HomeMy WebLinkAboutLodge at Vail Density 1983q,l \t
GAGEDAVISASSOCIATES
PI-AT,II.|\G Ar\I) IANDSOCPE ANCHTTECITFE
MEMORANDUM
GAGE OAVIS ASSOCIATES. INC.
91O TWENTY EIGHTH STREET
BOULOER. COLORADO 8O3O3
(303) 449-1166
.to:
From:
Date:
Re:
Dick Ryan, Town of Vail, Dept. of Community Development
rlef frey,,Trtt(nston
i'li ffi+:Pproject Review: A & D Bui'td.ins (The Deti) and r(l-;aat Vail; the proposed Amendment to remove Lodge units from densTtyrcontrols; and the LionsHead Mal'l Preliminary Construction
The fo'llowing are my preliminary thoughts on the subjects listed above based
on my review and discussions with your staff on June 8, 1983.
1. The A & D Building - Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street. 0bviously, thesubnittal is far from complete. As a result, it is difficult to completely
understand the project and, therefore, to make a very comprehensive review.
From a brief conversation with Alan Tafoya in Bilt Ruoff's office, it ap-
pears that the submittal was put together rather hastily due to a late re-quest from the owner, and they recognize that supplemental material and
additional discussions must follow. I suggest that we proceed with thosefurther discussions as soon as it is practicable for you, inasmuch as there
could potential 1y be significant revisions to the project, at least from mypoint of v'iew.
First and foremost, I think that the project, as submitted, is clearly a
development of significant impact, a major project in the Village, if car-ried out as proposed. Generally, I think the height and mass of the build-ing close to the street and on the prinrary intersection in town significantly
change the feeling of that place and, J believe, exceeds what was antici-
pated and intended in the Urban Guide Design Plan. Let me go through their
submittal point by point:
Page 3, III - para 2. I agree that the renovation of the facade and the'
introCuction of more shops on the ground level wi'll be, in fact, a contin-
uation of the ,pedestrjan experience and tie Mill Creek Court Building more
effectively to the rest of the Vil]age. In this respect, I think the pro-
posal is a positive one.
Para 3. At the end of the paragraph, I do not feel that the corner shop,
as proposed, does much for the "key intersection." I refer to the Casino
Building across the street, where the building steps back slightly from
the corner, the r,lindows and the doorway open and make more of a gesture
tourard the corner than I think does the A & D Building. I would have likedto see the Casino Bui'lding go a bit further than it did, but I certainlyfeel that the A & D Building needs to make at least a comparable gesture
such as perhaps a 45" angle across the corner of the building, more fenes-
tration or transparency on the corner, i.e., a more spacious entry, andpotentially a reduction in the turret that rises above the corner. From
t'
CiAGEDAVISASSOCIATES Dick Ryan
,June 13, 1983
Page Two
to overpower the corner. Thewith paragraph 4.
PI-AI.NNG AND LANDSGAPE ARCHTECN.NE
the elevations, at 1east, the turret appears
foregoing points to the fact that I disagree
IV, A. Pedestrianization - Agree in principle that the pedestrian exper-ience wi'lfif,idanEly iilproved.' However, the propbsal for the iecond
bridge over Gore Creek,with a diagonal walkway to the Mill Creek CourtBuilding, presumably across land whjch is not owned or controlled by A & DEnterprises, is not inappropriate, but appears to be infeasib'le. The GuidePlan asks for a pedestrian bridge over Mjtl Creek adjacent to the vehicu'larbridge, separated from the road by a rai'ling and thEn a continuation a'long
Gore Creek Drive with a sidewalk that connects to the entrance of Mi'l 'l
Creek Court Building. The intent here is to provide a safe and enjoyablepedestrian access to the V'i 11age for those who have walked west along Gore
Creek Drive, even when the street may be filled w'i th trucks and moving
equ'i pment.
B. Vehicular Penetration - "Present vehicular patterns wi'l I not bechanffitthattheshopowners.donotresistthecontinued
use of the roadway on Gore Creek Drive as a loading zone. I wou1d assumethat the time zoning approach for deliveries creates a simi'l ar situationin other areas through town during the delivery periods and that this isnot a major problem. However, since I am not overly familiar with how the
time zoning has been implemented throughout the Village, it is possible
that these shopowners could fee'l discriminated aga'inst and would eventual 1y
request removal of the area from a loading zone designation.
C. Stqqetscape Framework - Agree, the new commercia'l activity will gene-rateffiinteiestandcompletethepedestrian1ooptoMi'll Creek Court.
D. Street E4c'losure - Without a drawing of the exist'ing section throughGore-GR-TTTiEll-can't substantiate iheir c'laim that the present ratioof building height to street width is 1/5 to 1. However, from visual in-
spection it doesn't appear to be quite that'low. The proposed bui'ldingwill change that ratio. If you measure from the three-story facade closestto Gore Creek Drive, it wi1 I be approximately .5 to .6 to L, I suspect.
However, if you take into account the 4-story height wh'ich is just barely
set back from Gore Creek Drive, the ratio begins to approach .72 to I
(opposite the highest point of the Gorsuch's bui'lding). This in and ofitse'lf is not necessarily negative, in that we did allow in the Urban
Design Guide Plan for certain situations where a tight enclosure for a
short distance would not only be allowab1 e, but in some cases may be des-irab'le. I do take issue with the four-story height and mass of the bui'ld-ing, but it is less on this street enclosure than on other issues.
The Bridge Street enclosure, as proposed, Iikewise begins to approach.T5to 1 which, in this case, does become a negative factory in my mind inthat the buildings begin to dominate the intersection, I think qu'ite sig-
nificantly.
GAGEDAVISASSOCIATS
Pi.A'.II{I\G AND LANDSO{PE AFC}ITECTT,TE
Dick (yan
June 13, 1983
Page Three
E. Street Edge - The site p'lan does not illustrate the articu'lation men-tioned in the text, at least I'm not able to discern any correlation be-tween the s'ite plan and the elevation and see how much articulation istaking p1ace.
F. Bui]ding Height - It is true that the building steps back from thestreet 0n both sides, but it sti'l I rises rather abruptly. In most casesit does not step from two to three and then to four stories, but ratherner91y from three to four stories, which combined with the very short set-backs sti'l I 'l eaves a rather abrupt wa1 I reaching up three and iour storiesalong most of the facade on either street. Thia I'find to be the most ob-jectionable aspect of the pr:oposal , i.e. the building massing. I would
much prefer to see the third and fourth stories of the building steppedback from the facade'l ine further so that the two-story experience reads
much more strongly than the three and four story.
G. Views - While the latest view corridor proposal before Counci'l elim-'inatEs-Eny view corridors in thjs area, I think this proposal is a case inpoint of the difficulties with the current approach. As you approach theintersection from the Covered Bridge looking straight ahead, you see theski slopes of the main mountain, and as you come closer to the intersection(alongside Pepe's Restaurant), a second iki slope comes into view s'lightlyto the left and directly above the A & D Building. This mountain is alittle bit more distant but also displays additional ski terrain and is apart of the first impression one gets upon arriving in the Village and helpsreinforce the mountain s-etting and the skiing relationship that makes Vai'l .I would'l ike to see a photo mock-up with the mass of the proposed buildingfor I think it wou'ld obliterate the views of the second mountain. I think
there may be ways to step the building back gradually that would be lessobjectionable from this point of view.
H. Sun Shade - The existing bui'lding steps back above the first leve'l and
was TfrE-ct one of the modeis used ii the'sun/shade diagrams in the Urban
Design Guideplan to il'lustrate how buildings could be stepped back withinthe shadow line extended upward from the building to add additional storieswithout dramatica'l1y increasing the shade pattern on the public right ofway. The submittal itse'lf dramatizes the rather significant increase in
shadow which results from the higher mass of the building closer to thestreet,
2. The Lodge at Vail - This submittal being even less complete than the A & D
Submittal makes it djfficult to respond very precisely. 0bviously, a great
deal more must be known about the blilding in order to effectively evaluateits impact to the Planning Commission. There are, however, several generalpoints about the proposals which I think are appropriate to make at thistime. The entry auto court on the west side of the building, as descrjbedin the report as wel'l as the drawings, appears to be a nice sort of "tidy-ing up," re'l atively easy to do and obviously an improvement over thepresent situation. I do think 'it important, however, to be sure that the
CAAGEDAVISASSOCIATES
Dick (yan
June 13, 1983
Page FourPLAT.[.5G A'{O LANDSCAFE ANCHITECTT,N€
new design adequate'ly takes into account snow removal considerations inthat the present layout of the parking lot is not syrmetrica'l or square
and allows some snow storage capabilities within. The proposed layouttightens everything up geometrica'l 'ly, and I'm not sure in so doing, stil'lallows for either temporary or long term snow storage without significantly
reduci ng the park'i ng ava i'l abi 1 i ty .
I think the connection and general layout of the plaza on the east sideof the building which adjoins Vail Village Plaza is workab'le and compat-ible. The proposed "charmingly narrow and short passage" between the Vai'l
Vi'l lage Plaza building and the new wing above the conference room is, in
my opin'ion, a bit too "charmingly namow," particu'l arly if you attempt tofront shops on it as appears to be proposed from the text.
The rest of the text addresses the conformance of the Plan with the CC-1District and with the Urban Design Guide. Unfortunate'ly, the drawings donot render any assistance in evaluating the va1 idity of the text, makingit impossib'le to react. In genera'|, I think the notion of completing the
east side plaza on the third side (above the banquet ha11) is not inappro-priate and in fact is an idea which was debated several times during the
formu'l ation of the Guideplan, particularly with respect to the view cor-ridor discussion. I think, however, that this is a case where mock-up
photographs and indeed even a massing model are a'lmost a necessity in orderto understand both what is being proposed and its effect on both the plaza
as we'l I as the views of the mountain and the general sense of continuityin this part of the Vi11age. I am particularly concerned about the re'la-tionship of the proposed banquet ha'|1 wing to the existing One Vail Place
Building since they wil'l be so close together. The fact that a tower is
proposed for the east end of this wing is of even greater concern.
l.lhile the urban design issues of the massing of the bui'ld'ing are important,
obviously, the issue of additional'lodge rooms over and above the current
allowed zoning density is one which must be reso'l ved first. I think the
bui'l ding massing issues can be dea'l t with once the other question is resolved.
3. The proposed amendment to remove lodge rooms from the density restrictions.I spoke with Peter Jamar at some length about the proposal. The market
study prepared for the Lodge indicates that there is a growing convention
business for resort communitjes, particularly resort hote1 s, and also thatthe Village has lost its competitive edge against LionsHead wjth the devel-
opment of the Marriott Mark Resort and the Westin Hotel in West Vai'l . Thereport appears to be adequate as far as 'i t goes, but it rajses, I think,
several additional questions which need to be addressed along with the otherpart of the big question.
A. How large is the market within Vail for convention business? Xill
the development of the lodge convention center add to the potential
convention business done by the Marriott and l^lestin Hotels, or willit, in fact, compete for the same business, obviously, the proposalis a stronger one.
GAGEDA\NSASSOCIATES
PLANNII.IG AND LANDSCAPE ARCI{TECITRE
Dick Ryan
June 13, 1983
Page Five
B. i.f !!. lodge convention center competes with the Ma*iott andwestin for business, is that competition hea'lthy for vai'l? Thel'larriott Resort and also the l^|esiin are key com-ponents of theiirespective communities. If the Lodge convlntioh center would take
lway thg competitive edge they have-for convention business, andfocus that too in the_village, I think that may not ue treatitry iorvai'1. The vi1'lage will undoubtedly survive without the conventionbusiness, but I'm not sure that LiirnsHead or the westin area can.In this situation. it may be necessary to identify differing rolesfor each of the three aieas in vail wnicn wiil n-ot compete witheach other.
C. If the market is.large.enough for the addition of a new lodge/convention faci'l ity, then I think the question focuses more onwhether the Lodge project wi'll benefit'only the Lodge, or wil.lbenefit the larger Vail community. For exlmple, wiil the addi-tional rooms being requested by ltre Lodge salisfy the conventiondemand, or will, in fact, the convention facility generate roomdemand and in excess of that which can be providLd-by the lodge.If the'l atter is true and can be demonstrated, then itre propoialis again a very positive one for the Village.
The Iarger question of removing the Lodge units from density controlsalso raises the question as to the size-of the overal'l markLt. Ifthe demand is not there and new lodgjng units compete with and in factput out of business existing lodge uni[s (or causb condo conversionslater on), then the net effect ii not a pdsitive one for vail. Normal'ly,the-free market system is self-regulatin!, but generally results in ove-r-building in optimistic times, and-high vicanciei or eveir foreclosuresunti] an equilibrium is established.- This in my opinion, is not a via-ble option for vail as a resort cormunity which woirla sufter greatlyfrom h'igh vacancies, foreclosures and em-pty buildings which w6urd d!-tract greatly from the ambience and attractiveness is a recreation des-tination or investment. Reca'l I recently the impress'ion generated bythe-casino Building when it remained valant for'a period-of time. itreimplication, of course, is that in vail it would be prudent to identifythe market for lodge units before removing any restrictions. The diffi-culty' of course, is the analytical tools. Marketing Analysis techniquesare_probably not sophisticated or accurate enough to provide informationas fine-tuned as one would desire to make such judgemnts. If they could,I feel it would be desirable to control lodge uniti tnrough the Ui.banpgt!gtt Guide approach rather than through density, and I,ie always feltthat density is an artificia] control which does not really achiLve theobjectives. In vail I think the primary objectives are l)-to preservethe character and aesthetic characters of the village and'2) to assureits financial viability. The urban Design Guide p'lin, I re6'1, contioisthe aesthetic qualitiei more effectively than density-regulations do.But it is also essentia'l to control the-market viabiiity-of development
CaAGEDAVISASSOCIATS
R.AN^IG AI{) LANOSCAPE ArcHIECTT.NE
as wel I , and foreffective way of
Dick (yan
June 13, 1983page Six
that zoning densfties are a cumbersome but reasonablydoing that in the absence of any other approach.
4, LionsHead Mal'l Pre'l iminary Construction - To surmarize the discussion be-tween Steve and me: the area in the mal1 which has the fewest undergroundutilities constraints and appears to be the most feasible for potentia'l
construction this year is the mall directly in front of the Sunbird Build-ing, from_the east end of the Sunbird west to the Montaneros, probablystopping just short of the base of the stairs which are being repa.iredthis year. Without detai]ed construction drawings it is difiicuit to knowwith any certitude how easy or complicated that ionstruction might be orexactly how it might be phased. In fact, there may be other arias which
c_ould be phased as easily if electric and water junctions, for example,fell at convenient points. This, in a1l honesty, can only be accuriteiydetermined once the working drawings are well underway. At ttris time I-would have to say that the sunbird Mall, however, has the best potential.
As to whether this will save any money to construct this year, perhaps
some, but probably not a significant amount. The construct.ion industry
seems to be gaining hea'lth rapidly once again and c'learly constructioncosts will be higher next year than this, perhaps as much as 10% to 15%.
However, this is somewhat offset by the fact that, on a square foot basis,the cost of doing a small project is somewhat higher than the cost ofdoing a larger project. As to whether doing the Sunbird portion thisyear will result in a time saving, the answer is potential'ly "yes', butprobably not enough to allow completion of the rest of the project byJuly 1984. To effect any major time saving next year, a rather large pieceof the work would have to be done this yeai, and that would most like1y
lequire a construction startup this year earlier than the September dead-line which has been suggested. So in answer to the question, is there
some portion of the ma] I which can be started this year which will greatlyaid the construction next year, the answer is ',mayb-e.,, Our recormendationis that the Counci'l authorize the preparation of the detailed constructiondrawings as soon as possible and that in preparing those drawings, the at-tempt be made to identify areas or sub-elements of the work which could beconstructed yet this year whjch would have s'ign'ificant benefits to the town.tlithin four to six weeks, while the draw.ings will not be completed, weshould be ab] e to come back to the Counci'l with recorffnendations and costsfor prel iminary construction.
TO:
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
January 17, 1983
blarren Platner, Ed Drager, Thor Loberg
Dick Ryan, Community Deve'lopment D'irector
SUBJECT: Review of conceptual proposal for The Lodge at Vail
t.
Thank you for presenting the schematic plans for The Lodge at Vail ' I will not
be cqmnenting on ail the options you rrave-preientea. My corrnents wil] be directed
toward the proposeo new coi',itruction to'in[';;;i-;t;t ihe conference space' Members
of sty staff and Jetr l,|lnston oi ease oavis-tlo-o::::i:1":-huut been throush the
olans and have csnmenii t"tto-iti"t' One nnior concern is'sti'll the lodge room
Luestion. Currently, under the Town of'Vaii"ioning code.the maximum density
dermitted is 25 units per acre. fnis yeii;i;i;ili quality studv has specific
buestions regarding'in[-n""0'ii" iaiitiinat toage rodms. In addition' you were
ii-p"iila. ui-wittr-evidence for the need'
Isti.|.|considerthatTheLodgeatVa.iljsakeyanchorforVai]Vi].|age.I am a.lso open to you"'irgi.iiir"i on how-to aciomplish your goa'l'
Concernsandrecorunendationsregardingthesitep.|an:
East W'ing
The proposed addition to the east would have some benefits and potential]y cause
probl ems.
a.Ourrecormendatjonwouldbeto.|ookatthesetbackofthe.Prytg::d-lddition.It wou'ld prolaui|"woil'6"ii."-ii-ihe building setback is the same as une
Vai'l P'lace.
b.Thereisaconcernwiththehe.ightofthefareast-end(topf]oor)ofthe
proposed aaOition.
"islential'ly-tori'oi"in"-"i"n-ot Vaii Mountain wou'ld be
e'liminated. gur recommendation nuouia-i"-nit'io'nave the top floor on the
east end.
c.0ntheplazaleve.|,possib.|y.set.backthefirstandsecondf.|oorstothesouth. This would mbst like'ly affii"toi:-griiii" vjews of Vail Mountain'
d.Theflatroofisalsoaconcernandwou.|dthiswing.Iookasatack.onor
a part of The ioag.-it-Vui'lZ. Harr!'l-git ""iSinaliy.was
proposed with a
flat roof .no "i.iiuiily-revised
dire to staff obiections.
e.Onesuggestionatourrevi.ewsessionwastohavecommercia.|spaceontheplaza teve.t insieai-or lodge rooms: ii;; of this space bv 1od9e guests and
tourists would probably be increased ["irut" of ohis typL of first floor
activitY.
f. The transition
thought out on
rnrst take P'l ace
c. Building Height - Concern with
cri teria.
not been
design team
areas of actual or Potential
between Founders' P'l aza and The Lodge.at Vai'l has
in" ion""piual p1ans. Coordination with the Town-io intr"! ittat'lotn spaces work well together'
9. The walk between The Lodse at Vail and the Lazier o"tainss";!ffffffieiiaeY'
"iiir,.ii).ll'"in uaaition'-tt'. pocket park proposed in tf
iitiifi-m; C"."i o"tu"'shoulb Ue inttuded in the proposa''.
West Entry and Parking
a.Theentrychangeforauto,serviceanddeliverytrafficseemstobeabettersotution. rne majir.oni."n-it nittt"iu". being able to turn into your parking
lot with .ice on the street and turning movemenfs for cars and trucks'
b. The parking 1ot redes'ign wou'ld probably pennit additional parking during
the summer, but I question whether iaa"it\onat spaces are actually there in
the winter.
c. Landscapingofthe parking lot would be an'improvement for this area' A concern
i-t'.ve is wltt snow bing p1 owed onto the trees'
d..Iamconcernedwiththenumberofparkingspaces-whenthereareaddjtiona.|.lodge rooms p"opoi.a. I know that'ioi c6mmbrcia'l c9l9.I vou wou'ld onlv be
required to pav the parkins.fee' I';;";Iil; ryll-llttitv to have sufficient
parking for your guests within a reasonable dlsrance'
Concerning the zoning regu'l ations, the.fo'l lowing are
p"liui.iti,'or i ao nol t'aie the information to review'
Zonjnq
a. The project would require an amendment to the urban Desiqn Gujde Plan and
would go through-the'"ii""iot atte"aiion-and modificatioi procedure' An
imenam6nt has io be reviewed by Town Counci'l'
b.Height.Iamnotsurejftheproposa.|meetstheheightrequjrements.
c.Densitycontro].Twoproblemswiththissectionarethenumberofunits
and gross residentiai ?ioor-i"eu. no"ui"lan.e can be requested for number
of units'
d. coverage - Infonnation has not been submitted for rev'iew at this time'
e. Landscaping and site development - Not sure of impact in regard to requirements'
Desiqn Considerations
a. Street enclosure - Study must be done to determine impact'
b. Street Edge - Design at next]eve] of detail shou'ld determine if'proposal
neets des'ign considerat'ions.
new addition need to check against height
d.
e.
Views - The Planninq and Environmental Conrnission has approved two viewcorridors in the ar6a, and one wou'ld-be wtrere the ;i;g-i5'iropor"o. Theview corridors have not been adopted Uy Council
Sun/Shade - Study needs to be done to determine impacts.
Roof fonns - concern
0ther: infornntion ls
a.
b.
with f'lat roof as
not availab] e for
noted before in memorandum.
review at this time.
,{-- l- '.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MEI,IORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Conrnjssjon
Conr.muni ty Deve'lopment Department
October 6, .|983
SUBJECT:
'public hearing and consjderatjon of a request for an exterior alteration and
modification ior the Lodge at Vail containing lodge rooms, retajl space' conference
ipace ind a de'luxe dwel'ling suite. The proposal jnc'ludes-nodifications to ttu
','l;:.o:li':;iii|:i5i.3..:l""l.:$:i::of the Lodge South building. Applicants: Lodge at Vail and the Lodge South
Condomini um Associ ation
. REQUEST:
The request is to add 34 new luxury accommodation units and one luxury_dwe11ing
unjt contajning approximately 30,0b0 square feet along with new,p19za level -iornmeicial spaie tbntaining ipprox'imatdly 3,600 squarg feq!' additional conference
space, and a ski storage room to the Lodge at_Vail- In-addition' new storage
ibiie'to" the condominiums is be1ng proposed for the Lodge South building.
Other nodifications are a new gate house on the wes.t' reversing the auto circu-
'l atjon into the parking lot, aid a new entry court.. Qug" on the mountain side'
the parking lot wou'l d 6e expanded and new stairs added for skiers to get to
ine if,l liit chairs. The east plaza would be redesigned to complement Founder'sptira. At the Lodge Plaza therb would be a temporary canvas pqYiflion-removable
auiing the winter.- The new Internatjonal wing ivould contain additional conference
5puc"l'lodge rooms, one luxury dwelling unit ind commercial space on the plaza
'l evel .
BACKGROUND
0n July 25, 1983, the two restaurant expansions were approved by the Pl anning
and En-vironmental Conrnission. Approved were a 730 square foot-expansion to-
the Salt Ljck restaurant to be rbhamed the |.Ji'l df'lower and a 375 foot expansion
to the Arlberg restaurant to be renamed the Cipriani restaurant'
CONFORMANCE I.IITH P POSE OF COMMERCIAL CORI I DISIBIII
The Commercia'l Core I district js intended to provide sites and to maintain
itre unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of
'lodges and commercial establishments in a predominant'ly pedestrian environment.
The conmercial Core I djstrict js intended to ensure adequate'l ight, air' open
space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted..t{Pes 9f buildings-and
;;;;.'The district regulatibns \n accordance with the Vai'l Vi'llage Urban Design
Page 2 10/6/83 loose fail
and Design.Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intendedto ensure the maintenance and preservation.of the tightly clustered i.iung.r;nisof buildings fronting on.pedestr_ianways and pub)ic gieeniays, and to ensuiecontinuation of the building scale and architecturai qualtii6s ir,iiaiilingrirtthe village.
The. Community Development Department considers that the proposal is in conformanceyilt,lfg-purpose of the zone district. The Lodge at vaii il il'e anchor forvarl village and needs to be upgraded to insure the quality of vail villageand the conrnunity. lJithout a strong heart, the Village will suffer. Thecgryu1!ty Development Department feers tnai the tong ina ihort term successof Vail Village is partially based on a quality Lodle.i Viif.
the new_plaza level , the potential for pedes-proposal .
I
VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
#22 Pocket park. Screen fence to close off alleyway (gate required) and continuestreetscape. _Pocket park with benches, plantLrs; snow storage in winter.Service vehicle zone optional .
The proposa] contains an improved area of landscpping and wa'l k between theLazier Arcade building and.the_Lodge at vail. cibsing orr'the area is notpobsible because it is a fire lanel
#14 V'illage Plaza. Feature area paving treatment, central foca'l point visiblefrom Gore creek Drive. Major'1and-form/planting in it.w. for luiet corner,with evergreen screen planting to define-west eige. l,lall street stairs,with mid-level jog landing, oFens entry area to lazier Arcade snopi. -'
This proposal actua'lly expands the Founders' plaza area and makes th.i s intoan exciting space within Vail Village.
VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE NEf, INTERNATIONAL I.IING
Pedestri an i zation:
By-having.new comnercial shops attrianization has increased by the
Vehicle Penetration:
There will be no change by this proposal .
Streetscape Framework :
As noted jn the application, there is no djrect frontage by the proposal ona publ-ic street. The proposed shops and plaza do add io t-he pedbsti^iin eiper.iencein Vail Vi1lage.
-3- 10/6/83 at Vai I
Street Enclosure:
The proposed International wing would have generally two heights, one fourth
the width of the enclosed space it faces and one sixth the width of the enclosed
space it faces.
Street Edge:
The irregular facades proposed for the shops and restaurants rneet this elementof the design considerations.
Buildins Height:
The proposed height of the new International wing from the new plaza ranges from
24 feet to 33 feet. At the pedestrian plaza level the proposal meets the intentof the height section of the Des'ign Considerations. From the south side, the height
would be 35 feet and 43 feet. The Community Development Department feels that the
heights proposed meet the intent of the Design Considerations and provide for the
mix in building heights as perceived in Vail Vi11age.
Views: There are no designated view corridors in the area of the proposal
Service and Del'ivery: This will not change by the new additjon proposed.
Sun,/Shade Considerations :
There wou'ld be no sun/shade impact on Town of Vail public space (the Founders' Plaza)
as shown on the sun/shade study.
One concern of the staff is the amount of space between One Vail Place and the Inter-
national wing on the third floor. The staff considers that the top floor be shjfted
five or six feet to the west to open the space between buildings.
For the proposed storage at the Lodge South, the Community Development Department
feels that there are no negative impacts.
ZONING CONSIOERATIONS
Parki ng :
At the time of a building permit, the applicable parking fees for each type of use
wi'l I be requ i red .
Architectura'l and Landscape Consjderations:
The proposal complies with the jntent of the Design Considerations. Detailed design
issues wil'l be more specifical 1y discussed at the Design Review Board meeting.
Fjre Department Considerations:
A new fire hydrant will be necessary along the south side near the new Internationa'l
wing because of the new residential and commercial space.
{n'..\
-4- 10/6/83 .Dat vail
)
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the Lodge at Vailrequest for 34 new lodge_rooTlr a luxury dwel'ling-unit, new corunerciat ipaieand new storage sPacg. In, addition, we cons'ider the site improvement very positivel9t ltq Lodge at-Vail and Va'il V'il'lage. As noted previous'ly'in ttre m"tnJiinirm,the Lodge at vail is the anchor for vail village. The corm-unity Development "Department feels the upgrading and expansion ii positive for vait-ilirigJ-'-and the comnunity.
I PEc -2- t0/1fi
He added that he had told the applicant that the board would act on the proposaltoday' and had recommended denibl with the suggestion that the applicint'apbivagain in November. Donovan moved ano piper ieionoeo to aenv ttre'appiiciti6h ?orlack of information.
3.uest for an exterior alteration to the Vi lIa Center ect at 122astMeadowve to add a new reta addition on e east en to reviseentrance to To.ymaker' s Trai I , to construct addit ons to the retail sand t0 construct anews ewal k alon the nort of the oro aaf
Appl i cant: Fred Hibbe
Corcoran read aVieIe moved and
The
to
from the
seconded
to table
meeti
this item untilof 0ctober 24.
t0/24.
Vote was 5-0.
I etter
Pi per appi icant askingto table until the
4- A request=for a conditional use permit in Commercial Core II in order to constructcommerc i al
app'licanttable the
asked to tab'le until
!tem until 0ctober 24.
0ctober 24. Donovan moved and Corcoran seconded
The vote was 5-0 in !.avoVoi Ting.
uest for an exterior alteration for the Ltween 0ne retai 1erence sDace a aoe uxe su te.cati onsaza ' a otont
ot
tot
west si i tiona s tora ace on the
App ge atcant:
\
Dick_Ryan reviewed the memo. Jay Peterson, repreienting the applicant, showed anodel and asked if the PEC could'vote first on just the storagb'for the Lodge South.
41 an.Tafoya, representing Ruoff Partnerships, the architect, ihowed where tie storagein.the parking area of Lodge South would gb. He added that there would be 16 locKers,rlr-Lrre PdrKlng.lrea or Looge 5outh Would 90. He added that there WOuld be 16 lowh'ich would be minimized with doors facing into the garage. The garage would bekept an open ventilated_garage. Trout moved and Vieie seconded t6 apirove the storaqelockers. The vote was 5-0.
Jay then discussed the model and its djfferent aspects: the new entry and rearrangedparking Iot, ski storage and employee cafeteria, and the new Internatr-'onal suite.Viele asked what would happen to ihe 2 spruce trees next to the entrance when theparkinglot was rearranged, and Peterson responded that they would attempt to movethe trees to another location. Concern was expressed about-the closenesi of theInternational_wing to One Vail Place. Peterson said that One Vail Place overhungits.property 1ine. He added that the architects had considered moving the top storyof the International wing to the west, and were diisatisifed wjth the-appearance.Viele asked if there were techn_ica1 problems with the bui'l dings so close together,and Peterson said that they would have to use spe.iii gtass
Trout said that he had difficulty with having only two feet between the buildings.He suggested taking spac-e from the other end-of the wing and move the whole nuilUing.He approved the rest of the proposal . Martha Fritzlenl a resident of One Vail plaiestated.that everyone who lived in CCI was concerned about narrow a1 leyways and allof their problems. Donovan stated that she felt that the building nai OLen designed
e at Vail to add ae contalnln
he proposal includesacent to Founders za and to t
street level on the
PEc -3- tl,lr,
to conform to the urban Design Plan, but that not everyone felt that the Urban DesignGuide Plan was Qood, and thai the buildins.*ir ["trg-oirii..a with the U0Gp in mind,whether or not it wort<eo. Sne-lJo"o'itu. rt appeared that the conmercial sectionwas drawing pgople to a dead end. Donovan teli'tnat in ir,"'sumner the plaza wouldbe a lively. p1ace, but not in winter. she wis-.dni""n.o-riout tne heights and confusedabout.how they-were figured. Peterson said that on tne-piiia side,60;l of the roofswere beiow 35 feet, in the back, the roof was qA i""i'it'in" highest point. He feltthat if the guidelines were specific, they would need a uiiiun.".
More discussion followed concerning the hejght of the east end of the Internationalryin9. .Donovan poi4ted out that th6 proposal shoula o"ii-niirr the whole complex, notjust with 6 rooms (regarding the closenbss of the buiiding'io one vail place).Piper liked the new entry, 5ut felt irrii-ir"".rt-ir-ir,.'tnioir. of the parking totwould not be visible when.cars w""e paikea il,""e. d ;g;;; with Donovan concerningthe closeness of the bui'lding to 0ne'Vail Place, unJ-*oia.r.ct why the roof gardenhad to be a certain size.
Ron Grant, representing Warren platner, architect, stated that he and his coworkershad worked with a large nndel and had iried the top floor oi tne new wing in severaidifferent places, but-that they were dissatisfiea wittr any but the location shown.Piper said that he would like lo see other solutions. Peierson showed eievat.ionswith the h'igh r:oof six feet west. Vjele llkea itre ent"uni", but felt that ii wisunfortunate that the landscaping were to be changed so that the cars had becomemore visible. He aoreed with Donovan regarding ioftening of the piiza,-unJ-ieit
!!3! !" could not gi qlpns "ittr-i-i"6 iJot atleyway. corcoran agreed wjth the concernsexpressed, except that he did not have any proUiem with the feeiing ot the OeiO-enOin the p1 aza.
Patten pointed out that One Vail Piace had built to and over thejr property linewith. an-agreement with the Lodge. Martha rriiilen iaiJ irrat wnen the Sciroebir buildingwas built' they did the same with the west side. The Gore creei piiia-ilii;i;g-
was completely blocked on the west side.
ved nd Vielq seconded to deny the a lication with the exce tion of thegql with the main rGaion-TIE oseness 0 e new wln ntoThe vote to deny was 5-0.
Jim Morgan arrived.
6. Request fof -a setback variance in a Primary/Secondary zone district to construct
3_93rqse,,wi lhbeth J. Kuehn
Jim Sayre.showed plans and elevations and exp'l ained that the staff recommended approvalbecause there would be no detrimental effect on the adjo'i ning properties, therewas a physica] hardship, dnd there werelother variancei graniei fbr the ionstructionof garages in west vail. Kuehn, the applicant, explainei that to place the gaiag.elsewhere would also change the-appearihce ot the house.
Viele seconded staff
a?.--r- a,)t/
/ D 0u "-t L--'D u-.1...- t -
MINUTES
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1983
Page 2
(]"" was no Citizen Participation.
The next item on the agenda was the appeal of the PEC decision regarding aconditional use permit at the Inn at West Vai1. Jim Sayre presented thebackground lnformation to the Council. He stated that this request for amajor arcade designation had been turned down by the PEC twice. There wasconcern over being able to bring food and beverages into the arcade as wellas no live supervision in the arcade. Joe Varrone, the applicant, stated thatfood and beverage had been restricted from the area and that the arcade was insuch an area that could be monitored by the front desk personnel at the Inn.He stated that the request was to only add one additionat video game, thusmaking it a major arcade. Jim Sayre stated that the staff approved the request.Chusk Anderson stated that he would oppose the request, feeling that these typesof requests put too much pressure on the PEC and was setting a precedent forother requests of this type. Ron Todd stated that he felt it was the parentsresponsibitity to supervise their chlldren, not the Inn's and felt that thiswas a reasonable request. Todd then made a motion to overturn the PEC decisionand al1ow the one additional video game to be added to the Inn with the under-standing that the arcade would be up for review in a one year period, as ls thecase with al1 other arcades in the Town of Vai1. Bill Wi.1to seconded the moti-on.
!.vote was taken and the motion passed 4-2 - Slifer and Anderson opposing.(/The next item on the agenda was the appeal of the PEC decision regarding theexterior alteration of the_Ledgp_gl!_y4i-li Mayor Slifer stated that the Councilhad made a trip to the prd-posed site that afternoon and felt that there wereseveral changes being proposed that had not been revj-ewed by the Planning Com-mission when it was denied. He, therefore, stated that the Council felt thatthe proposed changes should go back to the Planning Commission next Monday forfurther presentation. There was some concern expressed relating to parkingareas for the Lodge. A motion was made by Bill Wilto to send the request ba.ckto the PEC and Gail lTahrlich seconded the motion. A vote was taken and themotion passeci urranimousiy with Chuok Anller.son abstainii-rg.
The next i.tem on the agenda was the appointment of two Liquor Licensing Authoritymembers and one Planning and Environmental Commissj.on member, Howard Rapson wasappointed to the PEC position and Steve Simonett was appolnt to one of theLLA vacancies and a tie vote for the second seat resulted, thus maklng itnecessary to take another vote at the Nov. 1st meeting. For the record, ChuckAnderson abstained from voting on the PEC member as he had a member of hisfamily as one of the applicants.
Yd Stlter stated that although it was not an agenda item, the Council had{ointed a public access task force committee. Those members are: BonnieFulton, George Sedlack, Jim Lamont, Bi-l-l Wilto and Rich Caplan. They will
,be meeting soon and reporting back to the Council. A1so, Kevin Rice, Heritage'Cablevision, had met with Bill Wilto and Rich Caplan and would be getting backto the Council in the next 2 weeks with a date for the cable television surveyto be conducted by Heritage.
Under Town Manager Report, Rich Caplan stated that the flrst public hearing forthe proposed 1984 Budget will be held at the Town Council meeting of November 1.A1so, the Council will begin budget workshops the week of October 25th.
Under Town Manager Report, Larry Eskwith reported to the Council that Diana
Donovan had raised an issue to him relating to the Oldenburg sculpture site andan agreement between the Town of Vail and Vail Assoclates, Mr, Eskwith statedthat he needed a professional surveyerts report before he could go any furtheron his research of the agreement. Dan Corcoran stated that his office haddone such a survey and that he would be in touch with Larry. Chuck Andersonstated that if this new development does present a problem with the Councll'svote to approve the project, a recall of the vote may be in order.
{,r there was no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:OO p.m.L Respectfully submltted,
I
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
August 22, 1983
l2:00 pm Si te Vi s'its
2:00 pm Public Hearing
1.
2.
Approva'l of minutes of meeting of JuIy 25.
Request for exterior alteration to the Gore Creek Plaza Building to enclose
the deck of Blu's Beanery. Applicant: Charles Rosenquist
Request for a conditional use permit in Special Development District #4,
Cascade Village in order to construct a ski trail connecting Simba ski
trai1 be'low the,Iower face to Cascade Vi11age. Applicant: Andy Norris
Request for an amendment to Sections 18.04.030' 18.22.090, and 18.24.130jn'order to remove accommodation units from density controls in the Commercial
Core I and the Public Accommodations zone districts. Applicant: Lodge
Properties, Inc.
variance to Section 18.64.050 (B) in order
feet of GRFA to the interior space of unit
at 385 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Ed Wasson
3.
5.Request for a densjty controlto remodel and add 91 square
#306, Vorlaufer Condominjums
6. Request for a conditional use permit in order to construct an enclOsed
swimrning pool at 758 Potato Patch Drive. Applicant: Gary Bossow
Request for a rear setback variEnce and for a stream setback variance in
order to enlarge a deck on units 4A and 48 of the Texas Townhouses' 483
Gore Creek Driie. Applicants:- H. Thomas and Delores B. Coghill
Request for the modification of a conditional use-permit. in. order to expand
ind playground to accommodate a sodded soccer field at the Vail Mountain
Schobl i[ StOO Katsos Ranch Road. Applicant: Vai'l Mountain School, Inc.
7.
8.
9.
to be '10.
tab'led
il.
to be
tabled
Request for
26, Bighorn
a minor subdivision to vacate a lot line between lots 25 anc
Terrace Subdivision. .Applicant: Ted P. Stockmar
Request for exterior alteration to the Lionshead Arcade located at'483
Eadt Lionshead Mall in order to build a commercial addition in the interior
corner facing northeast. Applicant: Lazier commercial Properties.
Request for an exterior a'l teration to the Vi'l lage Center Project at' 122
gadi t'leaOow Drive to add a new retail addition on the east end, to revise
the entrance to Toymaker's Trai'l , to construct additions to the retail
ittopi, anO to consiruct d new sidewalk along the north side of the project.
Applicant: Fred Hibberd
MEI'IOMNDUM )
T0: Planning and Environmental Conrniss.ion
FR0M: Department of Conrmunity Development
DATE: August .t9, 1983
SUBJECT: Eqqqq:t !g amend Sections '18.04.030 (Definition of Accommodation Unit),' 18'022.090 (Density Contro'l Section df tfre Public Accommodation Zone-D'istrict) ' u.nd .18.24.130 (oensity Control Section of the CC] Zone District) .Applicant: Lodge properties, Int.
