrian use of the roadway. • Staff Resaanse.~ The applicant has met with the Town staff to discuss pedestrian improvements. The staff has concluded fhat the improvements recommended far the South Frontage Road, Vai! Road and East Meadow Drive in fhe 1991 Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan should be implemented This includes constructing a !tested back paver sidewalk with landscape planters along Vail Road; a heated decorative paver sidewalk from the western properly lute of Phase IV to fhe eastern property line of Phase !II with the remainder of the sidewalk continuing to Village Center Road unheated; landscaping In the median and along the South Frontage Road adjacent to Phases Ill & !V; a new sidewalk in the Town righf-of--way at the northwest comer of the Gateway Building property; and streetscape improvements on public property along East Meadow Drive from the western comer of the Base Mounfain Sports refai! space to the intersection of at Vail Road. The final materials used in the construction of the improvements shall be roviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. B. VEHICLE PENETRATION To minimize congestion to the extent possible, all non-resident traffic should be routed along the Frontage Road to Vail Village/Lionshead Parking Structures. 24 In conjunction with pedestrianize#ion objectives: major emphasis is focused upon reducing auto penetration into the center of the Village. Vail Road and Vail Valley Drive Wilk continue to serve as major routes far 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 ail but essential vehicle penetration upon the Frontage Road. Alfemative access points and private parking relocation, where feasible, should be considered to further reduce traffic conflicts in the Village. • Staff Response: The redevelopment of the Vail Plaza Hotel will increase vehicular traffic in the Main Vail Roundabout and on Vail Raad. According to the "Conclusion and Recommendations" contained in the Traffic Impact Analysis -Vail Plaza Hote! Redevelopment, prepared by Felsberg, Holf & Ullevig: The total projected trips consist of subtracting the existing 9042 trips from the proposed 3082 site generated trips. • Twa roadway improvements will be necessary at the main access auto the Frontage Road The first includes modification to the center median to provide a storage area for vehicles fuming left out of the site. This will allow for atwo-sfep left taro with fess delay. The second is an exclusive right fum fans iota the site for eastbound traffic. This exclusive right taro lane will remove fuming 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 wil! 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 fuming vehicles needs to be extended west fo 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 fo allow backing activity without impacting the eastbound through traffic, Physical separation should be considered between the through lame and the auxiliary lane where backing would 6e taking place. A complete copy of the report has been attached far reference (Exhibit J). Staff agrees with the traffic engineer's assessment of the potential traffic impacts. There will be an increase in traffic on Vail 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: 25 Open space and landscaping, berms, grass, #Iowers and tree planting as a soft, colorful framework linkage along pedestrian routes; and plazas and park greenspaces as open nodes and focal points along those routes. 2. Infill commercial storefronts, expansion of existing buildings, or new infsll development to create new commercial activity generators to give streetiife and visual interest, as attractions at key locations along pedestrian routes. 1t is not intended to enclose all Village streets with buildings as in the care areas. Nor is it desirable to leave pedestrian streets in fhe open in a somewhat undefined condition evident in many other areas of Vaii. 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 Resaonse.- The Vail Plaza Hotel redevelopment improves the strr'etscape framework through fhe creation of the new hotel and the resulting enhanced' visual interest along Vail Road. Through the construction of both the internal and external walkways, sfaff believes the proposed redevelopment creates the critical commercial connection between Vail Gateway Plaza and East Meadow Dave and provides new street life where very little currently exists. Q, 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 tha#: "an external enclosure is most comfortable when its walls are approximately 112 as high as the width of the space enclosed; if the ratio falls to 114 nr 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 112 to 1 ratio. Using the average facade height on both sides will generally still be a guide to the comfartableness of the enclosure being created. In same instances, the "canyons effect is acceptabke 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 Conger segmen#s in a northlsouth direction. Long canyon streets in an eastlwest direction should generally be discouraged, When exceptions to the general height criteria occur, special consideration should be given to create swell-defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis to overcome the 2~ "canyon" effect. Canopies, awnings, arcades and building extensions can ail create a pedestrian focus and divert attention from the upper building heights and "canyon" effect. • Staff Response: Vail Road and the sidewalks on either side, adfacen# to fhe Vail Plaza Hotel, averages approximately 7a feet in width. The Vai! Plaza Hotel (eavelineJ along Vail Road is approximately 4~F feet in height. Given that the !Vine Vall Road Condominiums are not constructed parallel with Vai! Road and the proposed landscaping at the ground level of the proposed building, staff believes the Vail Plaza Hotel creates a "comfortable" enclosun= 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 woufd suggest that the applicant be required to continue to study and then present severe! streetscape alternatives for the streetscape at the front entrance of the note! to the Design Review Board for review and fine! approval. Special attention should be given to create a design that is not only functional and meets the technical design requirements, but is also aesthetically pleasing and attractive in nature. E. STREET EDGE Buildings in the Village core should farm a strong but irregular edge to the street.. Unlike many American towns, there are no standard setback requirements far 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 Strang street edge is important for continuity, but perfectly aligned facades aver too long a distance tend to be monotonous. Wi#h only a few exceptions in the Village, slightly irregular facade lines, building jags, 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 Vi'ilage with due consideration tv spacing, sun access, oppvrtuni#ies far views and pedestrian activity. • Staff Response: The Val1 Plaza Hotel has stroet frontage along Vai! Road and' the South Frontage Road. The remainder of the building has building fronts interne! 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 and horirontallverfical steps in the buifding foot print. Staff believes that at the street level the design of the building conforms with the intent of the street edge design consideration. F. BUILDING HEIGHT 27 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 Resr~onse: 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 the proposed height of the Vai! Plaza Hotel is excessr've, given the location of the building at the northern periphery of the Village core and the height of fhe buildings vn the adjoining properties (Gateway, Nine Val! Road Condominiums, and the Phase !1! and V Buildings). The applicant has submitted a scale model of the Vai! Plaza Hate! in its Village context and Phis model will be available for use by the Planning & Environments! Commission, Design Review Board and the Town Gouncil during the heal review process. G. VEEWS AND FC]CAL PANTS Vail's mountainlvalley setting is a fundamental park 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 visibili#y, 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 an public views. Views #hat should be preserved originate from either major pedestrian areas or public spaces, and include views of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, the Clack Tower, the Rucksack Tower and other important man-made and natural elements that contribute #o 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 far pedestrians. Development in Vail Village shall not encroach into any adopted view corridor, unless approved under Chapter 12-~2. Adopted corridors are listed in Chapter 12-22 of the Tawn of Vail Municipal Code. Whether affecting adapted. 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 Res,oonse: Although not directly impacting vrre of the five adopted view corridors, as fisted in Chapter l2-ZZ of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the height of the building will have impacts on the view from various lvcafions near the roundabout. Public views of Vai! Mountain will be partially impacted from these areas. Again, a view analysis has been completed depicting "before acrd offer' conditions. Overall, given the building's location, the recent changes to the intersection resulting from the construction of the roundabout and the development pattern on adjacent properties, staff feels that fhe Vai! Plaza Hotel complies with the intent of the Vail Village Urban Design Gonsideratians. H. SERVICE AND DELIVERY 28 Any building expansion should preserve the functions of existing service alleys. The few 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 construe#ion, delivery which avoids or reduces impacts on pedestrian ways should be explored; and adopted whenever practical, for irnmedia#e 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 buikdings in Vail Village (Sitzmaric/Gore 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 Response: Through the course of staff's review of the Vail Plaza Hotel redevelopment proposal, several Loading and delivery options were explored. The applicanf had originally proposed to provide far fewer berths fhan what the current design proposes. However, the applicanf has amended the plans to provide a total of five berths on the property. These five 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 service 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. The centralized approach to this facility is unprecedented in Vaii, Staff would recommend that the applicanf continue to explore opportunities to improve the truck traffic and passenger car traffic interface in the access way within the enclosed facility. SIJN /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, ~n 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 restric# building height allowances, but rather to influence the massing of buildings. Limited heigh# exceptions may be granted to meet this criteria. • Staff Response: 29 Although the proposed heighf of the building will diminish the amount of sun lighf reaching the ground in certain areas, and likewise increase shading along the South Frontage road (north side of the projectJ, the provision of heated public walkways effectively mitigates this consideration, thus providing ice-free and snow-free sidewalks. Overall, staff believes fhe proposal complies with the above-described considerations. 2. ARCHtTECTUREII-ANDSC~APE CONSIE?ERATIONS ROOFS Where visible, roofs are often one of the most dominant architectural elements in any built environmen#. 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 can-ent expression, and objective, for roofs in the Village is to form a consistently unifying backdrop for the architecture and pedestrian streetscape, and #o 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-low 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 farm 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 applicanf believes this roof form and the incorporation of dormers helps to reduce the mess of the building and blends well with the roof forms of the surrounding buildings Bitch Roof slopes in the Village typically range from 3112 to 6/12, with slightly steeper pitches in limited applications. Again, for visual consistency this general 3112-6112 range should be preserved. Staff Response The pitch of the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel roof is 7Jt 2 end 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 pro#ection of pedestrian 30 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 #a the roof. • Staff Response The overhangs on the Vail Plaza Hotel vary; depending an location, and are generally four feet in depth. The overhangs are supported by tr'mber bracing which adds character and visual interest to the overall appearance of the building. Staff believes that fhe proposal complies with the above-described criferra. Compositions The intricate roofscape of the Village as a whale 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 Response 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 architecturaf consideration. Stepped Roofs As buildings are s#epped 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 Response The Vail Plaza Hotel site is relatively flat (by Vail's 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 r'ntent of the above-described crrterr'a. Materials U11ood shakes, woad 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 Response 31 Mosf recently, wood shakes and wood shingles are being discouraged for use as a roofing material due to fire safety concerns. Af fhe 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 a blend of greenish concrete files an the roof of the hate!. The tiles will be similar in appearance to those used on fhe recenf 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 considera#ions in this climate include. - snowslides onto pedestrian walks -roof dams and water infiltration -gutters freezing -heavy snow [Dads Careful attention to fhese functional details is recommended, as well as familiarity with the local building code, proven construction de#ails, and Town ordinances. For built-up roofs, pitches of 4112 or steeper do not hold gravel well. Far shingle roofs, pitches of ~4J12 or shallower often result in ice dams and backflow leakage under the shingles. Cold-roof construe#ion is strongly preferred, unless warm-roof benefits for a specific application can be demonstrated. Cold-roofs are double-roofs which irtsula#e and prevent snow melt from internal building heat. By retaining snow on the roof, many of the problems listed can be reduced. Per-odic 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 contra) in colder months. • Staff Response: The applicant is proposing scold-roof construction atop the Vail Plaza Hotel. Through the review of a building permit, staff will ensure fhe roof construction complies with the standards prescribed the Vail's climatic conditions. 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. Tao many diverse ma#erials weaken the continuity and repetition which unifies the streetscape. Of the above materials, stucco is the mast consistently used material. Most ofi the buildings in the Village exhibit some stucco, and there are virtually no areas where stucco is entirely absent. It is in#ended to preserve the dominance of stucco by i#s use in portions, at Peas#, of all new facades, and by assuring that other materials are not used #o the exclusion of stucco in any sub- area within the Village. 32 • Sfaff ResAOnse The exterior materials proposed by fhe applicant are a combination of stone, stucco and wood. No one maferial is proposed to dominate the exferior of the hotel Staff believes the applicant has complied with this particular architectural consideration. The final approval of the exterior materials and their appfication will be addressed by the Design Review board at a latter date. Color There is Brea#er latitude in the use of color in the Village, but still a discernible consistency within a general range of colors. For woad surfaces, trim or siding, darker color tones are preferred -browns, grays, blue-grays, dark olive, slate-greens, etc. Stucco colors are generally light -white, beige, pale-gold, yr other light pastels. Qther fight colors could be appropriate, as considered on a case-by-case basis. Brigh# colors (red, orange, blues, maroon, etc.} should be avoided for major wall planes, but can be used effectively (with restraint} for decorative trim, wall graphics, and other accent elements. Generally, to avoid both "busy-Hess", and weak visual interest, the varie#y of major wall colors should Hat exceed four, nor be less than two. A color/material 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 thaf is compatible with the color of the existing buildings in the vicinity of the hotel. Staff would like to paint out that fhe applicant is required to obtain Design Review Board approval prior to construction and that any concerns of the Commission on fhis topic will be brought to the attention of the Board. Transgarencv 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 francs are "people attracters°', opaque or solid wolfs are more private, and imply "do Hat approach." Qn 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% F'epi's Sports 71 - Gasthof Gramshammer 48% 33 - The Lodge 66% - Golden Peak House 62% - Casino Building 30% - Gorsuch Building 51 • Staff Rest~onse Transparency of the Vail Plaza Hotel is really only an issue along the retail space frontr`ng on the plaza area. A measure of transparency of the Vail Plaza Hotel (east/south courtyard elevations} indicates that 58% 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. WUindows In addition to the genera! 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 suggest uninterrupted viewing, as from a moving car. The sense of intimate pedestrian scale is diminished). Ground floor display windows are typically raised slightly 'f8 inches b' 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 fiythm. 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 yr other meta! 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 architecturl charm and visual integrity of the hotel. Staff recommends that the use of mullions in the windows at the ground level become a condition of final Design F2eview approvaf. 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. 