HomeMy WebLinkAboutVista Bahn Building Common Area 5SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into on the / y day of L 2fG� 1997
between the Town of Vail, a Municipal Corporation, Riva Ridge Partners, a Colorado Limited
Liability Company, and Glenn Heelan, Charlie DaviXson and Bob Hernreich in their individual
capacities.
WHEREAS, differences have arisen between the Town of Vail and Riva Ridge Partners
concerning the parking pay -in -lieu fee required for the redevelopment of the Vail Village Club, 333
Bridge Street, Vail, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 1997, the Planning and Environmental Commission rendered
an opinion on the appeal by Riva Ridge Partners of the administrative action taken by the Town of
Vail; and
WHEREAS, on November 20, 1997, Riva Ridge Partners filed an appeal of the Planning and
Envirommental Commission decision which is scheduled to be heard by the Vail Town Council on
December 16, 1997; and
WHEREAS, as of November 24, 1997, a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy had not been
issued for the building due to the failure to resolve the issues concerning the parking pay -in -lieu
requirement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Riva Ridge Partners through Bob Hernreich has committed to provide an irrevocable
letter of credit in the amount of $534,052.00 to be received by the Town of Vail no later than the
close of business on December 9, 1997. The letter of credit is to assure payment of the parking pay-
in -lieu requirement as determined by the staff and the Planning and Environmental Commission in
their hearing on November 10, 1997. This letter of credit will be drawn upon by the Town of Vail
unless full payment is made in either one of two methods:
a) In the reduced amount of $457, 354.64 full payment received by the Town of Vail
prior to the close of business on May 25, 1998. This amount is as determined by the
1
Community Development Department in June, 1996, and will be accepted in
consideration of receiving full payment.
b) In the event full payment in the amount of $457, 354.64 is not received by the Town
of Vail by May 25, 1998 at the close of business, then Riva Ridge Partners will be
required to pay the full amount of $534,052.00 over a five year period with an initial
payment of twenty (20 %) percent, ten (10 %) percent interest (beginning on August
25, 1998) and an execution of a Deed of Trust on the subject property at 333 Bridge
Street, Vail, Colorado. The Town of Vail may, in its sole discretion, accept other
security in lieu of a Deed of Trust on the subject property. The Promissory Note to
secure the payment in addition to the Deed of Trust will require the personal
guarantees of Riva Ridge Partners, LLC and all partners or principles of Riva Ridge
Partners at that time or anytime thereafter until full payment is received. The Town
of Vail must receive the twenty (20 %) percent payment and fully executed
documents in a form agreed to by the Town no later than the close of business on
November 1, 1998.
2. In exchange for the agreement to pay as outlined in paragraph 1, the Town of Vail has
issued a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy on November 26, 1997. This Certificate of Occupancy
is specifically conditioned upon fulfilling all requirements of paragraph 1. It is understood and
agreed by all parties hereto that in the event the Town of Vail has not received the irrevocable letter
of credit by the close of business on December 9, 1997, the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy
shall be subject to immediate revocation and Riva Ridge Partners agree to immediately cease all
occupation of the building and surrender all licenses that have been issued.
3. Riva Ridge Partners prior to the execution of this Agreement has withdrawn it's
appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission decision rendered on November 10, 1997,
and has agreed to the calculations for the parking pay -in -lieu fee. 2-P. u-1111 ag tho
n. .
2
I
4. The agreement is in full and final settlement of all issues concerning the parking pay-
in -lieu fee, decisions and actions by Town of Vail staff, the issuance of the Temporary Certificate
of Occupancy, and all other matters related thereto.
TOWN OF VAIL, a Municipal Corporation
By:
Robert W. McLaurin, Town Manager
Attest:
Lorelei"Donaldson, Town Clerk
RIVA •E PARTNE S, a Colorado Limited Liability Company
By
Heelan, Individually
By: -
Charlie 4avidson, Individually
1
Bo Hernreich, Individually
F.Vivaridge.set
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Mike Mollica, Assistant Director of Community Development
DATE: November 11, 1997
SUBJECT: Vail Village Club Appeal
On November 10, 1997, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) passed three separate
motions, relating to the appellant's appeal of three staff interpretations.
1. John Schofield made a motion which was approved unanimously by a vote of 4 -0 to modify
the staff's classification of use for the three fax rooms in the Vail Village Club. The PEC felt
that the fax rooms should be classified as "office" use and not "eating and drinking
establishments," for parking calculation purposes.
2. Greg Amsden made a motion that was approved by a vote of 4 -0, which upheld the staff's
parking calculations, utilizing the 32.996 total parking spaces required, less the
modifications made regarding the fax rooms in motion #1.
3. Greg Moffet made a motion that passed by a unanimous vote of 4 -0, which overturned the
requirement that the applicant sign the pay -in -lieu promissory note personally and that a
deed of trust be filed on the property. The Planning & Environmental Commission felt that
the appellant should only be required to sign the promissory note, with a five -year
amortization period, per the existing zoning ordinance. The PEC also believed that it is
reasonable for the Town to require both Glenn Heelan and Margretta B. Parks to sign the
promissory note.
Pursuant to Motion #1 above, the staff has recalculated the parking pay -in -lieu fee as follows:
11/11/97 - Per PEC, change the use classification of fax rooms (3rd floor) from "eating & drinking
establishment" to "office" = 69 square feet total.
• Eating & drinking establishments = 69/15/8 = 0.575 ( 1 parking space /8seats)
Office = 69/250 = 0.276 ( 1 parking space /250 sq. ft.)
0.299 parking spaces
11/10/97 - Per staff memo to the PEC:
Grand total = 32.996 parking spaces pay -in -lieu
0.299
New grand total = 32.697 -
x $ 16,333.38
$534,052.53
f: \everyone\councii\memos \wciub.nI 1 1
VAIL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
APPEAL HEARING
NOVEMBER 10, 1997
2:00 P.M.
PEC COMMISSIONERS:
MR. GREG MOFFET, CHAIRMAN
MR. GALEN AASLAND
MR. GREG AMSDEN
MR. JOHN SCHOFIELD
MR. GENE USELTON
STAFF:
MR. MIKE MOLLICA, MR. TOM MOORHEAD
APPELLANT:
RIVA RIDGE PARTNERS, MR. GLENN HEELAN,
MR. CHARLES DAVISON
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468 -9415
1- 800 - 261 -4818
INDEX
JIM CURNUTTE:
A ...............................
30
Exhibit
Direct Examination by
Mr. Moorhead ..........
Page
7
Cross - Examination by
Appellant ..............Page
E ...............................
22
Redirect Examination
by Mr. Moorhead ........
Page
25
Recross- Examination by Appellant ............
Page
28
Redirect Examination
by Mr. Moorhead ........
Page
44
MIKE MOLLICA:
Direct Examination by Mr. Moorhead .......... Page 29
Cross - Examination by Appellant ..............Page 38
Appellant's Case . ...........................Page 45
EXHIBITS
2
Identified
Exhibit
A ...............................
30
Exhibit
C ...............................
11
Exhibit
D ...............................
13
Exhibit
E ...............................
25,30
Exhibit
G ...............................
16,23
Exhibit
H...............................
38,44
Exhibit
I ...............................
41,44
Exhibit
J ...............................
44
Exhibit
K...............................
44
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468 -9415
1- 800 -261 -4818
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 RIVA RIDGE APPEAL HEARIN Pages 3 - 6
PAGE 3
PAGE 5
1 Thereupon:
1
as to whether or not that was the final calculation
2
MR. MOFFET: The first item on the Agenda is
2
that they have referred it back to the Planning and
3
Riva Ridge Partners LLC, Applicants and Tom
3
Environmental Commission, not believing that a
4
Moorhead and Mike Mollica for Staff.
4
final decision had been rendered as of June, that
5
MR. MOORHEAD: This item is an appeal of three
5
should stand in the way of the Planning and
6
staff interpretations and the issues are outlined
6
Environmental Commission hearing, all the facts and
7
in the Memorandum that was prepared by Mike
7
circumstances that pertain here.
8
Mollica. It is to the Planning and Environmental
8
In the presentation, the first person that
9
Commission from the Community Development
9
we're going to call will be Jim Curnutte. Jim
10
Department and as we proceed today, we'll
10
Curnutte is presently with the Summit County
11
essentially be following that Memorandum and its
11
Planning Department. He was previously with the
12
attachments.
12
Town of Vail Community Development Department and
13
You will notice that there is a Court Reporter
13
Jim was the individual who first calculated the
14
present today. That is Mr. Randy Slane of Summit
14
parking pay -in -lieu and the classification of the
15
Reporting. He has agreed to be present today to
15
third and fourth floors of eating and drinking
16
transcribe these proceedings. The only difference
16
establishments. Jim will review for you the plans
17
between a tape recorder and Randy is that a tape
17
that he had reviewed. He will tell you about his
18
recorder can't let you know when it's not taking
18
conversations with Glenn Heelan and I believe that
19
down what is being said. Randy can advise us if
19
he will render an opinion that Mr. Heelan clearly
20
he's having difficulty following the testimony or
20
understood what the nature of the classification of
21
if people are talking on top of one another, and I
21
the third and fourth floors was and as well as
22
have given Randy full authority to send off flares,
22
having a clear understanding as to how the
23
waive flags or do whatever is necessary to make
23
pay -in -lieu was arrived at.
24
sure we're conducting this proceeding in a manner
24
After hearing that testimony I believe that
25
that allows him to properly take the notes
25
will establish in the June, 1996 letter to Mike
PAGE 4
PAGE 6
1
necessary for the transcription.
1
Mollica drafted and signed by Glenn Heelan when he
2
By the way of introduction, there are actually
2
says, I understand and agree as to the total amount
3
three issues that are before the Planning and
3
the parking pay -in -lieu that that, in fact, was the
4
Environmental Commission today. Those are the
4
circumstance at that time.
5
Staffs classification of the third and fourth
5
As to the current calculation, you will then
6
floors as eating and drinking establishments; two,
6
hear testimony from Mike Mollica. Mike Mollica
7
Section 18.52.100 C, parking, requirements
7
will explain to you how the current calculation has
8
schedule, eating and drinking establishments and
8
been made and will point out some of the
9
Section 18.52.160 exemptions parking pay -in -lieu
9
differences that result in a higher calculation
10
and that Riva Ridge Partners disputes the
10
that was arrived at by Jim Curnutte.
11
calculation of the number of parking spaces
11
Finally, as to the third and final issue as to
12
required and three, the requirement that the
12
what, if any, security is required, I think that
13
applicant sign the promissory note personally and
13
will basically be an understanding of what the law
14
that a deed of trust be filed on the property.
14
in Colorado is that pertains to a promissory note,
15
These are the issues as they have been set forth in
15
the fact that that is a generic term and the terms
16
the Appeal that was filed by Riva Ridge Partners.
16
and conditions I believe are inherent within the
17
You may remember this matter has come before
17
Town of Vail's authority to enter into agreements
18
the Planning and Environmental Commission in a
18
that will essentially secure that payment will be
19 -
previous meeting. At that time it was determined
19
made in the future.
20
that the Appeal was not timely filed based upon
20
So unless there are any questions, we're ready
21
their appealing of a letter from Mike Mollica that
21
to proceed and to call Jim Curnutte. The thing
22
was dated in June of 1997. That matter was
22
that I would suggest, Greg, is that after Jim
23
reviewed by the Town Council. The Town Council,
23
Curnutte testifies that, if Mr. Heelan, the
24
paraphrasing what occurred, I was present at that
24
Appellants, have any questions that they be given
25
meeting, believed that there were enough questions
25
the opportunity to ask questions at that time
SUMMIT REPORTING 1 800 261 -4818 k7iv) vvo -7Y1-7
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 JA RIDGE APPEAL HEARING
Pages 7 - 10
PAGE 7
1 before we proceed to the next witness.
2 MR. MOFFET: Let me ask you to step back for a
3 second and answer a broader question for us. Given
4 this is an appeal of a Staff decision specific with
5 parking and we basically have two parties to this
6 action, Staff and Riva Ridge, is it we need to
7 solicit public input because this is pretty
8 strictly quasi- judicial?
9 MR. MOORHEAD: That will be up to you, but I
10 think basically it's up to the parties, either the
11 Town of Vail or to the Applicant to call witnesses.
12 Public input is something that's appropriate for
13 legislative matters, but this is clearly a
14 quasi - judicial matter.
15 We'd ask Jim Curnutte to step forward and have
16 a seat at the table where the plans are located.
17 Jim, would you state your name and spell your
18 last name, please?
19 MR. CURNUTTE: My name is Jim Curnutte,
20 C- u- r- n- u- t -t -e.
21 MR. MOORHEAD: Jim, how are you presently
22 employed?
23 MR. CURNUTTE: I work for the Summit County
24 Planning Department.
25 MR. MOORHEAD: And in what capacity do you
PAGE 8
1 work for Summit County?
2 MR. CURNUTTE: I am the Manager of Current
3 Planning.
4 MR. MOORHEAD: And as the Manager of Current
5 Planning, what are your job duties on a day to day
6 basis?
7 MR. CURNUTTE: To handle the current planning
8 workload, the applications in for review by the
9 Planning Commission or Board of County
10 Commissioners, to deal with the public questions
11 and so on.
12 MR. MOORHEAD: What's your educational
13 background that qualifies you for that position?
14 MR. CURNUTTE: I'm crazy I guess. I have got
15 a Bachelor's Degree in Conservation and I have
16 about ten years of experience as a Planner.
17 MR. MOORHEAD: Prior to accepting that
18 position with Summit County, where were you
19 employed?
20 MR. CURNUTTE: At the Town of Vail.
21 MR. MOORHEAD: And where were you employed
22 with the Town of Vail?
23 MR. CURNUTTE: In the Community Development
24 Department.
25 MR. MOORHEAD: And what position did you hold
>UMMIT REPORTING
PAGE 9
1 there?
2 MR. CURNUTTE: I was a Senior Planner.
3 MR. MOORHEAD: And as a Senior Planner, how
4 long were you with the Town?
5 MR. CURNUTTE: I believe it was about three
6 and a half years.
7 MR. MOORHEAD: As a Senior Planner, did you
8 have an opportunity or occasion to work on an
9 application which was filed by Riva Ridge Partners?
10 You may also know it as Serrano's.
11 MR. CURNUTTE: Yes. I was the Planner.
12 MR. MOORHEAD: Would you describe for the
13 Planning Commission, Mr. Curnutte, when you first
14 got involved in that particular project and what
15 your job duties were in relation to it?
16 MR. CURNUTTE: When I first got involved?
17 MR. MOORHEAD: Uh -huh.
18 MR. CURNUTTE: Well, I was actually involved
19 with the Applicants before they even made their
20 application in terms of kind of a preapplication
21 conversation with Staff to determine what the
22 appropriate process would be for them to attempt to
23 proceed to have this private club in what was the
24 Serrano's Building.
25 MR. MOORHEAD: One moment. Jim is looking
PAGE 10
1 over his shoulder to look at me which is natural,
2 so I'm going to move over here.
3 And could you give a description of what that
4 project was described to you to be?
5 MR. CURNUTTE: Well, let's see. It was
6 already approved as one thing and Andy Canutte
7 (phonetic), Senior Planner, handled that project.
8 That was the tear down and rebuild of the building,
9 itself. And my involvement was handling what
10 ultimately turned out to be a conditional use
11 request to amend the previous approved, recently
12 given approval to the third and fourth floors.
13 Originally, it was proposed to be a private club.
14 MR. MOORHEAD: And what were the
15 considerations that were made pursuant to that
16 change in the plans?
17 MR. CURNUTTE: Well, originally my first take
18 on the question was whether a private club could be
19 proposed on the third and fourth floors in a CCl
20 Zone District and the answer was no. That was not
21 specifically listed as an allowed use in that Zone
22 District. However, at the request of the
23 Applicant, I took it to kind of a discussion with
24 the Planning Staff. The Planning Staff I believe
25 still meets once a week to talk about issues and
I OM 11L1 Io n
(970) 468 -9415
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 RIVA RIDGE APPEAL HEARIN Pages 11 - 14
PAGE 11
PAGE 13
1
projects that each of the individual planners are
1
bullet item there in my letter, the letter says the
2
handling. And I believe I had a conversation with
2
following information must be provided in order for
3
the rest of the planners about the proposed use and
3
Staff to adequately review your request. Please
4
how, if there was anyway it could be proposed under
4
respond to the following. The first kind of item
5
any sort of scenario. And the answer was that it
5
does deal with what you asked.
6
was determined to be very similar to the eating and
6
MR. MOORHEAD: Okay. And directing your
7'
drinking establishments that were listed as a
7
attention to the end of that first item, you
8
conditional use in CCl and therefore, I got back to
8
identified there that these are also the categories
9
the Applicants and said, yes. You can apply for a
9
that will be used to determine the parking
10
conditional use. Staff is going to take the
10
requirement for the club; is that correct?
11
interpretation that you're very similar to two of
11
MR. CURNUTTE: Yes. I made that clear at the
12
the types of eating and drinking establishments in
12
time.
13
CCI. That's restaurants I believe and bars and
13
MR. MOORHEAD: Jim, I'd then direct your
14
lounges. And we feel that your proposed private
14
attention to Exhibit D in that same Memo and ask if
15
club is very similar to that. So yes, you can go
15
you would identify that particular document?
16
ahead and apply for a conditional use permit under
16
MR. CURNUTTE: That was the Staff Report to
17
that scenario.
17
the Planning and Environmental Commission that 1
18
MR. MOORHEAD: Who did you relay that
18
wrote for the consideration of the conditional use
19
information to? Do you remember?
19
permit.
20
MR. CURNUTTE: To Glenn Heelan and possibly,
20
MR. MOORHEAD: And does this document also
21
Charlie Davison.
21
establish that the Staff will use the categories of
22
MR. MOORHEAD: Was it after that that a
22
cocktail lounges and bars and restaurants in order
23
conditional use permit, in fact, was submitted for
23
to determine the parking requirement for the club?
24
the use that you just described?
24
MR. CURNUTTE: Yes.
25
MR. CURNUTTE: Yes.
25
MR. MOORHEAD: And this Memorandum was
PAGE 12
PAGE 14
1
MR. MOORHEAD: Jim, I ask you to look at
1
submitted to the Planning and Environmental
2
Exhibit C in the Staff Memorandum. And I believe
2
Commission?
3
that that is a two page letter dated September
3
MR. CURNUTTE: Yes, it was.
4
21st, 1995; is that correct?
4
MR. MOORHEAD: I'd also direct your attention
5
MR. CURNUTTE: Yes.
5
to Page 7 of that document under Staff
6
MR. MOORHEAD: And could you identify that
6
Recommendation and ask you what, if any,
7
particular document?
7
recommendation the Staff had in regard to the
8
MR. CURNUTTE: That was a letter to Mr. Glenn
8
parking analysis?
9
Heelan from myself concerning his application for
9
MR. CURNUTTE: Well, what you're referring to
10
the conditional use permit that we just talked
10
on Page 7 I assume is under the Staff
11
about.
11
Recommendation where we recommended approval and
12
MR. MOORHEAD: And was this letter written
12
there were two conditions, the second condition of
13
after the application had been submitted?
13
which points out the fact that since we were not
14
MR. CURNUTTE: Yes. This would have been my
14
provided with hard drawings of the uses on the
15
first letter that would have gone out to the
15
third and fourth floor at the time it went through
16
Applicant after an application was submitted to let
16
conditional use permit. The condition, the wording
17
him know whether or not the application was
17
of the condition, the point of that is that when we
18
complete or whether or not additional information
18
got essentially building permit applications in our
19
needed to be provided before it could go to a
19
office with hard line drawings, construction
20
public hearing.
20
drawings, at that time the Planning Staff will
21
MR. MOORHEAD: And did the letter in anyway
21
determine what the parking payment fee would be.
22
describe what the uses were that would be
22
MR. MOORHEAD: Did you ever have an
23
considered on the third and fourth floor of the
23
opportunity or did you ever receive such hard line
24
establishment?
24
drawings that enabled you to calculate the parking
25
MR. CURNUTTE: Yes. On Page 1, the first
25
pay -in -lieu fee?
SUMMIT REPORTING 1 800 261 -4818 kyru) 400-y,+lj
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 VA RIDGE APPEAL HEARING Pages 15 - 18
PAGE 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. CURNUTTE: As part of the conditional use
permit review?
MR. MOORHEAD: Yes.
MR. CURNUTTE: I don't believe so. I think
they were preconceptual at that point.
MR. MOORHEAD: When was the first time that
you received plans adequate to calculate a parking
pay -in -lieu fee?
MR. CURNUTTE: Well, I actually don't know
what the month was, but it was sometime after the
approval, but before a building permit was issued.
I think it was in the Spring of '96.
MR. MOORHEAD: And there are some plans in
front of you. Are those the plans that you
reviewed to calculate the parking pay -in -lieu fee?
MR. CURNUTTE: Yes.
MR. MOORHEAD: And could you describe for the
Planning Commission just what review you performed
and how you calculated that particular parking
pay -in -lieu fee?
MR. CURNUTTE: Well, what I did is with kind
of different markers, highlighters, I outlined the
various different types of uses; retail, common,
the restaurant use. And I think there was a fourth
category, but I'm not positive. And so kind of
PAGE 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
generally outlined those areas and then, I
calculated the square footage area of each of those
areas and put the totals down, put individual area
on the sheet here and then, totaled it up on the
bottom and ultimately, I totaled every floor on the
building to get a total for the whole building.
MR. MOORHEAD: Jim, I'm going to hand you what
I have marked up in the upper right corner as
Exhibit F. Excuse me. There was an F. Make that
G. Can you identify that particular document?
MR. CURNUTTE: Yes. This is the total for the
entire building of each of the areas that I
calculated in order to determine the parking
pay -in -lieu fee.
MR. MOORHEAD: Would you explain to the
Planning and Environmental Commission just the
significance of these numbers and how you arrived
at them using the plans as you think is
appropriate?
MR. CURNUTTE: Well, in terms of significance,
obviously, the significance is that these numbers
would determine the fee at whatever the fee was at
the time, $16,000 per space. So it was pretty
significant as to how I came to the final figures
that I came to here. And again, what you're
'UMMIT REPORTING
PAGE 17
1 looking at on the sheet is looks like five
2 categories; floor area, GRFA, commercial or retail
3 mostly in this case, common areas, office and
4 restaurants and then, the associated parking space
5 requirement associated with each one of those. In
6 other words, there was no GRFA in the building, so
7 there were not parking spaces associated with that.
8 For commercial, there was 3,707 square feet of
9 commercial divided by 300. You need to provide one
10 parking space for every 300 feet of commercial.
11 That comes to 12.4 parking spaces and so on.
12 Restaurant I believe is the one we're mostly
13 talking about today, so the private club or what
14 turned out to be the quasi- public club or Vail
15 Village Club falls in that category of 4,978
16 divided by 15 divided by 8. That's how we
17 calculated the parking requirement for the club.
18 And it also included, I think there was some
19 restaurant on the second floor as well and that
20 came to 41 and a half spaces.
21 MR. MOORHEAD: Did you ever have an
22 opportunity to provide this information to
23 Mr. Glenn Heelan?
24 MR. CURNUTTE: Yes. We went over these
25 numbers several times.
PAGE 18
1 MR. MOORHEAD: Could you explain just what
2 that exchange was and the information that you
3 provided to Glenn?
4 MR. CURNUTTE: Well, mostly it was Glenn
5 certainly was interested in knowing what his fee
6 was going to be, so he was very interested in how I
7 calculated those numbers. As a matter of fact,
8 disputed how I calculated the numbers in certain
9 areas. Not necessarily disputed, but questioned
10 whether or not that entry like area should really
11 be counted. You're not into the club until you
12 walk past this point. So there was a lot of give
13 and take about where the lines should be and where
14 they shouldn't be. You can see where I didn't
15 count the air lock here and mechanical over there,
16 those kind of things where I probably had
17 originally counted certain areas, the vestibules
18 and then, there was discussions back and forth.
19 And I remember going again back to the Planning
20 Staff to talk about issues. You know, Glenn would
21 not like us to count the fireplace, so should we
22 really count the fireplace. You can't sit in the
23 fireplace. Should that be part of the restaurant
24 area? Where do you draw the line between the
25 hallway and the club portion? And so there was a
VVV bV.- Ulo
(970) 468 -9415
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 RIVA RIDGE APPEAL HEARIN Pages 19 - 22
PAGE 19
1 lot of that going on. I go to the Staff and agree
2 or didn't agree. And I get back to Glenn and
3 Charlie about whether we agreed or not and here's
4 where I'm going to draw the line.
5 MR. MOORHEAD: Over how long a period of time,
6 Jim, do you think these conversations took place?
7 ' MR. CURNUTTE: Oh, it's tough to guess
8 exactly. Probably, at least a month. Maybe two.
9 MR. MOORHEAD: How many meetings do you thin
10 you had personally with Glenn face to face and
11 during the course of these discussions?
12 MR. CURNUTTE: I would say at least, two.
13 Possibly, three. But I feel pretty comfortable
14 saying there were at least, two meetings where we
15 went over the numbers.
16 MR. MOORHEAD: How many telephone
17 conversations did you have with him during that
18 period of time?
19 MR. CURNUTTE: Maybe only two. Again, in
20 response to I will go check with Staff, we'll see
21 what we're going to do about that and then, I'm
22 sure I called, yes. We're not going to count the
23 fireplace, but we're going to count whatever.
24 MR. MOORHEAD: At anytime did you become
25 involved in a discussion as to whether or not
PAGE 20
1 payment would be required at the time of the
2 building permit or whether it would be put off
3 until the issuing of a temporary certificate of
4 occupancy?
5 MR. CURNUTTE: Yes. I don't know exactly how
6 involved I was, but that question came up while 1
7 was working at the Town of Vail. And I don't
8 remember what process we went through to change
9 that. But the procedure in place at the time was
10 that everyone pays their parking pay -in -lieu fee
11 before they get a building permit and for this
12 project it was delayed until a TCO or a CO was
13 requested, and I don't think I had a lot to do with
14 that decision, but.
15 MR. MOORHEAD: Do you remember whether or n
16 part of that discussion concerned whether or not it
17 would actually be built out as a club similar to a
18 restaurant and bar or whether it would be built out
19 as residential?
20 MR. CURNUTTE: Yes. As I recall, right up
21 until the last minutes or maybe until I left the
22 Town of Vail, there was still this, you know, the
23 owners or applicants or whatever, Riva Ridge was
24 debating whether to go the club route or to go the
25 original approval which was one residence with some
PAGE 21
1 office space on the third floor. And so there were
2 really two scenarios that were approved for the
3 building all along.
4 MR. MOORHEAD: Okay. Based on your personal
5 contact with Glenn Heelan and based on your
6 experience in the Community Development Department,
7 do you have an opinion as to whether or not Glenn
8 Heelan understood the classification of the third
9 and fourth floors as eating and drinking
10 establishments?
11 MR. CURNUTTE: Yes.
12 MR. MOORHEAD: Did he ever come to you with a
13 suggestion that they would be similar to eating and
14 drinking establishments?
15 MR. CURNUTTE: Well, like I said, I think
16 originally, you know, going way back to the very
17 beginning before an application was even submitted,
18 I believe he came to the Staff with an idea of a
19 private club and was told a private club was not an
20 allowed or conditional use in CCI, at least on
21 those levels of building and I believe it was his
22 suggestion, well, isn't it very similar to some of
23 those other uses I'm seeing in there? Couldn't you
24 go talk to Staff and see if you can determine it's
25 similar and therefore, I could be able to apply for
PAGE 22
1 a conditional use permit. Otherwise, his only
2 option was to amend the code and I don't think he
3 wanted to go through that time and effort to do
4 that first. And so yes, I think it was his
5 suggestion originally and Staff agreed. And once
6 we agreed and told him he can proceed that he made
7 an application for the conditional use permit.
8 MR. MOORHEAD: So he actually proceeded with
9 an application for a conditional use permit for the
10 third and fourth floors to be established as eating
11 and drinking establishments; is that correct?
12 MR. CURNUTTE: I guess. Yes. He actually
13 made an application originally for a private club
14 and we determined it was similar to other eating
15 and drinking establishments listed in the CCI Zone
16 District. It later was determined that a private
17 club was not something that the Planning Commission
18 wanted to see in the Village, so the application
19 was amended to be a quasi - public club.
20 MR. MOORHEAD: Thank you. I have no further
21 questions at this time.
22 MR. MOFFET: Thanks, Tom. Glenn, do you have
23 any questions?
24 MR. HEELAN: Just a couple questions at this
25 time.
SUMMIT REPORTING 1 800 261 -4818 ty/u) 40a -y4i0
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 VA RIDGE APPEAL HEARING Pages 23 - 26
` —V "" --'O10 (970) 468 -9415
PAGE 23
PAGE 25
1
Jim, when did you leave the employment of the
1
MR. CURNUTTE: With that decision?
2
Town of Vail?
2
MR. DAVISON: Uh -huh.
3
MR. CURNUTTE: I think it was June 17th I
3
MR. CURNUTTE: Boy, I can't recall whether
4
believe of —
4
that was Bob McLaurin or the Council because again
5
MR. HEELAN: '96?
5
it was different than it had normally been done.
6
MR. CURNUTTE: '96.
6
MR. DAVISON: But in your recollection that
7
MR.*HEELAN: You stated here today that when
7
was approved?
8
we went through the process that there really
8
MR. CURNUTTE: Yes.
9
weren't firm plans and still even some conceptual
9
MR. DAVISON: Okay.
10
question as to how we're going to finish —
10
MR. MOFFET: Anything else from you gentlemen?
11
MR. CURNUTTE: Whether you were going to
11
MR. HEELAN: No. Thank you.
12
13
residential and —
12
MR. MOORHEAD: I have a follow -up based on
MR. HEELAN: Whether we're going to have
13
that question.
14
residential at the top two floors?
14
MR. MOFFET: Please.
15
MR. CURNUTTE: I asked for hard line plans of
15
MR. MOORHEAD: Jim, I direct your attention to
16
17
the club.
16
Exhibit E which is attached to the memo which is a
MR. HEELAN: Uh -huh.
17
letter dated June 21st, 1996 to Mike Mollica from
18
MR. CURNUTTE: And you said until we feel
18
Glenn Heelan. Do you see that before you?
19
comfortable they're going to approve the club, I
19
MR. CURNUTTE: Yes.
20
don't want to go to the expense of that. So yes,
20
MR. MOORHEAD: And in that letter the first
21
that was conceptual at that time.
21
sentence indicates, pursuant to our previous
22
MR. HEELAN: In our meetings that you talked
22
conversations, it is my understanding and agreement
23
about per the Town's questions, do you ever recall
23
that the parking pay -in -lieu fees currently
24
us questioning the Board based on seats?
24
estimated at $457,334.56 as established by
25
MR. CURNUTTE: No, I don't.
25
Community Development in accordance with the plans
PAGE 24
PAGE 26
1
MR. HEELAN: I refer you to the back of
1
and specifications submitted by Riva Ridge
2
Exhibit G where we had seat calculations and there
2
Partners, Limited Liability Company that indicate
3
are some questions of how many number of spaces we
3
completion of the third and fourth floors as a
4
should have and whether that should be based on
4
quasi - public club will be paid over five years with
5
seats?
5
the first payment due and payable at the time a
6
MR. CURNUTTE: I don't recall whether we had
6
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Do
7
that discussion, but I certainly did do a
7
you see that sentence?
8
calculation based on seats because the code
8
MR. CURNUTTE: Yes.
9
required what are the most restrictive or the
9
MR. MOORHEAD: That calculation of the
10
requirement is the one used, so I did the
10
$457,000, is that based upon your calculation?
11
12
calculation.
MR. HEELAN: I think if we're going into the
11
12
MR. CURNUTTE: Yes. That matches. As you can
13
issue of restrictive and the nature of what the
see, that matches my numbers exactly.
14
code reads today in terms of a lengthy discussion,
13
MR. MOORHEAD: And that was a calculation that
15
I would contend in our conversations we
14
was made based upon the square footage of the
16
certainly
discussed the seats because we had lots of
15
facility; is that correct.
17
discussions about it at that time.
16
MR. CURNUTTE: Yes.
18
MR. DAVISON: One other question. You
17
MR. MOORHEAD: And that was not a calculation
19
mentioned that basically there had been
18
that was based upon any seat plan; is that correct?
20
a
discussion on postponing up until the CO whatever
19
MR. CURNUTTE: That's right.
21
the payment —
20
MR. MOORHEAD: So that was a final
22
21
determination that you had made as of the time that
MR. MOORHEAD: Right.
22
you concluded your calculation of the parking
23
MR. DAVISON: On pay -in -lieu. You mentioned
23
pay -in -lieu; is that correct?
24
that you had something to do, but you were really
24
MR. CURNUTTE: Yes.
25
not involved. Can you tell us who was involved?
25
MR. MOORHEAD: And there was some discussion
SUMMIT REPORTTNC: , — , I—
., _
` —V "" --'O10 (970) 468 -9415
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 RIVA RIDGE APPEAL HEARIN Pages 27 - 30
PAGE 27
PAGE 29
1
in regard to the calculation of a seat plan. You
1
MR. DAVISON: By restrictive, you said right
2
indicated that you had made some calculation based
2
now that it was whichever was —
3
upon seats; is that correct?
3
MR. CURNUTTE: More restrictive.
4
MR. CURNUTTE: Yes.
4
MR. DAVISON: And what was the definition?
5
MR. MOORHEAD: And what was your reason for
5
MR. HEELAN: What was your definition of that,
6
doing that?
6
Jim?
T
MR. CURNUTTE: Again, because the code says
7
MR. CURNUTTE: The one that would have the
8
that the parking requirement for a restaurant or an
8
highest parking demand.
9
eating and drinking establishment is either
9
MR. HEELAN: Demand.
10
according to the UBC requirements or on a per seat
10
MR. DAVISON: Demand in terms of number of
11
basis. I believe it's one parking space for every
11
parking spaces?
12
eight seats and you do the two and then, you go
12
MR. CURNUTTE: The number of parking spaces
13
with the one that's the most restrictive. So I
13
that would be required.
14
probably had to do it both ways which I did here to
14
MR. DAVISON: For money?
15
see what the numbers would be and it looks like the
15
MR. CURNUTTE: Yes, if you were going to pay
16
results of my calculations would be 37 according to
16
the park -in -lieu fee, yes.
17
the seating way of doing it and 28 according to the
17
MR. MOFFET: Thank you.
18
other way of doing it. So that's the one that's
18
MR. MOORHEAD: Mike Mollica, if you could have
19
more restrictive and so that's the one they used.
19
a seat over here if you wouldn't mind?
20
MR. MOORHEAD: When you use the term more
20
Mike, it's my understanding that you
21
restrictive, what did that term mean to you as you
21
personally have prepared the Memorandum to the
22
administrated the Town of Vail Code in this regard?
22
Planning and Environmental Commission that they're
23
MR. CURNUTTE: Well, essentially, the one that
23
considering today; is that correct?
24
would cause the highest parking requirement.
24
MR. MOLLICA: Yes, it is.
25
MR. MOORHEAD: And is that consistent with how
25
MR. MOORHEAD: And that Memorandum is based
PAGE 28
PAGE 30
1
you had calculated parking requirements throughout
1
upon your actual experience with this particular
2
your career with the Town of Vail?
2
proposal or appeal as it now would properly be
3
MR. CURNUTTE: Yes.
3
identified and your knowledge of the parking
4
MR. MOORHEAD: And was it your understanding
4
pay -in -lieu issue; is that correct?
5
that was how the entire Staff interpreted and
5
MR. MOLLICA: That is correct.
6
administered that particular provision of the Code?
6
MR. MOORHEAD: A few things just real quickly,
7
MR. CURNUTTE: Yes.
7
kind of housekeeping items to make certain we get
8
MR. MOORHEAD: Okay. Nothing further.
8
these items properly identified. I'd like to
9
MR. MOFFET: Thank you, Tom. Anything else?
9
direct your attention to Exhibit A of the
10
Recross basically?
10
Memorandum. And if you could describe real quickly
11
MR. DAVISON: Basically, just to further
11
for the Planning and Environmental Commission just
12
understand in terms of the seating calculations,
12
what that document is?
13
what they were based on in terms of blueprints that
13
MR. MOLLICA: Exhibit A consists of 3 pages.
14
you actually had that represented the seating
14
Pages 1 and 2 are the actual appeal form that was
15
itself, or calculations on the formula, itself?
15
completed and signed by Glenn Heelan. And the
16
MR. CURNUTTE: I'm sorry.
16
final page is a letter that I wrote to Glenn Heelan
17
MR. DAVISON: In other words, I don't think
17
dated June 17th of 1997 indicating the parking
18
that there were any seating as specific seating at
18
calculation and associated fee for the pay -in -lieu.
19
that time.
19
MR. MOORHEAD: Mike, I'd like to direct your
20
MR. CURNUTTE: Right. That's a very good
20
attention to Exhibit E. Can you identify that
21
question. How did I come up with these numbers?
21
particular document?
22
Oh, it says estimate on here. I think since I
22
MR. MOLLICA: Exhibit E is a letter from Glenn
23
didn't have an actual seating plan, I must have
23
Heelan to me dated June 21st, 1996. This was a
24
tried to guess a typical how many sets you could
24
letter that I requested Glenn Heelan provide so
25
have fit in these various areas.
25
that we had a very clear understanding as to the
SUMMIT REPORTING 1 800 261 -4818 kv/V) +00-"Ij
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 VA RIDGE APPEAL HEARING
Pages 31 - 34
PAGE 31
1 pay -in -lieu requirement prior to my issuing the
2 building permit for the project.
3 MR. MOORHEAD: And was it your understanding
4 that the building permit was to be issued without
5 the parking pay -in -lieu being paid prior to its
6 issuance?
7 MR. MOLLICA: Yes.
8 MR. MOORHEAD: And was it your understanding
9 that the parking pay -in -lieu would then be paid
10 prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of
11 occupancy?
12 MR. MOLLICA: That is correct.
13 MR. MOORHEAD: Has a temporary certificate of
14 occupancy been issued for this property?
15 MR. MOLLICA: No.
16 MR. MOORHEAD: Mike, in regard to your letter
17 in which of June 17th, 1996, excuse me, 1997 which
18 you state the calculation of the parking
19 pay -in -lieu fee. Could you tell the Planning and
20 Environmental Commission just how you arrived at
21 that calculation?
22 MR. MOLLICA: Certainly, Tom. Very similar
23 methodology that Jim Curnutte used to determine his
24 calculation. I reviewed the plans and utilized
25 three, separate categories; restaurant/club use,
PAGE 32
1 retail commercial use and thirdly, office use.
2 Common area does not have a parking requirement
3 associated with it, so I did not utilize that.
4 Going through the revised floor plans, I calculated
5 the square footages and using the appropriate
6 numbers, came up with the required parking spaces
7 that are indicated in this particular letter. I
8 would point out that at this time it was the first
9 time that I had the opportunity of viewing a
10 seating plan for the Vail Village Club and also
11 analyzed the parking as it related to numbers of
12 seats as well.
13 MR. MOORHEAD: Could you describe what that
14 seating plan is and how it was arrived at to the
15 best of your knowledge?
16 MR. MOLLICA: Prior to approximately, June of
17 '97 I had not seen a seating plan for the club. As
18 you know, restaurants and lounges typically have a
19 seating plan. It's a floor plan that indicates
20 table locations and number of seats. And at that
21 time the seating plan was dropped off at my office
22 and I analyzed that plan accordingly.
23 MR. MOORHEAD: Is there any regulation
24 concerning a requirement for a certain number of
25 seats in this particular establishment?
iUMMIT REPORTING
1 oM . —
PAGE 33
1 MR. MOLLICA: No.
2 MR. MOORHEAD: Are they required to have any
3 seats at all?
4 MR. MOLLICA: No.
5 MR. MOORHEAD: Is it fair to say that a
6 seating plan is completely discretionary by the
7 operator of a facility of this nature?
8 MR. MOLLICA: Yes.
9 MR. MOORHEAD: Are there some instances where
10 we have fixed seating plans?
11 MR. MOLLICA: There are some instances, yes.
12 MR. MOORHEAD: And what would those be like?
13 MR. MOLLICA: One immediate example would be
14 McDonalds where they have fixed seating. These
15 seats are actually bolted to the floor.
16 MR. MOORHEAD: Was there any fixed seating in
17 this particular plan when it was submitted?
18 MR. MOLLICA: I believe there was perhaps one
19 booth which had fixed seating, but overall, no.
20 MR. MOORHEAD: And there was no particular
21 requirement that there be fixed seating; is that
22 correct?
23 MR. MOLLICA: That is correct.
24 MR. MOORHEAD: Based on your calculation, what
25 is the most restrictive or more restrictive
PAGE 34
1 calculation in this particular instance?
2 MR. MOLLICA: As it relates to the restaurant
3 and club use?
4 MR. MOORHEAD: Yes.
5 MR. MOLLICA: It would be a calculation that
6 involved the square footage analysis.
7 MR. MOORHEAD: And is that consistent with
8 identifying that as the parking pay -in -lieu
9 requirement, is that consistent with how the Town
10 of Vail Community Development Department has
11 administered the parking pay -in -lieu and the
12 parking requirements for commercial establishments
13 in the Town of Vail?
14 MR. MOLLICA: Yes.
15 MR. MOORHEAD: Subsequent to your letter of
16 June 17th, 1997 did you ever have an occasion to
17 have any meetings with Glenn Heelan and Charlie
18 Davison in regard to your calculations and
19 findings?
20 MR. MOLLICA: Yes, I did.
21 MR. MOORHEAD: And approximately, when did
22 those occur by?
23 MR. MOLLICA: Those would have occurred
24 between April and June.
25 MR. MOORHEAD: Okay. And what was the reaso
- vvv --u
(970) 468 -9415
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 RIVA RIDGE APPEAL HEARIN Pages 35 - 38
PAGE 35
PAGE 37
1
for those meetings?
1
calculation of the occupancy load of this
2
MR. MOLLICA: Those were meetings that were
2
particular establishment?
3
called by Glenn Heelan because Glenn wanted to
3
MR. MOLLICA: Yes, he did.
4
discuss this, the Staff's calculation for the
4
MR. MOORHEAD: And what was his calculation?
5
pay -in -lieu and had some specific questions about
5
How does it compare to the calculation that you
6
certain areas that may or may not have been
6
made for the purposes of determining the parking
T
included.
7
pay -in -lieu requirement?
8
MR. MOORHEAD: Did you, in fact, meet with him
8
MR. MOLLICA: Art's calculation in summary
9
and make any revisions in your calculations?
9
would require more parking spaces than the
10
MR. MOLLICA: Yes, I did.
10
calculation performed by Staff.
11
MR. MOORHEAD: Okay. And what were the natu
11
MR. MOORHEAD: And is this something that we
12
of the revisions that you made in calculations?
12
normally will do when we're making a determination
13
MR. MOLLICA: The nature of the revisions were
13
of parking pay -in -lieu?
14
made basically because certain changes had occurred
14
MR. MOLLICA: Absolutely not.
15
during the construction of the building. For
15
MR. MOORHEAD: Why did you do it in this
16
example, on the lower level there's an area that
16
particular circumstance?
17
was initially thought to be an office. It was
17
MR. MOLLICA: We were making every attempt to
18
labeled as an office and it was calculated as an
18
work with Mr. Heelan to try to resolve the
19
office as far as the pay -in -lieu is concerned.
19
pay -in -lieu issue. We agreed to have Art do that
20
During the construction Glenn realized that that
20
work at the Town's expense so that we had a clear
21
space was too small to be an office and
21
understanding of what the Uniform Building Code
22
subsequently converted it to a storage room for the
22
would require in terns of occupant load.
23
restaurant. At Glenn's request we then modified
23
MR. MOORHEAD: And is the Uniform Building
24
the pay -in -lieu calculations to back that office
24
Code what you used to make your determination of
25
space out of the fee.
25
the parking pay -in -lieu requirement?
PAGE 36
PAGE 38
1
MR. MOORHEAD: And did you actually visit the
1
MR. MOLLICA: Partially.
2
site to verify that information?
2
MR. MOORHEAD: And in what manners is it a
3
MR. MOLLICA: Yes, I did.
3
tool that you used to make a determination?
4
MR. MOORHEAD: And what, if any, other
4
MR. MOLLICA: As it relates to restaurants and
5
adjustments were made in your calculation?
5
eating establishments, the Staff utilizes the
6
MR. MOLLICA: There was other adjustments made
6
Uniform Building Code Table 33a to determine
7
in the lower level of the plan or lower level of
7
occupant load factor and that's where the 15, the
8
the structure. An area that was initially to be a
8
15 square foot number comes into play that Jim
9
ski tuning facility, that that space was then
9
described earlier.
10
changed to a storage room for the ski storage
10
MR. MOORHEAD: And did Art actually give you a
11
facility. And we made the modification again. All
11
document which summarizes his calculation?
12
the modifications that were made reduced the
12
MR. MOLLICA: Yes, he did.
13
requirement number of spaces.
13
MR. MOORHEAD: If I could get a copy of that
14
MR. MOORHEAD: And had you ever asked Art
14
from you, we would request that that be deemed
15
Hoagland to also do a calculation of occupancy
15
Exhibit H for the purpose of this hearing. I have
16
loads on this particular establishment?
16
no further questions for Mike at this time.
17
MR. MOLLICA: Yes, I did.
17
Thanks.
18
MR. MOORHEAD: First of all, would you tell
18
MR. MOFFET: Thanks, Tom. Glenn, questions
19
the Planning and Environmental Commission just who
19
for Mike?
20
Art Hoagland is?
20
MR. HEELAN: Mike, you mentioned that you
21
MR. MOLLICA: Art Hoagland is a Building
21
didn't have adequate seating plans with respect to
22
Inspector who has many, many years of experience
22
this until I dropped them off in June of '97?
23
behind him. He currently is employed as a Contract
23
MR. MOLLICA: That's correct.
24
Building Inspector with the Town of Vail.
24
MR. HEELAN: These are dated 6/1/96. These
25
MR. MOORHEAD: And did he provide to you a
25
were seating plans used by Jim Curnutte, so I think
SUMMIT REPORTING 1 800 261 -4818 ky/u1 4oa -y►i-1
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 VA RIDGE APPEAL HEARING Pages 39 - 42
PAGE 39
1 they were available and I think they were discussed
2 with Jim Curnutte. I wanted to make sure it was in
3 the record these were available and part of the
4 Building Code set that we submitted in June of '96.
5 MR. MOLLICA: Is that a question?
6 MR. HEELAN: No. I just asked if they were
7 available. You stated, did you not state that in
8 June of '97 you didn't have access to seating
9 plans?
10 MR. MOLLICA: Yes. I did state that.
11 MR. HEELAN: Were these not in the Building
12 Department?
13 MR. MOLLICA: To my knowledge, no.
14 MR. HEELAN: Then how did Jim Curnutte —
15 maybe I should call Jim back to determine the dates
16 on the seating plans that he had here from Item
17 2.4, 2.5.
18 MR. MOLLICA: I guess you will have to ask
19 Jim.
20 MR. HEELAN: Okay.
21 MR. MOFFET: Anything else?
22 MR. DAVISON: You were mentioning that there's
23 been some revisions. Obviously, that was an
24 involved situation. There were some revisions to
25 the actual number of spaces? Yes or no?
PAGE 40
1 MR. MOLLICA: Yes. There were revisions.
2 MR. DAVISON: You mentioned that those were
3 really by adapting some of the changes that were
4 requested by us for you to analyze?
5 MR. MOLLICA: I believe they all were,
6 Charlie.
7 MR. DAVISON: Would you say that the first
8 number, that was an estimate at that time of
9 457,000 and your first estimate to 571,000, what
10 were those revisions based on, to go up to 571?
11 MR. MOLLICA: There were no revisions that
12 were based upon that. My analysis was a review of
13 your building permit set.
14 MR. DAVISON: But it was a revision?
15 MR. MOLLICA: I don't have any knowledge of
16 that.
17 MR. DAVISON: And further from that there were
18 two, additional changes of those amounts?
19 MR. MOLLICA: That's correct.
20 MR. DAVISON: With one down to 547 to the
21 current one of 538?
22 MR. MOLLICA: I don't have that in front of
23 me, but that sounds right.
24 MR. DAVISON: Thank you.
25 MR. MOFFET: Thank you. Do you have any
>UMMIT REPORTINC7
PAGE 41
1 additional questions, Tom?
2 MR. MOORHEAD: No. The third remaining issue
3 involves the requirement for security on the
4 granting of a period of time within which to pay
5 this particular parking pay -in -lieu. And in your
6 packet — I don't know if it's in your packet. I
7 have a letter that I'll make copies of and provide
8 to the Commission as Exhibit I which has attached
9 to it a proposed promissory note which was
10 developed for the purpose of securing the payment
11 of this particular parking pay -in -lieu if it's to
12 be paid over time. Our Town of Vail Code makes
13 reference to a promissory note being signed for the
14 extension of allowing the parking pay -in -lieu to be
15 paid over a period of time.
16 A promissory note is not described in the Town
17 of Vail Ordinances. A promissory note is described
18 in the Colorado Revised Statutes and is a generic
19 term and a promissory note is essentially an
20 agreement to pay in the future. And there's no
21 requirement in the Colorado Revised Statutes or in
22 the Town of Vail Municipal Code as to what the
23 appropriate conditions are with a promissory note.
24 It's a generic term and I do not believe that
25 there's anything within the Town of Vail Municipal
PAGE 42
1 Code that would limit the ability of the Town to
2 require adequate security for the allowance of an
3 applicant to pay a substantial amount of money over
4 a period of time. The Town Council upon the
5 application of the Vail Town Manager granted the
6 authority to the Town Manager in this particular
7 instance and in all instances that have a
8 substantial, parking pay -in -lieu fee to extend it
9 for a greater than five year period of time. And
10 the reason that permission was granted was because
11 there has been a significant increase in the amount
12 of the parking pay -in -lieu fee. It has been
13 increased from a lower figure up to $16,000. And
14 there had not been a change in the Code consistent
15 with that increase in the parking pay -in -lieu, so
16 the Code continues and today continues to require a
17 payment within five years. And with the larger
18 sums of money that can be generated as we're seeing
19 in this particular case, it might not be reasonable
20 to require payment within five years. And for that
21 reason, the Vail Town Council granted authority to
22 the Town Manager to extend it over a longer period
23 of time up to ten years. And that information was
24 reflected in a letter to Glenn Heelan from the Town
25 Manager and I will to have get that date for you
—V "" -'°i° (970) 468 -9415
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 RIVA RIDGE APPEAL HEARIN Pages 43 - 46
PAGE 43
1 and make a copy of that letter. I don't know that
2 it's within your packet right now.
3 MR. MOFFET: Excuse me, Tom. Let me interrupt
4 for a second. I want the record to reflect that
5 Glenn Uselton is leaving. He has a previous
6 engagement. Thank you.
7 MR. MOORHEAD: Okay.
8 MR. USELTON: Thank you.
9 MR. MOORHEAD: And I will have both of those
10 items marked as an Exhibit and available for your
11 consideration.
12 MR. MOFFET: Tom, I'm sorry. Did you say you
13 were going to get us a copy of that section of the
14 ordinance?
15 MR. MOORHEAD: Yes.
16 MR. MOFFET: Okay. Thank you. And does that
17 conclude your presentation?
18 MR. MOORHEAD: Yes, it does.
19 MR. MOFFET: Tell you what, before we go to
20 the Appellants' presentation, let's take a short
21 break. We're going to be here for awhile and
22 readjourn in about five to seven minutes. Thank
23 you.
24 (Whereupon, we were off the record)
25 MR. MOFFET: We're back on the record. For
PAGE 44
1 the record, our quorum consists of Commissioners
2 Schofield, Amsden, Aasland and Moffet. And now,
3 the Appellant.
4 MR. MOORHEAD: One matter if I could very
5 quickly? Excuse me. I did provide to the
6 Commission and to the Court Reporter copies of
7 Exhibit H which is the calculation by Art Hoagland;
8 Exhibit I, a letter dated November 18th to
9 Mr. Glenn Heelan from Mike Mollica; Exhibit J which
10 is a letter from myself to Glenn Heelan with a
11 promissory note attached and K which is the copy of
12 the Town of Vail Code in regard to Commercial I and
13 Commercial 11 parking pay -in -lieu requirements.
14 There was an issue raised on the questioning
15 of Mike Mollica by Glenn Heelan in regard to a
16 seating plan. And if I could recall Jim Curnutte
17 for one or two questions, we could establish what
18 that seating plan was and whether or not he had
19 seen it.
20 MR. MOFFET: Welcome back, Jim.
21 MR. CURNUTTE: Thank you.
22 MR. MOFFET: I assume you want Glenn to ask
23 the question of Jim here?
24 MR. MOORHEAD: I can ask Jim.
25 Jim, as you look at those plans again now, is
PAGE 45
1 there a seating plan that you had the opportunity
2 to review in the past?
3 MR. CURNUTTE: Yes.
4 MR. MOORHEAD: And how do you know that you
5 reviewed it in the past?
6 MR. CURNUTTE: This is my writing, each of the
7 numbers on here.
8 MR. MOORHEAD: Was that the seating plan that
9 you considered when you were calculating the
10 parking pay -in -lieu fee?
11 MR. CURNUTTE: It looks like it is because I
12 am just looking at one page here. On the second
13 level it looks like the total is 112 seats. That's
14 what is in this chart. Without looking at the
15 other sheets, I would say yes. This is what I used
16 to come up with these numbers.
17 MR. MOORHEAD: Great. Thank you very much.
18 MR. MOFFET: Thanks, Jim. I assume there were
19 no more questions, Glenn?
20 MR. HEELAN: I don't think so, Greg.
21 MR. MOFFET: Okay. Go ahead.
22 MR. HEELAN: I didn't say for the record. I'm
23 Glenn Heelan representing Riva Ridge Partners, LLC
24 and one of the managers of that entity.