I. THE .REQUEST
Lodge Properties, Inc. has proposed amendments to three sections of the zoningco{er The proposed amendments'read as follows (the wording which is crositd'out.is proposed to be eliminated and those capitalized are-proposed to be-added):
Amend Section 18.04.030 to read:A. Amend Section '18.04.030 to read: .
'18.04.030 Acconrnodation unit
"Accormodation unit" means any room or group of rooms without kitchen facititiesdesigned for or adapted to oclupancy by-guests and accessib] e from commoncoffidors, wa1 ks, or balconies i^r'ittr6ut-pissing through another accommoditionunit or dwelling unit. Eaeh-aeeennedatien-unit-shali-be-eeunted-as-ene-half
ef-a -dwe+ I +ng-unit-fe r-puFpeses -ef -eale ulating-allewable -units-per-aeFe .
B. Amend Section 18.22.090 to read:
18.22.090 Density control
FOR DWELLiNG uNirs, not more than eightly square feet of gross residentialfloor area (enrn; sha'll be permitted-fof eaitr one trunoiea-suqare feet ofbuildable site area. Not mbre than eightly square ieet-of gross res.identia'lfloor area shall be permitted for each"one-hulidred squJ"e feet of buildablesite area for any conditional use I^IHICH INCLUDES DWELLING UNITS as listedin section '18.22.030. The totat density for permitteJ-uies, conai6oniiuses' and ac.cessory uses WHICH INCLUDE DttEt-t-tNe UNITS shal'l not exceed eightysquare feet of gross f1 oor area for each one hundred square feet of UuitdiUtirsite area. Total density 0F DWELLING uNITs shal'l not exceed twenty-fivedwelling units per acre bf buildable site area. 0N AND AFTER THE
-rnrrcttvE
DATE OF THIS AMINDMENT, NO DI.IELLING UNITS WOULD BE PERMITTED ONLY BY THE
REMOVAL OF ACCOMMODATION UNITS FROM THE CALCULATION OF GROSS RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA OR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
c.
Acconrnodatie- Unif Lodge -2-
Amend Section .|8.24.'130 to read:
.|8.24.'130 Density contro'l
Unless otherwise provided in the Vai1 Village urgan design guide plan, not
rcre than eighty square feet of gross res identia] f I oor area (GRFA) shal'l
be permitted FOR DWELLING UNITS for each one hundred square feet of buildable
site area. Total density 0F DWELLING UNITS shall not exceed twenty-five
dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. 0N AND AFTER THE EFFECTM
DATE OF THIS AMENDMENT, NO DWELLING UNITS MAY BE ADDED TO A SITE IF SUCH
ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS WOULD BE PERMITTED ONLY BY THE REMOVAL OF ACCOMMODATION
U'IITS FROM THE CALCULATION OF GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA OR I,JELLING UNITS
PER ACRE
The proposed amendments are designed to eliminatecontrol sections of the Publ ic Accommodation and
accommodation units from the density
Comrnercial Core I zone districts.
The density control sections of these zone districts wou'ld then only apply to dwel'l ing
units while1eaving the other site deve'lopment standards within these zone districts
to contro'l the development of accommodation units upon a site. In other words, an
unlimited number and size (enfn; of accommodation units would be allowed upon a site
within the PA and CCI zones as long as they were constructed within the allowab'l e
setback, height, site coverage and site development standards s'pecified within each
zone district and, in CCI, complied with the Urban Design Guide Plan.
The app'licant states that the purpose of the proposed amendment is "the adjustment
of the Vail Zoning Code to meet changing circumstances both in the evolution of the
Town of Vail and the general economic cl imate in which the Town exists" and that
"the perceived effect of the amendment is the infusion of new potential into theresort industry which forms the heart and on-going purpose of the Tov{n."
The app'licants have hired a firm to complete a study (copy attached) which concludes
that "the economic best interests of the Town of Vail are best served by a1'l owing
additiona'l hotel and meeting and conference facilities to be developed in Vail
Village.rl
II. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSAL
The applicants have conducted a study of what they bel ieve to be the practical results
of the proposed amendments (copy attached). Using assumpt'ions which included that
the additional rooms to be constructed would be 350 square feet, consideration of the
historical use of the buildings, structural considerations, site constraints,
and, in most cases, a disregard for zoning requirements except for setbacks
and height, they projected that an additjonal 257 accommodation units could be con-
structed within Vail Village. 0bviously, the number could vary substantia'l1y under
other sets of assumptions. For instance, building smaller rooms than 350 sq ft
uould increase the total number of unjts as could the total reconstructjon of buildings,
vacation of utility easements, the change in the historjcal use of a structure,
and other aspects of development not considered while conducting the analysis. Con-
sideration of other aspects may, in fact, have resulted in a reduced projection
in the number of units.
Accom. tfts, LodSe -3-
}ie will use the applicant's figure of 257 potential additional accommodation unjtsin Vail Village as a basis for jllustrating the implicatjons of the proposal indits relationship to the current'l odging base, while at the same time recogn.izingthat this figure could be smaller or larger. (0ne should realize that one problem
with the proposed amendment is the fact that there is no finite number of units
being proposed and therefore it is difficult to realize the exact nature of the
impl ications. )
A. FACTS REGARDING LODGE ROOMS AND VAIL VILLAGE
The following facts and findfngs should be considered when reviewing the needfor additional accommodation units in the Vail Village area and the econonicvidbility of the proposal with regard to Vail Vi'llage and the entire Town of Vai'I.
1. Currently 798 accommodation units exist in the Vail Village area. Thisfigure cumently constitutes 53% of the tota'l number of accommodationunits within the Town of Vail. Vail Lionshead follows with 26% of thetota'l lodge rooms while Cascade Village and the West Vajl areas each contain
10% of the tota'l number of accommodation units. Clearly, the largest
number of accommodation units exist jn the Vail Village area of Town.
2. Current zoning in Vail wil'l allow an addition of 117 accommodation unitswithin the Vai'l Village area. There are no additional lodge rooms availableto be constructed in the Vail Ljonshead or the West Vail areas, and CascadeVillage could potentially construct an addjtjonal 278 units. (Although
the developer has indicated he will be constructing only 123.) These. statistics show that even under current zoning, Vail Village will conta'in'approximately 50% of the total number of accommodation units within the
Town of Vail when all accommodation units currently zoned for are constructed.
3. Table #l indicates occupancy figures for lodges in Vail for the period
from November l98l through April 1983. It can be seen that March is thebusiest month with occupancies at 907i in 1982 and 84% in 1983. .The lowest
occupancy rates occur in Vail's "shoulder seasons," the months of April,
May and June, and September, 0ctober and November, with occupancies rangingfron 24% to 53%. Clearly, even during peak times of the year there are
lodge rooms that are available jn Vail. Also 230 lodge rooms rlgre constructedin Vail within the 1982-1983 ski season and are now available to our guests.
4. The parking structure in Vail Village was ful1 a total of 68 days in the
138 day 1980-8'l ski season, 73 out of .l52 days in .|981-82, and 53 outof 142 days in .l982-83 season. in addition, less than 50 spaces v,,ere'left unoccupied a total of l3 da.ys 'in the .|982-83 ski season. Conven jence
of parking has been identified iir tne Vail/Beaver Creek l,rljnter Qua'lityStudy since 1979 as a "problem,,,
Accommo. Unitso
TABLE NO. I
LODGE ROOM OCCUPANCIES . CORE PROPERTIES
1981-82 g OCCUPIED
l{ovember
December
January
February
llarch
Aprll
llay
June
Ju'ly
August
,September
0ctober
27..5
69.1
69.4
83.9
90.1
53.7
24,4
39.2
65.0
65. 4
41.2
31 .8
28.2
'66.2
80.8
&.2
84.4
33.7
--i__-:.g82.s3
- l{ovenber
I = ''- 'Becember.: January
=- February-: l{arch':' April
Source: VaiI Resort'Association
AccomrP.itsUnto
DATE
LLl26l82
L2130182
t2l3Ll82
rlLrls3
Ll13l83
Llt4l83
21.20183
3lL3l83'
12l?818L
r2l29l8r
L2l30l8L
tzl3u8L
L2127180
L2l28l80
L2l29l80
L2130180
t2128179
tzl3Ll79
'3130180
413180
414180
TABLE NO. 2
VAIL MOUNTAIN
PEAK DAYS FROM 1979 - 1983LIST OP
YEAR
82-83
tl
tl
tl
tl
tl
tl
!f
81-82
al
.tl
|l
80-8r
tl
tl
79-80
t:
ll
ATTENDANCE 'il'zt t
14,619
13, ?70
f4,602
13,516
13,012
L3,325
. r3ro05
. 13,588
14,450
13,252 .
14,59O. '
.i
13, r28
13,190
14,224
14,235'
13,062
13,129
13,031
13r 018
13,470
tl
la
Source: Vail Associates, Inc.
Accormo. Units -4-
5. The Vai'l/Beaver Creek Winter Quality Study has made the following findings:
a.In the 1979-80, l980-81,'l9Bl-82 seasons several questions were askedregarding community scale, architectural quaiity, levei of congestionin Vail, etc. Visitors and residents alike were stronq in their opjnionsthat the Vil'l age was present'ly quite attractive in arc[itectural quality
and scale, particularly in comparison to l-ionshead, but many feltthat Vail was becomjng too crolded and congested and in danler oflosing its charm. Furthermore, strong feelings existed that Vai'l
and Eagle County should attempt to limit the amount of new growth.
The 1982-83 study concluded that "there js'little evidence that thesize or avai'l ab'ility of lodge un'its is emerging as a problem amongVail skiers this season. About 90 percent of att skiers respondedthat they had gotten their preferred type of lodging unit, with skiersstaying in "time shares" or condos without kitchens most likely to
say that they were not jn their preferred type of unit. There was
no.evidence that people in condominium units would have preferredlodge/hotel units. rr
b.
6. In the past 5-6 years many investments have been made in redeveloping,renovating, and upgrading commercial , retail, restaurant, and 'lodging
space within Vail Village. In .|983 a1one, a tota'l valuation of $SZS,ZSOworth of renovation and reconstruction has started since January as comparedto $35,000 worth in Ljonshead. Five additional renovation and ieconstrlctionprojects in the Viliage are current'ly going through the review process.
7.
8.
9.
Sa'les tax totals in 1982
Lionshead, and $440,598
revenue generating area
were $2,568,869 in Vail VilIage, $995,'128 inin West Vall. Clearly Va'il Village is the largestwithin Vail.
Rent per square foot for cormercial retail space averages $30.00 per
sguare foot in Vail Village,920.00 per square foot in Lionshead, $ZO.OOper-square foot in Cascade Vi11age, and $l 2.00 per square foot in LJest
Ygil: Certainly, commercial property within the Village is not at aorsaovantage compared to the other areas of Town
Tab'le #2 shows a'list of peak days on Vai'l Mountain from .|979-'1983. "Peakdays" are identified by Va'i 1 Associates as days having over .|3,000 skiers.
The Winter Quality study identified in .l979-80 that tourists tend to feel
"stress" and lift lines began to back up at approximately the 12,000 skier
1evel . In addition to those'l 3,000+ days shown in Table 2, there were anadditional 10 days when the skier numbei was between 12,000 and'l 3,000 in the82-83 season, five days in 8'l-82, one day in 80-81, and l0 days in 79-80.Thus, for example, in this past ski season a total of l8 days-of the .|42
day season were jn excess of .l2,000 skiers.
Accommo. Units -5-
O
B. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
The proposed amendment will have several impacts upon Va'il Village and theentire Town of Vail. The potent'ial construction of 257 acconunodation unitsin the Vail Village area will substantially impact the properties upon which
they are constructed, the surrounding properties, and the overall Town.
The Department of Community Development does not believe that the proposed
amendment is consistent with the basic objectives of the zoning code, oneof which is "to prevent excessive population densitjes and overcrowding ofthe 'l and with structures." The various develooment standards within each
zone district are tools designed to ensure that what is constructed upon asite resul!s in a compatible relationship with its surroundings, both in regardto the inttinsity of uie of the structure and in terms of the iciual size,
shape, UnR;anA@-of the structure. The density gglUgl: which are proposed'
to be eliminatedintegral part of
for
the
accormodation units in CCI and the PA zone districts are an
zoning code with respect to these aspects of development.
As can be seen from the past winter quality studies, both Vai'l residents and
visitors al'ike have stroirg beliefs regardihg the attractiveness of the Village
intermsOf architectural quality and icale, but felt the Vjllage was in danger
of 'losing its charm. The
'propo'sed
amEndnrent wil'l have sign.if icant impacts_
upon the scale of the Vi1'lige area. The elimination of the density controls
which appll to acconrnodation units would a'llow some buildings to increase
substantlaily in size, with certain buildings capable of construct'ing as much
ab two times-the present building mass (see Ruoff Partnersht'p Analysis of
Potential RaUitioirat Lodge Rooms-whjch is attached). The addition of this
bulk and mass will affect the qua'l ity of Vail Vjllage in terms of visual charac-
teristics,'l ight and shadows, views, open space, overail scale/and character.
The applicants believe that since the Urban Design Guide Plan would still
apply'that the overall scale and character of the Village will "be virtua'l 'ly
unqhanged." However, one must realize that many of the properties whjch could
potentially increase in mass and bulk are not located within the CCI district
lnd therefbre are not required to be reviewed under those guidelines, but
only through the Design ileview Board process. The DRB guidelines basical 1y
deai with architectura'l quality and cannot deny an application the size of
structure permitted under zoning, and the Urban Design Guide Plan is also
limited in its abi'lity to control the size of structures. The staff believes
that density controls-are important to keep intact, for !hellr9.I!.j-!.-9om-Li6!-onwith all of the site development standards (height, setbacks, etc.) and the
Design Review and Urban Design Guide Plan to provide for an acceptable size
of structures which results in the pieasing sca1 e and character of the Vi11age.
Density controls are most important jn tenns of the fact that they are the
basic tools which contro'l the intensity of use of.property in order to."provide
for the growth of an orderly anT via5le conrmunity" (another of the basic purposes
of the zoning code). A fundamental of sound planning is to ensure that there
is an appropriate mix and intensity of uses within the conmunity to ensure_
a contiiriration and growth of the economjc base and to provide for enough flexibility
to al]ow the private sector to meet market demands while at the same time
maintaining the established cormunity qualities and values. Obviously, when
any change-in intensity of use as significant as the change being proposed
is-revieied, the impacts of that chaige in intensity rnust-be fu'l 'ly considered.
4
6-IAccomnp. Units -o
As indicated in part A of this report, major changes in the density of theVillage could become problems from the perspective of the "loyal" Vail overnightvisitors. The Vail/Beaver Creek Winter Quality Study has identified that"it became clear from an analysis of questions that congestion and crowding
are definjtely emerging as major problems jn Vail and that significant segmentsof the tourist population indicate that they may stop vacationing in Vailif rampant growth contjnues." Certainly crowding and congestion is a realistic
problem at peak times within Vail as evidenced by parking, traffic, and capacityof Vail Mountain. There is no question that the significant jncrease proposed
for accommodation units in Vai'l Village wii'l add to the current problems.
One must keep in mind that a significant amount of growth and population
increase can be potential 1y added to Vail under the densities that the Townis cumently zoned for.
THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL LODGE ROOTJS
The applicants for the proposed amendment set forth several arguments wh'ichthey believe justify the need for additional lodge rooms within the Vail Vi'llagegfeg. One argument set forth descnibes the need-for'new, 350 square feet,high qua'l'ity lodge rooms in order to increase the quality of Vail's lodging
base and'that "because of physical restraints it is virtually impossible. in
many cases to remodel existing smal'l hotel rooms into larger ones.rr It isinteresting to note that as'mentioned in part A of this m6mo the .|982-83 Winter
Quality Study found that none of the skiers who identified unit size as aproblem were staying in loAge rooms. The app'licants have not presented any
documentation or analysis which demonstrates the perceived need for more oithis type of room og'in fact,for any type of lodging accommodations. Theoccupancy-figures shown on Table #'l seem to indicate that, if anything, there'is a surplus of lodging accommodations in Vail. This information, togetherwith the facts that 230 additional lodqe rooms have been constructed withinVail this past winter and that the abiTjty exists under cument zoning to constructadditional lodge rooms, hardly points to or justifjes the need to amend the
zoning code to remove the density controls in CCI and PA zones.
A second argument presented by the appl icants in support of e'liminating thedensity controls with regard to acconmodation units is that Vail Village doesnot have adequate facilities to comoete eouallv with other areas of Town inthe potent'ial for the corporate and aisociatioir group and conference market.They believe that "in order to compete in this segment of the market, vailVillage needs increased hote'l rooms coordinated with modern meeting and con-ference facilities." They believe that the corporate and association meeting
and conf€rence market is the emerging market in Vail and that this marketfunctions mainly during those periodi consjdered "shoulder" seasons in vail.
It is the Department of community Development staff's opinion that the studyconducted by the applicant does not contain any significant data or documentation
which supports the conclusions mentioned above. The staff wouid agree thatthe convention and meeting market could very wel'l help to support ltre vai'l
economy during the shoulder seasons. Convention and meetino facilities con-structed at the Marriot Mark and at the Westin Hotel indicaie that the private
sector is currently responding to this market, However, the market studycompleted by the applicant contains no infornration regarding the potentiil
absorbtion rate of the nrarket within the total Town or even-within the Village.
The study does not contain any analysis of the existing meeting and banquet -
facjlities within the Town or village nor does it analyze the,bility of thecuffent lodging base wjthin the village to support an iddition of thLse types
c.
Accommo. Units -7-I
of facilities. The study does not indjcate what type or size facility is needed
other than "modern meeting and conference facilities." It is very c'l ear that there
is no documentation within the analysis whatsoever which supports the potential
addition of over 250 accommodation units within Vail Village. Our data actually
refutes the conclusions of the report. It i5 very clear when analyzing occupancyrates that more lodge rooms are not needed within Vail Vi'l 1age.
A third argument central to the applicant's proposa'l is that an increase of hotel
rooms in Vai'l Village "is necessary to allow Vail Village to contjnue to be the centerof activity in Vail," and the study presented indicates the belief that the Vail
Village area will deteriorate if unable to compete equally with the Mark and the lJestinfor the meeting and conference market. Several factors shown in part A of this memo
indicate that Vail Vi'llage is certainly not in an unhealthj, economic state. The
sales tax figures, rental/lease rates, and the valuation of building constructjon,
upgrading and renovation c1early point to the fact that the Village is a highly desira-
ble location for commercial act'ivity, and that substantial investrnents are being
made by al1 types of businesses, jnc]uding lodges, wjthin the Vjllage area. Current
regulations have not been a detriment to this upgrading and renovation.
A central.aspect of the applicant's proposal is that convention and meeting space
needs to be provided within the Village area. It is important to rea'lize lhatadditional convention and meeting space could be constructed within several ofthe lodge properties under current ionin_g.
The applicants be'lieve that Vail Vi'llage needs to be compet'itive with other areasof Vail, The staff does not necessarily beljeve that each core area of Vail needsto. be-competitive with each other in terms of each possessing the same types offacilities. The varjous areas of Town should be designed to iomplement eibh otherrather.than compete with each other. l{e realize that a certain amount of competitionis good in the sense that it st'imulates business owners to keep the'ir facilitiesin a first class condition. However, the Town of Vafl should iunction as one co-hesive economic unit rather than separate areas in competition, and while one area0f.Town may possess facj'l ities which make it the convention/meeting center of Town,other areas may possess characteristics which make it desirable as-the cormercialcenter of Town.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Deveiopment recommends denial of the requested varjance.An analysis of_the facts reveals that the Town of Vail does not need'to increase thedensity of publjc accommodation units. We do not believe that any of the data presentedby the applicant points to the conclusion that Vai] Village is in- need of more'accommodation units than can be provided under current zoning. The amendment proposed
cotild be detrjmenta'l to the Vajl Village in terms of the architectural qua'lity',scale, and character which have been identified by many residents and visitorias one of the most pleasing aspects of Vail, causing many of the visitors to returnyear after year.
The eliminatjon of the dens'ity contro'l s wjth regard to accorrunodation units in the
CCI and PA zone districts in no way ensures the success and corrnercial viability
Acconmo. Units -8-t
of the Vail Village
and in our opinion,
which is cumently
scale, and quality
I
area to any greater extent than do the existjng zoning controls,
would do nrore harm than good by altering drastically an area
the most successful area within Vai'l due to the desirability'
of the area.
The issue of quality, in fact, is the central issue to be considered when analyzing
this proposed-ToTge room amendment. Those proposing the increase in the number of
accormodation units feel that the answer to improving the quality of the visitor
experience jn Vail is an increase in the quantity of lodge rooms and for many years
the response to many issues of both plannTng anE-development in thjs corTmunity to
various needs has been one of jncreased ouantity. Vail is now at a point, howevern
when the major concern must be focused udon majirtaining apd improving upon the quality
of what has made Vail the attractive destination resort it has become.
Commun'ity leaders jn Vail have become concerned ivith exact1y th'is issue, arnong other
issues, and have initiated the Community Action Plan to plah for Vai'l 's future. One
of the "statements of purpose" contained within the draft document which the group
has prepared stated thit bne of the Vail community's goals for the future shou1d
be "to assure through appropriate mechanisms the contjnuing publ ic and private
maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the comnunity's ex'ist'ing major products
and facilities." The group is currEntT[Tooking for answers to the question of where
the Town should be headed jn order to preserve and enhance the quality of the Vail
experience. 'Future decisions need to be carefully considered in terms of their impact
upon this qua'l ity,
In the specific case of the proposed amendment there is, in fact, a certain amount
of evideice which points to the conc'lusjon that an jncrease in density in the Village
of one third would have a detrimental effect on the quality of Vail Village and the
entjre Town of Vail. At the very'least, any decision of such nagnitude should certain'ly
be substantiated by a thorough study which looks at the tota'l balance and re1 ationship
between short term accommodation units and the other segments of the community.
The staff agrees with and supports the'idea that limited expansion of meeting space
within the Vai'l Village area may be a.solution to. the problem of low occupancies
within the lodges during the shoulder seasons, We believe, however, that an analysis
should be conducted which looks at the oortion of this market which Vail'cou'ld absorb
and ana'lyzes the relationship between the number of accommodation units and convention
meeting ipace which currently exist. If is our beliefthatthe present lodging base
which exists in the Vail Vi'llage area could support the limited addition of meeting
space.
,1).*o
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMI
July 25, 1983
Creek P1aza Bu'i'l ding: Enc'losure of north side outdoor decks
Sweet Basil
Blu's Beanery
o
SSION
('l1:30 am Site Inspectioni
'l :00 pm Publ ic Hearing.
1. leqgfst.to..rezone Treetops condominiums from High Density Multiplea-::.': ,. Family (HDMF) zone district to Commercial Core it aistrtit in. order to add reta'il space and 1,equ_esting an examption to section18.52.090 to allow a roading spaie w'itnin the required frontsetback. Appl icant; Treetops' Condominium Association
/)t''l( 2y' \?Ctje.sl^Ior an,amendment to Sections 18.04.030, 18.22.090, and\-/ 18.24.1 30 in order to increase the number of aicommodation unitsal'l owed in the Commercial Core I and the Pub'l ic Accommodat'ion zonedistricts. Applicant: Lodge properties, inc.-
. .3: Request-for-a side setback variance to construct a garage for a residence
9n Lgt 5' Block 3, Bighorn Third Addit'ion, in a Low-Deniity Multiple
,," , I FlilV zone:distri:t: A-ppl icants: Kart Forstner and Theo- Moosbui,g;r
: ' 6"'{.: Request to:rezone a parcel commonly known as the Getty 0i1 site, a3 : ': .. 1.02 acre of unpratted parcer of rind'rocated immJaiaiety wesi-6r' Pitkin creek on Bighorn'Road, from Low Density Multi-familv (LDMF)with 2.employee houiing uniti to Heavy Servici (Hsj in orair'io hiitaa service station and car wash on the property.' Applicant: Brooks. . - Investments
, A. -Gore
for l.
2.
B. .Lifthouse Lodge Building: To
,
t , some area) and to create a new
C. Vi'llage Center Retail Shops:the east end and to revisb the
shop.
a1 ter Purcel'l 's south deck (encloseretail shop.
to add a new retai] addition onentrance to the Toymaker's Trail
D. Lodge at Vail: to expand and remodel two restaurants.
6. Request for an amendment to Section 17,26.060 condominium conversionsto delete language which wou'ld require a converted condominium to haveseparate utility meters for each unit, and to delete language that wouldrgquire the _converted condomium to pay fees equal to the fees chargedjf !!. building were new, m'inus previbus building permit fees.Applicant: Town of Vail
(1I
...t
(
MEI,IORANDUM
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FR0M: Community Development Department
DATE: July 19, .|983
suB,lECT: Public hearing and consideration of an exterior alteration andmodification to permit the expansion of two restaurants at theLodge at Vail. App'licant: Lbdge properties, Ini.
A. COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION
REQUEST:
Thjs is part one of a.potential two-part proposal for Lodge properties, Inc. The
lequest under the 60 day review peribd is'thb expansion oi two restaurants,First' there would be a 730 squaie foot expansioh to itre sait Lick restaurantto be renamed The wildf'lower restaurant. becond, there would ue i si5 iquirefoot expansion to the Arlberg restaurant to be renamed the Cipriani resia-urant.
Hisrony:
During Ju1y, 198], the Town Counci] approved a 620 square foot expansion fora restaurant named Hamy's Bar. The iioposal was a dne story addition to theeast of the Salt Lick restaurant.
(
The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintainthe-unique character of the Vajl ViIlage commei^ciat irei, with its mixiuieof lodges and cormercial establishmenti in a predominanify peAestrian envi-ronment. The Commercial Core I district is iirtended to e-nsirre adequatelislt' liJ '.gqgn space, and other amenitjes app"opriaie to the per:niitteatvpes of buildings and uses. The district rebirtalioni tri aiioriinCe wiirrthe Vail Vi'l'lage Urban Design Guide Plan and ilestgn Coniiaerattons presCribeslEe oevelopment standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance andpreservation of the !iSh!]V c'lustered amangements of buildings frontingon.pedestrianways.and public greenways, and-to ensuie iontinuation of theDu'il0'tng scate and architectural qualities that distinguish the village.
The proposed restaurant expansions comply with the purpose section of ConnnercialCore I district.
B, N GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN GONSIDERATIoNS
l. Sub-area Concepts of
No sub-area concept
the Urban Design Guide plan
of the plan is related to this proposal.
(
' '?'-
2.
(pedestrian fipvement.is executed, there
3.
C
corridor in the area.
I
the proposal .
ls required to pay applicable partlngfrftftSf,po,,",,na
cxpanslons.
E.
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Parking: ili*{cantlfttawrnt
DESIGN CONSIDEMTIONS
The.Design Review Board will review the architectural plans for bothrestaurants.C
Lodse Expanl -z- tltgll3
Pedestrian i zation
The-restaurant expansiol-s do not directly impactIf the. entire plan for the Lodge Rroferties,' tnc.uould be a change in pedestriaiizati6n
Veticle Penetration
4. Stredtscape Framework
5.
_' 6.
---- 1
r ':.: -.
No change.
Street Enclosure
No change
'Street Edge
No change
Buildinq Heioht
,There is no designated vjew
Service 'anO Oet iv
Tfrere would be actua'l]y no. ih.ng" in building height. At the ilme thatthis_proposal was befoie the Toin council ttrdre wit-ior"-"onc"rn withthe flat roof. when Hamy's Bar r.nni uerore-ilre'ong-i-itdiing rootwas presented.
'vi"n,
Lodge at VaiJRansion -3- tn9/83
&
The on'ly 9on99r! of the staff is the loss of_outside dining, specificallyat the salt Lick restaurant. A part of the future p"opoiii'ii'io have a(- temporary canvas.pavilion for ouiside dining during'ttrb sumner. If thist is.constiucted, then there would ba-ie;;;;;cern for the loss of the current- patio.
. ' t/'j -t
REC0MI'iENDATIOtl :
The.conrnunity Development. Department recommends approval of the tworestaurant expansions... .The.bepartment considers that the request is inconformance with the vail vilIirge urban-Des.ign euitie-piui,'do*e"ciar core Izone district and Desisn Consid6rations. -Asiin;-i[; b;;i;n Review Boardshou'ld 'look at the f'lai root issue. -irre one condr'trton-oi"approvar is thatthe applicant.agrees to participate in ana noi reil;;i";i"-;bainst a speiiatimprovement district if bne is formed for the vaii viiiidi irea.
P'lann'ing and Environmental Commission
July 1l , l9B3
PRESENT
Dan Corcoran
Diana Donovan
Gordon Pierce
Duane Piperl'|i'll Trout
Jim Viele
ABSENT
JJfr-T-organ
(A discussion of the possibility of having a pedicab
the meeting. )
STAFF PRESENT
Dick Ryan
Peter Patten
Peter Jamar
Betsy Rosolack
Larry Eskw'ith
system in the town Preceded
The meeting was ca] led to order at 2:15 by the chairman, Dan Corcoran'
Donovan moved and Piper seconded to approve the minutes of the.meeting of
June 27, 1983, The vote was 6-0 in favor.
uest for a conditiona'l use rmit for a da care facil i
vrslon.cants:
John Perkjns, representing the applicants showed slides of other day-care faciliites
ii*ifu" to the oi'e piopotiO. pei^i<ins stated that since.appearing before the PEC
ijii,-i. -t'ai iai ri*a'wiin-niir.' cipian-anJ-ir,e corncit and ilich hai mentioned 6
oih;i p;s;ibte sites for the schbo'l: near the Mtn Be]1 properlv,. !1ad.i.ns part
oi iot'+O tor tot 34, pa"i of-Furlei S in Lionsridge #2 irest of Val'li H-i, a portion
oi tn" Huo Wirtn slt6,-oi-a-pariei-owned by Alice Farsons near Donovan Park. He
iaaea-tfrat they had niffowed'their choiceito tn"ee: The Hud Wjrth site' the Mtn'
Bell property, or the trade.
Perkjns asked if he cou'ld po]1 the board about the sjtes, and Eskwith replied
that it was not the Uoird''s iob io choose a site. He added that any decision
nouf-O'tuu"=to-le-miae-ii-a-pirUiii-frearlrig riit' prope" notification.- Diana wanted
io tnow why the Town of Vaii should help the.pre-school business if it was not
j-pfn-proiit enterprise. Mike Dawson repf ied'that it was difficult to determine
where hon-profit ends and profit started, because the rates to be charged would
be the same
Perkins asked to have the request withdrawn. Tr-out mqved and.Viele -sgcqndei -to al]ow the app'l jcant to withdraw hjs application and the vote was b-u ln ravor'
2. Request for an amendment !o !991i981q.04.030, 19:22'q90, and'-]8-'24'130.inl"a"ffiffilfta-=t ".
Corcoran said he had received a'l etter from Jay Peterson.representing the applicant'
;;qil;ii'a-to tiure-uniii iJiv-zs, ige:. ttggl-1novrg-slq Pielce-seeolled to
fq[g--U"tif Jrlv 25 p-. .pp . The vote was b-u ln Tavor'
Otro, Pnrnnsow & Posr
ATTOBNTTS AT .I,AW
POST OFFTCE BOX 3 t49
vatl-, ooroRADo 81667
VAIL NATIONAL EANK EUILOING
(3O3) 47€-OO02
EASLE.VAIL PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
l30g) E49-s3AOFFEDERICX S. OTTO
.,AY K. PETER9ON
WILLIAM ..,. POST July 21, 1983
Planning and Environmental
Commission
Town of VaiL75 South Frontage Road WestVail, CO 8L657
Attention:
Dear Dan:
Dan Corcoran
f hereby request, on behalf of Lodge Properties, Inc., that myPetition for Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, which Petitionis dated l'lay l-3, l-983, be tabled until- your AugusE 22, 1983meeting.
truly yours,
PETERSON & POST
JKP:mec
ll:30 am
l:00 pm
pLANNTNG|lo ENVTRoNMENTAL comMrssroN t
Ju'ly 25, l9B3
Site Inspections
Publ ic Hearing
Request to rezone Treetops Condominjums from High Density Multiple
Family (HDMF) zone district to Conrnercial Core II district in
order to add retail space and requesting an examption to Section'18.52.090 to allow a loading space within the required frontsetback. Appl'icant: Treetops Condominium Association
Request for an amendment to Sectjons 18.04.030, 18.22.090, and
18.24.1 30 in order to increase the number of accommoda.tion units
a'l lowed in the Commercial Core I and the Public Accommodation zonedistricts. Applicant: Lodge Propertjes, Inc.
Request for a side setback variance to construct q garage for a residence
on Lot 5, Block 3, Bighorn Third Addit'ion, in a Low Density Multiple
Family zone district. Applicants: Karl Forstner and Theo Moosburger
Request to rezone a parcel common'ly known as the Get.ty Oil site, a'l .02 acre of unplatted parcel of land located immediately west ofPitkin Creek on Bighorn Road, from Low Density Multi-family (LDMF)
with 2 emp'loyee housing units to Heavy Service (HS) in order to bui'lda service station and car wash on the property. Applicant: Brooks
Investments
Requests for exterior a'l terations to the following buildings:
A, Gore Creek Plaza Building: Enclosure of north sjde outdoor decksfor :1. Sweet Basil2. Blu's Beanery
B. Lifthouse Lodge Building: To a'lter Purcell's south deck (enclose
some area) and to create a new retail shop.
C. Village Center Retail Shops: to add a new retail addition on
the east end and to revise t-he entrance to the Toynnker's Trail
shop.
2.
1.
D. Lodge at Vai'l : to expand and remodel two restaurants.
6. Request for an amendment to Sectjon 17.26.060 Condominium Conversions
to delete language which would require a converted condominium to have
separate utility meters for each unit, and to delete language that would
requ'ire the converted condomium to pay fees equal to the fees chargedif the building were new, minus previous building permit fees.
Applicant: Town of Vail
3.
4.
5.
Planning and Env'ironmental Connission
June 27, .|983
STAFF PRESENTPRESENT
Dan Corcoran
Diana Donovan
Jim Morgan
Gordon Pierce
Duane Piper
l,lil I Trout
J im Viel e
The meeting was called to order by Dan
l. Rod S'lifer' Mayor
Chuck Anderson, representing the mayor,
longer going to send a representat'iVe to
was the op'inion of the Council that the
rnnitoring, and further that the Councilthat they had to attend.
Peter Patten
Jlm Sayre
Larry Eskwith
Betsy Roso'lack
2.
Corcoran, chairman.
errors were corrected, and Donovan
as corrected. The vote was 4-0 in
stated that the Town Counci'l was no
the PEC meetings. He added that it
PEC was doing a good job, and did not need
members had many meetings that were mandatory
Severa'l typographical
to approve the minutes
and Pierce abstaininq.
moved and Viele seconded
favor with Morgan, PiPer'
3.uest for an amendment to Sections '18.04.030 I8.22.090
er to increase the n r of acconrnodaf,'lon units alIo
e HuDtrc on zone districts.p nca
The Lodge
July 11 ,
Properties submitted a.|983, Donovan moved and
requesting that their jtem be tab'led until
seconded !q teb-le to 7/]1/83. The vote
I etter
Pierce
was 7-0 in favon.
4. Request for a side setback variance to construct a garage for a secondary unit
Jim Sayre stated that this was the second time the applicants had been before the
board,-but that there had been changes since the first time, One change was to
move the garage to the northwest and the other was that there was no need for a parking
variance because the existing parking area is 27 feet wide, which satisfies tire
three stall requirement. fne itaft ielt that there was a definite physical hardship.
The galage has also been changed so that the roof is two feet'lower which would
partially mitigage the obstruition of views from the Andersons' lot, lot 8.
Corcoran read a certified letter to the board that said: (See attached letter.)
Dave Tyrell, representing Mr. Anderson, stated that although there had been an effort
PEc -5 6/27t83
to mitigate the obstruction of the Anderson,s view, the project still presenteda wall appearance. .He stated that the Andersons woula sbiti like to tit<e ttre -
ramp out of the setback. _Three more points Mr. Tyrelt made were: l. The ownersof lot 9-would probably also be^in to 9e.! a-varia-nce,_because the pr;fe;;"d-orifaingarea on lot 9 was c'lose to lot g, z.' He felt that'3 spaces oenihd 2 spaces didnot make 5 spaces, and 3. parking should not be in the l.ignt-oT-"ay
Pierce stated that it has been a precedent to a1 low parking spaces to be counted
:I:!,ilo.rg! the spaces were in front of garage doors, but Fatten e*ptainea-iiiatusually when that happened, there was oniy one dwelling unit involvLd.
viele said that although.he respected the staff,s opinion, he djd feel thatthere was a,substantial improvement over tne prevtous preientation. Donovan feltthat.the property did not lend itself to two irnits, anb that the first unit waiDullt wlthout planning for a second unit. Trout did not feel that the ramp brasa structure, and thus did not need a variance.
Discussion which fol'l owed concerned whether or nota structure which would determine whether or noE a
the ramp was to be consideredside setback variance was needed.
Trout read theof the meeting.
sewer plant.
A discussion fo] lowed concerning the definition of a ,'structure."
definition from 18.04.370. It ilai aeiiaea to discuss it ta the end
The.applicant asked to table the item unti'l July l'l so that he would have time to workwltn tne staff on some changes. Donovan questioned what exact'ly the staff wanted tableduntil September and Patten exp'l ained that'the staff would present revisions to the non-conforming use chapter of the code by then but that thjs amendment should be addressedsooner.
5. Request to amend Section .|8.64 Nonconform in Sites. Uses Structures and Siterovements, to include e whicn w a I row ?or'ln er'tor expans lon ore-exlstrn al n0n-con uses for ona I Gross oorArea. App I lcant:ar n
6.est for a conditi nal use ermit to construct a water collection svstemre uree d ow uent disccant: Va soc'iates,Inc.
The applicant had requested to table the item until July ll
Jlm Viele moved and Jim Morgan seconded to approve the request for the variance
"Oto try td
.
Trout moved and Piper seconded to table until July ll. The vote was 6-l'withrvffi
t lon
Viel e tabl e
Orro, Pnrnnsor.r & Posr
ATTOB$EYS AT IIIW
POST OFFTCE BOX 3149
vAlI, ooLoRADO 41667
VAIL NATIO AL BAiIK EUILDING
(303) 476-OO92
EAGLE.VAIL PROFESSIONAL BUILDINO
(3o3) e49-534oFREDERICX S. OTTO
t,AY I(. PETERSON
IVILLIAM J. PO9T
July 6, 1983
Plannlng and Envirorunental
Conrnission
Town of Vail-75 South Frontage Road lrlestVail, CO 81657
Attention: Dan Corcoran
Dear Dan3
I hereby request, on behalf of Lodge properties, Inc., that myPetition for Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, which Petitionis dated May 13, 1983, be tabled until your JuIy 25, L983 meeting.
If you have any guestions, please ca1l.
Very truly yours,
PETERSON & POST
JKP:mec
Orro, Prrnnsor & Posr
ATIORIIE'TS AT I.AW
POST OFFICE tsOX 3t4g
VAIL. COLORADO 8t667
VAIL NATIONAL BANK 6UILDING
(303) 470-OO92
EAGLE-VAIL PROFESSIONAL BUILDING(303) 94e-53aoFREOERICK S. OTTO
JAY I(. PETERSON
WILLIAM .J. POST June 22, 1983
PJ-anning and Environmental-
Commission
Town of Vail75 South Frontage Road WestVail, CO 81657
Attention: Dan Corcoran
Dear Dan:
I hereby request, on behalf of Lodge Properties, Inc., that myPetition for Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, which Petitionis dated May 13, 1983, be tabled until- your July 11, 1983 meeting.