34 Doors with glass contribute to overall facade transparency. Due to the visibility of people and merchandise inside, windowed doors are somewhat mare effective in drawing people inside to retail commercial facades. Although great variations exist, 25-30% d transparency is felt to be minimum transparency objective. Private residences, lodges, restaurants, and other non-retai 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 ar 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. a I • Staff Response Staff believes the applicant's proposal complies with the above-described criteria Tri m 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 FZesponse,- Stafi believes the applicant s proposal complies with the above-described criteria. DECKS AND PATIOS Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited, i~ring 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 stree#s were empty. A review of successful decks/pa#ios in Vail reveals several common characteristics_ - direct sunlight from 11:00 - 3:00 increases use by many days/year and protects Pram 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 - V1eW5 - pedestrian activity • Staff Resr~onse: The majority of the decks and patios on the Vail Plaza Hotel are located an the south side of the building, facing Vai! Mountain and the plaza. iMrth 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 35 general public. Staff believes fhat the proposal complies wifh this design consideration. BALCONIES Balconies occur on almost all buildings in the Village which haute 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. Staff Response Again, the majority of the ,balconies on the Vail Plaza Hotel are locafed 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 stree# 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 Val! Plaza Hotel are proposed to be semitransparent 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 consisten# visually where the vertical members are close enough to create semi-transparency. 36 Pipe rails, and plastic, canvas or glass panels should be avoided. • Staff ResAOnse The material to be used in the construction of the balconies on the hotel is wood, with verfica! structure! members. A detail of the railing will be reviewed by the FRB. ACCENT ELEMENTS The life,. and festive quality of the Village is given by judicious use of accenf elements which give color, movement and contrast to the Village, ~Colortul accent elements consistent with existing character are encouraged, such as: Awnings and canopies - canvas, brigh# color or stripes of two colors. Flags, banners - hanging from buildings, poles, and even across stree#s for special occasions. Umbrellas - over tables vn outdoor pafias. Annual color flowers _ in beds or in planters. Accent lighting- buildings, plazas, windows, trees (even Christmas lights all winter}. Painted wall graphics - Boats of arms, symbols, accent compositions, etc. Fountains - sculptural, with both winter and summer character. Staff Response: Accenf lighting on fhe building, annual flowers in containers and in the planting beds, potted frees decorated with Chrisfmas lights and irrigated flower boxes are proposed to provide colorful accent elemenfs on the Vail Plaza Hotel 5faff would suggest fhat the applicant provide an additional accent symbol (clock, crest, efc.J on fhe male elevafor tower. The foweris visible from a distance as illustrated in fhe view analysis and would serve as an important focal paint t© guesfs and visifors. 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.) - fighting - signage Plant Materials Opportunities for planting are not extensive in the Village, which places a premium on the plant selec#ion 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 clime#e, and to tie the Village visually wi#h its mountain setting. Trees Shrubs 37 Narrow-leaf cottonwood Willow Balsam poplar Dogwood Aspen Senriceberry E_odgepole pine Alpine currant Colorado spruce Chokecheny Subalpine fir Mugho pine Potentilla Buffaloberry • Staff Res,vonse A conceptual landscape plan has been submitted by the applicant. The plan has been developed with same assistance of Town staff since a mafority of the landscape improvements are proposed an Town property. The proposed landscape design takes into consideration factors such as the location of fhe plantings (sun/shade), maintenance, climate, etc. Staff would suggesf that the final landscape plan be reviewed by fhe Liesigrr Review Board' along with the final streetscape improvements. Paving The freezelthaw 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 Resraonse The paving material used in the public areas amend the Vail Plaza Hafel has yet to 6e determined and finalized Again, the staff would suggest that the hna! paving treatment be determined wi#h the assistance of the Lesgn Review Board. 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 sties#s (typical}_ - rounded cobble hidden mortar - in open space areas if above type not already established nearby. • Staff Resr~onse Landscape retaining walls are proposed an the north, west and soufh sides of the building. The retaining walls are needed to pmvide proper grading and drainage around fhe building. The surface maters! of the new landscape retaining will match the stone an the exterior of the building. • 3$ Liohtinq Light standards should be coordinated with those used by the Town in the public right-of--way. • Staff Resnonse As part of the streefscape improvements along Vail Road, East lVleadow f~rive and the Soufh 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. Signage Refer to Town of Vail Signage Ordinance Staff Resnonse: Given fhe staging of the application, signage has not yet been considered by the staff or fhe applicant. The staff has requested that fhe applicant prepare a comprehensive sign program for the Vai! Plaza Hotel for review at a fufurs date. The comprehensive sign program wilt be reviewed by fhe DRB. SERVICE Trash handling is extremely sensitive in a pedestrian environment. Trash collection is primarily made in off-peak hours. It is the buildeng 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 Inca#ionldesign - 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 F~cterior 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 pas#s behind the preferred exterior materials should be considered to withstand the inevitable abuse these structures suffer. • Staff Resnonse: The applicant is proposing fa incorporate a (rash dumpster and recycling bin into the design of the main loadingtdelivery area.. The dumpsfer and bin will be completely enclosed and 39 accessible from inside the building. Access to the dumpster and bins will not impede the operation of the loading/delivery functions. The driveway and interior building height is designed fo accommodate trash trucks. Staff believes the applicant's proposal Complies with the above- described criferia. E. Identification and mitigation of natural andJar geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed.. According to the ©ffieiai Town of Vaii Hazard maps the Vail Plaza Hotel development site is not located in any geologically sensitive areas or the 100-year floodplain. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic duality of the community. The site plan, building design and location and open space provisions of the proposal have been reviewed at length by the staff, the Town of Vail Design Review Board and Jeff Winston, of Winston ~ Associates, the Town's Urban Design Consultant. This review is the culmination of numerous meetings between the staff and applicant's design team, five conceptual reviews by the Design Review Board and three meetings with lVlr. Winston. The staff's review has focused primarily on the technical aspects of the proposal vehicular access, driveway grades, required distances between structures, sidewalk widths, building orientation, development standards, etc.) while the Board and Mr, Winston focused on reviewing the prapasal for compliance with the design guidelines and other applicable elements of the Town's planning documenfs_ Upon review of the proposal, the Town of Vaii Design Review has voted 3-0 to forward a preliminary recommendation of approval, with conditions, to the Vaii Town Council. In reviewing the proposal the Board was most concerned with the aesthetic qualities of the hotel and less concerned with the development's responsiveness and sensitivity #o natural features and vegetation. The lack of concern with the latter criteria is to due to the absence of any existing natural features ar vegetation on the development. A condition of the Board's approval was a request far a detailed landscape plan to insure adequate provisions are made for vegetation on the development site. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Board as part of their final review process. A copy of the Board's preliminary recommendation to the Town Council has been attached fvr reference (Exhibit I{). Similar to the Design Review Board, Jeff Winston, the Town's Urban Design Consultant, has also recommended approval of the hotel proposal As stated previously, the consultant's review focused primarily upon compliance with the design guidelines and the urban design considerations outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan. The findings of the consultant are that with the exception of opportunities to lower the save lines of the hotel, the proposal generally complies with the master plan. The staff reviewed the technical aspects of the proposal for compliance with the prescribed regulations. Upon review of the proposal, staff finds that the applicant wild need to be provided relief for the proposed deviations from the building height, setback and multi-use parking credit formula if this prapasal is to be approved. As discussed previously, staff believes that the request far additional building height is reasonabke and appropriate given the existing circumstances and the abili#y to provide employee housing units on-site. We also believe that relief should be provided from the parking requirements of the regulations. Staff feels that relief is jus#ified given size of the hotel, the mixture of uses within the hotel and within the District as a whole, and recent trends 40 in resor# #ravel. Staff is no longer concerned with regard to the proposed Vail Road setback. We believe that some encroachment of building improvements into the fron# se#back is appropriate given the context of the built environment of the area, the hotel design along the street farads, and the provision of open plaza space on the interior of the development. White the applicant speaks of average setbacks, staff is mare focused on the minimum distances the face of the hotel and the back of the curb along Vaii Road. The minimum distance proposed is now 22 feet from the multi-story face of the hotel to the back of the curb. Within this area the applicant can provide an eight-foot wide paver sidewalk, landscaping, with room for snow storage. S#aff would recommend that the applicant not be required to increase the proposed Vail Road se#back. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. The on-siteloff-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation system design has been discussed in great detail. Muoh of the discussion with the Board and Commission centered on providing adequate pedestrian and vehicular access ta, from and within the development site. In response to the concerns, the applicant has redesigned many areas of the plan. The pedestrian areas include the pedestrian connection through the hotel to the Gateway Building, the alleyway spaces between the hotel and Phases ill & V, the plaza area south of the hotel, and the pedestrian link from the ha#el entrances to the new bus stop on East Meadow Drive. The vehicular areas included providing adequate taming and maneuvering area at the parts cochere, the entrance only and exit only driveway locations on Vail Road and the entering and exiting design of the loading/ delivery facility. Pursuant to the subm~t#al requirements for the major amendment request, the applicant was required to submit a Traffic Report. A Traffic Report has been prepared by the traffic consul#ing frm of Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig. The purpose of the report is to evaluate the impacts of the betel development and the proposed traffic pattern circulation on the Town's stree# system. This report has been used by staff to analyze traffic impacts of this project. In summary the transportation engineers find that the proposed vehicular circulation system is reasonable and appropriate. ft is believed that through minor mitigation measures such as signage and an enter onlylexit only design the traffic impacts and safety concerns of the Town can be resolved. A copy of the Traffic Report and a memorandum from Greg Hall to George Rather, dated December 9, 1999 have been attached for reference {'Exhibit L). Overall, staff believes that with several minor changes and revisions to the plans, the proposal meets the criteria of providing adequate on-site and off-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimi=e and presence natural features, recreation, views and functions. Staff believes that the landscape improvements proposed will be beneficial to the quality of the landscaping in both the public and private spaces in the vicinity of the hotel. Through the implementation of the Town of Vaii S#reetscape Master Plan, a portion of East Meadow Drive will be enhanced aestheiicaily. The improvements will include new heated brick paver walkways, the completion of the bus s#ap, updated streetscape lighting, and wider pedestrian walkways and stairs. The landscape elements of the proposal have been reviewed on a concep#ual basis by 41 the Town of Vail Design Review Board. Upon review of the proposal the Board has voiced a favorable response to the applicant. A final landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. The design of the plaza area south of the hotel is consistent the previous direction and intent of the overall development of the District. The creation of the plaza, with the associated pool area, landscaping, outdoor cafe, pedestrian walkways and retail store fronts complies with the guidelines of the Qpen Space Plan, an element of the Vail Village Master Plan. Pursuant to the Open Space Plan, the area south of the hotel and interior to the development is intended to be a public plaza with greenspace opportunities. Staff believes that based upon the suNshade analysis prepared by the applicant, the plaza area will receive adequate amounts of sun light throughout the year. The access to sun light will insure a pleasant, useable plaza area in the Town. The proposed pool and hot tub deck area is intended to address the recreational needs of the District. The use of these recreational amenities will be made available to the owners of property within the district. The new pool will replace the axis#ing pool an the Phase IV development site and will insure consistency with the general direction of the Upen space Plan, ~verail, staff believes tha# the proposal complies with this criteria. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The need for the phasing of the hotel redevelopment is not anticipated at this time. A construction staging plan will be required at the time ofi building permit issuance. The plan will be reviewed tv maximize the workable and functional relationship between the redevelopment of the hotel and the existing uses, structures and traffrc systems in the vicinity of the development site. The goal of the plan will be maximize the efficiency of the construction process and to minimize the negative impacts inherent to major construction projects, VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CQNDITIONAIL t.ISE PERMIT Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the request for a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a 50 unit fractional fee club within the Vail Plaza Hotel based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC} shai! consider the factors with respect #o the proposed use: '1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. In January of 1997, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996. In part, this ordinance amended the Public Accommodation Zane District allowing fractional fee clubs as a conditional use and set forth criteria for the Commission #o consider when evaluating such a request. Since that time the Austria Haus Club redevelopment project has been completed and the Gore Creek Club has been approved by the Town. The Austria Haus contains 28 fractional fee club units and 42 the Gore Creek Club has been approved to construct 6fi units. The applican# is requesting the issuance of a conditional use permit to allow fvr the operation of a fractional fee club within the Vail Plaza Ho#el. The proposed club would be comprised of 50 two and three bedroom club units. These units would range in size from 920 square to 2,282 square feet. The average club unit size is approximately 9,335 square feet in size. Each of the units has been designed in such a manner as to provide multiple ''keys" to for lock-off units. The total number of "keys" in the club is 108. According to the applicant, the ownership of the club units will be divided into a maximum of 1112th intervals far the 24 winter weeks during the ski season, while the remaining 28 shoulder season and summer weeks would be owned by the hotel. This ownership program allows for the most attractive weeks of the year to be sold as club units with the proceeds helping to finance the redevelopment project. The remaining interest in the clubs is then used by the hotel tv support the conference facility during the summer months. According to the applicant this program will create the best possible occupancy of the hotel and maximize the viability of the conference facility. Through the adoption of Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1998, the `Town further recognized the need for lodging alternatives for our guests and visitors. In passing the ordinance the Town Council found that quality fractional fee clubs are an appropriate means of increasing occupancy rates, maintaining and enhancing short-term rental availability and diversifying the resort lodging market product within the Town of Vail. Equally as importan#, the Council believed that fractional fee clubs were simply another of many forms of public accommodations. It has been a long held belief that in order fvr the Town to remain competitive and on the Reading edge of resort development, that alternative lodging ppportuni#ies must be created and creative financing vehicles far hotel redevelopment must be implemented. Staff believes that the conditional use permit fvr a fractional fee club within the Vail Plaza Hotel will be beneficial to the Town and will have a positive impact an the development objectives of the Community. 