25 First, I'd like to thank you all for the
PAGE 46
1 opportunity to finally present our appeal to you
2 this afternoon. Not realizing we were preparing
3 for a deposition type interview if you will, we had
4 a much more casual and normal approach I suspect.
5 This Appeal is probably different in nature,
6 but consists of one of interpretation. We believe
7 and hopefully you will also believe there was a
8 valid reason for this Appeal and the correct steps
9 can be taken as a result. We're not here to
10 discuss whether the ordinance of pay -in -lieu is
11 right or wrong. And we're not here to discuss if
12 the amount for parking has increased too much and
13 whether it's too high or not. This issue has been
14 discussed in the past and even though the ordinance
15 had not been changed for sometime and it's been
16 over a year since a revision was first discussed,
17 we're sure that it will be brought up by other
18 concerned citizens.
19 What we're here for is to convince you that
20 what we're requesting is a fair and correct
21 interpretation of the ordinance as it was written
22 and how it should be applied. We're not asking for
23 variances. We're not asking you to deviate from
24 the ordinances.
25 In the past the parking pay -in -lieu fee
SUMMIT REPORTING 1 800 261 -4818 (VIU) 4(38 -941.3
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 VA RIDGE APPEAL HEARING Pages 47 - 50
PAGE 47
1
2
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
calculations have always been done like this. The
normal procedure as you learned earlier today, as
we went through earlier today, you start with
blueprints, the occupancy standards and you get
Staffs interpretation of the facts. Up to now
every Staff calculation had been done before the
building permit. Staff would receive the
blueprints and by the occupancy standards, based on
square footage and calculates a parking fee based
on those occupancy standards. Unfortunately or
fortunately, it was agreed very early on that due
to the fact we had not decided if we were going to
finish the building as residential or as
commercial, we all agreed to wait until the TCO to
reach a final decision in reference to the final
amount and terms of payment. Whether it was a good
or bad decision is really irrelevant at this point.
The issue is that we all agreed to do it in this
very unique way. And in fact, we are unique.
We're the only product that's being judged or can
be judged as a finished product. We're not looking
at blueprints, but looking at reality. We're
unique in that we believe we are the only product
in which seating is more restrictive than the
occupancy standards. Typically, a restaurant faces
PAGE 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
attempts to cram every seat possible into the
available space. We have also tried to maximize
our seats, but due to the physical configuration of
the building and the ambiance required, it's not
physically possible to have enough seats to reach
the 381 seats that the Staff has calculated under
the space requirements. We're not here to judge,
but to apply the ordinances as was written and
respecting the intention of how it was written, an
honest intellectual approach to the intent and not
a rubber stamp to the way it's always been done.
The Town Council that approved this ordinance
must have had the restrictive nature of seating in
mind. Just ask yourselves why was the language
included in the first place. Would it be to
differentiate a convention center from a fine
dining restaurant or from a cafeteria, a McDonalds,
a theater or a quasi - public club? All of these
businesses have different use objectives as to how
to use the space. Therefore, different parking
impacts. Therefore, different parking space
calculations. I submit to you that maybe a
convention center should be calculated using the
building occupancy standards. Their seating
configuration can change dramatically depending on
iUMMiT RFP0RT1NR
PAGE 49
1 the size of the event. But this doesn't happen in
2 a fine dining restaurant, much less in a
3 quasi- public club ambiance. So what was the
4 intent, but to anticipate which one of both
5 measurements was more restrictive, more realistic
6 toward its real use and more realistic to the real
7 impact of additional seats creating additional
8 parking demands.
9 It's logical that the demands for parking is
10 created by drinking and eating establishments based
11 on the number of seats in that establishment. In
12 our case, that number of seats is more restrictive
13 than the Staffs calculations based on building
14 occupancy standards. We believe we're being
15 overtaxed. We believe that the intent of the Code
16 was an either or situation. It was meant to
17 anticipate that seating could be more restrictive.
18 We believe that Staffs calculation and
19 interpretations are unilateral to the Town treasury
20 and not to the intent of the ordinance as written.
21 Our appeal to you is for our real seating
22 capacity to be recognized. We have 210 seats.
23 Staffs interpretation which is done by Building
24 Code occupancy standards reflects 381 seats.
25 Let's go to a chart in terms of how that
PAGE 50
1 shakes out in terms of the fees. If you look at
2 the chart on the board, based on the occupancy
3 standards measured by square footage, the
4 restaurant club would require 47.64 parking spaces.
5 This is on the right -hand side of the chart. The
6 total building would require 59.996 spaces. We all
7 agree that we're grandfathered 27 spaces for the
8 old building. Therefore, based on occupancy
9 standards, it's 32.996 or $538,916.20. Based on
10 the actual number of seats that could be fitted in
11 the establishment, the restaurant club would only
12 require 26.25. The total for the whole building is
13 38.76. Once again, we're grandfathered 27.
14 Taxable spaces would be 11.76, so we'd have
15 $192,080.55 in fees. We don't blame Staff. There
16 are 300 and some odd thousand reasons to calculate
17 it their way.
18 What this means in our mind is that we're only
19 looking for a fair and honest treatment by
20 recognizing the real seating capacity. And you
21 folks are now the judges of that interpretation.
22 And before we continue with the rest of the
23 Appeal, we hope we brought a sense of logic into
24 this process. We'd like to answer any questions or
25 any observations and any comments before we
i ow cuiwoio (970) 46 8-9415
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 RNA RIDGE APPEAL HEARIN Pages 51 - 54
PAGE 51
PAGE 53
1
proceed? Any questions at all?
1
MR. MOFFET: John, anything else?
2
MR. MOFFET: John, why don't we start with
2
MR. SCHOFIELD: No.
3
you?
3
MR. MOFFET: Greg?
4
MR. SCHOFIELD: Glenn, is there any legal
4
MR. AMSDEN: It's evident that design affects
5
reason that would prevent you from utilizing the
5
seating in any kind of eating establishment. You
6
space for full occupancy loads in the future?
6
have selected a pattern of a center island bar
7
MR. HEELAN: Yes. There is potential, and
7
which does, in fact, create circulation problems
8
just to digress for a minute John, when we got the
8
from an architectural standpoint. It also creates
9
revised numbers from the Town in there June, et al
9
less seating than could be done there. What you
10
letters, thereafter, the June 17th letter being
10
just stated earlier I don't believe applies here,
11
571,000, and we did meet with the Town and we did
11
Glenn, depending on what you pick for your design,
12
try to resolve this with Staff. Then we went
12
if you put a bar in the center of a space, you're
13
through the process of even taking them to the
13
going to create a circulatory situation which
14
building to see why the differences between what
14
limits the amount of seating you can put in that
15
the maximum number of seats we could really get in
15
space. I believe that some of the design creates
16
there and why we were so far apart if you will. We
16
some of the seating situation you have.
17
were trying to figure out why there was some
17
MR. HEELAN: Greg, can you point out where
18
discrepancy versus the number of seats versus what
18
that center bar is? I don't think there is one.
19
they were saying you could have. When we walked
19
MR. AMSDEN: Second and third floor there's
20
through the building, because of '88 issues and a
20
center bars. In fact, on the top there's center
21
variety, this Code was adopted in 1978 1 believe or
21
bars.
22
1974. Building codes have changed. The parking
22
MR. HEELAN: Second level plan, you know the
23
requirement code, I think it was adopted in that
23
kitchen is in the middle?
24
time. This is a small site. There are building
24
MR. AMSDEN: That also creates —
25
code issues. We have a lot of corridors in this
25
MR. HEELAN: Because of the design criteria of
PAGE 52
PAGE 54
1
building. We were told that wasn't appropriate in
1
the building, you're right, but in addition to
2
terms to try to figure out how to get to the space.
2
that, there were certain physical constraints. We
3
We couldn't put more seats that would allow us to
3
couldn't do anything else with ventilation and
4
flow through the space, otherwise we're going to
4
things because of the low floor to ceiling heights
5
have fire issues. So the best answer I can give
5
of the building. Believe me, we tried every which
6
you, we tried to maximize our seating capacity for
6
way with the architects that we retained to try to
7
the kind of establishment we have and that's all we
7
figure out better uses of the space. If you will
8
can put in there. And we invite anybody and we
8
notice even in my June 21st, 1996 letter, it
9
have invited the Council and invited Staff to walk
9
anticipates changes being made because of ICBO
10
through the building and count them. It's very
10
issues that created less usable space from our
11
obvious once you get into the building. I don't
11
perspective. We have been trying to maximize the
12
know if I answered your question or not?
12
interior use of the space which is typical putting
13
MR. SCHOFIELD: No.
13
their kitchens and things in the center, so they're
14
MR. HEELAN: I didn't?
14
not taking window space, et cetera.
15
MR. SCHOFIELD: Let me rephrase it. You at
15
MR. AMSDEN: The second question I have for
16
least if I understand were aware there are physical
16
you regards the process you're going through right
17
constraints?
17
now or at least, the argument you have been
18
MR. HEELAN: That's correct.
18
presenting. You have been in this process quite
19
MR. SCHOFIELD: My question is, are there any
19
sometime in this building. You have gone through
20
legal constraints, building code, etcetera that
20
the review process with the Planning Department
21
would prevent you from increasing the number of
21
over a two year period. Why was this argument not
22
seats up to the maximum?
22
being presented during the conditional use process
23
MR. HEELAN: I wouldn't be qualified to answer
23
after you received — what you're doing is bringing
24
that question.
24
us an argument after a conditional use process you
25
MR. SCHOFIELD: Thank you.
25
went through and was granted a conditional use on
SUMMIT REPORTING 1 800 261 -4818 (Y /U) 4bls -y4b
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 VA RIDGE APPEAL HEARING Pages 55 - 58
PAGE 55
1 the building and you come to the tail end at your
2 building permit making an argument of this nature.
3 I'm not quite following the consistency there, why
4 you wouldn't have done it in the building if you
5 had a question about parking or the amount of
6 parking fee, et cetera? Because the parking fees
7 were always on the table as being big numbers.
8 MR. HEELAN: We're not disputing they're big
9 numbers whether we're right or wrong. Okay. Let's
10 just go back to the process of how this evolved.
11 In November of '95 I believe we got a conditional
12 use permit or somewhere thereabouts the end of '95
13 that would allow us to then consider using this top
14 two floors of commercial space. We then proceeded
15 with designs to try to create an alternative either
16 way because we don't know at that time whether or
17 not a club operation was going to be economically
18 feasible for the space. As you know, most every
19 building in this space has residential on the top
20 floors. We were trying to figure out whether or
21 not it was going to be economically feasible to try
22 to do this club. Okay. And then, we met with Jim
23 Curnutte as you heard him tell you several times to
24 discuss the possibilities of the various options
25 and discussions with regard to the parking fee and
PAGE 56
1 we talked about seats. We talked about square
2 footage. And then, Jim left. About that time Mike
3 Mollica came on to the scene and then, the
4 transition in between the time Jim left and we were
5 trying to get our building permit, at that point in
6 time Mike asked me to write him a letter which gave
7 them an estimate of what those fees were going to
8 be at that time, realizing there were going to be
9 changes, realizing we didn't know how we were going
10 to finish that building at this time.
11 So the process was an evolving one in terms of
12 the amount of the fee, Greg. And then, we were a
13 dead issue. The only thing we agreed to at that
14 time, at the time of TCO we would determine it. So
15 in June, we were anticipating a TCO sometime July
16 or August, July hopefully for at least part of the
17 building and then, we then went to Mike and asked
18 for him to review the plans and to let's finalize
19 the parking fees. And since that time it's been an
20 argument. And we have gotten three, different
21 calculations since that time; two in August and
22 October 1st I believe. And every time that I have
23 to tell you it was a total shock when we got the
24 one that said it's $571,000. Why did it go up
25 $125,000? We didn't know.
%HMMIT QPPnV'rTMf1
PAGE 57
1 So we had a series of meetings to try to
2 discuss these issues and to really go through them
3 and try to figure out why we were so far apart and
4 try to, I think everybody tried to be reasonable on
5 the issue, but we were just on opposite sides of
6 the coin in terms of how we thought. We really do
7 believe that the logic of the Code is very clear.
8 It says whichever is more restrictive. Well, it's
9 impossible to have it more restrictive other than
10 based on seats because you can't have more seats
11 than occupancy. If you read the Code, it says
12 whichever is more restrictive. In fact, I went to
13 three, different law firms trying to find out if I
14 was all goofy, have them give me interpretations.
15 In your packets we have one. I included one of
16 them. And at the end of them they say it's not
17 impossible for this Code to be interpreted any
18 other way. Whichever is more restrictive which
19 means you got less seats than occupancy, it's less
20 restrictive. You can't have more seats than
21 occupancy can be allowed. So that's the only way
22 to be interpreted.
23 I have been trying to resolve this issue.
24 Okay. We're saying look at the building. If you
25 can see a way that we can change the whole ambiance
PAGE 58
1 and put in more seats, then look at it that way,
2 but we can't.
3 MR. AMSDEN: In our past history here in the
4 Town of Vail with every applicant that's come in
5 for a restaurant, it's absolutely opposite to what
6 you're talking about. You're the first one that
7 comes up and says this Code is different. Every
8 applicant we have had that's been brought in, they
9 have been approached the same way, Mike?
10 MR. MOLLICA: Yes.
11 MR. AMSDEN: I find it hard that you're saying
12 that the Code says one thing and we have a
13 confusing Code when every applicant that's come
14 through the Town, people have been here many, many
15 years and have restaurants for years and years have
16 treated it the same way. That's why this is such a
17 new twist or curve ball, at least for me here.
18 MR. HEELAN: I can tell you most restaurants
19 try to cram in the most seats they can. It points
20 out code costs —
21 MR. AMSDEN: I don't find that in the process
22 at all. What happens, most restaurateurs don't
23 have to pay a parking fee and they tend to quote
24 less seats in their plans than they have actually
25 put on.
AL ow Loiwoia (970) 468 -9415
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 RIVA RIDGE APPEAL HEARIN( Pages 59 - 62
PAGE 59
PAGE 61
1
MR. HEELAN: I'd like you to take a video or
1
at the plan or did the interior layout change? Do
2
whatever else —
2
you know what caused that leap?
3
MR. MOFFET: One at a time.
3
MR. MOLLICA: I have never actually gone back
4
MR. HEELAN: I'm sorry, Greg.
4
and taken a look at that, Greg. Jim Curnutte's
5
MR. AMSDEN: It comes to a monetary situation
5
plans are in front of you. I have the plans that
6
where most applicants look at what that parking fee
6
were given to me by Glenn. You can call it a fresh
7 '
is, the more restrictive is money out of their
7
look, but I went through an independent analysis.
8
pockets and that's what they consider more
8
Based on our codes that's the number I came up
9
restrictive. In my years that's what I've seen and
9
with. That's the number we're using. I have not
10
that's why I am a little bit confused when I hear
10
gone back and compared it to Jim Curnutte's older
11
just a different approach to it.
11
plans.
12
MR. HEELAN: Let me just read, if I may,
12
MR. MOFFET: Just FYI. The analysis we have
13
there's a letter included in the package I gave
13
from Curnutte gives us the same number that was
14
you.
14
agreed in the June 21st, 1996 letter. They are
15
MR. MOFFET: If it's the letter from the
15
identical. That's $457,334.
16
counsel in Golden, Glenn. You don't need to read
16
MR. HEELAN: That was an estimate at that
17
it. It's in the record.
17
time. In answer to your question, Greg, the
18
MR. HEELAN: I'm sorry.
18
building envelope did not change.
19
MR. MOFFET: If it's the letter from Holley,
19
MR. MOFFET: Actually, I wanted from Mike —
20
Albertson of Boulder, you don't need to read it.
20
MR. MOLLICA: There were changes made to the
21
It's in the record.
21
building that related to UBC requirements, you
22
MR. HEELAN: It states it does not appear that
22
know, for the Building Code requirements. Perhaps
23
this provision permits the determination of parking
23
that's what triggered the change in the parking
24
requirements based upon square feet and net floor
24
fee. Again, we have both sets of drawings here and
25
space as done for retail establishments. This
25
if you'd like, we'll compare them.
PAGE 60
PAGE 62
1
parking requirement appears to be consistent with
1
MR. MOFFET: I don't need to do that now.
2
the intent of the Ordinance to require off street
2
There is a significant change in the fee.
3
parking in the amount actually needed by the
3
MR. AMSDEN: I can clarify that.
4
development. This would explain why the zoning
4
MR. MOFFET: Please.
5
ordinance determines necessary parking for a retail
5
MR. AMSDEN: The square footage shown on the
6
establishment based on net floor space, while a
6
June 17th, '97 letter from Mike Mollica to Glenn
7
restaurant use is based on seating capacity.
7
had 5936 square feet showing around the club.
8
MR. MOFFET: Just so we're clear for the
8
Curnutte's analysis was 4978 leaving a 958 square
9
record, you paid for that opinion; did you not?
9
foot differential. All I can see in the
10
MR. HEELAN: Yes, I did.
10
differential between Mike's analysis and Jim's was
11
MR. MOFFET: Okay. Thank you.
It
the office space was considerably reduced by 250,
12
MR. HEELAN: But as my Counsel.
12
effectively a 250 square foot reduction of office
13
MR. MOFFET: Greg, any other —
13
space. We take that off 958, there's still about
14
MR. AMSDEN: No other issues.
14
700 square feet on there that's more on your
15
MR. MOFFET: Galen, questions primarily on
15
analysis that was not shown on Curnutte's analysis.
16
this issue?
16
1 had the same question about where did that come
17
MR. AASLAND: I have no questions at this
17
from.
18
time.
18
MR. MOFFET: Thanks. Glenn, we're on Item #2
19
MR. MOFFET: Let me hit a few first for Mike
19
here of this Appeal as far as I can tell which
20
Mollica. Mike, on the assumption that the building
20
relates to the calculation of the number of parking
21
envelope didn't expand between June, '96 and the
21
spaces. Is there a reason we skipped #1 which is
22
most recent round of attempts to nail down the
22
the classification of third and fourth floors as
23
price for the pay -in -lieu payment, it jumped from
23
eating and drinking establishments?
24
roughly $457,334 up into the north of the $500,000
24
MR. HEELAN: These aren't the correct built
25
range. Was that just remeasurement or a fresh look
25
floor plans if you will. Just looking at three and
SUMMIT REPORTING 1 800 2614818 (970) 46 8-9415
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 VA RIDGE APPEAL HEARING Pages 63 - 66
PAGE 63
1 four, the disputed calculation with respect to that
2 was minor. We're talking about some of these areas
3 as offices. That's all we're saying. Some of the
4 areas were designated offices, not eating and
5 drinking. We're not disputing the club and third
6 and fourth level should be used as similar uses.
7 MR. *MOFFET: Your Appeal, so I understand it,
8 your Appeal point number one is basically on how
9 the plans are being read, not that the primary use
10 on the third and fourth floors is, in fact, eating
11 and drinking establishments; is that accurate?
12 MR. HEELAN: That is correct.
13 MR. MOFFET: That means we got almost two of
14 them out of the way now. This is a plus. I am at
15 a loss. I'm kind of like Greg. I have been on the
16 Planning Commission as long as he has. I'm coming
17 up on four years now I think and I have never in a
18 pay -in -lieu situation seen the law applied so that
19 it minimized rather than maximized the pay -in -lieu
20 payment due from an applicant. I'm clearly open to
21 evidence to the contrary, but as far as I can tell,
22 the entire precedent falls on the side of
23 maximizing the payments from the applicant. The
24 intent of people who road along in 1974 is not for
25 me to decide. We haven't got minutes from the
PAGE 64
1 Council meeting. We haven't got any evidence as to
2 what the Council members meant when they put this
3 law in place. I'll grant you that an attorney can
4 read this both ways. I went to the same schools
5 and I can read it both ways, too. All I can rely
6 on is the way the precedent is and I have none
7 sited to me here that would lead me to believe that
8 Staffs interpretation of that provision of the
9 Code is anything but the accurate interpretation.
10 The other issue and, Glenn, I'm open
11 seriously. If you have got some precedent for me,
12 help me out, but I don't have any. I didn't think
13 of a single incident when it's worked the other
14 way. If you don't like the way the code is
15 written, we're unfortunately not the people to talk
16 to. We weren't elected. We don't get to write
17 law. That's the bottom line. The other issue is
18 and I just want to confirm this June 21st, 1996
19 letter to Mike Mollica signed by you. I mean,
20 that's a legit letter. We're not disputing that
21 that is legit; correct?
22 MR. HEELAN: We may disagree as to the
23 interpretation of that letter, but did I write that
24 letter, yes.
25 MR. MOFFET: I mean —
%TIMMTT QPPnv rimf`
PAGE 65
1 MR. HEELAN: I think Counsel by the very fact
2 we're back here has said there's some discrepancy
3 in terms of the interpretation of that letter.
4 MR. MOFFET: Okay. That concludes my
5 questions on Item #2. You want to talk about Item
6 #3? Staff, i.e. Tom Moorhead has already given us
7 his summary of the Staffs position on that.
8 MR. HEELAN: Just I'd like to come back to my
9 last comment in my mind before we go onto three.
10 It's understandable to me the viewing of the
11 precedent issues here. In fact, that was one of
12 the issues that drove us to try to find a
13 compromise with the Staff in terms of how they
14 measured, considering what we're dealing with as a
15 physical reality. And it's unfortunate I think
16 that we have to view this as a precedent action
17 because we're really in a unique situation in the
18 first place. How many restaurants are there on the
19 fourth floor of a building in this Town? Is this
20 really a restaurant? No, it's not. It's a club.
21 How many quasi - public clubs are in this Town?
22 None. And I guess I would look at it and say, this
23 isn't precedent. This is a unique situation, a
24 reality. There isn't a club on the third and
25 fourth floor that doesn't serve a lot of food. It
PAGE 66
1 does serve some food, but it's not a restaurant as
2 you would go into the Red Lion. It doesn't create
3 a parking demand that a restaurant creates. It
4 doesn't have that kind of seats in order to be able
5 to do that. And it always seemed to me very
6 logical that the parking code designed to determine
7 what the demand was based on use and that would
8 drive the demand. We should help pay for that
9 parking structure, if necessary and we have never
10 disputed that. But from a pragmatic situation, we
11 don't have the number of seats to drive the demand
12 that would require 50, 50 some spaces or whatever
13 the calculation is. That's really what our
14 position was on this. We believe the Code was
15 written to accommodate that, to anticipate it. And
16 in fact, we don't have a cafeteria. We don't have
17 a convention center. We don't have a 381 seat
18 restaurant. So it's unfortunate that it's being
19 viewed that way, but let's go onto #3.
20 Number 3 is with regard to the deed of trust
21 and the promissory note. Let's if we may for a
22 minute just read the ordinance. The existing
23 ordinance says the owner or the applicant has the
24 option of paying the total parking fee at the time
25 of the building permit. TCO was agreed to by all
IL ow Lol -4010 (970) 468 -9415
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 RIVA RIDGE APPEAL HEARIN Pages 67 - 70
PAGE 67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7'
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of us, or paying over a five year period. That's
the ordinance. I don't think there's any questions
in terms of how to interpret it. At least, I hope
there isn't.
And it also says in that same section, if the
owner or applicant does choose to pay the fee over
a period of time, he or she shall be required to
sign a promissory note which describes the total
fee due, the schedule of payments and the interest
due. Promissory note forms are available at the
offices of Community Development.
For sometime we have attempted to comply with
that ordinance. However, we're being required to
give a deed of trust securing the note and personal
guarantees on the note. I guess I don't understand
why we're being held to a different standard than
the ordinance reads.
In your package,I have provided you a
promissory note that we obtained from Community
Development. And in fact, before the note was then
given by Tom Moorhead, was revised by Tom, I
provided it to him when he asked me about it.
MR. MOFFET: Sorry, Glenn. What Exhibit is
that?
MR. HEELAN: If you will go to *5 which is on
PAGE 68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mine, an orange tag. It's the second from the last
or next to the last. It says, Riva Ridge, it's
inappropriate for Staff to require personal
guarantees and a deed of trust. It's the second to
the last section. We all looking at that? We go
to the next page which is the Code, itself, it says
that we choose, this is what we just read to the
board what the Code itself says. And the next one
is the form of the promissory note that was
provided to me by the offices of Community
Development and then, a letter, a fax memorandum if
you will, fax transmission cover sheet to Tom per
our discussion and a copy of the note.
So my question really becomes or my
observation really becomes is that we think
whatever the fee is determined to be that we should
have the ability to pay 20% down, sign a promissory
note and pay it over five years at 10% interest.
That's what the Code reads. Twice Staff has
presented to Town Council a new ordinance asking
for the permission of deeds of trust and other
types of security. Both times the Town Council has
tabled that ordinance. At this moment it would
seem to me it is at best questionable whether or
not it will ever get through. So why are we being
PAGE 69
1 held to a standard other than the one that is part
2 of the Code? And I guess we feel and you will find
3 correspondence in there, for sometime we have been
4 trying to comply with that in order to get this
5 building open. We have paid already 10% of one of
6 the numbers that they calculated which was $571,000
7 and offered to pay the other 10% and sign a
8 promissory note so that we could obtain the TCO.
9 And so we're being penalized by the delay when in
10 fact, we have tried to comply.
11 MR. MOFFET: Okay.
12 MR. HEELAN: I think that's all I have with
13 respect to that issue.
14 MR. MOFFET: Thanks. Gentlemen, any questions
15 on this issue? John?
16 MR. SCHOFIELD: Tom, if you could perhaps just
17 give us some elaboration on the, better term,
18 negotiations that took place which provided for the
19 variance from the Code of five years up to ten
20 years and quotes involved in that and what
21 conditions were placed upon that variance?
22 MR. MOORHEAD: Yes. Due to the significant
23 difference between the parking pay -in -lieu if the
24 property was developed as it presently has been
25 developed with a quasi- public club facility on the
PAGE 70
1 third and fourth floor, and what the parking
2 pay -in -lieu fee would be if it was developed as a
3 residential condominium, the request was made that
4 they not be required to pay the parking pay -in -lieu
5 at building permit, but rather to have that parking
6 pay -in -lieu held off until the temporary
7 certificate of occupancy. At the same time that
8 that discussion was taking place, there also was
9 recognition that the parking pay -in -lieu fee had
10 been significantly raised from what it previously
11 had been to what now results in a $16,000, plus
12 parking pay -in -lieu for each space that's
13 generated. And it was represented by Glenn Heelan
14 to Bob McLaurin that because of that, it was
15 unreasonable to finance it over a five year period
16 of time and he was in general asking for whatever
17 relief Bob could offer in regard to that payment.
18 Bob McLaurin then went to the Town Council and
19 suggested in general that it's appropriate that the
20 parking pay -in -lieu fee be allowed to be paid over
21 a longer period of time consistent with good
22 business practices. And that also consistent with
23 good business practices, there be adequate security
24 and Council gave Bob McLaurin that authority. And
25 there has never been any consideration by Bob
SUMMIT REPORTING 1 800 261 -4818 (Y /U) 408 -y40
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 VA RIDGE APPEAL HEARING Pages 71 - 74
PAGE 71
1 McLaurin to allowing this significant a figure to
2 be paid over a period of time without adequate
3 security. And that was what was represented to
4 Town Council. And that is what has continually
5 been offered to this Applicant. If it wishes to
6 extend it over a period of time, that there have to
7 be adequate security given.
8 In the ordinance all it describes is a
9 promissory note. Promissory note is a generic
10 term. Every mortgage in the State of Colorado is
11 also secured by a promissory note and the
12 promissory note describes a separate security
13 agreement and that's consistent with what is in the
14 Colorado Revised Statutes. It's consistent with
15 general business practices. I believe that it's
16 inherent in the Town of Vail's power to do business
17 that it require whatever security is necessary to
18 adequately assure that the payment will be made.
19 The first time I ever saw the promissory note
20 that Glenn Heelan believes he has a right to enter
21 into was a promissory note that was signed by Louis
22 Federman (phonetic) for the L'Ostello Building
23 which $90,000 has never paid. That promissory note
24 does not create a lien on the property. It creates
25 absolutely no guarantee that the Town of Vail will
PAGE 72
1 ever be paid.
2 As legal advisor to the Town of Vail, I
3 believe that it's a violation of the Town's
4 fiduciary obligation to the people in this Town to
5 extend credit in the area of $400,000 without
6 requiring some kind of adequate security. I
7 believe that's good business practice and thus far
8 that has been agreed to by the Town Manager and
9 that's why the promissory note that you see before
10 you has been offered.
11 And I would submit to you that there's
12 absolutely no provision in the Town of Vail Code or
13 in the Colorado Revised Statutes that suggests that
14 a promissory note means that it should not be
15 secured or cannot be secured by other security
16 agreements and deeds of trust.
17 MR. AMSDEN: Tom, I might ask — I don't know
18 if Mike is here. He's not. Have we used this five
19 year promissory note with any of the parking
20 pay -in -lieus in the past where people have paid it?
21 MR. MOORHEAD: That I'm not sure. The only
22 one that I'm aware of is the one that was unpaid.
23 MR. SCHOFIELD: Tom, is there anything in the
24 Code or the Statutes that would construe the
25 promissory note that's referred to in the Code
iUMMIT REPORTING
1 OM -
PAGE 73
1 available to the office of Community Development to
2 be something that could not be changed or modified
3 at anytime?
4 MR. MOORHEAD: Not that I could ever find.
5 MR. MOFFET: John, anything else?
6 MR. SCHOFIELD: No.
7 MR. MOFFET: Greg?
8 MR. AMSDEN: From the security standpoint, I
9 can't see anyone lending money, whether it's a
10 local or commercial bank or otherwise that would
11 not require some kind of security with this sum of
12 money. And some of the questions I have, Glenn,
13 currently, the Riva Ridge LLC, is the owner of the
14 property part of that LLC?
15 MR. HEELAN: No. We do not own the property.
16 We're just the lessee. We don't have the right to
17 grant the deed of trust.
18 MR. AMSDEN: So the Town if they were to take
19 just the promissory note, exposure -wise would be
20 greatly exposed in the sense that you're a tenant
21 of that property and if you were to ever default or
22 if the landlord would ever terminate that lease,
23 the Town would basically have no recourse
24 whatsoever on that parking fee.
25 MR. MOFFET: Is that a question?
PAGE 74
1 MR. AMSDEN: No. That's fact in my real
2 estate knowledge. Those are my only comments right
3 now.
4 MR. MOFFET: Okay. Thanks. Galen?
5 MR. AASLAND: The first question is for Tom.
6 As the Town sees fit, does the Town as a matter of
7 course change forms, i.e. building permit
8 application forms or other forms throughout time in
9 the Town?
10 MR. MOORHEAD: Regularly.
11 MR. AASLAND: Glenn, if, in fact, we rule in a
12 manner that you win, eventually you have to pay.
13 This is over ten years. If you're allowed to pay,
14 if you choose to instead of paying one fee for a
15 parking fee, but in fact, you choose to do that
16 over ten years? If, in fact, you do pay this, by
17 signing this form how are you unfairly penalized as
18 opposed to signing the form —
19 MR. HEELAN: If I understand your question,
20 Galen, your question is that how am I being
21 unfairly penalized by requiring a deed of trust?
22 MR. AASLAND: If in your presentation I'm
23 going to have to sign this form and by doing that
24 you're going to be unfairly penalized —
25 MR. HEELAN: We have offered to sign a
� - -1- 010
(970) 468 -9415
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 RIVA RIDGE APPEAL HEARIN Pages 75 - 78
PAGE 75
PAGE 77
1
promissory note that was given to us by the Town of
1
caveat on top of what the ordinance says of a
2
Vail as part of the Code, the Community
2
personal signature. They want to go beyond that.
3
Development. It states in the Code that we read on
3
How generic is something? It's interpretation
4
the board that the form of the promissory note
4
also.
5
would be provided by Community Development. We
5
MR. MOFFET: Thank you. This may seem
6
obtained that form. We relied on that form. There
6
basically extreme, but what's the definition of an
T
was no mention of a deed of trust. We don't have a
7
applicant as used in the Code provision in
8
right to get a deed of trust. It changed our whole
8
Commercial Core 1, Commercial Core 11. Property
9
perspective on this thing significantly. We're not
9
owners or applicants shall be required to
10
in a position to give you a deed of trust. We
10
contribute to the Town parking lot. Tom, is a
11
don't have that legal right. We're just a tenant.
11
tenant appropriate as an applicant here?
12
We're just asking for compliance with the Code.
12
MR. MOORHEAD: I'll defer to Mike Mollica, but
13
Code says we have the right to sign a five year
13
I would imagine the property owner as well as Glenn
14
promissory note. The Code says we can pay it over
14
Heelan very well could be the applicant in this
15
five years at 10% interest. We're asking for
15
particular project, but I'll defer to Mike Mollica.
16
compliance with the Code. We have offered to
16
MR. MOLLICA: The Applicant has been Glenn
17
comply with the Code.
17
Heelan, Charles Davison as well as Margaretta
18
MR. AASLAND: Do you think the Town has a
18
Parks, the Property Owner. They're the Applicant.
19
right from time to time to change its forms?
19
MR. MOFFET: So we have the owner and the
20
MR. HEELAN: Not after they have given us the
20
Applicant here, at least one of the applicants is
21
promissory note that we relied on, no.
21
also the owner?
22
MR. MOFFET: Anything else, Galen?
22
MR. MOLLICA: That's right.
23
MR. HEELAN: It's like changing the rules in
23
MR. HEELAN: I don't believe that's accurate.
24
the middle, Galen.
24
MR. MOFFET: Everything I have ever seen.
25
MR. MOFFET: Greg, do you have any other
25
Once again —
PAGE 76
PAGE 78
1
questions or comments?
1
MR. HEELAN: It's always been Riva Ridge
2
MR. AMSDEN: Glenn, I understand the part
2
Partners with me —
3
about deeds of trust, you not owning the property,
3
MR. MOFFET: Anything I ever saw as the
4
but what is your objection to signing personally?
4
Applicant has Riva Ridge Partners, you and
5
MR. HEELAN: I have already offered to include
5
Mrs. Parks. We'd have to go back and look at all
6
that about a month ago.
6
the stuff, but that's my recollection.
7
MR. AMSDEN: So that's been agreed upon?
7
MR. HEELAN: On the Appeal issue, I think
8
MR. MOFFET: It's on the table it sounds like.
8
you're right in terms of the conditional use
9
MR. HEELAN: That wasn't acceptable to the
9
permit.
10
Town.
10
MR. MOFFET: November 27, 1995, the Applicant,
11
MR. MOFFET: Charley, if you want to talk, you
11
Margaretta Parks represented by Glenn Heelan.
12
have to come up to the microphone.
12
MR. HEELAN: Where is that?
13
MR. DAVISON: My name is Charles Davison for
13
MR. MOFFET: That will be Exhibit D, Planning
14
the record. I think that was offered. I think the
14
and Environmental Commission Memorandum, November
15
comment in terms of over penalized was that we
15
27, 1995. That's with Jim Curnutte. There was one
16
actually have given everything that the ordinance
16
prior to that. I think my first PEC meeting where
17
wanted and on top of that, Glenn Heelan wanted to
17
1 remember specifically — I don't know why. I
18
sign personally. Our request is to have our
18
remember that's how the Applicant was spelled out.
19
grandfathered spaces given to us in order to be
19
MR. MOLLICA: I was going to point out that
20
open. We have an operation that's grandfathered in
20
Exhibit A which is the Appeals Form, that's the
21
terms of the restaurant and the bar and we have
21
hearing we're having here today, is based upon that
22
been held in that sense hostage with changing other
22
application. Name of Appellant, Riva Ridge
23
rules in the middle of the game. And that's why
23
Partners, LLC, Glenn Heelan, Margaretta Parks, that
24
the comment of not being over penalized comes
24
was filled out by Glenn Heelan.
25
about. And the fact that there has been even a
25
MR. HEELAN: We also agree that the Applicant
SUMMIT REPORTING 1 800 261 -4818 (WO) 406 -`J413
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 VA RIDGE APPEAL HEARING Pages 79 - 82
PAGE 79
1 in this case is also Margaretta Parks.
2 MR. MOFFET: My question is, guess my
3 assertion as the finder of fact here is that the
4 Applicant includes individually, Margaretta Parks.
5 Now, be that as it may, actually before that, let
6 me ask another question of Tom. Is there a section
7 in the ordinances, in the Town Ordinance which
8 permits the Town Manager, that clearly permits the
9 Town Manager's discretion in this matter or do we
10 have a poorly written, code section?
11 MR. MOORHEAD: I don't think you have a poorly
12 written, code section. All of the Town's contracts
13 and agreements are entered into by the Town Manager
14 and those contracts and agreements are negotiated
15 and customized pursuant to the business deal that
16 is being done at that time. So there's nothing
17 that specifically states the Town Manager shall
18 enter into the following agreements under the
19 following form because it changes constantly every
20 time we enter into a contract.
21 MR. MOFFET: I understand. There's a
22 provision in the ordinance that says the Town
23 Manager has his discretion to use his prudent, best
24 judgment in handling the business affairs of the
25 Town?
PAGE 80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MOORHEAD: I think that's inherent of
being the chief judicial officer of this
corporation. One thing I'd like to point out. It
had been indicated to me by Glenn it was impossible
for them to get Margaretta Parks to sign a deed of
trust and we found a title company and found that
Margaretta Parks has, in fact, entered into a deed
of trust to secure a loan for this particular
Project.
MR. MOFFET: I'm not thinking of the deed of
trust, but I'll get there in a second.
MR. HEELAN: Let me clarify that comment, Tom
What I said Margaretta Parks at this time was
unwilling to give a deed of trust to us for this
parking fee. She did enter into deeds of trust
granted for the construction phase which is typical
and common, but this is not a construction
voluntary loan. It's an involuntary tax. Even
when President Clinton passed a tax increase, he
gave people three years to pay it.
MR. MOFFET: Thank you, Glenn. The other
question is do we have a setable precedent of the
Town requiring a deed of trust to secure this
obligation in other instances?
MR. MOORHEAD: Not that I'm aware of.
iUMMIT RFPnRTTUr:
PAGE 81
1 MR. MOFFET: I'm living by the sword and dying
2 by the sword. We don't have any precedents.
3 Unfortunately, I would rely on a Code provision to
4 grant the chief executive the ability to use his
5 discretion to vary from expressed codes. However,
6 I'll say that I believe the Applicant includes
7 Margaretta Parks and I would require her, in my
8 judgment that means she's got to sign. I'm not
9 talking about a deed of trust, but in my judgment
10 that means she does have to personally sign the
11 promissory note. You signed the five year
12 promissory note with the Applicant, i.e. Riva Ridge
13 Partners, yourself and Margaretta Parks. Granted
14 I'm one vote, here you go. That's done. If
15 however you want to vary an inch from the expressed
16 terms of the Code, i.e. you don't want an
17 applicant, specific applicant to sign —
18 MR. HEELAN: I want to go ten years, whatever.
19 MR. MOFFET: At that point I think everything
20 is on the table and a deed of trust is a fair and
21 reasonable thing for the Town to ask for. If we're
22 going to go strictly by the language here on the
23 page, I feel hamstrung. I think as a Town we have
24 to do what the law says we have to do and rather
25 than infer and basically do all the stuff I suggest
PAGE 82
1 that we not do on the last issue.
2 In fact, why don't we kind of go to the two
3 parties for final comments and then, we'll
4 hopefully render something. Mike for the Town?
5 MR. MOLLICA: For the record, we do have the
6 original application for the conditional use
7 permit. I have it here in front of me. It was
8 fazed to the Town on September 11, 1995. Glenn
9 Heelan was listed as the Applicant. The Owner's
10 signature, appears William Whiteford (phonetic)
11 signed for Margaretta Parks and he indicated he had
12 the power of attorney to do that and we also have
13 that attached to the Application.
14 MR. HEELAN: Could you reiterate? The
15 applicant was who?
16 MR. MOLLICA: Margaretta B. Parks. William
17 Whiteford signed for Margaretta Parks.
18 MR. HEELAN: Who was the Applicant?
19 MR. MOLLICA: Glenn Heelan. As is standard
20 procedure, we do not process applications unless we
21 have a signature from the property owner.
22 MR. HEELAN: If we were applying that to the
23 Code, the Applicant is Glenn Heelan and therefore,
24 the promissory note should be able to be signed by
25 myself.
�Uiwoio (970) 468 -9415
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 RIVA RIDGE APPEAL HEARIN Pages 83 - 86
PAGE 83
PAGE 85
1
MR. MOFFET: That's not how I read the paper
1
was made and that those decisions are over one
2
trail here, Glenn.
2
year -old.
3
MR. HEELAN: Let me reiterate. He just
3
MR. MOFFET: Okay. Glenn?
4
clarified that the Applicant in this issue is me.
4
MR. HEELAN: Before I introduce Chris Parks,
5
Is that correct?
5
I'll reiterate our position. Riva Ridge Partners
6
MR. MOFFET: You came in here in November of
6
believes that Staff has interpreted Sections
7'
1997 with a document that I read, that I sat here
7
18.52.100 C, parking requirements - schedule and
8
and read and granted you a conditional use permit
8
18.52.160 Exemptions, parking pay -in -lieu
9
on that, said that —
9
incorrectly. Section 18.52.100 states off street
10
MR. HEELAN: Wait a minute. The conditional
10
parking requirements shall be determined in
11
use permit was in '95.
11
accordance with the following schedule; C, other
12
MR. MOFFET: '95. I'm sorry.
12
uses, 5, eating and drinking establishments, one
13
MR. HEELAN: What does that Application say?
13
space per each 8 seats, based on seating capacity
14
MR. MOFFET: It says —
14
and building code occupancy standards, whichever is
15
MR. HEELAN: The one by Mike Mollica?
15
more restrictive. Riva Ridge believes that the
16
MR. MOFFET: I didn't see that. I'm telling
16
calculation for the eating and drinking
17
you what I saw.
17
establishment spaces should be based on seating
18
MR. HEELAN: I think, Greg, what I'm saying
18
capacity. Riva Ridge has stated it will have a
19
the formal Applicant has always been me. That's my
19
maximum of 210 seats which is more restrictive than
20
point. The legal paper trail is the Applicant is
20
the maximum number permitted under the applicable
21
Glenn Heelan and I have offered to sign this
21
building code.
22
promissory note both as a manager of Riva Ridge and
22
In addition, Riva Ridge Partners believes that
23
as myself personally, the guarantee.
23
it is inappropriate for Staff to require personal
24
MR. MOFFET: And my point and I am not going
24
guarantees on the promissory note and for Staff to
25
to argue with you. This is where I come down on
25
require a deed of trust be filed on the property.
PAGE 84
PAGE 86
1
this issue. The documents that have been presented
1
Code Section 18.52.160 Exemptions Section B.7
2
to me on several different occasions as a
2
states the owner or applicant has the option of
3
Commissioner in this forum have said Applicant:
3
paying the total parking fee at the time of the
4
Margaretta B. Parks, represented by Glenn Heelan.
4
building permit or paying over a five year period.
5
Now, you have come up and talked to me on several
5
Further it states in Paragraph 2, if the owner or
6
occasions on this issue, Glenn, and you have never
6
applicant does choose to pay the fee over a period
7
corrected this. It's been plain as the nose on
7
of time, he or she shall be required to sign a
8
everybody's face that's what I'm relying on.
8
promissory note which describes the total fee due,
9
Let's go back. Any further closing comments
9
the schedule of payments and the interest due.
10
on this issue; Mike or Tom?
10
Promissory note forms are available at the offices
11
MR. HEELAN: We have one final comment.
11
of Community Development. Riva Ridge obtained the
12
MR. MOFFET: We'll get to it.
12
authorized form of promissory note from Community
13
MR. HEELAN: Okay.
13
Development, a copy of which is enclosed for your
14
MR. MOORHEAD: The only thing I'll say, I
14
reference which does not require personal
15
believe the Staff recommendations set forth the
15
guarantees or deeds of trust. Staff and Applicant
16
three issues to be determined. In regard to the
16
did discuss a 10 year payment plan in various
17
issue in which the classification of the property
17
meetings, copies enclosed. However, Riva Ridge and
18
of third and fourth floor eating and drinking
18
Staff have reached agreement on this issue and Riva
19
establishments, that decision was made as of
19
Ridge believes it should be governed by the
20
December 21st, 1995 and therefore is not now
20
ordinance in existence at the time of application,
21
subject to Appeal. Likewise, I think based upon
21
unless the Town and Riva Ridge mutually agree
22
the testimony of Jim Curnutte it was clear when
22
otherwise. And that's all I have to say, but I
23
Glenn wrote the letter in June of 1996 expressly
23
think Chris Parks has a letter that he would like
24
agreeing to the calculation that he was well aware
24
to give you and then, add a few comments.
25
and agreed to the manner in which the calculation
25
MR. MOFFET: Thank you.
SUMMIT REPORTING 1 SW 261 -48121 kyIV) WO-7 -t J
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 VA RIDGE APPEAL HEARING Pages 87 - 90
PAGE 87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PARKS: For the record, I am Chris Parks
and along with my Brother, William Whiteford, we
have been in this process for my Mother. She's
always been the Owner, not applicant. The Code
says applicant or owner. Glenn is the Applicant in
this case. And that's all I have to say on that
issue.
This is a letter written by my Brother and it
states our position. And I would say that in
further memorandums there should be an owner slot
on the Town Memorandum instead of applicant. That
should be separated as such. Thank you.
MR. MOFFET: Thank you. I would suggest to my
fellow Commissioners that we break this down into
three votes because we have got three issues. And
as far as I have been able to tell for what it's
worth, I can't figure out why we're even wrestling
with the first issue. Because I think everybody
agrees that the third and fourth floors are eating
and drinking establishments. Maybe I'm wrong
there, but I would suggest if we get a motion that
we move on each of the three points separately.
MR. SCHOFIELD: Perhaps I make a suggestion on
that that there appears to be no disagreement on #1
that the third and fourth floors are classified as
PAGE 88
1
2
3
4
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
an eating and drinking establishment. If we can
get the parties to stipulate to that, perhaps we
can eliminate that from our discussion.
MR. MOFFET: Glenn, that's your Appeal. As
far as I can tell just from the brief question and
answer you and I had, you don't dispute that the
third and fourth floors of the building are an
eating and drinking establishment; is that
accurate?
MR. HEELAN: There are only certain areas that
we thought should be classified. We discussed that
certain areas of that third and fourth floor should
be considered office space, which the general use
of the remaining part of the area is in kids eating
and drinking establishments as per the Code reads.
MR. MOFFET: Maybe what we need to do is
determine whether — actually, let me ask Staff.
Was it Staffs position because it appears to be
that the entire third and fourth floor are an
eating and drinking establishment and does that
permit the breaking out of types of space within
the eating and drinking establishment which in
terms generate different parking requirements?
MR. MOLLICA: No. The majority of the third
and fourth floors are classified as eating and
iUMMIT REPORTING
PAGE 89
1 drinking establishments. There's a small office
2 that's located on the third floor I believe that's
3 calculated as office space.
4 MR. SCHOFIELD: Question. Based on that then,
5 Mike, I assume you had classified that as a portion
6 of the 94 square feet of office space and is not
7 included in the 5717 square feet of restaurant?
8 MR. MOLLICA: That's correct.
9 MR. SCHOFIELD: And second question, our
10 Appeal is if I read everything properly based upon
11 your letter of June 17th, 1997 which reflects
12 slightly different numbers than Page 5 of the memo
13 on the Appeal. Would you elaborate on that?
14 MR. MOLLICA: There were some modifications
15 that were made to the structure between June 17th
16 of '97 and when this Appeal was filed. What is
17 presented in the Memorandum is the most up -to -date
18 analysis of what is actually on this site.
19 MR. SCHOFIELD: And for the record, I guess
20 I'd make sure that everybody understands that the
21 Staff Memo appears to be more favorable to the
22 Appellant than does the June 17th, 1997 letter.
23 MR. HEELAN: Are you saying that — maybe
24 clarify for me, John. What is the final number?
25 MR. SCHOFIELD: We have to make a
PAGE 90
1 determination based on your Appeal. However, it
2 appears that the Staff has for some reason modified
3 those numbers very slightly and in a direction
4 which I am sure you will be pleased with.
5 MR. HEELAN: There have been three, different
6 calculations. June 17th reflects a fee of
7 $571,341.63. September 15th reflects a fee of
8 $571,341.68. And October 1st reflects a fee of
9 $538,936.20. Is that the one you're speaking of?
10 MR. SCHOFIELD: That's correct.
11 MR. HEELAN: Yes.
12 MR. MOLLICA: Each analysis was requested by
13 Staff due to each request of the Applicant due to
14 the modifications the Applicant made to the
15 structure. The $538,936.20 is the final number.
16 MR. MOFFET: Still begs a question in my mind
17 and I'm trying to couch perhaps a potential motion
18 for somebody to make. That on Item 1 on the
19 Staffs classification of the third and fourth
20 floors as eating and drinking establishments, that
21 Staffs classification be upheld as qualified by
22 the standard class exclusion and separate
23 classification of the areas within those floors as
24 things other than eating and drinking
25 establishments. I mean is that, John, does that go
1 OM HLt Inn
(970) 468 -9415
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 RIVA RIDGE APPEAL HEARIN Pages 91 - 94
PAGE 91
PAGE 93
1
to where you're thinking?
1
reflect a reduction in that square footage number
2
MR. SCHOFIELD: Yes. My thinking is based on
2
for the three fax rooms and game room as they're
3
testimony we have heard. Item #1, classification
3
portrayed on the final plans for the building
4
appears to be without dispute eating and drinking
4
permit application.
5
establishment with the exception of a small area
5
MR. MOFFET: Okay. So let me make sure I
6
which was excluded for office space.
6
understand the motion. We're holding the Staff
7
MR. HEELAN: As I mentioned before, these
7
with modification —
8
aren't the correct final plats. Mike has them I
8
MR. SCHOFIELD: That's correct.
9
believe. There are some areas that we thought were
9
MR. MOFFET: Do we have a second?
10
office spaces. There's an office. There are
10
MR. AMSDEN: I will second the motion.
11
several business and fax rooms that are not part of
11
MR. MOFFET: Second by Greg Amsden. Any
12
the eating and drinking establishments.
12
further discussion?
13
MR. AMSDEN: Those have all been figured in
13
MR. AASLAND: The pool room you're talking
14
the office —
14
about, is that a billiard room where someone could
15
MR. HEELAN: No, they have not. Some of them
15
buy a drink?
16
I believe they have. They're minor amounts, but
16
MR. HEELAN: It's not a billiard room. We're
17
there are fax and business service rooms which are
17
not requesting that be changed. Just the kids
18
specifically used with computers and stuff like.
18
office and the fax room.
19
There are no bars and anything else that we thought
19
MR. SCHOFIELD: I would then modify my motion
20
should be classified as office space. There's a
20
to include the pool room in the restaurant
21
kids office that has computer games in it for kids
21
calculation, but to exclude the fax rooms.
22
that has no eating and drinking. Those are use
22
MR. AASLAND: And exclude the children's room.
23
factors that should be calculated as office space.
23
MR. MOFFET: The children's game room.
24
MR. SCHOFIELD: Mike, it's your testimony
24
MR. SCHOFIELD: Included.
25
these areas have been excluded from the eating and
25
MR. MOFFET: Hold on. So let me make sure I
PAGE 92
PAGE 94
1
drinking classification?
1
understand. You're now modifying the motion so
2
MR. MOLLICA: No. There's an office space
2
that we're upholding Staff, but we're excluding the
3
that has been excluded. There are three fax rooms
3
fax rooms only?
4
as I understand it that are available for the use
4
MR. SCHOFIELD: That's correct.
5
of the members of the club to send a fax while
5
MR. MOFFET: That's the amendment. Greg, you
6
they're enjoying the club. Those three fax rooms
6
second that amendment?
7
as small as they maybe have been included in the
7
MR. AMSDEN: Yes.
8
Vail Village Club eating and drinking establishment
8
MR. MOFFET: Any further discussion? All
9
category. In addition, there's a pool room that is
9
those in favor?
10
considered a game room through the UBC. That's
10
MR. SCHOFIELD: Aye.
11
also included as eating and drinking establishment.
11
MR. AASLAND: Aye.
12
Additionally, there's a game room that's available
12
MR. AMSDEN: Aye.
13
for kids as Glenn has stated. That has been
13
MR. MOFFET: Aye. That motion passes
14
included as eating and drinking establishment.
14
unanimously. Now, we're onto Staffs calculation
15
MR. SCHOFIELD: Would it be correct to assume
15
of the number of parking spaces required.
16
that these rooms are accessory uses to the
16
MR. AMSDEN: We cannot determine that number
17
restaurant club situation?
17
right now I don't believe because now they're going
18
MR. MOLLICA: Not in my mind, no.
18
to deduct the amount of spaces out of those rooms,
19
MR. SCHOFIELD: Looking for a motion?
19
correct, from that, so there will be a new parking
20
MR. MOFFET: That would be what I'm looking
20
calculation below the one that indicates the
21
for, John, on item —
21
538,936. We can state that number less those
22
MR. SCHOFIELD: Mr. Chairman, based upon the
22
deductions.
23
testimony we received, I would move that we modify
23
MR, SCHOFIELD: I don't think we can perhaps
24
the Staffs classification of the third and fourth
24
determine the number here as far as the square
25
floors as eating and drinking establishments to
25
footage, but we can determine the interpretation of
SUMMIT REPORTING 1 800 261 -4818 (YIU) 41b8-`J41J
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 VA RIDGE APPEAL HEARING Pages 95 - 98
PAGE 95
1 the Code as far as most restrictive and then, allow
2 the Staff to recalculate the square footage that we
3 have requested be taken off.