If you have any questions, please cal1.
yours,
ETERSON & POST
JKP:mec
Orro, Pnrnnsor.r & Posr
ATTOBIIDYS AT I"AIY
POST OFFTCE BOX 3r49
\/AIL. OOI.OnADO 8r€57
VAIL NATIONAL AAN K 6UILOII{G
{303} 476-OO9a
EAG LE-VAIL PROFE9SIONAL EUILDINO
(3O3) C49-53AOFFIEDERICI( 3. OTTO
JAY K. PETERSON
WILLIAM J. POST June 9, 1983
Planning and Enviroru[enta].
Commlssion
Town of Vail75 South Frontage Road WestVail, CO 81657
Attention:
Dear Dan:
Dan Corcoran
I hereby reguest, on behaLf of Lodge Properties, Inc., that myPetition for Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, which Petitionis dated ltlay J-3, 1983, be tabled until your June 27, L983 meeting.
If you have any questions, please call-.
Very truly yours'
ETERSON & POST
JKP:mec
Study
Analysis of Potential for Additional Hotel Rooms in CCi, PA 6 CCll
Note: Additional rooms based on 350 sq. ft. hotel rooms E building envelope.
Athletic Club; No additional roomsBufiffigffimost of its' site allowing for no expansion sideways.
Building height is twenty to thirty feet over maximum atlowed in
PA district, thus allowing no expansion upwards.
Christiania: l4 additional roomsffiI expansion with least affect on existing rooms would be to
add a floor over the existing hotel. This is allowable in PA dis-trict and would create fourteen new hotel rooms.
Gasthof Gramshammer: No additional rooms
@t site. lf an additional floor were added
above the existing, the building would exceed the height limits.
Parking lot to the west is held in commoni no building expansion
possible in connection with the existing building at the present
time.
Golden Peak House: No additional rooms
iT-Eulld-ing occuFies all of its' site and is already above the maxi-
mum height allowed in the district.
Holiday lnn: 33 additional roomsA new wing extending off of the existing hotel entry toward the
Frontage Road could be built. Raised on columns allowing for cars
to pass underneath to park, new rooms on the second, third and
fourth floors would look out to the east and west.
t. Kiandra/Talisman: 40 additional rooms
A?tiitionaTETET-rooms are possible above the one-story commercial
area described in the Urban Design Guidelines. Although a four
story building could be built under PA zoning, a two to three
story building would fit the scale of the neighboring buildings bet-
ter and provide a good street enclosure for that end of East MeadowDrive. Based on a 350 sq. ft. hotel room, this would allow for
about 40 new rooms.
S. lodge at Vail: 58 additional rooms + 42 allowed under zoning
1. Because of the great amount of site area, 2,0889 ac., and the
building configuration, it would be possible to build new hotel
wings connecting existing buildings and add approximately 100
nooms. This would totally enclose the main parking lot and the
swimming pool area. A smaller addition that would leave the
parking lot and pool as they are would involve. . . .
2. the building of a bridge of hotel r@ms connecting the South
wing of the Lodge with the Lodge South Condominium Building
and the addition of three floors of rooms over the lnternational
Room wing. This would create about 50 new hotel rooms and
create a sense of enclosure for the Lodge Plaza and the Townrs
Village Plaza.
Hotel RoomI n #830sqii| b7 f ;' reer
t' I
a.
b.
c.
d.
k.
-2-
h.
i.
Plaza Lodge: No additional rooms
Building fills most of itsr site. lf an additional floor could physi-
cally be added above the existing it would exceed. the height limitfor the area.
Ramshorn: 29 additional rooms.-E;Ad;;lhe existing hotel is two and three stories high and four
story buildings are allowed in the PA district, approximately 29
new Kx)ms could be added. However, because of the building con-
figuration and itSt open stairwells the addition would require con-
siderable remodeling of the hotel's existing spaces and possibly
total reconstruction to handle the weight of two additional floors.
Sitzmark: 8 additional rooms-UF6EFDesign Guidelirres calls for,a one story @mrnerciat expan-sion along Gore Creek Drive. Hotel rooms could be built abovethe commercial level on the second and third floors. This is pro-
bably not an economically feasible project however. The corridorout to the new rooms would probably cut through an existing ho-tel room. Thus for ten new rooms gained, two existing rooms
would be lost for circulation. Also the existing rooms on the south
side of the lrctel that now look onto Gore Creek Drive would lookat the wall along the north side of the additional rooms, making
those existing rooms less desirable for the guest.
Sonnenalp: 36 additional rooms
Urban Design Guidelines refers to building expansion to reinforce
the pedestrian connection between Bridge Street and East MeadowDrive. This can be accomplished by extending the north face ofthe building toward East Meadow Drive with new retail shops to
create a sense of liveliness and an enclosed arcade to direct thepedestrian in front of the hotel and onward to the shops along
East Meadow Drive. ln the PA district, height limits will allow fora fourth floor to be added onto the existing building. With the ex- :
pansion to the north, an elevator can be added for guests and spacein the new structure will be used for service and delivery.
Tivoli : 24 additional rooms
@sion to the west where the hotel's parking lot is presently lo-
cated would allow for six new 350 sq. ft. rooms per floor. A three
story addition would create 18 new hotel rooms while a four story
addition would allow 24 rooms. ln either case a new fire stair would
need to be built on each end of the building to satisfy fire code re-
quirements.
,.
t.
m. Vail Villaqe Inn: No additional rooms
The Master Plan for VVI is controlled by Special Development District
Number 6. The Development Plan for SDD 6 defines the building en-
velope which controls massing and height for the project. Three hun-
dred accommodation units would have been allowed if there were no
dwelling units in the development. With the twenty nine condominiums
built in 1982, VVI is now altowed 242 total accommodation units. Based
on the 350 sq. ft. hotel room and that portion of the projectrs build-' ing envelope that remains, only about 189 total accommodation units
can be built.
-3-
n. Sunbird: 9 additional rooms
TF6fri-ly space for expansion would be south of the hotel's poolterrace.. This would require a bridge connection to the existing
structure.;'esulting in the loss of a lptel noom on each floor.
Thus this uneconomical addition would'allow the hotel twelve new
rooms at the cost of three existing rooms, a net gain of nine.
Vailglo: 6 additional rooms
Expansion would be possible south of the hotel over the parkingdeck. This would eliminate half of the swimming pool deck andrequire rpdification to an existing stair tower and guest room.
With three new rooms on two levels above the parking deck the
hotel would gain six additional rooms.
Enzian: No additional roomsTFE-tel covers most of itsr site; that area remaining is not suf-
ficient for hotel expansion. A utility easement along the north
side of the site prevents the possibility of a new wing over theparking lot. The building can not add any floors as it is already
over the height limit.
Marriott's Mark: No additionat rooms5pffiiopmentDistrictNumber7definesthebui|dingenve|ope
controlling massing and height. With that phase constructed in
1982 - 83, the Mark has reached its full build-out.
o.
p.
q.
,uto* vLr zou/26r2
.{
REPORT. Oi{ PRC",,SED AII'EIIDMEIiIT
rnAtt/
VAIT. ZONING CODE
tntroductl.on. r
e purpose of the proposed anendment rc the
rdJuetrnent of the Vall Zonlng Code to neet clranglng
ctrcumstances both in the evorutton of, the Town of vall and
tl'" acneral econornrc crrnate .rn which tlre Town exrsta. The
tntent lf, trr" amendment rs the preae.ratlon of tlre vltality
of thc ccntrar buatnesg area of the Town and, conconltantry
the preaervatl0n of the concepts whlch resurted rn the
eetabllghnent of valt- The percelved effect of the ancndment
lg tlre 1nfus10n of new potentrar lnto the resort industry
rhlch for:mg tlre heart and on_golng purpoa€ of the Town. ,,.. ,
. rrr" c"rrt".il Jlr".'., ,.,-..;r:t:i-i-..L t,ffAfu.;rt,:', , .' r,,#t. t,i*i:::..,i
r (t) Purposeg "'! ' ''"''
Ths heart of Vall le comprladd of the publlc
Accommodatton aia comrnerciar core t Drstrictg which contarn
nuch of the original Town. The gtateA prrrpor" of both of
thege Diatrrcts rg the fostering of the resort orrentetton of
the fown through the provislon of +-hcsa aervlcee esrcntlrl to
.G
:ar'
t
:.iiilF?
vlcltora ln en envlronnent yhlch contalnc adequatc llght,
elr, oben gplcs, end ottrer anenltlea
' Botlr of these dlatricts are clearly pedertrlan
orlcnted, uhether expllcltly or irnpllcltly, and depend upon
thc'flos of pedeatrlan trafftc between varioua actlvlty
centsrs ln thCcentral core.
tftrllc the Publl,c Accommodat-lon Dlstrict la. lntcnded
to- rentrancc tlre nature of Vail es- a- wlnter and -sunncr
reCreatlon and vacatton connunitytrr-- tJre Commercial -Qdre I
Dt strlct I s lntended - to- tnalntaln
- tbe --unlque chaiacter,. 9{ _thecf Val1 Villaqiri :eonnerclal . arGai !B --l; cgnpl{ment to ^lta - own
lodglng faclllttea as -t,ell:.ag- thc "Pr!-bllc Accommodatlon
. Dlltrtct. --Eo-th :of -these:dlstrlc.tp.,:EelJ heavily gn*-tJrc
presence of vlaltora'otr gfu€ats who--are lrolraed ln Lgdgtng
fjct ltttea lnnddt ately adj acent to or-lt .thcsc dl etrleta.
evolutl.on of eny nunlclpal corporatlon,the
been acconrpinled by Changealn the qtrc-grletanceg w_hic\af,fect
t66'tirin' i puipoee. Inclrtded in thege:9!rcumstang-91.-a11 tJe
citabltehm€nt :€n4 grolrth. of. ot3rg5--..recreatlon/vag3!1on
oiiante* dclle,lbprnents, nani -of whteh J}qve aggre E gi-v^eJ.g sought'
tncreaslng
far beyond
populatlon uhlch have cauged expanelon of thc lorm
alte origlnal boundartes, and tlre vagartca of
.\
:
(2) Tha Need for the-Amcndment.
tlre passage of rnore -tlran 20 ycars since tlrs establlsbnlnt has
-2-
t
natlonal and'lnternatlonal econonles whlch have a dtrcct,
.lbctt Boncehat dlluted, effect on thc well-belng of ttre'
X Town. f1tstortcally the prlvate enterprtaa sector has rcacted
to. neet ttre chalteDges presented by changlng'clrcunrtancec.
otrc of tlreac responae! whlch le dlrectly relevant to the
priposed. anendment 1c,. the decigl'on nads by varlouq
buclncerncn !n the Town to take advantege of the lncreaalngl
'. -:
popular!.ty of the Town ae a 'resort to add to the- nogt
profltablc portion of tlretr buElneag by addlng conrnqrcial
"''t" ''-' : -
rpecc'iE'nirelly nd dselllngt
. . ..,,. _- -----.-----_
unita. 'In Connercial Core I alone, tlre loas of 19.*-.(--
lccommodatlon units and 36 dwelllng unlts can be documented.
It le clear, however,. that there l,s a polnt at wi'icf tne
narket declgl,on muet be nade to Promot€ lodglng aa well ag
' '--'l' :
€oDtls8cial actlvlty. Yet thege declslong are rarely nade by
onc indlvldual; rlthcr, lndlvidual dcclclong bacgd..'oll--'13;
conpctlng lnteregtr ti/i';""r,rt ; :.';1l""tro"
'rtili* r"
dstrlmental ultimatcly to. both lntereets and whlch
dctrfunentally affect the concept of the dlgtrlct ltgelf.-\ ;,
htrther, other factors lnfluence the\' ulttnate
". tr:'. .
of declelong nade ln the central core. One of, thegecffect
factors
..
ls tlre contlnued Erowth of the Town I'n erea! outside
tlrc central . core whlch has Just as detr!,mental an cffect on
irUrc central core as.the si?honing away of, the rceort_.narket
by cornpetlng developments. In rcvlew!'ng theee changlng
F
-3-
Clrcunatancea, lt beconag obvlous tlrat certaln reltrlctlong
pleced on.tbc cor€ center act nor€ to deatabllze than to
vltallze ttrc area and ghould be reevaluated ln llght of
changlng' c I rcumstance s .
t
Econonlcally, the resort lndustry of thc-.town lE
nrbJact trt great seasonal varl.atlon ln utllizatton of
facllltler. While utillzatlon ls hlgh during thq . prlne
rlnter months of December, February, and March, t"E.durlng
thc helght of tlre aummer aeason ln Ju!'y and August,.there is
I dragtlc:iecllne Ln occuPancy ln ttre remainlnE..4onthe.
- -- -,.. i
l{hile t}re"attractlons whlch result !n htgh oscuPancy.,lre'not
rvallable durlng the off nontha, a .rnarket exleta- -fo.: th"
Townre facitltles during those timea ln ttre conve-ntion and
neetlng market.$tn" Town has recogrnized this tn its-approval
irf a largs conventlon center at the trtarrlot llark aa.vcll ac
eor tle.,^qggtC.n notel to provfae cogVentlon- .'':'n i: . r:''ir; riS f{,it#j!:f,ra:i lr?l:l+I ""
.'
1apicc. €ouever, Ueciug" of existlng"'reatrictl'one. "bo such-. L ;
. .-' 1 : 1 ..
opportunltylspresentlyavallabletot}rogefacllltleg
located ln the central core. In aeaurlng the coSltlnued
vlablltty of, the Town ae a whole, tt ls Lncumbent 9rr those
t,nterested ln tlre Town'e welfare to addrees tne. a$tfr of
. provlde facilitles 'for the conventlon/neetlngs narlSe-t vhlle
'#I*'.,'
/
'l''
o
r: thc tarn€ tttnt Praset'ulnE the lnteErlty of tbe orlg!'nal
Dlm for Vall.
(3) Ef,fect of the Amendnent'
tlrc propoaed anendment vould rGmove f,rou tlre
dcnalty requlrenente ln the PA and conraerclal.r:[i_t
Dtatrlcte accomnodatlon units' naklnE thoee rrittrltgtfol
eppl lc ablc onry to d,e I I I i"*E :ffi*"- ":"::l t:::
^ ::"I a'(r# *ffittte lodgiaE baae ln
net effect of tlris would'be--ff
Y
' -' - - ' t-----{*a}at n "t accomnodatlon unl-!a' 8 !*ro ge a-11tr1 c t'iannroxr nate r v: "": :
"I]l
", _,ffie,}' #.
" .'1': :
poearbte maxlnurn lncrease f,or the Town of t'"ffi
Becaugc ttrtg lncreaee would be t"- ^*: centialiap tlre
% affected bY tne
pedestrlan trafftc ln the F
chanEe would ncceasarily increasc together wltlr thc
uttrlzatton.of comnerciar cnterprlses ln ttre dlstrlcl?' vflttt
utlllzlngt}rlsspaceasuellaeottreractlvltycenterg.lnt}re
ccntral core wlll result ln revltallzatton of tha cntl'rc area
rather than the dgte'tFti on vhlch ls at the ve-y least .'
inrnrnent. barL oP.
tt tnust be borr?tfrdnd that thc propoacd rnendnent
addrecses only one portlon of the existlng controll ln the
.tvo dlstrlctg whlch provide6for orderly managencnt' All of
tlre erchltectural deslgn conglderadlon"' euch ag butldlng
-5-
.i
.. J
; ' e rnd llze dlnenetonmfgfrt raatrlctiona, lot atrea end slze dj
.r.qulrGmeRta, a1d dctbacke, contLnue to apply to t5c area.
hrlthcrr. tJre Vall Vtllage Ur6an DeslEn Gulde Plan and Design
...-'/.Conildcratlons ars rtlll fully appllcable to any eddltlon of
' rccomodetlon unltc vhtch roight take ptace.
nlght be nade ullt be to sttructuret- whlch are alrcady in
crlatcnce for apeclfled purposeB under-the'zonlnE code'
'"' {-"Therelorc .iny decision to take advantaEs of a poaalble .-o-'a,
I ,".$:lncrclcc triio acconrnodatlon untte wlll be b-aged lp largc part
'.t. ." .. ' ':
on Gcononlcs and Practlcallty. The cogt effectlveneaa of any
strch declslon rnust be carefully wetghed'before Proceedlng lnd
tlrc erca creatc
":. rJ.1n 1.T j,. i::.,. l - .. ri.thc.crcatlon of gonc of ttrc-poaetbl€ Bgrtaecornirodatldn unlta.
|thc sheer magmltude of, any cuch declaton where fractt'onallzed
VJ
.Jt', ff
lY
4-- /- 'ea
lnteregtg arel lnvolved may precludS-any utlltzatlon of tlre
..,__,
poaalbltltlea offered by the anendnent. Further, tlre
dlfference ln character of euch in organizatlon fron a
cormrerclal enterprlee further milltateg agalnat totel
buildout of poaaibl€ nsw accorunodatlon unlte. I
he
necesaarY ln
develoPment,
nunlclpal orfinlzattdn
la lrrPeratlve tbat the
plan not ba a get of, r191d rurea DIrE E't srrsr ..e
a
Y adJuttnent and alteratlon to provlde continued dfnanlam for
ths central core aE well as the Town aE a whole' the
. propoaed anen&nent makes such an adJuatrnent by llfilng the
restrlction on accommodatlon units ln the Pub1tc
A
rr"
- l-- --
, -. ^--^ r r{ a}ri ar ' thcse
' X Gcconmodatlons and Comnercial Core I dletricts to peruit that
dlstrlcd db'coipete aggressively for the reaort market for
'conventlona and rneetlngs during perloda shen the occupancy la
hlatorically low and, concomitantly' furtherl'ns th9 basLc
purpoae for which the two 'dlstrlpts 'werg formed' tlre
--!'idt-H1. ^, er{ rr.rrct
v
' -"' I dlstrlct'- 'clrculatlon of pedeatrians ln thel-commercra
y affect. ln any aubstantrar narurer, the quarlty of tlre resort
-,
/ . experience lought to be promoted by the conJunctlon of aII
' - plannlng requirementa appllcable to thc central core' I
t
+
+.'
-7-
ff, noom Study
May 11, 1983
NOTES REGARDING POTENTIAL NEW HOTEL ROOMS UNDER CURRENT ZONING
I. VILLAGE
62 accommodation units
42 accommodation units
to be built.
b. Kiandra /TalismanWii6-T.tsz acres of land and 145 accommodation units and 17
dwelling units, current density is 20.97 units per acre. The
hotel can add 34 accommodation units.
c. Vail Village lnn
Th-FoGT currently has 59 accommodation units and 29 dwelling
units. SDD #6 allows a maximum of 300 accommodation units.
Subtracting from the 300 allowed, the equivalent number of accom-
modation units for the 29 condors, 58, leaves 242 total accommoda-
tion units permitted for the project.
d. Vacant lots north of Christiania
based on Town of Vail Proiections.
e. Total Potential Accommodation Units: 269
GLEN LYON
a. Westin HotelDffipeFfplan call for 300 total accommodation units. 177 unitsexist. 123 accommodation units remain to be built.
b. Total Potential Accomnrodallion Units: 123
TOTAL POTENTIAL NEIT HOTEL ROOlvlS
a. Total potential new hotel rooms for Town of Vail under current zon-
ing: 392
,/,/"
a. Lodqe at Vail - Lodqe Pro erties, Inc.
Owns 2.0889 acres of land on which onlyexist. Present zoning will allow another
2.
3.
P{I/r3/83 -5-
Corcoran asked the neighbors in
the TOV trading part of lot 40
center on part of 'l ot 40. The
Corcoran stated that hethis item until the nexr
the audience if they would be in favor offor lot 34 in order to place the day care
response from all was that they were not.
re discussion followed concerning the
ouest until Jul
exchange ofuested to table the r I I . VieleaDte the uest un e vote was rcoran a ntnq.
3.uest for a conditional use rmit in order to build an antennae on theamonix corners bu rIocant:L Cormun cations,
construc on tne Uhamonix Corners bu with a du nt.e vote was n Tavor.
The Planning and Environmental Comnission took a break to eat lunch.
4,uest for an amendment to Sections .l8.04.030 18.22.090 and I 8.24..| 30order to ncrease the num r of accorrnoda on units arcrat uore I a the Pu c Accommodat'ron zone distr pl icant:ge propert'tes, Inc.
properties, and then Perkins
moved and DonovE'n-TEEondEl--
Peter-Jamar explai.ned that an antennae would be placed on the Chamonix CornersBuilding in West Vail to service the new studio ior KVMT. Bob Dorf of KVMT answeredquestions. Trout suggested the antennae be painted, and Donovan suggested thatthe paint be flat in a l'ight color. and that the fai'ilities Oe remoi6d from thetop of the Vail Run building.
Donovan moved and rrqg!:ssglggd_to qpp@the staff memo dateduu E o. I yoJ wIL rlre cunolrlons lnat tne equ.lpment perta.tninq to KVMI be remov
had a letter from the applicant with a request to tablemeeting. Trout moved and Viele seconded'to table, and
5.u'est for a variance from Section I 8..I 3.080
econoar
v.al I das Schone Fil ing App canf,s:
which restricts one unit
Jim sayre explained the request and Susan vaughn, representing the Turnbulls,stated.that the 60/40 rule was to prevent mjrror images, but ihat the addit.ions
wou'l d help reduce the pr:esent mirror appearance of tie duplex because the additionswould have-to-be p'laced differrently. The duplex could remain 50/50 and still changefrom one'of mirror image.
o
FOR AMENDMENT
r.'f
ai
J PETITION FORM
Petition
TO THE ZONING
Date llav 13, 1983
rt
ORDINANCE
I.
OR
REQUEST FOR
A CTTA}IGE IN DISTRICT BOTJNDARIES
This procedure is reguired for any amendment to the zoning ordinance
or for a request for a district boundary change
A. NAl,tE OF PETITIONER r,oagF p'nFtrrl.i..
ADDRESS lza na=t cor.c c...r , C^. 81.652 PHONE-"(,.7S=SOI1
B. NA!48 OF PETITIONERIS REPRESENTATIVE
ADDRESS_ J.O, Box 3149 Vail, Co 81658 PHONE 476-0092
c.NAME 0F OWNER (print or e Properties
SIGNAEURE !.ltc e fa"r 4---------------(
ADDRESS PHONS aze-sot t
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAI,
ADDRESS 174 Gore Creek Driwe Vail. Co. 81657
Lodtvpe)
E.
F.
LEGAIJ DESCRIPTI ON_..i -agrt i oi,_ cl : _TraS.lSlr_E g-- El-ock 5 C
Vail village First FilingFEE $100.00 plus an arnount equal to the then current first-class postage
rate for each property owner to be notified hereunder.
A list of the names of owners of aLl property adjacent to the
subJect property, and their nailing addresses.
F
grltition form for Amen. to^zoninq ord or Rcquesi Page 2
y'-;-;-.. ----..-or Amen. torZoning Ord or Request forfange in boundaries
.. II. Four (4) copies of the following information:
A. The petitipn shall include a summary of the proposed revisionof the regulations, or a complete description oi the proposedchanges in district, boundariLs and a map indicating tie L*i"iingand, proposed district boundaries. Applicant nust, submit written and/oigraphic naterials stating the reasons for iequesr.
IfI. Time Requirements
The Planning and. Environmental Commission meets on the 2nd and 4thMondays of each month. A petition with the necessary accompanyingnaterial must be submitted four weeks prior to the late of the neet-ing. Following the Planning and Enviroimental Commission meeting,al-1 amendments to the zoning ordinance or district boundary chanlemust go to the Town Council for final action.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
rsB l-/* frr;f"T
SEB
l{ay 10, 1983
Amendments to Vail Zoning Code
The following is a brief explanation of those portions ofthe Vail Zoning Code dealing with the public Accommod.ationDistrict and the Conrmercial Core I District which were notamended in the proposed amendment relating to deletion ofaccommodation units for the purposes of counting density and
GRFA.
Section L8.22.0I0, the Purpose section relating to thePubl-ic Accommodations District was not amended because theonly reference to density limits in that section is found inthe last sentence whieh reads:
"The public acconmodation d,istrict is intended to providesites for lodging units at densities not to exceed threnty-five d,welling units per acre. rl
This entire section serves the same purpose as a legislativedeclaration in that it states the intent of the council inenacting the whole of the provision governing the public
Accommodation District. It is a standard rule of statutoryconstruction that a specific provision will always govern overa general provision to the extent that there is a conflictbetween them, see section 2-4-205, C.R.S. 1973. Since thissection is only a general statement of purpose and the substantiveBection regulating density was amended, the latter wouldgovern in case of a conflict- However, I do not believe sircha conflict exists.
Further, the term nJ.odging unit" is not defined in theZoning Code. It appears that in the sentence quoted above,the term is used generical.ly rather than in the sense ofaccormnodation units found in lodges. Since we do not intendand do not want to lift the restriction on "dwelling units"which may serve as .lodging unitsn in the pA District, thisprovision was not amended,.
Sections l.9.22.020, 18.22.030, and L8.22.040, dealingwith permitted, conditional , and accessory uses in the PADistrict were not amended sfunply because there is no existingprovision in any of those sections which establishes a limitationon the density for such uses. In fact, the only reference
Memorandunl{ay L0, 1983
Page tito
tl
whatsoever in any of those sections is found in section
ig.ZZ.O2O A, dealing with permitted uses, and the reference is
a limitation on the space which may be used for "accessory
eali"gr. drinking, recieational or ;etail establishments located
within the princiPal use".
Section 18.24.010, dealing with the PurPose of the Commercial
Core i-pistrictr likewise was iot amended because it contains
no reference to any limitation on density, either in units per
acre or in Gross Residential Floor Area. The tegal theory
l"pp"iti"g this lack of amendment is "if it ainrt broke, donrt
fix it"
I have reviewed the remaining Sections in both Chapter
L8.22 and Chapter L8.24 and do not find that any remaining
sections need to be amended to conform to the intent of our
piop""ea amendrnents. This is, however, not a represention
Itral no other portions of the Vail Zoning Code need not be
amended. However, to date, I have found none I believe reguires
amendment.
a
Revised 5/LO/83
Draft of Amendment to Vail Zoning Code:
Section 1. Amend Section 18.04.030 to read:
l'
18.04.030 Aecommodation unit.
I'Accommodation unitrr means any room or group of roomswithout kitchen facilities designed for or adapted to
occupancy by guests and accessible from common corridors,
wal-ks, or balconies without passing through another
accommodation unit or dwelling unit. Eaeh-aeeenaroda!*enunit- shalil-be-eeunted,-as-ene -ha l f -e f -a-dwe 1 linq-un:i€
f er-purpe ges-6f -ealeulating-allowab1e-un*ts -;ler-aerer(ord. 30(1977)S1; ord. 8(I973) S1.600(part).)
Section 2. Amend Section L8.J22.090 to read:
L8.22.090 Density controL.
FOR DWELLING UNITS, not more than eighty square feet ofgross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permittedfor each one hundred square feet of bui.ldable sitearea. Not more than eighty square feet of gross residentialfloor area shall be permitted for each one hundredsquare feet of buil-dab1e site area for any conditionaluse WHTCH INCLUDES DWELLING UNITS as listed in SECtiONL8.22.030. The total density for permitted uses,conditional uses, and accessory uses WHfCH INCLUDE
DWELLING UNITS shall not exceed eighty sguare feet ofgross floor area for each one hundred sguare feet ofbuildabl-e site area. Total density OF DWELLING UNITSshall not exceed twenty-five dwel-ling units per acre ofbuildable sile area. ON AND AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THIS A!4ENDMENT, NO DWELLING UNITS MAY BE ADDED TO A
SITE IF SUCH ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS WOULD BE PERMITTED
ONI,Y BY THE REMOVAL OF ACCOMMODATION T]NITS FROM THE
CALCULATION OF GROSS RESIDENTIAT FLOOR AREA OR DWELLING
IINITS PER ACRE. (ord. 50 (1978) S19 (part) ; ord. 12 (1978) S2(parr) . )
Section 3. Amend. Section I8.24.130 to read:
18.24.130 Density control
Unless otherwise provided in the Vail Village urbandesign guide plan, not more than eighty square feet ofgross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted
FOR DWELLING ttNITS for each one hundred square feet ofbuil.dable site area. Total density oF DWELLTNG UNITSshall not exceed twenty-five dweLling units per acre ofbuildable Site Area. ON AND AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THIS AI{ENDMENT, NO DWELLING T'NITS MAY BE ADDED TO A
I
. SXTE IF SUCE ADDITIONAL D!{EI,I.ING I'NITS WOULD BE PBRITITTED
OIiILY EY THE RE!{OVAI. OF ACCOMMODATION TTNXTS FROM TIIB
SAICUIATION OF GROSS NESIDENTIAI FI,OOR AREA OR DISEIJ.ING. UNITS pER ACRE. (Ord. 2t(r980)S1 (part,).}
.HOTEL
Athletic Club
Christiania
The Crest
Garden of Gods
Casthof Gramshammer
Golden Peak House
Holiday Inn
Kiandra /Talisman
Lodge at Vait
I\,lountain Haus
Plaza Lodge
Ramshorn
Sitzmark
Sonnenalp
Tivoli
Vail. Viilage Inn
# ACCOM.
UNITS
VAIL VILLAGE
# DWELLINC
UNITS
ll
I
l9
.3
7
20
0
17
0
7S
8
I
I
t
I
29
v
LOT
SIZE (Ac)
.6r 64
.6s9
2.629
.505
.327
. 1587
2,137
4.267
2.0889
.4936
.294
.lt64
,4077
.553
.1t07
3.455
DENSITY
28
z6
r34
17
22
6
130
145
62
10
t0
28
34
39
38
69 1re3)
( Un its /Acre)
40. s
31.8
32.7
22.7
55.0
t44.9
30.4
20. 9
14.8
162. I
44.2
32.3
44.2
37.1
49. r
36.3 at completion
922
CONDO
All Seasons
Bell Tower
Casino
Creekside
Crossroads
Gore Creek Plaza
Hill Building
Holiday House
Lazier Arcade
Lodge South
Manor Vail
Mill Creek Court
One Vail Place
Red Lion lnn
Rucksack
Vail Row Houses
Villa
Village Center
Vorlaufer
38
3
3
4
22
1
2
2V
9
42
123
l3
5
I
,2
29
t2
71
23
. 6168
. 138
,175
.234
2.665
. 173
. l95l
.650
. 168
.33s
5.887
.224
.2192
.320
.0943' .851
.2{33
r. q99
.287
61 .6
21.7
17 .1
17 .1
8.3
5.8
10.3
41.5
s3.6
125.4
20.9
58.0
22.8
3.1
21.2
311.1
49. 3
07.4
80. I
430
HOTEL
Enzian
Lion Square
Marriottrs Mark
Sunbird
Vailglo
CONDO
Antlers
Landmark
Lazier Arcade
Lifthouse
Lionshead Center
Lodgg at Lionshead
Montaneros
Treetops
Vail International
Vail Spa
Vail 2l
Vantage Point
Westwind
Glen Lyon
Westin Hotel
West Vail
Roost
Inn at West Vail
* olo".
UN ITS
VAIL LIONSHEAD
# DWELLINC
UNITS
Q.or DENSITY
52
28
247
29
34
12
79
53
l5
0
1,2217
2. 936
F, r7
. 562
.6423
2.5075
1.924
3. 9tt8
31.1
3r .7
34.1
52.5
26.5
390
72
58
t4
45
25
53
lll
29
57
55
l9
65
35
t. t90
1.495
.323
.4668
.6303
2.3653
1.029
. 888
1 .876
3.23
. 3566
1. 5597
. 849
60. s
38.8
43.3
96. 4
39.2
22.4
39..8
32.7
30.4
17.0
53. 3
41.4
4l .2
38. s
568
777
74
79 l9
19.2
14. 8
153
.E
, Hotel Room Study
#8305April 12, 1983
Revised '5-6-83
POSSIBLE NEW HOTEL ROOMS
Based on Buitding Envelope as determined by Zone District
Village:
Athletic Club
' Sonnenalp :
Gasthof Gramshammer
Sitzmark
Lodge at Vail
Plaza
Golden Peak House
Qhristiania
Garden of the Gods
Tivoti
Ramshorn
Klandra /Talisman
(vvl) sDD
Holiday Inn
Lionshead:
Sunbird
Vailglo
Enzian
(Marriottrs Markl SDD
0 ..
.36
0
8
58 *See attachment
0
0
l{
0
24
29
40
33
2't2
9
6
0
r5
*TOTAL 257
ou|Eo-gU
.dp:t
octltro3a
dprn
arl
ril o o o
EI PFF $9,
e,Erl 5 6 6 E I
E:l q q q : :U-l oioaF ZZ*5] *
!3-ot
E-g:
OoF
EEF
rtltllttl
att
oFI
r4)a{rtt
N
:t
co
rO
In ro
o6tlFINOO 1l
r0|f|ltoroa\t-NF
.{rAl:c'Fltlarl N
drc
Eg3Ec
agz<
r0or
ifl
--- E +l
G'
rat
sl.i?lo e o' U|l or ci 00flF - -.rlll F
3es t=.€ Bs,ti i:i E*.Eb 5E 5 a>JF U= F U
roA|
tlootl
.;
=ooc
llJF.o
.t!z
UJJooo
R
Nc!an
oro(YlNrtr l,l rfl oFFTDS'
ifr
i;.:55
€EFgir8EO JGE<=ut
F avtF rrt
g|
=o>tr
lcJ
g?
p3
1'!
:
I
Hotel Room Study
fl'u,,,r,
Anatysis of Potential for Additional Hotel Rooms in CCl, PA g CCll
Note: Additional rooms based on 350 sq. ft. hotel rooms 6 building
envelope.
Athletic Club: No additional rooms.
Building fills most of its'site allowing for no expansion side-
ways. Building height is. twenty to thirty feet over maximum
allowed in PA district, thus allowing no expansion upwards.
Christiania: Easiest expansion rvith least affect on existing rooms would be
to add a floor over the existing hotel. This is allowable in
PA district and would cr'eate fourteen new hotel rooms.
Gasthof Gramshammer: No additional rooms.
Building fills all of itsr site. lf an additional floor
were added above the existing, the building would
exceed the height limits. Parking lot to the lvestis held in common; no building expansion possiblein connection with the existing building at the pre-
. sent time.
.:
Golden Peak House' \'r,lT"1i3Lil lX'.liies ar or its, site and is arready above
the maximum height allowed in the district.
Holiday Inn: 33 additional rooms.' A new wing extending off of the existing hotel entry toward the
Frontage Road could be built. Raised on columns allowing for
cars to pass underneath to park, new rooms on the second,
third and fourth floors would look out to the east and west.
Kiandra /Ta lisman : Additional hotel rooms are possible above the one-story
commercial area described in the Urban Design Guidelines.
Although a four story building could be built under PA
zoning, a two to three story building would fit the scale
of the neighboring buildings better and provide a good
street enclosure for that end of East lr4eadow Drive.- Based
on a 350 sq. ft. hotel room, this woulcl allow for about 40
new rooms.
Lodge at Vaill a) Because of the great amount of site area,2.0889 ac., and
the building configuration, it would be possible to bui td
new hotel wings connecting existing buildings and add
approximately 100 rooms. This would totally enclose the
main parking lot and the swimming pool area. A smaller
addition that would leave the parking lot and pool as they
are would involve
b} the building of a bridge of hotel rooms connecting the
South wing of the Lodge with the Lodge South Condomin-
ium Building and the addition of three floors of rooms
over the International Room wing. This would create
about 50 new hotel rooms and create a sense of enclosure
for the Lodge Plaza and the Town's Village Plaza.
-2-
Plaza Lodge: No additional rooms.
Building fills most of itsl
physically be added above
height limit for the area.
Ramshorn: 29 additional rooms.
site. lf an additional floor could
the existing it would exceed the
Because the existing hotel is two and three stories high and
four story buildings are allowed in the PA district, approxi-
mately 29 new rooms could be added. However, because of'the building configuration and itst open stairwells the addi-
tion would require considerable remodeling of the hotelsr ex-
isting spaces and possibly as total reconstruction to handle
the weight of two additional floors.
Sitzmark: 8 additional rooms.
Urban Design Guidelines calls for a one story commercial expan-
sion along Gore Creek Drive. Hotel rooms could be built above. the commercial level on the second and third floors. This is
. probably not an economically feasible project however. The cor-
ridor out to the new rooms would probably cut through an exist-
ing hotel room. Thus for ten new rooms gained, two existing
rooms would be lost for circulation. Also the existing rooms. on":, the south side of the hotel that now look onto Core Creek Drive
would look at the wall along the north side of the additional room+
making those existing rooml less desirable for the guest.
Soirnenatp: 36 additional rooms.
Urban Design Cuidelines refers to builCing expansion to reinforce
the pedestrian connection between Bridge Street and East MeadowDrive. This can be accomplished by extending the north face of
the building toward East Meadow Drive with new retail shops to
create a sense of liveliness and an enclosed arcade to direct the pe-
destrian in front of the hotel and onward to the shops along East' l\4eadow Drive. ln the PA district, height limits will allow for a
fourth floor to be added onto the existing building. With the ex-
pansion to the north, an elevator can be added for guests and space
in the new structure will be used for service and delivery.
Tivoli : 24 additional rooms
Expansion to the west where the hotelts parking lot is presently located
would allow for six new 350 sq. ft. rooms per floor. A three story ad-
dition would create lB new hotel rooms while a four story addition would
allow 24 rooms. In either case a new fire stair would need to be built
on each end of the building to satisfy.fire code requirements.
Vail Village lnn: The Master Plan for VVI is controlled by Special Development
District Number 6. The Development Plan for SDDS defines
the building envelope which controls massing and height for
the project. Three h.undred accommodation units would have
been allolved if there were no dwelling units in the develop-
ment. With the twenty nine condominiums built in 1982, VVI
is now allowed 242 total accommodation units. Civen that por-
. tion of the proiect's building envelope that remains, it is like-
ly that only about 803 of the 242 allowed units could be built.
-3-
Sunbird: The only space for expansion would be south of the hotel's pooli terrace. This would require a bridge connection to the existing
structure resulting in the loss of a hotel room on each floor.
Thus this uneconomical addition vrould allow the hotel twelve new
rooms at the cost of three existing rooms, a net gain of nine.
Vailglo: 6 additional rooms.
Expansion would be possible south of the hotel over the parking
deck. This would eliminate half of the swimming pool deck and
require modification to an existing stair tower and guest room.
With three new rooms on two levels above the parking deck the
hotel would gain six additional rooms.
Enzian: No addition rooms.
The hotel covers most of itsr site; that area remaining is not suf-
ficient for hotel expansion. A utility easement along the north side
of the site prevents the possibility of a new wing over the parking
lot. The building can not add any floors as it is already over the
height limit.
Marriottrs Mark: Special Development District Number 7 defines the building
envelope controlling massing and height. With that phase
constructed in 1982 - 83, the Mark has reached its full, build-out.
Hotel Room Study
#830s
May 11, l9B3
Notes regarding Potential New Hotel Rooms under Current Zoning
Viltage:
lodge at Vail'- Lodge Properties, Inc- owns 2.0889 acres of land on
which only 62 accommodation units exist. Present zoning will
allow another 42 accommodation units to be built.
Kiandra/Talisman - With 4.267 acres of land and 145 accommodation
units and l7 dwelling units, current density is 20.97 units
per acre. The hotel can add 34 accommodation units.
Vail Village Inn - The hotel currently has 69 accommodation units and
29 dwelling units. SDD #5 allows a maximum of 300 accommoda-
tion units. Subtracting from the 300 allowed the 69 existing
and the equivalent number of accommodation units for the 29
condors, 58, leaves 173 additional accommodation units to be
built.