2. The effect of the use an light and air, distribution of population, transportation facili#ies, utili#ies, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs, Staff believes that this review criteria has been satisfied as previously discussed in Section IV of this memorandum. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congas#ion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Staff believes that this review criteria has been satisfied as previously discussed in Section IV of this memorandum. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to lie located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in 43 relation to surrounding uses. Staff believes that this review cri#eria has been satisfied as previously discussed in Section IV of this memorandum. 5, Prior tv the approval of a conditional use permit for atime-share estate, fractional fee, fractional fee club, or time-share license proposal, the following shall be considered: a. If the proposal for a fractional fee club is a redevelopmen# of an existing facility, the fractional fee club shalt maintain an equivalency of accommodation units as presently existing. Equivalency shall be maintained ei#her by an equal number of units or by square footage. If the proposal is a new development, it shall provide at least as much accommodation unit GRFA as fractional fee club unit GRFA. The Vail Plaza Hotel proposal is a redevelopment of an existing hotel. The proposed hotel shall be required to maintain an equivalency of the presently existing number of accommodation units. The applicant is proposing to meet the equivalency requirement by replacing an equal number of accommodation units. According to information on file in the Community Development t3epartment 78 accommodation units exist in Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing units wi#h 99 new hotel roams totaling approximately 35,818 square feet. b. Lock-off units and lock-off unit square footage shall not be included in the calculation when determining the equivalency of existing accommodation units ar equivalency of existing square footage. Even though lock-offs cannot be counted towards meeting the equivalency requirement, nor are they needed in this case, the applicant has maintained 6~ lock-off units in the Vail Plaza Hotel. The staff and applicant feel #hat these units will be rented as short-term accommodations when not in use by the club members, and thus enhance the overall hotel bed base in Town. c. The ability of the proposed project to create and maintain a high level of occupancy. The fractional fee club component of the Vai! Plaza Hotel proposal is intended to provide additional hotel and "hotel-type" accommodation units in the Town of Vaii. The applicant is proposing to incorporate 50 member- owned club units {fractional fee club units wi#h 62 lock-off units), with 39 new accommodation (hotel} rooms. Although not included in the equivalency requirement, the fractional fee club units have been designed to accommodate lock-off units. Staff believes that lock-off units provide an additional community benefit of added "pillows". If a fractional fee club unit owner purchases an interest in a multiple bedroom unit, and does not desire to utilize ail the bedrooms, they can then have the opportunity of returning the unused bedrooms (lock-off units) to a rental program. 44 Staff feels that by providing lock-off units, and managing the availability of the lock-off units in a rental program when not in use, a fractional fee club project can significantly increase the availability of accommodation units in the Town of Vail. Through our research on the fractional fee issue back in 1996, staff then identified some potential positive impacts of fractional fee units in the Town of Vail: A) Activity during the "shoulder seasons" tends to increase due to an increase in year-round occupancy; B) The attraction of revenue-generating tourists; C} The efficient utilization of resources. This is the '~nrarm beds" concept; D} More pride of ownership and community buy-in with fractional fee club units than with accommodation units; E} Increased levels of occupancy; and F} Increased resort exposure due to the extensive number of interval Owners. d. Employee housing may be required as part of any new or redevelopment fractional fee club project requesting density aver that allowed by zoning. The number of employee housing units will be consistent wi#h employee impacts that are expected as a result of the project. The staff included the fractional fee club units into the calculation of the employee generation resulting from the proposed major amendment of the Special Development district. Based strictly on the number of club units, the development will generate a need far 125 "new" employees. When the multiplier of 0.30 is factored in, the fractional fee club generates 38 of the "nevi' employees, which the developer must provide deed-restricted housing for. e. The applicant shall submit tv the Town a list of all owners of existing units within the project or building; in written statements from 10~% of the owners flf existing units indicating their approval, without condition, of the proposed fractional fee club. No written approval shall be valid if it is signed by the owner more than 6{1 days prior to the date of filing the application for a conditional use,. The applicant, Waidir Prado, d_b.a. Daymer Corporation, and legally represented by Jay Peterson, is the sole owner of the proper#y. No other written approval is required. • 45 • • Vail Plaza Hotel Major SDD Amendment Attachments February 28, 2000 -- - -- ~ . ~ ~ ~, '~ ~ Y i ~ ~ ~~ i _, ._. .. ~ ~ ' i ~ __.. s ~ ~ - i r _ ' E ~ ,~ r, ~T~. ~~~ ~ ~: r,, ~ , _. - F.`r c _ ~ [¢ 5s ~ ~ ~ti~ ~X* ~~ pM6 ASSOCcI•'' Fµew'<J f.. ..~,~.~ ~~ R ~ ~ Veil P~~.z~. Hated 4~0 . iu5s :o*,~,,,i~u„~s,,..,o~ ~'ai~, C~~lc~ra[la ,.,..... Navem~er 23, 1999 --- .. _ - mom.: S[t~ k.:, rr! ~i Yiiii 1 ~r.:i~~ s_ fail. C'ultirs~cl~e ~1f11t'I1~d~~L'f ~_}, I!1yfJ • .._ ~:.a~ R~ I t #' ! fa pie , , .. ~,,~ ~3 ,,. , 1'~~1l, C'~~Eut~~i~lo ?'~,~vcnrl~es~ :? 1, I tl??'1 i _w .~ .,. ,.~ - - - ~ ,,_-- .~,u_.,~ _._.. ~~,~. ,.. __ .. :.,~, .~ v' 1 ~, ~.i~ 4~0 s vSr2.r- ~ ~ r;,r ,~i}:; r`; ., _ i hhr,t:~z~r~r:r :!:3. I'~'ttfi E t~ -~ ~ --- ---- ~.. _~..._-~...____. _.._..f ~ ~j1~! ~_._._._..~ 4 ,= ~ . - _ _~_... ... _. 1 ~ ~ ~ _ `~' `~\ F _ `` ~ ' ~ ~, s '' ` a ./. 1 i • Phn~e 1 .a~~ .~. ~~. ..x.,., r..-- ,, _ _._..... •-' ~ _ .. i / ._ ~. - - ...... ~ ~ ~~ ~~. . P,, 0.ntanSSUC~nl t~mm l~~ L ~ ~I(~-tel „., ,,. Ynll, Colorado Sgiiail~it 2'1. 1999 ~a ivwd ns i V U .il r•n _ ~~~ry~~y 'CYil•0 ~+.' Holel ,.. ~~ ~ Lr,~~il,,,. fj6,tl ~• W ~-~y;-~~ - II i Nm 155a"_ .._. 2 ~r,r~a I ~~.~,.. ~ i2esdsi-- . - . _ "1.,.,, . North Elevation n nra f la,~a ~_ _. e 195'-0' R? ri~'-0 :~y,.~ West Elevation AND ASSOCUTE$, INC. . r,sHrrw:. ~,~nem ,sa~1«,~ 4AYtlNf11„50 .- - - s ~ ~ . - AMeNrI,,,Pa4K'~' ~e(~y ~ ~- ~ "'~~ ~ rIR m l.f1T•9" ~ ~ rr ~~'UYIJ~ 113~J" 3 7 ~~ii . nxbm Y£~ Yr 1~m Ftl[~;~' 1 _ _ .~d~t~4~ .~r~'LS'.5.' f' ~iwn f~3`3'r1' ('~P7tJM laS'.p^ { ._ 6srau a~' Van •I~~f$al^Y wra,~ ~p~ ~m°i`s'~-QU4 PFM//I~,JII~W~i" ,~ Vf1f~ 1114'-0' r +'l,~rcrly la'm` ~4 ~Oi~Ir'kh,.~,.. .,~~~'( i V 11r1/T1I5,•P- ~~.~,-0 ~ ~~o~ ~~1~~~ ~~~~~ veil, colarado F~bru~ry 15, 2044 ---_~ East E South E ~- ~a~u~ :.~,,., - ~~k:~n~ A~:la. Conaugc hlorth Elevation Courtyard ~~~~ua -~~ ~ I ~Iub ~~~~a,- --- - _ - -- Ilw ] $~aca^__ _.._ ._- __-.___ Hmcl Iiarc7 41°~d \~, .., ~,` a rmp non=~~~ f Iii I ry prom 0(5cc In ,--I ~I 4Fi~' ~~~I,,,~ [L~. JII - -- - - ~...~.r.~e ib i m.~` ~6 _ ~ ~~ .r y d P~4i'0 _ ~ I u.ira ~ns~ Ch6 Ch ~, s CI.i6 ~. 1'.. `i., Hu~~ Hu:r. y.~ I ~ ~ Nul Hrarl ~ ~ ~ uo~ f61,~b ~ - '~ Gmp. Horsing .~u -1l.Jl 1 tI ~ I IPN., n i~ Rctc~l ~ ~ ~I~ - ~ ,~y. _ CIu6 __ _ _ _. ~i Hutc{ i~J -, u..~~~.~ HntcY t~] _ T'mp I Inueing T _ . ~ ~II I~ f~ Au.oun[utg u . __~ZC~u t+' West Elevation Courtyard. ~.~~~~~ ANO /~SSOC{ATE5, INE. nuaxnrnMr . nAnwirx: - unuuaam FAQ ~nN ANYI, CIYCMIXJ ncm C m ~r~swm~i rAS dr4 wsto~n ~3«~+~- - 7"__ .._ ~' ~~~~ ~~~~~ f~~~~~ Dail, Colorado Februazy 15, 2©d0 fast Elevation Courtyard ~~~~~~_ _~, ~~,..rr 4du4 ~~~ kC1.1 f'1uD ® Ifutcl Prue Dusk ~. South Elevatior Courtyard tl K ~ T'~' °' Ilw~1;,~ - ~9}~„.`.t.r:~ North Elevation u~~ . ~- ~~~~r-- ~a ~~~~«~~~ ANQ kSSnCIrTES, INC. .. umpn.. ~.Gxss is ~n',x; cyr.ds s41.10 16 b'~w sismsi ~J J -~-~'~~N~+~O i~i~°i..... ---~ ~:.:.- ,,.,.~ ~ n.,cn,v, ~~ ~~ ~.,.,:f~.~~ ~~oa [~~~~~ [~~~~d Vail, Colorado February 15, ZD40 East Elegy i~~al West Elevation South Ele • 'ri~~ '- // 'mil ~+~:'~i fa~~ Cluk _ CI 6 ~~w: aw a u Hulcl w< ~~c1P tlutel L:up. Hv,uiny C6:dL,,~- ~luh ~~ II ' ,'i I I h ~~ au ~ - _ ~ ~ ~ P~ L~I [ .. Clu "'_w '1 'fir " y ! rtF~r" ~ kl l wn.~P,~ _ ote sr` ~~y 6 ~6s,sla~, z- ~ `~ 7 - Ilnrel II I~t$. ~Y~~'~.. I __ ~' Cluh - ~' ~ ~~' Q~ce In 8cl~:u f k S~ Sp: North Elevation East Elevation C©urtyard Courtyard .U.. - - - ~ .~~,~ l'.i~- - ~ - _ Cluh ~- }iwel -- ~.- `x~:el I ~ Ffn:ei ~~~P'i Glub $~=~fi... ~+ CIu4 ~ ~ tyke.-.-.-. wn. ~•~~d L~-m._ ~~ Hcecl ~~ ~j cmb 4~~, ' F ~ fluxel _~ Y Club ~ ~-- - ~ ~~ ... r .,~~..~/. _ __ _ Hute! ~ . _ ._. Halcl___ __ Dlxn to Luuiling Emn Open 4t Peawtuwn .y, LuaSvn; Rl1Wlutull _ _ West Elevation Courtyard ~:~~~~:~ nrrn nssoc~,tres, {ra~c_ .LLt]YPYIUYl. PtAraeHC - txfPed~l r Ay'a`4 [.ueei.GO Ytw 1B b]R f1fN3i PAY ®]p }P?Itlq South Elevatiar C©u rtyard ~~d ~ ~0~~~ ~1~~tt~0 Vail, Colt~rada February t 5, 2000 ~ 1 ~ g 1 I' _i. • ~~ ~~, ~~ ~ ~ ~ '~ I ~ ~ ` „„ ~ ~, ~ i ~~, ~ -~~I I ~; A ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ I~ - 1 ~ ~ }~ ~ `mss 1 ~ r ~ _ _ _ I;. ~ '~ ~, Mb ".. "^.;. _ ~.-f~---I ~I _~` I I I C~4J `~I ~ III _ _ --~.. ~_ ~ ~ f , ` • ~~~~~~ AND ASSOCIATES, INC. AuFSlalvu ->tid'duFerFO . IwrFlncaes F.Qe04( ~s16 A'40FL monuoa slaw m eza s=wmv FA.om+wlm i I I I I I ~ I E I f I II I III - _ ~ _ 1 l t I C 1 l I ti P4'1 --- . F.e~~ ~. v.l II~ F.ln ~ I F Se F ,l V 3 1/J Y ~ ---Y fO- r nn ~ '•'~ Fb: _ F.1' F.>v Y-17 F.ib V-] Y-a V~5 Y~b I I I.I Y~ I va+ ~~ Y~ih ~ t'! I ~~~ F~b1 k-13 V1 f '°\~'2~d~ F M1~_c. I iAF r.J: F.1a I Y.y Y'-1U I i 'I ~ W'-21 V.1a i ' I F'.d5 1 F'.)9 I Y~11 ~~ 4-311 I P ee__- ~n.a® I 4 v.iz II Y ~4 I, •. A~1 A-k A~1 ~.~ A-~I 1~~1 V-Id ~ V-Ik (I v-I~ i - VI ~ _ I _~~ I ~_ AT S ~d4a ~.v 6~ \ ~ C-s l'L C-l ~~ F'~2 YJ} F-4 V F-03 I Falb I i-a1 1+II II F'w ry4 F.30 i. / ll t ~11 3F F.sI I i.sl II ,,11 `1 { l f li , ll + Ni ~ ~ ~ 1 G' 1a f-16 _ l ~ l i" ~ d F IS ~ fI ~ i F-Ia F-MI Y-11 i-12 f F-31 F.la F.15 i.~5 i-if F~if f~ 3P F~41 F~al F~Sa F-35 'I F-fb f ~ I I I ~ F I1 F~I? F-le F-in F]P EE Fil F:: I F?1 i F~Ea 115 F PF F 37 F~kll F~ty F~11 t _ I ~ ` _ F-In - ~ \ ~ / F-q \ ~ 4't - ~ _.__ ~ ~ V.IS V 16 F-MI F-ifs i~~e9 E-b5 f-tl5 F ®> r-a5 F-yy F-`A FNI F-4'_ F-91 F Pa F-n5 r-Pe -u I~NIiIII ~Ar ] !~n Ca CJ ~ C~2 F.1 i~i 11 Fb I f-5 Fa. FS P-2 F~I f'~I `1 4 i~ I / ~ t, 111 .. ~ Cyr ~ ~ _. ' ~ ~ ~ ~ .._ ~ ~ -- °-' ~ ~ ~ I ~ ` ' r ~___~_~______, ~ ~ h ~~o~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ Vaif, Colorado February 15, 200D d. SeTVKafiMCCFw}lol ~ 9 II '~ I it F ' E ~ I ~ I !I h-------------°--- I Fla ~` "' }' _ \ ~ ~I- 1/ ~• F i± ~ / ~~ f 1'~.lt T-W F-W Fil Fit Fil Fa+ F.s1' (.~ CJ ~ I ~ ^ 4 F-Ir ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ \~ a Puki^ _ f' ~' 1 F~Fa ~ ~ ~ l • r I I F.dz Y=dl !.p F-W T~SI F-l1 i.l} F=w F~}} F~Jb F-17 A•l S4 r,,n F ~ ~ F ,~ v w E ,. F:ID E.r~ E-n F-n F-M M17! F.76 r-s•~ ra i'J ~`~ 4 / " ~ P-a / ~ ~~ _ / ~ FA ~ jII~II ` ,' } ~ l'i I C } 1`y. •_ C.`. F•3 ~ Ei II F•] ~ FS ~ F-, C~n l5 1 ~ \ ~ ....> ~1~1 ....` _ _ ~ - `/ 4 , .--o...~~~~«~_..____J 1 C~ L J I ~~ 1 1 3 1 ' ~ »~~ i ti C, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \. ~} ~ ~ ~ ~ S~ ~„ ~~~ i-d ~ '~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ W'aiG, Calarado WD ASSOClA7FS, INC. ~°~ ^^~~ - M~ February 4 5, ~OOa 's tmlwmv F.agx}F.rr,Fae -.. -~ Pod Mecfiankal • AND A55(JCIATES, kNC ~~c,.]rcna¢ . ~~ . IMnnn ~ F.Qplr 15H ALfM. CSA@9AO(i ~5p4 iB ~pRI FYSmfa F.y pq Natm __ __ _ _ _ J v,. .. _ Q~ ,r i _ _ ~c~ F s , ~ ~ , ~, ~ , _ Sup 'eL~ } v=- !~ £ Fa r a 1 r x j e I~ Fez r-~s ~ r~ , Fps c ~ ~ ~ ~ -.~• ~ . k 1 ~ II ~ ~ T ~ ~,. -- 4}}l5 c-u ~ ~ ~ 8 1 F ~„ I --- qF ) I 1y R ._ ~ F~I{ F-IY i FIG F3~ F~]2 F~i3 €-N F-35 £16 F~3'i ] r 1'l ~ ~~~ - ~ 'ti i' 10 ~ _ ..... ~ ~n~ f 1 FA F II ~ F-IB F-i9 F-1L F 21 f-]l F-:] f-21 G 15 G.i6 F 31 F :» ~~~ }yl'y yam.. fR r` 4 ~ ~` ~~, r-n ~ \ \) ` 4 r..~.. , ` ~ ` ~ , 1 _ I.. .~ `..dr...ti I (> k c s co ~. c F }1 ~ r-.z F~s F~ ra F~z F-I c~r ~ u J~ i f~ ` y ,..' ..., ~ <ii /iii ~~o ~ ~~~~~ ~~~c~~ Vail, Colorado February 15, 2iW0 s 1 1 ~ J ~'s y~~ ii ~ 1 ti f~ ~ -- --=~ - - •,~~- .~,-- ,, , ~,,~ ~~ I ~, I ;; ~ ~. SI ~ 8dnw ~ ~ ~, >~ ~~ Ballroom @~low r ~ ~~~~ , I~ i~~ ~II ~ I ,,` ~~ ~_ __ ., ,1 :.. (ir-nip `~ ~ .~~.~ t~--- 1 Fmn[otnae 1 ~ l {~ - ~~~ ~ - .. Raies~ one / 111 l 1~i !J~_ L J ~~} ,~_~ ..... ,.:.,. ~ ~ u " ! catty - i 2 ~, i ~~ti. ~~~ ~ } , ~ . I I~ '~ ~, ~ ~ ltetau two O ~~~ t , ~+ ''~ ~ ~ '. I ~an~& '` _ ~ ~ { ~~ ,..~.. ,.. ... ,.a... ~. A ~r~, ~ ~ G~ , ~a ~ ~.. I P ,..,". ~~o-~~~.~ ,wo -ssocures, irvc. ~~--o r.oaax irx Area amrnnm nw m ~+++ma rasmsro-ran _ .- f S-- /. i 1 l / r I f 1 ~ !! ~ ~ ~ I ~,,.` r~l L__ mss`~-~ ~~10d ~Q~17~~1 ~~~~~ Vail, Colorado February 15, 2000 ~ ~ ~~ ~~I vi ~ ~' ~~` ~ r~ ~~ ,t ~~~~~~~ nrao tissocures, in€e. .~~_w~ ~,o.eox im rupa aoicxroo uue to avem.sam FAx~y~nim f~l 3~~ s~.~..,~ a s a a zx ~ ~ ti z~~~~~QC)~a ,, y ~ 4 o~R~"~ ~ ~ ~~o~a~o a ap C~ t~ C) ~ t ~~~z3t~ ~ ~, ~, Gallery '„7a ~ ~~~V ~` ~, i,nn. , J ~ (~ ~V~' C~ FiJ t v /~ ~ ~,; U Oo ° 00 Rs~aii O~cn J{ ~ r~~, ~ " i. f ~ a3 t;cla~r Il ~ jj ~~~~ _ -r-. ,l ~~ ~ ~ ~I I ; ;~' ,; ~~~ l ,!r .~ ~:~ .~-. r ~~::. -______~ a.. 4~ iQ _~ ~, - - . .~_- ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~c~D Vail, Colorado February i 5, 2{H10 _~ ~~~~~-] ~ A LSS..tL~ .... t ~t r~ AND ASSOCIATES, INC. -~~. Ra1011 lilt I~N]M, 4'lOR1ee ~~i]0 lg lRi 9lfClJl IN QlafM101e ,~. _ ~~w.. ... ~ . ~n ... ~ EF E} V~~~~~JL~1 ~ -v ,Erie EHe Building B Eh I~~L. Selvlce CmrFdar F rl EPernpcap ~~ Open n Rertsuwtt I ~ ~elaw 1 ~ ~ 1 ~~ a ~ [~ ~ ~~ ~ [~ ~~ Cl Vapl, Colorado February 15, 2000 ~/ ~ ~ AtJ~ ASSDC3ATE5, IIVC. .ur~ranre - rwrwHC - xridxMa m ar;~frsaur rnv ~rwff+smw ~~~ D [~~~~~ ~~~~Q Vail, Golarado February 15, 2D00 `\ ~~~ ~ :. ~ R ~ ~ ~~ ~~__ L ~~~~~~ AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ~:oWY iAi AWH, COItSGMJ /IfM !fl pTp MY415) fwY p)pfti4tl~ i ~.~ ~ 8~ ^ „ ~~~~ ~d~~~ f~~~~~ Vail, Colorado February 15, 2000 ~( I~ 1 I ~ ~ ~ i _~ ' ~ I %` - 'h ti b ~~ ~p~--- ~ ~ I ~, 1 ~ ,, ~+ ~ ~~l _: 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ i 1 1 = --, ~ ~--W ~ ~ - ~.., ~ `t '~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ • J __ _. a --- I - ~ -- ~ __ r__, ~~ ~t ~1 ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - 4 ~ ~ , i.u~ a~.~~. vraain. -~ --- M ~ -- -- , --~, } ~ti - ,~ a~ ~f L htJ[l A550CU1TES, 1NC. rtuwmu.e - n.w.uc ,even m rm,»aaa ~wcrosw~e~a ~~o~ ~~~~~ ~~~t~~ Vail, Colorado Feb+uary 15, 3QQD 1 ~ I ~ II~ ~ ~~/' ~ ~ L ~~~«i~~~ nrru rssoc~res, inc. ~nK~~ . ~~ . M~ enma .n. Awn oo~~AOO ~~w m ma HSOUt rw~oruw~ow S ~ __ ~ m ~. ~.~ ' I ~ 3 I 1 \ `~~o ~ ~Da~~~ ~1~~~~ Vail, Colorado February 15, 200D 1 ~° ~ ~~ 1{` 1 1 4`` 51 4 1 ~ Y ~Il 4 I 4 1 ~1 ~~~~~~~ AND A550CIATES, INC. .walrtcluu - r„u..awc - ~ravxKt fl]b0S 19)6.,546,. {y~a,tnp IIfiO ~RL G?S 11s W5) !nY ry)y 9uc.1 ole ~~ b __. - ~ -~ I L__I I I ~. ~ i ~~ ~~. - ~ ~ ~ , .. ~~ a D [~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ fl Vail, Colorado February ~ 5, 2000 "1 ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~4 I i i~~~ ~ ~ _ 1 c s} ~.f- 1 1 I I ~+; . -- . ~ ~ ~~ l ~ ~ -- ~~`. ~ 1 ~. ~ ~~ ~~~~.~~ AND ASSO~ATES, INC ,+.a.ienus - n.wwc - unvtou roioot un wart r..,.•,.~. nne 16 OT7llfWfi rAii!l~reYS01e ~. a~~e ~e ~e `..~, ~„ vii \ _ - ~ ~a~o D ~~~~~ [~-~~~~~ Vail, Colorado February 15, 2000 ~~~~I u c ` ---,,~r.X ~ I '~ axe n~~y='~- ~, i m ~_ _- ~ f .. _ -...~, 11 , W ~~ r _~` n ~~ ~~~ ~` ~~~`~ n: ~ ~ '~. I- ~ ~ - ' _x., _ _ __ a~ ,f . ~. A ~ =~i ,,. I .~i ~ ,~l~ _ w i r ~~~ ~ ~ _ ~, ~~ 1 ~ ~. ~oo n~fxifi I ` ~~ - ___ plan` 't \ ' „m~ ~ ~ ~ 1 _:_ T _. ~ ] ~.T. 1 ,. ~ _ -- ~~ <'~'. y ~ \ _ ~_ ~ III ~ I ..~ v - y~ ~- ~ ._ ~ _ ~ I, - - ~~ 1 _ f 1 , ~ ~ ,~~ -- _ ~xx.x„ .. f - ---~ __ _~ ~... - ~~C~(~ nNn nssocEhres, intc. ~. -, .~~ x.>+ nwv, r~n~nn .f.m Rm nom wsaua rwy mol~aiou ~~~. ~ ~^~ ~ \, \ ~,. ` .._ v~ ..1se \~ ~ ~~ ~ 1 1 O `~ I~ Z ~- t- ~P ~; ~ ~i `yllu, l~~F x~x~-.rte `~ ` 1 ~ `. ~, ~~ vy `~ K -f ~~~~ ~xe n~_ .~ ~ - if I ,,., :,,. ~s f•~M~ ~, - j ~~ - - - -~ .,.:.,, ` I ~ I !! w -~_ ibxi ~ f,in3h .!-frrvi -- , - ` ' -- ~_ -_ - _ .p~~ .%~`~~/~ ~~o a ~'~~~~ ~~~~~ Vail, Colorado February 15, 2DD4 ~~ I ~ \ ,~ I I , ,,.; ~~~ ~ i w, ~• ~ ,.a„9i - ~•. ~ Cp~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~, ~ ~ }„ ,., _ ~ ~ ,`` 1 ~. _ti ~ '.~ ~ _ ~ ~_ ` • s 1 1 ~, , }III ~-_~ _ _ ,(•141, ~ ~ II ` JJ ` -_- 311"I~ __ r. ~ ~ i-_ - ~ 1 _ ~--- _ .... _ ~ I - _ - -- ,,,%- - __~' i~i~ l - II} - _ ti_ / ~ ~ l III}-_ S irlir, I ~_-, -- ' 111'II i _ ~ ~- & ~ _ 1 1 i..,u. I i u 1, ~` _. --f ~Il~i~, ~ ~ ~. _ i _ -~ ~- ~ ~ ~., ~~0 0 C~~~~~ ~~~~0 ~ e ~- ~a~o0~ Vail, Caiarada ~ D ASSOCIATES, IND. ^~+^~ • M~ Febnzary 15, 2a0a OII 4Wi A4011 LAlCIAOO I1 LIP Iltl PKN.11 IN } Iq s~f-t m - December 21 l O:DD a. m. March 21/September 23 1 D;44 a.m. December 21 12:DD noon March 211Seplember 23 1 D:DD a.m. } 1 ~ ~n ~ ,~ v;~ ~ '~ pia'"" Ili ~Ifir~~+~' s ~ ~. ~i ~'+ W 0 ;i t ~_ December 21 12:00 noon December 21 2:DD p.m. '~/Vinter S©Istice .~~ ~~~., tom, ~ v-~- ~s ~ r. ~~ S i ~ , -J t ..~.:.....~~ ' March 21/September 23 2:00 p.m. ~pringlFall Equinox ti,: ~~ Rte: P J~.. ^ , ..i - h r Winter Sa~stiee ~~~~~{~~ AND ASSOCIATES, INC. t6 b£q M?Yit) /.UE bN1 M41010 June 21 12:46 noon u., ~.," a .~~. .. C Summer Solstic€ ~~o ~ ~a~~~ ~~~~~~ Vail, CoEoracEo January 2D, 2®DO December 21 lO:OD a.m. f /r ~~ 7 c ~ c a 7I~~ ~ 1 { ~ ~. ~ ~ ~4 i 1. I _ ~ ~ - ~ s ~. . ,. _ :: ~ f( -., .: - - - (iATENAY S3UI1711110 I ,r ~` - ~ ~ ~ c RRp r _ ~ ~' ~.~ei J T~ ~.~. 'll ~ d { s - .. r ~ ` `` ~/'- ~-t-` ~ ~ ` i {.~~ -.rr L•.~~~. .'w :~`:'~ +'-fit S f ty ?. _ I~- ,2 ~ • _ l- .j, ! ~ u:nwi' ~~-~ rv ~<=.Ci:' -S ~'.1 t ~` •..YRlAG~.ltRi~kI.AZ _. _ ~_ _ V e 1 - ~ - t ~t yawl ~ -n} ~ 'sf 's YS3hSS 9Si i ~ ~~ ;.