4 MR. MOFFET: So for instance, John, you could
5 move that to uphold Staff consistent with a blind
6 methodology resulting in a number or resulting in
7 the agreement of the June 21st, 1996 letter from
8 Glenn Heelan that was also reflected on the
9 exhibits we got from Jim Curnutte, just endorsing
10 that methodology?
11 MR. SCHOFIELD: Methodology, yes.
12 MR. MOFFET: Okay.
13 MR. AMSDEN: Why would you reference Jim
14 Curnutte?
15 MR. MOFFET: Because it was actually an agreed
16 to number at one point in time, Greg. We have got
17 a letter here that characterizes that as an
18 agreement signed by the Town.
19 MR. HEELAN: Your agreement, 457 —
20 MR. MOFFET: I'm saying I agree to that
21 methodology. If the plans changed from November 6,
22 1996, it would have to apply the same methodology
23 that was applied at the time.
24 MR. AMSDEN: The methodology was applied to
25 the 536,936 number. Let's adopt that to changing
PAGE 96
1 the —
2 MR MOFFET• A
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
re you making a motion?
MR. AMSDEN: Not making a motion. Does that
make sense to you?
MR. MOFFET: Yes.
MR. AMSDEN: Okay. You want me to make a
motion?
MR. MOFFET: Please.
MR. AMSDEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a
motion that in regard to the parking requirements
and the calculation of the number of parking spaces
required that we utilize the number of spaces, the
32.996 parking spaces to determine the 538,936.20
figure, less the changes that were made in the
first motion regarding this and they will be
deductions from this, and we let Staff figure those
deductions on the square footage of the areas that
were excluded from the eating and drinking
establishment on the third and fourth floor, the
fax rooms.
MR. MOFFET: That was a nice, clear motion.
Do we have a second?
MR. SCHOFIELD: Second.
MR. MOFFET: Any further discussion?
MR. AASLAND: One question I thought of.
iUMMIT RFPnRTINr.
PAGE 97
1 MR. MOFFET: Please.
2 MR. AASLAND: Just for the record, that the
3 32.996 recognizes the 27 grandfathered spaces
4 already.
5 MR. MOFFET: Point of clarification, yes. I
6 don't think you need an amendment. That's a point
7 of clarification of the grandfathered spaces. So
8 acknowledged?
9 MR. AMSDEN: Acknowledged.
10 MR. MOFFET: Any further discussion?
11 MR. SCHOFIELD: Not discussion. Point of
12 clarification. I think the record should reflect
13 this Commission is upholding the previous Staff
14 interpretation of most restrictive in the Code to
15 mean the maximum number of seats that will be
16 allowed, not necessarily the plan of those seats.
17 MR. MOFFET: Does that reflect your
18 understanding in making the motion, Greg?
19 MR. AMSDEN: Yes.
20 MR. MOFFET: Any further discussion? All
21 those in favor?
22 MR. AMSDEN: Aye.
23 MR. AASLAND: Aye.
24 MR. SCHOFIELD: Aye.
25 MR. MOFFET: Aye. Passes unanimously. Item
PAGE 98
1 #3 is the requirement that the Applicant sign a
2 pay -in -lieu promissory note personally and a deed
3 of trust be filed on the property. I think we're
4 all reading it differently. If I can pass the
5 chair to you, Greg, for a second, I'll try a
6 motion.
7 MR. AMSDEN: Go for it.
8 MR. MOFFET: Okay. I would move that we over
9 turn the Staff requirement that Applicants sign a
10 pay -in -lieu promissory note personally and that a
11 deed of trust be filed on the property, but rather
12 that per the ordinance, the Applicant and the
13 Applicants as defined in the paper trail which
14 includes Glenn Heelan, personally and Margaretta
15 Parks, personally sign only a promissory note with
16 no deed of trust because that's not required in the
17 Code. Greg's chairing while I make a motion. Do
18 you want to ask for a second?
19 MR. AMSDEN: Do we have a second to that
20 motion?
21 MR. AASLAND: I would second it. And one
22 comment about that. This is for the five year now
23 that we're talking about?
24 MR. MOFFET: It's the straight, five year note
25 as expressly provided for in the Ordinance and
ow wiwoio (970) 468 -9415
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 RIVA RIDGE APPEAL HEARIN' Pages 99 - 102
PAGE 99
PAGE 101
1
that's all I'm going for here is my reading of the
1
like to review the application that Mike Mollica
2
plain language of the Ordinance and the plain
2
read for the record.
3
language of the paper trail.
3
MR. MOFFET: I'm sorry. You are chairing
4
MR. AASLAND: So can you add that to your —
4
this.
5
MR. MOFFET: It's a point of clarification.
5
MR. AMSDEN: I think it's a critical vote. I
6
MR. AASLAND: As a point of clarification,
6
would like to hear their side of this just because
7 '
it's the five year note we're talking about?
7
it's an issue. And go ahead.
8
MR. MOFFET: Correct.
8
MR. HEELAN: Can I borrow the application that
9
MR. AASLAND: I'll second that.
9
was made for the conditional use permit that you
10
MR. AMSDEN: Any other questions? There's a
10
read from for the record earlier?
11
motion on the floor. All in favor?
11
This is an application for conditional use
12
MR. HEELAN: I'd like to make a comment and
12
permit. And the procedure says, this states this
13
question for Tom Moorhead. With respect to the
13
procedure is required for any project to obtain a
14
legal nature of the paper trail, what governs the
14
conditional use permit. This application will not
15
Staff memos or the application, itself?
15
be accepted until all information is submitted. A
16
MR. MOORHEAD: I'd say that this Board has the
16
name of applicants. Glenn Heelan agrees, et
17
authority as finder of fact to consider both and I
17
cetera. Name of owner, Margaretta Parks. Name of
18
will leave it at that.
18
applicant's representative, NA, not applicable.
19
MR. HEELAN: So what you're saying is the
19
So I guess what I'm saying to you is that the
20
formal application that we completed even though it
20
formal, legal trail that we believe on this
21
may be the Staff memo subsequently following that
21
application is me as Applicant and Margaretta B.
22
formal application which may have misstated points
22
Parks as Owner, not as applicant.
23
of fact from the application can be interpreted at
23
MR. MOFFET: Glenn, thank you and let me ask a
24
will by this Board?
24
question.
25
MR. MOORHEAD: Not at will. It's interpreted
25
MR. AMSDEN: I want to reference something in
PAGE 100
PAGE 102
1
in relation to the Ordinance in relation to the
1
the Code in regard to payment. The owner or
2
evidence presented. Application says owner and
2
applicant has the option of paying the total
3
applicant and I think it was clear that the
3
parking fee at the time of building permit or
4
evidence is the owner must be listed as an
4
paying over a five year period and it goes onto
5
applicant. That's always been required. Mike
5
discuss other issues and then, the second paragraph
6
Mollica testified to that that in every instance
6
in the same *7 says if the owner or applicant. It
7
the owner is also an applicant.
7
does not say owner and/or applicant. It does not
8
MR. HEELAN: Could I see the application,
8
say owner and applicant. It says if owner or
9
please?
9
applicant does choose to pay the fee over a period
10
MR. MOORHEAD: Actually, as a point to the
10
of time, he or she shall be required to sign a
11
Board, once you have gone to motion, you don't have
11
promissory note that shows the total fee due,
12
to take anymore comment from any party.
12
schedule of payments and interest, et cetera.
13
MR. MOFFET: Call the question if you want.
13
MR. HEELAN: We believe that I should have the
14
MR. AMSDEN: I'm going to go ahead and run
14
right to sign the promissory note with 20% down and
15
this through.
15
receive our TCO by the Code. Thank you.
16
MR. DAVISON: Just two points of reference. I
16
MR. AMSDEN: We have a motion on the floor.
17
think the change of chairmanship, and for the
17
All in favor?
18
record, was made after the motion was made, not
18
MR. MOFFET: Aye.
19
before.
19
MR. SCHOFIELD: Aye.
20
MR. MOFFET: No, it was not, Charlie. I told
20
MR. AASLAND: Aye.
21
Greg I would like to make a motion and I asked if
21
MR. AMSDEN: All against? Aye. The motion
22
he would chair while I did that. We've got a Court
22
passes three to one.
23
Reporter here. We can read it back if you'd like.
23
MR. MOFFET: Thank you.
24
Do you want us to?
24
MR. HEELAN: Can I ask you to read back the
25
MR. HEELAN: No. That's fine. But I would
25
motion so I understand what we've got here?
SUMMIT REPORTING 1 800 261 -4818 (97U) 468 -941S
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 TVA RIDGE APPEAL HEARING Pages 103 - 104
PAGE 103
1 (Whereupon, the Motion was read back by the
2 Court Reporter)
3 MR. HEELAN: That says whatever is paper
4 trail. The legal paper trail says I am the
5 applicant and I can sign it.
6 MR. MOFFET: The motion was passed as read.
7 Riva Ridge Partners, Glenn Heelan, Margaretta Parks
8 can sign the promissory note. There's no
9 requirement for a deed of trust. It's the five
10 year promissory note as specified in the Code
11 MR. HEELAN: So the discussion we had
12 subsequent to the motion and/or applicant or owner
13 is irrelevant?
14 MR. AMSDEN: I just read that prior to the
15 vote because I wanted the Commission to understand
16 it.
17 MR. HEELAN: So in order for us to get a TCO,
18 what you're saying is we have to have three
19 signatures on the promissory note; Margaretta,
20 Glenn, Riva Ridge Partners and put down 20% over a
21 five year period of time?
22 MR. MOFFET: That's what my motion reflected,
23 yes?
24 MR. HEELAN: Whatever that fee was ultimately
25 determined?
PAGE 104
1 MR. MOFFET: Exactly.
2 MR. AASLAND: Absent to paying the fee at one
3 time if you want, also.
4 MR. AMSDEN: I will turnover the chair to Greg
5 Moffet.
6 MR. MOFFET: Thank you. I think we have
7 exhausted this issue and it's time again for a
8 break and we'll come back and get to the rest of
9 the agenda. Thank you.
10 (Whereupon, this Hearing concluded at
11 4:45 P.M.)
12 --- 000 - --
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SUMMIT REPORTING , oM A-, -
" " "" `"` -U.,J (970) 468 -9415
tvL
7-o-
� z
kol,
A(2e�
5--=79-
,,
��� ��
< �„ y_ ..
� �.
...�..! 1
-- _ _
__ - I
_ _�
,,
��� ��
< �„ y_ ..
� �.
...�..! 1
November 10, 1997 2:04 PM From: Bill Whiteford Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
November 10, 1997
TO: MEMBERS OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: Bill Whiteford on Behalf of Gretta Parks, Landowner of Vail Village Club Site
Re: PEC Working Session of 11/10/97
Appeal of Town Staff Decisions on 3 Issues related to Parking Assessment:
1. Parking Fee Calculations
2. Denial of TCO to Vail Village Club
3. Town Staff Arbitrary Security Demands
I ask that the Planning and Environmental Commission members take the following into consideration
when they make a determination on the appeal of Town Staff's actions with respect to the Parking Pay -in-
Lieu assessment on the Vail Village Club.
1. Parking Fee Calculation: Vail Village Club is located on a very small site and is the first new or
redeveloped building to fully adhere to the requirements of the "American's with Disabilities Act"
(ADA) and Fire Safety requirements. With wide aisles and corridors implemented throughout the building,
there is a less than optimal building configuration for maximizing "Useable" square footage.
We believe the Town Code clearly specifies that the fee be based on the actual number of tables and seats
that are on site, whereas Town Staff arbitrarily attributes maximum theoretical occupancy to any site based
on its gross square footage and without any consideration for the actual configuration of the site. Even so,
Staff's estimates have curiously escalated as this appeal process has proceeded.
2. Notwithstanding the ultimate resolution of the above issue, the Vail Village Club has offered to pay
under protest the current Staff estimate and sign a 5 year promissory note as provided for in the existing
Vail code. Therefore, the Vail Village Club has fulfilled all the requirements stipulated for obtaining a
TCO. We ask that the PEC direct Town Staff to forthwith issue a TCO.
3. Town Staff has sought to impose additional security requirements on the Vail Village Club and on the
Landowner, Gretta Parks, for the payment of the parking fee. We believe Town Staff is exceeding its
authority in doing so. Furthermore, several attempts by Town Staff to get such authority written into the
Town code have been rebuffed by the Town Council. We ask that PEC direct Town Staff to drop this
requirement and to stick within the scope of the existing code.
Thank you all for your careful consideration of this matter.
Bill Whiteford, on behalf of Gretta Parks
ILA
Qp
U N
V
N
%t
to
lu
%
Q
Ul
to
lu
%
Q
•
r
1
F
3
i
i
f
4
F
3
7a
F
3
i
i
f
4
F
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 10, 1997
SUBJECT: An appeal of three staff interpretations: 1) The staff's classification of the third and
fourth floors as "eating and drinking establishments "; 2) Section 18.52.100 C,
Parking- Requirements Schedule (Eating & Drinking Establishments) and Section
18.52.160, Exemptions (parking pay -in -lieu) - appellant disputes the calculation of
the number of parking spaces required; and 3) The requirement that the
applicant sign the pay -in -lieu promissory note personally and that a Deed of Trust
be filed on the property; located at The Vail Village Club, 333 Bridge Street, Lot C,
Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Appellant: Riva Ridge Partners LLC - Glenn M. Heelan; Margretta B. Parks
Staff: Mike Mollica/Tom Moorhead
SUBJECT PROPERTY
The Vail Village Club is located at 333 Bridge Street, Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1 st
Filing. This building was formerly referred to as Cyrano's.
II. PLANNING and ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JURISDICTION
Pursuant to Section 18.66.030 B,1 - Appeal of Administrative Actions; Authority, the
Planning and Environmental Commission has the authority to hear and decide appeals
from any decision, determination or interpretation by any Town of Vail administrative
official with respect to the provisions of the Zoning Code.
III. PROCEDURAL CRITERIA FOR APPEALS
Pursuant to Sections 18.66.030 B, 2 and 3 - Appeal of Administrative Actions; Initiation
and Procedures, there are three basic criteria for an adequate appeal: standing of the
appellant; adequacy of the notice of appeal; and timeliness of the notice of appeal.
A. Standing of the Appellant
The appellant has standing to appeal the staff's decisions related to the
construction of the Vail Village Club. Riva Ridge Partners LLC is the developer of
the building and the lessee. The owner of the property is Margretta B. Parks.
B. Adequacy of the Notice of Appeal
The application for this appeal was filed by Glenn Heelan (Riva Ridge Partners
TOWNOFYML
LLC) on September 15, 1997. The application has been determined to be
complete by the Department of Community Development.
C. Timeliness of the Notice of Appeal
The Administration Section of the Town's Zoning Code (18.66.030 B, 3 -
Procedures) states the following:
"A written notice of appeal must be filed with the Director of Community
Development or with the department rendering the decision, determination
or interpretation within ten calendar days of the decision becoming final. If
the last day for filing an appeal falls on a Saturday, Sunday or a Town of
Vail observed holiday, the last day for filing an appeal shall be extended to
the next business day. The Administrator's decision shall become final at
the next Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) meeting,
following the Administrator's decision, unless the decision is called -up and
modified by the Board or Commission."
On October 13, 1997, the staff recommended that the Planning & Environmental
Commission reject the appellants appeal. The staff believed that the appellants
did not file a timely appeal, and therefore the appeal had no basis. The staff
recommendation was that the Planning and Environmental Commision reject the
appellants appeal and that the PEC find that the appeal was not filed in a timely
manner, as required by Section 18.66.030 B, 3 - Appeal of Administrative Actions;
Procedures.
On October 13, 1997, the Planning & Environmental Commission passed a
motion (by a vote of 4 -2, with Bishop and Golden opposed) that the appeal not be
considered valid due the timeliness issue.
On October 14, 1997, the Town Council, during the PEC Report, called -up this
item for review.
On October 21, 1997, the Town Council (by a vote of 4 -2, with Ford and Kurtz
opposed) overturned the PEC decision on the timeliness issue and remanded the
appeal: back to the PEC.
IV. NATURE OF THE APPEALS
On September 15, 1997, Glenn Heelan (Riva Ridge Partners LLC) and Margretta B.
Parks submitted formal appeals to the Town of Vail Department of Community
Development. The nature of the appeals are generally described below, and a copy of
the Appeal Form is attached as Exhibit A.
The appellant is appealing the following three staff interpretations:
1) The staff's classification of the third and fourth floors as "eating and drinking
establishments ";
2
2) Section 18.52.100 C, Parking- Requirements Schedule (Eating & Drinking
Establishments) and Section 18.52.160, Exemptions (parking pay -in -lieu) -
appellant disputes the calculation of the number of parking spaces required; and
3) The requirement that the applicant sign the pay -in -lieu promissory note
personally and that a Deed of Trust be filed on the property located at The Vail
Village Club, 333 Bridge Street, Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
The appellant's statements as to the specific nature of the appeals are attached as
Exhibit B, and include two letters from Mr. Glenn Heelan to Mr. Mike Mollica (dated
September 15, 1997 and July 1, 1997) and a letter dated July 30, 1997 from Mr. Eric
Torgersen, with Holley, Albertson & Polk, P. C to Mr. Mike Mollica.
V. REQUIRED ACTION
Uphold /Overturn /Modify the three staff interpretations.
According to Section 18.66.030 B, 5 Appeal of Administrative Actions - Findings, "the
Planning and Environmental Commission shall on all appeals make specific findings of
fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact must
support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of
this title have or have not been met."
The appellant is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission review the
following three staff interpretations:
1) The staff's classification of the third and fourth floors as "eating and drinking
establishments ".
Background:
• On September 21, 1995, Jim Curnutte, then Senior Planner for the Town, wrote the
following to Mr. Glenn Heelan:
"As you know, a "private club" is not listed as a permitted or conditional use in the
Commercial Core 1 Zone District. Staff has determined, however, that your
proposed use is "similar" to two of the "eating and drinking establishments" listed
as conditional uses (above the second floor) in the CC1 Zone District. These
uses are "cocktail lounges and bars" and "restaurants." For your information,
these will also be the categories used to determine the parking requirement
for the club." (emphasis added)
A copy of this letter is attached to this memorandum as Exhibit C.
• On November 27, 1995, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a
request for a conditional use permit to allow for a "quasi- public club" in the Commercial
Core 1 Zone Distrct. The club was proposed to be located on the third and fourth floors
of the Cyrano's Building. It should be noted that the staff memorandum to the Planning
and Environmental Commission contained language identical to that contained in the
3
September 21, 1995 letter from Jim Curnutte to Glenn Heelan. A copy of this staff
memorandum is included as Exhibit D.
Staff Response:
Again, the staff's classification of use (to operate a quasi - public club) on the third and
fourth floors of the structure, was made as early as September 1995. Further, during the
staff and the PEC's review of the conditional use permit for the quasi - public club
(November 1995), both the staff and the PEC determined that the quasi - public club was
similar in nature to "eating and drinking establishments," as identified in Section
18.52.100 C, 5 of the Town Zoning Code.
The staff continues to believe that "eating and drinking establishments" is the appropriate
designation for the quasi - public club use.
2) Section 18.52.100 C, Parking- Requirements Schedule (specifically, Eating & Drinking
Establishments) and Section 18.52.160, Exemptions (parking pay -in -lieu) - appellant
disputes the calculation of the number of parking spaces required;
Background:
• On March 26, 1996, an application for a building permit to construct the Vail Village Club
was made to the Town of Vail's Department of Community Development. The staff's
initial calculations for the parking pay -in -lieu requirement was determined during late
March of 1996, utilizing the building permit drawings submitted by Semple Brown
Roberts, Architects, dated March 18, 1996.
• A June 21, 1996 letter from Glenn Heelan to Mike Mollica, Assistant Director of
Community Development (attached as Exhibit E), in part, states:
"Pursuant to our previous conversations, it is my understanding and agreement
that the parking pay -in -lieu fees currently estimated at $457,334.64 as established
by.Community Development, in accordance with the plans and specifications
submitted by Riva Ridge Partners, LLC, that indicate completion of the third and
fourth floors as a quasi - public club, will be paid over five years with the first
payment due and payable.at the time a Temporary of Certificate of Occupancy is
issued."
• On July 24, 1996, a building permit was issued for the construction of the Vail Village
Club. This building permit included 13 conditions. Condition #3, which is relevant to this
appeal, reads as follows:
"The parking pay -in -lieu fee shall be paid to the Town prior to the issuance of a
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. See Glenn Heelan's letter of June 21, 1996
to Mike Mollica, [Exhibit E] for details."
4
Staff Response:
According to Section 18.52.100 C (Parking- Requirements Schedule), the uses in the Vail
Village Club include retail stores (assessed at 1.0 space per each 300 square feet of net
floor area), other professional and business offices (assessed at 1.0 space per each 250
square feet of net floor area) and eating and drinking establishments (assessed at 1.0
space per each eight seats, based on seating capacity or Building Code occupancy
standards, whichever is more restrictive). Due to the level of detail involved in the staff's
parking analysis, the staff will provide the 1/4" = 1' floor plans for the Planning and
Environmental Commission's review at the hearing. In summary, the staff's calculations
are as follows:
Retail = 3,594 sq. ft. = 11.98 parking spaces
Office = 94 sq. ft. = 0.376 parking spaces
Restaurant/Club = 5,717 sq. ft. = 47.64 parking-spaces
Total = 59.996 parking spaces
-27 ( arandfathered spaces)*
Grand Total = 32.996 parking spaces pay -in -lieu
*Note: The 27 "grandfathered spaces" are those spaces which are considered
pre- existing, based upon the prior uses in the old Cyrano's Building.
Therefore, 32.996 parking spaces x $16,333.38 results in a total parking pay -in -lieu
fee of $538,936.20. It should be noted that the $16,333.38 fee per parking space is the
1996 pay -in -lieu rate. Although the pay -in -lieu fee has yet to be paid for the Vail Village
Club, the Town,has agreed to apply the 1996 rate to this project. The 1997 rate is
$16,905.05. Note: the pay -in -lieu fee was set by the Vail Town Council, pursuent to
Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1994.-
The appellant had requested that the staff calculate the parking requirement for the entire
structure based upon the Uniform Building Code's determination of occupant load.
Although this is not the staff's normal procedure for determining a structure's parking
requirement, we did complete that analysis. An independent analysis was completed by
Mr. Art Hoagland, ICBO Certified Building Official. Mr. Hoagland has determined that the
occupant load for the Vail Village Club is 483 persons. This figure does not include the
additional 10% allowance per Section 25.114, B of the Uniform Fire Code. This 10%
allowance can be approved by the Fire Chief, when additional exit facilities are provided.
Per the Town's parking requirement of 1.0 space per each 8 seats, 483 persons divided
by 8 = 60.375 parking spaces. This is 0.379 spaces more than the staff calculation.
5
Further, upon review of the Town's building permit file for the Vail Village Club, staff has
located an occupant load determination provided by the appellant's architect, Semple
Brown Roberts (Denver, Colorado). This analysis indicates an occupant load of 484
persons. The Semple Brown Roberts analysis is attached as Exhibit F.
3) The requirement that the applicant sign the pay -in -lieu promissory note personally and
that a Deed of Trust be filed on the property.
Staff Response:
This issue will be addressed by Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney, at the Planning and
Environmental Commission public hearing.
Vi. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission uphold the three
staff interpretations that the appellant is contesting. In accordance with the information
presented in this memorandum, and the exhibits attached hereto, staff recommends that
the Planning and Environmental Commission make the following findings:
That the Community Development Department staff, and the Planning and
Environmental Commission, have appropriately classified the quasi - public club,
located on the third and fourth floors of the Vail Village Club, as an "eating and
drinking establishment ";
2. That the Community Development Department staff has appropriately applied
Section 18.52.100 C, Parking- Requirement Schedule and Section 18.52.160,
Exemptions (parking pay -in -lieu) during their review of the building permit floor
plans for the Vail Village Club; and
3. That the Town Attorney has appropriately required the applicant to sign the
parking pay -in -lieu promissory note personally and that a Deed of Trust be filed on
the property.
FAEVERYON E\PEC \M EMOS \97\VVCLUB.N 10
0
TOWS
Exhibit A - 3 Pages
APPEALS FORM
i 4
4 k
REQUIRED FOR FILING AN APPEAL OF A STAFF, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OR
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION
A. ACTION /DECISION BEING APPEALED: A. The interpretation of Ordinance 18.52. 100 and
B.
14
N
the subsequent calculation of the Parking Pay in Lieu Fees of $571,341.68 being
assessed against The Vail Village Club Building at 333 Bridge Street, Vail, Colorado.
B. The requirement that the Applicant sign the promissory note personally and a
Deed of Trust be filed on the property. C. The classfication of the 3rd /4th floors
Club facilities as eating and drinking establishments.
DATE OF ACTION/DECISION: June 17, 1997 (per Mike Mollica's letter)
NAME OF BOARD OR PERSON RENDERING THE DECISION/TAKING ACTION: Mike Mollica,
Ass't Director of Community Development; Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
NAME OF APPELLANT(S): Riva Ridge Partners LLC; Glenn M Heelan; Margretta B. Parks
MAILING ADDRESS: P • 0. Box 5770, Avon, CO 81620
PHYSICAL ADDRESS IN VAIL: 333 Bridge Street PHONE: 949 -6277
LEGAL DESCRIPTIO�YOFIAPPELLANT'S PROPERTY IN VAIL
1st Filing I.
I.
E. SIGNATURE(S)
Pagel of 2
Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village
F. Does this appeal involve a specific parcel of land?
are you an adjacent property owner? Yes
'W>
ye G If yes, please provide the following information:
no X
If no, give a detailed r,'- planation of how you are an "aggrieved or adversely affected person." "Aggrieved or
adversely affected person" means any person who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or
furthered by this title. The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common with other members of the .
community at large, but shall exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons.
Glenn M. Heelan is the Applicant for the exterior alterations.
Riva Ridge Partners LLC is the developer of the buildin and the Lessee
of the property from Margretta B. Parks under the Amended and Restated
Lease Agreement.
Margretta B. Parks is the owner of the property.
G. Provide the names and addresses (both person's mailing address and property's physical address in Vail) of all
.owners of property which arc the subject of the appeal and all adjacent property owners (including properties
separated by a right -of -way, stream, or other intervening barriers). Also provide addressed and stamped envelopes for
each property owner on the list.
H. On separate sheets of paper, specify the precise nature of the appeal. Please cite specific code sections having
relevance to the action being appealed.
1. FEE: $0.00
Page 2 of 2
TOtiVN OF VAILY
FLE COPY
75 South Frontage Road Department of Community Development
Vail, Colorado 81657
970 - 479- 21381479 -2139
FAX 970- 479-2452
June 17, 1997
Glenn licclan
Charles Davison
c/o Riva Ridge Partners, LLC
1'.0. Box 5770
Avon, CO 81620
RE: Vail Village Club - Parking Analysis
Dear Glenn and Charlie:
"Thank you for submitting the final floor plans /seating plans for the Vail Village Club. Based upon these
drawings, 1 have recalculated the parking pay -in -lieu fee as follows:
I . Restaurant /Club = 5,936 sq. ft. = 49.47 parking spaces
2. Retail == 3,704 sq. ft. = 12.35 parking spaces
3. Office = 39 sq. ft. = 0. 16 narkint tinaces
61.98 parking spaces
- 2 >r• n lc tatl�crccj,1
Grand Total 34.98 parking spaces
Per your agreement with,Bob MCL,aurin, 'Town Manager, parking spaces will be assessed at a rate of
516,333.38 per space (1996 pay -in -lice figure_). Therefore, the grand total for the Vail Village Club is
5571,341.63.
As previously agreed to by Bob McLaurin, a ten -year repayment period will be acceptable to the Town.
Should this be your desired course of action, please let us know so that we can finalize the paperwork.
As always, should you have any questions, or comments regarding any of the above, please feel free to
contact me directly at 479 -2144.
Sincerely,
Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Community Development
MM /jr
xc: Bob McLaurin
Tom Moorhead
Steve Thompson
�,y� RECYCLED PAPER
EXHIBIT B - 6 pages
ux
September 15, 1997
Mr. Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
DEV
RE: The Appeal of Staffs Interpretation of Ordinance 18.52. 100 and the
subsequent calculation of the Parking Pay in Lieu fees of $571,341.68
Dear Mr. Mollica,
Enclosed please find the completed appeals form required for filing an appeal of a
staff action. In reference to paragraph H of the appeals form we submit the
following:
Riva Ridge Partners LLC, Glenn M. Heelan, and Margretta B. Parks are appealing
staffs interpretation and subsequent calculation of code section 18.52. 100 and
18.52.160. Staffs interpretations have resulted in classifying the 3rd and 4th
Floors of The Vail Village Club Building located at 333 Bridge Street as a public
eating and drinking establishment, with an accompanying assessment for pay in
lieu parking fees in the amount of $571,341.68. In addition, staff has determined
that in order to defer payment of the pay in lieu fees by the use of a promissory
note, they will require that Riva Ridge Partners LLC (the developer) and one of it's
managers guarantee the promissory note, and that a Deed of Trust be filed on the
property.
As addressed in the attached correspondence, the applicant disputes the calculation
of the number of parking spaces being assessed against the property, the
requirement that he sign personally and a Deed of Trust be filed on the property,
and questions whether in fact, the 3rd and 4th Floors that have a conditional use of
a quasi- public Club be classified as eating and drinking establishments.
Pledse feel free to call with any questions or additional requirements you may
h ve,
Si rely, V
r-
6 enn M. Heelan
July 1, 1997
Mr. Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
Sent Via Facsimile
Dear Mike,
In our meeting yesterday, we discussed our confusion pertaining to the language
of the zoning code relating to Off - Street Parking and Loading; specifically
"18.52.100 Section C. Other Uses #5" as it relates to Eating and drinking
establishments. As I stated, we interpret the section to read how many actual seats
we have, as opposed to the building code occupancy standards which are measured
by occupant load factors per square foot. At your suggestion I will ask Tom
Moorehead and my attorney to clarify the section.
If, after further clarification, it is agreed that the number of seats and the resulting
parking fees are determined by the square footage of the various uses; then, we
still have questions regarding the actual number of square feet being calculated,
mostly as it pertains to the bar on the first floor, and the Club areas on the third
and fourth floors. Therefore, we would appreciate the opportunity to revisit the
parking requirements as soon as we are able to obtain the clarification from our
respective attorneys. At that time, we will also provide the final "remarked"
drawings that represent what is actually being built in the building.
I look fafwd to hearing from Mr. Moorehead and bringing this issue to a close as
soo s posiible.
Si
M. Heelan
cc: Charles W. Davison
L-,
GEORGE ALAN HOLLEY
SCOTT D. ALBERTSON,
DENNIS B. POLK
ERIC E.- TORGERSEN
THOMAS A. WALSH
HOWARD R. STONE
HOLLEY, ALBERTSON 8L POLK, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DENVER WEST OFFICE PARK
Score 100, BULDING 19
1667 COLE BLVD.
GOLDEN, COLORADO 80401
July 30, 1997
BY TELECOPIER AND FIRST -CLASS MAIL
Mr. Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mr. Mollica:
PHONE (303) 233 -7838
FAX (303) 233 -2860
Re: The Vail Village Club, 298 Hanson Ranch
Road, Vail, Colorado (the "Property ")
This firm represents Riva Ridge Partners LLC in connection
with the above - referenced matter. We are in receipt of a copy of
your June 17, 1997, letter concerning the payment of fees in lieu
of parking for the redevelopment of The Vail Village Club. The
purpose of this letter is to set forth our client's position with
regard to those fees in lieu of parking. It is our client's
position, based upon Chapter 18.52 of the Town of Vail Zoning
Ordinance, that the Town has calculated an excessive fee in lieu of
parking for the re- development of The. Vail Village Club. Our
analysis is based upon -the following:
1. It is our understanding that the Property was previously
allocated 27 parking spaces, as computed pursuant to the Zoning
Ordinance. It is our further understanding that our client would
receive credit for these pre- existing parking spaces in connection
with the re- development of the Property, and would be obligated to
pay only the difference between the number of parking spaces as
determined for The Vail Village Club and the original (in this
instance 27) parking spaces attributable to the Property. , Based
upon our review of your June 17, 1997, letter, the Town has
followed this analysis as well. Thus, although this letter will
not discuss our client's position on whether the Town is entitled
to collect any fees in lieu of parking, or the amount per space of
that fee, our client's primary position in this letter is that the
Town has computed an excessive fee based upon the number of parking
spaces attributable to The Vail Village Club as re- developed.
vs
Mr. Mike Mollica
July 30, 1997
Page 2.
2. It appears that the fees in lieu of parking for The Vail
Village Club are set forth in § 18.52.160.B, which provides in
relevant part:
In Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II property
owners or applicants shall be required to contribute to
the Town Parking Fund, hereby established, for the
purpose of meeting the demand and requirements for
vehicle parking. At such time as any property owner or
other applicant proposes to develop or redevelop a parcel
of property within an exempt area which would require
parking and /or loading areas, the owner or applicant
shall pay to the Town the parking fee hereinafter
required.
2. The parking fee to be paid by any owner or applicant
shall be determined by the Town Council.
5. The parking fee to be paid by any owner or applicant
is hereby determined to be fifteen thousand dollars
($15,000.00) per space. This fee shall be automatically
increased annually by the percentage the Consumer Price
Index of the City of Denver has increased over each
successive year.
6. For additions_ or enlargements of any existing
building or change of use that would increase the total
number of parking spaces required, an additional parking
fee will be "required only for such addition, enlargement
or change and not for the entire building or use.
Zoning Ordinance § 18.52.160.B.
It is our understanding that The Vail Village Club is situated
within the Commercial Core I area of the Town of Vail, and
according to the Zoning Ordinance must contribute to the Town
Parking Fund. It does not appear that § 18.52.160.B fixes the
number of parking spaces which would be attributable to a re-
development. Therefore, we assume that the number of parking
spaces (used to determine the pay in lieu fee) is determined from
the specific parking requirement schedule set forth in § 18.52.100.
It is our understanding that The Vail Village Club will be confined
to some retail, personal service and repair shops, and some
restaurant/ club, and a small portion (under 100 square feet)
Mr. Mike Mollica
July 30, 1997
Page 3.
dedicated to office. According to § 18.52.100, parking spaces for
those uses are determined as follows:
C. Other Uses.
4. Retain Store, Personal 1.0 space per each 300
Services and Repair Shops feet of net floor space
5. Eating and Drinking Establishments 1.0 space per each 8 seats,
based on seating capacity or
building code occupancy
standards, whichever is more
restrictive
§ 18.52.100.0 (emphasis added).
Under § 18.52.100.C., parking spaces required for retail use
are determined based upon one space per 300 square feet of net
floor space. For eating and drinking establishments, such as the,
club portion of The Vail Village Club, the parking requirement is
1.0 space per each 8 seats, based on seating capacity or building
code occupancy standards, whichever is more restrictive; however,
it does not appear that this provision permits the determination of
parking requirements based upon square feet of net floor space, as
done for retail establishments. This parking requirement appears
to be consistent with the intent of the ordinance to require off
street parking in the amount actually needed by the development.
This would explain why the Zoning Ordinance determines necessary
parking for a retail establishment based on net floor space, while
a restaurant use is based upon seating capacity.
Based upon our review, it appears that the fee -in -lieu of
parking must be determined based upon the number of off street
parking spaces which the Town could require pursuant to § 18.52.100
of the zoning ordinance. It is our understanding that The Vail
Village Club and restaurants will have a maximum of 210 seats,
which is less than the maximum number permitted under the
applicable building code. Therefore, it would appear that the
number of off - street parking spaces which could be required for the
restaurant /club would be 26.25, i.e., 210 divided by 8, rather than
49.47 as calculated by the Town based upon net floor space. It is
our client's position that the Zoning Ordinance limits the fees in
lieu of parking to an amount equal to the per space fee multiplied
by the number of parking spaces which could be required under §
18.52.100. Assuming the accuracy of the Town's net floor space
calculations, it is our client's position that. the number of
parking spaces should be determined as follows:
4
Mr. Mike Mollica
July 30, 1997
Page 4.
1. Restaurant /Club = 210 Seats = 26.25 Parking Spaces
2. Retail = 3,704 Square Feet = 12.35 Parking Spaces
3. Office = 39 Square Feet = 0.16 Parking Spaces
TOTAL 38.76 Parking Spaces
Minus 27 (Grandfathered)
Net Total 11.76
Finally, it is our client's position that assuming a parking
fee of $16,333.38 per space, the parking fee for The Vail Village
Club should be $192,080.55.
Our client requests that the Town reconsider its computation
of the fees in lieu of parking and advise our client as to whether
the Town will change its position from your June 17, 1997, letter,`
that the parking fee for The Vail Village Club is $571,341.63,'
rather than $192,080.55, as our client suggests. In this regard,.,*
our client would be available to discuss this matter with you at
greater length, if that would serve to clarify their position on
the fees in lieu of parking.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and your
professional courtesies in this regard.
EET /db
cc: Glenn M. Heelan
Sincerely,
HOLLEY, ALBERTS --& POLK, - P.C.
Eric E. Torgersen
TOWN OF PAIL 0/
75 Soutli Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970- 479- 21381479 -2139
FAX 970 -479 -2452
September 21, 1995
Mr. Glenn M. Heelan
P.O. Box 5770
Avon, CO 81620
EXHIBIT C - 2 PAGF
Department of Community Development
RE: Application for a Conditional Use Permit for the Serrano's
Building, Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing
Dear Mr. Heelan:
I have completed a review of your recently submitted conditional
use permit application to operate a private club on the third and
fourth floors of the Serrano's Building, Lot C, Block 2, Vail
Village 1st filing. Additional information must be provided in
order for staff to ade revi equest. Pleas-e- respond
to t he -e�.l o��
- As you know, a "Private Club" is not listed as a permitted
or conditional use in the Commercial Core -I (CCI) zone
district. Staff has determined, however, that your proposed
use_ is "similar" to two of the "eating and drinking
establishments" listed as conditional uses (above the second
floor) in the CCI zone district. These uses are 11 Cocktail
lounges and bars" and "restaurants ". For your information,
these will also be the categories used to determine the
parking requirement for the club.
-- -Tn 'e-reZ` t oNaqZp,� t e p a c' i c t s o y�p o sus e,
and as required in Sec n III (3) of the Conditional Use
Permit application requirements, please provide detailed floor
plans which indicate the layout.of all proposed uses on the
third and fourth floors of the building.
- Your application states that no exterior changes will be
made to the building. However, depending on the scope of the
food service element of your proposal, it would appear that
additional mechanical equipment may be necessary. Please
provide a detailed description of how private dinner parties,
meeting /dining rooms, additional food prep. areas, bars,
kitchens, etc. will be handled.
?`S� RECYCLED PAPER
Mr. Glenn M. Heelan
Page 2
- In the Commercial Core I Zone District "meeting rooms" may
be approved, as a conditional use permit, only in the basement
or garden level and on the second level of a building. They
are not allowed, as a permitted or conditional use, on the
first floor or street level or on any level of a building
above the second floor. It would appear from your application
description that the meeting /dining rooms will be used solely
by club members, and therefore considered as accessory to the
functions of the club. However, we must receive a more
detailed explanation of their intended use. The club members,
as a group, cannot rent the rooms to the general public.
- How will the area on the second floor of the building,
currently labeled "The Private Club ", be affected by your
proposed use?
- Please provide a more detailed description of the "office
space for building and club operations" as described in your
application.
As mentioned previously, staff believes that additional information
is necessary in order to fully understand all possible impacts
associated with your proposed conditional use. In order to stay on
schedule for the October 9, 1995, PEC meeting, please provide the
above requested information no later than 5:00 p.m., Monday,
September 25, 1995.
Sincerely,
Jim Curnutte
Senior Planner
cc: Mike Mollica
Andy Knudtsen
L-f tl e
EXHIBIT D - 7 paf
MEMORANDUM PLE
COPY
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 27, 1995
SUBJECT: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a "quasi- public club" in the
Commercial Core I Zone District to be located on the 3rd and 4th floors of the
Serrano's Building located at 298 Hansen Ranch Road /Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village
1st Filing.
Applicant: Margaretta B. Parks, represented by Glen Heelan
Planner: Jim Curnutte
I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Glen Heelan, on behalf of the building owner, has requested PEC approval of a Conditional Use
Permit in order to construct a "quasi- public club" in the Commercial Core I (CCI) Zone District, to
be located on the 3rd and 4th floors of the recently approved new Serrano's Building, located at
298 Hansen Ranch Road. The Town of Vail Municipal Code defines a quasi - public use
differently from a use that is entirely private or public. For the PEC's information, the code
defines these uses as follows:
Private - "Private" means a use, area, property or facility which is not public. (Ord.
21(1994), § 5.)
- Public - "Public" means a use, area, property or facility which:
A. Is owned and operated by a governmental entity, and
functions or is available for use by all persons whether with
or without charge; or
B. Is owned or operated by a person or entity other than a
governmental entity, and functions or is available for use by
all persons without charge. (Ord. 21(1994) § 6.)
- Quasi - Public - "Quasi- public" means a use which is characterized by its availability to
the public, with or without cost, but which is conducted by an entity,
organizatiooD._j persorvff not a goyZrnmental entity. (Ord. 2;.(k94)
�.,,n
A "quasi- public club" is not specifically listed as a permitted or conditional use in the CCI Zone
District. Near the end of the list of conditional uses, however, is a statement which allows for
"additional uses determined to be similar to the permitted and conditional uses described above."
Staff has determined that the proposed quasi - public club is "similar" to two of the eating and
drinking establishments listed as conditional uses (above the 2nd floor) in the CCI Zone District.
These uses are "cocktail lounges and bars" and "restaurants." Since staff has determined that
these uses are similar to the proposed quasi - public club, the applicant has proceeded to apply
for a Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, staff will use these categories in order to determine
the parking requirement for the club.
f:\ everyone \pec \memos \serranos.n27
YqMe.�
jJfdJn more detail in Section
Heel an, recently received PEC approval (Marchr13 9)95)tt II demolish the the existing Serrano's Glen
Building and replace it with a new structure. The approved uses on the 3rd floor of the new
building include two offices and a portion of a residential condominium. The remainder of the
condominium would be located on the fourth floor of the building. The new concept is to use the
3rd and 4th floors exclusively for a quasi - public club. The club owners will be offering their
members not only the traditional ski storage (in the basement), but also areas of comfort and
relaxation together with an array of services. The applicant has indicated that club members
would have the ability to ski down to the base of the mountain, give their skiis to the ski valet,
and enter the club. Here they would have the luxury of taking off their boots, sitting down by the
fireplace in a quiet atmosphere to relax in the comfort of their "mountain living room." They might
enjoy the refreshment of their choice, make a couple of phone calls, check the stock market,
send a fax, hold a meeting or host a dinner party for their family, friends, or business associates.
It is anticipated that the 3rd floor of the building would be used for:
A. Personal lockers, steam room and showers (similar to a private golf club where
bags are stored elsewhere);
B. Office space for building and club operations;
C. Lounge area where members could have a drink, make a call, send a fax; and
D. Up to three meeting and /or dining rooms.
The 4th floor is anticipated to be the "living room on the mountain." This is an area where
members could sit by the fire and relax, meet with friends and family, have an appetizer and a
drink.
This Conditional Use Permit request does not involve any exterior changes to the previously
approved building.
The original approval of the Serrano's redevelopment included a restaurant and a "private club"
on the 2nd floor of the building. The applicant has indicated that that portion of the 2nd floor
currently labeled as private club, will be used as additional dining for the 2nd floor restaurant.
Since this entire area was calculated as a restaurant for parking purposes, there will be no
additional impacts associated with the proposed change in use.
BACKGROUND
On March 13, 1995, Glen Heelan, the project developer, received PEC approval to demolish the
existing Serrano's Building and replace it with a new structure. (Please see attachment #1, site
plan, elevation drawings and floor plans of the approved building). The building program
included:
• Commercial uses and a potential nightclub in the basement.
• Retail uses on the 1st floor.
• Restaurant uses on the 2nd floor.
• Two offices and a portion of a condominium on the 3rd floor.
• The remainder of the condominium on the 4th floor.
f:\ everyone \Dec \memos \serranos.n27 2
In addition to these uses, walkway and landscape improvements on the north, east and south
sides of the building were approved, as well as a 2nd floor outdoor dining deck over the Hansen
Ranch Road right -of -way.
To accomplish the above described proposal, a CCI Major Exterior Alteration and the following
variances were required:
A setback variance for an 11 -foot encroachment into the 30 -foot stream
setback for Mill Creek (for the basement floor only);
2. A variance for common area of 78.9% (35% is allowed by zoning).
Also, the following two conditional use permits were required:
1. An outdoor dining deck on the second floor; and
2. Office space on the third floor.
The project was reviewed and ultimately approved by the Vail Town Council and the Design
Review Board in the Spring of 1995.
Although the applicant had intended to demolish the existing structure and begin construction of
the new building in the spring of 1995, he was not able to adhere to that schedule and
demolition /construction has been delayed until the spring of 1996. In the meantime, the
applicant has reconsidered the previously approved uses of the 3rd and 4th floors of the
building.
On October 9, 1995, a worksession was held with the PEC to discuss this Conditional Use
Permit request. At that time, the applicant had intended to have the club be a "private" club. The
PEC was not receptive to the idea of a private club in the Village and the negative precedent that
may set and directed the applicant to explore other options. In response to that direction, the
applicant has amended the intended operations of the club so that the club would now be open
to the public (see attachment #2 for floor plans of the club). The applicant has indicated that the
public would be able to avail themselves of a number of options related to club services. For
example,the public could rent ski lockers in the club on a seasonal basis, pay a daily, weekly or
monthly access fee to use all, or a portion of, the club amenities, or pay a full membership fee
and accompanying annual dues. The applicant has also pointed out that the liquor license
associated with this club will be the same as those granted to public restaurants and will not be a
private liquor license.
On November 13, 1995, the PEC tabled this application and requested that the Town Attorney
provide a written opinion on the applicant's right to apply for the requested Conditional Use
Permit. See attached copy of the Town Attorney's response to the PEC request.
Ill. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL
Upon review of Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, the Community Development
Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following
factors:
f:\ everyone \pec \memos \serranos.n27 3
1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of
the Town.
Staff's B=an - Staff is in support of the proposed use of the 3rd and
4th floors of the Serrano's Building as a quasi - public club. It would appear
that the club has the potential to provide more activity and interest in the
Village than would be provided by one residential dwelling unit and two
office spaces.
Additionally, staff believes that the proposed Conditional Use Permit
request would serve to carry out the following goals, policies and
objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan:
2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of a new
commercial activity where compatible with existing
land uses.
2.4.1 Policy: Commercial in -fill development consistent with
established horizontal zoning regulations shall be
encouraged to provide activity generators,
accessible greenspaces, public plazas, and
streetscape improvements to the pedestrian
network throughout the Village.
2.4.2 Policy: Activity that provides night life and evening
entertainment for both the guests and the
community shall be encouraged.
2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and
maintenance of existing lodging and commercial
facilities to better serve the needs of our guests.
In the CCI Zone District, "meeting rooms" may be approved, as a
Conditional Use, only in the basement or garden level and on the 2nd level
of a building: They are not allowed, as a permitted or conditional use, on
the 1st floor or street level or any level of a building above the 2nd floor.
Since the applicant's request includes the proposed use of a portion of the
3rd floor for meeting and /or dining rooms, staff was concerned with
authorizing a use which is specifically prohibited on this level of a building
in the CCI Zone District. The applicant has responded to staff's concern
by committing that the meeting rooms will be used solely by club
members, and therefore, can be considered as accessory to the functions
of the quasi - public club. The club members, as a group, will not rent the .
rooms to the general public.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities needs.
f: \everyone \pec \memos \serranos.n27 4
taff Response - Staff believes that the proposed change in use from
residential and office use to a quasi - public club will have no negative effect
on any of the above listed criteria.
3. Effect upon traffic,with particular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control,
access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and
parking areas.
Staff Response - Staff believes that the proposed change in use from
residential and office use to a quasi - public club will have no negative effect
on any of the above listed criteria.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to
be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in
relation to surrounding uses.
Staff Response - As mentioned previously, there will be no external
changes made in conjunction with this proposed change in approved uses
of the 3rd and 4th floors of the Serrano's Building. Therefore, there will be
no changes in the scale and bulk of the building previously reviewed and
approved by the PEC, Town Council and Design Review Board. With
regard to the change in use and its effect on the character of the area,
staff believes that the proposed change from one large residential
condominium unit and two small office spaces, to a quasi - public club,
could have the effect of providing more activity and therefore a livelier feel
to the Village, which is a goal of the Town.
B. Findinas
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before granting a conditional use permit:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of the
conditional use permit _section of the zoning code and the purposes of the
district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
C. Additional Criteria for consideration of Conditional Use Permit aRpiications in
the CCI Zone District
In addition to the standard Conditional Use Permit Criteria and Findings listed in
f:\ everyone \pec \memos \serranos.n27 5
paragraphs A and B above, applications for a Conditional Use Permit within the
CC I Zone District must address the following additional development factors:
Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I District;
Sta_ ff Red nse - The proposed change of approved uses on the 3rd and
4th floors of the Serrano's Building, from a dwelling unit and office space
to a quasi - public club, would not appear to have a negative effect on
vehicular traffic in the CC I Zone District. The loading and delivery traffic
associated with the club will be accommodated by the same loading and
delivery vehicles associated with the restaurant already approved on the
second level of the building and should not result in additional traffic
impacts.
2. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core 1 District;
Sta__ ff Response - The proposed change in use would not appear to cause
a reduction, or increase, in vehicular traffic in the CCI Zone District.
3. Reduction of nonessential off - street parking;
Staff Response - The proposed change in use would not reduce, or
increase non - essential off - street parking. There is currently no off - street
parking associated with this property.
4. Control of delivery, pick -up and service vehicles;
Staff Response - As mentioned in staff's response to criteria #1 above,
staff believes that there will be no increase in the number of delivery, pick-
up or service vehicles associated with the proposed club.
The food and beverage elements associated with the club appear to be
minimal and can be accommodated through the deliveries that would
already occur in relation to the restaurant on the 2nd level.
5. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians;
Staf- f Response - The proposed quasi - public club will have no effect,
Positive or negative, on public spaces for use by pedestrians.
6. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and public uses in
Commercial Core I District so as to maintain the existing character of the
area;
Staff Res nse - Staff believes that the proposed quasi - public club use
would continue the various commercial and public uses in the CC I Zone
District. Approval of the club would displace the previously approved
dwelling unit from the property, however, since the Serrano's Building
does not currently have a dwelling unit in it, (only an approval for one large
condominium to be built), the proposed club will not change the existing
character of the area. In staff's opinion, the replacement of the approved
condominium unit with a club is a positive change, as it would appear to
offer the opportunity to provide a more active and lively feel to the Village,
and to provide additional services and amenities for the Town's guests.
f: \everyone \pec \memos \serranos.n27 6
7. Controi quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design
in Commercial Core 1 District so as to maintain the existing character of
the area;
Staff Res onse - The applicant has stated that no exterior changes will be
made to the building in association with the proposed club. Staff was
concerned however, that depending on the scope of the food service
element of the private club, it may be necessary to add additional
mechanical equipment related to any new or expanded kitchen area. In
response to this concern, the applicant has assured staff that all food
preparation activities associated with the club will be handled in the
kitchen of the restaurant, located on the 2nd floor of the building.
8. Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on the environment
of Commercial Core I District.
Staff Response - Staff believes that none of the elements listed above will
be a concern related to the proposed club use of the 3rd and 4th floor, with
the possible exception of noise. This issue was a concern during the initial
discussion of the building's redevelopment, related to the possible bar use
in the building. The solution to that discussion was that noise levels will
be adequately addressed through the Town's existing noise ordinances,
and staff believes those measures are appropriate for the proposed club
as well.
IV. ,STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the Criteria and Findings outlined for review of Conditional Use Permit
applications in the CCI Zone District, staff recommends approval of the applicant's request
for a quasi - public club on the 3rd and 4th levels of the Serrano's Building. Staff
recommends that the following conditions be attached to the conditional use permit approval of
the club:
As mentioned previously, the original approval of the Serrano's redevelopment
application included a Conditional Use Permit for two office spaces on the 3rd
floor. With the club's Conditional Use Permit application, the only office use
occurring on the 3rd or 4th floors will be offices used by employees and staff for
"building and club operations."
The applicant has stated that this office space will not be rented to outside
parties. The staff recommends that since the office Conditional Use Permit
granted in the sprin of 199 longerr �sary it shall be consider ull
a voi o e aq al of then "Club" Cd itsadtiion�dl.Use er�i i
2. Once final floor plan drawings are provided for staff review, a parking analysis will
be performed in order to determine if there is an incremental parking demand
associated with the proposed quasi - public club, as compared to the previously
approved commercial office and residential uses on the 3rd and 4th levels of the
building. Upon completion of the parking analysis, a parking pay -in -lieu fee may,
be determined. This fee must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for
the project. ,\ _
Please note that, un-Zru Section 18.60.080 (Permit ApprovaTINITT*Effect) of-me Town of Vail v
Municipal Code, the approval shall lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the
date of issuance and diligently pursued until completion, or if the use for which the permit is
granted is not commenced within two years.
f:\ everyone \pec \memos \serranos.nl3 7
EXHIBIT E - 1 page
June 21, 1996
Mr. Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
Dear
Pursuant to our previous conversations, it is my understanding and agreement that the
parking pay -in -lieu fees currently estimated at $457,334.64 as established by Community
Development in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted by Riva Ridge
Partners, LLC that indicate completion of the third and fourth floors as a Quasi- Public
Club, will be paid over five years with the first payment due and payable at the time a
Temporary
L�rt ficate of Occupancy is issued. scus To o L Buildin eent has requested a ruling fr CBO with respect to certain aspects of
d flo n. t is my u andi that earlier today, Dan Stanek received
information from IC t a requires a change of design to the third floor. I would like to
request that if the design alternatives warrant a reduction in the parking requirements that
these reductions be reflected in the agreed upon parking pay -in -lieu fee.