Vacant lots North of Christiania - 20 potential accommodation units based
on Town of Vail projections.
Total potential accommodation units: 269
Gten Lyon:
Westin Hotel - Developerts plan calls for 300 total accommodation units.
177 units exist. 123 accommodation units remain to be built.
*Total potential accommodation units z 223
Total potential new hotel rooms for Town of Vail under current zon-ing: 492
.t'P
I
Petition le llav 13, 1983
PETITION FORI4 FOR AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
OR
REQUEST FOR
A CTIANGE IN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
This procedure is reguired for any amendment to the zoning ordinanceor for a reguest for a district boundary change
A. NAIIE OF PETITIONER r.odge prcrntrrf ioq
DDMSS 174 nast cnre er..r , cc. g1652 PHONE--4J6.=.S;G11
B. NAME OF PETITIONERTS REPRESENTATM .rnrz K potcrq.rn
ADDRESS P.O. Box 3149 Vai1, Co 81658 PHONE 476-0092
c.NAME 0F Ol.lNER (prin-t-or type) Lod)dqe Properties, Inc. 1/) l'/rerties{i>D.
SIGNATURE lzrce f."., t"*V<
ADDRESS PEONE 476-qo'l l
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAI
ADDRESS 174 Gore Creek Drive Vail, Co. 81657
I.
LEGAL DESCRIPTI ON__a__aoE!ioi_ o__,___L.racp$.,_8,!,Block 5C
FEEE.
F.
nx
)1,"'f '
"l Vail Villaqe First Filinq
-E-[9-:.-!!/plus an amount e{ua1 to the then ""u"t"ttt first-class posragerate for each property owner to be notified herer.nrder.
A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent to thesubject property, and their mailing addresses.
Pe'titi-on form for Amen. lZonino ord "'r Erarrrroci f^rlh-',^a in '.,
page 2
-...- a lor Amen. lzoning ord or Reguest fofanse in boirndaries
Four (4) copies of the following inforrnation:
A- The petitipn shall include a sunmary of the proposed revisionof the reguJ-ations, or a compJ.ete description oi the proposedchanges in district boundaries and a rnErp indicating tie ixistingand- proposed district boundaries. Applicant nust subnit written and./otgraphic n:aterials stating the reasons for ilquest.
ffl. Time Requirements
The Planning and Environmental- Commission meets on the 2nd and 4thMondays of each month. A petition with the necessary accompanyingmaterial rnust be submitted four weeks prior to the date of the meet-ing. Following the Planning and Enviroimental Commission meeting,alI amendments to the zoning ordinance or district boundary chanfemust go to the Town Cor:ncil_ for final action.
II.
IIEIIIOR,AI\IDUII
TO; iISB
FRO!i! ' l SEI
DATE: May 10, 1983
RE: Amendrents to Vail Zoning Code
The following is a brief explanation of thoEe portions ofthe Vail Zoning Code dealing with the public AccomnodationDiEtrict and, the Comercial Core l- District which were notamended in.the proposed arnendment retating to deletion ofacconunodation unitE for the purposes of counting density and
GRFA.
Section L8.22.010, the Purpose section relating to thePubLic Accommodations District was not amended because theonly reference to density limits in that section is found inthe last sentence which reads:
rThe public accourodation district is intended to providesites for lodging units at densities not to exceed twenty-five dwelling units per acre.n
This entire section serves the same purpose as a legislativedeclaration in that it Btates the intent ot tne council inenacting the whole of the provision governing the pubLic
Accommodation District. It is a standard rule of statutoryconstruction that a specific provision will_ always govern overa general provision to the extent that there is a conflictbetween then, eee section 2-4-205, C.R.S. 1973. Since thiseection is only a general statement of purpose and the substantivesection regulating density was amended, the latter wouldgovern in case of a conflicF However, I do not believe sucha conflict exists.
Further, the term ilodging unitn is not defined in theZoning Code. It appears that in the sentence quoted above,tlre term is used generically rather than in the senEe ofacconunodation units found in lodges. Since we do not intendand do not want to lift the restriction on "dwel1ing units"which may serve as nlodging units" in the pA District, thisprovision rraa not anended.
Sections L8.22.020, 18.22.030, and L8.22.040, deatingwith permittedl , conditional , and acceEaory useE in the pA-District were not amended sinply because there is no existingprovision in any of those sectionE whlch eEtablishea a linititionon the density for guch uaea. In fact, the only reference
Uenprandum
lday 10, 1983
Page two
.T
whatgoever in any of thoee sectionE iE found in sectionL8.22.020 A, deallng with permitted uses, and the reference isa limitation on the Bpace which may be used for 'accessoryeating, drinking, recreational or retail establishmentE locatedwithin the principal uee".
Section L9.24.010, dealing with the purpose of the ComnercialCore L DiEtrict, likewise was not amended because it containsno reference to any Lirnitation on d.ensity, either in units peracre or in GroEs ltesidential 8loor Area. The legat theorysupporting this lack of anrendment is',if it ainrt broke, don'tf,ix ittr.
I have reviewed the remaining Sectiong Ln both ChapterL8.22 and Chapter 18.24 and do not find that any remainingsections need to be anended to conform to the intent of ourproposed anendnentE. This ie, however, not a representionthat no other portions of the Vail Zoning Code need not beanended. However, to date, I have found none I believe reguiresamendment.
Revised 5/LO/83
Draft of Amendment to Vail Zoning Coder
Section 1., Anend Section 18.04.030 to read:|.
18.04.030 Aeconunodation unit.
"Acconunodation unitn means any room or group of roomswithout kitchen facilities designed for or adapted to
occupancy by guests and accessible from cornmon corridors,walks, or balconies without passing througtr another
accommodation unit or dweLling unit. Baeh-acecmcdaticnua*t- cha**-bc- ccuated-as-ene-ha* f -ef -a-dwe * 1 iag-uait
f c;-pu;pcscc-cf -caleu*atinE-allcwable-unita -pc!-ac!e t(Orcl. 30 (L977', 31; Ord. I (1973) 51.600 (part) . )
Section 2. Amend Section L8.022.090 to read:
L8.22.090 Density control.
FOR DIIELLING INITS, not more than eighty square feet ofgross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permittedfor each one hundred sguare feet of buildable sitearea. Not more than eighty sguare feet of gross residentialfloor area shal-l be permitted for each one hundred
sguare feet of buildable site area for any conditionaluse WIIICH INCLUDES DWELLING UNITS as listed in Section18.22.030. The total density for permitted uses,conditional uses, and accessory uses I|IIICH INCLUDE
DI{IELLING UNITS shaLl not exceed eighty sguare feet ofgross floor area for each one hundred Eguare feet ofbuildable Eite area. Total density OF DI{ELLING TNITSshall not exceed twenty-five d,weIling units per acre ofbuildable Site area. ON Al{D AFTER TTTE EFFECTI\TE DAEE
OF THIS AITIENDMENT, NO DISEI/LING I,NITS UAY BE ADDED TO ASITE IF SUCII ADDITIONAL DWELLING T'NITS WOULD BE PERMITTED
ONI.,Y EY THE REIIIOVAI, OF ACCOMMODATION UNITS FROM THE
CALCULATION OF GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA OR DWELLINGtNITS PER ACRE. (Ord. 50(1978)S19 (part)r Ord. 12(1978)52lparr) . )
Section 3. Amend Section L8.24. 130 to read:
18.24.I30 Density control
Unless otherwise provided in the VaiI Vill.age urbandesign guide plan, not more than eighty Eguare feet ofgroEE residential floor area (GRFA) EhalL be pennitted
FOR DI{ELLING ITNITS for each one hundred square feet ofbuildable site area. Total density Of DWELIJING ITNITSshall not exceed twenty-five dwelling units per acre ofbuildable EitE Area. ON AT{D AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THIS AIIIENDMENT, NO DIIELLING UNITS IIAY BE ADDED TO A
SITB IF SUCH ADDITIONAL DTVEI,I,ING T'NITS WOULD BE PBRI.IITIIED
ONLY BY TEE REIIOVAI. OF ACCOMUODATION T,NITS PROIII TBE
CAI.CUI.ATION OF GROSS RESIDENTIAI, FI,OOR AREA OR DIIEI,I,INGuNlts PBR ACRE. (ord. 2t(1980)91 lparr).)
:l
HOTEL
Athletic club
Christiania
The Crest
Garden of Gods
Gasthof Gramshammer
Golden Peak House
Holiday Inn
Kiandra /Talisman
Lodge at Vail
Mountain Haus
Plaza Lodge
Ramshorn
Sitzmark
Sonnenalp
Tivoli
Vait' Viilage lnn
CONDO
All Seasons
Bell Tower
Casino
Creekside
Crossroads
Gore Creek Plaza
Hill Building
Holiday House
Lazier Arcade
todge South
Manor Vail
Mill Creek Court
One Vail Place
Red Lion lnn
Rucksack
Vail Row Houses
Villa
Village Center
Vorlaufer
# ACCOM.
UNITS
VAIL VILLAGE
# DWELLING
UNITS
38
3
3
4
22
I
2
27
9
42
123
l3
5
I
2
29
12
71
23
lt30
-LOT
SIZE (Ac)
.6r6{
.659
2.629
.505
.327
. 1587
2.137
4.267
2.0889
.4936
.294
.464
.4077
.553
.407
3.455
DENSITY
28
26
134
t7
22
6
r30
r45
62
l0
t0
28
34
39
38
6s '( l s3)
1l
8
19
3
7
20
0
l7
0
75
8
t
I
I
I
29
(Units/Acre)
6r .6
21.7
17 .1
17.1
8.3
5.8
10. 3
4l .5
53.6
125.4
20.9
58.0
22.8
3.1
21.2
34. r
49.3
47.4
80. I
40. s
3r.8
32.7
22.7
s5.0
144. 9
30.4
20.9
14. 8
r62.1
44.2
32. 3
44.2
37.r
49. 1
36.3 at completion
922
. 6168
. 138
.175
.234
2. 66s
.173
.r95r
.650
.168
.33s
5.887
.224
.2192
.320
.0943
.851
.2433
1.499
.287
- F.'. -. .,a. :
HOTEL
# ACCOM.
UNITS
VAIL LIONSHEAD
# DWELLING
UNITS
LOT DENSITY
SIZE (Ac) (Units/Acre)
Enzian
Lion Square
Marriottrs Mark
Sunbird
Vallglo
CONDO
Antlers
Landmark
Lazier Arcade
Lifthouse
Lionshead Center
lodgg at Lionshead
Montaneros
Treetops
Vail Intgrnational
Vail Spa
Vail 2l
Vantage Point
Westwlnd
Glen Lyon
Westin Hotel
West Vail
Roost
lnn at West Vail
52
28
247
29
34
l2
79
53
t5
0
1.2217
2. 936
5.r7
.562
.6423
2.5075
t.924
3.948
3l.r
31.7
34.1
52. s
26.5
50.5
38. 8
43.3
96. {
39.2
22.4
39.8
32.7
30.4
17.0
s3. 3
4t.4
41,2
38. s
390
72
58
14
45
25
53
4l
29
57
55
19
65
35
1.190
1.495
.323
.4668
.6303
2.3653
1.029
.888
1.876
3.23
. 3566
1.5697
.849
177
74
79 r9
19.2
r4.8
153
a
Hotel Room Study
f8305April 12, 1983
Revised,5-6-83
POSSIBLE NEW HOTEL ROOMS
Based on Building Envelope as determined by Zone District
Village:
Athletic club
Sonnenalp
Gasthof Gramshammer
Sitzmark
.. Lodge at Vail
Plaza
Golden Peak House
Qhristiania
Garden of the Gods
Tivoli
Ramslprn
Klandra /Talisman
(VVI) SDD
Hollday Inn
Lionshead:
Sunbird
Vailglo
Enzian
(Marriott's Mark) SDD
0
36
0
I
58 *See attachment
0
0
lr4
0
24
29
[0
33
242
9
6
0
l5
*TOTAL ZS7
.- .i'-: .:*..,
oc|gFsu
,dprf
ttlttrltl
o('l
trosUertt,
tYl
,El F F r e' $
aEl 5 5 6 .'E !
Erl q q q : :Q-l niror. 2Z
oo-61 ^I
e
Z .vlot
E-E:
g 9'ri 3<*
rgF|t4t
rofro(hoN
rtrlt.:tEbl:Nl o r o .', I!:l s ? x x ?
E!lIdl
st
@
rO
ctr or an Nrtt r'! ul 0FFT.oS
:IF
s)iL. ..
=t' c gT.: r .o;5 PE i!O EEF9F gEf it>=.:b EEg? o J|id E<Eo
-ab6U
I
I
I
rn
c,
rtt rtl
00011r\rFtoo ll
t\r'lN
s-lotrltt olqEl
'El s : n s a
'ql ^r (\r | |oElz<t
a\<D('t
6
Itt
g?
8qEF
IP 5= €
' I -r ?{ J6; <#.E5 -EE 5>JF O= F
rd)
Or
6
=oo&,
ulFo
=utz
ul
oooa)
ol:fl - o - '\ mU|l or aD 6 F u)'il ,- - -.tIJl F
Hotel Room Study
#rotu, ,r*
blr the building of a bridge of hotel rooms connecting the
South wing of the Lodge with the Lodge South Condomin-
ium Building and the addition of three floors of rooms
over the tnternational Room wing. This would create
about 50 new hotel rooms and create a sense of enclosure
for the Lodge Plaza and the Townrs Village Plaza.
Analysis of Potential for Additional Hotel Rooms in CCl, PA E CCll
Note: Additional rooms based on 350 sq. ft. hotel rooms 6 building
envelope.
Athletic Club: No additional rooms.
Building fills most of its'site allowing for no expansion side-
ways. Building height is twenty to thirty feet over maximum
allowed in PA district, thus allowing no expansion upwards.
Christiania: Easiest expansion with least affect on existing rooms would be
to add a floor over the existing hotel. This is allowable in
PA district and would create fourteen new hotel rooms.
Gasthof Gramshammer: No additional rooms.
Building fills all of its' site. lf an additional floor
were added above the existing, the building would
exceed the height limits. Parking lot to the westis held in common; no building expansion possiblein connection with the ekisting building at the pre-
sent time.
Golden Peak
Holiday lnn:
House: No additional rooms.
The building occupies all of its' site and is already above
the maximum heiqht allowed in the district.
33 additional rooms.A new wing extending off of the existing hotel entry toward the
Frontage Road could be built. Raised on columns allowing for
cars to pass underneath to park, new rooms on the second,
third and fourth floors would look out to the east and west.
Kiandra /rarisman' l1*:::,1, :?:"j ;::$oxT ,l'i;'j';,"H"5"'l;"'t";''j:iil",.
Although a four story building could be built under PA
zoning, a two to three story building would fit the scale
of the neighboring buildings better and provide a good
street enclosure for that end of East Meadow Drive' Based
;:_"r::arrt:. ft. hotel room, this woulcl allow for about 40
Lodge at Vail: a) Because of the great amount of site aiea,2.0889 ac., and
the building configuration, it would be possible to build
new hotel wings connecting existing buildings and add
approximately 100 rooms. This would totally enclose the
ffii,::' h[? lx., iJ 1
"
:n : il:'ilj lfl,,|fl'L i ::l; ofl i T:' l "'{",
are would involve
*
I
-2-
Plaza Lodge: No additional rooms.
Building fills most of its' site. lf an additional floor couldphysically be added above the existing it would exceed the
height limit for the area.
Ramshorn: 29 additional rooms.
Because the existing hotel is two and three stories high andfour story buildings are allowed in the PA district, approxi-
mately 29 new rooms could be added. However, because of
the building configuration and its' open stairwells the addi-tion would require considerable remodeling of the hotelsr ex-
isting spaces and possibly as total reconstruction to handle
the weight of two additional floors.
Sitzmark: 8 additional rooms.
Urban Design Guidelines calls for a one story commercial expan-
sion along Gore Creek Drive. Hotel rooms could be built above
the commercial level on the second and third floors. This is
probably not an economically feasible project however. The cor-
ridor out to the new rooms would probably cut through an exist-ing hotel room. Thus for ten new rooms gained, two existing
rooms would be lost for circulation. Also the existing rooms.on":, the south side of the hotel that now look'onto Gore Creek Drive
would look at the wall along the north side of the additional rooms,
making those existing rooms less desirable for the guest.
Sonnenalp: 36 additional rooms.. Urban Design Guidelines refers to building expansion to reinforce
the pedestrian connection between Bridge Street and East MeadowDrive. This can be accomplished by extending the north face ofthe building toward East Meadow Drive with new retail shops to
create a sense of liveliness and an enclosed arcade to direct the pe-
destrian in front of the hotel and onward to the shops along East
Meadow Drive. ln the PA district, height limits will allow for a
fourth floor to be added onto the existing building. With the ex-
pansion to the north, an elevator can be added for guests and spacein the new structure will be used for service and delivery.
Tivoli : 24 additional rooms
Expansion to the west where the hotel's parking lot is presently located
would allow for six new 350 sq. ft. rooms per floor. A three story ad-dition would create 18 new hotel rooms while a four story addition would
allow 24 rooms. In either case a new fire stair would need to be builton each end of the building to satisfy.fire code requirements.
Vail Village lnn: The Master Plan for VVI is controlled by Special Development
District Number 6. The Development Plan for SDD6 defines
the building envelope which controls massing and height for
the project. Three hundred accommodation units would have
been allowed if there were no dwelling units in the develop-
ment. With the twenty nine condominiums built in 1982, VVI
is now allowed 242 total accommodation units. Given that por-
. tion of the projectls building envelope that remains, it is like-ly that only about 808 of the 242 allowed units could be built.
)
-3-
' Sunbird: The only space for expansion would be south of the hotels pool: terrace. This would reguire a bridge connection to the existing
structure resulting in the loss of a hotel Kxrm on each floor.
Thus this uneconomical addition would allow the hotel twelve new
rooms at the cost of three existing rooms, a net gain of nine.
Vailglo: 6 additional rooms.. Expansion would be possible south of the hotel over the parkingdeck. This would eliminate half of the swimming pool deck andrequire modification to an existing stair tower and guest room.
With three new rooms on two levels above the parking deck the
hotel would gain six additional rooms.
Enzian: No addition rooms.
The hotel covers most of itsr site; that area remaining is not suf-
ficient for hotel expansion. A utility easement along the north side
of the site prevents the possibility of a new wing over the parkinglot. The building can not add any floors as it is already over the
height limit.
Marriottrs Mark: Speciat Development District Number 7 defines the building
envelope contr:olling massing and height. With that phase
constructed in 198? - 83, the Mark has reached its full, build-out.
o
\
1
Hotel Room Study
#8305
May 11, 1983
Notes regarding Potential New Hotel Rooms under Current Zoning
Village:
Lodge at Vail'- Lodge Properties, Inc. owns 2.0889 acres of land on
which only 52 accommodation units exist. Present zoning will
allow another 42 accommodation units to be built.
Kiandra/Talisman - With 4.267 acres of land and 145 accommodation
units and t7 dwelling units, current density is 20.97 unitsper acre. The hotel can add 34 accommodation units.
Vail Village lnn - The hotel currently has 69 accomnrodation units and
29 dwelling units. SDD #5 allows a maximum of 300 accomnpda-tion units, Subtracting from the 300 allowed the 69 existing
and the equivalent number of accomnpdation units for the 29
condors, 58, leaves 173 additional accommodation units to be
built.
Vacant lots North of Christiania - 20 potential accommodation units based
on Town of Vail projections.
Total potential accommodation units: 269
Glen Lyon:
Westin Hotel - Developerrs plan calls for 300 total accommodation units.
177 units exist. 123 accommodation units remain to be built.
*Total potential accommodation units : 223
Total potential new hotel rooms for Town of Vail under currenting: 492
lnwn
75 loulh tronlege road
vall, colorado 81657
(3{r3) 476-7000
Date
Dear
Through prel iminary discussions with you regard'ing your future request for
special study of the Lodge at Vail/Sonnenalp property, our staff believes':that
the following information in addition to those listed in item #3 on the attachment
must be provided and the following questions answered and documented as a part
of your application:
1. Demonstrate and document the cormunity need for additional lodge rooms
in the Vail Vi'llage and Vail LionsHead areas;
2. What type (i.e. size) of lodge room is needed and why?
3. Provide an inventory of existing lodge rooms in Vail Village and Vai'l
LionsHead regarding size, prices, and occupancy rates along with documenta-
tion;
4. Inventory of existing density (units and floor area) and mix of units in
Vai'l Village and Lionshead;
5. Analysis of land use condjtions resulting from your proposal and compatibility
with land use objectives of the Town of Vail and potential changes or
impacts;
6. Circulation and transportation conditions affected by the proposa'l including
transit needs, alternative transft systems, and potential changes or impacts;
7. Population characteristics for Vail Village and Lionshead such as densities
and potential changes or impacts resulting from your proposal;
8. Expected specific benefits to the cqrmunity of your proposal;
a. Ana'lysis of the growth--including impacts of the prroject upon overall
site developnent standards, utility services and their availability,
capacity of Vail Mountain, and the Town's current lodging base;
'10. Thorough analysis of the possible alternatives within the cormunity to
the proposed action.
l,le believe that this infonnation must be provided to enable the staff to make
corments regarding the merit of your proposal. Please feel free to utilize
any of the information on file in our office and to consult with our staff regarding
any questions that you might have.
Sincerdey,
1. Roofs
Form -
Pitch -
Overhands -
Composition -
Stepped roofs
Materials -
Construction -
2.Facades
Materials -
Color -
Transparency -
Windows -
Doors -
Trim -
3. Balconies
LODGE AT VAIL
Shed roof connected to existing wa11
4/I2 pit,cn.
2-L/2t Lo 3-L/21
Simple roof composition
Roofs are stepped to meet existing wal1surface
Wood shakes are used on the l,{ildflowerrestaruant. A painted white metal roof isused on the bay windows of the Ciprianirestaurant.
No roof surface is so large as to cause a
snow slide problem
Stucco is predominately used to match theexisting structure. Window trim ismetal window front.
Color of stucco is white and the color of the
window trim and panels is also to be painted
white.
The additj-ons are predominately glass,
which opens up the ground level.
Windows are human sized on the Wildflowerrestaurant and bay windows are used onthe CiPriani restaurant.
Windowed doors are used
All white
NA
4. Decks and Patios NA
5. Accent Elements Will be addressed hrith the 1andscape planwith the International Wing Additionpursuant to Planning Commission condition,
6. Landscape Elements Same as 5.
7. Service NA
2.
..-' - ,
CEGAL
DEscRrPlroN oF rHE PARCELI
OWNED BY IPDGE PROPERTIES, IIC'
A Part of Lots a and c, Block 5-c' vail village' -trirtt 9l11ng' Tosn ot
vaiI, Eagle county, Colorado more particularly deecrlbcd aa tollosel
Beginning at the southuesterly Corner of eaid IoE a; thcnc'
N.24ollrOO'E. along ine westerly Llne of eairl r'ot a' 1I9'67 feett thence
continuingalorrgsaidwesterlyline,N.I5"IT.oo.E.109.65feetto.pointon
tbc southerly line of Tbe todge epartmeiu condoninlun; thence along sald
Southerly line on the following nine (9) courseg:
r) N.79e29r44'E. t67'8I feet (Per degc) (165'St lcct crlc)
2l N.I0o30rl6'tf' 5'00 feet
3) N.?9"29'44"8' 8'35 feet
{) N.too30'16"vl' 8'90 feet
5) N.?9029'44"8' 16'35 feet
6) N.IOo30rl6nlil' 5'00 feet
7) N.79o29'44'E' 29'85 feet
8) s.IOo30r16'a' l5'00 feet
9) N.?9o29r44"8' I{6'65 feet
toaPointontheEasterlylineofthatParceldescribedinBook2ITatPage
53lintheEaglecountYClerkandnecorrler'soffice;chencealongsaidEastcrly
iine s.Ioo30t15'E. 2g0.24 feet to a point on the South line of eaid lot a;
thencealongsaielsout|rlines.89044|oo"w.267.58feettoapointonthe
boundary}ineoftheparcelleasedtoLodgesouth'Ehencealongsaldboundary
the folloning fifteen (15) courses:
I) N.O0ol8rOo"W' 29'24 feet
2l N.89c42'00"8' 3'50 feet
3) N.OOc18'OO"!{' I?'40 feet
4) N.89o42'00"E' 8'00 feel
5) N.00oI8rgSiw' I6'00 feet
6) S.89o42r00"v|. II.80 feet
. 7) N.O0ot8rOO'w' t6'00 feet
8) S.89o42rOO"l"' 166'30 feet
9l S.0OcI8'00"8' I?'90 feeE
fO) S.89o{2r0OnW' ?'70 feet'
1f) S.O0o18'00"E' 5'20 feet
I2) S.89o42'00'!f' 19'40 feet
13) S.O0ol8'00'E' 30'30 feet
f4) N.89o42rOO"E' I3'10 feet
I5) S.00o18'00"E' 25'25 feet
coapointontheSouthlineofsaidLor.a'thenceatongsaldSoulhLine
s.89c4{r00"t{.42.55 feet Lo the point of bcainning'
Sairl parcel contains 2'090 acres' more or legs'
I
tlon of the south ulng
fourth Eloor of the
)
Por
theExCePTIt{G a legal description of the no(ther[y
of the conclominium brtiLding (comrnonly referred to as
condominium building) .
The air space a!)ove the elevation of 8'19l'62 feet above rnean sea level
over the follor.ring described property:
ThatPartofLota,Block5-ClVaiIVillageFirseFiling'countyof
Eagler State of Colorado, more particularly described as follot's:
Corunenc ing at the Southwest corner of LoE ar Elock 5-C' said Vail
village First FiIing; thence.N.24cII'00"E. and along the Northwesterly line of
said Lot. a, Block 5-c, I19.6? feeti thence N'15017'00'E' and alonq the
t.|orthwesterly line of Lot a, Block 5-c. 109.65 feet; thence N.79.29.44"8.
15t.81 (f59.8f calc.) feet to the true point of beginning; thence S'I0o30rI6nE'
44.30 feet; thence s.79o29r44"w. l0'00 feet; thence S'l0o30rl6"E' 40'70 feett
tehnceN.?9o29.44,'E.I0.O0feet;thenceS.l0c30'15'E.15.05feeE;thence
N.79o29'44"8. 15.55 feet; thence N.l0o30r16'tf' 20'I0 feet; Bhence N'79e29'44"8'
90.25 feet; thence N.lO"30'16"1{. 28'00 feeE; thence S'79o29t4{"lf' 38'35 feet'
thence N.loc3O'15"w. 57.95 feet; thence S'?9o29'{4't{' 8'00 feet; thence
N.too30r16uw. 15.00 feetr thence s.79o29i44"W. 29.85 feet; thence s'10o30'16"8'
6.o0feet;lhences..,g.,29,44*w.15.35feet;thences.Ioo3ot15"E.8.90feet,
thence S.: go29'44,,W. 8.35 feet; thence S.10o30'16nE. 6.00 feet; thence
s.lgoZgr44"i{. 6.00 feet to the true Point of beginning'
ALsoEXCEPTlNGalegaldescriptionofthesoutherlyPortionofthesouth
wing of the condominium buildirrg (commonly referred !o as the fifch floor of
the condominium building) -
The air space above the elevation of 8'204'89 feet above mean sea level
over the following described proPerty:
That'partofLota,Block5.c,vailvillageFirstFiling'countyof'':'
Eagle, state of Colorado, more Parbicularly described as follo!'s:
cornmenc ing at the southhtest corner of Lot a' Block 5-c' said vail
village pirst Filingi thence N.24cl.l'00'8. and along the Northuesterly line of
sai.J Lot a, Block 5-c, 119.6? feet; thence N'L5oL?t00"8' and along the
NorthwesBerly line of Lot a, Block 5-c, 109.65 feeE; thence N.79o29r4{"8'
16I.8t feet; thence S.I0o30iI6"E. 44.30 feet; thence S'79o29'44"w' I0'00 feeti
thence s.loo3o.t6"E. 40.70 feet; thence N.79o29,44nE. I0.00 feet; thence
s.Ioo30.15"E. 15.05 feet, thence N.?9.29'44"E. 16.65 feet to the true point of
beginning; thence S.lOo30'16"E. 84.?0 feet; thence N'79o29'44'E' 5'00 feet;
th!nce S:10"30'16"8. 66.I0 feet; tbence N.?9"29'44"E. 6.00 feet; thence
s.loo30'15'E. I.66 feet; thence N.89o44'00'E' 24'44 feeti thence N'79?29r44'E'
23.90 f eet., thence N.lO"30rl5"W' 46'00 feet; thence N'?9c29r44'E' 9'30 feet;
thence N.l0o30'15'w. 130.80 feett thenc e S'79"29144"!{' 69'25 feeEi thence
s.loc30r15"E. 20.I0 feet to the true point of beginning '
azoN/26t2
'.1.'t
4/26/'XEP PRO N.lE VAI
REPORT. ON PROPOSED
TO
VAIL ZONING CODE
lntroductlon. r
The purpose of the proposed amendment rg the
edJuatnrent of the Vatl Zonlng Code to meet clrangtng
cl,rcunrstances both ln the evolutlon of the Town of vall and
tlrc general econonic crlnate .ln which ttre Town cxrgtg. The
lntent 9f,tt. anendrnent rs the preaenration of ttre vltarity
of thc csntral bualness area of, the Town and, conconltantly,
the preservatl,on of the concepts whlch resulted ln the
cstabllshnent of vall- The percelved effect of thc ancndment
la tlre lnfuelon of new potentlar into the reEort !,nduatry
vhlch forna the heart and on-going purpoae of, thc town.
AItlEllD!'tElW
. Thc Central Core.'..
. (11 purooses
Ihe heart of Vall is cornprlaid of thc publtc
Acconnodatton aia comnercial core r Dletricts whrch contaln
nuch of the orrglnar rown. The statea pu"po"" of both of
these Dletrlcts ts the fostering of the resort orlentatton of,
the Toun throuqti the provisron of those gervrcea egacntral to
-t
4126/REP PRqA!{E VAr ZoN/2612o o
' dr, opan lPlce, rnd otlrar anenltleg.
Botlt of thege dletricta are clearly pedeatrlan
orlcnted, whether expltcltly or lnplicitly, and depend upon
' thc' flou of pedettrlan trafflc between varlous actlvlty
ccntcrg tn tlrd central core.
Hlrlle the Ptrbttc Accomnodatlon Dlgtrlct la Lntanded
to renhancc tlre nature of Vail aa a wl.nter and cumer
rcCreation and vacatlon conmunitytr, the Comnerclal Cdrs I
' Dlgtr1ct lc lntended to imaintaln tlre unlque chaLacter of tlrc '
of Vall Vlllags comnercLal areai as e compltrnent to ttr own
lodgtng faclllttes as well as thc Publlc Accommodetton
Dlatrlct. Bottr of these dlstrlcts rely heavlly on thc
preeenco of vlsltora or guests who are houged ln todgtng
.t frellltlea lnraedtitely adJacent to or l,n tlrege dletrlcte.
.,".:tFr (2) Tlle Need f,or the Ancndnent' .. :,:i . ; . '
Ac slth thc cvolutlon of, rny nuntclpal corlporatlon,
tlre pasaage of, nore tlran 2o years sl.ncs ttrc establtahnlat haa
bcen acconpanied by changes |n the cl,rcunstanceg which affect
the Townrs purpose. Included in these cl.rcungtanceg ere the
cctabllghnent and growth of, otlrer recreatlon/vacetlon
orlentad developments, [lany of which have aggresalvely aought'
to aharc tn ttre recreatlon resort rnarket, tlre denendr of
lncreastng populatlon whlch have cauged expanelon of thc Torm
far beyond tts orlElnal boundarles, t"d the vagarlcr of
\
1
vlgltorc ln tn envlronnent whlch contalng aa.qpfu llght,
-2-
.i*ra aornashat dlluted, cffect on t1e wcll-belng ot ttre
X Town. fHstortcalty the prlvate entetprlae sector har rcacted
to. ueet tlre challengeB presented by changlng clrcunrtancee.
ona of tlreee response! whlch ta dlrectly relevant to the
proporcd. anendnent la.. thg decislon rnadc by verloun
tnrclnccmsn ln the Town to take edvantage of, the lncreaalng
populartty of the Tosn aE a 'reeort to add to thc nost
proffielfc portion of thelr bueinege by addtng conrmerclal
':'.'1:..'''
apecq'g'ili6rally at the e:(penae of accormodatlon and dwelllng
',''..''.unltc. t ln Gonnerclal Core I elone, tbe logg ol 19
tq D^',-flccornnodatlon unitg and 36 dwetllng units can be docunented-
LtLY'
It lg cl€ar, however,. tlrat there ls a polnt at whlch tlre
uertrct deciglon mret be nade to pronote lodglng aa rell ag- .' : - , r.
conncrclal acttvlty. Yet these declglons are rarcly nadc by
!. .. ona lndtvlduali rather, lndlvldual _ decl.llona blcsd -.or.-lri
!r .p.ii,f :. i?:-. --T- : ' ,,,.4g1r;-:: . :,.1 : ,'-'- ,:,{4i.,' - - 1},, lt' -. . conpctlnE lntcrertr niyi t'eault ln a gltuatlon whlch La
dctrlnental ultlnrately to. both Lnterestg and rhlch
dctrlncntally affect the concept of the dlstrlct ltsslf.
htrttrer, other factors lnfluence ther ultlmate
cffcct of, declgl0ng made ln the central core. Onc of tlrege
fectorc ls the contlnued Erowth of, tlre Town ln ar€a! outslde
ttrc central core whtch haa Just ae detriaental an sffect on
Ltlr. ccntral core ae the ajphoning away of the reeort narket
by cornpetlng developmenta. In r.vieslnE theae changlng
r#
a
a
F
.ir
-3-
;:!'l-' :';.::i't ."' ;'.', .;l'ti:",'ff.THi:';:*if:" " ai
..'r..r,'fiat.;|1i,f1;..',",i..:.i,.-.:
,.i; *i"'i.r' ,.'r- i i l.r.t: .l n'.'
.,,i:,
Clrcgnatancca, lt bcconrog obvloug tlrat certat'n regtrlctlona
phccd on. tlrc core centcr act Dore to degtabllze then to
vltallze thc area and strould be reevaluated tn ltgbt of
chuglng' cl rcumstances.
a
Econon!.ca11y, tlre reaort lndustry of thc fown ls
x
arbJcct to great ccasonal varlatlon ln utlllzatlon of
frcllltleg. t*rlle utlllzatlon le htgh durtng tlrc prlne
vlntcr nontlrs of Decenber, Febmary, and March, and durlnE
ttrc halcht of tlrc Bunner 3ea3on in July and Augtust, tlrere 1l
"...'..'
I draattg.:,ieellne ln occupancy ln ttre rcnainlng nontlre'
t{trttc tlrc'Lttractlons whlch regult ln htgh occupancy trs not
rvallable durLng the off nonths, a rnarket exietg for the
fo1n,s facllltleg during tlrose tl,nea ln the convention and
acettng rnarket.9ftt" Town hae resogrnlzed thls 1n ltc rpproval
of I larEe conventlon center at tlre ltarrlot ltark ar rcll as
ritta rcquireoent for the-Westftl Eotel to provldb convention- .''it:, i,:',/ri,i;j"itltlir{t"J8\R*i-&i'.:,'!i}r1-.' .l
epiec. gowcvcr,"illLi"i of exlstlng'''reatrictl'onc,'bo such
,9:.
opportunltylsprclentlyavallabletotlrosef,acllt'tl.es
locatcd ln tlre centrai cor€. In aaaurlng the continued
a central core ln
+-f*fr("+i-r in that areia
.X -&ti.Jr:-
vlabtttty of thc Town as a whole, lt 1g lncumbent on tlroae
/ !,ntcrcsted ln the townr s welfare to address tlrc d![|ar. oe
a manncr Yhlch
whtch rl,gh to
proVtdc facllltleg for tlre conventlon/neetlnga nerkct whllc
a
':
..:.'
1
the lntcgrltY of tbe orlglnal
o
r! tfrc lenc tlnc
plsn for Vrll'
preecnrlng
{r
Y
(3) Effect of the Anendrnent'
Ilra proposed ernendnrent uould renov€ fron tbe
dcnrtty reguirenents ln the PA and connerclal.r:[i_t
Dlstrlcts accornmodatlon units' naklng those r'A'tr:FE sl
rpprlcablc only to dwellr i"*-'Y*,tH)*'-
u::,":t""'' rhe
net effect of ttrr.e wourdLtraffi*e lodglnE ba:e ln
t-----,--*-r..A{}"" """o*odatlon 9n1-!r' a 1[itrtctsJapproxima xeLryr/^es accomn"o"'_"" Sifr.Q]fot fi '
....: ' . :poaalble nartrnrrn increase for ttre Town of, ''t"l^ffi
Bacauac ttrlc lncrcaee wourd be ln -ttr1
centrtllt? tlre
% aff,ected bY tlre
pcdeatrlan trafflc ln the ts
change would ncceslarlly lncreagc togettrer wttb the
utrrrzatron.of cornmerctat cnterpriseg ln the dletrt":?' wtttl
renowarloq and constrarctlon or ""Yl)rrpt;frt +"ttA"n6*tr*'1
'lt:U-$f:Ic tn""" 'i,!'nr.""r,trv'(!p;i' or abeence 6r ''vn:r''1*r'
re ln thc nurnber of PeoPIeconnerclal actlvlty' tjre lncreas
utlllztnEt}rlespaceagwellagottreractlvltyccntera.lnt}re
ccntral core wlll result ln revlta!'izat!'on of the cntlrc area
retlrer tha-n the d9\ter'l-t{ on rdhic}r lE at the very l'lst a
l'unlnent' bat'l or''
tt rnuat be bor#llntnd that thc proposcd anendnent
rddrelres only one portlon of ttre exietlnE controll ln tlra
tuo dlatrlcts whlch provide! for orderty nanagement' AII of
tlre archltectural deslgn conslderadlone' auch as butldlng
F
r:::r,r . i .,o \..,, -
:u' j' :i:'. .:
,i' '
!:"'.
bclght tcttrtctlonc, lot area rnd cLzc dlncnclon
VJgfi
lY
rcqu!,rcncnts, and dctbacka, continue to apply to tlrc area'
l\r1tJrcr,. trhc vall vIllage Urban Dealgn Gulde Plan and Deaigm
'Conildcratlone are atlll fulty appllcable to any eddLtlon of,
rbconiodatlon unl'ts whlch nJ'ght take place.
'.:'. .. .'t\trther, lt lr evident ttrat. any addltlonr uhlch
nlght be nede w111 be to stnrcturea whlch are already ln
exletcnce for apeclfled purposea under tlre zontng code'
Ihercforc .eny declalon to take advantage of a poaslble
l ;;'e:1ncrcalc tri" accornrnodatlon unltg wlll be based ln lergc part
'i: ' ' /
on ccononlcg and practlcality. Ttre cost effectivencsa of any
ruclr declslon must be carefully welghed before proccedlng and
yould necd to be substantialty poal.tl,ve Ln order to Jugtlfy
thc eheer nagmltudc of any cuch deciglon shere fractionallzed
lntereatg arel lnvolved nay precludc any utlltzatlon -of, tlre
poastblllttcs offcred by the anendrnent. Eurtbsr, the
dlfference Ln character of such an organizatlon fron a
connerclal enterpriae furtlrer nllltates agalnrt total
bulldout of posaible new accomrnodatlon unltg. ,
:.