~+ ~- ~ ,i ~ 3All ~iILAGB U{SQ ,a„ f_ c `_•-7 - _ `~--f ~ ''~ r' ° a ' r ~ f 4~ i, ilS~~ Iiy ~ ' r.; s b~f'-- fj ~ ___ . ( ~ ~~ I o- q a ' 1. r i k -. ~. ~ :. . .. - `C ~ 1. $ i ~. ~ f ~~ - _ .. _ ._ a- ~4 ~ .. r ____ ~ ~ _" ~- _a - ~. ~- , ---z.; ~~ - _ r _ ~ _ ~ fl - = I kiibG~ SY I3' ~--- ~ ~ t}~]IAC~ lklt FI?2A~ ~, ~ ~ ~i~ t _ _ c . FIlASE T1' A A yIklACY X21 P >• j ~ ' ~' F~ AbSB 3I $ . _ - - - - ~ - r~ ~ s z s ~''~ ~ti~ ~ r `` i ?' ~ ~5 _ ,_ ~ ;I ,f 1 ~ r~J ~ ~u 1~~ r ~' ,~ L ^` ~ I L t ~ is i ~ ~ ~-, -. - f -~ ~. ; -{ ~'~-- ~ YSkSJ.(r Nei p1.ri~A , •,~- i y 1 E?Ti.VS>3 1 ,A; YA~ue~ 1x1{"~,ATA ~ r r ~,..-,_ ~~ t ~k~AS~ Y ~ ' ~ v~.ii.L~ ~}tx ~ r. YlZa•4G1S~ [?!x PEd7t 1 ! rj~ r s s ° i c ~, ~ s~'I!s«~ '~ ~ ~ 1~ ---.. _ _ ti [ ~_ - f1 [11 _ J T ft1 ~y~~JJ' ~~,~. J _ - k ~- ~ ~ i I i~ ex t o ~ )t ~~. 1.'i .. t . Vail Plaza Hotel zoning Analysis (Reuisea ~~2a~oo7 Lot size: 1.467 acres ar 63,9025 sq. tt. (Phase IV & IV-A only} 3.45 acres nr 150,282 sq. R. (AH Phases) Development Underlying 2oniag Standard of Publtc Accommodation Lot Area: 10,OOD sq.ft min. GRFA: up to i 50°ln ar 25,423 sq. it. dwelling unrss per acre: Site coverage: Setbacks: front: sides: tear: 25 dulacre {AWFFlJ1EHU unlimited) 66% ar 97,683 sq_ ft 20' 20' 20' Height: Parking Loading: ComrTiereial sq. footage: 48' sipping aer 7.O.V. Cods Section per T.O.V. Code Section 12-10-13 10°~5 of allowable GRFA. or 22,542 sq. ft. Existing Vail Vlllaae Inn 15{],282 sq. R. 83°~ ar 124,527 sq. R. (87,889 sq. ft. existing) {36,638 sq. ft. remaining) 24 du/acre 3796 or 56,188 sq. ft N!A NiA N1A 6B" sdopsng {Phase III) {,373 required at hu91d-out per flrd.) three berths Approved 1999 SDD Major Amendment 150,262 sq tt. 118% or 17fi, 910 sq. ft. {105,606 sq ft. approved) 12.'7 dufacre 62°.~ ar 92,637 sq. ft. .~~ D 1 5', 2', i~ 0' 5' 74..25' sloping 93.5° (arc#r. proj.) 256 par4dng spaces (218 new parking spaces] (d2 existing ~ Phase lilt five berths Revised 21700 Amendment I 1 S0, 282 sq. ft. 129 % or181,71 (110,415 sq ft 12.7 dulacre 61 °!° or 92, t}38 18' 5" 7225 siaping 99.75 (arch. pr 291 parking sp. (249 new parldi [42 existing Grn fve berths 31°,fi o#GRFA or 38,961 sq. 3. 26°f° of GRFA. or 46,124 sq. ft. 25°k cf GRFA c F:1e v a ry o n e 5p ec 4rne m a s 1wi xa t i Attachment C • Vail Plata Hotel Pr©po~sal Comparison {revised 2128100} The following table compares the 1998 Vai! Plana Hotel proposal and the recent 1994 Vail Plaza Hotel approval to the revised 20D0 proposal, Development 5tandardl Lot Area: GRFA: pweiling units per acre: Site coverage: Setbacks: front sides: rear: l-ieight: Parking: Loading: • Commercial sq. footage: Gross Building Area: Conference/ Meeting ~aClllt}I: Spa Area: 199$ SDD Major Amendment Praeosal 150,282 sq. ft. 133% Dr 2D0,46D sq. ft. 4129,156 sq. ft. proposed} D.29 dulaere (276 au} (15 ffu) (1 du} 62°~, ar 92,637 sq. ft. 1999 SC1D Major Amendment Auoroval 150,282 sq. ft. 117°.6 or 175,666 sq. ft. (104, 362 sq. ft. proposed) 0.29 dulaere (98 au} (44 ffu} (1 du} 62% or 92,637 sq. ft 12' g 5', 0', B' & 6' S', D', 2', & 5' 8' 5' 85.75' sloping 73' sloping 87.5' (arch.proj.) 73.75' (arch. praj_} 394 parking spaces 288 parking spaces six berths five berths 23°fa or 47,226 sq. ft. 26% or 46,124 sq. ft. approx.. 395,862 sq. ft. approx. 295,557 sq. ft. approx. 21,DD9 sq. ft. approx. 15,338 sq. ft. approx. 27,802 sq. ft. approx. 22,827 sq. ft. Revised 2400 SDD Major Amendment Praoosal 152,282 sq. ft. 121 % ar 181,719 sq. ft. ( 110,415 sq. ft. proposed} 12.7 dulaere 61% or 92,036 sq. ft. 16" 5', 2', & 0' 5" 77.25' sloping 99.75' (arch. proj.) 291 parking spaces (249 new parking spaces) (42 existing ~ Phase Hl} five berths 25% of GRFA or 45,228 sq. ft. F:leueryonelpeclmemaslpOlwi poi Attachment D • !I ~ l'Y,+ ~ 1 ~W ' l ! . Tuesday, October 19,. t 999 I~lr. George Rather Senior Special Projects Planner 'i c~wn of Vail Deparrent of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado S1G~7 Re: Vail Plaza hotel George: This is a wZ~tten description nf' off site impacts and Their proposed mitigation as requested by your latter dated 10/13199. A. Pedestrian Impacts -•Vail Road. We will be providing streetscape irnprovernents in accordance with the streetscape master plan for the eastern side of Vail Road ti•^om the corner of East i1~Ieadow Drive to the northern most property line of our site. These improvements include new "Village'" light fixtures and standards, cure and gutter, and asix-Foot wide brick paver sidewalk to match the color, pattern, and size of the existing sidewaik at East Meadow L7rive. Additional landscape tiWprovemet~ts and final sidewalk configuration will be provided in accordance witkr design review zoning regulations. B. Pedestria~~ impacts -- East Vie:adow llrive. The Vail Plaza Hotel is proposing to provide streetscape improvements in accordance with the stx'eetscape: master plan for the northern side of East lvleadow Drive lions the comer of Vail Road to the westernmost of the Vail Village Inn Please l~'~ structure to mitigate pedestrian impacts in this area. "I he proposed irnprc~v4znents inciucle replacement of the existing cube fc~stures with nevv "Village" light #zxtuses and standards and asix- foot wide crick paver sidewalk to match the color, pattern, and size of the existing sidewalk at the corner of East Meadow Drive and Vail Read. Additional landscape improvements and final sidewalk configuration will ye provided to accordance with design review zoning regulations. C. Pedestrian isnpae.#s - Snitch Fronta4e Road. 'I~he Vail Plaza Hotel is proposing to provide str-e::tscape improvements in accordance with the master plan for the southern side of tl~e South Frontage Road from t13e corner of Vail Road to tl~e westernmost curb of the ti°ail Village Inn Phase V driveway to mitigate pedestrian impacts in this area, The proposed improvements include nezv "Village" ?iLht fixtures and standards. curb and gutter, and asix-foot wide bric;t paver s;dcwalk to :Hatch the. color. patters. and si2c° of the existing SideS.valk at alons~ the South f=rontage Road. 'additio~7a1 aandscape iis~provem4:~ts anti final Vsidewallc configuration •4vilI '~~e provided in accordance with design revie.v and other applicable zoning regulations as well as i;olorado Department of Trans~or:ation. D. i'eeiestrian rmpacts - Sc~utli F'rc~c~tage Road. Tl~e Vail .I'ia'za Hotel is proposing to provide streetscape improvements n accordance with the :Waster plan fiar the southern side of the Scotts Frontage Road from the easternmost curb of the Vail Village Inn Phase V drive:vav to the ~~•estemmost corner of East y(eador~v Drive (Crossroads] to mitigate pedestrian :rnpacts in this area. The proposed improvements ~~zclude white concrete standard curb and gutter, and asix-foot wide, four-inch. thic:~, reiaa},'orced. ~vlaite concrete sidewalk, These improvements specifically exclude utility reiacation. e:agineered structures l'nr retai~-ring earth or support of the sidewalk, handrails, .-.; C'..; ii :.. ~ .i!. ._'~~`J idii~ri_. =!i`.i i ~11!r.: k', yl_. :'.i ::+~'.I'L .~4K:..a i L -. r- "~' ~ ~ , I M Tuesday, October 19, ] 9~9 i1~Ir. George Rusher Senior Special Projects Planner Town of Vai] Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage .Road V"ai], Co$orado 81 X57 Re: Vail Plaza Hotel George: This a final written statement as requested by your letter dated 10/13f99 to address design criteria A through I as outlined in section l g.~10.©80 of the town code:. It is our understanding that these nine (.9) criteria are to 'be used in evaluating the merits of the Vail Plaza Hotel, the final phase of the Vail Village Inn Special Development Distr:ict° • A. Design Campatib~lity. We believe that the hotel is designed in such a way that is both compatible and sensitive to the environment, neighborhood, and adjacent propeties. Setbacks are consistent 4vith urre underlying zoning in that they maintain an average ot- twenty feet +~ (Z{i') from most adjacent properties to the prirnary building walls. Additionally. the stntcture maintains setbacks consistent with adjacent properties along bot,'a the Frontage Road and Vail Road. Ivlass and bulk are sensitive to adjacent structures in that the hotel is designed to step up in height and bulk from both the street and adjacent smaller structures in order to maintain a comfortable pedestrian scale while maintaining consistent heights with adjacent structures roof Tines and ridges. Additionally, we have pErrposefully hipped most of the roof forirts at or along public streets and plazas to provide a consistent bulk plane at street 1eve1. The stepping and broken ridge lines, along with variations in materials and wall planes act to break doyvn the overa$] mass and bulk of the project and relate the hotel to the surrounding neighborhood. The architectural deli ~ is meant to be both compatible with bath the iateway building acrd t17e remainder of the special development district r~vhile providing some identity to the hotel as both a recognizable and viable commercial structure withizr the conrmunity. B. L'ses, Density, and Activity. The Vail Plaza Hotel is the last phase of the ''ail Village Ilan Special Development District and as such was altivavs meant to be the anc]7or or most densely developed portion of the district. Asa ~.?]1 ser~vice hotel ~x°hich includes conference. spa. restaurant, and vot;tmercial activities, the hotel meant to act as a ~`:rtagnet" that dr°aws people throu~~lz the other smaller, cornmercial based structures in the special developzxre:at district, (including Jle Gateway building). Additionally, the hotel is legally rewired to pracide loading and delivery see y~ices, autoanobile access, and parking for the re.~nainder of the special development distnct, C. Pa,rlsang and Loading. W°e believe our parking and loading facilities are in compliar~ce with the requirements of chapter 15.5?. We are providing six {C~), 1„ :c 5'x 14' unde:~n-ound laadurg berths. The maximum required is ii~-e (~) ? ~' x Z5' berths in accordance with 1 ~.5?.150. We believe our parlcirtg facilities meet required number of spaces required by zoning chapter 1 x.52. :°,~C_:'fits.?IJlit:^}''~_,\flii.ii'.jd.a.,Ir sEri;i.!tt_A?.,~h~i.;`,~..-~"t.'~.i%~.?~!i!_<.?'.!u[. ^, _ ~~.r!. I~ - ~, -iwi.q ~..;ilr3i_..';t~ ';~~r~~. • _ I ~d.L":! ,,_ . r.-1' ~~: :Lfa, 11..".t,; e Vail plaza Hotel 9b]070.UU Ze?uen and Aesociares. I11L'_ 1 DI19ii}9 G. PedestrianlVelaicufar ~Clrculatiarr. We believe we have addressed this issue b~ con~nliance with the Vail Village Master f":an. A~3ditionally, traffic studies indicate that vehicular cizculation patf~etns are cnnsiciered safe and have tolatively Zittle irr~pact on existing vehicular circuiation syste;ns, H. Functinnaf ant# Aestftetic Lanriscapnb. 1~ie believe we have addressed this issue by compliance with the Vai] Village Master Plan. Additionally, we believe we have substantially improved on the amount and quality of public]y aceessibie plazas, b~rc:enspaces, anal pedestrian circu]ation systems. f. Pfiasir*g Pfari. 1']~e development 4vil] be constructed in one p}lase with completion anticipated for ]ate fall c~i' 2t)p 1. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions nr concerns regarding the information presented. .additiorafly, if~ you need anv additional information, please do not hesitate tc~ contact zne. Sincerely, i `F Tire. I.asa Project ylatnager Le}u-en and Associates, Inc, IrI1' 1~ N ~~~.;,: ~. • VIE1N CORRIC3URS (ELEVATIQN 1=RQM FRQNTAGE R BUlLa'NG PRGFILC FDLLL7J~lS C~NERAL BOIM_ ShfAPE GF VALLEY FLCXSR ~ u BUILDING MASSING (VI~.LAGE CC}RE SECTIC~N1 ~~ ,~., ~~ Z ~ N F2 E ~3 ~, ANb A5S7 IkT+S, IIJ C 1 ~ n~~ r a ~AA411i11.41YN4 b~ - ~M, CaaW OWA • ~~1~ p~~Z~ ~U~~1 August l3, I999 P ' may' r z ul a' tr I £iY`~ I : . al y: ~I 3 ,~. ~ ~ , l ~ 1 . F' h . ~ .:~ ~~ is ~ lsi .. L~ ~ Fl R ~ I"d , 41Np ~ 41tl4 A954GIA7E IhIC k ~ ~ cc.iuus r~14• w ~~1 ~'~~~~ Hot~~ ~~1Yr~lYl~l~q" ~Zq ~~~9 • • • F '~ t~ ; I ~r< ~$ j Y r.' yak .., ~~'I'.. M1 AIVO AS3[YLIA7E`u IN4 Z E H R E N ~1~ .~`l~Z~ .L..LO~~f~ ~~. ~~,. ,,: .~ R ""°"` August 13, :[999 ~~~~ . Z E H Ft ~ IV .~y AW6 AS$OI.IhT E9 `hlu,L ~. ~ Nn a:41s~±dai ~o,o~«,~N,~ ~, ~w,y • ~i~ [P~~z~ ~~:o~~~ N~vem~be~° ~2~ 1999 • • rt ~°4 ~:~. nno asscu~inrES iwc. ~N~M., ,~ Augr~st l:i, :1999 f~j# , Al'!O A580 CIATE S.rvyYi iC .~ z ~ ~ a E'~r~ ~~i~ ~~i~Zc1 ~Iot~~ v~ `;, ,.~ November 22,1999 .,. Z ~ H I~ E fV ,atio assac~tiTes. irro. 4 ~~, LnwlS_hue ANCliI I41tL • ~~Y~ ~`~~Z~ HQ~~~ l~lt~llSr 1 ~g ~ ~~~ a~~9 ~~L ~.~ ~ E 9-1 ~ F ~ ANTI AS SU 1.10.1 G' I~h°C; I' I. > i c.. mwr s~ . ~ I °~, ~. ~.~,.~ • ~i1.Pl~~~ ~lot~ ~iov~t~tb~r° 22, 199'9 • ~~ _ ,, ~~ ,.err-t~~r~ +iwna .met NlVlli ~~.~. Na. ~~-: ..~~..n~ ~ ~ ~'~~1~~ ~~~~~ August 13, 1999 r ~ ANO ASSUUIR fE&INe_ K ~ ~ R: I i' ~iut. ~ P LL k~ ~+o~ LLty 4iUlr~loMy• Grit ,~-. iR,, ~TD~v"~~ml~~~' 22, X999 I AI! $ ~ht ... jp ~f Z E H f7 E N q~ AML 15fi5OCIh7Es 11dC q~ uns ~ rani • Y Y. ~r •iT6,• ~"~ y J'~ . iPJ:I s2~ 'N y ~ ~ v j• ar T~ ~~; ._ ~ r' a ~ ~~~ , . ~ . ~, 5 4 i~~tl~ .~'l~za l~ot~l ~1.C1~41~~ l~~ ~'~~~ '.i i-d.'ia6. iNA'!L+~~ A ~. S ~y Y S I fr ~. .:~t Z E ~-E R E N y AN1' A850G A7 ~5 1NC u v c ~nrv - rc-vr~ ~'t. q ~f M~ ~ ,.~ ~ ~, -..~. ,. ~ ~~ ~ y ~.;_._ .~ ~_~ .~_ ~; y ''~~~~ 1'~a~a ~-htel Nod~mb~r 22, 1999 • • • x,~i~,;;,, Z E H R E~ l~i AfJd .h_5 OCk1TC5. i1VG. ~," i ,min ~ re ~ ~ u uP.~ ...~~ti, i ~;' ~~~ 1'~.~~a ~Iot~l Aa~~ust 13, 199 ..~,, a ,~ E H R E iU p n~uu nss < iai ~. iHc ~ 1~Tf IR-,ic, 05 h ~ R {pi{y;w64; 1 .D Y p~ er6 "~ . ~.~~y ~~~~ ~~~Za .~Ot+~~ ~+1~v~mber 2,1999 • , ,. , ~. ::. ~~ .. ,~ t ~` ,. ~., .. . ,~ . • • F ~. _ ~ 1 ~~ ~ ~~ ,§ [ } , r' . a ~ ~ r ~_ ~ ~ ao u « i .. . ~a .. z~i~~EN a~~ a~~~~FN,g:~ ~~~. ~~~,, y~ 6. Ry6yN W G Iw'~ F ~ei~.e LE~/:{=r~.ie..i. I\!~~ ~~ uNlnWrtemo ~~~ .Pl~z~. ~-Ivtel l~®~ven~ber 22, 1999 ° ~r.~ ~~ F ~ 1 i s 3 ; ~ F ,1 Y 5 ~+'t- S, #' d r t,< +1 . F •~ -lac ~ . C, d u x t` l k 3'~f ?~~ r a A:. ~' ~ hl J~, i ~~ ~ _ i . npvMy. 5 ~ - t ~. ~, ., r _ ~. .~ .._ 'rt . ; ~ 3l; i ~ t ~~' v~d ,. x.~ .~;s: Z E }{ R ~ N ANG ASSOCIC.Y ES. ING. n ron +p~~,~~'+'A° ,ue Vail Pima Hotel ~1I~U5f 1 ~9 1 ~49 • • • 4 FIVU ASSOLIkfES INC. ~' _ xw . ~,. ~~~ p 1~ll~ll5~ ~:~~ M.94~ .....,,a..~~na.s ~,f~z~w ~; Z f-_ ~-! Ft ~ 1~3 ~ nrvn as^.o~inres irv'. 1 ~ vepi;,~,v;..„, i~~8~~;~~~` ~' ~ty,.~ • '~~i~l 1'~~~~ _i~~t~l • • • i~: ~~ ,;.:; ;; ~ ~ F~ R E N ANCI .YSSO{,IAT cS 1Wi: ua~nipx6Yp~.lvoS~•~'a .n~ .~,~~ ::~ ~i~~~ rria r...rJF~>e.~.u i.~n Imo. .. r~".i~~y ,~ s AING A~.' V,IRICS ItJ ~._ Z ~ ," ~~~t ~_ ~a~l Plaza Hotel ~- m ~ November 22,199 ~~:~. _, • ~ I 1 1 ~ JJ ~'' V ... J4 '.~ N~ ~,~, ~- I ANI A55U{IgTES INL' " ~ ~ " Veil Plaza ~vtel E,,,,tif NOV~iI]~eC ~~ ~ ~~~ e ..r''" ,~~.',~~ ssl~s,aad' ~ w~,.~,,~ 'L~J '~i II .: ,. ~E°~ ~ ai i ~~V,: Z E K R E~ AF1^ h$$OCIATE S, INC ii~l ~~. i~~ nllf~w v[..n~i~NlCtuRC .,~~e.,w,,,., • Vail Plaza Hvtel ~ONGi11~1Q1" ~~~ l~~'~ • ~, ~;:.. -, • r ~ ~, ,~.~: I FNO A~ U(IAT~S INC z E tI R.. E.,. ~ !` L~l~ 1 ~~.Z~ ~~t~~ ,,~ ws ~:~~ W,aao,~., Novenil~cr 22,1999 f' `~,! a, ~., Z E H R E N a~a assocrnres, iNe: ~~~rcrmxs n~.u~„s~nN wn.~.i ~.~ • '{¢~Ic~ ~- ' ~ r ~ar~~~ ~~ ~ :::., ~, 'V~~~ Plaza Motel ~IOV~Iti~l~r ~2~ Y ~~~ • Attachment R BAILEY & PE ~ ~RS4N A pROFE551QNAL CdRI'oRATION A'rraluv~rs A~r Law WBSTSTAR BANK BLDG. LSNCOLN CENTER 208 SOUTH FRONTAGE ItOAD'fNE'sT, SUITE 204 1660 LINCOLN a ~ xnr. i, SUrrE 3195 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 DENVER, COLORADO 80264 TELEPHONE (4711) 475-0042 TELEPHONE (303) 837-1660 FACSIMILE (97'0) 476-0049 FACSIMILE (303) 837-0097 MEMO~RANDiTM TO: George Rather FROM: Jay K. Peterson DATE: October 19, 1994 RE: Vail Plaza Hotel Dear George: 1~©. SoX 449 424 ED~AItDS ACCESS IfOAd, SUITE 203 EDWARDS, COLORADO 81632 TELEPHONE (970) 976-3255 FACSIMILE (970) 926-9248 The purpose of this memo is twofold. First, to set forth our employee housing proposal and, second, to explain the fractional fee concept. 1. Emnlovee Housing. Attached to this memorandum is our Vail Plaza Hotei staff ng requirements set forth by departments. The chart I believe is self-explanatory. As you can see, rather that foil-time versus part-time, we have used work fours per year which I believe is a mare accurate way to calculate staffing requirements. `7Ve have calculated our existing staffing requirements the same way, in order to arrive at a net increase in employees for the ne~v hotel. This net increase. is 105 employees. Our proposal is to provide housing for 30% of these employees. Ideally, from our standpoint, we would like to provide all housing within the Town of Vail. However, because of limited opportunities within the Town, we would request the option to provide the housing outside the Town limits, if necessary. The numbers would be the same whether inside or outside the Town. 2. Fractional Fee. The Vail Plaza Hotel will contain forty-seven dwelling units which will be operated and managed by the owner of the Vail Plaza Hotel The hotel would sell a maximum of twenty-eight prime winter and/or summer weeks with the hotel managing and operating those weeks for the owners. The remaining twenty-four weeks would remain with the ownership of the hotel and would be managed and operated the same as the hotel. There would be an obligation that the weeks remaining under the ownership of the hotel be avaiia6le only as a "short-term rental," the same as any hotel room. The number of owners would lie limited to a rz~inimum of six and a maximum of twelve, pursuant to zoning requirements. If you have any questions, please call.. Tay K. Peterson Attachment vN~i 5 r Arr tpermanent ana seasonar~part-trmej 1 A VPH FUNCTIfJNS by department 3 Lodaina tha#el 84 Cluhl 4 _ general Manager 5 Assistant manaq_ er 6 Guest relations 7 Front Office 8 Concierge 9 Bell man _ --- - 10 PBX 11 Reservations 12 Sales ~ Marketing ~ 13 Accounting ~ 14 Housekeeping supervisor ~ 15 maid service ~ 16 Engineering ~ 17 ,.Garage ©peratians . ......... ... 18 Lodging {hc~tet 8- Glub) `9 Food ~ Beverage {FB~B) manager+hast ~1 waiters+busboy(1;3 waiters] 1 22 bar-- _ 24 Roam Service: - 25 Faod 8: Beverage {F8~B~ 26 Conference Center 27 Healm ClublsPA 28 reception 29 up keeping 30 therapist 1 C n 0 # e 1 I - - 2 - -~ 19 --- ; `- i 3 4$~2 d , E 'ERMANENT STAFF wank hOUFSI Perma- ~ year = nent 40 staff. hslweek rnplayees, x 50 (note 1) ~ wk/year 1 ~ 2, 004 ---- 4~ _ _ 8,000 2: 4,000 8~ 16,000 2! 4,000 2~ 4,aoi7 -- ~ 3 ~ 6,000 3 6,000 4 8,000 _~-_~ , 6 12,000 2 4,000 __ 15 30,000 __ _ 9 18,000 3 6,000 64 '! 28, 000 3 6,000 13 26,o0a 3 6,{100 -~ _- 16~ 32,000 4 5.000 39! 78,000 3 s, 000 4 - _ $,000 a s,aaa 10 20,000 Wage 1 F ~ G ~ H SEASQNAL PART-TIMi= HBLP ' I ~ ~ maxi- ' work mum ' hours peak ~ work per days ~ hours peak per per day, year ' i year _ 1 2 4 1 92 i 92~; 92' 92 92! 736 4,416 1,472 40 - f~ 92 24 92 16 92 _ i 1s~ 92 40! 