It is also my understanding that in the event Riva Ridge Partners LLC revises the current
submission and changes the third and fourth floors to a residential and office use" the
applicable parking pay -in -lieu fee is currently $179,667.18. It is also my understanding
that this fee, if applicable, would be paid over five years with the first payment due at the
time of the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
Finally, in a discussion earlier today with Bob McLaurin, I requested that in the event the
Town Council revises the pay -in -lieu fees or terms of payment such that the changes
would be beneficial to The Vail Village Club, that we be included in the changes for the
purposes of calculating the appropriate fee and/or payment schedule at the time the
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is issued. As I discussed with Mr. McLaurin, we
believe that the long term economic benefits to the Town of Vail vis a vis the continuing
sales taxes generated by a commercial use of the third and fourth floors greatly outweigh
a residential use of the same space, yet the "penalties" imposed by the greater parking
requirements and fees of commercial use may ultimately be the "final straw" that forces us
to use the space as a residential condominium. I am hopeful that the Town Council also
sees the long term benefits of such an approach and chooses to include us in any
improvements to the current parking pay -in -lieu ordinance.
If Pan provide any further assistance, I can be reached at 949 -6277.
Xncer,
n
S E M P l E
7XHIBIT F - 1 page
i
I
1406 Larimer Square, Suite 200
Denver, Colorado 80202 j
A Projessioncl Corporation
o(Archrtects and Designers
Phone 303 - 571.4137
Fax 303 - 571 -0403
TOTAL P.03
a R O W N
R O 8 E R T S
/AIL VILLAGE. GLI35
PROJECT I NO.
t'�yEMB1Js = 4,t4� groom S�.
DATE
lire: hani�i %leriCa� ®3805. - 300
= 2
lackeys /s hauler -s 2, 3 s. F 50
F�-i :ac'i
5ubtOtal ocGupar;+r-1
TELECON OtFZST
F Cfz = 3,86`l9ress ��:
CONFER O
2,944 net :a.r.
r
MEMO O
j bar area (9 90Cs. ;. l�
�Q-
INFO ❑
subtotal OCCuUpan -s
128
r = -5/66Z s,p, 9 Toss
2)4 5 G net 5A
PARTICIPANTS
k; �Ghen back qtr 200 =
5
s�fotaJ occupa nts
oAr;c -es 272 5,P. 100
L i n;n�5 / f oun5e- 1,7q¢ s.'. 15
/20
Sub1'oi -ai occuj�an`�s
�z�
�OUR�M r (ADS = it 5 (04'- gross s.n.
!, R 74- nef sA
IOU noc, ! ` Q-7 4 9.�-,
G5
COPY:
tetcz u fS
'
PARTICIPANTS
❑
PM
❑ TOTAL 4� OF 6::,"-4A PAJT5
48�
ORIG.TO CENTRAL
FILE
❑
i
I
1406 Larimer Square, Suite 200
Denver, Colorado 80202 j
A Projessioncl Corporation
o(Archrtects and Designers
Phone 303 - 571.4137
Fax 303 - 571 -0403
TOTAL P.03
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 10, 1997
SUBJECT: An appeal of three staff interpretations: 1) The staff's classification of the third and
fourth floors as "eating and drinking establishments "; 2) Section 18.52.100 C,
Parking- Requirements Schedule (Eating & Drinking Establishments) and Section
18.52.160, Exemptions (parking pay -in -lieu) - appellant disputes the calculation of
the number of parking spaces required; and 3) The requirement that the
applicant sign the pay -in -lieu promissory note personally and that a Deed of Trust
be filed on the property; located at The Vail Village Club, 333 Bridge Street, Lot C,
Block 2, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Appellant: Riva Ridge Partners LLC - Glenn M. Heelan; Margretta B. Parks
Staff: Mike Mollica/Tom Moorhead
SUBJECT PROPERTY
The Vail Village Club is located at 333 Bridge Street, Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1 st
Filing. This building was formerly referred to as Cyrano's.
II. PLANNING and ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JURISDICTION
Pursuant to Section 18.66.030 B,1 - Appeal of Administrative Actions; Authority, the
Planning and Environmental Commission has the authority to hear and decide appeals
from any decision, determination or interpretation by any Town of Vail administrative
official with respect to the provisions of the Zoning Code.
III. PROCEDURAL CRITERIA FOR APPEALS
Pursuant to Sections 18.66.030 B, 2 and 3 - Appeal of Administrative Actions; Initiation
and Procedures, there are three basic criteria for an adequate appeal: standing of the
appellant; adequacy of the notice of appeal; and timeliness of the notice of appeal.
A. Standing of the Appellant
The appellant has standing to appeal the staff's decisions related to the
construction of the Vail Village Club. Riva Ridge Partners LLC is the developer of
the building and the lessee. The owner of the property is Margretta B. Parks.
B. Adequacy of the Notice of Appeal
The application for this appeal was filed by Glenn Heelan (Riva Ridge Partners
6
*VAIL TOWN O
LLC) on September 15, 1997. The application has been determined to be
complete by the Department of Community Development.
C. Timeliness of the Notice of Appeal
The Administration Section of the Town's Zoning Code (18.66.030 B, 3 -
Procedures) states the following:
"A written notice of appeal must be filed with the Director of Community
Development or with the department rendering the decision, determination
or interpretation within ten calendar days of the decision becoming final. If
the last day for filing an appeal falls on a Saturday, Sunday or a Town of
Vail observed holiday, the last day for filing an appeal shall be extended to
the next business day. The Administrator's decision shall become final at
the next Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) meeting,
following the Administrator's decision, unless the decision is called -up and
modified by the Board or Commission."
On October 13, 1997, the staff recommended that the Planning & Environmental
Commission reject the appellants appeal. The staff believed that the appellants
did not file a timely appeal, and therefore the appeal had no basis. The staff
recommendation was that the Planning and Environmental Commision reject the
appellants appeal and that the PEC find that the appeal was not filed in a timely
manner, as required by Section 18.66.030 B, 3 - Appeal of Administrative Actions;
Procedures.
On October 13, 1997, the Planning & Environmental Commission passed a
motion (by a vote of 4 -2, with Bishop and Golden opposed) that the appeal not be
considered valid due the timeliness issue.
On October 14, 1997, the Town Council, during the PEC Report, called -up this
item for review.
On October 21, 1997, the Town Council (by a vote of 4 -2, with Ford and Kurtz
opposed) overturned the PEC decision on the timeliness issue and remanded the
appeal back to the PEC.
IV. NATURE OF THE APPEALS
On September 15, 1997, Glenn Heelan (Riva Ridge Partners LLC) and Margretta B.
Parks submitted formal appeals to the Town of Vail Department of Community
Development. The nature of the appeals are generally described below, and a copy of
the Appeal Form is attached as Exhibit A.
The appellant is appealing the following three staff interpretations:
1) The staff's classification of the third and fourth floors as "eating and drinking
establishments ";
K
2) Section 18.52.100 C, Parking- Requirements Schedule (Eating & Drinking
Establishments) and Section 18.52.160, Exemptions (parking pay -in -lieu) -
appellant disputes the calculation of the number of parking spaces required; and
3) The requirement that the applicant sign the pay -in -lieu promissory note
personally and that a Deed of Trust be filed on the property located at The Vail
Village Club, 333 Bridge Street, Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
The appellant's statements as to the specific nature of the appeals are attached as
Exhibit B, and include two letters from Mr. Glenn Heelan to Mr. Mike Mollica (dated
September 15, 1997 and July 1, 1997) and a letter dated July 30, 1997 from Mr. Eric
Torgersen, with Holley, Albertson & Polk, P. C to Mr. Mike Mollica.
V. REQUIRED ACTION
Uphold /Overturn /Modify the three staff interpretations.
According to Section 18.66.030 B, 5 Appeal of Administrative Actions - Findings, "the
Planning and Environmental Commission shall on all appeals make specific findings of
fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact must
support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of
this title have or have not been met."
The appellant is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission review the
following three staff interpretations:
1) The staff's classification of the third and fourth floors as "eating and drinking
establishments ".
Background:
• On September 21, 1995, Jim Curnutte, then Senior Planner for the Town, wrote the
following to Mr. Glenn Heelan:
"As you know, a "private club" is not listed as a permitted or conditional use in the
Commercial Core 1 Zone District. Staff has determined, however, that your
proposed use is "similar" to two of the "eating and drinking establishments" listed
as conditional uses (above the second floor) in the CC1 Zone District. These
uses are "cocktail lounges and bars" and "restaurants." For your information,
these will also be the categories used to determine the parking requirement
for the club." (emphasis added)
A copy of this letter is attached to this memorandum as Exhibit C.
• On November 27, 1995, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a
request for a conditional use permit to allow for a "quasi- public club" in the Commercial
Core 1 Zone District. The club was proposed to be located on the third and fourth floors
of the Cyrano's Building. It should be noted that the staff memorandum to the Planning
and Environmental Commission contained language identical to that contained in the
3
September 21, 1995 letter from Jim Curnutte to Glenn Heelan. A copy of this staff
memorandum is included as Exhibit D.
Staff Response:
Again, the staff's classification of use (to operate a quasi - public club) on the third and
fourth floors of the structure, was made as early as September 1995. Further, during the
staff and the PEC's review of the conditional use permit for the quasi - public club
(November 1995), both the staff and the PEC determined that the quasi - public club was
similar in nature to "eating and drinking establishments," as identified in Section
18.52.100 C, 5 of the Town Zoning Code.
The staff continues to believe that "eating and drinking establishments" is the appropriate
designation for the quasi - public club use.
2) Section 18.52.100 C, Parking- Requirements Schedule (specifically, Eating & Drinking
Establishments) and Section 18.52.160, Exemptions (parking pay -in -lieu) - appellant
disputes the calculation of the number of parking spaces required;
Background:
• On March 26, 1996, an application for a building permit to construct the Vail Village Club
was made to the Town of Vail's Department of Community Development. The staff's
initial calculations for the parking pay -in -lieu requirement was determined during late
March of 1996, utilizing the building permit drawings submitted by Semple Brown
Roberts, Architects, dated March 18, 1996.
• A June 21, 1996 letter from Glenn Heelan to Mike Mollica, Assistant Director of
Community Development (attached as Exhibit E), in part, states:
"Pursuant to our previous conversations, it is my understanding and agreement
that the parking pay -in -lieu fees currently estimated at $457,334.64 as established
by Community Development, in accordance with the plans and specifications
submitted by Riva Ridge Partners, LLC, that indicate completion of the third and
fourth floors as a quasi - public club, will be paid over five years with the first
payment due and payable at the time a Temporary of Certificate of Occupancy is
issued."
• On July 24, 1996, a building permit was issued for the construction of the Vail Village
Club. This building permit included 13 conditions. Condition #3, which is relevant to this
appeal, reads as follows:
"The parking pay -in -lieu fee shall be paid to the Town prior to the issuance of a
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. See Glenn Heelan's letter of June 21, 1996
to Mike Mollica, [Exhibit E] for details."
4
Staff Response:
According to Section 18.52.100 C (Parking- Requirements Schedule), the uses in the Vail
Village Club include retail stores (assessed at 1.0 space per each 300 square feet of net
floor area), other professional and business offices (assessed at 1.0 space per each 250
square feet of net floor area) and eating and drinking establishments (assessed at 1.0
space per each eight seats, based on seating capacity or Building Code occupancy
standards, whichever is more restrictive). Due to the level of detail involved in the staff's
parking analysis, the staff will provide the 1/4" = 1' floor plans for the Planning and
Environmental Commission's review at the hearing. In summary, the staff's calculations
are as follows:
Retail = 3,594 sq. ft. = 11.98 parking spaces
Office = 94 sq. ft. = 0.376 parking spaces
Restaurant/Club = 5,717 sq. ft. = 47.64 parking spaces
Total = 59.996 parking spaces
-27 ( arandfathered spaces)*
Grand Total = 32.996 parking spaces pay -in -lieu
*Note: The 27 "grandfathered spaces" are those spaces which are considered
pre- existing, based upon the prior uses in the old Cyrano's Building.
Therefore, 32.996 parking spaces x $16,333.38 results in a total parking pay -in -lieu
fee of $538,936.20. It should be noted that the $16,333.38 fee per parking space is the
1996 pay -in -lieu rate. Although the pay -in -lieu fee has yet to be paid for the Vail Village
Club, the Town has agreed to apply the 1996 rate to this project. The 1997 rate is
$16,905.05. Note: the pay -in -lieu fee was set by the Vail Town Council, pursuent to
Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1994.
The appellant had requested that the staff calculate the parking requirement for the entire
structure based upon the Uniform Building Code's determination of occupant load.
Although this is not the staff's normal procedure for determining a structure's parking
requirement, we did complete that analysis. An independent analysis was completed by
Mr. Art Hoagland, ICBO Certified Building Official. Mr. Hoagland has determined that the
occupant load for the Vail Village Club is 483 persons. This figure does not include the
additional 10% allowance per Section 25.114, B of the Uniform Fire Code. This 10%
allowance can be approved by the Fire Chief, when additional exit facilities are provided.
Per the Town's parking requirement of 1.0 space per each 8 seats, 483 persons divided
by 8 = 60.375 parking spaces. This is 0.379 spaces more than the staff calculation.
5
Further, upon review of the Town's building permit file for the Vail Village Club, staff has
located an occupant load determination provided by the appellant's architect, Semple
Brown Roberts (Denver, Colorado). This analysis indicates an occupant load of 484
persons. The Semple Brown Roberts analysis is attached as Exhibit F.
3) The requirement that the applicant sign the pay -in -lieu promissory note personally and
that a Deed of Trust be filed on the property.
Staff Response:
This issue will be addressed by Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney, at the Planning and
Environmental Commission public hearing.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission uphold the three
staff interpretations that the appellant is contesting. In accordance with the information
presented in this memorandum, and the exhibits attached hereto, staff recommends that
the Planning and Environmental Commission make the following findings:
1. That the Community Development Department staff, and the Planning and
Environmental Commission, have appropriately classified the quasi - public club,
located on the third and fourth floors of the Vail Village Club, as an "eating and
drinking establishment ";
2. That the Community Development Department staff has appropriately applied
Section 18.52.100 C, Parking- Requirement Schedule and Section 18.52.160,
Exemptions (parking pay -in -lieu) during their review of the building permit floor
plans for the Vail Village Club; and
3. That the Town Attorney has appropriately required the applicant to sign the
parking pay -in -lieu promissory note personally and that a Deed of Trust be filed on
the property.
F:\ EVERYONE \PEC \MEMOS \97\VVCLUB.N10
TON
Exhibit A - 3 Pages
APPEALS FORM
FT
REQUIRED FOR FILING AN APPEAL OF A STAFF, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OR
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION
A. ACTION /DECISION BEING APPEALED: A. The interpretation of Ordinance 18.52. 100 and
the subsequent calculation of the Parking Pay in Lieu Fees of $571,341.68 being
assessed against The Vail Village Club Building at 333 Bridge Street, Vail, Colorado.
B. The requirement that the Applicant sign the promissory note personally and a
Deed of Trust be filed on the property. C. The classfication of the 3rd /4th floors
Club facilities as eating and drinking establishments.
B. DATE OF ACTION/DECISION: June 17, 1997 (per Mike Mol.lica's letter)
C. NAME OF BOARD OR PERSON RENDERING THE DECISION/TAKING ACTION: Mike Mollica,
Ass't Director of Community Development; Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
D. NAME OF APPELLANT(S): Riva Ridge Partners LLC; Glenn M. Heelan; Margr.etta B. Parks
MAILING ADDRESS: P. 0. Box 5770, Avon, CO 81620
PHYSICAL ADDRESS IN VAIL: 333 Bridge Street
LEGAL DESCRIPTIOIjYOF%APPELLANT'S PROPERTY IN VAIL
1st Filing /
/�• V v1 ��li( ,
E vim.
SIGNATURE(S):
Pagel of 2
HONE: 949 -6277
Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village
.F4%—
F. Does this appeal involve a specific parcel of land? yes If yes, please provide the following infonnation:
are you an adjacent property owner? Yes no X
If no, give a detailed (-;:planation of how you are an "aggrieved or adversely affected person." "Aggrieved or
adversely affected person" means any person who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or
furthered by this title. The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common with other members of the
community at large, but shall exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons.
Glenn M. Heelan is the Applicant for the exterior alterations.
Riva Ridge Partners LLC is the developer of the building and the Lessee
of the property from Margretta B. Parks under the Amended and Restated
Lease Agreement.
Margretta B. Parks is the owner of the property.
G. Provide the names and addresses (both person's mailing address and property's physical address in Vail) of all
owners of property which are the subject of the appeal and all adjacent property owners (including properties
separated by a right -of -way, stream, or other intervening barriers). Also provide addressed and stamped envelopes for
each property owner on the list.
H. On separate sheets of paper, specify the precise nature of the appeal. Please cite specific code sections having
relevance to the action being appealed.
I. FEE: $0.00
Page 2 of 2
TORN
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970 - 479 - 21381479 -2139
FAX 970 - 479 -2452
June 17, 1997
Glenn Heelan
Charles Davison
c/o Riva Ridge Partners, LLC
P.O. Box 5770
Avon, CO 81620
RE: Vail Village Club - Parking Analysis
Dear Glenn and Charlie:
FLE COPY
Department of Community Development
"Thank you for submitting the final floor plans /seating Plans for the Vail Village Club. Based upon these
drawings, I have recalculated the parking pay -in -lieu fee as follows:
Restaurant /Club = 5,936 sq. ft. = 49.47 parking spaces
2. IzetaiI =_
3. O ff ice =
3,704 sq. ft. = 12.35 parking spaces
39 sq. ft. = 0 16 narkint! snaccs
61.98 parking spaces
- 2 =ran Ic t<ttl�crcc.�
Grand Total 34.98 parking spaces
Per your agreement with Bob MCLaUrin, Town Manager, parking spaces will be assessed at a rate of
516,333.38 per space (1996 pay -in -lieu figure). Therefore, the grand total for the Vail Village Club is
$571,341.63.
As previously agreed to by Bob McLaurin, a ten -year repayment period will be acceptable to the Town.
Should this be your desired course of action, please let us know so that we can finalize the paperwork.
As always, should you have any questions, or comments regarding any of the above, please feel free to
contact me directly at 479 -2144.
Sincerely, Q Q
Mrkc Moll ica
Assistant Director of Community Development
MM/jr
xc: Bob McLaurin
Tom Moorhead
Steve Thompson
^' RECYCLEDPAPER
EXHIBIT B - 6 pages
September 15, 1997
Mr. Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
r
„r V
RE: The Appeal of Staffs Interpretation of Ordinance 18.52. 100 and the
subsequent calculation of the Parking Pay in Lieu fees of $571,341.68
Dear Mr. Mollica,
Enclosed please find the completed appeals form required for filing an appeal of a
staff action. In reference to paragraph H of the appeals form we submit the
following:
Riva Ridge Partners LLC, Glenn M. Heelan, and Margretta B. Parks are appealing
staffs interpretation and subsequent calculation of code section 18.52. 100 and
18.52.160. Staff s interpretations have resulted in classifying the 3rd and 4th
Floors of The Vail Village Club Building located at 333 Bridge Street as a public
eating and drinking establishment, with an accompanying assessment for pay in
lieu parking fees in the amount of $571,341.68. In addition, staff has determined
that in order to defer payment of the pay in lieu fees by the use of a promissory
note, they will require that Riva Ridge Partners LLC (the developer) and one of it's
managers guarantee the promissory note, and that a Deed of Trust be filed on the
property.
As addressed in the attached correspondence, the applicant disputes the calculation
of the number of parking spaces being assessed against the property, the
requirement that he sign personally and a Deed of Trust be filed on the property,
and questions whether in fact, the 3rd and 4th Floors that have a conditional use of
a quasi- public Club be classified as eating and drinking establishments.
Pledse feel free to call with any questions or additional requirements you may
i
M. Heelan
July 1, 1997
Mr. Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
Sent Via Facsimile
Dear Mike,
In our meeting yesterday, we discussed our confusion pertaining to the language
of the zoning code relating to Off -Street Parking and Loading; specifically
"18.52.100 Section C. Other Uses #5" as it relates to Eating and drinking
establishments. As I stated, we interpret the section to read how many actual seats
we have, as opposed to the building code occupancy standards which are measured
by occupant load factors per square foot. At your suggestion I will ask Tom
Moorehead and my attorney to clarify the section.
If, after further clarification, it is agreed that the number of seats and the resulting
parking fees are determined by the square footage of the various uses; then, we
still have questions regarding the actual number of square feet being calculated,
mostly as it pertains to the bar on the first floor, and the Club areas on the third
and fourth floors. Therefore, we would appreciate the opportunity to revisit the
parking requirements as soon as we are able to obtain the clarification from our
respective attorneys. At that time, we will also provide the final "remarked"
drawings that represent what is actually being built in the building.
I look d to hearing from Mr. Moorehead and bringing this issue to a close as
soo s po ible.
Sin ,
enn M. Heelan
cc: Charles W. Davison
HOLLEY, ALBERTSON & POLK, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DENVER WEST OFFICE PARK
SUITE 100, BUILDING 19
1667 COLE BLVD.
GOLDEN, COLORADO 80401
GEORGE ALAN HOLLEY
SCOTT D.ALBERTSON
DENNIS B. POLK
ERIC E. TORGERSEN
THOMAS A. WALSH
HOWARD R. STONE
July 30, 1997
BY TELECOPIER AND FIRST -CLASS MAIL
PHONE (303) 233 -7838
FAX (303) 233 -2860
Mr. Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: The Vail Village Club, 298 Hanson Ranch
Road, Vail, Colorado (the "Property ")
Dear Mr. Mollica:
This firm represents Riva Ridge Partners LLC in connection
with the above - referenced matter. We are in receipt of a copy of
your June 17, 1997, letter concerning the payment of fees in lieu
of parking for the redevelopment of The Vail Village Club. The
purpose of this letter is to set forth our client's position with
regard to those fees in lieu of parking. It is our client's
position, based upon Chapter 18.52 of the Town of Vail Zoning
Ordinance, that the Town has calculated an excessive fee in lieu of
parking for the re- development of The Vail Village Club. Our
analysis is based upon the following:
1. It is our understanding that the Property was previously
allocated 27 parking spaces, as computed pursuant to the Zoning
Ordinance. It is our further understanding that our client would
receive credit for these pre- existing parking spaces in connection
with the re- development of the Property, and would be obligated to
pay only the difference between the number of parking spaces as
determined for The Vail Village Club and the original (in this
instance 27) parking spaces attributable to the Property.. Based
upon our review of your June 17, 1997, letter, the Town has
followed this analysis as well. Thus, although this letter will
not discuss our client's position on whether the Town is entitled
to collect any fees in lieu of parking, or the amount per space of
that fee, our client's primary position in this letter is that the
Town has computed an excessive fee based upon the number of parking
spaces attributable to The Vail Village Club as re- developed.
Mr. Mike Mollica
July 30, 1997
Page 2.
2. It appears that the fees in lieu of parking for The Vail
Village Club are set forth in § 18.52.160.B, which provides in
relevant part:
In Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II property
owners or applicants shall be required to contribute to
the Town Parking Fund, hereby established, for the
purpose of meeting the demand and requirements for
vehicle parking. At such time as any property owner or
other applicant proposes to develop or redevelop a parcel
of property within an exempt area which would require
parking and /or loading areas, the owner or applicant
shall pay to the Town the parking fee hereinafter
required.
2. The parking fee to be paid by any owner or applicant
shall be determined by the Town Council.
5. The parking fee to be paid by any owner or applicant
is hereby determined to be fifteen thousand dollars
($15,000.00) per space. This fee shall be automatically
increased annually by the percentage the Consumer Price
Index of the City of Denver has increased over each
successive year.
6. For additions or enlargements of any existing
building or change of use that would increase the total
number of parking spaces required, an additional parking
fee will be required only for such addition, enlargement
or change and not for the entire building or use.
Zoning Ordinance 5 18.52.160.B.
It is our understanding that The Vail Village Club is situated
within the Commercial Core I area of the Town of Vail, and
according to the Zoning Ordinance must contribute to the Town
Parking Fund. It does not appear that § 18.52.160.B fixes the
number of parking spaces which would be attributable to a re-
development. Therefore, we assume that the number of parking
spaces (used to determine the pay in lieu fee) is determined from
the specific parking requirement schedule set forth in 5 18.52.100.
It is our understanding that The Vail Village Club will be confined
to some retail, personal service and repair shops, and some
restaurant/ club, and a small portion (under 100 square feet)
Mr. Mike Mollica
July 30, 1997
Page 3.
dedicated to office. According to § 18.52.100, parking spaces for
those uses are determined as follows:
C. Other Uses.
4. Retain Store, Personal
Services and Repair Shops
1.0 space per each 300
feet of net floor space
5. Eating and Drinking Establishments 1.0 space per each 8 seats,
based on seating capacity or
building code occupancy
standards, whichever is more
restrictive
§ 18.52.100.0 (emphasis added).
Under § 18.52.100.C., parking spaces required for retail use
are determined based upon one space per 300 square feet of net.
floor space. For eating and drinking establishments, such as the
club portion of The Vail Village Club, the parking requirement is
1.0 space per each 8 seats, based on seating capacity or building
code occupancy standards, whichever is more restrictive; however,
it does not appear that this provision permits the determination of
parking requirements based upon square feet of net floor space, as
done for retail establishments. This parking requirement appears
to be consistent with the intent of the ordinance to require off
street parking in the amount actually needed by the development.
This would explain why the Zoning Ordinance determines necessary
parking for a retail establishment based on net floor space, while
a restaurant use is based upon seating capacity.
Based upon our review, it appears that the fee -in -lieu of
parking must be determined based upon the number of off street
parking spaces which the Town could require pursuant to § 18.52.100
of the zoning ordinance. It is our understanding that The Vail
Village Club and restaurants will have a maximum of 210 seats,
which is less than the maximum number permitted under the
applicable building code. Therefore, it would appear that the
number of off - street parking spaces which could be required for the
restaurant /club would be 26.25, i.e., 210 divided by 8, rather than
49.47 as calculated by the Town based upon net floor space. It is
our client's position that the Zoning Ordinance limits the fees in
lieu of parking to an amount equal to the per space fee multiplied
by the number of parking spaces which could be required under §
18.52.100. Assuming the accuracy of the Town's net floor space
calculations, it is our client's position that the number of
parking spaces should be determined as follows:
� a �
Mr. Mike Mollica
July 30, 1997
Page 4.
1. Restaurant /Club = 210 Seats
2. Retail = 3,704 Square Feet
3. ' Office = 39 Square Feet
TOTAL
Minus
Net Z
= 26.25 Parking Spaces
= 12.35 Parking Spaces
= 0.16 Parking Spaces
38.76 Parking Spaces
27 (Grandfathered)
:)tal 11.76
Finally, it is our client's position that assuming a parking
fee of $16,333.38 per space, the parking fee for The Vail Village
Club should be $192,080.55.
Our client requests that the Town reconsider its computation
of the fees in lieu of parking and advise our client as to whether
the Town will change its position from your June 17, 1997, letter, -
that the parking fee for The Vail Village Club is $571,341.63,'
rather than $192,080.55, as our client suggests. In this regard,,-
our client would be available to discuss this matter with you at
greater length, if that would serve to clarify their position on
the fees in lieu of parking.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and your
professional courtesies in this regard.
EET /db
cc: Glenn M. Heelan
Sincerely,
HOLLEY, ALBERTSQM-& POLK, P.C.
Eric E. Torgersen
TOWN OF VAIL L%
75 South Frontage Road
Dail, Colorado 81657
970 - 479 - 21381479 -2139
FAX 970 - 479 -2452
September 21, 1995
Mr. Glenn M. Heelan
P.O. Box 5770
Avon, CO 81620
EXHIBIT C - 2 PAGE;
Department of Community Development
RE: Application for a Conditional Use Permit for the Serrano's
Building, Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing
Dear Mr. Heelan:
I have completed a review of your recently submitted conditional
use permit application to operate a private club on the third and
fourth floors of the Serrano's Building, Lot C, Block 2, Vail
Village 1st filing. Additional information must be provided in
order for staff to ade re ue�s t,\ Pl/ respond
to
- As you know, a 'Private Club" is not listed as a permitted
or conditional use in the Commercial Core •I (CCI) zone
district. Staff has determined, however, that your proposed
use is "similar" to two of the "eating and drinking
establishments" listed as conditional uses (above the second
floor) in the CCI zone district. These uses are " Cocktail
lounges and bars" and "restaurants ". For your information,
these will also be the categories used to determine the
parking requirement for the club.
-- --Sn-e;;e2` toNazLjew� t e pa c i cts � yam- r6posecTuse,
and as required in Sec n III (3) of the Conditional Use
Permit application requirements, please provide detailed floor
plans which indicate the layout.of all proposed uses on the
third and fourth floors of the building.
- Your application states that no exterior changes will be
made to the building. However, depending on the scope of the
food service element of your proposal, it would appear that
additional mechanical equipment may be necessary. Please
provide a detailed description of how private dinner parties,
meeting /dining rooms, additional food prep. areas, bars,
kitchens, etc. will be handled.
*W OW, RECYCLED PAPER
Mr. Glenn M. Heelan
Page 2
- In the Commercial Core I Zone District "meeting rooms" may
be approved, as a conditional use permit, only in the basement
or garden level and on the second level of a building. They
are not allowed, as a permitted or conditional use, on the
first floor or street level or on any level of a building
above the second floor. It would appear from your application
description that the meeting /dining rooms will be used solely
by club members, and therefore considered as accessory to the
functions of the club. However, we must receive a more
detailed explanation of their intended use. The club members,
as a group, cannot rent the rooms to the general public.
- how will the area on the second floor of the building,
currently labeled "The Private Club ", be affected by your
proposed use?
- Please provide a more detailed description of the "office
space for building and club operations" as described in your
application.
As mentioned previously, staff believes that additional information
is necessary in order to fully understand all possible impacts
associated with your proposed conditional use. In order to stay on
schedule for the October 9, 1995, PEC meeting, please provide the
above requested information no later than 5:00 p.m., Monday,
September 25, 1995.
Sincerely,
Jim Curnutte
Senior Planner
cc: Mike Mollica
Andy Knudtsen
L--fn e
EXHIBIT D - 7 pag
MEMORANDUM PLE COPY
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 27, 1995
SUBJECT: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a "quasi- public club" in the
Commercial Core I Zone District to be located on the 3rd and 4th floors of the
Serrano's Building located at 298 Hansen Ranch Road /Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village
1 st Filing.
Applicant: Margaretta B. Parks, represented by Glen Heelan
Planner: Jim Curnutte
I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Glen Heelan, on behalf of the building owner, has requested PEC approval of a Conditional Use
Permit in order to construct a "quasi- public club" in the Commercial Core I (CCI) Zone District, to
be located on the 3rd and 4th floors of the recently approved new Serrano's Building, located at
298 Hansen Ranch Road. The Town of Vail Municipal Code defines a quasi - public use
differently from a use that is entirely private or public. For the PEC's information, the code
defines these uses as follows:
- Private - "Private" means a use, area, property or facility which is not public. (Ord.
21(1994), § 5.)
- Public - "Public" means a use, area, property or facility which:
A. Is owned and operated by a governmental entity, and
functions or is available for use by all persons whether with
or without charge; or
B. Is owned or operated by a person or entity other than a
governmental entity, and functions or is available for use by
all persons without charge. (Ord. 21 (1994) § 6.)
- Quasi - Public - "Quasi- public" means a use which is characterized by its availability to
the public, with or without cost, but which is conducted by an entity,
organizatioyr 9,persoryrrMt not a go��rnmental entity. (Ord. 2i41:�94)
A "quasi- public club" is not specifically listed as a permitted or conditional use in the CCI Zone
District. Near the end of the list of conditional uses, however, is a statement which allows for
"additional uses determined to be similar to the permitted and conditional uses described above."
Staff has determined that the proposed quasi - public club is "similar" to two of the eating and
drinking establishments listed as conditional uses (above the 2nd floor) in the CCI Zone District.
These uses are "cocktail lounges and bars" and "restaurants." Since staff has determined that
these uses are similar to the proposed quasi - public club, the applicant has proceeded to apply
for a Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, staff will use these categories in order to determine
the parking requirement for the club. n
f:\ everyone \pec \memos \serranos.n27
YqMe� d n more detail in Section II (Background)
Heel an, recently received PEC approval (Marc 13 1995)tt f demol soh the existing Serrano's
Glen
Building and replace it with a new structure. The approved uses on the 3rd floor of the new
building include two offices and a portion of a residential condominium. The remainder of the
condominium would be located on the fourth floor of the building. The new concept is to use the
3rd and 4th floors exclusively for a quasi - public club. The club owners will be offering their
members not only the traditional ski storage (in the basement), but also areas of comfort and
relaxation together with an array of services. The applicant has indicated that club members
would have the ability to ski down to the base of the mountain, give their skiffs to the ski valet,
and enter the club. Here they would have the luxury of taking off their boots, sitting down by the
fireplace in a quiet atmosphere to relax in the comfort of their "mountain living room." They might
enjoy the refreshment of their choice, make a couple of phone calls, check the stock market,
send a fax, hold a meeting or host a dinner party for their family, friends, or business associates.
It is anticipated that the 3rd floor of the building would be used for:
A. Personal lockers, steam room and showers (similar to a private golf club where
bags are stored elsewhere);
B. Office space for building and club operations;
C. Lounge area where members could have a drink, make a call, send a fax; and
D. Up to three meeting and /or dining rooms.
The 4th floor is anticipated to be the "living room on the mountain." This is an area where
members could sit by the fire and relax, meet with friends and family, have an appetizer and a
drink.
This Conditional Use Permit request does not involve an exterior changes to the previously
approved building.
The original approval of the Serrano's redevelopment included a restaurant and a "private club"
on the 2nd floor of the building. The applicant has indicated that that portion of the 2nd floor
currently labeled as private club, will be used as additional dining for the 2nd floor restaurant.
Since this entire area was calculated as a restaurant for parking purposes, there will be no
additional impacts associated with the proposed change in use.
Il. BACKGROUND
On March 13, 1995, Glen Heelan, the project developer, received PEC approval to demolish the
existing Serrano's Building and replace it with a new structure. (Please see attachment #1, site
plan, elevation drawings and floor plans of the approved building). The building program
included:
• Commercial uses and a potential nightclub in the basement.
• Retail uses on the 1st floor.
• Restaurant uses on the 2nd floor.
• Two offices and a portion of a condominium on the 3rd floor.
• The remainder of the condominium on the 4th floor.
f:\ everyone \Dec \memos \serranos.n27 2
In addition to these uses, walkway and landscape improvements on the north, east and south
sides of the building were approved, as well as a 2nd floor outdoor dining deck over the Hansen
Ranch Road right -of -way.
To accomplish the above described proposal, a CCI Major Exterior Alteration and the following
variances were required:
A setback variance for an 11 -foot encroachment into the 30 -foot stream
setback for Mill Creek (for the basement floor only);
2. A variance for common area of 78.9% (35% is allowed by zoning).
Also, the following two conditional use permits were required:
An outdoor dining deck on the second floor; and
2. Office space on the third floor.
The project was reviewed and ultimately approved by the Vail Town Council and the Design
Review Board in the Spring of 1995.
Although the applicant had intended to demolish the existing structure and begin construction of
the new building in the spring of 1995, he was not able to adhere to that schedule and
demolition /construction has been delayed until the spring of 1996. In the meantime, the
applicant has reconsidered the previously approved uses of the 3rd and 4th floors of the
building.
On October 9, 1995, a worksession was held with the PEC to discuss this Conditional Use
Permit request. At that time, the applicant had intended to have the club be a "private" club. The
PEC was not receptive to the idea of a private club in the Village and the negative precedent that
may set and directed the applicant to explore other options. In response to that direction, the
applicant has amended the intended operations of the club so that the club would now be open
to the public (see attachment #2 for floor plans of the club). The applicant has indicated that the
public would be able to avail themselves of a number of options related to club services. For
example, the public could rent ski lockers in the club on a seasonal basis, pay a daily, weekly or
monthly access fee to use all, or a portion of, the club amenities, or pay a full membership fee
and accompanying annual dues. The applicant has also pointed out that the liquor license
associated with this club will be the same as those granted to public restaurants and will not be a
private liquor license. .
On November 13, 1995, the PEC tabled this application and requested that the Town Attorney
provide a written opinion on the applicant's right to apply for the requested Conditional Use
Permit. See attached copy of the Town Attorney's response to the PEC request.
III. CRfrERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL
Upon review of Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, the Community Development
Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following
factors:
f:\ everyone \pec \memos \serranos.n27 3
1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of
the Town.
Staff's Res onse - Staff is in support of the proposed use of the 3rd and
4th floors of the Serrano's Building as a quasi - public club. It would appear
that the club has the potential to provide more activity and interest in the
Village than would be provided by one residential dwelling unit and two
office spaces.
Additionally, staff believes that the proposed Conditional Use Permit
request would serve to carry out the following goals, policies and
objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan:
2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of a new
commercial activity where compatible with existing
land uses.
2.4.1 Policy: Commercial in -fill development consistent with
established horizontal zoning regulations shall be
encouraged to provide activity generators,
accessible greenspaces, public plazas, and
streetscape improvements to the pedestrian
network throughout the Village.
2.4.2 Policy: Activity that provides night life and evening
entertainment for both the guests and the
community shall be encouraged.
2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and
maintenance of existing lodging and commercial
facilities to better serve the needs of our guests.
In the CCI Zone District, "meeting rooms" may be approved, as a
Conditional Use, only in the basement or garden level and on the 2nd level
of a building. They are not allowed, as a permitted or conditional use, on
the 1st floor or street level or any level of a building above the 2nd floor.
Since the applicant's request includes the proposed use of a portion of the
3rd floor for meeting and /or dining rooms, staff was concerned with
authorizing a use which is specifically prohibited on this level of a building
in the CCI Zone District. The applicant has responded to staff's concern
by committing that the meeting rooms will be used solely by club
members, and therefore, can be considered as accessory to the functions
of the quasi - public club. The club members, as a group, will not rent the .
rooms to the general public.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities needs.
f:\ everyone \pec \memos \serranos.n27 1 4
Staff Response - Staff believes that the proposed change in use from
residential and office use to a quasi - public club will have no negative effect
on any of the above listed criteria.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control,
access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and
parking areas.
Staff Response - Staff believes that the proposed change in use from
residential and office use to a quasi - public club will have no negative effect
on any of the above listed criteria.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to
be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in
relation to surrounding uses.
Staff Response - As mentioned previously, there will be no external
changes made in conjunction with this proposed change in approved uses
of the 3rd and 4th floors of the Serrano's Building. Therefore, there will be
no changes in the scale and bulk of the building previously reviewed and
approved by the PEC, Town Council and Design Review Board. With
regard to the change in use and its effect on the character of the area,
staff believes that the proposed change from one large residential
condominium unit and two small office spaces, to a quasi - public club,
could have the effect of providing more activity and therefore a livelier feel
to the Village, which is a goal of the Town.
B. Findinas
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before granting a conditional use permit:
That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the
district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
C. Additional Criteria for consideration of Conditional Use Permit applications in
the CCI Zone District
In addition to the standard Conditional Use Permit Criteria and Findings listed in
f:\ everyone \pec \memos \serranos.n27 5
paragraphs A and B above, applications for a Conditional Use Permit within the
CC I Zone District must address the following additional development factors:
1. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I District;
Staff Response - The proposed change of approved uses on the 3rd and
4th floors of the Serrano's Building, from a dwelling unit and office space
to a quasi - public club, would not appear to have a negative effect on
vehicular traffic in the CC I Zone District. The loading and delivery traffic
associated with the club will be accommodated by the same loading and
delivery vehicles associated with the restaurant already approved on the
second level of the building and should not result in additional traffic
impacts.
2. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core 1 District;
Staff Response - The proposed change in use would not appear to cause
a reduction, or increase, in vehicular traffic in the CCI Zone District.
3. Reduction of nonessential off - street parking;
Staff Response - The proposed change in use would not reduce, or
increase non - essential off - street parking. There is currently no off - street
parking associated with this property.
4. Control of delivery, pick -up and service vehicles;
Staff Response - As mentioned in staff's response to criteria #1 above,
staff believes that there will be no increase in the number of delivery, pick-
up or service vehicles associated with the proposed club.
The food and beverage elements associated with the club appear to be
minimal and can be accommodated through the deliveries that would
already occur in relation to the restaurant on the 2nd level.
5. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians;
Staff Response - The proposed quasi - public club will have no effect,
positive or negative, on public spaces for use by pedestrians.
6. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and public uses in
Commercial Core I District so as to maintain the existing character of the
area;
Staff Response - Staff believes that the proposed quasi - public club use
would continue the various commercial and public uses in the CC I Zone
District. Approval of the club would displace the previously approved
dwelling unit from the property, however, since the Serrano's Building
does not currently have a dwelling unit in it, (only an approval for one large
condominium to be built), the proposed club will not change the existing
character of the area. In staff's opinion, the replacement of the approved
condominium unit with a club is a positive change, as it would appear to
offer the opportunity to provide a more active and lively feel to the Village,
and to provide additional services and amenities for the Town's guests.
f:\ everyone \pec \memos \serranos.n27 6
7. Control quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design
in Commercial Core 1 District so as to maintain the existing character of
the area;
Staff Response - The applicant has stated that no exterior changes will be
made to the building in association with the proposed club. Staff was
concerned however, that depending on the scope of the food service
element of the private club, it may be necessary to add additional
mechanical equipment related to any new or expanded kitchen area. In
response to this concern, the applicant has assured staff that all food
preparation activities associated with the club will be handled in the
kitchen of the restaurant, located on the 2nd floor of the building.
8. Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on the environment
of Commercial Core I District.
Staff Response - Staff believes that none of the elements listed above will
be a concern related to the proposed club use of the 3rd and 4th floor, with
the possible exception of noise. This issue was a concern during the initial
discussion of the building's redevelopment, related to the possible bar use
in the building. The solution to that discussion was that noise levels will
be adequately addressed through the Town's existing noise ordinances,
and staff believes those measures are appropriate for the proposed club
as well.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the Criteria and Findings outlined for review of Conditional Use Permit
applications in the CCI Zone District, staff recommends approval of the applicant's request
for a quasi - public club on the 3rd and 4th levels of the Serrano's Building. Staff
recommends that the following conditions be attached to the conditional use permit approval of
the club:
As mentioned previously, the original approval of the Serrano's redevelopment
application included a Conditional Use Permit for two office spaces on the 3rd
floor. With the club's Conditional Use Permit application, the only office use
occurring on the 3rd or 4th floors will be offices used by employees and staff for
"building and club operations."
The applicant has stated that this office space will not be rented to outside
parties. The staff recommends that since the office Conditional Use Permit
granted in the sprin of 199 longer sary it shall be consider ulI
a voi o e ap al of then lub" C ition Us er,
2. Once final floor plan drawings are provided for staff review, a parking analysis will
be performed in order to determine if there is an incremental parking demand
associated with the proposed quasi - public club, as compared to the previously
approved commercial office and residential uses on the 3rd and 4th levels of the
building. Upon completion of the parking analysis, a parking pay -in -lieu fee may
be determined. This fee must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for
1 the project. P _ Or\
Please note that, un-CurSection 18.60.080 (Permit Approvar- MZ'Effect) ofT Town of Vail
Municipal Code, the approval shall lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the
date of issuance and diligently pursued until completion, or if the use for which the permit is
granted is not commenced within two years.
f:\ everyone \pec \memos \serranos.nl3 7
EXHIBIT E - 1 page
June 21, 1996
Mr. Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
Dear
Pursuant to our previous conversations, it is my understanding and agreement that the
parking pay -in -lieu fees currently estimated at $457,334.64 as established by Community
Development in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted by Riva Ridge
Partners, LLC that indicate completion of the third and fourth floors as a Quasi - Public
Club, wi11 be paid over five years with the first payment due and payable at the time a
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is issued. scus
Build in epartment has requested a ruling fr CBO with respect to certain aspects of
d flo n. t is my u andi that earlier today, Dan Stanek received
information from IC t a requires a change of design to the third floor. I would like to
request that if the design alternatives warrant a reduction in the parking requirements that
these reductions be reflected in the agreed upon parking pay -in -lieu fee.
It is also my understanding that in the event R.iva Ridge Partners LLC revises the current
submission and changes the third and fourth floors to a residential and office use" the
applicable parking pay -in -lieu fee is currently $179,667.18. It is also my understanding
that this fee, if applicable, would be paid over five years with the first payment due at the
time of the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
Finally, in a discussion earlier today with Bob McLaurin, I requested that in the event the
Town Council revises the pay -in -lieu fees or terms of payment such that the changes
would be beneficial to The Vail Village Club, that we be included in the changes for the
purposes of calculating the appropriate fee and/or payment schedule at the time the
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is issued. As I discussed with Mr. McLaurin, we
believe that the long term economic benefits to the Town of Vail vis a vis the continuing
sales taxes generated by a commercial use of the third and fourth floors greatly outweigh
a residential use of the same space, yet the "penalties" imposed by the greater parking
requirements and fees of commercial use may ultimately be the "final straw" that forces us
to use the space as a residential condominium. I am hopeful that the Town Council also
sees the long term benefits of such an approach and chooses to include us in any
improvements to the current parking pay -in -lieu ordinance.
If Vcan provide any further assistance, I can be reached at 949 -6277.
;Glenn M. Heelan
if 9,., L__�
PROJECT ! NO.
Mloo l l
DATE
Ft-7-1!; '-7, Iaa�
TELECON ❑
CONFER ❑
MEMO O
INFO ❑
PARTICIPANTS
COPY:
PARTICIPANTS
❑
PM
❑
3,0 23 nce Z--'
❑
ORIG.TO CENTRAL
FILE
O
S E M P L E
3 R 0 W N
XHIBIT F - 1 page
R O B E R T S
,VAIL VILLAGE. GLO5
f �E MEIJs = 4,t4� groom 15A
3,0 23 nce Z--'
rne�harlj cctl /� feC ri Cal @ 380 s.k = 500
= 2
lockets /s1'1ocJers O 2,�3 s.-F; 50 _
- 53
5U&tO 0CCUPac:fs
= .55
05T F GOP =
re�n7i area, 900
subtotal occu/�ants --
128
2)45(,
k; + ail back if -
dininf
subfa+'a) Occupants
9 -
2,0�ia e+ S
- 0PP;'cS 272 5.-P 100
3
di niT1a / loun5� 1, 7`! -5 - 15
a
� 5u�"o�-ar Occu�an`t'S
�z'J
I
i=OCJ� Fd r -CQ012 = ?, S f'4L ynss SA
'q 74- net 5A
1406 Larimer Square, Suitt 200
Denver, Colorado 80202
i
AL � OF Gam,^ UPA1JTs - Z 484
A Professional Corporator,
of Architects and Designers
Phone 303 - 571.4137
Fax 303 - 571 -0403
TOTAL P.03
TOWN OF VAIL
Office of the Town Manager
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970 - 479 - 2105 /Fax 970 - 479 -2157
October 29, 1997
Glen M. Heelan
Riva Ridge Partners LLC
110 East Beaver Creek Blvd.
P. O. Drawer 5770
Avon, CO 81620
TM
RE: Application for Partial Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for Floors 1, 2, 3, and 4, the
Vail Village Club Building, 333 Bridge Street, Vail, CO
Dear Glen:
I've been directed by Town Council to respond to your request addressed to me dated October
2' ), 1997. Your correspondence was provided to Town Council.
At this time, I have been directed to inform you that any resolution or agreement must involve all
issues, including those that are presently scheduled to be heard on your appeal before the
Planning and Environmental Commission on November 10, 1997.
Additionally, the Town Council has directed me to inform you that it will be necessary to
provide security adequate to guarantee payment of the outstanding balance. We will evaluate
any suggestions that you might have to provide such security. It is clear that a deed of trust on
the property in question would be the most readily acceptable.
Myself and Tom Moorhead continue to be willing to meet with you and discuss these issues in an
attempt to bring them to a mutually beneficial resolution. Please feel free to call me or Tom.
Very truly yours,
Robert W. McLaurin
Town Manager
RWM /mc
xc: Vail Town Council
Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
4—Mike Mollica, Community Development
LaRECYCLEUPAPER
Mot, ;el, dFc- ,
all
®�C ,�. o-� z,-, `e 7/, - _ She
rr-� .-_ , 7f Qom-.
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1997
2:00 P.M. AT TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to
determine at what time Council will consider an item.
NOTE: MEET AT THE RED LION AT 2:00 P.M. IN THE BACK ROOM!
1.
Site Visit and Discussion of Loading and Delivery. (1 hr., 30 mins.)
Bob McLaurin
Larry Grafel
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve the schedule and ground
Greg Morrison
rules for the development of short-term and long -term solutions for
Greg Hall
loading and delivery in Vail Village (problem statement approved by
Suzanne Silverthorn
Council previously). Also, participate in today's brainstorming discussion
Dick Bauman
regarding the proposal to ban deliveries by large trucks, along with other
Jennifer Linden solution suggestions
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Today's discussion picks up where we left
off earlier this year on this topic. At the time, noise and large trucks were
identified as the most significant elements of this problem. That
prompted a Council suggestion to ban large trucks, as well as the need to
determine the "ultimate" long -term solution. Centennial Engineering has
since been hired to work with TOV to help develop and analyze short-
term management solutions as well as infrastructure improvements for
the long -term. The work schedule, as proposed, includes implementation
of the short-term adjustments by December with selection of a long -term
solution in March.
2. Site Visit of Vail Village Club. (15 mins.)
See Item No. 6
3. DRB Review. (15 mins.)
4. Review and Discuss RETT Budget. (15 mins.)
Bob McLaurin
Steve Thompson ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review and modify as appropriate
Russell Forrest the Real Estate Transfer Tax budget for 1998.
Larry Grafel
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: At the 10/7 Council meeting the Council
reviewed the proposed RETT budget. During the discussion the Council
identified several changes to the proposed budget. We have
incorporated these changes and are submitting the revised budget for
your additional review and consideration.
5. A request from Ron Riley to proceed through the development review
Lauren Waterton process to add an outdoor dining deck on Town of Vail Right -of -Way.
Michael Staughton The applicant is proposing a 4 -1/2 foot wide deck for Russell's
Restaurant that would encroach on Bridge Street. (10 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve /Deny the request to
proceed through the development review process.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The applicant is proposing to remodel
Russell's Restaurant. As part of the remodel a small outdoor dining deck
along Bridge Street is proposed to be added. Two existing planters and a
bench will be removed in order to allow for the dining deck. Should the
Council approve the applicant's request, the Planning and Environmental
Commission would review the request for a conditional use permit and a
minor exterior alteration and the Design Review Board would review the
final design of the project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the
request to proceed through the development review process.
6.• Council call -up of a Planning & Environmental Commission (PEC)
Mike Mollica action, relating to the property located at The Vail Village Club; 333
Tom Moorhead Bridge Street; Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. (45 mins.)
Glenn Heelan
Bob McLaurin On October 13, 1997 the PEC approved a motion by a vote of 4 - 2
(Bishop and Golden opposed), to not hear the appellant's requested
appeal. The PEC made the finding of fact that the appeal was not filed in
a timely manner. The specific appeals (of three staff interpretations) are
as follows:
1) The staff's classification of the third and fourth floors as "eating
and drinking establishments ";
2) Section 18.52.100 C, Parking- Requirements Schedule (Eating &
Drinking Establishments) and Section 18.52.160, Exemptions (parking
pay -in -lieu) - appellant disputes the calculation of the number of parking
spaces required; and
3) The requirement that the applicant sign the pay -in -lieu promissory
note personally and that a Deed of Trust be filed on the property.
Appellant: Riva Ridge Partners LLC - Glenn M. Heelan; Margretta B.
Parks
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Uphold, modify, or overturn the
decision of the Planning & Environmental Commission.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Please see the staff memorandum, dated
October 13, 1997, to the Planning & Environmental Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Please see the staff recommendation on
each of the three appeal items in the PEC memo dated October 13,
1997,
7. Information Update. (10 mins.)
8. Council Reports. (10 mins.)
9. Other. (10 mins.)
10. Adjournment - 5:40 p.m.
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
1111111
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 10/28/97, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 11/4197, BEGINNING AT 2 :00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 11/4/97, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
1111111
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2332 voice
or 479 -2356 TDD for information.
C:WGENDA WS
2
(OWN COUNCIL AGENDA REQUEST
(Request form must be given to the Secretary to the Town Manager by 8:00 a.m. Thursdays.)
MEETING DATE: October 21. 1997
(Prepare a separate Agenda Request for each agenda item. If the agenda
item will be discussed at both a Work Session and an Evening Meeting, be
certain to check both boxes in this section and indicate time needed during
each meeting.)
X Work Session
❑ Site Visit
❑ Evening Meeting
TIME NEEDED: 45 minutes
TIME NEEDED: _—
TIME NEEDED:
WILL THERE BE A PRESENTATION ON THIS AGENDA ITEM BY NONJOV STAFF?
NO.
X YES. Specifics: Glenn Heelan will speak
WILL THE PRESENTATION OF THIS AGENDA ITEM REQUIRE ANY SPECIAL EQUIPMENT?
NO.
X YES. Specifics:Glenn Heelan requested an overhead projector.
WILL THERE BE MATERIAL TO BE INCLUDED IN COUNCIL PACKET FOR THIS ITEM?
X YES. If yes, is the material also for public distribution?
X Yes.
❑ No.
ITEM/TOPIC: Council call -up of a Planning & Environmental Commission (PEC) action, relating
to the propery located at The Vail Village Club; 333 Bridge Street; Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st
Filing.