.1 ; r*i'
C-oncllrgton. .r. ',
tttlllc lt 1g nec€sBary ln any nunlclpal organt'zatlon
to provlde a plan for develoPment' lt 1g lnperatlve ttrat the
' Plan not be a Bet of, rlgid ruleg but rather be ausceptLble to
a
Y adJustrnent and alteratlon to provl'de continued dfnanlgn for
tbc centr-a1 core aB well aa the lo'tt as a wholc' I|he
ProPosed anendrnent makea sucl. an adJuetment by llftlng the
rcgtrlctlon on accornmodatlon unlts ln the Publtc
A - l--.-- . . ^^-- r r{ -}r.i a} those
.l(gccotnnodattonaandCommercialCoreldj.strictstopemitthct
dlgtrtcd do'coipete aggresslvely f,or the regort markst for
eonventlongandnreetinggduringperlodsrrhentheoccupancyla
hlatorlcallylowand,concomitantly'furtherinstbcbaelc
purpoeG for which the tuo 'distripfg 'nerg forrned' the
ttrA *'ont
.'clrculatlonofpedeetrlanslnttr{gio'unercialdlgtrict.
: .'.... . " : i '
.Bccausetlrcneteffectofthelncreagcdaccomnodatlonunlt
X affect. ln any substantlal nanner' the qualtty of tlrc resort
-t
cxperlence sought to be promoted by the conJunctlon of all
planning requlrements appllcable to the central core' I
I,
-f
+
I
{
t
o
LODGINC CHARACTEBI STICS
OF THE
TOVIN OF VAIL
Prepaied by:
Ruoff PartnershlP Arclrltects
June 6, 1983
t
.//
TABLE OF CONTE}ITS
Page
Introduction I
Land Use Analysis of the Lodging Base 2
in ttre Town of Vail
Table 1 - Vail Village, Existing Units
Table 2 - Lionshead, Gten Lyon, and Wbst 6vail Existing Units
Table 3 - (a)(b)(c) vail village, Existing I- Units and Densities bY Street
(a) Gore Creek Drive I
ibi E;;i Ma;aow oiive ra(c) Bridge Street
Tabte 4 - Conmercial Core District, 11
Existing Units and Densities
Table 5 - Lionshead Existing Units -, "12
and Densities
Table 5 - Public Accomodations District, 14
. Existing Units and Densities ":"-'
Tab1e 7 - Possible New Hotel Rooms under 15
Proposed Amendnent
Table 8 - Possible New Hotel Rooms L7'
Based on guilding EnveloPe
i.,
-1i): O
IIfTRODUCTION
The following is a rePort.on the lodqing charac-
tcrlatiep of the Town of Va1l. It includes data on numberE
of existins hotel rooms,'-crrrrent de-n"sities for individual
pfOpertieS, and densities for,several*specific areas of Towrr.
The report goes on to look'.at potenEial increaEes ln the
nntnber of hotel roomEi a'Ltrowed undel- current zoning and
pOesible addj.tional hotel ,Eoem9i that.wblrld.be allowed under ai;;F;;a zsninl amendrnent
lhis repor't
ncrsbiP Architects, -inItaff of the Town
Dcvelopnent, .
the Ruoff Part-
suppli-ed by theof _ Comnunity
o
* u" ?tofHf io*fi 3ff*?8"'"o "o'"
This ..Oora--* *formation on rrtratcurrently exists, what existed in the past, and what could. exigt in the future as far as accommodation units anddwelling units in the Town of Vail.
Vailrs current zoning density control that wentlnto effect in 197.7 aLLows no more than 25 units per acre inCommercial Core 1, Commercial Core 2, and public AccomodationDistricts. Virtually every bui.lding containing .Iiving unitsin these three districts was built prior to 1-977 and the vastmajority have actual densities well over 25 unitE per acre(see Tables 1 and 2). In VaiI Village and VaiI Lionshead,only three hotels have densities less than the zoned maximum(see Table 1). The averaqe real density for hotel andcondominium projects is about 35 units per acre.
In years past a number of accomrnodation units anddwelling units have been converted into comm'ercial space.Ihus, some buildings have had even.higher densitj_es than theydo today. On an equivalency basis, 91 accommodation unitshave been lost from the lodging base in CC1 alone.
On a historical basis, generally speaking, the sizeof hotel rooms has increased. Early accommodations rangedfrom small dormitory-sty1e rooms to standard hotel rooms, fewwith over 3OO square feet. Those hotel rooms that have beenbuilt in the last few years have responded to the need foradditional space in giuest rooms that the market requires andexpects in a destination resort hotel. Most of these newerrooms are approxinately 350 square feet or larger. Theaverage size of hoteL roons in Vail today is 3O5 square feet.For purposes of comparision, the average size for conilo-miniums in VaiI Village and Vail Lionshead is 1,391 squar6feet.
Because of physical constraints, it is virtuallylmpossible in many cases to remodel existing small hotelrooms into larger ones. It would therefore seem that if VaiIis to have larger hotel rooms in the treart of town, addi-tional rooms must be built in existing trotels. One method ofallowing more hotel rooms in a manageable way would be toexclude acconrnodation unj.ts from density control whileIimlting the overall buildi.ng mass to the building envelopeaE defined by the zoning district and the Urban DesigrnGuidellnes. This would permit new hotel rooms while keepingthe character'of the ViLlage and Lionshead. A rnaximum of 257new 35O square foot accommodation units could be built under
-2-
v-
this proposal. Converted to dwelling units these new accom-
nodatlon units constitute only a 1.4fl change .for the entire
Town of Vail. Therifore the impact of allowing new, high-
quality hotel rooms would be an increase in the quality of
Vail's lodging base rather thAn sirnply increased quantity'
tfith no constraint on the number of acconnodation
units or the area allowed for acconmodation units, a number
of other restraints would still apPly to control the design
of buildings:
(a) Buildings would still have to conform to
those setbacks required in the zoning dj'strict unless
otherwise specified in the Urban Desigm Guidelines;
(b) Height of buildings would be regrulated by
the zoning district or by the Urban. Design Guidelineg;
(c) Building' coverage will still be con-
trolled by the restrj.ctions in the zoning district; and
(d) If a building conforms to the above
restraints, it still must be approved by the Torrn of Vail
Design Review Board to ensure that it is visually harmonious
with its site and with surrounding sites and structures and
that it does not dominate the. townscape or the natural
landscape
With the Passage of an amendment allowing for
additional hotel rooms, the character and visual impresaion
of the Town should be virtually unchanged. So long as other
ordinances that control building nass remain and the Town
maintains a responsible Design Review Board, these nevt
accomodations will be built in pleasing structures ttrat
conplement the ambiance of VaiI.
;3-
'.r-
o
Table I
VAII, VILLAGE EXISTING UNITS
HOTET,,
Athletie Club
Chrlgtianlr
Thc 9rest
9lrden of Gods
Gartlrof 9rmnebanrner
Gcldcn Pcrk House
Holldey Inn
Xirndra,/Tallrnan
lodgc rt VrlI
llountain Heus
Pllzl Lodgr
Brnchorn
9ltznarh
Sonnrhalp
8lvoll
Vrlt Vlllegr Inn
@All 9oaaonc
Brll Tower
Crrlno
Crookrldr
9roraroadc
* ACCoM.
UNITS
28
26
134
L7
22
6
130
145
6?
10
l0
29
94
39
39
69
922
*
DWELLING
t,NITS
11
I
19
3
7
20
9
t7
o
.7-5
,8
1
1
1
_1
:?9
DENSIT:T
Lof *
-. tGlnits/SIZE (Ac):'-Scre_I
. --:,e )
-6764 - _-40.5
-.659 +o'5 31.8- 2.ozg 3r'8 gz.z
- .5o5 32 '7 zz .z
.327 12'? ss.o
. 1587 -'! ' t+e. g-'-'2 -137 '*"'t 30.4'-+.zoz 39'4 zo.g- .'z.oegg 2a'9 t+.g.'..4gg5 t1.BteZ.t
-'.r.2g4 !62.1 44.2' - .464 41'2 32.g
--- .4077 32'3 +E.zt-.sSg 11.-'2 37.t-_ .4O7 3?. 1 eg. ttl. nss +i 'i 36.3;., 36.3 (at
( at conrpletion)
conpl e-_: ; :_
.6168*---.138
i-- .175- - .234- z.eos
51.66'-'6 zt.z
'-' t lz.1
' '* 17.1:-'i 8.3
- '-ta
- :3
----3
-'4- .22
-A-
' : * DENsIrr* ACe-oM' 'DWELI.ING LoT (9lnits/
E9EE! -UNIIS - :!rHJS- EIE[-LAc.) Acre )-'-:-
Gere greek Pleae . t .173 "5-8
Htll Buildine - 2 .1951 10..a3
Hotiday Fouse - 17 .55o '117.:5
Larier Areade . p .168 53i6
lodge Seuth 42 ..33s 't75.tA
Ledie Apartrrents ' $9 ,5184+ 9 5-14Air ltnltE: cFtate Ht o,
1'!9rr4dc-et-ate
Uaner Vall . 1?9 5'887 '?'o.a9..l{i}l Greeh €eurt - t3 .224 A9:9. gne Vail Plaee , g ,2r.92 '22i8
Red Lion Inn - t, ,32O 2'3.e1Ruch'caek-2,09432L.:2Vll Rew Heueee t Ji ,851 AA/Lvtlla . r 12 ,2433 'e9.:3
Vlllaee eenter ' 71 1.499 1*;7.i4verlaufer #
,?s7 tr.i
o
Table 2
LIONSHEAD, GLEN LYON AITD }IEST VAIL EXISTING T'NITS
+ DENSINT* ACCOM. DWELLING LOT (Units,z
I'NITS I'NITS SIZE (AC) ACTC }HOTEL
Enzian
Lion Sguare
Marriott's Mark
Sunbird
Vailglo
col{Do
Antlers
Landmark
Lazier Arcade
Lifthouse
.Lionshead Center
Lodge at Lionshead
Montaneros
Treetops
Vail International
Vail Spa
ValI 21
Vantage Point
tfestwind
sz t2
2a 79
247 53
29 15
340
L.22r7 31. 1
2.936 37.7
s.t7 34.1
.562 52.5
.6423 26.5
390
72
58
14
45
25
53
4L
29
57
55
19
55
35
1.190
1.495
.323
.4558
.6303
2.3653
L.O29
.888
1.876
s .23
.3566
1. s697
.849
60. s
38.8
43.3
96.4
39.2
22.4
39.8
32.7
30.4
t7.o
53.3
41.4
4t.2
558
-6-
FCXTtsr.
Glen Lvon
lfestln Hot6l
l{eg! Vall
Rooet
Irm at tfest Vail
** ACCOM. DYIELTINGI'NITS T'NITS
74
79.
r53
-7-
DEM;I1TLoT (Unlts/
SIZE (Acl AcfF )
2.507s 38.5L77
19
1.92:4
3.948
t9.2
14.8
- - -Table 3
VILLAGE(Existtng'Unit*and Densitieg by Street)
(r) Gore Creek Drive
Tlrc lrodge at VaiI
Lodgc Apartnents
lrraicr Arcade
Ceoino
Sltznark
Gorc.Creek Plaza
BelI Tower
Crrcltaidc
Liquor Store
l{tll.Croek Court
Vlllr +P-3
Grrdcn of the Gods
Grmshanner
Gorruch
Vell Row Houses
Vorleufcr
= --- * I'NITS'-- 31
:- : 59:
:9
:3'-. 18
:1
:3
.24:o'-. 13'--- t2
:- : 11.5
:: 18
: O'
:: 29
:'- 23
L,OT SIZE (Ac)
2.0889
.6184 +
Alr Estate
.158
.L75
1.893
.20.5
.224
.495 + .762
.505
.327
.13
.851
.2e7
Gorc Creek *2€ii€Units/AcreDfive -:
(b) Eaet Meadow Drive
fransportatl.on Center
Athletlc Club
llountaln llaug
Sonnenalp
ViIIage Center
Kiandrar/Tali sman
Vatl Village fnn
Crossroads
Table 3
+ I,NITS
25
80
20,S
7l
89.5
101.5
22
LOT SIZE (Ac}
.6164
. 11936
.553
1. d99
4.267
3.455
2.665
Eaet Meadow Drive
409.5
*3O.2 Unite,/Acre
13 .549
-9-
(c) Brldge Street
Covared Bridge Store
Gagthof Gramshanmer
Ore Souge
Slifer Bulldlng
Gorsuch Building
Caslno
Plaza Lodge
Htll Butldtng
Golden Peak House
lable 3
.* UNITS t,OT SIZE (AC)
.17t. .327
.920
18
o
o
o
3
l3
2 (.xe31)
23.
o
.t?s
.?e4
.355
.270
Cyranot a
Red Lion
. Ruckgack
r .320
z
D€1t
Llguor Store
.o
.o
62
Brldgc Street *27.77 U.nlts/Acre
2.232
o -!o-
Table 4
t
Ehe Lodge at VaiI
Ihe Lodge Apartnents
The Lodge South
Lrzler Arcade
Mtll Creek Court
Croekside
Bell Tower
Gore Creek Plaza
Stlznark
One Vail Place
* I'NITS
31
59
42
9
13
4
.3
1..18
5
LOT SIZE (Ac)
2. 0889
.6184 +
Air E3tate
.335
.168
.224
' 1.893
.219
185
62
5.546
2.232Brldge Street
247 7.774
ccr *31.76 Units/Acre
-11-
Table 5
LIONSHE,AD EXISTING UNITS AT{D DENSITIES
vantagc Boir.t
Vatl 21
Lazter Arcade
Llf,thousc Lodge
Gondola
Llonehead Center
Tract D
tfestwlnd
rraci c
Landmark
Enzlan
Veilglo
Concert Hall
Tract G
lract E
lract c
Sunbird
ItontaneroE
Iuloneguare N
Llonsguarc
Antlers
# T'NITS
65
19
14:
45
o
25
o
35
o
58
38
L7
o
o
o
o,
29.s
4l
93
LOT SIZE (Ac)
1.848
2.066
t.372
.922
L.42tL
.849
1.758
1.495
L.22Li
.6423
.26
.174
. .o29
.384
.s62
. 2.165
1.799
1.19072
551.5 20.161
-L2-
a
CCZ *27.tL Unlts,/Acre
Dlrrrlott'e Mark
VelI Spa
175.5
55
5.1?
3.23
231.s 8.4
783 2A.56L
*27.4 Unitsr/Acre
Llonshead tfest of Parking Slructure
I
:-
-13-
Table 6
PIIBT.,LC ACCOMMODATION DI STRICT,
l -:- :
LOT SIZE (ACT
.464
.447
.505
.2433
.659
.6164
.4936
.553
4.267
. so3
2.t37
VILLAGE
Ramshorn
TivoIi
Garden of the Gods
Villa
Chrlstiania
Athletic Club
Mountain Haus
Sonnenalp
Kiandra/Tali sman
First Bank
Holiday Irut
EXISTING TNITS AI.ID DENSITIES
* I'NITS
15
20
11.5
t2
2t
25
80
20-5
89.5
4
65
*33.5 Units/Acre
363.5
37
58. 5
10.8483
1.924
3.948
Lionshead
No P.A. Zoning
Other
The Roost
Inn at West Vail (CC3)
*ro.3 unrts,/Acr"
ttl'u
-14-
5,472
Exisgine
?98
390
1,188
771
153
1,51E
759
759
4,653
1,40?
5,814
Table 7
Eg
r96
z6gt
.0.
269
zr.t{"a^os' '3.8X Cbange
17.6i-thanee
Pogestisl Under New llader, I Cbange
eurrent Zonins + Anendnent-- by Aneqdngnt
Vitrlege
Lionrhesd
TOTAI
Glcn Lyoa
lJrrt Vfil
tOfAL Hotel Rssnc 1,0,V,
Convcrtcd to
dwelling units I
ldd rll dwelling uEite;
Acconrodetion
Uultt-fanily
Efrr duplex
1. VILLAGE
LIQ
15
25-7
w2
.0-
-0-- No
-0. No
Change
-Change
196
1,204
1,126
128,5
. .0'
.0.
257
128,5
13.STEEan8e
..:
..
'
:-. t
2F26
ngdation units €ftrst' PrcseRt
eRether 42 aecemmsda€ien unlt5 Eening will . d.Ilowte be built.*--
12E,5 1.4XJE-ange
en 62 .egcom-Ir
b, Kiandra/Ta1ismantffii-;*Z'67-?-_iec of land and 145 aeeomrnodation
unf€e enO 17 dwellinC unitF, ssssent denslty is
20,97 u3tts per aere, Ehe hetel ean add 3{--qccop-
rnsdatlon unitc,
.15.
c.
o
Vall Villaqe Inn
The Hotel crlrrently has 69 accommodation units and
29 dwelling units. SDD *6 allows a maximum of 3OO
accommodation units. grtbtracting from the 3OO
allowed, the equivalent number of acconmodationunits for the 29 condominiums (58) leaves 242 total
accommodation units permitted for the prgject-
LAaBSe
d.Vacant lots north of Christiana20 potentiaL accommodation units
Vail projections.
GLEN LYON
a. Westin HotelffiiopeFplan calls for 3oounits. 177 units exist. L23
remain to be built. 1:S
-:'endme:::
2.
3.TOTAL POTENTIAL NEW HOTEL ROOMS
a. Total potential new hotel boms for Town rrf Vail
under current zoning: 392 -.
4. See Table g for analySis of new hotel roomE-$nder
amendment.
.4| Chang.-
-:.1
-:..4'
"=- eS-''
-- gffSftC
^rt.] '.:i%,
.i'e:-'
-2 accon-:11 al1c",
rodatio:.:rsity ::34 accc: -
based on Town of
-.7% Cha:.-
8% Cha:'e. Total Potential Accommodation Units: 2Q9.- ^,- ' 6i Cbar'
)ro Cbacg:
lro Cbar:total acconmodation
accotnmodation uni ts
:.5% Cha:-.
- 16-
r:q'!!1.t*!It'
8
I
I
t
I
I
I
lable
POSSIBLE ADDITIONAT NEI{ HOTEL ROOI.IS T{ITH ZONING CHAI{GT
(BaEed on Building Envelope*)
Vlllage: ;
Attrletlc Club
Sonnenalp
Oaetlrof Gramsharnmer
Sltznark
Lodge at Vail
Flaza
Golden Peak Eouee
Chrlstiania
Garden of the Gods
Tlvoll
Ramshorn
Kiandrar/Talisman
(wr) sDD
_Hollday Inn
tlonshead:
SunbirdVallglo
Enzian
(Marriottrs Mark) SDD
*TOTAL.
*See folloning analysis for detalle.
-17-
o
36
o
I
58
o
o
L4
o
24
29
40
33
242
9
6
o
l5
257
. !I+
Note:
Potenti.al for Additional Hote
and CCII
Additional rooms based on 35O sq. ft. hotel rooms
and building envelope.
Athletic CIub: No additional roomsStnGture occupies aIl allowable building area,allowi.ng for no expansion IateraIIy. Buildingheight is twenty to thirty feet over uraximum
allowed in PA district, thus allowing no e:rpansion
upwards.
Christiania: 14 additional roomsE;r.6EE expansion with least effect on existing
rooms would be to add a floor over the existing
hotel. This is allowable in PA distriet and wouldcreate fourteen new hotel rooms
Gasthof Gramshammer: No additional roomsStiucture occupies aIt allowable building area. If
an additional floor were added above the existing,the buildlng would exceed the height limits.Parking lot to the west is held in common; nobuilding expansion possible in connection with the
existing buildi.ng at the present time.
Golden Peak House: No additional'roomsStluCture occupies a1l allowable building area and
is already above the maxj.mum height allowed in ttre
district.
Holiday Inn: 33 additional roomsA new wing extending off of the existing hotel
entry toward the Frontage Road could be built.Raised on col.umns allowing for cars to pass
underneath to park, nert rooms on the second, third,
and fourth floors would look out to tlre east'and
west.
Kiandra,/Talisman: 40 additional roomsAdditional hotel rooms are possible above the
one-story commercial area described in the Urban
Desigrn Guidelines. Although a four-story building
could be built under PA zoning, a two- to three-
story bulldlng would fit the scale of the
neiqhboring buildJ.ngs better and provide a good
street enilosure for that end of East Meadow Drive.
Based on a 35O sq. ft. hotel ioom, this would allowfor about 40 new rooms
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
-18-
h.
i.
g. Lodqe at VaiI: 58 additional rooms + 42 allowed
under zoning
l. Because of the great amount of site area,
2.0889 ac., and the building configruration, it
would be possible to build new hotel wingrs,' connecting existing buildings and add approxi-
mately 10O rooms. This would totally enclosethe main parking lot and the swj.mrning pool'area.
2. A smaller addition' that would leave theparking lot and pool as they are wouldinvolve the building of a bridge ofhotel rooms connecting the South wing of theLodge with the Lodge South CondominiumBuilding and the addition of two and threefloors of rooms over the International Roontwing. This would create about 50 new hotel
rooms and create a sense of enclosure for theLodge.Plaza and the Town's Village Pfaza.
Plaza Lodge: No additional roomsStructure occupies all allowable area. If anadditional floor could physically be added abovethe existing it would exceed the height limit forthe area.
Ramshorn: 29 additional rooms
Because the existing hotel is two and three storieshigh and four-story buildings are allowed in the PAdistrict, approxinately 29 new rooms could beadded. However, because of the building configru-rat,ion and its open stairwells, the addition wouldrequire considerable remodeling of the hotelrsexisting spaces and possibly total reconstructionto handle the weight of two additional floors.
Sitzmark: 8 additional rooms
Urban Design Guidelines calls for a one-story
commercial expansion along Gore Creek Drlve. Hotel
rooms could be built above the commercial level onthe second and third floors. Elowever, this isprobably not an economically feasible project. Thecorridor out to the new rooms would probably cut
through an existing hotel room. Ibus, for ten new
rooms gained, two existing rooms would be lost forcirculation. Also, the existing rooms on the southEide of the hotel that not Look onto Gore CreekDrive would look at the wall along the north sideof the additional rooms, making those existing
rooms less desirable for the guests.
j.
-19-
k.Sonnenalp: 35 additional roomsUrban Oesigm Guidelines refers to buildinq
expansion to reinforce the pedestrian connection
between Bridge Street and East Meadow Drive. Thie
can be accomplished by extending the north face of
the building toward East Meadow Drive with newretail shops to create a sense of liveliness and an
enclosed arcade to direct the pedestrlan in frontof the hotel and onward to the strops along East
Meadow Drive. In the PA district, height linits
will atlor't for a fourth floor to be. added onto the
existing bullding. With the expansion to the
north, an elevator can be added for guests and
space in the new structure will be used for service
and delivery.
24 additional rooms
trxpansion to the west where the hotelts parking lotis presently located would allow for si'x new 350
sg. ft. rooms per f,Ioor. A three-story addition
would create 18 new hotel rooms while a four-storyaddition would allow 24 rooms. In either caae a
new fi.re stair would need to be built on each end
of the building to satisfy fj.re code requirements.
VaiI Village Inn: No additional rooms
The Master Plan for WI is controlled by Special
Development District Number 6. The Development
PIan for SDD 6 defines the building envelope which
controls massing and height for the project. Three
hundred accomodation units would have been allowedif there lrere no dwellinq units in the development.With the twenty-nine qondominiums built in 1982,WI is now allowed 242 tota]- accommcrdatlon unifs.
Based on the 350 sg. ft. hoteL room and that'portion of the project's building envelope that
remains, only about 189 total accommodation units
can be buiIt.
Sunbird: 9 additional roomsffi-6Ty space for expansion would be south of the
hotelts pool terrace. This would require a bridge
connection to the existing structure resultinq in
the loss of a hotel room on each floor. Thus, this
uneconomical addition would allow the hotel twelve
new rooms at the cost of three existing rooms, a
net gain of nj.ne.
Vailcllo: 6 additional rooms
Uxpaffsion would be possible south of the hotel over
the parking deck. This would eLiminate half of the
swimming pool deck and reguire modlfication to an
I.
m.
n.
Tivoli:
o.
-20-
p.
q'
existing Etair toliter and gruest room. Wi.tlr three
new rooms on two levels above the parklng deck, thehotel would gain six additional rooms.
Enzian: No additional roomsThe hotel covers most of its site; that area
remaining is not Eufficient for hotel expansion. Autillty easement along the north side of the siteprevents the possibility of a new wing over theparkihg lot. The building cannot add any floors asit is already over the he.ight linit.
Marriottts Mark: No additional rooms
ffiI-SAveIopment District Number 7 defines tllebuiLding envelope controlling massing and height.l{lth that phase constructed in 1982-83, the Mark
has reached its full build-out.
-21-
l
t
i
l./
GAGEDAVISASSOCIATES
!4\lPLAI.!.III.IG AND LAI.DSCAPE ARCHIIrcN,FE
MEMORANDUM
To: Dick Ryan
From: Nol an Rosal 'l
Date: March 18, 1983RE: Information on Lodging Units
cc: Charlje Maas, Vai'l Associates
I thought I wou'ld provide you with a few additional observations regard'ing the
lodging data we have co1'lected so far this year, particular'ly with that becoming
a po]icy question Jn Vai'l .
There is little evidence that the size or availabi'lity of lodging units is
emerging as a problem among either Vail or Beaver Creek skiers this season.
These issues were addressed by several survey questions. Skiers were asked:
"Were the acconrnodations what you preferred?" and if not, "t,lhy?" Responses
show that 90 percent of skiers were,staying in their prefemed types of units.
Those that were not satisfied, jdentified the following as reasons:
"e Too far from Vail and "action." (2 responses)r Come with ski club - had no choice.r Timeshare unit too sma'l l. (2 responses)r l,lestin Hotel still under construction.r Condo poorly planned.r Duplex or condo too small. (2 responses)r Preferred a two bedroom rather than adiacent lodge rooms."
Although unit size was identified as a problem by four respondents'
these skiers were staying in 'l odge rooms.
none of
!r|e also deve'l oped a series of crosstabulations concern'ing the quality neasures
of the units in which the guests were staying by the type of unit they were in.
The lodge/hotel units did not stand out in those ratings as being particular
prob'l ems in any area to a far greater extent than any other unit type' although
size of unjt did emerge there as a potential questjon. As you can see from the
attached crosstabu'lations, lodge units were rated as best of all unit types in
terms of "convenience of'l ocation," were close to the average in terms of
"quality of service," and "availability of amenities" were slightly below
average in terms of "dollar value," and were below average in terms of "size
of unit." In response to adequacy of size of unjt, 57 percent rated their
units as "good" to "excelIent," 35 percent rated them as "fair" and 8 percent
rate them as "poor."
GAGEDAVISASSOCIATES
PLAI'NNG Af.lO LA{DSCAFE AFCHIIECIIFE
Other issues involve the question of whether there appears to be a cormunity
or market need to expand the lodging accommodations in Vail. You should reca'l'l
that jn the previous two year's studies, we asked several questions regarding'corrnunity sca'l e, archjtectural quality, level of congestion in Vail, etc. Visitors
and residents alike were strong in their opinions that the Village was presentlyquite attractive jn architectura'l quality and scale, particu'larly in comparisonto LionsHead, but many felt that Vail was becoming too crowded and congested and'in danger of losing its charm. Furthermore, strong feel'ings existed that Vail and
Eagle County should attempt to limit the amount of new growth.
C1ear1y, these oplnions are danger signals which shou'ld not be ignored by the
Town. Major changes in the size, scale, architectural style, or density of the
Village cou'ld become problems from the perspective of the "loya1" Vai'l overnightvisitors who have been coming to the Town for several years and who'like the
present level of deveiopment. 0bviously, certain upgrades on a site-by-site
basis are appropriate and perhaps necessary, particularly if they can be accom-plished in a sensitive manner without'impacting the pedestrian scale of theVi1lage. It could be a very delicate'i ssue, however, as we perceived corments
by the survey respondents.
Furthevrnore, the lodge owners shou'ld be cognizant of the shifts which have been
occuming in skier mix over the past four years. Skier growth has levelled off
somewhat, and, more'important, the skier mix has been changing in Vail. Increas-ingly, growth has been occurring in the "locals" and "day skier" categories,
while overnight and particularly overnight out-of-state visitations have not
remained in a re1ative sense as strong a component.
o
$JrlVEY
o
cq_0ffito. fi r8l 1983
,rr I flssociates,lnc.
TEtl{SLt}EY CoftmftRll0r{ - BqJrl}ER,
t Vailnailoui survey !
P4e I
Eage Davis essociates
.r0uesfron : 816
lhrt type of unit did you stay in this trip?
llere these ths rccmns- Iim Lodge/ Conds C$do Single Dupex 0ther
oafions you prefenud? share hstel rith rithout fanilyHffi hitchen kitclren /duplex
msE gl t6 {9 t?6 I t9 t7 r{
,,yes I e67 l! {e 16l I 19 tE l{89,9 {.r t5.7 60.3 0.4 7,1 6.0 5.A60.8 85.7 9t.t lC&.C 100.5 94,I tm.o
rroe$5715e01e 10.1 t6.7 e3.3 sG.S 0.0 0.S 3.3 e.CI31.3 r{.3 8.5 s.8 0.0 5.9 e,e
Dt!-s[t$G STfiTISTTC l{.tl
056nggs tr FffiElltlt 5ste'|tFtcRr{E 0.0e9
a aaqr to. |Dttrt|Nrfl ict r ftD
Vail f,ssociates.lrc,
o
s$EY rEos{tltsY cmp0RRTIst - Bot_t}Et.
t Vai lnailsui suryey l
Page ?
Brga lhvis essoqtsfes
o
co_0ffit{t
Buestiorr r 017f,
lhat tvs€ of unit dic ygu stay ir' this tri9?
,R*e qualitv by dsllar Tiae Lsdge/ Conds Csr'ds Sir,-ole Duaex Othervalue share notel Hiih uiihoui farily3f,SE ltitciierr ){itcien /duolex
SRSE ?fr ie 5t 163 I 13 fl t3
cx!-alientr996t3E30897
35. C i,l le. r t3.5 0.0 8.1 9.1 1,150.s e3.3 3e.i 0,0 61,5 *,,9 53.0
lcrs{i ?99 lE{60 le6536.e t.8 ?4,? 6S,6 t.0 ?,fi 6,t 5.18.3 {7.1 36.8 le0.e 15.4 33.3 39.5
fair361 4il4501e1e3.3 6,3 t7.? 70.3 9.0 1.6 3.1 t.633.3 el.5 A7.6 0.e 7.7 u.8 7.7
Door+13 l{509e04,'l '1.7 38.8 38,'r S.0 tE.4 9.0 O 08.3 7.8 3.r 9.0 t5.{ s.0 0.0
HI-S&nR: STAilSTIC e8.68
DEGffigS tr FREEIBi Igst$uFlcsEE 0.GB
nric*i ra. rggs
Vril Fsociales, lrn.
o
$ilEY
o
ctL0RRD{rIE0Si0L{FY Cofip0ffillllt - HILI!Ei,
t Vailsilout survey I
Pags 3
6age lhvis flssocntes
Oueetior : 0l7B
Raie Dy cmverrierrce of
lccation
B*E
.,.xcel lerrt
gooc
fair
B00r
lhat type of unit did you rtay in this trip?
Corrdo Condo Single Dupexrith nrthout fauily
hitchEn i(itchen /duFler
Lodge/
hstel
Tile
$are
t
!
0.9
1e0.0
l8
5
{.3
n,8
114
55
57.4
37.9
73
59.3
{4.0
et
64.1
14.4
rJl
a{
?0.9
{7. r
l8
r{.6
35.3
6
t5.1
u.8
3
el. I
5.9
e9r
r llt
39,3
q
{.3
39.5
I
6.5
51.5
e
t.0
9.0
0
s,0
0.0
le
9.S
65.?
0
0.e
0.0
t
7,1
5.6
5
4.3
38.5
7
8,7
53.8
I
4.6
7,7
e
0.e
0.0
7
6.t
+3.8
3
?.4
t8.8
e
0.0
s.0
0
0.0
G.e
s
0.0
s.s
e!a
{e.3
339
13.1
4t{e{,8 e.s
s.e
6
t5.4
37.5
t0
71.4
5.7
Dlri-sBsf,E sTniltrrc
0E6fiE5S 0F FRiit){U
st6iiIFtcemE
e{.81
t8
8.153
frB,tch '16,' 1983
Vril ftsEociates,lrc.
ot
sffEY rE$N{luFY CoRPoRRTil}r - Bfl.UrER, [q-0Hf0
t Vailmilout survev J
Page {
Gage lhvis Eseiges
ftre*ion : 0t7C
}hat type of unit cio you stay irr this tris?
Tira Lodge/ Cc,ndo fnnoo Single lluper {lther
la;e ry sl:e of unit Eh€rE notel wrth nithoui furilyBnEE titcher' hitchen /dusler
BRSE eg$ i6 El r7+ I 13 l7 13
nrcsllrnt ' ,,1 E,: ,.7s ":] 0.3 6,1 3.i s.331.3 i3.7 S.8 0.0 {6.e t?.6 51,3
qoo6el375ee90tTttl+7.? 3.6 16. r 65.7 C.7 5.1 0.0 i,73r.3 {3.1 5r.7 t00.e $.s 64.7 7,7
fairS{8el8Ec00S316.5 4.4 37.5 { .8 0.e S.0 4,2 6.3lr.3 38.3 r?,6 6.e 6.e ll.8 t3.t
mr{15{{5e0ll 5.4 e6,? 6,7 33.3 C.e 0.& 6.7 6.7es.e 7.8 e.9 s.0 0.s 5.9 7.7
orr{sE 6TRTISTIC se.&t
IEEffEES lF Fl€gnr l8stsilFtcRf*E 8,fr
It
c0-0d0
{
v
SURVEY TEOTNOLIFY CORPOBflTII}I - H[T.DER.
I Vailnilout suruey J
r4hm te, rrar
-Uail .flssociates,lm.
.0uesticn l 0l7D
Rate bv cualtty sf
EarYic€
BffiE
erce l lent
!tt||l
90tr
7
?
{.9
4e.9
l0I
0
g.e
&.0
153
t7
60.7
?4.?
t6
?
3.3
te.5
4l6,6 t.544.{ t0.e
3{9.5 3,433.3 {C.e
:I3g?{e64.7 e,e 3.9 7.8 e.0er.5 0.0 &.8 4s.0 e,s
1400le70,5 0.0 e.e 5.8 e.S9.? 0.0 0.s ro.e 0.e
lhst type of unit did you sfav in this trip?
Tire Lodge/ Condo Cordo Single lluoex
share nc,fel rith nitfrut lanilymSE hitcterr hitcherr /duolex
58
It
l8.t
ee.e
il9
{7. {
te
te.l
?5.0
59r58.S 0.845.1 tes.e
eit
r6t
44.3
4
3.{
57. r
e,5
el. e
5e.e
9
17.6
1&S
I
e5.0
ls.0
?,
3.9
te.5
e
c,c
0.0
351
es.3
frir
4ec
8.0
$Ifl.NXE SIRTISTIC, IEffiES $ FNEEDOI
slsrlf Icsf,E
16.u
t8
e.588
r-7
xo{'I l}- rqa?
fail fissociater, Inc.
J'**Y co*poRnTrril .. BrilurE*, J
t Vailrailout suwey J
Pega 6
64e lhvis f,scocietEs
0uestrorr l 0l7E
f,age B3s€o on eoenriies
BRS!
sxcel I Ent
frir
DOol^
lhat tyoe of unif did you stay ir, this tri0?
Ldge/ Cord(r Eordo Singie Duoexhotel nrth xilnouf fBeily
kit$ert krtchen /durler
Tine
$rtre
ll
I
1.9
9.t
I
1.5
9.1
I
1,8
9.t
r33
I
&8
l!.r.0
0
e.CI
c.0
I
t.8
13.5
I
9.4
€e.5
2
3.8
t&6
3
4.5
4e.9
e
3.6
es.6
I
0.0
8.0
B
0.e
t,e
s3s15.{ s7,7r5,7 U,B
l9 3698.4 53.739.6 e7.1
t6 3ae8.5 17. r33.3 e4.l
5359.f 66.010.{ E5.3
6
la Iil. rl
{0.s
6
9.0
$.e
3
5.4
eg.0
g
t,0
e.s
i -,rg
ee. s
e67
e9.{
gosd
356
e4.5
{ 5:t
e3,e
I
1,5
ree.0
0
15.l
7e,7
0
0.0
0.6
0
s.0
$.0
SII.SLNNE STATISTIC
IrE68€t3 0F t&50(rr
$16!rltICh0€
11,59
l8
0.mr
,y
MINUTES
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1983Page 2
{ J". was no Citizen Parti-cipation.
The next item on the agenda was the appeal of the PEC decision regarding aconditional use permit at the rnn at west vai1. Jim sayre presenied th;background information to the Council. He stated that tnis request for amaior arcade designation had been turned down by the pEC twice. There wasconcern over being able to bring food and beverages into the arcade as wellas no live supervision in the arcade. Joe Varroie, the applicant, stated thatfood and beverage had been restricted from the area and tnlt the arcade was insuch an area that could be monitored by the front desk personnel at the Inn.He stated that the request was to only add one additionll video game, thusmaking it a major arcade. Jim Sayre stated that the staff approied the request.Chuck Anderson stated that he worrid oppose the request, feeling that these typesof requests put too much pressure on the PEC and was setting a precedent forother requests of this type. Ron Todd stated ttrat he felt it wls the parentsresponsibility to supervise their children, not the Innrs and felt that thiswas a reasonable request. Todd then made a motion to overturn the PEC decisionand allow the one additional video game to be added to the Inn with the under-standing that the arcade would be up for review in a one year period, as is thecase with all other arcades in the Town of Vail. Bitl lTilto seconded the motion|-vote was taken and the motion passed 4-2 - Slifer and Anderson opposing.t/The next item on the agenda was the appeal of the PEC decision regarding theexterlor alteration of the Lodge a"t Vail* Mayor Slifer stated that the Councilhad made a trip to the prd[-osed site itrat aftbrnoon and felt that there wereseveral changes being proposed that had not been reviewed by the Planning Com-mission when it was denied. H€, therefore, stated that the Council felt thatthe proposed changes should go back to the Planning Commission next Monday forfurther presentat j-on. There was some concern expressed relating to parkingareas for the Lodge. A motion was made by Bill l{ilto to send the request ba.ckto the PEC and Gail Wahrlich seconded the motion. A vote was taken and themotion passed uuauinrously rvith Chuck Auder.son abstaining.
The next i-tem on the agenda was the appointment of two Liquor Licensing Authoritymembers and one Planning and Environmental Commission member. Howard Rapson wasappointed to the PEC position and Steve Simonett was appoint to one of theLLA vacancies and a tie vote for the second seat resulted, thus maklng itnecessary to take another vote at the Nov. 1st meeting. For the record, ChuckAnderson abstained from voting on the PEC member as he had a member of hisfamily as one of the applicants.
4F{ Stiter stated that although it was not an agenda item, the Council had{ointed a public access task force committee. Those members are: BonnieFulton, George sedlack, Jim Lamont, Bill wilto and Rich caplan. They will
,be meeting soon and reporting back to the Council. A1so, Kevin Rice, HeritageCablevision, had met with Bill lVitto and Rich Caplan and would be getting backto the Council in the next 2 weeks with a date for the cable television surveyto be conducted by Heritage.
Under Town.Manager Report, Rich Caplan stated that the flrst public hearing forthe proposed 1984 Budget will be held at the Town Council meeting of November 1A1so, the council will- begin budget workshops the week of october 25th.