92 8 i -~ -92 16 92 ~ i s2 16 - 92 16, 92 16 I 92 i 31 exercise room - 2 4,000 32 Health CIub/SPA 2 20 40,000 f 33 Retail (3 shops 6~ 12,000 34 GRAND T(]TAL~: ~ ~ ~ 132 264,O1~O 35 hoursfyear % - ~ - - -- - - ~ 1 Q{~°la 464 i 2,000 36 Average part time help work hourslpeak day ~ ~~' ~ ~ 37 Qne full time work hourslyear ~ ' ` -- - 3g Total part-time equivalent to full time ~ ~ 5 ~ 21 ~ i 39 Grand Total full #ime equivalent 153 40 Average hours/part time employee/peak day ~ 6 41 Number of part time names =(avg hs.per peak day)!(hs/da 7 1165 notes ~ -- 3 --- 43 continues - - _ ._.___ _ --- _ _ ---- - _ e 44 45 -- i 4° 92 3,680 _ 2,20 1,472 17,664 1,472 1,472 7,360 ~ s,z4$ 1,472 1,472 2,..944 1,472 42, 688 16% 42,688 VYH ~ I Af-t- (permanent ana seasanavpart-;ime~ Page 2 48 47 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 S7 58 59 fi0 61 62 63 64 65 68 _.. A ~ B C~ -_D I E I F~ C I H note 1: includes "day ofif' coverage were applicable. note 2: Maid service is based on ~ 10 occupied roomslmaid. Minor occasional fluctuations in demand (less than 1 Q[?% occupancy) will be covered with overtime of the pernnanent staff. note 3: Occasional large banquettes wilt be serviced by the Conference waiter staff and the two shifts restaurant and kitchen staff in over time. ~ 1 _ _ ~ ~ - note 4: Same therapist may cover more than 1 of the 14 treatment roams for some treatments. note 5: The total 42,fi88 seasonal work hourslyear divided by the regular one full time employee 2,000 hours_/year is = 21 equivalent full time _ - _---- ernpioyees, Hate 6: it is a typical hourslpeak day of a part time helper. note 7: it is the total part time "names" on the pa roll. Eviden#ly depends an the average part-time hourslpeakday VPM Ivet equiv VVl increa- Employee Totals VPH WI equiv." se full time - 132' ._._ . - --- 132 42 42 part time 11fi Z1 32 7 _ total 248 1 S3 74 49 1 Q5 * part time at same ratio as VPM . ~ ____ ~~ - -^- ~_ ~____ VPH STAFFING iS BASED ON THE F©LL~WING I I ~ 67 !Club uses ' mate units ,units _ ~~ ~ '.units } Club ~ - 8 ~ units ~ - - i~ Club YEAR occupancy _ _ ~s/occu led unit „ ~,~.,,~,.~ p t. - 71 Hotel + Club population 9 - persons 1 72 maid service occup rms/maid I 73 _ _ walk. in for lunch or dinner 10 customers/functionlday 74 Restaurant ~ bar 1 "I sf ~ 75 _ kitchen ~ 11 sf . 7s -- Conference 11 - sf _ 7l Health CIubISI~A i 11 __ sf 78 --a _ Retail r 11 ___ sf 79 8d highest demand for restaurantlday 81 _ - note lunch dinner " 82 hotel & Club guests 12 1 1 'per 83 serves/function/day 48 48 ~ quant. I. 3 nights stay. • • ~ 84 Walk in customers/functianlday _ 85 serveslfunction/day 10 _80 erslfunctionlday _ 88 Total serveslfunctionlday,. ,, , ~ ,,, ~3 ~ 728 128 ~ 13 sera YP y eslwaiterlfunction breakfast is buffet t e, served )} the same lunch staff. 88 note 8: pHoptel & Ciub are stp ed as a unified o eration p y p p.--- - -- I - - 89 ~ note 9: o elation for the s ecified number of units, occu a_nc arsons/roam. (90 note 10: all hotel restaurants off the main pedestrian traffic (Ludwig, The Villager, etc.) rarely (if ever) achieve a high 91 walk in demand.This I 801serveslfunctian/day is a very high assumption. 92 note 17: all these uses are staffed Lased on real demand and not based on sq.ft., or seats or any other parameter. ~ 93 note 12: It is established in the business that the restaurant at the hotel never captures more than 1 lunch - ~ - ---- - r 3 ni hts sta It is art of nests ro ram to dine out in _ 9 Y• p g P 9- 05 an 1 dinner per o#her restaurants. Vail is plenty of Chase. E 9fi Hate 13: The low ratio of 13 senreslwater/shiftJday indicates that this staff can serve 97 more than 2 times this demand. I ~ MAXIMlJM HOLIDAYS AND i='EAF( WEEK ENDS • • 1999 days! daysl`~eak !days holidays winter holidays wk.end total Veterans 11-NOV 3 ~ 1 &Nov - Thanksgiving 25-NaV - 3 2-Dec ~ - _ 5-Dec _ _ 16-Dec cnristr~tas 23-DeC -_ 7 ~ - NewYear 30-Dec 7 6-Jan Lutfier K 13-Jan 3 - - - 20-Jan -- - 27-.Jan ~- - _~_.~ ~ 3-Fe4 - - ~ _ ~Linc,Val,Pre 10-i+eb 3 - IAsh 17-deb 3 24-Feb 3 ~ ~ 3-Mar 3 ~ 1 D-Mar - - 3 St.Patrick _ _ 17-Mar. 3 24Mar 3 --~ --- Good Fri 31-Mar 3 _ 7-Apr ~_~..... _ winter total ; ~ 35 12 ~ 47 s~., w ~,, ~~:r - IndePendence ~,tu1' 31 - - -- -- $-Jul i 3 ~ _ 15~-Jul 3 2Z~Jul I 3 ~ _ 29-Ju1 ~ 3~ S-Aug 3 summer total 3 15 -----~18 1 A~-Apr --- - ~- -- 21-Apr - 28-Apr _ - - Mother"s 5-May . ~Armeci Fore 12-May _~~ _ _ 19=May Memorial i 26-May 2-Jun GrandParen 9~lun Father's 18-Jun _ 23-Jun ____ 12-Aug - 19-Aug _ _ _ 26-Aug 2-Sep 9-Sep __ Yom Kipur 16-Sep 23-Sep ~ -- ~ ~-__ 30-Sep i Goi~mbus ~ 7-Oct 3 i - 114-Oct t Halloween ,' 21-Ock 128-Oct - 3i _z- 4-Nav I _ 18~ 9 ~ Year total ! Sfi ~ 36 U Attachment I Use Area Factor Dweiing Unit 5,499 sq. ff. >2,000 sq, ft. Vail Plaza Hotel Parking Analysis (revised 2128100) Table 1: A Comparison of the Parking Requirements for Phase !V Fractional Fee Club Accommodation Units Employee Housing Units '` Restaurant Retail Tawn Vail Plaza Hotel 62,816 sq. ft. 500<2,000 sq. ft.1~2,000 sq. ft. Tawn Vail Plaza Motel 35,818 sq. ft. 0.4 spacesfunit + 0.1 spaces1100 sq. ft. Tawn Vail Plaza Hotel Tawn Vail Plaza Hatel 4,799 sq. ft. 3,576 sq, ft, dooms 13,$46 sq. ft. • Town of Vail Requirement Vail Plaza Hotel Proposal Spaces 2.5 2.5 98 5g 75.4 75.4 a 0 1 space/8 seats Town 40 1 space/170.2 sq. ft. Vail Plaza Hatel 28.2 1 space1300 sq. ft. Town 11.92 Vail Plaza Hatel 11.92 1 space/16 seats Town 42.87 Vail Plaza Hotel 42.87 Subtotal (a) 270,7 258.9 Table 2: Existing Parking Requirements for Phases 1, II, Ill, & V Existing SDD parking spaces (Phases x,2,3 & 5) SDD Parking Deficit per Ordinance Previously applied multi-use credit 2.5°/a Parking requirement for Phases 1,2,3 & 5 Table ~: Total Parking Requirement for all Pharses of SDD #C (a + b -existing spaces to rerl~ain) x multiple use credit = Town of Vail Requirement (270.7 + 191.7 - 42) x 0.9 = Vail Plaza Nate! Proposal (258.9 + 191.7 - 421 x 0.9 = `Employee parking is factored into existing requirements 112 75 4.T Subtotal (b) 191.7 brand Total, 378.4 367.7 f ~leveryonelpec~memos10~1vphpark Attachment J TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Vail Plaza. Hotel Prepared for: Zehren & Associates, inc. P.a. Box 1976 Avon, CO 81620 Ciient Contact: Mr, Timothy R. Losa Prepared 6y: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Greenwood Corporate Plaza 7951 E. Maplewood Avenue, Suite 20fl Englewood, CO 801 11 303172 1-1 440 Engineer: ~iolky A. Hefner Project Engineer: Chris ,J. Fasching, P,E. FHU Reference No. 98-174 Septerneer, 199$ • LEST OF E`ICUt~ES ~=a~e I V ~~.i nil/ IV1~~ , . - - - - 2 2. Site Plan ...................................................3 3. Est3rnated Existing Winter Conditions ................ . . ... ..... .... 4 4 . Trip d i s ~ r i is u t i a n .. . ........ . . .. . . . , ........ , . , ....... , .. , .. . fi E. Year 20 ~ 5 Baclcgra~nd Traffic Conditions . . ...... . ................... 1 fl 7. Year 2d~ 5 Total Traffic Conditions ... ... . .. . . .. . . , .. , , .. , ~ ~ LIST OE= TABLES 1. Existing Trip Generatiar~ Estimates .. ... . . . ....... . . ... . ... .... ..... . 7' 2. Proposed Trip Generation Estimates .. .. ..................... .... 8 C7 • f'TLSf3Ultc; ~'~ }I O i.'d' & ~~LI.EV]C; North Vnll Ylaza H~lel.08-174 8724108 ~~ 1 • FEI,~I~L1RC1 l UI_LF'VI[; l~ North A {over;~ll rc~iinclat~o~rt L(AS) x PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes = PM Peak Hour Levu of Service .. Sfap Sign Vsll Plena Hatol 0817{ pr~g/gg • ~'`°- 1785 Z~ -' R ~St~R1S{Ed ~XfStl FL•L5~3URU ~~ II C~ L'l L~LI.EV[c_t ~~ ~f~ Narlh Valf Pleza kimlet @B-i7d ~75iFl9 ~rZt3ie 2 Proposed Trip Generation Estimates Land i,1 Euilding ~ ITS Tyne Code se Size Unit ~ AM In PAak C?ut four Tota! ?M In Peak Out Hour Total ~ In 1Neekday _ Dut Tflral Cando,' ~ 230 16 Rooms 2 5 7 5 4 9 .47 47 94 Townhouse ~ - Hotel 310 i76 I Roams -~ -- -p5 60 - 1'55 I 85 - -- 79 ~ , 5$ - 1 136 ? i 38 2272 Restaurant 83 "~ 9 ~ 1,OCC's 3 1 4 ~ 22 12 34 201 2171 4p2 I Sq. Ft. Drinking ~ 836 ~ 4 11,000's 0 0 0 14 7 2? I fig 69 138 ~ ! Specialty 814 Retail ° 1,OC0's Sq. F~, a fi 1 1 14 14 I 28 87 87 174 '~ Center Totals * Daily C}rinkincl Total f rom 75°~ o 104 f PM R 73 ~ ates 1 76 l 144 1 1 5 259 ~ i 541 Ll 541 3081 B_ Trip Distribution • The trier distribution estimates used in this ana#ysis are shown in Figure 4. These percentages are based upon the existing traffic data previous#y presented (Figure 3~, As shown, approximately 74 percent of the total site traffic is expected to be oriented fio and from the west through the roundabout. Site generated traffic was assigned to the adjacent roadway network per these distribution patterns anc# are shown in Figure 5. G. Year 20775 Projected Traffic Volumes Background Traffic Analysis of traffic #mpacts for a year 2015 scenaric requires projecting background traffic velumes. The projected background traffic was a resu#t of exponentially increasing the volumes by two ,percent per year. Year 2Q15 background traffic volumes and operational conditions are shown in Figure ~. Total Traffic The total year 201 5 traffic vo#umes ar€ shown in Figure 7, These volumes were determined #ay first removing existing site. traffic then adding the site generated traffic to the year 2015 bacfcground traffic volumes, As shown, the Frontage Road is projected to carry approximately 45Q0 vehicles during the PM peak hour in 2015. Trips attributable to the proposed Vail P#aza Hatei would comprise approxim©tely 6 percent of the tots#. • FE1_SC~UC~C7 ~~ I l c-~ C_'C~ & ULLEV 1~~ D {UVerall aoundabaut LQ5) -~ ~ ~~ t ~~ -- ~ ~-- u ~Y ~ _ # /~ --~i ~ ,, r `~ ~~~ ~ ~ .~~- 1850 ~i LEGENa XXSC ~ PM Peak Ffour Traffic Voiumes X = PM Peak Hour Levei of service • N 6 } *~ \ ~_ ~s~ r' -~ ~~ ~ :. # ~~~- 251 ~ 11 ~~ _' ti Backgro~ North , Vall Pleas Holes 9B~174 0128!86 40 *y i. f lII. YEAR 2D'15 TRAFFIC QPFRATIONS A. E3ackgraund Traffic The peak hour traffic volumes shaven in Figure 6 were used as the basis fior subsequent levels. of Service ccmputatians, and the results are also summarized in Figure e (worksheets are shown in Appendix C), The roundabout will operate at an overall LDS ©. However, the only movements that are lower than LDS 8 would be the south approach and right lane east ancraach. These movements are projected to operate at LDS C and F respectively. The LDS F from the east movement is a result of the high amount or` volume turning to the north toward I-70 and the North F, ar~tage Road. 8. Tota! Traffic The total Beak 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 LDS as the background traffic showed previously with the exception of the south approach which will operate at a LDS 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 LD5 F, Site generated traffic consists. of approximately ~ .2 percent of the total traffic entering the roundabout. Df the right lane east approach the contribution from site generated traffic is approximately 2 percent. No impravemer~ts were used. on the roundabout far 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 far 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. fUlinor modifications would need to be made to the island to provide far 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 L©S ,however, the delay time far this movement is improved significantly {more than 2b%). Construct a right turn deceleration lane into the site far 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 i 15 foot distance to slaw ar stop for a right turning vehicle. • 12 f i IV. C~NCLUSIC~NS ANC7 RFCOMMENDATIC3NS The following highiicht the significant findings and recommendations as a result of this traffic analysis: The total pro}acted trips consist of subtracting the existing 1042 trips from the proposed 3082 site Generated trips. Iwo roadway irrjprovements will be necessary at the rr~ain access onto the Frontage Road. The first includes modification to the center median to provide a storage area for vehicles turning ler't out of the site. This +.will allow for atwo-step left turn with less delay. The second is an exclusive right turn lane into the site for eastbound traffic. This exclusive right :urn lane will remove turning traffic from the though traffic lanes thereby improving safety characteristics. _ The raundak~out 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 ir, year 2fl 15. The auxiliary Sane east of the site for right turning vehicles needs to be extended west to fihe second access. This lane will be used for delivery trucks backing into the Site. This lane and the deliuery driveway in which it will serve should be designed to allow backing activity without impacting the eastbound through traffic. 'Physical separation shoo#d be considered between the through lane and the auxiliary lane where backing would be taking place. • 14 Aug- 18-98 09 _ 1?5A L5O#C]~nv~r postat` fax Note 7572 ;a ~~~ t~ ~~~r•! , "'^' • S ~ Y ~ I ~' ~ ~ Teleornna ~r31T1~rAg.'11S 303 ~33 1107 p.O1 Nc+. d Pages r] ?adars ~~ ~ i /l7 T,~„e r ~ _ ~ ~ f Cerxafy ~ ti (~~ \~ //\ \` ,r ~//r'p~ 1 ~y~`~(/~~~' ~ Jt~`! L/ l ww ~«~!~ ~ c:~rge Fix ~ IER(lIY]RP ! (~~ i--, ~ Ca@!ar pcr'~p ~~ ~~ ~ rlerum ' (]spasnrmr. ~ . `_ ~\ /. .,~, CSIINTER lIEASURES, £NC. site'Cade ~ 3 '~ PA&E: 1 N-S~t~tet~ !1A!N MALL R4kJNO-pB0U1 ~' F£Ll<: VAfL E-V~ SYrett~" ~`~ . Oircction~ Dir 1 DATE 811314& 1ItlE TOTAL 1740N 1]40ti I70 VAIL1f YA£LH YA1L5 PAILS :FRCN EE~RON iifRON WFR41~ fiEsIH CLA55IFIED jL£P ROA$T OFf ON OFr" ON OFD ON OFs- 4}F 4Ff 1:00 P~4 45f 14 62 ;8 143 L33 70 73 117 155 122 57 1.15 445 18 62 37 101 153 E5 84 £45 151 b2 79 130 1004 15 b8 38 43 i56 143 !Da 114 lLb 13 63 1~;5 970 14 69 46 48 15] 8E b1 174 124 105 b8 HR TUTAL 3428_ 61 261 ib3 391 594 34b 324 52Q 542 443 2b7 244 P!I 928 S ;7 49 84 f59 71 72 154 111 143 b8 Z:15 BL9 15 b4 40 77 '.29 65 42 110 116 104 6b 2:34 9t5 8 59 ;7 142 134 63 68 144 144 92 19 2:;5 959 18 64 40 Bb 144 fl4 86 152 113 94 bB HR TQ1Al 3b51 ;6 230 11b 3;9 5]1 293 268 565 ;84 343 28fl OAY TOT A: 774 101 491 334 74b 4176 634 547 1485 1022 836 541 PERCEt(T of i4iAL 1.4 6.5 ;.6 4.S P5.4 8.4 7.4 14.3' 13,5 11.4 7.2 e • ~J ~~ i x-~° x.~a __ -~ ~~ ~ , o o,~,~ ~a~p 2 ~ 5 ~ IL 2~uJ~ ~ ~I $. ~ t~~o~r 1 ~ ~ _ - ~o ..a a ~~ r .. 4 ~~±~L __ ...~_ U...m.7."... i.~` -Cr -.,. __..-. were .. ''-ter'; 4'Ii_vv=~=LV ~_ ~ ~ .._ _... . . --- ~ -i ~~~~~ts. (?~°ai Va=_ noac ;L-W) AcvAss 2 Majcr Strut ~irec_ion.... NS ~z*:cLh c~ Tirrr~ ~r:a~ VzaC... ? ~ r~i,.j ~nc~'o'St - . - .. ~~r Bute .._ a~a'ySis........ - - es/`25f°c ~Ch~~ w:nL.^.'_.`^°~3L;,~ix. - - - ...?~ciC '~:~t~3^ `?fiSL'ii.^. 'x+10-wc~r ..~.^.D-~.cR'rc_}8 i;3,L~i5~CL-~:9 Ncr..n~cu:~c ~ ~c~.:t:l: mound ! aass~r~unG W~.St:...OUIiG _ R ~ L _ ~ f L ~ T n i :~ -~ :~ No . Lar:~s ~ a ~. < a l a~ i 0 ~ a a o ~ a~ o < a 5to~/Yi°'c ~ hl ~i I VcZumes j 6~5 if ?c 530 ~ i ~, 11 Cra~° ~ a ~ Q 1 ~ a ~~~ ~ ~S~ I ~c~ S ~ .la ; ,ta ~.ia ~cust„~ent Factors +fehiC'~ ~; __~ c.a_ :o1Zow-~.n `?an~utizr fan i'~~} ~irne (t~7 i,2~t Turn Mayor P.aa~ 5.00 ?-10 ~_ghL "Carr, Miner ~aa 5.50 2.60 T:-.rcugr. Tray-_,. Mi:~or Road ~.ao ~.3a I.~wt "'ur : Mi.^.ar :~aac 5.50 3 -~G r.Cv - ~.':s_ _--_Zv,, _..~_~5~~__.,riS ~~5 ccSi ~.. _~ ~~~. . r."CC c3c= ;.?tZty_ _~,_ `~iCr..~Ur-!wt.:C~~_'S ~.. ~_ar_s_~^_~u__~a v;._-r.LS - `.ti- :. M=__. ~t;.;?S5 (.~-fiJ' ~~u~~ _'.~:ev.r'.g ~d^3.~.. La^~trl ar T~m~ ~= .....-VZ°'.1. _~ {iii==:! Ar1~1VSt.----~--..... i±=ici Dat~ a~ ~.ayysis-......... B/25/93 Qrily~ ! ~;o~matiOr? . . ~°C:'C :-ialli ~X'_ 3t 1?:5 Twa-wav v4cp-eor.~=ai1Fd _..terses_iori ~stbwu.^. f West~au::d ~ Nart:ti~oun~ ~ Sautl:.'^.ound '~ `-i' Z ~ L T .. ~ L _ ~ ~ L T R - tia . ~ar.es ' 0 2 < 0 7 j_ C _ 1 0 C C y i - -- C%O^i~Vi ~1~ }~,I yI Vo~smes j :.205 ~~~ 1D -17x5 ~ 20 ~~ F~:F ~ . ?s - 95 ~ . 5~ - s~ . 9~ . ~~ Grady ! 0 f 0 l C J~ Mc~s c°~} 11f 1 j I~ SCJ~RV ~ S ~ o~ 1 ~ ~ { CV' S ~°-1 ~ ~ I I ~~ .~cjustrnent castors Vehisie CLitical callcw-u~' Marieuve : Gap (tc~ } Time i kI } Le_t T~~_.. Mej^r icact ;.SC 2-10 Right T~~r:: Mirc` ~cac a,a0 ~-n'0 Thrau,:n .~a~~i,. Miriar Roac x.50 ...30 .~Ytt :,i~rr Mi.-:tir ~cGd 7 - JO _ . ~ 0 AR_'~ ?'ransport Research I.t~:: - ST_D?ZA 5 . ~ 1 elsburg Halt & Ullevig =~ Recistered User 130. i23~ Tme azci :.Ja"`.~e of ~neai•~JS'_S ~; ? ~ ~_'"~, A.L:CC ~~, 1995 ._; Plaza ~ctel ._st_ :g Co^~~.~ans vezsection Tvo - - SiDRA TES lily^hwzv Capacity 1~3rua1 (1994) Version. Rol:-~daiaou t ( * :ZOiJNJ ti R~'N T_NYC7R2~T~DN x 3asic Paraaseters Intersectian TV~e: Roundabout Dri;, i:~g cn the rich t-hand side of t e raac SIDRA U5 Highway Canac.ty F~Saaual (1994} 'Gars~or_ wnnut seta specifies in US utits Default Values File No. 11 Peak Mlaw ae~:iad (for performance) 30 minutes Unit ame (`cr vaiumes} :7.2p minutes (Total Flow Period) Delay defiri vian : Qvex•all delay, Geamr~tric delay included Delay formula: ~:sghway Capacity Manual. Level az Service based an: Delay {I-i} Queue defirztion; Sack of queue, 95th Percent.le Jail Pla°:a Ha gel ?x=sting Conditions tersection ?30 . Roundabout 'able S - 3 - I~`TERSr,CTION PARAMETERS Der,ree of saturatien (highest} _ Practical Snare Capacity (lowest} _ 'Fatal vehicle flow (veh,/h} Total vehicle capacity, all lanes (ve~'i,(h} _ Average intersectiar. delay (s) Largest average :uovexuen t delay (s } ti I.arces t crack ©f cocoa , 95 ~ (ft} _ Per~ar_mance ;ndex - TOta'! fa€al (ca/h} Total cost ($) _ l:stersect_0n .;,evel oz Service = Worst movement bevel of Service = ail Plaza Hotel. a:istiag COndit~or_s ^.°:ersectiar. 130. Roundabout aerie S. o - 7;N~ERSECT7<pN FDR~ORMAt~CD tal "'otal Aver. Pray. ~fF. ?erf. Aver. Flaw Delay Delay Q7ueued Stop Index Sneed v=h/h} (veh_h/h) (sec} Rate (mr~h) 1134 3.57 4-1 D,579 0-61 '48-55 _M14 0' 0.5x6 3 0 ~S X134 9503 4.1 6.3 162 7.48.55 102.0 1237.29 A A ROUND k * Fc.QUND • • • 33 ~ 142 315 (1.323 5.5 A. f --------_ . __,_...--- ------°---____ rr____ 3P6 1196 0.323 6.0 A last: Las ~ An~:raach 22 1, 107 3s3 C_279 4.9 A T 254 9C$ 0.280 4.5 A r'2 534 9a"5 O.G56* 6.3 A ='CJ'.i L251 U ~.7D ~.~r' A ~~iCrtll. DIOr"^ A~nroaGZ 42 .T~ 374 1034 0.35 1,6 A 41 T 91 283 0.322 2.0 A 43 R 2I6 573 0.32"_ 2.0 A 681 1990 0.362 1.B A '1o.-thtiwes ~: Ncr;~-i Wes ~ Approach 62 L 146 625 0.234 3.6 A 81 T 123. 51$ 0.234 4.0 A 83 R 72 ~ 308 0 .234 4 . ? P. 339 1451 0.234 3.8 P. Aa..D VS?iICLES : 3134 9543 0 .556 4 , 1 A ?N'1'E'RSLCTI©I~T: .3134: 9503 0. fi56 4.1 A Lever, n£ Service calculations are based on average cve.ra? J, delay (F?~4 criter.a) , :.n~ependent a= the current delay dex"in.3.tion used. cor ~~e crit€?ria, ze~er to u'~e "Leve_ of Service" topic in t~:e STDItA Outpzzt Guide err ~ :.die Q~;tput sec t-inn o~ the on-'_ine help. !~Saximuza v/c rata(, ar crztical green per iods --- End n~ SIDRA Output -~-~ ~~ TransYoxt e4esearch ~.--'. - ~~;~xA ~.:.1 Belsburg Holy & Jllev~,g - -, Rer,is tared LTSez iCco . ? 