On October 13, 1997 the PEC approved a motion by a vote of 4 - 2 (Bishop and Golden
opposed), to not hear the appellant's requested appeal. The PEC made the finding of fact that
the appeal was not filed in a timely manner. The specific appeals (of three staff interpretations)
are as follows:
1) The staff's classification of the third and fourth floors as "eating and drinking
establishments ";
2) Section 18.52.100 C, Parking- Requirements Schedule (Eating & Drinking
Establishments) and Section 18.52.160, Exemptions (parking pay -in -lieu) - appellant
disputes the calculation of the number of parking spaces required; and
3) The requirement that the applicant sign the pay -in -lieu promissory note personally and
that a Deed of Trust be filed on the property.
Appellant: Riva Ridge Partners LLC - Glenn M. Heelan; Margretta B. Parks
Staff: Mike Mollica /Tom Moorhead
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Uphold, modify, or overturn the decision of the Planning &
Environmental Commission.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Please see the staff memorandum, dated October 13, 1997, to
the Planning & Environmental Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Please see the staff recommendation on each of the three
appeal items in the PEC memo dated October 13, 1997.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 13, 1997
SUBJECT: An appeal of three staff interpretations: 1) The staff's classification of the third and
fourth floors as "eating and drinking establishments "; 2) Section 18.52.100 C,
Parking- Requirements Schedule (Eating & Drinking Establishments) and Section
18.52.160, Exemptions (parking pay -in -lieu) - appellant disputes the calculation of
the number of parking spaces required; and 3) The requirement that the
applicant sign the pay -in -lieu promissory note personally and that a Deed of Trust
be filed on the property; located at The Vail Village Club, 333 Bridge Street, Lot C,
Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Appellant: Riva Ridge Partners LLC - Glenn M. Heelan; Margretta B. Parks
Staff: Mike Mollica/Tom Moorhead
SUBJECT PROPERTY
The Vail Village Club is located at 333 Bridge Street, Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1 st
Filing. This property was formerly referred to as Cyrano's.
II. PLANNING and ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JURISDICTION
Pursuant to Section 18.66.030 B,1 - Appeal of Administrative Actions; Authority, the
Planning and Environmental Commission has the authority to hear and decide appeals
from any decision, determination or interpretation by any Town of Vail administrative
official with respect to the provisions of the Zoning Code.
III. PROCEDURAL CRITERIA FOR APPEALS
Pursuant to Sections 18.66.030 B, 2 and 3 - Appeal of Administrative Actions; Initiation
and Procedures, there are three basic criteria for an adequate appeal: standing of the
appellant; adequacy of the notice of appeal; and timeliness of the notice of appeal.
A. Standing of the Appellant
The appellant has standing to appeal the staff's decisions related to the
construction of the Vail Village Club. Riva Ridge Partners LLC is the developer of
the building and the lessee. The owner of the property is Margretta B. Parks.
B. Adequacy of the Notice of Appeal
The application for this appeal was filed by Glenn Heelan (Riva Ridge Partners
TOWN OF VA LL
LLC) on September 15, 1997. The application has been determined to be
complete by the Department of Community Development.
C. Timeliness of the Notice of Appeal
The Administration Section of the Town's Zoning Code (18.66.030 B, 3 -
Procedures) states the following:
"A written notice of appeal must be filed with the Director of Community
Development or with the department rendering the decision, determination
or interpretation within ten calendar days of the decision becoming final. If
the last day for filing an appeal falls on a Saturday, Sunday or a Town of
Vail observed holiday, the last day for filing an appeal shall be extended to
the next business day. The Administrator's decision shall become final at
the next Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) meeting,
following the Administrator's decision, unless the decision is called -up and
modified by the Board or Commission."
As indicated in Tom Moorhead's memorandum to the Planning and Environmental
Commission dated October 2, 1997 (attached as Exhibit A), it is the staff's
position that this appeal is not timely. The staff's initial calculations for the
parking pay -in -lieu requirement, as well as the use classification of the third and
fourth floors of the building, were determined during March of 1996, utilizing the
drawings submitted by Semple Brown Roberts, Architects, dated March 18, 1996.
Additionally, a June 21, 1996 letter from Glenn Heelan to Mike Mollica, Assistant
Director of Community Development (attached as Exhibit B) states:
"Pursuant to our previous conversations, it is my understanding and
agreement that the parking pay -in -lieu fees currently estimated at
$457,334.64 as established by Community Development, in accordance
with the plans and specifications submitted by Riva Ridge Partners, LLC,
that indicate completion of the third and fourth floors as a quasi - public
club, will be paid over five years with the first payment due and payable at
the time a Temporary of Certificate of Occupancy is issued."
Because the appeal was not timely filed, the procedural criteria for an appeal
have not been met, and the appeal should not be heard.
IV. SUBSTANTIVE BACKGROUND
• On September 21, 1995, Jim Curnutte, then Senior Planner for the Town, wrote the
following to Mr. Glenn Heelan:
"As you know, a "private club" is not listed as a permitted or conditional use in the
Commercial Core 1 Zone District. Staff has determined, however, that your
proposed use is "similar" to two of the "eating and drinking. establishments" listed
as conditional uses (above the second floor) in the CC1 Zone District. These
uses are "cocktail lounges and bars" and "restaurants." For your information,
2
these will also be the categories used to determine the parking requirement
for the club." (emphasis added)
A copy of this letter is attached to this memorandum as Exhibit C.
• On November 27, 1995, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a
request for a conditional use permit to allow for a "quasi- public club" in the Commercial
Core 1 Zone District. The club was proposed to be located on the third and fourth floors
of the Cyrano's Building. It should be noted that the staff memorandum to the Planning
and Environmental Commission contained language identical to that contained in the
September 21, 1995 letter from Jim Curnutte to Glenn Heelan. A copy of this staff*
memorandum is included as Exhibit D.
• On March 26, 1996, an application for a building permit to construct the Vail Village Club
was made to the Town of Vail's Department of Community Development.
• On July 24, 1996, a building permit was issued for the construction of the Vail Village
Club. This building permit included 13 conditions. Condition #3, which is relevant to this
appeal, reads as follows:
"The parking pay -in -lieu fee shall be paid to the Town prior to the issuance of a
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. See Glenn Heelan's letter of June 21, 1996
to Mike Mollica, [Exhibit B] for details."
• On September 15, 1997, Glenn Heelan (Riva Ridge Partners LLC) and Margretta B.
Parks submitted a formal appeal to the Town of Vail Department of Community
Development. The nature of the appeals are generally described below, and a copy of
the Appeal Form is attached as Exhibit E.
V. NATURE OF THE APPEALS
The appellant is appealing the following three staff interpretations:
1) The staff's classification of the third and fourth floors as "eating and drinking
establishments ";
2) Section 18.52.100 C, Parking- Requirements Schedule (Eating & Drinking
Establishments) and Section 18.52.160, Exemptions (parking pay -in -lieu) - appellant
disputes the calculation of the number of parking spaces required; and
3) The requirement that the applicant sign the pay -in -lieu promissory note personally and
that a Deed of Trust be filed on the property located at The Vail Village Club, 333 Bridge
Street, Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
The appellant's statements as to the specific nature of the appeals are attached as Exhibit F, and
include two letters from Mr. Glenn Heelan to Mr. Mike Mollica (dated September 15, 1997 and
July 1, 1997) and a letter dated July 30, 1997 from Mr. Eric Torgersen, with Holley, Albertson &
Polk, P. C to Mr. Mike Mollica.
3
VI. REQUIRED ACTION
Uphold /Overturn /Modify the three staff interpretations.
According to Section 18.66.030 B, 5 Appeal of Administrative Actions - Findings, "the Planning
and Environmental Commission shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact based directly
on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact must support conclusions that
the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of this title have or have not been
met."
The appellant is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission review the
following three staff interpretations:
1) The staff's classification of the third and fourth floors as "eating and drinking
establishments ".
Staff Response:
The determination or classification of use for the third and fourth floors of the Vail Village
Club was made as early as September 1995. Further, during the staff and the PEC's
review of the conditional use permit for the "quasi- public club" (November 1995) both the
staff and the PEC determined that the quasi - public club was similar in nature to "eating
and drinking establishments," as identified in Section 18.52.100 C, 5 of the Town Zoning
Code.
The staff continues to believe that "eating and drinking establishment" is the appropriate
designation for the quasi - public club use.
2) Section 18.52.100 C, Parking- Requirements Schedule (specifically, Eating & Drinking
Establishments) and Section 18.52.160, Exemptions (parking pay -in -lieu) - appellant
disputes the calculation of the number of parking spaces required;
Staff Response:
According to Section 18.52.100 C (Parking- Requirements Schedule), the uses in the Vail
Village Club include retail stores (assessed at 1.0 space per each 300 square feet of net
floor area), other professional and business offices (assessed at 1.0 space per each 250
square feet of net floor area) and eating and drinking establishments (assessed at 1.0
space per each eight seats, based on seating capacity or Building Code occupancy
standards, whichever is more restrictive). Due to the level of detail involved in the staff's
paw analysis, the sta will provide the 114" = 1' floor plans for the Planning and
Environmental Commission's review at the hearing. In summary, the staff's calculations
are as follows:
D
Retail = 3,594 sq. ft. = 11.98 parking spaces
Office = 94 sq. ft. = 0.376 parking spaces
Restaurant/Club = 5,717 sq. ft. = 47.64 parkins spaces
Total = 59.996 parking spaces
-27 ( arandfathered spaces)"
Grand Total = �32 996 parking spaces pay- in -IiPI
`Note: The 27 "grandfathered spaces" are those spaces which are considered
pre- existing, based upon the uses in the old Cyrano's Building.
Therefore, 32.996 parking spaces x $16,333.38 results in a total parking pay -in -lieu
fee of $538,936.20. It should also be noted that the $16,333.38 fee per parking space is
the 1996 pay -in -lieu rate. Although the pay -in -lieu fee has not yet been paid for the Vail
Village Club, the Town has agreed to apply the 1996 rate to the project. The 1997 rate is
$16,905.05.
The appellant had requested that the staff calculate the parking requirement based upon
the Uniform Building Code's determination of occupant load. Although this is not the
staff's "normal" procedure for determining a structure's parking requirement, we did
complete that analysis. An independent analysis was completed by Mr. Art Hoagland,
ICBO Certified Building Official. Mr. Hoagland has determined that the occupant load for
the Vail Village Club is 483 persons. This figure does not include the additional 10%
allowance per Section 25.114, B of the Uniform Fire Code. This 10% allowance can be
approved by the Fire Chief, when additional exit facilities are provided.
Per the Town's parking requirement of 1.0 space per each 8 seats, 483 persons divided
by 8 = 60.375 parking spaces. This is 0.379 spaces more than the staff calculation.
Further, upon review of the Town's building permit file for the Vail Village Club, staff has
located an occupant load determination provided by the appellant's architect, Semple
Brown Roberts (Denver, Colorado). This analysis indicates an occupant load of 484
persons. The Semple Brown Roberts analysis is attached as Exhibit G.
3) The requirement that the applicant sign the pay -in -lieu promissory note personally and
that a Deed of Trust be filed on the property.
Staff Response:
This issue will be addressed by Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney, at the Planning and
Environmental Commission public hearing.
t3� /3aa O
3��500 U • ( 5� I
/
t,? 111 5 YS
,rs��ou ; 2,t ��.��{
I o -713ea 0
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission make two separate
motions on this application.
A. The staff's position is that the appellant, Riva Ridge Partners LLC and Margretta B. Parks did
not file a timely appeal. Therefore, we believe that the appeal has no basis. The staff
recommends that that the Planning and Environmental Commision reject the appellants appeal
and that the PEC find that the appeal was not filed in a timely manner, as required by Section
18.66.030 B, 3 - Appeal of Administrative Actions; Procedures.
B. In order to provide the appellant with clear direction as to the staff's interpretations of the
Municipal Code, staff recommends that the PEC make a motion on the substance of the appeal,
as well.
Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission uphold the three staff
interpretations that the appellant is contesting. In accordance with the information presented in
this memorandum, and the exhibits attached hereto, staff recommends that the Planning and
Environmental Commission make the following findings:
That the Community Development Department staff, and the Planning and
Environmental Commission, have appropriately classified the quasi - public club,
located on the third and fourth floors of the Vail Village Club, as an "eating and
drinking establishment ";
2. That the Community Development Department staff has appropriately applied
Section 18.52.100 C, Parking- Requirement Schedule and Section 18.52.160,
Exemptions (parking pay -in -lieu) during their review of the building permit floor
plans for the Vail Village Club; and
3. That the Town Attorney has appropriately required the applicant to sign the
parking pay -in -lieu promissory note personally and that a Deed of Trust be filed on
the property.
F: \EVERYONE \PEC \MEMOS \97 \VVCLU B.013
A
TOWN OF VAIL
Office of the Town Manager
75 South Frontage Road
Vail. Colorado 81657
970 - 479- 2105 /Fax 970- 479 -2157
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning & Environmental Commission
FROM: R. Thomas Moorhead i
DATE: October 2, 1997
RE: Glenn Heelan/Vail Village Club Appeal of Administrative Action
On September 17, 1997 Glenn Heelan appealed administrative action of Mike Mollica, Assistant
Director of Community Development. Based upon the Town of Vail Code and prior agreements
made by Mr. Heelan I believe that this appeal is not timely. Attached is correspondence from Mr.
Heelan dated June 21, 1996 in which he agrees to the method, manner and procedure to establish
the amount of the parking pay -in -lieu fee and he further agrees that the parking pay -in -lieu will be
paid at the time a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
Additionally, Mr. Heelan indicates on the face of his appeal that he is appealing the decision of Mike
Mollica of June 17, 1997. Section 18.66.030, Appeals in subsection 3 requires that any such action
must be appealed within ten calendar days of the decision becoming final. The decision becomes
final at the next Planning and Environmental Commission meeting after June 17, 1997. Therefore,
any right to appeal such decision has lapsed.
I understand that Mr. Mollica will be providing to the Planning and Environmental Commission a
memorandum which deals with the substantive issues of calculation of the parking pay -in -lieu fee
in this particular instance. Based on the procedural issues of the lasping of the time within which
a matter can be appealed; the previous agreement by Mr. Heelan that the parking pay -in -lieu fee
would be paid at the time of the issuing of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy; and, finally, for
the substantive calculation performed by Community Development, this appeal should be
overruled.
Thank you. /
RTM /aw
xc: Robert W. Mc Laurin
Mike Mollica
C:\pec.mem
L• RECYCLED PAPER
TM
June 21, 1996 .
.j
Mr. Mike Monica
Assistant Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
Dear Mike,
Pursuant to our previous conversations, it is my understanding and agreemcnt that the
parking pay -in -lieu fees currently estimated at $457,334.64 as established by Community
Development in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted by Riva Ridge
Partners, LLC that indicate completion of the third and fourth floors as a Quasi -public
Club, will be paid over five years with the fast payment due and payable at the time a
1 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is issued. As we further discussed, the Town of Vail
Building Department has requested a ruling from ICBO with respect to certain aspectsof
the third floor design. It is my understanding that earlier today, Dan Stanek received , ' -
information fiom ICBO that requires a change of design to the third floor. I would like to
request that if the design alternatives warrant a reduction in the parking requirements that
these reductions be reflected in the agreed upon parking pay -in -lieu fee.
It is also my understanding that in the event Riva Ridge Partners LLC revises the current " Y
submission and changes the third and fourth floors to a residential and office use" the
applicable parking pay -in -lieu fee is currently S179,667.18. It is also my understanding
that this fee, if applicable, would be paid over five years with the first payment due at the
time of the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
Finally, in a discussion earlier today with Bob McLaurin, I requested that in the event the
Town Council revises the pay -in -lieu fees or terms of payment such that the changes
would be beneficial to The Vail Village Club, that we be included in the changes for the
purposes of calculating the appropriate fee and/or payment schedule at the time the
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is issued. As I discussed with Mr. McLaurin, we
believe that the long term economic benefits to the Town of Vail vis a vis the continuing
sales taxes generated by ,% commercial use of the third and fourth floors greatly outweigh
a residential use of the same space, yet the "penalties" imposed by the greater parking
requirements and fees of commercial use may ultimately be the "final straw" that forces us
to use the space as a residential condominium. I am hopeful that the Town Council also
sees the long term benefits of such an approach and chooscs to include us in any
improvements to the current paridng pay -in -lieu ordinance.
'
j1enn p ovide any further assistance, I can be reached at 949 -6277.
_ M. Heelan
Dear
Pursuant to our previous conversations, it is my understanding and agreement that the
parking pay -in -lieu fees currently estimated at $457,334.64 as established by Community
Development in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted by Riva Ridge
Partners, LLC that indicate completion of the third and fourth floors as a Quasi- Public
Club, will be paid over five years with the first payment due and payable at the time a
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is issued. scus To o i
Buildin epartment has requested a ruling fr CBO with respect to certain as of
d flo n. t is my u andi that earlier today, Dan Stanek received
information from ICBO t a requires a change of design to the third floor. I would Like to
request that if the design alternatives warrant a reduction in the parking requirements that
these reductions be reflected in the agreed upon parking pay -in -lieu fee.
It is also my understanding that in the event Riva Ridge Partners LLC revises the current
submission and changes the third and fourth floors to a residential and office use" the
applicable parking pay -in -lieu fee is currently $179,667.18. It is also my understanding
that this fee, if applicable, would be paid over five years with the first payment due at the
time of the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
Finally, in a discussion earlier today with Bob McLaurin, I requested that in the event the
Town Council revises the pay -in -lieu fees or terms of payment such that the changes
would be beneficial to The Vail Village Club, that we be included in the changes for the
purposes of calculating the appropriate fee and/or payment schedule at the time the
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is issued. As I discussed with Mr. McLaurin, we
- _ believe that the long term economic benefits to the Town of Vail vis a vis the continuing
sales taxes generated by a commercial use of the third and fourth floors greatly outweigh
a residential use of the same space, yet the "penalties" imposed by the greater parking
requirements and fees of commercial use may ultimately be the "final straw" that forces us
to use the space as a residential condominium. I am hopeful that the Town Council also
sees the long term benefits of such an approach and chooses to include us in any
improvements to the current parking pay -in -lieu ordinance.
If Lni e an further assistance, I can be reached at 949 -6277.
Y
S nce
Tenn M. He elan
EXHIBIT B - 1 page
June 21, 1996
Mr. Mike Mollica
/`. -..
Assistant Director of Community Development
-.:
Town of Vail
Dear
Pursuant to our previous conversations, it is my understanding and agreement that the
parking pay -in -lieu fees currently estimated at $457,334.64 as established by Community
Development in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted by Riva Ridge
Partners, LLC that indicate completion of the third and fourth floors as a Quasi- Public
Club, will be paid over five years with the first payment due and payable at the time a
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is issued. scus To o i
Buildin epartment has requested a ruling fr CBO with respect to certain as of
d flo n. t is my u andi that earlier today, Dan Stanek received
information from ICBO t a requires a change of design to the third floor. I would Like to
request that if the design alternatives warrant a reduction in the parking requirements that
these reductions be reflected in the agreed upon parking pay -in -lieu fee.
It is also my understanding that in the event Riva Ridge Partners LLC revises the current
submission and changes the third and fourth floors to a residential and office use" the
applicable parking pay -in -lieu fee is currently $179,667.18. It is also my understanding
that this fee, if applicable, would be paid over five years with the first payment due at the
time of the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
Finally, in a discussion earlier today with Bob McLaurin, I requested that in the event the
Town Council revises the pay -in -lieu fees or terms of payment such that the changes
would be beneficial to The Vail Village Club, that we be included in the changes for the
purposes of calculating the appropriate fee and/or payment schedule at the time the
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is issued. As I discussed with Mr. McLaurin, we
- _ believe that the long term economic benefits to the Town of Vail vis a vis the continuing
sales taxes generated by a commercial use of the third and fourth floors greatly outweigh
a residential use of the same space, yet the "penalties" imposed by the greater parking
requirements and fees of commercial use may ultimately be the "final straw" that forces us
to use the space as a residential condominium. I am hopeful that the Town Council also
sees the long term benefits of such an approach and chooses to include us in any
improvements to the current parking pay -in -lieu ordinance.
If Lni e an further assistance, I can be reached at 949 -6277.
Y
S nce
Tenn M. He elan
TOWN OF PAIL (%
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970- 479 - 21381479 -2139
FAX 970 -479 -2452
September 21, 1995
Mr. Glenn M. Heelan
P.O. Box 5770
Avon, CO 81620
EXHIBIT C - 2 PAGES
Department of Community Development
RE: Application for a Conditional Use Permit for the Serrano's
Building, Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing
Dear Mr. Heelan:
I have completed a review of your recently submitted conditional
use permit application to operate a private club on the third and
fourth floors of the Serrano's Building, Lot C, Block 2, Vail
village 1st filing. Additional information must be provided in
order for staff to ade revs i
e uest. Ple res oral
to the 4-&-Ll o � q
- As you know, a "Private Club" is not listed as a permitted
or conditional use in the Commercial Core "I (CCI) zone
district. Staff has determined, however, that your proposed
use is- "similar,, to two of the "eating and drinking
establishments" listed as conditional uses (above the second
floor) in the CCI zone district. These uses are 11 Cocktail
lounges and bars" and "restaurants ". For your information,
these will also be the categories used to determine the
parking requirement for the club.
--fin e2r t o� t e p a i c t s o _yN��o sus e,
and as required in Sec n III (3) of the Conditional Use
Permit application requirements, please provide detailed floor
plans which indicate the layout.of all proposed uses on the
third and fourth floors of the building.
- Your application states that no exterior changes will be
made to the building. However, depending on the scope of the
food service element of your proposal, it would appear that
additional mechanical equipment may be necessary. Please
provide a detailed description of how private dinner parties,
meeting /dining rooms, additional food prep. areas, bars,
kitchens, etc. will be handled.
% #W RECYCLED PAPER
Mr. Glenn M. Heelan
Page 2
In the Commercial Core I Zone District "meeting rooms" may
be approved, as a conditional use permit, only in the basement
or garden level and on the second level of a building. They
are not .allowed, as a permitted or conditional use, on the
first floor or street level or on any level of a building
above the second floor. It would appear from your application
description that the meeting /dining rooms will be used solely
by club members, and therefore considered as accessory to the
functions of the club. However, we must receive a more
detailed explanation of their intended use. The club members,
as a group, cannot rent the rooms to the general public.
- How will the area on the second floor of the building,
currently labeled "The Private Club ", be affected by your
proposed use?
- Please provide a more detailed description of the "office
space for building and club operations" as described in your
application.
As mentioned previously, staff believes that additional information
is necessary in order to fully understand all possible impacts
associated with your proposed conditional use. In order to stay on
schedule for the October 9, 1995, PEC meeting, please provide the
above requested information no later than 5:00 p.m., Monday,
September 25, 1995.
Sincerely,
Jim Curnutte
Senior Planner
cc: Mike Mollica
Andy Knudtsen
-i7 e
EXHIBIT D - 7 pages
MEMORANDUM PLE
COPY
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 27, 1995
SUBJECT: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a "quasi- public club" in the
Commercial Core I Zone District to be located on the 3rd and 4th floors of the
Serrano's Building located at 298 Hansen Ranch Road /Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village
1 st Filing.
Applicant: Margaretta B. Parks, represented by Glen Heelan
Planner: Jim Curnutte
I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Glen Heelan, on behalf of the building owner, has requested PEC approval of a Conditional Use
Permit in order to construct a "quasi- public club" in the Commercial Core I (CCI) Zone District, to
be located on the 3rd and 4th floors of the recently approved new Serrano's Building, located at
298 Hansen Ranch Road. The Town of Vail Municipal Code defines a quasi - public use
differently from a use that is entirely private or public. For the PEC's information, the code
defines these uses as follows:
- Private - "Private" means a use, area, property or facility which is not public. (Ord.
21(1994), § 5.)
- Public - "Public" means a use, area, property or facility which:
A. Is owned and operated by a governmental entity, and
functions or is available for use by all persons whether with
or without charge; or
B. Is owned or operated by a person or entity other than a
governmental entity, and functions or is available for use by
all persons without charge. (Ord. 21(1994) § 6.)
- Quasi - Public - "Quasi- public" means a use which is characterized by its availability to
the public, with or without cost, but which is conducted by an entity,
organization perso not a gg.(�rnmental entity. (Ord.''i 4994)
A "quasi- public club" is not specifically listed as a permitted or conditional use in the CCI Zone
District. Near the end of the list of conditional uses, however, is a statement which allows for
"additional uses determined to be similar to the permitted and conditional uses described above."
Staff has determined that the proposed quasi - public club is "similar" to two of the eating and
drinking establishments listed as conditional uses (above the 2nd floor) in the CCI Zone District.
These uses are "cocktail lounges and bars" and "restaurants." Since staff has determined that
these uses are similar to the proposed quasi - public club, the applicant has proceeded to apply
for a Conditional Use Permit. Additionally. staff will use these categories in order to determine
the parking requirement for the club. A
f:\ everyone \pec \memos \serranos.n27
YqMq jJfdd n more detail in Section Heel an, recently received PEC approval (March demo) soh the eoxisting Serrano' Glen
Building and replace it with a new structure. The approved uses. on the 3rd floor of the new
building include two offices and a portion of a residential condominium. The remainder of the
condominium would be located on the fourth floor of the building. The new concept is to use the
3rd and 4th floors exclusively for a quasi - public club. The club owners will be offerin their
members not only the traditional ski storage (in the basement), but also areas of comfort and
relaxation together with an array of services. The applicant has indicated that club members
would have the ability to ski down to the base of the mountain, give their skiis to the ski valet,
and enter the club. Here they would have the luxury of taking off their boots, sitting down by the
fireplace in a quiet atmosphere to relax in the comfort of their "mountain living room." They might
enjoy the refreshment of their choice, make a couple of phone calls, check the stock market,
send a fax, hold a meeting or host a dinner party for their family, friends, or business associates.
It is anticipated that the 3rd floor of the building would be used for:
A. Personal lockers, steam room and showers (similar to a private golf club where
bags are stored elsewhere);
B. Office space for building and club operations;
C. Lounge area where members could have a drink, make a call, send a fax; and
D. Up to three meeting and /or dining rooms.
The 4th floor is anticipated to be the "living room on the mountain." This is an area where
members could sit by the fire and relax, meet with friends and family, have an appetizer and a
drink.
This Conditional Use Permit request does not involve any exterior changes to the previously
approved building.
The original approval of the Serrano's redevelopment included a restaurant and a "private club"
on the 2nd floor of the building. The applicant has indicated that that portion of the 2nd floor
currently labeled as private club, will be used as additional dining for the 2nd floor restaurant.
Since this entire area was calculated as a restaurant for parking purposes, there will be no
additional impacts associated with the proposed change in use.
tl. BACKGROUND
On March 13, 1995, Glen Heelan, the project developer, received PEC approval to demolish the
existing Serrano's Building and replace it with a new structure. (Please see attachment #1, site
plan, elevation drawings and floor plans of the approved building). The building program
included:
• Commercial uses and a potential nightclub in the basement.
• Retail uses on the 1st floor.
• Restaurant uses on the 2nd floor.
• Two offices and a portion of a condominium on the 3rd floor.
• The remainder of the condominium on the 4th floor.
f:\ everyone \Dec \memos \serranos.n27 2
In addition to these uses, walkway and landscape improvements on the north, east and south
sides of the building were approved, as well as a 2nd floor outdoor dining deck over the Hansen
Ranch Road right -of -way.
To accomplish the above desci ibed proposal, a CCI Major Exterior Alteration and the following
variances were required:
1. A setback variance for an 11 -foot encroachment into the 30 -foot stream
setback for Mill Creek (for the basement floor only);
2. A variance for common area of 78.9% (35% is allowed by zoning).
Also, the following two conditional use permits were required:
1. An outdoor dining deck on the second floor; and
2. Office space on the third floor.
The project was reviewed and ultimately approved by the Vail Town Council and the Design
Review Board in the Spring of 1995.
Although the applicant had intended to demolish the existing structure and begin construction of
the new building in the spring of 1995, he was not able to adhere to that schedule and
demolition /construction has been delayed until the spring of 1996. In the meantime, the
applicant has reconsidered the previously approved uses of the 3rd and 4th floors of the
building.
On October 9, 1995, a worksession was held with the PEC to discuss this Conditional Use
Permit request. At that time, the applicant had intended to have the club be a "private" club. The
PEC was not receptive to the idea of a private club in the Village and the negative precedent that
may set and directed the applicant to explore other options. In response to that direction, the
applicant has amended the intended operations of the club so that the club would now be open
to the public (see attachment #2 for floor plans of the club). The applicant has indicated that the
public would.be able to avail themselves of a number of options related to club services. For
example, the public could rent ski lockers in the club on a seasonal basis, pay a daily, weekly or
monthly access fee to use all, or a portion of, the club amenities, or pay a full membership fee
and accompanying annual dues. The applicant has also pointed out that the liquor license
associated with this club will be the same as those granted to public restaurants and will not be a
private liquor license. .
On November 13, 1995, the PEC tabled this application and requested that the Town Attorney
provide a written opinion on the applicant's right to apply for the requested Conditional Use
Permit. See attached copy of the Town Attorney's response to the PEC request.
III. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL
Upon review of Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, the Community Development
Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following
factors:
f:\ everyone \pec \memos \serranos.n27 3
• • • L• M.
1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of
the Town.
Staff's Res ns . - Staff is in support of the proposed use of the 3rd and
4th floors of the Serrano's Building as a quasi - public club. It would appear
that the club has the potential to provide more activity and interest in the
Village than would be provided by one residential dwelling unit and two
office spaces.
Additionally, staff believes that the proposed Conditional Use Permit
request would serve to carry out the following goals, policies and
objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan:
2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of a new
commercial activity where compatible with existing
land uses.
2.4.1 Policy: Commercial in -fill development consistent with
established horizontal zoning regulations shall be
encouraged to provide activity generators,
accessible greenspaces, public plazas, and
streetscape improvements to the pedestrian
network throughout the Village.
2.4.2 Policy: Activity that provides night life and evening
entertainment for both the guests and the
community shall be encouraged.
2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and
maintenance of existing lodging and commercial
facilities to better serve the needs of our guests.
In the CCI Zone District, "meeting rooms" may be approved, as a
Conditional Use, only in the basement or garden level and on the 2nd level
of a building. They are not allowed, as a permitted or conditional use, on
the 1st floor or street level or any level of a building above the 2nd floor.
Since the applicant's request includes the proposed use of a portion of the
3rd floor for meeting and /or dining rooms, staff was concerned with
authorizing a use which is specifically prohibited on this level of a building
in the CCI Zone District. The applicant has responded to staff's concern
by committing that the meeting rooms will be used solely by club
members, and therefore, can be considered as accessory to the functions
of the quasi - public club. The club members, as a group, will not rent the .
rooms to the general public.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities needs.
f:\ everyone \pec \memos \serranos.n27 4
Staff Res pons - Staff believes that the proposed change in use from
residential and office use to a quasi - public club will have no negative effect
on any of the above listed criteria.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control,
access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and
parking areas.
Staff Response - Staff believes that the proposed change in use from
residential and office use to a quasi - public club will have no negative effect
on any of the above listed criteria.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to
be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in
relation to surrounding uses.
Staff Res ons . - As mentioned previously, there will be no external
changes made in conjunction with this proposed change in approved uses
of the 3rd and 4th floors of the Serrano's Building. Therefore, there will be
no changes in the scale and bulk of the building previously reviewed and
approved by the PEC, Town Council and Design Review Board. With
regard to the change in use and its effect on the character of the area,
staff believes that the proposed change from one large residential
condominium unit and two small office spaces, to a quasi - public club,
could have the effect of providing more activity and therefore a livelier feel
to the Village, which is a goal of the Town.
B. Findinus
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before granting a conditional use permit:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the
district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
C. Additional Criteria for consideration of Conditional Use Permit agpiications in
the CCI Zone District
In addition to the standard Conditional Use Permit Criteria and Findings listed in
f:\ everyone \pec \memos \serranos.n27 5
paragraphs A and B above, applications for a Conditional Use Permit within the
CC I Zone District must address the following additional development factors:
Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I District;
Staff Res�nsg - The proposed change of approved uses on the 3rd and
4th floors of the Serrano's Building, from a dwelling unit and office space
to a quasi - public club, would not appear to have a negative effect on
vehicular traffic in the CC I Zone District. The loading and delivery traffic
associated with the club will be accommodated by the same loading and
delivery vehicles associated with the restaurant already approved on the
second level of the building and should not result in additional traffic
impacts.
2. . Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core 1 District;
Staff Res ns - The proposed change in use would not appear to cause
a reduction, or increase, in vehicular traffic in the CCI Zone District.
3. Reduction of nonessential off - street parking;
Staff Response - The proposed change in use would not reduce, or
increase non - essential off - street parking. There is currently no off- street
parking associated with this property.
4. Control of delivery, pick -up and service vehicles;
Staff Response - As mentioned in staff's response to criteria #1 above,
staff believes that there will be no increase in the number of delivery, pick-
up or service vehicles associated with the proposed club.
The food and beverage elements associated with the club appear to be
minimal and can be accommodated through the deliveries that would
already occur in relation to the restaurant on the 2nd level.
5. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians;
Staff Response - The proposed quasi - public club will have no effect,
positive or negative, on public spaces for use by pedestrians.
6. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and public uses in
Commercial Core I District so as to maintain the existing character of the
area;
Staff RUM-se - Staff believes that the proposed quasi - public club use
would continue the various commercial and public uses in the CC I Zone
District. Approval of the club would displace the previously approved
dwelling unit from the property, however, since the Serrano's Building
does not currently have a dwelling unit in it, (only an approval for one large
condominium to be built), the proposed club will not change the existing
character of the area. In staff's opinion, the replacement of the approved
condominium unit with a club is a positive change, as it would appear to
offer the opportunity to provide a more active and lively feel to the Village,
and to provide additional services and amenities for the Town's guests.
f:\ everyone \pec \memos \serranos.n27
7. Controi quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design
in Commercial Core 1 District so as to maintain the existing character of
the area;
Staff Response - The applicant has stated that no exterior changes will be
made to the building in association with the proposed club. Staff was
concerned however, that depending on the scope of the food service
element of the private club, it may be necessary to add additional
mechanical equipment related to any new or expanded kitchen area. In
response to this concern, the applicant has assured staff that all food
preparation activities associated with the club will be handled in the
kitchen of the restaurant, located on the 2nd floor of the building.
8. Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on the environment
of Commercial Core I District.
Staff Response - Staff believes that none of the elements listed above will
be a concern related to the proposed club use of the 3rd and 4th floor, with
the possible exception of noise. This issue was a concern during the initial
discussion of the building's redevelopment, related to the possible bar use
in the building. The solution to that discussion was that noise levels will
be adequately addressed through the Town's existing noise ordinances,
and staff believes those measures are appropriate for the proposed club
as well.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the Criteria and Findings outlined for review of Conditional Use Permit
applications in the CCI Zone District, staff recommends approval of the applicant's request
for a quasi - public club on the 3rd and 4th levels of the Serrano's Building. Staff
recommends that the following conditions be attached to the conditional use permit approval of
the club:
As mentioned previously, the original approval of the Serrano's redevelopment
application included a Conditional Use Permit for two office spaces on the 3rd
floor. With the club's Conditional Use Permit application, the only office use
occurring on the 3rd or 4th floors will be offices used by employees and staff for
"building and club operations."
The applicant has stated that this office space will not be rented to outside
parties. The staff recommends that since the office Conditional Use Permit
granted in the �rin 199 longer sary it shall be consider ull
a voi o al of the n lub" C ltion Use,16FN t,
2. Once final floor plan drawings are provided for staff review, a parking analysis will
be performed in order to determine if there is an incremental parking demand
associated with the proposed quasi - public club, as compared to the previously
approved commercial office and residential uses on the 3rd and 4th levels of the
building. Upon completion of the parking analysis, a parking pay -in -lieu fee may,
be determined. This fee must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for
1 the project. ,, J-1 ..
Please note that, un-CPT'Section 18.60.080 (Permit Approval'dMfT_:ffect) of-we Town of Vail
Municipal Code, the approval shall lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the
date of issuance and diligently pursued until completion, or if the use for which the permit is
granted is not commenced within two years.
f:\ everyone \pec \memos \serranos.nl3 7
TOWS
Exhibit E - 3 Pages
APPEALS FORM
�4
71T'�
REQUIRED FOR FILING AN APPEAL OF A STAFF, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OR
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION .ACTION
A. ACTION /DECISION BEING APPEALED: A. The interpretation of Ordinance 18.52. 1-00 and
the subsequent calculation of the Parking Pay in Lieu Fees of $571,341.68 being
assessed against The Vail Village Club Building at 333 Bridge Street, Vail, Colorado.
B. The requirement that the Applicant sign the promissory note personally and a
Deed of Trust be filed on the property. C. The classfication of the 3rd /4th floors
Club facilities as eating and drinking establishments.
B. DATE OF ACTION/DECISION: June 17, 1997 (per Mike Mollica's letter)
C. NAME OF BOARD OR PERSON RENDERING THE DECISION/TAKING ACTION: Mike Mollica,
Ass't Director of Community Development; Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
D. NAME OF APPELLANT(S): Riva Ridge Partners LLC; Glenn M Heelan; Margretta B. Parks-
,, MAILING ADDRESS: P. 0. Box, 5770, Avon, CO 81620
PHYSICAL ADDRESS IN VAIL: 333 Bridge Street PHONE: 949 -6277
LEGAL DESCRIPTIO OF %APPELLANT'S PROPERTY IN VAIL: Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village
1st Filing
E. SIGNATURE(S)
Pagel of 2
F. Does this appeal involve a specific parcel of land? --y G If yes, please provide the following information:
are you an adjacent property owner? Yes no X
If no, give a detailed c,-- planation of how you are an "aggrieved or adversely affected person." "Aggrieved or
adversely affected person" means any person who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or
furthered by this title. The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common with other members of the
community at large, but shall exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons.
Glenn M. Heelan is the Applicant for the exterior alterations.
Riva Ridge Partners LLC is the develo er of the building and the Lessee
of the property from Margretta B. Parks under the Amended and Restated
Lease Agreement.
Margretta B. Parks is the owner of the ro ert .
G. Provide the names and addresses (both person's mailing address and property's physical address in Vail) of all
owners of property which are-the subject of the appeal and all adjacent property owners (including properties
separated by a right -of -way, stream, or other intervening barriers). Also provide addressed and stamped envelopes for
each property owner on the list
H. On separate sheets of paper, specify the precise nature of the appeal. Please cite specific code sections having
relevance to the action being appealed.
FEE: $0.00
Page 2 of 2
TOWN OF VAILY
FLE COPY
75 South Frontage Road Department of Community Development
Vail, Colorado 81657
970 - 479 - 21381479 -2139 (p
FAX 970 - 479-2452 t �
June 17, 1997 I '�
Glenn f- lcclan
Charles Davison
c/o Riva Ridge Partners, LLC
P.O. Box 5770
Avon. CO 81620
R1: Vail Village Club - Parking Analysis
Dear Glenn and Charlie:
'I'lian • you for suh111it iigthc mal floor plan~ /scatingplans for tb-f-Vail V' • =e Club. Based upon these
drawings. 1 have recalculated the parking pay -in -lice fee as follows:
I . Restaurant /Club = 5,936 sq. ft. = 49.47 parking spaces
2. Retail == 3,704 sq. ft. = 12.35 parking spaces
3. Office = 39 sq. ft. = 0.16 narkintt spaces
61.98 parking spaces
- 2 =r' n 1c fathcrcc�l
Grand Total 34.98 parking spaces
Per youragrcemc»t with-Bob MCLaUrin, Town Manager, parking spaces will be assessed at a rate of
S 16,333.38 per space (1996 pay -in -lieu figure). Therefore, the grand total fort he Vail Village Club is
S57 1,34 1.63.
As previously agreed to by Bob McLaurin, a ten -year repayment period will be acceptable to the Town.
Should this be your desired course of action, please let us know so that we can finalize the paperwork.
As always, should you have any questions, or comments regarding any of the above, please feel free to
contact me directly at 479 -2144.
Sincerely,
Mike UMoI I ic
Assistant Director of Community Development
MM /jr
xc: Bob McLaurin
Toni Moorhead
Steve Thompson
RECYCLED PAPER
EXHIBIT F - 6 pages
September 15, 1997
Mr. Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Community Development DCV DEPT,
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: The Appeal of Staffs Interpretation of Ordinance 18.52. 100 and the
subsequent calculation of the Parking Pay in Lieu fees of $571,341.68
Dear Mr. Mollica,
Enclosed please find the completed appeals form required for filing an appeal of a
staff action. In reference to paragraph H of the appeals form we submit the
following:
Riva Ridge Partners LLC, Glenn M. Heelan, and Margretta B. Parks are appealing
staffs interpretation and subsequent calculation of code section 18.52. 100 and
18.52.160. Staffs interpretations have resulted in classifying the 3rd and 4th
Floors of The Vail Village Club Building located at 333 Bridge Street as a public
eating and drinking establishment, with an accompanying assessment for pay in
lieu parking fees in the amount of $571,341.68. In addition, staff has determined
that in order to defer payment of the pay in lieu fees by the use of a promissory
note, they will require that Riva Ridge Partners LLC (the developer) and one of it's
managers guarantee the promissory note, and that a Deed of Trust be filed on the
property.
As addressed in the attached correspondence, the applicant disputes the calculation
of the number of parking spaces being assessed against the property, the
requirement that he sign personally and a Deed of Trust be filed on the property,
and questions whether in fact, the 3rd and 4th Floors that have a conditional use of
a quasi- public Club be classified as eating and drinking establishments.
feel free to call with any questions or additional requirements you may
Si rely, I
M. Heelan
July 1, 1997
Mr. Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
Dear Mike,
Sent Via Facsimile
In our meeting yesterday, we discussed our confusion pertaining to the language
of the zoning code relating to Off -Street Parking and Loading; specifically
"18.52.100 Section C. Other Uses #5" as it relates to Eating and drinking
establishments. As I stated, we interpret the section to read how many actual seats
we have, as opposed to the building code occupancy standards which are measured
by occupant load factors per square foot. At your suggestion I will ask Tom
Moorehead and my attorney to clarify the section.
If, after further clarification, it is agreed that the number of seats and the resulting
parking fees are determined by the square footage of the various uses; then, we
still have questions regarding the actual number of square feet being calculated,
mostly as it pertains to the bar on the first floor, and the Club areas on the third
and fourth floors. Therefore, we would appreciate the opportunity to revisit the
parking requirements as soon as we are able to obtain the clarification from our
respective attorneys. At that time, we will also provide the final "remarked"
drawings that represent what is actually being built in the building.
I look d to hearing from Mr.
ienn po ible.
,
. Heelan
cc: Charles W. Davison
Moo rehead and bringing this issue to a close as
HOLLEY, ALBERTSON & POLK, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DENVER WEST OFFICE PARK
Subs 100, BUILDING 19
1667 COLE BLVD.
GOLDEN, COLORADO 80401
GEORGE ALAN HOLLEY PHONE (303) 233 -7838
SCOTT D. ALBERTSON FAX (303) 233 -2860
DENNIS B. POLK
ERIC E. TORGERSEN
THOMAS A. WALSH
HOWARD R. STONE
July 30, 1997
BY TELECOPIER AND FIRST -CLASS MAIL
Mr. Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: The Vail Village Club, 298 Hanson Ranch
Road, Vail, Colorado (the "Property ")
Dear Mr. Mollica:
This firm represents Riva Ridge Partners LLC in connection
with the above - referenced matter. We are in receipt of a copy of
your June 17, 1997, letter concerning the payment of fees in lieu
of parking for the redevelopment of The Vail Village Club. The
purpose of this letter is to set forth our client's position with
regard to those fees in lieu of parking. It is our client's
position, based upon Chapter 18.52 of the Town of Vail Zoning
Ordinance,- that the Town has calculated an excessive fee in lieu of
parking for the re- development of The Vail Village Club. Our
analysis is based upon the following:
1. It is our understanding that the Property was previously
allocated 27 parking spaces, as computed pursuant to the Zoning
Ordinance. It is our further understanding that our client would
receive credit for these pre- existing parking spaces in connection
with the re- development of the Property, and would be obligated to
pay only the difference between the number of parking spaces as
determined for The Vail Village Club and the original (in this
instance 27) parking spaces attributable to the Property.. Based
upon our review of your June 17, 1997, letter, the Town has
followed this analysis as well. Thus, although this letter will
not discuss our client's position on whether the Town is entitled
to collect any fees in lieu of parking, or the amount per space of
that fee, our client's primary position in this letter is that the
Town has computed an excessive fee based upon the number of parking
spaces attributable to The Vail Village Club as re- developed.
vs
Mr. Mike Mollica
July 30, 1997
Page 2.
2. It appears that the fees in lieu of parking for The Vail
Village Club are set forth in § 18.52.160.B, which provides in
relevant part:
In Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II property
owners or applicants shall be required to contribute to
the Town Parking Fund, hereby established, for the
purpose of meeting the demand and requirements for
vehicle parking. At such time as any property owner or
other applicant proposes to develop or redevelop a parcel
of property within an exempt area which would require
parking and /or loading areas, the owner or applicant
shall pay to the Town the parking fee hereinafter
required.
2. The parking fee to be paid by any owner or applicant
shall be determined by the Town Council.
5. The parking fee to be paid by any owner or applicant
is hereby determined to be fifteen thousand dollars
($15,000.00) per space. This fee shall be automatically
increased annually by the percentage the Consumer Price
Index of the City of Denver has increased over each
successive year.
6. For additions or enlargements of any existing
building or change of use that would increase the total
number of parking - spaces required, an additional parking
fee will be required only for such addition, enlargement
or change and not for the entire building or use.
Zoning Ordinance § 18.52.160.B.
It is our understanding that The Vail Village Club is situated
within the Commercial Core I area of the Town of Vail, and
according to the Zoning Ordinance must contribute to the Town
Parking Fund. It does not appear that § 18.52.160.B fixes the
number of parking spaces which would be attributable to a re-
development. Therefore, we assume that the number of parking
spaces (used to determine the pay in lieu fee) is determined from
the specific parking requirement schedule set forth in § 18.52.100.
It is our understanding that The Vail Village Club will be confined
to some retail, personal service and repair shops, and some
restaurant/ club, and a small portion (under 100 square feet)
Mr. Mike Mollica
July 30, 1997
Page 3.
dedicated to office. According to § 18.52.100, parking spaces for
those uses are determined as follows:
C. Other Uses.
4. Retain Store, Personal
Services and Repair Shops
1.0 space per each 300
feet of net floor space
5. Eating and Drinking Establishments 1.0 space per each 8 seats,
based on seating capacity or
building code occupancy
standards, whichever is more
restrictive
§ 18.52.100.0 (emphasis added).
Under § 18.52.100.C., parking spaces required for retail use
are determined based upon one space per 300 square feet of net
floor space. For eating and drinking establishments, such as the
club portion of The Vail Village Club, the parking requirement is
1.0 space per each 8 seats, based on seating capacity or building
code occupancy standards, whichever is more restrictive; however,
it does not appear that this provision permits the determination of
parking requirements based upon square feet of net floor space, as
done for retail establishments. This parking requirement appears
to be consistent with the intent of the ordinance to require off
street parking in the amount actually needed by the development.
This would explain why the Zoning Ordinance determines necessary
parking for a retail establishment based on net floor space, while
a restaurant use is based upon seating capacity.
. Based upon our review, it appears that the fee -in -lieu of
parking must be determined based upon the number of off street
parking spaces which the Town could require pursuant to § 18.52.100
of the zoning ordinance. It is our understandin -- '1
Village Club and restaurants will hay xi of 10 seats
which is less t an a maximum number permitted un er e
applicable building code. Therefore, it would appear that the
number of off - street parking spaces which could be required for the
restaurant /club would be 26.25, i.e., 210 divided by 8, rather than
49.47 as calculated by the Town based upon net floor space. It is
our client's position that the Zoning Ordinance limits the fees in
lieu of parking to an amount equal to the per space fee multiplied
by the number of parking spaces which could be required under §
18.52.100. Assuming the accuracy of the Town's net floor space
calculations, it is our client's position that the number of
parking spaces should be determined as follows:
Mr. Mike Mollica
July 30, 1997
Page 4.
1. Restaurant /club = 210 Seats = 26.25 Parking Spaces
2. Retail = 3,704 Square Feet - 12.35 Parking Spaces
3. ' Office = 39 Square Feet = _0.16 Parking Spaces
TOTAL 38.76 Parking Spaces
Minus 27 (Grandfathered)
Net Total 11.76
Finally, it is our client's position that assuming a parking
fee of $16,333.38 per space, the parking fee for The Vail Village
Club should be $192,080.55.
Our client requests that the Town reconsider its computation
of the fees in lieu of parking and advise our client as to whether
the Town will change its position from your June 17, 1997, letter,`
that the parking fee for The Vail Village Club is $571,341.63,;'
rather than $192,080.55, as our client suggests. In this regard,
our client would be available to discuss this matter with you at ,
greater length, if that would serve to clarify their position on
the fees in lieu of parking.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and your
professional courtesies in this regard.
EET /db
cc: Glenn M. Heelan
Sincerely,
HOLLEY, ALBERTSCaf--& POLK,�I P.C.
Eric E. Torgersen --
S E M P L c
EXHIBIT G - I page
1406 Larimer Square, Sulu 200 A Professional Corporation Phone 303 -571 -4137
Denver, Colorado 80202 j o(Architects and Designers Fax 303 - 571 -0403
i
TOTAL P.03
3 R O W N
R O B E R T S
VAIL VILLAGE GLUE
PRO ECT / NO
1
+ 45EMET.13 = 4,1.6rb oyo! 5 .
DATE
rnC =:1aRj Cal /e.leCri
2
IOG�Brs �Shoijar-s 0.2,1043
✓� �, 1Q�(,,
scctr>`ofal occuj�anfs
55
TELECON ❑
1~ I RST F ctz = 3, S 6 `1 �css �.
CONFER ❑
I/�
I 2, ��¢ nE>L "r'
re�a71 area,
MEMO ❑
Lae- area. (:�) 9005 -�. t
�-
INFO ❑
5Ub , ai OCC.Upanf5 -
28
SCOlyo FLC}D2 = 5,66Z S,T, 9 Toss
2,45(, net s.�.
PARTICIPANTS
k; }Chen € backr 200 =
5
dining l 020 = l� -
108
6a +D+A) Occupa nts
I1190 FLO02. - 315ff to T6515 SA
210!0!0 t,e+
i op ;C-C:5 272 5. . 100 -
3
di n;ng / laun5� 17g� s.'. - ��
Ito
5ui o}cti Occupants
Jz3
OUR 1-i r' (.ODD = lJ 5 (v4- jross s.-r•
Q 7� nef s..
COPY:
�Bfa u fs
PARTICIPANTS ❑
PM ❑
IToTAL OF �.c u PAN'Ts
i
ORIG.TO CENTRAL
FILE ❑
1406 Larimer Square, Sulu 200 A Professional Corporation Phone 303 -571 -4137
Denver, Colorado 80202 j o(Architects and Designers Fax 303 - 571 -0403
i
TOTAL P.03
TOWN OF VAIL
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning & Environmental Commission
FROM: R. Thomas Moorhead L
DATE: October 2, 1997
RE: Glenn Heelan/Vail Village Club Appeal of Administrative Action
On September 17, 1997 Glenn Heelan appealed administrative action of Mike Mollica, Assistant
Director of Community Development. Based upon the Town of Vail Code and prior agreements
made by Mr. Heelan I believe that this appeal is not timely. Attached is correspondence from Mr.
Heelan dated June 21, 1996 in which he agrees to the method, manner and procedure to establish
the amount of the parking pay -in -lieu fee and he further agrees that the parking pay -in -lieu will be
paid at the time a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
Additionally, Mr. Heelan indicates on the face of his appeal that he is appealing the decision of Mike
Mollica of June 17, 1997. Section 18.66.030, Appeals in subsection 3 requires that any such action
must be appealed within ten calendar days of the decision becoming final. The decision becomes
final at the next Planning and Environmental Commission meeting after June 17, 1997. Therefore,
any right to appeal such decision has lapsed.
I understand that Mr. Mollica will be providing to the Planning and Environmental Commission a
memorandum which deals with the substantive issues of calculation of the parking pay -in -lieu fee
in this particular instance. Based on the procedural issues of the lasping of the time within which
a matter can be appealed; the previous agreement by Mr. Heelan that the parking pay -in -lieu fee
would be paid at the time of the issuing of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy; and, finally, for
the substantive calculation performed by Community Development, this appeal should be
overruled.
Thank you.
RTM /aw
xc: Robert W. McLaurin
Mike Mollica
C:\pec.mem
LaRECYCLED PAPER
TM
1 .Y
1
l
June 21, 1996
1
t Mr. Mike Molllca
1
Assistant Director of Community Development
A Town of Vail
Dear Mike,
Pursuant to our previous conversations, it is my understanding and agreement that the
parking pay -in -lieu fees currently estimated at $457,334.64 as established by Community
Development in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted by Riva Ridge
Partners, LLC that indicate completion of the third and fourth floors as a Quasi - Public
Club, will be paid over five years with the first payment due and payable at the time a
a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is issued. As we further discussed, the Town of Vail
Building Department has requested a rulin from ICBO with respect to certain
g �P req g p aspW -of
the third floor design. It is my understanding that earlier today, Dan Stanek received
information from ICBO that requires a change of design to the third floor. I would like to
request that if the design alternatives warrant a reduction in the parking requirements that
these reductions be reflected in the agreed upon parking pay -in -lieu fee.