Under Town Manager Report, Larry Eskwith reported to the Council that DianaDonovan had raised an i.ssue to him relating to the Oldenburg sculpture site andan agreement between the Town of Vail and Vail Assoclates. Mr. Eskwith statedthat he needed a professional surveyer's report before he could go any furtheron his research of the agreement, Dan Corcoran stated that his offlce haddone such a survey and that he would be in touch with Larry. Chuck Andersonstated that if this new development does present a problem with the Councll'svote to approve the project, a recall of the vote may be in order.
{,'r there was no further business the meetlng was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.L Bespectfully submitted,
Mayor
October 13, l9B3
Town Council
Town of Vail75 S. Frontage Road WestVail, Co. 81652
Vice Pres
EHD : hcd
Re: Appeal of pLanning & Environ_mental Commission Decision- October l-0; 1993
Dear Mayor Sli_fer and Members of the Council,
Lodge.Propertie" Il9. hereby appeals the October 10, l9g3decision of the Vair planning ina Environmentar commi.ssionwherein.llut body denied our application for Exterior Arterationsand Modification for The Lodge .t v.it. This applicationcovered what we refer to as ihe rnternationar wing and containeda dwelLing unit, lodge rooms, reLail space, "orri.i"r,ce facilitiesand other rnodifications to the property owned. by Lodge propertiesInc.
Very truly yours,
174 &rsl Cxrrc Crcck l)rirc Vrril. CrrLrrurkr f{10.57 :J();l-+76-SOl I Tclcx rt.-_0;i75
rr r)Iq"
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the P'lann'ing and Environmenta'l Commission of the
Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of
the municipal code of the Town of Vail on July 25, 1983 at l:00 pm in the council
chambers in the Vail municjpal building.
Pub'l ic hearing and consideration of;
l. An appljcation in accordance with Sections 18.26.020 and .|8.66.'100 of-the:-
Vai'l Municipal Code to rezone Lot 6, Vail Lionshead First Fil ing (Treetops
Condominiums) from the High Eensity Multiple Family (HDMF) zoned district
to the Commercial Core II district, and in accordance with Sectjon'l 8.52
requesting an exemption to Section .|8.52.090 to al1ow a loading space within
the reguired front setback. Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association
2. An app'l ication for a side setback variance to construct a garage for a residence
on Lot 5, BIock 3, Bighorn Third Addition, 4352 Spruce Way in a Low Density
Multip'le-Family zone district. The application is in accordance with
Chapter 'l 8.62 of the Vai1 municipal code. Applicants: Karl Forstner and
Theo Moosburger
Request in accordance with Sect'ions '18.66.100-.|8.66..|60 of the Vail Municipal
Code to rezone a parcel conmonly known as the Getty 0i'l site, a 1.02 acre
unplatted parcel of'land located immediately west of Pitkin Creek on Bighorn
Road, from Low Density Multi-family (LDMF) with 2 employee housing units to
Heavy Service (HS) in order to build a service station and car wash on the
property. Appl icant: Brooks Investments
Request for an amendment to Section 17.26.060 Condominium Conversions, to
delete language which would require a converted condominium to have separate
utility meters for each unit, and to delete language that would require the
converted condominium to pay fees equal to the fees charged if the building
were new, minus previous building permit fees. The procedures will fo'l 'l ow
those set forth for amendments in Section '18.66.100 through 18.66.160.
Applicant: Town of Vail
3.
4.
,at'
(.4
A reguest for an exterior alteration to the Lifthouse Lodge Bullding located
at 549 West Llonshead Ma'l'l to a'lter Purcel'l's south side deck (enclose some
area) and to create a new retai'l shop. Procedures wil'l follow Section 18.25.045
of the Vail l.lunicipal Code. Applicant: Robert Lazier
A request for an exterior a:lteration to the Village Center Retall Shops at
122 East ltleadow Drive to add a new retail addition on the east end and to
;r'r -..rr,( r/,:
revlse the entrance to Toymaker's Trail. Procedures will folloy those found
ln Sectlon 18.26.045 of the Vail l'lunicipal Code. Applicant: Fred Hlbberd
A'request for an exterior alteration''totth"-Lodg" at Vai'l 'located ai'
-:,_- .,-..:- -
174 East Gore Creek Drive, to expand and remdd-el [riio-restaurariti. Procedures
!.e,-':t:S; r,. . it' e)::i:--: ,li " . - -.: -,.will fol'low Section 18.24.065 of the Vail l'lunicipal Code. Appllcant:
Lodge Propert'ies, Inc.
C.
5.
6.
7,
The applications and- informat.ion relating to
Zoning AdminiStrator's off ice dur.ing regu'lar
by the publ ic.
f0lfl*:OF llllilL :::J()F,!i.-:-: y,.- : ..:_::- , :
DEPARTI.{ENT OF COMMIJN ITY DEVEc.OPMENT
A. PETER PATTEN, JR.
Zoning Adninistrator
a lf1-f i .-.
Publlshed ln
available ln the
r review or lnspection
the proposals are
business hours fo
...-the Vai'l Trail-on Ju'ly 8, 1983
J
I
J
I
l.
l -.]'':
N0TICE Is HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental commission of the Town
of Vai] will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 1g.66.060 of the
municipal code of the Town of Vail on 0ctober .|0, l9g3 at l:45 pm in the Council
chambers in the Vail municipal building.
l:00 pm study session concerning the proposed Sonnena'l p Spec.ial Development
District. Generally, the proposal is to raze the existing building and
build a 'larger hotel (adding 26 hotel rooms and a retail arcade) with increased
amenities. Improvements to the north of the bui'l ding include a pedestrian
walkway and associated landscaped area, Appl .icant: Sonnenarp at Vail
l:45 pm Public hearing and consideration of:
Request for exterior alteration for the Lodge at vail to add a new wing
to the hotel between One vail P'l ace and the Lodge containing lodge rooms,
retail space, conference space and a deluxe suite. The proposal includes
modifications to the "Lodge Plaze" adjacent to the village plaza and to
the parking lot on the west side. Also, the Lodge south proposes additional
storage space on street level on the north side of that building. Applicants:
Lodge at Vail and the Lodge South Condominium Association.
Request for a setback variance in a primary/secondary zone district to
construct a garage with a deck on top at lot 4, block 3, vail Intermountain.
Applicant: Elizabeth J. Kuehn
Request for a variance to section 18.52.090(E) to not pave a driveway but
to leave it grave'l on'lot ]0, block l, Vail .Village 13th. Applicant: Jack
Carn i e
Application for modification to the floodplain to construct a new starter
shack for the vail Golf course. The existing structure is in the 100 year
floodplain and modifications to the floodplafn are required to construct
'a new building. Applicant: Vaii Metropolitan Recreation District.
Request for a front setback variance to remodel an existing structure on
lot 40, block 7, Vail Village lst. Applicant: Ray Stevenson
2.
3.
4.
5-
't ', ;o-2-
. rr" l |^l)nrr5::
6. Request for a GRFA variance in the Cormercial Core II zone for the Landmark
Condominiums to extend an existing loft l4Z square feet. Applicant:
'/ Lonnie llilllams.
[ 7. Request for a minor subdivision involving three parcels of land in theI
I\ Golden Peak area--Tract F, vail vi'l1age sth Filing, Tract B, vai'l vi'llage\\ 7th Fi]ing, and Parce'l C, an unplatted parcel recently annexed to the Town.\"\... Appl i cant: Vai I Associ ates
\\_'
The applications and lnformation relating to the proposals are available in
the zoning administrator's office during regular business hours for review
or inspection by the public.
TOI,.IN OF VAIL
COMMUNTTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
A. PETER PATTEN, JR
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
pub1ished in the Vail Trail September 23, l9B3
TO:
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
October Zl, l9g3
Planning and Environmental Cormission
Cormunity Development Department
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of an exterior alteration andmodification for the Lodge at vail containing lodge rooms, retailspace' conference space, one de] uxe dweiling-suite, employee rooms,and ski storage room. App'licant: Lodge at-Vail
This_item.was appealed to the Town Council. At their rneeting on 0ctober l8th,the Council did not listen to the entire presentation becaus6 there was a pioioseamodification to the space between One Vaii Ptace and the new International'!ing. The council sent the Lodge at vair proposal back to the pia;;i;g;nd
Environmenta'l Commission, as they wanted tb trbar and make a decision on ttresame presentation that was presented to you. Jay peterson will discuss thechange of opening up the space between 0ire Vail Flace and the International
{in9. . The cormunity Development Department supports the modification. |r{efeel-that the.space between One vai'l place and the International wing is ofa sufficient distance.
(,
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Conrnission
Community Development Department
0ctober 6, 1983
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
(
\
SUBJECT:
Public hearing and consideration of a request for an exterior alteration and
modification for the Lodge at Vail containing lodge rooms, retail space, conference
space and a deluxe dwelling suite. The proposal includes modjfications to the
"Lodge Plaza" adjacent to Founders' Plaza and to the parking lot on the wests'ide and additional storage space on the parking lot level on the north sideof the Lodge South building. App'licants: Lodge at Vail and the Lodge South
Condomi ni um Associ ation
REQUEST:
The request is to add 34 new luxury accommodation units and one luxury dwellingunit containing approximately 30,000 square feet along with new plaza Ievel
commercial space containiirg approximately 3,600 square feet, additional conferencespace, and a ski storage room to the Lodge at Vail. In addition, nevt storage
space for the condominiums is being proposed for the Lodge South building.
0ther modifications are a new gate house on the trest, reversing the auto circu-lation into the parking lot, and a new entry court. 0ver on the mountain side,the parking lot would be expanded and new stairs added for skiers to get to
the ski Iift chairs. The east plaza would be redesigned to comp'lement Founder'sPlaza. At the Lodge Plaza there would be a temporary canvas pavillion removable
during the winter. The new International wing would contain additional conference
space, 'lodge rooms, one luxury dwelling unit and commercial space on the plaza
I evel .
BACKGROUND
0n July 25, .|983, the two restaurant expansions were approved by the Planning
and Environmental Corm'ission. Approved were a 730 square foot expansion tothe Salt Lick restaurant to be renamed the Wildflower and a 375 foot expansionto the Ar1 berg restaurant to be renamed the Cipriani restaurant.
CONFORMANCE t''lITH PURPOSE OF COMMERCIAL CORE I DISTRICT
The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintainthe unique character of the Vai'l Village commercial area, w'ith its mixture of
lodges and commercial estabjjshments in a predom'inantly pedestrian environment.
The commercial Core I district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open
space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings anduses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vajl Village Urban Design
and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intendedto ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangemenisof buildings fronting on.pedeslrianways and public gieeniays, and to ensurecontinuation of the building scale and architecturai quaiifies that distinguishthe village.
I!:,-cgprnity Development Department considers that the proposal is in conformanceyyrll llg.purpose of the zone district. The Lodge at Vaii .ii ttre anchor ror -
varl vrllage and needs to be upgraded to insure the quality of vail Vi'l lagelll tt'q,community. without a sirong heart, the virtdge wiil suffer. Theuo-ryu!ltI_r.leveropment Department feels that the long ind short term successof vail village is partia'[v based on a quaritv too6e-ii v;ii.
Page 2 10/6/83 Lodsf Vail
VAIL VIL URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE NEW INTERNATIONAL t,.lING
Pedestri an i zati on :
By.having.new commercial shops attrianization has increased by the
lehicle Penetration:
VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
#22 Pocket park. Screen fence to close off al'l eyway (gate required) and continuest199tscan9. ,Pocket park with benches, planters; siow storage in winter.Service vehicle zone optional .
The proposal contains an improved area of landscpping and walk between theLazier Arcade building and the_Lodge at.Vail. ctbsirg oir ir'" i".i-i. notpobsible because it ii a fire lane]
#14 Village plaza. Feature area paving treatment, central focal point v.i siblefrom Gore Creek Drive. _Major'land-form/planting in N.l.l. for iuiet corner,t' with evergreen screen planting to define'west eige. l,lall street stairs,! with mid-level jog landing, o6ens entry area to [azier Arcade-shops.
This proposal actualiy expands the Founders' Plaza area and makes this intoan exciting space within Vail Villaqe.
the new-p1aza 1eve1 , the potential for pedes-proposal .
There will be no change by this proposal .
Streetscape Framework :
lt_lpigd !t thg application, there is no d.irect frontage by the proposat ona puDllc street. The proposed shops and plaza do add to the pedesti^ian experiencein Vail Vil lage.
Street Enclosure:
The proposal complies with the intent of theissues will be more specifica'l iy discussed at
Fi re artment Considerations :
-3- 10/6/83don" at vail
Design Considerations. Detailed design
the Design Review Board meeting.
(
The proposed International wing would have generally two heights, one fourththe width of the enclosed space it faces and one siith ttre width of the enclosedspace it faces.
Street Edge:
The irregular facades proposed for the shops and restaurants meet this elementof the design considerations.
Buildinq Height:
The-proposed^he-ight of the new International wing from the new plaza ranges from24 feet to 33 feet. At the pedestrian plaza 1ev61 the proposal'meets th6 intentof the height sectjon of the Design Considerations. From ihe south sjde, the heightwould be 35 feet and 43 feet. The Conmunity Development Department feeli ttrat tneheights.Rrgposed meet the intent of the Design Considerations and provide for themix in building heights as perceived in Vail-Vi1lage.
Views: There are no designated view corridors in the area of the proposal .
service and Deliverv: This will not change by the new addition proposed.
Sun/Shade Considerations :
There would be no sun/shade impact on Town of Vail public space (the Founders' Plaza)as shown on the sun/shade study.
One concern of the staff is the amount of space between One Vail Place and the Inter-national wing on the third floor. The staff considers that the top floor be shiftedfive or six feet to the west to open the space between buildings.
For_the proposed storage at the Lodge South, the Community Development Departmentfeels that there are no negative impacts.
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Parki ng:
At the time of a building permit, the applicable parking fees for each type of usewill be required.
a
A new fire hydrant willwing because of the new
be necessary along the south sideresidential and conrnercial space.
near the new International
-4- 10/6/83 "5at vail
- RECOMMENDATION:tI\ The Community Development Department recommends approval of the Lodge at Vail
request for 34 new lodge rooms, a luxury dwelling unit, new commercial space
and new storage space. In addition, we consider the site improvement very positivefor the Lodge at Vail and Vail Village. As noted previous'ly in the memorandum,the Lodge at Vail is the anchor for Vail Village. The Community Development
Department feels the upgrading and expansion is positive for Vail.Village
and the community.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSON ACTION ON OCTOBER IO, I983
Donovan moved and Viele seconded to deny the application with the exception
of the Lodge South proposal with the main reason being the closeness of the
Lodge property to One Vail Place. The vote to deny was 5-0.
(
\
(
an moved and Donovan seconded to de thesca I e. the vo was 4 'tn avor o nta
PECJ/24/83 -5-
uest based on the ma nitude and
aqa t ns enla with Pierce
Donovan felt the commercial. spgcq request was excessive, that the commercial spaceshould be an accessory to the lodging.
Morgan asked Eskwith whether or not he felt the applicant was asking for a changein the substance, and Eskwith replied that he was'iluestioning the same thinq. Hestated that the Town had the inherent power to charige the SDd lut wii-noi ofliiqateato.
Patten stated that this was more of a rezoning with the reshaping of the SDD, andthat it would be a recommendation to the Town Council who wouiO 6ave io-pirt'unordinance. Morgan liked the mall, but found the magniiude personally orieniivt.Piper felt that this.was a major change to the original SDD because of the addit.ionof the Amoco site and the request for"additionat eilrn. ie-r"tt ttrat ttreie wii'a strong impact on Vail Road. He fel t the view corridor was a personal opinion,and also feit that on approaching the 4-way one observed ttre immeO.iate area or'the. area nearby. He felt that the landscaped corner was good, and had no problemwith the parking spaces proposed, and wanted to see the c6ndiiionir uiel-.Eriin-as is.
Ryan stated that the staff did their best to listen to the old tapes and to getinformation from them. He felt that there were several positive hspects or ineproposal , but was basically concerned with the magnitude. The staff felt thatthe Amoco site should be rbzoned to PA and there ihould be an amendment to theSDD, specifically for phases IV & V, that they were not just mjnor changes. -
The staff did not recommend changing to permilted uses the condjtional uses ljsted,they did recommend deleting the ieciion concerning distance between Ou;iaings,-'as this had been eliminated from all other SDD's, did not recommend item D,-uiingaverage height, did not recommend item E, changing the GRFA and allowing aioiiionaifloor area for commercial type use, but needed to know which rules wouli apply.
Ryan sa'id the staff approved the amount of parking.
Piper suggested there be a vote on the proposai with the exception of the allowanceof changing conditional uses to permittid uses.
abstai ni ng.
inc
Dick Ryan stated that^when the Lodge at Vail went to the Town Council they wereasked to return to PEC with thejr ihanges. Jay Peterson said that the api,fiiantwas.now_proposing l4 feet between the international wing and One vait ptaie, ovtaking 5 inches out of each room. He ljsted distances 6etween nuliaings-in'viirand stated that "this'is not an entrance to anything.,, patten disagre6d, sayingthat it was a major walkway. After more discuisionl oonovin moved ind-M6rgi; i;conoea
lp=lpBloyg per staff recommendation. tne vote was q
aDs ta r nr no.
for an exterior alteration for the at Vail to add atel between d ace an sauo
to
E5
+
modificatiorLs to e "Lod e Plaza" ad.iacent the Founders Pl azae parkino lot on west s roe.
)lc''74'\,r^,.- A,)')
:'J :,:'i;:ffiil :: xJ: ::::.^:;: :f ' :: ;,,
l. Ttris procedure is rcquired for alteration of an existing building thich
rcmove5 any enctosed floor area or outclocrr patio or replacerncnt of an
building shlll be subiect to review by the Planning and Environmental
The application will not be accepted until all information is submitted.
I{/ &t
adds or
existing
Cornrnission.
A. NAME OF APPLICANT Lodge Properties, In9:
ADDRESS 174 E. Gore Creek Drive
Vail, co 81.657
B. NAME OF APPLICANT's REPRESENTATIVE
ADDRESS P. O. Box 3149
Vail, CO 81658
OF PROPERTY OWNER
Thor Loberg
PHONE
Jay K. Peterson, Esq.
PHONE 47 6-0092
c.
D.
AUTHORIZATION
SIGNATURE "4/li .
,'.,r
ADDRESS 1?4 n. core crcek Drive PHONE
Vail, CO 81657
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL
ADDRESS 174 E. Gore Creek Drive
LEGAL DESCRIPTION See attached legal description
\"1
[^n r! o-;"'\" cr'
\-\
F'
FEE SlO0.00 plus 20C for each Property owner to be notified.
c.
TIVIPROVEIIENT SURVEY OF PROPERTY SHOY/ING PROPERTY LINES AND
LOCAT]ON OF BUILDTNC AND ANY IIIPROVEMENTS ON THE LAND.
A LIST OF THE NAME OF O!''NERS OF ALL PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY.
Four (4) copies of a site plan containing the following information:
A. The site plan shall be drawn on a sheet size of 24'r x 36r'at a
a variation of the sheet sire or scale nray be approved by the
Development Department if justified;
,/
u.],
scale of l[ = 20';
Community
F
LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS
The United States F'orest Service. P. O. Sox 190Minturn' CO 81645
Riva Ridge South Olrtners' Association
174 C'ore Creek DriveVail, CO 81657
Riva nidge North Ovtnersr AssociationI74 core Creek DriveVail, CO 81657
Sitzmark Lodge
Robert Fritch
183 E. Gore Creek DriveVail, CO 81557
Gore Creek Plaza BuiLding
ilack FritzLen
193 E. Gore Creek DriveVail, cO 81657
Bell Tower BuildingClark Willingham
1300 Bryan To$tersDallas, TX 75201
Lazier Arcade
Bob LazierP. O. Box 1325Vail, CO 8L658
One vail PlaceVaiI AssociatesP. O. Box 7Vail, CO 8L658
Iodge Apartment Ownersr Association
L74 Gore Creek DriveVail, CO 81657
Lodge south
174 Gore Creek DriveVail, CO 8L657
I
( o P'-/
r l:, lrt\... o..&J "/t /t s
.--\
rr '/qlB
t
Leigh Norgren & Co.
85 l{eade Lane
Englewood, CO 80110
John Hobart
325 West Ohio Street
Chicago, IL 60610
Elizabeth IniebsterP. O. Box 31
Blawenbergr NJ 08504
LODGE AT VAII,
RENOVATIONS AND ADDITIONS PHASE 1
I. Statement of PurPose
Vait Vill.age is successful in that it has a character aPpropriate
to the mountains and offers lodging, dining, shopping and
entertainment concentrated along pretty and inviting streets andpublic spaces.
The proposed Phase I Lodge at Vail- renovations and additions'including major open spaces are designed to further that success,with a focus on active and charming pedestrian spaces.
The Entry Court, already surrounded on three sides by taLlbuildings, will be landscaped with trees, flowers and a new
L entrance gate to change the present parking lot to one of a
1!-trt gracious garden court. Vehicle and pedestrian circulation will' be redefined for more effective use, and parking spaces will be
increased within the present parking areas.
A new East PLaza will be created at the back of the Lodge,
reinforcing and enhancing both existing Village Plaza purposes
and the Lodgers own food. and beverage, lodging, shopping and
conference functions. This new open space, through the use of
pavers and planted with trees and flowers, will be encl-osed on
two sides by existing Lodge structures and on a third by a new
two and three story International Wing. Existing Lodge
restaurants will be rebuilt with new facades incorporating bay
windows, providing a tivety receding and projecting open-space
enclosure on the North and west sides of the new Plaza. The
South side wil-L be enclosed with a new wing with retail shops and
restaurants at P1aza level in storefronts which will project into
and recede from the Plaza informally in an undulatingt, unevenfacade. Above these retail spaces will be one and two stqries ofluxury guest rooms and. suites, including a Presidential Suite.This upper facade Plaza enclosure on the South will have
individual balconies and bay windows informatly composed,
culminating in a small tower at the Southeast corner where the
new Plaza joins with village Plaza. The three-story portion ofthis new wing wiLl be topped by pitched-roof overhangs similar to
those of the adjacent One Vail Place, with the two-story portion
having a landscaped roof terrace deck above it. Below this wing,
with an entrance from the Plaza but not fronting on it, will be
new conference facilities.
In the Plaza itself, restaurant and cafe persons can be served inthe warm months at open air tables under a temporary canvas
sunmer pavilion. An outdoor fireplace with barbecue will be a
decorative and functional feature.
a
.: The nevr Plaza will be separated from Village Plaza with a low?; waLL and other landscape features, vrith a wiAe and inviting
entrance centrally located between the two. A charmingly narrow' and short passage with shop fronts and overhanging roofs willproceed from the new Plaza South to the Lifts and a wider,';l landscaped passage will connect the new PLaza with the swimming
..1v*n pool area and the Pocket Park at Gore Creek Drive and will serveu,n".t" as a fire lane. Thus, there will be many interesting and
' inviting ways to approach both Plazas.
Thus' newly created spaces, of charming and J.ively character,including both commercial activity and gracious landscaping, willbe subtly integrated with Village purposes, character and style,extending their effectiveness.
The design will be demonstrated more fully using a model duringthe planning process and at the pubtic hearing.
II . Conformance With the Purposes of the CCI District
' A. As stated in the ordinance, the Commerciat Core IDistrict is intended to provide sites and to maintain the uniguecharacter of the Vail Village conunercial area, with its rnixtureof lodges and commercial establishments in a predominatelypedestrian environment. The Comnercial Core I District isintended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and otheramenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings anduses. The District regulations in accord.ance with the VailVill-age urban design guide plan and design considerationsprescribe site devel-opment standards that are intended to ensurethe maintenance and preservation of the tightly clusteredarrangements of buil-dings fronting on pedestrianv,tays and public
greenr,irays, and to ensure continuation of the buil-ding scale andarchitectural qualities t,hat distinguish the vil1age.
The proposed alterations center around ttro open spaces on J,odgeproperty, one a relandscaped Entry Court, A, on the West, theother a newly created East Plazd, B, a landscaped and pavedpatio, on the East.
l. Entry Court, A. Entry Court improvernents willprovide better pedestrian circulation, both to buildings andto ski slopes, more effective parking and vehiclecirculation, trees, flowers and other landscape amenities.Included are a new and more attractive gate house, a coveredentrance canopy, and new steps and a'ccess to the ski slopesto the South.
2. East PLazd, Bi Restaurants, Ci fnternational Wing,D. East Plaza wiLl clearly foster the pedestrianorientation of the District by creating a new paved and
Iandscaped space, surrounded on two sides by existing (but
remodeled and enhanced) restaurants, C, and on a third side
+, '. ,'ttL';tt! / 'r
'- '' "':tl l;
,,t, .ka. (r tl ..t .l
by new shops and commercial establishments in a newInternational Wing, D, the whole related to, and reinforcing
the adjacent Village Plaza. The International i{ingr
fJ-anking and helping to form and contain the East Plaza will
have, on the Plaza' an entrance to much needed conferencefacilit,ies below Plaza level. At Plaza leveL and fronting
on it are the proposed new commercial shopping spaces and
new luxury guest rooms and suites above. Better utilization
of potential pedestrian traffic in both the Lodge's new East
PLaza and the Town's Village Plaza will result without loss
of usable open space, thereby maintaining the cluster
arrangement.
3. Ski Storage Room and Empl-oyee Dining, E. Further
addition of new Ski Storage Room and Ernployees' Dining Room,
E, wiLL provide better food service in addition to providing
secure storage of skis in an enclosed area. Since the prine
function of t,he District is service to skiers and guests
through lodging and attendant facilities, this clearly
serves the purposes of the District.
Because the surrounding uses in the area are also dedicated to
skier/guest services by providing lodging and comrnercialactivities, the character of the neighborhood will in no way be
changed by this proposal , the quality of the District, however,
being enhanced.
Expansion of the two restaurants, C, vriLl provide increased and
more effective dining facilities in the Vi11a9e Plaza area while
the fnternational Wing, D, will provide additional commercial
shopping reinforcing the uses of Village Plaza.
The proposed al-terations will accomplish the Pocket Park (22 on
Urban Design Guide Plan) and foster its use while accommodatingthe Fire Lane required by the Tovrn.
Since the proposed alterations are extensions and enhancements ofexisting uses' or in the case of the ski storage,remployee dining
room, necessary attendant uses to the prime functions of the
Lodge, the Plan will not be changed in any respect' but made more
effective.
B. The proposed alterations not only comply with the Vail-Village Urban Design Guide Plan, but specifically facilitate itseffectiveness. Creation of the East Plazd, B, surrounded onthree sides and containing commercial activities will bring
increased pedestrian useage and commercial life to the Village
Plaza adjacent, reinforcing its purposes. Because of the
relationship of existing and new restaurant and cornrnercial
spacesr the combined activities of eating, strolling and shopping
which are fostered by the pedestrian-oriented environment will
produce more Life in the Village Plaza itself, as well as the
surrounding shops.
If, however, any portion of this sul:rnittal is found not to complywith the Vail Vill-age Urban Design Considerations or Guidelines,then applicant reguests that this submittaL.be deemed to seek an
amendment to the Considerations and Guide Plan in accordance withL8.24.220 (B) .
III. Vail Village Urban Design Consid.erationsAs They Apply to the Proposed Alterations
A. Pedestrianization. As already described under II.A.above, the proposed alterations greatly facilitate and enhancepedestrianization of the Commercial Core I District and in no waydetracts.
B. Vehicle Penetration. The proposed alterations providefor no additional points of vehicle penetration, while at thesame tine make more effective use of what is alreadv there invehicle areas
C. Streetscape Framework. While the proposed alterationsprovide no building structures fronting on VilJ.age streets (otherthan the new gatehouse), they do address the defined needs ofStreetscape Framework in respect to the East plaza as a netilspace. Both the "J-andscaped open space" and the infillcommercial store fronts (i.e., the expansion of the existingbuildings at key l-ocations along pedestrian routes) are provided,as already described.
D. Street Enclosure. From "Design Considerations" sectionD "Street Encl-osure" we quote the following:
I'While building facade heights should not beuniform from building to building, they shouldprovide a 'comfortabler enclosure for thestreet. "
and
"Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms whose wallsare formed by the buildings. The shape and feelof these rrooms, are created. by the variety ofheights and massing (three dimensional variations)which give much of the visual interest andpedest,rian scale unique to Vail.,'
and
ilAn external enclo.sure is more comfortable whereits walLs are approximately L/2 as high as thewidth of the space enclosed.,,
In respect to the new propos'ed East plaza and the structuresaround itr both existing and proposed, which will define and
t
creale this sPace. the height of the existing Lodge is l-/5 the
,iaif,-of the Lncfo".a "pu"6 it faces between itself and the
iipp"llil. east warl of vittage Plaza' The existing restaurant
wing adjacenr to !fr. U"rit is I/6 ttre width of the enclosed sPace
it would face between itsetf and the opposite new-.proposed -International wing. -- trt" proposed Inteinational wing would have
;;;;;;iit-l*" n"igfu", 1t7- ri:e widrh of rhe enclosed space it
faces and L/6 the widih of the enclosed sPace it faces' While
these heights are considerably less than those recommended for
Street Enclosure, ifri" Plaza ioitl ttane other proposed features in
the form of shops titi, tft"ir display windows' trees and other
features which, combined with the pioposed building massing, will
create a comfort"ffa-i"a attractivl "external enclosure" or room'
well-definedgroundfloo'pedestrianemphasiswil}beprovided.
Roofs wilt be "."^ui""tion of fl-at and pitched roofs as exists'
with new flat roofs only where roof garden terraces are proposed'
E.streetEdge.VailVillage''DesignConsiderations''hastne fottowing to siy in E, "street Edge" '
"Unlike many American towns there are no
standard s-etbact< requirements for buildings
in vaii vittage. Consistent with the desire
for intinate fedestrian scale, placement of
portions of a building at or near the
proPerty line is allowed and encouraged to
iivi stiong definition to the pedestrian
streets. "
and
"This is not to imPly continuous building
frontage along the property line' A
strong street edge is important for
continuity, but perfectly aligned facades
over too long a distance tends to be
monotonous. With only a few exceptions
in the Village, slighlly irregular facade
tines, building jogs dnd landscape areas'
give life to the- street and visual interest
for Pedestrian travel. "
The irregular facade l-ine of the proposed International Wing' D'
and Restaurant additions, c, will-;;;Lh;t the objectives-of this
i..ti"", as applied to this proposed new space on the Lodge
property.
F. Building Height. Existing Lodge South is 80 feet' the
Main Lodge is 56 feet. tne propo""a "a6itions are in the shadow
of existing heights on Lodgu ptopuiiy' Jhe poldola Buildins is
40 feet, *e prdpoied addiiions are in the shadow of this
existing building on the aajacent-property' . Zoninq code section
18.24.I20 defines height,. At tnu bii'za tire highesl portion of
the roof of our proposed new adaiti;;-i=-within that definition'
rt
ntiJ."tl\ Lti'It\I-
Vail "Design Considerations" Seclion F, "BuiLding lleight" readsas follovrs:
"Basically, the Village Core is percej.ved as' a mix of two and three story facades, althoughthere are al-so four and five story buildings.The mix of the building heights gives varietyto the street - which is desirable. The heightcriteria are intended to encourag'e height andmassing variety and to discourage uniform
. heights along the street. "
For the International Room Wingr we are proposing a two and threestory mix. We further believe that a smal-l decorative tower atthe Northeast corner witl enhance the composition and increasethe romantic character of the space and its aspect. This tower,however, would be no higher than the high point of the GondolaBuilding. Proposed heights are within .the requirementsspecified.
G. Views. Pend.ing before Council- is a new proposed ViewCorridor restriction which wiLl, if adopted as proposed, beinterfered with by the mix of building heights of these proposedalterations and by the Presidential Suite atop the proposedInternational Wing addition.
While this ordinance has not been passed as of the date of thissubmittal , it can, if passed, have a slgnificant and detrimentaleffect on the other Design Considerations involved in the conceptof the new East, Plaza.
The Design Considerations are a broad overview of CommercialCore I and designate the design criteria for eight differentcategories of concern. Views are merely one of those categories.The view corridor ordinance should be reviewed in Light of theeffect it will have on the seven other categories. No onecategory operates in a vacuum without affecting the others-, yetpassage of the vj-ew corridor ordinal.rce, as presented, will havean adverse effect on several other categories in relation to oursite, and will prohibit the applicant from satisfying thecriteria of all categories in the best possible manner for the
Town.
The real objective of both the Village PJ-aza and the new proposedLodge East Plaza is to present desirable and inviting commercialactivities in a charming and effective building frane, includingmountain views-, rather than to rnerely feature a sidelonrcwGEffi;ounEln per se.
H. Sun Shade Consideration. The attached diaqram showswhat little effect the propgsed International Wing would have onnewly-created public space on Lod!,re property. There would be noeffect on existing Village public spaces. The proposed new
structural additions are in the shadow of Lodge and GondoLa
buildings and create no new significant shadowing.
fn surnmaryr ds Vait Village Design Considerations states, "thedesign considerations are intended to serve as Sigeline design
parafreters. They are not seen as rigid rules, 5F65ffiook
design elements' to bring abut a homogeneous apPearance in Vail."
The intention of the proposed alterations is to address thespirit of Vail as it exists and to enhance and extend thatspirit.
IV. Zoning Compliance
A. Site - 2.0889 acres: 90,992 square feet.
B. Zone Commercial- Core I
C. L8.24.O20 Permitted and conditional uses - Basement:
Storage and mechanical
D. l-8.24.030 Permitted and conditional uses - first floor,street level-:
Existing: Lodge, Meeting Rooms, Restaurants and Bar
Proposed: Same as existing with new retail shops.
E. 18.24.040 Permitted and conditional uses - secondfloor:
Existing: Lodge
Proposed: Same as existing.
F. 18.24.050 Permitted and conditional uses - above secondfloor
Existing: Lodge
Proposed: Same as existing.
G. 18.24.060 Conditional uses: NA
H. 18.24.065 Exterior aiterations or modifications:
Submittal scheduled 05/23/83.
I. 18.24.0?O Conditional uses: NA
J. 18.24.080 Accessory uses: Swimming pooJ. and Patio,outdoor dining terraces.
K. 18.24.090 Lot Area and Site Dimensions: OK
7
li
t. l-8.24.100 Setbacks: None required.
M. L8.24.L20 Height:
Existing: 308 at 47 feet57t at 56 feet
138 at 23 feet
Protrrcsed: 3:l :: 3Z f:::
128 at 23 feet
128 at 20 feet
168 at 32 feet
N. 18.24.130 Density Controlexisting improvements.
existing structure
see attached Exhibit A for
. Al-Lowed GRFA = 80t (90,992) = 72,794 square feet
Existing GRFA = 37,347 square feet
Allowed Density = 25 x 2 (2.0889 ac.) = 104
accorunodation units
. Existing Density = 62 accommodation units
Proposed GRAF = 37 ,347 + 29 r77L = 67 ,LLB square feet
AIso 31552 square feet retail and 1,121square feet new at restaurants.
Proposed Density = 62 + 34 new = 96 accommodation
accommodation units, and I dwelling unit.
O. l-8.24.140 Reconstruction of existing uses: NA
P. 18. 24 . 150 Coverage:
Allowed maximum coverage = 72t804 square feet
Existing coverage = 22,759 building coverageArlberg terrace and+ 8,972 pooJ- and terrace.5ffi square feet rotal Coverage
Proposed added building coverage of 10,633 square feet
Elinination of Arlberg Terrace - 21940
New East Entry PLaza + 9,787
Ita''6"6' square feet
Total proposed coverage.. 49 r211 square feet
o
1.8.24.170 Landscaping and Site Development:
Existing wood deck over International Room will beeliminated with the addition of CommerciaL and newGuest Rooms above conference rooms. Main plazaadJoining the ViLlage Plaza will be landscaped aawell as pedestrian walkway irnrnediately West ofLazier Areade building.
18.24.180 Parking and Loading:
' Construction prohibited by 18.24.180, see LB.52.fGO(2)
18.2{.190 Location of Business: OK
18.24.200 Reconstruction of existing uses: NA
o.
R.
s.
t.
66^F6{A E.H.
I
,,f@*rrrtf?. f$fl-Wl
Wg lN,AP{'.IL , rvtuv
#vpq* E#{,
$rrrltllt FtrTHf i AEOelrTEg ARCH,'7ESEB gr?E
-
ItE€ttt!*6 tf rr*lEEFt
iloilo
Fto.rf ft't{Jr,rGEfr _ fr+.*(]r ffiVrtr$t fO 5+iCST HUIrIEF
Exa r.g rT "g o
Y.
EXISTING STRUCTURE
Floor Level
t-l- Area computations
8302 - C
tl,lay 4, | 983
LodgeLodgeProp. Inc.
1t40
2231
19372
51 40
9302 (250s)*
5790
r 334
6710
':'
LodgeApt. North
t2t0
57s6
1090
12474
2253
r 4323
t7l0
12297
132
-
t
Basement Common
First'GRFA
Common
Second GRFA
CommonThird GRFA
Common
Fourth GRFA
CommonFifth GRFA
Common
Sixth GRFA
(')
:
609s
567
5012 8378
102 4
7157
TOTAL GRFA
TOTAL Common
Area
19, 871 = 62 a. u. 411,850
32,035 (25,338 ex- 6395
cluding 6,697 sq. ft.of Restaurant/Bar space) *
= 39 d.u. ll,107=8 du
567
1 5, 535=l 2
1024
du
Lodge at Vail total land area
Lodge South Condominiums
Lodge Apt. North Wing (A-2)
Lodge Properties, lnc.' 2.0889 ac.r = 90,992\"* _ _-
sq. ft.
From Zoning for Commercial Core l:
Allowed GRFA = 808 (90,992) = 72,794 sq. ft.
Common Area excluded from GRFA = Z0e" (72,79I)
Common Area counted in GRFA =.32,035 - 14,559
Actual GRFA E Common Area counted in CRFA
19,871 + 17,476 = 37,347 sq. ft. GRFA TOTAL*
--*,t "J1!?6pfr, ..+/r{a1
t1.1./t '
Maximum number accommodation units for 2.0889 ac.
Existing number accommodation units
Allowed number of additional accommodation units
= 104 a. U.-:- Z: SZ
= 62 a. u.;? t tl
d..1
= 42 a.u.;Z'
Alfowed additional CRFA 72,794
-37,347
35,447 sq. ft.
space) *
.6184 ac.
G, s/zz/83 -3-
4.uest for an amendment to Sections 18.04.030 18.22.090to remove ac aEl0n un ts from nsity con rots in onmercc Accommodat ons zone stri cts.App roperties, I
Peter Jamar: The application .is basicallyreEer uamar: - lne apptication js basical 1y to revise three seDerng the definition of accommodation unjts, the next one beinext one being the density control
and
section of the Public Accommodation zone district, and third b6ing modificition otthe density control section of the Commerciat core t zont'airi"jli. -B;ti;;iiy u,eproposed amendments are designed to eliminate accommodation units from densit! controlsections, in other words counting towards your allowable density, either in pirOtic
Acconmodation zone district or the Conunercial Core I zone aistrlit-ii iong"ar-in"yare constructed within the allowable setbacks, height, site coverage staniards, etc.The applicants basically, in a nutshell, have'conciuaed-tnit tt" apptiiiiion ii inthe economic best interest of the Town of Vail, and feel that addilional hotel roomsin ccl and PA districts are in the economic best interests of the Town.