234 Time and Date c. ~.a_ysis 9:10 ?1.h'_, Aug 26, =9~ "ai_ PTaaa Hot.e_ ~ BAC1 ~_re Cancit,cns _,.tersewtion Nc . . ~1D~ LS _._ghway Caraeit~_ '-`~~,L~.1 ('_994} Ve~s~or. Rcundabout ~~IN _NP~DRMATZON ~ k Basic Parameters: _Tr.tersection 'Type : Rou.-~da~^.cut Driving on the right-hand sade o= the road SID1~~ US k~igYsway Capacity Manua? (1994) Ve:^scrl Inx.ut data specified in LT5 u.~its D=fault Values ~'i1e No. 11 eak flow pewiod {for ~erfc±~¢a~-zce) 30 minutes ^nit time {for. volZ;mes) :w20 minutes {'I'ota,1 Plow 'Period) Delay definition: Overall delay, Geometric delay included Delay formula: Highway Capacity ?°Sanual Lever of Service based en: Delay {H~!} queue definition: Back cf queue, 95tY: Pe_~cezatile pail Plaza Hotel * H.ACT_C `utu.-e Ccnd~.ta.o:~s `-1 ~ersec tion Ai'c . Rou.-ida'taou t `able 5 _ 3 - INT.j.tSDCTICN Pr.RF~*T'T~'RS Decree of saturation {highest) = 1.11 Practical Spare Caaaeity (lowest} _ W28 ~ Tcatal ve~iicle flow (ve:~/h} _ 4391 `?'otal vehicle capacity, a?7. lanes {veh/h} = 7313 AcrE?rage irtersecLiQn delay {s) = 45.1 LargPSt average movement delay {s) - 1x3.1 Largest back of queue, 95~ (fty _ 2630 Pe.rforma:ice Index - 366. 4i TQta, fuel (ga/h) - 7,77.7 Tota.i cast ($} - ;257.37 ~z Versectiar_ revel of 5ertrzce = D Worst movement Levu of Service = ~' ail Plaza Hotel * F3ACK utur_ Conditions :ter section Rio.: Ficundabout ~: le r . v - INTvRSECT?C}N ?D~~CRM_ANCE --`a1-- --TCta.--Aver---J,cp ~`~~_-----~er~-- -^AverR- _ _ow Delay Delay Quec:ed Stop i:~c'tE3x Seed V~ . h} {VeL2-Sl/h) (52C} Rate (]flp('1.} ~39f 5x.04 45_i 0.70"4 3.02 366.41 1_ . ~ 33 r-t 143 172 D.831 29.0 C r --------. -------- ------~ _-____- ----~-_ 54. ~5a a.a33 3a._ c past : ~as~ Aaproach 22 T. _5a 3C7 4.489 _.~ 3 ~1 ?' 35 c` 729 G. 488 9, a 3 3 a 883 752 a."~1= 133.1 _ 1354 =738 1.181 119.5 g Var``~: NCrL:`~ An~raac~. 42 L 524 p15 C.~72 3.3 A 41 T I28 2a1 C.510 3.5 A S3 R 3C3 594 C.510 3.5 A 95~ 17E1 ,0.57? 3.4 ~ '3©r:.hWest: Na=~.^. 'F~est A~^rcach 82 L 204 443 0.40 8.0 3 81 T 159 367 C.4oC 8.9 ~ 83 R lal .219 0,457 9.3 B 474 1029 x_451 8.6 .ALL VEHICLE S: 4391. 7313 1.,181 45.1 I7 . IN'!'ERSECTI0~7 : 4 3 91 7313 1 . 181 45 . 1 17 Level o f Service c alculations are based or. avezagE3 averaJ_1 de _ay (~?~ criteria) independent o~ the ,..~_=enW de3.ay ciefini~t ion used_ ?cr ^he criteri a, refer tc `use 1.eve1 of Service" ta~cic i^ `.:ze SI~RA GutpL.t Glide cz tiae Gutput sec tran of the on-line Help. Maximum v/c ratio, or c,it_ca? green periods --- nd of SIi3RA Outpu'~ --- .nb.~~J~~ `J .~.... J '~~ ~ _.._ _.t.~ 7n ~ \ J4~ i ?~~ -V~ -. Jam,°_C' L5. t1-mil '~"-__- ~±.^._.^~J i.J-rti'1 5'...-_ _ ='v:l~,. ~'_'..~ Lui]~'~."1 ..t `;fl° A~~~~FZ~C.. __ (iil;.''i LG ~:., vL 1"4.~G..~S is - - .'7 ,~~a I98 0~1'1~~ ~n~orrna~i0;"' - ~ ~°3}C ri~ur "~.~_ ?0~~ `"WO-Watt'' ~v~3_^-`CGiS%wCi1~G Ii ~Z~'S~C~ICJI1 I Las~~:cu::~ I W~s~~curd ~--~ior~n~ound I 'Sou~ r ~^urd^ LJ _ ~ °_1 T !i I ?J / {r ~ R i L 1 it NV . manes O ~ e u ~~ 3 0 ~~ 0 1 14 4 0 SC~~/Yi.:.~ ~ N I N ~ I rJo~.um~s I x.90 i44; 44 257D I ?3 3'5 F~F .97 .95 .95 .:5 I .55 -95~ ~.rY3C"~..' I 4 I Ci I G` ~c~~ ~a7 I I f s~/zv~s c~~I f 1 I cv~~ ~yy I I I ~~a' L:~ ~.~~e:7 4 G4 ~:Jrs ~le~;,ca v ~- _~iL`c~l Fo11ow-~,~a d`~I1i7c''L2VP~ uat~ t vy^^} 'I`? [il~ ~ ~~ ) L~~t Turn NiaJCS*_' Rca~ S.SC 2.~0 ~.^~.i G3y1.~ Z~L.P ,Uti Apr- fi~J GEC ~J4 .j-64 Throua:~ _ra~=ic Minor t~cau 6.54 3.34 ~~?`C Tur-: Nli:'tc~ Raa~i 7.00 3.44 L 5 • • ._~~: u::ar_1~Z~... ~~'L'r5°~W~C.^_S %tv_vGSw 2. _ =s~~,~i__.`~ ^3X~ _ u _._V ~_~_ ,.J_ ~~~_la~..`. _~ ~ ~~ ___ _ J ~~.7 ~ --LCtS-< ~7 ~_ ~ "--`_c_S: {=V-si :'~~'_^ :]rr,~".~~ ,_-Ty1 J~'.t=:= ~r.^.IZLG~a :t~dG _.__~CL.. .~~ `~1m° p.I'i '1VZZG~, 1~ {iT1]I'.) D~~_ or ~naiys~s........,. $/25%55 0*_=~!~_ ~_.=~sma~_an...... , ..?~~ak Na~~r Y~r 2015 - 'z'WC-W~f 5'=CIS-'~~:trrn,.l ..°C1 1I1L~iS~CL_'JI: c?SL~C7l1~~ i 4ti~SL.'JC~riu ~ l~C~L}'1~4ti.1Q CI:CI`'1C}OL'nCl I v T ? I ~ "' 2 j i, ~__-- _. -- ~ T ~ ~ ., T P, _ . ___-; __-- __-_ -__..I___.. ____ _---~_ _-- .-s_ __-- S~~plYl~la 0 NI NI ~~1:.iII:~S ~ 1790 ?.00 I ca 8 ~ ~ :_ ~ } S ~ 1 I ~ ~ ~ Q. I Q ] i Gr.adv f 0 F 0 V 0 Mme" s "s7 ~U!R~T's {3) I t-r~s '=7 E ~ i { Atijustm~nt FacLers V~i:iCl~ Criticai ~llow -u w fy~IGi:. °~.i~~r l.]U:l f C~/ } rn ( 1 ~.~~ 1 L.~ 1 I.-~_ ` `^u r". ^~a~ ~± :2azd ~ . 50 2.10 C ; jC'.L TL'_°P. ?"!~.1C4 2~Ca:: ~ . 50 ? . b ~ • :iCS. GP_G14 .~_--r'~ _:'I erS~._„_~P:S ~~_v=.58 ... -a =~C~._.~.~, ?_- r _ t i ~.:.i Stomp ... r~ ~w~m ?~a~cr ~`_eer tv~. ~~ ~an~lz.c~-mac __cws: (v ni:} _~85 l 1 .]L~~i L LT iTCJm ~1ncr ~4i''~'~_.~ lYn J~ Lar.=lictin^ rlcws: (t-p;Z} .~Sgg Fct°ntiaZ C~pUc~ty: ;pcph) 1 M~,jo-~ LT, Mznor "' mnedar.ce F~.c=^r: 0.5~ Adiust~d Imp2danc~ ~a4~~~: 0.6. Cc.GdC#t~r Ad~~,:sUmenc ~ea,~_ Vo:reman~ ..G~~c-~y: lpcw'r.~ ~ i:!C~?:s?,..:.10i~ .°iairTQn^a ~=,:mmary F~v~ 9 ~ a yaw M:~°re Shared Total Queue ~,_~~z'oacn acv Cao Cap TJ~14y Length L05 Le>c,,/ MUve:r:ent 'pc^r:i ( ccnl !pe:~ri Esec/ve~i ,vat; (secfve?~.) \B L ~~ ~ x l~ _ ,' r ~rLerszctiur. ~]eZay = g~s.3 sec%v=h * ~':3? Cc'C'.:.~aC=~ Valllv w~S ~';~3~__ C!':?:: :~J:.S. • • ~ ~. =n~~_ser~~cr: ?v_~„i;r,G~c~ Sur~r~?-'v ~Vu ~~ _?~w M~v~ 5ha~~u Tc_~_ Queue ?~~^A~ach ~~=~ Cep ~3~ C7~i~y Lengrh LL^,S Dei~y ~'IOVc~CperiC i~~~hl (~~~h) (:7Cvfi1 t5@C,~T2hJ iv~h, ~S~C~V~:'1) ~.~ SB F, ~E _~~ ~..~ C.B n _Tnte~..~_~~.~n Leidy C..~ 53c/JZh • • 33 R 148 103 Q.961, 35,6 3 --~----- -~_--------------------"-- ----__ A 545 624 0.88? 30.8 L~ :as =: East An~~'oac:; 22 L ~3 345 G.SCC 7.^ E 21 `I" 360" 73I ;}.5C': 9.1 E 23 ~ 9q8 753 1.2C5~ 205.4 _ 1427 ;,7901 "_.246 13x.1 ~art^.: Nor~~: .~.:+nrca,ct: ~ 42 539 945 0 . a95 3. o A 41 m 123 246 0,x24 3.7 A 43 R 344 584 4.52.E 3.7 971 1736 C_595 3.5 A <ar v..ZWest : Nor`1~ wes :. At~nroacil 82 L, 2C4 422 3,483 8,5 3 9"~ T 174 354 0.483 9.5 E 8.~ E 1q4 - ~2I5 0.484 5.9 ` S 482 997---p-,~B9_____~_~_ - ___~_ r^~I~ V±::iICiES: 4453 7189 1.~~J6 5q.9 I~ NmERSEC'PION: 44tH 7189 -i.2g6 50,9 D A,eve1, o~ Se--vice c alc::lations are based on average overai3 de lay (==~ critezaa}, independent o~ the current delay de;i:aition used. Far t2:e critezia, }-stet to t.~e "?,eve1 of Service" tank in trse S=DR.~ qu~^z:t Gt-icie cr t^.e flut~ut sec tion 4f Ize ar_-Ii~e heZt~. r ~'Sa.X_II,L'Sd V/'~C rat~4 ~ C~ C~r'~..C~..~.. C~e~Tl per lQds ___ Eno or S?D~ Output ___ '~ • • f1, u a+ V :n 1 .1 .i . J r~ u Nar~embtt ~ 6. 7 999 ~ ~ ~ :: u ± ~ lyir. Tm Lase Page 2 Coma~srt' 2 The .sarfaty and/or asks aasociatrsd with the herd exit located e~ht feet sar,th of the VaI! Get~ewsy acsP.SS an Va!! 14[?aso: frt situations where two ac.:ess driveways zra closely cad, 1t Is imr~~ti o,tive from 8 safety stmrslpoirtt that graod sir~ht distartCa ~$ availa$!a ~t both ar^~~sas. 5sfaty at sum irs#srsecliat~a tin also be improved by minimizing the nL of carsfllt~q rums. 7"tvis cats be dcrw try restricting (agrees aMllar egress tvrrung movesnsr~, !n tf~ case of ttaw propos~# Hotel. i~ is retcvrnmendec# that the a~ccssa k~e Gmlted to aurmound mavsmenra ailyy (i.u, an asst only?, As ncstesf in vur Scpiarnt~cr 27.1999 Ieti~ , ..~,~rrt, ¢wohitritlltig it~curtd left turrLS et this a......4.. w~1 eiirr~inate ovortapping !a#t turn cr~nfillcta s{ortig Vat! F~gti_ 7t:er$tare, while this spacing is nat an ideal carrdition, the provision of good sight dis-tar~ce, tAs restricxinn of rnoventenzs 4oudwur+d only), the tore......~ed taw volume of axiting traffi3c, end the relatively low speed ern-ironment should alfovy fc~r an ar-~-~tahle condition. Cvrat 3: The saf+ery ono%.r rinks a...r,...ated w!th the ihore/kr~ au~ad al+s/i~ry et7>tlrir ~Y acmes ~ urdYcaterc! wa C7ptron A and ~'s jaroxrmiiy t+o the rotu~dahaur +cann the South frnntagB goad. The bsnes#its and dtawbacl<s a! the proposed deai9n of the frontage road a..~vs hie >~ean • Tae prc~pos~d ~rev,ray is d+esl$ned such that do#Ivery trucks ('uacluding semi-va~~er trucltsl canl-,'`~'' rata the unloecl:ng/dock area o! the sits without im~scxinq traffiic on the frvnteg* road. • She prapv ' e-irtry lane provides a refuge area for d+scc'eraxing (night-turrur~g) vehicles. thereby tinq the [i~ke#ihacd of rear-mod aalltsians fn~m traffle a~citing the roe~ndahout, Also, a ve cla cr truck can stop v~rithin this refuse area {while a dei'~very vehicle is rrraneuvtiir~g within the situ end tra~ftic a{ong the t...,;~~,a Rrrad w~l sin~#l not be i~rsp~acted. • VWrorig-w$Y movements could t>e made ++P rho inbot~nef ac:.ess lane, Nov~revec, this can be mitig8~ted by pasting "130 riot Eater" ar~dltu "Wrong Way" signs, • As :,vtaC txy tf~ Town's Engineer, entering vehlc:es cs~uiti r~r-zricY a truck rsaaking bacxing ~ectVOrs asp-tits. l"iowever, ~~ c3n tre mR~ig~nteti by ~tosted ""Yield" signs a. ~~ie base of the navy tans. 3his will adios an ir-cmrrting driver of ,pateritia( ,...; ~;fiic:. z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~i,~ ~,ND ASSC)ClATES, INC. Thursday, November 04, 1989 Nir_ Lawrence Lang Transpot#ation Engineer £1 Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig Greenwood Corporate Plaza 7951 E- Maplewood Avenue, Suite 2fl0 Englewood, Colorado Sfl l l l Re: Vail Plaza Hotel Mr. Lang: I had recently reviewed your report dated September 27, 1999 with the town engineer. Itt reviewing the report and the associated access points, the engineer would like us tv address a few additional items. Specifically, the town, engineer would like us to address: 1. The possibility of traffic backing up to the roundabout from the south entry an Vail Raad without a dedicated left turn lane. 2. The safety andfor risks associated with the hotel exit located eight feet, (eighteen feet from the centerline of'the gateway drive), south of the Vail Gateway access on Vail Road. 3. The safely and/or risks associated with the hotel loading and delivery entry only access as indicated in Option A and it's proximity to the roundabout on the South Frontage Road. it is our intention that 55' semi-trailers, and 45' passenger coaches use the drive (entry) ;one for backing prior to departing through the east exit. Our fe~iing is that passenger coaches only frequent the hotel during the "off season" or low traffic pc„-iods due to the fact that the hotel operates as a fractional fee condarninium l;alf the year and does not have t'tze remaining occupancy to be able to cater to large groups. Additionally, other than tlZe initial equipment and furnishings move-in period, we foresee no semi- trailer braff c although it has been determined that we net~d tv provide for such vehicles. It is our objective to have all ether vehicles includnnt; 35' straight-body trucks and 5Q' articulated (beer delivery} be able to tum right out of the structure with minimal maneuvers, It is the fawn engineer's cancem that vehicle entering the drive wtll rear-ezad vehicles using the drive lane for a backing movement. 4. The safety and/or risks. associated with the hotel loading and delivery exit only access as indicated m Option A and i#'s proximity to the roundabout on the South Frontage Road. Specifically,. the town engineer would like same continent on the feasibility and safety of both autos and the larger service tope vehicles turning left an the frontage road- We have preliminarily indicated medians for protection of the center turning lane in this option. Additionally, the fawn engineer had asked us to explore additional options far a combination in/aut 90- de~ee access. Enclosed is Opton B exploring that option. Please just generally discuss any positive or negative impacts associated with this scheme including safety concerns associated with its proximity to the roundabout- , .hRCi-~lTErTURE•PtrlNNlf+iC,+ih+ITERIQRS+I~~VDSG\PE ARCf-ii7ECTlJRE .~ • • P. t]. Br)x 19'6 • ,,von. Cclvr„do 81(}2(3 • ~97t7) 949-03257 • F,~X !97(3t 949-108(7 Vail Plaza Hotel ~slo~c~_oa ~- Zei~ren and Associates, Inc. I1/04l99 The design intent of Moth options is to schematically meet the de4elopment standards and ttunning radii of the types and numbers of vehicles dictated by the town engineer and planning staff. It is our intention that we have the approved design fully engineered for confu-matian of the ideas presented prior to permitting of the project by the town, or CDOT. Please do not hesitate to contact me or the town engineer, Greg Hall, with any questions or concerns. We would nape to have con2~rrnation of these issues by Friday, November 1?, 1999 if it is ai all possible. Sincerely, Tim Losa Project Manager ~ehren and Associates, Inc. Cc: George Rusher, Senior Planner, Town of Vail dreg I-Tall, Town Engineer, Town of Vail l;nclosures r ~ f f _ _ _ -_ ~_ / /<< __. ~~ ~- __ - .~ _. _--- - - -- ---~._ -~ .- --- ~_,._ .~~j _ _ - --- _~~ `~`--~ __ __ --- _~ l __._~ - ------ ~~ ` O Y._. ___~_.. _-_ 111f ` __ Ih,~s~ `~. 4 ...-- -----....__ _ IiD ``II~II I i~csaa-iug acd gDetivexy - C7pteaa A ~ 19'-d" ~anrt YJtiiity i+ehiclc Sc+la 1"M20'-0' IE ur~.~aA..~.~.,:m. ~~ ~ ~ • ~ `~ - lYR • ~ ~ / ~i _ i I~ r , ~, f~ A ~` / f i ~._~~ , i ~,,,n, ~ ~ ~ _1_---- ~ ~' i Lobby . ~ - -- ~ r - - - ~. - _~ ~ ~ - ~ C~ - -T __ ___ -- ~-_ --- 0 • i ,' ~ ,' ~ ,~ ~ _ I i - -- --~ _ ~;~ - - - ,. f ~ - - -_ __ .._ .-- _ -. - ._.. -_ --- - - ~ ..-_ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ -. . / /4~_y__ ~ . - _ _ _ - - - ~- - - _ - -_ - -- - _ - ~ --- ----- _- _.-___ ---- J,~ ~r ---~-- - __ _ `~ `. 1 . ___ ...._-e_ _. __ _...~ ~\l !..-. _- _ - ~~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ __ - - - .~ -_-- . _-- - -_ ------~~ ~ -_ _.4 . __ _ s_ - -_. _-._ ~~ _ __ . .. - _-,~, __ ~.. _ . -.~~ ~ - ._. _._ _,. _. .. .... ~-__W_ _.. ._ _~_~~. W.___e ..__.._._ - _ -. ~:~` .. _ ~~.-`~ - ~',-ti \ •-. _ _ _ _~s ~4 - s -__-.__._.__ .. ___. -__. __ .. Y ' I ~ ~y ^ ~. q l~~a _ ~ `~ _f t / iii ._- ___:.. _4_ _ - __.. ;. _ _. __ _ _ _ _ - ~`-- -- __--.-- e - _ --_ ----..~ _~_ 4-~_ _ .-... ._ - ,' iK\~ ~~ /~ ~f - ~ _ t ~Sll IPIE4Z~ ~4e~4 - ~ i Y.aeding end Dclivery - (?ption A ` _ ~ ~ `~ -- _ l ~` 45' Coach c.~ln. -- -- _----------_ - =-_-~ Sala 1"'y30'-0" ~ l . - _ r-...._... 4, ~~ bobby r 7.e$cm sad Aasaei+ltaaE, dca I ~ r _ r I 6 1 J I ~~ ~` ~ ~~ ~il ti~ - ~" r e- - _ -- ,. ~ - ~- ~„ ~ _ _ - s +s _ _. --- _ _ _ _ - - -- t ,__: ~ Y,_n- _ _-- .- _ ,, _ _. , . _^ ~, r -- -= z _= -- _._, ._ ~ - c ~; ~~ ~ ..__ _ x ~ 9 y ~ ~ ``~..~ - - s ~ r ~ - -- - _ -. ._ -- - _ ~ ~ _ __ -- -~ _ ,~~ -- i~ ' ~ I --- ~ ~' .~- -- ~ ,~ -. -_ ~- _ ~~- ~ ,-'~ ~ ~~.~-'fie ~~"~,~r~a~~ ._ =_ ~ ~fi _ - .- ) _ ~ ~Al i , i 1 ' _~. ._ - j T if i , I ~ 1 -- -- f _ l ~I_ ~; ~' _ I -, ~`-~~.~ ~ ~w _ ~, -~-~ ,,~~ _ _ ~ - ~~ __-- ~ l ~ ---'-~~ 3 u~~ ' 4~ fl~~~ II ~. t--~ _ _ C ,.., i Oq • • Attachment CC ~~ ~oF ~Aa lepartment of Community Development 'S South Frnnta,~e Raad ail, Colorado 131657 70-479-2138 AX 970-479-2~F52 ME.M[}R~NDUiV~ To: Ta~vn of Vail Design Review Board From: Conuntsnity Developrraent Department Date; December 1, I999 Re: 'Vail Plaza Hotel --Preliminary Rec~~.~....cadation to the Vai] Town Council /~ In anticipation of appearing before the Vail Town Caunci] for first reading of an amending ordinance to alltaw far the ?-ede~relapment of Phase N of the Vasa Vs]]age Inn Special Development District, the applicant has repuested a preliminaa~ reeom~rnendatiotp from The Design Review Board. ,~ tsrstt to the Tarvn Code, in part,''no person shall building construction or demolition within the corporate limits 1 ,af tlae TOki+°Il ttnless desi€~s approval has begin wanted in aceordanci with Title l2, C`'.~apter 11 of the Tawn Cade." -- Should the Design Itevsew Board choose to make a prelintinary recammendatiot~ or approval to the Vail Town= Council can the rede~~etaprnent praposal fiar the Vail Plaza Mote], ztaff would suggest that the following fin[ling and condstians be made part tar the reeor>unEnclatson: "t,~pan the preliminary review and carssderation of the redevelopment proposal for the Vail Plaza Hotel, the Board ands that tl~e Vail Flaw Hotel evil] be camnatible with existing stxttctttres, the hotel's surroundings and with Van's environment. The Board fiu°ther finds that the proposal is in catnpliance with the applicable provisions or'the Design Gtudelines prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 4 1 of the Tawn Cade and the Vail Village Ivlaster Plan & Urban Desi~ta Considerations. Therefore, she Board recommends approval at the redevelopment praposal for the Tait Plaza I-3ote1. Tile Bcaard's recornrnendation of approval carries with it the following conditions: 1- T'~at 'd}e applicant submits a final landscape plan, final tall site irnpraverrtents plan, and outdoor lighting plan ;Yi aceardance with the provisiarts prtscribed in the 7araing Re;ulatians far review and approval of the Design Review Board, 2. That the applicant sulamirs a fnal exterior building materials list and valor rendering fear review and approval arthe Desi`s.n Review Board. 3. That the applicant submits a comprehensive SigzT pralr>ram proposal far ~e Vdil Plaza Hotel ~. That the applicant subrrsits a raaf~tap mechanical plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. ~,.1 roof- top mechaniteal epuiprrent shall be enclosed and screened from public view. S~~ REG7CI.ED PAPER Attachpnent L 4lemorandum To: Georg=c Rather, Senior Special Projc;cis P!arner From: Greg Hall, pire;,tor of 1'uhi is 1~Vorlcs and T: anspc:rtatian Date: Dece^^ber 9, 1999 Sabjcct; Vail Plaza Hotel - Rovie~.v ar""the ~lavc:rri,er ?=. 19'9'9 Pars I have completed rrty review ~:~f the Vail .P!aza Hotel and have the follo~vins comments and concems_ Sc;me of these are truly commets, ~~vhich ;hould be corrected as the project progresses through the development process, anti others are ;:pnccrns or conditions, wricli shad be tak;:n care of at :lie approlariate times in the process. Required Plan Corrections :~ The scab stated on the site illustrative plan is incorrect, please lobe! correctly. Sheet-Level aV[inus Tt~cro, she c!evatiom of the ramp ii~om above proceeding to the 6 °,o axade at the lowest level is not 14>' as indicated. Provide :he slope (°./ol of the parking area in tht: lowest valet area and the location where thewrades change from 13g' to 13~'. Please show all access points and daonvays to elevators and hallways. Specitcally, access to the eievators in the bevel ~lintt, Two, this :nav cause valet spaces to be eliminated. Access to the small elevator lobby i;onn the loading berth, and access tom the loading berth to the freight eievators. The exact location of the garage door into the Phase lII parsing st*ucture. Show torte staling area in ;runt of the freight ~Icvt4[or and how this rr~y irrpact access to Phase iII and the safety of those using the elevator. Si:ow the location os'the trash pickup. :~ Tl~e eastsidc curb alignment or""Vail Road is shown per the survey. I-Iowever, here appears to be one shot out of line, this causes ~! jog r:~~ht at the hotel entry, which doesn't exist. The curb moves one foot at this location. ~.