It is also my understanding that in the event Riva Ridge Partners LLC revises the current
submission and changes the third and fourth floors to a residential and office use" the
applicable parking pay -in -lieu fee is currently SI79,667.18. It is also my understanding
that this fee, if applicable, would be paid over five years with the first payment due at the
time of the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
Finally, in a discussion earlier today with Bob McLaurin, I requested that in the event the
Town Council revises the pay -in -lieu fees or terms of payment such that the changes
would be beneficial to The Vail Village Club, that we be included in the changes for the
purposes of calculating the appropriate fee and/or payment schedule at the time the
` Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is issued. As I discussed with'Mr. McLaurin, we
believe that the long term economic benefits to the Town of Vail vis a vis the continuing
Wes taxes generated by a commercial use of the third and fourth floors greatly outweigh
a residential use of the same space, yet the "penalties" imposed by the greater parking
requirements and fees of commercial use may ultimately be the "final straw" that forces us
to use the space as a residential condominium. I am hopeful that the Town Council also
sees the long term benefits of such an approach and chooses to include us in any
improvements to the current parking pay- in -Iieu ordinance.
If p vide any fiuthcr assistance, I can be reached at 949 -6277.
S ,
lean M. Heelan
MAW,
,
Office of the Town Attorney
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970 - 479 - 2107 /Fax 970 - 479 -2157
October 1, 1997
TM
VIA TELECOPIER 949 -7045 and U.S. MAIL
Mr. Glenn Heelan
Post Office Box 5770
Avon, Co 81620
Dear Glenn:
We have concluded a review of all issues raised by you at the walk - through on the property on
Friday, September 19, 1997. Additionally, we have had Art Hoagland, an expert in regard to
building code issues, determine the occupancy load for the building.
The theory presented by you that there should be four foot corridors on each floor which is deducted
from the calculation of the parking requirement was reviewed by Community Development, the Fire
Department, and the Building Department. After thorough review, it is clear that there is no
reasonable basis for making such a deduction. Under the calculation of occupancy loads there has
never been a reduction in occupancy load due to the existence of such "corridors ".
A complete recalculation based upon a new review of the as built plans and our recent walk - through
of the structure results in the following calculations for the parking requirement:
59.996 spaces
- 27.000 grandfathered spaces
= 32.996 spaces required
Therefore. 32.996 spaces x $16,333.38 results in a total parking fee of $538,936.20.
For your information the occupant load for the entire structure has been determined to be 483
persons. This does not include the additional ten percent allowance permitted by Section 25.144(b)
of the Uniform Fire Code.
^ ocrvrIYnPAPER
I hope that this information is helpful to you. I'm certain that we will have additional discussions
before this issue is resolved. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you may
have.
Very truly yours,
TOWN OF VAIL
R. Thomas Moorhead
Town Attorney
RTM /aw
xc: Robert W. McLaurin
Mike Mollica
Mike McGee
Charlie Davis
.nnTrnT nr. T)ATT
F11
v
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970 - 479 -2138
FAX 970- 479 -2452
September 15, 1997
Glenn Heelan
Charles Davison
c/o Riva Ridge Partners, LLC
P.O. Box 5770
Avon, CO 81620
RE: Vail Village Club - Parking Analysis
Dcar Glenn and Charlie:
As we agreed at our meeting of August 8, 1997, I have recalculated the parking requirement for the Vail
and agreement at the August 8th meeting, the parking pay -in-
Village Club. Based upon Our understanding
Iieu fee is calculated as follows:
5,717 s ft.
I , Restaurant /Club — q•
47.64 parking spaces =
2, Retail = 3,704 sq. ft.
= 12.35 parking spaces
3. Office = 133 sq. ft.
= 0.53 parking �yaggs
60.52 parking spaces
- 27 (trrandfatheredl
Grand Total
33.52 parking spaces
Per your agreement with Bob McLaurin, Town Manager,
parking spaces will be assessed at a rate of
total for the Vail Village Club is
516,333.38 per space (1996 pay -in -lien figure). Therefore,
the grand
$547,494.89.
Please feel free to contact me directly at 479 -2144, should you have any questions, or comments regarding
any of the above.
Sincerely,
' , M' — "1
Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Community Development
MM /jr
xc: Bob McLaurin
Tom Moorhead
Steve Thompson
�a RECYCLEDPAPER
TM
TOWN OF VAILY
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970 - 479 - 2107 /Fax 970 - 479 -2157
September 10, 1997
Eric E. Torgersen, Esquire
Holley, Albertson & Polk, P.C.
Denver West Office Park
Suite 100, Building 19
1667 Cole Boulevard
Golden, CO 80401
Mr. Glen Heelan
Post Office Box 5770
Avon, Co 81620
Office of the Town Attorney
VIA TELECOPIER 303/233 -2860
VIA TELECOPIER 476 -3427
Re: Town of Vail/Vail Village Club Agreement for Pedestrian Access Easement, Landscape
Maintenance Easement, and Grant of Easement
Gentlemen:
I have reviewed the revised Agreement for Pedestrian Access Easement, Landscape Maintenance
Easement, and Grant of Easement. It is acceptable in its present form. Please present the
original executed by Riva Ridge Partners and the owner for execution by Bob McLaurin. We
will provide you with a fully executed copy.
If you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
TOWN VAIL�
r�t
R. Thomas Moorhead
Town Attorney
RWM/aw
xc: Mike Mollica
�a RECYCLEDPAPER
SEP -09 -97 TUE 08:14 AM HC -Y ALBERTSON POLK FAX N0._30: 32860 P.02/14
HOLLEY, ALSEjMoN & POLY, P.C.
ATTO*xm AT LAW
DEWin WESTOFFtce PARK
St= 100, BUMOM 19
1667 COLE BLVD.
Gouxr. COWaAOO 30401
GEORGE ALAN HOLLEY PHONE (303) 233.73.31
SCOTT D. AIMERTSON FAX (303) 233 -2160
DENNIS B. POLK
ERIC L TORGERSEN
THOMAS A. WALSH
HOWARD B. STONE
September 9, 1997
VIA TSLSC pnM AND FUST
R. Thomas Moorhead, Esq.
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: The Vail Village Club, Vail, Colorado
Dear Tom:
As a follow -up to our telephone conversation last week and
your September 2, 1997, letter, we have revised the Agreement for
Pedestrian Access Easement, Landscape Maintenance Easement and
Grant of Easement. In this regard, enclosed please find a revised
draft of the Agreement for your review and comments.
If you have any questions about this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact us at your earliest convenience.
Thank you for your continued cooperation and professional
courtesies with regard to this matter.
Sincerely,
HOLLEY, ALB ER Z7H & PO� . P.C.
Eric E.
r
EET /db
enc.
ace: Glenn M. Heelan (via telecopier)
Hark E. Welch (via telecopier)
Printed by Mike Mollica 9/2W7 4:04pm
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
F,4tom: Mike Mollica
To: Tom Moorhead
Subject: Vail Village Club
---------------------------------------
=== NOTE____ ____________________________
CC: Bob McLaurin
I have revised the parking pay -in -lieu
figures for the Vail Village Club based
upon our recent walk- through of the
building with Glenn and Charlie:
1) Per the zoning code, the parking
requirement is:
59.996 spaces
- 27.000 grandfathered
= 32.996 spaces required
Therefore,
32.996 x $16,333.38 = $538,936.20
2) This is for informational purposes
only - -- Utilizing the UBC to determine
occupant load, for the entire
structure, Art Hoagland has determined
the occupant load to be 483 persons
(this does not include the additional
10o allowance per section 25.114,b).
Therefore, 483/8 = 60.375
60.375 spaces
- 27.000 grandfathered
= 33.375 spaces required
33.375 x $16,333.38 = $545,126.55
Please note that the zoning code only
allows the use of the UBC calculations
for restaurant /bar use only. Again,
the above calculation is for the entire
structure.
Tom, let me know if you need anything
else from me.
Q v en- -�
Page: 1
Storage - Stock Factor* _
Locker Room _
Massage - waiting if _
Drinking est. - Dining it _
Lounge"
Dance Floor * ** _
Retail if _
i
* Factor = square feet per occupant
** The "Dining Deck" on the second floor level was not included as it
would be when calculating exit requirements based upon Occupant
Load.
* ** The portion of the Lounge indicated to be a Dance Floor will have a
higher Occupant Load. U.B.0 Sec. 3302 (a) 1. Paragraph two states
"For a building or portion thereof which has more than one use, the
occupant load shall be determined by the use which gives the largest
number of persons."
Mike, if you have questions give me a call at (970) 963 -2312
Thanks,
P-S v i --,n1m ��® ,//IrZ VS 1-1/2E �fvCCZ-s501ex
1.4_4'-
300
673
zb3
l art
1043
50
r5�
Sao
100
.4
X4,2
15
53�
Ibg I
�.11f,
�9�
363,E
7
30p�,'8'
200
451
ZIL
15
100
9
X8'3
* Factor = square feet per occupant
** The "Dining Deck" on the second floor level was not included as it
would be when calculating exit requirements based upon Occupant
Load.
* ** The portion of the Lounge indicated to be a Dance Floor will have a
higher Occupant Load. U.B.0 Sec. 3302 (a) 1. Paragraph two states
"For a building or portion thereof which has more than one use, the
occupant load shall be determined by the use which gives the largest
number of persons."
Mike, if you have questions give me a call at (970) 963 -2312
Thanks,
P-S v i --,n1m ��® ,//IrZ VS 1-1/2E �fvCCZ-s501ex
1991 UNIFORM FIRE CODE
APPENDIX VI -D
TABLE NO. 33 -A— MINIMUM EGRESS REQUIREMENTS[
MINIMUM OF TWO EXITS 3
OTHER THAN
ELEVATORS ARE _
REQUIRED WHERE
NUMBER OF OCCUPANT LOAD =_
NU
OCCUPANTS IS AT FACTOR _
USE' LEAST (sq. tt') 2
I. Aircraft hangars 10 500
(no repair)
2. Auction rooms 30
3. Assembly areas, concentrated use 50
(without fixed seats)
Auditoriums
Churches and chapels a
Dance floors =
obby accessory to assembly
occupancy
odge rooms
Reviewing stands
Stadiums
50 3
,,, =
Waiting Area ,.,;A -t e
4. 50 15
less- concentrated use
Conference rooms
Dining room
Drinking establishments
—rxhibit rooms
Gymnasiums
Lounges
[ages
5. Bowling alley (assume no 50 4
occupant load for bowling lanes)
6. Children's homes and homes for 6 8
the aged
50 20 =
7. Classrooms =
8. Congregate residences
(accommodating 10 or less
persons and having an area of I0 300
3,000 square feet or less) a
Congregate residences
(accommodating more than 10
persons or having an area of 10 200
more than 3,000 square feet)
50 40
9. Courtrooms 50
10. Dormitories 10
10 300
ll. Dwellings
50 50 ,
'-
12. Exercising rooms a
(Continued)
559 �� S
zC
To v
APPENDIX VI -D 1991 UNIFORM FIRE CODE
TABLE NO. 33 -A— MINIMUM EGRESS REQUIREMENTS'--(Continued)
(Access to, and egress from, buildings for persons with disabilities shall be provided as spe-
cified in Chapter 31.
2For additional provisions on number of exits from Groups H and I Occupancies and from
rooms containing fuel -fired equipment or cellulose nitrate, see Sections 3319, 3320 and
3321, respectively.
3This table shall not be used to determine working space requirements per person. _ 0-3 Koo rns
'Occupant load based on five persons for each alley, including 15 feet of runway.
560
MINIMUM OF TWO EXITS
OTHER THAN
ELEVATORS ARE
REQUIRED WHERE
NUMBER OF
OCCUPANT LOAD
OCCUPANTS IS AT
FACTOR'
USE'
LEAST
(sq. tt.)
13. Garage, parking
30
200
14. Hospitals and sanitariums—
Nursing homes
Sleeping rooms
6
80
Treatment rooms
10
80
Health -care center
10
80
15. Hotels menu
10
200
16. itchen— commercial
30
200
17. g room
50
0
{ ocker rooms
30
50
19. Malls (see Chapter 56)
—
—
20. Manufacturing areas
30
200
21. Mechanical equipment room
30
300
22. Nurseries for children (day care)
7
35
23. Offices
30
100
24. School shops and vocational
rooms
50
50
25. Skating rinks
50
50 on the skating
area; 15 on the
deck
S[ora a and stock rooms
30
3
2 Cores— retatl sales rooms
50
30
28. Swimming pools
50
50 for the pool
area; 15 on the
deck
29. Warehouses
30
500
30. All others
50
100
(Access to, and egress from, buildings for persons with disabilities shall be provided as spe-
cified in Chapter 31.
2For additional provisions on number of exits from Groups H and I Occupancies and from
rooms containing fuel -fired equipment or cellulose nitrate, see Sections 3319, 3320 and
3321, respectively.
3This table shall not be used to determine working space requirements per person. _ 0-3 Koo rns
'Occupant load based on five persons for each alley, including 15 feet of runway.
560
V
1 1991 UNIFORM FIRE CODE 25.110- 25.115
Ashtrays
Sec. 25.110. Where smoking is allowed, approved noncombustible ashtrays or
match receivers shall be provided on each table and at other convenient places.
Fire Appliances
Sec. 25.111. Fire appliances shall be kept in proper working condition.
Extinguishers and hose and similar appliances shall be visible and accessible at all
times. It shall be the duty of the owner and the occupant of each building or part
of a building occupied as a place of assembly to properly train sufficient regular
employees in the use of fire appliances.
Plan of Exit Ways and Aisles
Sec. 25.112. When required by the chief, a plan indicating the seating arrange-
ments, location and width of exit ways and aisles shall be submitted for approval,
and an approved copy of the plan shall be kept on display on the premises.
Marking and Lighting of Exits
Sec. 25.113. Exits in places of assembly shall be identified and lighted in
accordance with Article 12.
Maximum Occupant Load B I
Sec. 25.114. (a) Posting of Room Capacity. Rooms having an occupant load B
of 50 or more where fixed seats are not installed, and which is used for classroom,
assembly or similar purpose, shall have the capacity of the room posted in a
conspicuous place on an approved sign near the main exit from the room. Such sign
shall be maintained legible by the owner or the owner's authorized agent and shall
indicate the number of occupants permitted for each room use.
4etermination of Occupant Load. The number of persons in a building or
portion thereof shall not exceed the amount determined as specified in the Building
Code except that where such additional exit facilities are provided the occupant
load can be increased by not more than 0_ p_ ercent, when approved by the chief,
without being considerecl overcrowding.
(c) Overcrowding. Overcrowding and admittance of persons beyond the
approved capacity of a place of assembly are prohibited. The chief, upon finding
overcrowding conditions or obstructions in aisles, passageways or other means of
egress, or upon finding a condition which constitutes a serious menace to life, is
authorized to cause the performance, presentation, spectacle or entertainment to
be stopped until such condition or obstruction is corrected.
Candles and Other Open -flame Devices
Sec. 25.115. Candles and other open -flame devices shall not be used in places
of assembly, or drinking or dining establishments.
EXCEPTIONS: 1. When used in conjunction with approved heating or cooking
appliances in areas not accessible to the public.
2. When used in conformance with Section 25.116.
111
Q APPROVED nrT ? 1 199
FILE COPY
2. An appeal of the following staff interpretations: 1) The staff's classification of the third
and fourth floors as "eating and drinking establishments "; 2) Section 18.52.100 C,
Parking- Requirements Schedule (Eating & Drinking Establishments) and Section
18.52.160, Exemptions (parking pay -in -lieu) - appellant disputes the calculation of the
number of parking spaces required; and 3) The requirement that the applicant sign the
pay -in -lieu promissory note personally and that a Deed of Trust be filed on the property;
located at The Vail Village Club, 333 Bridge Street, Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Appellant: Riva Ridge Partners LLC; Glenn M. Heelan; Margretta B. Parks
Staff: Mike Mollica /Tom Moorhead
Mike Mollica gave an overview of the staff memo and explained the appeals process. He then
stated that the appeal should not be heard because of the timeliness issue.
Glenn Heelan, Manager of Riva Ridge Property, said that on page 2 of the staff memo, it was not
final due to the October 1, 1997 letter from Tom Moorhead. He further stated the June 21st letter
said the parking fees were estimated, therefore, the application not being timely was not
appropriate.
Greg Moffet asked for any comments on the timeliness issue.
Bill Whiteford, son of Greta Parks (property owner), reiterated what Glenn said per the
documents and said he couldn't believe the attempt to head off this application was based on the
timliness issue.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
October 13, 1997
N
Jim Lamont asked how the decision was made from the administrative process.
Tom Moorhead said it was not appropriate for Jim to ask questions about staff.
Jim Lamont, representing the EVHA, stated the principal question was if the administrative
decision had documented the dollar amount.
Greg Moffet stated that was what we were trying to determine.
Tom Moorhead stated that the decisiion became final 10 days after the next PEC hearing,
following the staff decision. He said staff had continued to meet with Glenn Heelan and
adjustments had been made; none of which had been successful.
Mike Mollica said regarding the determination of use, it was documented in Exhibit C of the letter
written by Jim Curnutte.
Glenn Heelan said the question was whether or not the application was timely. He agreed that
Tom was correct regarding the June 17th letter, however numerous letters later had changed the
fee. He then said the latest letter received was from Tom on October 1st.
Ann Bishop asked Mike if the letter of June 17th had given them notice.
Mike Mollica said, yes.
Ann Bishop asked how the applicant would know that.
Tom Moorhead said it was in the Ordinance.
Tom Moorhead said we had no objection addressing all the issues, but that the applicant would
have to pay the fee as calculated to be consistent with other applications. He said he was
confident on all the issues that this appeal had no basis.
Ann Bishop stated in reading the letter of June 17th from Mr. Mollica to Glenn, it said nothing
about it being final. She said she understood how it would be difficult to determine when it was
final from that letter.
John Schofield said, regarding the timeliness, that there was conflicting information. He said that
the appeal form specifically referenced the 6/17 letter and one can only infer that that was what
the applicant was appealing. He asked if things were not final in the applicant's mind, then what
was being appealed? He said that the June 17th letter had nothing to do with the 3rd and 4th
floors and also the promissory note.
Greg Amsden had no comments.
Galen Aasland asked if uses had been changed since the 6/17 letter?
Glenn Heelan said the argument was the parking.
Diane Golden said it was very confusing.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
October 13, 1997
3
ti
Greg Moffet said we cannot bar this from timeliness, because of what was on the application.
He then asked for a motion regarding the timeliness issue.
John Schofield made a motion that the appeal, as submitted, and as stated in the June 17th
letter, not be considered as a valid appeal due to the timeliness issue.
Greg Amsden seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4 -2, with Ann Bishop and Diane Golden opposed.
Greg Moffet asked if he could make a motion.
Tom Moorhead said Greg Moffet could make a motion, but to ask another person to chair while
doing so.
Ann Bishop made a motion, pending resolution of the first motion, to hear the presentation on the
parking.
Galen Aasland seconded the motion.
John Schofield asked Tom if the appeal was barred, could the PEC hear the parking issue.
Tom Moorhead stated that the PEC ruled that this appeal was not timely.
John Schofield asked if the PEC could overrule the calculations.
Tom Moorhead said that within 10 days, the PEC could call it up, but if the appeal was not valid,
the PEC had no authority.
John Schofield said, regarding the testimony that the PEC heard, if the PEC had authority to
advise staff?
Tom Moorhead said, no.
Galen asked if the PEC could call it up
Tom Moorhead said the applicant had no ability to renew or create a new time period and that
simply writing a letter couldn't renew it.
Greg Moffet said the applicant could apply for a variance and that regarding this specific issue,
we had barred the claim.
Glen Heelan said he understood why the PEC was holding to the June 17th letter, but the
September and October letters changed the fee again. He asked how he should file an appeal
so it is timely? He said this was ridiculous, as he received letters every two weeks.
Ann Bishop said she saw nothing in the June letter that stated it as final.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
October 13, 1997
0
1W
W
Glenn Heelan asked again how to file. He said you have said it didn't count and this was a
cheap shot. He asked again which letter was the final one and again, said that this was a cheap
shot, asking for a delay, which would hold us hostage on the parking issue.
John Schofield stated an appeal can be made to Council within 10 days from today regarding the
PEC barring the appeal with regards to the timeliness issue.
The motion to hear the presentation failed by a vote of 1 -5 with Ann Bishop voting in favor.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
October 13, 1997
5
w
September 15, 1997
Mr. Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: The Appeal of Staff s Interpretation of Ordinance 18.52. 100 and the
subsequent calculation of the Parking Pay in Lieu fees of $571,341.68
Dear Mr. Mollica,
Enclosed please find the completed appeals form required for filing an appeal of a
staff action. In reference to paragraph H of the appeals form we submit the
following:
Riva Ridge Partners LLC, Glenn M. Heelan, and Margretta B. Parks are appealing
staffs interpretation and subsequent calculation of code section 18.52. 100 and
18.52.160. Staff s interpretations have resulted in classifying the 3rd and 4th
Floors of The Vail Village Club Building located at 333 Bridge Street as a public
eating and drinking establishment, with an accompanying assessment for pay in
lieu parking fees in the amount of $571,341.68. In addition, staff has determined
that in order to defer payment of the pay in lieu fees by the use of a promissory
note, they will require that Riva Ridge Partners LLC (the developer) and one of it's
managers guarantee the promissory note, and that a Deed of Trust be filed on the
property.
As addressed in the attached correspondence, the applicant disputes the calculation
of the number of parking spaces being assessed against the property, the
requirement that he sign personally and a Deed of Trust be filed on the property,
and questions whether in fact, the 3rd and 4th Floors that have a conditional use of
a quasi - public Club be classified as eating and drinking establishments.
ree to call with any questions or additional requirements you may
r�
.-elan
TOWS
APPEALS FORM
REQUIRED FOR FILING AN APPEAL OF A STAFF, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OR
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION
A. ACTION /DECISION BEING APPEALED: A. The interpretation of Ordinance 18.52.100 and
the subsequent calculation of the Parking Pay in Lieu Fees of $571,341.68 being
assessed against The Vail Village Club Building at 333 Bridge Street, Vail, Colorado.
B. The requirement that the Applicant sign the promissory note personally and a
Deed of Trust be filed on the property. C. The classfication of the 3rd /4th floors
Club facilities as eating and drinking establishments.
B. DATE OF ACTION/DECISION: June 17, 1997 (per Mike Mollica's letter)
C. NAME OF BOARD OR PERSON RENDERING THE DECISION/TAKING ACTION: Mike Mollica,
Ass't Director of Community Development; Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
D. NAME OF APPELLANT(S): Riva Ridge Partners LLC; Glenn M. Heelan; Margretta B. Parks_
MAILING ADDRESS: P. 0. Box 5770, Avon, CO 81620
PHYSICAL ADDRESS IN VAIL: 333 Bridge Street PHONE: 949 -6277
LEGAL
1st Filin
E. SIGNATURE(S)
■
APPELLANT'S PROPERTY IN VAIL:
kALL�
Page 1 of 2
Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village
F. Does this appeal involve a specific parcel of land? vP �q If yes, please provide the following information:
are you an adjacent property owner? Yes no X
If no, give a detailed f ;planation of how you are an "aggrieved or adversely affected person." "Aggrieved or
adversely affected person" means any person who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or
furthered by this title. The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common with other members of the
community at large, but shall exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons.
Glenn M. Heelan is the Applicant for the exterior alterations.
Riva Ridge Partners LLC is the developer of the building and the Lessee
of the property from Margretta B. Parks under the Amended and Restated
Lease Agreement.
Margretta B. Parks is the owner of the property.
G. Provide the names and addresses (both person's mailing address and property's physical address in Vail) of all
owners of property which are the subject of the appeal and all adjacent property owners (including properties
separated by a right -of -way, stream, or other intervening barriers). Also provide addressed and stamped envelopes for
each property owner on the list.
H. On separate sheets of paper, specify the precise nature of the appeal. Please cite specific code sections having
relevance to the action being appealed.
FEE: $0.00
Page 2 of 2
SEP -12 -97 12 =23 FROM =TOWI1 VAIL
I D = 3034757 PAGE 1/4
4VK TOWN OF
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970 - 479- 2107/Faz 9701179 -2157
September 12, 1997
Mr. Glen Heelan
Post Office Box 5770
Avon, Co 81620
Dear Glen:
Office of the Town Attorney
Enclosed is a Promissory Note establishing an agreement to pay the outstanding balance of $514,000
with interest at the rate of ten percent over the next ten years. Upon execution of this agreement and
a Deed of Trust securing this Note, a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy will issue.
While the Town, at your request, agreed to extend the payment of this fee beyond the issuing of the
building permit, there is no interest in waiving the condition that the parking fee must be paid prior
to the issuing of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy-
If you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
TOWN OF VAM
r9-m
R. Thomas Moorhead
Town Attorney
RTM/aw
Enclosure
• RCCYCLEUPAPER
SEP -12 -97 12 =23 FROM =TOWN ` VAIL ID =3034792157 PAGE 2/4
PROMISSORY NOTE
This agreement is entered into on the _ day of , 1997, by and between the
Towns of Vail and R.iva Ridge Partners, LLC, Glenn M. Heelan, and Charles W. Davison, jointly,
severally, and individually (hereinafter jointly and individually referred to as "the Vail Village
Club "), who are the developers and operators of the Vail Village Club.
WHEREAS, the Vail Village Club has by letter of June 21, 1996, to Mike Mollica,
Community Development Department of the Town of Vail, agreed to pay the parking pay -in -lieu
fees over a period of years with the first payment due and payable at the time of issuance of a
temporary Certificate of Occupancy; and
WHEREAS, Building Permit #B96 -003 contains a condition that the parking pay -in -lieu
fee shall be paid to the Town prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.52.160 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, Colorado
provides that contributions to the Town Parking Fund shall be paid at the time of the issuance of
the building permit or paying over a five (5) year period; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council gave authority to the Town Manager to enter into
this agreement which will allow for the payment of the contribution to the Town Parking Fund to
be made over a ten (10) year period of time at ten (10 %) percent interest and such other terms
and conditions as are agreeable to the Town Manager; and
WHEREAS, the total parking fee required by this development pursuant to Chapter 18.54
of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, Colorado has been determined to be $571,341.63;
and
WHEREAS, the Vail Village Club has made its initial payment in the amount of
$57,341.63 representing ten (10 %) percent of the parking fee.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the extension of the period of time within
which this contribution is to be paid and for all other promises and conditions contained herein,
the parties agree as follows;
1 _ The Vail Village Club promises to pay to the Town of Vail, the principal sum of
$514,000.00, with interest on the unpaid principal balance from September 5, 1997 until
paid, at the rate of ten (10 0/6) percent per annum. Principle and interest shall be payable at
75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657, or such other place as the Town of Vail
may designate, in nine payments of Eighty -Nine Thousand, Two Hundred Fifty -One
Dollars and Twenty -Four Cents (U.S. $89,251.24) due on the anniversary of September
5, 1997 beginning September 5, 1999- Such payments shall continue annually until the
entire indebtedness evidenced by this Note is fully paid; provided, however, if not sooner
paid, the entire principle amount outstanding and accrued interest thereon, shall be due
and payable on September 5, 2006.
SEP -12 -97 12 =24 FROM =TOWN -w VAIL ID =3034792157 PAGE 3/4
2. The Vail Village Club shall pay to the Town of Vail a late charge of eighteen (18 %) of
any payment not received by the Town of Vail when due.
3. Payments received for application to this Note shall be applied first to the payment of late
charges, if any, second to the payment of accrued interest specified above, and the
balance applied in reduction of the principal amount thereof.
4. If any payment required by this Note is not paid when due, the entire principal amount
outstanding and accrued interest thereon shall become due and payable at the option of
the Town of Vail (Acceleration) twenty days after notice of Acceleration has been given.
Such notice of Acceleration shall specify the amount of the nonpayment plus any unpaid
late charges and other costs, expenses and fees due under this Note. Until the expiration
of said twenty -day period, the Vail Village Club may cure all defaults consisting of a
failure to make required payments by tendering the amounts of unpaid sums due at the
time of tender, without Acceleration, as specified by the Town of Vail in such notice.
Cure restores the Vail Village Club to its rights under this Note as though defaults had
not occurred_ Any defaults under this Note occurring within twelve months after the
Town of Vail has once given a notice of Acceleration, entitles the Vail Village Club to no
right to cure, except as otherwise provided by law. The Town of Vail shall be entitled to
collect all reasonable costs and expense of collection and/or suit, including, but not
limited to reasonable attorneys' fees_
5. The Vail Village Club may prepay the principal amount outstanding under this Note, in
whole or in part, at any time without penalty. Any partial prepayment shall be applied
against the principal amount outstanding and shall not postpone the due date of any
subsequent payments or change the amount of such payments.
6. The Vail Village Club and all other makers, sureties, guarantors, and endorsers hereby
waive presentment, notice of dishonor and protest, and they hereby agree to any
extensions of time of payment and partial payments before, at, or after maturity_ This
Note shall be the joint and several obligation of the Vail Village Club and all other
makers, sureties, guarantors and endorsers, and their successors and assigns.
7_ Any notice to the Vail Village Club provided for in this Note shall be in writing and shall
be given and be effected upon (1) delivery to the Vail Village CIub or (2) mailing such
notice by first -class U.S. mail, addressed to the Vail Village Club at the Vail Village
Club's address stated below, or to such other address as the Vail Village Club may
designate by notice to the Town of Vail. Any notice to the Town of Vail shall be in
writing and shall be given and be effective upon (1) delivery to the Town of Vail or (2)
by mailing such notice by first -class U.S. mail, to the Town of Vail at the address stated
in the first paragraph of this Note, or to such other address as the Town of Vail may
designate by notice to the Vail Village Club-
SEP -12 -97 12 =24 FROM =TOWN ^F VAIL ID =3034792157 PAGE 4/4
8. The indebtedness evidence by this Note is secured by a Deed of Trust dated
' 19---, and until released said Deed of Trust contains additional rights of
the Town of Vail. Such rights may cause Acceleration of the indebtedness evidence by
this Note. Reference is made to said Deed of Trust for such additional terms. Said Deed
of Trust grants rights in the property identified as follows:
Property Address: 298 Hanson Ranch Road, Vail, Colorado 81657
Mailing Address: Post Office Box 5770, Avon, Colorado 81620
RIVA RIDGE PARTNERSHIP, LLC
By:
President
Glenn M. Heelan
Charles W. Davison
r;vNid"-=
Attest:
By:
Secretary
Re: The Vail Village Club, 333 Bridge Street,
Vail, Colorado -- Application for Partial
TO on Floors 1 and 2
Dear Mr. Moorhead,
The purpose of this letter is to request that the Town of Vail issue a Partial
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy ( "TO ") on Floors 1 and 2 of The Vail Village
Club Building, Vail, Colorado, without requiring further payment of fees in lieu of
parking dedication (or the execution of a promissory note and collateral security
agreement) at this time.
We believe that the Town of Vail should issue a partial TO for Floors 1 and
2 without contemporaneous payment of the parking fee (other than the
approximately $57,000 amount which has been paid under protest) because there
is no parking fee attributable to Floors 1 and 2, even if the Community
Development Department's own calculations are used. While we may not agree
with the Department's calculations and reserve the right to contest those
calculations before Planning Commission and Town Council, we believe that the
Department's own computations for Floors 1 and 2 required a total of 24.538
parking spaces. This is less than the 27 parking spaces attributable to the original
Serrano's Cantina building. It is our understanding that The Vail Village Club is
entitled to an offset in calculating the parking fee in the amount of the
"grandfathered" 27 spaces, leaving a credit against the fee for the project of 2.462
spaces.
We believe this solution is a fair means by which the restaurant and bar on
the premises can open for business, begin generating sales tax revenue and allow
employees to earn wages, while Riva Ridge Partners LLC pursues its appeal of the
Community Development Department's parking fee calculation. As we have
advised you, the restaurant and bar operations on the first two floors are ready to
open, employees have been hired and are on the payroll, supplies and inventory
have been delivered and the only condition remaining to opening the business is
the issuance of this partial TO.
Thomas Moorhead, Esq.
Page 2
Further, we expect that the Town will require that the parking fee be paid
before the TO can be issued for the balance of the building; however, by that
time, we expect to have a decision by the Town Council on the amount of the
parking fee, after giving Riva Ridge Partners LLC an opportunity to be heard. In
the meantime, however, the restaurant business on the premises would not be
damaged by the delay which will inevitably occur in bringing this question in front
of Town Council.
We believe the Town should seriously consider our proposal to resolve this
impasse. Riva Ridge Partners LLC has paid approximately $57,000.00 toward the
parking fee to be determined for The Vail Village Club Building. Even if the
Town issues a partial TO for Floors 1 and 2, the application for the rest of the
building will still be pending, and issuance of the TO can be conditioned on
payment of the fee at that time. Riva Ridge Partners LLC plans to file its appeal
by September 15, 1997, so that hearing can be scheduled in front of Planning and
Environmental Commission and Town Council at the earliest possible dates.
Finally, under our cover letter dated September 5, 1997 Riva Ridge
Partners LLC paid to the Town the sum of $57,341.63, under protest, as the initial
installment of the parking fee for the project. We paid that first installment under
protest because we disagree with the amount of the fee determined by the
Community Development Department of $571,341.63, for the reasons set forth in
our letter, a copy of which is attached for your convenient reference. Since the
time that amount was paid, you have advised us that the Town of Vail will require
a promissory note executed not only by the applicant, Riva Ridge Partners LLC,
but by its managers, Mr. Davison and myself, personally, and that the Town
requires that this promissory note be secured by a lien against The Vail Village
Club property as well. It is our further recollection that you advised us that the
Town of Vail would honor the parking fee computation of $457,334.64,
established by the Community Development Department in 1996, only if that
amount was paid in full in cash. We believe that Chapter 18.52 of the Town of
Vail Zoning Ordinance does permit the parking fee to be paid by the applicant in
installments, with the unpaid balance reflected in an unsecured promissory note
executed only by the applicant. Riva Ridge Partners LLC has determined that
because the parking fee is being paid under protest, Riva Ridge Partners LLC will
not agree to execute either a promissory note or a security agreement or other
instrument creating a lien against The Vail Village Club property in order to obtain
the partial TO on Floors 1 and 2.
Thomas Moorhead, Esq.
Page 3
As we have advised you previously and in this letter, the restaurant and bar
is prepared to open for business immediately upon issuance of the partial TO.
Please advise us of the Town's response as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Riva Ridge Partners LLC
Glenn M. Heelan, Manager Charles W. Davison, Manager
cc: Margretta B. Parks
Bill Whiteford
Mayor Robert Armour
Robert McLaurin
William Post, Esq.
Eric Torgersen, Esq.
a 0
September 05, 1997
Mr. Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657 HAND DELIVERED
Re: The Vail Village Club Building, 333 Bridge Street, Vail, Colorado --
PAYMENT OF PARKING FEES UNDER PROTEST
Dear Mr. Mollica:
Enclosed please find a 1stBank of Avon check in the amount of $57,341.63
representing 10% of the parking fee of $571,341.63 as determined by the
Department of Community Development, pursuant to your June 17, 1997 letter.
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT RIVA RIDGE PARTNERS LLC IS PAYING
THIS AMOUNT UNDER PROTEST AND RESERVES ALL RIGHTS TO
DISPUTE THE AMOUNT OF THE PARKING FEES ASSESSED AGAINST
THE VAIL VILLAGE CLUB BUILDING. Riva Ridge Partners LLC is paying
this amount under protest solely for the purpose of satisfying one of the specific
conditions imposed by the Department of Community Development on the
issuance of a temporary Certificate of Occupancy for The Vail Village Club
building, i.e. payment of the parking fees as set forth in Chapter 18.52 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore, Riva Ridge Partners LLC reserves all rights to contest and
protest the validity and amount of this parking fee before the Planning and
Environmental Commission and before the Town Council for the Town of Vail, as
well as in any appropriate litigation.
While we may disagree with whether the Town of Vail has the right to
exact parking fees in excess of $15,000.00 per theoretical parking space for
properties within Commercial Core I, we recognize that Chapter 18.52 of the
Zoning Ordinance expressly authorizes assessment and collection of this parking
fee. Our primary disagreement is with the Department of Community
Development's determination of the amount of that fee, which we believe is
excessive and is not supported by Chapter 18.52 of the Zoning Ordinance. Over
the last several weeks, we have attempted to settle and compromise this dispute
with representatives of the Town of Vail, including you and Thomas Moorhead,
the Town Attorney. In an effort to resolve this matter, we met with you and Mr.
Moorhead on separate occasions in order to address the outstanding parking issue.
Ah
Mike Mollica
September 5, 1997
Page 2
Our legal counsel, Holley, Albertson and Polk, P. C., also furnished you with a
letter articulating the basis of our disagreement with staff s determination of the
parking fee. A copy of that letter is attached for your convenient reference.
We assume that the Town of Vail enacted Chapter 18.52 of the Zoning
Ordinance and imposed parking fees in order to generate revenue to offset the
costs of parking being borne by the Town of Vail. However, we believe that
demand for parking in the Town of Vail is not primarily driven by the amount of
developed space within the Town, but rather the use of that space. For example,
for restaurant space, the square foot area of a restaurant might permit more seating
than is actually utilized, as in the case of The Vail Village Club. Therefore, we
believe, that according to section 18.52.100.0 of the Zoning Ordinance, the
parking fee for The Vail Village Club should be determined by the actual number
of seats within the restaurant area, rather than the square footage of floor space
utilized by the Department of Community Development, as set forth in your June
17, 1997 letter. In addition, although we disagree with the measurement of space
as the means to determine the parking fee, we also believe that the square foot area
calculations made by the Department of Community Development are significantly
overinclusive, and do not accurately determine the square foot area utilized for the
restaurant space.
We recognized that the Town of Vail has recently acknowledged that
parking fees are discouraging redevelopment, and that Town Council is reviewing
the entire parking fee system. In addition, we would like to point out that while
we were having preliminary meetings with the Department of Community
Development and within two months of our application for exterior alteration was
submitted, the parking fee was increased from approximately $8,500 per space to
$15,000 per space. Presently, that fee is in excess of $16,000 per space. Thus, in
combination with the actual determination of the number of parking spaces (which
as you know is the basis for calculating the fee), the increased parking fee per
space which is applicable to The Vail Village Club building has increased the
parking fee for the project by an excessive, perhaps exorbitant, amount.
As a final matter, we believe that Riva Ridge Partners LLC is entitled to a
hearing before Town Council as to the final determination of the parking fee for
The Vail Village Club building. By payment of this installment of the parking fee
under protest, we do not intend to relinquish our right to request such a final
determination and hearing or any subsequent judicial review of the fee or the
Mike Mollica
September 5, 1997
Page 3
propriety of the entire parking fee system.
Glenn M. Heelan
Manager
cc: Margretta B. Parks
Bill Whiteford
Mayor Robert Armour
Robert McLaurin
Thomas Moorhead
William Post, Esq.
Mark Welch, Esq.
Eric Torgersen, Esq.
Charles
Manager
0
Davison
Printed by Mike Mollica
grl Tjm
9:23am
From: Mike Mollica
To: Charlie Davis, Tom Moorhead
Subject: fwd: Vail Village Club
= == NOTE==== ------ = === =8/29/97= 12:30pm ==
I have inspected the property and it
appears to be in compliance with the to
approved permit plans. They need
add one retail door on the east
elevation of the building, which Tony
and I discussed.
so ... prior to issuing a TCO, the
following two issues need to be
resolved:
1) Parking pay -in -lieu $$$$$$
2) Grant of easements - execute
Tom, if you are able to work out these
two issues with Glenn, please E -mail
Charlie and me so that we can issue the
TCO. Thanks.
Fwd =by:= Tom = Moorhead == 8/29/97== 5:22pm ==
Fwd to: Mike Mollica
CC: Bob McLaurin, Charlie Davis
I meet with Glen and Charlie and did
not come to resolution. They wanted
the opportunity to pay the original
estimate figure of $450,000 + over 10
years. No can do_ I do believe, Mike,
that you are going to hear from them
again on the calculation.
On the easement I pointed out 3 items
that nee ed to be changed, minor
issues. I could live with it the way
it is.
Charlie Davis did call me from the Club
and asked if they could be issued a
TCO. My answer was no.
Page: 1
IL
f"
Tc cf.
?�
17- .-.. 4 'e; '-f-/
14wtlT .
0 0
l Al L. V t L L. (YG E CC_ U6
September 2, 1997
Mr. Charlie Davis
Building Inspector
Town of Vail
Department of Community Development
Re: The Vail Village Club - Second Floor Women's Restroom
Building Permit # 896 -0033
Dear Mr. Davis,
Pursuant to your meeting with Mr. Tony Faulhaber of J. L. Viele Construction
Inc., please accept this letter as Riva Ridge Partners LLC acknowledgement and
acceptance of all responsibility for a fourth water closet in the women's restroom
on the second floor that is narrower than the minimum requirement.
As you are aware, the second level women's restroom was originally designed and
constructed with four water closets to meet occupancy standards. After
construction commenced additional restrooms were added to the first level to
better service customers in the main level bar. Based on occupancy load
calculations for the second floor and the additional water closets added to the first
level, only two water closets were required in the second level women's restroom.
Presently this restroom has one water closet which meets ADA minimum
requirements and two additional water closets which meet the minimum
requirement for a standard water closet. Therefore, the fourth water closet while
not meeting the minimum size requirements is not required to meet code
occupancy standards and therefore is an "extra" benefit to the customers. Riva
Ridge Partners is willing to accept all responsibility for this fourth water closet in
the second level women's restroom.
it your assistance in this matter. Your cooperation in solving a
lem was greatly appreciated.
M. Heelan
Manager
108/29/97 14:23 ^0970 468 0295 NWCCOG
MEMO N WCCOG Elevator Inspection Program
Date:
To.- ell,41&e�S- e'-4VIS 7�i&W 0411-
From: Frank Kilian ... _.
subflct: ProAci Name: lj41Z V1,1 M G� C.LlJ,3
❑ Elevator Plan Review
XElevator Test and Inspection
Location:g�4�/Sd�l /2friflG<f 2rJrQ -�
11/w - eo op-ItI7� j
Permit Number: i� 0"'933
Elevator Type:�/G��
❑ The plans have been reviewed and found to conform to all applicable ANSI 17.1
and UBC codes_
J�C The elevatorlegnMeior at the above location was inspected and tested on
�v - and a 11IMPOMIWFinall Inspection Certificate has been issued.
Comments:
I
Signature: `�` 7671 pate
BWSy W V-aX NOte < d
From
Pos " cc?
CoJDePt. C,l�'" — Phone #
Y Phone # Fax #
fj /' Fax# �% N
CA 001
AUG -26 -97 TUE 13:30 FAX N0. 9704763423 P.01
i.4. vae;e CtW,&true.tivit, I11c.
1000 5, rronlagc. Road Wt +C, Suite 202
Vajl, Colorado 81657 N
Trc.. 97o, 476, 3082
Fax 970.476. 3123
August 26, 1997 G
Mr. Charlie Davis
Town of Vail Community Development
75 S- Frontage Rd. West
Vail, CO 81657 t
RE: Vail Village Club
Dear Charlie,
We have made accurate square footage calculations using our computer digitizer
for the 2nd floor and have determined the following calculations:
'a Occupancy
Location SF Loading Loadin
Restaurant Seating - Lounge #212 328 - 15 22
Restaurant Seating - Dining 4211 343 15 23
Restaurant Sealing - Dining #205 533 15 36
Bar Seating - stools at bar area 90 _ 15 6
Waiting Area 110 _ 7 16
Kitchen, Bar, Waitress Stations 722 _ 200 4
Dining Deck at North (seasonal only) 253 _ 15 17
Dining Deck at S.F. (seasonal only) 97 _ 15 6
Total Occupancy Loading 130
Based on these calculations the UPC requires the women's restroom to have two
toilets. We currently have four toilets and are requesting that we be allowed to eluninate
one toilet so we can achieve the required spacing between the toilets.
Sincerely,
runtz
C ag
cc: Ernie Pyle
Frank Freyer
Glenn Heelen
Charlie Davison
11/24/1998 18:02 970 - 242 -7634
NE BB
_= 1
LUNSFORD MECHANICAL
CERTIFIED TEST, ADJUST, AND
BALANCE REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 1997
PROJECT: VAIL VILLAGE CLUB
ADDRESS: VAIL, COLORADO
ARCHITECT: SEMPLE BROWN ROBERTS
ENGINEER: BELFRAY ENGINEERING
HVAC CONTRACTOR: LUNDSFORD BROTHERS MECHANICAL INC.
NEBB CONTRACTOR: CERTIFIED BALANCE INC. OF COLORADO
ADDRESS: 924 26 ROAD
GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO
PAGE 02
NE. BB
PROJECT: VAIL VILLAGE CLUB
- ADDRESS. VAIL, COLORADO
CERTIFICATION
THE DATA PRESENTED IN THIS REPORT IS AN EXACT RECORD OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND WAS OBTAINED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH NEBB STANARDS PROCEDURES ANY VARIANCES FROM DESIGN QUANTITIES WHICH
EXCEED NEBB TOLERANCES ARE NOTED THROUGHOUT THIS REPORT,
THE AIR AND WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN TESTED AND BALANCED AND FINIAL ADJUSTMENTS
HAVE BEEN MADE IN ACCORDANCE. WITH NEBB "PROCEDURAL STANDARDS FOR TESTING ADJUSTING -
BALANCING OF ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS" AND THE PRO.ECT SPECIFICATIONS, THE REPORT IS BASED ON
BUILDING, SPACE AND EQUIPMENT CONDITIONS ON DATES TESTED.
SUBMITTED AND CERTIFIED BY -.
NEBB CONTRACTOR CERTIFIED BALANCE INC. OF COLORADO
TAB SUPERVISOR Clinton P. Gotman
REG_ NO. 2823
DATE 9119/97 BB iCA
T
�.P. GOWN
11/24/1998 18:02 970 - 242 -7634
Ni BB
LUNSFORD MECHANICAL PAGE 04
INSTRUMENT
CALIBRATION REPORT
PROJECT:
VAIL VILLAGE CLUB
u--Td-BE MANOMETER/ CBVCO 26 1 PRES. READINGS
1216/98
DCP9IC6CO 70
VOLT/ AMP READINGS
INSTRUMENT /SERIAL
APPLICATION
DATES OF USE
-AMTEK TACHOMETERICBUCO 60
1 RPM READINGS
9/9-12/97
SHIMPO STROBOSCOBE/ CSVCO 59
RPM READINGS i
9/9-12/97
ELEC THERM./C8uCO 58
! TEMP.IHUMIDITY READ_ i
9/9-12/97
_COOPER
FLUKE MO. 52 THERM /CSUCO 09
TEMP READINGS i
9/9-12/97
CALIBRATION DATES
i 12/6/96
6/3/97
11/11/96
11111 /96
DIAL THERM -40 -12_01 CBI/CO 64
�UEI
I TEMP. READINGS
u--Td-BE MANOMETER/ CBVCO 26 1 PRES. READINGS
1216/98
DCP9IC6CO 70
VOLT/ AMP READINGS
1 9/9-12/97
_
1111!96
AIR DATA MULTIMETER/ CBI /CO 57
AIR FLOW READINGS
1 9/9-12/97
12/8196
SHORTRIDGE FLOW H0001M9130
j AIR FLOW READINGS
i 9/9-12Y97
1716196
MAGNEHILIC 0- 5 /CBI /CQ 52
j PRES. READINGS
{ 9/9-12/97
12J6/96
' MAGNEHELIC 0- 1 /C81 /CO 53
i PRES. READINGS
9/9-12/97
12/6!98
MAGN_EHELIC 0 -5/ CSI /CO 54
'PRES, READINGS
9/9-12/97 6N/97
_
1216196 -
_. PITQT TUBE 16"
PRES, READINGS
I
N/A
j PITOT TUBE 24"
PRES. READINGS
1 9/9-12/97
N/A
ITOT TUBE 36"
P
PRES, READINGS
9/9-12/97
N/A
'. INCLINED MANOMETER! CBUCO 22
{PRES. READINGS
! 121
REMARKS:
TEST DATE:
9 / 10 -12 / 9 7 READINGS BY: C. GORMAN
6/98
u--Td-BE MANOMETER/ CBVCO 26 1 PRES. READINGS
12!6/98 -
I SUNG PSYCHROMETER/CBI /CO 17 TEMP. /HUMIDITY READ.
i 12096
EST GAGE, 0 -30 LBS/CBUCO 212
WATER PRES. READINGS
12/6/96
7 SE T GAGE, 0 -80 L13S /C131 /CO214
WATER PRES. READINGS
9/9-12/97 12/6/96
j TEST GAGE, 0 -200 LBS/CBVCO 215
WATER PRES_ RMINQ$
112MM
TEST GAGE, - 30460 LOS/ CBVCO 205
WATER PRES. READINGS
112MM
HYDRO DATA METER /CBI /CO 211
WATER PRES. READINGS
9/9-1.2/97 17!8/96
ITT BARTON 247A/CBUCO 206
WATER PRES_ READINGS
11/11/9G
RA TEK ST6
TEMP. READINGS
9/9-12/97 6N/97
i
I
i
i
I
REMARKS:
TEST DATE:
9 / 10 -12 / 9 7 READINGS BY: C. GORMAN
NE. BB
PROJECT: VAIL VILLAGE CLUB SYSTEM /UNIT:
LOCATION: ROOF/ 4TH FLOOR
AIR APPARATUS
TEST REPORT
RTU -1
UNIT DATA MOTOR DATA
' MakalModel No.
TRANE MskWFrwm
G . E. - - - -^
ot Typalsin
YCD060C3HBBE H.P_
TAG COVERED
i Senal Nunber
L43100777D RPM
Regiabr Taal
Arr./Chns
GAS / ELEC / RTU voted
208/230 -
Diacfmrpe
DOWNFLOW Phw/Hartz
1/60
MakoShmm
I DIRECT DRIVE ' F.LAmpa
6.6 _
Shww 0i mam
S. LAmpo
DIRECT DRIVE
NO. BoWmakNslz.
Shr Dwnl8ore
2 SPD - -- -
No.FilbrRypalsim
2- 20X25X1 Shmvopsr. Diem
210 LAT
Shreve CIL Diemnes
Motor Volta
TEST DATA
DESIGN
ACTUAL TEST DATA
DESIGN ACTUAL
=+
TomlCFM
2000
alachw9e S.P.
I .45
Regiabr Taal
1950
2 217 ' Ext Suction S. p_
-10 --
Fan RPM
LOW SPD External S.P.
.50- . 55
Motor RPM
? FAN SUCTION B.P.
.28
j Hwtng
;
Motor volts
210 LAT
118
Motor Volta
209 EA-t
74 _ -
Motor volb
TwM, diff.
I 54
MBH
Motor Amps
3.7 i
Motor Amps
3.7 1 Coding
Motor Amps
EAT
76
I LAT
53
CFLA
Temp. diff.
23
9HP
1
�
Outside Air CFM
300
3 2 5
08A Damper Pon.
15%
Return Air CFM
RA Damper Poo-
85%
REMARKS:
TEST DATE:
FILE NAME:
Mb 439
9/812/97 READINGS BY: C. GORMAN
97VVCA
d[
HOLLEY, ALBERTSON & POLK, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAw
DENVER WEST OFFICE PARK
SUITE 100, BUILDING 19
1667 COLE BLVD.
GOLDEN, COLORADO 80401
GEORGE ALAN HOLLEY
SCOTT D.ALBERTSON
DENNIS B. POLK
ERIC E. TORGERSEN
THOMAS A. WALSH
HOWARD R. STONE
July 30, 1997
BY TELECOPIER AND FIRST -CLASS MAIL
PHONE (303) 233 -7838
FAX (303) 233 -2860
Mr. Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: The Vail Village Club, 298 Hanson Ranch
Road, Vail, Colorado (the "Property ")
Dear Mr. Mollica:
This firm represents Riva Ridge Partners LLC in connection
with the above - referenced matter. We are in receipt of a copy of
your June 17, 1997, letter concerning the payment of fees in lieu
of parking for the redevelopment of The Vail Village Club. The
purpose of this letter is to set forth our client's position with
regard to those fees in lieu of parking. It is our client's
position, based upon Chapter 18.52 of the Town of Vail Zoning
Ordinance, that the Town has calculated an excessive fee in lieu of
parking for the re- development of The Vail Village Club. Our
analysis is based upon the following:
1. It is our understanding that the Property was previously
allocated 27 parking spaces, as computed pursuant to the Zoning
Ordinance. It is our further understanding that our client would
receive credit for these pre- existing parking spaces in connection
with the re- development of the Property, and would be obligated to
pay only the difference between the number of parking spaces as
determined for The Vail Village Club and the original (in this
instance 27) parking spaces attributable to the Property. , Based
upon our review of your June 17, 1997, letter, the Town has
followed this analysis as well. Thus, although this letter will
not discuss our client's position on whether the Town is entitled
to collect any fees in lieu of parking, or the amount per space of
that fee, our client's primary position in this letter is that the
Town has computed an excessive fee based upon the number of parking
spaces attributable to The Vail Village Club as re- developed.
4s
Mr. Mike Mollica
July 30, 1997
Page 2.
2. It appears that the fees in lieu of parking for The Vail
Village Club are set forth in § 18.52.160.B, which provides in
relevant part:
In Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II property
owners or applicants shall be required to contribute to
the Town Parking Fund, hereby established, for the
purpose of meeting the demand and requirements for
vehicle parking. At such time as any property owner or
other applicant proposes to develop or redevelop a parcel
of property within an exempt area which would require
parking and /or loading areas, the owner or applicant
shall pay to the Town the parking fee hereinafter
required.
2. The parking fee to be paid by any owner or applicant
shall be determined by the Town Council.
5. The parking fee to be paid by any owner or applicant
is hereby determined to be fifteen thousand dollars
($15,000.00) per space. This fee shall be automatically
increased annually by the percentage the Consumer Price
Index of the City of Denver has increased over each
successive year.
6. For additions or enlargements of any existing
building or change of use that would increase the total
number of parking spaces required, an additional parking
fee will be required only for such addition, enlargement
or change and not for the entire building or use.
Zoning Ordinance § 18.52.160.B.