I'm.basically going to go through the memo, so if you want to follow along-_The analysisgt !l,e proposal, the appiicants have basically takin and done what they b6lieve to!e tle practical results of the proposed ameniments. Using severar aiiumptjoni, oneis that the additional rooms to be tonstructed would be 356 square feet, takingconsideration of the historical use of the build'ings, structural considerationi,site.constra'ints, and, in most cases, a disregard ioi zoning requirements such asparking requl'rements, and mainly are done on1! on setback aia ne'igtrt requirements.In.their.analysis they projected an additional 257 accommodation units to be construc-ted within Vai'l Village. 0bviously, this number couiA va"v either way. you couldtake another set of assumptions in terms of smaller lodge -rooms or vatation of utilityeasements' the changes in the h'istorical use of buildings, this number could be largeior smaller. For the sake of going through the exercise"oi inaivting-tneir irgumenrs,we used their number, ZST uniis, wittr tnE realizat.ion that the iumbdr could b6.l argeror smaller, and one of the problems that the staff tris wiifr ite pioposii-ii ihutthere isn't even a specific number of iodge rooms being proposea. it's basicallya_blanket proposal which, the impacts are-pretty much ini<nown in terms of the numberof units, depending upon what assumptions you wLre to make doing that exercise.
Under A-on.page 3' Facts-Regard'ing Lodge Rooms and Vail Village, those 9 items are'basicallv items that we feel are iery important to keep in riia'wtiii-anaiviingthis application and the guestion of-the need for addiiional lodge.rooms. l'li go
!h.!.1 ll,o:.9-gne bv one. Number I states that curreniiv iia-accomfrodation uniti'exrstin Vail-Vi11age- This is currently 53% of the total irumber of accommodation unitsin the Town of Vail. Vail Lionsheia toilows with iay" oi-ine toiii toage roomi, wtrileCascade Village and the West Vail each contain 10% of the total number-of accomodationylit:..-C].9gfly' the largest number of lodge and accorrnodation units exist withinthe Vail Village area of-Town.
Current-29!jl'9 wilI allow an addition of approximately 1i7 accommodation units withinthe vail village_area, so we do have lodge i^ooms itrat-are ava.ilable to ue ouiit,there are no additional-lodge rooms avaiiable in irre rionstr.ad or l.lest Vail areas,and Cascade Village, could actually construct an addjtjona'l 278 units. The develoi'erhas related to us that lrg will n"6tauty build i ionsiaeiiury number tess inin-Ihut,but that is what he could build. ThosL statistics show, thit even under currentzoning'-Vail Village will contain approximately s0% ot ine dwelling units-wittrinT9wn, .That number, or that percentage, fras juit-iecently increasei in faci, ior
lhe lqdge at Vail recently through a-1egal aigument has leceived approval i6 trifa34 additional units. Table l-which is on iage 4 of the memo, ihbiiai"t-o.clpun"y
.24.130 in o
O B/zz/83 -4-
figures for lodges in Vail for the period of November 8l to April 83. As you cansee' March is the busiest month with 90% in .1982 and 84 % in 1983. Typica'ily, ourshoulder seasons, April thru June, and a1 so September thru November, -have oclupancyfigures of 24% to 53% occupancy. 0bvjously, those are our worst times of the year,
and one of the observations of the staff is that if the 'lodging community has inyproblems at this point, they should try to up those occupaniiei during t-hose perr-'odsof the year. Also, 230 lodge rooms between the Marriott and the Westin have -been
added within the last ski season and we have not yet seen what the impacts of thefull utilization of those accommodation units are-in terms of relatiohship to occupancyfi gures .
Item 4, relating to the parking structure in number of days full, I won,t go thrueach of the numbers, but convenience of parking has been identified in the-Vail/Beavercreek winter Quality study as an'important item and a concern of the tourist.It has been identifi-ed since 1979 as a problem. Obviously we do have days whennot only the Vail Village structure, bui the Lionshead stiucture, are fuil. Interms of adding more bodies in Town, the amendment will certainly have impact.
Item 5' some observations of the Vail/Beaver Creek Winter Quality Study, in 79-80,80-81' 8]-82 several questions were asked each year during the l'linter Quality Studyregarding community scale, architectural quality, level oi congestion in vaii.Visitors and residents alike were strong in their opinions thal the Vi1'lage was presently quite attractive in architectural quality ani scale, particu'larly in compirisonto Lionshead' but many felt that Vail was'becomlng too crowded and congested anilin danger of losilS its charm. Strong feelings eiisted especially in ihe earlierstudies, that Vail and Eagie County should atiempt to'limit the airount of new growth.In other words, one of the strongest responses in the Winter Quality studies wisthat Vail Village's scale and architectui^al qua'l ity is a very'key pbint in the atmos-phere of Vai1. The 82-83 study concluded thdt "thLre is litile ividence that thesize or availability of lodge irn'its'is emerging as a problem among Vai'l skiers thisseason. 90% ot all skiers responded that they had gotten their preferred type of'lodging unit, and that skiers in either time ihares-or condos without kitchihs werebasically unhappy with the kind of accommodations that they had. There was no evidenceat all that people in condominium units would have preferred lodge/hotel units."
In,the past 5-6 years, and these next several items basically deal with Vail Vi'l 'lage
and how_economically it stands jn terms of Vail Lionshead and Cascade Village, whiiht!9_applicants have stated that they are very concerned about--that Vail Villagewi'll not be competitive with the Li-onshead a-rea and the Westin Hotel area, basically
because of the conference and meeting facilities that those areas contain. ObviousiyVail Village is not deteriorating. it you think back and name every building, andjg9! about run through your head that just about every major building with'in-iheVillage area has comi through the exteiior alteration-and-modificati6n procedure.
There are several others thit haven't, Plaza Lodge, there have been discussionsof a major.upgrading of that building. The applicants argue that without more-lodgerooms' that_these type of renovationi will not happen. Just this year alone, ifyou take a look at--obviously some of them aren't .. buildin-gs --Ore HouseGallery Buil.ding, Mc Bride Buildin9, also the Liquor Store building is talkingabout upgrading, commercial properiies in Vail Village are not detiriorating indare in a relatively economicalty healthy state compaied to other parts of t6wn,or are certainly not lagging behind in terms of rent per square foot, sales taxtotal s, etc.
,r0nu*-5-
(Peter Jamar, con't)
Item 9, Table #2 on the.page preceding shows a list of peak days on Vail Mountainfrom .|979-.|983. "Peak days" are ideniified by vaii nssbiiites-traving over l3,oo0skiers. They do not talk in terms of mountaiir capacity, but jn termi of peak'days.In 79-80 which was real'ly the oniy year that thesb iypii oi quest.ions werb iitea-,the tourists tended to feel "stress" and liftlines blgan to back up at approximaielythe l2'000 skier level. In addition to_those'aavs-ifiown-in rauti'2, we'haa co*piri,aadditionai days when there were between 12,000 uni ft,OOO skiers. For example,this last season a total of 18-days of the'.l42 aiv t.iior iere in excess of'tz,oooskiers-^^That.is a pretty smalI plrcentage of oayi ttrat the mountain was at or aboverne lz'uuu sk'ler count when the tourists felt that the quality of their skiing exper-ince was.be'!ng diminished, but do we know the balance of itrat, or should we b6concerned with the lalg19e of that, just as the Lodge of vail-wr,en-iaaing iooterooms in their own facility is worried about the Uait< of their house and-the iacilitiesthat serve the rest of the hotel , so should we Ue ioncered with the other facilitiesthat we have in Town such as the golf course and the ski area--the services.
In terms of impacts of the proposed amdndment, we believe that the proposed amendmentis going to have several impacts upon Vai'l Viilage and the entire Tbwn. The potentialconstruction of 257 units in the Vjllage area is'a one-third increase in ioagi-roomsabove what we currently_have jn Vail Vil'lage. We do not believe that the pr6poseaamendment would be consistent with the obj6ctives of the zoning code, -' -'-_i9 "to prevent excessive popuiation densiiies and overc106ing-cf the land with'structures." The vari.ous development standards that we trave iritnln the zoning codeare basically designed.to do two things. They are designed to have a control onrne tntensity 0f use, in other words, the intensity on other services within thecommunity--transportation, parking, etc. and they ire also used to determine theslze of structures..-These two things basically work together, and if you eljminatedensity control in ccl and pA,they ire an inte-gral part-oi itrit zoning'code, wedo not feel this is in the community's best inierest. As I mentioned-earlier,-tneIjn!"t !ya'li!y studies showed that iroth residents and visiioii aiite reitty-reei
lllt,,Ygjt Viltage has a very strong architectural qualitv ina scate, and fitt thatf,ne vlllage was in danger of losing its charm. Very obvlously this amendment wouldsubstantially alter the character ot the Vil1age.
The.applicants believe that the Urban Design Guide Plan on its own would preventlosing this architectural quality una iiitE in-il'it ih.v-u.iieve itrit *'ui-:riv'if a.property, for example, undei this amendment goes i6 iis maximum height, g6esto its maximum setback, that the provisions of th6 Vail Viiiage Design euiae Fiinwould be enough to create any losi of quality and scale. How6ver, y6u have to under-stand that No- l, some of thbse properdies ai'e in the public Accomm6dation zonedistrict which the Urban Design buibe p'ian aoes not ippiy to. No. 2, The Guidelinesbasicallv work jn combination-with the other etementi'bftne zoning iode. itre-uruanD_e_sign Guide Plan cannot--under zoning iequirements, deny prop""tid', tfrJ u""- -
allowed certain number of units, certi.in tioo" ir"ui-ii.'Uitai,r Oesign Ouide Flandoes not take that away. They work in combination. The Urban Desiln Guide plan isnot.a strong enough document bniits own.
In terms of intensity of use, that is another purpose of the density controls, and,basically.the zoning code does try to ensure ah aipropriate mix of -one use baiancedwith another. A reduction or elimination of these'density controls is obviouslygoing to have some impacts upon the intensity of use, parling requirements in tirmsof transportation, .if yoy remember the problLm of congbstion'is d big concern ofpeople surveyed, and wjthout fulty knowing the impacti of that, it w6uld be premature
PEC 8083 -6-
to go ahead and approve the amendment. Some study needs to be done in terms ofwhether this elimination of the density control is in proper balance with the otherzoning standards.
Under Item C' The Need for Addjtional Lodge Rooms, the appljcants have set forth4 or 5 arguments that they believe document the need tor'iaditional lodge roomsjn Vail Vil.lage. The first argument is that we need new 350 square tooi trigtrquality'lodge rooms, currently iacking, in order to increase ttie quality of-Vail'slodging base, and because of physical-restraints, it is virtual]y'imposiible inmany cases to remodel existing small hotel rooms into'larger rooms, I guess ourresponse to that would be that,the only evidence that we have to go on is the WinterQuality Study which stated that none of the skiers who identified"units size-aJ'a problem were_staying in lodge rooms. The applicants haven't presented any docu-mentation analys-is or survey which demonstrates this perceived need for this typeof room, of, in fact, for any type of 'l odging accommodition. The fact that we have230 additional lodge rooms in Town bas'ically-since a year ago, many of these roomsare large |odge rooms, does not seem to point to the -need t6 amend-the zoning code.
The. second argument is that Vail Village doesn't have adequate facilities to compelewith Lionshead and Cascade Vi11age. I-went through that a little bit earlier.
One_response of the staff is that we don't believe necessarity that Vail Village,Vail Lionshead and Cascade should all be equal in terms of th! facilities that-theypossess. Maybe Vail Village is the commercial center of town, maybe Marriott andWestin are the convention centers in town. The Lodge at Vaif is iOOing approximately7'300 square feet of conference and conventjon faciiities. One of the-argirmentsin.their,marketing analysis was that in order justify any additional confirenceand meeting space in Vail Village to enable them to tompLte with Lionshead and Cascade,they would need to add hotel rooms. They already are adding 34 lodge rooms andalso the 7300 square feet of conventjon ind meeting space. -t^Je do n6t believe thatthat market analysis really contajns any data or documentations to support the conclu-sions of the need for additional lodge iooms. In fact, basically the'bccupancyf!9ures_and other information which we have states the contrary. Most of the timeif you look at this type of market study, you would include occupancy figures,g|d we.would suggest that one reason they-were eliminated from this-study is thatthose figures actually show the opposite.
A third argument central to their proposal is that it is necessary to allow VailVillage to be the center of activ'iiy in Vail and that the Vail Viilage area willdeteriorate if unable to compete equally. I think we have shown that renovationand upgrading_t's happening in Vajl Villige, that it is the center of activities,and always will be, due to the fact that it does have that architectural quality
and scale that it currently does have.
Another argument is that this competitiveness is very important in terms of eacharea possessing sim'ilar facilitjes.. And again, we feel that each area should comple-ment each other rather than complete with iach other.
In terms of the staff recormendatjon, we are recommending denia'l of the proposal .In an analysis of the facts, we believe that they do not show that there'is'a needto increase the density of pubiic accommodation units. We feel that if thereis any one need that can be pointed out through the marketing analysis, is thatthere js a need of the lodges to increase their occupancy duiing the off-season.f'le believe that the convention meeting space that is beiirg prop6sed by the Lodge
PEC 8/224 -7-
(Peter Jamar, con't)
will certainly help the village lodges to increase their occupancy during theoff-seasons' and really coming down-to the central issue here'of luality vs quantity.For a long time in VaiI it seems like the answer to any type of a'probllm wasconstant'ly increasing quantity, in this case it would-be h quantily of lodge rooms.
We feel that Vail is at a point where we are almost 90% buili out--ile need io startIooking at how to maintain the quality that we have that kept people coming to Vai'l ,and that in fact, an increase of quantity of public acconmodation'units, b6ttr interms of the intensity of use, and in scile ihvolved in buildings, could have exactlythe opposite effect of what maybe the applicants are trying to do. We have somethin-ghere that is very attract'ive to the toui"ist and also th! r6sident, and we are goingto come to a certain point where we may have killed the goose that laid the goiden-
egg in terms of becoming so overcrowded and overbuilt, jt may have a negativ6 effectand impact in terms of the quality of the corrnunity ana tne Vail experi6nce. Right
now wefre going through an exercise in the Community Action Plan, basica'l 1y plani'ingfor Vail's future and determining how we're going tb preserve the quality 6f'Vailwith. long range planning. We have to look ai ttre answers to some df tneie questions.At the very 1east, any decision of this magnitude in terms of increasjng thd densityof Vajl.Village by one third in terms of aicommodation units should have a thorougnstudy which looks at the total balance of this use in the other segments of thecommun'ity including Vail Mountain. Just to reiterate, we do feel that limited ex-pansion of meeting space which was identified in the market study obviously maybe somewhat of a solution-to increasing occupancy within the lodges within the shoulderseasons' but we do not believe that we need any additional accommodation units inVail Vi1lage.
Corcoran: Now, on the other side we have Jay peterson.
{ay-Pgtersgn: Let_me te11.you just briefly what v{e are trying to do, and this isJusl one of several ways that l.le can go about doing it if theie is any intereston the Town of Vail to have us do theie things. first of all, the Lo-dge at Vailis no longer involved with this. They suppoit it, but they at this time have theok to build more lodge rooms. This wis no'secret from day one that the Sonnenalphas always been involved wftti this change in zoning amenJ"ment, so don,t concernyourself with the Lodge, or with what tiey are doiig Oeiiuse ihey are going forward
9l !h:]f_9!n.,program.. Up_until..maybe thrLe or_tour-yeari igo, t courd have broughtln a proposal under the SDD ordinance which allows you to look at anything incluiingdensity, GRFA, or whatever, on any individual site." ih"-Soo ordinanie wai changedsome time ago according to the staft to eliminate ttre enrA and Oensiii iiom ifre"sPD' In other words, you have to have under'lying zoning l"io"" you cin go throughItg lP0 process. I doir't necessari]y agree wittr"t[ii iiterpretation of the ordinance,but that whv I am doing_it this way. I-like the SDD p"oporlt
"na *.v-ioo[-.i'ir,.tif the change in the SDD portion, -not changing the aehsllv-requireme-nts-for iciommo_9aljqn units. what we are'trying to do is [o iao on to thi sorinenalp a urina new
_byjl!ins, Currently that siie is ipproximitel,y lli iire wiir, 40 accommodation unitsans.rwo owelllng units, manager apartments--very dense project--it was done before-- it has.alwavs had,a densiiy in'excesi of whai would be iiiowea-iii-[n.-p"eienizoning ordinance. It was buiit prior io zoning. As was most or ilre irrinbs-in irrePA zone or the core area. .l.Je arb trying io cofre back now in the r;;ov;ii;; p"oi"r.,bringing some of these projects thaf aiit io years old up to 1980 standiioi aha-wnatye f9e1-they are becoming. I'm here to taliabout numbbrs, and by adding z5 ioomsto the sonnenalp we arenit.kilting the goose that lajd the'golden'egg.-Vaii iliij'is.
was constructed and it works pretiy weli before any pianner-d.id anyiiing or any
PE}Ozz/s3 -8-
government agency had there chance to move in and say,'No, you can,t do thjs.,,or "You can't do that." And it works pretty we] 'l . What yoir are trying to do nowis fjne tune. There have been two ordinances passed since this Uuilding has beenbuilt' one limiting to 50 units to the acre, then down to 25 unjts to the acre,neither number of which is magic. There are a lot of bad projects with very littledensity, and there are a lot of good projects with very high density. I thinkthe building as it now sits works pretty well, it is a pleasant building with whathe had to start with. The hotel rooms inside, however, are very, very imall--
249 square feet, which are probably a good 100 sq ft below what should be hotelstandards now......Peter keeps talking about the number of peop'le who are cominginto our town and that we should be looking at quality, not quantity. The biggestproblem that Vail has right now is an'identity problem, that is, arb we going-to
become g day ski area, or a destination resort as we have always been in the past?If you look at those studies showing the peak days, almost half of those peak days
were from day skiers, strict'ly day skiers. Those were the three days that we hadduring the week that we had 95.00 lift tickets. A11 day skiers the second weekor first week of January. Notoriously we have very minimal skier days. Thereis nothing that the staff has done, and nothing that VA has done to limit the dayskiers. They cause our parking problems, they bring very little revenue per personin comparison to the destination skjer to this town. And yet the staff is nottrying to work with that at all, they are just saying that exists and we've gotto live with it. Our proposal would add 25 rooms which would be a maximum of 50people per day. That's for our project. That's in conjunction with 14,000 skierdays' is a pretty minimal amount. Even if the proposa'l goes through, as we stated,you're looking at an addition of 200 rooms at this point-because the Lodge rooms arealready apprbved,_and you take out 42-or actually 36 of that. So we're getting downto about 200 hotel rooms that could be added to ttre pR zone or the Village and that'staking into consideration that on some projects you would have to tear the project
down and start over, like the Rams Horn (20 uniti could theoretically be added there).
The only way !9 do that would be starting over from scratch, and that's very difficult
when 4-1/2 mi'llion dollars for the. So from a pract'ical standpoint,-even underthis ordinance, you are looking at very, very few buildings that will be changed.This project--Peter keeps talking about quality vs quant'ity--I don't think anybodycould say that this building--these are s'ome rLal sihematits, but certainly iirdicates
lltgt !e are looking at--would be something that is just quantity, not quality.This is the_gateway to Vail, the steps cofre down and you'look tb the right aird you
see Sonnenalp and. to the left you see the Mountain Haus. This is the wiy--this wholearea lays out right now. This is what it would be --you can see we have- very, verybig buildings in.that whole area, so we are not trying to change the scale oi anythingin that area, we're just to trying to come up to the icale thai is really presenilythere, and rea'l ly the same----------- r So as far as quality ii concerned,as far as keeping it from a planning standpoint, it certainly fits inlo that neighborhood. l^le're not making a negative impact bn that neighborhoild, only a positive impacton that neighborhood.
One reason I proposed do'ing it this way with a zoning amendment is that I look athotel rooms the same way that I look ai commercial . -It is a commercial type of activitythat brings in continuing revenue to the Town of Vail via the sales tax. Condominiumsdo not. If a condominium is not leased out short term, the Town gets no revenueelcepl I vqry minute portion of the property tax, which is insignificant as far asthe whole Town of Vail budget is conberhed.- Cumently, under the zoning ordinance,there is no criteria for limiting the amount of commercial space in CCI, or for thatmatter' in the PA zone. You only have to work within the guidelines. There is not
even a parking restriction for commercial in ccl and cclI. I do not see, really,the difference between a hotel room, cornmercial enterprise rented on a daily basis
PEC 'O'"-9-
that brings people to this town, vs commercial which is basically the same thing.It seens to me that the Town of Vail zoning ordinance has worked pretty we1'lwithout putting density on commercial . The other criteria have wbrked-as far asbulk' setbacks' things like that. AII I'm proposing is the same thing for accommo-dation unjts. If the staff has problems sayinb the-buildings are goiig to get too
.Ug' or whatever, then that aspect of the zoning ordinance itrou'ld 6e l6oked-at.When.people come to Vail and they look at a bujTding, they do not inow wtr'eitrei tnatbuilding has three rooms in it or .l50 rooms in it. -iney iay, ',rtrai uuiiaing-rrtswithin the neighborhood, and it certain'ly is nice for Viil.i'-To me ilrit ir ihui tt"zoning aspect of it should look like, or should do, that's the way it works in CCI .},|" 1!"9 try'ing to, and here again I don't represent any of the othlr lodge ownerson.this, even. though I gave moral support, I guess, t-o the Lodge at VaiI, but no other
.l.odge owners_have approached me saying we want ---- -----rooms or anything e1se.l'lhat we are looking at here is basicaily an additional 25 units. As-far is studiesare concerned, some.of the_Winter Quality Studies stated a lot of different things.I don't know the individual who did the ltudy, but there were several items in theresu€h as restaurants that people said there was very little value for the moneyiri restaurants in Vail. i,teti it you eat in Vail a"nO it you eat in Denver, there arevery few peop'le who.wou'l d disagree that the prices are the same as far as qua'l ityrestaurants and quality restaurants. Vail is no more expensive than any city, airdprobably in a lot of_cases, much less. So, here again, the study is maybe jperception
probiem-on some people's minds. What we have seenl and Carl Vesier who owns lneSonnenalp' owns a very big lodge'i n Europe, and he runs the same type of operationhglg'^gY"n though it is.very diffjcult, because of the constraints-bf tne buildingwith.250.sq ft rooms, whereas, over there the rooms range from 400-6o1 700 sq ft.Illt's rylut !l proposes to do here, rooms ranging from Selow 300 to approximdtely700 sq ft. The same type-of quality operatioi, 6ringing that type of ierson intoTown that likes nice hotel accommoaitibns, which you-reil 1y can-,t do here, eventhough, you talk to people who stay here, and I dld that o-n several diffent occaisionsjust.sitting in this little restauiant and listening to peop'le and their remarksabout. the sonnena'lp were very positive because of t6e ivb" br-pJiionii opeiiiionthat he runs. It is a diffeieht type of operation than-the Mairiott or hestin--------this will be a much more pi:i^sonal ilace. In Lionshead, and in the Westin,
!!:v !ly: had an opportunitv to biritd within the tast year, so ail of their thinssare_really up to today's standards. They were able to-buiid Uigger rooms, they [avebuilt bigger rooms, they have built for ihe ,80,s, they-did not'6uild for the -60's.
:----:---and so they are much better able to keep-----"--ite otnei thing is thai-theyhave large tracts of land so they can build bettbr op""aiions so they ian get betterrepeat. The Mamiott has approximately 280 rooms, the Westin has ab6ut leO rlghtnow and can build to 400- The iodge -tras 40 rooms, and almojt iit ine lodges in
Tgln:,.uql-the Lodge_at vail only his 60 rooms right now. veiy smail operitionitotally different. For anyone to run a quality type of small ilperation like thatis very very difficult when you have 20 dr 30 ioo-mi is probably'impossible when youtry to give that type of service.
l,lhat the_Town gets is, I mean the impacts are minimal when we are looking at the Town.l'le're-talking about--if the zoning oidinance goes thru--a maximum of 200 rooms whichis 400 people on a 100%_occupancy-for those r6oms, it ev-ryitring were built out, andcertainly^everything will not be in the forseeable future. Whai does the Town getin return? They get a brand new facility in the Vail Village which I think ceriainlyconforms-to.what people think the Town of Vail should be, wfrich the Town of Vail has-not really become' but the.,type of architecture that I think is very pleasing to peoplewho come to the Village. You get a brand new building, totally logicil, totilly
Jc 8/22/83 _to_
built to er-le!"Sy standards and in exchange-for that, you get a small amount of dens.ityincrease with the type of people that V;il wants. Wi do-not need more day skiersin this town. ll|e need people that come in.and stay in oui town as guests, not justfor a 922 lift ticket, but'to experience what vail has tJ offer, nol just'the mountain.I think that is worth the exchange. I spent the last year- yeai ana i natf looking9! things because I am concerned about Vail. Some of you may not totally agree wilhthat' but I'm concerned about where it's going, trow ii;i going to corp"ie in-inemarket-place in the next l0 or 15 years. i'm not looking lwo years down the road,we're fine. .But, you're looking ai Aspen totally upgiading iti.iil vo,i,"" ioor,inril! $egl' and..they will.at some point, potentialiy Uuita nign hoteis-and conventionracrrlttes. you're looking at Snowmass, which is certainly a new village in comparisonto Vail with new facilities, new motels, and Crested Butte with their n6w facilities.They're-a1.1-trying to compete for the same people. ii is uecoring harder ina naraerfor Vail Village to do that. Our facilities'ari old and do not come up to the standards--you can see what happened to Aspen where people just got fed up payihg the highprices and there's no way not to iay those hig'h prices inymore. 'Ii iomeone is iharging.|00-]25 a day,-it's not.a nlgh pric! when you-have to bui-ld a new facility. RctuatTy,-' the price should be higher than that durin-g the winter months. But they -do get tiredof.paying'-they don't mind paying, but the! want to "ecelve something f6r th6ir money.I think a lot of it, i.s a perception prob'teir which I think itre winlii'quiiiiy-stuovpointed out, but' what are we going to_become? And I think the Town has alilays beenvery leery of growth. I've been here 11 years, and the iist o yeiri, 1 ,re ueiome.yery leery of growth.. It certainly has not so'ived the Town's p-r'ollemsleri-it"Town is, as Peter said, g0 or 90 /" built out. The risk tactor'thit-we-expJiienceawhen I first came here was. such that any zoning rules or anything that yoir tried todo' you had to look down the road ano tirint<,',fr"ii"-op"nlng"the itooa git;s--"",regoing..to_get another 800 or 1000 or 4000 units in thii towi which we d6n't feel weneed." That risk factor has certainly changed in the tisi coupie oi veiri, *e u.ealmost built out. l.Je can look at fini tuniig these things and'say, ,,ile don'i-whntgrowth." 25 rooms or 50 rooms or .l00 rooms in comparisoi to the whole village--what you get in return is certainly an insignificant amount compared to some of theother problems that.you have in Town like tie day skier problem! I consider a reaisevere problem. And what do we do, how do we hairdle that, how do we handle it inconjunction with the.guest that-stays here for a week. That person certainly hasan impact' yet the Planning staff ii not looking in-lrrose oirbctions.
I would today, I would not ask for a vote on this ordinance. I would'l ike somefeedback. I will be going to the Town councir as far as talking to iner,-t"ving toget' asking them, what do you want to see in ttre comrnunitii Do-you wanl'ui "tr6l'to
renovate? .If you_tell me, you can't do those rooms, then-we donit do them, itis assrmpte as that. I'm not going to take you to court, I'm not going to sue you, I,mnot.going to threaten to.sue you. we aie bringing to you whal we-feet is iomettrlnggood for the town. Not. just for us, but good ior-the iown alio. tooting ii tnltlliJ9jrg'-!1!ll9 uyuy the densitv qu"ii'ioi, r think vo, niu" to asree with that, yes:T9I': a.pos'rtrve improvement for the town. That's what I'd like from you today.l'tr be doing the same.thing with the Town Council, going to them and aifing thlmthe same questions, and seeing where the town stands]...:......High density is bad, low density is good..question is not that simple.
Dan Co!"coran- L9t lfe record show that Jim Morgan and Gordon Pierce have joined usas members of the Planning Commission.
Peterson I would ask_that this be tabled--this is one alternative. I guess I,dTiRFsome feedback. If you ur. go'ing-io rav, ;we are-witiing to toor-ai-ioie- '
increase in density on your site,i, then I wiil come back and-this ordinanie is v"ry
PEC 8/22/83 -11-
want to expand everything
If you say we'd like to to expand your property, but we don'tin town, then i'd go about jt in a different way.
Eskwith: Corky, I just briefly want to state that whether you wish to control the
number of accommodation units or not, the wisdom of doing that is up to you. ButI think there has been some indication that perhaps the Urban Design Guide Llnes would
do that in some way, and I really think they wouldn't. I don't think there is anythingin the Gujde Lines which wou'ld allow the same kind of control that the zoning density
ordinance al'lows, so I'd just like to say that th's important. If you wish to control
numbers, then the way to do it is not through the Urban Design Guide Lines, but througha zoning density restriction.
Peterson: I never said that the Guide Lines control density, Guide Lines controlsEFucture. It controls the size of the structure through tire setbacks and everythingelse. Peter's point was that the Guide Lines in conjunction with the densitycontrols does that. But, in CCI that's not necessarily true because there is no limit
on the amount of commercial that you can do in CCI. That is not true in the PA zone.It seems to me that that has worked pretty well in CCI.
Corcgran And Peter's other point was, of course, that the Design Guidelines do not
appTt-ln the PA zone.
Jamar: You have to rea'l ize that there are no buildjngs that are totally commerc'ial.
units have worked in CCI..the dens'i ties in terms of accommodation
broad. It was a starting place for me, there js no question about that. It allows
everybody in CCI and PA to expand their property potentially--not every project--
but some of jt. And economics wil'l dictate that probely 99% ot them won't work--
Corcoran: hle've heard both sides and the applicant has requested a polling of theEani-Tor feelings on this item.
Trout: Jay, on the one hand I am very sympathetic to some of the things you've said,
and on the positive side, I think Sonnena'l p has another step to go, and I think as
one 'looks at it one sees a lot of clear evidence of that, both in terms of character
as wel'l as expansion of facilities, not just the rooms themselves. 0n the other side,I find very difficult the route you've selected. Now perhaps that really is the only
one, and all the time and effort on your part will show us that way. I find verydifficult to rezone the whole town tb allow one project to get on with itself.......there must be an awful lot of commercial space in there also.
Peterson: No, there is very little comnercial space, what it is, is the rooms are
much bigger. 40 rooms at 249 sq ft, 65 rooms ranging from in the low 200's to
about 600 sq ft., approx 2500-3500 sq ft of corrnercial , kitchen, bar, manager's apt
and then 65 accommodation units,5 of them small,300-350,40 35 1-450, and 20 deluxe,
45] to 600.
Trout: .....wish singly to encourage you and your client to move in a direction that
perhaps adds some uniis, adds some ipaie......iast winter we had 92 guests visit
us and about 50 stayed at our house. 40 of those people repeatedly asked to have
a place at the Sonnenalp........and they indicated that they liked the Sonnenalp,
PEc {uas -12-
not only_for the qua'l ity of the envjronment, but they even liked the smal'l rooms.The small rooms seemed to go hand in hand with the incredibly personal service thatthose folks offer, and so perhaps larger rooms at 600 sq ft iray not be all that theoperators would like to see happen once they operate at that level .
feLerson: That's why we have some of the smaller rooms, too. And, here again, theowner takes comments from everyone who stays at his hotel and derived the [1an andbasically the mix also from what he feels the vast majority of his people want...-.:...-....9 650 sq ft roon can still be quaint depending on how it,s done. A lotof it depends on the type of service that you give. Even though the rooms would be
!isgg", the type of operation that they run would certainly noi change.Family busjness.....expanding from Europe looking for placis to put lheir sonsto manage motels......
Trout: Does this also reflect the expanded meet'ing room and conference facilitiesthat your reports aluded to?
Peterson: This does not. The Sonnenaip has never been in the business, the conventionEpes-nr business. They would be obviolsly taking some spitt-ovei, i su.ii, brithere would be tremendous sp'i1l over from the Lodge because they stjll do not havethat many rooms....but the Sonnenalp is in the buiiness of personal lodg'ing faciiityand they.cater to the person who is'willing to spend the money, and it is expensive-to provide that type of service. .exclusive hotel,
Corcqran:_ Before we go on, we are looking at an across the board zoning change, andany detailed questions I think we need to keep those to that area on the specificsof the broad brush. I realize, Jay, that there is an underlying proposal ior a projectwhich I think is oniy fa'ir of us to comment to you briefly, i d6n''t barticulaily wantus to talk on all the merits of this specific project, because we real1y haven't seenth'is specific project
Pete[son: The problem I have is like Will, he doesn't necessarily agree with the
amendment proposal , but it,s the only way that I know of right now given the staff'sposition on the SDD that I could come in and show you a project, and what I'm sayingis that broad brush is not sacred to me if there are other ways that this can beaccomplished without doing the broad brush process.
Donovan: I wish..... I called Vail Associates today to get some additional figuresthat made sense to me. They projected additional growth in Vail for shoulder times,but their projected figures for this winter show aitually lower figures for the hightimes' and they_feel that that js the trend that will continue in Vai'|. Things 1i[ewhat you-are talking about, it helps you out--you get more business, but I don'tnecessarily think it helps the whole iown, because-it does increase the density.I think down the road i.f you have your'lodge ful I someone else is definitely not goingto have theirs full. Maybe that's-the way-it should be, but I think we're reachiigq.point where there are on'ly so many people that we can take care of in Vail andI'm not so sure that we haven't realtrbd that point at this time. I think we're over
OUr maXinum.dens_ity, we_can't park their cars, we can't get them on the mountain,tley won't be able to flush their toilets, there won't b6 any water to drink,already the calls on Gore Creek, if everybondy utilized theii calls, Gore Creekwould be entirely dry haif the time agai;. sb I think, as far as the number ofpeople that we can sleep in the Town,-l think we've alieady reached it, and whatcan be appro_ved,|nd I real1y think that's true, and I think any further density
we approve from this point on will diminish the experience that-the guest has.
Maybe not this year or next year, but definitely ten years down the road, and I don,tthink it's a case of getting in the hole like Aspen his, because I don't think we're
PEc O/83 -13-
there, because we're still renovating and doing things like that. They had reacheda point where they-weren't chang'i ng a th'i ng, so I think we're still changing and growingbut I just think if we increase our density, we cut our own throats
I feel Vail's going to remain competitive, very competitive on the ski marketby improving the quality, but not necessarily the quantity. I think that we dodefinitely have to upgrade our physical p1ant, as Diana mentioned I think that was
one of the pjtfal] s of Aspen, Two things it didn't do, it djdn't improve the physicalplant, second jt didn't provide larger convention facilities. I think we've beenin the process of doing both things in our consistent zoning. I still feel therei.s enough possible increase presently available within.the zoning to allow adequatedensity increase without this across the board increase that would be given by this
"broad brush." It seems paradoxical to say we're fine tun'i ng with a broad brush,it somehow seems contradictory and at a defjnjte increase in the quality of physicalplant I think is easy, but I am very aware of the increase in the density.
Petgrson: If I may clarify this, in any specific project that would come in, you
would be opposed to increase in density?
Piper: That would real 1y concern me, yes, because I'm not sure where we stop. I'mgoing to have a difficult time saying one person can do it and another can't do it.Certainly your approach here is a very good starting point. You keep calling ita broad brush, and it real ly concerns me. i don't think I can support the ordinanceat all.
Peterson: But, let's narrow it down, then, to a point, are you narrow that down allthe way to zero where you are not willing to look at any given....I don't know ofa site on the top of ny head in Vail Village or probably Lionshead for that matteror anywhere in the core areas that would allow more density for someone to come in
ancl renovate.
Piper: I don't know of that, either, Jay, except that it was stated in the presentation
by the staff that indeed zoning would allow increase in densjties, and maybe not allof the situations wouldn't prove practical , for example, the Rams Horn. Maybe that'swhat they all consist of, but in its present zoning,'it still shows that kind ofdensity js allowed, we can't even buiid what we present'ly have in the Village andLionshead, and I think something is wrong with the direction we are going, if we'regoing to higher density we're going to have to be competitive with an increase inquaf ity.
Pgterson: Let me clarify something that you said--the zoning--what we are talkingabout getting this density would be in the density requirements--that's where the
250 units came from. I don't know of any project in town that is being added to rightnow. t,{e are not in full build out, but itr'at'i including the whole town, West Vail -
or whatever. l,r|e're talking about the core areas themselves like the Rams Horn.They're way over in dens'ity, they can,t do anything, Sonnenalp, the Athletjc Club,there isn't a project in Town that could add ..
Jamar: Excuse fr€, w€ show in our department ll7 additional accommodation units canbe bu'ilt--Vail Village Inn, some HDMF parcels, I mean we could sit here and argue
whether they're actually going to be built or whether they're not going to be built.
Piper: These are the units that I'm alluding to and saying that there would beexisting zoning will allow greater densities.
fglerso!: Those-projects have.been approved as far as the densitjes and every-thing e'l se' the SDD's, the westin ano vvt. I guess wtrai i,m trying to feel i-sthat from a p'lanning standpo'int is that you woilo oe agiinst an-am6ndment.
Yiele: I'd have to agree with Duane and others although I have a number of concerns.I guess I have somewhat of -an open mind on the subjeci] r,,t.'s.., somehow to havedone a.pretty. good job of interbsting and "nior.iging-suosiantiar irpioverenii'anaupgrading within the current zoning iode. ni itre"stiti-ioint"o out, we added justrecently very substantially to our pA units, {O-+lo, ioint"O out, we,re going toadd more with the Lodge reirovations, eiC., ino iiiho"r;[ i-iiiint you made some verygood arguments' I feel that the owners of the son"enaip woui'o continue to operatea.first-class operation as they oo now.- r;m-con.e;il"";# getting close to our finite]Ii!,"1 capacitv. I do think- ttrat ioo-zso uniii-aoe; i;;;; a rather substantiar'lmpact on parking and it has some kind of impact on-itre moJntaln capacity, ano t woulaguess some other impacts on facjlities capacities, so I gueis t *ouia Ue-veiy-conce.neaabout an across-the-board substantial increase beiause ii-mv mina looting it"twJpresentations, I guess I'd have to agree with the staff thai I haven't been convincedby the evidence that we-really need io take the approacn-oi-increased density to encour-age further upgrading of developments which I thihi( we-neea, but I think I would wanrto see more evidence that we really do need anothei ioupie-nunored units in town.I don't see that now.
PEC 8/2?/a -14-
If this were to go to a case by case situation,
only thing they could
l and,
Itlorgan:- .I have a guestion for Larry.
how would that be formated?
Fskwith: It can't be.rea'l ly. Zoning is not based on a case by case situation, it,sbased on a.comprehens'ive plan. If y6u oonti fiive-u-lo*p".r,"nsive pian,-itren-yJu aon,thave a zoning ordinance which either works or is legiiiy eniorceaute.
Morgan: Could they come back on a variance basis?
Eskwilh:. No,.they can't come back on a variance basis. Thecome back on is zoning amendment for their specific pi"..j of
Eskwith: In the history-of the SDD ordinances, it was .left open ended__you weren,tToEGf-into using densiii"t, -unv-l;d';i controts ilrii tie-underlying zoning prov1ded,and I also understand that the ldd ord-was amended "n ruis because so many problemscropped up ]1 doing patch_work zoning-in the existjns;;;;r: so we had an sDDordinance which essentially allowed 6ach sDD to be tiilor made regardless of the under-lying zoning' Now the-SDD-oralnanie-iirt.i.tt some ways by the underlying zone (whichthis change would not fit into)
Morgan: I.iust have difficu.lty witn this massive zone change. I,d rather see it
Peterson: Either that, or change the SDD.