~ T:~lc vviciths of `Fail Road, the South Frpn~.age Itaad and I-;ast lrlca[lo~v ijrivc .along ~~vith the exact locations o:'the curbs or"t.rsc roundabout and mecian islands artl apposite side of the street will need to be shown accurately prior to first readuig before the Town Council. issues #'or Discussion T"s~cre ;gas been rig^..i3icartt discussion with regt3rds tc~ whe;ther a left-turzt lane i, ro~uireci on Vaii r'2.oad. Tho hotel location as it is presently desired would not i>ave to move :f tht ;lesire fcr a left-tam is there. A pedestrian easement would be required tp pusl-~ the walk east to make room far the adciitiocal 1 ^' lane. Virtually all ni the: landscaping on the cast side of the road would be lost. A space o* ~' to ! l' wide as you ga north tivoulcl e:cist on the south building ::r!d the space wnuid be 8' io 1 ~-along the north buiidin~r. T'se need `,`or a left-turn. Iane was specifically reviewed and evaluated by the traffic consulting ~trm oz ~'elsbur~_>>, Holt & :.rilevig. In zbe Traffic Report prepared by the consulting engineer, the enginc'rr ias stated that !used upon ~,raffic projecticans, vehicles ':'packing up' into the roundabout ~afric would ..^.ot cx: c ur. ?. review of t'e rounc'~about desi_~rr tivith rc~rds to Vail Road r~i_ic dete.~~~ned that at current voiLrres, therL :s a flaw or 321 vehiclti in the AtiT pett.~c your ~.vith a .,`Zpac.ity to take '_~t) l vehicles and a max r~um ''e:A>°. 4]f `.L'1114.'e, i17 :lie F~t ?.°,a4: ;;z)tiv liu~ .:~C . 'i L'71~..~.5 ':'v'It~l :l u3t;ai::iy 'C _3~;U :-1~,_ ~^'~:11C.:~3 ;:'an'G "naYEm'arn L]F1e13e {}t w veiliC:eS. I'ne rourtdaoout design. ailo~vs for a sr°,'v increase in peak tZaws with the A~bi having a Weak hour flaw of -~~ l vehicles with capacity of 1 l .,y vehicles with a :ztaxirnum queue of ?vehicles, i ae P~1 peak #low would be 7~5 vehicles ~.vith a capacity ar ? (l5~ vehicles and a r:~axiznuzn queue or' f velic'.es. This queue does :tot impact the entry into this site. The Vail Plaza Hotel Traffic Report ;fate:, the current northbound traffic volume of Vail Road is 695 vehicles. Zne lddeci trips to Vail Ror[el tivill be approximately 5? trips in and ~1) trips out, daring the peak. Fitii period_ They also analyzed that the trips were turt[iz~g in agait:.st 9t)t) vehicles verses the 7~ [ u-ips. As estimated irz the future raunciabuut calculattlans. 'I1ic econd issue is that the loading 'bay rcquireznents for the site were to aecornrnociate the turning marteuvers of a 30' single a~;le true., a ~5' over the road coach Anil a Si)-foot semi tractor trailer on-site, ancf to additionally to allow a b5' semi tractor trailer to rn~trtt;uver without impeding the tiaw of traffic on tha SUUth F'rantage Road. Tlie apralicant has prctviel4d £ui ,access anti rnaneuverabiiity plan, which illustrates that tl~e rrzaneuveruig of the vehicles takes place partially off site, in the right-af-way. However, nn backing motions occur across any sidewalks and the traffic #]aw an the South Frontage Rand is not impeded. Extending the prnpos•::d South Frontage Read median through this access point cctulei solve :he question of tl!e le## itL'"n out for the frontage road access. It would be desirable to at least provide a le:'~ turn pocket ,Mast bound somewhere in the fronutit=e road to allow L-rums of passenger cars at a point that is deterzniced appropriate. This is most likely at Village Center Chutc:.'1'f.e landscape median would need to be Extended the entire length to enstu-e this takes place where determined, `Ibis entire access plan c7n the frontahe road will require a Colorado Department of Tran~Ypc7rtation revised access permit. `Ize t~ansportatian engineers at CDOT have the authority to decide how the ace ss iunctiazrs. Retrained IrnrJrovements and Cotzditir-ns ^ Tlie retained improvements far this development area 6" heated paver walk~,vay from the east propeny line of the SDD to the Gateway Building. In addition any revi,ior_ to the curb will require ne~v curb and ~~;tter and mcadi#ications ar <additians to the storm sewer system. The extension caf Village-style street li~~ts is also required.:any ?iecessary modification; to utilities, landscaping, irrigation systems and requixed retaining wails shall be the responsibility of the deveinper. The ~vallc~vay will be el'elisaeated in pave: s acritss the driveways behind the cross pans. ^ Frontage Road 'sandscapc: medians to include ctarb and nutter, concrete unit paver aprons, any masotazv rock walls, plant material, betiding lnix to TO V speciticatians, anti irrigation system and wane: cnnzlcciions and sleeves. ^ Iznprove:l;ents to Vail Road include a heated <'3' paver walkway from the Gateway Buiiciing property to East Ivlcaciow Drive. All additional improverzients to allow for this to tape place as similarly as stated above for the #l•ontage road are also the responsibility of the developer. n In adeiition, adding curb, gutter anti a a' concrete ~.vall~ i'rom the gist property line of the SSD to and around the carp retort of Village Center Chute on trig South Franta~~e Road. Any modiffcatitins to the cirtti,^age ~ vstem to accomplish ties w©rk are considereii the requit-~ment of tht: curb. Work such as retaining walls and utility modifications are ~1'te re,spc;nsir}i]ity ot•~ tlJe Town of Vail. ^ Details of the improvements ~-orn Vail Rnad .o the west edge of the Phase I building (Base l~Iauntain Sports) along with tee tmprcvements of thr; bus stop along East Meadow Drive are as follows a located Haver wal~•vay 'attac`~e;~ to the street and'ous stop along with :ill madirrcations to drainage, ;:ltilities, retaining ~;valls, drairlagC systems, irrigation, landscape modifications strewt lighting ant any agiac°at property improvements impacted. ^ The orange see. lights existing aion~ the erltirc len~?th of East 1~ieadoty Drive shall be changed to he ~dillage-style sheet light fixn:re. `f "ais installtttior. shall be cornpieted by tlse developer. _~ r:~l ~aL rg :.na drainage plan be prepared rsid ail drainage systems :.arryirag tenor= frorxt public :~tt of ways require .:. ainage easements. Toe tinai grading plan will have all grades to the t~th of a r'UOt . ~.~. !i `iral ~andSCaGe pla.': si1L~Fi~'i_'1~ ~iulll distances, 3nuw 3t©Ca±~~' 3rea5, :tnd CzLI ~Xi~ting Ve~etatic}n imnaCted. ~'• T~~te e::tire 'ouildin~T,,viil requiz~e a gatte;ingsystem , ;eat ;ape and piping to the sto~Yn sewer. ~ T°aat Snow sheddirry i~ addressed for the ;;mire building. ,"h;, pedestrian LG•ailr..`ti.' alt~ng Vaii Road and the other pedestrian tne~,vs are established as public pedestrian ease:nents• Complete vivii -~nginoered plans are reviewer and approved by the T~~~vn ;=ngi:neer prior to subxrtittitag plans for the building permit. u Ail one-way cross over lanes slaail be: 1 ~' in width artrl all two-way cross over Ittnes shall be "?~' :n width- This ai~fzcts approxur.ately fE~ur compact anal seven valet spaec;s. ^ 'The two-ivay' drive aisle at the purte-cochcre is only ?[}' in ~,vidttt between the columns. i'he valet spaces d:a~vn are only I6' in lennh. 7f full-size vaiei spaces ate established as required, floe drive lane width is further reduced down to 17`. To resolve the ct~nr]ict the parlcttg spaces need to be removed. ~n T,~e slopes of the heated and enclosed drive aisle ramps are all+awed to be a maximum grade of i 6°~a. An engineered-stamped desigta of the drive aisle ij required prior to final DI~3 approval. ~ Tkae three Phase V par'.ci.ng spaces south of the hotel are nut l3ractical. '1'o enter the first to requires the driver to use the autel pcarte-t;ochere as a r~undabnut. Trae one anglzd parking space, whorl c3ra~,vn to the proper dirtiensions (~'x 1 ~') reduces the drive aisle to the sti`ttcture by 1', This con#7ict could be resolved oy mo~7ing the, par:cing space closer to the Phase V building. However, the proposed 4 foot vice walk in this me~v is then reduced to three feet in width when adjusted. '1'he reduced width is too narrow next to the buildinv. Toe parker space design must be revised. T:~e ::orb returns into and out of the site will need tv be revised to alfuw proper turning and rnaneuverin~. Tne south return onto the site shall have a 15'rad~us. '~ The not*,h return nut of the site shall have an $' radius. The South Frontage Ruad east shall be widened to accotrunodate the b;;' semi tractor trailer. This rc.guires an adjustment to bath Sides of the drive aisle and to the landscape island. ~~ The brink pave: sidewalk along Vail Road sha1Y be t~' in width. NSA Investments, Inc. • February 12, 2000 By Certifed Mail--Return Receipt Requested ~'!' (~ ~~ ~EB1~20~4 497; East Preserve Court t,reenwood Village, CC} 80121 303-770-0779 Fax: 303-770-8918 Planning and Environmental Co~~u~,ission--Please Distribute to All Members Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO S l 657 Re: 706 Forest Road, Vail, CO Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing 70b Forest Road is a property zoned primary-secondary. We are the owners of the primary unit at this address. In today's mail, we received notice from the Town of Vail that the owner of the secondary unit is going before this Ca~~u„fission on February 28, 2000, seeking a variance in the Town of Vail Code. We understand that the Co~~u~,ission does not want to get in the huddle of disputes between adjoining landowners. However, we need to make the Commission aware of the fact that the applicant may not have the legal right to proceed with his application for several reasons. We are not merely the adjoining landowners but may in fact be the joint landowners to the property affected by the application. Since the applicant has failed to provide us with his proposed plans, we have to rely upon the description in the Town's notice that indicates the affected property may be owned jointly with us. When the property was developed, the owners of each unit unit received sole title to the portion of the property their unit enc~,~, ~Nassed, with the remaining exterior property being conveyed jointly to both unit owners. To the extent the applicant is att~~~~~,ting to extend the secondary unit into the existing land outside the unit walls, we may in fact be co-owners of the property affected by the application and, as such, do not agree to or otherwise support such application. Further, the Townhouse Declaration which encumbers this property requires the consent of the adjoining owner before any exterior modifications can be made to the property. The applicant has failed to comply with this requirement. The applicant has failed to provide us with the relevant information, including architectural plans, for us to review, coca-,~~ent on or approve. Having failed to comply with this fundamental requirement that governs any improvement of the property, the applicant is premature in submitting this matter to the Commission at this time. We respectfully request that the Co~~~,~ission deny this application and otherwise table this matter until the applicant has c„xA~,lied with all of the legal requirements to proceed with any exterior work on this property as well as the applicant being able to establish that he has exclusive title to the property on which this work is proposed to be done. Due to prior out-of--town co~~,~~,itments, we will not be able to attend this hearing to voice these matters in person but request that the issues raised in this letter be heard and relied upon in denying the application. Respectfully submitted, NSA Investments, lnc, Gc.c~ ~-c.~-,t.~-- ~v Sy: Nancy S. Adam, President • • Fage P or 2 • ANTLERS AT VAII 6$0 W, Ll~nshead Rlace Vail, ca 81657 February 17, 2000 Members of the REC, 9'70-*176-247 97o-47B-4146 tax www.anilersvall.com I understand that you are considering a change in the parking requirements for the Town of Vail. As you may remember, the approval last year for our upcoming redevelopment included a parking variance for about five spots. Vile made the claim last year, and still maintain, that our actual need for parking is FAR (ess than the Town's requirements. To that end, and in the interest of making an informed decision, I'd like to ask you to swing by the Antlers once or twice during the next few weeks and take a quick look at our parking lot. This morning when I pulled in, there were about twenty-five empty spots, and our occupancy last night was 83%0. That's a typical situation. As you would expect at this time of year, we are between 90 and 100 percent occupied for all of the next two weeks. If you come during the day, you'll see a dozen or so cars belonging to employees (but guests will be coming and going}, Quring the evening, you'll see only guests (and undoubtedly some "crashers"}. I know this isn°t scientific, but I don't know haw else to impress on you the fact that we're being asked to provide much more parking than we need. Incidentally, we currently have 70 condominiums and TO parking spots (regardless of what the records show ... you can count 'em}. As you will see, that's more than enough parking. With our new 24 condominiums and 7 EHIJ's we are required to provide 140- some parking spaces! Ouch. I beg you to come by to see for yourself, and then please oh please apply the "common sense" test to this issue, Thanks, Rob Levine General Manager n Approved 3/13100 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION r~ rL-J February 28, 2000 ~gg~~(~ n;.,..:,4Y ,,;~ W ~ t,~ Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: Galen Aasland Qiane Golden Tom Weber Ghas Bernhardt Doug Cahill MEMBERS ABSENT: John Schofield Brian Doyon Public Hearing Galen Aasland called the meeting to order at 2:fl0 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Dominic Mauriello Brent Wilson George Ruttier Tom Moorhead Judy Rodriguez 2:OU p.m. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the conversion of existing hotel roams into employee housing units, located at 2211 N. Frontage Rd. West Vail Lodge)ILot 1, Vail dos Schone #3. Applicant: Reaut Corporation Planner Brent Wilson r~ Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add. Lynn Fritzlen, the architect representing Aeaut Corporation, gave a slide show describing the property and redevelopment. She described the east parking lot improvements, landscaping, the different paving material, light fixtures and planters. She said the parking spaces would be increased to 215 spaces. She explained the manager's unit, the two elevators (one ADA compliant), and residents common areas and commercial areas on the first floor. She explained that 40 EHU's, ranging in size from 550 sq. ft-772 sq. ft., would be on the second floor. She explained the penthouse units would be between 800 sq. ft. - 1200 sq. #t. She said they were continuing to study a new facade for the exterior commercial frontage to maximize the window area. Galen Aasland asked if the public had any comments. There were no public comments. Doug Cahill said he would like to see a plan for the pedestrian right-o#-ways. He then. asked if any different scenarios had been looked, rather than just EHU's. Jerome Nathan advised not to focus nn the elements that didn't work, such as the hate!. He said that two floors were for EHU's. He said they had to deal with the envelope of the existing structure. Doug Cahill mentioned the site plan and asked about the weeded area and if it was going #o be grass. Lynn Fritzlen said they were proposing to revegitate the back area to be mare compatible with the open space to the east. She said the bus access would be on Town a# Vail land and so she would first like to talk to Public Works before proposing the improvements . i Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes February 2l~, 2000 Approved 3/13/0 Doug Cahill asked how the management would work far the residential units and the retail and for any assurances that it would be kept up. Jerome Nathan said there would be one homeowner association that would work in conjunction with the on-site manager. He said that retailers would not tolerate degradation of the EHU's, nor would the #ree market units. He said the mixed use would help keep the maintenance strong. He said that this type of mixed use had been successful in Aspen. Chas Bernhardt said this proposal would bring the non-conforming structure closer to the Land Use Plan and so it would be an improvement. He said he was in favor of this and he again. stated he felt the Town was remiss in not purchasing this property. Diane Golden said she was torn about the idea and asked why they were not part of the Central Reservation System. Jerome Nathan said overall the Town of Vail was upscale, with the economy market being built down valley. He said the overflow guest now has far more options than before and that this application was the conclusion ofi the market decision. Diane Golden said she hated for the Town to lase amedium-priced hotel.. Lynn Fritzlen explained that the building was pre-cast concrete, and so it was difficult to change the floor plan. She said people's expectations, when coming to Wail, were mare upscale. She again said that the structure limited the reconfiguration of the units. Diane Golden said her biggest concern was the management ofi the employee housing units and she envisioned employers or corporations buying several units, rather than individuals buying the units. Jerome Nathan said he would prefer it if individuals purchased the units. Lynn l=rtzlen said EHU's were not the predominant use in the building and therefore the other mixed uses would bring accountability to the area. She gave an example of City Market mixing retail with owner occupied units. Diane Golden said she would like to see a good management plan. Brent Wilson said staff would be comfortable with a draft of the Condo Decs. and this would be one of the proponents the PEC would need to review. Tom Weber said he would like to verify what kind of vote it would take from the occupants for building improvements. Jerome Nathan said, from a conceptual standpoint, there were 3 types of expenses and the dues would be based on the allocation ofi expenses; retail, residence and common areas. Lynn Fritzlen said Colorado had adopted same new condominium laws that addressed deterioration and she stated that this project would be incompliance with these new regulations. Tom Weber said he would just like to see an overall master plan showing how this could become more residential in nature. He said he would like to see some decks to create mare of a residential feel and to break up the elevation. Jerome Nathan said they were advised against adding decks on the 2`~d and 3rd floor and he . explained that there were more amenities on this property than many others. 