It is our understanding that The Vail Village Club is situated
within the Commercial Core I area of the Town of Vail, and
according to the Zoning Ordinance must contribute to the Town
Parking Fund. It does not appear that § 18.52.160.B fixes the
number of parking spaces which would be attributable to a re-
development. Therefore, we assume that the number of parking
spaces (used to determine the pay in lieu fee) is determined from
the specific parking requirement schedule set forth in § 18.52.100.
It is our understanding that The Vail Village Club will be confined
to some retail, personal service and repair shops, and some
restaurant/ club, and a small portion (under 100 square feet)
16, . ,
Mr. Mike Mollica
July 30, 1997
Page 3.
dedicated to office. According to § 18.52.100, parking spaces for
those uses are determined as follows:
C. Other Uses.
4. Retain Store, Personal
Services and Repair Shops
1.0 space per each 300
feet of net floor space
5. Eating and Drinking Establishments 1.0 space per each 8 seats,
based on seating capacity or
building code occupancy
standards, whichever is more
restrictive
§ 18.52.100.0 (emphasis added).
Under § 18.52.100.C., parking spaces required for retail use
are determined based upon one space per 300 square feet of net
floor space. For eating and drinking establishments, such as the
club portion of The Vail Village Club, the parking requirement is
1.0 space per each 8 seats, based on seating capacity or building
code occupancy standards, whichever is more restrictive; however,
it does not appear that this provision permits the determination of
parking requirements based upon square feet of net floor space, as
done for retail establishments. This parking requirement appears
to be consistent with the intent of the ordinance to require off
street parking in the amount actually needed by the development.
This would explain why the Zoning Ordinance determines necessary
parking for a retail establishment based on net floor space, while
a restaurant use is based upon seating capacity.
Based upon our review, it appears that the fee -in -lieu of
parking must be determined based upon the number of off street
parking spaces which the Town could require pursuant to § 18.52.100
of the zoning ordinance. It is our understanding that The Vail
Village Club and restaurants will have a maximum of 210 seats,
which is less than the maximum number permitted under the
applicable building code. Therefore, it would appear that the
number of off - street parking spaces which could be required for the
restaurant /club would be 26.25, i.e., 210 divided by 8, rather than
49.47 as calculated by the Town based upon net floor space. It is
our client's position that the Zoning Ordinance limits the fees in
lieu of parking to an amount equal to the per space fee multiplied
by the number of parking spaces which could be required under §
18.52.100. Assuming the accuracy of the Town's net floor space
calculations, it is our client's position that the number of
parking spaces should be determined as follows:
A. r
P
Mr. Mike Mollica
July 30, 1997
Page 4.
1.
Restaurant /Club
= 210 Seats
= 26.25
Parking
Spaces
2.
Retail
= 3,704 Square Feet
= 12.35
Parking
Spaces
3.
' Office
= 39 Square Feet
= 0.16
Parkincr
Spaces
TOTAL 38.76 Parking Spaces
Minus 27 (Grandfathered)
Net Total 11.76
Finally, it is our client's position that assuming a parking
fee of $16,333.38 per space, the parking fee for The Vail Village
Club should be $192,080.55.
Our client requests that the Town reconsider its computation
of the fees in lieu of parking and advise our client as to whether
the Town will change its position from your June 17, 1997, letter,
that the parking fee for The Vail Village Club is $571,341.63,
rather than $192,080.55, as our client suggests. In this regard,.-
our client would be available to discuss this matter with you at
greater length, if that would serve to clarify their position on
the fees in lieu of parking.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and your
professional courtesies in this regard.
EET /db
cc: Glenn M. Heelan
Sincerely,
HOLLEY, ALBERTS & POLK, P.C.
'y Eric E. Torgersen
July 1, 1997
Mr. Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
Sent Via Facsimile
Dear Mike,
In our meeting yesterday, we discussed our confusion pertaining to the language
of the zoning code relating to Off - Street Parking and Loading; specifically
"18.52.100 Section C. Other Uses #5" as it relates to Eating and drinking
establishments. As I stated, we interpret the section to read how many actual seats
we have, as opposed to the building code occupancy standards which are measured
by occupant load factors per square foot. At your suggestion I will ask Tom
Moorehead and my attorney to clarify the section.
If, after further clarification, it is agreed that the number of seats and the resulting
parking fees are determined by the square footage of the various uses; then, we
still have questions regarding the actual number of square feet being calculated,
mostly as it pertains to the bar on the first floor, and the Club areas on the third
and fourth floors. Therefore, we would appreciate the opportunity to revisit the
parking requirements as soon as we are able to obtain the clarification from our
respective attorneys. At that time, we will also provide the final "remarked"
drawings that represent what is actually being built in the building.
I look fofwatd to hearing from Mr. Moorehead and bringing this issue to a close as
soo s po ible.
Sin ,
enn M. Heelan
cc: Charles W. Davison
TOWN
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970 - 479 - 21381479 -2139
FAX 970 - 479 -2452
June 17, 1997
Glenn Heclan
Charles Davison
c/o Riva Ridge Partners, LLC
P.O. Box 5770
Avon, CO 81620
RE: Vail Village Club - Parking Analysis
Dear Glenn and Charlie:
Department of Community Development
Thank you for submitting the final floor plans /seating plans for the Vail Village Club. Based upon these
drawings, I have recalculated the parking pay -in -lieu fee as follows:
1. Restaurant/Club = 5,936 sq. ft. = 49.47 parking spaces
2. Retail = 3,704 sq. ft. = 12.35 parking spaces
3. Office = 39 sq. ft. — 0.16 parkin maces
61.98 parking spaces
- 27 (erandfatheredl
Grand Total 34.98 parking spaces
Per your agreement with Bob McLaurin, Town Manager, parking spaces will be assessed at a rate of
$16,333.38 per space (1996 pay -in -lieu figure). Therefore, the grand total for the Vail Village Club is
$571,341.63.
As previously agreed to by Bob McLaurin, a ten -year repayment period will be acceptable to the Town.
Should this be your desired course of action, please let us know so that we can finalize the paperwork.
As always, should you have any questions, or comments regarding any of the above, please feel free to
contact me directly at 479 -2144.
Sincerely, p
Mike ollica
Assistant Director of Community Development
MM/jr
xc: Bob McLaurin
Tom Moorhead
Steve Thompson
1WRECYCLED PAPER
r ,
J
TOWN
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970 - 479 - 2105 /Fax 970 - 479 -2157
November 18, 1996
VIA TELECOPIER
Mr. Glen Heelan
Post Office Box 5770
Avon, Co 81620
Dear Glen:
Office of the Town Manager
I wanted to take a moment to confirm our conversation of November 11, 1996. There were four
issues concerning the Serrano's project. They were preparation of an easement for improvements
along the Town of Vail stream tract to the east of Serrano's, the payment of the parking fee which
is required with this construction, a review of the staff decision disallowing a rebate from the Town
of Vail recreation fee, and the appropriateness of Serrano's to provide one CSO to handle traffic and
delivery at the area of Serrano's and Hanson Ranch Road.
In regard to the easement, it was agreed by Tom Moorhead that he would draft the necessary
easement and present it to you for your approval. This easement will be consistent with other
easements that have been entered into in the Village, i.e., the Covered Bridge Building.
In regard to the parking fee, the Town Council has agreed to allow the Town Manager to enter into
a security agreement for the payment of the parking fee over a period of time in excess of the five
year period presently stated in 18.52.160B.7. This will be presented to Council as an Amendment
to the present ordinance. As I stated at the meeting, I believe it would be appropriate to enter into
a payment period of ten years. With respect to modifying the interest rate, I currently do not have
the authority to modify the rate. This action would require a specific authorization from the Town
Council.
I will review with the Community Development staff the decision to disallow your request for a
rebate of the recreational fee. You indicated that you would fax a copy of the documentation to me
to facilitate our review.
��• RECYCLED PAPER
Finally, you indicated that funding the entire CSO position was unduly burdensome. You felt that
your funding responsibilities should be limited to the hours in which deliveries would be allowed.
We are concerned not only about the hours that deliveries will be allowed but also those hours after
the time for deliveries. I have discussed this matter with Larry Grafel and because of our concerns
we believe it appropriate that you fund this position in its entirety.
I hope this answers your questions. If you need further assistance please do not hesitate to call me
at 479 -2105.
Sincerely,
TOWN OF VAIL
Robert W. McLaurin
Town Manager
RWM/aw
x.: Vail Town Council
Larry Grafel
Dan Stanek
R. Thomas Moorhead
y;
F
June 21, 1996
Mr. Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
Dear Mike,
Pursuant to our previous conversations, it is my understanding and agreement that the
parking pay -in -lieu fees currently estimated at $457,334.64 as established by Community
Development in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted by Riva Ridge
Partners, LLC that indicate completion of the third and fourth floors as a Quasi- Public
Club, will be paid over five years with the first payment due and payable at the time a
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is issued. As we further discussed, the Town of Vail
Building Department has requested a ruling from ICBO with respect to certain aspects of
the third floor design. It is my understanding that earlier today, Dan Stanek received
information from ICBO that requires a change of design to the third floor. I would like to
request that if the design alternatives warrant a reduction in the parking requirements that
these reductions be reflected in the agreed upon parking pay -in -lieu fee.
It is also my understanding that in the event Riva Ridge Partners LLC revises the current
submission and changes the third and fourth floors to a residential and office use" the
applicable parking pay -in -lieu fee is currently $179,667.18. It is also my understanding
that this fee, if applicable, would be paid over five years with the first payment due at the
- time of the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
Finally, in a discussion earlier today with Bob McLaurin, I requested that in the event the
Town Council revises the pay -in -lieu fees or terms of payment such that the changes
would be beneficial to The Vail Village Club, that we be included in the changes for the
purposes of calculating the appropriate fee and/or payment schedule at the time the
_ Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is issued. As I discussed with Mr. McLaurin, we
believe that the long term economic benefits to the Town of Vail vis a vis the continuing
sales taxes generated by a commercial use of the third and fourth floors greatly outweigh
a residential use of the same space, yet the "penalties" imposed by the greater parking
requirements and fees of commercial use may ultimately be the "final straw" that forces us
_ to use the space as a residential condominium. I am hopeful that the Town Council also
sees the long term benefits of such an approach and chooses to include us in any
improvements to the current parking pay -in -lieu ordinance.
If Lni provide any further assistance, I can be reached at 949 -6277.
S ricer
Tenn M. H eelan
E
Jon A. Shirley and Mary Shirley
Vail Trust
P. 0. Box 685
Medina, WA 98039
Blanche C. Hill
311 Bridge Street
Vail, CO 81657
Mill Creek Court Condos
P. 0. Box 667
Vail, CO 81658
Vencura, LTD
600 5th Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10020
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail on November 10, 1997, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
A request for remodeling, upgrading and an addition to an existing residence, utilizing the 250
Ordinance, located at 224 Forest Rd./ Block 7, Lot 11 -B, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Forest Road Trust (Keith Samuels, Trustee), represented by Kathy Langenwalter,
Peel / Langenwalter Architects, LLC
Planner: George Ruther
A request for an addition to and the remodel of an existing residence, utilizing the 250
Ordinance, located at 1944A Sunburst Drive/ Lot 21A, Vail Valley 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Beth Ann B. Findell, represented by Archistructure One
Planner: George Ruther
A request for a worksession on a major amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Village), to allow for a
revision to the development plan for the Glen Lyon Office Building site, located at 1000 S.
Frontage Rd. West /Lot 54, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Gordon Pierce, AIA
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
An appeal of an administrative decision regarding geologic hazards section at Vail Golfcourse
Townhomes, Unit 60, located at 1592 Golf Terrace /Vail Golfcourse Townhomes.
Appellant: Stephen Dowdle, represented by Bill Sargent
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan - Discussion and recommendation.
Staff: Susan Connelly
An appeal of three staff interpretations: 1) The staff's classification of the third and fourth floors
as "eating and drinking establishments "; 2) Section 18.52.100 C, Parking- Requirements
Schedule (Eating & Drinking Establishments) and Section 18.52.160, Exemptions (parking pay-
-lieu) - appellant disputes the calculation of the number of parking spaces required; and 3)
The requirement that the applicant sign the pay -in -lieu promissory note personally and that a
Deed of Trust be filed on the property; located at The Vail Village Club, 333 Bridge Street, Lot C,
Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Appellant: Riva Ridge Partners LLC - Glenn M. Heelan; Margretta B. Parks
Staff: Mike Mollica /Tom Moorhead
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-
2114 voice or 479 -2356 TDD for information.
Community Development Department
Published October 24, 1997 in the Vail Trail.
TOWNOF4AIG
Category Number
Project Name:
Building Name:
Design Review Action Fc.. m
TOWN OF VAIL
r
Date r7 • ? • 917
71roject Description:-6 r f /
Architect /Contact, Address and Phone: e�z
'O 7� o-?, 2 a
Legal Description: Lot Block Subdivision u "1 Zone District �..L
Project Street Address:
Comments:
Board / Staff Action
Motion by:
Seconded by:
❑ Approval
❑ Disapproval
❑ Staff Approval
Conditions:
Town Planner
Vote:
Date: . % , 2 � 7 "? DRB Fee Pre -paid * 20 % #�_
Questions'? Call the A-0 tiin:; ,,, t,t 37) ?.128
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AI 1
TOW4FL
�C,,FNFRAt, INFORMAT N
This application is for any project requiring D- 'on Review approval rntilt, f,c rls��c requiring
c�int� r��il '�• I� e`tt�= rl`L!hIllitt:,l
receive Design Rcvicw approval prior to submitting for a huildinS'li�ati u� c;uuu,tlhc acccptc,l i:. til :111 tic ro,I.nreJ
requirements for the particular appro� al th:,t is requested. The apt
I'I:�nnin_ • iiJ
information is submitted. The project m;t� altio need to be reviewed by tho Town C'iuuuil and ,1 _ EN A G;Nc
Environmental Conunission. Desi;;n Review Board approval expires one ) ar;' :�t ` GK `�`OOR" ., NEE FEE
building permit is issued and construction is started. ��/ O�dE� Al yNE �oU1'A`
T THE /'�//9iN0-A -1r' `� :�OO•e 7 `
F�c�L�r'ES DFTNEOUiLD;N� �o�A >E� E
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQULS,f: 'Si ^f f�'�^��" �'�dC`E���� > -�� ����
A. -
!� d afC /✓ -_y_ Pl9C��yGr 7/fE S•4N/� �iLAIrSTI itJE .P G1C /�ATi�'IAKES -- --r- --
U 1/N i9 fiN1 .SEE fI6h,ej .1�-g
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: BLOCK:,
—
FILING: /•31 ��ti � -
g, f_OT:�. NGiS/iPGl A�� PHYSICAL ADDRESS:
07� 11�NSaA) '�A - -�
(Contact Eagle Co. Assessors Office at 9 () 31S-,, 640 for parcel
C. PARCEL #: #)
D. ZONING: �D,�/lylE.PG•i•4G - --
E, NAME OF OWNER(S): 65 Y ,41L 8/65f1 - - - - --
MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE: %w
f
F. ONYNER(S) SIGNATURE(S): EZ,4AJ
G. NAME OF APPLICANT:_ i6z0
MAILING ADDRESS: P 2 -. -G y
PH
H TYPE OF REVIEW AND FEE:
❑ New Construction - $200 Construction of a new building.
[I Addition - $50 Includes any addition where square footage is added t , : ny resttfential or
commercial building.
linor Alteration - S20 Includes minor changes to buildings anti site impru, entcnts, such as,
rerooting, painting, winduw additions, I:uidscal) w, I'11L s aitd r t•,ining
walls, ctc.
DRB fees are to be paid at the time of submittal. Later, when applying for a buildings, I),:I 11111, ploa;c idcutify
the accurate valuation of the project. The Town of vail will adjust the fee according 1., 111,2 I)rglcct V,AIatton-
PLEASE SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION, ALL SUBMITTAL REQUIIJFNlFN I S AND 1 111" 1 ►.I: "t v "CtIE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, 75 SOUTH FIZON'I:k(;I: W.-W,
VAIL, COLORADO 81657.
TOWN OF VAIN
Questions? Call th * till Ill `, Staff at -179 -2128
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW A, I'll ROV"It L
EN E &U LNFa MATION
This application is far any project requiring Design Rc� icw approval. .any hr�jert requiring il, i t, i r e� ic�� nn:a
�rrnit. For specific inti�rn-;:u n, �cc th- f mina
receive Design Review approval prior to submitting fora building p� specific
, i Ille I'I :Ulnlll_ :oid
requirements for the particular approval tnah +afsornccd to her ` is vled hylthe T0%kkIJ Council ankl I)I ICI 1 the re lulrc�
information is submitted. The project }
Environmental Commission. Design Region iBota dep approval expires one > car :titer tin:�l
building; permit is issued and construe
A.
DFSCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST: �Jf si�Tl'i77/Ti AJ ale L) A.51�f.�lJT�
'N
� ,E ULE ANTF TiYE ��
v SEEFI�
ii> �t,'ES �f�i2.T DF 7iiE ,OU /:CQ'%y!x'
GA �
�_ BLOCK. .�-- -�--f
B,
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LOT:
V&`y
PHYSICAL ADDRESS: -97
yY^'40'v "Cw9
Eagle Co. Assessors Office at 9-1,0-32S-8640 for parcel #)
C.
PARCEL M
(Contact
D.
ZONING:
E.
NAME OF OWNER(S):
-
MAILING ADDRESS:_
PHONE:
F.
OWNER(S) SIGNATURES
G.
NAME OF APPLICANT:
E N
MAILING ADDRGS..
PHONE:
}{;
TYPE OF REVIEW AND FEE:
❑ New Construction - $200
Construction of a new building.
is to . +nY residential or
11 Addition - $50
Includes any addition where square footage added
linor Alteration - $20
commercial building.
Includes minor changes to buildings and site inthru�, � ++tints, silch as,'
fe++ces a"d retaining
1
reroofing, painting, window additions, landscapin�.
walls, ctc.
DRB fees arc to be paid at the time of submittal.
The of Vail witll adjust the cfee according to tale project valuation.
the accurate valuation of the
project. The
PLEASE SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION, ALL SUBI\IITTAI, REQUIREMENTS AN 1) "1-1IE FEF "hO THE
DEPARTNIENT OF CO,\l11UNITY C(, 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE, ROAD,
VAIL, OLORADO 81
For Offi Hive
I
ll,c Y;W 1 "f/4v Cfc
ICI,f 6:J-70A-Ae ed alC
)CR"q"4ff
0 —
I
131
.a
LPl I
July 1, 1997
Mr. Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
Sent Via Facsimile
Dear Mike,
In our meeting yesterday, we discussed our confusion pertaining to the language
of the zoning code relating to Off - Street Parking and Loading, specifically
"1 5.52.100 Section C. Other Uses #5" as it relates to Eating and drinking
establishments. As I stated, we interpret the section to read how many actual seats
we have, as opposed to the building code occupancy standards which are measured
by occupant load factors per square foot. At your suggestion I will ask Toni
Moorehead and my attorney to clarify the section.
If, after further clarification, it is agreed that the number of seats and the resulting
parking fees are determined by the square footage of the various uses; then, we
still have questions regarding the actual number of square feet being calculated,
mostly as it pertains to the bar on the first floor, and the Club areas on the third
and fourth floors. Therefore, we would appreciate the opportunity to revisit the
parking requirements as soon as we are able to obtain the clarification from our
respective attorneys. At that time, we will also provide the final "remarked"
drawings that represent what is actually being built in the building.
I look Kvqd to hearing from Mr. Moorehead and bringing this issue to a close as
soo s po ible.
M. Heelan
cc: Charles W_ Davison
L
TOWN OF VAIL1Y
FLE COPY
75 South Frontage Road Department of Community Development
Vail, Colorado 81657
970 - 479 - 21381479 -2139
FAX 970 - 479 -2452
June 17, 1997
Glenn Heelan
Charles Davison
c/o Riva Ridge Partners, LLC
P.O. Box 5770
Avon, CO 81620
RE: Vail Village Club - Parking Analysis
Dear Glenn and Charlie:
Thank you for submitting the final floor plans /seating plans for the Vail Village Club. Based upon these
drawings. I have recalculated the parking pay -in -lieu fee as follows:
5,936 s ft. =
1. Restaurant /Club = q•
49.47 parking spaces
2. Retail = 3,704 sq. ft. =
12.35 parking spaces
3. Office = 39 sq. ft. =
0 16 narking* maces
61.98 parking spaces
- 27 (g_ran f thcr�c
Grand Total
34.98 parking spaces
Per your agreement with Bob McLaurin, Town Manager, parking spaces will be assessed at a rate of
$16,333.38 per space (1996 pay -in -lieu figure). Therefore, the grand total for the Vail Village Club is
$571,341.63.
As previously agreed to by Bob M of action, please let us know so tha>�we,lc befacceptable finalize the paperwork'Town.
Should this be your desired course
As always, should you have any questions, or comments regarding any of the above, please feel free to
contact me directly at 479 -2144.
Sincerely,
Mike UM01licakI
Assistant Director of Community Development
MWr
xc: Bob McLaurin
Tom Moorhead
Steve Thompson
Q4" RECYCLED PAPER
kJJRichard Weingardt
Professional Engineers
To:
Attn: ---- f -��`"
nt By:
Mail
Courier
J Hand Delivered
J Overnite -
J Picked Up By
�Y
FAX — FAX# -
Total Pages (including this sheet)
J Hard Copy of Fax to Follow
We are sending you;
Item Nom—
These are submitted as checked
❑ For Approval
J For Your Use
Remarks
By
Copies to - - - - --
With Enclosures
❑ Without Enclosures
Consultants
Letter of
Transmittal
Project:
Project No: —
�As Requested
For Review and Comment
J For Your Response
J
Date
9725 E. Hampden Avenue, Suite 200, Denver, CO 80231, (303) 671 -7033, Fax: (303)
671-7379 Founded in 1966
1
ter-
7�
Taw cuss`
440-
� 1
Arr
7-0 % /�ii U11111Ulfl /lt / / /// r
4� F. 0 y
e
e ICS ^e f/ee �,ti
/f11tlitillili
A&U44- A6�
4.�
li.
a
7-0 al
t_
i i
I
� F
I
�_...
..._....._ r .. .... �
1 �I
�0 -
Got
p1ro3 To
r, o,?4S.e
e
III Richard
Professional Engineers
5 May 1997
Weingardt Cc
Town of Vail
Building Department
% Semple Brown Roberts
1406 Larimer Square, Suite 200
Denver, Colorado 80202
Attention: Mr. Ernie Pyle
Re: Vail Village Club
RWC #2580
Gentlemen:
Richard Weingardt Consultants Inc. is the Structural Design Engineer of Record for this
building. During the course of construction we have conducted limited cursory periodic
site observations of general construction progress. This included specific observations of
the mechanical and utility penetrations through floor framing members
Based on these observations, it is our opinion that, to the best of our knowledge, this
building was constructed in general conformance to the plans and specifications. We are
not aware of any outstanding discrepancies and do not take exception to completed work.
Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions you may have.
Very truly yours,
WEINGARDT CONSULTANTS INC.
F.
Joh .Davis,
P ident =-Qe 247'
-� .a==
JFD /ew s `�.c�•. �`�
L. e00 ••.p�0`�\\0
9725 E. Hampden Avenue, Suite 200, Denver, C0 80231, (303) 671 -7033, Fax: (303) 671 -7379 Founded In 1966
e
li
1��
J
INDEPENDENT TESTING &
*NSPECi -ION SERVICES INC*
12084 VASEEN COUnT
CONIFEII, COLORADO 00433
` (303} 674 -7560
OBSERVATION REPORT
Page 1 _of 4
Rid e Partners, LLC ITIS Job No.: 100796 Date: 4 -15 -97
C l i e n l; :.._.� 9 _
Project: Vail Village Club Location: Vail, Colorado
Inspector: George Schwandt
This report package contains information concerning specific tests and
inspections of structural steel welding, structural bolting, structural
sprayed fireproofing and /or nondestructuve 'testing. Only the forms
appropriate to the types of inspections and tests conducted have been
prepared and are enclosed.
The specific criteria utilized in judging the degree of conformance for
each area of inspection is contained on each individual inspection form.
Also included in this inspection package may be ITIS List of Outstanding
Discrepancies ", O.D. List. The O.D. List will be consecutively numbered
for each page issued, as will be the defici ^nt items contained in the list.
Specific usage of the O.D. List is contained in each section.
If there are any questions regarding the content of this report, please
feel free to contact ITIS at your convenience.
David L. Sturgeon
President
DISTRIBUTIONS: Riva Ridge Partners, LLC - Attn: Mr. Glenn Neelan
J.L. Viele Construction - Attn: Tony
Mr. Frank Freyer
Town of Vail /Community Development - Attn: Mr. Chuck Feldman
E �
I
&NDEPENDENT TESTING 18
INSPECTION SERVICES INC.
12084 Vaseen Ct.
Conifer, Colorado 80433
(303) 674-7560
FIELD APPLIED STRUCTURAL STEEL
FIREPROOFING INSPECTIONS
I
Page 2 of 4
Job No. 100796
Date: 4-15-97
The rol-lowing listed levels and areas, as described herein, were inspected
and tested in -accordance with U.B.C. 43-8.
Type of Fireproofing Material Inspected: ---- Cafco Blaze Shield II
Level of Inspection: A to C and 2 - 7 lines
Area Inspected;
List any deficiencies noted which do not conform to UDC 43-8 requirements and
assign an O.D. item number with corresponding O.D. page number. All other
listed areas of, inspection were found to o be in conformance to UBC 43-8
requirements and project stnnd.ards, as applicable.
Li. st areas by grid line and level where density samples for lab testing were
reMolkled. Resin t-,s of dry density 1-lesl-ling, reported separately upon completion.
Level
Component Tested
U.L. Design/Rating
U- L. Design
Required Thickness
—
E 1 QUQ ams
D-902 2 Hr.
112"
2.
—
Floor Deck
D-858 2 Hr.
3/811
3.
4.
5.
List any deficiencies noted which do not conform to UDC 43-8 requirements and
assign an O.D. item number with corresponding O.D. page number. All other
listed areas of, inspection were found to o be in conformance to UBC 43-8
requirements and project stnnd.ards, as applicable.
Li. st areas by grid line and level where density samples for lab testing were
reMolkled. Resin t-,s of dry density 1-lesl-ling, reported separately upon completion.
Level
Grid Line
component
U- L. Design
711- L.---
INDEPENDENT TESTING &
ONSPECTION SERVICES IN(*
12084 VASEEN COURT
CONII ER. COLORADO 1304:73
(303) 674 -7560
Page 3 Of 4
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Inspector: Georqe Schwandt ^_ ITIS Job No. 100796 Date: 4 -15 -97
This form contains additional inspection information not specifically covered in
the prepared formats of testing and inspections.
Additional inspections
Additional tests
After further review, the combination of the two materials on the tube
steel columns for fire row ofing_convera eehas been accepted.
With the conclusion of this inspection with the acceptahce of the steel
columns and the sign -off of the outstanding discrepancy item, this concludes
inspections.
INDEPENDENT TESTING
INWECTION SERVICES 114.
12084 VASEEN COURT
CONIFER, COLORADO 80433
(303) 674 -7560
Page.__ 4 __of _ 4
RE_INSPECTIONS
X_____ Torque Testing - NDT
Type of Reinspection: Visual Q
Geor e Schwandt ITIS Job No.: 100796 Date: 4 -15 -97
Inspector
List those items reinspected. Refer to the O.D. item, O.D. page number and original
date for reporting of the O.D. item. Also indicate if reinspected item conforms
to original project standards, modified standards or accepted in the as -built
condition. Conditions found initially in nonconformance tauthorinalshallehavetandards
but subsequently reviewed and accepted by responsible
such acceptance in written form and written confirmation shall be attached to this
report.
S E M P LE
B R O W N
ROBERTS
A Pmfm: na Cage..tt"
at Art"twa & Dem4m.,
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
?o: Cj�t�u.�� � �-� Fro=
compaa r. —7/ vc; /
Fax
Date:
Project v V
Project No.: 1' l r0 o it
Number of Pages
(inciud'ulg this transmitc4-
Original Copy to follow via US Mail /i Yes No
?tease contact. ourofce at (303) - 577I- 4137 regarding�any transmittal. problem&oc nor
veriffcalfan ofreceipt Kease distribute- as: soort as possible.
Cammerru:
(406 Latimer Seuare. Suite _00 (303) 57ww - voice
Denver, Coicraao 30101 (303} r7T-3403 - rat
S E M P L E
BROWN
ROBERTS
APAOfirt -W Capntlaw
ofA"ftc r6DWSsm
MEETING NIGNUTES
Date: 12 March 1997
Project: Vail Village Club
Project #: A96011
Present: Chuck Feldman TOV
Ernie Pyle SBR
Distribution: Those present, Frank Freyer, Glenn Heelan, Craig Bruntz
ITEMS DISCUSSED:
1. First Level Rest Rooms - The TOV will accept either one Unisex accessible rest room or two
accessible rest rooms, but not any rest rooms non - accessible. Another alternative is the previous
design without any rest rooms on this level.
2. First Level Elevator must have a 90 minute Fire Door at location Door 105, or create a lobby
separation per UBC 3305j.
3. Dining #3 (3 10) may have an unrestricted opening in the north wall for the installation of a wine
rack between 310 and Bar (309).
4. In the 005 and 006 Showers, the TOV does not require a seat, folding or fixed. Conformance
with the Federal ADA requirements regarding a seat is the option and responsibility of the owner.
This constitutes our understanding of the items discussed and the decisions will be considered
accurate, barring notification within five working days.
Ernie Pyle, Architect
SEMPLE BROWN ROBERTS, P.C.
S E M P L E
B R O W N
ROBERTS
A P- f-dond Corp —dory
of Arcki&Lts & Dmiawen
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
To: Chuck Feldman
Company. Town of Vail
Fax #: 1 -970- 479 -2452
Date:
Original Copy to ft
From:
Project:
Project No.:
Number of Pages
(including this tr,
plow via US Mail
VNJ
Ernie Pyle
Vail Village Club
A96011
3
insmittal):
Yes ❑ No
Please contact our office at (303) 571 -4137 regarding any transmittal problems or for
verification of receipt. Please distribute as soon as possible.
Comments: Chuck, if you are not already aware, the Parks that I mention in the attached
minutes own the WC land. Bill Whiteford said that you'd be welcome to call him, if
you have any questions regarding his suggestion in the "NOTE ". His phone #303-
757 -0447.
1406 Larimer Square, Suite 200 (303) 571 -4137 - voice
Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 571 -0403 - fax
S E M P L E
ONMAV E
&M- a
A P- lo-1 -d Cmp dl-
otAwddbetr & Dedpm
MEETING MINUTES
Date: 3 April 1997
Project: Vail Village Club
Project #: A96011
Present: Chuck Feldman TOV
Ernie Pyle SBR
Distribution: Those present, Frank Freyer, Charlie Davison, Craig Bruntz
ITEMS DISCUSSED:
1. Third Level Men's Rest Room (306) - The 4' -6" Water Closet stall width is acceptable as long as
one urinal maintains the required accessible clear floor space in front of it (30" x 48'x.
2. Basement Level Shower Stalls (005,006) - The smaller stall may be the ADA accessible stall and
the larger stall provided with a two step seat for steam use provided a grab bar is provided.
NOTE: At the weekly VVC project meeting, it was suggested to make a minor variation to the
grab bar placement at the end of the "steam shower " proposed by Chuck. Bill Whiteford, a
member of the Parks Family, is disabled and uses an electric wheelchair. He said that the
placement shown on the attached revised plan would be preferable from the ADA perspective.
This constitutes our understanding of the items discussed and the decisions will be considered
accurate, barring notification within five working days.
Ernie Pyle, Architect
SEMPLE BROWN ROBERTS, P.C.
(P
D
r
:.t
n
O
A
m
U)
O
0
r�
V'
W
m
x
m
r
m
m
r
m (JI D
�N D
xr -
� �O
INDEPENDENT TESTING G
INSPECTION SERVICES INC.
12004
VA')[ FN COURT
C(,)Nlfl._II, CCII.OnAW) (10433
(30.3) U4 - 7 5 (1 0
OBSERVATION REPORT
Cl i ell t:.__.._._._Riva Ridge Partners, l_LC
Project:__ _ —Vail Village Club
Tnspect:or:__George Schwandt�
Page 1 —of ___4___
ITIS Job No.:_ 100796 Date: 3 -5 -97
Location: Vail, Colorado
This reporL package contains information concerning specific tests and
inspecLions of st:ruct.ural steel welding, structural bolting, structural
sprayed fireproofing and /or nondestructuve test=ing. Only the forms
approprial;e to the types of inspections and tests conducted have been
prepared and are enclosed.
The specific criteria utilized in juclgi ng the degree of conformance 'for
each area of inspection is contained on each individual inspection form.
Also included in this inspection package may be ITIS' "List of Outstanding
Discrepancies ", O.D. List. The O.D. List will be consecutively numbered
For each page issued, as will be the clefic,ient items contained in the list.
Specific usage of the O.D. List is contained in each section.
IF there are any questions regarding the content of this report, please
Feel free to contact: ITIS at your convenience.
David
President
Distributions: Riva Ridge Partners, LLC - Attn: Mr. Glenn Heelan
J.L. Viele Construction - Attn: Tony
Mr. Frank Freyer
Town of Vail /Community Development - Attn: Mr. Chuck Feldman
INSPECTION SERViCts iNcls
120,14 VASUN COURT
CONiFr, n, COLORA00 00433
(10,I) C,74.7560
Page 2 of 4
C
57--
project No.
Type or
or
A -,C
ovrn pryinr, Ttmc:
ovf,tl TeMjl
*1
I' S 4,• -1,'7 F-'
p(-pjrc(l Dcn!-,I!.y (N.11 -
snmi-l(-r A li C -
crrm-,
C
57--
A 3
T1,
r)
A
V- I la rr,n
A
c
p(-pjrc(l Dcn!-,I!.y (N.11 -
snmi-l(-r A li C -
crrm-,
T),:n-111-Y (r,.
Ur
el,
C
57--
A 3
T),:n-111-Y (r,.
Ur
el,
r i r
INSPECTION SERVICES INC.
12064 VAS0 UN COURT
CONIFFn, COLORADO 00113
074 7 5 60
-i ni rl
- A
Avr, TA
C
110:! q, I i r r'.,j j)f7 n r,, I t, y ( I-C)7 )
A T1 C moil, 1,11C 1-crill" rrricril.s.
:27
Page 3 of 4
llrojr!cl, ►ruric:
rrojr-ct X
Type or platcrinl: .111'-*-Mv)'Zr'
NO. or "I'lamplca: J,
larnpir
1,4jctxtlr)n!
Oven Dryinp ' . Tiric:
Ovcrl T'?Mli.
I ti J.
P.
Fs
eg"
O
;;;I mplc
C
x
/A
f3.
T5
T
67
Avr, TA
C
110:! q, I i r r'.,j j)f7 n r,, I t, y ( I-C)7 )
A T1 C moil, 1,11C 1-crill" rrricril.s.
:27
Page 3 of 4
llrojr!cl, ►ruric:
rrojr-ct X
Type or platcrinl: .111'-*-Mv)'Zr'
NO. or "I'lamplca: J,
larnpir
1,4jctxtlr)n!
Oven Dryinp ' . Tiric:
Ovcrl T'?Mli.
I ti J.
P.
Fs
eg"
O
;;;I mplc
C
x
/A
11"i-SPE'CT ION SERV,`u'S INC.
12.H4 VASUN COUnT
coniir F n, COt.OnADC) 80433
(303) 674 1550
'y
A
13
c
T5
T 6
T. (
T�3
Tf)
Avp,,. TA
7impl� A
Page 4 of 4
Narirl,
PrOJI70, I-10.
7,ypc or
NO, or
ovrn Drying Ttmc:
0vrrl Tr.,Mp,
T1,011, 1-c 1 1111:
C.
ir eIr
r
66 dY'
Z;Rmpl4 C
Volwi^ (in.3) I (r,./jil.3 x :.B TCf
A T1 C
APR -07 -1997 19 :09 72MPLE BROWN ROBERTS 0303 P.02
S E M P L E
BROWN
ROBERTS
A 1 JI.r - Cd p N
&DoWem
MEETING AHNUTES
Date: 3 April 1997
Project: Vail Village Club
Project #: A96011
Present: Chuck Feldman TOV
Ernie Pyle SBR
Distribution: Those present, Frank Freyer, Charlie Davison, Craig Bruntz
ITEMS DISCUSSED:
1. Third Level Men's Rest Room (306) - The 4' -6" Water Closet stall width is acceptable as long as
one urinal maintains the required accessible clear floor space in front of it (30" x 481).
2. Basement Level Shower Stalls (005,006) - The smaller stall may be the ADA accessible stall and
the larger stall provided with a two step seat for steam use provided a grab bar is provided.
NOTE: At the weekly VVC project meeting, it was suggested to make a minor variation to the
grab bar placement at the end of the "steam shower " proposed by Chuck. Bill Whiteford, a
member of the Parks Family, is disabled and uses an electric wheelchair. He said that the
placement shown on the attached revised plan would be preferable from the ADA perspective.
This constitutes our understanding of the items discussed and the decisions will be considered
accurate, barring notification within five working days.
Erie Pyle, Architect
SEMPLE BROWN ROBERTS, P.C.
APR -07 -1997 19:09 72MPLE BROWN ROBERTS 0303
ND ;aW
pn
.z
n
rntrn f+ N=
wN D
x0 =
P. 03
1
TOTAL P.03
f i �I ?�til- T✓i`I ?�"i� T �T E -STING G
ISPECTION SERVICES INC.
12061 VK;E[N coun7
CONIFLII 00433
1301) 6M560
Page --1—of 5
OBSERVATION REPORT
Cl ient:____Riva__R -L Parners,: LLC ITIS Job No. :---!00796 Date: 2 -26 -97
Project :__._VA1 Village Club Location: __ _ Vail, Colorado
In spector:George Schwandt
This report: package contains information concerning specific tests and
inspections of structural steel welding, structural bolting, structural
sprayed fireproofing and /or nondestruct:uve testing. Only the forms
appropriate to the types of inspections and tests conducted have been
prepared and are enclosed.
The specific criteria utilized in judging the degree of conformance for
each area of inspection is contained on each individual inspection form.
Also included in this inspection package may be ITIS List of Outstanding
Discrepancies ", O.D. List. The O.D. List will be consecutively numbered
for each page issued, as will be the deficient items contained in the list.
Specific usage of the O.D. List; is contained in each section.
If there are any questions regarding the content of this report, please
feel free to contact ITIS at your convenience.
David L. Sturgeon
President C
DISTRIBUTIONS: Riva Ridge Parners, t_LC - Attn: Mr. Glenn Heelan
J.L. Viele Construction - Attn: Tony
Mr. Frank Freyer
Town of Vail /Community Development - Attn: Mr. Chuck Feldmann
INDEPENDENT TESTING'
INSPECTION SERVICES INC.
I2n84 Vnseen GI
C "oni. fer, (;0lorado 80433
( 303) G74-7560
FIF.J.,I) APPLTI D STRUCTURAL STET -11,
FrI,TPR.00FING TNS1'FCTI0NS
Page 2 of 5
ITIS Job No. 100796
Date: 2 -26 -97
'[ "hn fol_.l.ow�i_nF; 1. _nterl levels n.nd nr01.s, ns described herein, were i.ngpected
n.n(l t;es l.eri in nccordnncr, wi. t,h U . TI . C . 43-8.
Type of F' i. T-(-I) r o o f i, tiff
I, c> v e l or Inspection : ` - -S.e c on d.__Le ve l___ -- --------------------- - - - - --
Aren. Tnt;pect,ed: __ _.___A__tp E_.and _2 7.1i_nes,-and.._AA to_GG_ and _1 -1 through 5_5 lines
L,i.�.t sorry deficiencies noted which do not conform t,o t1TlC 43 -$ requi.rr.rnent -s and
n ^s i E ►n F1 TI 0 .1_ ?. i.I em nrrnr1)er wi l;h corT' r^�--,pondInrf O. T), pnr;c nramhcr. All_ oLhrr.
li.st,ed arena of inspection wc-rc found to be in conformance to UTIG 43 --f1
rc�trli renronl;s nncl project; - 1, nncln.r(Is, ns n.ppl icnhle.
tee. -_s tee l_.columns were found to be in nonconformance with current U.L. Design
S-- 827.__.Me_tal decking and sheet rock has been installed on the columns prior to
_____This has been en I -.erect on the attached 0. -D. List---a s item
T, i.s 1. nrr�ns by ctr i.d 1 i.ne fin (I l (-ve l whrc re de"S i. 1,y snmI I e�� fr,r _I_nb I:esi; .nK were
rernovecl 1- i; s of dr.y ty tcst:inl? reported complet ;ion.
Lrvr i Gr:i d 1, i.lne Des i.tln
I.
3 �
Component 'lent,cd
UA' DesijF n /R.ntinf;
R.equ.ired I'll i_ckness
I'
be _
r ams,_
D -902 2 Hr.
_. _.
3/8"
2•
F 10 o r d e c k i n.g _
D -902 2_ Hr.
7/16"
I'
Tube steel columns
X ^827 2 Hr.
15/16" to 2- 3/16"
�.
�^
dependent upon wall
•
thickness
r.
L,i.�.t sorry deficiencies noted which do not conform t,o t1TlC 43 -$ requi.rr.rnent -s and
n ^s i E ►n F1 TI 0 .1_ ?. i.I em nrrnr1)er wi l;h corT' r^�--,pondInrf O. T), pnr;c nramhcr. All_ oLhrr.
li.st,ed arena of inspection wc-rc found to be in conformance to UTIG 43 --f1
rc�trli renronl;s nncl project; - 1, nncln.r(Is, ns n.ppl icnhle.
tee. -_s tee l_.columns were found to be in nonconformance with current U.L. Design
S-- 827.__.Me_tal decking and sheet rock has been installed on the columns prior to
_____This has been en I -.erect on the attached 0. -D. List---a s item
T, i.s 1. nrr�ns by ctr i.d 1 i.ne fin (I l (-ve l whrc re de"S i. 1,y snmI I e�� fr,r _I_nb I:esi; .nK were
rernovecl 1- i; s of dr.y ty tcst:inl? reported complet ;ion.
Lrvr i Gr:i d 1, i.lne Des i.tln
I.
3 �
jM)F11yNDFNT TYSTING &
INSPECTION SFRVICES INC.
12081 vluqcen Ct.
f(-.T•, C01 Orn,(10 80133
(103) C,74-7560 Page 3 of 5
ITIS Job No. 100796
Date: 2-26-97
-ELD AP -,U"D STMiCTURAL s,rj,,j-
j-,jp.p"TT?OOFTN(3 TNs•-.,Fc'rTONS
clogrrit)ed hcrei-n, were inspected
ol 1. o wi, n q levels fl, n r('AS
tj�pt,o(l in nccorclance wi-1.11 U.B.C. 43-8.
Tvpr - k -)f,
1,f-vo[ or 1_np,,r,-Aion:
A r�n
Ttvip�,(Aefl: A to E and - 2__ - -__7 lines, and AA to Gq an 1-1 th h 5-5 lines
v ,
Li^J, nny dc,fir,iencien note(] which do not, cot tin me n I ,g
and nnsian nn 0 1) 101 number W i tll co rr(i rpond i. ng 0.D pn ge nimb(r. A 1. 1 o 1,he r
r were n c () n 'I' o rmq n r o to Ull(" !3-
r i 11rpr(- 1, i-on we rol
requ i renwn 1-.s n n d project,
Intiar(Is W3 f1j)jAiCnb1V
-ovnd.__to_b_e_ in n_ X7:_8_? 7 ud s
--c-o-1 umsn--were-J- _,noncon
be-
and sheet_ -rock-I....had--.be.en.--J-nstI led- on ------
has been -entered .--o-.n-.-the--.-a.t,tach.ed. Q.D-,.-,-Li
TJ�d.; fir(-fis 1,y ffri,(] Iinr, and 'r�vf_,j where density sal"P-1-o-9 _rOr I
-1 j313 testing were
r 11 1v rjr1n - 1,V 1j"I ti nF rf,por 1, -d sepn.rntply upon completion.
0 _ m , r - i To r, t rd
rhickness
- ---------
D-9-02 2 Hr.
D-902 2 Hr.
3/8"
7/16"
2.
Floor beams
Floor decking
X-827 2 Hr.
15/16" to 2-3/16
Tube steel columms
Varies dependent on
5.
wall thickness
Li^J, nny dc,fir,iencien note(] which do not, cot tin me n I ,g
and nnsian nn 0 1) 101 number W i tll co rr(i rpond i. ng 0.D pn ge nimb(r. A 1. 1 o 1,he r
r were n c () n 'I' o rmq n r o to Ull(" !3-
r i 11rpr(- 1, i-on we rol
requ i renwn 1-.s n n d project,
Intiar(Is W3 f1j)jAiCnb1V
-ovnd.__to_b_e_ in n_ X7:_8_? 7 ud s
--c-o-1 umsn--were-J- _,noncon
be-
and sheet_ -rock-I....had--.be.en.--J-nstI led- on ------
has been -entered .--o-.n-.-the--.-a.t,tach.ed. Q.D-,.-,-Li
TJ�d.; fir(-fis 1,y ffri,(] Iinr, and 'r�vf_,j where density sal"P-1-o-9 _rOr I
-1 j313 testing were
r 11 1v rjr1n - 1,V 1j"I ti nF rf,por 1, -d sepn.rntply upon completion.
TN1 YVVN0YNT T1 STTNG &
TNSVXCTION ti RVIKS INN IF
1 2081 Vnsrrn C . page 4 of 5
i',oni -frr, Colorndo 80 ,133 ITTS Job No. 100796
( 303 ) 674 -7560 Date: 2 -26 -97
FI E1,D APPLIED STR.UCTUR,Ai, STF,T;I,
1,iTtf :pR001lNG INSI'EC'T'ToNS
'1'l,r foll- OwiTIFF ) sl,rt.l leva>ls and rtrF-�ns, Rr, drs;c.r.ibed hrr.eIn, were inspretrd
nni1 t.rstod in n. r.r,ordn.nce wi -t;h U.U.C. 43 -f1.
7'yl>r of F i reproof ilia Miti;rr,ial 1n. {;i r c.l,� d: Caf4o 81aZe Shield II
I,cvr 1 o f T n s1 >rc 1, i on : _.- -___ --
A r r n T n :, F, r c t, e d: - - -- A to D. 6 and -1 - -6 lines
- - - - - -- -- —
rtrry cl,,f i r. rnc; -c , o1-, conform to UDC 43 -8 rr'qu i.rement q and
110 c
ns- s;i -Qn nn 0.D iLn nrrnib r wi_I;h rorrrs l- 'on(Iinp o.p. png,- number. Al -1 o1,her
l inl.r -�l nuns of insrocl-'ion were fniind to he in confrrmnnce i:.o lJ1 C X13 -R
rr,mrntq and prn,ject, ni,nndnT -ds:, ns, fl,ppl.I(- ,n1) 1.r�.
The columns were found to be in nonconformance with U.L. Design X-827.
Metal studs and sheet rock had been installed prior to fireproofing. This _
has been entered on the attached O.D. List as item F -20.
list, nrrn9 by Kr)d line and le for l.stb teat.i_n were
. es-
Or'niii t.v of dry densi t,v. tr�s;t ink± reported srpnrntel.,y Capon c ;omplcl; ion.
i,vvrl rr nr Component
I. _
_ Samp1e esign --
Com�,nrnL, Tr.Lecl
ii. L. 11es)- p,n /TZgl,ing
Required Thicicnesq
1
V_ Floor beams
D-902 2 Hr.
3/811
Floor decking
Tube steel columns
D -902 2 Hr.
X -827 2 Hr.
7/16'
15/16" to 2- 3/16"
1
_ `^ _
dependent on wall
,,
thickness
r,
rtrry cl,,f i r. rnc; -c , o1-, conform to UDC 43 -8 rr'qu i.rement q and
110 c
ns- s;i -Qn nn 0.D iLn nrrnib r wi_I;h rorrrs l- 'on(Iinp o.p. png,- number. Al -1 o1,her
l inl.r -�l nuns of insrocl-'ion were fniind to he in confrrmnnce i:.o lJ1 C X13 -R
rr,mrntq and prn,ject, ni,nndnT -ds:, ns, fl,ppl.I(- ,n1) 1.r�.
The columns were found to be in nonconformance with U.L. Design X-827.
Metal studs and sheet rock had been installed prior to fireproofing. This _
has been entered on the attached O.D. List as item F -20.
list, nrrn9 by Kr)d line and le for l.stb teat.i_n were
. es-
Or'niii t.v of dry densi t,v. tr�s;t ink± reported srpnrntel.,y Capon c ;omplcl; ion.
i,vvrl rr nr Component
I. _
_ Samp1e esign --
INDEPENDENT TESTING G
INSPECTION SERVICES INC.
IMMI M J- l N
GONIF[R, (7, (-) L 0 R,% I) C) 80433
(3 0 3) 674-7 " f) 0
Page 5 of 5
LIST OF OUTSTANDING DISCREPANCIES
Location:
Vail_ Vi-llag.Q- Club ,---Job#
:_.
100796
Date :-2--2697
2-26-97
Inspector:____G_eoXge
Sc - m-n_dt --
Page :
7
of__
On - cai o i u-
Date
jReTorted
(26 =91__
Item
#
--E--18--
-tube_ -nd-le-vel -
8 2 7
Date
__2-
2-26-97
6 7
F- 20
-Eou-r-th--Level-.m-tu.be-c.Qj-umn5-are in-nmc-QD-
STMICTURAL, MECHANICAL_ AND MATERIALS TESTING
1AM4 VASUEN COURT
CONlrr n (*,0L_011AD0 110433
(303) 6744500
04SERVATION REPORT
Client:_Ri_v_a_Ridde Partners, LLC
Project:___._._Vail Village Club
Inspectnr:____George Schwandt
Page
ITIS Job No.: 100796
1 or 2
Date:_ 1 -13 -97
Location: _ Colorado
This report: package contains information concerning specific tests and
inspections of structural steel welding, structural bolting, structural
sprayed fireproofing and /or nondestructuve testing. Only the forms
appropriate to the types of inspections and tests conducted have been
prepared and are enclosed.
The specific criteria utilized in judging the degree of conformance for
each area or inspection i s contained on each individual i nspecti on form.
Also inducted
in this inspection
package may he
ITIS' "List of Outstanding
Discrepancies ",
O.D. List. The
O.D. List; will
he consecutively numbered
for each page
issued. as will be
the deficient
items contained in the list.
Specific usage
of the OX List
is contained in
each section.
if there are any questions regarding the content of this report, please
feel free to contact ITIS at your convenience.
David L. Sturgeon- '
President
DISTRIBUTIONS: Riva Ridge Partenrs, LLC - Attn: Mr. Glenn Heelan
J.L. Viele Construction - Attn: Tony
Mr. Frank Freyer
Town of Vail /Community Development - Attn: Mr. Chuck Feldman
J
1204 VA -N COURT
corgiv rn, (7,01_011nDO fl O433
(303) 674- 7560
('a 9e 2 of 2
REIN Si'ECTIONS
Typc of Rcin.spection: Visual X _ Torque Testing___ - NDT -
Insector:_ George Schwandt — ITIS Job P+'o.:� 100796 _ Date: 1 -13 -97
p .._
List those items reinspected. Refer to the 0. D. item, 0. D. page number and original
date for rep„ t i ng of 'the 0. D. i ;;errr. h,l so i ndi cafe i f re i nspec L-, item con i"orms
to original project: standards, modified standards or accepted in the as -built
condition. Condition; found initially in nonconformance to or1ginai project standards
but subsequently reviewed and accepted by the responsible authority shall have
such acceptance in written form and wr,iteen conFirmation shall be attached 'to this
report.
0.0.
I T EM
F -1 I10v07
�~
I— F-4
F -6
F -7
ORIGIN111_�
REPORT
D/1 T E
-96 ;
_
11-12-96
11 -20 -96
_
11 -20 -96
ACC. BY_ ENG. _.RI;VTE -W
AS-BUILT X100 i F I I_D
_____ ��
�j. X
_ _ X
X_
X _-
CONFORMING
TO
STAN DAR IDS
SiGl`IED
OFF
1 -13 -97 (
_.I
1 -13 -97
1 -13 -97
_ COi�'iENTS
Per En �ineerinq
Date 12 -17 -96
"
-8
11- 2.0 -96
X
1 -13 -97
_F
F -9'
12 -03 -96
_
_
_ I1
-13 -97
_�
A
r. r,
,NSPLCTION SERVICES INC.
120114 vnS(_rN COURT
CONIFITI, cot -cRA00 (104;13
(30.9) 074.7560
Page 1 of 8
OBSERVATION REPORT
Client:: Riya Ridge Partners_,,._,_LLC _ ITIS Job No.:— MMCz..,_Date:�7 �L
Project: Pail Village Club Location: Vail,_W_l_a_r__ao
Inspector: Geese Schwandt _
This report package contains information concerning specific tests and
inspections of structural steel welding, structural bolting, structural
sprayed fireproofing and /or nondestructuve testing. Only the forms
appropriate to the types of inspections and tests conducted have been
prepared and are enclosed.
The specific criteria utilized in ,judging the degree of conformance for
each area of inspection is contained on each individual inspection form.
Also included in this inspection package may he ITIS' "List of Outstanding
Discrepancies ", O.D. List. The O.D. List: will be consecutively numbered
for each page issued, as will he the deficient items contained in the list.
Specific usage of the O.D. List is contained in each section.
If there are any questions regarding the content of this report, please
feel _ree to contact; ITIS at your convenience.
David L. Sturgeon,
President
INDT--TTEND' T"TIT TE,'5A-'V-iG Ej
NSPECTiON SERViCES INC.