31,,?,.i::^bl^.::._l::i:^jl l!:i.. is a meini-io iir"-inui iljiiiio',-b;;-;;;,;"i"y:fr.l l:yg.to-do"nore,home.work to-s[ow-reat neeo.- ii-ippears that maybe 15% moreto be built in PA. and you're tarting-ibout maybe another z0% beyond that
Jamar: a 30%increase in accommodation units.
{organ: The basic numbers which thejustify it. That's why I,d like tothat there's really a present need.We're talking about just throwing iineed, so let's go ahead and throw inhas different ideas of need.
staff has done well to
see it on a case by caseI don't see a present
out to the future--well
more potentjal units to
put together just don'tsituation and more indicationeed. I really don,t., maybe we'Il have the
be available. Everyone
PEC
''}'"
-15-
Peterson: Under an SDDwilling to look at it itare you willing to give
Morgan: Yes, I think there is a
The town is heading into a time
improvements and I don't know if
basis, we're not talking about general upzoning. Are youthere is total renovation, a brand new building, 19g3 standardssomeone who is wi'l ling to do that, the increased density?
l.oqking at, but I feel you're not going todefinites something in it for deveiopeis,
carrot for developers--a give and take.are buildings that need changes andshould be in the magnitude that you aresee the town improve unless there is
need for a
when therethe carrot
Pierce: I feel about the same as Jim Morgan. How many accormodation units canEe adllea in the Town of Vait?
,]lmar: 1.|7 which does not include cascade village, does include VVI , theChristiana Lot, (pA) , severaj HDMF zones, (vacani parcels). lJe could sit andargue that these are ever going to built or not be'built, but I don't want Jiyto represent that there aren't pA units outthereon vacant property, because thereare a few.
9orcoran: .I would be opposed to across the board change to the zoning ordinance.Even though-we're.not looking at specific properties, I feel the sonn6nalp isone_of the finest'hotels in town, and I,m iurb tnat ir tney did upgrade it, andcouldadd.on to it,it wou'ld remain one of the finest hoteli. Unfbitunately, Idon't.see how you can add under our current ord'inances without some sort of change.The change would have to be braod brush, so I couldn't back that.
?eterson: what about SDD with the old format and maybe considering that thisis the.gatewy to the town of Vail and other reasons--that's where ihe fine tuningcomes in.
Corcoran: If you want to follow the old SDD guidelines, this would fit in perfectly,
!,ll'.9t Larry said, the PEC and Council somewiere along the line decided thbydidn't want to operate under those rules-- I don't reaTly recall all the arg-umentsof how it got.changed,'but it did. I guess you can start at ground zero ani you
may come up with those same arguments.- I do-agree that there-is a parking problemthat is to a_great degree geneially by day ski6rs. But they stiil have to barisomewhere. I don't believe that.tire -peopie staying'in ttris-hotel would add'greatlyto the parking problem, nor would additibnal pR-units.
Do you wish to table?
leterlgn: I'd like to table this item to september .|2. I'll ta'lk to the TownCouncil--I would have a feeling that thejr concerns are going to be the same asyour as far as the broad brush-ordinance js concerned or-if ihere ls any-wiitingnessfor some increased densities, it would certanly be a case by case basis.
therdollars are just too much.
Donovan moved and Viele seconded to table to 9 n?The vote was -0 to table.
(
e PEc -3- 8/s/sz
4.uest for conditional use rmit in order to construct a wi nter
me enc osure over
p1 icant:ropert €St
Jim Sqyre repeated the explanation of the memo for Scott Edward,s benefit,
because Edwards had not been at the previous meeting. He added that the applicant
had gone. back to his original proposal, to cover half of the pool with a bubble.
Sayre asked the cormission to look especial1y at G.; "Control'qua'lity of construction....t0 maintain the existing character of the area.,, Sayre stated that it wasthe staff feeling that this area lras isolated from pedestrian movement and wastopographically depressed as wel l.
He then discussed item H."Effects of noise, odor,..,,and added that the mechanical
area of the pool bubble would make noise, but that the staff had been assuredthat there wouldn't be much noise from the mechanics, but that the staff recommendedthat this be one condition of approval.
Ed Drager representing theapplicant answered that since bubbles are expensive,the Lodge was interested in maintainence of the bubb'le. Bil'l Ruoff, architectfor the applicant added that a large percentage of noise from swimming pools
came from children runn'ing and shouting, and that the bubble would muffle thatnoise. He mentioned that there was a condominium owned by Knoblock that wouldbe affected by the view of the bubble.
Ruoff added that with snow on the white bubble, it would not be noticeable inthe winter.
Trout stated that he had no sympathy toward a bubble, but might possibly changehis mind if he knew that the other buildings proposed for the Lodge were goingto be built. He added that since Harry's Bar has not been built, people buyingski tickets could view the bubble. Edwards was in favor of the bubble, feel'ingthat it would serve a function and was not very visib'l e.
Donovan was confused by a statement rnde by Ruoff that people.would not be ableto continue to use the al1ey. Ruoff compared the bubble at the Lodge to the oneat the Racquet Club in east Vail, but Donovan pointed out that this bubble would
be in Commercia'l Core I and would be very visible from the Plaza. Ruoff statedthat it would be below the eye leve'l of the second floor balcony rail'ings.
Ruorr pointed out that the poor was 3,ff:'Hlif; l{5: i}'if;l'ilitili,U"lll"liltl'onot get much sun. Donovan felt that the bubble would have a very negative effect
on Commercia'l Core I -
P'iper pointed out that one positive effect was that the bubb'le would be removedin the surmer. He felt that if the snow were allowed to pile up around the bubbleit wou'ld b'lend in well enough. Ruoff added that it was the Lodge guests who would
see the bubble. Corcoran agreed with Donovan that the bubble could be seen fromthe Plaza and added that he would like to see the control of noise as one conditionof approval, but felt that CCI was not the place for a bubb'le.
Scott moved and Piper seconded to approve the request for a conditonal use permitin order to construct a termporary winter time enclosure over half of the Lodgepool as per the staff memo dated 7/15/82 wjth the one condition the staff suggested
and with two more conditions-Item G, Qual ity Control be added, and Item H, Conrplaintsof noise, would cause a review of the conditional use.
The vote was 2-3 (Piper and Edwards in favor). The motion failed. Ruoff was remindedthat he had 10 days in which to appeal the decision.
(
PEC -7-
8. Request to amend S!_ecial Development District No. 6, the Vail Village Inn'complex, to add outside ven-ding as a condjtional use. App'l icant: Van Ewing
Dick Ryan explained that if the amendment is approved by the Planning and Environ-
mental Conmissjon, and then by the Town Council, the applicant will have to
come back with a reouest for a conditional use Denn'it for a specific use. He
added that the staff felt that a certajn arnount of vending added to the streetljfe in Vai1, and was in favor of it when it wasn't in conflict with other uses.
Van Ewing said that he had the support of the surrounding shops. Trout said he
had thought this was illegal in the Tovm of Vail. Dick explained that this would
be reviewed on a case by case basis. Diana wanted to know what contro'l s the Town
had over the other popcorn wagons, and Ryan replied that the agreement with the
Town included contro'l of trash, type of menus, etc. Donovan felt that a popcorn
wagon would be good, but how could the town control vending of baked goods, ice
cream, etc., and she felt that crjteria should be listed. Ryan described howthis was handled'in the Boulder mall: Certain areas were set aside for certain
types of vending with only one year'l eases. Donovan feit vending was a gold mine
because the owner would not have to pay rent, and she would support the popcorn
wagOn,_but not much else. Vje'l e shared Donovan,,s concern, and he anticipated an
expans'ion of this type of conditional use jnto other districts besides SDD6.
Ryan admitted that he had received 4 or 5 other requests for various types ofvending including a 1ow frequency radio station for skiers.
Corcoran stated that under
be met, so if an applicant
t"'
conditional use perm'its, only a few criteria had to
met the criteria, the PEC wou'ld have to grant the request.
Van Ewing suggested changing his request to a specific use, and Trout wonderedif there would be anything wrong with that. Trout moved and Viele seconded to
gtplg-yg the rgqugst tj l''ay popcori-vencinq @earancewrth those existing in Vail. The vote vlas 4-0 in favor of @
9. !gS!g{_fSLo minor subdivision for'lots'15 and'16, Buffehr Creek.AFpli ,-
Peter Patten explained that this was a minor subd'ivision and that there
conditions of approval . Randy Guerriero, one of the appl'icants, stated
p1 ans did include cleaning up the parking 1ot, Patten added that he had
from a survey company which indicated that this was an equal trade-off.
were tv1'othat his
a letter
Trout nlo=vej ald Viele ieconded to approve the request with th_e-words, "the lot"ln conditiona-l #2 be chanqed to read "lot .l5". The vote was 4-0 in favor.
10. frs$Inllqry_tgyf-qr^r of exterior modrf ication proposalinthefoll@
Minor
GorsuchChristy Sports
Purcel'l 's
Lionshead Arcade
Villaqe Center
Sweet Basil and Blu's Beanery
Tilllj A(ilUil,;lU:,ii1'
by and bc'twccn th<r
( "'I'he Corporat i<.rn" )
( rrThe Tc.rrvn'r ) .
oll L(:r'(,(l i rr t.o t.h_is t11,,,, 61', 1983
Lodgc l)ro;lcr.t.iers, Inc. , lr Col.oraclo Cor'polll L ion,
and lhe Tovrn oI Vai 1, :r Cr>lorado Nuni t:i llr l CorporaL i on,
I RI]CITALS
the.Owner of certain real property and lmprove-
are collectively knorvn as the l,odge at Vail
particularly described on the attached Exhibit t'A,t
I Zone Dlstrict
1. The Corporation is
.ments located thereon which
("The Lodge"). Being more
and containing 2.09O acres.
2. The Lodge is located within the Commercial Core
of the Town of Vail.
.to
34
AS
3. A dispute has arisen between the corporation and the Town as
oihuthu" the zoning ordinances of the Town would al1ow the additlon of
new accommodation units and one dwelling unit (col1ective1y referred to
"Unitsr') to the Lodge
4- The dispute relates to whether certain of the drvelling units
of the Lodge Apartments condominiums loca,ted on a parcel of air spaee
above the real property owned by the Lodge,.is attributable to the Land
owned by the Corporation itself.
5. The parties now wish to compromise
remain between them,
and settle all differences rvhich
II AGREBI\IENT
NOTI THERE FORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. The parties agree that the density control section of the zoning
ordinance for Commercial Core f sha1l not prohibit the Lodge from building
ttre Uni-ts
2. Before the Lodge shall proceed rvith the construction of the Units
it sball be required to comply with all tlre appropriate ordinances of the
Town and obtain permission {rom the appropriate boards and commlssions of
the Torvn and further obtain all required and nu."."r"y permlts.
3. Should thc Lodge go forrvard with tlre cr>nstruction of the Units it
shall be further requirecl to construct exprnrled corrference and meetlng room
facilities in the Lodge so that rvhen such cxpansion 1s complete the Loclge
.';ha ll (:1)ll l.irirt LoLA.l r:<rtt l.r't'r:trr:c ilrr(l tnc<:Li nJ,; l.l()ln ril)il(:(.) wlr it.lr iri :t1, ].eas t
7 t4OO Jt:<;t in size, m()l'(r ()r J.ess ol whi<:lr ()nc l,oom shaJ I corrl itin at lerr;1.
6,000 s(luar(r Jeet more or- Icss.
4. The corporation $ihal l n<lt institute any legal. act j ou against th()
Torvn concerning any of the disputecl issucs set forth herein. The Lodge by
gntering ln'to this Agreement does not waive its rights to roquest an additional
slx accommodation units nor does the Town waive its right to oppose such
TeQuest.
rN wrrNEss WHEREOF, the parttes have signecl this Agreement thrs
day of , 1993.
THE LODGE PROPERTIES, INC.
.by
TOWN OF VAILA Colorado Municipal Corporatlon
hrr-J--
)I
t- / ,-\ --r-Uo*-l' q V/e"(t',*t
i 3 s^d i/fr* h
1 - - /€df++* rrt=lt-zr"t: iffi*'* 6,.,t.t p'*/(4-v,[/
, ? / H . ,/? /'' ./ .1 +- ,-.--r $" /a-In-.a: @-i'# ,h4+A- '/'
Ii r: I ;@ f! ^t'- - /li ?t't-'z'+-e- fiffH-nrU(/
1t-
/-t-: L, S7/ r-7/-t-zr-v/L-tLe,'/*6,-
trI
I
Il/t' L9- |
3901 Sorith Gilpin Strcct
Englevrood, Colorodo 8Ol lO
Dear Mr. nrager,
You have the eonsent of the lodge Apartnent
Condonlniun Assoclatlon, fnc. to file a pre-
llnlnary plan to relandscape and redeslgn the
entryway to Gore Creek Drlve east of the lodge
at Val1.
If there ls to be a publlc hearing to present
thls plan before the Counc11, please advise rae
of thls date.
Si4cerely, *
.Jo...- G- Nu'ura''^-
Joan R. Duncan
?resident'
lodge Apartnent Condornlnlun Assoclation
o
)
/
J
V
\l'\,_ /,./\/v__
/
$
N
o
/
\\
!nr.
d1\-.\vtfl
l'
,
E.N.l .,
i
I:
i
I
I
It
i
iI
l/t/r
I
v I
t
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Larry Eskwith
Jay K. Peterson
May 18, 1983
Lodge at Vail
Facts
Prior to ltay 5, 1970, walter J. Sta1der, Jr. and
Ross E. Davis owned the property described on the attachedExhibit A ("Total- Parcel"). The Total Parcel contained 3.0423acres. On May 5, 1970, Stalder and Davis submitted a portion of
the Total Parcel to the Colorado Condominium Act. This portion
is described on the attached Exhibits B and C. The North Wing
Property contained .6184 acres ("North Wing Parcel - Exhibit B).
The South lfing Parcel is the air space described on the attachedExhibit C ("South Wing Parcel"). The North Wing Parcel and South
Wing Parcel constitute a single parcel owned by the LodgeApartnents Condominium Owners and Association (Lodge Apartments
ParceL).
On February 19, 1971, the remaining property (Total
I'arce1 less the Lodge Apartments Parce1) was transferred to LodqeProperties, Inc. (Exhibit D)
On July L, 19'12, Lodge Propertiesl Inc. leased to Lodgesouth, fnc., for a period of 65 years, a portion of the TotalParcel for the construction of 42 individual dwelling units.This parcel of land is described on Exhibit E ("Lodge SouthParcel"). The Lodge South Parcel contained .3341 acres.
ALl of the above occurred prior to the effective dateof the Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance limiting density to 25 unitsper acre
At the present time Lodge Properties, Inc. still owns2.0889 acres of the Total Parcel (Remaining Total Parcel). LodgeProperties, fnc. constructed 52 accommodation units with a totalof 37,347 sguare feet of GRFA on the 2.0889 acres.
L,odqe Properties, Inc. proposes to construct up to 42addiLional units within their remaining GRFA.
For your convenience, f have attached three-dimensionalIayouts showin.l what transpired above.
Photocopies of recorded condominiun naPs are alsoavailable, if needed, to verify the above.
Question Presented
May the Zoning Administrator: ottribute the "dweIlingunits" or "accommodation units" which are located in the South
Wing Property above the hotel complex to the hotel complex
property (Rernaining Total Parcel) for the purpose of determiningconfornity with the density reguirements of the Vail Zoning
Ordinance, Section 18.24.I30, when those units are under
different ownership and constitute different estates in land
pursuant to the Colorado statutes governing "Estates above
Surface" and the "Condominium ownership Act"?
Short Answer
The bottom two floors of the hotel complex (Remaining
l.'otal Parcel) and the Lodge Apartments |'arcel must be regarded as
separate " sites" , and accordingly each is entitled to a density
c'f 25 dwelling units per acre. Any other interpretation fails to
meet the requirenrent that sirnilar classes gf property be treatedin a uniform nranner under the zoninq laws.-
lThu q.r."tion regarding whether the Total Parcel which
was subdivided into the Lodge Apartments Parcel and the Lodge
South Parcel was done in accordance with the SubdivisionIiegulations in effect on the date of the severance is not
addressed here. ft is clear that the Total Parcel was subdividedprior t.o the passage of the applicable zoning ordinances and theparcels exist for zoning purposes.
while the Subdivision Regulations adopted by Ordinancelro. 4 (f970) r',/ere not complied with by the then owner and
subdivider of this property, I cannot find one subdivision in
l'own (other than major areas like Booth Creek Subdivision) which
have attempted to comply with the ordinance. I have also beentold that over the past ten years compliance with the Ordinance
has not been demanded by Town of f icials. 'I.'echnically, everyduplex and condominium project in Town should have complied with
ttre Subdivision Regulations. No project has done so. (a few of
the larqer projects in noncompliance are Timberfalls, The VaiI
Racquet Club, Sun Vai1, the Potato Patch Club, and every duplexin the Town of Vail.) Additionally, an attempt to enjoin theconstruction on the Total Remaining Parce1 so many years afterthe division of the land occurred wouLd appear to arguablyviolate 31-16-Ill C.R.S. I973, as amended, and raise a seriousissue of estoppel against the Town.
1. ProPer const{u?tion o ordinance
indigates ih?t-iie. proposeo impro r
densitv requirements.
Section I8.24.130 of the Vail Zoning Code sets
forth the density control requirements for the commercial core
one district in wnicn the t,odqe is located' This ordinance
contains both a "quui. footage requirement and a maximum unit
density in the foll-owing terms:
"unless otherwise provided in the Vail
ViIIage urban design guide planl.not more
tnan gO square feel of qross residential
floor arei (GRrA) shall be permitted for
each 100 square feet of buildable site
area. fotit density shall not exceed 25
dwelling units per acre of buildable site
area." (Ord. 2L, 1980 - Section 1)
While "buildable site area" is not a separately
definecl term in the code, the component terms "site" and
"buildable area" are defined in the following manner:
Section 18.04.045 - Buildable A{qa. Buildable
ii"i *"uns any site,-loI;-ParEilor any
portion thereof which does not contain
hesignated floodplain, red hazard avalanche
area, or areas in excess of forty percent
slope.
Section 18.04.220 - Lot or Si!e.
means a parcel of laifl6?d$El or
Discussion
to be ocffiGl-EY a use, building'
structure . . . a lot or site maY
a single tot of record, a Portionof record, a combination of lots
portions thereof, or a Parcel of
described bY metes and borrnds.
Lot or Site
intended
orconsist ofof a lotof record or
Iand
The terms ,.Dwelling tlnit., and ''Accommodation Unit'' are
defined as follovJs:
Section 18.04.070 - Dwellilg-un!!. Dwelling
Unit means any room d-!-ror'rp of rooms in a t!to-
farnily or multiple family building with
kitchen facilities designed for or used by
one family as an independent housekeepi{tg,unit'
A Dwelling Unit in a multiple farnily building
may include one attached accorunodation unit
no larger than one third of the total floor
area of the dwelling.
Section f8. 04.030 - Accommodation Unit.
Accommodation means any room or group of rooms
without. kitchen facilities designed for or
adapted to occupancy by lruests and accessible
from common corridors, walks, or balconies
h,ithout passing through another accornmodationunit or dwelling unit. Each accommodationunit shall be counted as one half of a dwelling
unit for purPoses of calculating aIlowable
units per acre.
Section L8.24.130 nay thus be paraphrased as
providing t.hat the total density shal} not exceed 25 rooms, or
groups of roons, with kitchen facilities (or 50 accommodation
units) . per acre of a parcel of land, occupied or intended
to be occupied by a use, building, or structure-
The scope of the ordinance is thus limited by the
construction of the term "parcel of 1and" as used in the Vail
Zoning Code.
As has been explicitty held by the Arizona court of
Irppeals, "a parcel of land means . . (a) continuous guantity
of Jand in possession of, owned by, or recorded as the proPerty
<>f the sanre claimant, person, or company . the definition
includes the concePt of ownership by one person or entity."
Adams Tree Service, Inc. v. TransAnerica Title Insurgngglempall'
1Te73l.
In accord, the Georgia Court of Appeals has heldthat "parcel of land" is not a term connoting any particular(luantity of land, "but rather incorporates the elements of
contiguity and corunon ownership." Floral Hills !4emo:I_Sg:gent,_rnc. t. Robb, 227 GA 470, r81 sE 2c1-(T97f)-f-EF-termtrownerffiFT; when used to define a parcel of land, involves theright of possession as well as fee title. As the ohio courts
ltave held a "parcel of land" means a "continuous tract or plot ofland in one possession, no part of which is separated from t.he
rest by intervening land in another's ;'rgsssssion.rr rn Re Clark'sUstate, 141 NE 2nd 259 (OH PROB. 1955).
Accordingly, at the time the Vail ordinance
regulating the density in the Commercial Core One District was
passed in 1980, the four floors of the south wing structure of
the Lodge did not constitute a single "parcel", since the air
rights on the fourth and fifth floors had passed into the
ownership of different parties and was part of the Lodge
Condominium Apartments Parcel, consisting of the South WingI'arcel and the llorth Wing Parcel. Section 38-33-102' C.R.S.
L973, as amended.
while easement rights exist through the Lodge at
Vail for condominiunr owners (Section 2.3, Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions), there is no commonalityof ownership between the bottom portion of the Lodge structure
and tlrc estJt(-. above surface.
The surface estate (Total Remaining Parcel) and
above-surface estate (South Wing Parcel) in the south wingstructure, each had and have identical characteristics as
separate "parcels of land" because Section 38-32-103, C.R.S.
L973, as amended, provides: "All of the rights, privileges,
incidents, povters, remedies, burdens, duties, liabilities, andrestrictions pertaining to estates, rights, and interests in landshall appert.ain and be applicable to such estates, rights, andinterests in areas above the surface of the ground.t' Ininterpreting the above statute with the Condominium OwnershipAct, Section 38-33-101 C.R.S. 1973, as anended, the Colorado
Court of Appeals, in Association of owners, satefliteInc. v. waller tl. Ott follows:
"In providing for the establishrnentof estates in air space, the legislatureintended to subject all such egtatesto legal provisions historically andby statute applicable to the traditionalestate in real property. C.R.S. '63'118-8-4, 118-12-l et seg., 118-I5-1 etseq. (C.R.S. '73, 38-41-119, 38-32-I0let seq., 38-33-101 et seq.); C.R.s. '73,38-30-101 to 38-44-112."
This means both the "privilege" and the "restriction" of placing
up to 25 dwelling units per acre per parcel, of land appliesseparately to each parcel. The same result would not obtain if aparcel intended for occupancy by a "single use, building orstructure" was divided today by the creation of an above-groundestate, since tffi,6;Eity ordinance is presumed to applyprospectively to all parcels existing on the date of lts passage.
The city and County of Denver v. Denver Buick, Inc., 141 Colo,e legislation
and assumption that zoning ordinances passed by City Counciloperate prospectively with regard to land uses in effect on thedate of the passage of the ordinance); Accordr Val DrGore v. Tohtn_council, tgzi coro. 311, 565 P.2d 343 (
LoEge structure must be regarded as containing two seParatebuilding sites for the purpose of the density ordinance.
2.estate within The inclusion of condominiums in the above-surface
e woulo v olate remen orado law thata zon str te
orm manner.
The Charter of the Town of Vail contains no
independent grant of zoning authority. The Charter ratherprovides that the Town "shall have all the povrers of localself-government and horne rule and all power possible under theconstitution and laws of the State of Colorado". Charter of The
Town of Vail, Colorado, Section 1.2. The Town is €FFEffi;a-E -
LEE c'onnc,n:Tlr'' reqliF-hent, incorporated in Article II,
Section 25 of the Colorado Constitution, that the laws may not be
7
unreasonably discriminatory. When there is an impact upon
;;;;;;it iniorved, zoning 6rdinances must treat similar classes
ii-'ptopir.ty in a similar 11y.^-9t" and countv of Denver v'
Denver Buickr I4I CoIo. !2L, 34 tment
;ftn3-?ffi"t.t. owned by the Lodcte Properties, rnc' in a
Jifieient fashion from otfrer similar estates located in Vail
*"ufa be arbitraiy ana discriminatory and violative of the state
constitution.In Denver Buick, suPra, the Colorado Supreme Court
tretd invalid a pofEiS;-TTm' Denver zoning ordinances which
piicea differenl restrictions upon similar tyPes of properties
located in adjoining aistricts. Differing oll-street parking and
ii""i-ut.a pr6visioi" te.u struck down, since both of the
uaj"i"in' ai"tri.l"- contained buildings and businesses "in aIl
i.;p."t"-"irnilar in general useage"' While-the Denver Buick case
has been severery questioned on other grounds, aiffiffidinqs
of the case overiufea in subsequent caies, the principle of
uniform treatment remains the law in Colorado and other
Juiiiai.tions which have considered the questlol:-.Li9nsh9?4 lake
i. w.rnut Township, I0 N.J. 165, 89 A'2d 693 (1952); Frankel v'
effi=#=xeiffii.v, iia-N:;: 'sper . 420, 307 A. 2d 6rrTl9zJ;
ffie General Asiembly saw fit to classify
above-surface and surface estates as hlving a1>pertaining to them
iaenii""f rights ancl privileges, and the division of the Lodge
structure creaced tvilo separate estates, each vJith the same full
legal privileges. The Town therefore cannot restrict the riqht
of the surface owner to develop his building site to a density-qui.rufent to th;l enjoyed Uy ottrer fee owners' To do so would
^Jf" tn" requirement inieasoiably discriminatory and void'
o
E yr{i BiT ' Fl"
THE IODGE APANJTMEM CONDOMINIUM
EXHIEn A-1
IJGAL ESCRIPTION
BY DECI4RANTS
PROPERTY OJNED
OF DATE OF
OF
AS
A part of lpta 8, b, and c, Block 5-C, Vall Vlllage, Ftrat
Flllng, Codnty of Eagle, Slate of Colorado, oore parclcularly
deecrlbed ac follona:
Eeglonlng et the Southreet, corner of lot !, Block 5-C, ValI
vlllage, Flrec Ftllng; thence North 24'11t0O'tsast a dtstance
of 119.67 fcec; chence North U'17'O0'tsaat a dlatance of
143.00 fcet to a polnt of cunre; thence along a curve to the
rtght havlng e rad!,ua of 96.00 fcet, a central angle of
64'00t00tt, end an arc dlatance of Lo7.23 faet go a polnt of
tangenci theDce along aetd Sangenc North 79'17rOO'lasc a
dlsteocc of 245.42 feet to e polnt of curnre; thcDcG elong a
curne Co thc rlght havlng a radlua of 582.79 fcet, a central
angle of 2'03'54", and an arc length of 21.00 fcet to a potnc;
rhence South 10'301l5'laac a dletance of 369.2I feet to the
South llnc of eatd Lot t; thenc€ South 89'44r00'Test and along
sald South llne a dlctancc of 490.63 feet to thc polnt of
begtnnlng.
E x lli BiT nG"
THE IOEE TPAXf,IGlYf CONDOI.{INIUM
EXHIBIT A.2
TBCAL DESCRIPTION OF NONX.I| WING
oF coNDourNruu Bt rlDlN.
That gart of lota a and b, Block 5-C, Vall Vlllage Flret Ftllng'
C-toty of Eqtle, Statc of Colorado, oore partlcularly deacrlbed
aa folloa:
Goonclng at thc Southre3G cortler of lot-ar..Block 5-C, aatd
Vall Villlgc Ftrac FlltngS Ghcnce N.24'11r00'E. and along the
Nortlnrcrt lLnc of tald lac e, llock 5-C, 119.67 fcet; thence
N.U'17t00'8. and rloag the llorttnrcac llnc of aald lot a,
Elock 5-C, 109.65 fcct co the tnre potnt of bcgtnnlng; thence
N.U'1?|OO'E. and aloog thc Norttrtect ltne of lot e, Block
5-Cr 33.35 fect to a potnt of curnre; chcnce along che North
llne of IDG e, Block 5-C end t cutive to EhG rtghc havlog a
radlus of 96.00 fcet, t ccntral angle of 64'00'00", aD trc
atrc"o". of 10?.23 fiec to e polnt of tangent; Shsncc N.79'171
OO'E. and along thc'North lloe of lot t' Elock 5-C; and along
cald crngcnt, 245.42 foct to a potot of cunrc3 thence along
the llorth llne of lpt b, Block 5'C and a Gunto to the rlght
trwtog I redluc of 582.?9 fcct' t cGDFral roglc of 02003:54::'
eo "r" dlrtencc of 21.00 f,cat to e point; th.Dc. S.10'30fl{'?r,
iC.ii fcct; thcnce s.79029t44'!., 146.65 fect; thcDcc N.10'301
16'T., 8.6 feec; thcncc s.79'29'44'!: t.??:95 feet; thence
s.lo'iott6'ts., 6.oo fccc; Gh.Dcc s.79'29'44',!:r -16.35 fccg;
ih.o"" s.10'3611611., 8.90 fcct; Ehcnce s.79'29r441T:t 9^-35i."c; Ehcnce s.l0'30i16'E., 6.@ feet; thcncc s.79o29r44'T.,
157.81 fcet to the tr:ue polnt of begtnnlng.
Exr.lisir "c',
THE IOEE APANT}IEM CONDOI{INIUM
I.DCAL
OF
DESCN.IPTION OF THE SOUTH I{I}rc
THE CONDOUINIUM BUIU)IIIG
(t) hgal descrlptlon of the norrherly porrlon of rbe sourhutng of the condooLnlun bulldtrg (comonly referred ro aathe fourth floor of thc condontnluo butldtng).
The alr space abo\r€ the clevatlon 81191.62 feeE above ean
aea lcvel over thc followlng-descrtbed property:
That plrc of Iot a, Block 5-C, Vall VtIIage Ftrst Ftltng,
County of Eagle, Scate of Colorado, oore parttcularly deecrtbedes follcrre:
Cotmenclng rt the Souttncet corner of lot a, Block 5-G, oatdVatl Vtllage Ftrst Ftltng; rhence N.24'll'00,E. aod elong theNorthwesterly llne of gatd lot a, Block 5-C, 119.67 feet;thence N.U'17r00't. and along the Norttnreeierly llne of -
I.or a, Block 5-C, f09.65 feet; chence N.79.29r44rts., lfl.8lfeet to the tnre polnc of beginnlng; thence S.l0o30tl,6ttE.,
44.3O feet; thcnce S.79029r44'T., 10.00 feer; thence S.lO-3Oll6"E:,10.70 feet; rhence N.79'29r44'h., 10.00 feer; rhenceS.t0o30'16'ts., 15.05 feetl thence N.79'29'44'8., t5.6S feec;
rhence N.10'30r16'T., 2O.10 feet; rhence N.29.29f44,t., gO.ij
feer; rhence N.10'30r16'T., 28.00 feet; rhencc s.?9.29,44,t{.r.
38.35 feec; rhence N.10030r16'tf . , 57 .95 feer; Ghcnce S.tg.zg r44'T.,
8.00 feet; thence N.l0'30r16'T., U.00 feetl Ghcnce 5.79.29'44'1t., 29.E5 feet; rhencc S.10030116'!., 6.00 feet; Ghcncc5.79'29t44'W,, 16.35 feeci thence S.10030r16tt., E.90 feet;
Bhence s.79'29r44'tJ., 8.35 feet; rhence s.l0o30rl6tE., 6.OOfeec; thcnce S.79'29r44'T., 6.00 feer ro rhe tnre polnc of
beglnnlng.
(11) legal descrlpclon of the aoutherly portlon of che ao,urh
wlng of the condontntuo bulldlng (cooonly rcferred ro as theflfth floor of che condoolnluo buLldtng).
The alr space above the clevatton 8,2M.89 fcet above @an aealevel over the followlng-&scrlbed property:
That part of Lot a, Block 5-C, Vatl Vtllage Ftrat plltng,
County of Eagle, State of Colorado, oore partleularly &rcrlbed
as follors:
Corenclng at the Southregt corner of lot a, Block 5-C, caldVatl Vtllage Ftrst Ftllng; thence N.24'11'00'ts. end along the
Norttnreeterly llne of eald lot a, Block 5-C, 119.67 fecc;
thence N.l5'17r00'ts. and aloog the Norttnreetcrly llne of Lot a,
Block 5-C, 109.65 feetl thence N.79'29'44'ts., 15l.El fect;
Ehenco S.l0o30r16'8., 44.30 fcec; thencc S.79o29r44'T., 10.00
f,eeGt thrncc S.l0'30rl5'ts.r 40.70 fcet; thcncc N.79'29r44'ts.,
10.00 frccS thenec S.l0'30r16"8., U.05 feeE; thence N.79o29'44'8.. U.65 f.et to the tru potnt of bcgtnntng3 thence
S.lo'JOrl5'E., 64.7O fcee3 thence N.79'29r44'ts., 6.00 fcct;
th":nct 8.10'30116'ts., 66.10 feet; thence N.79'29t44'8., 6.00
fGGt; Bhcocc S.10'30t15'8., 1.66 feet; thcnee N.89'44r00'ts.,
24.44 fmti thenc€ N.79'29144'1.' 23.90 fect; shencc N.10030r
16'T., 45.00 feec; Ghencc N.79'29r44'ts., 9.30 feat; Ehence
N.1Oo3O't5't{., 130.80 feet; Ghence s.79'29r44',\{. | 69.25 fcerS
thcncc S.10'3011611., 20.10 feec to the tnre potnt of beglnntng.
-2-
ta t.r
n|D r. ltr, !1., flAlt LqrISE tllltf , lo6t l'
Xtl ra lIlL A. tlcClf' C.osorrr ol cb C6|ct ot r'ttt'
l-; . cblc.acr tc rlurbtr oert&rrcl'crr-bs.b' tr'!t,-ft.d inr 3a la il[Eq!-lr., . olcs'& Gctor'-rb. -I.a;'-. frr !! tlto tl's.3 lst rl f*i*iEdtffi.ffi r'gilE F! 3:.i1-'
ffilt ---b-tb mt c, rfti, r3" ct 616r&'
t 'lll t
E x fli BiT 'Q'![rr
FEt;19 sllgl|l|[r-Ugs .-f-Z\,-
.ltfOr lI! . Un cCHlr*-slffi::3i.:n s.Pi.'i"'Ti?s#ri :'
rrc itru*r oC lot.tl lrg so . tdB d--
I ri - t L 3e |t d.r lLsl l'Gr tlll
iFS'*.ffii"!.HBiT'
etlfehltcortal''t t,
ilElSHl:g-Till.SE.,
;.r.ci tbn trc riu rrnri Frci tt'lttU0'irt r drgst cC lt.lt h 3c rrl* cE 3trFr 3b. rlcq r rrr :c:bitt frlr.-rr!&r ct tft.lt tlc. r ccrrlritr * ltfta", cd o m lqQ ct tl.ofeir rc r lol*i 3br tcl t0'to'f'bcI ||r:eo-ct l3r.n lrrc ac tb ad llr ocrff-tc rl Gbrr tq$h .'L'00i ||at -arls rrt{-lolh UD r d|r:co ot atO.at
tot-co Bb Dct!3 ct lqlctli
Ito l. .
ColaGbr rt3h. tra.wr, .ll of Gh. rlthcr,:llla' tcaa..G, blcrrGr, ....-fr,.. .dr_r3flfaa rrr.rerd by rchrtc. la th U'/ftrizftffEEf @rDottrtir. .cco"dt{ -.U-n filcl? :! ..t.t catutatrr orclcrEt;;fi;r;,
I-Tt:Tfi,'.? ffir..r ij.::n?;,,I|3b 6uat, Golcr&;
['il'i!ffu,ig.?:r
::'l':':.::: :8fi::':ffi.'?:,ffi.X!llf ,*.-, 3b *B,.
Ogcrl 3rr tos :b
ilF$##li il;, lli.r.,5.r"
!c.r...;rrff;.6 trl}ffitF&ffiiii! XG-*br c, rb oda'
ffift*l'*,#rmp5.c.too DlrGalcG, v.ir iiiffiiilior..!.rtc!, y.ll (frrr.t trgrov.rDG DlrGsl;; ;;.c.tr loo o! yrtl; rod -rcegc OrCii-ffi:ioil;$|r:-rrl srvlr;r e L".o rrciriiG i*
lrcutrd rhtr -jtg5_ dry ot fr ". . . , , tlrl.
tt&r t ot4rD )lar - m, - -ral
t.-
.!a bf l. Hf.ftltff q frd rd cttlclrl ml.
tt rhun a&..
.-i-.--! g-----
__
t
a, o o
eii
- 3L Jlg,- ary ea rlrllrr , lttl t'l a-r r.lllrql.
llltl q ft d c8tt.Ll ...1.
aultl,,| i..... .:t - ,(t aea||cn,..y L! J,rrr. (,tr oA hrr:e &r"r ta, f|| lrrl
.t
p
l'
tull a oHD
tL tcr.|cl| lrSrrrlc r.. ..lEl-frl btclt
, ttJ.
December 22, L982
Mr Dick RyanDirector of Depa
Comnunity D
Town 0f VailVai1, Colorado 8
rtment of
eve lopment
1657
Re:Lodge Properties Inc d/b/a
The Lodge at Vail
Dear Dick,
This letter will confirm our recent discussions withyou relating to the possibl"e redeveloprnent 6f theproperty presently owned by Lodge Properties Inc and
conmonly known as The Lodge at Vai1. As you know,
when the Urb-an Design Guide Pldn and the Design Con-siderations, together with the accompanying N{aps wereadopted for Conrnercial- cores I and II, the lands which
make up the Lodge at Vail r,rere not studied and wereleft to be studied as a special study alea at alater tine.
We now request that you put in notion the propersteps to have this area studied with a view toluardpossible redevelopment of portions of the property.
We are especially interested in rnaking improvernents
and additions within the property that will add tothe anbiance and overall attractiveness of the villagecore area, and at thesame time improve and enhance the
operations at the Lodge.
Please advise as to what we nay do to be of assi-stanceto you in this endeavor.
Very truly yours,
cc: Thor Loberg
174 En"st C'ore Creek hr'e
Lodge
Vatl,Gilorado8f657 3O3-476-5Of1 Telex45-O375
HUIERT T. WEtXSHtE'tt. R C.
H. IIICHAEL XILLER
,JOSEPH 3, IORU3, P. C.
BARNY PZRXUT
EDTVARD V'.STERN
.JALES l..,rACOlgot{
w. oavto xuRPr{Y
WetttsHreNx, MrtueR, BoRUs & PERMUT
ArroRN eYs AT LAw
22OO LINCOLN CENTER AUILDIN6
IEEO LINCOLN STREE'
DENVEF. CoLoRADo EOE64
TELEPHONE {3O3) €6t-4355
I -,
-"J-An
/ hoJ,tl ca,/_
VAIL OFFICEval! l{alloi aL laLt( lultDlt{o
F C). lOC tltov tl,cotoia9o ltcot
TELCFHOTTI t300 rlTC -rO!3
January 6, 1982
trtr. Dick RyanDirector of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage RoadVai1, Colorado 81657
Dear Dick:
This firm repreaents ltDits and S Partnership' the
owner of Condoninium Unit 407, the Lodge at Vail.
It has been brought to the attention of !tr.
Irlarvin Blumberg, one of the partners of our client that
Lodge Properties ie preparing to propose an expaneion to aportion of the Lodge buildings which would increase thedensities on the land, add to the height of the building,
and block the present views toward the Gore Range enjoyedby condominiurn units in the area of Unit 407.
This letter is for the purpose of recordingopposition by our client to any proposed expansion orrezoning of the Lodge at Vail conplex.
I would appreciate receiving notice of or copiesof any materials filed in connection with any rezoning
appJ.ication as well as notice of any scheduling for a
discussion of the proposal at any meeting of the Planning
and Environment Commission or the Town Council.
HTW: nb
cc! Mr. llarvin Blunberg
uly yours,
*rt T. Weinshienk