2 Planning and Environmental Cornrnission Minutes February 2$, zooo Approved 3113/00 Tom Weber stated it was more important to have private space and so he would not discourage decks, as he thought they could be done well. Jerome Nathan said from an architectural standpoint, I don't think it would work and he asked why would you have decks, if you ask people not to put anything on them. Tom Weber said decks would break up the uti[itarianess of the building, Lynn Fritzlen said it was our goal to preserve all the mature vegetation. Tom Weber suggested an entry on the end of the project. Lynn Fritzlen said the residential lobby was secured and since the elevators were there was their choice. She said the residentiaP Ivbby would not be open to the public. Tom Weber said he had concerns with pedestrian access and would be in favor of this with the addition of a Pot more commercial space. Jerome Nathan said they wanted to maximize the commercial space . Galen Aasland said the proposal was bittersweet; employee housing versus rooms tar guests. He said it was a very attractive proposal, but not adequate for us to evaluate. He said a landscape plan and management plan were needed. He asked if a proposed easement was needed far a walkway across the corner to Chamonix, Lynn Fritzlen stated the area was very steep being a 2d°-~Q° slope. Galen Aasland said it was relatively level at the T- Pntersection corner. Dominic Mauriella said vehicular access occurs on that corner now. Galen Aasland said an easement across that property might be addressed. He asked if more commercial space had been considered on the western end outside the envelope of the building. Brent Wilson said it would require an SDD or a rezoning #o go outside the building envelope. Galen Aasland said he was not convinced one way or the other and he agreed with DPane's comments. He said he would like to see a comparison showing EHU's working with condos. He #hen gave the example of the Ruins not working. He said he was looking for long term compatibility and marketability. He said that some needs mesh, but not all. f.7oug Cahill agreed with Tom on the addition of decks for a community feeling. Brent Wilson summarized the comments from the PEC: - Need to see along-term management plan, - Need to see a pedestrian circulation plan, - Need a landscape plan, and - An example of EHU's and condos working together. He said it was within the PEC's purvue tv see how this project was being buffered from existing properties without the applicant getting into too much detail. Doug Cahill said we need to see more landscaping to bring it into a residential feel. He said from the east side commercial was being buffered, but a backyard area, picnic area, and barbecue area needed to be created. Tom Weber suggested more of a linear planter scenario in the parking lat. Lynn Fritzlen said the planters were situated that way to serve as walkways. 3 Planning and Environmen#al.Commission Minutes February 28, 200Q Appravecf 3113/x0 Galen Aasland asked for a paver walkway, in conjunction with a speedbump and agreed that a significant landscape plan was needed , He said as part of the conditional use process, the PEC would need to see the complete plan, Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this. Diane Golden seconded the motion, The motion passed by a vote of 5-4. Chas Bemhardt revised the motion to table the item until March 13, 2444. Diane Golden seconded the revised motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 2. A request for a final review of a major amendment, to allow for the proposed redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, within Special Development District lVo. 6, and a conditional use permit, to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club in the Public Accommodation Zane District, located at 100 East Meadow Drive/Lots M, N, & Q, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Rather Galen Aasland asked George Ruttier to briefly state any changes in the memo. George Ruttier gave an overview of the revisions in the memo, since the last time the PEC saw this application. He explained that 18 Type 111 EHU's were proposed on site. He said the 20' setback was now a 16' setback and a decrease of 740 sq. ft, of fractional fee square footage. He said there were 148 keys for 50 fractional fee units. He said there were no changes in the 22 conditions in the merna. He explained that two of the conditions changed the 24' setback on Vail Road and the EHIJ's on site. He said the elimination of the elevator tower by PEC was overturned by Council. He stated that on page 15 of the staff memo there was an error; the 32 employees should be 38. He said the increase of 2 new 1"FU's would result in a 744 sq. ft. decrease. He corrected the zoning analysis, saying that the front setback should be 24', as well as in the VPH proposal comparison. He stated for the record, that the adjacent property owners had been noticed, as wail as published in the paper and a courtesy letter was sent pursuant to our Town of Vaii regulations. He said the adjacent addresses were obtained from the Eagle County Assessors ©ffice. Galen Aasland stated that this extra notification was not a change in Town law and additional letters in the future would not be sent out. Torn Weber disclosed that he contacted Jay Peterson about providing off-site housing, but didn't feel it would affect his vote, but that he would abstain from voting if anyone objected. Galen Aasland disclosed for the record that Jay Peterson was his attorney. George Rather showed a rendering of the setback being proposed. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add. Jay Peterson explained the intent of staying out of the 24' setback and said that rotating the building would not work. 4 Planning and Environmental Commission MinyTes February 28, 20(iA Ap~rnved 3/13/00 Tim Loza explained the ground floor plan, and the employee housing with the additional 3'/z sq. ft. He explained that the atrium areas separated the guests from the employees living on-site. Jay Peterson said there would be control over the noise with the Employees not being separated from the guests. Tim Laza showed the building height diagrams. He showed a section drawing of the loading and delivery with the employee housing on the top. Jay Peterson explained that the applicant didn't want to compromise the building to save a foot. He said there were 5 stories above grade. He stated that according to SDD No. 6, the taller part of the building was on the Frontage f~oad. He explained that an SDD gave flexibility to the devekaper to give something back to the Town. He said the Gateway and the Roundabout changed the views. He then showed what was below 48' and what was over 48'. Galen Aasland asked for Jay to show haw the height coincided with the Master Pian. Jay Peterson explained Phase V of the SDD from 1976. He said the 4 way stop set the plan. He explained the view encroachment document that he passed out. It said the Gateway had no right to complain about a view loss across someone else's property. He said all the Gateway title work shows that. He said the Gateway people knew this was a hotel and not a residential site and they were aware of that. He said the 1964 approval showed a view corridor before the Gateway was built. Tim Loza showed the ridge heights and view preservation from the 4 way stop to Golden Peak from the 1984 approval. This was 5 years before the Gateway Building. He said they were asking to ;go up 3 '/~ `from the approved plan. Jay Peterson said 3 Yz 'would be the maximum and would guess to end up ~ ~lz ' . Galen Aasland asked if the public had any comments. Gwen Scalpello, a part time resident of 9 Vail Road, said she only received one notice. She stated that when you start counting at 0, there are at least 4 stories on the south wing, with "0" being the lobby. She said this told her that there were 4 story fapade levels into the 20' setbacks. She mentioned that on the north wing on Vail Road, there were 7 s#ories and 6 stories on the south wing. She said when counting levels, you have to start with 0. Tim Loza explained the elevations, George Ruther said the Vail Village Master Plan counts stories plus a roof. Chas Bernhardt said the Master Plan Dolls for a story equaling 9'. George Ruther said because of changing trends, the floor to floor in the new Lkonshead Master Plan was 11'6" and would not apply to this. Jay Peterson said 14' lobbies are very common and the Village Master Plan had not been updated. He then said the 15~ story was 24' floor to floor. Gwen Scalpello said she was trying to make a clarificatkon on how many stories encroached into the setback. Jay Peterson said, in the underlying PA Zane District, the 2Q' setback was not a magic number. 5 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes ~~bruary ~$, 200(} Approved 3/13!00 Richard Scalpello, a homeowner at 9 Vail Road, questioned the 4' setback and said there was no impact on employee housing in the 4' setback. Jay Peterson said this was a Major Amendment to the SDD and the applicant had every right to ask for this and they didn't even have to show a variance to the underlying zoning. Galen Aasland said it was allowed as property-by-right. Richard Scalpello said there was no increase in the parking . George Ruther explained the parking analysis. He said the applicant can later go back and add valet spaces. Jay Peterson said the parking garage would be 5t)°/a empty. tom Weber said it was not uncommon tar businesses in the Village to provide parking. Jay Peterson said for an SDD, this was absolutely valid. Annette Mackey stated she supported the Nine Vail Road residents. Wes Jensen, from Mountain Air Properties Inc., said he was a majority owner of the Gateway Building, and was here today to represent the commercial space. He praised the efforts far the 4' a# encroachment for commercial spaces. He said they wanted this project developed and had no issues with the height or view from the commercial standpoint. Chas Bernhardt disclosed for the record that he had been talking with a representative of the project- tom Weber said he was in favor of the deviation from the Master Plan, especially for the additional accommodation units. He stated that this application was better than the previous one that he approved. He said, in fact ,that he had approved the larger setback, in order tv line the buildings up . He said the applicant has demonstrated that vehicular access can be accommodated better. He said he was in favor of having the EHIJ's on-site and he suggested, in a prior meeting, to add an entire floor to get the EHU's on-site. He said he was not bothered by the 3' encroachment- He said he would rather have quality hotel rooms and that the main benefit was the addition of the AU's . Doug Cahill thanked George for all his work. He said it was the same height as the 19!84 plans and that the cavernous effect an Vail Road had been addressed. He said he was comfortable going into the setback under ground, so the 3' setback was not a problem at ail. He said the increase in square footage was not a problem, as it would keep the integrity of the interior of the building. He said the parking numbers were a wash and those numbers were huge and if there was a probllem, it could be handled with having the employees park off-site. He then asked if the applicant agreed with all the conditions. Jay Peterson said the conditions just explained the road to a building permit ,such as drainage and engineered drawings that were needed. He said the conditions were just housekeeping matters, prior to obtaining a building permit. He said if you dissect the conditions, you can see what they are. Doug Cahill said he liked the idea of the FFU's becoming part of the hotel and transferring over in s Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes February 28, 20(10 the summer for convention functions. Approved 3/13f00 Jay Peterson said he didn't know if this had ever been done before, having control of those roams for the summer season . Chas Bernhardt said it didn't appear there would be any problem with parking and stated that the applicant had been creative with the employee parking, He thanked George for the detailed memo and said it would be foolish to deny this because of the additional height. He said there were a lot of benefits for the additional 36 sq_ ft. Jay Peterson asked Chas if this was better than what had been approved. He said that was the question. Diane Golden said this was a better product and she was a huge proponent for employee housing on-site. She said three people in one room may be tough and she could see some noise levels getting out of hand. Jay Peterson said there were only three rooms that held three people; the rest of the rooms would house two people. Diane Golden said there was a substantial tradeoff with the encroachment in the setback. She said the height deviation won't be that big of a deal. She said there was an Incredible amount of parking and that maybe in the future, we could use the parking far the overflow on the Frontage Road. mane then thanked George for all his work. Galen Aasland thanked George for the incredible amount of work in the memo and thanked the neighbors for coming in. He then asked George if there were any codified view corridors through this project. George Fiuther said, no. Galen Aasland said he would like the tower removed, as it is unnecessary mass and bulk. He said this proposal complied with the Town Master Plan and had been reviewed in context with the neighbors. He said this was a part of the Town that needed to grow and change. George Rusher explained Condition #7 on page 5 of the staff memo and said it was forthcoming in working with the applicant. He said the Town Council would have an outline of all improvements off-site ~deaiing with the South Frontage Rd. He said the question would be if it was an existing problem, or directly impacted because of this proposal. Galen Aasland asked about privacy in the EHU's and was that sufficient for the Town Qrdinance. George Ruttier explained Condition #5 on page 5. He said amenities are quality of life issues and that is why the conditional use permit was not part of today's approval, but far a discussion at a future meeting, He said they believed it was a creative solution to the employee housing problem. Galen Aasland asked where does it say that FFU's can't be sold in the summer. Jay Peterson explained the number of weeks sold for interval ownership. Galen Aasland stated that the Gateway Building was 5 stories and non-conforming. He said he agreed with Diane and Chas regarding the setback.„ as the way it was done was good for the Tvwn and the neighbors. He said that the applicant should not be unfairly burdened with the parking, by putting the employee housing units on-site. 7 Planning and Environmen#al Commission hr(tttutes Febniary 28.2000 Approver! 3f13J00 Tarn Weber made a motion for a recommendation to Tawn Council for the Major Amendment , in accordance with the staff memo, including the findings on page 4 of the memo regarding the public notice, as well as the conditions, with the exception of Condition #19. George Rather said to amend this to include all the conditions, except 19. Tom Weber amended his motion. Doug Gahill seconded the motion. Chas Bernhardt said he didn't agree with the entire finding, as there was a violation on page 4 of the Master Plan and sa he couldn't vote far it. Tile vote passed by a vote of 4-1, with Chas opposed. Doug Cahill made a motion far approval for the Conditional Use Permit, in accordance with the staff memo and the findings on page 4~ -45. Tom Weber seconded the oration. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 3. A request for variances from Section 12-6G-6, Section t 2-SD-8, and Section 12-14-6, Tawn of Vail Code, to allow for an extended entry, trash enclosure and deck expansion, located at 7p6 W. Forest RoadfLot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 6`h Filing. Applicant: Gliff Illig, represented by Beth Levine Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNT1L MARCH 13, 201~Q 4. A request far a minor subdivision, to allow for an amendment to a previously platted building envelope and a revised lot access, located at 1452 Lionsridge Loop 1 Lot 4, Ridge at Vail. Applicant: Mike Young Planner: George Rather TABLED UNTIL MARCH 13, 200 5. A request for final review afi a proposed major amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village), located at 1 Q00 S. Frontage Road West (Glen Lyon Qffice Building}fLot 54, Black K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Dundee Realty, represented by Segerberg Mayhew Architects Planner: George Rather TABLED UNTIL MARCH ~3, 2t]QQ 6. A request for a variance from Sections 12-6H-6 and t 2-14-6, Tawn of Vail Code, to allow for the addition of gross residential floor area and balconies within required setbacks, located at 3(73 Gore Greek Drive Vail Townhouse #2-CIL.ot 2, Black 5, Vail Village 1 h Filing. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, represented by Ron Diehl, Architect Planning. and Et3vironmental Commission Minutes February 2$, 2000 Approved 3/131flfl Planner: Ann Kjerulf TABLED UNTIL MARCH 13, 2t3U0 Tam Weber made a motion to table items 3-~ until March 13, 2000. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motian. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 7. A request far a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing raw water intake structure and pump station, located on 131ack Gare DrivelLot 8, Heather of Vail. Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Planner: Brent Wilson WITHDRAWN $. information Update George Rather stated that the Donavan Park open house at the Library was going on right now. Galen Aasland stated, for the record, that the PEC had received two letters, from Nancy S. Adam and Rob Levine. 9. Approval of f=ebruary 14, 2000 minutes. Chas Bernhardt had changes that he read into the record. ^iane Golden made a motion to approve the amended minutes. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motian passed by a vote of 5-0, as amended. Chas Bernhardt made a motion to adjourn. Diane Golden seconded the motian. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.rn. • 9 Planning and Enviranmentai Commiss'son Nitrates February 28, 2000