12084 VA!7,r.F-N counT
CONIFER ('01-ORADO A()4B,1
(3M) (374-7560
Page - 2 of 8
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Inspector: ___Qe Q_U_e_5_C h_w TT[S Job No. Date
._a_rLd_t j_QQa7�_
This form contains additional inspection information not speciricaiiy covered in
the prepared Formats of testing and inspections.
Additional inspections
Lions
Additional
The submittal of the attached "List of OuL standing Discrepancies"
,
_C VC the_d i s c e ncles noted h
throu out the insi)ection
--pno awe_ been _signed offer discrepancies remain outstanding.
INDEPENDENT I'EISTING G
INSPECTION SERVICES INC.
1'nOF3,1 VASI-FN r,001*11
C, 0 N I F R, ( -,01 O P A 1-1 C) R 04 33
(30.'3) (.' 1'i - 15 C, ()
LIST 017 OUTSTANDING DISCREPANCIES
Location: Vail village Clu-b
Inspector: George Schwandt _
page 3 or 3
'Jobl,
1.00796
Da to
: 1.0-7-96
I"i gy e
1-.13-97
o C—On-cioinq
Date
RCT)or te d
Item Date
H First Level A QZ-Q-Pss-�l-
10-7-96
F-1
On A line from _3_4 lines, on GG from
1-.13-97
__2
4-4 and on 6 lin(,, rron� A to
jj
lines diagonal angle braces not fillet
welded per detail
SMUCTUnAl., MrO) 1ANICAL AND MA i unIALS TESTING
INDEPENDENT TESTING G
INSPECTION SERVICES INC.
1208,1 VASVEN cnun-r
GON11f ER, C01011A00 f10433
(-m3) f ; 74 - 7 Ci (-, ( )
Page 4 of 4
1,157 01' OUTSTANDING D15CRUANCIE5
Location Vail Village Club _ Jobil 100796 Date: 11-5-96
Inspector: George Schwandt —Page
0 f —On - (19i P-9—
Date
Reported_
Item
0
On t C
11-5-96
F-2
t of 6 line
First Level QR ne, -2-96
_j_._w_Q,.__�
U, n-o
the column a p
bolted
4
STFIUCTMIAL. MECHANICAL AND MATERIALS TESTING
INDEPENDENT TESTING &
INSPECTION SERVICES INC.
12014 VAf7,r FN (W)HPT
CON11 ['11, GOICMADO 110,133
(303) G A 7 5 r)
Page 7 of 8
LIST OF OUTSTANDING DISCREPANCIES
1, 0 C a t i on JobH 100796 D�ltc: 11-12-96
Inspector: G j2 a-r-q e_ 5-di an -d t P age 3 0
Mite
►eportcd
11-12-96
1 Item
F-3
A _cc_u_t_�-
Second__Le_vcl 2'06" north of llIt line, and at
7'09" and 14'06" east of 4-4 line —the
_111-20-96
double angle clips_, bolted connections nett
installed
11-12-96
F-4
Second Level on 5 line 3' north of A line
1-13-97
the tap the moment connection is
not welded
SMUCTunk.. Mr.011ANICAL AND MA7cnIALS "J* 17 !; 11 IN (,
INDEPENDENT TESTING Vy
INSPECTION SERVICES INC.
12084 VAS[7[-,N count"
CON 11 1. I'l, COLORADO 80433
(301) 6" 1560
LIST OF OUTSTANDING DISCREPANCIE'S
Location: Vail Villaqe Club
Inspector: George Schwandt
Page 5 of 6
Job#
100796
Date:
11-20-96
Page
L-_p.,o r t e d
of
On-ooina
Date
Item
Date
L-_p.,o r t e d
0
11-20-96
F-5
Fourth I-eve]
on 5.4 line at D and CC lines -
12-3-96
wo of
the four required bolts have
been installed
11-20-96
F-6
Second Level
at Derfineter beanis -_bent plate
1-133-97
not -fillet welded on the to the
beam flange
-underside
11-20-96
F-7
Third Level
at perimete beams - hent )'Ii�)te,
1-13-97
not-, fillet welded on the underside to the
lbeam flan e
11-20-96
F-8
Fourth Level
atjeriifleter bearn - bent plate
1-13-97 13
not fillet we',
beam
(led On the Uncle rs i d to the
STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL AND MATERIALS TESTING
IN[)I-'-'I"ENDI-N*F TE'STING F,
INSPECTION SERVICES INC.
1'08,1 W-,l FN COMIF
1-1, (7,01 011ADO 80,133
(30,11 (i7,1 -7560
Page 8 of 8
LIST OF OUTSTANDING DISCREPANCIES
Location: Vail a Vill e l
- .—_q --Cub — A ---"J 0 1) H
I n 5 p c c t 0 r: — __ Q-u c-AqjW _n d_.� _P a g e: 5_o I- - -On -oj-,,.,Q-
D,A
r t �cd
�
item
P
pa t c
--th.c,--i _1_.13-97
—Up---
1.2-3-96
5,7 flUCTURAL. MECI [ANICAL AND MATERIALS T[.-.,;T1N(7,
INDEPENDENT TESTING F,
INSPECTION SERVICES INC.
I'MI VA'FEN COURr
cwvr-n. co(.0flA00 80,1,�3
(103) G7/ 7 5 G 0
Page 4 of 4
LIST OF OUTSTANDING DISCREPANCIES
Location: Vail Vjllane Club JObfi :_100796 Date: 12-9-96
Inspector: George Schwandt Page 6 of On-qoinq
Date
Resorted—
Item
N
Date
FOURTH LEVEL ROOF accept l
12-9-96
F-10
_B_c Lwe_q nA_ a_o_d me, t a I d i,n g
not welded to the masonry wall cp1bed plate
1��-9-96
F- 1. 1
On A.5 line from 4 - 5 lines - metal decking _12-12-96
not welded to the beam flange
12-9-96
2-9-96
F -12
Between A.5 and B lines and 4 - 6 lines - :1:2-:1:2-96
metal deck-in side lap seams not iiiet, il I
screwc(
12-9-96
F-13
At 3'06" SOLIth of B line `From 4 - 6 lines on 12-12-96
the high roof - metal decking not welded to
__.fqDq
n 9 l e
12-9-96
F-14 --On
4 4.9 lines and D-D to H-11 lin-es. --nict 112-12-96
L1(�(-,k-in_q_nqt weldcd to edge angle
I
UPPER ROOF LEVIL
1,2446
F-15
A.6 to D.5 and 0.8 - 4.4 lines metal 12-12-96
decking nol.juddle welded to edge angle as
.. red
1.2-9--96
F-16
_je
On 2-2 line from _H -6 _to C-C lines - metal_` 12-12-96
_decki_nq__ not welded to masonry wall ledge
anglc-:
SMUCTunAl_ MECHANICAL AND MATmIALS TF5TING
)6
INSPECTION SERVICES INC
IPW VASFFN COUnr
CON11[11 coLonAI)O 11043 +
gvm) 07445m)
P,jo __ 1_of 8
OBSERVATION REPORT
Client:_ -_ _Ri_ya_Ri_d�e_ Partners_L ITIS Job No. :___!Q&796 Date: 12-0306
J V; �_� Vail Co]orado _
Pro 'ec t.:____a 1 Vi 11c e C1 ub _ Location : —
Inspector: George Schwandt
This report package contains information concerning specific tests and
inspections of structural steel welding,.structural bolting, structural
sprayed fireproofing and /or nondestructuve testing. Only the forms
appropriate to the types of inspections and tests conducted have been
prepared and are enclosed.
The specific criteria utilized in judging the degree of conformance for
each area of inspection is contained on each individual inspection form.
Also included in this inspection package may be ITIS' "List of Outstanding
Discrepancies ", O.D. List, The O.D. List will he consecutively numbered
for each page issued, as will he the deficient items contained in the list.
Specific usage of the O.D. List is contained in each section.
If there are any questions regarding the content of this report, please
feel free to contact ITIS at your convenience.
David L. Sturgeon
President
DISTRIBUTIONS: Riva Ridge Partners LLC - Attn: Mr. Glenn Neelan
J.L. Viele Construciton - Attn: Tony
Mr. Frank Freyer
Town of Vail /Community Development - Attn: Mr. Chuck Feldmann
a
I 100A vA'ITN coum
('10HIFF.11, CC�LC)FIAUO 0011:13
(�103) 674 -7560
PagC_z of 8
VISUAL INSPECTIONS OF
STRUCTURAL_ BOLTED CONNECTIONS
Inspector: Geode Schwandt ITIS Job No. :._10QZ26___ Date _.__12_ -x3=96
Type of Bol i;ed Connections: Fri ct:-i on_ f3eari ng X
Type and Size of Dolts Inspected: A- 3Z5 X A -490
A- 307_ _ Other- Cri teri a
AREAS OF INSPECTIONS
List the levels and areas of inspections separately with a critique of nonconforming
conditions. If O.D. List is utilized, designate the item ntnliber and O.D. page
assigned each nonconforming condition.
Location: Fourth Level Roof Steel to steel
Areas of Inspection: A - B and 1 to 7 lines, A - E and 4 to 7 lines, and
CC - HH and 1 -1 to 6 -6 lines
Discrepancies: None noted
Location: Upper Roof Level Steel to steel
Areas of Inspection: A -A - C -C.4 lines, and 1 -1 to 5 -5 lines
Discrepancies: None noted
Add i t-i ona i Page At.1;achQd
� ����J�T����������� -�����-�I���� .
v� DEPENDENT ^��*~^ ^ " "^�.. . — ' —
INSPECTION STAERVICES INC,
12084KA3EENC0URT
C0N|FER.00L0nAD000»33
(303) 674-7560
pa go 3 Of 8
FT[LD INSPECTION REPORT FORM
INITIAL V}SU8[ INSPECTION OF NEL51NG
]Ti5 J0b N0 DJic'
Inspector: ' ___�JK/�D_� '
Field Made WCld�� ShOp Hnde Welds:
------� G
T«nn Of Welds Inspoctcd: |ii|BCS X Groove Miller
T�|''R of Component Containing the Tnspp((.ed Nrld (ic: column, boJm' girder,
weld, embed, cold formed, WL d 7 i C ) A recorded below
Applicable Code or Iinndxr,|: N
8RCDS OF 1 M5P[CT[ON
'
moment
Level or [levaLi0n: S
Second Level Dia o
onal Plate stiffeners at m
moment connections
Grid line
lnCaiion(I\ e
enc0mpas�ing ihc aren(s) o
of lnsperilon ccscS
On A
'''- ��—�
from A to B lines
ondil,lons or nonconformance
referenced O.D. Lisl-1. None noted
. Also include Lhe 8pprO-
pago numhcr. Attach the
Level or Elevation: o
Grid line l0cati0n(5) 8nCmnpJ�,�,ing ihC arra(s) of inspection or
priaLe, assigned "F" prefixecl O.D. i(,(,ni numhor and O.D. page numbor. At',tach the
referenced 6.0. Usl-,- None noted
Level or Elcvat|on:
Grid line location(S) 8nCnmpas7,ing ihc orca\s) of lnSpcC[1^n or zcsu�
prial ' e, assigned "F" prefixed O.D. Uoni nui,,iI)Pr and 0-0. page number. ALLach Lhe
Remaining conditions not listed as O.D. itCms were found conforming Co thC stated
criteria.
is DEPENDENT TESTIN QCs
1NSA--')EC i01_ 1 S) RVIC S iNC.
IM34 VA5FFN COUnT
CONIFER, C010RADO 804133
(303) 674-7560
Page 4 of 8
FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FORM
INITIAL VISUAL INSPECTION OF WELDING
Inspector: George Schwandt _ ITIS Job No. 110796 _ Date: 12 -3 -9
Field glade Welds: _ X_ Shop Made Welds:
Type of Welds Inspnci:ed: F-iIIets _X Groove _ X Other
Type of Component Containing the Inspected Weld �ie: column, beam, girder, moment
weld, embed, cold formed, metal studs, etc.): _ As recorded below _
Appl icahlc Code or Standard: AWS D1.1 -96 and Project Standards
AREAS OF INSPECTION
Level or Elevation: _ Third Level Di a onal_ an_gl_e _braci.n_g____
Grid line location(s) encompassing the area(s� of inspect: ion or tests: A to E and 1- 7 lines
Provide a critique of noted conditions of nonconformance. Also include the appro-
priate, assigned "F" prefixed O.D. item number and O.D. pane number. Attach the
referenced O.D. List. None noted
Level or Elevation: _Fourth L_QVe1________Di a_ o_.nal add
Grid line location(s) encompassing I:he areas) of inspection or tests:
anti 1 - 7 l inPS
Provide a critique of nol:ed conditions of nonconformance. Also include the appro-
priate, assigned "F" prefixed O.D. item number and O.D. page number. Attach the
referenced O.D. List. None noted
Level or Elevation: Fourth Level.__ Roof Edge channel _to_ beam
_
Grid line location(s) encompassing the area of inspcct: ion or LPs s: _A.to E
and 1 - 7 lines
Provide a critique of noted conditions of nonconformance. Also include the appro-
priate, assigned "F" prefixed O.D. item number and O.D. page number. Attach the
referenced O.D. List, None noted
Remaining conditions not listed as O.D. items were found conforming to the staged
criteria.
ODEPENDENT TESTING Cr'
INSPECTION SIERVICES INC.
12 0 1'l 4 VA 5 F E N] LOUR F
_.
CONIFER, (-,()1 0nAF )0 90433
(303) 674 -75(50
FTFLD INSPECTION REPORT FORM
INITIAL VISUAL INSPECTION OF W[[-i5TNG
Inspector: Geor
Field Made Welds: x
Type of Welds lnspr.1.6d: Fillets
Type of Component Containing the
weld, embed, cold formed, d, metal s
Applicable Code or Standard:
___ x
inspe
I- ud S ,
AWS
page _5— OF 8
ITTS Job No. 100796
Shop Made Welds:
Groove X Other
C111od Weld ie: column, beam, girder, moment
etc.): As - recorded __ below
D1.1-96 and ProJect Standards
AREAS OF INSPECTION
Level or Elevation: Fourth Level Roof Diagonal angle bracinci ;-id support angles
Grid line location(s) encompassing the areaTs} of inspection or tests: A to E
and 1 7 lines
Provide
Ta critique of noted conditions of nonconformance. Also inc ude 1,11
appro-
priate, assi gned 'IF" prefixed O.D. item number and O.D. piqe number. Attach the
referenced O.D. List. None noted--
Level or Elevation: T--Ro-o-f - --L-e--v - '1
Moment-
Grid line locition(sci(oT)issing
the arc(l ) of inspection or tests:
line at B.5 lines, and between B-B and C-C lines at apip ximatelv 4-4.6 line
Provide a critique of noted conditions of nonconformance. Also include —the appro-
p r i a t e , assigned " F " prefixed 0 - D . i 1-1 em number a n (1 O.D. page number. A 11 ta C, h the
referenced O.D. List. -None noted
Level or Elevation: Roof Level Edge channel
Grid line .1 e. areas) or inspection or tests
and 1 - 7 lines
--A to- B
Provide a critique of noted conditions of nonconformance. Also include the appro-
priate, assigned 'IF" prefixed O.D. item number and O.D. page number. Attach the
referenced O.D. List. None n-ot,ed
Remaining conditions not listed as O.D. items were found conforming to the stated
criteria.
T
wii)AEPENDENT TESTING
INSPECTION SERVICES iNC.
1,10114 Vl15EEN COURT
CONII =FR, COLORADO 60433
(303) fi 74.7560
Page 6 0f 8
FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FORM
INITIAL ViSUAL INSPECTION OF WELDING
Inspector: Gea ITIS Job No.
Field Made Welds: _ X _ _ Shop Made Welds:
Type or Welds Inspected: Fi11cLS X Groove _ _ 01:her
Type of Component; Containing the Inspected Weld �ie: column, beam, girder, rioment
weld, embed, cold formed, metal studs, ei:c.): _ _ As recorded below_
Applicable Code or Standard: AWS D1.1 -96 and Project Standards^
AREAS OF iNSPF_CTION
Level or Elevation: _Roof Level Dia ona_l bracing and support angles
Grid line locaiion(s) encompassing the area sj of inspection or tests: A to B
and 1- 7 lines
Provide a critique of noel ;ed conditions of' nonconformance. Also i nc I udeythe appro-
priate, assigned "F" prefixed O.D. item number and O.D. page number. Attach the
referenced O.D. List. None noted
Level or Elevation: _—
Grid line location(s- encompaassirig the area s of inspecLion or 1;est:s:
Provide a critique of noted condi
priate, assigned "F" prefixed 0.0
referenced O.D. List.
ons of nonconFormance. Also inciudo the appro-
i tern number and O.D. page numhor. Attach the
Level or Elevation: _ _
Grid line location(sj encompassing the areai,s�) of inspection or tests:
t'rovide a critique of noised concJitions of nonconformance. Also include Liie appro-
priate, assigned "F" prefixed O.D. item number and O.D. page number. Attach the
referenced O.D. List.
Remaining condi'ions no listed as O.D. items were found conforming to i:le stated
cri teri a.
A {.0....1 A(�A.°.� ".. A �+�,,d 'S.y.J�
12084 VA5FCNI COURT
CONIFI -R, C01_013ADO 80433
(303) 0 /74 - 7560
REINSPECTIONS
Type of Re-inspcction:
Visual X
Torque
Tcsting -.
NDT --
Inspector:_
I T I S Job
No.:_1QQZ_O_
Date:---l-2-3 -96
List those items reinspected. Refer to the O.D. item, O.D. page number and original
date for reporting of the O.D. item. Also indicate if reinspected item conforms
to original project standards, modified standards or accept.ed in tier_ as -built
condition. CondiLions found ini d ally in nonconformance to original pro,lect standards
but subsequently revieWrd and icccp(.cd by the responsible aul.horiLy shall have
such acceptance in written form and wH tten confirmation ;hall be attached 1:o this
report.
O.D.
I TCM
ORIG i,�IAL
REPORT
DATE
-- �
ACC. BY E,JG_,P_1VI_EY '
11S -dU I i_T MOD 1(= I FD
CONFORMiP1G
TO
STANDARDS
SIGNED
OFF
12 -03 -9
C0 r 1ENTS _
X
INDEPENDENT TESTING &
INSPECTION SERVICES INC.
12064 VASErN COURT
CONIFIn, COLORADO 80433
(303) G74 7560
Page 8of8
LIST OF OUTSTANDING DISCREPANCIES
Location:_ Vail Villa e Club J o b N :___IQ_QU _____Date :��_3=96
Inspector: George Schwanc�t Page: 5 °I_ ---an= Going --
Date Item
Reported N
T IRD LEILEJ_.__
Date
_:Acce t _
12-3 -96
_
F -9
__
top�la�.ge_,— rn9me�tso�ne_c t inn�.twt_�rel.�edy;
—
i
E
e
STRUCTURAL. MECHANICAL AND MATERIALS TESTING
INDEPENDENT TESTING &
INSPECTION SERVICES INC.
170114 VASFF.N CT.
CONIFER, COLORADO 80433
(303) 674 -7580
OBSERVATION REPORT
Page 1_ of 4
Client: Riva Ridge Partners,_ LLC ITIS Job No. _ 100796 - Date: 12-9-96
Project: Vail Vi l lage Club________ 1..ocation:
Inspector: George Schwandt
Vail, Colorado
This report package contains information concerning specific tests and
inspections of structural steel welding, structural bolting, structural sprayed
fireproofing, and /or nondestructive testing. Only the forms appropriate to the
types of inspections and tests conducted have been prepared and are enclosed.
The specific criteria utilized in judging the degree of conformance for
each area of inspection is contained on each individual inspection form.
Also included in this inspection package may be ITIS' "List of Outstanding
Discrepancies (O.D. List) ". The O.D. List will be consecutively numbered
throughout the duration of the project for each page issued, as will be the
deficient items contained in the lists.
If there are any questions regarding the content of -this report, please
feel free to contact ITIS at your convenience.
David L. Sturgeon
President
Level III
AWS QC -1
DISTRIBUTIONS: Riva Ridge Partners, LLC - Attn: Mr. Glenn Heelan
J L Viele Construction - Attn: Tony
Mr. Frank Freyer
Town of Vail /Community Development - Attn: Mr. Chuck Feldmann
INDEPENDENT TESTING &
INSPECTION SERVICES INC.
170n4 VA,9FE" CAWRT
CMITER. COLOWK) F104311
(303 674-7500
FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FORM
INITIAL VISUAL INSPECTION OF WELDING
Inspector: — George Schwandt-
Field Made Welds: -- X
Type of Welds Inspected: Fillets — — X -
Type of Component Containing the Inspoc
embed, cold formed, metal studs, etc.):
Applicable Code or Standard: AWS
Page 2- of 4
ITIS Job No. Date: 12-9-96
Shop Made Welds:
Groove -- Other
ted Weld (io: column, boam,. girder, moment weld,
As recorded below---
D1.1-96 and Project Standards_
AREAS OF INSPECTION
Level or Elevation: __ Fourth Le-y-el_yo.o_f_----Me-tal-d..er-ki-n-g--p-udd-I-P--welds-a-rid-si-de---i-ap screws
Grid Lino Location(s) Encompassing the Aren(s)of Inspection or Test: A to B and
I - 7 lines. B to D.8 and 4- 7 lin e s. and C-C to H-1-1 and 1 -1 through 5-5 lines
'Fr:;-vTde—a critique of noted conditions of nonconformance. Also include the
appropriate, assigned "F" pro-fixed O.D. item number and O.D. page number. Attach the
re ferenced O.D. List. Between A and _B lines, on 2 line, metal decking has
not been Puddle welded to the masonry_ wall embed Plates. This has been
entered on the attached O.D. List as item F-10.
__Fourth _ Leyel _Roof Metal deck 4n lqp screws
Level or Elevation:
Grid Lino Location(s) Encompassing the Area(s)of Inspection or Test: On A.
line from 4 - 5 lines
Provide a critique of noted conditions of nonconformance. Also include the number- and O.D. page number. Attach the
appropriate, assigned "F" prefixed O.D. item The metal deckin_g, has not been welded to the beam.
referenced O.D. List.
- - — -
This has been entered on attached O.D. Li as item F-1.1.
Fourth Level Roof Metal deckinq puddle welds and side lap screws
Level or Elevation:
Grid Linn Location(s) Encompassing the Aren(s)OF Inspection or Test: �etween
A.5 and B lines and 4- 6 lines__
Provide a critique of, noted conditions of nonconformance. Also include the
appropriate, assigned "F" prefixed O.D. item number and O.D. page number. Attach the
The metal dec1kin_q_-si.de. lap_seam--hs--not been screwed -
referenced O.D. List. Also,
together. This has been entered as item F-1.2 on the-,attached O.D. List.
F-i�- �Bl i gh--Roo- he not been _puddle welded
3 S06-t This the F-13.
Q.D. List as item
to —t This fi�i�--EW6 entered on -the attached . D.
INDEPENDENT TESTING &
INSPECTION SERVICES INC.
12004 VMFEN MIRT
CONIFER. COLOPAnO 80433
(303 674-7500
FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FORM
INITIAL VISUAL INSPECTION OF WELDING
Inspector:
Field Made Welds: X
Typo of Welds Inspected: F11 lets -_ X
Type of Component Containing the Inspe(
embed, cold formed, metal studs, etc.):.
Applicnble Code or Standard: _-AKS-
Page —3 of _4
ITIS Job No.
100796 __ Date: 12-9-96
,Shop Mndo Welds:
Groove Other
:tod Weld (19: column, beam, girder, moment weld,
AREAS OF INSPECTION
Level or Elevation: — ___Fourth_ Lev l_._Roof ___Metal dec X n g___p uidd 1 e - _WQ_ _ lds and side La_screws
Grid Lino Locati on(s) Encompassing the Aron (s)of Inspection or Test: Qn 4 _-4. 9 lines
and D& JO
Provide a critique of noted conditions of nonconformance. Also include the
appropriate, assigned "F" prefixed O.D. item number and O.D. pn90 number. Attach the
referenced O.D. List. The metal decking has no' been Puddle welded to the
edge angle. This has been entered on the attached O.D. List a, item F -14.
Level or Elevation: _U_ppPr Ro-o-F—Le-vp-L--Me-ta-l—d-e-ck-i-nq4- u-dd.l-e-.-we-lds—a-nA--cj-de--laP---fcrews
Grid Line Location(sT[ncompassing the Area(s)of Inspection cr Test: A._6 to D.5
Provide a critique of noted conditions of nonconformance- Also include the
appropriate, assigned "F" pre-fixed O.D. item number and O.D. page number. Attach the
referenced O.D. List. Aon_e ded to
_Q with 12" centers_ as _req _q _qired.—This has been
(ZI �j �j fuddle Ids and side la - Q screws
Level or Elevation: ___Vpp_er KQ_Qf__LeY� _ _ _T � '
Grid Line Location(s) Encompassing the Area(s)of Inspection or Test: _6n - lines
_,B to C h _Rc�s
Pravido a critique of noted conditions of nonconformance. Also include the
appropriate, assigned "F" prefixed O.D. item number and O.D. page number. Attach the
not been puddle welded to the FR
referenced O.D. List. The metal decking has n _fi�__
has been entered on attac
This
masonry wall 1
jjqae 2n le.as required.
O.D. List as item F-16.
INDEPENDENT TESTING &
INSPECTION SERVICES INC.
12034 VASEEN COURT
CONIFER. COLORADO 30433
(303) 674 -7560
Page 4 of 4
LIST OF OUTSTANDING DISCREPANCIES
Location: Vail Village Club Job# ._100796 Date : 12 -9 -96
Inspector: Georqe Schwandt Page: 6 of On -going
Date
Reported
Item
#
FOURTH LEVEL ROOF iA
Date
cce t
12 -9 -96
F -10
Between A and B lines Qn� line - metal decking
not welded to the masonry wall embed plate
12 -9 -96
F -11
On A.5 line from 4 - 5 lines - metal decking
not welded to the beam flange
12 -9 -96
F -12
Between A.5 and B lines and 4 - 6 lines -
metal deckin side lap seams not metal screwe
12 -9 -96
F -13
At 3'06" south of B line from 4 - 6 lines on
the high roof - metal decking not welded to
ed e anqle
12 -9 -96
F -14
On 4 - 4.9 lines and D -D to H -H lines - metal
Ideckinq_ not welded to edCge angle
UPPER ROOF LEVEL
12 -046
F -15
A.6 to D.5 and 0.8 - 4.4 lines - metal
decking not puddle welded to ed e angle as
required
—
12 -9 -96
F -16
On 2 -2 line from B -B to C -C lines - metal
decking not welded to masonry wall ledge
angle:
STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL AND MATERIALS TESTING
� " i D L.Pt:. N C7 k I` T TESTING G
INSPECTION SERVICES INC
12N4 VA SEEN COURT
CONIr[I1, Ct71.C)RAD0 00433
(3nQ 0744500
Page -1-of 8
OBSERVATION REPORT
Client: Riva.Ridge Partners ITIS Job No.: 100796 pate: 11 -12 -96
Project:_ Vail Vi11age Club _ -Loco Lion: Vail, Colorado _
Inspector: George Schwandt
This report package contains information concerning specific tests and
inspections of structural steel welding, structural bolting, structural
sprayed fireproofing and /or nondestructuve testing. Only the forms
appropriate to the types of inspections and tests conducted have been
prepared and are enclosed.
The specific criteria utilized in judging the degree of conformance for
each area of inspection is contained on each individual inspection form.
Also included in this inspection package may he ITIS' "List of Outstanding
Discrepancies ", O.D. List. The O.D. List will be consecutively numbered
for each page issued, as will he the deficient items contained in the list.
Specific usage of the O.D. List is contained'in each section.
If there are any questions regarding the content of this report, please
feel free to contact ITIS at your convenience,
David L. Sturgen
President
DISTRIBUTIONS: Riva Ridge Partners, LLC - Attn: Mr. Glenn Heelan
J.L. Viele Construction - Attn: Tony
Mr. Frank Freyer
Town of Vail /Community Development - Attn: Mr. Chuck Feldmann
Ii�''ll'l k� "I�i;;�l:l�i 1• 1 �J i141�i�7 '���
4
INSPECTION SERVICES ii`iC
17094 vAS(_LN COUnr
CoNircvi. CoL)i7AU0 no433
(7103) 671.7500
Page___? of. 8
.VISUAL INSPECTIONS OF
STRUCTURAL BOLTED CONNECTIONS
Inspector: George Schwandt ITIS Job No.: 100796 Date 1 11 -12 -96
Type of ion_,s t_ _goari ng X
Type and Size of (lolls Inspecl:ed: A -32.5_ X A-490
A -307 OLher CH teria
AREAS OF INSPECTIONS
List the levels and areas of inspections sr.parately with a critique of nonconforming
conditions. If O.D. List is utilized, designate the item number and O.D. page
assigned each nonconforming condition.
Location: Second Level Steel to steel
Areas of Inpsection: A to E and 1 - 7 lines, and AA to Hh and 1 -1 - 6 -1 lines
Discrepancies: At 2'06" north of H -H line, and at 7'09" and 14'06" east of
4 -4 line, the double angle clip, bolted connection is
incomplete. This has been entered on the attached O.D. List
as item F -3.
Location: Third Level Steel to steel
Areas of Inspection: A to E and 1 - 7 lines , and AA to GG and 1 71 - 6 -6 lines
Discrepancies: None noted
Add} (:tonal Paqr. A(:tachcd
INSPECTION SERVICES INC.
12034 VASEEN COURT
CONIFER, COLORADO 80433
(303) 671 -7560
FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FORM
INITIAL VISUAL INSPECTION OF WELDING
Inspector: George Schwandt
Page 3
ITIS Jo'() No. 100796 Date: 11 -12 -96
Field Made Welds: _ _ X _ _ Shop Made Welds:
Type of Welds Inspected: Fillets X Groove Other
1 "ype of Component Containing the Inspected Weld —(ie: column, beam, girder, moment
weld, embed, cold formed, metal studs, etc.): As recorded below
Applicable Code or Standard: AWS D1.1 -96 and Project Standards
AREAS OF INSPECTION
Level or Elevation: Second Level Moment connections and web stiffeners
Grid line location(s) encompassing the areas of insprction or tQsl -.s: On A
line from 2 - 4 lines, between A_an_d b lines from 5 to 6 lines, on 6 line
_ from C.9 to D.4 line_s,_and between 4 -4 and 5 -5 lines 2'06" north of H_ -H line
Provide a critique of noted cond itions of nonconformance. Also include the appro-
priate, assigned "F" prefixed O.D. item number and O.D. page number. Attach the
referenced O.D. List. On 5 line 3' north of A line the top flange of the _
moment connection has not been welded due to proor_p acement of_,coTumn.
This has been entered on the attached O.D. List as item F -4.~
Level or Elevation: Second Level Bent .plate ed_J ne2___to beam flanges
Grid line local-Jon(s) -encompassing the area(s� of ct
inspeion or tests: On A
line from 1 - 7 lines,_on 6 line from A to D.4 lines, on 5 -5 line from
CC to GG� and on Gq line from 4-4 - 5.5 lines
Provide a critique of noted conditions of nonconformance. Also include the appro-
priate, assigned "F" prefixed O.D. item number and O.D. page number. Attach the
referenced O.D. List. None noted
Level or Elevation: _Secon_d Level Metal deckingpuddle welds and button punching
Grid line locations encompassing the area(s) of inspection or Lesi:s: _ A to D
and 1 - 7 lines, and AA to GG lines from 1 -1 - 5 -5 lines
Provide a critique of noted conditions of nnonconFormance. Also 5c hide the appro-
priate, assigned "F" prefixed O.D. item number and O.D. page number. Attach the
referenced O.D. Lis(,-. None noted
Remaining conditions not listed as O.D. items were found conforming to the stated
criteria .
INDEPENDENT TESTING -.r
INSPECTION SERVICES INC.
12084 VASEEN COURT
CONIFER, COLORADO 80433
(303) 6174 -7560
Page 4 of 8
FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FORA
INITIAL VISUAL INSPECTION OF WELDING
Inspector: George Schwandt ITIS Job No. 100796 Date: 11 -12 -96
Field Made Welds: _ _ X Shop Made Welds:
Type of Welds I n spect(--_,d F i l l lets _ X Groove _ X Other _
Type of Component; Containing the Inspected Weld ie: column, beam, girder, moment
weld, embed, cold formed, metal studs, etc.): As recorded below
Applicable Code or Standard: AWS D1.1 -96 and ProZect�Standards
AREAS OF INSPECTION
Level or Elevation: _Second Level Headed anchor studs (HAS)
Grid line location(s) encompassing the area(s) of inspection or tests: A to
and 1 - 7 lines, and AA to GG lines from 1 -1 - 5 -5 lines
Provide a critique of no Led conditions of nonconformance. Also include the appro-
priate, assigned "F" prefixed O.D. item number and O.D. page number. Attach the
referenced O.D. List. None noted
Level or Elevation: Third Level Metal decking ouddl.ewelds and_buttnn punching
Grid line location(s) encompassing the area Cs) of inpection or te"'I's:
and 1 - 6 lines, and AA to GG fines, from 1 -1 - 5 -5 lines
Provide a critique of noted conditions of nonconformance. Also include the appro-
priate, assigned "F" prefixed O.D. item number and O.D. page number. A1;tach the
referenced O.D. List. _hone noted___
Level or El eval;ion: Third_ Level _ _ }Ills_
Grid line location( sj encompassing the areas) of inspection or tests: _, A to D
and 1 - 6 lines, and AA to GG -lines from 1 -1 - 5 -5 lines
Provide a critique of noted conditions of nonconformance. Also include the appro-
priate, assigned "F" prefixed O.D. item number and O.D. page number. Attach the
referenced O.D. List. None noted
Remaining conditions not listed as O.D. items were found conforming to the stated
criteria.
li�il�i� l �iu11 I .� ^:S Ili iJ to
SPEC-1 i0N S ERMCF.S INC.
tzon^ v.ASrrNI COUJIT
corm-cn. CC'I.OFIADO 004J3
(J0;1) G74 7 5 G
rrpor, T OF
NONDFSTRUCTIVC TCSTING
inspector: George Schwandt ITIS Job No.: 100746 Dike :_ 11 -12 -9G
Typc of Connec I;i on Tes I;cd : Si nql e V- q_roove joints
Type o f , w e l c l T e s L e d : Fi IcL Groovy. X 01.hrr_
Type of Te. t Performed: U. T M. P.T._____.___ __D.h.T._ Either
Appl i ca b i c Code or Standa rd : ASTM E -709
Test fcrIo1-med 'in: ;hop Field X
Frequency of Testing: 10
Provide a general surrmal;ion of the components and welds tested and li shed on the
attached N.D.T. Certificai ;ion rr_port(s). Also provide a critique of uch nonr,on-
for1111119 cond-ition(s) and specify the 0.0. ii,cm number, pref-ixcd wil,h an' "F" -for
field tesl;ing or on "S" for shop testing, iissigned to each noncon(ori -,iinq condition.
Also, include thy_ appropriate 0. D. page number(s) wi i;h each 1 i stied 0. D. i tem.
The attached 23q�20 2ff Maanet��_ E'sar_ti�L��
components which received testing with applicable results.
Fxcluding any items of nonconformance, those remaining component weld(s) iisl.rd on
the at:taehed N.D.T. Certi fi cat i on forms have b rn found in conform7nce. With thy_
slsated weld quality cril,eria. Vi:uai Inspections for acc�pl..iince of tesl;ed Wcids
are covered in the "Visual Inspection" srction of this report packIrio.
Additional Informi ti on Shre I; AI; tachrd _
INSPEC -il'ON SERViC SINC.
12084 VA-S,FEN COURT
CONIFER, ('01-()RADO 80433
(303) 674-7560 Page 6 of 8
REPORT OF MAGNETIC PARTICLE TESTING
PROJECT 1, MANUFACTURER
CLIENT --R—i--v---aR—id-q—e-P--a—;; ers CLIENT'S J013
CUSTOMER'S I.D. NO.
CLIENT'S CuSlIOMER
ADDITIONAL CUSTOMER INFORMATION
I T I S JOB N O. DATE Or, TEST
,241
TESTING CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
QUALITY REQUIREMEN
FREQUENCY OF TESTING TYPE OF WELD TESTED
MAGNETIZATION CURRENT USED: A]- 'PULSED DC
TYPE OF EQUIPMENT USED
TYPE OF TEST: WET DRY
LIST OF PARTS OR COMPONENTS TESTED
WELDERS RESULTS REPAIRS
QTY. MK. NO. I.D. NO. ACC. IEJ. ACC. REJ. REMARKS
7
IF THE UNDERSIGNED, CERTIFY THAT THE STATEMENTS IN THIS RECORD ARE
CORRECT AND THAT THE TESTING WAS CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
AFOREMENTIONED REQUIREMENTS.
INSPECTOR
SIGNED ED
1—k. Ll
AUTHORIZED BY
i ll�
LEVEL OF QUALIFICATION
THIS DATE
DATE
!,_C7 I iT H " [.11-1 7r7l. -1 f-i -1 -1 T cl J. NC'
INDEPENDENT TESTING G
INSPECTION SERVICES INC.
1,1084 Vl\qf-FN COURT
CONIFER. COLORADO 80433
(303) 674 -7560
Page 7 of 8
LIST OF OUTSTANDING DISCREPANCIES
Loca Lion :—_--Ui j flja E� I Job# 100796 Date 11-12-96
--�: ---g_ -Q--u-4 ---
Inspector: -Cw-ug.e_5Lbvandt - —Page :.,. 3 of Qn-qoiag-
Date
Reportea
item
I #
Date
A c c e
11-12-96
F-3
Second Level 2'06" north of HH line, and at
and 14'06" east of 4-4 line - the
double angle clips, bolted connections n6t
installed
11-12-96
F-4
Second Level on line 3' north of A line
the Ipp fLange of -the moment connection is
not welded
STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL AND MATERIALS TESTING
12084 VASFFN COURT
CONIFF -11, c010Rnoo 80433
{303) 6 4 -75G
P,1cfC � Of 8
fZEIN SPECTIONS
Typc of Rcinspection: Visual X
Torque
Testing
- NDT
SIGriED
0E-
George Schwandt
Inspector: � 9 .__-.
ITIS Job
No.:
100796 Date: 11 -12 -96
dated 11 -5 -96
Lis L those items reinspected. Refer to the O.D. item, O.D. pane number and original
date for reporting of the 0. D. item. Also i ndi ca Le if rci nspec ced it-err, conforms
to original project standards, modified standards or accepted in the as -bunt
condition. Conditions found in-1tially in nonconformance to or- iy n 1 pro,7cct st��ndards
but; subsequently reviewed and accepted by the responsible authori Ly si al i have
such acceptance in written form and written confirmat -ion shall be aLtachcd to this
report.
0. D.
IT[M
F -2
ORIGINAL
RC, ORT
_ DATE
11 -05 -96
�� r- �r�J
n�C._ _L��C.R,`! �_ -_
AS- BUILT MODICiCD
— ' _ ,X
COt1FORt�I�IG
TO �
STAN- F)ARDS
SIGriED
0E-
COi�iM�iN!TS_�
Per Eli neeri ng____._.
11 -2 -96. j
dated 11 -5 -96
I
INDEPENDENT TESTING &
INSPECTION SERVICES INC.
17.On4 VA9FFN CT.
CONIFER, COLORAW 00433
(303) 071 -7500
OBSERVATION REPORT
Client: Riva Ridge Partners, LLC ITIS Job No
Project: Vail Village Club Location:
Inspector: _ George Schwandt — _
100796
Page 1 of
Date: 12 -12 -96
Va-i 1 , Colorado
N
This report package contains information concerning specific tests and
inspections of structural steel welding, structural bolting, structural sprayed
fireproofing, and /or nondestructive testing. Only the forms appropriate to the
types of inspections and tests conducted have been prepared and are enclosed.
The specific criteria utilized in judging the degree of conformance for
each area of inspection is contained on each individual inspection form.
Also included in this inspection package may be ITIS' "List: of Outstanding
Discrepancies (O.D. List) ". The O.D. List will be consecutively numbered
throughout the duration of the project for each page issued, as will be the
deficient items contained in the lists.
If there are any questions regarding the content of this report, please
feel free to contact ITIS at your convenience.
David L. Sturg on
President;
Level III
AWS QC -1
DISTRIBUTIONS: Riva Ridge Partners, LLC - Attn: Mr. Glenn Neelan
J. L. Viele Construction - Attn: Tony
Mr. Frank Freyer
Town of Vail /Community Development - Attn: Mr. Chuck Feldmann
-.... .-. S ..... 51.1 ■ J� ��t
A ,; C ? a
12034 VA FFN COURT
CONIFER, COLORADO 30433
(303) G74 -7560
p,jy, 2 of 2
REINSPECTIONS
X Tor ue Testing. --- NDT
Type of Rc�inspection: Visual �
Inspector:
George Schwandt ITI S job No.: � � Date
' O.D. pule number and Original
List t1-osc items reinspccLed. Refer to e . item,
date for rnportinq of the O.D. item. nlatandardstor1accepltcdcinCthctas _bouiltrms
to original project standard_, mocfi�icd s
condition. Conditions found initially in nonconfO rt�uthor iLylshallehavetan (lards
but; sub scg yen Ll y reviewed and accepl;ed by Lh _
responsible .
such acceptance in vrritten form and written confirmation shall be attached to this
report.
ORIGINAL C0NF0RMING
O.D. REPORT ACC. _B EIVG_._REVIEW TO SIGNrD
D/1TE /1S -GUILT __P1001rICD STANDARD OF I_
I T E M�
F -10 12 -09 -96 I�__.____- X________ 12= 12 -96_i.
X 7.2 12-
F-116-09-96 x .. -- ----- -' .
- X
F -12
12- J2- 9.6 -I
F -14 12 -09=96 I X 11.,
X �12- 12 -96�
F -15 12 -09 -96
F -16 12- 09 -96 _ _
x U- 1.2 -96
COmN�CNTS
1 1'r_zj i-'C 1 i ®1 i SEr-ZVlCEJ iN,C
1201`34 VASUN coun'r
cvNn -,. n. cCii.on.n�,o eon:»
(J01) G74.75G0
OBSERVATION REPORT
Client:_ RIVA Ridge Partners, LLC
Project: ^_ Vai l_Vi l lie Club
Inspector:_ George Schwandt ^^
ITIS Job No
Par P 1
100796
Location: Vail, Colorado
of ?
Date: 10 -07 -96
This report package contains information concerning specific tests and
inspections of structural steel welding, structural bolting, structural
sprayed firepronfing and /or nondesLructuve testing. Only the -forms
appropriate Lo ,,r,e Lypes of inspections and tests conducted have been
prepared and are enclosed.
The speCific Crii:eria utilized in ,judging the degree of conformance for
each area of i n specLi on is contained on each in d i vi dua i i nspecti on form.
Also included
in this
inspection
package may be
ITIS' "List of Outstanding
Discrepancies ",
O.D.
List. The
O.D. Jj sL will
be consecuLively numbered
For each page
issued,
as will be
the deficient
..in
item, contained in the list.
Specific usage
of the
O.D. List
is contained
each sec'ion.
If here are any questions regarding the content of this report, please
Feel free to contact ITiS at your convenience.
David L. SLurgcon;
President
DISTRIBUTIONS: RIVA Ridge Partners, LLC - Attn: Mr. Glenn Heelan
J. L. Viele Construction - Attn: Tony
Mr. Frank Freyer
Town of Vail /Community Development- Attn: Mr. Chuck Feldmann
i,.DEPE'ND"- IT
INSPECTiON SERVICES INC.
1<0194 VA51-FN (-,oLjn-T
CON11-1-R, COLORADO 80417
(303) J74 C -7560
Page — 2 of 3
FTILD INSPECTION REPORT FORM
INITIAL VISUAL INSPECTION OF WEL[)JNG
Inspector: _Georg_eSchwandt_________ ITIS Job No. 100796 Date
10-7-96
Field 1,11ade. Welds: _ X Shop Made Welds:
Type o f Welds Inspected F —Fi III et s —_ X Groove __ 0 t h (� r
F
Type of Component Containing the Inspected Weld e: column, beam, girder, moment
weld, embed, cold fori,,ivnd , metal studs, PI-C. As recorded below
Applicable Code or Standard: AWS D1.1-96 and Projec_t
__Standards
Level or Elevation:
Grid line location(s)
and 4-4 lines
-
Provide
I critique nI
priate, assigned "F"
referenced O.D. List.
AREAS 017 INSPECTION
First Lev_ el Double angle clips to concrete embed plates
encompass-ing the area(s) of inspection or teslls: _At_GG_
nol , ed conditions of nonconformance. Also includr the , item appro-
and O.D. page number. Attach the
p fixed O.D. item number
None noted
Level or Elevation: First Level Diagonal angle_brac-es--plates
-.-..beam-web—p.lat.es
Grid line location( inspection or tests: -
On A
line from 2 - 3.4 line, on GG line from 4-4 to 5-5 lines, and on
6 line
from A - E lines
Provide a cril , ique of noted conditions of nonconformance.
the appro-
priate, assigned "F" prefixed O.D. item number and O.D. page number. Attach
t h e
referenced O.D. List. At numerous locations. due to m-fasalignment
of the web
plate, the angles are not flat to the plate resuFlting in large
gaps
between both surface-, precluding tie len,�Lh 0, weed on
t sides.
0
_j�,-ed
Tfi_i��67locations have been fillet welded on the ends and return,
top and
bottom, for a total of 6 inches. This has been entered on the attached_____
List as item F-1.
Level or Elevation: First Level Bent plate to beam flanges
s__sFn_g_ JW_ ___ __ T T_
a s of -ins pe c 11 i o
Grid line location(s T(I (11-12 n or '(.es1--s:
�Y6 G G
line from 4-4 to 6-6 line.s, and on 6 line from D - E lines
Provide a critique of
priate, assigned "F"
referenced O.D. List.
noted conditions of nonconformance. 111so include the appro-
prefixed O.D. item number and O.D. page number. Attach the
Remaining conditions not listed as O.D. items were Found conforming to the stalled
Criteria.
oc
Z�
ot\ � R �w �,o
3
3 Q{
V a9�
C• �ZSG�� 196 �a 0���
WOW VASUN MUM
Pn1) W7560
1
1 a )
li "gfj l���ggq! r ?r j
Page — __l. —of 6
OBSERVATION REPORT
Client:_. —Riva RJ9e_Partners, LLC ITIS Job No.:100796 Date; 11 =20 -96
Project:-_ Vail Village Club Location: Vail_,_Ck1_orado _
Inspector:_ George Schwandt
This report package contains information concerning specific tests and
inspections of structural steel welding, structural bolting, structural
sprayed fire:roofinq and /or nondestructuve testing. Only the forms
appropriate to the types of inspections and tests conducted have been
prepared and are enclosed.
The specific criteria utilized in judging the degree of conformance for
each area of inspection is contained on each individual inspection form.
Also included in this inspection package may be ITIS' "List of Outstanding
Discrepancies ", O.D. List. The O.D. Lisp: will be consecutively numbered
for each page issued, as will be the deficient item: contained in the list.
Specific usage of the O.D. List is contained in each section.
If there are any questions regarding the content of this report, please
feel free to contact ITIS at your convenience.
oe
David L. Sturgeon
President:
DISTRIBUTIONS: Riva Ridge Partners, LLC - Attn: Mr. Glenn Heelan
J. L. Viele Construction - Attn: Tony
Mr. Frank Freyer
Town of Vail /Community Development - Attn: Mr. Chuck Feldman
12MA WyrrN counT
cONIF[_R, COL011A00 A04,13
p03) fi'i4-RM
Page? of 6
VISUAL INSPECTIONS OF
STRUCTURAL_ LIOLTED CONNECTIONS
Inspector: George Schwandt ITIS Job No.: 100796 Date .,_011-20 =96
Type of Rol ted Connections: Friction__ Bearing _X.._._..
Type and Size of Bolts Inspected: A- 325 X A -490 --
A -307 Other Criteria
AREAS OF INSPECTIONS
List the levels and areas of inspections separately with a critique of nonconforming
conditions. If O.D. List is utilized, designate the item number and O.D. page
assigned each nonconforming condition.
Location: Fourth Level
Areas of Inspection: AA to DD and 1 -1 through 5 -5 lines, and A to D.6 and
1 - 6 lines
Discrepancies: On 5.4 line at D and CC lines only two of the four required
bolts are installed. This has been entered on the attached
O.D. List as item F -5.
___ Additional Page Attached
INSPECTION SERVICES INC
INivi VASEEN COURT
C(DNIf i.I i, COLOnADO 00433
P01) 67,7500
Page __I of 4
05SERVATION REPORT
RI Ridge Partners, LLC 100796 Date: 11 -5 -96
Client • __-------- .— _J___._____ ____._ --- I T 15 J u i� N o .. __._.. .--.
Vail Village Club _ .� Loca t i on : _ 'tai l , Colorado
Project:--
—__ -- _- _
Inspec.or:__ George Schwandt
This report package contains information concerning specific tests and
inspections of structural steel welding, structural bolting, structural
sprayed fireproofing and /or nondestructuve testing. Only the forms
appropriate to the types of inspections and tests conducted have been
prepared and are enclosed.
The specific criteria utilized in judgikq the degree of conformance for
each area of inspection is contained on each individual inspection form.
Also included in this inspection package may he ITIS' "List of Outstanding
Discrepancies ", O.D. List. The G.D. List: will be consecutively numbered
for each page issued, as will be the deficient -items contained in the list.
Specific usage of the O.D. List is contained'in each section.
If there are any questions regarding the content of this report, please
feel free to contact ITIS at your convenience.
David L.
turgcori
President L'
DISTRIBUTIONS: RIVA Ridge Partners, LLC - Attn: Mr. Glenn Neelan
J.L. Viele Construction - Attn: Tony
Mr. Frank Freyer
Town of Vail /Community Development - Attn: Mr. Chuck Feldman
N3YEice; w a�.J ii I r
'NSPECT M 5F-11"Mc is IN-
i2oM VASF:FN counT
CONiFUI, coUonADO OQ433
(7103) 674 7,(',Q
1'a z _r _ 4
VISUAL_ INSPECT[r "'S OF
STRUCTURAL BOLTED CONNECTIONS
Inspector: George Schwandt I T I S Job No.: — 100796 Date
Type of Rol Led Connections: ti ons : Fri cti nn._ tir_a ri nq X
Type and Size of Bolts Inspected: A -325 X A -490
A -307 Other Cri teri a
AREAS OF INSPECTIONS
List the level ; and areas of inspections sei aral:ely with a critique of nonconforming
conditions. IF O.D. Lisi, is utilized, designate the item number and O.D. page
assigned each nonconforming condition.
Location: First Level Steel to steel
Areas of Inspection: A to D and 1 - 7 lines
Discrepancies: On C -C line, 6' west of 6 line, the column cap plate to beam
flange, bolted connection is not completed due to misalignment
of the bolt holes. This is currently under Engineering Review.
This has been entered on the attached O.D. List as item F -2.
_A6dIIIionaI hag(, A 1,tachcd
INSPECT ION SERVICE ► INC.
120f3/11 VASUN COURT
CONIFER, C01_01-IADO 90433
(303) 674 -7560
Page 3_ of 4
FTEI_D INSPECTION REPORT FORM
INITIAL VISUAL INSPECTION OF WELDIING
Inspector: ,Geode Schwandt _ ITIS Job No. _100796 Date
11 -5 -96
Field Made Welds: _ X _ Shop Made Welds:
Type of Welds Inspected _ F-i Vets X Groove _ _ Other
Type of Component Containing the Inspected Weld {ie: column, beam, girder, moment
weld, embed, cold formed, metal studs, etc.): As recorded below
Applicable Code or Standard: AWS D1.1 -96 and Pro,iect_tanuards —
AREAS OF INSPECTION
Level or El eva Li on : _First Level __ Field_ Modifications
Grid line locations) encompassing the area {s� of inspection or tests:
Level floor beams —_
virsc —
Provide a critique of noted conditions of nonconformance. Also include the appro-
priate, assigned "F" prefixed O.D. item number and O.D. pale number. Attach the
referenced O.D. List. The field modificaton of the first level floor
beam was found to be i n conformance with theme eTct6irecti ve from�i cTia —t
Weingardt Consultants, dated 11 -1 -9�
Level or Elevation: First Level _ Metal decking Puddle welds and _side lap button
Grid line locat:ion(s,j encom }gassing the arri( ) _o( inspection or Iesl.s: A to D punching
and 1 - 7 lines
Provide a critique of noted condiLions of nonconformance. /11 so inclurie the appro-
priate, assigned "F" prefixed O.D. item number and O.D. page number. Ati :ach the
referenced O.D. 1_ist. None noted
Level or Elevation: _First Level Headed anchor studsM___
Grid line location(s� encompass ng the area {s of inspec��on or tests: _ A to D
and 1 - 7 l i n e s
Provioc a critique of noted co ditions of nonconformance. /llso include i -he appro-
priate, assigned "F" prefixed O.D. item number and O.D. page number. Attach the
referenced O.D. List. _ None noted
Remaining condi1 -jons not listeel as O.D. ii.ems were found conforirlinci -to the stated
criteria.
INDEPENDENT TESTING G
INSPECTION SERVICES INC.
120V4 VAS[ [N COURT
CONIFER. C,01-ORADO 804V13
(303) 674 7 5i6
Page 4 of 4
LIST OF OUTSTANDING DISCREPANCIES
Location: -- Vail VijjU _C1 Rh_Job# : 100796 Date: 11-5-96
Inspcct..i:: George Schwandt Page 2 of 0Ln
Igoj n q_
IDate Item
I Date
lAccented
STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL AND MATERIALS TESTING
First _L9_)tQ.1_0n
_C 7_CLl_ne---QLYQst Of 6 line
'
the column
cap plate to beam flange not
_bolted
STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL AND MATERIALS TESTING